Greatest American Squash Player?

Did Doubles Players Leave Frying Pan for Fire ?

The doubles world was rocked in the off-season when the ISDA's top players played hardball off the court with tour owners and  orchestrated a mass exodus with the goal of launching an independent, player-owned tour beginning this fall.  

From the outside view, however, the new SDA Pro Tour looks more like a US Squash subsidiary than an independent body.

Here are some notes that indicate the players may have less control than they thought.

1) The office phone for the tour (212) 268-4090 is actually US Squash's Headquarters.  

2) US Squash's website lists US Squash as the sanctioning body for two early SDA Pro Tour tournaments: Maryland (here) and Philadelphia (here).

3) The page also says the US Squash Code of Conduct is applicable code for the tournament.  

4) On SDA Pro Tour's Members Page, if you want to find a partner to compete in a pro tournament, you are asked to email: doubles@USSquash.com.  

5) On the newly formed SDA Pro Tour's website, at the bottom of each web page 'Preston Quick (US Squash)' is listed as the tour manager.

Adding insult to injury, the players don't even own their website. SDAProTour.com is owned by Denver Colorado's Harrow Sports (here) - not the players. 

 

If a separate group is running the tour and is the official sanctioning body of the tour, one is left to wonder what the players own or control ?

Drug Martyrs

Drug Martyrs

“From the Editor”

By Ian McKenzie

Squash Player Magazine 2012 Issue No. 4

Sport, by definition is competitive, recreation not so. In this competitive activity rules are crucial and behind them we have a set of ideals (or principles) on fairness. The competition must be fair or, as some say, there must be a level playing field.

One area where competitors can gain an unfair advantage is to use performance enhancing drugs. The principle is easy enough to agree to, but defining these drugs and testing for them is a different matter. 

I am surprised that marijuana is viewed as a performance enhancing drug, but would tend to bow to experts’ views.  After all, they are the experts. I am uneasy with this, but I assume they must know what they are doing.

However, I am even more uneasy when I read the World Anti-Doping Agency Code, which in deciding whether to ban ‘a substance or method’ (in paragraph 4.3 of the code) sets out the criteria, one of these being WADA’s determination that the use of the substance or method violates the spirit of sport described in the “Introduction to the Code”. This includes such concepts as ‘fun and joy’ and ‘health’, which does lead me to question whether the banned substances are really included to stop ‘performance enhancement’ or violate some other ‘principle.’

Squash loyally signed up to the protocols with an eye, of course, on its Olympic bid, but I am uneasy that the main outcome is that we ban young people from our sport for occasional use of recreational drugs which are nothing to do with trying to gain an unfair advantage. Let’s hope the sacrifice is worth it. To call them ‘drug cheats’ is unfair, though, isn’t it? How about drug martyrs?

To subscribe to Squash Player Magazine, please call +44 (0) 20 8597 0181

or email editor@SquashPlayer.co.uk