Cristophe Rochus: Doping rampant, mentions Nadal and Soderling

[TMF]

Fed plays a brand of style that isn't physically taxing on the body unlike Nadal. And Spain/Argentina are most widely known to take PED.

[The Bawss]

Originally Posted by vllaznia

Just waiting to read again from Mustard saying that Lance Armstrong is innocent because he didn't fail a doping test.

Yes, that will be hilarious. I haven't seen him recently but I am looking forward to his reaction to what Lance said on Oprah.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by The Bawss

Yes, that will be hilarious. I haven't seen him recently but I am looking forward to his reaction to what Lance said on Oprah.

It's best for Mustard to admit that he's wrong. Just come out clean like Armstrong did.

[President]

Originally Posted by DropShotArtist

Look at Federer's huge muscles.

Does Lance Armstrong have huge muscles?

[DRII]

Originally Posted by DropShotArtist

Look at Federer's huge muscles.

LOL...

we've been thru this in another thread. Aesthetics does not always correlate to performance...

But, performance alone is enough for you to allege Nadal doping/silent ban.

Going by the same standard one could accuse Federer of the same...

[marc45]

Originally Posted by smoledman

I always knew Nadal was doping since 2005.

and how exactly did/do you know that?...and more importantly why are you wasting your time divulging it on this website and not in the new york times?...i'm sure chris clarey or jon wertheim would like to hear from you, or are they in on it too?

[DropShotArtist]

Originally Posted by President

Does Lance Armstrong have huge muscles?

Good point, but Federer hasn't had any real long absences from the sport in order to remove the drug metabolites from this blood. Some can have fairly long half-lifes.

[President]

Originally Posted by DropShotArtist

Good point, but Federer hasn't had any real long absences from the sport in order to remove the drug metabolites from this blood. Some can have fairly long half-lifes.

And some don't. A man with Federer's huge resources (the guy is even wealthier than Lance Armstrong) can purchase designer drugs that are undetectable.

[Big_Dangerous]

Originally Posted by TMF

Fed plays a brand of style that isn't physically taxing on the body unlike Nadal. And Spain/Argentina are most widely known to take PED.

If that's your only reason for excluding him as a suspected user of PED's while you suspect Nadal, then you sir are an idiot.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by Big_Dangerous

If that's your only reason for excluding him as a suspected user of PED's while you suspect Nadal, then you sir are an idiot.

Until Fed play exactly like Nadal who's killing his body, and be out for 8+ months, not to mention many people have suspected Nadal, wake me up.

[single_handed_champion]

Originally Posted by TMF

Until Fed play exactly like Nadal who's killing his body, and be out for 8+ months, not to mention many people have suspected Nadal, wake me up.

LOL. 'Many people' suspected Nadal for the same naive reasons as you and your ilk, namely that he doesn't tire (true of Roger as well) despite his gamestyle and has big muscles (which are puny compared to many athletes, must be said).

I guess Rochus deserves the benefit of doubt for his generally irresponsible speculations about Nadal and Soderling because he outed the Argentinians in the past (any proof of that anyway?). At least it gets people talking. But people will be biased and ignore facts i.e. that performance enhancers are very different from steroids, that these athletes can be years ahead of the 'testing regime' (which is a joke), that no one could conceivably compete with these juiced-up specimens by staying clean.

I don't wish to see everyone dope just so they perform superhuman feats. For one, it is certain to destroy their bodies. Secondly, I think their training already makes them superhumans compared to 99% of us, and the way they play the game itself is of sufficient intrigue without having see them perform acts we never would (by risking health). There can be a different tour for chemically enhanced athletics and sport.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by vllaznia

Just waiting to read again from Mustard saying that Lance Armstrong is innocent because he didn't fail a doping test.

But Lance Armstrong didn't fail a doping test. So where's innocent until proven guilty? The system is full of plea bargains, thereby corrupting the whole process. I don't see how any conviction can be safe in such an environment as that. I read in a newspaper yesterday that the USADA wanted to do a deal with Armstrong to allow him to keep his first 5 Tour de France titles. When Armstrong refused all their plea bargains, and then said that he would no longer defend himself, the USADA went for the maximum punishment, and then the USADA had the audacity to act like a drug free sport was their motivation for throwing the whole damn library at Armstrong. Their real reason was to punish Armstrong for resisting all their plea bargains.

[Clarky21]

Originally Posted by Mustard

But Lance Armstrong didn't fail a doping test. So where's innocent until proven guilty? The system is full of plea bargains, thereby corrupting the whole process. I don't see how any conviction can be safe in such an environment as that. I read in a newspaper yesterday that the USADA wanted to do a deal with Armstrong to allow him to keep his first 5 Tour de France titles. When Armstrong refused all their plea bargains, and then said that he would no longer defend himself, the USADA went for the maximum punishment, and then the USADA had the audacity to act like a drug free sport was their motivation for throwing the whole damn library at Armstrong. Their real reason was to punish Armstrong for resisting all their plea bargains.

He's still a lying, filthy doper. He admitted he doped, and did everything he could do to avoid getting caught. He's scum.

[President]

Originally Posted by Mustard

But Lance Armstrong didn't fail a doping test. So where's innocent until proven guilty? The system is full of plea bargains, thereby corrupting the whole process. I don't see how any conviction can be safe in such an environment as that. I read in a newspaper yesterday that the USADA wanted to do a deal with Armstrong to allow him to keep his first 5 Tour de France titles. When Armstrong refused all their plea bargains, and then said that he would no longer defend himself, the USADA went for the maximum punishment, and then the USADA had the audacity to act like a drug free sport was their motivation for throwing the whole damn library at Armstrong. Their real reason was to punish Armstrong for resisting all their plea bargains.

What? The guy has now apparently ADMITTED to doping. What more do you want?

[DropShotArtist]

Originally Posted by President

And some don't. A man with Federer's huge resources (the guy is even wealthier than Lance Armstrong) can purchase designer drugs that are undetectable.

Sure, but by that logic Mother Teresa is also a doper. The point is you have to go after the most likely cases first.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by President

What? The guy has now apparently ADMITTED to doping. What more do you want?

With the plea bargaining system, how do we know that someone hasn't said to Armstrong "admit to doping, or you'll be in jail and bankrupt etc."? The fact is, we don't know, as plea bargaining corrupts the whole process. It is blackmail, where the blackmailers have all the power.

If you don't even fail a drugs test according to the laws of cycling, why are you even treated as guilty in the first place?

[bluescreen]

I think Rochus was touching more on the point that the ATP may be disguising bans/suspensions instead of going lax on drug tests.

Giving more frequent and more thorough tests is one thing, but the ATP handing out public bans and suspensions for positive tests is another. I'm wondering if maybe PED use is so rampant that to penalize all players involved would virtually end the sport.

[Clarky21]

Originally Posted by Mustard

With the plea bargaining system, how do we know that someone hasn't said to Armstrong "admit to doping, or you'll be in jail and bankrupt etc."? The fact is, we don't know, as plea bargaining corrupts the whole process. It is blackmail, where the blackmailers have all the power.

If you don't even fail a drugs test according to the laws of cycling, why are you even treated as guilty in the first place?

What's it going to take for you to realize that Lance doped himself silly? This level of denial is certainly not helping anything.

[DropShotArtist]

Originally Posted by Mustard

With the plea bargaining system, how do we know that someone hasn't said to Armstrong "admit to doping, or you'll be in jail and bankrupt etc."? The fact is, we don't know, as plea bargaining corrupts the whole process. It is blackmail, where the blackmailers have all the power.

If you don't even fail a drugs test according to the laws of cycling, why are you even treated as guilty in the first place?

He's admitting on OPRAH for godsakes. You have you learn to deflate you ego occasionally.

[reversef]

Originally Posted by Mustard

With the plea bargaining system, how do we know that someone hasn't said to Armstrong "admit to doping, or you'll be in jail and bankrupt etc."? The fact is, we don't know, as plea bargaining corrupts the whole process. It is blackmail, where the blackmailers have all the power.

If you don't even fail a drugs test according to the laws of cycling, why are you even treated as guilty in the first place?

Stop that nonsense, Mustard. Things are very clear, and have been for quite a while.