The WTA Tour’s 16th ranked player and 2009 U.S. Open semi-finalist, Yanina Wickmayer from Belgium, has successfully appealed against the ban imposed on her for missing three drug tests in eighteen months under the World Anti-Doping Agency’s controversial “whereabouts clause”.
Wickmayer and fellow countryman, Xavier Malisse, a former Wimbledon semi-finalist, were suspended by a Belgian court Nov. 5, for breaking World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) rules by failing to report their whereabouts for drug testing three times. The International Tennis Federation imposed the bans worldwide.
The 20-year-old Wickmayer claims she was not properly informed of the online reporting requirements for drug-testing that led to her ban. The “whereabouts” rule is a cornerstone of WADA’s policies. It requires elite athletes to make themselves available for out-of-competition testing for one hour a day, 365 days a year. Under the rules, athletes must give three months notice of where and when they can be located for testing. The information is registered online and can be updated by e-mail or text message.
Shortly after the ruling, Wickmayer was offered a wild card to the ASB Classic. The Jan. 4-9 tournament in New Zealand serves as a tuneup for the Australian Open, the year’s first Grand Slam event. Even though the entries for next month’s Australian Open have been closed, a wild-card berth is still a possibility for Wickmayer.
The Belgian Court’s order could create further problems for World Anti-Doping Agency. Many players have been critical of the whereabouts clause, including Rafael Nadal and the Indian cricket team, which refused outright to sign on. If, like in this case, players miss the drug tests or cannot be found where they said they would be, and still escape punishment, then perhaps there is no point to the whereabouts clause.
I can understand the need for drug testing, but to be available 365 days a year seems a little too much. Plans change. Who knows where they are going to be three months ahead of time. If a friend invites you to their house in a neighboring city, or grandma is suddenly taken to an out-of-town hospital, who is going to remember to let the WADA know? Sure, they make it easy to update the information online, or by email or text messaging. But who would remember to do that every time you left town? If you have a cell phone and can be reached, what difference does it make where you and the cell phone happen to be? And you thought it was bad when your mom and dad wanted to know where you were going when you left the house!
