Puerto trial should name names, says Nadal

[DropShotArtist]

Some people need to fall off of a cliff in order to be convinced of gravity.

[Tennis_Hands]

Originally Posted by vernonbc

The whole Fuentes trial is a big deal in Spain and anything Rafa says gets huge publicity. Most of what you read is a translation of what has already been published in Spain, so yes, Rafa's request for full disclosure would be very widely known.

I have a hard time imagining Nadal going publicly against dopers in Spain.

After the support he gave to his fellow contryman, and, at the time, ALREADY convicted doper Señor Contador.

[YouCantBeSerious]

Originally Posted by Tennis_Hands

I have a hard time imagining Nadal going publicly against dopers in Spain.

After the support he gave to his fellow contryman, and, at the time, ALREADY convicted doper Señor Contador.

Why do people have to be so jaded? The easy explanation is that Nadal didn't know Contador had "doped". By the way, Contador's conviction is a joke. Many people (even doping authorities) believe the meat tainting theory to be plausible. And the levels of Clembuterol in Contador's blood were negligible.

[Rocky89]

I like his response to the silent ban allegations as well. He sounds pretty annoyed with the constant rumours, I don't blame him.

Q: Do you know that some people think that your 7-month absence is due to a silent doping ban?
Rafa: Yes and those rumours exist because those doping tests are not made public. The ITF needs to be transparent. Same with WADA. If not, it will continue and I will be forced to have to hear the stupid comments Christophe Rochus (*) utters without any evidence. It’s incredible to me that something like that gets published without any evidence. Give me evidence and I’ll be okay with it.

Q: The ITF says that the blood tests are too expensive and that…
Rafa: (interrupts). You know what is costly? The bad image of the sport. That’s what has a high price.

[Vrad]

Originally Posted by YouCantBeSerious

Why do people have to be so jaded? The easy explanation is that Nadal didn't know Contador had "doped". By the way, Contador's conviction is a joke. Many people (even doping authorities) believe the meat tainting theory to be plausible. And the levels of Clembuterol in Contador's blood were negligible.

It's not like that's the first time this happened. Nadal also defended Gasquet, and invented the whole "got cocaine because of a kiss in a club" theory which Gasquet used.

http://m.espn.go.com/general/tennis/...toryId=4215398

And honestly, if someone is caught doing drugs, you think they will provide an excuse which is not plausible? You think Contador was gonna say "oh, it's because I was attacked by space aliens who injected me with drugs because they wanted to test it's effects on humans"?

The first thing they will do on being caught is figure out what a plausible excuse would be, and use that.

[YouCantBeSerious]

Originally Posted by Vrad

It's not like that's the first time this happened. Nadal also defended Gasquet, and invented the whole "got cocaine because of a kiss in a club" theory which Gasquet used.

http://m.espn.go.com/general/tennis/...toryId=4215398

And honestly, if someone is caught doing drugs, you think they will provide an excuse which is not plausible? You think Contador was gonna say "oh, it's because I was attacked by space aliens who injected me with drugs because they wanted to test it's effects on humans"?

The first thing they will do on being caught is figure out what a plausible excuse would be, and use that.

All I'm saying is that accusing people of doing anything is easy. Providing proof is what's difficult.

I think Contador probably has doped in the past somehow, just not with Clembuterol, which is what he was convicted of. That's just plain stupid. Doping is probably far more prevalent in cycling than it is in tennis, and there are very good reasons for that.

As for Nadal, I really don't see him being a doper. But if anybody knows better, prove me wrong.

[namelessone]

Originally Posted by YouCantBeSerious

All I'm saying is that accusing people of doing anything is easy. Providing proof is what's difficult.

I think Contador probably has doped in the past somehow, just not with Clembuterol, which is what he was convicted of. That's just plain stupid. Doping is probably far more prevalent in cycling than it is in tennis, and there are very good reasons for that.

As for Nadal, I really don't see him being a doper. But if anybody knows better, prove me wrong.

It's called cycling for a reason.

Probably 90% of cyclists dope. That sport is pure physical effort with little skill involved.

That is why the outrage over the Armstrong debacle amuses me. I have close friends that were SHOCKED at what he did. They believed that because he got over cancer he must be a good and "clean" guy. I always thought that this was a joke in a sport where so many have been busted over the years for doping and many,many more have always been suspected.

Jesus, just look at the huge list for doping scandals in cycling:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ses_in_cycling

[Tennis_Hands]

YouCantBeSerious
Why do people have to be so jaded? The easy explanation is that Nadal didn't know Contador had "doped".

http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/0...8150ME20120206

Nadal expressed his support AFTER Contador was convicted, but, nice try, YouCantBeSerious.

By the way, Contador's conviction is a joke. Many people (even doping authorities) believe the meat tainting theory to be plausible. And the levels of Clembuterol in Contador's blood were negligible.

Yeah, I will take your word over the word of the judges from CAS, because you are more qualified and knowledgeable than them.

Oh, wait .......

[Tshooter]

"I [Rafa] don't understand why doctor Fuentes is not giving names."

If they can quiet Frankie Pentangeli they can quiet Eufemiano Fuentes.

[Vrad]

Originally Posted by YouCantBeSerious

All I'm saying is that accusing people of doing anything is easy. Providing proof is what's difficult.

I think Contador probably has doped in the past somehow, just not with Clembuterol, which is what he was convicted of. That's just plain stupid. Doping is probably far more prevalent in cycling than it is in tennis, and there are very good reasons for that.

As for Nadal, I really don't see him being a doper. But if anybody knows better, prove me wrong.

Of course it is easier to make accusations as opposed to providing proof. Why do you think it took so long to figure out Armstrong, and all those baseball players were doping?

However, anyone who is interested in pro sports, who thinks that we should hold players to an innocent until proven guilty standard is just deluding themselves. Frankly, unless the sport has taken great efforts to root out doping (eg cycling lately) or you are talking about just the Olympics (beginning from 2012, where blood samples are now being retained for an extended period of time) pretty much every pro athlete in every pro sport is well deserving of any doping accusations.

It doesn't mean I don't enjoy the sports. It just means that I don't delude myself into thinking they aren't likely cheating. And because of their comments, actions, and mysterious absences, I think some players are more likely to be cheating (eg. I always thought it was far more likely ARod, who was just a HR hitter, was far more likely to be doping than Jeter, who could barely hit a HR to save his life).

Anyone who thinks otherwise about any pro sport has either not thought about the doping issue, or is hopelessly naive.

[Bartelby]

The current trial did not come about through testing, but an investigation and apparently drugs can move through the system so quickly that they aren't really testable.

[SLD76]

Originally Posted by Tennis_Hands

Witness testimonies are legal evidence.

Well, except in Musterland.

someone could walk out of a clinic with a syringe in their arm and the other arm hooked to a blood spinning machine and it wouldnt be proof enough for Mustard.

[Murrayfan31]

That would be funny if Fuentes decided to name names and Nadal was on the list.

[SLD76]

Originally Posted by Murrayfan31

That would be funny if Fuentes decided to name names and Nadal was on the list.

by now, who knows if the evidence implicating any high profile spanish athlete hasnt been destroyed already

[YouCantBeSerious]

Originally Posted by Tennis_Hands

http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/0...8150ME20120206

Nadal expressed his support AFTER Contador was convicted, but, nice try, YouCantBeSerious.



Yeah, I will take your word over the word of the judges from CAS, because you are more qualified and knowledgeable than them.

Oh, wait .......

You obviously know nothing about Clembuterol.

Contador's conviction is a typical overreaction, an attempt to err on the side of caution that proves nothing.

I'm not saying Contador has never doped, I'm saying the conviction based on the minuscule amounts of Clembuterol found on his system is stupid, and that Nadal was right to support him.

They also found trace amounts of a plasticizer in Contador's bloodstream, and that points to posible blood doping. That is far more likely than him using Clembuterol as a PED. That hypothesis is simply moronic.

[YouCantBeSerious]

Originally Posted by Vrad

Of course it is easier to make accusations as opposed to providing proof. Why do you think it took so long to figure out Armstrong, and all those baseball players were doping?

However, anyone who is interested in pro sports, who thinks that we should hold players to an innocent until proven guilty standard is just deluding themselves. Frankly, unless the sport has taken great efforts to root out doping (eg cycling lately) or you are talking about just the Olympics (beginning from 2012, where blood samples are now being retained for an extended period of time) pretty much every pro athlete in every pro sport is well deserving of any doping accusations.

It doesn't mean I don't enjoy the sports. It just means that I don't delude myself into thinking they aren't likely cheating. And because of their comments, actions, and mysterious absences, I think some players are more likely to be cheating (eg. I always thought it was far more likely ARod, who was just a HR hitter, was far more likely to be doping than Jeter, who could barely hit a HR to save his life).

Anyone who thinks otherwise about any pro sport has either not thought about the doping issue, or is hopelessly naive.

Do you know what an accusation means? Do you know the difference between accusation and suspicion? I don't think every pro athlete deserves to be accused of doping. That's a horrible way of thinking.

In the case of Armstrong, there were many people that came out throughout the years, people in his environment, that knew what he was doing. There was a basis to suspect, and those people obviously could accuse him of doping.

How many indications in the case of Nadal do you see? About as many as in the case of Federer, Murray, or most any other tennis player.

Going down this rabbit hole is dangerous. You can cast accusations of almost anything against anybody for a long time, and people start doubting and thinking they might be true. If I started accusing you of liking young boys over and over, some people might doubt whether that's right or not, even though I have no basis to believe that to be the case. That's the way human perception works. "Where there is smoke, there must be a fire." The problem is that this is not always the case.

So be careful with your "it's OK to suspect and accuse even without any shred of proof" philosophy. It sounds suspiciously familiar to the Taliban, and might come back to bite you in the arse.

[Dedans Penthouse]

Judging by her rack, WTA pro Simona Helep is using deer antler spray

[Tennis_Hands]

Originally Posted by SLD76

by now, who knows if the evidence implicating any high profile spanish athlete hasnt been destroyed already

That is quite probable.

Given the level of interference and the circumstances, surrounding that case.

http://ansamed.biz/en/news/ME.XEF76147.html

El Mundo also wrote how two years ago, Fuentes' wife, Cristina Perez, said that if her husband revealed what he knows, "Spanish sports and the 1992 Barcelona Olympics would collapse". Eufemiano Fuentes, together with another five individuals who are under indictment, was questioned on Sunday. In the coming days, Marta Dominguez and another 7 people under indictment will appear in court for questioning. (ANSAmed).

http://www.sudinfo.be/sports/foot_in...e-831186.shtml

Eufemiano Fuentes, docteur au centre de toutes les affaires de dopage en Espagne (cyclisme, athlétisme, tennis, football...), a déclaré: “ Si je parle, on retire le championnat d'Europe de foot et la Coupe du monde à l'Espagne. ”

Publié le 13/12 à 12h18

Cette phrase, il l'aurait dite à ses compagnons de cellule, selon le quotidien espagnol Marca. Fuentes est actuellement inculpé de trafic de substances stupéfiantes dans l'affaire Galgo (athlétisme).

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by Tennis_Hands

Witness testimonies are legal evidence.

Well, except in Musterland.

Yes, witness testimonies are legal evidence, but when plea bargaining is rife and/or there's no physical, objective evidence to back it up circumstantial evidence, it's very dodgy and clearly unreliable.

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by Dedans Penthouse

Judging by her rack, WTA pro Simona Helep is using deer antler spray

She has since had breast reduction surgery.