Nadal nervous about coming back!

[cc0509]

Originally Posted by kragster

I don't know what rock you were living under but right since 1999 or 2000 there have been serious allegations against Armstrong! It might have taken them a while to prove it conclusively but the news has been in the media for ages. Just do a google search for it. Now contrast that to what's in the media about Nadal. Basically nothing except some idle TW talk and yannick Noah making some random comment. Let me know when there is a serious allegation against Nadal and then we can have a reasonable discussion.

I should have said many people still did not think Armstrong was guilty of anything despite all of the rumors. Heck many people now still don't think Armstrong is guilty of anything.

There are many rumors about Nadal that have been around for many years just as there were about Armstrong, you just don't want to see it. There were the exact same type of rumors surrounding Armstrong as there are about Nadal, I don't see a lot of difference between the two cases. Nothing could be proven with Armstrong until they decided to investigate him closely and go after him but there was tons of circumstantial evidence. In any case, I don't want to argue with you, we obviously have different views on the subject. But let me state again for the record, I think most of the elite players probably use something (PED) so I am on no specific witch hunt, it is just that the rumors about Nadal have been the loudest.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by cc0509

I should have said many people still did not think Armstrong was guilty of anything despite all of the rumors. Heck many people now still don't think Armstrong is guilty of anything.

You speak with surprise about those people who believe that Armstrong has not really been proved guilty, when what's really a surprise are people's willingness to believe a process that involves plea bargained cyclists and people with axes to grind. Armstrong got punished like he has because he refused to plea bargain when faced with threats and circumstantial evidence/plea bargained witnesses, based on no objective, physical evidence. That is a fact.

[Tennis_Hands]

Originally Posted by Mustard

You speak with surprise about those people who believe that Armstrong has not really been proved guilty, when what's really a surprise are people's willingness to believe a process that involves plea bargained cyclists and people with axes to grind. Armstrong got punished like he has because he refused to plea bargain when faced with threats and circumstantial evidence/plea bargained witnesses, based on no objective, physical evidence. That is a fact.

You have a lot of reading to do.

[cc0509]

Originally Posted by Mustard

You speak with surprise about those people who believe that Armstrong has not really been proved guilty, when what's really a surprise are people's willingness to believe a process that involves plea bargained cyclists and people with axes to grind. Armstrong got punished like he has because he refused to plea bargain when faced with threats and circumstantial evidence/plea bargained witnesses, based on no objective, physical evidence. That is a fact.

Refused to plea bargain? The guy did not proceed forward because he knew he was guilty as hell and going on in the process would only embarrass him further. They have everything but the kitchen sink as evidence against him. Please Mustard, don't be so ignorant. You are WRONG here. They would not strip an innocent guy of his medals. Please educate yourself on this subject.

[Crisstti]

Originally Posted by cc0509

I should have said many people still did not think Armstrong was guilty of anything despite all of the rumors. Heck many people now still don't think Armstrong is guilty of anything.

There are many rumors about Nadal that have been around for many years just as there were about Armstrong, you just don't want to see it. There were the exact same type of rumors surrounding Armstrong as there are about Nadal, I don't see a lot of difference between the two cases. Nothing could be proven with Armstrong until they decided to investigate him closely and go after him but there was tons of circumstantial evidence. In any case, I don't want to argue with you, we obviously have different views on the subject. But let me state again for the record, I think most of the elite players probably use something (PED) so I am on no specific witch hunt, it is just that the rumors about Nadal have been the loudest.

Yeah, haters are always the loudest kind of people.

There's no circumstantial evidence against Nadal (no, being out injured is no circumstantial evidence of anything).

[cc0509]

Originally Posted by Crisstti

Yeah, haters are always the loudest kind of people.

There's no circumstantial evidence against Nadal (no, being out injured is no circumstantial evidence of anything).

Yes, there is circumstantial evidence and I am no hater of Nadal. I defend Nadal a lot on this forum. Learn to read posts.

[Crisstti]

Originally Posted by cc0509

Excuse me, did Nadal actually win the AO in 2012? Did I miss that?

OK, this is too hard for you to get...

He didn't need to win to show he can. Like he showed he could beat Fed in Wimbledon in 2007. And like Fed and Djokovic haven't showed against Nadal on RG.

Originally Posted by cc0509

I don't know the inner workings of the ATP but I do know a lot about business.

I assume you mean where and not were. You can call me out on my bs accusations all you want, doesn't change my opinion which last time I checked was my democratic right and this is a tennis forum not a court of law so you are wasting your time.

Remember nobody thought Lance Armstrong, or Marion Jones or countless other pro athletes had anything to do with doping. LOL, what a joke.

Nope, defamation isn't a constitutional right.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by cc0509

Refused to plea bargain? The guy did not proceed forward because he knew he was guilty as hell and going on in the process would only embarrass him further.

It would have cost a lot of money on defence lawyers, not to mention all the stress it would have continued to cause, ad infinitum, over a cyclist who never tested positive according to the rules of cycling. It is an undeniable fact that Armstrong was stripped of all of his post-1998 titles because he refused any plea bargain, so they preceeded with the maximum penalty. This should make the whole process unsafe, as it's clearly open to corruption. Still, considering that the US justice system operates on this plea bargaining basis, giving the prosecution the powers of judge, jury and executioner, I shouldn't be surprised.

[cc0509]

Crisstti;7076415]OK, this is too hard for you to get...

He didn't need to win to show he can. Like he showed he could beat Fed in Wimbledon in 2007. And like Fed and Djokovic haven't showed against Nadal on RG.

????? The only way a person shows he can win is if he does win. Nobody cares if he came close at W in 2007 and close at the AO in 2012. The fact is he has not won a title off clay since 2010, the rest if BS.

Nope, defamation isn't a constitutional right.

This does not constitute defamation and you are trying to pass yourself off as a lawyer yet? You took some pre-law courses that does not make you a lawyer, you need to go to law school for three years and pass the bar to be a lawyer, did you do that. Obviously not.

[Crisstti]

Originally Posted by cc0509

????? The only way a person shows he can win is if he does win. Nobody cares if he came close at W in 2007 and close at the AO in 2012. The fact is he has not won a title off clay since 2010, the rest if BS.





This does not constitute defamation and you are trying to pass yourself off as a lawyer yet? You took some pre-law courses that does not make you a lawyer, you need to go to law school for three years and pass the bar to be a lawyer, did you do that. Obviously not.

Yes it does.

I went to law school for 5 year, but I haven't passed the bar yet, which is why I'm not yet a lawyer. I've explained this before, but apparently your reading skills are lacking.

[cc0509]

Originally Posted by Crisstti

Yes it does.

I went to law school for 5 year, but I haven't passed the bar yet, which is why I'm not yet a lawyer. I've explained this before, but apparently your reading skills are lacking.

5 years? Where do you have to go to law school for 5 years? In my country it is 3 years, then you have to work for a law firm for a year (called articling), then you have to write the bar. Then, you are a lawyer.

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by Crisstti

Yep. Nadal has won bigger events on hc against Djokovic than the other way around on clay.

Yes at this point in time:

Nadal on clay >>>>> Djokovic on hard courts
Nadal on grass >>>>> Djokovic on grass
Nadal on hard courts >>>>> Djokovic on clay

Not right now probably, but in overall career terms that is where it stands now. Djokovic has a long way to go to even reach Nadal's level. Heck before 2011 Nadal was much more accomplished and overall better than Djokovic on hard courts even, with Djokovic probably not passing him until the end of 2011. As for Nadal needing to prove he can beat Djokovic off clay, he has already done it many times in big matches, U.S Open final, Olympic semis, Wimbledon semis, so regardless what happens from here he doesnt have to prove a thing vs Djokovic. It is Djokovic who took until he was 24 and had shared over 4 years in the Worlds top 3 with Nadal before he could beat him a single big match anywhere, even on hard courts, lol! Djokovic is the only one with one thing to prove, that he can beat Nadal at RG, something that Federer failed to do, but I think Djokovic will succeed where Federer always failed at some point.

[Mike Sams]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Yes at this point in time:

Nadal on clay >>>>> Djokovic on hard courts
Nadal on grass >>>>> Djokovic on grass
Nadal on hard courts >>>>> Djokovic on clay

Not right now probably, but in overall career terms that is where it stands now. Djokovic has a long way to go to even reach Nadal's level. Heck before 2011 Nadal was much more accomplished and overall better than Djokovic on hard courts even, with Djokovic probably not passing him until the end of 2011. As for Nadal needing to prove he can beat Djokovic off clay, he has already done it many times in big matches, U.S Open final, Olympic semis, Wimbledon semis, so regardless what happens from here he doesnt have to prove a thing vs Djokovic. It is Djokovic who took until he was 24 and had shared over 4 years in the Worlds top 3 with Nadal before he could beat him a single big match anywhere, even on hard courts, lol! Djokovic is the only one with one thing to prove, that he can beat Nadal at RG, something that Federer failed to do, but I think Djokovic will succeed where Federer always failed at some point.

Why does Djokovic need to prove anything? Do you even know who the world #1 is right now?

[cc0509]

Originally Posted by Mike Sams

Why does Djokovic need to prove anything? Do you even know who the world #1 is right now?

Good point.

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by Mike Sams

Why does Djokovic need to prove anything? Do you even know who the world #1 is right now?

Yes he is number 1 right now, yet there is at thread ongoing right now where it seems most posters dont even think he is an all time great (eg top 30 all time, and I actually argued I did think he was a bottom end 5th tier all time great, but most disagreed with me and even called me a ********* for arguing he was), while Federer and Nadal are firmly established as top 5 players all time. So in terms of his career and place in the grand scheme of the game, he still has a long way to go to make any sort of legacy for himself.

[RAFA2005RG]

Djokovic has a lot to prove at the slams, as of the 4 slam champions in 2012 Djokovic struggled to win his the most by far. That's if you value slams of course. And that US Open final vs Murray was the lowest quality slam final of 2012, by far. Mentally it looks like Djokovic has a problem in the big matches of late (Roland Garros final he had a lead in the 4th set, Wimbledon semi has a mess, US Open final 6-2 loss in the 5th set). And he's gone downhill the last 2 years at the Australian Open, from winning in straight sets in 2011 to almost giving the match away vs Nadal in 2012 after being in cruise control in the 4th set (and in the semi he wasn't convincing vs Murray either). 2011 must have been too much for Djokovic, physically, mentally or both. He can no longer finish off slams.

[Mike Sams]

Originally Posted by RAFA2005RG

Djokovic has a lot to prove at the slams, as of the 4 slam champions in 2012 Djokovic struggled to win his the most by far. That's if you value slams of course.

Strange argument

[Crisstti]

Originally Posted by cc0509

Yes, there is circumstantial evidence and I am no hater of Nadal. I defend Nadal a lot on this forum. Learn to read posts.

No, there isn't.

And no, you're not a Nadal hater, but these kind of thing usually comes from them. You're a special case .

Originally Posted by cc0509

5 years? Where do you have to go to law school for 5 years? In my country it is 3 years, then you have to work for a law firm for a year (called articling), then you have to write the bar. Then, you are a lawyer.

Only in this shitty country apparently. It's five years for everything, except medicine where it's 8 years. There has been talk lately about it being too long. It's probably so that students get into more debt.

[cc0509]

Originally Posted by Crisstti

No, there isn't.

And no, you're not a Nadal hater, but these kind of thing usually comes from them. You're a special case .



Only in this shitty country apparently. It's five years for everything, except medicine where it's 8 years. There has been talk lately about it being too long. It's probably so that students get into more debt.

Oh ok, so it is five years for everything from beginning to end and not five years of school plus writing the bar? What about working for a firm for a year before you write the bar, don't they do that there?

Here it is three years of school plus a year of working in a law firm and then writing the bar, so five years total is about how long the whole process takes. That is long enough.

[Crisstti]

Originally Posted by cc0509

Oh ok, so it is five years for everything from beginning to end and not five years of school plus writing the bar? What about working for a firm for a year before you write the bar, don't they do that there?

Here it is three years of school plus a year of working in a law firm and then writing the bar, so five years total is about how long the whole process takes. That is long enough.

No, it's five years of school, plus then working not for a law firm but for the state, for 6-8 moonths and the bar.