NEW YORK,  (Reuters) – The World Anti-Doping Agency  (WADA) wants to investigate whether any charges can be brought  against Andre Agassi following his admission that he lied after  taking crystal meth in 1997 and failing a drugs test.

Agassi’s revelations in extracts of his autobiography  “Open”, published last week in The Times newspaper in Britain,  stunned the tennis world and cast a shadow over the eight-times  grand slam champion’s glittering career.

“He took something from the banned list in 1997, we can’t do  much about that because it’s outside the statute of limitations,  the eight-year bar,” WADA director general David Howman told  Reuters yesterday.

“Two things need a little bit more inquiry, if he’s lied,  and he’s confessed he lied, so he’s obviously lied and he lied  under oath then I think that warrants further investigation to  see whether there might be any other charges.

“We all know about Marion Jones, she lied to a tribunal, it  can’t just be one of those things you get away with,” he added  in reference to the American sprinter who served a six-month  prison term for lying to federal prosecutors about her drug use.

“The second issue is, he had a lawyer represent him, does  his lawyer know that he was lying?

“Maybe something can be done in relation to that.”

After failing a drugs test, Agassi wrote a letter to the ATP  asking for leniency because he had accidentally drunk a “spiked  soda” belonging to his assistant.

Agassi received no punishment from the governing body of  men’s tennis.

WADA has an eight-year limit on punishment for doping  offences but last week former Ukraine pole vaulter Sergei Bubka,  a committee member on the International Olympic Committee (IOC)  said Agassi should be penalised for taking banned substances. “It may not be something the ATP has any jurisdiction over.  It may be that some other agency has to look at it,” Howman  said. “We just don’t rely on sport to sanction for doping  offences.

“These things have to be pursued,” Howman added. “You don’t  just take them at face value, that it’s outside the eight-year  limit so nothing can be done. You’ve got to say maybe something  else can be done.”