All posts on the Tennis Has a Steroid Problem blog got deleted

Actually, what I wrote above about Sinner having no reason to beat Rune wasn't completely accurate.  

It seems that Sinner did pick up some ranking points and some scratch by beating Rune.  However, he definitely had more to lose than to gain by beating Rune (and thus letting Djokovic stay in the tournament).  With Djokovic out, Sinner's odds of winning the final would've gone way up, and with that title, he'd have picked up more ranking points and a lot more money.  And even if he didn't win the title, there's no way he would've gotten blitzed in the final the way he did against Djokovic.   

In this recent post, we mentioned that these days, Big Brother is watching in general:

https://tennisdoping.forumotion.com/t12p300-current-issues-and-events#866

Well, apparently he’s actively watching in the tennis world too!  

If the Covid jabs were all so effective and wonderful, then why would Moderna feel the need to monitor someone “nutty” like Djokovic?  Oh, and this lunatic company gets to sponsor a Grand Slam?  Tell me—what’s wrong with this picture???  🤪

So . . . what's next?  Is Moderna planning a hit on Djokovic???    🦹

Moderna has hired a former FBI agent to compile internal company reports about “high-risk” celebrities — including tennis star Novak Djokovic, tech mogul Elon Musk and actor Russell Brand — who have been publicly critical of vaccine mandates, according to a report.

The Boston-based pharmaceutical company, which marketed one of the first mRNA vaccines against COVID-19 that was distributed to tens of millions of Americans during the coronavirus pandemic, is said to be employing a team of former law enforcement officials who make up a “disinformation department” that keeps track of anti-vaccine sentiment.

News of the department’s existence and its reports was first revealed by independent journalist Lee Fang and Jack Poulson.

The department commissioned one report which was titled “Djokovic Crowned Anti-vaccine Hero after US Open Win,” according to Fang and Poulson.  Djokovic, the Serbian tennis legend who holds the all-time record for Grand Slam title victories, was not allowed to participate in the 2021 and 2022 US Open tournaments due to his refusal to get the COVID vaccine.

He won the grand slam tournament that was held this past September at Flushing Meadows — his 24th overall.

“The optics of Djokovic, whose vaccine opposition barred him from competing in the 2022 US Open, returning to and winning the Moderna-sponsored competition bolsters anti-vaccine claims that vaccines — and mandates — are unnecessary,” read the report.

Moderna was concerned about the fact that “vaccine opponents are celebrating” Djokovic’s win, which was made all the more troublesome due to the fact that people on social media “mockingly point out that Moderna is a US Open sponsor,” according to the report.

The discussion surrounding Djokovic was thus deemed by Moderna to be “high risk,” the report stated. . . .

The “disinformation” department is run out of Moderna’s global intelligence division headed by Nikki Rutman, a former FBI analyst who spent 20 years with the bureau, according to Fang and Poulson.

Rutman is reported to be in charge of an effort to monitor mainstream news and internet outlets for vaccine-skeptic information.

Reports that are deemed to be problematic are given color-coded levels ranging from “low risk” to “high risk,” Fang and Poulson reported.

A “low risk” item is usually one worth “monitoring” though they “don’t currently warrant any action” while higher-risk bulletins would prompt “our team [to] notify the appropriate stakeholders with recommendations,” according to the report.

https://nypost.com/2023/11/27/business/moderna-keeps-tabs-on-high-risk-anti-vaccine-celebs-like-novak-djokovic/

There's a brand spankin' new interview with Djokovic on 60 Minutes.  And in it, the notorious Jon Wertheim comes across as surprisingly professional!    Well, guess Jonny Boy must've been sick or sumpin'.  

The interview with Djokovic starts at the 40-minute mark, but what we're going to focus on here is his comments concerning the Covid jabs.  At about 49:05 into the video, Wertheim brings up that topic.  And here's what Djokovic had to say:

People try to, you know, declare me as an anti-vax.  I am not anti-vax.  Nor I am pro . . . pro-vax.  I am pro-"freedom to choose."

Now, what Djokovic said may sound great in theory.  But there are at least a couple of serious problems with his statement:  

1) It's okay to be pro-"freedom to choose" when the dangers of something are well-known (but within reason) and it's well-regulated.  For instance, I don't smoke, but do I think cigarettes should be outlawed??  Of course not.  Most people know that smoking causes cancer.  Besides, you have to be an adult in order to buy cigarettes.  In addition, it's rare for someone to die shortly after starting a smoking habit.

But with the Covid jabs, it's an entirely different matter.  These dangerous shots have caused countless deaths and maimed so many others, while governments all over the world have given the jabs their blessing.  In addition, these evil shots are being foisted like crazy on minors—including infants, who have NO freedom to choose in the matter!     So, no, it's NOT okay to be pro-"freedom to choose" for something this dangerous.  









There are two major possibilities for why Djokovic has taken this stance:

a) He's unaware of how dangerous the shots really are—in other words, ignorance.  While this may be possible, I find it hard to believe.  I mean, if he didn't actually believe the shots were that bad, then why would he have refused them so adamantly?  

b) He does know how dangerous the shots are, but is terrified of being labeled as an "anti-vaxxer," so he stays quiet instead of warning others.  That is, he's taking the easy way out.  Sadly, I think this possibility is more likely.  

2) If Djokovic is really pro-choice, then why didn't he speak out against tournaments that mandated the Covid jab for participation, like the 2022 Australian Open?  Did he ever say, "I'm boycotting this tournament, and encouraging all players to do so, because it is totally wrong to force players to get a dangerous, unproven, experimental jab before participating!!"?  No, he did not.  

So . . . in spite of what he's claiming, it seems that Djokovic is really NOT pro-"freedom to choose" when it comes to the Covid jabs.  He's really just pro-"freedom for ME to choose."    

Of course, Djokovic certainly has a lot of admirable qualities.  It's great that, unlike at least 99% of the tennis world, he's had the courage to refuse the Covid jabs publicly.  Unfortunately, his stance seems to be based entirely on self-interest.  But is that really a surprise?  I don't think so.

It appears the moral of the story is this:  Pro athletes—even the most benevolent of them—are mainly just concerned about themselves.  So, if you're looking for an actual role model—that is, someone to model altruism—don't look for that in the world of pro sports, because you're basically never going to find such a figure.  

I think former pro Andrea Jaeger was right when she said that you have to be selfish to succeed in an individual sport.  Actually, that's probably true for team sports too, but maybe not quite to the same degree.  Jaeger said that she never felt good about beating others, and she became much happier after leaving the tour.

neptune wrote:

There are two major possibilities for why Djokovic has taken this stance:

a) He's unaware of how dangerous the shots really are—in other words, ignorance.  While this may be possible, I find it hard to believe.  I mean, if he didn't actually believe the shots were that bad, then why would he have refused them so adamantly?  

b) He does know how dangerous the shots are, but is terrified of being labeled as an "anti-vaxxer," so he stays quiet instead of warning others.  That is, he's taking the easy way out.  Sadly, I think this possibility is more likely.  

Zero chance he doesn't know. He's been into natural health stuff for a long time and he has a team that researches stuff for him, etc. If regular people like us can easily find out how harmful the jabs are, Djokovic certainly can, as well.

While I can understand your arguments about Djokovic being "selfish", etc. Let's try to play devil's advocate and argue for the side of Djokovic. I mean, you were expecting him to say this:

neptune wrote:"I'm boycotting this tournament, and encouraging all players to do so, because it is totally wrong to force players to get a dangerous, unproven, experimental jab before participating!!"

That is certainly something the media would never forget and would bring it up every time Djokovic came out on court. It might turn his sponsors away from him. Hmm, and now that I think about it, maybe there is something in his sponsorship contracts about not being too up-front with his anti-vax beliefs. It might turn the tournament higher-ups against him and kill his career with fines, rigged draws, and who knows what else. Regardless of how noble you are, few are willing to starve for their beliefs.

Worse than that, in this world ruled by the medical mafia, an assassination is likely against someone with Djokovic's influence. Check what happened to Brandy Vaughan, and she had, like, a fortress to hide in. Djokovic would be a target for any of the spectators any time he came out on court. All that would need to happen is for one of them to smuggle in a gun, somehow. This is not an insurmountable task for professional assassins, I'm sure. Or, other ways exist, like poisoning his drinks, etc. You really have to be suicidal to make such a statement if you're a big sports star. At best you lose your career and get your character assassinated, and at worst you get assassinated for real. I mean, I'd like it if we could voice our real beliefs publicly without being jumped on by a pack of hyenas, but that is not the world we live in, so I can understand Djokovic. He did about as best as he could without losing everything he worked for. I mean, he already dealt with the "torture cell", I'd say that's quite enough suffering to accept for your beliefs.

bighax wrote:If regular people like us can easily find out how harmful the jabs are, Djokovic certainly can, as well.

Agreed.

I mean, you were expecting him to say this

Expecting??  Not really.    Hoping—yes.  But in the world of pro sports, that kind of altruism just doesn't exist.   

That is certainly something the media would never forget and would bring it up every time Djokovic came out on court. It might turn his sponsors away from him. Hmm, and now that I think about it, maybe there is something in his sponsorship contracts about not being too up-front with his anti-vax beliefs. It might turn the tournament higher-ups against him and kill his career with fines, rigged draws, and who knows what else.

Yes, bighax, it would probably kill his career.  But at the same time, it would make him a hero to the millions of people who actually matter.  I mean, he would probably be on every conservative talk show until the end of time.  

Regardless of how noble you are, few are willing to starve for their beliefs.

Starve??    Dudeface is worth like $200 million—ain't no way he's gonna be starving!!  

Worse than that, in this world ruled by the medical mafia, an assassination is likely against someone with Djokovic's influence.

That is certainly possible.  But as I said in the past couple of weeks, it's still possible now.    

Check what happened to Brandy Vaughan, and she had, like, a fortress to hide in.

I hadn't heard of her, so I looked her up.  Was she likely murdered?  

Djokovic would be a target for any of the spectators any time he came out on court. All that would need to happen is for one of them to smuggle in a gun, somehow. This is not an insurmountable task for professional assassins, I'm sure.

True.

Or, other ways exist, like poisoning his drinks, etc.

Well, he's smart enough to avoid that part, I think.

You really have to be suicidal to make such a statement if you're a big sports star.

As I said, it would probably kill his career.

and at worst you get assassinated for real.

Well, since Trump is still alive and kicking after all he's done, I do like Djokovic's chances at least.  

I mean, I'd like it if we could voice our real beliefs publicly without being jumped on by a pack of hyenas, but that is not the world we live in

To address that issue, I'm going to repeat an insightful quote by Dr. Naomi Wolf.  Don't know if you've watched any of her videos, but she's a feminist and former liberal who now runs the Web site Daily Clout, which is a veritable treasure trove of information about the dangers of the Covid jabs.  She's basically been ridiculed and scorned in exactly the way you've described for years, and all her former "friends" have dumped her.  But she's not letting any of that deter her.  She's also said that she continually gets private messages basically saying what you're describing:  "Hey, Naomi, I agree with you totally!!  But I can't afford to take the risk to speak out publicly about how I feel.  I know you understand."  

And here's her pointed response to that wimpy stance:

I am beyond exasperated by those who stay in the shadows, agreeing with the risk-taking of others. . . .  It’s not like someone else isn’t gonna have to fight this fight. . . .  You don’t get to stay in your cozy bubble anymore. . . .  If you’re in your cozy bubble, it means you’re consigning other people to risk and danger and hell.

That's the thing—if you're staying cozy, then others are the ones whose lives get made a living he**.  

so I can understand Djokovic. He did about as best as he could without losing everything he worked for.

Can i understand it?  Yes.  Do I think he's a hero for it?  No.

I mean, he already dealt with the "torture cell", I'd say that's quite enough suffering to accept for your beliefs.

Are you talking about in Australia?  If that's what you mean,  it seems he did very little to speak out about the plight of those still suffering there, which is a shame.     

And which is a bigger tragedy—if Djokovic loses his career (while still remaining ultrawealthy), or millions of people lose their loved ones (especially young children) who might've been saved had they been warned enough??  In addition, what about Djokovic's fellow tennis players?  So he's okay if they have to take the death jabs, as long as he himself gets spared??  

As I said, even if Djokovic lost his career, he would become an instant megastar 🤩 among the millions of people who really matter—which would be a far greater legacy than any superficial sports career.  And he would have plenty of new sources of income.  Besides, thousands of other people (who are not megarich like him) have lost their standing and careers in order to bravely proclaim the truth about the shots.  So, why should Djokovic himself get to be so cozy???  

Now, do I admire Djokovic for standing up for his beliefs?  Yes—as I said, he's still waaaaaaaay braver than 99% (or probably even 99.9%) of pro tennis players.  However, do I consider him a hero?  Well, a sports hero, yes.  (Then again, if he's doping, which he likely is, that's a whole 'nother matter.   )  But a real hero, nope.  A real hero is someone who makes sacrifices at great cost (such as even risking one's life) for the sake of others, like a spectator who runs into a burning building in order to save a child.

Having said all that, I'm not suggesting at all that standing up for one's beliefs doesn't require a lot of finesse.     Yes, you have to be incredibly careful and intelligent about how you approach the matter.  So, I'm totally not saying, "Hey, just throw caution to the wind!!!"    I'm also in no way suggesting that any of this is easy or fun—just that, in the final analysis, as Wolf said, it's completely unfair to consign others to "risk and danger and hell" in order to stay comfortable inside one's own little bubble, because someone always has to fight the war.  

There are also plenty of religious arguments to be made for doing the right thing as Wolf suggests, but since I believe you said that you're an atheist, I won't go down that route at the moment.  

Anyway, thanks for chiming in, bighax.  Great to hear your feedback.  

One final thing—to drive the point of this argument home, I plan to post a disturbing new documentary in the Current Events thread soon that shows the misery of several parents who've had to bury their precious kids because of the clot shots.  

Oh, wanted to mention one more thing that's topical.  We both agree that Djokovic is cagey enough to know how dangerous the Covid jabs are.  Well, sadly, the same thing can't be said for Chris Evert.  She'd had cancer not that long ago, but it apparently went into remission.  However, last year she made a statement like this:  "I'm a big supporter of the vaccines."  

Well, guess what?  Her cancer's baaaaaaack.  It seems she has no idea that the Covid shots are known to turbocharge cancer.   Of course, it's all very sad, and I hope she's able to beat the cancer.  But when someone is that obtuse, what can you really say???

This is rich.  Carlos Alcaraz just won the Stefan Edberg Sportmanship Award.  Well, remember back at Wimbledon, when his dad was spying on Djokovic—and actually recording his practices?  

So . . . is that the kind of "sportsmanship" the ATP wants to award?    Yes, I know it was his father who did it, but Carlos didn't exactly distance himself from his dad's behavior either.  And supposedly the players vote on the award, but here's what any intelligent person should ask—who actually COUNTS the votes???  

It's clear that all the "awards" given out by the ATP are worth about as much as a piece of used chewing gum.  

There are actually a couple more compelling reasons for Djokovic to have taken a harder stance against the Covid jabs.     At the end of their lives, most people have some regrets.  And an Australian nurse has written a book called The Top Five Regrets of the Dying, in which she discusses these biggies:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-self-illusion/201205/the-selfish-dying

Here are a couple that might apply to Djokovic:

I wish I hadn't worked so hard.

"This came from every male patient that I nursed.  They missed their children's youth and their partner's companionship. . . .  All of the men I nursed deeply regretted spending so much of their lives on the treadmill of a work existence."

At the end of his life, is Djokovic going to wish he'd trained harder and won more Grand Slams, had more weeks at #1, etc.?  Probably not—if he's normal.    Anyway, the whole point here is that if taking a courageous stance would end up costing him some big wins, he probably wouldn't end up regretting it.  Even now, he doesn't seem to regret (nor should he) the titles he missed out on for resisting the jab.  

I wish I'd had the courage to express my feelings.

"Many people suppressed their feelings in order to keep peace with others. . . .  Many developed illnesses relating to the bitterness and resentment they carried as a result."

At the end of his life, will Djokovic wish that he'd spoken out publicly about how he REALLY felt about the Covid jabs, and that he'd stood up for the freedom of others from "vaccine" tyranny too—not just for his own freedom?  It's very possible.  

Of course, at the end of the day, we can only control what we ourselves do and think. So, while it's certainly interesting to speculate on whether Djokovic will eventually regret his anemic "I'm not against the Covid jabs" stance, at least we "ordinary" citizens can look at this list of common regrets and do our very best to avoid them ourselves.  

Hi again. I'll keep it brief, well, I'm kind of tired but wanted to say a few things.

I doubt Djokovic will regret focusing on his career. I mean, it's going to be over soon and he will enjoy the rest of his life knowing he became the very best in his craft.

I still hope, though, that he will blow the whistle on vaccines after his career is over. But again, the assassination is a threat and I recently also realized that his family might also be assassinated, and well - even if he was willing to sacrifice himself for a cause - he might not be willing to sacrifice others. Oh, and about the money - remember the Freedom Convoy supporters, who got their bank accounts blocked? That's also a possibility, and Djokovic might become poor or homeless in a flash. But it's just speculation, who knows what he's thinking or what's going to happen, really.

I do think it's noble to sacrifice, especially in Djokovic's position. But I also understand full well why most will not do it. That's why the heroes are heroes, and are valued in the first place. If everyone was a hero it wouldn't be anything to write books, etc about.

Sportsmanship awards are a joke, of course. It's just a popularity award, really, instead of good behavior award. How many years in a row has Federer received one? It's a joke.

Merry Christmas!

bighax wrote:Hi again. I'll keep it brief, well, I'm kind of tired but wanted to say a few things.

Cheers.  Hopefully you got plenty of sleep over the Christmas holidays, assuming you actually get those in Poland.  

I doubt Djokovic will regret focusing on his career. I mean, it's going to be over soon

Maybe not, but then again, who knows?  Most professional athletes only care about their careers anyway.  

and he will enjoy the rest of his life knowing he became the very best in his craft.

To some degree, but by and large, that's not how the human brain operates.  No matter how much you accomplish, you rarely go on to live "happily ever after."  People get used to things very quickly.  Besides, extrinsic goals almost never produce long-term happiness.  Remember lottery winners?   After about a year, they typically go back to their previous levels of happiness.  Basically, once you've climbed various mountains, you then ask:  "What mountain can I climb NEXT???"    

I think someone like Djokovic would get bored really fast without his athletic career.  Maybe he'd want to go into politics or business; maybe he'd want to be a mentor to younger players?  Also, someone like Djokovic is more likely to experience regret over what he didn't accomplish than exhilaration over what he did.  In life, losses affect us much more than gains.  For instance, having a really great day rarely has any effect on the next day.  But if you have a truly terrible day, that usually carries over into the next.  I mean, Djokovic could always wonder, "Why couldn't I ever manage to win the Olympics for my country???  What would it feel like for me now if I'd accomplished that?"    Of course, he could still win the Olympics this year, but I don't think it's going to happen.  

I still hope, though, that he will blow the whistle on vaccines after his career is over.

That would be nice.  

But again, the assassination is a threat and I recently also realized that his family might also be assassinated, and well - even if he was willing to sacrifice himself for a cause - he might not be willing to sacrifice others.

It's definitely a tricky situation.  But even now, with all his jealous haters, his family is probably still at risk to some degree.

Oh, and about the money - remember the Freedom Convoy supporters, who got their bank accounts blocked? That's also a possibility, and Djokovic might become poor or homeless in a flash.

It's a possibility, but probably not likely.  How many super-famous people has that ever happened to?  I mean, Donald Trump would be a pauper by now if that were the case.  

But it's just speculation, who knows what he's thinking or what's going to happen, really.

Well, that's what the Internet is for after all. 

I do think it's noble to sacrifice, especially in Djokovic's position. But I also understand full well why most will not do it.

Yeah, because it's extremely difficult.  

That's why the heroes are heroes, and are valued in the first place. If everyone was a hero it wouldn't be anything to write books, etc about.

True, but the Golden Rule was intended for everyone, not just people who get written about in books.  In fact, I would say that most genuine heroes will never be famous.  Would you want people consigning you to a life of misery because they want to stay comfortable?  I sure wouldn't.  Remember—that's what happened to the Jews back in Nazi Germany.  卐  Besides, you also have to look yourself in the mirror for the rest of your life knowing the choices you've made.  🪞

Sportsmanship awards are a joke, of course.  It's just a popularity award, really, instead of good behavior award. How many years in a row has Federer received one? It's a joke.

Yes, it's an utterly worthless popularity contest.    A couple points:

1) I've heard that some of the most deserving players should include Gasquet, Isner, and Nishikori.  

2) Maybe the players really are that stupid  , but I don't believe their so-called votes actually count—or at least enough to have the final say.    I've also heard that Djokovic is pretty popular among the players, so surely they would've voted for him at least once.   

Merry Christmas!

Thanks, bighax.  (It's funny you listed that as your reason for editing.  ) Szczęśliwego Nowego Roku!  🥳

Breaking news:  Nadal has now WITHDRAWN from the Australian Open!  

This week, he was playing a warm-up tournament in Brisbane, and practically breezed through his first two matches.  But then he hit a snag with Jordan Thompson, who presented a stiffer challenge than expected.  So, Nadal resorted to his usual tactics, such as faking an injury.    And then after Thompson saved three match points and went on to win the match, that apparently broke pobre Rafito's heart.  







So now the King of Pain has turned on the waterworks and invented this tearjerker of an injury to pull out of the Australian Open:  "muscle micro tear."  

Translation:  "major EGO tear."  

Hey, ya gotta admit—at least this excuse is better than:  "There was a fly in my paella."  🪰  🤭

Well, if "Fake more injuries" was at the top of Nadal's list of New Year's resolutions, then he's off to a great start so far!!!  

And according to a confidential source, right after his devastating loss, Nadal sent the following text message to Thompson:

Five, four, three, two, one,
You've got me under your thumb,
Under your thumb!

I need a DETOX!!!

 

On another board recently, someone made this interesting post:

The Australian Open draw is so obviously rigged it's ridiculous. Former top players that have fallen up the rankings drawing big names isn't odd in itself. But the fact that they almost all did is quite frankly, unbelievable.

There was 16 unseeded players in both men's and women's draws that are former Slam winners or finalists. 6 on the men's side, 10 on the women's side. 11 of them drew a seed/big name.

Former GS finalist Berrettini draws seed #7 and last year finalist Tsitsipas
Former GS finalist Raonic draws seed #10 and Australia's #1 Alex DeMinaur
Former USO champion Thiem draws seed #27 Felix Auger-Aliassime
Former AO champion Wawrinka draws seed #20 Adrian Mannarino

Former AO winner Kenin draws seed #1 Swiatek.
Former AO winner Kerber draws former AO finalist Collins and will play winner of Swiatek vs Kenin
Former AO winner Osaka draws seed #16 Garcia
Former AO semifinalist (and Slam finalist) Pliskova draws last year finalist seed #3 Rybakina
Former AO winner Caroline Wozniacki draws last year semifinalist and #20 Magda Linette
Former RG finalist Anastasia Pavlyuchenkova draws seed #21 Donna Vekic

Interestingly though, you could even make a case of TA gently helping the other big Slam nations as among the only few escaping those big names match ups, you can find American Sloane Stephens and the two Brits of the list (Murray and Raducanu). Cilic also somewhat escaped that fate (and Errani but does anyone care about Errani enough to rig anything anymore ?).

Not saying that ALL those match ups are rigged but the fact that so many of them happened is highly suspicious and it looks like TA deliberately draws big names with former glories in order to gather interest right off the bat (without taking too much risks as most of them are not good enough anymore to pull off the upset anyway).

First off, I think this guy made a mistake—it seems that only 10 (not 11) of these 16 unseeded players drew big names.  Anyway, what he wrote piqued my interest, so I wanted to test it out.  Unfortunately, using combinatorics to work out the probabilities in this case is incredibly tricky, mainly because this group of players can draw others from the same group.  

It seems that the best (and easiest) way to see how likely this scenario was is to run a simulation.  So, I wrote a fairly simple computer program (see below) using Yabasic to work out the approximate probabilities   (which anyone can run to test for accuracy).  Players 1 to 32 are, obviously, the seeds. And I just arbitrarily made the six former big names to be players 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, and 100.  More in the next post.  

Code:

dim player(128), count(6)

for i = 1 to 100000

    for j = 1 to 128
    
        player(j) = 0
        
    next j
    
    
    for j = 1 to 32
        
        repeat
            temp = int(ran(96)) + 33
        until player(temp) = 0
        
        player (j) = temp
        player (temp) = j
        
    next j
    
    for j = 33 to 128
    
        if (player(j) = 0) then
            
            repeat
                temp = int(ran(96)) + 33
            until (temp <> j and player(temp) = 0)
    
            player (j) = temp
            player (temp) = j
            
        endif
        
    next j

    seed_total = 0

    for j = 50 to 100 step 10
    
        if (player(j)) < 33 then
            seed_total = seed_total + 1
        endif
    
    next j

        count(seed_total) = count(seed_total) + 1
        
next i

for k = 0 to 6

    print k, " seeds  ", count(k)
    
next k

The program above is written to test the situation with the men's draw, but I tweaked it to test the women's draw too.  I ran probably about three million simulations with the men's draw.  Anyway, here's the output from one sample run:

0 seeds  8151
1 seeds  26355
2 seeds  33976
3 seeds  22284
4 seeds  7792
5 seeds  1343
6 seeds  99

Assuming I wrote the program correctly (someone please correct me if I made any mistakes), it seems that the odds that these six (now unseeded) former Slam winners or finalists would draw at least four seeded players is a little over 9%.  And with the women's draw, the odds that those ten players would draw at least six seeds is a little over 6%.  So, on the face of it, nothing screams "rigged" about either draw.  

However, the odds that this situation would occur in both the men's and women's draws is (9% x 6%), which is only about 0.5%.  

Conclusion:  The draws in Australia probably were rigged for dramatic effect.  But knowing how corrupt the world of tennis is, is that really a big surprise?  

Some interesting comments from elsewhere:  

It’s curious how Djokovic is always thrown these young tigers in the first rounds of a slam – Rune, Draper, now Prizmic, while Carlos gets aged veterans. What’s disappointing about Nadal is the media is ignoring his business with Saudi while if Djokovic did it, the media would crucify him for it.

As expected no signs of any injury or limp by Rafa at the Saudi Arabia press conference. His talk about the micro tear in his hip or leg or wherever he said it was, might have put him on crutches or in a wheel chair. Yes Djokovic would have been railroaded to hell by the jackal media if he signed any deals with Saudi Arabia, but once again Rafa gets the free pass.

Some intriguing news today.  A popular Serbian journalist is now claiming that Djokovic was actually sick with the flu during his devastating semifinal loss in Australia to Jannik Sinner.  

Am I swallowing this story whole?  No, but I'm not dismissing it out of hand either. Although I didn't watch any of the Australian Open, from all accounts, there was definitely something off about Djokovic there.    I mean, he was terrible in the first two rounds.  And even in his fairly routine win in the quarterfinals, Fritz saved ALL 15 break points that Djokovic had in the first two sets.    Sorry, but that's just not normal for Djokovic, considered by many to be the greatest returner of all time, to squander so many consecutive break points.  Then in his match against Sinner, he never achieved a single break point.  🤪  Apparently that's only happened for him in one other Grand Slam match—one that he played several years ago against Berdych, in which he actually retired during, I believe, the second set.  








Perhaps the strangest part of all is that Djokovic showed basically no fight or emotion in his match against Sinner.  Usually, in a situation like that, he'd blow a fuse or smash his racket.  🤬  But oddly enough, he seemed like a passive zombie the whole match.  🧟 So . . . something was clearly off about him—in fact, even Sinner said as much in his interview after the match.  Now, does all this ultimately take away from Sinner's victory?  No, Sinner played an excellent match, and now is a well-deserving Grand Slam winner.  And kudos to him for performing so well.  

Of course, I realize that this flu story just sounds like predictable damage control.  And I honestly don't know whether it's true or not.  But at this point, given how strangely Djokovic came across in Australia, I'd say the story is at least plausible.  

Novak Djokovic's performance against Jannik Sinner in the 2024 Australian Open semis raised a lot of questions, and there might finally be an answer to them.

The 2024 Australian Open semi-finals between Novak Djokovic and eventual champion Jannik Sinner was certainly historic.  Not only did the Serb lose his first match in Melbourne Park after 2195 days, but it also brought an end to his title defense.

Sinner won the match 6-1, 6-2, 6-7( 8 ), and 6-3 to reach his first-ever finals at a Grand Slam event.  The first-set defeat of Nole was his worst in over a decade of playing at Melbourne Park. . . .

Nole later himself admitted the match to be his ‘worst Grand Slam performance‘. Amid this, with rising speculations on the actual reason, there seems to be some light shed on the actual reason for Nole’s low energy performance.

Popular Serbian journalist Luka Nikolic’s statement is going viral in Djokovic fan circles.  The statement alleges that the 24-time Grand Slam title winner was down with flu and fever.  With his physical health not at 100%, he still chose to play instead of just withdrawing.

He got a fever the night before the semi-final. Something similar to what Zverev had. He was sick for three weeks, and then he had a relapse. That's why he played so badly in the first two sets, you could see he was weak and couldn't do it.

— Reads the statement attribtued [sic] to Nikolic.

. . .

He couldn't play well in those conditions. He didn't want to go to the doctor so the journalists wouldn't bother him and made [sic] a fuss.

— Added Nikolic.

https://firstsportz.com/tennis-news-shocking-novak-djokovic-health-updates-surface-after-the-australian-open/

It seems that a lot of fans are saying that this latest claim about Djokovic being sick is just fake news.    And some are even saying that the journalist Luka Nikolić doesn't even exist.    Well, apparently he does:  

https://rs.linkedin.com/in/luka-nikoli%C4%87-940039266

Of course, the optics of this revelation aren't great—it does come across as so much excuse-making.  But that doesn't necessarily mean it isn't true.  It's also pretty obvious that Djokovic himself must have heard about the story.  If it were all just complete nonsense, he could simply come out and deny it.  So far, however, he's said nothing.    Apparently he was also seen blowing his nose at times earlier on in the tournament, even admitting that he felt "under the weather."  

In the end, we all know that players sometimes get sick—that's just a fact of life.  So . . . if it's true, does this mean that Djokovic would've automatically beaten Sinner if he'd been healthy?  No, it doesn't necessarily mean that.  However, it would help to explain certain things, and maybe rein in some of this "Djokovic is DONE—let's stick a fork in him!!" blather.  

Another thing to keep in mind is that, while many have predictably proclaimed a "changing of the guard," tennis is often as much mental as it is physical.  Winning a Grand Slam for the first time comes with a lot of pressure and weighty expectations.    As the saying goes, "The trouble with success is that you have to keep on succeeding."  Jannik Sinner seems pretty likable, and I wish him the best, but it's a bit premature to predict that he's going to just breeze through Grand Slams from here on out.  

Djokovic's coach Ivanisevic is now saying that Djokovic was fine (physically):  

No, nothing bothered him, Nole was healthy.  It just didn't work out. . . .  However, the whole Australian Open was somehow not right for Novak, from the first round onwards.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/tennis/article-13050389/Novak-Djokovic-Goran-Ivanisevic-illness-Grand-Slam-Australian-Open-semi-Jannik-Sinner.html

Okay, something's not right about his "explanation."     Here are a few concerns:

1) Why hasn't Djokovic himself come out to quash the rumors that he was sick?  He could easily do so—just post something on social media to the effect that he did NOT have a fever the night before the Sinner match.  But he's been strangely silent.  

2) Early on in the tournament, Djokovic had said that he felt "under the weather," and was even seen blowing his nose at times during breaks in his matches.  So, why no mention of that from his coach?  

3) According to Ivanisevic:  "The whole Australian Open was somehow not right for Novak, from the first round onwards."  Okay, now what does THAT mean??  🧐  Are we seriously supposed to believe that he has no clue about what might have been wrong with Djokovic???

All I can say is . . . there's something they're not telling us.     If Djokovic was really (mostly) fine physically, then is he just burning out mentally?  Inquiring minds want to know.  

Read something interesting on another site recently.  Apparently in the pristine world of pro tennis, you can actually buy yourself a career:  

This one guy (American journeyman who played at Brown) bought his way into the top 100 doubles.  Buying almost every match he played in Challengers.  Paying strong partners to play with him.  And in the end made quarterfinals in Wimbledon twice!  I was at a Challenger in Geneva and he made the final for the first time.  Buying every match.  Many players dislike him for it because everybody knows.  He was paying Victor Hanescu many times.  He plays 42 tournaments every year.  All over the world.  Mr Airmiles.

And who does this guy sound like?  Hint:  One of his favorite foods is paella.  

Steroids in tennis?
The only serious story I ever heard is someone passing (Former ATP no. 1 and Roland Garros champion’s) hotel room while the door was open and he said it looked like a laboratory in there.  Blood doping for sure, take one liter of fresh blood from the body before the match and add it again after the match for quick regeneration.

Nadal's now "officially" out of Indian Wells.  And it's despicable for him to have led fans on like that.    No doubt the whole stunt was just a cash grab by the tournament directors, who probably greased his palm too.  

Finally, some actual doping news.   

As anyone who pays much attention to the corrupt world of pro tennis would know, not that long ago, Simona Halep got slapped with a huge ban for suspected doping—four years, in fact.  But she decided to appeal that verdict in the Court of Arbitration for Sport, and, guess what?  Like magic, her ban got reduced to merely nine months—a reduction of over 80%.    

So, did the Court of Arbitration have an excellent reason for reducing her sentence by so much?  In a word, not really.  Just looks like more corruption in an already corrupt sport!   🤪

Seems like the whole process was about as profound as this:

--------------------
Halep:  I would like to appeal my four-year ban.  

Court of Arbitration:  Okay.  We accept all major credit cards, including American Express.  
--------------------

Following last year’s decision in the case of Simona Halep, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has partially upheld Halep’s appeal against said decision. As a reminder, the decision was based on two different violations:

• The presence and use of roxadustat as evidenced in Halep’s urine sample collected on 29 August 2022 at the US Open 
  
  
• Use of a prohibited substance or method during 2022, based on collection and analysis of 51 blood samples provided by the player as part of the ABP programme 
  

In regard to the first violation, Halep argued that the prohibited substance had entered her system through a contaminated supplement and therefore unintentionally. In the original decision, the tribunal accepted this explanation, but asserted that the volume ingested by Halep was too small to sufficently explain the concentration of roxadustat in her system. In the CAS ruling, however, this argument is not discussed at all, and instead it solely focuses on the notion that Halep did not ingest roxadustat intentionally. Of course, this completely ignores the fact that if the concentration of roxadustat cannot be explained by the volume of the supplement ingested by Halep, a different exogenous source would have to be present, and it is fair to assume that such a source would have been ingested intentionally by Halep.

In regard to the second violation, things become even more interesting. In the original decision, the ITIA argued that based on a total of 51 blood samples taken for the Athlete Biological Passport (ABP), it was determined that the irregularities found could only explained by a doping program, in turn implying that roxadustat wasn’t the only prohibited substance used by Halep. This argument is essentially dismissed in its entirety by the CAS, and a different argument has been made. Apparently, Halep has provided a private blood sample, which had been administered on 9 September 2022 in preparation for a surgery occurring shortly thereafter. According to the CAS, the argument of the ITIA mainly relied on a blood sample taken on 22 September 2022, and we can infer that the argument brought forward by Halep would be roughly as follows: Given the fact that she did not plan to compete for the remainder of the year following the surgery, and considering the fact that the blood sample from 9 September 2022 presumably did not show irregularities, a doping program being run appears unlikely. Accordingly, the CAS did not contest the notion that irregularities had been present, but rather the idea that they can only be attributed to a doping program. Of particular note here is the fact that at no point is any indication given whether the private blood sample provided by Halep is WADA-compliant, or whether a B-sample exists. In addition, at no point is there any discussion of the fact that an anti-doping violation has occurred, and that it occurred on 29 August 2022, so the idea that there was no intention on Halep’s part to run a doping program for the remainder of the year is only valid if we consider the idea that the roxadustat had been ingested unintentionally to be true. In short, the dismissal of the second charge is only possible due to the first charge having been partially dismissed.

Of course, there is only so much a review of the provided press releases can do, and without access to the detailed evidence, drawing any conclusions would be dubious. Still, I do find it remarkable how the CAS largely dismisses virtually all of the evidence procured by the ITIA, which only leaves two possibilities:

(1) The CAS is biased towards athletes’ rights, and no matter how much evidence would be procured, if there is even a shred of reasonable doubt present, the CAS would rule in the athlete’s favor.

(2) The evidence provided by the ITIA is objectively weak.

Considering the analysis of the testing done by the TADP throughout the years on this blog, we can at least assert that (2) is a reasonable assumption. In fact, as reported earlier on here, we know that there have been exactly zero in-competition blood, ABP, or DBS samples taken during Q4/22, and Q1/22 was the only quarter which saw any in-competition ABP testing at all. All the ITIA could muster was an indirect proof of doping through the ABP, and the only direct proof was the only part of a charge that wasn’t dismissed, but since it was the only adverse finding that had been established, Halep could easily argue that it was all an accident, and that she never had the intention to dope. The bottom line is that a 4-year ban of one of the most prolific doping offenders on the tour has been reduced to a 9-month one, and that certainly isn’t a good look for the ITIA.

https://tennishasadopingproblemblog.wordpress.com/2024/03/05/cas-partially-upholds-simona-halep-appeal

After Djokovic's surprisingly lopsided loss in the semis at the Australian Open, now he gets booted out in the early rounds of Indian Wells by a young Italian.  

So . . . what exactly is going on with Djokovic?    Someone recently made the comment below on another site, which I think hits the nail on the head.    Basically, he's become jaded.    Or to put it more plainly—he's bored.  

Djokovic’s head is not fully in the game right now.  His competitive mindset is a little off with all the distractions – NBA game, Jokic, UCLA, family with him, doing that mini [interview] with Jeffrey Katzenberg, I think Djokovic is cruising on auto pilot now, he’s not trying to improve anymore, he thinks he can win off his past results.  This was a wake up call.  If he wants to keep dominating he has to go back into the laboratory and be a beast wrecking machine again.  But that may be impossible because there is nothing left to prove.  I think if he played Rafa instead of Nardi, he would have been more fired up.  The old boxing maxim: “Great fighters have trouble getting up for mediocre fights.”

Here's something interesting that someone mentioned recently on another board.  Simona Halep got suspended in the fall of 2022.  So, she hadn't played any pro tennis in about a year and a half.  But then about a week ago, she entered the Miami Open.  And suddenly she's good enough to win the first set 6–1 against Paula Badosa!  

It's almost as if she knew a deal was coming, so she kept herself match-fit.    However, if she had really believed that she wouldn't be able to return to the tour for over two more years, would she suddenly have been able to produce tennis like that?    Probably not.

Well, folks, this is just more confirmation that there's something rotten in Romania—er . . . Denmark.  

Absolutely SHOCKING news.  Djokovic has decided to retire from tennis!!!  And effective immediately, he's joining the NBA.  

Don't believe me?  Well, then just play the video below.  (I can't seem to make a Play button appear, but click on the picture anyway—trust me, it'll play.   )

So . . . why did Djokovic split with his coach Ivanisevic?    Well, a couple of recent articles offer some clues.  







In a nutshell:

1) The nail that broke the camel’s back was apparently an argument at Indian Wells, during which Ivanisevic was questioning Djokovic’s efforts in the practice sessions.  

2) It seems that, because of Djokovic’s lackluster results so far this year, Ivanisevic became the scapegoat.  

3) It’s been a roller-coaster ride for the two in the past few years —especially with all the brouhaha surrounding the 2022 Australian Open.  Eventually, all that stress took its toll on their relationship, as they started getting on each other’s nerves.  

4) After Djokovic won last year’s U.S. Open, Ivanisevic sensed the end was near, and now wishes that they’d parted ways then.

5) Djokovic can be temperamental to work with—and sometimes even verbally abusive—often venting his frustrations on his team.  🤬

Was this a smart move?  Who knows?  But it seems they really did need a break from each other.


https://www.news.com.au/sport/tennis/australia-mayhem-blamed-for-novak-djokovic-coaching-divorce/news-story/cd368f3a4d618749c7a8285beebadc54

https://www.tennisworldusa.org/tennis/news/Novak_Djokovic/143717/report-reveals-incident-that-dropped-hammer-on-novak-djokovicgoran-ivanisevic-collab/