Wimbledon awoke from its spring slumber on Tuesday, trying to blow away the inconvenient cloud of corruption that nearly everyone else in tennis seems to find more threatening, but fell short of a convincing response.
There can be no doubt the game’s image is under intense scrutiny: Rafael Nadal, with 14 slams to his name, on Monday issued a defamation writ against a former French sports minister for alleging he had doped in 2012, and on Tuesday wrote a letter to the International Tennis Federation asking for all of his drugs test results to be made public; the five-times slam champion Maria Sharapova waits nervously for a final judgment on her failed drugs test; and the tennis integrity unit announced that 48 matches this year have come to notice for suspicious betting patterns.
Yet while unseasonal snow flurries flicked at the grass outside, the All England Club chairman, Philip Brook, sought to deny the perception that the game’s authorities are complacent in responding to these problems. “It’s hard to say it hasn’t been hurt,” he said of the sport’s image since reheated claims of gambling and drugs use surfaced at the Australian Open in January.
He pointed out that the club was working closely as one of seven partners – along with the Association of Tennis Professionals, the Women’s Tennis Association, the International Tennis Federation and the other three majors – to crack down on corruption. “Wimbledon’s existing commitment to integrity in tennis and at the championships will be further reinforced with investment in a number of additional measures,” he said.
These would include “stricter accreditation procedures, additional data provision, monitoring and analysis, increased education and support for players and officials, and increased anti-doping measures”.
However, the independent review set up in January as a response to the Australian Open furore will not hand down its judgment until the end of the year. And Brook’s assertion that the TIU’s revelation of more dubious gambling scams is a very small percentage of all those played around the world is, while undeniably true, not altogether comforting.
The chief executive, Richard Lewis, said Wimbledon would provide whatever funds were necessary for the TIU to efficiently monitor the championships in June. But he would not specify an amount, beyond describing the contribution as “whatever it takes”. He added: “We just think that, whether it’s integrity issues or anti-doping issues, we feel it’s right that Wimbledon should enhance what is out there.
“We have a lot of confidence in the anti-doping programme and it would be wrong to go into details about what we are investing in.” Nor would Lewis be specific about where the club’s involvement in testing would begin. “I would imagine it is when the player’s come on site,” he said. It is this sort of stonewalling – perhaps a legacy of years of protecting the club’s privacy and image – that leaves space for wondering.
“It would be a great shame,” Brook also said of the possibility of Sharapova being unable to compete at the championships. “[She is a] former champion here at Wimbledon, very popular with the crowds. [But] we need to let due process take its course.”
That is undeniably true and Sharapova, the most high-profile player of the modern era to fail a test for performance-enhancing substances, must be allowed to put her case.
In other business, the club announced prize money at Wimbledon this year will rise 5% to £28.1m, the men’s singles winner getting a 6.4% pay rise to a neatly rounded £2m.
