I will start with the bolded part.
The negative tests would not prove beyond doubt either of the possibilities (that he dopes or that he doesn't), because we already have a hard proof that this game has been played before, so I don't see how this changes anything about Nadal. That was my comment on the current "new" situation.
Of course it isn't proof beyond reasonable doubt that Nadal doesn't dope. However, it's not entirely useless either as you would suggest.
You seem to want to blend that comment with my more general position (that the probability that Nadal dopes (based on circumstantial evidence) is high. NOTE: this is my position and not what you claim by saying "I am entirely convinced").
That's fine, your opinion is your opinion. It's not my job to force or persuade you to change it, which brings us to this:
I don't know why you insist on that or on that to tell you in what circumstances Nadal would be "clean" in my eyes.
After all, I didn't form my opinion in a day or two, so it is unreasonable to expect that a single occurence or fact will offset all the facts that I registered throughout his career. I can think of such, but then you will say (and it will be) unreasonable to expect that and we will not be going anywhere. If you ask again I can make a suggestion, but I can see before the fact what kind of reaction such a request will cause.
I insist because all I see is a long list of the most minute of "evidence" that would prove that Nadal is doping, but nothing that would prove the opposite. You're willing to accept the 1% chance that his test results are misleading or not indicative of Nadal's "cleanness" (which I consider reasonable suspicion in light of Armstrong), but also disregard completely the 99% chance that the test is accurate and that Nadal could actually be as clean as he claims. It's practically a presumption of guilt, which would have been fair if it's applied to everyone, but I'm not so sure you do.
Then you have to consider the possibility (regardless of how large or small, since you're already willing to accept and acknowledge unlikely scenarios) that bigger coincidences have happened in the past. A toast burnt in the image of Jesus is not proof that God exists or that the bread has been tampered with. That the earth and life itself looks designed is not proof that there is a creator either. I saw a cloud that looked like a horse but you won't see me cite that as proof that Zeus exists and that he's going Banksy with Mount Olympus. The point being that if you fixate on a conclusion, it's easy to make anything look like they make sense. That's why we have a resident astrologer, who's so far accurately predicted Nadal's return to some semblance of form, and yet I'm sure you'd scoff at the logic or lack thereof employed in that thread.
You make a point about Fuentes and I will use it to show how the things that are done cannot be so easily undone.
You say that , if the list of his clients is released and Nadal is not there I will say that Fuentes covered it up and someone else gave him the juice.
Do you say it because you think this (and believe this) is going to happen? Do you believe that Fuentes will come forward and speak?
I sense that your answer will be between "It doesn't matter" and "No", but to hear it from me: "yes" that will be one thing that will be a step in the right direction as far as Nadal's image is concerned (note, one step, not enough).
I certainly want Fuentes to release the names. I certainly don't mind being wrong if Nadal is proven to be a doper through Fuentes--disappointment in being proven wrong is unimportant compared to knowing the truth.
However, for that I would want to see Fuentes reveal the whole scheme, the people involved: doctors, clinics etc. so that a full investigation can be made and all the main branches of the whole organization are examined (many doctors like Funetes work with other doctors, when developing the more sophisticated methods for doping). That way we can be relatively sure that Nadal cannot stay out of this just because he was not his direct client.
Agreed.
Nadal's opinion on the Fuentes case was heard years and years after the most important events happened. At this point him wanting "the list to be revealed" was exactly as useless for establishing the truth as his most recent reactions about his doping tests.
To be fair to Nadal, he could have easily not made any comments about Fuentes if he weren't involved either. It's quite possible--even likely--that someone who isn't involved in an issue may not feel the need to talk about it. However I completely agree that it's not proof that Nadal is clean per se, for the same reasons why I can't accept Nadal's claims of being clean as proof that he is clean (that wouldn't make sense).
However, I'm not quite in agreement about your point on his most recent reactions. You don't go out your way and risk the chance of having evidence given against you by suing someone (which is out of his control) unless you are at least 99% confident that it won't backfire on you. If Nadal did or does dope, then it seems somewhat unlikely that he'd risk the chance of making Bachelot show up to court with actual evidence. Granted, people have made stupider decisions in the past, but with lawyers on retainer and a whole team behind your back, it seems highly unlikely.
The short of this is that I agree that it's reasonable to be sceptical, but accepting that there's a chance that he's doping is not proof that he is either, and no amount of "eye opening" is going to change that. Unbridled cynicism however, can, but cynicism is not the same as scepticism.
I guess god created the man indeed.
What about his back problems especially in 2013 and now they are all gone magically age 35
and he is sports star not the guy works in an office. Hımm is it a coincidence Fed took a break after MELODONİUM SCANDAL is it a coincidence he injured this time cant play tournaments???You know what it is so easy to play the game of allegations ı simply LOVED İT
