If doping is rife in athletics, then ...

[Tennis_Hands]

I don't doubt you know your training, but you seem not to know your posting.

Are you saying Nadal should make his weight training sessions a matter of public record? I'm not even sure what you are saying, because you seem to not have any point.

Should? Noone should. Please, quote where I said such a thing!

However, I referred to the claims of the ************* that Nadal had never lifted heavy weights in order to gain the muscles that he has (which I disputed then and am ready to dispute now). If you take issue with that please talk to them. They know who they are (the posters that claimed that) so they shuld come forward.



What you will NOT find is that the country will protect and encourage its top dopers via its Prime minister.
What you will not find is a lack of anti-doping laws (until recently in the case of Spain).
What you will not find is top athletes showing public support for convicted dopers of the same nationality.
What you will not find is Operation Puerto.
What you will not find is a tolerance for the doping culture (including the destroying of blood samples and doctors openly admitting that this is the way to go).[/QUOTE]

As usual for a Butthurt Brigade member, you sure get your facts confused. Please answer..
1. When has Spain's prime minister encouraged doping?

Sure: http://www.cbc.ca/sports/spanish-prime-minister-supports-contador-1.1042918

Shall I post Nadal's support for "the champion" as well?

I see that you missed to address that in your post.

2. What does lack of anti-doping laws "until recently" have to do with the current situation? Anti-doping laws are relatively recent for most countries. Also, the lax nature of anti-doping laws in any country have very little to do with the legal standing of specific athletes. Nadal is not subject to Spanish law alone. He, like any other ATP player, is subject to laws and regulations from many countries and multi-national organisms. Sad that you can't grasp this simple concept.

I will try to address every single one of your questions since you seem confused to me:

1) There is no "current situation" Show me where the conversation was defined to be about the "current situation"
2) Could you define "relative recently", so that I can either show how this relates to Spain and the athletes that go to dope there or will simply destroy your argument if you try to twist things? Thanks
3) Nadal is not subject of the Spanish law alone, but the implications bound to not having the necessary legislation lead to different situation, when it comes to doping. WADA has only the right to make tests vie its representatives, but what about the regimes of possession of drugs, transportation of drugs etc.? So ANY spanish athlete, who is training in Spain (and for that matter any athlete) can organize his doping there as long as he is not afraid of the tests he need to undergo in case he is asked for it. Unless he is caught red handed any other situation can be escaped relatively easy (note: I am talking about a country with no anti-doping laws here). And he lives in that country. It is funny that you cannot grasp this simple concept.

What is more hilarious is the fact that not having anti-doping law is the reason why the judge couldn't proceed with the doping charges ....because Fuentes wasn't doing anything illegal (in that regard)at the time.

So, ask again ....

Should? Noone should. Please, quote where I said such a thing!

However, I referred to the claims of the ************* that Nadal have never lifted heavy weights in order to gain the muscles that he has (which I disputed then and am ready to dispute now). If you take issue with that please talk to them. They know who they are (the posters that claimed that) so they shuld come forward.



What you will NOT find is that the country will protect and encourage its top dopers via its Prime minister.
What you will not find is a lack of anti-doping laws (until recently in the case of Spain).
What you will not find is top athletes showing public support for convicted dopers of the same nationality.
What you will not find is Operation Puerto.
What you will not find is a tolerance for the doping culture (including the destroying of blood samples and doctors openly admitting that this is the way to go).

As usual for a Butthurt Brigade member, you sure get your facts confused. Please answer..
1. When has Spain's prime minister encouraged doping?

Sure: http://www.cbc.ca/sports/spanish-prime-minister-supports-contador-1.1042918

Shall I post Nadal's support for "the champion" as well?

I see that you missed to address that in your post.

3. If you are talking about Contador, you seem to know very little about the case. All Nadal did is show his conviction publicly that Contador actually didn't dope, which is the same thing that even international doctors have said. This "guilt by association" strategy is curious, given the company that Federer has kept in the past (known serial womanizers and spouse abusers, child abandoners, etc). It's easy to do what you are doing, but it's tasteless nonetheless.

Nadal has showed his support for Contador after Contador was banned from cycling for doping.

Nadal's conviction is more a telling sign of what he thinks about doping than almost anything that you can objectively access. If a sportsman, who has no phuking idea what Contador has done, just go out on a limb to say such things, then this is no more about the convicted doper, it is about the integrity of the athlete who defends the doper.

You may or may not be convinced that Contador doped (as various other people may or may not) but you are no authority on the matter. There are other authorities and they have spoken.

Actually, I find this rather hilarious. The ************* asks for fact based approach but dismiss at will the word of the law.

You don't know (or pretend to not know, which is all the same to me) that we have had this conversation before here.

And, just to make it clear, as you are getting a little carried away here about what I know and what I don't (as seen by your remarks about Operacion Puerto, the Festina affair and in this case Contador).

The plasticizers found in Contador's blood are enough to prove that he doped. The only reason that this was not used in his process is that the tests about plasticizers are not yet part of the official procedure of WADA. These blood bags .......

4. Operation Puerto is an internal Spanish operation, uncovered by Spanish police. What happened with the Festina affair is probably worse, and it affected Swiss labs, riders, doctors, etc. Alex Zulle ring a bell to you?

Oh, it was an internal spanish operation, but what were they looking for?

It seems that you think that you know about the Festina affair.

1) Please, list the swiss doctors that were part of that affair and what were exactly they doing, respectively, what happened to them? Names we know. I am curious what else you (think that you) know
2) What was the role of the labs and what were the consequences? In detail.

Do you believe, that, because you can name athletes from one country that doped, you can make the case of that country doing the same as Spain?

No, scratch that. I know the answer. Answer the other two.

5. Destruction of samples in Operation Puerto? Why did the judge order that? Are you even mildly familiar with that case? (Rhetorical question).

Ah, she (the judge) oredered that, because that is private information and also one that was in no way to be linked to any sort of crime on the behalf of the owners.... because at the time doping was not illegal in Spain.

Did you know that?

Yes, because when someone orders EPO in industrial quantities to a lab they just ship it over without even asking what it's for... Makes sense to you?

Is that a story that you conjured up or there is an evidence that those labs knew what the EPO would be used for?

You do touch something that has some value, however. I think the fact Spain hosted the Summer Olympics in 1992, right when the new doping technologies were being perfected, does have a lot to do with Spain's history in that area.

But what you can't do is judge somebody simply by association.

I think what was disastrous was your feeble attempt at a riposte. True to Butthurt Brigade tradition, you could only come up with "Operation Puerto this", "muscles" that, "Swiss athletes good", etc.

What idiotic comments.

It has been argued and argumented why Nadal has been subject to those accusations. It is not only because he is from Spain but all of the above mentioned plus more.

It was and still is a disaster for you.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

I'm confused, because Festina wasn't a Swiss team. Believe it was a French registered team at the time, and following those events I think France significantly upped their anti-doping efforts. What are you even trying to get at? Also ignored the Italian riders I brought up.

Anyway...I'm not going to get into an argument with somebody calling themselves Rusty Shackleford. I like king of the hill, but be original with username.

Hey, he said that he knows about Festina.

You know, the swiss team.



But does it matter?

The other day someone from the ************* said that since a team is registered in Switzerland and they dope, then Switzerland is the doping heaven.



EDIT: I forgot. Festina was created as a spanish team 3 years before the summer Olympics in Barcelona.

 

[moonballs]

EDIT: I forgot. Festina was created as a spanish team 3 years before the summer Olympics in Barcelona.

This is hilarious.

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

This is hilarious.

Yes. But what's really hilarious is that neither you nor Tennis_Hands knew that when the Festina Affair happened, the team was not Spanish at all, but French.

Obviously, you also fail to note the key role that Switzerland (labs providing illegal substances, riders taking them, and doctors adminstering them) plays in this fiasco.

I mean, that's hilarious, isn't it, son?

Talk about half baked posts...

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

Hey, he said that he knows about Festina.

You know, the swiss team.



But does it matter?

The other day someone from the ************* said that since a team is registered in Switzerland and they dope, then Switzerland is the doping heaven.



EDIT: I forgot. Festina was created as a spanish team 3 years before the summer Olympics in Barcelona.

Festina wasn't a Spanish team when the doping scandal happened, and Switzerland played a central role in all these events, from the sources of the drugs, to the riders that took them.

Apparently you are only interested in "doping histories" if they involve Spain. Switzerland, the U.S., and about every other single country, gets a free pass.

Is Federer to blame for any of his country's shortcomings? Probably not. But then again, that's one of your key strategies in your Nadal mudslinging, so...

The fact is that Switzerland has a far more advanced and sophisticated medical program than about any other country in Europe, and to say that they have probably advanced the state of genetic doping in the past few years is perhaps no exaggeration. What the Biological Passport is looking for is old doping from a technological standpoint. The Biological Passport is not going to catch those who benefit from state-of-the-art biotechnology.

Doesn't it seem curious to you that both Wawrinka and Federer have experienced a very suspicious uptick in their performance in the past couple of years? Just think about it. Keep your mind open, and think about it. You owe that to yourself if you are actually interested in the truth (vs smearing the reputation of a player who has repeatedly owned your idol for the past 10 years).

 

[buckner86]

I can already tell that your arguments are spectacular based on that literal ad-hominem statement.

My point is that Switzerland has its hands dirty. If you are going to judge someone by the nationality they are, then you should probably start with the Swiss. I don't think that (judging someone by nationality) is a particularly noble thing to do. As a matter of fact, I think there is a name for it.

There are plenty of Swiss athletes, laboratories, doctors, etc, involved in doping.

And what does that have to do with the fact that Spain has a long history of suspicious behavior in several different sports?

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Festina wasn't a Spanish team when the doping scandal happened, and Switzerland played a central role in all these events, from the sources of the drugs, to the riders that took them.

Apparently you are only interested in "doping histories" if they involve Spain. Switzerland, the U.S., and about every other single country, gets a free pass.

Is Federer to blame for any of his country's shortcomings? Probably not. But then again, that's one of your key strategies in your Nadal mudslinging, so...

The fact is that Switzerland has a far more advanced and sophisticated medical program than about any other country in Europe, and to say that they have probably advanced the state of genetic doping in the past few years is perhaps no exaggeration. What the Biological Passport is looking for is old doping from a technological standpoint. The Biological Passport is not going to catch those who benefit from state-of-the-art biotechnology.

Doesn't it seem curious to you that both Wawrinka and Federer have experienced a very suspicious uptick in their performance in the past couple of years? Just think about it. Keep your mind open, and think about it. You owe that to yourself if you are actually interested in the truth (vs smearing the reputation of a player who has repeatedly owned your idol for the past 10 years).

You are a fool who is afraid to address anything that has been written to challenge your inane babble.

I am not interested in any doping stories that involve Spain. The doping stories that involve Spain are flying through the air and you just need to stretch your hand to catch them. In fact, with insisting to talk about the Festina case you brought upon yourself more spanish involvement in doping.

Saying that Switzerland has "advanced and sophisticated medical program" is the reason why people like me call you on your BS.

I know what you are trying to achieve.

Since Switzerland has advanced and sophisticated pharmaceutical industry why not just say that this is the "medical program". An assertion which is both disastrous as logic and as a reflection of reality. Why?

1)Saying that since Switzerland has world leading pharmaceutical companies that means that there is national medical program is absurd ( I am commenting on that because you are trying to pass that assumption for reasonable). Those are private companies and either you believe, that there is considerable amount of state involvement in them or you are just blowing hot air. And after that you will have to show that the state is adamant to use its power to justify such intrusions.

Moreover, Switzerland has been the front runner in the matters concerning anti-doping legislation (together with France) so, once again, your assertions don't make any sense

2) Assuming that since a pharmaceutical company is producing a drug that can be used as doping and thus is guilty by default is like assuming that a car manufacturer is producing a car that can be used as a weapon or as part of committing a crime and thus is guilty by default of crimes/carnage that had the cars of the said manufacturer involved. The drugs in question are used in the medical field and, believe me, there is enough profit to be had there to risk reputation and possibly financial ruin by having interest in organized providing of several ampules to crooked athletes.

No, it doesn't seem curious to me as Federer has considerably declined from his previous level and is not displaying any extraordinary features.

Same for Wawrinka, who always had this kind of power mainly due to his built and the pairing between built and technique.

What the likes of you do not understand (or pretend that they do not understand) is that it is the multitude of hints, factors and facts that construct the whole picture of someone suspected of doping and not what you (wrongly) suggest.

EDIT: Forgot to address that since (yet again) you are trying to push your agenda. Festina affair was almost exclusively about french riders and french citizens who were doing various administrative tasks on the team with several spanish (a DS to take over after the scandal happened) and belgian officials (most notably the doctor, who administered the drugs and the physio).

Of course, your agenda doesn't allow you to tell the truth or you are simply ignorant about it.



EDIT2: I just saw your reply to moonballs. Claiming that I don't know about the Festina affair is hilarious stuff.

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

And what does that have to do with the fact that Spain has a long history of suspicious behavior in several different sports?

So does Switzerland. Switzerland is about 5 times smaller in population than Spain. I challenge you to find 5x more doping convictions from Spanish athletes than Swiss ones.

Heck, the fact that Switzerland has such a rich history with doping, coupled with the fact that it's such a small country, is in itself very troubling.

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

You are a fool who is afraid to address anything that has been written to challenge your inane babble.

I am not interested in any doping stories that involve Spain. The doping stories that involve Spain are flying through the air and you just need to stretch your hand to catch them. In fact, with insisting to talk about the Festina case you brought upon yourself more spanish involvement in doping.

Saying that Switzerland has "advanced and sophisticated medical program" is the reason why people like me call you on your BS.

I know what you are trying to achieve.

Since Switzerland has advanced and sophisticated pharmaceutical industry why not just say that this is the "medical program". An assertion which is both disastrous as logic and as a reflection of reality. Why?

1)Saying that since Switzerland has world leading pharmaceutical companies that means that there is national medical program is absurd ( I am commenting on that because you are trying to pass that assumption for reasonable). Those are private companies and either you believe, that there is considerable amount of state involvement in them or you are just blowing hot air. And after that you will have to show that the state is adamant to use its power to justify such intrusions.

Moreover, Switzerland has been the front runner in the matters concerning anti-doping legislation (together with France) so, once again, your assertions don't make any sense

2) Assuming that since a pharmaceutical company is producing a drug that can be used as doping and thus is guilty by default is like assuming that a car manufacturer is producing a car that can be used as a weapon or as part of committing a crime and thus is guilty by default of crimes/carnage that had the cars of the said manufacturer involved. The drugs in question are used in the medical field and, believe me, there is enough profit to be had there to risk reputation and possibly financial ruin by having interest in organized providing of several ampules to crooked athletes.

No, it doesn't seem curious to me as Federer has considerably declined from his previous level and is not displaying any extraordinary features.

Same for Wawrinka, who always had this kind of power mainly due to his built and the pairing between built and technique.

What the likes of you do not understand (or pretend that they do not understand) is that it is the multitude of hints, factors and facts that construct the whole picture of someone suspected of doping and not what you (wrongly) suggest.

EDIT: Forgot to address that since (yet again) you are trying to push your agenda. Festina affair was almost exclusively about french riders and french citizens who were doing various administrative tasks on the team with several spanish (a DS to take over after the scandal happened) and belgian officials (most notably the doctor, who administered the drugs and the physio).

Of course, your agenda doesn't allow you to tell the truth or you are simply ignorant about it.



EDIT2: I just saw your reply to moonballs. Claiming that I don't know about the Festina affair is hilarious stuff.

In your first sentence you use the words "fool", "inane", and "bable".

Then you go on to post "War and Peace" part 2, with mostly useless content that is not to the point.

As with your other "masterpiece", I'll try to gather the courage to wade through this one later, and respond (the little that there is to respond to, actually).

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

You are a fool who is afraid to address anything that has been written to challenge your inane babble.

This is uncalled for. I think resorting to ad hominem is not going to help your case, but rather make your agenda (and your inability to deal with sound logic) even more clear than it already is. In simple words, "if you can't take it, don't dish it". (Do you want me to provide a proper "quotation" for this too? LOL)

I am not interested in any doping stories that involve Spain. The doping stories that involve Spain are flying through the air and you just need to stretch your hand to catch them. In fact, with insisting to talk about the Festina case you brought upon yourself more spanish involvement in doping.

Not really. What happened in Spain was a very public expose that made the news, because a SPANISH athlete was a whistle-blower that caused a SPANISH newspaper to break the news, and to SPANISH police to act in the matter. If anything, it looks like a beautiful example of individual responsibility, free press, and proper police work. The things you need to worry about are those you don't hear about.

I will prove you are wrong quite simply: Spain is 5 times the size (population-wise) of Switzerland. Let's play a game. I will post the name of a Swiss convicted doper, and for each name, you have to post the name of 5 Spanish convicted dopers. See how that goes for you.

The bottom line, is that while Spain has a doping problem (which seems to have been curbed by legislation arising from things like the Operation Puerto affair), it is far from being an exception. Switzerland also has great problems (most of which you probably won't hear), and those include labs, athletes, and doctors, which have been involved in doping cases. I am sincerely sorry this fact is so uncomfortable for you, and that it doesn't fit your narrative.

Saying that Switzerland has "advanced and sophisticated medical program" is the reason why people like me call you on your BS.

Not really. Give me an example of any country smaller than Switzerland with a more advanced medical and biotechnological program. Go ahead, make my day.

http://swissbiotech.org/Php5/aa2/index.php

1)Saying that since Switzerland has world leading pharmaceutical companies that means that there is national medical program is absurd ( I am commenting on that because you are trying to pass that assumption for reasonable). Those are private companies and either you believe, that there is considerable amount of state involvement in them or you are just blowing hot air. And after that you will have to show that the state is adamant to use its power to justify such intrusions.

If you think that private companies have nothing to do with the countries they operate in, their governments, or their athletic programs, then you are being beyond naive here (and I say "naive" so as not to use a more offensive word).

Moreover, Switzerland has been the front runner in the matters concerning anti-doping legislation (together with France) so, once again, your assertions don't make any sense.

Switzerland has a history of obscurity and practices bordering on illegality. Those unsavory qualities are basically at the core of the countries most prominent national industry (banking). What you see and hear and what is actually behind are two very different things.

Also, you are deriving or implying a conclusion in a fallacious way. What a country's public stand on doping is has nothing to do with the actual prevalence of doping in any given country. I believe the United States has a quite harsh stance on doping, yet you will find myriad cases of athletic doping by American athletes throughout the years. The same goes for France and Switzerland. Does it not?

2) Assuming that since a pharmaceutical company is producing a drug that can be used as doping and thus is guilty by default is like assuming that a car manufacturer is producing a car that can be used as a weapon or as part of committing a crime and thus is guilty by default of crimes/carnage that had the cars of the said manufacturer involved. The drugs in question are used in the medical field and, believe me, there is enough profit to be had there to risk reputation and possibly financial ruin by having interest in organized providing of several ampules to crooked athletes.

Companies are there to make money, however way they can. If a company can get through loopholes to evade enforcement of a certain law that will make it easier for that company to make more money, they will do it. Asides from that, I don't know what your point is. You seem bent on tearing down Nadal's reputation by association, yet when I use the same tactic, you cry foul. Ammusing...

No, it doesn't seem curious to me as Federer has considerably declined from his previous level and is not displaying any extraordinary features.

Same for Wawrinka, who always had this kind of power mainly due to his built and the pairing between built and technique.

You simply don't get it. It's a matter of probabilities. It's also a matter of motivation and opportunity.

Here's what I see:

1. Player A playing the best tennis he has played in 3 years, despite being ancient by tennis standards.
2. Player B suddenly becoming an absolute beast at almost 30 years old. Doesn't even win 1 single set against Nadal in his whole career, and then he suddenly not only wins a set, but a slam. Then he goes on to do the same against Djokovic. This is quite unprecedented, actually.
3. Country X being a small country, but having almost unlimited financial resources and one of the most formidable medical and biotech programs in the world.
4. Player A and Player B winning the Davis Cup for Country X.

To me, what is a real red flag is the fact that both Player A and Player B play under the same flag. A country with merely 8 million inhabitants. What are the chances of that? Just think about it, and be intellectually honest with yourself.

EDIT: Forgot to address that since (yet again) you are trying to push your agenda. Festina affair was almost exclusively about french riders and french citizens who were doing various administrative tasks on the team with several spanish (a DS to take over after the scandal happened) and belgian officials (most notably the doctor, who administered the drugs and the physio).

French riders? But you just said above that France has one of the toughest stands against doping. What does that mean?

And, by the way, far more Swiss players, laboratories, and doctors were involved in the Festina affair than any other country, and certainly Spain. Nice try to escape the facts.

 

[zagor]

I admire your persistence Rusty (honestly, no trolling), keep up the good fight.

 

[buckner86]

So does Switzerland. Switzerland is about 5 times smaller in population than Spain. I challenge you to find 5x more doping convictions from Spanish athletes than Swiss ones.

Heck, the fact that Switzerland has such a rich history with doping, coupled with the fact that it's such a small country, is in itself very troubling.

Your contention

This is uncalled for. I think resorting to ad hominem is not going to help your case, but rather make your agenda (and your inability to deal with sound logic) even more clear than it already is. In simple words, "if you can't take it, don't dish it". (Do you want me to provide a proper "quotation" for this too? LOL)


Not really. What happened in Spain was a very public expose that made the news, because a SPANISH athlete was a whistle-blower that caused a SPANISH newspaper to break the news, and to SPANISH police to act in the matter. If anything, it looks like a beautiful example of individual responsibility, free press, and proper police work. The things you need to worry about are those you don't hear about.

I will prove you are wrong quite simply: Spain is 5 times the size (population-wise) of Switzerland. Let's play a game. I will post the name of a Swiss convicted doper, and for each name, you have to post the name of 5 Spanish convicted dopers. See how that goes for you.

The bottom line, is that while Spain has a doping problem (which seems to have been curbed by legislation arising from things like the Operation Puerto affair), it is far from being an exception. Switzerland also has great problems (most of which you probably won't hear), and those include labs, athletes, and doctors, which have been involved in doping cases. I am sincerely sorry this fact is so uncomfortable for you, and that it doesn't fit your narrative.


Not really. Give me an example of any country smaller than Switzerland with a more advanced medical and biotechnological program. Go ahead, make my day.

http://swissbiotech.org/Php5/aa2/index.php


If you think that private companies have nothing to do with the countries they operate in, their governments, or their athletic programs, then you are being beyond naive here (and I say "naive" so as not to use a more offensive word).


Switzerland has a history of obscurity and practices bordering on illegality. Those unsavory qualities are basically at the core of the countries most prominent national industry (banking). What you see and hear and what is actually behind are two very different things.

Also, you are deriving or implying a conclusion in a fallacious way. What a country's public stand on doping is has nothing to do with the actual prevalence of doping in any given country. I believe the United States has a quite harsh stance on doping, yet you will find myriad cases of athletic doping by American athletes throughout the years. The same goes for France and Switzerland. Does it not?


Companies are there to make money, however way they can. If a company can get through loopholes to evade enforcement of a certain law that will make it easier for that company to make more money, they will do it. Asides from that, I don't know what your point is. You seem bent on tearing down Nadal's reputation by association, yet when I use the same tactic, you cry foul. Ammusing...


You simply don't get it. It's a matter of probabilities. It's also a matter of motivation and opportunity.

Here's what I see:

1. Player A playing the best tennis he has played in 3 years, despite being ancient by tennis standards.
2. Player B suddenly becoming an absolute beast at almost 30 years old. Doesn't even win 1 single set against Nadal in his whole career, and then he suddenly not only wins a set, but a slam. Then he goes on to do the same against Djokovic. This is quite unprecedented, actually.
3. Country X being a small country, but having almost unlimited financial resources and one of the most formidable medical and biotech programs in the world.
4. Player A and Player B winning the Davis Cup for Country X.

To me, what is a real red flag is the fact that both Player A and Player B play under the same flag. A country with merely 8 million inhabitants. What are the chances of that? Just think about it, and be intellectually honest with yourself.


French riders? But you just said above that France has one of the toughest stands against doping. What does that mean?

And, by the way, far more Swiss players, laboratories, and doctors were involved in the Festina affair than any other country, and certainly Spain. Nice try to escape the facts.

Werewolf you just banned for insults to others? I have no doubt if 20 fans of several sports were asked which country had a worse rep for PED, Spain or Switzerland, Spain would be the runaway "winner," and the result would be even more lopsided iftennis fans were asked which was the worst between Nadal & Federer.

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

I admire your persistence Rusty (honestly, no trolling), keep up the good fight.

Thank you, zagor. That's very kind of you, and an honor. Also, because I know you are a bright guy, I don't feel like I need to explain the content of my post, as you can probably read between the lines based on the context and who it's addressed to.

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

Your contention

It's not my contention. Based on official data from international anti-doping organisms, Switzerland has a substantially worse doping problem than Spain does when you correct for population. Data doesn't lie.

Werewolf you just banned for insults to others? I have no doubt if 20 fans of several sports were asked which country had a worse rep for PED, Spain or Switzerland, Spain would be the runaway "winner," and the result would be even more lopsided iftennis fans were asked which was the worst between Nadal & Federer.

I know that's what the perception is. The fact is that if you go by popular perception, you would end up with a lot of ideas that do not correspond very well with actual facts. I feel it's my obligation to educate the less fortunate among you. Thank you for offering me this great opportunity for reaching out to the community.

 

[Keizer]

You simply don't get it. It's a matter of probabilities. It's also a matter of motivation and opportunity.

Here's what I see:

1. Player A playing the best tennis he has played in 3 years, despite being ancient by tennis standards.
2. Player B suddenly becoming an absolute beast at almost 30 years old. Doesn't even win 1 single set against Nadal in his whole career, and then he suddenly not only wins a set, but a slam. Then he goes on to do the same against Djokovic. This is quite unprecedented, actually.
3. Country X being a small country, but having almost unlimited financial resources and one of the most formidable medical and biotech programs in the world.
4. Player A and Player B winning the Davis Cup for Country X.

To me, what is a real red flag is the fact that both Player A and Player B play under the same flag. A country with merely 8 million inhabitants. What are the chances of that? Just think about it, and be intellectually honest with yourself.

I haven't read this whole thread but this is a BS paragraph and I think you know it. Can you give me one aspect of Federer's improved game that you can match to the effects of having used a particular substance? His endurance isn't better than it once was and he can't take battles of attrition against the likes of Djokovic. He can't hit shots on the run as well as he used to. His backhand is spotty at best. Coincidentally, his play style has changed completely since the debacle of 2013. His serve is huge and he approaches the net much more frequently than before. Is it so far fetched to assume that this could've caused him to get his form back? Perhaps you're trolling on this one, but in any case.

As for Wawrinka, he'd been knocking on the door for a while before he started winning the big matches. He's been taking the likes of Murray to five sets since 2009. He's always been a dangerous outlier. He always had a huge serve and huge groundstrokes. And as for his improved endurance, it is no more surprising than an 18 year old Nadal being able to go 5 sets against Federer at a Masters Cup Final or Djokovic suddenly becoming far fitter in 2011 after having retired a billion times in 2009. I could accuse Djokovic of lying about the gluten as an excuse to mask EPO use or something else in exactly the same way as you're accusing Federer and Wawrinka. Hell, if Switzerland can have two top players what happened to Serbia in the late 2000s when you had Ivanovic, Jankovic and Djokovic coming out of nowhere to reach the top 5? Or Belgium having Clijsters and Henin? Sure, Switzerland has great resources and a reputation for secrecy in the banking sector but you're really stretching the limits of reason here.

 

[FlamEnemY]

If two people are born with exactly the same body, but one of them has a genetically very low testosterone level he is naturally disadvantaged at most sports. Is it fair for him to compete at a crucial disadvantage he can't change regardless of his training ?

Yes, it is completely fair. It's not like sports is the -only- means of earning a living, if your body is not up to it than it just means you are not talented enough, or that you will have to work harder to break through.

 

[PeteUSA]

That ping pong tennis today would not be possible without doping.

 

[easywin]

Yes, it is completely fair. It's not like sports is the -only- means of earning a living, if your body is not up to it than it just means you are not talented enough, or that you will have to work harder to break through.

I know what you mean but it still is not fair - equality but not fairness.
I'm not really into discussing doping very deeply because it already is a giant clusterfuck because some things are allowed, some are not even though the effects are basically the same.
Some are allowed from a certain age or a chronical illness, others are not.
One prime example for this is that some professional athletes (at least 5 years ago, didn't follow the debates) were allowed to legally consume HGH - which was highly debatable.
Some said they were allowed due to kidney insufficiency, some because of their age and it was legal.
Same with testosterone replacement therapy ... Most things I know concerning doping derives from MMA and combat sports in general where the debate is way more important than in tennis.
In the end, you have to make a decision - is sports about entertainment and you just ban substances that are highly dangerous but otherwise let the athletes try to figure out how they can reach their highest level - or is sports about what the human body is capable of when put to the test and you just have your will to push it through the toughest tasks.
I'm not really on either side because one can lead to a scary future of sports where attributes like "who can take the most pills (disregarding his future health)" are more important than everything else while the "purist" one is already so far from reality that it seems laughable.

Btw, I'm more talking athletics in general since tennis is still and will always remain a very skill based sport.
While I believe that it is definitely possible to become/be a great tennis player without doping, I can't really believe the same when looking at some other sports.

To make this more of a response than a incoherent random post : Who decides when a difference in your body is "fair" and when it isn't ?
Are you allowed to boost your missing testosterone when the level is low enough to be considered an illness ?
Should a man who turned himself into a woman and is legally recognized as a woman be able to compete in female competition ?

It's just very hard to look into every possible combination and make a decision - if you make a general decision for/against doping (and yeah, I'll interprete changing your gender as doping in this case - just as curing an illness that helps you compete ) it should be (nearly entirely) universal.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

This is uncalled for. I think resorting to ad hominem is not going to help your case, but rather make your agenda (and your inability to deal with sound logic) even more clear than it already is. In simple words, "if you can't take it, don't dish it". (Do you want me to provide a proper "quotation" for this too? LOL)

I have seen this argument before from you and others.

The question is whether calling someone a fool, when he displays foolish behaviour and argumentation, is ad hominem.

You mostly have abandoned all your claims (do you want me to list those only in our conversation here?) or left caveats where you mostly couldn't say a word after the proof on my side was given? Immature and foolish at best, trolling and something more at worst.

Not really. What happened in Spain was a very public expose that made the news, because a SPANISH athlete was a whistle-blower that caused a SPANISH newspaper to break the news, and to SPANISH police to act in the matter. If anything, it looks like a beautiful example of individual responsibility, free press, and proper police work. The things you need to worry about are those you don't hear about.

The argumentation.

Spanish athlete acting out of individual responsibility?

Maybe it wasn't so much his "individual responsibility" but the fact that he had an axe to grind with his former team, who refused to sign a new contract with him.

He CHOSE to speak to a spanish newspaper, since he was ... spanish. What a revelation. Free press, haha.

If Cuardia Civil wasn't to act upon blowing off the lid of the whole thing it would have been a scandal of immense proportions. And it was in Spain, so that it was exactly the spanish police to do something was, well, no brainer.

Just a little detail - the existence of doping culture and the unofficial national doping program do not equal "every man, woman and child in the said country" to be in the omerta (as you seem to think). Spain still is a civilized country with somewhat functioning structures.

Do you see the difference between how you present things and how they actually are?

I will prove you are wrong quite simply: Spain is 5 times the size (population-wise) of Switzerland. Let's play a game. I will post the name of a Swiss convicted doper, and for each name, you have to post the name of 5 Spanish convicted dopers. See how that goes for you.

The bottom line, is that while Spain has a doping problem (which seems to have been curbed by legislation arising from things like the Operation Puerto affair), it is far from being an exception. Switzerland also has great problems (most of which you probably won't hear), and those include labs, athletes, and doctors, which have been involved in doping cases. I am sincerely sorry this fact is so uncomfortable for you, and that it doesn't fit your narrative.

That is your "proof"?

Not really. Give me an example of any country smaller than Switzerland with a more advanced medical and biotechnological program. Go ahead, make my day.

http://swissbiotech.org/Php5/aa2/index.php

Again, what does the advanced pharmaceutical industry have to do with what you claim?

They develop technologies and drugs for one of the most lucrative businesses there is, and that isn't the doping of athletes.

You failed before and (although you seem to think that by repeating stuff it becomes the truth) and you fail now to link the advanced pharma industry to what you claim.

Most of the major players in the pharmaceutical industry in Switzerland (with very few exceptions) are companies with decades and even centuries of history. I wonder what they were doing before their current clientele appeared (as per you, you know). Selling tomatoes?

If you think that private companies have nothing to do with the countries they operate in, their governments, or their athletic programs, then you are being beyond naive here (and I say "naive" so as not to use a more offensive word).


Switzerland has a history of obscurity and practices bordering on illegality. Those unsavory qualities are basically at the core of the countries most prominent national industry (banking). What you see and hear and what is actually behind are two very different things.

Whoa, buddy.

1) you just said that basically Switzerland is a communist country and
2) could you please point to the single most important reason (according to you, of course) why the swiss banking developed in the first place

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Also, you are deriving or implying a conclusion in a fallacious way. What a country's public stand on doping is has nothing to do with the actual prevalence of doping in any given country. I believe the United States has a quite harsh stance on doping, yet you will find myriad cases of athletic doping by American athletes throughout the years. The same goes for France and Switzerland. Does it not?

Please define "public stand" so that I can properly address what you are saying.

Just to give you a hint how terribly wrong you are:

Here is the president of the IOC at the time Juan Antonio Samaranch (a spaniard) making statement about what he thinks of doping:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sport/140315.stm

"The International Olympic Committee chairman told the Spanish newspaper El Mundo that substances that do not damage an athlete's health should not be prohibited.

He denied that the IOC had considered legalising doping but said "the actual list of (banned) products must be reduced drastically".

He added: "Doping (now) is everything that, firstly, is harmful to an athlete's health and, secondly, artificially augments his performance.

"If it's just the second case, for me that's not doping. If it's the first case, it is."

The IOC will convene a conference on doping in January but Samaranch said it was not in a position to impose a change."

Good luck with proving what you claim.

Companies are there to make money, however way they can. If a company can get through loopholes to evade enforcement of a certain law that will make it easier for that company to make more money, they will do it. Asides from that, I don't know what your point is. You seem bent on tearing down Nadal's reputation by association, yet when I use the same tactic, you cry foul. Ammusing...

There is a lot to be lost in the process. The more you have the more you have to lose. This isn't a one way traffic.

The difference between you and me is that you didn't manage to "estabablish any assosiation". In fact, your efforts only make my case stronger as you effort reeks of desperation, shown with the example below.

You simply don't get it. It's a matter of probabilities. It's also a matter of motivation and opportunity.

Here's what I see:

1. Player A playing the best tennis he has played in 3 years, despite being ancient by tennis standards.
2. Player B suddenly becoming an absolute beast at almost 30 years old. Doesn't even win 1 single set against Nadal in his whole career, and then he suddenly not only wins a set, but a slam. Then he goes on to do the same against Djokovic. This is quite unprecedented, actually.
3. Country X being a small country, but having almost unlimited financial resources and one of the most formidable medical and biotech programs in the world.
4. Player A and Player B winning the Davis Cup for Country X.

To me, what is a real red flag is the fact that both Player A and Player B play under the same flag. A country with merely 8 million inhabitants. What are the chances of that? Just think about it, and be intellectually honest with yourself.

As Keizer already addressed that I won't repeat what was being said.

I will just point out that everytime you try to prove something with facts and proper knowledgeable opinion you fail miserably.

French riders? But you just said above that France has one of the toughest stands against doping. What does that mean?

Yes, tell us what does that mean according to you?

And, by the way, far more Swiss players, laboratories, and doctors were involved in the Festina affair than any other country, and certainly Spain. Nice try to escape the facts.

I didn't try to escape anything.

So far the only one between the two of us giving proper references to what I am talking about was I.

I urged you to disclose your knowledge on the matter but to no avail.

The doctor who administered the doping was a belgian. The physio, who was supervising the process and, well, doing his job - too.

I can say more in it would be every time detrimental to your stance, but ... let us see how you defend your position. Please, establish the links I asked you:

"1) Please, list the swiss doctors that were part of that affair and what were exactly they doing, respectively, what happened to them? Names we know. I am curious what else you (think that you) know
2) What was the role of the labs and what were the consequences? In detail."


I will play my part to say that in relation to the Festina affair to the spanish doctor Nicolas Terrados was delivered a charge of importing banned substances wich was later dropped. However, in his testimonies Zulle and other riders confirmed that they have doped under the supervision of the said doctor.

An interesting tidbit about him is that he was part of the Spanish Olympic Comitee in their medical team at the time leading to the Barcelona summer olympics.

The second part of "War and Peace" (those two posts) is even more entertaining, isn't it?



EDIT: This thread has been entirely recorded elsewhere for future references.

 

[Bartelby]

The IAAF knows that athletes are cheating and does nothing and marathons are run and won by known drug cheats:

The scandal over allegations of blood doping in athletics has spread to the London marathon, with claims that it has been won seven times in 12 years by runners with suspicious blood scores.

The latest findings in the Sunday Times based on a major leak of drug data tests is claimed to cast a shadow over almost a third of winners in 24 London men’s and women’s races between 2001 and 2012, and in other world city marathons.

The organisers of the London and Chicago marathons have told the paper the International Association of Athletics Federations, and the national anti-doping authorities failed to tell them that some athletes were competing with blood that appeared so heavily doped as to threaten their health.

The marathons worst affected were Chicago, London, New York and Boston

 

[britam25]

Your contention

Werewolf you just banned for insults to others? I have no doubt if 20 fans of several sports were asked which country had a worse rep for PED, Spain or Switzerland, Spain would be the runaway "winner," and the result would be even more lopsided iftennis fans were asked which was the worst between Nadal & Federer.

Your contention

Don't understand the werewolf reference, but you are cor

I haven't read this whole thread but this is a BS paragraph and I think you know it. Can you give me one aspect of Federer's improved game that you can match to the effects of having used a particular substance? His endurance isn't better than it once was and he can't take battles of attrition against the likes of Djokovic. He can't hit shots on the run as well as he used to. His backhand is spotty at best. Coincidentally, his play style has changed completely since the debacle of 2013. His serve is huge and he approaches the net much more frequently than before. Is it so far fetched to assume that this could've caused him to get his form back? Perhaps you're trolling on this one, but in any case.

As for Wawrinka, he'd been knocking on the door for a while before he started winning the big matches. He's been taking the likes of Murray to five sets since 2009. He's always been a dangerous outlier. He always had a huge serve and huge groundstrokes. And as for his improved endurance, it is no more surprising than an 18 year old Nadal being able to go 5 sets against Federer at a Masters Cup Final or Djokovic suddenly becoming far fitter in 2011 after having retired a billion times in 2009. I could accuse Djokovic of lying about the gluten as an excuse to mask EPO use or something else in exactly the same way as you're accusing Federer and Wawrinka. Hell, if Switzerland can have two top players what happened to Serbia in the late 2000s when you had Ivanovic, Jankovic and Djokovic coming out of nowhere to reach the top 5? Or Belgium having Clijsters and Henin? Sure, Switzerland has great resources and a reputation for secrecy in the banking sector but you're really stretching the limits of reason here.

Excellent post, well buttressed with logic, unlike the post that it addressed. I might add that, in addition to Stan's obvious talent, the tattoo that he sports-"Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better." suggests somebody who "got it" pretty far down the road.

 

[britam25]

I have seen this argument before from you and others.

The question is whether calling someone a fool, when he displays foolish behaviour and argumentation, is ad hominem.

You mostly have abandoned all your claims (do you want me to list those only in our conversation here?) or left caveats where you mostly couldn't say a word after the proof on my side was given? Immature and foolish at best, trolling and something more at worst.




The argumentation.

Spanish athlete acting out of individual responsibility?

Maybe it wasn't so much his "individual responsibility" but the fact that he had an axe to grind with his former team, who refused to sign a new contract with him.

He CHOSE to speak to a spanish newspaper, since he was ... spanish. What a revelation. Free press, haha.

If Cuardia Civil wasn't to act upon blowing off the lid of the whole thing it would have been a scandal of immense proportions. And it was in Spain, so that it was exactly the spanish police to do something was, well, no brainer.

Just a little detail - the existence of doping culture and the unofficial national doping program do not equal "every man, woman and child in the said country" to be in the omerta (as you seem to think). Spain still is a civilized country with somewhat functioning structures.

Do you see the difference between how you present things and how they actually are?



That is your "proof"?






Again, what does the advanced pharmaceutical industry have to do with what you claim?

They develop technologies and drugs for one of the most lucrative businesses there is, and that isn't the doping of athletes.

You failed before and (although you seem to think that by repeating stuff it becomes the truth) and you fail now to link the advanced pharma industry to what you claim.

Most of the major players in the pharmaceutical industry in Switzerland (with very few exceptions) are companies with decades and even centuries of history. I wonder what they were doing before their current clientele appeared (as per you, you know). Selling tomatoes?




Whoa, buddy.

1) you just said that basically Switzerland is a communist country and
2) could you please point to the single most important reason (according to you, of course) why the swiss banking developed in the first place

This, and post # 315, completely refute his ludicrous claims, but he averages 50 posts a day in here-when he is allowed to post-and clearly has no life, so, I suspect, you are spinning your wheels.

 

[fundrazer]

He's a troll and possibly a previously banned user I'm guessing. Dunno what business a 2015 join date poster would have trolling in the sureshs thread.

 

[West Coast Ace]

I know what you mean but it still is not fair - equality but not fairness...

Great post. I'm torn too. The equal competition part doesn't want anyone using anything to get an unfair advantage. In Tennis rich kids already have an advantage with equipment and coaching - now they'd gain another with better doctors/drugs. The Libertarian streak says 'if the pros want to, it's their body - if they want to die of kidney failure at 51, that's their choice' - and that ties into your 'entertainment' discussion. My worry is for the undersized, but talented kids who will, if potentially harmful drugs were allowed, overdo it and risk serious health problems. I also worry, as I stated in my earlier post, that WADA has gone completely crazy and is now more obsessed with bagging big names than cleaning up sports.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/athletics/33836491

EDIT: Nevermind, I saw Bartelby's post.

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

I have seen this argument before from you and others.

The question is whether calling someone a fool, when he displays foolish behaviour and argumentation, is ad hominem.

You mostly have abandoned all your claims (do you want me to list those only in our conversation here?) or left caveats where you mostly couldn't say a word after the proof on my side was given? Immature and foolish at best, trolling and something more at worst.

The point is that you are using an ad hominem approach by starting your post with insults.

I could mock you for your lackluster intellectual performance, and yet I have remain mostly civil, because I want you to feel good about yourself. And also because that's part of the rules of this site.

In my vast experience with people of all walks of life, those who chose to insult are ironically those who are most deserving of such epithets.

The argumentation.

Spanish athlete acting out of individual responsibility?

Maybe it wasn't so much his "individual responsibility" but the fact that he had an axe to grind with his former team, who refused to sign a new contract with him.

He CHOSE to speak to a spanish newspaper, since he was ... spanish. What a revelation. Free press, haha.

If Cuardia Civil wasn't to act upon blowing off the lid of the whole thing it would have been a scandal of immense proportions. And it was in Spain, so that it was exactly the spanish police to do something was, well, no brainer.

Just a little detail - the existence of doping culture and the unofficial national doping program do not equal "every man, woman and child in the said country" to be in the omerta (as you seem to think). Spain still is a civilized country with somewhat functioning structures.

Do you see the difference between how you present things and how they actually are?

Using too many words to say nothing. Facts are: An Spanish athlete was the whistleblower, a Spanish newspaper broke the news, and Spanish police prosecuted it. What tends to happen in civilized, democratic countries (vs the lynching and witchhunting you are so keen on).

That is your "proof"?

My proof is that, for example, in 2013 WADA reported a far higher number of doping violations from Swiss athletes compared to Spanish athletes, when you take into account the population differences between the two countries.. And the same goes for doping violations overall for cyclists for the past 35 years. Those are hard facts, and there is no way around them.

Since I expect this to fly over your head, based on your demonstrated abilities, let me explain with something more accessible to you:

If you are a party of 15 people and you go to a Pizza place, then order 3 pizzas, each person will eat less pizza than if a party of 2 orders 1 pizza, despite the fact that the smaller party ordered less pizzas.

I hope that makes sense, and if it doesn't, let me know and I'll make a drawing for you.

This is the exact situation with Switzerland vs Spain. Spain has more violations than Switzerland, but Switzerland has several times the violations per million inhabitants. Hence, doping is more prevalent in Switzerland than it is in Spain.

Incidentally, Germany is one of the cleanest countries. Belgium is perhaps the dirtiest country in Europe regarding doping violations. Spain is a little better than France, and quite a bit better than Italy and Switzerland.

Again, what does the advanced pharmaceutical industry have to do with what you claim?

They develop technologies and drugs for one of the most lucrative businesses there is, and that isn't the doping of athletes.

You failed before and (although you seem to think that by repeating stuff it becomes the truth) and you fail now to link the advanced pharma industry to what you claim.

Most of the major players in the pharmaceutical industry in Switzerland (with very few exceptions) are companies with decades and even centuries of history. I wonder what they were doing before their current clientele appeared (as per you, you know). Selling tomatoes?

Yes, yes. Pharmaceutical companies in Switzerland would never do anything wrong, just like their banks.

Your argument that companies with a long history don't need to engage in illegal practices, and hence they don't, is fallacious, obviously. See if you can figure out why.

Whoa, buddy.

1) you just said that basically Switzerland is a communist country and
2) could you please point to the single most important reason (according to you, of course) why the swiss banking developed in the first place

[/QUOTE]

You keep discrediting yourself. Another fallacy (I have lost count already).

The fact that there is a coincidence of interests between companies and state organisms is not exclusive to communist regimes. If you think so, I'll reserve my opinion of your intellect, but I will offer you a very simple counterexample:

The United States is not a communist country. Halliburton is not a state agency, but a company. Yet, Halliburton and the United States government are involved in a variety of "enterprises", and both Halliburton and the United States have affected and continue to affect each other's decisions and operations.

^ That above is a counterexample to your fallacious assertion. It's just a polite way to tell you that you don't know what you are talking about.

Regarding the "Swiss banking" question, what is your point? Swiss banks have been engaging in corrupt activities for many decades now, and their system is rotten to the core. If you are trying to tell me that there is a justification for that, go ahead. I'm listening.

 

[buckner86]

The point is that you are using an ad hominem approach by starting your post with insults.

I could mock you for your lackluster intellectual performance, and yet I have remain mostly civil, because I want you to feel good about yourself. And also because that's part of the rules of this site.

In my vast experience with people of all walks of life, those who chose to insult are ironically those who are most deserving of such epithets.




Using too many words to say nothing. Facts are: An Spanish athlete was the whistleblower, a Spanish newspaper broke the news, and Spanish police prosecuted it. What tends to happen in civilized, democratic countries (vs the lynching and witchhunting you are so keen on).




My proof is that, for example, in 2013 WADA reported a far higher number of doping violations from Swiss athletes compared to Spanish athletes, when you take into account the population differences between the two countries.. And the same goes for doping violations overall for cyclists for the past 35 years. Those are hard facts, and there is no way around them.

Since I expect this to fly over your head, based on your demonstrated abilities, let me explain with something more accessible to you:

If you are a party of 15 people and you go to a Pizza place, then order 3 pizzas, each person will eat less pizza than if a party of 2 orders 1 pizza, despite the fact that the smaller party ordered less pizzas.

I hope that makes sense, and if it doesn't, let me know and I'll make a drawing for you.

This is the exact situation with Switzerland vs Spain. Spain has more violations than Switzerland, but Switzerland has several times the violations per million inhabitants. Hence, doping is more prevalent in Switzerland than it is in Spain.

Incidentally, Germany is one of the cleanest countries. Belgium is perhaps the dirtiest country in Europe regarding doping violations. Spain is a little better than France, and quite a bit better than Italy and Switzerland.


Yes, yes. Pharmaceutical companies in Switzerland would never do anything wrong, just like their banks.

Your argument that companies with a long history don't need to engage in illegal practices, and hence they don't, is fallacious, obviously. See if you can figure out why.

You keep discrediting yourself. Another fallacy (I have lost count already).

The fact that there is a coincidence of interests between companies and state organisms is not exclusive to communist regimes. If you think so, I'll reserve my opinion of your intellect, but I will offer you a very simple counterexample:

The United States is not a communist country. Halliburton is not a state agency, but a company. Yet, Halliburton and the United States government are involved in a variety of "enterprises", and both Halliburton and the United States have affected and continue to affect each other's decisions and operations.

^ That above is a counterexample to your fallacious assertion. It's just a polite way to tell you that you don't know what you are talking about.

Regarding the "Swiss banking" question, what is your point? Swiss banks have been engaging in corrupt activities for many decades now, and their system is rotten to the core. If you are trying to tell me that there is a justification for that, go ahead. I'm listening.[/QUOTE]
You keep talking about the difference in population between the 2 countries, but whatever that ratio is, there is no guarantee that the same ratio will hold up in sports and the fact that you are not giving that ratio makes me think that there was a reason-especially when you did not answer the question about whether you were recently barred or not

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Bla bla bla .....

That about sums up your way of arguing, supporting your claims with evidence and following coherent lines of logic.

I do not have an interest of continuing to argue with someone, who is making a profession out of dodging questions, making (false) assumptions disastrous assertions and abandoning every position once confronted with the facts.

My statements were clear and supported with facts.

If you desire to further discuss, please, correct the way you lead a conversation.
If you are going to continue to just spout the BS of your "persuasion" feel free to do so (but not at the expence of my attention. I think that I spent more than enough time paying attention to the BS you are saying).

Once again, If someone behaves like a fool, he will be called such and that is no ad hominem but truthful representation of the real situation (no matter if he has been called that in the beginning, the middle or the end of a post/conversation).

EDIT: I will address your last post (posted after I wrote that as there are quite a bit of things you are intentionally or because you don't know better missing.

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

Please define "public stand" so that I can properly address what you are saying.

Just to give you a hint how terribly wrong you are:

Here is the president of the IOC at the time Juan Antonio Samaranch (a spaniard) making statement about what he thinks of doping:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sport/140315.stm

"The International Olympic Committee chairman told the Spanish newspaper El Mundo that substances that do not damage an athlete's health should not be prohibited.

He denied that the IOC had considered legalising doping but said "the actual list of (banned) products must be reduced drastically".

He added: "Doping (now) is everything that, firstly, is harmful to an athlete's health and, secondly, artificially augments his performance.

"If it's just the second case, for me that's not doping. If it's the first case, it is."

The IOC will convene a conference on doping in January but Samaranch said it was not in a position to impose a change."

Good luck with proving what you claim.

You didn't understand my point, and I'm sorry you wasted so many keystrokes.

My point was, exactly, that whatever the position is on any given official of any nation, that has no implication on the prevalence of doping. I already proved that Switzerland has a higher prevalence of doping violations than Spain, both overall, and even in cycling specifically. Yet, Swiss authorities "condemn" doping.

Also, just to add that Samaranch said those things acting as head of the IOC, which is an international organism. The fact he was Spanish has no bearing on the discussion. Unless you want to also malign Germans for Hitler, Russians for Stalin, etc. The only thing this demonstrates is your malicious intent in damaging Nadal's reputation any way possible. They say lopsided H2Hs are good for nothing, but obviously they are wrong. LOL

There is a lot to be lost in the process. The more you have the more you have to lose. This isn't a one way traffic.

The difference between you and me is that you didn't manage to "estabablish any assosiation". In fact, your efforts only make my case stronger as you effort reeks of desperation, shown with the example below.

Tell me how you have established a more solid link of association than I have. Go ahead and prove it logically.

As Keizer already addressed that I won't repeat what was being said.

I will just point out that everytime you try to prove something with facts and proper knowledgeable opinion you fail miserably.


Yes, tell us what does that mean according to you?

What I said were 5 very simple statements, and I challenge you to tell me how any single of them is wrong. I wasn't accusing Federer of anything, obviously. Just pointing out that there are copious reasons for suspicion. I am sorry this hurts you, but it is what it is. Get over it.

I didn't try to escape anything.

So far the only one between the two of us giving proper references to what I am talking about was I.

I urged you to disclose your knowledge on the matter but to no avail.

The doctor who administered the doping was a belgian. The physio, who was supervising the process and, well, doing his job - too.

I can say more in it would be every time detrimental to your stance, but ... let us see how you defend your position. Please, establish the links I asked you:

"1) Please, list the swiss doctors that were part of that affair and what were exactly they doing, respectively, what happened to them? Names we know. I am curious what else you (think that you) know
2) What was the role of the labs and what were the consequences? In detail."


I will play my part to say that in relation to the Festina affair to the spanish doctor Nicolas Terrados was delivered a charge of importing banned substances wich was later dropped. However, in his testimonies Zulle and other riders confirmed that they have doped under the supervision of the said doctor.

An interesting tidbit about him is that he was part of the Spanish Olympic Comitee in their medical team at the time leading to the Barcelona summer olympics.

The second part of "War and Peace" (those two posts) is even more entertaining, isn't it?



EDIT: This thread has been entirely recorded elsewhere for future references.

My point, which still stands, is that the Festina affair showed Swiss links do doping at different levels. From labs providing them, to riders taking them. There were several Swiss nationals Most of the people involved were French and Belgian, however.

Here's a quick summary of the charges and some of the people involved. Notice Alex Zulle was the #1 Swiss cyclist at the time. Incidentally, this is not the first time that a Swiss star athlete is convicted for doping. It has happened to Switzerland also in tennis.

Willy Voet (Belgium) - Arrested.
Bruno Roussel (France) - Arrested and issued admission.
Erik Rijkaert (Belgium) - Arrested and issued admission.
Michel Gros (France) - Issued admission.
Laurent Brochard (France) - >50% Hematocrite levels, and amphetamine positive
Pascal Herve (France) - >50% Hematocrite levels, and amphetamine positive.
Didier Rous (France) - >50% Hematocrite levels, and amphetamine positive.
Neil Stephens (Australia) - >50% Hematocrite levels.
Alex Zulle (Switzerland) - >50% Hematocrite levels.
Christophe Moreau ( France) - Amphetamine positive.
Laurent Dufaux ( Switzerland) - Use of banned substance.
Armin Meier (Switzerland) - Use of banned substance.
Joel Chabiron (France) - Criminal confiction, manager.
Michel Gros ( France) - Issued admission.
Luc Leblanc (France) - Issued admission.
Jean-Marie Dalibot (France) - Convicted

Zulle is a convicted doper. I'm glad that you don't have a problem accepting a doper's words as long as it furthers your little campaign against Nadal.

Also, another thing that you need to realize, is that anti-doping legislation is relatively new, and that's not just a Spanish phenomenon. For example, at the time of the Festina affair, taking PEDs was not illegal. Just to mention this, because I know that's another of your favorite things to say in your petty campaign against Nadal.

Finally, what you need to do is look at the big picture. The Festina is just a simple example. The big picture is:

Doping is more prevalent in Switzerland than in Spain, and, proportionally, more Swiss athletes were reported to have commited violations by WADA in 2013 (to put an example of a recent year).

Swiss violations in cycling are also proportionally far greater than Spanish violations for the past 35 years.

There has already been a top Swiss player convicted and suspended due to doping.

I'll let you put 2 and 2 together (although perhaps I'm being far too optimistic, based on your past performance).

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

That about sums up your way of arguing, supporting your claims with evidence and following coherent lines of logic.

I do not have an interest of continuing to argue with someone, who is making a profession out of dodging questions, making (false) assumptions disastrous assertions and abandoning every position once confronted with the facts.

My statements were clear and supported with facts.

If you desire to further discuss, please, correct the way you lead a conversation.
If you are going to continue to just spout the BS of your "persuasion" feel free to do so (but not at the expence of my attention. I think that I spent more than enough time paying attention to the BS you are saying).

Once again, If someone behaves like a fool, he will be called such and that is no ad hominem but truthful representation of the real situation (no matter if he has been called that in the beginning, the middle or the end of a post/conversation).

Do you not believe WADA's figures? How about recorded data regarding doping violations in cycling for the past 35 years? Doping is more prevalent in Switzerland than in Spain, and that's a fact. Sometimes we might not like facts, but I think it would be in your best interest to accept them. If you do need additional data for your "scholarly" research, I would be happy to assist you.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Do you not believe WADA's figures? How about recorded data regarding doping violations in cycling for the past 35 years? Doping is more prevalent in Switzerland than in Spain, and that's a fact. Sometimes we might not like facts, but I think it would be in your best interest to accept them. If you do need additional data for your "scholarly" research, I would be happy to assist you.

No, it is not.

What you are saying is a fallacy and I will address that in my answer to your other most recent post.

Also. Please, provide as soon as possible the data that you have that supports your claims about the banned athletes from both countries. You have offered that many times, so I gladly will accept that as a way to continue this conversation on a more practical basis. I am waiting.

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

I haven't read this whole thread but this is a BS paragraph and I think you know it. Can you give me one aspect of Federer's improved game that you can match to the effects of having used a particular substance? His endurance isn't better than it once was and he can't take battles of attrition against the likes of Djokovic. He can't hit shots on the run as well as he used to. His backhand is spotty at best. Coincidentally, his play style has changed completely since the debacle of 2013. His serve is huge and he approaches the net much more frequently than before. Is it so far fetched to assume that this could've caused him to get his form back? Perhaps you're trolling on this one, but in any case.

As for Wawrinka, he'd been knocking on the door for a while before he started winning the big matches. He's been taking the likes of Murray to five sets since 2009. He's always been a dangerous outlier. He always had a huge serve and huge groundstrokes. And as for his improved endurance, it is no more surprising than an 18 year old Nadal being able to go 5 sets against Federer at a Masters Cup Final or Djokovic suddenly becoming far fitter in 2011 after having retired a billion times in 2009. I could accuse Djokovic of lying about the gluten as an excuse to mask EPO use or something else in exactly the same way as you're accusing Federer and Wawrinka. Hell, if Switzerland can have two top players what happened to Serbia in the late 2000s when you had Ivanovic, Jankovic and Djokovic coming out of nowhere to reach the top 5? Or Belgium having Clijsters and Henin? Sure, Switzerland has great resources and a reputation for secrecy in the banking sector but you're really stretching the limits of reason here.

Can you tell me why you don't think there are specific drugs to achieve the levels that Federer and Wawrinka have amazingly happened to achieve simultaneously for the past 12 months or so? And, which of the 5 points that I presented, and which cast suspicion on them, do you think are illogical?

BTW, I didn't accuse Federer or Wawrinka of anything. Just pointing out some very suspicious coincidences.

I find it funny that Nadal can be constantly attacked by the 75 IQ crew here, and yet I can't come up with a credible theory about some suspicious circumstances involving Federer without so many people getting very uncomfortable.

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

No, it is not.

What you are saying is a fallacy and I will address that in my answer to your other most recent post.

Do you not believe WADA's figures? How about cycling data from the past 35 years which is publicly accessible?

Oh, I see. You believe convicted dopers like Alex Zulle or dirty doctors like Fuentes when they help you attack Nadal, but you don't even believe your beloved WADA when it hurts your purposes.

You are a funny man.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Do you not believe WADA's figures? How about cycling data from the past 35 years which is publicly accessible?

Oh, I see. You believe convicted dopers like Alex Zulle or dirty doctors like Fuentes when they help you attack Nadal, but you don't even believe your beloved WADA when it hurts your purposes.

You are a funny man.

I am waiting on your (or WADA's if you prefer) extensive list of dopers from both countries and then we can talk.

It will not save you from escaping the fallacy you are committing, but I will get to that later.

 

[encylopedia]

Plenty of people have suspected Nadal over the years.. But why don't the same numbers of people suspect Murray/Fed/Nole?

Murray got jacked quickly physique wise. Nole couldn't even finish a slam one year, than the next hes the object of consistency and can physically go forever. Fed hasn't missed even ONE slam in over a decade and never physically breaks down

Geez....been saying this for 10 years.....used to get screamed at for it....glad...glad...the world is SLOWLY coming to the truth.

Doping has been widespread in sports for decades. I.....to tell you the REAL truth...and it sucks....athletic competition has been a sham for a long time now. The truth is, for most pure tests of physicality (relatively low skill competition), the game has long been: who responds best to doping. In high skill sports...it's still been a huge factor. Tennis was a bit of a late-comer (though players were doping as far back as BJ King's days), but it's widespread in tennis too.

No...you can't tell by looking....Roger is just as suspect as Rafa. You just won't know. Anymore than you knew Johnny Mac, Rusedski, Korda, Coria, etc, were doping.

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

I am waiting on your (or WADA's if you prefer) extensive list of dopers from both countries and then we can talk.

It will not save you from escaping the fallacy you are committing, but I will get to that later.

I am too busy. Just got home from work and I need to do a few things.

Why are you asking for the data? The data is publicly available, are you unable to find it? LOL

 

[Tennis_Hands]

I am too busy. Just got home from work and I need to do a few things.

Why are you asking for the data? The data is publicly available, are you unable to find it? LOL

I want to see it posted from you, so that I am sure to have the facts at hand with which I will work from now on in my conversation with you.

I want you to post the list and for me, that will mean that you agree that this is the full list we are dealing with. No "accidental" omissions, no "I forgot" statements, no "this doesn't belong here" twists.

If you post it to me that means that that is your full knowledge on the subject. No excuses that someone else (WADA or wherever you find such info) has gathered that information and you are blindly relying on "them".

So, I will pretend that I didn't see your continuous effort to leave doors for safe escape open and will wait patiently untill you provide me with the information you are talking about. After I have it posted here I will discuss it together with the other problems with your last statements.

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

I want to see it posted from you, so that I am sure to have the facts at hand with which I will work from now on in my conversation with you.

I want you to post the list and for me, that will mean that you agree that this is the full list we are dealing with. No "accidental" omissions, no "I forgot" statements, no "this doesn't belong here" twists.

If you post it to me that means that that is your full knowledge on the subject. No excuses that someone else (WADA or wherever you find such info) has gathered that information and you are blindly relying on "them".

So, I will pretend that I didn't see your continuous effort to leave doors for safe escape open and will wait patiently untill you provide me with the information you are talking about. After I have it posted here I will discuss it together with the other problems with your last statements.

Yes, I am "blindly" relying on WADA. As opposed to you blindly relying on Fuentes, Noah, and Rochus.

In 2013, Switzerland had 22 violations reported by WADA. Spain had 67. Use some math and tell me what this says, based on the fact Spain is around 5 times larger in population than Switzerland.

The cycling numbers from 1980 to 2015 are much worse, but there is no point bringing those up at this point. Let's focus on WADA for now.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Yes, I am "blindly" relying on WADA. As opposed to you blindly relying on Fuentes, Noah, and Rochus.

In 2013, Switzerland had 22 violations reported by WADA. Spain had 67. Use some math and tell me what this says, based on the fact Spain is around 5 times larger in population than Switzerland.

The cycling numbers from 1980 to 2015 are much worse, but there is no point bringing those up at this point. Let's focus on WADA for now.

I am not blindly relying on anything/anyone.

I made this remark just to make sure that you understand, that if you start "by accident" giving false/incorrect/partly missing information (and, of course, in a way that makes such missing/false whatever info more favourable to what you are trying to prove) this will not be chalked up as a problem coming from your source as you are the one responsible for the quality of information you are providing in this debate (as do I about mine).

The full list.

The names and the nationalities of the said athletes (and not only in cycling).

I am content with the time span from 1990 onwards, but if you prefer, you can go further back as long as it is for both countries.

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

Geez....been saying this for 10 years.....used to get screamed at for it....glad...glad...the world is SLOWLY coming to the truth.

Doping has been widespread in sports for decades. I.....to tell you the REAL truth...and it sucks....athletic competition has been a sham for a long time now. The truth is, for most pure tests of physicality (relatively low skill competition), the game has long been: who responds best to doping. In high skill sports...it's still been a huge factor. Tennis was a bit of a late-comer (though players were doping as far back as BJ King's days), but it's widespread in tennis too.

No...you can't tell by looking....Roger is just as suspect as Rafa. You just won't know. Anymore than you knew Johnny Mac, Rusedski, Korda, Coria, etc, were doping.

There you have it. Someone intelligent enough to realize this.

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

I am not blindly relying on anything/anyone.

I made this remark just to make sure that you understand, that if you start "by accident" giving false/incorrect/partly missing information (and, of course, in a way that makes such missing/false whatever info more favourable to what you are trying to prove) this will not be chalked up as a problem coming from your source as you are the one responsible for the quality of information you are providing in this debate (as do I about mine).

The full list.

The names and the nationalities of the said athletes (and not only in cycling).

I am content with the time span from 1990 onwards, but if you prefer, you can go further back as long as it is for both countries.

You don't need a full list. You only need the numbers to do the calculations, not the names, addresses, and the names of every surviving uncle of each offender.

You are just stalling because you have nothing. Sorry to have broken into your "Nadal is a doper" party with some hard facts. Now it's your turn to make a move.

WADA reported 22 violations from Swiss nationals in 2013 vs 67 violations from Spanish nationals in the same year. That's all the data you need.

Now do some math.

Tell me, why do you think you need the names to do math? That's completely illogical.

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

Also, notice that there are precedents for top Swiss tennis players to be suspended for doping. Martina Hingis rings a bell?

How is that something you can easily ignore while giving useless information about Samaranch (a guy who was born in 1920 and was IOC head for 29 years I believe)?

To me, the Hingis suspension is very telling and demonstrative of the integrity of Swiss tennis you so like to proclaim (while accusing Spain of everything under the sun regarding doping).

It's hard to be exposed like this, isn't it? Well, next time maybe do your homework a little better.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

You don't need a full list. You only need the numbers to do the calculations, not the names, addresses, and the names of every surviving uncle of each offender.

You are just stalling because you have nothing. Sorry to have broken into your "Nadal is a doper" party with some hard facts. Now it's your turn to make a move.

WADA reported 22 violations from Swiss nationals in 2013 vs 67 violations from Spanish nationals in the same year. That's all the data you need.

Now do some math.

Tell me, why do you think you need the names to do math? That's completely illogical.

No.

I need the full list so that we can reveal:

1) if there is something missing from it
2) who exactly did what, WHERE and under what SUPERVISION

Did you really think that I will let your (false) assumption that, since athletes come from certain country, that is the deciding factor about establishing the foundation of existing doping culture, fly over my head?

If a cyclist from, let us say Australia, joins a belgian club in Belgium and there he dopes under the supervision of a belgian doctor will that be a proof of existing doping culture in Australia?

3) I will have to look at the cases with which I am not familiar or know little about (if the list is extensive enough this can and probably will happen), to find out the genesis of the doping case and the factors that were involved just like I have with every other case I am familiar with and in which the inside knowledge give the clue as to who was involved.

So, no, it is not stalling and certainly it is not illogical. On the contrary.

And there is the added benefit that you will have to expose your knowledge on such matters, go ahead.

 

[pinky42]

It's not my contention. Based on official data from international anti-doping organisms, Switzerland has a substantially worse doping problem than Spain does when you correct for population. Data doesn't lie.

I don't think population is a good metric. China has over a billion people so their ratio would be artificially low but I wouldn't be surprised if they were among the worst offenders.

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

No.

I need the full list so that we can reveal:

1) if there is something missing from it
2) who exactly did what, WHERE and under what SUPERVISION

1) What would you expect to be in the list that could be missing, besides WADA certifying that each country has had x number of violations? What data exactly do you need? To me, if WADA gives me an official document which says Switzerland had 22 violations and Spain had 67 violations, that's good enough. Tell me, what "extra" data you need.

2) WOW. This is beyond hilarious. Now, WADA's methods are to be questioned by somebody who has used the word of the mighty Dr. Fuentes and people as trustworthy as Noah and Rochus? <--- Notice the sarcasm.

Did you really think that I will let your (false) assumption that since athletes come from certain country, that is the deciding factor about establishing the foundation of existing doping culture?

LOL. So now, if a Swiss rider is in a French team and dopes, it should be a doping violation for France and not Sweden? Beyond funny.

If a cyclist from, let us say Australia, joins a belgian club in Belgium and there he dopes under the supervision of a belgian doctor will that be a proof of existing doping culture in Australia?

Man, you are really grasping at straws, aren't you? So now, a country's doping violations can't be counted nominally because of "doping culture" influences.

3) I will have to look at the cases with which I am not familiar or know little about (if the list is extensive enough this can and probably will happen), to find out the genesis of the doping case and the factors that were involved just like I have with every other case I am familiar with and in which the inside knowledge give the clue as to who was involved.

So, no, it is not stalling and certainly it is not illogical. On the contrary.

And there is the added benefit that you will have to expose your knowledge on such matters, go ahead.

Face up to it, and stop this game. You know you've been caught with your pants down. Why don't you give it up? Do you really enjoy proceeding this discussion which is obviously out of your league?

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

I don't think population is a good metric. China has over a billion people so their ratio would be artificially low but I wouldn't be surprised if they were among the worst offenders.

Spain and Switzerland are two European, democratic countries, with similar customs and demographics. Tell me how you would adjust the population.

Population is the best metric we have. If you have a better one, go ahead.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

OK, for the last time.

You will have to provide that list, if you want to have any credibility after offering to give that information many times.

I don't understand what exactly is the problem. You still are going to get the correct number of dopers on both sides. There is nothing to worry about and since you said that such information is easily accessible you could just as easily present it.

Also, notice that there are precedents for top Swiss tennis players to be suspended for doping. Martina Hingis rings a bell?

How is that something you can easily ignore while giving useless information about Samaranch (a guy who was born in 1920 and was IOC head for 29 years I believe)?

Your question about Hingis is yet another reason why we need to see who those athletes are, how they doped etc (and what they were convicted for). Hingis was convicted for cocaine. I hope that you don't think that this would be the same as someone convicted for EPO or something similar.

In her trial she was not allowed to undergo a test of DNK derived from hair sample, which would have put any doubt about possible contamination of her sample (as she pleaded)to rest. Later in a much worse situation (Gasquet had 4 times the quantity of Hingis in his sample) that was allowed ....

However, this is not an effort to excuse Hingis, as the athletes are responsible for their behaviour in every possible aspect. I guess that it stands to reason that in one such list Hingis will be presented as well.

As for Samaranch, I advise you to read carefully as much as you can find about this guy.

Neither his position throughout his career as a politician nor his commitments within the spanish sport are to be taken lightly and his opinion neglected. He was in the know (and that means he knew probably everything that was going on in the spanish sport (olympic, national and club level)) of what is happening with the sport in the country and him being in a position of power coincides with the golden years of doping in Spain.

It is hard to be believed that this was just a personal opinion. He was without a doubt influenced by what he knew, when he was making those statements.

His position of a president of the IOC is also not insignificant one to be just viewed as a minor detail.

To me, the Hingis suspension is very telling and demonstrative of the integrity of Swiss tennis you so like to proclaim (while accusing Spain of everything under the sun regarding doping).

It's hard to be exposed like this, isn't it? Well, next time maybe do your homework a little better.

Your condescending remarks are getting a little tedious.

I am certain to know about Hingis's case as much and probably more than you.

What you fail to realize about the example you personally chose is that Hingis wasn't part of any organized doping practices (which are the tell-tell sign about doping culture in existence and the doping substance she was convicted for is known for its use associated with way of life rather than sporting gains.

The integrity of the swiss tennis is not hampered by Hingis's case just like the integrity of french tennis is not hampered by the conviction of Gasquet. There are a lot of things missing for that to be the case. Like I said, to make general conclusions you need proofs of systematic doping and in both cases there aren't such.

1) What would you expect to be in the list that could be missing, besides WADA certifying that each country has had x number of violations? What data exactly do you need? To me, if WADA gives me an official document which says Switzerland had 22 violations and Spain had 67 violations, that's good enough. Tell me, what "extra" data you need.

I already explained my motives and they are pretty logical and reasonable, I don't have to say anything else and your persistence doesn't do you any favours.

2) WOW. This is beyond hilarious. Now, WADA's methods are to be questioned by somebody who has used the word of the mighty Dr. Fuentes and people as trustworthy as Noah and Rochus? <--- Notice the sarcasm.

I didn't say anything of the kind, so your sarcasm is misplaced.

LOL. So now, if a Swiss rider is in a French team and dopes, it should be a doping violation for France and not Sweden? Beyond funny.

It would be a doper from Switzerland, but it would be a proof of existing doping culture at the place/in the team he has doped. And as far as I remember we are talking about doping culture existing in certain countries.

I hope that you are not saying that a single rider could influence everybody around him to dope without the necessary structures for that. That would be a statement of someone, who is not very well acquainted with the ways these things work Even the mighty Armstrong couldn't do that on his own.

Man, you are really grasping at straws, aren't you? So now, a country's doping violations can't be counted nominally because of "doping culture" influences.

Where did I say such a thing?

If you, indeed, discern between the rider doping and the doping culture influences, you indirectly admit that a rider doping and the existence of a doping culture are not the same thing.

Noone said anything about "nominal counting".

By all means, count all you want, but that is not what is important (this statement is not to be mistaken with agreement with your rudimental sociological contemplations) .

What is important is how the doping happens and what enables it to exist in the first place.

We are talking about doping culture in certain places, because the way people view doping directly influence the creation and the existence of such structures and practices. If someone doesn't see a problem in an athlete doping as long as this is not harmful to his health (and we know that is as arbitrary as it gets) and this person is in a position of power (as was Samaranch, the sports and the PM of Spain etc) well, no wonder why the things got to where they are now in Spain (or were some years ago).

Face up to it, and stop this game. You know you've been caught with your pants down. Why don't you give it up? Do you really enjoy proceeding this discussion which is obviously out of your league?

I think you are terribly mistaken what your success in the current conversation is.

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

I think you are terribly mistaken what your success in the current conversation is.

No, actually I'm not. You are still stalling.

It's sad I have to do your homework for you. Just go to the WADA website, and get the report yourself. It's publicly available. How do you think I got it?

You can defend Hingis if you like. The fact is Contador, for example, was penalized for having a minuscule (400 times below the required detection level by lab certification) of Clenbuterol, which is a substance which has been commonly used and found on cattle meat. That's the explanation he gave, and it makes sense. What possible benefit would he have derived from that minute amount of the substance? It doesn't make sense.

Of course, you look at Hingis and say "it's not part of a plot", and then look at Contador and say the opposite. But the fact is you have no conclusive data, and are using your own prejudice in deciding what's right or wrong.

Again, cocaine is a forbidden substance, and it does have doping qualities (it enhances performance in sports). Hingis was found doping, and she was the top Swiss tennis player at the moment. It's that simple.

Let me know if you can't find that report. I would have imagined that with as much as you talk about doping, you would be aware of its existence, but it looks like I was wrong.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

You didn't understand my point, and I'm sorry you wasted so many keystrokes.

My point was, exactly, that whatever the position is on any given official of any nation, that has no implication on the prevalence of doping. I already proved that Switzerland has a higher prevalence of doping violations than Spain, both overall, and even in cycling specifically. Yet, Swiss authorities "condemn" doping.

Also, just to add that Samaranch said those things acting as head of the IOC, which is an international organism. The fact he was Spanish has no bearing on the discussion. Unless you want to also malign Germans for Hitler, Russians for Stalin, etc. The only thing this demonstrates is your malicious intent in damaging Nadal's reputation any way possible. They say lopsided H2Hs are good for nothing, but obviously they are wrong. LOL

It has, if the said official was for decades engaged on different levels in the organization and representation of the spanish sport (including their Olympic section).
Unless you believe that the people responsible for the state of the sport and its development have no say in the way these things are regulated,then , please feel free to believe in capricorns too.

I am not interested in doing anything that hasn't already taken care of itself. Both Nadal's reputation and the h2h.

Tell me how you have established a more solid link of association than I have. Go ahead and prove it logically.

Of course.

I have given numerous facts about interchanging support of powerplayers and dopers, doping processes taking place (physically) in Spain, spanish doctors invpolved in some of the biggest operations there are etc.

You have tried (by falsifying facts claiming residency of cycling teams) and failed to provide any proofs as to how the swiss organized doping exists. You assumptions were pure speculation based on beliefs and "logical" (well, not really) conclusions. You failed to provide proof as to how do you know that the labs were aware of the poeple, who are going to use the drugs. You didn't show any proof that there are governmental organizations involved (as a way of proving that the state was involved in any way or is supporting the doping tolerance in the country).

If those are not enough points to make a distinction, then I am wasting my time and you have more serious problems than proving whether Spain has a doping problem.

What I said were 5 very simple statements, and I challenge you to tell me how any single of them is wrong. I wasn't accusing Federer of anything, obviously. Just pointing out that there are copious reasons for suspicion. I am sorry this hurts you, but it is what it is. Get over it.

Keizer addressed all your statements and I don't see the need to repeat what he said as I think that he was spot on.

It is funny how after every separate statement that you make you feel the need to make conclusions about me that are basically shooting in the dark.

Nothing in our conversation or for that matter on the boards hurts me (except maybe for rudeness, but I have enough faith in the system here). It is interesting and I would gladly revise my views if I am faced with facts that will lead me to such conclusions. And that is the problem of your POV. The facts are missing.

My point, which still stands, is that the Festina affair showed Swiss links do doping at different levels. From labs providing them, to riders taking them. There were several Swiss nationals Most of the people involved were French and Belgian, however.

The only swiss "link" to this affair, that can be quoted with some reliability are the swiss riders

Here's a quick summary of the charges and some of the people involved. Notice Alex Zulle was the #1 Swiss cyclist at the time. Incidentally, this is not the first time that a Swiss star athlete is convicted for doping. It has happened to Switzerland also in tennis.

Willy Voet (Belgium) - Arrested.
Bruno Roussel (France) - Arrested and issued admission.
Erik Rijkaert (Belgium) - Arrested and issued admission.
Michel Gros (France) - Issued admission.
Laurent Brochard (France) - >50% Hematocrite levels, and amphetamine positive
Pascal Herve (France) - >50% Hematocrite levels, and amphetamine positive.
Didier Rous (France) - >50% Hematocrite levels, and amphetamine positive.
Neil Stephens (Australia) - >50% Hematocrite levels.
Alex Zulle (Switzerland) - >50% Hematocrite levels.
Christophe Moreau ( France) - Amphetamine positive.
Laurent Dufaux ( Switzerland) - Use of banned substance.
Armin Meier (Switzerland) - Use of banned substance.
Joel Chabiron (France) - Criminal confiction, manager.
Michel Gros ( France) - Issued admission.
Luc Leblanc (France) - Issued admission.
Jean-Marie Dalibot (France) - Convicted

Zulle is a convicted doper. I'm glad that you don't have a problem accepting a doper's words as long as it furthers your little campaign against Nadal.

Also, another thing that you need to realize, is that anti-doping legislation is relatively new, and that's not just a Spanish phenomenon. For example, at the time of the Festina affair, taking PEDs was not illegal. Just to mention this, because I know that's another of your favorite things to say in your petty campaign against Nadal.

Oh, I have a lot to say about your (yet again) this list and omitting of some facts that will put your case in a little bit dofferent light and, of course, I have a lot of commentary to make about your (no doubt) quick summary.

It is almost amusing how you are trying to push your agenda - the fact is Nadal is just on eof the many spanish athletes that fall into that bracket of suspected dopers. There are many more and the existence of doping culture is not only about Nadal. Of course, Nadal is suspect and even more so with everything surrounding him.

Finally, what you need to do is look at the big picture. The Festina is just a simple example. The big picture is:

Doping is more prevalent in Switzerland than in Spain, and, proportionally, more Swiss athletes were reported to have commited violations by WADA in 2013 (to put an example of a recent year).

Swiss violations in cycling are also proportionally far greater than Spanish violations for the past 35 years.

There has already been a top Swiss player convicted and suspended due to doping.

I'll let you put 2 and 2 together (although perhaps I'm being far too optimistic, based on your past performance).

That is what you think (we got it long ago). Now you have to prove it.

So far you have been not very convincing.