Agreeing to regular doping tests should not have to exclude being critical about how those tests are done. Those procedures can always be improved from both sides.
Murray gave a couple of good examples in the past of the whereabouts system being ridiculous at times, even though it's necessary as a principle. Murray is in a tournament, so there's enough opportunity to test him. He crashes out of that tournament and Murray's team needs to inform the system where he'll be next. So far, no problem. Less than 24 hours later, a Murray who is tired and suffers from jetlag gets a visit at an impossible time very early in the morning. What's the point in that exactly? Why not test him at the tournament instead of bothering him at home. I think that Murray & co where not against the whereabouts system (obviously, it's necessary for out-of-competition testing) but the system itself could be improved on. The whereabouts system is necessary but should not be abused either by the powers-that-be.
After the Armstrong affair, I think that many of those athletes (not just in tennis) are all too eager to say "we are 100% for doping tests" and not eager at all to say anything critical about the procedure, out of fear of getting a "suspicious" label.
I disagree with you about that.
I'm not naive and don't care at all which individual players are speaking now. I just want things to change and for that, it's good that there is some public support wherever it comes from (and top-players being a lot talked about in the media, their vocal support is very welcome).
But those critics against the whereabouts system which you speak about and of course focusing on a few events as always they do in those cases
, were extremely counterproductive imo and I firmly want them to stop.
It's too easy to say that the doping inspectors who have no voice in the media, don't know how their job should be done well, and that players who can gossip a lot, know better than them how it should be done. It's too easy and also I firmly think that it's wrong : people who do this job know why they do it like that and try to have good procedures. I want those critics to stop.