Extracts of Gilles Simon interview in French Tennis Magazine (January 2013)about press and storylines about doping, players, etc.

Tennis Magazine: There is a lot of news to look at the end of 2013. Beginning by doping, which we talked a lot about these last months (1). What is your position on the subject?

Gilles Simon: Nobody would claim that doping is non-existent in tennis. But we, players, think that we have one of the cleanest sports. I support the establishment of a maximum of things against doping, as the biological passport in 2013. But I do not want people to "communicate" on it, and it is true that there was a lot of "com" in the introduction of this passport. Authorities wanted to do so much because in general, people think that tennis is always very touched. So they want to get into this debate. Now I, you know, I am against the effects of the "com" in general.

TM: Why do you think people are that much suspicious about tennis?

GS: The media have an important role. Sometimes I see outrageous articles. The other day I read, in l’equipe.fr: "More controls in curling than in tennis." A load of bollocks! In fact, they were talking about controls carried out by the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency that has nothing to do with the anti-doping system in tennis. So here we are in the most complete disinformation.
Seeing that, I am in eager to ask the reporter, "but what is the point of writing such a nonsense? What do you want to set off?" When I see the front page of Libération labeled "All doped" with an article completely at charge, I even wondered about suing the journalists involved, because without targeting players in particular, they targeted everyone, including me. It is tiring to read this stuff. We train all day, trying to do our job properly and you come across this kind of "crap" that destroy our image. Suddenly, people are upset that there is not a lot of positive cases of doping. This is why as soon as appears the beginning of a doping case, they are ready to jump on it. It’s like that the dream of everyone is that there is a huge doping scandal in tennis.

TM: So, in this case, how could you convince people that yes, tennis has made ​​some efforts?

GS: But you can´t! Because we can never prevent people from writing bullshit. And reply by explaining all that we do, I think it's hot air. We, we're comfortable with our sport and with our fight against doping. Anyway, you can never convince the scandalmongers. Unless you send the guy for a month to sleep in Roger’s bed, I do not see how to change his mind. It’s a waste of time! So we just have to stop to lay it on thick, because this is only adding fuel to the fire.

TM: This is that painful to be under consultants scrutiny?

GS: No, it is not this. In fact, it was not even the subject. Initially, in the concerned interview (L'Equipe, 10.21.13), it was a bit the same discussion on the role of the press, and therefore consultants. I wonder why, when I read or hear things about Roger, Rafa or others players, I often have a different impression than the one I have when I rub shoulders with them in the locker room. Also why, reading the articles about me, I feel that the purpose is to explain we do not know why I'm here.

They say I have no strength, only weaknesses and next to it they says that I can not go higher. It's very contradictory. Again this is a trend of the press, thicken the lines they like and obscures the ones they have less interest in. They never speaks about Federer’s physical for example. How, in a fifteen years career, they can overshadow an important parameter of his game? Because they desire to create characters. And I can not find my place there. I am told that I am less talented and less physical than Mr so and so. Why don’t they write sometimes that I am more physical and more talented than Mr so and so? Because at one point I can not be "less" everywhere, and still be in the ranking where I am.


TM: But why do you think we diminish your merits? Because you are not 1.90m, you do not have the biceps of Nadal, you do not have an extraordinary story?

GS: I always feel that you speak about me comparing me to the others, especially other French. That you sell Gasquet’s backhand or Monfils’s physical, thanks God! Because they are rare, exceptional things. But do not put myself in opposition to these guys. I feel that what you want to overstate in my game is my tactical sense (...) I think I have other qualities though I won’t try to "sell" something that I do not have. Anyway, self-selling is useless. Look at Djokovic he can bend over backwards, try harder, he is neither Roger nor Rafa in people's hearts.

TM: Yes but the question is why?

GS: Because, as you say, when you look at Novak, he’s more “all-purpose”. He has a very clean technique, he plays extremely fair but he won’t make a Roger’s stroke of genius or a Rafa’s murderer forehand. He is incredibly strong and monstrous but he doesn’t have the small thing that press can overstate, or the outstanding quality that emerges in relation to others. Thing that we have for Jo, Gael or Richard.

TM: Why the image you have of the players would be so different from the one your are seeing in the press?

GS : Because, again, there are things we do not want to talk. Because we need , or want, to make storylines. In this case, there is the story of a genius of the racket, Federer, against a not gifted nag, Nadal. Roger, he must be class, don’t sweat... Nadal, at the contrary , must represent all the values ​​of relentless work. And they magnify the stories in the same way for French players. Richard, for example, the press said when he was nine years old that he was Mozart. So when Mozart loses matches, you must explain why. So they will say that he has no physical, no mental strenght. One could also say that Richard has an undeniable talent that allowed him to get in the top ten players in the world. But it's not enough since he is Mozart. And, Mozart normally is the best.


TM: Many players protect themselves by saying only banalities to journalists, making it difficult to get to the bottom of things. It doesn’t facilitate the work of media ...

GS: If they are like that, it’s in reaction. They know what will happen if they say one word louder than the other. But again it’s the fault of the media, who should know how to take things in consideration rather than relaying the little phrase out of context. Rafa, when he says he fears particularly facing a wild card in the 1st round of Roland Garros, you know he’s taking you for a “fool”. And you could write it, rather than speaking of humility, values ​​of sport and blah. The system obliges him to have these comments. Yet, in my opinion, it would be almost less violent if he says "I'm going to explode him" rather than "I am particularly wary."

Reply · Report Post