Speaker 1: One two one two one two okay one two one
Speaker 1: two one too. Oh you were great. Okay, Hi everybody,
Speaker 1: and welcome to the Tennis the Tennis. Welcome to the tennis.
Speaker 2: Welcome to the Tennis. Hi.
Speaker 1: Everyone, Welcome to the Renee Subs Tennis Podcast. I am
Speaker 1: here with my great friend Andrea Pekovic is back. We
Speaker 1: are back in New York.
Speaker 2: We're back in the city.
Speaker 1: We're back in the city. It's freezing. It's awful weather.
Speaker 2: You know, it feels like that's what I saw on
Speaker 2: the weather app. I didn't think it was that bad,
Speaker 2: but it feels like minus sixteen yea.
Speaker 1: They said it's whatever, thirty degrees toda or something they said,
Speaker 1: but it feels like and I was like, no, no,
Speaker 1: don't start with that because that's some horse shit. Anyway,
Speaker 1: I just got back from Australia a couple of days ago.
Speaker 1: You just got in from la you were working for
Speaker 1: Tennis Channel over there. So we're going to get into
Speaker 1: a lot of stuff today. We started talking before the
Speaker 1: part and we're like, oh my god, We've got a
Speaker 1: lot to talk about today. So Petco, it's time. Let's
Speaker 1: start off by talking about, of course, the big news
Speaker 1: of this last few days is Yanick sinner. You are
Speaker 1: well versed in this situation. You had to talk about
Speaker 1: it quite a bit on Tennis Channel, but give me
Speaker 1: your thoughts on the situation.
Speaker 2: So I don't know if I said it on the podcast,
Speaker 2: because I don't remember if I was if we talked
Speaker 2: about it, but I said it somewhere. So when I
Speaker 2: was in turn for the ATP final, I spoke to
Speaker 2: a few Italian journalists. They told me, did I tell
Speaker 2: you this? They told me that Yanick will be suspended
Speaker 2: between Australian Open and French Open. And I thought like,
Speaker 2: how do they know this? Because the cast appeal hearing
Speaker 2: was set up for April nineteenth, I think or April sixteenth,
Speaker 2: and they said to me that they heard there was
Speaker 2: a meeting and he's going to be suspended between Australia
Speaker 2: and the French Open. And I thought they were, you know,
Speaker 2: talking out of the ass whatever. But now in this
Speaker 2: news hit, I was simultaneously shocked because we all waited
Speaker 2: for the hearing with the cast, and then I remember
Speaker 2: this thing that they had told me during Turin and
Speaker 2: I was like, oh, they knew, that's exactly what happened.
Speaker 2: He got banned after the Austrian opened and he's supposedly
Speaker 2: going to return in Rome. That's how that's what the
Speaker 2: band is. So there was rumblings about it. I read
Speaker 2: the documents, I read the statement from Vada. I read
Speaker 2: his statement Vada. That was very German, and the gist
Speaker 2: of it is, in my opinion, this is a political decision.
Speaker 2: They are both trying to save face in a sense
Speaker 2: that they in the statement clearly say they do not
Speaker 2: believe he's cheated. They do not believe he had any
Speaker 2: substance in his body that was performance enhancing, and they
Speaker 2: believe his story.
Speaker 1: However, Okay, wait a second, I want you to say
Speaker 1: that again, so people at home understand this. Okay, because
Speaker 1: a lot of people have not read the actual findings,
Speaker 1: they have not read what Lada has said. So repeat
Speaker 1: that again so people can hear what you just said.
Speaker 2: Yes, so what the Itia came up with. This is
Speaker 2: the first organization who looked at Janick Sinner's case. And
Speaker 2: just a reminder, they looked at this case without knowing
Speaker 2: that it's about Youick Sinner. Yes, they have anonymous case
Speaker 2: studies of the samples that he's given and of his explanation,
Speaker 2: but there are no names involved. So the scientists who
Speaker 2: decide on this matter, it's three different guys or girls,
Speaker 2: three different people. They decide on this matter without knowing
Speaker 2: who the player was. Who the player was. That's very
Speaker 2: important because people keep yelling preferential treatment, but it's not
Speaker 2: the case in the moment when they decide whether they
Speaker 2: believe the story of the player or not, they don't
Speaker 2: know who they are talking about. So this is what
Speaker 2: the ITIA found. The first organization, WADA appealed because they
Speaker 2: had an issue with the no fault ruling, right, because
Speaker 2: if you have that's why he didn't get any suspension
Speaker 2: because they said he was at no fault because he
Speaker 2: didn't take a substance. It was a team member, right.
Speaker 2: If you compare this to somebody like IgA Sciontek, she
Speaker 2: was at little fault, but she still took the medication.
Speaker 2: It was melatonin, it was prescribed by a doctor. That
Speaker 2: shouldn't have happened, so it wasn't technically her fault, but
Speaker 2: she ingested it through her mouth into her body. That's
Speaker 2: why she got that one month. That's the difference, right.
Speaker 2: So I'm just trying to make it very clear. I
Speaker 2: know we talked about this.
Speaker 1: No, I love that you're doing this, but I.
Speaker 2: Think it's important that people remember these things. So Wada
Speaker 2: basically goes out and says, we think, no, we believe.
Speaker 2: We looked at all the documents and we believe that
Speaker 2: he was not using performance enhancing drugs. We believe he
Speaker 2: didn't cheat.
Speaker 1: We believe the scientists and what the scientist said before
Speaker 1: they knew it was a number one player in the world, correct, right.
Speaker 2: The problem for them is in their statutes it says
Speaker 2: that the player is also responsible for a team, because
Speaker 2: the problem for them will be in the future. If
Speaker 2: they rule no fault for Janick from now on, every
Speaker 2: single player or athlete who gets banned, who gets a
Speaker 2: substance in their body, they can just say it wasn't me,
Speaker 2: my doctor gave it to me, It wasn't me, my
Speaker 2: physio gave it to me. It wasn't me, my coach
Speaker 2: gave it to me. Right, So that's WADA's problem. That's
Speaker 2: why they can't say no fault, no negligence, just go ahead,
Speaker 2: no band. So that's why for them it was important
Speaker 2: to get a ban. The problem now is if they say,
Speaker 2: we don't believe he's cheated. The smallest band they can
Speaker 2: give him is one year, but they ban him for
Speaker 2: one year. What are we doing here? You can't simultaneously
Speaker 2: in your name it says WADA. It's the World Anti
Speaker 2: Doping Agency. So you're saying you're anti doping agency. You
Speaker 2: believe he didn't dope, but yet we are banning him
Speaker 2: for one year. This is a problem for WADA. This
Speaker 2: is losing that, they are losing their credibility. But simultaneously,
Speaker 2: if they rule no fault and give him no ban,
Speaker 2: now every single player from henceforth will go and say, well,
Speaker 2: it wasn't me, I didn't take it. My coach gave
Speaker 2: it to me, right, So they needed a compromise. That's
Speaker 2: what I mean by this is a political decision. It
Speaker 2: was important for WADA to get something, and for Janik
Speaker 2: it's better to it's better to take the three month
Speaker 2: band between Austia and Open and French Open, rather than
Speaker 2: maybe not be able to prove that it was in
Speaker 2: his fault in front of cast the process going on forever.
Speaker 2: And then the smallest band he can get is still
Speaker 2: a year, so you would lose a full year. So
Speaker 2: this is a political decision. And like in a political decision,
Speaker 2: one party wants one thing, another party wants another thing,
Speaker 2: a compromise is found and nobody is happy. Yeah, this
Speaker 2: is exactly what happened.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and this is exactly why. I mean, that was
Speaker 1: such a great explanation. And I hope people listen to that.
Speaker 1: If they didn't understand it, fucking rewind and listen to
Speaker 1: it again. Okay, because the issue in all of this
Speaker 1: as well is when you get statements from certain players
Speaker 1: on Twitter, well, namely Nick Kirios, Stamma Vrinka, these types
Speaker 1: of comments that they're making. It's like, guys, when when
Speaker 1: someone makes a statement like why would he admit so
Speaker 1: wait a second, he's admitted he's taking the three month band,
Speaker 1: so he's admitted that he was at fault because of this,
Speaker 1: and that he admitted that he had it in his system.
Speaker 1: Why is he only getting this and why is he
Speaker 1: getting to choose this? It's not It's like when you
Speaker 1: get accused of murdering someone or committing manslaughter or whatever.
Speaker 1: They're like, Okay, here's the deal. If you know you
Speaker 1: haven't killed anyone, and then someone says to you, oh,
Speaker 1: but we have you know this and that and we're
Speaker 1: going to take take you here and we're going to
Speaker 1: put you through court, and we're gonna we've got some evidence,
Speaker 1: and you're like, what the fuck, I didn't do anything.
Speaker 1: It's kind of like it's like, why would you admit
Speaker 1: fault either, like because it's either three months or thirty years,
Speaker 1: you know, because that's what it would have been for
Speaker 1: someone like Sinner to take a one or two year
Speaker 1: break from tennis that is enormously bad for his tennis.
Speaker 1: Name one person that's had a drug suspension and come
Speaker 1: back and played well, not many, and so he's probably going,
Speaker 1: like you said, he's negotiating this deal because Wada needed
Speaker 1: a win here. Wada needed this win. They needed to
Speaker 1: be able to say, to have some integrity, to have
Speaker 1: some you know, semblance of power still to say we're
Speaker 1: still going to suspend you. My thing is this happened
Speaker 1: over a well, happened essentially a year ago, a year ago,
Speaker 1: and we are now suspending him for three months. It's
Speaker 1: so ridiculous. It looks so bad from Wada and everyone's like,
Speaker 1: you know, oh, you know, people come after me, he's
Speaker 1: a doper. And as it's like read what the itia
Speaker 1: what they came out with originally when they of course
Speaker 1: did not know it was Janick Sinner. Okay, listen to
Speaker 1: that again. They did not know who the player was,
Speaker 1: and those are the conclusions that they came up with.
Speaker 1: You cannot say, well, this player was given preferential treatment
Speaker 1: because he was number one in the world. It's not true.
Speaker 1: Now did he have the resources to be able to
Speaker 1: do it in a quick time? Absolutely? Did they know
Speaker 1: exactly where it came from, yes, but that's good for him,
Speaker 1: good for him. That's why when people start throwing around
Speaker 1: names like well, what about about Hallop, Well, Hallup took
Speaker 1: four or five months to figure out where it came from.
Speaker 1: What do you want to That is an obvious sign
Speaker 1: that she doesn't know where it came from, and so
Speaker 1: therefore they had to go in and do this investigation,
Speaker 1: and they had to announce it immediately because she couldn't
Speaker 1: come up with any feasible reason why it was in
Speaker 1: a system. So of course that's going to happen. So
Speaker 1: this is why everything is treated very differently. But in
Speaker 1: the end, this is a major problem for WADA period
Speaker 1: and they are ruining and I got a name, I've
Speaker 1: got a text, message from us.
Speaker 2: Sorry to interrupt you, but I think this will underline
Speaker 2: your point and make your point is that this is
Speaker 2: really important to say that both cases of Igoshiantek and
Speaker 2: Janik Sinna will have WADA change their rules from twenty
Speaker 2: twenty seven on these micro dozing incidents where they catch
Speaker 2: like what the they say, a grain of salt in
Speaker 2: a swimming Olympic swimming pool, they won't be falling into this,
Speaker 2: so they because of Jannick Sinner and Igasciantek, they are
Speaker 2: changing their rules. So clearly something was one wrong with
Speaker 2: the rules.
Speaker 1: Are they changing the rules to make it harder or no?
Speaker 2: Micro yes, So these micro doosing events what happened now
Speaker 2: with EGO, where you clearly see it's a contamination won't
Speaker 2: be ruled performance enhancing any longer because they weren't. You know,
Speaker 2: if you can, as these two cases could very quickly
Speaker 2: show what the contamination was and where it came from.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and again this is sort of like important because
Speaker 1: you know, I had a text message from a really
Speaker 1: good friend of mine who is a former swimmer. Olympic
Speaker 1: swimmer went to multiple multiple Olympic Games, one of our
Speaker 1: greatest swimmers ever and you know. One of the things
Speaker 1: that she text message me and was just like, what
Speaker 1: the hell is going on in tennis kind of thing?
Speaker 1: And you and I I've had similar conversations about that
Speaker 1: right now this morning. But she basically said, totally makes sense,
Speaker 1: but the injustices of the system still grates on me.
Speaker 1: This is what from her. There needs to be a
Speaker 1: massive overhaul of WADER and the global antidoping code. Less
Speaker 1: than one billionth of a gram is nothing, And she
Speaker 1: wrote that in all caps. I know that it might
Speaker 1: indicate microdosing, but I'd love to see the data supporting
Speaker 1: the catching of those microdosing cases versus the number of
Speaker 1: contamination cases. Its cause, you know, and see, this is
Speaker 1: what I'm saying. She says, Sinner is so lucky he
Speaker 1: could quickly point to it and.
Speaker 2: What it was.
Speaker 1: I do find it a little suspicious that they had
Speaker 1: enough evidence to appeal the case in less than an hour,
Speaker 1: although I think it was I would think it was
Speaker 1: a little bit longer than that, although I think they
Speaker 1: knew exactly where it came from straight away. Although one
Speaker 1: hundred percent agree with you, in no way did I
Speaker 1: think ant Yanik ever doped other athletes like Simona and Eger.
Speaker 1: I'm sure many of other lesser profile athletes are being
Speaker 1: caught out because they can't immediately pinpoint where the contamination.
Speaker 2: That's the problem.
Speaker 1: And that's what happened with Shana Jack, an Australian swimmer.
Speaker 1: The exact same thing happened to her. It's a classic
Speaker 1: case in Australia of contamination. Yes, and she said, these
Speaker 1: old these are her words, not mine, These old, stale
Speaker 1: males in power are damaging the sport by having policies
Speaker 1: like these. How many truly guilty people are are they
Speaker 1: catching versus how many innocent athletes careers and reputations are
Speaker 1: being destroyed. And that's the thing that is worrying to me.
Speaker 1: And if you read what Saberlenka said this week where
Speaker 1: she was like, I am so worried now that I
Speaker 1: don't take anything. I don't leave my water out for someone,
Speaker 1: I don't leave anything to chance anymore. Because I think
Speaker 1: that someone like Sablenka really also realizes that this could
Speaker 1: happen to her. Yeah, do you know what I mean?
Speaker 1: These microdosing little things where it to be contaminated this
Speaker 1: and everyone's like, oh, why are you taking stuff that's
Speaker 1: prescribed by doctor. Why an't you taking the WTA melatonin alls. Yes,
Speaker 1: all of that is sort of true, but there's also
Speaker 1: no guarantees that every single supplement you take is not tainted.
Speaker 1: And this is what could happen.
Speaker 2: Well, you saw it with IGAs melatonin. It was prescribed
Speaker 2: by a doctor from a source that she's been taking
Speaker 2: for years, years, and it never came up, and all
Speaker 2: of a sudden, there's some contamination, a fault in a fabrication, whatever.
Speaker 2: I'm not a medical expert, but something happened, and a
Speaker 2: medication she could rely on for years, prescribed by her doctor,
Speaker 2: all of a sudden turns up contaminated. And we are
Speaker 2: both clearly arguing here as former players. And that's why
Speaker 2: we are so firmly on the side of players, and
Speaker 2: that's what makes me always upset with these statements from players.
Speaker 2: I use this example before during the COVID and at
Speaker 2: the Australian Open Tennis, Australia sent out an email and
Speaker 2: was like, hey, you will be in quarantine for fourteen days.
Speaker 2: If you need any fitness equipment in your room, please
Speaker 2: let us know. Now that was two months before, so
Speaker 2: these emails players didn't read the emails, right, this is
Speaker 2: what I'm telling They say it was about, and then
Speaker 2: they complained about it for days, like why does Angie
Speaker 2: Kerber have a running track in her room? Yeah? Because
Speaker 2: she read her emails, wrote them an email, and then
Speaker 2: she had a running check in her I had a bike,
Speaker 2: running track, running machine, a running machine, another full check.
Speaker 1: They put a track in her room, Jenesistriya, I really
Speaker 1: know how to do it. They put that track down
Speaker 1: the whole way around the building and back in, but
Speaker 1: she was isolated throughout exactly.
Speaker 2: That would be amazing. I had a bicycle because I
Speaker 2: read the email and I wrote them, and I realized
Speaker 2: ninety five percent of players don't even read emails that
Speaker 2: concern themselves. So now they are going to go ahead
Speaker 2: and read a twenty five page document on Yannick Sinner's
Speaker 2: doping case. I guess not. You know, if they can't cannot,
Speaker 2: but if they can't read a freaking email that concerns
Speaker 2: their own well being and their own fitness before the
Speaker 2: biggest tournament after one year no tournaments at all, COVID year,
Speaker 2: they are going to go ahead and read a WADA
Speaker 2: statement that goes on for thirty pages I don't mak
Speaker 2: me unconvinced.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much. Unconvinced. Okay, so you're you know,
Speaker 1: I think you and.
Speaker 2: I but sorry, I just want what I wanted to say.
Speaker 2: I still if but if somebody comes up to me
Speaker 2: and I have these cases, people say like, I don't
Speaker 2: know the story just sounds fishy. I don't believe the
Speaker 2: physio spray the spray. I think that's fair. I think
Speaker 2: it's fair that people go ahead and go like, I
Speaker 2: don't believe it. You know, that's fair. You can't say anything.
Speaker 2: I believe him. But that's also we know him, we
Speaker 2: like him. We are always biased. This is very important.
Speaker 2: We are always going to be biased, and I think
Speaker 2: it's important that we let people know that we probably
Speaker 2: will be biased towards him because he's a good guy
Speaker 2: and we can't believe he did it. Does that exclude
Speaker 2: him from maybe doing it after all? No, just because
Speaker 2: we like him doesn't mean he's not going to do it.
Speaker 2: But this is important for me to say that if
Speaker 2: you read the articles and are somewhat well informed, soay,
Speaker 2: like I still don't believe it, that's absolutely fair, and
Speaker 2: you're entitled to your opinion. What I don't like is
Speaker 2: if when you don't read the thing, you just read
Speaker 2: the headline and then put out just blank statements of
Speaker 2: the sport isn't clean, everyone is doping. This is what
Speaker 2: I don't.
Speaker 1: Yeah, because because it's bullshit. Because it's bullshit. There is
Speaker 1: no athlete that is I believe, more tested than a
Speaker 1: top ten tennis play. That's true, Okay, we are talking
Speaker 1: about players that are tested all the time in competition,
Speaker 1: all the time out of competition and out of competition,
Speaker 1: and all the time by their own associations, particularly in
Speaker 1: Olympic years.
Speaker 2: Yes, so this is important, Reneja said, because there are
Speaker 2: three different organizations, the ITIA, the WADA and the NADA.
Speaker 2: And I had a few cases where all three of
Speaker 2: these organizations were in front of my were in front
Speaker 2: of my door and wanted to test me. So the
Speaker 2: NADA is the national in our case, the national anti
Speaker 2: doping agency. You have the WADA and you have the ITIA.
Speaker 2: So and you're right, the higher you are. So when
Speaker 2: I was top ten, which was not very long, but
Speaker 2: when I was top ten, I got tested or between
Speaker 2: thirty and fifty times a year. And this is just
Speaker 2: out of competition. And another really important thing that people forget.
Speaker 2: And big tournaments. What are big tournaments? Those are Grand
Speaker 2: Slam tournaments and ATP Masters and WTA one thousands, fifty
Speaker 2: percent of players get tested. They lose in the first round, right,
Speaker 2: fifty percent, Then fifty percent of players get tested if
Speaker 2: they lose in the second round. From third round on,
Speaker 2: seventy five percent players get tested. And from the round
Speaker 2: of last sixteen, every single player gets tested. And Yannick
Speaker 2: pretty much plays last sixteen every single time, so he
Speaker 2: will be tested at every single tournament. Same goes for Ega,
Speaker 2: same goes for Sablenka, for whoever is a top player,
Speaker 2: if they reach the rounds from third round on, they
Speaker 2: will be tested one hundred percent.
Speaker 1: Yeah, So that it's not the most, it's the most.
Speaker 1: For me, it is the most tested sport in the world.
Speaker 1: In the world. I talked to WNBA and NBA players
Speaker 1: and they're like, they never get tested ever, and they're
Speaker 1: an Olympic sport. They never get tested unless it's like
Speaker 1: literally going into the Olympics. So it's like every single
Speaker 1: tennis player has to watch what they're putting in their
Speaker 1: system and to hear what Sabalanka said over the last
Speaker 1: couple of days by saying basically, she's so afraid that
Speaker 1: this essentially could happen to her. And then you've got
Speaker 1: other people going out and saying sport's not clean. I
Speaker 1: just I don't understand it exactly what you're talking about.
Speaker 1: Read the stuff, Read what they said, and understand the
Speaker 1: entire process before you make these comments, and don't say
Speaker 1: that he negotiated. Yes, Okay, could he have negotiated, Yeah, absolutely,
Speaker 1: Because there's so much ambiguity in the shit that Wada
Speaker 1: was saying. You're just like, okay, well, what's the ruling.
Speaker 1: You should have made that ruling seven months ago. They
Speaker 1: should have made this ruling seven months ago. The guy
Speaker 1: has gone on to win two Grand Slams since the
Speaker 1: initial findings, and now you want to suspend him. It's
Speaker 1: fucking embarrassing. It's embarrassing, and I feel badly for him
Speaker 1: because now everyone's saying, well, you know, oh, we conveniently
Speaker 1: got this. Well not really. In a lot of ways,
Speaker 1: this is WADA's problem. This is WADA's fault for putting
Speaker 1: themselves and him in this situation. They should have done
Speaker 1: it originally. Why did they change the goalpost? Now that's
Speaker 1: what I don't understand.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I think because they were they realized that if
Speaker 2: they let the slide, every player and athlete from now
Speaker 2: on will say, but it was a member of my team,
Speaker 2: and then they are in real shit.
Speaker 1: You would then say, from now on, as of twenty
Speaker 1: twenty five, if you are going to blame your team,
Speaker 1: too fucking bad. That's what should have been said. Okay,
Speaker 1: And everyone's going to say, well, you know what happened
Speaker 1: to this player and this player and this player. Yeah,
Speaker 1: rules get changed all the time. Maria Sharapou was taking
Speaker 1: meldonium for years and years and years and years and
Speaker 1: years and then stopped. Should have stopped taking it and
Speaker 1: didn't it? Why? Because she didn't read your emails going
Speaker 1: into this. That's my point.
Speaker 2: Take away from this is read your fucking emails.
Speaker 1: Read your emails. That's gonna be the name of the part.
Speaker 1: Freed your emails, all right. Another thing that is controversy.
Speaker 1: I think we've laid the sinner thing to bed. I
Speaker 1: hope that everyone can just let it go now, but
Speaker 1: they're not going to. There are likes of a lot
Speaker 1: of players out there saying a lot of shit about him,
Speaker 1: and I think you should do your due diligence a
Speaker 1: little more and read a little bit more about it.
Speaker 1: And I think understanding that they didn't even know who
Speaker 1: this player was when they made this decision is very important.
Speaker 2: That is very important. People forget that. Yeah, And I think,
Speaker 2: like everything, it has nuance. And that's why I said,
Speaker 2: this is a political decision, and it is a political decision.
Speaker 2: Nobody is happy with it. Yes, there was negotiation, but
Speaker 2: there is nuance. When they decided he didn't cheat, they
Speaker 2: didn't know who he was. Now they know who he was,
Speaker 2: and that's why he was able to negotiate. So that's
Speaker 2: also there is a grain of truth today exactly because
Speaker 2: if Wada messes up on this one with jan Nick Sinna,
Speaker 2: who is the number one player in the world and
Speaker 2: who won multiple grants lambs, everyone in the world is
Speaker 2: talking about it, whereas if it's somebody ranked three hundred,
Speaker 2: they can kind of like just be who cares, right,
Speaker 2: So that's why they really needed it, as you said,
Speaker 2: they needed this win, and that's why they were able
Speaker 2: to negotiate. So there is like a sort of truth
Speaker 2: to it in a sense that in the beginning he
Speaker 2: didn't have preferential treatment and now he has, although I
Speaker 2: will say is a preferential treatment. He did get banned
Speaker 2: for something everyone agrees on he didn't do. Why are
Speaker 2: we banning the kid? This is my question. If everyone
Speaker 2: from it Tia to Nada Tuada to who God knows who,
Speaker 2: to Maria and Jesus decide this kid did not cheat,
Speaker 2: he is clean, we believe his story, why are we
Speaker 2: banning him?
Speaker 1: That's again, that's my that's exactly my my.
Speaker 2: Well, they will change the role. I will say, this
Speaker 2: is the one thing I didn't read. That's what Mark
Speaker 2: Petchi told me. So if I'm wrong about them changing
Speaker 2: the I'm gonna mark Petchi. But he's super diligent about
Speaker 2: these things. That's why I believe him. That's why repeeded it.
Speaker 2: But supposedly what he told me is in twenty twenty seven,
Speaker 2: they are changing the rules on contamination and if it's
Speaker 2: like it was now a billionth of a grand blah
Speaker 2: blah blah, it won't be ruled a doping violation.
Speaker 1: And what did I say originally, if you go back
Speaker 1: to one of the original pods that we did, I said,
Speaker 1: why don't have to change this rule if it is
Speaker 1: so minuscure? Like this. Why are we putting players' names
Speaker 1: out there? It should not be out there. That's how
Speaker 1: I feel about it. And listen, I am for a
Speaker 1: clean sport. I fucking hate cheaters. Yeah, okay, I hate cheaters.
Speaker 1: But when it comes to this situation now where we
Speaker 1: are getting a few a bit more contamination stuff going on,
Speaker 1: it's like we are also possibly I'm not saying all
Speaker 1: of everyone's telling the truth or everyone's lying. I don't
Speaker 1: the bottom lines. I don't know. So why are we
Speaker 1: ruining reputations based on a billionth of a gram of
Speaker 1: a piece of salt in the pool? And yes, it
Speaker 1: could be microdoc, but fucking hell, he has to be
Speaker 1: real good at it considering as you said, he's in
Speaker 1: the semis or finals of every single event that he's playing,
Speaker 1: and he's getting tested all the time. Then you know,
Speaker 1: so he's also been tested since and does everyone forget
Speaker 1: that he's still getting tested?
Speaker 2: And the thing I will say, what is a big
Speaker 2: marker to me? Did he perform the same before he
Speaker 2: got caught and the same after he got caught? Yes?
Speaker 2: He did? Yeah, and you're trying to tell me he
Speaker 2: was doping, gets caught and then he just continues doping,
Speaker 2: then he's a fucking psychopath.
Speaker 1: He also, he won the Australian Open. He would have
Speaker 1: got tested out the wazu there, okay, including blood being taken,
Speaker 1: everything being taken. He was fine. Nobody said, oh he's
Speaker 1: got micro dosing uney system at the Australian Open. Okay.
Speaker 1: So all of a sudden he's gonna say, ah, you
Speaker 1: know what, in Doha, Dubai, in Indian Wales, I'm going
Speaker 1: to start taking some shit now and hope I get
Speaker 1: away with it.
Speaker 2: Oh, come on, And in this case for these guys
Speaker 2: again we talked about them already to take out snippets
Speaker 2: of people saying things, if you do this in this case,
Speaker 2: you really are an asshole. If clicks matter to you
Speaker 2: more than the nuance of this case and the importance
Speaker 2: for the sport of having understand and grasps every single
Speaker 2: minute detail of it, then you really are an asshole.
Speaker 2: We already told you to fuck off, but we're telling
Speaker 2: you again pemptively.
Speaker 1: There's a lot of these these stupid tennis dot com sites,
Speaker 1: not tennis dot com, but various different things dot com
Speaker 1: that the report on tennis that take little snippets of
Speaker 1: apparently like I am, I wanted to coach Emarada Khanuh
Speaker 1: from the last podcast. Did you read this, No Renee
Speaker 1: stops and it's always former coach of Serena Williams, like
Speaker 1: fuck off, guys, like I did more than just Serena
Speaker 1: Williams for two weeks, so if you're gonna get it right.
Speaker 1: But they like that because they know Serena Williams that
Speaker 1: that algorithm will come. So it's like, no, I did
Speaker 1: not say I want to coach Emarada Khanu. I said
Speaker 1: if I was, But I mean if Emma Radakano came
Speaker 1: to you pet Go and said, hey, do you want
Speaker 1: to coach me? You would say, oh no.
Speaker 2: No, not because of Emma, because I really don't want
Speaker 2: to coach.
Speaker 1: You don't want to coach. But if you wanted to coach,
Speaker 1: of course you would say yes.
Speaker 2: Yes, of course. I mean, if you're a coach, then
Speaker 2: so much potential.
Speaker 1: It's a fucking dumb but they you know, they blasted
Speaker 1: out on it. Just it pisces no.
Speaker 2: But I give you an example. I said, I think
Speaker 2: maybe even on this podcast, I said about Carlos that
Speaker 2: when he's playing, well, he's the best player I've seen
Speaker 2: in the last thirty years. And when he plays bad,
Speaker 2: boy does he play bad? And they only took when
Speaker 2: Carlos plays bad he plays so bad? And I got
Speaker 2: so much hate from some Carlos fans. They were like,
Speaker 2: what do you know? And I was like, what did
Speaker 2: I say? Did I say that? And I'm a normal person.
Speaker 2: So I listened to the podcasting and I was like, oh, okay, no,
Speaker 2: I said, it's okay. There was so much more nuance
Speaker 2: to it. But that's why it's not it's not fair.
Speaker 2: It's not fair to us. It's not fair to the
Speaker 2: players because we have to interview the players. And now
Speaker 2: he thinks I said about him that he's really bad.
Speaker 2: Come come on, man, I would why would you say that?
Speaker 2: Like he's the best player.
Speaker 1: Yeah, So all of you people out there that are
Speaker 1: going to take clippets and snippets from clippets is.
Speaker 2: That a word?
Speaker 1: Yeah?
Speaker 2: Maybe not?
Speaker 1: It is now snippets from our podcast and put it
Speaker 1: up there and blast it. Fuck you.
Speaker 2: Yeah, no, really, take the whole thing. Write an article.
Speaker 1: Be a man, Yeah, be a man, write the whole
Speaker 1: Be a fucking person that writes the whole article, doesn't
Speaker 1: just take one line of what we've said. If you
Speaker 1: want to take one word, one line from us, it's
Speaker 1: funk off.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Okay. So another very very controversial, difficult conversation is Elena
Speaker 1: Rebakina the situation with her former coach whatever he is
Speaker 1: now boyfriend's disaster situation with Ukoff, her coach. Is that
Speaker 1: how you say his name?
Speaker 2: Your Croatian Stefan? What are you? My parents? My mom
Speaker 2: is busting and my dad to Serbian.
Speaker 1: I'll see, that's why I messed out. Okay, thoughts, Well,
Speaker 1: we just read.
Speaker 2: So for anybody who has the time, there is a
Speaker 2: very article in the New York Times. I think for
Speaker 2: us we knew most of it already, so it wasn't
Speaker 2: necessarily new things. But for everybody else who's maybe not
Speaker 2: around the tennis tour and wants to know what's up,
Speaker 2: I think that's a great way to start, because there's.
Speaker 1: Really a lot in the Bleach and maybe Athletic, sorry
Speaker 1: not athletic.
Speaker 2: The Athletic and the New York Times. Yeah, so I
Speaker 2: think there's a lot of thoughts. What are my thoughts?
Speaker 2: Clearly the relationship between them is on the edge of abusive.
Speaker 2: Can I say it's abusive. No, I can't. I'm not
Speaker 2: in the relationship, and I think this is a very
Speaker 2: important to say. If you're not in the relationship, you
Speaker 2: don't know what is actually happening. On the other hand,
Speaker 2: the WTA has decided that it's not his behavior is
Speaker 2: not aligning with the guidelines of their code of Conduct.
Speaker 2: And that's a strong statement and a strong decision on
Speaker 2: part from the WTA. And they had their investigation. So
Speaker 2: chances are they know things that I don't know because
Speaker 2: I'm not around them. But they had an investigation, they
Speaker 2: asked I think they had twenty people as witnesses. I
Speaker 2: think around twenty people who came forth and gave witness statements,
Speaker 2: and that's their decision, trying to protect the player. On
Speaker 2: the other hand, the player doesn't want to be protected.
Speaker 2: Rebakkena has come forth multiple times saying that she wants
Speaker 2: him around and that she doesn't agree with the decision
Speaker 2: that was made by the WTA. I honestly, Renee. That's
Speaker 2: why I'm like stuttering. I don't know what to say,
Speaker 2: because on the one hand, I really strongly believe in
Speaker 2: independence and an adult player who has to take responsibility
Speaker 2: and make decisions on themselves for themselves. On the other hand,
Speaker 2: I've seen toxic relationships around me, and the thing is
Speaker 2: that at one point you can't make decisions for yourself
Speaker 2: any longer because you're so caught up in this dependence
Speaker 2: that you're not thinking clearly. So that's why I'm really
Speaker 2: at a loss for words, which rarely ever happens, because
Speaker 2: what is it? It's hard to say from the outside.
Speaker 2: Is she an adult and responsible enough to say, like,
Speaker 2: I want him around and this is my decision, or
Speaker 2: is she so dependent on him at this point of
Speaker 2: her life that she can't think clearly? Had for me
Speaker 2: to say, what do you think?
Speaker 1: The w t A if because we have, because we
Speaker 1: do rate things. The w t A basically in their
Speaker 1: findings are saying that you made her dependent on you
Speaker 1: essentially what made her. Yes, You've you've made her feel
Speaker 1: like she can't play without you. And listen, I know
Speaker 1: I have seen it way too. I mean we're talking
Speaker 1: way too many times. I've been around a lot longer
Speaker 1: than you, and I have seen so many of these
Speaker 1: toxic coach player relationships where they literally say you are nothing,
Speaker 1: you will be nothing, you are not going to be
Speaker 1: good anymore. Without me, you didn't You wouldn't have done this.
Speaker 1: Without me, you would still be in Russia picking potatoes,
Speaker 1: is what he said to her.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's what quote from the New York Times article,
Speaker 2: and that is.
Speaker 1: From her a team member of hers. Okay, So now
Speaker 1: the difference is the w T are getting factual information
Speaker 1: from team members of Elena Rebukinger. Okay, so you think
Speaker 1: about it. There's physios, there's fitness chainers that have been
Speaker 1: with her for a long time that are now no
Speaker 1: longer with her. So use your head and understand. So
Speaker 1: when people are out there just absolutely ripping on us
Speaker 1: for saying she's you know, or ripping on the WTA,
Speaker 1: they have factual information of people around her on a
Speaker 1: daily basis making these comments. Now, Okay, so think about
Speaker 1: that for a second. All right, they saw the abuse,
Speaker 1: they saw the mental abuse. They saw him throwing tennis
Speaker 1: balls at her. That's physical abuse. First of all, they listen,
Speaker 1: I've coached, I've been coached, I've seen other coaches. I
Speaker 1: know what abuse is, and he is abusive to her. Period.
Speaker 1: You can say whatever you want. I've seen him yelling
Speaker 1: at her. I can be I could have been one
Speaker 1: of those witnesses, and I probably was one of those
Speaker 1: witnesses because they interviewed me years ago about him. Okay,
Speaker 1: because I made comments on this podcast years ago about him,
Speaker 1: and I never said anything about him abusing her. I
Speaker 1: just said he was very, very negative, and I felt
Speaker 1: like with a positive coach, Wow, how much better could
Speaker 1: she be? Imagine how good she could be with a
Speaker 1: really positive coach. And so those are the comments I
Speaker 1: made about him. And then he actually, just so people know,
Speaker 1: he contacted the WTA and wanted to come after me
Speaker 1: for making those comments. Okay, so I'm putting out that publicly.
Speaker 1: I have not told anyone that publicly. He came after
Speaker 1: me and wanted to sue me, Okay for saying things
Speaker 1: about him that were true that have been now investigated
Speaker 1: for years are now true. He has been banned for
Speaker 1: a year now because what I told them years ago
Speaker 1: has been now backed up by several other people who
Speaker 1: are in her actual team. Okay, So this is happening
Speaker 1: on a consistent basis now a lot of people don't
Speaker 1: say stuff. A lot of people want to be anonymous
Speaker 1: because in the tennis world, just like you, just like me,
Speaker 1: we have to interview Elena Rebakina. She is one of
Speaker 1: the best players in the world, is a really nice person.
Speaker 1: She has obviously had an adverse reaction to me for
Speaker 1: years because of what I said about him years ago.
Speaker 1: And so we are put into this quandary of a
Speaker 1: problem of not being able to have this relationship with
Speaker 1: her if she doesn't want to have a relationship with
Speaker 1: us because of what we've said. Right, So, there's a
Speaker 1: lot of people want to be anonymous because they want
Speaker 1: to keep a good relationship with her. Our issue now
Speaker 1: going forward is I don't care about my relationship with her.
Speaker 1: She can hate me forever. My thinking now is somebody
Speaker 1: needs to speak up about this and she needs to
Speaker 1: be protected. And the WTA now have done that. They've
Speaker 1: put their due diligence in, They've done this investigation for years,
Speaker 1: and people can say whatever they want to me. For example,
Speaker 1: I've been around a long time. I can see toxicity,
Speaker 1: and that is a toxic relationship. And how is she
Speaker 1: going to get out of this? I honestly don't know.
Speaker 1: That's what I'm worried about.
Speaker 2: Well, that's my question. My question is this, I agree
Speaker 2: with everything you said. Obviously we've talked about this many
Speaker 2: times on the podcast. Should he speak to her differently? Yes,
Speaker 2: one hundred percent. The question for me is what I'm
Speaker 2: asking and what I don't have the answer to. Is
Speaker 2: it the WTA's task, Yes, because it's like what makes
Speaker 2: her decide, you know what I mean? Or is she
Speaker 2: an adult person that should decide for herself who she
Speaker 2: wants to have around.
Speaker 1: Well, they're kind of sort of doing that right now
Speaker 1: because he can coach her away from any WTA sanctioned
Speaker 1: event unless it's a Grand Slam, and Tennis Australia made
Speaker 1: it very clear they don't want him on site, and
Speaker 1: now they've said with this suspension that she cannot stay
Speaker 1: with him in a player hotel. So she she wants
Speaker 1: to stay with him in a player hotel, that can't
Speaker 1: happen anymore. So she's going to have to pay for
Speaker 1: her own room at a different hotel every single tournament
Speaker 1: if he wants to come and stay with her in
Speaker 1: a hotel room, which is what he did in Melbourne.
Speaker 1: And the reason for that is is what Caitlyn point
Speaker 1: it out last week, which I thought was a really
Speaker 1: good way of putting it, is that if you're in
Speaker 1: a business situation, and you have a toxic relationship there
Speaker 1: and it's sort of like around other people the company
Speaker 1: get to say no, no, no, no, this is not
Speaker 1: an okay situation. People have come to me at HR
Speaker 1: and have said, this is now affecting many days my workday,
Speaker 1: my business and so frankly, like every single player could say,
Speaker 1: and every coach which has come forward and this is
Speaker 1: part of the investigation. If you read the New York
Speaker 1: Times article and stuff we already knew. And guess what.
Speaker 1: I've spoken to many a coach and many a fitness
Speaker 1: trainer that have told me this exact story. So they're
Speaker 1: obviously part of this investigation. And I won't name names
Speaker 1: that have come forward and said this is the behavior
Speaker 1: I saw him do, okay. These are first hand accounts
Speaker 1: of situations where they felt the need to go and
Speaker 1: tell the WTA of how he was acting and reacting
Speaker 1: to her in plain view of players and other coaches.
Speaker 1: That is not a work environment you want to be in.
Speaker 1: Nobody wants to be around that. It's like living next
Speaker 1: to an abusive relationship and not calling the cops. That's
Speaker 1: exactly what's happening right now. So the coaches and other
Speaker 1: coaches and players and fitness trainers and physios that are
Speaker 1: around that situation with Yukov yelling and screaming at her
Speaker 1: and being an asshole to her have had it and
Speaker 1: they've gone and said something to the WTA and so yes,
Speaker 1: in this situation, it is a toxic environment that is
Speaker 1: not allowed in the code of contact on the w
Speaker 1: TED tour, and it was put there for a reason
Speaker 1: to stop people like this, to stop guys like this
Speaker 1: taking advantage of young women. He's been with her since
Speaker 1: she was like sixteen years of age. This is a
Speaker 1: toxic relationship. The parents want him gone, the sister wants
Speaker 1: him gone, like they know her. So this is where
Speaker 1: it's gotten real tricky. And for Elena. I feel so
Speaker 1: badly for her. She is stuck right in the middle
Speaker 1: of this. I mean, it is cohersive behavior. It is
Speaker 1: not good. I don't know what to say about it
Speaker 1: other than that I think the WTA have done the
Speaker 1: best that they can do.
Speaker 2: I think so too. And that's a really good point
Speaker 2: about the work environment, because if you were at a
Speaker 2: company and somebody would yell at their like you would
Speaker 2: see in a different department the boss yelling at their
Speaker 2: at their secretary or something. You would also say something
Speaker 2: to HR. That's a really really good point because it's
Speaker 2: not only them, even though it's an individual, even though.
Speaker 1: Board watching him yelling and screaming at her in the
Speaker 1: gym in Australia. I remember that I went up to
Speaker 1: another player who may have been playing doubles with her
Speaker 1: at the time, I believe, and I said, what the fuck?
Speaker 1: So we see this stuff?
Speaker 2: I mean, I went I told his story on the podcast.
Speaker 2: I think many times. I went up to him one
Speaker 2: time and said like, what are you doing? And then
Speaker 2: they just kind of went, it's just yeah, I mean.
Speaker 1: That's you and okay, so you and me have seen
Speaker 1: his behavior. That is the two of us. Imagine everybody
Speaker 1: else onto it. Everyone else is saying this, and some
Speaker 1: people close their eyes to it and say it's not
Speaker 1: my problem. But you know, I know that there was
Speaker 1: a top player that saw her in Abba Dhabi and
Speaker 1: saw him there and said to her, what the fuck?
Speaker 1: So Pias do care? Yeah? Pi Is It probably shouldn't
Speaker 1: care if she's mentally healthy because I have to play
Speaker 1: against her. Yeah, are going what the fuck? So? Yeah?
Speaker 2: Anyway, Well, and I think a really important point that
Speaker 2: was made in the New York Times article is that
Speaker 2: whether because of it or whether in general, but her
Speaker 2: health has suffered tremendously from the toll that all of
Speaker 2: this has taken on her. And it was very clearly
Speaker 2: stated in the New York Times article. If you have
Speaker 2: the time to read it, I would recommend it just
Speaker 2: to make it because I think what I liked about
Speaker 2: the article. Yes, it's lengthy, but he's just they are
Speaker 2: basically telling you all the situations that they could confirm
Speaker 2: from multiple witnesses, and it's up to you to decide
Speaker 2: what you think about it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think behavior at the US Open last year
Speaker 1: was just appalling. That's where it really hit the fan
Speaker 1: after she basically flicked him after in August, so prior
Speaker 1: to the US Open. But yes, read the article. Let
Speaker 1: us know your thoughts. Actually tweet to us or don't
Speaker 1: tweet to us.
Speaker 2: I don't. I delayed the leaded for you.
Speaker 1: Yeah, because Blue Sky us or put us on threads.
Speaker 1: We're on Blue Sky and threads.
Speaker 2: So I deleted it just for why if in case
Speaker 2: somebody mentions me there. Elon Musk supported the Nazi Party
Speaker 2: and endorsed the Nazi Party in Germany. And that was
Speaker 2: my last star that broke the camel's back because Nazi Party.
Speaker 2: You know, it's not like it's in Germany. The Nazi Party.
Speaker 2: You cannot do this. This is Germany, like both, friend,
Speaker 2: this is Germany. You can't support the Nazi Party.
Speaker 1: Why why don't the German authorities ban X in Germany?
Speaker 1: That would be great.
Speaker 2: I don't think you can do that free you know,
Speaker 2: free speech and so on and so forth.
Speaker 1: Yeah, anyway, that's a whole difference to even remotely get
Speaker 1: me started. But now you've maybe think it's time for
Speaker 1: me to get rid of.
Speaker 2: It as I'm not even political, but that was such
Speaker 2: an no go for me. I just I deleted it
Speaker 2: right away.
Speaker 1: Working arsehole. He's such an asshole. Okay again, let's not
Speaker 1: get into that, all right, Let's get to some good news.
Speaker 1: Good news. Yeah, the last finally, Oh my god, this
Speaker 1: was thank you because this was heavy. Yes, we have
Speaker 1: had heavy forty minutes so far. Amanda, Yeah, can we
Speaker 1: talk about Amanda Anissa Moba. I want to talk about
Speaker 1: her in more ways than just well done for winning
Speaker 1: the tournament. This is a kid that was well like
Speaker 1: years ago, was seen as the next big thing, right,
Speaker 1: winning tournaments. You know, she's the next Maria Sharapa over
Speaker 1: blah blah blah.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: I want to talk about the fact that she lost
Speaker 1: her father years ago. He was her coach. He was
Speaker 1: probably the most important mentor in her life in her
Speaker 1: tennis career. She's had a hard couple of years since then.
Speaker 1: She had a great couple bit of a run, and
Speaker 1: then Darren k Hill called it quits on her at
Speaker 1: the start of a really good start of the year.
Speaker 1: It was in the COVID years, and a lot of
Speaker 1: people were like, Yeah, she's gonna yeah, she's coming back,
Speaker 1: this is great. And then Darren sort of pulled the
Speaker 1: rug out because he was just dealing with his own
Speaker 1: physical and mental health issues that he needed to go
Speaker 1: home and didn't want to travel all that much at
Speaker 1: that time of the year. And then she walked away
Speaker 1: from the sport for like almost a year. Was it
Speaker 1: a year?
Speaker 2: Eight months? I would say yeah, because.
Speaker 1: She mentally was fried. And I think the combination of
Speaker 1: her probably her father's death and the expectation and the
Speaker 1: physical part of it, and her own emotional wellness.
Speaker 2: She also struggled with injuries every now.
Speaker 1: It was just like, I need to step away. She
Speaker 1: started painting, she started doing all this other stuff.
Speaker 2: She went did some courses at college.
Speaker 1: She just glimped away. And I don't know if you
Speaker 1: saw my Instagram when she won, and I just said
Speaker 1: along the lines of I'm so proud of this girl
Speaker 1: who basically trusted her own gut and trusted her own
Speaker 1: instincts to step away from the game and come back
Speaker 1: and won her biggest tournament this year. After having a
Speaker 1: good run at the Strain Open and losing a match
Speaker 1: that we all thought she should have won.
Speaker 2: Sheat She lost in the second round against Emma rod
Speaker 2: Ukanah that she was up for to one in the
Speaker 2: first I think three to zero in the second, and
Speaker 2: she was up a break.
Speaker 1: But she stayed in Australia for like two weeks after that.
Speaker 1: The whole I was like, what are you still doing here?
Speaker 1: She's like, oh, I'm playing Singapore and then playing in
Speaker 1: you know, Doha and Dubai, and I was like, oh
Speaker 1: my god. So she literally just got home to Florida.
Speaker 1: I was speaking to her last night, literally on the
Speaker 1: plane ride home, and so she was way that whole time.
Speaker 1: She put them work in in Melbourne and then went
Speaker 1: and won in Doha, and I'm just so I just
Speaker 1: hope every tennis player realizes you don't need to play
Speaker 1: every week. You don't need to prove yourself all the time.
Speaker 1: And after Mattie Keys, Wenday Strain opened saying I wanted
Speaker 1: this so badly, but I didn't. I knew I didn't
Speaker 1: need it. And for a man a Nissam over to
Speaker 1: walk away from the game, going I don't need this sport.
Speaker 1: What do I want? I want to take care of
Speaker 1: myself and then realized I love playing this sport. I'm
Speaker 1: going to come back and I'm going to do it
Speaker 1: and I'm going to do it one hundred percent. And
Speaker 1: then look what happened. So and then went and lost
Speaker 1: in Dubai. And one of the things I talked to
Speaker 1: her about was, well, maybe you know, it's a lesson
Speaker 1: that maybe you shouldn't have played.
Speaker 2: We were talking about it on TC LAB. I was like,
Speaker 2: is she going to play? I don't believe, but she
Speaker 2: went good for her Honestly.
Speaker 1: Her words to me were I wanted to see I wanted,
Speaker 1: you know, to be a good play. You've got to
Speaker 1: do these week after week you got to put it,
Speaker 1: and I said, yes, that's true, and maybe this is
Speaker 1: a lesson for you to learn what you need to
Speaker 1: do to prepare it for that next tournament.
Speaker 2: Okay, but this is tough because a lost first round.
Speaker 2: Alexandrova lost first round, Amanda, So everyone who did well
Speaker 2: in Doha lost first round or second round. Right in Dubai.
Speaker 2: These are the two. Even though it's forty five minutes flight,
Speaker 2: it's maybe the most opposite from each other. You can
Speaker 2: be in.
Speaker 1: Ters five minute flight. Don't you have to go around?
Speaker 2: Well, now you have to go around, but because of
Speaker 2: some kind of yes.
Speaker 1: You have to go around Iran.
Speaker 2: Yeah, there was this. I think Guitar and Iran have
Speaker 2: a no flights. I don't want to get into because
Speaker 2: I'm not sure and I don't want to say wrong things.
Speaker 2: But it used to be.
Speaker 1: Exactly like try Pekovitch's seen as debating the Middle East Conference.
Speaker 2: So I have no idea, but you're right. It used
Speaker 2: to be a forty five minute flight, and then there
Speaker 2: was some kind of no flight zone, so now you
Speaker 2: have to go I remember that.
Speaker 1: You're like, what the fuck?
Speaker 2: Yes?
Speaker 1: Used to be way quicker?
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, yeah, you're right, but anyway, so despite it
Speaker 2: being very close in terms of in terms of geometry geography,
Speaker 2: in geometry geometry, it is actually conditions wise the most
Speaker 2: the sit of whatever you can. So in Doha, you
Speaker 2: play at night, it gets so cold and so slow.
Speaker 2: The courts are gritty, it's slow. You can barely hit
Speaker 2: an ace. That's why Ega always plays well there. She's
Speaker 2: one of three times already and lost Tosa panclin the semis.
Speaker 2: But it's like for these players who have a bit
Speaker 2: of spin on it, it's perfect right, and talking about
Speaker 2: Amanda winning a bit of spin on it, and then
Speaker 2: Dubai is super fast. It's like the fastest hardcore we
Speaker 2: have on the WTA tour. You played during the day,
Speaker 2: it gets hot and dry and the ball fly. So
Speaker 2: it's literally the opposite from each other.
Speaker 1: That's why, like it's very rare to see people win
Speaker 1: Indian Wells and then win Miami.
Speaker 2: Yes, it's very similar to this differ. It's actually very similar,
Speaker 2: with the big exception that in the welles, if you
Speaker 2: lose early you have a week to prepare. Even if
Speaker 2: you go far, you still have four or five days.
Speaker 2: Dubai and Dubai, so Amanda played on Saturday the final Endoha,
Speaker 2: and she played on Monday morning, Yeah, like Monday first
Speaker 2: match or something like. She played her next match, so
Speaker 2: she had a day to travel, celebrate, get ready, and
Speaker 2: then play another match.
Speaker 1: This is good love impossible, which is why I'm really
Speaker 1: proud of Madison Keys, because I know I don't take
Speaker 1: credit for this, but I did see beyond after the
Speaker 1: Austrain Open, and I said, if there's one advice I
Speaker 1: could give you from people I did not win a
Speaker 1: singles Grand Slam, but from people that did that sort
Speaker 1: of it was like a bit of a shock to them,
Speaker 1: including Sam Stozer, who I talked to about it. Sam
Speaker 1: regrets playing immediately after winning the US Open. She wished
Speaker 1: she hadn't gone to Asia, and I suggested to be on.
Speaker 1: I'm like, why why are you going to Dohandubai. It's
Speaker 1: in like ten days. There's so much shit she's going
Speaker 1: to be doing. Get her And Sam said, a great thing.
Speaker 1: And I don't know if you listened to it, but
Speaker 1: she said, just because she won the Austrain Open doesn't
Speaker 1: guarantee you're going to win your next match, So you've
Speaker 1: got to be prepared to put that same effort in
Speaker 1: mentally and physically for the next time you play. And
Speaker 1: I think that's a great idea that she chose not
Speaker 1: to go to the Middle East. And I think Maddie
Speaker 1: Keys is going to be really tough to beat in
Speaker 1: Indie Wells because of that now. But anyway, Yeah, but
Speaker 1: really for Amanda.
Speaker 2: No, im really happy you made the mental points amazingly.
Speaker 2: One hundred percent agree with you. But I just wanted
Speaker 2: to talk about her tennis a little bit because I
Speaker 2: called all her matches in Doha and it was not
Speaker 2: only the mental side, but she improved so much. So
Speaker 2: two things that we all knew about Amanda. She doesn't
Speaker 2: have a lot of spin, and especially on the forehand side, right,
Speaker 2: she has a bit of margin. Now it's not going
Speaker 2: to be an Egociontec forehand, a Jasmine Paulini forehand, but
Speaker 2: she has a bit of height on the forehand she
Speaker 2: has a bit more security. And what it helped her
Speaker 2: with there was the other thing we always talked about Amanda.
Speaker 2: She plays amazing the first set and a half, but
Speaker 2: then she tends to get nervous, right, and it's not
Speaker 2: that she gets and this is a very important point.
Speaker 2: I want to make. It's not that she gets more
Speaker 2: nervous than others, but she has less margin than others.
Speaker 2: So when Amanda gets nervous, the balls start to go everywhere,
Speaker 2: whereas somebody like Ego, when she gets nervous, she can
Speaker 2: still make a lot of balls. Sure, exactly, it's just
Speaker 2: shorter in the court. Angie was the best example. Kerber.
Speaker 2: When she got nervous, she still made you play thirty
Speaker 2: five shot rellies. She just played a bit shorter. But Amanda,
Speaker 2: with that little margin, that is the thing. And she
Speaker 2: because she had that bit of more spin on her
Speaker 2: on her forehand, she didn't get so nervous. She had
Speaker 2: only one match where she got tight. That was against
Speaker 2: Marta accostuc That was the toughest match of all for her.
Speaker 2: It's the only set she's lost. She was up for
Speaker 2: one and I think forty fifteen in the first set
Speaker 2: to win the first set, and then lost it. But
Speaker 2: that's also the new mental side of her, the new
Speaker 2: mental forty two. She came back and wanted seven five
Speaker 2: sixty four after that, which I thought was an incredible
Speaker 2: statement to the rest of the draw, saying like, yes,
Speaker 2: I got nervous, but I bounced back and I played well,
Speaker 2: and she played an amazing final. She did not get
Speaker 2: nervous at all, served it out like a champ. No,
Speaker 2: she actually broke to win it. And the back and
Speaker 2: down the line is still as mesmerizing ever and the
Speaker 2: shots are still as clean as ever, just with that
Speaker 2: added margin and that edit added taking care of her nerves.
Speaker 2: She was the best player there and she deserved to
Speaker 2: win the tournament.
Speaker 1: And I just think, you know, taking care of herself
Speaker 1: mentally over the last couple of years has really made
Speaker 1: a difference with her winning these matches as well, because
Speaker 1: she's like Maddie, it's not life and death anymore. It's
Speaker 1: about I want to play because I enjoy it. And
Speaker 1: so just I'm just ultra ultra proud of what she
Speaker 1: was able to do. Can we just briefly talk about
Speaker 1: the fact that Ostar Panko is now five and oer against.
Speaker 1: If there's one player on the drawer that Egert like
Speaker 1: just hopes is nowhere, what the fuck? Five and O? Now, Okay,
Speaker 1: you did the match the match, and we talked about
Speaker 1: it prior to the pod. Give me your thoughts on
Speaker 1: why Eager cannot win a match?
Speaker 2: So there is two things. It's partly because of us
Speaker 2: Stepanco and partly because of Eager. One part of Sapanko.
Speaker 2: I want to talk about that quickly. She's so motivated
Speaker 2: against Eager. She came out, she had to determine in
Speaker 2: her face. She really wanted once to win these matches.
Speaker 2: That's number one. Number two, she believes she can win
Speaker 2: because she has done it four times before and now
Speaker 2: for the fifth time in Doha. And the third thing,
Speaker 2: and not enough people talk about it. Ostapenko is actually
Speaker 2: a little bit different to the other girls. A lot
Speaker 2: of girls, most I want to say, have their preferential
Speaker 2: strike zone around hip high. Ostapenko prefers it a bit
Speaker 2: higher than hip hi. She actually likes when it sits
Speaker 2: a little and she can go. If you think about
Speaker 2: the play, not too high, no, no, no, just a
Speaker 2: bit higher, maybe an inch to two.
Speaker 1: About exactly where Ega hits it.
Speaker 2: Exactly where Ega hits it. So this is terrible matchup
Speaker 2: for Ega. And if you think about where Ostapenko has
Speaker 2: triumphed in the past French Open, and if you think
Speaker 2: about the player she's beat there, Stoser, Osniaki Halip, those
Speaker 2: are all tremendous I know Sam was.
Speaker 1: Her winning record against her. Broke her hand in that match, Yes,
Speaker 1: the year she won the French Open. Okay, broke her
Speaker 1: hand in the match.
Speaker 2: But if you think about if you go and I
Speaker 2: had a.
Speaker 1: Good record against her, yeah you know why.
Speaker 2: Because she hits it even higher and slice. That's the thing.
Speaker 2: And the thing is if you look at Ostapenko's big
Speaker 2: successes at the French Open, the players she's played, they
Speaker 2: played a bit higher and they don't play so fast.
Speaker 2: Was Niaki haleeb right. And the thing is with Ostapenko
Speaker 2: she hates playing other like it's it's like a weird
Speaker 2: rule of life. Big hitters hate playing other big hitters.
Speaker 2: She came out against Anisimova and she looked overwhelmed. She
Speaker 2: was like, what, I don't have time, She was late
Speaker 2: on everything. So big hitters hate playing other big hitters.
Speaker 2: So Ostapenko loves EGA's game. She just plays well against her.
Speaker 2: Even if she has lost ten times first round, she
Speaker 2: will play Ega and she will feel comfortable. That was
Speaker 2: the one part. The other part about EGA's game is
Speaker 2: she did so well with win by her side to
Speaker 2: not ballbash with other ball bashers. In the recent times,
Speaker 2: since she's She did well at the Austrian Open. She
Speaker 2: just got out played by Madison Keys, but she hadn't
Speaker 2: met at one point exactly, she had a match point,
Speaker 2: so she's doing a lot better. She beat her Bakina
Speaker 2: now twice in a row, a player she hated playing.
Speaker 2: She beat her at the United Cup and she beat
Speaker 2: her Heandoha, and she beat Noskova, who had won the
Speaker 2: first set, who she also doesn't like playing she.
Speaker 1: Lost to, and who she's lost to.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and she did well with like putting a bit
Speaker 2: of margin on staying closer to her Dna that is
Speaker 2: more of a clay cult player, right that can play
Speaker 2: very aggressive but has that heavy spin can open the court.
Speaker 2: And she started playing Ostapenko and went straight back into
Speaker 2: the she isolashing. She regressed to the ego we saw
Speaker 2: last year on the quick hardcourts when she would panic
Speaker 2: and just ball bash with the other players, and she
Speaker 2: did exactly that against Ostapenko. And I understand it because
Speaker 2: when you have a negative head to head that is
Speaker 2: so bad, you start to lose clarity, and that's what
Speaker 2: she did. She lost clarity.
Speaker 1: Okay, so if you're losing clarity, you're not clear right,
Speaker 1: you're not clear on what you need to do. That's different.
Speaker 1: And I think that reason why she went back to
Speaker 1: ball bashing against Ostapenko. So she feels like, I get
Speaker 1: the first strike in exactly because Ostapenko there's no there's
Speaker 1: nothing in Ostapenko's brain that says I'm going to play
Speaker 1: a long point here. I'm just gonna go for it.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 1: So I think she needs to be really prepared to
Speaker 1: hit the variety, hit the drop shot again, hit the
Speaker 1: high balls, get it out of the strike zone. Change
Speaker 1: up where she's serving all the time, because she clearly
Speaker 1: has a problem with where she's serving against Ostapenko as well,
Speaker 1: because Ostapenko just crushes the return on that, especially on
Speaker 1: that kickserve.
Speaker 2: And that's a great example. The kickserf that bothers a
Speaker 2: lot of girls goes right into where Osta Penkele likes it.
Speaker 2: You know, it's just like a bit hired than hippie,
Speaker 2: and she just crushes it.
Speaker 1: She's better off hitting the kickserve as a first serf
Speaker 1: to surprise her, yes, and to mix up the speeds.
Speaker 2: But anyway, well, and so just as an interesting and
Speaker 2: this is the first time I never thought about IGA's
Speaker 2: game that she needs to add a slize. That was
Speaker 2: the first time I thought, oh, she's missing a size
Speaker 2: because a Jabour actually has a five to one against
Speaker 2: Ostapenko to her in the quarters, but she was cooked mentally.
Speaker 2: She had beaten Chinway, and she has beaten a lot
Speaker 2: of very good players, and she's just come back from injury.
Speaker 1: First, like really good back to back to.
Speaker 2: Exactly, and so she was really mentally and physically fried
Speaker 2: against Osta Penkel. But she has a five to one
Speaker 2: and in the second set she started to just slice
Speaker 2: it and Osta Penkel got nervous. She got away with it.
Speaker 2: But that was the first time I thought, oh, if
Speaker 2: Ega had a slice, even if she doesn't feel comfortable
Speaker 2: with putting it up high, maybe with a slice she
Speaker 2: could you gain.
Speaker 1: Sometime Ostapenko if you don't junk her, which is why I.
Speaker 2: Say you either have to over You have to either
Speaker 2: overpower her like Amanda, did you know, because she hates
Speaker 2: other big hitters, like she always loses to Osaka as well.
Speaker 2: You know, you have to either overwhelm her with pace,
Speaker 2: and if you can't do that, then you have to junker.
Speaker 1: You have to junk her that which is why Sam
Speaker 1: had a good record against so actually she could hit
Speaker 1: that junkie slice and that heavy forehand that would jump
Speaker 1: away from her on the forehand, and also the kick
Speaker 1: serve is way bigger than Egers. Yeah, could have a okay,
Speaker 1: really quick golf and Seblenka, what's going on there?
Speaker 2: So Zabalanka I called them. I didn't see Cocos match,
Speaker 2: so I can't say. I just looked at the stats.
Speaker 2: She had forty unforced errors. It's tough against Marta costjoc
Speaker 2: on those slow courts, you.
Speaker 1: Know, Australia. I just think mentally she wasn't and she made.
Speaker 2: Her the last time seven six in the third in
Speaker 2: Stuttgut when they play after the Australiana Open, So clearly
Speaker 2: this is a tough matchup for her. I didn't see
Speaker 2: the match though, because it was in the middle of
Speaker 2: the night in La. I think they played at three
Speaker 2: thirty am, so I was flying, okay, So I don't
Speaker 2: really know, but I think Marta Costyuk is always tough
Speaker 2: when she plays well for anybody. Arena Sabalenka played Alexandrova,
Speaker 2: who was red hot and freaking playing amazing. She had
Speaker 2: just won Linz and She made the semis after that,
Speaker 2: so she was clearly playing very well and Arena lost
Speaker 2: seven six in the third. So it was a good match.
Speaker 2: It wasn't like she played a terrible match and lost.
Speaker 2: It was a good match. I will say that you
Speaker 2: can tell now that the something is off with a serf.
Speaker 1: I can tell you what it is.
Speaker 2: We know, we talked about it already in the last part.
Speaker 2: Her baltas is a lot higher. But what I meant
Speaker 2: more by it is that she gets broken a lot
Speaker 2: more and she can't hold. As you know, usually when
Speaker 2: you watch us a Balenka match and she breaks, you're like, oh,
Speaker 2: this match is done unless something crazy happens. And now
Speaker 2: you don't have it, and you can feel that she
Speaker 2: doesn't have it, and that gives her a little bit
Speaker 2: of insecurity. And so that's just worrisome about the sert.
Speaker 2: It's not like she's hitting double faults.
Speaker 1: It's just she's not getting free points like she was
Speaker 1: yes and then an important moment, because she doesn't believe
Speaker 1: in it in important moments, she pulls back and then
Speaker 1: again it was a perfect example. Is straight and open.
Speaker 1: When she wasn't going for the serf in the last game.
Speaker 1: I mean, she hit a couple of big serves and
Speaker 1: she served well. She did miss one for a serf,
Speaker 1: but Maddie was able to get on them because she
Speaker 1: wasn't hitting an ace or hitting an unreturnable well.
Speaker 2: And she took off. We remember we talked, we shook.
Speaker 2: She took eight nine kilometers per hour off, which is
Speaker 2: like four or five miles.
Speaker 1: That's a lot.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's a lot. And that's a difference for somebody
Speaker 2: like Maddie who has big swings, and it was the
Speaker 2: same against Alexandrova, who also big takes big swings on return.
Speaker 2: She in the important moments, was able to create something
Speaker 2: off the serve and I think that's the that has
Speaker 2: that has given Saballenka a bit of an insecurity and
Speaker 2: important moments for sure.
Speaker 1: I mean, she's obviously going up against Kuda Matova today
Speaker 1: actually as we do this this pod, so we'll see
Speaker 1: how she comes through this particular tournament. Golf is also
Speaker 1: on the court, just on GoF just real quick. I mean,
Speaker 1: you know, it's just starting to be a little bit
Speaker 1: of what's going on here because she was the hardest
Speaker 1: player going into the Australian Open. But again I've said
Speaker 1: it over and over. She played every match indoors, and
Speaker 1: it does make a difference with where the ball moves.
Speaker 1: And if you're not feeling good on your serf, if
Speaker 1: you're not feeling good on your forehand, you know, and
Speaker 1: you start. Things are much harder outside than they are indoors.
Speaker 1: Things are indoors. It's just pure hitting. It's just easier.
Speaker 1: Everything's in the slot, everything's in the zone. And you know, outdoors,
Speaker 1: you've got wind, you've got sun, you've got stuff to
Speaker 1: deal with, and if you're not technically sound or don't
Speaker 1: feel confident on it, it's going to pay the price.
Speaker 1: And clearly that's what's happened over the last couple of weeks.
Speaker 2: Eager she on Tech.
Speaker 1: Beat sabial Anka as a ranker today to and love.
Speaker 1: I mean, I don't know as a ranker. I mean
Speaker 1: there's a former world number one and a player that
Speaker 1: was you know, two time Grandsam champion. To be keep
Speaker 1: losing like that, I mean, that's got to hurt you.
Speaker 1: But seon Tech is playing good this year. No, she's
Speaker 1: playing well, I tell you, and make my prediction, well,
Speaker 1: she will not lose a match on clay this year.
Speaker 2: Okay, yeah, well I would mean she didn't lose a
Speaker 2: match on clay last year, did she? Or she lost
Speaker 2: against Rebuccin and Stuttgat. That's indoors and it's on five
Speaker 2: hundred meters higher so but still but she barely lost
Speaker 2: the match. And she's a much better player this year
Speaker 2: than she was. This was really it felt like against
Speaker 2: Usta Pankell, it felt like a regression because I could
Speaker 2: see the development in her game month in month out
Speaker 2: against the heart hitters and then against a Stapenko was
Speaker 2: boom you got from last year.
Speaker 1: Hopefully on her from her standpoint, she can sit back
Speaker 1: and go, oh yeah, that's why I lose to her.
Speaker 1: The thing I have to change that.
Speaker 2: Yeah. The thing with with IgA was though in Dohat
Speaker 2: there was again the which I didn't see in her
Speaker 2: so much at the Astan Opened, the nervousness, there was
Speaker 2: a lot of tensions. She was yelling out at her
Speaker 2: box at Daria. There was just like a lot of
Speaker 2: nervousness which I hadn't seen so much at the Austrian Open.
Speaker 2: But also again she had won this title three times.
Speaker 2: She could have won it four times in a row,
Speaker 2: which was unheard of and there was a lot of
Speaker 2: pressure on her. But just one more. I want to
Speaker 2: end on a positive note. Fonseca, what a beautiful name
Speaker 2: and what a freaking beautiful tennis game. Are you kidding me?
Speaker 1: He's but starting to talk about the top the next
Speaker 1: three Big three, Right, let's see him sometime.
Speaker 2: I mean, he's incredible and I would name him right
Speaker 2: away with them. The only thing that I hope he's
Speaker 2: eighteen years old. When you see him play, when you
Speaker 2: see him play, when you hear him talk, he is
Speaker 2: eighteen years old. You can just tell. It's like it
Speaker 2: was funny to me because he won the title and
Speaker 2: he was crying. He was so excited and everyone around
Speaker 2: was like, oh yeah, that's his first from like seven
Speaker 2: thousand more to come, but for him it was his
Speaker 2: first title. He was so emotional. It was so beautiful
Speaker 2: to watch. And what is incredible with him He gets
Speaker 2: a little tight, but then he doesn't is not affected
Speaker 2: by it, you know. So for example, in the semi final,
Speaker 2: he was up six three five three, serving for the
Speaker 2: match twice, didn't get it, but then plays a great tiebreak.
Speaker 2: Same in the final, serving for the match twice, doesn't
Speaker 2: get it. Gets it in the tiebreak. Who does that
Speaker 2: sound like against Jarrett? Who?
Speaker 1: Who does that sound like?
Speaker 2: Who does it sound like?
Speaker 1: Every great player?
Speaker 2: But that's what I mean.
Speaker 1: That's what I mean by but he's still to let
Speaker 1: go of disappointment and understand the task at hand.
Speaker 2: But that's what I mean by why I pointed out
Speaker 2: is not he because he gets tight or whatever. But
Speaker 2: what I want to point out is that's why you
Speaker 2: can still tell that he's young, because he does get ted.
Speaker 2: In three years, you won't get tight anymore. Said, let
Speaker 2: me just finish this thing, right, But let me just
Speaker 2: finish this. The thing why I'm saying this, this is
Speaker 2: what I'm trying to make the point of, is I
Speaker 2: hope that everyone just calms the farm and lets him
Speaker 2: steadily improve and progress, because then we will have an
Speaker 2: incredible player vying for multiple major titles for the next
Speaker 2: fifteen years. If now, because you have to remember in
Speaker 2: Brazil there wasn't a player vying for major titles since
Speaker 2: Googa Curtain. They are incredibly passionate fans. If he gets overwhelmed,
Speaker 2: he's now playing in rio. If he gets overwhelmed by
Speaker 2: this expectation and emotion and everyone wanting him to do
Speaker 2: so well, we might not see him on the top
Speaker 2: of the game for the next ten to fifteen years.
Speaker 2: And that's why I'm hoping everyone slows down and gives
Speaker 2: him the time he needs to evolve, because then, yeah,
Speaker 2: because then we will have this Because I don't know
Speaker 2: if you've watched him play, it's the greatest thing. It's
Speaker 2: like watching al Karas and Cinera play. It's so freaking fun.
Speaker 1: Yeah. No, I've watched him play. Of course, I've watched
Speaker 1: him play. This guy is so exciting. I am so
Speaker 1: excited about the possibility of this top next best three
Speaker 1: and they are clearly his stand out best three potential.
Speaker 1: I mean, Sino's now one, you know what, three Grand
Speaker 1: slams three Yeah, three Grand slams Auchress, I mean wow,
Speaker 1: that in and of itself is incredible and fun. Take
Speaker 1: it for sure. He'll be a threat at the French Open.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Well yeah, I mean I know.
Speaker 2: He's eighteen, but no, no, no.
Speaker 1: French Open at eighteen.
Speaker 2: Yes, no, one percent his threat at every tournament. The
Speaker 2: only thing I have seen with him so far is
Speaker 2: he gets so excited emotionally that sometimes he burns out.
Speaker 2: That's eighteen exactly. That's what I mean. He is going
Speaker 2: to learn.
Speaker 1: We all learn. You know that that's not going to
Speaker 1: help us get super excited to break it one love
Speaker 1: and the first sets. It's what you see in juniors,
Speaker 1: you know, when they're playing a top player and they
Speaker 1: win the first game, they like, oh, come on, and
Speaker 1: he's like, uh.
Speaker 2: There's a lot more whoa, whoa, whoa, there's a lumma
Speaker 2: would to cut.
Speaker 1: Come the farm, little one. You've got two and a
Speaker 1: half hours left of this and if you can get
Speaker 1: through it, you can give the come on after winning
Speaker 1: a set maybe, but until then. But these are all
Speaker 1: things you learn because you don't know how to react
Speaker 1: in big moments, and he's just gonna learn to. This
Speaker 1: is like and I will also say second nature for me. Now.
Speaker 2: He played I think twenty five Argentinians in a row
Speaker 2: in Argentina. It was incredible. I was like, oh my god,
Speaker 2: he's playing an Argentine again and he handled it. And
Speaker 2: granted that there were a lot of Brazilian fans there
Speaker 2: and they kept a nice balance against the Argentine wall
Speaker 2: of fans, but but man, that was incredible. He not
Speaker 2: only won his first title, he wanted in Argentina again
Speaker 2: basically except for Jarrett in the Semis against every single
Speaker 2: Argentinian player that plays out there right.
Speaker 1: Now, Well done, mister Fonseka. We cannot wait to see
Speaker 1: the future for you. We cannot wait to see what
Speaker 1: a man a Nissa Mova can do at Indian Wells.
Speaker 1: I think she's going to be real tough to be.
Speaker 2: There was there was, honestly, you go in bed winning
Speaker 2: and Marseille defending his title. But I think honestly there
Speaker 2: were a lot of favorites that lost early on Zvera
Speaker 2: f lost to Cirrindolo.
Speaker 1: Never did what is happening with him? Coaches, He's like
Speaker 1: moving on. He can't win a match he won today
Speaker 1: against Hutchanov.
Speaker 3: Yeah but but but just in the end, it was
Speaker 3: a super fun week having any Simova on top, having
Speaker 3: fun second on top, in bed, defending his title in Marseille.
Speaker 2: It was a fun week in the end. I think
Speaker 2: everyone got what they wanted.
Speaker 1: Including Sinner. Yeah joking, I'm joking, would have liked to
Speaker 1: have not had three months, says, yes, Sinner got exactly
Speaker 1: one who.
Speaker 2: Wanted does not clear.
Speaker 1: Anyway, We are sitting here watching Baratini, Djokovic. Nice to
Speaker 1: see Novak back because we weren't sure about his leg
Speaker 1: situation after straight and open, but he.
Speaker 2: Is back and he's playing doubles.
Speaker 1: And he's playing doubles well, he hasn't played a lot
Speaker 1: of matches.
Speaker 2: Since he's one with Verdesko and six black sixth six one.
Speaker 1: Was anyway, all right, guys, Well thanks for joining me
Speaker 1: again today. Petco. We are back in New York. I am,
Speaker 1: and we'll be in Indian Wells and Miami, so you'll
Speaker 1: see me there and we'll do some player interviews. Maybe
Speaker 1: maybe we can grab a couple of players. But in
Speaker 1: the meantime you're going to New Welles. I am.
Speaker 2: Nice.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so we'll talk about that off camera, off Mike,
Speaker 1: just kidding. I'm gonna go get my hair cutter.
Speaker 2: We were pretty good one.
Speaker 1: We looked at our schedule for today and thought we
Speaker 1: got a lot to talk about. But anyway, guys, Ipe
Speaker 1: you enjoyed it for today. You'll hear from us again
Speaker 1: next week. Appreciate you. I cry
Speaker 2: F