PDA

View Full Version : Victor Conte and doping in tennis (Lendl, Rusedski, Chang and Sharapova)


sonicare
10-20-2012, 05:21 AM
Right,

For those of you know don't know who Victor is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Conte

He is the guy who helped Marian Jones pass hundreds of tests while doping her to the gills. He is the founder of BALCO. You guys remember Balco? read here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BALCO_Scandal

So I am listening to a podcast and he mentions Lendl, Rusedski, Chang and Sharapova by name

:shock:

Go listen to this

http://vimeo.com/51662984

You need to watch from 8 minutes onwards to around 35 minutes.


************************************************** **********************************
EDIT: It is at the 34.45 Mark. Some people are complaining that it is too long to watch so I decided to give the exact time. I still urge you to watch the whole thing. Its fascinating to hear about the corruption and how the positive tests are brushed under the rug. How authorities really have no interest in catching cheats and so much more
************************************************** **********************************

I am not going to tell you at what time he mentions those tennis players by name because I want you to listen to the whole thing

So from minutes 8 - 35

He goes on to talk about how tests work and how athletes pass them.

They talk about Usain Bolt, Marian jones, Barry Bonds, Lance Armstrong.

Go watch the whole thing. It is well worth a watch

Crazy ****

Rozroz
10-20-2012, 05:47 AM
amazing stuff! thanks!

RAFA2005RG
10-20-2012, 05:53 AM
Hopefully we'll get some current players named soon, I would love for the 'machines' of the tour to get their due.

No1e
10-20-2012, 05:55 AM
So the OP changed Steffi to Sharapova. Why?

sonicare
10-20-2012, 05:59 AM
So the OP changed Steffi to Sharapova. Why?

I listened to it last night and confused the two. He mentions Sharapova not Steffi now that I am watching it again. My bad

tennisaddict
10-20-2012, 06:05 AM
Hint : Melzer-Santiago Giraldo

Rozroz
10-20-2012, 06:10 AM
he also talks about how they test for olympics and how loose that is.. crazy.

tennisaddict
10-20-2012, 06:17 AM
You guys missed 46:30... That is HUGE.

Thread title needs changed.

sonicare
10-20-2012, 06:19 AM
You guys missed 46:30... That is HUGE.

Thread title needs changed.

Yeah :( WTF man

RAFA2005RG
10-20-2012, 08:14 AM
I listened to most of the video, and no mention of Lendl, Rusedski, Chang or Sharapova from what I heard.

octogon
10-20-2012, 08:29 AM
You guys missed 46:30... That is HUGE.

Thread title needs changed.

46:30 wasn't huge at all.

They were mentioned by the radio host, not Conte. The host didn't even know which one it was supposed to be. It basically sounded like an urban legend he'd sort of heard somewhere and decided to repeat it. You cannot go making any accusations based on that and they shouldn't be dragged into what Conte himself said.

The only thing huge were the actual admissions from Conte, where he said he actually worked with Rusedski, Sharapova, Lendl and Chang. Those are serious accusations from someone with first hand knowledge.

RAFA2005RG
10-20-2012, 08:36 AM
46:30 wasn't huge at all.

They were mentioned by the radio host, not Conte. The host didn't even know which one it was supposed to be. It basically sounded like an urban legend he'd sort of heard somewhere and decided to repeat it. You cannot go making any accusations based on that and they shouldn't be dragged into what Conte himself said.

The only thing huge were the actual admissions from Conte, where he said he actually worked with Rusedski, Sharapova, Lendl and Chang. Those are serious accusations from someone with first hand knowledge.

What time of the video was Rusedski, Sharapova, Lendl and Chang?

sonicare
10-20-2012, 08:56 AM
46:30 wasn't huge at all.

They were mentioned by the radio host, not Conte. The host didn't even know which one it was supposed to be. It basically sounded like an urban legend he'd sort of heard somewhere and decided to repeat it. You cannot go making any accusations based on that and they shouldn't be dragged into what Conte himself said.

The only thing huge were the actual admissions from Conte, where he said he actually worked with Rusedski, Sharapova, Lendl and Chang. Those are serious accusations from someone with first hand knowledge.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/02/serena-williams-flees-to-panic-room_n_1073005.html

And if you google conte rusedski, you find some interesting stuff. Rusedski did get banned to PEDs at some stage right? So if this guys claiming he worked with Ivan, Maria, chang and a host of other players, it is dodgy as hell.

sonicare
10-20-2012, 08:57 AM
What time of the video was Rusedski, Sharapova, Lendl and Chang?

I told you to watch it properly. Start watching. It is between the 8 minute and 35 minute mark. Can you not even follow instructions?

octogon
10-20-2012, 09:04 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/02/serena-williams-flees-to-panic-room_n_1073005.html

Oh, so this is already a known story about Serena, and it's been written off as a mix up (alledgedly, Serena's assistant thought the random tester was a prowler and called the police. It's not an unlikely occurence, especially if they come unannounced. She may even still have given the sample). Not exactly a big deal if it a story that's already came and gone and caused no significant waves at the time.

What Conte said about working with those retired players and Sharappva is HUGE. He basically said he hooked them up.

And Murray is going to be implicated by association, now that Lendl is his coach (and Murray starts winning major titles and slams with Lendl).

DropShotArtist
10-20-2012, 09:07 AM
Oh, so this is already a known story about Serena, and it's been written off as a mix up (alledgedly, Serena's assistant thought the random tester was a prowler and called the police. It's not an unlikely occurence, especially if they come unannounced. She may even still have given the sample). Not exactly a big deal if it a story that's already came and gone and caused no significant waves at the time.

What Conte said about working with those retired players and Sharappva is HUGE. He basically said he hooked them up.

LOL, you'd have to be really naive to believe that "mix up" angle :)

sonicare
10-20-2012, 09:09 AM
Oh, so this is already a known story about Serena, and it's been written off as a mix up (alledgedly, Serena's assistant thought the random tester was a prowler and called the police. It's not an unlikely occurence, especially if they come unannounced. She may even still have given the sample). Not exactly a big deal if it a story that's already came and gone and caused no significant waves at the time.

What Conte said about working with those retired players and Sharappva is HUGE. He basically said he hooked them up.

And Murray is going o be implicated by association, now that Lendl is his coach (and Murray starts winning major titles and slams with Lendl).

The Serena story is dodgy in the sense that hes explaining how testing is done and how athletes are allowed to miss X amounts of tests in a 18 month period. Now obviously we cant draw from that anyone who misses a test is doping but it is interesting nevertheless.

The Lendl, chang and Maria thing is incredible if you ask me. he also mentions Rusedski who we know for a fact was done for PEDs. maybe the ATP decided to throw him under the bus because he was at the end of his career. who knows.

octogon
10-20-2012, 09:11 AM
yeah, Rusedski had a positive test for nandralone, but got "cleared" in a tribunal based on some technicalities. So it's kind of been forgotten with him, because he was deemed innocent. I guess it was the same sort of thing that allowed Lance Armstrong to be "cleared" for his failed tests in 1999.

octogon
10-20-2012, 09:18 AM
LOL, you'd have to be really naive to believe that "mix up" angle :)

Oh, I defintely think it's suspect:). But at the end of the day, it's one of those things you can't really draw any hard conclusions from, so you just have to let it go and keep giving the athlete the benefit of the doubt till something more concrete surfaces.

Conte's accusations are a whole different kettle of fish. This guy is like the Godfather of sports doping. If he says he worked with an athlete, I tend to believe him.

So basically, Sharapova, the active world WTA no.2 is a drug cheat. They won't go after her of course. Too much money at stake. But damn....I think some big names are going to be brought down, across all sports, after Armstrong. Armstrong was an American icon. If they can take him down, everyone has to be afraid.

RAFA2005RG
10-20-2012, 09:27 AM
I told you to watch it properly. Start watching. It is between the 8 minute and 35 minute mark. Can you not even follow instructions?

Not everyone has 27 free minutes per day.

sonicare
10-20-2012, 09:32 AM
Not everyone has 27 free minutes per day.

You should though since you spend hours trolling this very forum.

I will throw you a bone.

He names them just after 34.45 minutes

tennisaddict
10-20-2012, 09:56 AM
Not everyone has 27 free minutes per day.

I gave you a clue

Hint : Melzer-Santiago Giraldo

Great Uncle Bulgaria
10-20-2012, 10:22 AM
The only thing huge were the actual admissions from Conte, where he said he actually worked with Rusedski, Sharapova, Lendl and Chang. Those are serious accusations from someone with first hand knowledge.

I remember reading some years ago that Lendl, Chang and also Jim Courier's were associated with BALCO.

I could not listen to the podcast properly - it kept cutting out. Did Conte say he gave Rusedski etc banned substances or just that he worked with them? If he is accusing these guys of doping has he taken it to the proper authorities together with the evidence?

roberttennis54
10-20-2012, 10:31 AM
I remember reading some years ago that Lendl, Chang and also Jim Courier's were associated with BALCO.

I could not listen to the podcast properly - it kept cutting out. Did Conte say he gave Rusedski etc banned substances or just that he worked with them? If he is accusing these guys of doping has he taken it to the proper authorities together with the evidence?

No he never said he worked with those guys, but an associate who was also doping guys was working with them.

Conte does not say anything we don't know.

Basically it confirms a lot of things.

1. Doping authorities bury test.
2. Easy to get around doping by missing out of competition test.
3. It is possible to win clean and guys still do it today.

octogon
10-20-2012, 10:32 AM
I remember reading some years ago that Lendl, Chang and also Jim Courier's were associated with BALCO.

I could not listen to the podcast properly - it kept cutting out. Did Conte say he gave Rusedski etc banned substances or just that he worked with them? If he is accusing these guys of doping has he taken it to the proper authorities together with the evidence?

Conte said that he's not interested in being a snitch. Conte said he "worked" with Rusedski, Chang, Lendl and Sharapova....but the only reason he'd be working with them would be to give them doping programmes. That's what he does. So he doesn't really have to elaborate.

This is devastating stuff. Considering Rusedski failed a test for nandralone and Chang was a physical jackrabbit punching way above his weight, this seems all to credible.

sonicare
10-20-2012, 10:37 AM
No he never said he worked with those guys, but an associate who was also doping guys was working with them.

Conte does not say anything we don't know.

Basically it confirms a lot of things.

1. Doping authorities bury test.
2. Easy to get around doping by missing out of competition test.
3. It is possible to win clean and guys still do it today.

Re BOLD:

I went and rewatched it..he clearly says "I worked with a lot of different players, michael chang..etc etc"

He is saying his colleague went off and worked with lot of other tennis players and that he, conte himself, worked with atleast those 4 players.

This is some ****ed up ****.

octogon
10-20-2012, 10:37 AM
No he never said he worked with those guys, but an associate who was also doping guys was working with them.

Conte does not say anything we don't know.

Basically it confirms a lot of things.

1. Doping authorities bury test.
2. Easy to get around doping by missing out of competition test.
3. It is possible to win clean and guys still do it today.

No, Conte said his asscociate worked with many great tennis players (Wimbledon Champions, whom he never mentioned by name) and Conte said he himself worked with Rusedki, Sharapova, Chang etc.

roberttennis54
10-20-2012, 10:41 AM
No, Conte said his asscociate worked with many great tennis players (Wimbledon Champions, whom he never mentioned by name) and Conte said he himself worked with Rusedki, Sharapova, Chang etc.

Ok. That's even worse. Though none of those names surprise me. If I was going to be making a list of dopers all of those three would already have been on my list.

EDIT

Say what you want about Hingis. Personally I never liked her, thought she was rude, arrogant etc. However, she was robbed of her rightful place in womens tennis. She would have been an all time great on a level playing field.

The most ironic thing of all is she IS the one with a doping ban.

NadalAgassi
10-20-2012, 10:46 AM
How do you know Hingis didnt dope. As you yourself said she was the one with a doping ban. Her improvement from first serves never harder than 72 mph in early and mid 1996 to 100+ mph first serves in 1997 was very fast and noticeable, and while she was never touted as a big power player the upgrade in power in her shots from mid 1996 to even late 1996 was also extreme. She went from not being able to break an egg with the pace of her shots, and barely able to hit any winners vs Graf, Majoli, and Pierce in the first 7 months of 1996, and even barely able to hit winners vs the powerless SANCHEZ in her 3 set win over a badly off form Sanchez Vicario at the 96 U.S Open, to hitting 60 winners (more than Graf) vs Graf in the 96 WTA Championships final on a fast carpet court, and overpowering the hard hitting Pierce in the Australian Open final. I guess that was all natural to happen so quickly.

octogon
10-20-2012, 10:49 AM
i think Steffi Graf's name needs to be removed from the title of this thread. It's not fair to have her associated with what Conte said.

(though it wouldn't be a huge shock if she was a juicer as well. But right now, there's nothing on her)

roberttennis54
10-20-2012, 10:49 AM
How do you know Hingis didnt dope. As you yourself said she was the one with a doping ban.

We don't but there as I said, there was no surprise about the players Conte worked with. I would have had them all done as dopers.

The chances of Hingis doping is very low in my opinion especially before her first retirement. She just does not tick enough of the doping boxes.

sonicare
10-20-2012, 10:49 AM
No, Conte said his asscociate worked with many great tennis players (Wimbledon Champions, whom he never mentioned by name) and Conte said he himself worked with Rusedki, Sharapova, Chang etc.

I wonder what wimbledon champions those might be. You would have to think anyone with massive endurance back in the day is a candidate :( borg? Vilas?

i think Steffi Graf's name needs to be removed from the title of this thread. It's not fair to have her associated with what Conte said.

(though it wouldn't be a huge shock if she was a juicer as well. But right now, there's nothing on her)

I tried changing it but it won't :( I watched the podcast last night and this morning when making the post, for some reason, I confused Steffi and Sharapova.

NadalAgassi
10-20-2012, 10:52 AM
We don't but there as I said, there was no surprise about the players Conte worked with. I would have had them all done as dopers.

The chances of Hingis doping is very low in my opinion especially before her first retirement. She just does not tick enough of the doping boxes.

I wouldnt be the least bit surprised if Hingis began doping in late 1996 and that explains the sudden and rapid increase to the pace of her serve and groundstrokes, and her shockingly quick rise from #15 to #1. Obviously you missed that part of my post which I edited in later.

Anyway Conte did not name Venus, Serena, and Davenport who are the only three players who arguably wrecked Hingis's career, but really only Davenport and Venus as Hingis was done by the time Serena really got going. Sharapova has nothing to do with Hingis at all really.

RAFA2005RG
10-20-2012, 10:52 AM
How do you know Hingis didnt dope. As you yourself said she was the one with a doping ban.

Cocaine ban lol. As if Cocaine is doping :lol:

BauerAlmeida
10-20-2012, 10:52 AM
You guys missed 46:30... That is HUGE.

Thread title needs changed.

The Serena thing?

roberttennis54
10-20-2012, 10:53 AM
i think Steffi Graf's name needs to be removed from the title of this thread. It's not fair to have her associated with what Conte said.

(though it wouldn't be a huge shock if she was a juicer as well. But right now, there's nothing on her)

Yes not fair to have her name there when there is no link. I don't believe in naming sportsmen without a link.

As for Graf personally I am undecided. From the times she was said to run going back to her school days she was at the level you would expect from a world class athletics prodigy. She is probably the most gifted physically gifted top tennis player ever.

RAFA2005RG
10-20-2012, 10:53 AM
I confused Steffi and Sharapova.

How the fuque do you do that....

roberttennis54
10-20-2012, 10:55 AM
I wouldnt be the least bit surprised if Hingis began doping in late 1996 and that explains the sudden and rapid increase to the pace of her serve and groundstrokes, and her shockingly quick rise from #15 to #1. Obviously you missed that part of my post which I edited in later.

Anyway Conte did not name Venus, Serena, and Davenport who are the only three players who arguably wrecked Hingis's career, but really only Davenport and Venus as Hingis was done by the time Serena really got going. Sharapova has nothing to do with Hingis at all really.

She was 15 then lol. Nothing at all suggest Hingis ever started doping. Not saying she did not dope, but if I was forced to pick JUST ONE female slam winner I thought was clean then it would be Hingis.

NadalAgassi
10-20-2012, 10:55 AM
As for Davenport I highly doubt she took drugs either as she was a fat unathletic slob basically. She could hit so hard since she had great technique (much better than Hingis who had a technically flawed serve and forehand in fact) and because her massive height meant she had quite good strength but obviously that was natural.

NadalAgassi
10-20-2012, 10:58 AM
She was 15 then lol. Nothing at all suggest Hingis ever started doping. Not saying she did not dope, but if I was forced to pick one female slam winner I thought was clean then it would be Hingis.

Her serves went from no more than 72 mph to being over 100 mph in just a few months. That is NOT natural, even at that age. The change from Hingis in pace of serve and groundstroking from July 96 to October 96 was extraordinary.

There is no more reason to be suspicious of say Davenport (the main one who wrecked Hingis's career, not the Williams) than there is of Hingis. In fact there is much less. Davenport was a fat unathletic slob with no muscles, even if she could power the heck off her groundstrokes which she did since she was a baby, and when she went from a U Haul to merely a truck and her movement upgraded from snail to an old granny she became good enough to win slams through the quality of her groundstrokes alone. There isnt even any natural reason to suspect Venus of doping anymore than Hingis. The only ones there might be is Serena and Capriati who began to come into prominence (apart from Serena's 99 U.S Open but did virtually nothing for 2 years after that) when Hingis was already done, baked, and over.

What the hell do Sharapova and 3 men have to do with Hingis and her tailed off careeer? Absolutely nothing. They were the only ones named by Conte.

sonicare
10-20-2012, 11:02 AM
What the hell do Sharapova and 3 men have to do with Hingis and her tailed off careeer? Absolutely nothing. They were the only ones named by Conte.


This..Lets stick to the topic at hand

roberttennis54
10-20-2012, 11:03 AM
Her serves went from no more than 72 mph to being over 100 mph in just a few months. That is NOT natural, even at that age. The change from Hingis in pace of serve and groundstroking from July 96 to October 96 was extraordinary.

There is no more reason to be suspicious of say Davenport (the main one who wrecked Hingis's career, not the Williams) than there is of Hingis. In fact there is much less. Davenport was a fat unathletic slob with no muscles, even if she could power the heck off her groundstrokes which she did since she was a baby, and when she went from a U Haul to merely a truck and her movement upgraded from snail to an old granny she became good enough to win slams through the quality of her groundstrokes alone. There isnt even any natural reason to suspect Venus of doping anymore than Hingis. The only ones there might be is Serena and Capriati who began to come into prominence (apart from Serena's 99 U.S Open but did virtually nothing for 2 years after that) when Hingis was already done, baked, and over.

What the hell do Sharapova and 3 men have to do with Hingis and her tailed off careeer? Absolutely nothing. They were the only ones named by Conte.
Conte mentioned Serena's panic room attack as well. Anyway don't want to get into naming players now.

Good to see Conte appears to be confirming what I know. Such 10 seconds flat in the 100 metres can is what world class 100 metre runners run clean.

BauerAlmeida
10-20-2012, 11:04 AM
Her serves went from no more than 72 mph to being over 100 mph in just a few months. That is NOT natural, even at that age. The change from Hingis in pace of serve and groundstroking from July 96 to October 96 was extraordinary.



Nadal also added some miles to his serve in the USO 2010, does that mean he was doping??

octogon
10-20-2012, 11:06 AM
What the hell do Sharapova and 3 men have to do with Hingis and her tailed off careeer? Absolutely nothing. They were the only ones named by Conte.

I think he's basically trying to say that everyone who started beating Hingis (Venus, Serena, Davenport) was doping. And it's possible they all were (though Serena is the only one who has even given any reason to suspect she might). But I'm pretty damned certain that if everyone else was doping, and Hingis was aware of this, that Hingis would have doped as well. It's a slippery slope when you make that accusation that basically every top player EXCEPT Hingis at that time was doping. Doesn't seem credible.

It's like claiming that Nadal, Djokovic and Murray are doping, but saying Federer is just getting by on natural talent. Federer is just as suspect as the rest of them. It's an intensely physical game now, and he's an old man in tennis terms, yet he's still living with these younger guys.

NadalAgassi
10-20-2012, 11:07 AM
Nadal also added some miles to his serve in the USO 2010, does that mean he was doping??

Probably did, especialy as he never reduplicated that serving ever again. I am of the belief over half of top players dope anyway, in fact over half of top athletes in all sports today dope at some point, so I dont even really care either way.

NadalAgassi
10-20-2012, 11:10 AM
I think he's basically trying to say that everyone who started beating Hingis (Venus, Serena, Davenport) was doping. And it's possible they all were (though Serena is the only one who has even given any reason to suspect she might). But I'm pretty damned certain that if everyone else was doping, and Hingis was aware of this, that Hingis would have doped as well. It's a slippery slope when you make that accusation that basically every top player EXCEPT Hingis at that time was doping. Doesn't seem credible.

Like I said Davenport is the least likely of all those to dope. She was a fat unathletic slob (sorry if that sounds harsh but it is reality). So if she doped she did a crappy job of it. Even shot putters who no doubt mostly doped have alot more muscle to go with all the fat than she did. As to that she could overpower Hingis it isnt Davenport's fault she was born 8 inches taller than Hingis so naturally had more strength even as unathletic and pudgy as she was, and that her groundstroke and serve technique was flawless and overall better than Hingis.

Hingis even at her very peak had significant problems with Novotna who usually beat her on carpet and grass, and usually outplayed her but choked at the end to lose on hard courts. Was she a big power player or a doper too, lol!

roberttennis54
10-20-2012, 11:11 AM
Probably did, especialy as he never reduplicated that serving ever again. I am of the belief over half of top players dope anyway, in fact over half of top athletes in all sports today dope at some point, so I dont even really care either way.

I agree with that, but why don't you care. I take it you were not close to being a professional athlete yourself. What about if one of your kids wants to be a sportsman or child of a friend/family member. Doping is bad for you at the end of the day. Don't you care that if they have integrity they will have to give up their dreams? Not to mention the hundreds upon hundreds of clean athletes, who lose out to dopers.

sonicare
10-20-2012, 11:14 AM
What is interesting to me now is...where does this leave murray?

He Hired Ivan and Conte has specifically named Ivan lendll as someone he worked with

Now we see Murray all of a sudden have his highlight year soon as he hooks up with Ivan.

I really don't know what to make of all this TBH

roberttennis54
10-20-2012, 11:16 AM
I think he's basically trying to say that everyone who started beating Hingis (Venus, Serena, Davenport) was doping. And it's possible they all were (though Serena is the only one who has even given any reason to suspect she might). But I'm pretty damned certain that if everyone else was doping, and Hingis was aware of this, that Hingis would have doped as well. It's a slippery slope when you make that accusation that basically every top player EXCEPT Hingis at that time was doping. Doesn't seem credible.

It's like claiming that Nadal, Djokovic and Murray are doping, but saying Federer is just getting by on natural talent. Federer is just as suspect as the rest of them. It's an intensely physical game now, and he's an old man in tennis terms, yet he's still living with these younger guys.

Let's stop naming players.
There are many examples in even the dirtiest sports of athletes knowing others around them are cheating but choosing to remain clean. So just, because an athlete suspects those around them are doping does not mean they would be prepared to do the same.

Then there is the added risks for women. A lot of women don't want to turn into muscle bound freaks of nature. A few female sportswoman have refused to dope due to vanity alone.

octogon
10-20-2012, 11:16 AM
Like I said Davenport is the least likely of all those to dope. She was a fat unathletic slob (sorry if that sounds harsh but it is reality). So if she doped she did a crappy job of it. Even shot putters who no doubt mostly doped have alot more muscle to go with all the fat than she did. As to that she could overpower Hingis it isnt Davenport's fault she was born 8 inches taller than Hingis so naturally had more strength even as unathletic and pudgy as she was, and that her groundstroke and serve technique was flawless and overall better than Hingis.

Hingis even at her very peak had significant problems with Novotna who usually beat her on carpet and grass, and usually outplayed her but choked at the end to lose on hard courts. Was she a big power player or a doper too, lol!

You can't just say someone is a likely doper because they are naturally athletic. Venus had so many natural physical advantadges over Hingis, that she wouldn't actually need to dope to beat her. She was like 6 or 7 inches taller, and had a huge wingspan. She was clearly naturally athletic, fast and strong. And she's not built like a tank like Serena (not that that means anything in regards to doping, but Serena's physical type is a more obvious sign).

Very few people even accused Venus of being a likely doper, because her physical advantadges were so obvious (even moreso than Serena's).

NadalAgassi
10-20-2012, 11:21 AM
I agree with that, but why don't you care. I take it you were not close to being a professional athlete yourself. What about if one of your kids wants to be a sportsman or child of a friend/family member. Doping is bad for you at the end of the day. Don't you care that if they have integrity they will have to give up their dreams? Not to mention the hundreds upon hundreds of clean athletes, who lose out to dopers.

I would let them decide what they wanted to do. If they came to me and said they felt they had to dope to keep up with the competition and being in that environment they realized most of their competitors doped too, it would only confirm what I basically already knew, and I would tell them it was their choice but if they made that decision to be very careful since the fall if they were ever caught would be major. I am not naive to the realities of top level sport today, and to the reality that to compete doping is often a requirement.

I dont believe there are that many clean athletes, and most of them who do exist are bottom feeders who never had much hope in the first place. Sorry but that is my opinion.

roberttennis54
10-20-2012, 11:22 AM
Like I said Davenport is the least likely of all those to dope. She was a fat unathletic slob (sorry if that sounds harsh but it is reality). So if she doped she did a crappy job of it. Even shot putters who no doubt mostly doped have alot more muscle to go with all the fat than she did. As to that she could overpower Hingis it isnt Davenport's fault she was born 8 inches taller than Hingis so naturally had more strength even as unathletic and pudgy as she was, and that her groundstroke and serve technique was flawless and overall better than Hingis.

Hingis even at her very peak had significant problems with Novotna who usually beat her on carpet and grass, and usually outplayed her but choked at the end to lose on hard courts. Was she a big power player or a doper too, lol!

I think Davenport as well is another right at the top of my list for being clean. Let's just leave this conversation there.

NadalAgassi
10-20-2012, 11:24 AM
You can't just say someone is a likely doper because they are naturally athletic. Venus had so many natural physical advantadges over Hingis, that she wouldn't actually need to dope to beat her. She was like 6 or 7 inches taller, and had a huge wingspan. She was clearly naturally athletic, fast and strong. And she's not built like a tank like Serena (not that that means anything in regards to doping, but Serena's physical type is a more obvious sign).

Very few people even accused Venus of being a likely doper, because her physical advantadges were so obvious (even moreso than Serena's).

Exactly Davenport and Venus are probably the least likely of all of Serena, Hingis, Davenport, Venus, and Capriati to be have been doping (I already explained the reasons to suspect Hingis if one wants to go there), while Serena and Capriati the most. However Serena and Capriati, apart from Serena's early career fluke U.S Open win, came in when Hingis was already burnt, fried, and done basically. So put it all together and I dont see Hingis as a likely victim of the WTA doping situation. I do believe Henin and Sharapova are both huge dopers but they have nothing to do with Hingis, except impeding on her 2nd career which wasnt ever going anywhere much anyway, and it is Clijsters or a nobody who took her out in all the slams. Anyway I am done with the particular topic involving Hingis which is off topic anyway.

NadalAgassi
10-20-2012, 11:26 AM
What is interesting to me now is...where does this leave murray?

He Hired Ivan and Conte has specifically named Ivan lendll as someone he worked with

Now we see Murray all of a sudden have his highlight year soon as he hooks up with Ivan.

I really don't know what to make of all this TBH

Interesting. Do you see much change in Murray which would indicate starting to dope or a change in doping (as I said I believe most top players dope anyway so this isnt a direct accusation of Murray specifically). I always thought his increased success this year was a stronger mind in big matches, I dont see any improvements in his game let alone on a physical level to be honest. Actually his forehand improved, but that is all technical changes which are visible, and boy before there was alot to fix there, and he has started coming to net more and using his volleying skills more, nothing doping related either.

sonicare
10-20-2012, 11:34 AM
Interesting. Do you see much change in Murray which would indicate starting to dope or a change in doping (as I said I believe most top players dope anyway so this isnt a direct accusation of Murray specifically). I always thought his increased success this year was a stronger mind in big matches, I dont see any improvements in his game let alone on a physical level to be honest. Actually his forehand improved, but that is all technical changes which are visible, and boy before there was alot to fix there, and he has started coming to net more and using his volleying skills more, nothing doping related either.

You make a lot of sense. I haven't followed murray's career all the way through if I am being honest.

Doping in tennis would almost always be conditioning/recovery related. I really don't know if Murray has improved those things. Also Murray is quite muscular too compared to when he first came on tour.

FFS. I am trying to be as rational as possible and I don't really believe in guilt by association either.

So to answer your question. I haven't a clue. LOL

Of the 4 people named, Chang and Rusedski are basically irrelevant in the scheme of things.

Lendll however is regarded as one of the greats and one of the fittest guys on tour when he was playing. The first "professional" tennis player as people put it. This whole thing has put a massive asterik next to him however.

Mustard
10-20-2012, 11:49 AM
Probably did, especialy as he never reduplicated that serving ever again.

He did. Watch 2010 Tokyo, and even 2011 Indian Wells. That serve gave Nadal shoulder problems, and also reduced his consistency, shown by his disastrous serving performance in the last 2 sets against Djokovic in the 2011 Indian Wells final (just 20% first serves in).

sonicare
10-20-2012, 11:53 AM
He did. Watch 2010 Tokyo, and even 2011 Indian Wells. That serve gave Nadal shoulder problems, and also reduced his consistency, shown by his disastrous serving performance in the last 2 sets against Djokovic in the 2011 Indian Wells final (just 20% first serves in).

Hey Mustard,

What are your thoughts on this whole thread? Did you watch the video?

NadalAgassi
10-20-2012, 11:58 AM
You make a lot of sense. I haven't followed murray's career all the way through if I am being honest.

Doping in tennis would almost always be conditioning/recovery related. I really don't know if Murray has improved those things. Also Murray is quite muscular too compared to when he first came on tour.

FFS. I am trying to be as rational as possible and I don't really believe in guilt by association either.

So to answer your question. I haven't a clue. LOL

Of the 4 people named, Chang and Rusedski are basically irrelevant in the scheme of things.

Lendll however is regarded as one of the greats and one of the fittest guys on tour when he was playing. The first "professional" tennis player as people put it. This whole thing has put a massive asterik next to him however.

Yeah it is quite easy for me to believe Lendl was doping TBH. You are right Murray is alot more muscular than when he first joined the tour. He isnt anything unbelievable even today though, I had previously put that down to just the regular functions of becoming a man.

It is funny to hear Rusedski being heavily involved in doping. That just shows how many people probably dope as he was really a nobody the majority of his career, probably even the tour journeymen do, and for many of them it doesnt help much.

El Nino
10-20-2012, 12:05 PM
Surprised Tsonga's name hasn't come up at all in this topic (i'm not accusing him of anything, he's just pretty big that's all)

big ted
10-20-2012, 12:07 PM
to be fair, lendl was an 80s player and conte said he was a nutritionist at that time that helped athletes with their diet, etc.. so maybe people are reading too much into this?

sabala
10-20-2012, 12:16 PM
Chang was doping with Jesus juice - it's true.

Talker
10-20-2012, 01:55 PM
Sharapova and Serena were mentioned.

It was interesting about the track and field, Carl Lewis in the 80's too.

mike84
10-20-2012, 02:05 PM
so you started your own thread from my post.
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=6964956&postcount=22

ctoth666
10-20-2012, 03:16 PM
JRE for life. Best podcast available IMO. This episode was very interesting, but it's not nearly the most interesting episode. Not nearly. I recommend it to anyone and everyone.

RAFA2005RG
10-20-2012, 08:10 PM
Nadal also added some miles to his serve in the USO 2010, does that mean he was doping??

Probably did, especialy as he never reduplicated that serving ever again. I am of the belief over half of top players dope anyway, in fact over half of top athletes in all sports today dope at some point, so I dont even really care either way.

Nadal only got hype for his 2010 US Open serve because he hit a handful of 135mph serves. Just a couple per match in the early rounds. But he was hitting around 130mph as recently as Halle this year too.

And in that 2010 US Open he only averaged 120mph, and in the final vs Djokovic 116mph. That's not big at all.

Guess what his average was in the 2010 Wimbledon final? 116mph.

Guess what his average was in the 2011 Wimbledon final? 120mph.

Guess what his average was in the 2012 Rosol match? 123mph (and 19 aces).

Nadal has always been able to serve over 120mph on average (and throw in the occasional 130-135mph serve).

The reason why he usually doesn't serve that fast is that he doesn't like the ball being returned to him so quickly. He spoke of this earlier this year, and said that he wants to hit a forehand on his first ball and if he serves BIG then the return comes back too quickly and he will be unable to make a backhand into a forehand with such limited time. It's not about strength, its about tactics. And I don't have the services speeds of Nadal at Roland Garros this year, but he was almost unbreakable until the final.

octogon
10-20-2012, 09:53 PM
Yeah it is quite easy for me to believe Lendl was doping TBH. You are right Murray is alot more muscular than when he first joined the tour. He isnt anything unbelievable even today though, I had previously put that down to just the regular functions of becoming a man.

It is funny to hear Rusedski being heavily involved in doping. That just shows how many people probably dope as he was really a nobody the majority of his career, probably even the tour journeymen do, and for many of them it doesnt help much.

I'd say doping helped Rusedski alot. He wasn't exactly a great talent, yet rose to become World no.4. To be the 4th best player in the world at any stage of your career is a significant achievement. Rusedski became a big celebrity in he UK, and probably made a few million dollars in British endorsements.

If someone like Rusedski can gain so much from doping, it probably doe have a big effect at all levels of the game.

NadalAgassi
10-20-2012, 10:11 PM
I'd say doping helped Rusedski alot. He wasn't exactly a great talent, yet rose to become World no.4. To be the 4th best player in the world at any stage of your career is a significant achievement. Rusedski became a big celebrity in he UK, and probably made a few million dollars in British endorsements.

If someone like Rusedski can gain so much from doping, it probably doe have a big effect at all levels of the game.

What do you think doping gave him if it had a major effect? He always had a huge serve, one of the highest MPHs on tour. Maybe it gave him improved endurance.

RAFA2005RG
10-20-2012, 10:18 PM
What do you think doping gave him if it had a major effect? He always had a huge serve, one of the highest MPHs on tour. Maybe it gave him improved endurance.

And maybe it allowed Rusedski to have enough energy at the US Open (which he made the final of) after a long and tiring year. He was trying to do a federer and last the entire year at a high level.

octogon
10-20-2012, 11:17 PM
What do you think doping gave him if it had a major effect? He always had a huge serve, one of the highest MPHs on tour. Maybe it gave him improved endurance.

Ivo Karlovic has an even bigger serve than Rusedski ever had, yet Dr Ivo was never ranked higher than 14 in the world. A cannonball serve alone is not going to get you to no.4 in the world. Rusedski needed help to get as high as he did in the rankings, and it was probably PED's that made the difference.

It's a long year for Pros. If Rusedski was doping the year he made the US Open final, improved endurance and conditioning would have made a big difference to his performance (and his ranking basically jumped thanks to that performance). If he was doping, I'd say it probably changed his career significantly.

jokinla
10-21-2012, 12:08 AM
Greg Redeuceky, hilarious.

sbengte
10-21-2012, 03:02 AM
This is devastating stuff. Considering Rusedski failed a test for nandralone and Chang was a physical jackrabbit punching way above his weight, this seems all to credible.

If there is any truth to it, I want the 1989 FO trophy handed over to Edberg for his career slam. Now. :evil:

NamRanger
10-21-2012, 06:16 AM
What do you think doping gave him if it had a major effect? He always had a huge serve, one of the highest MPHs on tour. Maybe it gave him improved endurance.



Improved muscle fatigue that allowed Rusedski to last longer. The reason why Karlovic and Isner struggle is because they just get tired from their longer matches that they usually play due to their gameplay style. They get into alot of long matches just because they hold serve so often. Rusedski's PED usage means he actually has a return game, and along with increased stamina (in terms of muscle fatigue) he can actually keep serving at a high MPH without getting tired.


People always want to say PEDs don't do jack for tennis players, and yet forget tennis is a far more physical sport now adays. PEDs help in so many ways that people don't simply understand. Just simple nutrition already helps you, imagine a drug specifically designed to enhance your performance.

jokinla
10-21-2012, 09:33 AM
If there is any truth to it, I want the 1989 FO trophy handed over to Edberg for his career slam. Now. :evil:

I don't believe much of what he said in the interview, but he said at this time he wasn't in the steroid business, just doing nutrition and supplements, nothing illegal.

cc0509
10-21-2012, 02:59 PM
If there is any truth to it, I want the 1989 FO trophy handed over to Edberg for his career slam. Now. :evil:

You don't think Edberg ever took anything? Get this into your head: They have all very likely taken something at some point or another. The sooner you realize this fact the better off you will be.

jrs
10-21-2012, 07:49 PM
He said he worked with them - the interviewer didn't really clarify what he did with them. He also mentioned he did legit - nutrition and exercise program in the early years.
So I am not sure if you can label the players he mentioned as using PED's.

cc0509
10-21-2012, 08:48 PM
He said he worked with them - the interviewer didn't really clarify what he did with them. He also mentioned he did legit - nutrition and exercise program in the early years.
So I am not sure if you can label the players he mentioned as using PED's.

You can't but the inference is there.

NadalAgassi
10-21-2012, 08:54 PM
You don't think Edberg ever took anything? Get this into your head: They have all very likely taken something at some point or another. The sooner you realize this fact the better off you will be.

LOL we dont agree on much at all but this is something we entirely agree on. I have been laughing for years at all the naive sports fans including some good friends of mine who think professional athletes are clean and act in mock horror when someone they follow either as a fan, an anti fan, a rival of their favorite, happens to get caught, and think that is a minority case. Clueless. Doping is practically a requirement of elite level sports. Some take better and more effective drugs than others, some have the money and power and know the right people to get the better drugs more than others, and some are willing to endure greater health risks than others (Flo Jo dear, dont mean to spit on your grave, and I do miss your cape costumes, your glamour, your iconic nails, but yes I am calling you), but virtually all international athletes have taken performance enhancing drugs of some sort at one point.

What is most funny are the self righteous athletes like Carl freaking Lewis who mock all convicted (Ben Johnson, Marion Jones) or make random accustions of others (Usian Bolt, Michael Johnson) and act as if they are clean as humble pie, when they are in fact among the most doped up in history, and were lucky their star status meant they had their *** covered a number of times.

cc0509
10-21-2012, 09:35 PM
NadalAgassi;6968093]virtually all international athletes have taken performance enhancing drugs of some sort at one point.

Of course they have! It is practically a requirement.


What is most funny are the self righteous athletes like Carl freaking Lewis who mock all convicted (Ben Johnson, Marion Jones) or make random accustions of others (Usian Bolt, Michael Johnson) and act as if they are clean as humble pie, when they are in fact among the most doped up in history, and were lucky their star status meant they had their *** covered a number of times.

Or how about how players reacted when Agassi wrote his book and told of his failed drug test and cover up for crystal meth (which I know is not a PED) but still many tennis players (I won't mention any names) reacted in mock horror and disgust that Agassi talked about this issue and that he maybe was tarnishing the sport. LOL, what a joke.

Russeljones
10-22-2012, 01:52 AM
These threads emphasize how little attention people pay to what they actually write. Medicines aiding in recuperation are not the same as PED's yet the usual culprits harp on with their generalisations. Sad sad state of discussion.

ClarkC
10-22-2012, 03:55 AM
What is interesting to me now is...where does this leave murray?

He Hired Ivan and Conte has specifically named Ivan lendll as someone he worked with

Now we see Murray all of a sudden have his highlight year soon as he hooks up with Ivan.

I really don't know what to make of all this TBH

Yes, and what about Murray's mom? And is brother? And his fifth grade teacher, and his next door neighbors? Using guilt by (very remote) association, where does that leave them?

roberttennis54
10-22-2012, 04:10 AM
Of course they have! It is practically a requirement.
.

This really annoys me when people say this. It's just not true. Evem Conte says there are plenty of clean athletes out there.

I will give you an examples in athletics.
10 seconds flat can be done clean. Montgomery, Chambers have all said how they were running 9.97 or around that clean. If there is a guy, who has always been at world class sprinter from a young age, turns pro and never breaks 9.95 then there is no reason he was not clean.

Perfect example of this is Jason Gardener or Marlon Devonish. Despite all the pressure, all the evidence suggest these guys were clean their entire careers and were very successful.

If in a sport like the 100 metres you can have a great career without doping even more so tennis.

Another example is the footballer Emmanuel Petit. He was very outspoken about doping in football and even claimed his team mates were using. I believe he was clean his entire career. He ended with a legendary career, winning virtually everything there is to win.

There are plenty of other examples. To claim everyone dopes is a huge insult to the clean athletes and lets of the dopers, since they can pretend it's a level playing field.

ctoth666
10-22-2012, 04:18 AM
I don't see the distinction between the PED controversy and the war on drugs. In principal it's the same isn't it? It's like you know people are going to do them and you know that despite them being banned, people continue to do them. So how is prohibition doing anyone any good? Well it's not. Legalize and regulate. Drugs aren't bad. They're neutral. If you're an athlete and there's something that make you better at what you do, then it's a no-brainer. Let's protect our athletes and make it a level playing field.

jrs
10-22-2012, 05:31 AM
Conte makes a valid point - both sides are cheating. The governing bodies - randomly throw out valid tests and protect certain athletes. Some athletes are trying to gain an advantage.

I don't think it's possible to have level playing field since these sports/entertainment is generating too much money.

Also, I am surprised Chang and Sharparova would be implicated. I though MC - was very moral person. Sharparova appears to be very conscious of her image - so wouldn't do anything to damage the image.

DRII
10-22-2012, 06:19 AM
This whole doping thing can be way too generic and becomes nearly arbitrary!

Almost anything can be considered 'performance enhancing' from food to vitamins to medicine to workout regimens to machines...

It can get very ridiculous very quickly.

So what a PED is, is only what authorities decides is a PED :confused:

ivan_the_terrible
10-22-2012, 07:11 AM
This whole doping thing can be way too generic and becomes nearly arbitrary!

Almost anything can be considered 'performance enhancing' from food to vitamins to medicine to workout regimens to machines...

It can get very ridiculous very quickly.

So what a PED is, is only what authorities decides is a PED :confused:

There are known 'performance enhancing' drugs, they are banned. Has nothing to do with food or vitamins. Some medicines are indeed performance enhancing and athletes are allowed a TUE (Therapeutic Use Exemption) for medical issues that require them. This is obviously abused in many cases ( an inordinate number of baseball players 'suffer from' Attention Deficit Disorder that requires Ritalin treatment - funny that Ritalin is known to increase hand/eye coordination in healthy people :)

So really, you can take all the vitamins and work as hard as you want in the gym on some high-tech machine but that will only get you so far.
You honestly think this separates the haves from the have-nots?

BrooklynNY
10-22-2012, 07:57 AM
At the 47:00 mark, he also references how it's easy to evade testing by simply not taking tests.

Joe Rogan mentions the Serena panick room incident

DRII
10-22-2012, 08:03 AM
There are known 'performance enhancing' drugs, they are banned. Has nothing to do with food or vitamins. Some medicines are indeed performance enhancing and athletes are allowed a TUE (Therapeutic Use Exemption) for medical issues that require them. This is obviously abused in many cases ( an inordinate number of baseball players 'suffer from' Attention Deficit Disorder that requires Ritalin treatment - funny that Ritalin is known to increase hand/eye coordination in healthy people :)

So really, you can take all the vitamins and work as hard as you want in the gym on some high-tech machine but that will only get you so far.
You honestly think this separates the haves from the have-nots?

I'm saying whats a PED today is an OTC supplement tomorrow or vice versa...

Gonzalito17
10-22-2012, 10:19 AM
"Serena's panic room attack" ?? what does this mean, not familiar with this. Thanks.

diadorakuerten
10-22-2012, 12:42 PM
This really annoys me when people say this. It's just not true. Evem Conte says there are plenty of clean athletes out there.

I will give you an examples in athletics.
10 seconds flat can be done clean. Montgomery, Chambers have all said how they were running 9.97 or around that clean. If there is a guy, who has always been at world class sprinter from a young age, turns pro and never breaks 9.95 then there is no reason he was not clean.

Perfect example of this is Jason Gardener or Marlon Devonish. Despite all the pressure, all the evidence suggest these guys were clean their entire careers and were very successful.

If in a sport like the 100 metres you can have a great career without doping even more so tennis.

Another example is the footballer Emmanuel Petit. He was very outspoken about doping in football and even claimed his team mates were using. I believe he was clean his entire career. He ended with a legendary career, winning virtually everything there is to win.

There are plenty of other examples. To claim everyone dopes is a huge insult to the clean athletes and lets of the dopers, since they can pretend it's a level playing field.

How can you be so naive? Because you're young doesn't mean you're not doping...

I know for a fact (my wife used to be a world class runner in the juniors) that athletes under 18 years of age dope.

Chambers was caught for doping and ran his PR in the 200m (20.31) right before getting caught. Guess what? His 200m PR is more than a half second slower than Christophe Lemaitre's PR (19.80). That is HUGE! So Lemaitre is clean because he's been running fast since he was young? Give me a break!

And how can you believe anything a convicted doper says? Oh yeah I was clean when I ran this time or that time. That's total BS...

corners
10-22-2012, 12:48 PM
"Serena's panic room attack" ?? what does this mean, not familiar with this. Thanks.

A drug tester showed up at her house and she locked herself into her panic room. Her story is that her assistant mistook the testing official for a bad guy and alerted Serena, who took appropriate action. However, many people are skeptical that Serena used this excuse to purposely avoid being tested. We don't know, however, if a sample was collected on this visit, as ITF does not publicize this information. So she may have come out of hiding and given a sample or she may have not.

As Conte explains in this video, athletes are allowed a certain number of missed tests. The ITF allows three missed tests per year, I believe. So if you are an athlete taking PEDs and a tester shows up at your door and you know that since you took steroids or EPO or whatever just yesterday, it would be smarter to run into your panic room and avoid the test than give a sample, test positive and watch your career go down the tubes. The issue of missed tests is one of the things that has made some people concerned about doping in tennis. ITF no longer tells us who missed tests but several years ago they did and all the top male players missed tests. Rafa has told the press that he purposely missed tests.

Another thing that doesn't look good for tennis is that the ITF only tests for EPO if a player's blood profile suggests that they might be on it. Basically, they will take a blood sample and if they find an elevated hematocrit level they will then test for EPO the next time. Several years ago Fed, Djoker, Nadal and other players were all tested for EPO. This means that their blood samples showed suspicously high hematocrit levels. They did not test positive for EPO, at least not that we know of, but as Conte explains in the video it's rather easy to avoid a positive EPO test.

None of this means that Serena, Fed, Nadal or Djoker took, or are taking PEDs, but there is cause for suspicion. Experts consider the ITF's drug testing regime to be pretty weak. And in addition, since they do not publicize test results the system is vulnerable to cover-ups from within the ITF and ATP. The Lance Armstrong case shows that the cycling authorities were basically willing to look the other way and ignore positive tests in order to save the image of their sport.

We know that the ATP did the same thing with Agassi. In his autobiography he confessed to testing positive for crystal meth but the whole thing was hushed up by the ATP. They did not want a scandal that would ruin tennis' image and damage the profits of the pro tour.

This is why some people suspect that silent bans are being handed out in tennis - that a player who tests positive at a tournament will be told by the ATP or ITF to claim injury and take a certain amount of time off the tour.

At the Grand Slams, only match losers are tested, until the final, where both players are tested. So if you're a top player you know with certainty that you can use drugs at the tournament as long as you know you are not going to lose, like in the early rounds. As we learned from the Lance Armstrong case, cyclists use fast-acting testosterone creams at night that dramatically improve recovery from the strain of competing. For a tennis player this would be awesome. You win your 1st round match at Wimbledon, say, then put on a testosterone patch that night, knowing that it will probably be out of your system by your next match. And even if it isn't fully out of your system and there is a small chance you'd test positive, as long as you win your 2nd round match you know with 100% certainty that you will not be tested. But if you happen to lose in the 2nd round in a shock upset at one of the Grand Slams, you will get tested after that match. And if you test positive, maybe the ATP or ITF will allow you to publicize an injury and take a six month vacation instead of telling the world that you're a cheat. Maybe.

SLD76
10-22-2012, 01:23 PM
A drug tester showed up at her house and she locked herself into her panic room. Her story is that her assistant mistook the testing official for a bad guy and alerted Serena, who took appropriate action. However, many people are skeptical that Serena used this excuse to purposely avoid being tested. We don't know, however, if a sample was collected on this visit, as ITF does not publicize this information. So she may have come out of hiding and given a sample or she may have not.

As Conte explains in this video, athletes are allowed a certain number of missed tests. The ITF allows three missed tests per year, I believe. So if you are an athlete taking PEDs and a tester shows up at your door and you know that since you took steroids or EPO or whatever just yesterday, it would be smarter to run into your panic room and avoid the test than give a sample, test positive and watch your career go down the tubes. The issue of missed tests is one of the things that has made some people concerned about doping in tennis. ITF no longer tells us who missed tests but several years ago they did and all the top male players missed tests. Rafa has told the press that he purposely missed tests.

Another thing that doesn't look good for tennis is that the ITF only tests for EPO if a player's blood profile suggests that they might be on it. Basically, they will take a blood sample and if they find an elevated hematocrit level they will then test for EPO the next time. Several years ago Fed, Djoker, Nadal and other players were all tested for EPO. This means that their blood samples showed suspicously high hematocrit levels. They did not test positive for EPO, at least not that we know of, but as Conte explains in the video it's rather easy to avoid a positive EPO test.

None of this means that Serena, Fed, Nadal or Djoker took, or are taking PEDs, but there is cause for suspicion. Experts consider the ITF's drug testing regime to be pretty weak. And in addition, since they do not publicize test results the system is vulnerable to cover-ups from within the ITF and ATP. The Lance Armstrong case shows that the cycling authorities were basically willing to look the other way and ignore positive tests in order to save the image of their sport.

We know that the ATP did the same thing with Agassi. In his autobiography he confessed to testing positive for crystal meth but the whole thing was hushed up by the ATP. They did not want a scandal that would ruin tennis' image and damage the profits of the pro tour.

This is why some people suspect that silent bans are being handed out in tennis - that a player who tests positive at a tournament will be told by the ATP or ITF to claim injury and take a certain amount of time off the tour.

At the Grand Slams, only match losers are tested, until the final, where both players are tested. So if you're a top player you know with certainty that you can use drugs at the tournament as long as you know you are not going to lose, like in the early rounds. As we learned from the Lance Armstrong case, cyclists use fast-acting testosterone creams at night that dramatically improve recovery from the strain of competing. For a tennis player this would be awesome. You win your 1st round match at Wimbledon, say, then put on a testosterone patch that night, knowing that it will probably be out of your system by your next match. And even if it isn't fully out of your system and there is a small chance you'd test positive, as long as you win your 2nd round match you know with 100% certainty that you will not be tested. But if you happen to lose in the 2nd round in a shock upset at one of the Grand Slams, you will get tested after that match. And if you test positive, maybe the ATP or ITF will allow you to publicize an injury and take a six month vacation instead of telling the world that you're a cheat. Maybe.

welp

shots fired.

Great Uncle Bulgaria
10-22-2012, 01:31 PM
But if you happen to lose in the 2nd round in a shock upset at one of the Grand Slams, you will get tested after that match. And if you test positive, maybe the ATP or ITF will allow you to publicize an injury and take a six month vacation instead of telling the world that you're a cheat. Maybe.

If the ATP/ITF want to hush up the whole affair, why would they tell the offender to take off a period so long that it is bound to arouse the type of suspicion they want to avoid?

SLD76
10-22-2012, 01:35 PM
If the ATP/ITF want to hush up the whole affair, why would they tell the offender to take off a period so long that it is bound to arouse the type of suspicion they want to avoid?


people are gullible is why

diredesire
10-22-2012, 01:51 PM
I edited the thread title to reflect the subtitle.

MethodTennis
10-22-2012, 01:56 PM
I edited the thread title to reflect the subtitle.

Thanks, that was quick!

roberttennis54
10-22-2012, 01:59 PM
How can you be so naive? Because you're young doesn't mean you're not doping...

I know for a fact (my wife used to be a world class runner in the juniors) that athletes under 18 years of age dope.

Chambers was caught for doping and ran his PR in the 200m (20.31) right before getting caught. Guess what? His 200m PR is more than a half second slower than Christophe Lemaitre's PR (19.80). That is HUGE! So Lemaitre is clean because he's been running fast since he was young? Give me a break!

And how can you believe anything a convicted doper says? Oh yeah I was clean when I ran this time or that time. That's total BS...

You did not properly read what I wrote. I KNOW some people dope young. I competed at athletics at county level, many of my friends won/competed at national level and another friend has made the finals of an Olympic track event.

I said they have run consistently at a world class level from a young age ie 14+. In this country at least it is not likely they will be doping at this age.

If you bothered to read reports you will know 9.95 is what they can run clean.

Dwain Chambers himself has said he could run 9.97 clean and then took it down a further 9.87.

Any junior running 19.8 in the 200 metres would leave me very suspicious. Since the consensus is 10 seconds and then 20 seconds are what world class sprinters can do. This does not mean he may not be a freak, but I would be wary.

leroy_sunset
10-22-2012, 03:16 PM
This is why some people suspect that silent bans are being handed out in tennis - that a player who tests positive at a tournament will be told by the ATP or ITF to claim injury and take a certain amount of time off the tour.

At the Grand Slams, only match losers are tested, until the final, where both players are tested. So if you're a top player you know with certainty that you can use drugs at the tournament as long as you know you are not going to lose, like in the early rounds. As we learned from the Lance Armstrong case, cyclists use fast-acting testosterone creams at night that dramatically improve recovery from the strain of competing. For a tennis player this would be awesome. You win your 1st round match at Wimbledon, say, then put on a testosterone patch that night, knowing that it will probably be out of your system by your next match. And even if it isn't fully out of your system and there is a small chance you'd test positive, as long as you win your 2nd round match you know with 100% certainty that you will not be tested. But if you happen to lose in the 2nd round in a shock upset at one of the Grand Slams, you will get tested after that match. And if you test positive, maybe the ATP or ITF will allow you to publicize an injury and take a six month vacation instead of telling the world that you're a cheat. Maybe.

Wow, this I did not know. Down the rabbit hole we go.

corners
10-22-2012, 04:34 PM
If the ATP/ITF want to hush up the whole affair, why would they tell the offender to take off a period so long that it is bound to arouse the type of suspicion they want to avoid?

Who knows? But if I were to guess, it would be that ATP/ITF do want to stop PED use in tennis, but not at the expense of the popularity, credibility and profitability of the tour. So by imposing a silent ban, which will cost the player lots of lost prize money, they are telling the player to stop using banned substances. But by keeping everything hush-hush they do not expose either the player or the tour to negative publicity. The only negative of this strategy is if people start wondering and talking about it. But the tennis press wants nothing to do with the story of PEDs in tennis, and without proof it all goes away anyway.

Another possibility is blackmail: The top player gets caught, but tells the ATP/ITF that if they reveal this information to the public he is not going down alone, that he knows that drug use is widespread, that other top players are also using PEDs, and he will tell the world about it, and name names. So he essentially makes a deal: "OK, you don't destroy my career by going public with this test result, and I don't destroy the tour by going public with what I know about PEDs in our sport."

The real problem with PEDs is that only the richer players can afford them, and more importantly afford to employ clever doctors that can make sure they don't get caught. This makes the tour a very un-level playing field, where the top players, who already enjoy the advantages of private transport, private physios and massage therapists, top-level coaches, etc., can then get an additional advantage over their lower-ranked peers by possibly taking PEDs. I would think that any sports authority would want, on ethical grounds, to eliminate this type of situation, as long as the short-term costs are not too great. (In business, most decisions are made to influence short-term outcomes.)

In addition, if ATP/ITF were aware that top players are doping, they would want these players to stop before the practice spreads so wide that the entire sport is overrun, like in cycling, where basically the rider with the best drugs wins. Also, although cycling, by putting everything under the rug for so many years, became much more popular because of Lance Armstrong's hero story, the sport ultimately was doomed, because it was only a matter of time before the conspiracy was brought to light. This is how a beloved sport with a long and glorious history can become nothing more than a scam. So if ATP/ITF can avoid short-term negative publicity by not publicizing positive tests, AND simultaneously punish those who get caught, it might hope to put an end to PED use without any negative fallout at all.

Of course, the worst case possibility is that players who get silent bans don't stop using PEDs, but simply learn from their mistakes and get better at avoiding getting caught in future. Then you've got a situation that could end up exactly like what's happening with cycling, where the sport was found to be corrupt from top to bottom, with entire teams of riders doped to the gills and the authorities taking part in the conspiracy by consciously and actively looking the other way when anyone brought them evidence of the doping.

If tennis fans start wondering about a possible PED advantage any time a top 10 player spanks a journeyman in the early rounds of a Grand Slam, then the sport is in real trouble. We watch the great players because of their talent, skill and all the hard work we know they've put in over the years. If their success is even partly due to an unfair advantage they've gained through illegal drugs, it pretty much ruins the sport. Heroes don't cheat. Bad guys cheat. And ultimately they cheat tennis fans too.

Disclaimer: This is all speculation. I have no direct evidence that any of this is happening. I'm just thinking through the possibilities using information that I've read. I sincerely hope this is all paranoid conspiracy theory and nothing more, that tennis is clean as the driven snow. But I highly doubt it.

Crisstti
10-22-2012, 06:06 PM
I have to laugh at people saying everyone dopes as if they actually knew what all top athletes do (and saying people who don't judge without some evidence are stupid).

"Silent bans"... a term from people's imagination from what I can see. Has there ever even been any half documented such case?.

He did. Watch 2010 Tokyo, and even 2011 Indian Wells. That serve gave Nadal shoulder problems, and also reduced his consistency, shown by his disastrous serving performance in the last 2 sets against Djokovic in the 2011 Indian Wells final (just 20% first serves in).

This has been said many times, yet people keep on talking as if they didn't know.

SLD76
10-22-2012, 06:20 PM
I have to laugh at people saying everyone dopes as if they actually knew what all top athletes do (and saying people who don't judge without some evidence are stupid).

"Silent bans"... a term from people's imagination from what I can see. Has there ever even been any half documented such case?.



This has been said many times, yet people keep on talking as if they didn't know.
LOL...nobody mentioned nadal but mustard, but its interesting you quoted this particular statement.

librarysteg
10-22-2012, 07:03 PM
Just curious...if a tennis player were ever convicted of doping would they be stripped of their titles?

paulorenzo
10-22-2012, 07:15 PM
ONE OF THE MOST INTERESTING THREADS THIS SECTION HAS PRODUCED IN A WHILE.
albeit, not GOAT worthy since it's competing in a weak era.

Clarky21
10-22-2012, 07:19 PM
Just curious...if a tennis player were ever convicted of doping would they be stripped of their titles?



Why? Are you worried about your fav losing his titles from the last 2 years? Lol.

ClarkC
10-22-2012, 07:43 PM
Nadal also added some miles to his serve in the USO 2010, does that mean he was doping??

Probably did, especialy as he never reduplicated that serving ever again. I am of the belief over half of top players dope anyway, in fact over half of top athletes in all sports today dope at some point, so I dont even really care either way.

In reply to these posts, Mustard entered the thread:

He did. Watch 2010 Tokyo, and even 2011 Indian Wells. That serve gave Nadal shoulder problems, and also reduced his consistency, shown by his disastrous serving performance in the last 2 sets against Djokovic in the 2011 Indian Wells final (just 20% first serves in).

Later, we were blessed with this gem of false information:

LOL...nobody mentioned nadal but mustard, but its interesting you quoted this particular statement.

librarysteg
10-22-2012, 08:02 PM
Why? Are you worried about your fav losing his titles from the last 2 years? Lol.

I'm worried about pretty much all of them after reading these threads!

Crisstti
10-22-2012, 08:09 PM
LOL...nobody mentioned nadal but mustard, but its interesting you quoted this particular statement.

Nadal was implicitly and explicitly brought into this. But my post (other than the part quoting Mustard) was far more general than that.

cc0509
10-22-2012, 08:15 PM
This really annoys me when people say this. It's just not true. Evem Conte says there are plenty of clean athletes out there.

There are plenty of other examples. To claim everyone dopes is a huge insult to the clean athletes and lets of the dopers, since they can pretend it's a level playing field.

Sorry, you lost me after the words "it's just not true." IMO most if not all of the elite pro atheltes have doped at one point or another and to think otherwise is naive. I just can't agree with you on this one.

cc0509
10-22-2012, 08:17 PM
people are gullible is why

Or stupid is more like it.

cc0509
10-22-2012, 08:20 PM
I have to laugh at people saying everyone dopes as if they actually knew what all top athletes do (and saying people who don't judge without some evidence are stupid).

"Silent bans"... a term from people's imagination from what I can see. Has there ever even been any half documented such case?.

Why would there be a documented case? Isn't the point of a ban being silent that the public at large does not know or find out about it. Think about it for a minute.

Zarfot Z
10-23-2012, 02:57 AM
Stick to the topic at hand idiot. I make a great post about the Godfather of doping working with atleast 4 top tennis players, right from his own mouth with video evidence and you are clutching at straws.

Hey, at least he is not going on about Nadal, which is an amazing feat for someone like ***. Not yet, at least.

I might have jinxed it.

Zarfot Z
10-23-2012, 02:58 AM
Oh wait, looked through the thread. Scrap that last post.

SLD76
10-23-2012, 03:34 AM
Nadal was implicitly and explicitly brought into this. But my post (other than the part quoting Mustard) was far more general than that.

sigh.....................

missing the forest for the vamos scented trees.

SLD76
10-23-2012, 03:34 AM
Or stupid is more like it.


well, I was trying to be kind.

Cup8489
10-23-2012, 03:54 AM
Surprised Tsonga's name hasn't come up at all in this topic (i'm not accusing him of anything, he's just pretty big that's all)

He's got a stocky build. He's not terribly big, just broad shouldered and fit. His stamina is not great; bulk in tennis is not something you want, but rather stamina.

roberttennis54
10-23-2012, 09:08 AM
Sorry, you lost me after the words "it's just not true." IMO most if not all of the elite pro atheltes have doped at one point or another and to think otherwise is naive. I just can't agree with you on this one.

No offense, but do you KNOW any top athletes? Current or Past? I have been friends/acquaintances with a few, but no where near enough for them to be honest about doping. Then there are a couple of professional sportsmen I was very good friends with. They have never doped and have no reason to believe they would be lying to me. I have known these guys for years. I know what times they ran as kids, I know how quickly they recovered from matches. If those two could do it clean then no reason why many others cannot.

batz
10-23-2012, 09:33 AM
Why would there be a documented case? Isn't the point of a ban being silent that the public at large does not know or find out about it. Think about it for a minute.

If we're going to use that logic then there is no way you can deny that there are at least 10 invisible spaghetti monsters from Mars orbiting the earth at any given time - right?

After all, how would we know they were there if they're invisible - the Martians aren't going to send their visible spaghetti monsters now are they.

That which is asserted without evidence may be rejected without evidence. Until somebody has evidence that silent bans are a bona fide ATP sanction then we can reject the notion of their existence - a bit like invisible spaghetti monsters from Mars.

roberttennis54
10-23-2012, 09:40 AM
If we're going to use that logic then there is no way you can deny that there are at least 10 invisible spaghetti monsters from Mars orbiting the earth at any given time - right?

After all, how would we know they were there if they're invisible - the Martians aren't going to send their visible spaghetti monsters now are they.

That which is asserted without evidence may be rejected without evidence. Until somebody has evidence that silent bans are a bona fide ATP sanction then we can reject the notion of their existence - a bit like invisible spaghetti monsters from Mars.

With the ATP I dont think there is any proof of silent bans. In athletics there are quite a few examples of players saying they are injured meanwhile being investigated for doping violations. I think the ITF have a similar procedure. Where it is not publicly announced until they are proven guilty. So it is possible for an ATP player to fail a test, but this will be kept quiet until they have had a hearing.

In other sports like Football silent bans are common. There have been many cases of silent bans in football. The manager has claimed the player was injured when they were really serving a ban. So far these are supposed to have been only for recreational drugs and not performance enhancing ones. So silent bans DO happen. The question is in which sports and what for?

sunny_cali
10-23-2012, 09:44 AM
Why would there be a documented case? Isn't the point of a ban being silent that the public at large does not know or find out about it. Think about it for a minute.

I agree with the general sentiment that most top athletes dope. Don't see why a "silent ban" makes any sense - if the ATP is going to cover up dope tests anyway, why bother with a silent ban ? If the idea was not to raise suspicion they probably would have banned Federer during his 3-year sweep of most titles, wouldn't they ?

batz
10-23-2012, 09:51 AM
With the ATP I dont think there is any proof of silent bans. In athletics there are quite a few examples of players saying they are injured meanwhile being investigated for doping violations. I think the ITF have a similar procedure. Where it is not publicly announced until they are proven guilty. So it is possible for an ATP player to fail a test, but this will be kept quiet until they have had a hearing.

In other sports like Football silent bans are common. There have been many cases of silent bans in football. The manager has claimed the player was injured when they were really serving a ban. So far these are supposed to have been only for recreational drugs and not performance enhancing ones. So silent bans DO happen. The question is in which sports and what for?

Not in the context under discussion. Nobody is linking tennis players to Conte because he sold people weed - they are linking to Conte for PEDs. Whether players of other sports have served 'silent bans' for recreational drug offences is a red herring - it doesn't actually matter. What matters is whether or not there is evidence that the ATP/ITF (or indeed any other sport) use silent bans to sanction people who are caught using PEDs. And the answer to that question is "no". I mean seriously - can you see WADA allowing silent bans as a legitimate sanction for athletes who are caught using PEDs?

roberttennis54
10-23-2012, 10:04 AM
Not in the context under discussion. Nobody is linking tennis players to Conte because he sold people weed - they are linking to Conte for PEDs. Whether players of other sports have served 'silent bans' for recreational drug offences is a red herring - it doesn't actually matter. What matters is whether or not there is evidence that the ATP/ITF (or indeed any other sport) use silent bans to sanction people who are caught using PEDs. And the answer to that question is "no". I mean seriously - can you see WADA allowing silent bans as a legitimate sanction for athletes who are caught using PEDs?

Of course I could. Footballers have got off on 3 month bans for being caught with PEDS. The Juventus team doctor(due to the Italians despite their bad reputation they actually try to clean things up) was found guilty of doping up the Juve team. This includes stars like Del Piero and Zidane. Nothing was done about it. The governing bodies care about making money first and foremost. Everything else does not matter.

batz
10-23-2012, 10:13 AM
Of course I could. Footballers have got off on 3 month bans for being caught with PEDS. The Juventus team doctor(due to the Italians despite their bad reputation they actually try to clean things up) was found guilty of doping up the Juve team. This includes stars like Del Piero and Zidane. Nothing was done about it. The governing bodies care about making money first and foremost. Everything else does not matter.

WADA has only been in existence since 2000. Tennis is an Olympic Sport and as such is under WADA's jurisdiction. WADA is not a 'governing body' - it has no conflict of interest. Like 'silent bans' for recreational drugs, what happened before WADA is a red herring - we're talking about people doping today, not about what happened in the 90s.

Can you give an example of a sportsperson serving a silent ban for PEDs from an Olympic Sport; an example where WADA allowed such a sanction?

ClairHarmony
10-23-2012, 11:26 AM
What is most funny are the self righteous athletes like Carl freaking Lewis who mock all convicted (Ben Johnson, Marion Jones) or make random accustions of others (Usian Bolt, Michael Johnson) and act as if they are clean as humble pie, when they are in fact among the most doped up in history, and were lucky their star status meant they had their *** covered a number of times.

With Larl, his beef has more to do with well, hey, not so much that I've never taken...but rather, hey, that Usain darn guy gets too get away with it without having to look over his back as often as we unfortunate Americans do...hence, unfair!

And Ben? Well, how come his erroids are more effective than mine...what's up with that?

That sort of thing. It's true, it's laxer in Jaimaca. They get to eat their cake with steroids, while we get to eat our cake, but then have to go to the bathroom afterward...hey, not fair! Not convenient, not fair...why are all the Jaimacans on the podium, whereabout the Americans...not fair!!!

I think that's his piont, reading between the lines.

Truth is, he probably does kind of have a point. As for Chang, I wouldn't make fun of Jesus, that's insulting to me now. I'd like to speak to him in person, and give him my macho eye flinch test to find out more. Yeah, thing is, I wouldn't be surprised truth be told. Ain't no one *flawless.* It just is what it is, it's a matter of to what degree. Typically though, an ISTP would on average be more likely to seek out every advantage they can get, when really "into" it. An INFP would be more guilt-prone, and think twice about it more often...like me without Adderall, but I plugged away and managed 9.5 tenth of my life w/out it. Goodness knows, most difficult a line in history for no seemingly good reason, but I couldn't let it go...plugged/plugging away, and? Truth be told, it ended up working not that much difference in the end, just easier from a will stanpoint to stick to it with...still did like 76 pages in a week for nothing though, after being locked away/inside all summer with a knee that wouldn't bend and going "crazy." Forgot my pills...that week. Still did anyway, never went out on my one week away...I lie, once I walked outside, and bought a sandwich for lunch...but that was it. Some vacation, hah? Worse part is? I know in my heart, that what I did was better than the rest, truer to the point of the class, no questions asked. It just is what it is, I thought I was crazy...but as I later found it, when it came to simpler things...I could still seal it up perfectly, even better, the "term paper king" still alive. But I thought I was crazy though, as it turns out, I was just too far ahead, but could not give my heart credit for. Those who are not real ADD peeps, believe it or not, many often *don't* want to take their medication. Like I say, at end of day, no one wants to be who they're not. And, I'm *not* an ENTJ. They just do that kind of stuff better, they have self-control, a filter built-in, when it comes to using that executive motor. It's *natural.* There's this ENTJ lady who runs a singing school on XFactor, didn't saw last week though, but yeah, she's definitely an ENTJ...makes her students cry on a regular basis, not alll...aweee, when it came to that lovely K.I.S.S. daughter...that was so heart-warming, how Gene Simmons be all squirmy like that, and that daughter is a beautiful soul for sure, knew it right away, many years ago, I was like flipping the channel, but then whoah...had to flip back, to keep tabs...she don't be like her dad at all. She melts his soul (in a good way, he was a tough "logical" judge on Idol, once, a guest judge...but that was amazing to see him just be a father, and crumble, hang in the balance, on his daughter's every word. You can tell, she makes him proud of himself, prouder than he's ever been of himself. How could he produce such a nice, kind person like that? He was probably thinking. That duaghter of privlege putherself out there, and was willing to take the blows like a man...didn't have 2, was afirad to tell her parents about what she wanted to do, that took courage, that's what makes her special, I'm not one of those people who hates rich people just because she was born, I'm rambling again, she's got a beautiful soul, it was apparent rgiht from the start).

Um, yeah, where was I? That ENTJ chica, her judgement was nothing personal really. So, not offensive to me, of that Kiss duaghter. But point is, no matter how shrilly soft and low and high her voice go...she just lacks that *natural* deft touch, of a "softer" -NFP, or even +J type like Oliva, just wasy it is.

What can u say? She'd honestly make a more natural mogul, even though "naturally talented" at singing compared to most, it just is what it is. Know your type. More "honest"/less "ruthelss" types in general than ENTJs and ENTP's, but they've got the *Natural* energy you need for that sort of thing, runnign for offices. Solution isn't to ban them, it's too make them more moral, show them there's a way to do it. Bcs. many I-'s get drained in front of crowds, even if I won class VP by not losing a single vote, and standing O, I think...who woulda seen that coming? See what I mean? Even the grissly teacher bear cried.... A better use would be to, use that "style" of influence to infuse the ENTJ or ENTP with morals, bcs. realistically not many types are cut-out for polticial type prusuits/life, it takes a certain type, and they're the best, most suited, *innately.* It just is what it is, don't veer off on different tracks, just *do it right.* Correct yourself, like that. Even the bully (ENTJ) tapped me on that behind, and said you better do a good job....

Thing is, with Chang...he's someone who pushed, and pushed, every little button he could toextract every ounce out of himself...but that's hwhat I mean, he could accomplish no more really than he was actually *capable* of, never did.

Right from the start to the end, ALWAYS if a bigger top guy was "on" and trying as ahrd as he, he'd fall short.

Just is what it is, what it was. When he tried to "bulk up," he lost agility. When he tried to electrify his groundstrokes like Agassi, he added mustard alright, but would end up sending too many balls to the backstop...he lost consistency, Courier actually thought that made him *easier* to deal with. He lost his biggest wapon, consistency, what mae him most *annoying* to other players at his beest when young, would cause them to discombulate, and "allow" him to win when on paper he had no business doing so. Just how it is, he'd more or less maxed out young, but didn't r3eally know it (we never know our whole path, the whole plan, never will, always gonna be blind that way, it's kinda cute too see how it all folds out in the end, if you're a good person mostly). Long racket? Less control, everything he tried to add a later date, was like treading water in tehe nd. Chang's greatest triumph, however, came when he was young and untouched. Some can make fun of Jessu juice all they want, so smug...but that ain't doin' nothing for me, never made me a better person, never did nothing for me, when I needed it most, that kind of talk, that kind of encouragement, thyat style what does it do for you? *Nothing,* it's just a shot to take a shot, to relieve steam for whatever reason, something alwasy going on in all our olives, it just is what it is, but never did nothing for me. Making fun of relgion all the time, but when I REALLY needed ti, there was no one ther for me...and I heard from the former missionary's daughter whispering in my year that pills was the only thing that worked, but it's not true...doesn't have to be that way, only whe we thin we can't have it all, but feel like we have a "need" to anyway.
I hate this new keyboard, it doesn't fit the curve of my fingers just right, but too late tor eturn, arrgggh!!! Darn you!!!! AGassiz's kidsz! I want lasagne!

I

ClairHarmony
10-23-2012, 11:27 AM
like cheese on mine, not broccolie sprouts, and sometimes mushrooms are nice, probably, I'm thinking,but never treid...but maybe next time I will...hmmm, maybe ?I will....

It is what it is. Honestly, I've persevered beyond the ordinary measure, not perfect. The thing is this. When all was relatively "even," in our livers, not one person voted for that Time magazine friend, I won by every vote for boy student of the eyar, the edge/better in math, but I was "naturally" better everywhere else, but close enough. It is what it is. Had I ever read any books, it may have been a landslide though. Not that it matters anymore, but yeah. Did you know that those with ADD'**** brains tend to fall apart much more in high school? That that part of the brain don't develop till later, lags behind, and when soooo many teachers to go to, all with this assignment, and that on the chalkbard, their minds get all zig-zaggay, and then they don't know where they is at anymore...the thing is this, the way society is structured today, if those kids slip at that time, they're many of them gonna be toast sayonara for the rest of their lives...can't *live," won't be able to. That's how soicity is, there are certain checkpoints whic you MUST pass through at certain times...or else, you're in very *steep* do-do. *Can't live,* it's not the same as trying to make it as a pro star. From a utilitarian standpoint, if you don't give certain types that holding hand early on, they're gone forever. So when people compare ritalin/adderall type medications to erroids, I can see that comparison...but not completely. It's a murky line. That's how life is, it's *complicated,* far more complicated than given credit for. You have tot take each and every case as it is, ain't no perfect judges but one, I bleieve now. I felt like saw things pretty clearly.

I can be "balanced" and even keel when it comes to "jduging" types...just not as much as someone of Niednagel's type naturally. ENTP's jump to conlusions most rapidly in many ways, jump to...and yet, theyr'e the runs running amuck in "authoritative" fields quite regularly. It just is what it is. That's why you need to be aware of your type, so you can judge yourself accordingly, *reel it back in* when necessary. I *know* how I am, I get ooovverly meowwtional sometimes, much of the time, go blind in those instances, and wanna "project" whatever ails me...and it affects my "clearer" judgement. Like with Mike Brown, I wannnna to make him an ENTP gone wrong, I realllly did...couldn't help it, that "impluse" was there, colooring me, like ahhhgggh...that's what people do allll the time on mewsssage boards. Like I say, ISTJ's are least emotional that way, best most able at keeping, maitaining their cool...but again that's both a good and bad tihng. Sometiems u NEED that ENTJ poundong donw those lockerroom stalls, or else Agassi chokes his chance at history away, in one of his spells that ESTP's can fall into..evenryon fears fear, we just cover it up in difernt ways, sooner or later, ithoguht is' always going to come to the fore and haunt u forever if you don't have the RIGHT type, in the RIGHT place, at the RIGHT time...just like that, histories are made r lost just like that. In the most pivotal of moments, I'd rather take a chance on humliyt and beleiving.

Makes no sense not to. None.

But then, later, I calmed down, and I think allowed myself to see more clearly, I think "typed" Brown accurately from that point on, and felt better about it, not that it mattered, just about myself. Felt like I "judged" him more fairly, a snide remark like jesus juice does nothing for anyone but you in the end...even u, not much. Just way it is, it's a fact, u know it's true. We all deep down, do know. But those who believe, they just have a better chance of going back and retracting. a greater "need" if you will, and have something to be proud of. Bcs. ?I wanted to shish-kebob Mike Brown last many months agoo too, I at least triedt o make it more productive, like you know what? Somehow, someone might be able to benefit, someone's always going through what your'e going through at a certain time, u just don't know it. The world is very big, and the experiences vast. I have an overhwlmeing "need" to quit, butm y will says no...honestly, I know what my potential, but sometimes, all the time it's scary to me, becs. I now jsut how exahusting it is, and from where I'm starting, I'm just a puppy, but what cna I do? If you stumble upon a newer, more better style, do you go back, just bcs. it's "easier" to? That's actually just as hard, dilemam, dillema...ahhh!!! I knew I shouldn't gotten a full-sized MAN ergo keyboard. (I may use 40-1/8th, but hese fingers are all curling up in the wrong places...arggh!!! Ah, I' goping to go eat some ice cream now, I wanna go feelt better inside.

single_handed_champion
10-23-2012, 11:41 AM
I would like to believe there is doping in tennis, it is just far too tempting, given the hush-hush nature of the ITF's doping program, the statistics of tests, superhuman feats on display in the game etc. However, I also subscribe to batz's philosophy that claims sans evidence can be rejected sans evidence. cc0509 does make an interesting case though. Very readable, like that blog tennishasasteroidproblem.

Crisstti
10-24-2012, 01:05 PM
Why would there be a documented case? Isn't the point of a ban being silent that the public at large does not know or find out about it. Think about it for a minute.

Think about the fact that players serving silent bans for PEDs is made out of thin air.

There isn't even a half documented case. You know, something like a player coming out and saying he knows about a player having served a silent ban, or complaining about such a practice.

When you get a player saying they think there's doping, their argument is some guy making a come back against them and having a bloody nose...

For that matter, a player of Hingis' stature got banned for a recreational drug. And we did hear about Gasquet's case as well, a high profile player.

If we're going to use that logic then there is no way you can deny that there are at least 10 invisible spaghetti monsters from Mars orbiting the earth at any given time - right?

After all, how would we know they were there if they're invisible - the Martians aren't going to send their visible spaghetti monsters now are they.

That which is asserted without evidence may be rejected without evidence. Until somebody has evidence that silent bans are a bona fide ATP sanction then we can reject the notion of their existence - a bit like invisible spaghetti monsters from Mars.

Exactly.

Not in the context under discussion. Nobody is linking tennis players to Conte because he sold people weed - they are linking to Conte for PEDs. Whether players of other sports have served 'silent bans' for recreational drug offences is a red herring - it doesn't actually matter. What matters is whether or not there is evidence that the ATP/ITF (or indeed any other sport) use silent bans to sanction people who are caught using PEDs. And the answer to that question is "no". I mean seriously - can you see WADA allowing silent bans as a legitimate sanction for athletes who are caught using PEDs?

And this.

cc0509
10-24-2012, 06:51 PM
If we're going to use that logic then there is no way you can deny that there are at least 10 invisible spaghetti monsters from Mars orbiting the earth at any given time - right?

After all, how would we know they were there if they're invisible - the Martians aren't going to send their visible spaghetti monsters now are they.

That which is asserted without evidence may be rejected without evidence. Until somebody has evidence that silent bans are a bona fide ATP sanction then we can reject the notion of their existence - a bit like invisible spaghetti monsters from Mars.

You may reject the notion of their existence, but I do not. When you are talking about a multi-billion dollar business of any kind, there are lots of things that go on that the public may not know about. Just look at the Armstrong case now and all of these things and cover-ups that were going on for years which the public knew nothing about.

cc0509
10-24-2012, 06:52 PM
I agree with the general sentiment that most top athletes dope. Don't see why a "silent ban" makes any sense - if the ATP is going to cover up dope tests anyway, why bother with a silent ban ? If the idea was not to raise suspicion they probably would have banned Federer during his 3-year sweep of most titles, wouldn't they ?

Sanction the player in some small way without tarnishing the sport by letting the public know about it.

cc0509
10-24-2012, 06:58 PM
Not in the context under discussion. Nobody is linking tennis players to Conte because he sold people weed - they are linking to Conte for PEDs. Whether players of other sports have served 'silent bans' for recreational drug offences is a red herring - it doesn't actually matter. What matters is whether or not there is evidence that the ATP/ITF (or indeed any other sport) use silent bans to sanction people who are caught using PEDs. And the answer to that question is "no". I mean seriously - can you see WADA allowing silent bans as a legitimate sanction for athletes who are caught using PEDs?

Why not? Did you read the USADA report on Armstrong. Allegedly everybody from the UCI to big sponsors like Nike and others knew about the doping and were part of the cover-up. Why couldn't a similar situation go on in tennis where Wada, the ATP/ITF, sponsors, etc. are involved in the cover-up of PED use in order to present a clean sport to the naive public where the testing is working.

cc0509
10-24-2012, 07:12 PM
Think about the fact that players serving silent bans for PEDs is made out of thin air.

There isn't even a half documented case. You know, something like a player coming out and saying he knows about a player having served a silent ban, or complaining about such a practice.



What I think is made up out of thin air is the absolute refusal that many people have to see that doping in tennis is very likely and practically a given. How the heck do you know that silent bans are silly and do not occur?

What exactly is a half documented case? No player is going to come out and specifically talk about what he knows or what he thinks is going on with another player. What good would that do in a sport that already covers up its PED use and faulty testing procedures? It would risk a player's reputation to bring this up and it would go nowhere fast. There is a silent code that goes on in pro sports amongst its members and that code is very rarely broken by anybody involved, in other words anybody who benefits from the business of the sport which is everybody from sponsors, to governing bodies of the sport to players, etc. etc. How long were rumors flying in cycling from other cyclists before USADA decided to do a full on investigation? It was years and years.

NadalAgassi
10-24-2012, 07:14 PM
Many have speculated Nadal's two strange absences from the tour, one time missing Wimbledon which he had a great shot to win that year (2009), and of course this year missing half the year were silent doping bans. I am a Nadal fan but that wouldnt surprise me in the least. Granted not that I dont think most (or all) the other top players dont dope as well, but he gives the signs of doing so more heavily than most so being more likely to be caught, and if he were somehow caught I am sure the ATP and ITF would both opt for a silent ban over one of the games hugest stars failing a doping test. Something like that would bring the sport into a whole new realm entirely. Agassi dabbling in some crack during a depression was one thing, this would be another level entirely if something like it ever got out.

I also dont think have a problem with any athlete that dopes. It would be nice if this werent the case but in reality doping in elite sports today and not getting caught is part of the game. For those that isnt it is honorable but it might be impossible to even compete in modern times without it. I dont even think today is the worst, I think the 80s and much of the 90s was even worse for doping in sport, which is a scary situation.

JoelDali
10-24-2012, 07:16 PM
like cheese on mine, not broccolie sprouts, and sometimes mushrooms are nice, probably, I'm thinking,but never treid...but maybe next time I will...hmmm, maybe ?I will....

It is what it is. Honestly, I've persevered beyond the ordinary measure, not perfect. The thing is this. When all was relatively "even," in our livers, not one person voted for that Time magazine friend, I won by every vote for boy student of the eyar, the edge/better in math, but I was "naturally" better everywhere else, but close enough. It is what it is. Had I ever read any books, it may have been a landslide though. Not that it matters anymore, but yeah. Did you know that those with ADD'**** brains tend to fall apart much more in high school? That that part of the brain don't develop till later, lags behind, and when soooo many teachers to go to, all with this assignment, and that on the chalkbard, their minds get all zig-zaggay, and then they don't know where they is at anymore...the thing is this, the way society is structured today, if those kids slip at that time, they're many of them gonna be toast sayonara for the rest of their lives...can't *live," won't be able to. That's how soicity is, there are certain checkpoints whic you MUST pass through at certain times...or else, you're in very *steep* do-do. *Can't live,* it's not the same as trying to make it as a pro star. From a utilitarian standpoint, if you don't give certain types that holding hand early on, they're gone forever. So when people compare ritalin/adderall type medications to erroids, I can see that comparison...but not completely. It's a murky line. That's how life is, it's *complicated,* far more complicated than given credit for. You have tot take each and every case as it is, ain't no perfect judges but one, I bleieve now. I felt like saw things pretty clearly.

I can be "balanced" and even keel when it comes to "jduging" types...just not as much as someone of Niednagel's type naturally. ENTP's jump to conlusions most rapidly in many ways, jump to...and yet, theyr'e the runs running amuck in "authoritative" fields quite regularly. It just is what it is. That's why you need to be aware of your type, so you can judge yourself accordingly, *reel it back in* when necessary. I *know* how I am, I get ooovverly meowwtional sometimes, much of the time, go blind in those instances, and wanna "project" whatever ails me...and it affects my "clearer" judgement. Like with Mike Brown, I wannnna to make him an ENTP gone wrong, I realllly did...couldn't help it, that "impluse" was there, colooring me, like ahhhgggh...that's what people do allll the time on mewsssage boards. Like I say, ISTJ's are least emotional that way, best most able at keeping, maitaining their cool...but again that's both a good and bad tihng. Sometiems u NEED that ENTJ poundong donw those lockerroom stalls, or else Agassi chokes his chance at history away, in one of his spells that ESTP's can fall into..evenryon fears fear, we just cover it up in difernt ways, sooner or later, ithoguht is' always going to come to the fore and haunt u forever if you don't have the RIGHT type, in the RIGHT place, at the RIGHT time...just like that, histories are made r lost just like that. In the most pivotal of moments, I'd rather take a chance on humliyt and beleiving.

Makes no sense not to. None.

But then, later, I calmed down, and I think allowed myself to see more clearly, I think "typed" Brown accurately from that point on, and felt better about it, not that it mattered, just about myself. Felt like I "judged" him more fairly, a snide remark like jesus juice does nothing for anyone but you in the end...even u, not much. Just way it is, it's a fact, u know it's true. We all deep down, do know. But those who believe, they just have a better chance of going back and retracting. a greater "need" if you will, and have something to be proud of. Bcs. ?I wanted to shish-kebob Mike Brown last many months agoo too, I at least triedt o make it more productive, like you know what? Somehow, someone might be able to benefit, someone's always going through what your'e going through at a certain time, u just don't know it. The world is very big, and the experiences vast. I have an overhwlmeing "need" to quit, butm y will says no...honestly, I know what my potential, but sometimes, all the time it's scary to me, becs. I now jsut how exahusting it is, and from where I'm starting, I'm just a puppy, but what cna I do? If you stumble upon a newer, more better style, do you go back, just bcs. it's "easier" to? That's actually just as hard, dilemam, dillema...ahhh!!! I knew I shouldn't gotten a full-sized MAN ergo keyboard. (I may use 40-1/8th, but hese fingers are all curling up in the wrong places...arggh!!! Ah, I' goping to go eat some ice cream now, I wanna go feelt better inside.

Do you write these things before or after you inhale Cortex?

zebedee
10-24-2012, 10:11 PM
I think the above is simply computer-generated garble.

Silent bans, certainly in tennis, are more urban myth than anything. They don't occur and could not occur under WADA rules to which tennis is fully signed up. A player may withdraw from the tour, and this may remain unannounced while his 'B' sample from a positive test is undergoing analysis or investigation, but that is a different kettle of fish altogether. The time period would be relatively brief before confirmation of a positive test was announced or the 'B' sample return negative.

Cover-ups are a separate issue altogether and have certainly happened in tennis. It is known as a matter of fact that the ATP covered up the Agassi case and undoubtably where there is one case there will also be others. I think the history of doping and cover-ups in tennis has yet to be discovered and omerta, regrettably, rules the roost to this day.

Until the tennis fan base at large starts to strongly disapprove of doping and makes its voice heard, I suspect there will be little inclination to catch dopers as the one lesson that every sporting federation around the world will take from the cycling debacle is that such scandals spell commercial disaster for a sport.

RAFA2005RG
10-25-2012, 03:17 AM
Many have speculated Nadal's two strange absences from the tour, one time missing Wimbledon which he had a great shot to win that year (2009), and of course this year missing half the year were silent doping bans.

People need to make up their minds how they want to attack Nadal. First they focused the attack on him retiring by age 25 from his body falling apart. Then when he has serious physical problems and misses 6 months they call it a 'silent ban' lol, idiots. Let's just call it what it is: racism.

SLD76
10-25-2012, 04:25 AM
Do you write these things before or after you inhale Cortex?

i was wondering the same thing.

SLD76
10-25-2012, 04:25 AM
People need to make up their minds how they want to attack Nadal. First they focused the attack on him retiring by age 25 from his body falling apart. Then when he has serious physical problems and misses 6 months they call it a 'silent ban' lol, idiots. Let's just call it what it is: racism.

there is a binky in the corner you can console yourself with.

db379
10-25-2012, 02:14 PM
What is interesting to me now is...where does this leave murray?

He Hired Ivan and Conte has specifically named Ivan lendll as someone he worked with

Now we see Murray all of a sudden have his highlight year soon as he hooks up with Ivan.

I really don't know what to make of all this TBH

I wouldn't be surprised if Murray doped, although it's a stretch to insinuate Murray is doping because Ivan was accused of doping....

That being said his recent results have been a little surprising. To be fair, Nadal was out of the US open and Djoker really beat himself in the final.

Anyway, this leads me to someone who has had a sudden and huge improvement in his results and started to beat out of nowhere all the guys who used to beat him before 2011.... N.D. ... humm could he be doping?

db379
10-25-2012, 02:18 PM
Why not? Did you read the USADA report on Armstrong. Allegedly everybody from the UCI to big sponsors like Nike and others knew about the doping and were part of the cover-up. Why couldn't a similar situation go on in tennis where Wada, the ATP/ITF, sponsors, etc. are involved in the cover-up of PED use in order to present a clean sport to the naive public where the testing is working.

What I think is made up out of thin air is the absolute refusal that many people have to see that doping in tennis is very likely and practically a given. How the heck do you know that silent bans are silly and do not occur?

What exactly is a half documented case? No player is going to come out and specifically talk about what he knows or what he thinks is going on with another player. What good would that do in a sport that already covers up its PED use and faulty testing procedures? It would risk a player's reputation to bring this up and it would go nowhere fast. There is a silent code that goes on in pro sports amongst its members and that code is very rarely broken by anybody involved, in other words anybody who benefits from the business of the sport which is everybody from sponsors, to governing bodies of the sport to players, etc. etc. How long were rumors flying in cycling from other cyclists before USADA decided to do a full on investigation? It was years and years.

Very good posts! Completely agree.

Crisstti
10-25-2012, 04:47 PM
What I think is made up out of thin air is the absolute refusal that many people have to see that doping in tennis is very likely and practically a given. How the heck do you know that silent bans are silly and do not occur?

What exactly is a half documented case? No player is going to come out and specifically talk about what he knows or what he thinks is going on with another player. What good would that do in a sport that already covers up its PED use and faulty testing procedures? It would risk a player's reputation to bring this up and it would go nowhere fast. There is a silent code that goes on in pro sports amongst its members and that code is very rarely broken by anybody involved, in other words anybody who benefits from the business of the sport which is everybody from sponsors, to governing bodies of the sport to players, etc. etc. How long were rumors flying in cycling from other cyclists before USADA decided to do a full on investigation? It was years and years.

Refusal to believe something that has absolutely no proof. Let's just remember that little detail.

Many have speculated Nadal's two strange absences from the tour, one time missing Wimbledon which he had a great shot to win that year (2009), and of course this year missing half the year were silent doping bans. I am a Nadal fan but that wouldnt surprise me in the least. Granted not that I dont think most (or all) the other top players dont dope as well, but he gives the signs of doing so more heavily than most so being more likely to be caught, and if he were somehow caught I am sure the ATP and ITF would both opt for a silent ban over one of the games hugest stars failing a doping test. Something like that would bring the sport into a whole new realm entirely. Agassi dabbling in some crack during a depression was one thing, this would be another level entirely if something like it ever got out.

I also dont think have a problem with any athlete that dopes. It would be nice if this werent the case but in reality doping in elite sports today and not getting caught is part of the game. For those that isnt it is honorable but it might be impossible to even compete in modern times without it. I dont even think today is the worst, I think the 80s and much of the 90s was even worse for doping in sport, which is a scary situation.

Strange?. Why are they strange?. They're not even the only times Rafa has missed months from the tour with injuries. He missed the whole clay and grass seasons in 2004, and missed months again in late 2005.

JohnnyCracker
10-25-2012, 06:17 PM
Right,

For those of you know don't know who Victor is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Conte

He is the guy who helped Marian Jones pass hundreds of tests while doping her to the gills. He is the founder of BALCO. You guys remember Balco? read here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BALCO_Scandal

So I am listening to a podcast and he mentions Lendl, Rusedski, Chang and Sharapova by name

:shock:

Go listen to this

http://vimeo.com/51662984

You need to watch from 8 minutes onwards to around 35 minutes.


************************************************** **********************************
EDIT: It is at the 34.45 Mark. Some people are complaining that it is too long to watch so I decided to give the exact time. I still urge you to watch the whole thing. Its fascinating to hear about the corruption and how the positive tests are brushed under the rug. How authorities really have no interest in catching cheats and so much more
************************************************** **********************************

I am not going to tell you at what time he mentions those tennis players by name because I want you to listen to the whole thing

So from minutes 8 - 35

He goes on to talk about how tests work and how athletes pass them.

They talk about Usain Bolt, Marian jones, Barry Bonds, Lance Armstrong.

Go watch the whole thing. It is well worth a watch

Crazy ****

At 1:10 Conte talks about timed-release butt pellets. Interesting! :lol:

cc0509
10-25-2012, 08:48 PM
Refusal to believe something that has absolutely no proof. Let's just remember that little detail.


And once again, how are you going to have proof(unless one goes looking for it as in cycling) if everybody in the sport from the governing bodies to the mega-million dollar sponsors to the players are covering up doping? In addition to that you have the general public which consists of a high percentage of morons believing everything that is thrown at them by the media and all concerned. You still have people out there who believe Armstrong is innocent. Can one get more moronic than that?

You are not going to have proof of something when it is being covered up by many interested parties who have millions upon millions of dollars. That is life. Plus it is even easier to cover up in tennis because tennis is not a team sport like cycling where what another cyclist does is out on full display in front of other teammates.

cc0509
10-25-2012, 08:50 PM
Very good posts! Completely agree.

Thanks. Hard to believe such naivete exists out there in the world.

zebedee
10-25-2012, 11:57 PM
Silent bans do not occur as they would contravene WADA rules. It is naive to think they do exist.

Doping in tennis can be taken for granted. It exists in any sport where athletic ability, strength, speed, training and recovery are factors and all those apply to tennis. The prevalence of doping is higher where the rewards are huge and the anti-doping programme is weak. That clearly also applies to tennis. Tennis pros know they can cheat and get away with cheating.

Apart from silent bans not occuring due to the rules, they don't need to be applied anyway. The ITF testing programme is run in such a way that it will never catch a serious doper. In fact it couldn't be designed better not to catch cheats.

batz
10-26-2012, 01:23 AM
Why not? Did you read the USADA report on Armstrong. Allegedly everybody from the UCI to big sponsors like Nike and others knew about the doping and were part of the cover-up. Why couldn't a similar situation go on in tennis where Wada, the ATP/ITF, sponsors, etc. are involved in the cover-up of PED use in order to present a clean sport to the naive public where the testing is working.

USADA is a NADO that complies with the WADA codes. A bit like a subsidiary of WADA. It used WADA codes to prosecute its case against Armstrong. You are reinforcing my argument by saying what a tough bunch USADA are - damn right they're a tough bunch - and it's WADA who helps makes them tough.

zebedee
10-26-2012, 02:47 AM
Exactly right.

National ADO's are far better placed to work proactively on anti-doping initiatives. Sports federations like the ITF and UCI are hopelessly conflicted. One minute they're licking Federer's or Nadal's backside as a sports ambassador, the next they're having to test them as potential dopers. It doesn't work and there is ample proof of that from the cycling debacle with UCI almost seen to be acting complicitly with certain cheats themselves. They are simply not up to the job in a world where doping is ever more sophisticated and the athletes ever more cute in the way they go about it.
Doping and its secrecy become part of the job.

cc0509
10-26-2012, 04:41 AM
USADA is a NADO that complies with the WADA codes. A bit like a subsidiary of WADA. It used WADA codes to prosecute its case against Armstrong. You are reinforcing my argument by saying what a tough bunch USADA are - damn right they're a tough bunch - and it's WADA who helps makes them tough.

???

WADA leaves it up to the ITF on whether to announce a provisional suspension or not. It is not WADA who decides this issue at all the way I understand it.

batz
10-26-2012, 04:59 AM
???

WADA leaves it up to the ITF on whether to announce a provisional suspension or not. It is not WADA who decides this issue at all the way I understand it.

Nope. As tennis is an Olympic sport, there is no discretion - ITF must abide by WADA code or tennis cannot continue to be an Olympic event. 'Silent bans' are not an allowable WADA sanction, they are not part of the code.

For clarity, I'm not saying 'nobody dopes in tennis'. I'm saying that there's not such thing as a silent ban, in tennis, or any other Olympic sport.

CMM
10-26-2012, 05:18 AM
Nope. As tennis is an Olympic sport, there is no discretion - ITF must abide by WADA code or tennis cannot continue to be an Olympic event. 'Silent bans' are not an allowable WADA sanction, they are not part of the code.

For clarity, I'm not saying 'nobody dopes in tennis'. I'm saying that there's not such thing as a silent ban, in tennis, or any other Olympic sport.

Silent ban and provisional suspension is not the same thing.
The first one is something invented by posters on this forum, the second one is a reality.
If a player tests positive he will get a provisional suspension until an independent tribunal decides if he was guilty or not. If the player is found guilty and gets a doping ban, then this ban will be announced.
If the player is declared innocent then we will never hear about the positive test and he's free to return to competition.

cc0509
10-26-2012, 05:23 AM
Nope. As tennis is an Olympic sport, there is no discretion - ITF must abide by WADA code or tennis cannot continue to be an Olympic event. 'Silent bans' are not an allowable WADA sanction, they are not part of the code.

For clarity, I'm not saying 'nobody dopes in tennis'. I'm saying that there's not such thing as a silent ban, in tennis, or any other Olympic sport.

I believe you are incorrect about whether WADA lets the ITF announce positive tests or not:

"Given that WADA Code allows signatories to make their own decision on whether or not to announce positive tests when they occur, it seems the ITF could halt the rumor mill for good by agreeing to make all positive tests public whether they result in a suspension or not. Miller says they have decided against taking that route “because ‘positive tests’ are subject to an initial review which may reveal reasons why it should not be taken forward, such as the existence of a valid Therapeutic Use Exemption.”

http://tennishasasteroidproblem.blogspot.ca/2012/10/more-people-are-asking-questions_5.html

Also I am not talking about a silent ban, I am talking about a silent provisional suspension and those are possible:

"If, however, a player is found to have no fault or negligence after a positive test, he or she is effectively exonerated. This means a player could test positive, fight the charges, and have them dropped all without the public’s knowledge. If he or she is placed on a provisional suspension during that time but is then exonerated, the break from play could be explained any way the player chooses."

http://www.tennisnow.com/News/Doping,-Tennis,-Nadal---Connection-.aspx

batz
10-26-2012, 05:46 AM
I believe you are incorrect about whether WADA lets the ITF announce positive tests or not:

"Given that WADA Code allows signatories to make their own decision on whether or not to announce positive tests when they occur, it seems the ITF could halt the rumor mill for good by agreeing to make all positive tests public whether they result in a suspension or not. Miller says they have decided against taking that route “because ‘positive tests’ are subject to an initial review which may reveal reasons why it should not be taken forward, such as the existence of a valid Therapeutic Use Exemption.”

http://tennishasasteroidproblem.blogspot.ca/2012/10/more-people-are-asking-questions_5.html

Also I am not talking about a silent ban, I am talking about a silent provisional suspension and those are possible:

"If, however, a player is found to have no fault or negligence after a positive test, he or she is effectively exonerated. This means a player could test positive, fight the charges, and have them dropped all without the public’s knowledge. If he or she is placed on a provisional suspension during that time but is then exonerated, the break from play could be explained any way the player chooses."

http://www.tennisnow.com/News/Doping,-Tennis,-Nadal---Connection-.aspx

In which case we are arguing at cross purposes and I accept the point you are making.

THUNDERVOLLEY
10-26-2012, 08:42 AM
So basically, Sharapova, the active world WTA no.2 is a drug cheat. They won't go after her of course. Too much money at stake. But damn....I think some big names are going to be brought down, across all sports, after Armstrong. Armstrong was an American icon. If they can take him down, everyone has to be afraid.

Agreed, but we know the tennis PTB will never offer even a modest explanation for any of this; they will let doping go on as long as it benefits the sport--much like Major League Baseball, etc.

cc0509
10-26-2012, 07:56 PM
In which case we are arguing at cross purposes and I accept the point you are making.

Good, we agree finally then! :)

zebedee
10-26-2012, 10:47 PM
I think this article explains the position clearly enough.

http://tennisnow.com/News/Featured-News/Q-A-with-Richard-Ings.aspx

I don't agree with Richard Ings comments about the ITF $1.6 million annual spend on anti-doping. Cycling, small beer to tennis really, spends $5m annually. What the ITF should be doing is developing an effective programme then costing that and not the other way round. At the moment they are accepting pittances from the grand slam owners, including the rich-as-Croesus All England club, whereas they should be demanding adequate funding to finance a credible programme.

The other point I'd make regards the lack of transparency in the information which the ITF publishes. There should be more explanation for example as to discrepancies between
test positives and violations. Why are they keeping this information guarded? They are being secretive for its own sake, never a good thing.

rk_sports
10-27-2012, 02:53 AM
wow! :shock: .. I'm understanding the art of doing this..

1. take PED's
2. train your *** off
3. miss first 2 of the mandatory tests (can't miss 3rd/final)
4. during event you're at the best shape ever to do very well

All this time I thought if they're on it, they'll get caught during the comp... but I was so wrong... they don't do it at the event but way before.. during off-season :twisted:

zebedee
10-27-2012, 04:10 AM
Off season for the heavy chemical preparation with lighter touches during competition periods that escape the testing window. Tyler Hamilton's book explains how 'Glow time' (when ped's are showing) is managed or avoided altogether with microdosing. It's not even that difficult. Richer athletes have access to completely undetectable programmes too.