Column

It’s unfortunate that the players refuse to divulge details of when and where they were approached to throw a match. This, somehow, defeats the purpose of their revelations, writes Ranjona Banerji

Michael Llodra believes that he was one of the first tennis players to be approached to throw a match, when he received a phone call four years ago in his hotel room in Paris. Between 2003 and a few months ago, little was heard about this. It took a match in Poland this August between Nikolay Davydenko and a little known Argentinian player Martin Vassallo Arguello in Poland for an online betting company, Betfair, to withdraw all bets since betting patterns looked suspicious. The big money was on Arguello and then the No 4 player in the world retired, after taking the first set. Since then, all has been murky on centre court.

Or perhaps that’s not true. The murkiness appears to have been on the peripheral courts, where less well-known players or new players or journeyman players all strive to take their chance to make it to centre court. The unfortunate inference is that the younger or the less-known the player the more likely he — or she — will be to take money to tank a match. Leave aside for a moment that this assumption completely undermines a sportsperson’s raison d’etre — the fairness of sport, the combat, the honour, the sense of personal achievement and all the rest of that high-sounding stuff. Many sports before, and after possibly, will have to tackle the problems of greed, corruption, performance-enhancing drugs.
If the sport of tennis is corrupt, then all players will be equally affected. It is not enough for the well-known players to feel that they are safe and, somehow, more honourable than the more apparently vulnerable ones.

This particular focus on betting, in any case, comes after suspicions were cast on the number four player in the world, not an unknown youngster. Sadly, for him and the sport, Davydenko was fined $ 2000 soon after his loss in Poland, for not trying hard enough in his game with Croatian qualifier Marin Cilic at St Petersburg, where he was the top seed. Davydenko lost. Was the umpire, somehow, influenced by the ongoing investigation against Davydenko when he fined him? And in third time unlucky, he was criticised by the umpire in the ongoing Paris Masters for not serving well enough against Marcos Baghdatis. Davydenko lost 2-6, 2-6.

Even more unfortunate are players who refuse to divulge details of when and where they were approached to throw a match. This, somehow, defeats the purpose of their revelations: are they publicity-getting tactics or real attempts to cleanse their sport? They need to speak to the authorities as soon as such a suggestion is made to them. Otherwise, they are teasing, like a girl in a too brief bikini.

Llodra’s partner Arnaud Clement, Novak Djokovic, Gilles Elseneer, Marcos Daniel, Flavio Saretta and Arvind Parmar have all made similar claims. Andy Murray first said that money-for-matches was rampant and then hastily took it all back, claiming he has been quoted out of context. The top two players in the men’s world — Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal — have reacted sharply to the comments from “whistle-blowing” players, both saying that they had heard nothing about this.

The various tennis associations and the big four — the ITF, the ATP, the WTA Tour and the Grand Slam Committee — have released a statement about their concerns and their action plan. Betting, however, is a reality and they have to understand how to cope with that. But the premier onus must lie with the players and their collective integrity. Too many allegations and the game of tennis becomes of one of dominoes. All fall down.

b_ranjona@dnaindia.net