Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
PED
Comments
-
Wow, he hit a couple of 130 + mph serves. Serena and Venus do this, and Sabine Lisciki can hit 130 +. They are women. He's a man. Heavier, bigger and more explosive. You want to use these couple of fast serves as your evidence of doping is really clutching!
Plenty of WTA players will be doping too. The point I'd assume he's making is that a sudden and drastic improvement in power explained by a change in grip is pretty suspicious.
I know a professional tennis coach, who is obviously deArly in love with tennis and when I asked him about a change in grip leading to such a large increase in power he laughed.0 -
-
Halloween Jack wrote: »I know a professional tennis coach, who is obviously deArly in love with tennis and when I asked him about a change in grip leading to such a large increase in power he laughed.
It's like believing Barry Bonds change in fortune was down to new gloves.0 -
But, surely the game and its strict regimes and professionalism has made players just better in terms of lifestyle and fitness. It has to. I don't think the likes of Borg and Mac were as finely tuned and monitored compared to Murray and Nole. Borg and Mac likely enjoyed a lot more wilder nights out than these guys. These guys are machines. Treated like finely tuned machines, just like the top snooker players today aren't out in the booze or partying etc; the top players are like finely tuned race horses. Everything they do is monitored and analysed for improvement, This has to have made a noticeable difference.
I'm not talking about Borg or McEnroe, or players of that era, I'm saying the physicality has gone off the chart since the days of Hewitt and satin etc.
Surely you don't think that letting Hewitt was a bad pro or was ignorant of proper training/nutrition whatever?
In my view what the top guys are doing on court physically way outstrips their immediate predecessors....0 -
Wow, he hit a couple of 130 + mph serves. Serena and Venus do this, and Sabine Lisciki can hit 130 +. They are women. He's a man. Heavier, bigger and more explosive. You want to use these couple of fast serves as your evidence of doping is really clutching!Ok, so was wind factor taken into account in the U.S Open? Was it outdoors? Could a following wind have helped? Do you know his previous fastest serve speed? Enlighten me.
Now who's clutching?0 -
Halloween Jack wrote: »I'm not talking about Borg or McEnroe, or players of that era, I'm saying the physicality has gone off the chart since the days of Hewitt and satin etc.
Surely you don't think that letting Hewitt was a bad pro or was ignorant of proper training/nutrition whatever?
In my view what the top guys are doing on court physically way outstrips their immediate predecessors....
Hewitt at peak would be a match for any of the top 4 at peak bar maybe Federer. Hewitt's peak was 2000-20003; peaking probably in late 2001 and early 2002. The guy was brilliantly fit.0 -
-
http://www.optimumtennis.net/rafael-nadal-serve.htm
Not possible?
"The changes that were seen on the Nadal serve included an exaggeratedly higher take back, greater lift and more weight transfer. The higher take back took the racket way above his head with his elbow above the height of his shoulder. This provided an increase in the distance that the racket head travelled allowing him to build up more speed. It slightly compromised his accuracy but the added momentum yielded greater power. He was able to add about 15 miles per hour to his average serve speed."
Not sure what his fastest serve at Wimby was in 2008. But a 15 mph improvement from technique the article implies.
Before his 135 speed what was his highest recorded? Was it indoors or outdoors? Could wind have played a part? We surely need something to compare this 135 to? Compare in detail. For example: Was it indoors or outdoors? Was there a following wind? Was it in set 1/2/3/4/5? What were his next 5 fastest serves in the match? Was there a following winD for all his "fast" serves? His slower serves, were they into a headwind? What was his average first serve speed compared to previous matches?0 -
Hewitt at peak would be a match for any of the top 4 at peak bar maybe Federer. Hewitt's peak was 2000-20003; peaking probably in late 2001 and early 2002. The guy was brilliantly fit.
Disagree, peak Hewitt would be obliterated by any version of the big 4 we've seen for the last 4-5 years.0 -
Halloween Jack wrote: »Disagree, peak Hewitt would be obliterated by any version of the big 4 we've seen for the last 4-5 years.
I am not so sure. BTW, what do you see from Nadal and Nole and Murray that is so much better? Fitness? Court coverage? I would argue no on both counts. If we are strictly speaking about the physical elements then I think the best Hewitt is right with them lads for fitness and court coverage. Power hitting is open for discussion.
And: If testing is so bad in tennis, and was bad/worse thru the years past, isn't Hewitt a potential drug user too? If so, why is he so far behind the top men today? Have the PEDs dramatically improved in the past 10-15 years, making the top players today far superior to the "juicers" from the late 90s and early 00s? Or do you believe that Hewitt was clean, and not using PEDs in the late 90s and early 00s?0 -
Advertisement
-
I am not so sure. BTW, what do you see from Nadal and Nole and Murray that is so much better? Fitness? Court coverage? I would argue no on both counts. If we are strictly speaking about the physical elements then I think the best Hewitt is right with them lads for fitness and court coverage. Power hitting is open for discussion.
And: If testing is so bad in tennis, and was bad/worse thru the years past, isn't Hewitt a potential drug user too? If so, why is he so far behind the top men today? Have the PEDs dramatically improved in the past 10-15 years, making the top players today far superior to the "juicers" from the late 90s and early 00s? Or do you believe that Hewitt was clean, and not using PEDs in the late 90s and early 00s?
Definitely possible that anybody from the past was juicing. Rusedski tested positive back then, andre Agassi mysteriously withdrew from the Australian open when testers were rumoured to be around etc.
Most of the ped's that I believe are prevalent have been around since the 90's at least. In cycling doping has been around since the earliest days of the sport, yet times up the famous climbs etc, got progressively faster. This was down to increased sophistication and detail regarding the doping techniques etc
The doctors involved in cycling those days were very capable guys who really advanced what their athletes could do through cheating.
I would imagine doping was always around in tennis in limited form but I suspect the last few years has seen a bit of a sea change regarding the doping culture in the sport. I believe players have started engaging the likes of Fuentes and del moral or whoever their predecessor are and are following specifically tailored doping plans etc
It's pretty widely acknowledged that the likes of djokovic and murray cover more court than anybody before them, brilliant defenders both of them, defence of course hinges on being continually able to get the ball back iver the net under pressure which of course relies on maintaining technique when pushed to your physical limits, this of course would be greatly assisted by the use of EPO for example.0 -
Halloween Jack wrote: »It's pretty widely acknowledged that the likes of djokovic and murray cover more court than anybody before them, brilliant defenders both of them, defence of course hinges on being continually able to get the ball back iver the net under pressure which of course relies on maintaining technique when pushed to your physical limits, this of course would be greatly assisted by the use of EPO for example.
I'd like to see the numbers and figures and statistics behind the view. I would think the view is correct. But these types of things require detailed break down. Even still, why is it highly suspect even if they do cover more court? That's like saying that any areas where man betters himself or seems to do better is suspect. Covering more court is fairly vague. Footballers probably cover more ground today than 10-15 years ago as well. Doesn't alarm me.
Yes, PEDs would greatly assist a tennis player in the physical fitness and court coverage sense. Nobody is disputing that. I am disputing the claim that what Nole and Murray and Nadal are doing somehow cannot be normal and clean. They are brilliant athletes.0 -
I'd like to see the numbers and figures and statistics behind the view. I would think the view is correct. But these types of things require detailed break down. Even still, why is it highly suspect even if they do cover more court? That's like saying that any areas where man betters himself or seems to do better is suspect. Covering more court is fairly vague. Footballers probably cover more ground today than 10-15 years ago as well. Doesn't alarm me.
Yes, PEDs would greatly assist a tennis player in the physical fitness and court coverage sense. Nobody is disputing that. I am disputing the claim that what Nole and Murray and Nadal are doing somehow cannot be normal and clean. They are brilliant athletes.
I must admit I don't have detailed stats to back my position up, though I'm sure they are out there somewhere, rather I'm describing what I've seen with the naked eye.
Your correct in saying footballers cover far more ground these days and imo that should alarm you. Football is another sport with a clean image and non existing testing regime and a long history of doping. Joey Barton stated that in ten years as a pro he was urine tested twice and never had blood taken! Is it any wonder we rarely hear of footballers failing tests?
Back to tennis, another issue that would arouse suspicion for me is the staggering recovery powers of the top players. The top 4 have been involved in a lot of very long matches between themselves and seem to recover in a day or two and look fresh as daisies afterwards.
You've trained yourself walshb, you know that if you push hard it can take a week or more to recover, no matter how fit you are.
Now of course tennis could be clean, but even with such useless testing they've managed to catch cilic, troicki, errani, Odesnik etc recently. It therefore stands to reason that if testing improves we'll catch more cheats....0 -
But if one looks at the amount of matches the top 4 play today compared with those from the 80s and 90s it is comparable. I think MAC played 87 matches or thereabouts in 1984. I would think that is more than the top 4 play in any recent season.
I believe that money and professionalism and technology and knowledge and real detailed and monitored athletes is what is giving us these improvements across the board. Of course, in all physical sports there are those who are improving via dedication AND doping, but there are many many greats in these sports who are the best because of their natural talent and their dedication.
As to training and playing tennis and recovering. They are full time pro athletes with the best of everything at their fingertips. I don't believe tennis to be very physical. It requires fitness and stamina, no doubt, but not near as much as many other sports. I think you are overestimating the stamina and fitness levels needed, as well as overplaying what Nole and Murray and Nadal do on the court as regards the court coverage and endurance
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/sportSkills
Rates it close to the top ten as regards endurance. I still think cardio stamina for tennis is probably rated a bit high here.0 -
But if one looks at the amount of matches the top 4 play today compared with those from the 80s and 90s it is comparable. I think MAC played 87 matches or thereabouts in 1984. I would think that is more than the top 4 play in any recent season.
I believe that money and professionalism and technology and knowledge and real detailed and monitored athletes is what is giving us these improvements across the board. Of course, in all physical sports there are those who are improving via dedication AND doping, but there are many many greats in these sports who are the best because of their natural talent and their dedication.
As to training and playing tennis and recovering. They are full time pro athletes with the best of everything at their fingertips. I don't believe tennis to be very physical. It requires fitness and stamina, no doubt, but not near as much as many other sports. I think you are overestimating the stamina and fitness levels needed, as well as overplaying what Nole and Murray and Nadal do on the court as regards the court coverage and endurance
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/sportSkills
Rates it close to the top ten as regards endurance. I still think cardio stamina for tennis is probably rated a bit high here.
Your article gives tennis a higher endurance score than middle distance running, something I would have considered pretty much entirely physical, is that not counter intuitive to your point?
I really, really am nonplussed as to why you keep mentioning that tennis is more based on skill than other sports. Chess players and archers dope, A-rod was using EPO when his sport dictates he is stationary most of the time he is on the field.
Let me ask you a question, would you consider the doping authorities arriving to take an out competition sample and leaving without a sample, this fact going unexplained and unreported as evidence that something very dodgy is going on?0 -
Halloween Jack wrote: »Your article gives tennis a higher endurance score than middle distance running, something I would have considered pretty much entirely physical, is that not counter intuitive to your point?
I really, really am nonplussed as to why you keep mentioning that tennis is more based on skill than other sports. Chess players and archers dope, A-rod was using EPO when his sport dictates he is stationary most of the time he is on the field.
Let me ask you a question, would you consider the doping authorities arriving to take an out competition sample and leaving without a sample, this fact going unexplained and unreported as evidence that something very dodgy is going on?
It scores lower than distance running, higher than middle distance, which is 800-1500. This would probably be true. There is a more sustained stamina and endurance for tennis, even though rallies don't last all that long. It's accumulation over 3-4-5 hrs. That would be more stamina sapping IMO than 800 meter and 1500 meter running. Still nothing approaching extraordinary.
Not sure I mentioned so fervently that tennis is more skilled than other sports in my last post.
I said that as regards stamina and endurance it is not as high as other sports. Didn't mention skill when I said this.
Again, I agree that the testing in tennis needs looking at. We are not debating, or shouldn't be debating this part of the thread.0 -
It scores lower than distance running, higher than middle distance, which is 800-1500. This would probably be true. There is a more sustained stamina and endurance for tennis, even though rallies don't last all that long. It's accumulation over 3-4-5 hrs. That would be more stamina sapping IMO than 800 meter and 1500 meter running. Still nothing approaching extraordinary.
Not sure I mentioned so fervently that tennis is more skilled than other sports in my last post.
I said that as regards stamina and endurance it is not as high as other sports. Didn't mention skill when I said this.
Again, I agree that the testing in tennis needs looking at. We are not debating, or shouldn't be debating this part of the thread.
What I'm getting at though is that you don't feel my perceived increase in physicality in tennis would make you suspicious. Fair enough.
Moving on from that, would you consider testers calling to an athletes home for an ooc sample and not getting one dodgy?0 -
Halloween Jack wrote: »What I'm getting at though is that you don't feel my perceived increase in physicality in tennis would make you suspicious. Fair enough.
Moving on from that, would you consider testers calling to an athletes home for an ooc sample and not getting one dodgy?
A massive increase would make me suspicious. I don't see them doing anything extraordinary. If they were doing 20 press ups between points then yes I would be suspicious. That's the crux of it. You seem to believe that they are super human, or doing super human things (in the physical sense/stamina sense) that aren't believable without help. I don't see it.
Testers calling and not getting samples when requested is worrying. I don't think I have ever suggested it is not worrying. As to the best tennis players, in particular Murray and Nole and Nadal, have they ever evaded or denied to give a sample? Have they broken the rules in their sport as regards doping?0 -
A massive increase would make me suspicious. I don't see them doing anything extraordinary. If they were doing 20 press ups between points then yes I would be suspicious. That's the crux of it. You seem to believe that they are super human, or doing super human things (in the physical sense/stamina sense) that aren't believable without help. I don't see it.
Testers calling and not getting samples when requested is worrying. I don't think I have ever suggested it is not worrying. As to the best tennis players, in particular Murray and Nole and Nadal, have they ever evaded or denied to give a sample? Have they broken the rules in their sport as regards doping?
On 49 occaisions in 2009 out of competition testing missions were initiated which resulted in no sample being collected.
None of these instances were reported or publicised at all, the only reason we know about them is because the ITF published them as part of their year end figures. They later altered the report to obscure the fact.
None of these were explained whatsoever. One of those players was Rafael nadal, another of those players was roger federer.0 -
Advertisement
-
Halloween Jack wrote: »On 49 occaisions in 2009 out of competition testing missions were initiated which resulted in no sample being collected.
None of these instances were reported or publicised at all, the only reason we know about them is because the ITF published them as part of their year end figures. They later altered the report to obscure the fact.
None of these were explained whatsoever. One of those players was Rafael nadal, another of those players was roger federer.
And that needs looking at, absolutely. Details of the cases.0 -
And that needs looking at, absolutely. Details of the cases.
http://tennishasasteroidproblem.blogspot.ie/2011/09/list.html?m=1
If you haven't checked out that website it's well worth a read. I think the guy who set it up originally is Irish. I would ignore a lot of the comments under the articles though, some of them are tinfoil hat territory.0 -
Halloween Jack wrote: »http://tennishasasteroidproblem.blogspot.ie/2011/09/list.html?m=1
If you haven't checked out that website it's well worth a read. I think the guy who set it up originally is Irish. I would ignore a lot of the comments under the articles though, some of them are tinfoil hat territory.
Thanks for the link.
Right off the bat the article is poor. I accept the facts in the article, but the headline in the article, "Tennis has a steroid problem." How can anyone stand by that without hard facts to show it. Why a steroid problem? Could it be an EPO problem? Or some other PED problem...
Tennis has a drugs testing problem! In that it is not as thorough as other sports, and it should be more thorough and stringent!0 -
You seem to believe that they are super human, or doing super human things (in the physical sense/stamina sense) that aren't believable without help. I don't see it.
You're getting fixated on things nobody is saying.
For you, the only evidence of doping is if a player does something that is beyond the grounds of human possibility. If people are doing something that is possible, you'll take their word for it that their clean.
You've said this time and time in this thread, and I think everyone gets it. You trust the players that they're clean.
Do you know how hard it is to define what is and isn't possible to achieve with the human body? You're asking for solid proof that something Nadal or Djokovic did is unachievable, and nobody here is going to give that to you because they can't. Any evidence of suspicious behavior given to you, will just be responded to with "wow, but that is still possible because blah blah, so I choose to believe they are clean because it doesn't satisfy MY perspective on what is physically achievable"
Two examples,
Chris Froome - His times and attacks while in the saddle in last years tour all screamed PED's.. something that seemed beyond possible for human body, yet personally I think he's clean.
Barry Bonds - Just hitting home runs is totally within the bounds of human possibility.. yet everyone knew he was juiced to the gills.0 -
Thanks for the link.
Right off the bat the article is poor. I accept the facts in the article, but the headline in the article, "Tennis has a steroid problem." How can anyone stand by that without hard facts to show it. Why a steroid problem? Could it be an EPO problem? Or some other PED problem...
Tennis has a drugs testing problem! In that it is not as thorough as other sports, and it should be more thorough and stringent!
That's the name of the blog, it is of course the authors opinion, but read the main posts on the site, they are pretty much fact based and paint a very grim picture of the way the game is governed from an anti doping point of view.
Just look at the tab 'the case against tennis' and you'll see that testing has been actually watered down in the last few years.
Why would any governing body take such a course of action?0 -
Two examples,
Chris Froome - His times and attacks while in the saddle in last years tour all screamed PED's.. something that seemed beyond possible for human body, yet personally I think he's clean.
Barry Bonds - Just hitting home runs is totally within the bounds of human possibility.. yet everyone knew he was juiced to the gills.
You believe Froome to be clean? Or are you trying to quote me?
In life many things are subjective. What Nadal and Nole and Murray are doing on the tennis court (in the physical sense) doesn't have me shaking my head in disbelief. That's the be all and end all. If that is so difficult for you to believe then so be it.
Reading through your posts you seem to believe that many many feats that have been achieved are very suspect. I admit, there are some that would have me suspicious, Flo Jo is very suspicious, as was Ben Johnson. I had my feelings before he got busted. But many great records in sports are for me attainable whilst clean. Not saying all were attained whilst clean, just that the records are attainable I would think. With tennis it's not as measurable as some other sports. It's a little more subjective. In T&F we have times and distances and exact measurements. In other sports like tennis and baseball and boxing and soccer we are relying on more comparison statistics.
It might surprise you to know that I found it quite difficult (not impossible) to believe that Ali and Frazier were completely clean during their battles in 1971 and 1975.0 -
Advertisement
-
Walshb, Victor Conte named 4 massive tennis players as having worked with a doping doctor.
These were all 4 tennis players who you would never say are doing anything "super human" or beyond what you'd think would be possible. In fact, they were at levels far far below what Nadal/Djokovic are doing, and with basically zero suspicious behavior or comments regarding doping like the current top 4 and Serena would have.
Whats your opinion on that? How would you view those players?
Some background: http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2004/mar/13/tennis.drugsinsportGreg Rusedski's fight to repair his reputation was not helped yesterday when it emerged, in a Californian newspaper, that his father Tom enlisted the help of the disgraced nutritionist Victor Conte,0 -
-
Walshb, Victor Conte named 4 massive tennis players as having worked with a doping doctor.
These were all 4 tennis players who you would never say are doing anything "super human" or beyond what you'd think would be possible. In fact, they were at levels far far below what Nadal/Djokovic are doing, and with basically zero suspicious behavior or comments regarding doping like the current top 4 and Serena would have.
Whats your opinion on that? How would you view those players?
Some background: http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2004/mar/13/tennis.drugsinsport
Greg Rusedski was not half the player that Nole and Murray and Nadal were. Not close. He is one that may well have needed the help to stay competitive with the best there. He also had a violation against him. No argument with me as regards Rusedski.
Lendl and Chang were two mentioned I believe. 80s and 90s players. Was Sharapaova mentioned?
Not sure what opinion I am meant to have. It doesn't alter my view that Nole and Murray and Nadal are doing things that I believe can be done whilst clean.
You seem far too insistent that they have to be cheats. It's like a personal victory for you. Tennis, the sport, is a problem as regards testing. To take this and then want to make out that the best players are cheats because tennis has testing problems is for me silly!0 -
Greg Rusedski was not half the player that Nole and Murray and Nadal were. Not close. He is one that may well have needed the help to stay competitive with the best there. He also had a violation against him. No argument with me as regards Rusedski.
Thats not my point. If you google victor conte and tennis players you will see who he named.
My point is these are players who were seemingly not doing anything suspicious by performance standards (even though actually they were no.1 at times) yet who have been named as working with a juice doctor.
You look at the best players in the world - the fittest, strongest, along with being skillful - and say well they're just the best players.
You think it's only the less skillful players that have to dope to stay in the game and compete. Thats so incredibly naiive to me.
I look at them and say, if they're the fittest strongest, and best in the world in a sport that has horrendous doping controls.. they're the most suspicious by far.0 -
. Thats so incredibly naiive to me.
I look at them and say, if they're the fittest strongest, and best in the world in a sport that has horrendous doping controls.. they're the most suspicious by far.
Where did I say that only the less skilled need to dope? I mentioned one player, Rusedski who must have believed that he needed help to compete at the top. Just like Ben Johnson felt that to better Lewis he needed to juice. His excuse of course was that ALL the sprinters are on the PEDs, even though he was the only one caught for PEDs on that day in Seoul. . Some of the best in the world got there through hard work and dedication. That doesn't mean that all did. Some of the best got to the top through hard work/talent/doping!
Hand on heart I believe that Fed and Nole and Murray and Nadal got to the top through hard work/dedication/talent! Nothing stands out from any of them that screams of PEDs. That is not to say that it has to stand out. Just that I believe all to be honest and clean players, along with the fact that IMO the feats that they are accomplishing can be attributed to their utter commitment to their sport, as well as their natural talent!
BTW, a comparison question: Do you think Froome did more extraordinary things than say Nole? I know it's not an exact yes or no kind of answer.0 -
Advertisement
-
Where did I say that only the less skilled need to dope? I mentioned one player, Rusedski who must have believed that he needed help to compete at the top. Just like Ben Johnson felt that to better Lewis he needed to juice. His excuse of course was that ALL the sprinetrs are on the PEDs, even though he was the only one caught for PEDs on that day in Seoul. Again, you are making up things. Some of the best in the world got there through hard work and dedication. That doesn't mean that all did. Some of the best got to the top through hard work/talent/doping!
Hand on heart I believe that Fed and Nole and Murray and Nadal got to the top through hard work/dedication/talent! Nothing stands out from any of them that screams of PEDs. That is not to say that it has to stand out. Just that I believe all to be honest and clean players, along with the fact that IMO the feats that they are accomplishing can be attributed to their utter commitment to their sport, as well as their natural talent!
Ok, so do you believe that the use of PED's is widespread in tennis? And if not why?
Why do you assume that those 4 players are inherently honest?0 -
Halloween Jack wrote: »Ok, so do you believe that the use of PED's is widespread in tennis? And if not why?
Why do you assume that those 4 players are inherently honest?
Can one not have a view or hunch that some person is honest? Surely we can?
I have watched them for many years and followed their progress. Listened to them and watched them. What else can one do? Add this to the fact that they have never tested positive for banned substances, and surely a belief that they could be clean and honest is not silly? I take into account the lax testing procedures in the sport, that is a black mark against them, but I wouldn't hang them for it. Why is believing that some humans want to do great things whilst clean in sport seen as odd or incredibly naive, by some!
Paula Radcliffe. She ran the marathon faster than any woman ever. I believe in her. I believe she did it clean. Ed Moses held the 400 hurdles record for many years. I believe that he did it clean.
There is two examples. Two of many
Can I ask, what great records in sport do you believe to be clean?0 -
Halloween Jack wrote: »Ok, so do you believe that the use of PED's is widespread in tennis? And if not why?
Widespread is a subjective term at times. I believe that players dope, just like any sports competitors in any sport. I believe some sports dope more, and I believe that some sports benefit more from doping. Doping in tennis will help a player in the physical and fitness sense, allowing them to maintain form and technique for longer. Is tennis rampant with PEDs? Until we get many positive tests then we are left wondering more than knowing. Again, just because the testing procedures may be not as stringent as other sports does not mean that the sport has a widespread PED problem.0 -
-Michael Emmett, Director of Tennis Operations at all Mayfair clubsWell, there are just as many Nadal rumours out there. I sat in a locker room a few years back and listened to three coaches discussing the steroids that Nadal was taking. One of the coaches, who was from Columbia, said he saw Nadal ingesting some sort of PEDs prior to a workout session in Monte Carlo.
- Nikola Pilić, Former world tennis No. 6"As far as Nadal is concerned, I am very suspicious regarding him. The Spaniard plays Roland Garros in fantastic shape two years in a row, and then is like a flat tire at Halle and Wimbledon."
"I don't have proof that he dopes, but where there's smoke, there is fire. But, I'm not the one who's supposed to be the judge or discover things. There are officials in tennis in charge of those things, and it is their job to pay attention".
Some very well respected people in tennis don't believe Nadals success is down to his utter commitment to his sport.0 -
-Michael Emmett, Director of Tennis Operations at all Mayfair clubs
- Nikola Pilić, Former world tennis No. 6
Some very well respected people in tennis don't believe Nadals success is down to his utter commitment to his sport.
And some respected people believe he is clean. What's the point? Life is full of rumors. I'd prefer some actual evidence that can be taken as clear.
I saw this, I saw that. He took this, he took that. People will say a lot of things. Doesn't make them good and honest and truthful. Ben Johnson trying to blame Lewis' camp for spiking him. No different.0 -
Can one not have a view or hunch that some person is honest? Surely we can?
I have watched them for many years and followed their progress. Listened to them and watched them. What else can one do? Add this to the fact that they have never tested positive for banned substances, and surely a belief that they could be clean and honest is not silly? I take into account the lax testing procedures in the sport, that is a black mark against them, but I wouldn't hang them for it. Why is believing that some humans want to do great things whilst clean in sport seen as odd or incredibly naive, by some!
Paula Radcliffe. She ran the marathon faster than any woman ever. I believe in her. I believe she did it clean. Ed Moses held the 400 hurdles record for many years. I believe that he did it clean.
There is two examples. Two of many
Can I ask, what great records in sport do you believe to be clean?
But see on the one hand you're on the verge of calling people irrational for being highly suspicious of the top 4 without failed tests etc, while on the other hand you're assuming they are clean on a 'hunch' that they are honest.
That's why I asked you if you believed PED use is widespread in tennis. If you think it is, then your belief that the tour is riddled with cheats but there are four guys at the top who have presided over the most dominant era in the sport ever are also paragons of virtue would defy all logic.
If you don't think PED's are an issue in tennis at all then you're essentially assuming the majority are clean despite admitting that the testing is not fit for purpose. That to me is either showing an admirable faith in the morality of athletes or pretty naïve.
To answer your question re athletics, I don't know enough about the sport to comment on what is achievable and what isn't. However, angel heredia, the balco guy said that basically the difference between just under 10 secs and the 9.7, 9.6 or whatever was drugs and that every sprinter in the 100m final in Beijing was cheating and he had worked with 6 of the 8 personally.0 -
Walshb, besides because you believe in their integrity and you trust them..
.. do you have any other point at all as to why the top 4 tennis players - in a sport where they have huge freedom to juice due to lax testing, and have millions and millions up for grabs - would be clean?0 -
Halloween Jack wrote: »But see on the one hand you're on the verge of calling people irrational for being highly suspicious of the top 4 without failed tests etc, while on the other hand you're assuming they are clean on a 'hunch' that they are honest.
That's why I asked you if you believed PED use is widespread in tennis. If you think it is, then your belief that the tour is riddled with cheats but there are four guys at the top who have presided over the most dominant era in the sport ever are also paragons of virtue would defy all logic.
If you don't think PED's are an issue in tennis at all then you're essentially assuming the majority are clean despite admitting that the testing is not fit for purpose. That to me is either showing an admirable faith in the morality of athletes or pretty naïve.
To answer your question re athletics, I don't know enough about the sport to comment on what is achievable and what isn't. However, angel heredia, the balco guy said that basically the difference between just under 10 secs and the 9.7, 9.6 or whatever was drugs and that every sprinter in the 100m final in Beijing was cheating and he had worked with 6 of the 8 personally.
To be suspicious is grand. I never said that to be suspicious meant irrational. To be so so suspicious, and not really accepting that athletes could be honest is IMO a bit irrational. You said/implied that if the top athletes aren't cheating then then they are silly. This I find odd. That is dismissing many greats through the years. Dismissing anyone who ever did something fantastic in sport. I find that a sad reflection on the whole world of sport, but I also don't think for one second that you are completely wrong.
I understand suspicion of the top players in tennis. I do. But surely you too should understand people who have a belief or hunch that the top guys are clean. It works both ways. Neither camp are wrong.
I answered your query about widespread PED use in tennis perfectly clear. Nothing in that answer is incorrect. Until we get many positive tests for PEDs we are left wondering, NOT knowing. Why should the best [players in the world be practically labeled cheats because of lees than brilliant testing procedures. That to me is unfair.0 -
Walshb, besides because you believe in their integrity and you trust them..
.. do you have any other point at all as to why the top 4 tennis players - in a sport where they have huge freedom to juice due to lax testing, and have millions and millions up for grabs - would be clean?
Do you have proof that they are not clean? The burden of proof is on you. You are the one forcing the opinion that they must be on PEDs.
This is mad. You are asking me to prove that the top 4 are clean.
Why would they be clean? That doesn't really deserve a response. In a nutshell I could simply say that to the best of my knowledge they have not failed drugs tests for banned substances, but that answer doesn't suit you, as you come back with "tennis testing is lax."
My "hunch" that they are clean is no different than your hunch that they are dopers. The only difference is that I have something to show for it. They have never ever tested positive for banned substances. Your only real "evidence" for them being cheats is that the testing is lax. That and locker room rumours.
Anyway, we need more than you and me and Halloween Jack in to debate this. What are the views of the others?0 -
Do you have proof that they are not clean? The burden of proof is on you. You are the one forcing the opinion that they must be on PEDs.
This is mad. You are asking me to prove that the top 4 are clean.
Why would they be clean? That doesn't really deserve a response. In a nutshell I could simply say that to the best of my knowledge they have not failed drugs tests for banned substances, but that answer doesn't suit you, as you come back with "tennis testing is lax."
My "hunch" that they are clean is no different than your hunch that they are dopers. The only difference is that I have something to show for it. They have never ever tested positive for banned substances. Your only real "evidence" for them being cheats is that the testing is lax. That and locker room rumours.
Anyway, we need more than you and me and Halloween Jack in to debate this. What are the views of the others?
So is it fair for me to say that your answer to the very simple questionbesides because you believe in their integrity and you trust them..
.. do you have any other point at all as to why the top 4 tennis players - in a sport where they have huge freedom to juice due to lax testing, and have millions and millions up for grabs - would be clean?
is "no"?0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Do you have proof that they are not clean? The burden of proof is on you. You are the one forcing the opinion that they must be on PEDs.
This is mad. You are asking me to prove that the top 4 are clean.
Why would they be clean? That doesn't really deserve a response. In a nutshell I could simply say that to the best of my knowledge they have not failed drugs tests for banned substances, but that answer doesn't suit you, as you come back with "tennis testing is lax."
My "hunch" that they are clean is no different than your hunch that they are dopers. The only difference is that I have something to show for it. They have never ever tested positive for banned substances. Your only real "evidence" for them being cheats is that the testing is lax. That and locker room rumours.
Anyway, we need more than you and me and Halloween Jack in to debate this. What are the views of the others?
I really wish you would move away from the whole positive tests thing, that's the most annoying strand of your argument. The major doping scandals in sports have been uncovered through investigations, not a raft of positive tests.
In baseball the likes of Jose canseco, mark McGwire and Barry bonds evaded testing positive for 20 years plus..... Never a positive test between them.
In cycling the two major scandals erupted through the Armstrong investigation and a lorry load of PED's being found by customs.
That's why I worry so much about tennis now, history has taught us that dominant eras of sporting success plus lax testing equals major PED scandal.
If what I believe is true it will eventually come out anyway.
But like I say a lack of positive tests in and of itself means nothing, especially when the amount of testing is paltry and they don't even collect sample on occaision.0 -
Just to be clear, that is NOT what I'm asking you.
I'm asking you do you have any point at all - besides you believing in their integrity - as to why the top 4 would not choose to take drugs to gain advantage?
Because they are honest and are all naturally fantastic players. And they believe that they are good enough clean and through talent and hard work to be the best. Not just the top 4.0 -
Halloween Jack wrote: »I really wish you would move away from the whole positive tests thing, that's the most annoying strand of your argument. The major doping scandals in sports have been uncovered through investigations, not a raft of positive tests.
In baseball the likes of Jose canseco, mark McGwire and Barry bonds evaded testing positive for 20 years plus..... Never a positive test between them.
In cycling the two major scandals erupted through the Armstrong investigation and a lorry load of PED's being found by customs.
That's why I worry so much about tennis now, history has taught us that dominant eras of sporting success plus lax testing equals major PED scandal.
If what I believe is true it will eventually come out anyway.
But like I say a lack of positive tests in and of itself means nothing, especially when the amount of testing is paltry and they don't even collect sample on occaision.
Ok, and until a major scandal breaks in tennis then we are all left wondering, not knowing. I don't know what is difficult about this.
Worry for tennis all you like. But until your worries become reality then it's speculation and wonder.
And, let us say that a scandal does erupt. Does than mean EVERY tennis player is guilty? There were and there are clean track stars and clean cyclists. Not all them were cheating. So, even with this disastrous scandal that you predict, it is not the end of the sport.0 -
Just to be clear, that is NOT what I'm asking you.
I'm asking you do you have any point at all - besides you believing in their integrity - as to why the top 4 would not choose to take drugs to gain advantage?
btw, what are the chances/statistics that the top 10 are all dishonest and cheating? Surely not 100 percent?
What are the chances and statistics that the big 4 are cheats? Have been cheating the public for all these years. Am I that naive to believe that it's possible that some are clean, even all?
According to some if they are not cheating then they are silly.0 -
Because they are honest
I said besides you believing in their integrity.
Anyway why would you believe someone who said this
as honest?"Doping in tennis wouldn´t make sense." - Rafael Nadal
So you're saying they would choose NOT to take drugs, because they are already fantastic enough players not to need them. That they could beat other players who are on gear anyway.and are all naturally fantastic players.
You realise it is now YOU who are saying they are close to super human. That there is such a gulf in class between their ability and anyone who WOULD choose to take drugs in a lax testing sport, that they would still win regardless.
That however would be in direct contrast to the fact the players themselves are putting down their losses due to inferior stamina and physicality.. saying they need to get back in the gym. Basically saying their gulf in ability, WOULD NOT be enough to beat a similarly skilled opponent with superior stamina due to juice.
So to sum up, you believe the top tennis players would choose not to take drugs, because they are honest and already have a high enough ability that they don't need them (even though they themselves basically admit in some situations they would)? Any other reasons why pros competing for millions of dollars and earning a living would choose not to juice?0 -
I said besides you believing in their integrity.
Anyway why would you believe someone who said this
as honest?
His opinion and view. How can this make his dishonest? I could call the opinion naive or even stupid, but how do you arrive at dishonest, or not honest?
BTW, who are all these players on gear?0 -
So you're saying they would choose NOT to take drugs, because they are already fantastic enough players not to need them. That they could beat other players who are on gear anyway.
.
You left out the point that I mentioned about them believing that they are good enough to be the best through hard work and dedication.
Also, add in that maybe some of them are genuine good guys who would not deceive their fans and their family and themselves.0 -
Now, can you answer my question. Of all the top ten how many do you believe to be on gear, as you put it?
Of the big 4, how many do you believe are on gear?0 -
Advertisement
-
Walshb, just to clarify, when I said a tennis player would almost have to be an idiot not to dope, this was a turn of phrase which was meant to convey the fact that the rewards for doping are huge and the chance of being caught minuscule.
I did not say that athletes who don't dope are idiots as you seem to be at pains to imply. I regard dopers as thieves and admire anybody who competes clean when he suspects (knows) his competitors are cheating ie: Christophe bassons.0
Advertisement