I know it has been a few months since the shit hit the fan, but I feel I still need to write about Andre Agassi's controversial autobiography. Named Open, a somewhat obvious pun, the book is a weighty tome in which he confesses, among other things, that: a) he hated tennis; b) he wore a toupee for some matches; c) he stopped wearing underwear in court after 1999; d) it really pissed him off when opponents thanked God during or after a match; and e) he used crystal meth for a stretch back in 1997, when his marriage with Brooke Shields fell through and his career hit a solid rock bottom. These admissions are pretty well-known now, but, should the need arise, here and here are links to some of the pieces ESPN.com published about this story.
I haven't actually held a copy of the book yet, but it has the looks of a must-read. In fact, I'll download it to my Kindle as soon as I buy one (aaaany day now). Whether it is by force of Agassi's personality, easily one of the most beloved and charismatic people to ever grab a tennis racket, or by the depth of his confessions, the book just cannot be ignored, not even by those who don't really care about sports. As far as biographies go, this one has - or at least it promises - the entire package: lots of human drama, a big juicy scandal and firsthand celebrity gossip. Plus, that bit about the toupee looks like it came straight off a Seinfeld episode (as does his ban on underwear, for that matter), so for entertainment value alone it's worth a look.
Nevertheless, as amusing as the little anecdotes might be, the most interesting part of Agassi's admissions has to be the crystal meth experience. Not so much the actual drug use, but the stir caused by a former professional tennis player, a legend, confessing to use crystal meth while on the Tour. When the first reports about the book were published, people - as usual - immediately broke into two opposite camps: they were either praising Agassi for coming clean, a true example to other athletes all around; or they were calling him a cheater and a disgrace to the sport.
Even though I always liked him, my first thought was that Agassi was a bit of an asshole to blow the whistle like that, because he wasn't the only one involved. He got caught in a drug test and, to save his own butt, made up a story about unwittingly taking crystal meth. Then, using his enormous prestige, he convinced the ATP to be lenient and keep matters private. Basically, he asked for - and received - special superstar treatment. So when he decided, a few years later, to write a tell-all book, he was pretty much throwing in the fire the very same people who bent - and perhaps broke - the rules for him. Whether it was due to an irresistible urge to come clean or just to make a quick buck is inconsequential: that was a dick move, period. Not that the ATP people were right to cover for him, nor that they didn't have their own agenda there (Agassi on drugs would be bad press for the sport), but you don't ask someone for special treatment and then expose them like that. You just don't.
However, much to my surprise, that didn't seem to bother anybody else. In fact, I don't recall reading anything about how classless this particular way of confessing your sins was. But then again, maybe people were too busy being outraged by the fact that he was a cheater. Oh, the humanity! A cheater! Sergi Bruguera, the two-time Roland Garros champion who lost the 1996 Olympic final to Agassi, was suddenly demanding the gold medal, claiming it rightfully belonged to him. Marat Safin, formerly a top-ranked player in the world, suggested that Agassi should give back all the titles and money he won while on drugs. And, like them, a legion of journalists, athletes and anonymous people came forth to profess their indignation.
Although I don't necessarily agree with the doping rules currently in place, I understand certain substances are forbidden and that, if an athlete is caught using them, they could face sanctions - usually some sort of probation or suspension. Those are the rules of the game and everybody has to abide by them, whether they like it or not. So Agassi probably should have been suspended by the ATP, which he wasn't. Right. And the way he handled things later on was not exactly gentlemanlike, so 0-for-2 for Andre there. Still, to call the man a cheater is a bit of a stretch.
I know (actually, I didn't know, but Wikipedia told me so) that methamphetamines are substances that increase one's alertness and energy, so they could be used by an athlete looking for a boost, who wants to train and/or play harder. Thus, they are considered a PED - the infamous performance enhancing drugs - and are a no-no for athletes. Agassi, however, wasn't using it to gain an unfair advantage over his opponents. Crystal meth is also a highly addictive and harmful substance and Agassi was down in the dumps, using it as a recreational drug. So, if anything, to him, it was a performance impairing drug.
But rules are rules, right? In addition, it doesn't matter that he was not looking for a competitive edge, all professional athletes must cope with tremendous pressure. It's in the job description. In fact, that mental strength is what separates the wannabes from the great ones, it is perhaps even more important than pure athletic prowess. So, if Agassi resorted to illegal drugs because he couldn't keep his shit together and was unable to handle the mental aspect of being a professional athlete, he was cheating. Other players have to deal with similar problems - overbearing stage parents, annoying spouses, sleazy agents, you name it - and they have to stay away from these substances, so, in a way, it did give Agassi an edge. And, although I still wouldn't crucify the man for using recreational drugs, nor call him a cheater because of that, I cannot argue against that sort of reasoning.
Nevertheless, as airtight as that approach might seem, it does not mean that the critics are right to ask for his head. Agassi said he used crystal meth in 1997, when his self-loathing reached an all-time high, and dropped the habit soon after. He played a grand total of 24 matches that year and won zero titles, dropping to 141st in the ATP rankings. Some doping, huh? So, even if the he forfeits all his tainted matches and returns his earnings and titles from that period, as Safin suggested, he would keep all of his hardware and probably send the ATP a check for 47 dollars and change. As for Bruguera, their Olympic clash took place an entire year before the drug habit started, so the Spaniard should probably quit whining. People don't really like sore losers.
Looking at his subsequent results, it becomes clear that the so-called doping didn't do him much good. In 1998, after he quit the drug, he soared back to number 6 in the world, the fastest ever ascent to the top-10, which remains a record today. In other words: he lost when he was using it and went right back to winning after he quit it. Again, so much for performance enhancing.
This chain of events is also why I don't even question his version: not the dates, nor the alleged motives for using drugs or any of his personal problems. Everything fits, it makes perfect sense when combined with the information that was already available. Moreover, I don't think he would start this mess, out of the blue as he did, just to tell another lie. So, as far as I can tell, the man is not a cheater, though I wouldn't praise him for his honesty either - as I said, the way he handled things was classless.
In the end, what is left is a flawed human being - a self-loathing individual who hated the sport he played for a living, had issues with his father and a marriage from hell; someone who went through a rough patch and made some bad decisions, most of which only really hurt himself. And yet, oddly enough, in spite of all his problems and shortcomings, he was (and still is) seen as an example to be followed by the rest of us, a role model. People wanted to emulate him and, when they discovered he wasn't a deity at all, they were deeply disappointed.
Tales about great heroes dazzle us since humankind first started drawing funny pictures on cave walls, so maybe we can't help it. And that is the real irony: this controversy only exists because the man is an icon, and he's an icon only because he could handle a tennis racket better than nearly anyone alive. One skill - hitting a little yellow ball - it's all it took, people didn't even care about the rest. And now, the same irrational passion that made him relevant in the first place is the one thing that is keeping people from looking at his career objectively and from judging it solely based on his results on the court. Instead, he is measured against people's preconceived notions of how idols should behave, in all aspects of life - a contest no human being could ever win.
As for me, I still like Agassi, perhaps even more now that he is human. It takes some balls (balls which had no additional support, mind you) to admit wearing a wig, even if a decade after the fact. Plus, he's a man who went to hell and back (and married Steffi Graf and made millions in the process), so I give him some extra points for that. But I guess I admire him the most for his tirade against Michael Chang (something I would really like to say to quite a number of athletes out there nowadays):
"He thanks God -- credits God -- for the win, which offends me. That God should take sides in a tennis match, that God should side against me, that God should be in Chang's box, feels ludicrous and insulting. I beat [him] and savor every blasphemous stroke."
Amen, brother. You had me at blasphemous.
No comments:
Post a Comment