Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by jamesblakefan#1, Feb 14, 2013.
Can we ban this assclown already?
Why the best athletes would dope in other sport (cycling, sprint, etc.) but not in tennis?
There is so much to win for them, and frankly what are the real risk? If Serena can hide in a panic room telling she believed that the people ringing the bell were burglers...and even if a top star is caught, look at what happened to Agassi.
Tennis is such a small margin sports. Drugs won't influence the outcome of a a straight set matches, but they can influence highly contested matches, especially 5 sets finals (taking place sometimes after a 5 sets SF). And these matches define who are the greatest of the sport.
So imagine that you are Nadal, Federer, or Djokovic. You know that you can compete for the titles against one of the other two, you know that it will be close, that it may go the distance, and some drugs could give you the little advantage in the final? And what are the risk? Maybe you will have to tell such a big lie to avoid a test, it will be midly embarassing (see Serena again).
I wonder why the article didn't mention Fuentez. He has repeatedly claimed he had a number of tennis players on his list too (36 or so iirc).
But yeah, I don't necessarily think Murray is doping either, but he has shown great recovery and endurance from time to time too though not on a regular basis.
Could often be down to coaches, but I wouldn't blame it on them.
Culture is def. an important part of it. Either a sport has a doping culture, or it doesn't. Cycling and track and field both do. Every big American sport def. do. Soccer, there's def. some, but the amount is still not quite clear imo (but again, see Fuentez and imagine the scandal if the entire Spanish national team (which consists of Barca and Real players) was doping. There's big money, national pride and a bunch of other good reasons for why the court ordered the evidence destroyed.). Tennis, I don't know, but there are 3 reasons for why tennis players would be doping
1) big money (as opposed to smaller sports)
2) big gain (as opposed to less physical sports)
3) lax testing, a history of the relevant agencies giving very small punishments and of the tennis journalists being fans of the game rather than investigative journalists trying to uncover the potential doping in the game
You have made no case FOR doping. You take an incredibly small case of allegedly dodged testing and a cover-up operation that has only the L.A. case as an analogy and gone on to ask why shouldn't they? The burden of proof is on you, don't you see? You have to say why they are doing it. To say they should be doping because they are rich and successful is, to put it mildly, devoid of logic. They have everything to lose and nothing to gain. What, they are going to live in 23 room mansions instead of 17 room mansions? Fly in 20 seater private jets instead of 15 seater private jets? Drive Bentleys with diamond-encrusted rims instead of gold-played rims? What is there to gain for the tennis elite?
The flipside is ignominy and ruin.
Murray seems clean but his physique now compared to his brother Jamie's and when he was younger makes you wonder. He's got to be 30-20 pounds more muscular.
Please have a look at post 297, 303 and also remember they might or might not have been doping before the became the biggest of the biggest stars
I understand what you say but I think the risk far outweighs the rewards. WADA would absolutely love to bust a top player and make an example out of him.
Marcelo Rios put it best, he said the Tour could not afford to lose the big stars like Sampras and Agassi because they are too important to the success of the Tour and their big sponsors. He said if they test positive you will never hear about it. The exact quote is in the book "Marcelo Rios The Man We Barely Knew."
Jonas Bjorkman also said in 99 in a quote that was published in Sports Illustrated magazine, after the Petr Korda positive test, that he has heard of cases of the ITF covering up positive tests. These are stunning quotes and neither player was sued for making them on the record.
Gasquet's excuse may be the GOAT lol
Here is a few tweets from the journalist after posting the article
Puerto is something I worry about, in a best case scenario the players where journeymen but I doubt that. As he alludes to it may be some very big names.
I don't blame the player in question. A young man would have been pressured and told it was the only way.
The biggest problem is this. 'Benefits last for decades' So even if a player is clean now they could still be benefiting. Although not if it was just blood doping.
Maybe I'm completely wrong, but ain't it the ITF that's behind the vast majority of doping testing in tennis (+ the national doping agencies, I guess)? I.e. ITF is a member of WADA, but it's up to the ITF do uphold the WADA code so to speak and determine which kind of tests and the number of them are necessary?
Those are indeed stunning cases.
Yes, but WADA is the ultimate authority.
Wow, never saw that article and never knew that. That's a must read for anyone interested in this!
A 32 year old, two times convicted, sprinter running the fastest ever double time on 100 and 200 meter within a one hour gap on a damp night (and 6 of the 7 fastest 100 meter times all year) is not just suspicious, that's downright unbelievable!! (to quote my favorite poster, Chico).
My case is that some tennis matches, usually the one against peers, are decided by a very small margin, and any small advantagse that a player could use could be determinant. Neither Federer nor Nadal need drugs to beat Marcel Granollers. Skills are enough. But they might need drugs to beat each others. When skills are matched, then stamina, recovery, and so on can be the deciding factor. Think of Wimbledon 2008, assume Federer wasn't doped. Now, he could have regrets, because doping could have been what he needed to win this. And Wimbledon 2008 is not only a question of money, the stakes went far beyond money!
It's the same case at AO 2009, once again, put yourself into Federer's shoes: The year before, you, the mighty king of tennis, was spanked by that Nadal punk at RG, and then beaten in your garden at Wimbledon. You lost your rank, and you were delayed in your march toward the all-time record of slam titles. And now you you lost again against that clay courter Nadal, on hard-court, because you were more tired than him in the fifth? When he played another long five setter in the morning?! Well, might be that you should call your doctor in order to win the next meeting!
Who's got nothing to do with the amount of and types of tests in tennis, right?
Maybe, just maybe, the top players would never have reached the top if they weren't doping in the first place? There may be some kind of "doping" selection to reach the upper echelons of the rankings. The players who do not dope may simply not physically be able to compete at the top level.
They have everything to gain and very little to lose. There are way too many people in the tennis industry making a lot of money, it's really in nobody's best interest that some of the top players get caught and this becomes public. As some other poster already said, the top players are just "too big to fail" (a doping test).
I believe they have everything to do with everything since they are the only body that can license the laboratories where any athlete can be legitimately tested. They are also the governing body of everything doping related as regards professional sports in the developed world. I don't know how involved they are in terms of policy in tennis, but the ITF should definitely be reporting to WADA.
Bolded part is the part of a paragraph of ignorance. It's hard to single out one part that is less true than another as each sentence is far-fetched or ignorant in varying degrees.
Little to lose? As in everything? Plus their names, earning power? Have you heard of law suits? Too many people make a lot of money? As in a couple of hundred out of countless thousands? You would have been an inspiration to a Charlotte Bronte. Nobody's interest for a top player to get caught? Yes, that is how anti-doping secures it's funding, by showing the stakeholders it doesn't do what it is designed to do.
Again, burden of proof. Google it. I think this is not a subject for everyone to try their hand at defamatory rhetoric. Just as I showed in the Cilic case, a very very small minority of people offering their "opinion" have actually read up on the matter.
LOL that article is bunch of BS. Jurnalist is butthurt Murray fan. Accusing Djokovic during the worst spell he had recently. Tennis was clearly not on his mind in August.
Also Djokovic's "endurance" had nothing to do with his win vs Murray. We saw his "endurance" while he was playing Nishikori in the SF and was not able to handle the heat and lost due to it.
Also as Federer clearly explained that "endurance" does not help tennis players. Tennis is a sport of skill not an real endurance sport like cycling and track an field where doping is common. So these clowns talking about Lanse Armstrong or Marion Jones need to realize this.
This thread needs to go. Here only to bash Djokovic, now when there is nothing else to bash him for.
What a bunch of BS.
Bolded part is not a paragraph of ignorance. Following your own logic, Lance Armstrong would have never doped because he would have had so much to lose with all the lawsuits and other problems (losing their name, their honor, money) ensuing. Yet, he did dope. So your whole argument is flawed, I hope you realize this.
The probability to get caught is low. There are not many tests. Testers are always a step behind dopers, the richest athletes can afford the best doctors who can devise sophisticated doping cocktails that will result in negative tests. Why do you think certain athletes work with doctors specialised in doping controls? Duhhh !!
If you have the choice between being clean and stay at the Challengers level your whole life being a nobody or doping up and have the possibility to become a top player with a very low probability of being caught, what are you going to do? This is just such a no-brainer. The reward is simply much greater than the risk.
I could go on, but everything has pretty much been said much better than I could in the original article, as well as in posts 297, 300, 303, 305, 308, 309, 315 (most of which you didn't respond to with one or two execptions; especially Gonzalito's posts that you conveniently ignore as well as other well-known facts such Agassi's use of Crystal Meth being swept under the carpet by the ATP).
Anyway, if you don't want to see certain things and question them, there's not much more I can do.
Don't you want to ban Federer302?
Unlike you, I gave a reasoned argument as to why the top players wouldn't do it. The tinfoil hat group, which you seem to be an esteemed member of, would rather there was a doping bust or two to eliminate whatever player you feel has achieved abnormal performances. It's a good thing that in most countries there's a legal system that requires hard evidence before prosecution. In most countries slanderous innuendo is also considered a crime. TW and the internet as a whole have become a welcome host to hateful trolls, but I believe this will be addressed sooner rather than later.
This time you are the one who is aggressive without a reason. Me and others claim that players interests to use PED out-weight the risk of being caught, and we claim that it is likely that tennis isn't clean of PED. Arguments are:
1) PED can give you the edge in tight matches;
2) Top sportsmen have been caught cheating despite having a lot to lose;
3) Top cheaters haven't been easily identified in other sports (Armstrong again);
4) The anti-drug policy isn't convincing. There aren't enough controls, players can too easily avoid controls, etc.
5) There is a lot of money to lose for a lot of people if a top players is caught cheating;
6) This is attested with the case of Agassi
These arguments aren't aimed at a specific player in order to discard his achievements, we claim that system allow the use of PED. The critic is addressed to the system, not to specifics players.
They aren't going to lose anything. The whole system is in place only to make money and the powers that be are not going to rat out their biggest cash cows. The motivation for every aspect of society is about money at the end of the day, i.e. religion, politics, entertainment, sports, you name it.
Pretty obvious indeed.
A question for the last three "tin foil hat" posters. If you really think what you say is true, why do you watch and follow professional Tennis. :shock:
I'm not close to 100 % certain of how exactly it works, but my understanding is that for all practical purposes ITF and the national agencies are responsible for how many and what kind of tests are being done. So even if this is true:
I doubt that they have must say in it as shown by ITF director quotes below:
"This time last year, you were about to introduce the biological passport to counter doping. Do you think it’s been effective and do you think you’re doing enough in terms of anti-doping measures?
Doping is a very difficult matter to discuss because in doping, normally the authorities who test for it are in a lose-lose situation. Because if you have a positive test, it means that you have a problem in the sport. If you don’t have any positive tests, people say you aren’t doing enough.
What we believe is that the tennis programme is very good, especially at the top. We have now introduced a lot more blood tests.
We believe that in terms of quality we are very high. Having said that, we have to be vigilant. In terms of quantity, we depend also on the national agencies but they aren’t targeting tennis much. They focus more on cycling and other sports. We need them to do more."
And further supported by Dick Pound (former WADA chief, who called Armstrong out before most others) criticizing the tennis authorities, not WADA, in terms of doping in tennis:
“It used to be fun during rain delays at Wimbledon to see matches of McEnroe and Borg of a few years ago,” says Pound. “They looked like little old men. Even Lendl, who was notoriously fit, would look like a little old man compared to these folks now, running, lunging, lashing for three hours at a stretch. Look at the difference in build and sustained level of activity. If the tennis authorities don’t believe there is EPO or HGA use now they are not paying attention.”
All in all, as in any other big money, big fame sport, where testing is lax, there's an argument that the gain outweighs the risk.
Because I couldn't care less if the athletes are doped to the gills, it is not my problem. I KNOW that most elite pro athletes are very likely doped to the gills and that it is part of the sporting culture and it has been that way since the beginning of professional sporting competitions. There is nothing that anybody can do about it. As long as there are pro sports where big money is to be made, you will NEVER eradicate doping. To think that the elite players in tennis are not doping to some extent is laughable IMO.
Solid post. Have added a bit in brackets.
@Chico, because it's still the best sport there is to watch, doping or no doping.
Why are you discussing the doping then at all?
Anyway, that is the wrong attitude to have. I watch tennis because I like it and I am convinced most of the athletes, especially top ones are clean. Tennis is a skill based sport and no doping can help you if you have inferior FH or say return or lack in the mental department - i.e. you are a choker and can't handle pressure well.
That is why I don't watch endurance, no skill sports where doping gives you deciding significant advantage and hence it is rampant and wide spread, like Cycling, Track and Field or Weight Lifting, ... People need to realize there is a big difference in the nature of these sports vs Tennis when they start pulling Armstrongs of Marions out of their asses, in order to accuse or raise suspicions about tennis players.
Anything else are tin foil hat theories designed to undermine or bash a particular player.
Did you notice the title of this thread? It is "The Doping Thread." If you don't want to discuss doping in a rational manner why come here?
For you maybe. For me it is the only sane attitude to have.
Not a chance IMO.
This has already been explained ad nauseam in this thread and many others why it would be beneficial to dope in tennis.
I am not trying to bash a particular player. I think that the doping culture in elite tennis is strong and I would be surprised if you told me a top ten player for example did NOT dope to some extent.
Because it's still the best show.
And it could be that there's less of a doping culture in tennis. The traveling surely makes it harder.
But don't fool yourself with the skill argument. Sure, you cannot make a top-100 talent no. 1 in tennis by doping, but you can make a top-5 talent no. 1.
PED's helps your
- endurance in long rallies and long matches
- recovery which is relevant both in terms of being able to train hard and recover from grueling matches.
- probably something more.
There's a lot to gain despite tennis also being a skill based sport.
Btw - I'm completely unsure as to the extent of it. I feel positive that it exists and it also exists in the top-10, but as to whether one, half or all of them are doing it at the top, I don't know.
Totally agree with you Chico!!!!
Nah, not really imo. The elite players for example are too well-connected and they have their lackeys on their team who take care of all this stuff.
The current badminton world no. 1, Lee Chong Wei has been banned (or will be ) banned for using banned substances. Sad to see, he was (still is) one of my favorite players. To me, it has been blatantly obvious for a while that _all_ top athletes in _any_ sport are doped to the gills.
Sport has a doping problem but not to the extent you believe.
Perhaps, perhaps not. There's no way to find out, is there ? The ones doing the policing have the biggest reasons for not letting the cat out of the bag.
If LCW is doping and still could barely beat LD (curiously his record against Lin is as bad as Fed's against Nadal), I have to logically ask which is more likely -- Is LD so good that he is able to wallop a doping LCW, or is he also on the cool stuff and hasn't been caught yet ? :neutral:
Beyond a point I just accept that all of them are into it -- I still pick my favorites based on my subjective assessment of their skill-levels and hope that they are not caught doping.
There is more money to be made with doping research than anti-doping. Do the math. Follow the money.
If you've followed the Tour de France, this stuff ain't as easy as it seems. Traveling through airports across the globe surely makes it harder, I would imagine. But there might be some easy way around it that I'm not aware of.
It's called training in countries with lax doping laws or that fully support athlete doping...
Like team Armstrong training in Spain
MC, October 12 , 2012: "Armstrong paid Swiss firm for doping services, report charges."
And who was his doctor?
A curious case indeed.
Uh huh..but he trained in spain, a doper haven.
MC, October 12 , 2012: ¤¤ "Armstrong paid Swiss firm for doping services, report charges"
¤¤The explosive report by the US Anti-Doping Agency, released this week, outlines documented hefty payments made by the seven-time Tour de France winner to Dr. Michele Ferrari over a 10-year period from 1996 to 2006. Ferrari provided advice on how to evade detection by anti-doping testers.¤¤
Tennis Val and Doctor Del Moral, outed as a part of Armstrong's doping ring
So when was the last time Nadal was drug tested?
Separate names with a comma.