15 January 2016
Heidi Blake
Investigations Editor
BuzzFeed News

Dear Heidi,
Thank you for sharing the information that will form the basis for the BuzzFeed News and BBC
reports into allegations of corruption in tennis.
The following response is made on behalf of the Tennis Integrity Unit (TIU) and the four governing
bodies of tennis - the Grand Slam Board, ATP, WTA and ITF - who have all contributed to it.
The response addresses the questions put forward in the emails received from you and Simon Cox of
the BBC on 11 January 2016.
Where possible we provide the information you have requested, but as I explained to you when we
met in May last year, and in line with other organisations like UK law enforcement, the US
Department of Justice and anti-doping authorities, the TIU never comments on its investigative and
operational activities. That policy is followed for a number of very good reasons which are detailed
later in this response. It means that in some cases we are not in a position to provide you with the
details or commentary requested.
At the outset it is critical to stress that the TIU and the tennis authorities reject any suggestion that
evidence of match-fixing has been suppressed, for commercial or any other reason.
Tennis has a zero-tolerance approach to all aspects of betting-related corruption and all professional
players, support staff and officials are subject to the terms of the Tennis Anti-Corruption Program
(TACP). To ensure a proper and efficient application of these terms, all credible information received
by the TIU is analysed, assessed and investigated by highly experienced former law-enforcement
investigators.
As an independent operating Unit, the TIU has the authority to investigate all matters it believes
pose a threat to the integrity of the sport. Commercial considerations have never, and will never,
play any part in that process. Any suggestion to the contrary is strongly refuted.
Tennis is a leader among major sports in the way that it has recognised and responded to the threat
of betting-related corruption. Tennis was the third major sport to create such a unit. The sport is
confident that the vast majority of players, support staff and officials abhor any prospect of
corruption being associated with the game they are passionate about and committed to.
Regrettably, as in all walks of life, there is always a minority who seek personal gain from corrupt
activity. Those individuals will continue to be subject to investigation by the TIU and disciplinary
sanction through the powers contained in the TACP, which include lifetime bans and punitive
financial penalties.

1

 All professional players, support staff and officials are subject to the terms of the TACP, which since
2009 has equipped the Tlu with substantial investigative powers. These include the right to
interview any covered person ofinterest and obtain their telephone, computer and bank records.

Securing the evidence required to bringfonward successful prosecutions in sports corruption cases is
acknowledged as being notoriously difficult. in spite ofthat challenge, since 2010 TIU 
investigations have resulted in 13 successful disciplinary cases being brought against players, officials
and support staff.

in each case the quality and robustness ofthe evidence presented was found to meet the Standard
of Proof required by the TACP.

included in those prosecutions are five players and one official who have been banned from the
sport for life.

Each ofthe 13 cases was a result of investigations, rather than law enforcement or
judicial prosecutions, or sting or entrapment operations. That said, the TIU maintains deep
relationships with international law enforcement agencies around the world.

where cases have been appealed by players to the Court for Arbitration in Sport the original
suspension period handed down by the tennis authorities has been upheld. This reinforces the
robustness ofthe original investigation and the strength of evidence gathered by the TIU.

An important aspect ofthe disciplinary process is the involvement of highly qualified and respected
independent AnticCorruption Hearing Officers. By taking this approach the sport sends the clearest
possible message that it is confident in allowing the work ofthe TIU to be subject to independent
examination by the most eminent legal practitioners and sports law experts

TIU investigations

As previously stated, the TIU has the authority to open an investigation into any matter of concern
involving individuals covered by the TACP. No player orofficial is immune from investigation,
regardless oftheir status or position in the sport. investigations follow where evidence leads.

No external influence has ever been brought to bear on making investigative decisions.

No player or official is ever cleared by the TIU of potential involvement in corruption. by its very
nature, corruption is difficult to prove, so while the process can often be the TIU will
continue to pursue evidence where it believes it is warranted.

As it is in the public domain, the case of-- can stand as an example of

this. in 2011 the TIU opened an investigation into the player that was subsequently placed onchold
for lack of substantive evidence. when new evidence was obtained in 2013,_ was charged
and found guilty of three breaches ofthe TACP. He was suspended for a period of five years and
fined A subsequent appeal to as in early 2014 was dismissed and the original sanction
upheld.

For four years the Tlu continued to pursue this case; time and effort that was vindicated by
removing a corrupt player from the game for a substantial period oftime.

Player education and protection

in addition to its investigative responsibilities, the TIU has an important role to play in educating
players to the risks of potential corrupt approaches. This program includes a series of player
presentations and a mandatory online module which has to date been completed by over 23,000
professionals.

Players also have an important role in reporting concerns of any suspicious activity they become
aware of. While this is mandatory under the TACP, the TIU believes that the great majority of players
support the work of the Unit and have confidence in its approach and methods.
A dedicated player reporting email protocol has proved successful in providing an effective channel
of communication with the TIU.
The extensive international network of tournament officials forms another key part of the TIU’s
direct access to and involvement in the game. The TIU works closely with Supervisors around the
world to share information, facilitate contact with players and watch matches on its behalf.
The TIU’s policy of working in confidence also helps to protect players from unfounded or malicious
allegations laid by disgruntled bettors or other parties. If the TIU was to confirm each investigation it
undertook, there would be unwarranted attention and pressure placed on individuals, many of
whom would be completely innocent of any wrongdoing.
For those who are corrupt, it would act as an early-warning to dispose of the records and evidence
trails so vital in securing a successful prosecution.
The policy also encourages witnesses to give vital evidence at anti-corruption Hearings, knowing that
the confidentiality of their testimony will be respected and not made public.
The TIU estimates that most, if not all, of the 18 successful convictions achieved to date would not
have been possible without the ability to work in confidence.
Prevention of corruption
A third element of the TIU’s role is to prevent corruption from taking place by working closely with
tournaments and governing bodies to implement consistent security protocols to restrict
unauthorised access to players. The TIU also assists with identification of would-be corruptors and
known courtsiders.
Turning to your specific questions, I would comment as follows:
Question 1: How seriously do you believe tennis is affected by match fixing?
All sports have the potential to be targeted by would-be corruptors, which is why in 2008 the
governing bodies of tennis took a proactive approach to establishing the TIU as a permanent and
dedicated anti-corruption operation for professional tennis. This represents a major commitment by
the sport.
The vast majority of players, support staff and officials adhere strictly to the TACP that sets out the
sport’s code in relation to betting-related corruption. Unfortunately, as in any walk of life, there will
always be a tiny minority who choose to ignore the rules for personal gain. Those individuals will
continue to be subject to investigation by the TIU and disciplinary sanction through the powers
contained in the TACP, which include lifetime bans and punitive financial penalties.
Question 2: Has evidence of the problem been suppressed because of commercial considerations
or any other reasons?
Categorically, not. Tennis has a zero-tolerance approach to all aspects of betting-related corruption.
In practice that means all credible information received by the TIU is analysed and assessed by highly
experienced former law-enforcement investigators. As an independent operating unit, the TIU has
the authority to investigate all matters it believes pose a threat to the integrity of the sport.
3

 No player or official is immune from investigation, regardless of their status or position in the sport.
Investigations follow where evidence leads. No external influence is ever brought to bear on making
investigative decisions.
Commercial considerations have never and will never play any part in that process and any
suggestion to the contrary is strongly refuted.
Question 3: Did the TIU open official investigations into any of the players who were flagged in the
2008 report? If not, why?
In 2007 the four governing bodies of tennis did not have a single investigative authority like the TIU.
Each association carried out its own investigations. In 2007 the ATP publically announced an
investigation into the Arguello vs. Davydenko match which took place in August 2007. That
investigation went on for approximately 12 months. In 2008 the ATP publically announced that ‘the
ATP has now exhausted all avenues of enquiry open to it and the investigation is now concluded’.
Following the 2008 Environmental Review by Rees and Gunn, the sport agreed to have a Uniform
Tennis Anti-Corruption Program (UTACP) across the whole sport. The UTACP became effective on 1
January 2009 and was applicable prospectively to corruption offences occurring on or after that
date.
Corruption offences that occurred before that date were to be governed by the former rules of the
applicable governing body. Legal advice from a leading US law firm confirmed that the new UTACP
could not be applied retrospectively. As a result, no new investigations into any of the players who
were mentioned in the 2008 report were opened, but all intelligence has been retained.
Question 4: Did the TIU obtain the phone, email and bank records of any of these players to check
whether they had been in contact with any gambling account holders? If not, why did you not take
this step to investigate the serious suspicions that had been raised?
As explained above, no new investigations into any of the players who were mentioned in the 2008
report were opened, but all intelligence has been retained.
Question 5: Why did none of the players identified in the 2008 report face any sanctions?
As explained previously, no new investigations into any of the players who were mentioned in the
2008 report were opened, but all intelligence has been retained
Question 6: Was it misleading of the ATP to state that both players had been cleared of any
wrongdoing in this context, when investigators had concluded that one of them, or someone close
to them, had leaked inside information about the outcome of a match to gamblers — which would
be a clear breach of the rules?
For clarity, the ATP never stated that both players had been ‘cleared of any wrongdoing’. The
announcement at the close of the investigation stated that there was ‘no evidence of a violation of
its rules’. The ATP statement of 12 September 2008 read as follows
ATP Statement Regarding The Sopot Match Investigation
Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida, U.S.A. – A fundamental role of the ATP is to ensure that men’s
professional tennis continues to be free of corruption. For this reason, the ATP instigated an
investigation into the circumstances surrounding the match in Sopot between Mr. Vassallo Arguello
and Mr. Davydenko on 2nd August 2007. ATP can confirm today that it has concluded its
investigation and found no evidence of a violation of its rules by either Mr. Arguello or Mr.
Davydenko or anyone else associated with the match.
4

 During its investigation, the ATP worked with a number of leading external integrity experts. As well
as interviewing a number of individuals involved in the match and reviewing betting account details
of those who wagered on the match, the investigating team also requested and reviewed records
from the players and from individuals closely associated with them.
These included telephone records from individuals including Mr Vassallo Arguello and Mr Davydenko
as well as members of both players’ support personnel. Certain individuals declined the ATP requests
and appealed them to the independent Hearing Officer. After lengthy legal proceedings, the
independent Hearing Officer directed those individuals to turn over the requested records to ATP. A
number of records were received and examined, however due to the length of the legal proceedings
some of the records were confirmed as having been destroyed by the relevant telephone providers in
line with local data protection laws.
This confirmation means that the ATP has now exhausted all avenues of enquiry open to it and the
investigation is now concluded.
The in-depth investigation of the circumstances surrounding the Sopot match, together with the
findings of the recent, independent tennis integrity review by Jeff Rees and Ben Gunn, will play a
large and important role in informing and advancing the imminent creation of the tennis wide
Integrity Unit and its accompanying regulatory framework which will now have responsibility for
running the new global Tennis Anti-Corruption Program on behalf of the ATP, WTA, ITF and Grand
Slam Committee tournaments.
Question 7: Why was Davydenko not compelled to hand over his full phone records, or disciplined
for his failure to do so?
Mr. Davydenko was compelled to hand over his full phone records. However, due to a lengthy legal
process to get to that determination, many of the records were not available due to them being
destroyed by the mobile carrier, based on local data privacy laws. This meant that the ATP had
exhausted all avenues of enquiry open to it, and the investigation was concluded.
Question 8: Why was Arguello never sanctioned?
Refer to the answer provided to Question 6
Question 9: Why did the ATP announce he had been cleared of any wrongdoing when he had in
fact been communicating with gambling syndicates who had profited by betting on his matches?
As per the answer to Question 6, the ATP never stated that both players had been cleared of any
wrongdoing. The announcement at the close of the investigation stated that there was “no evidence
of a violation of its rules.”
The European Sports Security Association flagged up 49 suspicious matches to the TIU in the first
three quarters of last year, and warned that tennis attracts more suspicious gambling activity than
any other sport.
ESSA and its 19 constituent members is one of the organisations that has a Memorandum of
Understanding with the TIU. Others include Betfair, the UK Gambling Commission, EUROPOL and the
IOC. Information supplied by betting operators can be an indicator of suspicious activity but is
certainly not proof that corruption has taken place.
While the TIU welcomes the support of the industry in providing such data, it is not the role of
betting companies to make judgements about corrupt activity. Therefore statistics of the kind you
5

 referto must be considered in that light. Betting data alone is not sufficient to bring forward a
prosecution; it has to be considered, assessed and verified along with the TIU's many other sources
of intelligence.

several professional tennis gam biers have told us they have sent repeated alerts to the TIU about
players but received no response. several of these alerts sent last year were about a former top 10
player. We have repeatedly and widely been told that you have consistently ignored these
warnings and have taken no steps to investigate the players whose names have been flagged time
and again.

The TIU regularly receives information supplied by gamblers. All such details are carefully assessed
and may contribute towards investigative activity. With respect, these sources are simply not
qualified to make statements about whether investigations have or have not taken place.

The TIU would never confirm to any source, including gamblers and betting companies, that an

investigation is underway. As previously detailed in the case 0--, it may take an
extended period oftime to build a case and secure a conviction against a corruptor.

Confirmation ofan investigation is only made at the conclusion ofthe independent AntiaCorruption
Hearing process.

Question 10; Specifically, what if any steps have you taken to investigate these players?

While you have not confirmed the identity ofthe players alleged to be involved, this is a question
the TIU would not answer for the reasons of confidence explained earlier in this response. However,
it is worth repeating that the TIU follows up all credible sources of information that come into its
possession.

Question 11; ifyou have not investigated these players, why have you taken no action against any
of these players?

While you have not confirmed the identity ofthe players alleged to be involved, this is a question
the TIU would not answer for the reasons of confidence explained earlier in this response. However,
it is worth repeating that the TIU follows up all credible sources of information that come into its
possession.

We have spoken to a former player naniel Koelierer who says he warned the tennis authorities on
three occasions that he had been approached to throw matches for significant sums of money, but
no action was taken to investigate the approaches. He was later himself banned from tennis for
alleged fixing.

Question 12; Were you told about these approaches?

Question 13: if so, did you take action?

Question 14; ifyou didn'ttake any action why wasthis?

During the investigative process that eventually led to him becoming the first corrupt playerto be
banned for life, references were made by Mr Koellererto reports of a number of approaches. Upon
further investigation by the TIU these proved to be from unidentifiable individuals on social media
which could not be validated.

Had Mr Koellerer genuinely wanted to support the work ofthe TIU he had every opportunity of
providing informed insight during his investigation. Not only did he fail to provide any such
information, he also chose, as was his right, to appeal the lifetime ban imposed on him by an
independent AntiaCorruption Hearing officerto CA5, which subsequently upheld the original
sanction.

Question 15: why did you opt fora smaller, cheaper unit than the one Gunn had recommended?

Mr Rees and Mr Gunn held different views on the structure of the Unit. when Mr Rees was
appointed as Director of integrity naturally his recommendations were acted upon to provide tennis
with the most appropriate intelligencerled investigative operation. This was not a 'soft option' or a
decision based on cost; it was the recommendation ofa highly qualified investigator with extensive
experience of having worked in an international sports integrity environment.

The resourcing ofthe TIU is constantly reviewed in response to known and emerging threats. No
request forfunding by the TIU has ever been denied by the governing bodies ofthe sport.

Question 15; why did you not include a betting analyst?

The Tiu's preferred approach is to employ a data analyst who can make a greater overall
contribution to the work ofthe Unit, rather than a dedicated betting analyst. By working closely with
betting operators and regulators the TIU is able to use the expert resources ofthe betting industry
to support its work. The TIU stands by the original decision made in 2003 not to employ a betting
analyst. The same decision would be made today.

Question 11; How many investigators doesthe Tiu currently employ and do they include a full
time betting analyst who monitors the gambling markets for suspicious activity?

The TIU is structured to provide tennis with the most appropriate professional resource to meet the
integrity challenges facing the sport. it is staffed by a director of integrity, three investigators and a
specialist data analyst. Coaoperative agreements with the betting industry and regulators provide
immediate fealytime access to gambling market intelligence. This replaces the need for an inrhouse
betting analyst.

We are informed that the Tiu has threatened sports integrity experts with legal action if they
continue to report their suspicions about specific matches to the unit. In one case. we have seen a
letter from Jeff Rees where this threat was made explicitly.

Question 1s: why have such threats been made?

The TIU is not aware ofa letter using the terms you have described and invite you to provide a copy
before making any comment.

Question 19; why does the Tiu not want to receive the widest possible number of reports in order
to police the sport effectively?

This contention is patently false. On the contrary, the TIU actively encourages and welcomes
responsible reporting of concerns through a numberof channels, including a confidential email
reporting service for players and officials, a webrbased email service; by working closely with
tournaments and events around the world, and through coroperatlve agreements with gambling
regulators, law enforcement agencies and betting operators.

All such information is recorded, evaluated and appropriate action taken. This includes reports from
betturs.

Having made this point, it is worth clarifying thatthe TIU has no role or responsibility in acting as an
intermediary in disputes between disgruntled gamblers and betting operators. Requests to do so are
politely refused.

The analysis by BuuFeed News of bet odds and match outcomes between zoos and 2015 has

identified--

clear: BuuFeed does not claim thatthese players have fixed matches, patterns
are suspicious and warrant further inquiry. We do not necessarily intend to publish their names,
but request the TlU's response to the following questions, for each player:

20) Has the Tlu ever been warned about potential match xing in relation to this player?

21) Has the Tlu ever opened an investigation intothis player? ifso, what did the investigation
lind?

22) Has the Tlu ever disciplined this player? ifso, what wasthe punishment?

The TlU's previously explained confidentiality policy means that it can make no comment on these
questions as they relate directly to operational and investigative matters.

However, it is worth repeating that the TIU follows up all credible sources of information that come
into its possession.

The TIU has been widely criticised for its lack of transparency, why do you choose not to publish
any details of your investigations or the reasoning for your dec ns?

 

The TIU is responsible for maintaining the integrity ofthe sport oftennis. We accept that our
confidentiality policy is not popular with some observers, out we make no apology for it.

There are compelling structural and operational reasons for maintaining this approach:
. it helps to protect players from unfounded and malicious allegations of involvement in
corruption;
. it allows investigators to work in confidence in bringing forward disciplinary action;
. It encourages Witnesses to give vital evidence at antircorrumlon Hearings, knowing that the
confidentiality of their testimony will be respected and not made public

In addition, the TIU is bound by Confidentiaiity ciauses contained within the TACP, which state:
"Any information furnished to the Tlu shall be kept confidential except when it becomes
necessary to disclose such information in furtherance ofthe prosecution ofa Corruption offense,
or when such information is reported to administrative, professional, or judicial authorities
pursuant to an investigation or prosecution of non-sporting laws or regulations and (ii) used solely
forthe purposes of the investig ion and prosecution ofa Corruption Offense'fi

   

The TIU is registered With the UK information Commissioners office (ICU) and is subject to European
Data protection Legislation, which constrains its ability to disclose information, other than what is
set out in the puplished TIU privacy policy and the TACP.

The TIU collaborates and engages in joint investigations with law enforcement agencies and will

often be restricted from making any disclosures that would jeopardise such investigations.

Vours sincerely,

Nigel Willerton
Director of integrity
Tennis integrity Unit