Total misread of the Agassi book. Did you read the book or just the Si and People extracts? He clearly recounts how his ability to appreciate tennis has come around - slowly.... Plus he didn't implicate the ATP in any cover up (unless you think Gasquet did too) and the ATP said weeks ago (during the London end of year) that all looking in to it is over and there's no further action. The credibility of this site is totally undermined by these kinds of errors.

Thank you for your contribution, texastennis. but is it possible that you don't know all of the specifics yourself? Perhaps? I am well aware that Adam Helfant will not be seeking to take Agassi himself to task for his "crimes", but to my knowledge, WADA and the court of arbitration have made no such promises to those ATP officials implicated along with Agassi.

There is no "implication" of ATP tour officials just as there was no ATP "cover up." The procedures in 1997 called for review by an independent (non ATP) panel and that's what happened. The independent panel accepted his explanation. Nothing to do with the ATP. All this has come out very very clearly since the first excerpts were published.
Helfant said it's over and the ATP had communicated confidentially with WADA. The WADA head previously said (frustratedly) they have NO jurisdiction because a) tennis wasn't a WADA sport in 1997 and b) the WADA time limit for jurisdiction is 8 years and that was 12 years ago. He did say maybe there could be a criminal case if he lied under oath but that's a huge maybe because a) jurisdiction is extremely murky (eg Jones lied in a federal investigation) and b) there's no indication whatsoever the procedures in 1997 required oath taking anyway. You can't lie under oath if you don't take an oath. WADA would no doubt like to have jurisdiction, but they admit that they don't have it.
Court of Arbitration has no role at all at this point.
Do I think Agassi's lawyers looked into all this very carefully before the book was published? In all likelihood, yes.
There is no evidence at all that any agency is now as you claim investigating for possible arbitration. There does seem to be some wishful thinking on your part but that's not what decides these matters.
By far the most credible legal act in my opinion (far more clearly a possibility than any sports body having any ability to do anything for the reasons above) would be a criminal prosecution in the US for drug possession since it is illegal to possess crystal meth. However, the legal authorities in the US clearly have no interest in doing that - again long ago etc etc. Presumably his lawyers looked into that too. Pl

All the hyperbolic claims made when the excerpts were first published about the damage to tennis or the ATP have proven to be way overblown in my opinion. FAR more damaging from my perspective is that this year, 12 years later, when tennis is supposed to be far more closely regulated re drug taking, Gasquet was able to make a similar "the dog ate my homework excuse" and get away with it. Where's the outrage there? (Although since in Gasquet's case, it was also a rec drug like Agassi and not a performance enhancing one, I actually think the three months he was suspended was sufficient. I can't see any reason for two year bans for rec drugs although of course performance enhancing ones are quite different matters. But still I wish the decision would have been "we don't believe you for a minute, but we do believe that doing a rec drug damages only you and not the competitive integrity of the sport, so you've served your time and now get back to tennis. And no more kissing dubious girls in clubs:-)" This at least would encourage more candidness.
Since maybe you haven't read the book, it's maybe escaped your attention that the reviews from every side (tennis journalists, professional reviewers and readers judging by amazon review etc) have been overwhelmingly positive - for a reason. I was totally taken aback when I first read it as I expected the usual biography. It's not a sunny book, but I'm all for honesty. I can't understand the "he told a lie so he should have kept his lie a secret forever" side at all. He's had a complicated life, he's worked his issues out more or less, he's found a peaceful place for himself and admirably committed himself to public service (rather than spending the rest of his life playing golf and poker like too many former pro athletes).
I'm hoping now that we'll be able to say the same kind of "well he was an ass but he pulled it around commendably" thing about Tiger Woods, but time will tell because it's easier to wallow in the mire as many wasted and self indulgent lives show. (I'm a long time Graf fan, so I think she takes a lot of credit and maybe Woods is going to have to find the right woman to keep him on a more positive track too.)

very interesting post texastennis.
The book is an amazing book, frank and forthright - the drugs reference is only a page and a half of the whole book,and does not in my opinion take away from the agassi legacy.He has received masses of support from many people and after his recent interview on jonathan ross, he courted more supporters and the reviews were brilliant.

to each his own.......ppl might find rafa average looking in spain,but they sure do find him very sexy in a lot other places.........

VAMOS

vrael I think you are at the wrong thread.

I do hope you read Open before you made those judgements. I personally loved the book and found it both gripping and honest. All good if you read it and didn´t like it, but I found it a great insight into Agassi himself and the tennis world.

I read the book. It was well-written as an autobiography and even a fascinating read. I can think that and still be disappointed in some of what he said.

The Gasquet case has absolutely NOTHING to do with the Agassi case. The problem was in how the Agassi case was handled - meaning in secret. Surely none of you are contending that the ATP was was working ethically when they secretly contacted Agassi with the results in order to give him the opportunity to think up an excuse and then sweep it under the carpet, which was the obvious reason for contacting him in the first place. The ATP had EVERYTHING to do with it.

The reason the Gasquet case was dismissed is because the amount they found in his system was trace AND not metabolized. Nobody tried to hide it - or else we wouldn't be talking about it now.

Cheryl,

You still misunderstand apparently the conditions of testing in 1997. At that time (pre WADA), ALL tests were handled confidentiality until a final decision of guilt was made. No public announcement of positive tests was amde until the independent review panel found the positive test indicated guilt. That is, the presumption then (some might say better in the wake of some recent cases) was innocent until proven guilty. The Agassi test was handled EXACTLY according to procedure. Who nows how many other tests also came up positive at that time but were dismissed by the tribunal, so never made public. The key example of that being the usual procedure is the (in)famous nandrolene seven when multiple players tested positive and it was apparently eventually sourced as something ATP trainers were giving out. Of those seven, Greg Rusedski's name was leaked (against procedure), but we never heard who the other players caught up in that were. So there is no evidence at all hat anything was untoward about how the Agassi case was handled in terms of the rules at that time. The independent tribunal was either gullible or inclined to give the benefit of the doubt (I would say the nandrolene outcomes suggest you can make either case). There is no evidence at all of ATP misconduct as you insist on saying - the procedures were what they were and they were followed. You can say you don't like those procedures, but that's quite different from saying any cover up was involved.

Yes Agassi lied. Yes he shouldn't have. And he was horrified by himself and always regretted it as he's made abundantly clear. (Without making excuses, I will point out however that you show me a crytsal meth user, and I'll show you a liar - very high correlation between doing crystal meth and lying...) He's very open about that in the book and in these endless interviews - that he was ashamed. I have never sen another athlete caught for drugs be so upfront about that, and in his case it was "only" for a rec drug. Whether he should have fessd up sooner once he straightened his act out ie some time in the last ten years, I think sooner would have been better than later, but as I said above, I think it's always better to tell the truth and he took a tremendous risk (to his legacy, commercial viability and general reputation) in doing so now when he didn't need to. Because I value the truth, I am not too concerned about why, but I imagine he might feel better not harboring that. (Or since I'm a Graf fan having her harbor it on his behalf which she's apparently been doing for ten years.) Good for him.

Now the drug testing rules under WADA are completely different - as soon as a positive test is made, a public announcement of it is made. There's no confidentiality. I'm not sure whether this is good because it does lead to trial by media and if a person should happen to be innocent, it's really very unfortunate. But these were NOT the rules in place at the time of the Agassi test, no there was no cover up. I do think if any big player (Federer or Nadal say) has a positive today, it would be announced immediately. The current rules do seem to be being enforced.

Gasquet - I know it was a trace unmetabolized amount. I assume Agassi's was a trace too as was Hingis's. I just find his explanation of how it got there tough too believe - and this is the parallel to the Agassi case for me. As Phillipoussis said, it must have been hell of a kiss. LOL. But in all three of these cases, clearly rec drugs and however they got there, a two year suspension is out of whack.

I agree with all the other comments as I think the book not only demonstrates yet again the old adage that money doesn't buy happiness, but helps explain why so many bright young things flame out (to the endless frustration of we fans) under far less pressure than Agassi had because the pressures are intense and complicated, and it is a forceful reminder that mistakes don't mean a lost life. But try to get to a place where you do do something constructive with your life.

I agree with everything you said, texas (for the most part). And I don't condemn Agassi for using in the first place. in fact, the could-have-beens frighten me quite a bit. I also know that somebody who is hurting is often a lousy decision-maker.

I will ask you this question, as it is at the root of all of my concerns. Can you think of ANY circumstance in which Agassi (under 1997 guidelines) would have been found guilty of using banned substances? What if the sample was NOT a trace amount? What if the substance had not been recreational? Would it have made ANY difference at all? I think it would not have. because he is Andre.

Cheryl, I have to agree with you that regardless of our intent to forgive or condemn Andre's actions, its sorely disappointing to know the truth and all its sordid details. Almost more so than the drug use and lying about it, to know that all that magic and talent on court was not the result of a fiery passion and deep rooted love for the sport, but instead a side-effect of mental and physical abuse by an obsessive father...
No wonder Andre was messed up!

Cheryl, yes, we know you'll never get over the revelation that your favorite player pre-Rafa was not in fact perfect and decided to tell others about it in unflinching detail. I'm sorry for you, but in a sea of sports-autobiography flotsam, Agassi's book was a refreshing aircraft carrier of honesty. I can't think of another sports-autobio this decade that was better.

Did we need to know all of this? No. Is any of our lives the worse for having known it now? If the answer is yes, then you have some issues you need to deal with.

There is nothing wrong with feeling a deep sense of disappointment when finding out your idol or role model is not who you thought they were. This disappointment can be everlasting as these role models do play a role in our development as people.

Cheryl is not wrong in any way to feel the way she does. Sometimes ignorance is bliss; which doesn't mean that one has some issues to work out, it's just human nature. At times, the truth can be very discouraging and damaging to our psyche.

Remember, this was a very recent revelation, so it will take time for people to accept it, work it out in their own minds and assess where Agassi stands for them.

Cheryl certainly doesn't need me to defend her position, but I will reiterate my complete and total agreement with her position regarding Agassi's revelations. I am not a starry-eyed idealist and this did not destroy any treasured illusions I had about Agassi. I have come to terms with the flaws and foibles of our so-called sports heros, long ago.

I simply do not think it was appropriate for Agassi to unburden himself at the expense of the very organization that bent over backwards to protect him and allow him to continue to play tennis. I also am one who believes firmly that there is such a thing as too much information, period. This all happened quite some time ago and nothing is accomplished by revealing this damaging information now. I am sick to death of these "tell-all" books that delve into every miserable detail of the life of a celebrity. It's not just Agassi's book. It's all of them. We used to have a healthy respect for privacy and dignity. Not everything has to become public knowledge.

I think the saddest aspect of Agassi's book is the abuse he suffered from his father, abuse that made him ultimately despise the very sport in which he excelled. If you are pushed so hard and so relentlessly that you end up hating the thing you do the best, then that is the real tragedy in Agassi's life.

this isn't the topic but for me sampras' autobio is very respectable. he 'chooses' not to reveal the names of certain persons and details to protect their privacy and for me was still enjoyable to read. i think it's a good example to follow. however everyone's different and some choose to tell-all like jmc revealing details of his fights and breakups with his women. imagine how they might feel and the possibility his children will read it and find out things about their mother! definitely the abuse in agassi's life was sad. no one should be subjected to that. these things usually follow on so i just hope andre doesn't do it to his kids

Hi Cheryl,

I'm glad we agree! I wrote a long reply at work today and then it disappeared while I was distracted by - you know - work. Must have automatically logged out.

At any rate, I don't know the answer to your question about whether under any circumstances Agassi would have been found guilty of a positive test in 1997. It's such a hypothetical. Your question however seems highly suspicious of the ATP - if you're so skeptical of the ATP, it's the ATP who should be castigated and not Agassi accused of bringing the ATP into disrepute by telling about his test. Certainly other pro athlete organizations (baseball and US football for two) have been very reluctant to deal with drug taking so why would the ATP necessarily be different. But again if that's the case, it's the fault of the ATP and not Agassi.

I don't think he ever did steroids by the way. Too wary of a positive test after that for one and two I think rec drugs of the kind he did and performance enhancers are totally different deals. One journalist (inside tennis' Bill Simmons) did ask him very bluntly during the book tour and he said absolutely not. Plus I think to write this book with all that's in it and think he could get away with lying about that wold be completely irrational. So no steroids.

Likewise I don't think this is an unnecessary tell all that should be kept private memoir that's so common about celeb memoirs now. It's not an I allege incest against a family member 30 years letter tell all type deal. I think for a pro athlete to have a positive test and lie about it - even for a rec drug as in this case - is a public matter, and he has the Hall of Fame stuff coming up etc, so that should be a public matter. The other stuff - about his dad, Brooke, Gil and even the post drug use recovery with Steffi etc - is all a part of him trying to figure out what the hell what going on then I think. I don't think it's gratuitous at all - and I do often find celeb memoirs very gratuitous in their unsavory details. (And I think McEnroe's was of this latter kind. Plus Agassi is so hard on himself and McEnroe certainly was not self critical at all.)

Sampras wasn't candid enough for me. Total generic jock bio. That's a different kind of memoir shortcoming.

I don't see how Agassi's life is a tragedy either - he's enormously successful, very happy, living a productive life, he doesn't despise tennis anymore. He made lots of bad decisions, found himself in some very difficult situations through no fault of his own, survived some very hard times (extremely narrowly in the case of the dicing with catastrophe with crystal meth) and - eventually - got it all worked out. Even he and his father have worked it out. Very rocky road absolutely, and disastrous outcomes of various kinds narrowly avoided, but he prevailed.

to each his own. agassi's loud appearance and attention seeking ways didn't appeal to me either. i prefer those who don't wash their dirty linen in public.

Homos, absolutely. each to his own, but i dont think you can reasonably say that agassi is of "loud appearance". If you dont like people who wash their dirty linen in public, then dont read the book, or listen to every single critical thing that anyone says about agassi. I thought i would post this here for you, its from a guy called Ben Pronin. Homos, did you see agassi on jonathan ross? He was unbelievably frank, honest, humble, NOT loud in the slightest and I really dont think that this 2 paragraph reference to taking meth should outweigh everything else he says in his book. This is what Ben Pronin says in his book review:

'There is a silver lining in all this in that Agassi had so much going on in his life that those spoilers are not as revealing as they were made out to be. The meth thing was mentioned for maybe two paragraphs out of 400+ pages. And there is a lot more to him hating tennis and his dad than people can really understand without reading Agassi?s thoughts and explanations.

So what is so great about this book? I?m not going to give anything away because everything in Agassi?s life must be read within the context of his life in order to understand its significance. What I will say is that every single person on this planet can relate to multimillionaire, 8-time Grand Slam champion, and former world No. 1 Andre Agassi in one way or another. That is what makes this his story so unbelievably fantastic.

There are bad moments, terrible moments, good moments, great moments, and all kinds of other moments in Agassi?s life. He shows that no matter how rich or successful or talented you are, everyone deals with the same crap day in and day out. When I finished the book, I wanted it to keep going, rather, I wanted to fly out to Vegas, meet Agassi, and become his best friend in order to stay inside his fascinating world.

If you have any doubts about reading this book because of its content, well, forget it. Forget about everything you?ve heard and every critical thing you?ve read. Get this book, borrow it, buy it, just get it somehow, and read it. One thing I can assure you is that you will not be disappointed. Hate it or love it, you are going to have a lot of feelings while reading about Agassi?s life'.

Agassi's life's only beginning! Expect an award-winning writer!

Agassi's self-destructive because he's also self-creative. You need to kill yourself for a different self to be born.

But he'll soon learn to stop. He'll get tired of it. Plus his adventures affects a lot of people.

texastennis,

If your comment about Agassi's life not being a tragedy was directed at me, then let me make myself clear. I did NOT say that Agassi's entire life was a tragedy. I would have to be quite the fool to be unaware of the riches and rewards that Agassi has enjoyed. He is happily married with a family and seems to have put his troubles behind him. He is extremely fortunate not to have become addicted to crystal meth. I don't see his life as tragic in the least.

My comment was directed specifically at his childhood and upbringing. No one should have to endure the kind of abuse Agassi suffered at the hands of his father. It obviously left terrible scars. Because his father pushed him so cruelly, he was unable to fully enjoy his considerable achievements. The tragedy to which I referred was the simple fact that Agassi's father took away the joy and happiness from playing tennis and doing it so well. I realize that Agassi has now come to a place where he can embrace his considerable achievements in the sport of tennis.

Nothing anyone says here will ever make me believe that this kind of soul baring book is a good thing. I despise the disrespect for privacy that has become so prevalent today. There was a time when we didn't need to know about the private foibles of our public figures, movie stars, singers and athletes. We could appreciate their accomplishments without having to know every sordid detail of their private lives. These wretched public confessionals on tv talk shows are an appalling spectacle.

"Your question however seems highly suspicious of the ATP - if you're so skeptical of the ATP, it's the ATP who should be castigated and not Agassi accused of bringing the ATP into disrepute by telling about his test."

Thank you for proving my point precisely, texastennis. I AM skeptical of the 1997 ATP now. Because I have firm proof that they were willing to sweep away something that was a very serious problem with the flimsiest of excuses. Who is to say how many more times it happened with other stars?

The fact of the matter is that the revelation of The Test sheds unflattering light on the ATP almost exclusively. After all, what decent person blames an emotionally unstable drug user for making bad decisions? We EXPECT them to make bad decisions. The ATP, however, is to blame on all sorts of levels, not the least of which is their seeming willingness to allow Agassi to dabble with one of the most dangerous illegal drugs in the world and not intervene. So you tell me? Was it Andre's secret to tell? Maybe. But it was also the ATPs secret - one I'm certain they thought was safe. As I've said before, this kind of soul baring - the kind that hurts others worse than the person divulging the secrets - is distasteful to me. And it always will be.

If that makes me naive, so be it.

Maxi - "He has received masses of support from many people and after his recent interview on jonathan ross, he courted more supporters and the reviews were brilliant." Good God -did you actually watch the Jonathan Ross interview??? I have it on tape and watched again to make sure. Besides the 1st zing where Ross refers to his drug use (back stage), the entire sitdown chat was a lovefest, NOT an interview. I just do not see your perspective here.

Cheryl - "Thank you for proving my point precisely, texastennis. I AM skeptical of the 1997 ATP now. Because I have firm proof that they were willing to sweep away something that was a very serious problem with the flimsiest of excuses. Who is to say how many more times it happened with other stars?" First of all, that is NOT what you said - you weighed in that Andre had broken the drug reporting rules ala 1997 & should be centured. But you know what, even if you now claim that your irk was aimed at the 1997 ATP, who gives a crap. That was the world then - can you even remember it? It was what it was so let it be and move on Cheryl. God knows what I was doing in 1997....

Actually, I DID mean the ATP. Agassi isn't a player any more - there's nothing they can about him even if he did deserve censure.

I have a question...did Agassi bring up any of the Pancho Gonzales/Rita controversy in the book? That whole drama would seem to me me to have been very poisonous to a fragile teenager.

"The fact of the matter is that the revelation of The Test sheds unflattering light on the ATP almost exclusively."

I don't even agree with this as the procedures they had then were followed. But if that is the case, why bash Agassi for revealing the shortcomings of the organization? Still can't make sense of that. Organizations that are inept should be allowed to keep their ineptness a secret?
Plus willing to accept the flimsiest for excuses - that seems to prevail today alas.... I am going to be cheering the first player who gets caught for a positive test and just says "oh yes that's right" instead of coming up with these endless excuses.

tenisbebe, it was NOT a lovefest at all. It is obvious that millions of people out there enjoy agassi, love what he has achieved, and have put the whole meth thing into perspective, unlike some. Agassi was applauded when he came onto stage, he seemed surprised and a little taken aback to me, i guess he must have thought that there would have been people who turned against him, who knows, id have to ask him to find out.secondly, jonathan ross was obviously a fan, else why have him on his show?so thats a no brainer.thirdly,yes. I watched the interview many times and I thought that agassi was honest,candid,almost sheepish in some places, but summed it well by saying that the reference to meth was 2 paragraphs of the WHOLE BOOK, so try and put things into perspective please. you dont have to see my perspective tenisbebe,like i dont have to see yours,but i feel his life is so much more than the two paragraphs you decide to concentrate on.