Draw Fixing: An Official Study

The link below shows a talk by an Estionian researcher Katarina
Pijetlovic, giving an exposition on draw fixing at a Corruption in Sport
Symposium in Koln.


Katarina's talk starts at around 13 minutes:

http://www.livestream.com/playthegame_dshs/video?clipId=pla_44809e94-aa04-46c7-9f1e-35b212ba9d46


She examines the pattern of draws at slam tournaments (French Open was
not part of the study) between 2007-2011, drawing the conclusion that
ITF organised draw fixing on behalf of Nike seeing that Djokovic fell in
Federer's half of the draw statistically virtually impossible 12 out of
12 times.

Roland Garros was not taken into the study as it showed a healthy 50/50 pattern.



Interesting facts, e.g. I didn't know that seeds 3 and 4 are drawn by
hand unlike all the other seeds/players that are computer drawn.
Draws are apparently public and televised, but not really accessible anywhere on Youtube.

To me, the most blatant example of draw fixing was the Isner Mahut match
played in the first round last year ON COURT 18, just like at the
record breaking match the year before!!!


Katarina did the research hoping it would interest sports journalists and encourage them to contact the players and ITF.


So far nothing came out of it.

Have a look with an open mind and share your thoughts.

This thread ran on another forum (to which I do not belong any more due to milltant thought-policing) .

I'll just c&p some of my comments:



the key paragraph in the first link above:

"Combined
with a study conducted by ESPN on the draws of unseeded players at US
Open, which resulted in 1 in 250000 probability, it is ca. 32 BILLIONS
TO 1. Media that has covered the Sport&EU member’s study thus far
include Der Spiegel, Daily Mail, El Pais, Le Monde, and about hundred
others. However, so far the organisers of the Grand Slams and the ITF
are avoiding official response to the issue. "

OK, I'll do the spelling-out (someone has to, and it may as well be me :shock: )

the
study was obviously done by a Djokovic fan. The researcher observed the
strange pattern (I noticed it during the years as well) of Djokovic
being in Federer's half 12 about of 12 times during all fast slams.
She went one further and observed that the trend was not applicable to the slow surface, clay, i.e . RG.

She
then went one step further to allude/conclude that the draws on fast
court slams were fixed in order to guarantee (as much as possible)
commercially lucrative Federer Nadal finals.

A little push for
Nadal to reach the final in his half on surfaces he was behind compared
to Federer. Obviously, no need for the push on clay.

It does make a lot of sense.

I
know it's ugly and even I kind of don't want to know it, but we all
know what big business are prepared to do in order to increase their
profit margins. Draw fixing is child's play compared to the really big ones.


Interesting that at the first slam after the study saw light of day, Federer ended up being in Nadal's half at AO 2012.
Mind
you, it doesn't make that much difference now, but watch for FO and who
ends up in Nole's half, also Madrid and Rome: Nadal to have easy fellow
Spaniards, Nole to have all the banana slips and grinders.
In a perverse way, I can't wait to see RG draw 8)

Looking at the above comment and the last sentence...I don't know whether to laugh or cry....since Federer ended up being in Nole's half BOTH in RG AND Wimbledon ...

The thing is that those who do not believe draws can be rigged have no leg to stand on when considering the ESPN study. This proves draws have been rigged. Now the next question is about the semis...it's a chance in 4096...very unlikely to be down to chance, though there is still a very small chance it is pure luck, close to a miracle I should say.

So, I don't want to be rude, but we can recognise an idiot when he/she dismisses the suggestion as unfounded!

I understand that some might be sceptical and say well there is still a very fine chance it is down to luck but dismissing those studies as conspiracion and BS is much more absurd that suggesting they make valid points.

Although I didn't expect everyone to jump at the study and "see the light", I certainly didn't expect such staunch and stubborn disbelief, either.

I suppose people prefer to stick their head in sand and pretend everything's rosey-posey.

Yes, I was very surprised too. I think it is more a fear than reason, cause reason can only lead to more questions. The fear of being seen as a conspiracionist. Very weird.

That's why the politicians have it very easy. A simple test like that on a people's sample (cause that's what a tennis forum is) and you see why our politician are so bad and we allow them to take all the wrong decisions.

If a chance in 300 000 doesn;t make them tilt, imagine what a politician in a suit can make them believe!