PED

walshb

Interesting question. Flo Jo's 10.5/21.3 has never been reached, not even close. Now, assuming athletes at the top in sprinting are PED users, why are the records still so unattainable? Just a question. Is it that the drugs that she "may" have been using are far too risky to use today?

Halloween Jack

walshb wrote: »

Interesting question. Flo Jo's 10.5/21.3 has never been reached, not even close. Now, assuming athletes at the top in sprinting are PED users, why are the records still so unattainable? Just a question. Is it that the drugs that she "may" have been using are far too risky to use today?

That is an interesting point. i dont know enough about sprinting to have an answer. Maybe it was to do with the volume of substances she was on, if indeed she was using. She did succumb to fairly dire health problems later in life, so it could point to heavy, heavy use.

One thing to note about doping though, is the fact that it effects people's bodies in different ways. Im open to correction on this but i believe armstrongs body was highly responsive to the type of doping which was prevalent in cycling at that time, which allowed him to thrash other doped up athletes who had more natural capacity for cycling. In fact i remember reading that riders who had a naturally high hematocrit, which would have been an advantage if riders were clean, were actually disadvantaged in the epo era as they wouldnt receive the same boost in performance as a doped rider with a low hematocrit.

walshb

Halloween Jack wrote: »

That is an interesting point. i dont know enough about sprinting to have an answer. Maybe it was to do with the volume of substances she was on, if indeed she was using. She did succumb to fairly dire health problems later in life, so it could point to heavy, heavy use.
.

It's probably that she was on a cocktail of "brilliant" drugs. To risk it today would be futile, in or out of competition. 1988 was the last year that athletes were free from random testing. She was a natural talent, very fast woman, and aided by whatever. But, the other question, which you answered somewhat, is how come she was so far ahead of the 2nd and 3rd and 4th and 5th etc? Were they clean and playing by the rules? Or, as you implied, was Flo Jo reacting much better to drugs, if indeed she was on them?

whiterebel

Just to address a comment made about Fed and Agassi. Look at the way Federer moves, he 'glides' around court, better than most in the world. He rarely looks like he has broken sweat, even at the end of 5 setters. Agassi hated playing tennis, and if you read his book, will understand why, and never looked a naturally smooth mover around the court. Look at the absolute limits of reach that ND, RN etc get in the matches, and you can see why they get injured more often. And as for not doing much in 5 sets of tennis, maybe they'd need to play it themselves to find out how much work is involved.

walshb

whiterebel wrote: »

JAnd as for not doing much in 5 sets of tennis, maybe they'd need to play it themselves to find out how much work is involved.

What does this mean, and who is it addressed to?

whiterebel

walshb wrote: »

What does this mean, and who is it addressed to?

1)Someone said that the ball isn't actually in play much, and seemed to imply it wasn't too difficult. I'm suggesting that they actually try playing 5 sets
2)Who ever posted it.
It was about tennis so probably got lost in all the crap about Lewis, Bolt et al.

walshb

whiterebel wrote: »

1)Someone said that the ball isn't actually in play much, and seemed to imply it wasn't too difficult. I'm suggesting that they actually try playing 5 sets
2)Who ever posted it.
It was about tennis so probably got lost in all the crap about Lewis, Bolt et al.

Okey doke. The point made, that I agreed with, was that in 5 sets of tennis there is not 4-5 hrs of actual effort and play. There is many rests and breaks and lulls. Still takes a lot of fitness and athleticism. The more important point was that it was to counter the argument that players playing 5 setters back to back in a couple of days are somehow doing unbelievable and extraordinary things. They are not. The players are fit and strong and 21st century sports stars.

Another point about 5 setters and 4-5 hrs of court time was that it wasn't easy to tell if the players were as fresh after 4- 5 hrs as they were after 1-2 hrs. Posters were wondering how it was possible that players were playing with the same intensity in set 5 as in any other set. I asked how they could know this? They may have been playing with intensity in set 5, but maybe it wasn't as intense as in set 1 and 2.

I have watched many 5 setters and for me the players were showing real fatigue in the closing stages. They weren't as fast or as strong in set 5 as they were in the preceding sets. They were depleting, as would be expected.

Post 14 on this thread is a very interesting read and comparison.

Giruilla

I see Andy Murray has gone from being coached by Ivan Lendl - A confirmed juicer by Victor Conte...
.. to Amelie Mauresmo - suspected of steroid abuse her whole career, especially during a time when female tennis players weren't included in out of competition testing.

Interesting company he's keeping.

RosyLily

Stop with the baseless accusations!!

Next time the thread will be closed.

Halloween Jack

Giruilla wrote: »

I see Andy Murray has gone from being coached by Ivan Lendl - A confirmed juicer by Victor Conte...
.. to Amelie Mauresmo - suspected of steroid abuse her whole career, especially during a time when female tennis players weren't included in out of competition testing.

Interesting company he's keeping.

I have always been a huge Murray fan, but since i took an interest in doping in the sport i have grave misgivings.

However any of the things i put forward as indicators that something untoward was going on would seem spurious and probably breach the charter.

As ive said though, nothing in relation to doping in tennis would surprise me.

walshb

RosyLily wrote: »

Stop with the baseless accusations!!

Next time the thread will be closed.

They are not baseless, after all Murray was seen/associated with someone who is "suspected" of being a doper. That's major evidence there!

Giruilla

walshb wrote: »

They are not baseless, after all Murray was seen/associated with someone who is "suspected" of being a doper. That's major evidence there!

Did you actually read that line about Victor Conte?

You're point is so remarkably banal, I'm wondering how many times you're planning on trotting it out? These tennis players have never been convicted of juicing... therefore they are not juicers. Ok.. I get it.

Giruilla

“Possibly, and this may sound ridiculous, cycling is one of the cleanest sports left because the controls are full on. But f***ing tennis, I find it nauseating to watch it on TV to see the McEnroes and all the commentators engage in this big love-in. And the bottom line is we are all getting rich here folks, lets not upset the apple-cart.”

- Paul Kimmage

walshb

Andy Murray can be linked to Victor Conte in some way. Major evidence there!

walshb

Giruilla wrote: »

You're point is so remarkably banal, I'm wondering how many times you're planning on trotting it out? These tennis players have never been convicted of juicing... therefore they are not juicers. Ok.. I get it.

Some tennis players have never failed dope tests, so they are juicers. Yes, that makes so much more sense!

walshb

With 6 degrees of separation we can convict them all...Just link them to Conte!

Giruilla

walshb wrote: »

Andy Murray can be linked to Victor Conte in some way. Major evidence there!

walshb wrote: »

Some tennis players have never failed dope tests, so they are juicers. Yes, that makes so much more sense!

walshb wrote: »

With 6 degrees of separation we can convict them all...Just link them to Conte!

You're embarrassing yourself.

What has 'being linked to Conte' got to do with anything anyway?! Victor Conte is a whistleblower..

walshb

Andy Murray and Roger Federer have both been advocates for more stringent testing in Tennis. The problem is the ITF and its lax testing, but hey, Murray can be somehow linked to Victor Conte. That's all the proof we need! Or, through 6 degrees, Murray is linked to Lendl, who is a "confirmed" doper according to Conte, and to Mauresmo, who has been "suspected" of steroid abuse her whole career. Murray needs to keep better company, no?

And no, I don't feel that I am embarrassing myself.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Saw yesterday that Andy Roddick had been looking to get into the US Open this year to play doubles with Mardy Fish. They wouldn't allow him because he needs to have been in the doping pool for 3 months prior to competing. 3 months is a relatively short time compared to the full year that swimmers have to be in the doping pool before being allowed to compete.

Halloween Jack

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Saw yesterday that Andy Roddick had been looking to get into the US Open this year to play doubles with Mardy Fish. They wouldn't allow him because he needs to have been in the doping pool for 3 months prior to competing. 3 months is a relatively short time compared to the full year that swimmers have to be in the doping pool before being allowed to compete.

You'll find the entire anti doping apparatus in tennis is far more lax than the supposed 'dirty' sports like athletics, cycling, swimming.

walshb

Halloween Jack wrote: »

You'll find the entire anti doping apparatus in tennis is far more lax than the supposed 'dirty' sports like athletics, cycling, swimming.

It seems to be a lot more lax. I fully agree that we should ask questions, and even be suspicious, but why go so far as to really try and tarnish a tennis player like Nadal or Murray or Nole? Just because a sport/organization isn't testing to the standards that other sports are does not mean that the athletes in said sport are dopers. They could be, but I still believe that there are good and honest and clean players in the top ten that are there because of hard work and dedication, and who do not want to cheat to compete.

Anyway, tennis is far more skill than power/strength. Yes, drugs will help in stamina and recovery, but I have yet to see such obvious performances from the top 4 that would lead me to believe that drugs are involved.

Halloween Jack

walshb wrote: »

It seems to be a lot more lax. I fully agree that we should ask questions, and even be suspicious, but why go so far as to really try and tarnish a tennis player like Nadal or Murray or Nole? Just because a sport/organization isn't testing to the standards that other sports are does not mean that the athletes in said sport are dopers. They could be, but I still believe that there are good and honest and clean players in the top ten that are there because of hard work and dedication, and who do not want to cheat to compete.

Anyway, tennis is far more skill than power/strength. Yes, drugs will help in stamina and recovery, but I have yet to see such obvious performances from the top 4 that would lead me to believe that drugs are involved.

The testing is a joke, everybody can agree on that surely after the recent wada numbers were released surely?

What you then have to ask is why is it a joke? Why is the doping program so chronically underfunded when there is money pouring in to the game?

The quotes I posted a while back from Ben Johnson's former coach provide the answer for me.

You said murray and federer have advocated more stringent testing, but that was only in the aftermath of the Armstrong scandal. Murray in particular has made a number of ambiguous statements regarding doping in the past.

It wouldn't be difficult to improve the testing regime and the ITF certainly have the resources to do so, this leafs me to believe they are not serious about ensuring a clean sport and would rather the whole issue disappeared.

In the absence of decent journalists it's up to fans to be vigilant imo and the guys at tennishasasteroidproblem deserve a lot of credit

Giruilla

walshb wrote: »

Anyway, tennis is far more skill than power/strength. Yes, drugs will help in stamina and recovery, but I have yet to see such obvious performances from the top 4 that would lead me to believe that drugs are involved.

Do you realise the advantage a player has in tennis if he can add 10/20 mph to his serve or forehand?

Theres a very easy illegal way to do this and its called juicing.

When you're playing at the level of Fed/Nadal/Djokovic skill will get you so far.
Power, strength and stamina are where the matches are won.
You only need to listen to the commentators themselves recently to know it. Listen to Murrays comments about his need to get back in the gym lifting weights right after a loss.

walshb

Giruilla wrote: »

Do you realise the advantage a player has in tennis if he can add 10/20 mph to his serve or forehand?

Theres a very easy illegal way to do this and its called juicing.

When you're playing at the level of Fed/Nadal/Djokovic skill will get you so far.
Power, strength and stamina are where the matches are won.
You only need to listen to the commentators themselves recently to know it. Listen to Murrays comments about his need to get back in the gym lifting weights right after a loss.

Has Murray or Fed or Nadal or Nole added 10-20 mph to their serve with something that cannot be explained other than PEDs? I am with you as regards PEDs being advantageous for tennis, as my second post on this thread indicates. Post 10. Never said otherwise. Allows tennis players to train harder and longer. Still waiting for some decent evidence in their (top 4-5) game that would say that they are PED users.

I am also with you as regards the testing as being lax. I said this many times. We do all agree here. I also added that it is only right to question it and to be somewhat suspicious. Where I have an issue is when this goes from questions and suspicion to almost certainty, without anything credible to back it up.

I hear about the players being able to play 5 set matches. Wow. Big deal. It's not 5 hrs of actual play, as has been pointed out, and nobody has proved that in the 5th set the players are as strong and powerful and fast and skilled as they are in the preceding sets.

Murray saying he needs to get to the gym to lift weights. What is this meant to mean or imply? I take it as it is. That he needs to get to the gym to lift weights.

Who's denying that power and strength and stamina aren't important factors? They become more important when two players are very close as regards natural skill and talent. Power and strength and stamina have always been important. More important today than in other eras? Probably. But is this an indicator of the top 4 being juicers?

walshb

Halloween Jack wrote: »

The testing is a joke, everybody can agree on that surely after the recent wada numbers were released surely?

t

I think we have agreed on this several times. To then automatically paint the top 4 as cheats, or to be highly suspicious, is for me a bit unfair. I don't think I am being all that naive to believe that there are "some" great athletes out there who are also clean and honest, and who would not cheat to compete.

walshb

Halloween Jack wrote: »

Murray in particular has made a number of ambiguous statements regarding doping in the past.
t

So what?

Halloween Jack

walshb wrote: »

So what?

You claimed murray had advocated stricter testing, I was pointing out that he adopted this stance only after the Armstrong affair and some media traction regarding doping in tennis.

All his comments prior to this we're moaning about doping controls or advocating omertà by calling Odesnik a snitch for providing 'substantial assistance' to the authorities regarding doping in the game.

We get that you think the top 4 are clean, you've stated this. I don't think I have accused anybody of cheating outright, but I have my suspicions and they won't be assuaged until the testing improves and samples are kept and stored and retested periodically as technology has improved.

These cyclical arguments are getting nobody anywhere

Giruilla

walshb wrote: »

Has Murray or Fed or Nadal or Nole added 10-20 mph to their serve with something that cannot be explained other than PEDs?

Rafael Nadal says he has no explanation for his big serving during the U.S. Open except for a change in his grip.
Nadal is the only player who has not been broken so far in the tournament. He hit a serve at 135 mph during his fourth-round match against Feliciano Lopez, likely the fastest of his career, following the 134 mph he hit in his second-round match against Denis Istomin.
No, I wasn't on the gym," he joked in a courtside interview after defeating Lopez. "Seriously, I don't know. I think sometimes it's part of the confidence, the serve. It's true, I'm serving faster than ever."

http://tennishasasteroidproblem.blogspot.ie/2010/09/nadals-serve.html

I'm sure you'll 100% take Nadals word for it that this was down to a grip change. After all he's never failed a drugs test, and drug testing is lax but it doesn't mean we can taint people, and absence of evidence is evidence of absence and...

walshb wrote: »

Who's denying that power and strength and stamina aren't important factors? They become more important when two players are very close as regards natural skill and talent. Power and strength and stamina have always been important. More important today than in other eras? Probably. But is this an indicator of the top 4 being juicers?

C'mon.. you wrote this a few posts earlier..

walshb wrote: »

Anyway, tennis is far more skill than power/strength. Yes, drugs will help in stamina and recovery, but I have yet to see such obvious performances from the top 4 that would lead me to believe that drugs are involved.

We're not talking about a kids tournament here where the skillful players can hit hit some dink shots into the corner..
Tennis now has players incredibly evenly matched and players are constantly losing out solely to fatigue and strength of shots. Stamina and power in tennis is HUGE at the highest level now and cannot be overstated enough.

walshb

Halloween Jack wrote: »

You claimed murray had advocated stricter testing, I was pointing out that he adopted this stance only after the Armstrong affair and some media traction regarding doping in tennis.

All his comments prior to this we're moaning about doping controls or advocating omertà by calling Odesnik a snitch for providing 'substantial assistance' to the authorities regarding doping in the game.

We get that you think the top 4 are clean, you've stated this. I don't think I have accused anybody of cheating outright, but I have my suspicions and they won't be assuaged until the testing improves and samples are kept and stored and retested periodically as technology has improved.

These cyclical arguments are getting nobody anywhere

Murray did call for stricter testing. You said he made ambiguous statements prior to this? So what if he did. I don't see much relevance in that, same way as Novak offering Victor Troicki support after his doping issue doesn't mean much to me.

I too would have suspicions. Not as strong as yours. That is all that separates us; so yes, going around in circles. I would be surprised if any of the top 4 were doping. Not shocked, but surprised.

walshb

Giruilla wrote: »

C'mon.. you wrote this a few posts earlier..


We're not talking about a kids tournament here where the skillful players can hit hit some dink shots into the corner..
Tennis now has players incredibly evenly matched and players are constantly losing out solely to fatigue and strength of shots. Stamina and power in tennis is HUGE at the highest level now and cannot be overstated enough.

I believe that skill is more important in tennis than strength and stamina. That doesn't mean that strength and stamina are not important. Never did I say that strength and stamina weren't important. Again, see post 10 from me to cement this view.