Ok so he knows the rule, has the watch, but still breaks the rule. Why can't I say he "knowingly breaks the rule?" On the highway if you are speeding and got pulled over, can you use you didn't check the speedometer as a valid defense?
You don't understand the basic principles of the Biological Passport. Baseline samples are just as important as any other samples. The key is in finding statistical discrepancies through time. If you are doping when baseline samples are being collected, then of course that will be a problem down the road. You won't get caught immediately, but as long as enough statistically significant data has been gather, the red flag should go off.
Do you know of any player who has never broken the rule?
Shame it all went a bit Pete Tong for Nadal after that tournament. King Novak on the other hand.......
If they were to examine old blood tests in the bio passport then the red flag will indeed go off. Then do they disqualify someone retroactively? I have not read or heard anything to that effect in tennis. You are suggesting that a test can be deemed positive retroactively, eg if Nadal were doping in 2013 USO and he could be caught as late as sep 2014, and that Is quite extreme, unthinkable in tennis. What's more likely is they will keep an eye on the athelete and conduct more surprise targeted tests.
The whole point of the Biological Passport is to detect changes in biological parameters through time by acquiring a wide sample base. That's why the baseline samples are so important. If you are already doping when you are taking the baseline samples, don't you think that will be a problem?
You just repeat yourself while I have answered your (obviously rhetorical ) questions. I said yes the early abnormal sample would be a red flag but I asked you what they would do with it. Have you seen any commitment from tennis to disqualify people based on suspicious variation retroactively? The passport can outright detect doping when the variation from normal is extreme. But most of the cases it raises suspicion which needs to be confirmed by unannounced testing with positive results.
So Nadal is suspicious specially why?
Stop making excuses for him, it's unbecoming.
@MichaelNadal has a point though. Nadal has been winning slams and beating Federer (even on hard surfaces) since he was 17 years old. Where was Djokovic then?
What do you mean "where was Djokovic"? What on earth makes you think that he should've hit his prime at exactly the same time as Nadal?
My point is that Nadal faced Federer at his peak. Both Federer and Nadal faced off at their peak. It's easier to win stuff when there is a vacuum of power at the top and you are the only player at true peak.What do you mean "where was Djokovic"? What on earth makes you think that he should've hit his prime at exactly the same time as Nadal?
And thankfully I don't need to imagine how Djokovic would've been affected by injuries due to how much better he's taken care of his body.
Oh well, Djokovic has beaten both guys when they were playing peak level tennis so he has nothing to prove on that score.
Yes, Djokovic has beaten Federer and Nadal before 2011. I'm talking more about slam achievements and domination.
This is a fair post, and I see what you mean. Yes, Djokovic has a very gifted physique that he has taken advantage of to the max. Also, maybe Nadal could have been more careful with not putting as much muscle previously. I think the extra weight he was carrying for his build might have hurt his knee joints, especially given how he moves on court.
And King Novak is greater on 2/3 surfaces. Deal.
And Rafa still won 14 slams
3>2 in Wimbledon titles.
These are all good questions. I do try to answer all questions even the rhetorical ones.
Nadal's stamina has decreased very steadily for several years, and that is extremely easy to see if you have been watching at all his matches throughout the years. Particularly, you may simply observe his results on clay, and you can see a steady decrease in stamina (and with it, a steady decrease in domination) for a few years now. The mere fact that Nadal even had better results in 2013 on hardcourt than he had on clay, points very clearly to this fact. I don't expect you to agree with me because you obviously have a predetermined agenda, but anyone impartial can agree with my statement and see that it is both reasonable and accurate.
Nadal decline: I did look at alternative hypothesis but they don't work as well. His stamina was as good as ever in the SF 2013 at RG. His 2013 was a great year followed by a year of normal decline due to injuries in 2014, and by a year of abnormal decline in 2015 after he has recovered from the injuries. Even at 29 you are supposed to play better after you come out of injuries (see Fed 2014 vs 2013, and Murray 2015 vs 2014, both played significantly better after they recovered from injuries).
I'll respond with some time later.
You make it sound like you are actually a reasonable person without any bias.
Sure go do some research on the bio passport and peak performance. See if 27 (Nadal age in 2013) is still within the peak performance window for endurance sports. Come back with facts and figures.I'll respond with some time later.
Just to say quickly that I like your sense of humor. Very dry and underrated. "I did look at alternative hypothesis".
Then you go to say that Nadal's stamina in RG 2013 was just as good as ever. You are joking, yes? Or maybe you just don't watch any tennis. Nadal in 2006-2008 in RG was simply untouchable. Even the best Federer had to offer couldn't hurt him, and Fed at his best on clay was no slouch. To claim that Nadal's stamina in the 2013 RG Final was as good as ever simply disqualifies you from being taken seriously.
That's not the only thing, but I'll proceed later.
And... You still don't know how the Biological Passport works apparently. Why don't you read on it a bit so that you can sound more intelligent when discussing about it?
I don't need to do any research. I read about it a long time ago. This is not a new development. You speak like it happened 2 weeks ago.
I mentioned it earlier about Djokovic's 2011 success. It doesn't make sense for him to start doping so LATE in his career. He has been having the money and means for a long time. And obvioisly he wasn't the one who imploded after bio passport was introduced in tennis. So even if in 2011 his rise might have raised some eye brows now certainly someone else is at the forefront of doping suspicion.
You have answered none of my objections. You are making an accusation without any base, and are ignoring crucial data to suit your personal agenda.
You are aware that Swiss pharmaceutical companies are at the forefront of medical technology, right? Alex Zulle and Tony Rominger ring a bell to you? How does it make any logical sense that Federer, who has access to all these great pharmaceutical complex, has never doped, when his main opponent (according to you) has? Maybe Federer is on better stuff than anybody else. That's what allows him to continue competing at his advanced age and serving like he is 7 years younger.
I called you have blind faith and idiot to show you the difference between a debate and personal attacks. To your questions
How is it wrong for me to call you out on your personal agenda when it's patently obvious just by reading your posts what you are trying to do, but it's OK for you to accuse somebody of a crime like doping with no proof, simply based on the fact that you are unable to accept losses like a good fan?
You are making no sense. You are saying that the Biological Passport is the reason Nadal doesn't dope anymore (I'm just using your logic, which has nothing to do with what I believe here), yet you are telling me that Nadal is actually likely to have made a calculated choice only to quit doping half way into the implementation of the program. To anybody with a minimum (let alone average) IQ this doesn't make any sense. You need to do better than that.
Again, you are mistaken. The worst possible deviation (and the highest chances to get caught doping) are for a player to continue doping half way into the collection of samples, and then abruptly quit half way. Doing that would be a sure way to raise red flags, because it would cause a huge discrepancy between early sample measurements and later samples. The fact that you don't understand something this simple is very concerning. It makes me doubt about your overall intelligence. Or perhaps it is the other way around and you think the rest of us are so stupid that we won't be able to detect this kind of egregious lack of logic in your theory.
Another example of faulty reasoning. If it's about the authorities "not having guts", then why wouldn't everybody and his uncle in the Top 10 continue doping, even after the Biological Passport is in effect? This is the stupid argument people used to come up with a lot. That Nadal just gets away with everything because he is too important for the ITF/ATP/whatever. Well, in that case, if you want to be consistent with your reasoning, the Biological Passport would be just a huge diversion, wouldn't it? Just something to appease the doping conspiracy theorists. So why is it all of a sudden that now you are crediting the Biological Passport with Nadal's downfall? Can you explain in a cogent manner why the ITF was covering up for dopers before and now their policy is exactly the opposite?
Why wouldn't Federer be at least as suspicious as Nadal?
I am a big Federer fan but that statement is ridiculous and reeks of bias. You can make cases for all of the elite players doping including Federer.
Well, zagor is reasonable as usual and offers solid reasoning in his post.
Exactly zagor! All of these fans who point the finger at one elite player and think the other elite players are clean as a whistle are dumb as a box of rocks. All elite players can benefit in some ways from doping and you could make arguments for all of the Big Four and top ten players doping. Yep, ALL of them. Some cases may be a little more obvious than others but you can make a case for them all.
Actually Nadal's decline in 2015 is not the same as other great's decline around the same age. Fed's 29 was in 2010. He still make slam W/F/SF and won WTF. In 2011 he made F/SF. Nadal's 2015 was injury free. He should be rebounding from injury laden 2014.
