Examining Kendrick's tricky doping suspension, WTA depth, more mail

While tipping a cap to Paul and Bruce Flory...

I can't believe you defended Robert Kendrick. An athlete who makes his money playing tennis knows that anything in his body that shouldn't be there could keep him from earning a living. This guy is getting on a plane and thinks, "Well, I might get jetlag, so I think I'll pop a pill that I know nothing about." REALLY?? I can think of more likely scenarios. But come on. You can't bend the rules because the alleged perp comes up with a lame excuse.
-- Steven Perry, Santa Rosa, Calif.

• For those who missed it, American veteran Kendrick was suspended for a doping violation last week. The banned substance in question, methylhexaneamine, a stimulant, was contained in an anti-jetlag capsule. Kendrick denied any intent to enhance his performance as a result of taking this substance. And, not insignificantly, the ITF does not dispute this. Nevertheless, he was suspended for a year and is currently appealing. (Read the decision here.)

To Steven's point, I am not "defending" Kendrick. There is a strict liability standard here. If the banned substance is in your system, you're on the hook. Those are the rules, however draconian they may be. At a minimum, Kendrick was incredibly careless. Given the harshness of the code, why even gamble with a capsule? If I'm told that running a red light will result in a 90-day jail sentence, I may think it's a ludicrous punishment, grossly unfair, way out of proportion with the severity of the infraction. But until the rule is changed, I'm going to be damn sure not to cross the intersection when the light is yellow.

Here's the product in question. You really want to roll the dice here?

But here's where I defend -- or at least sympathize strongly -- with Kendrick. The whole purpose of anti-doping is to ensure a level playing field and punish the cheaters. Not only does Kendrick assert that he was not trying to enhance performance; that doesn't even appear to be in dispute. (Nor was it for Martina Hingis, Graydon Oliver, Richard Gasquet and many others who, as Hingis memorably put it, were caught in the anti-doping "machinery.") Yet there is no real distinction here. Wayne Odesnik gets caught with multiple vials of human growth hormone -- the epitome of performance enhancement -- and is suspended for one year. Kendrick sloppily takes a jetlag capsule and gets the same punishment. (Which at his age of 31, is the equivalent of forced retirement.) That, simply, flies in the face of both reason and fairness.

This anti-doping is a tricky business. A policy filled with loopholes and exceptions (and therapeutic use exemptions, which have become farcical by the way) lacks credibility. But a policy that can't/won't distinguish between the cheating and sloppiness, essentially treating all failed tests the same, lacks credibility, too. Kendrick will now take his case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, for an expedited appeal, seeking some mercy. We'll follow this closely.

Serena Williams winning the Stanford title only shows the lack of depth and talent in WTA, notwithstanding your usual Serena Serenade.
-- Sri Sambamurthy, Short Hills, N.J.

• I like "Serena Serenade." I defy you to watch Serena's matches at Stanford and then tell me the storyline is the weakness of the WTA field, not the strength of one player competing at an unmatched level. Serena served well, returned well, moved pretty well, competed well. Her winners-to-errors ratio was as high as 8:1 in some sets. Give her some credit.

Sri wasn't the only one sounding this theme. Some of you went so far as to suggest that's Serena's play last week was, perversely, an indictment, because it shows how much she would have achieved if she had been committed.

I get the objections to Serena. You might take issue with her level of professionalism. You might question whether she has surrounded herself with the best people, particularly on the PR side. You might wish she hadn't threatened to choke an official with tennis balls in the most obscene terms possible. You might wish she reported injuries more transparently, that she didn't take big money to play World TeamTennis and then -- as several of you reported -- spend most of the time on the bench, staring at her phone. But the bottom line is that she is an athlete and her job is to win. That being the case, I'll gladly take her results and competitive will over the shaky play and nerves of more decorous colleagues.

Speaking of gamesmanship, when was the last time Roger Federer lost (or was losing) a match and called for a trainer during the match?
-- Mark Llacuna, San Jose, Calif.

• Here's another point. I was speaking with a golf writer recently about Tiger Woods' physical breakdown. The writer asked, "How did Federer deal with his injuries?"

Me: "What injuries?"

Writer: "I just assumed, being a top athlete for so long, there was a point when his body let him down and he had to miss a chunk of the season."

Me: "That holds true for just about every player, male or female. Save one. Federer."

We don't talk about this much, but here's another big point in Federer's favor, as if he needs more. Name an elite athlete who's been so reliably healthy. OK, some of this is good genes. Some of this is a low-impact style that comes from playing -- like Sandburg's Chicago Fog! -- on little cat feet. Some of this is simply luck. But I think there's a huge element of professionalism here, too.

Which will disappear first: a male tennis player under 6 feet ranked in the top 100, or the one-handed backhand?
-- Henry, McLean, Va.

• Nice question. Both are slowly perishing. A few years ago it seemed like the trend had reversed a bit. Led by Lleyton Hewitt -- but also including Juan Carlos Ferrero, Sebastien Grosjean, Guillermo Coria and Arnaud Clement -- the little guys had a nice surge earlier in this millennium. But now we're back to what Mary Carillo might call Big Dude Tennis. Milos Raonic, Bernard Tomic, Ernests Gulbis, Grigor Dimitrov (who's played like the contents of the Hudson River since Wimbledon) all have height.

Meanwhile, as long as Federer was atop the charts, the one-handed backhand seemed to be doing just fine. But now that, too, has come under fire. Martina Navratilova recently predicted that if Federer had used a two-hander, he would have multiple French Open titles by now.

If there's an elephant in the room, introduce it. We can sugarcoat it all we want, but the reason Federer doesn't want to watch Grand Slam finals he isn't in is because he's too darn proud to watch a match he could've/should've been a part of. But this is precisely why he is who he is -- you don't become a great champion if you don't have some sort of jealous desire to be a part of a Grand Slam final in which your rivals are playing without you.
-- Robert B., Melbourne, Fla.

• We would sooner mix a metaphor than sugarcoat an elephant in the room! I think Robert nailed it. Federer is not a fan eager to see who will win. He is not even a player ranked No. 50 who may have a passing curiosity. He's the odd man out of this three-man rivalry that includes Novak Djokovic and Rafael Nadal. It would almost be weird if he DID watch. I also don't think this is unique to Federer. I'm guessing Serena did not pull up a chair and watch the Maria Sharapova-Petra Kvitova Wimbledon final either. For that matter, I doubt Kobe Bryant watched the 2011 NBA Finals, nor did Tiger Woods watch the last round of the British Open.