Answers below.

Anyway, lots of questions this week, particularly about that Pittsburgh Penguins fan, Korda (call it a freebie). So let's get to the 'bag ...

You seem to have missed the point about Petr Korda and the steroids. I, too, would not think from looking at the guy that he had taken steroids, but it seems that the "independent panel" appointed to look into the matter has judged that he did indeed take them and Korda does not appear to dispute this. The issue revolves around whether he "knowingly" took them, which he denies. If this is true, should he be banned (as would be the case in other sports) or not?
—Diana Elle, Lagoa, Portugal

My remark last week was strictly facetious. Absent all the facts, I'm reluctant to rush to judgment; but given what we know, Korda's reinstatement seems patently absurd. For years, tennis has been criticized for a drug policy that lacks teeth. A top player is finally nabbed for steroids, yet the authorities fail to suspend him because he didn't know how the drugs the entered his system. They were also swayed by the testimony of character witnesses Boris Becker and Tony Pickard. Huh? One would like to believe Korda is telling the truth. But if we don't hold athletes accountable for their own bodies --particularly a 31-year-old athlete who has been a pro for 14 years -- why have a drug policy in the first place?

A quick tangential screed: Korda isn't the first tennis player to receive laughably lenient treatment for a drug-related offense. Last year Samantha Reeves , then a 19-year-old American on the WTA Tour, failed a drug test but escaped without significant sanction when she, too, claimed ignorance. The logic given was that Reeves was somehow punished enough by the entire ordeal and that further penalty would wreak havoc on her young, impressionable psyche. Seems to me if we're permitting players to turn pro as teenagers, we ought to refrain from allusions to callow youth when they fail drug tests.

I was surprised how quickly many players (Richard Krajicek, Jonas Bjorkman) have called for a suspension of Petr Korda. Is Korda actually disliked on the tour, or is this purely a question of ethics? I think he might have taken it -- look at his results after Wimbledon.
—Jay Chandra, Washington, D.C.

I think the players' stance against Korda stems not from any personal animus but rather from practical reasons. In an individual sport like tennis, athletes are profoundly and directly affected when their opponents procure an unfair advantage. Given how much prize money is on the line with every match, you can see why the players are so repulsed by the mere possibility that the opponent on the other side of the net has an artificial edge.

Would you say that Mats Wilander is the most underrated No. 1 in the sport, despite winning three Grand Slams in one year as well as winning Slams on all three surfaces (a feat only Jimmy Connors accomplished)?
—Jason Edwards, New York City

You're right. Wilander's feat in 1988 certainly compares favorably, Grand Slam-wise, to any year Sampras, for instance, has had. So why hasn't Wilander gotten his due? He spent the next three years in a vague, burnout-induced semi-retirement. He was alleged to have tested positive for drugs, and not the performancing-enhancing kind, either. And he never regained his footing on the tour before making like an old soldier and fading away in his 30s.

John McEnroe talks a lot about the need to bring back wooden racquets because he says the racquets now are too powerful. What do you think?
—Eric Patton, Cincinnati

It's a good idea, but I think we've passed the point of no return -- excuse the pun -- regarding technology. First, tennis is stubbornly averse to change of any sort. Permitting fans in the upper reaches of stadia to whisper during points is considered a cultural sea change. Also, the game is entirely too beholden to powerful equipment manufacturers to demand a return to cheapo wooden rackets.

You were uncomfortable with calling Boris Becker an underachiever, so who, in your opinion, are the best examples of underachievers in recent years?
—Jason Rainey, Carrollton, Texas

Diego Nargiso , an Italian player, won the Wimbledon junior singles title in 1987 but has never cracked the top 50; Richard Krajicek has won Wimbledon as well as more than $8 million in career prize money, but is entirely too talented to have played in but one Grand Slam final; similarly, Yevgeny Kafelnikov has all the shots yet his ranking has gone from No. 3 in 1996, to No. 5 in 1997, to No. 11 last year. Also, another Russian, Andrei Medvedev , has battled some injuries but was a top 10 player as a teenager and finished last year with a match record of 24-24 and a ranking outside the top 50.

Please answer three questions. First, what part of Venus Williams' game needs the most improvement? Second, what does she need to do to win a Grand Slam tournament and/or become a No. 1 player of the caliber of Steffi Graf or Monica Seles at her peak form? Third, how do I get a job involving professional tennis?
—Dana Lowe, Hartsdale, N.Y.

1. I think Venus needs to work on overall consistency, mixing up her shots a bit more and slicing her backhand to change the tempo of points. That said, she made immense strides last year and I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if she's hugging a stuffed koala bear on the winner's podium in Melbourne.

2. I don't think Venus will ever emulate Graf and win twentysomething career Slams. But, yes, she has champion potential.

3. The same way you get to Carnegie Hall. (And it doesn't hurt to make like Venus and cultivate a 125 mph. serve.) If you're referring to an administrative job, why not write to the United States Tennis Association, 70 W. Red Oak Lane, White Plains, NY 10604.

Can you give any insight on the downslide of Jim Courier? It seems as though he still wants to play -- he took a wild card in Auckland before the Australian -- but he can't seem to win matches anymore. Why has he slid down the rankings while his peers (Sampras, Agassi, Ivanisevic, even the semi-retired Becker) are still contending for titles?
—John Cunnif, Hartford

I think I've addressed this before, but in a nutshell, players got hip to Courier's game -- his service motion, his tentative volleying, the fact that his inside-out strokes are much better than his shotmaking on the run -- and he stubbornly refused to change tactics. He's still a gritty player capable of some solid tennis -- and, provided Agassi and Sampras are AWOL, ought to be considered for a U.S. Davis Cup team slot -- but don't look for him to return to the top 20.

With all due respect to your rather non-specific answer to the long-awaited question posed by Lisa Davis of Los Angeles, I, as a truculent Becker fan, would like to know what place indeed would a man who has the heart, the soul, the mind and the passion of Boris Becker have in the hallowed tennis fraternity today? Or is there some doubt in the mind of a "wandering critic" about Becker's astonishingly sterling achievement of winning Wimbledon twice at the ages of 17 and 18 and then piling up a remarkable record in Wimbledon finals appearances?
—Sanjeet, Bombay, India

Uh, I wholeheartedly agree with whatever point it is you're trying to make.

Which will happen first for Anna Kournikova: her first tournament victory or marriage? And if marriage comes first, will she be a caring spouse?
—Rick Roeder, Encinitas, Calif.

That's a tough one. I suppose it depends how far the Detroit Red Wings go in the NHL playoffs this spring. I'll say this, though: I don't quite see her as hausfraü material.

Trivia answers: 1-J, 2-A, 3-E, 4-C, 5-H, 6-G, 7-D, 8-F, 9-B, 10-I

Send a question to Jon Wertheim, and check back the beginning of each week to read more of his answers.

 

Related information
Stories
Previous Tennis Mailbags
Multimedia
Click here for the latest audio and video
Search our site	Watch CNN/SI 24 hours a day
	Sports Illustrated and CNN have combined to form a 24 hour sports news and information channel. To receive CNN/SI at your home call 1-888-53-CNNSI.