Spanish to sue French broadcaster over Nadal drug skit!

Still, it would be very interesting to see if Djoko and Rafa entered any events where AFLD was present with testing.

Well, RG 2009, apparently. Were they tested then, anyone knows?.

This is pure BS, I'm afraid. When they don't want to be controled, they just don't say where they are, miss the control, and that's it. The penalty incurred is just as severe as endless time-wasting, ie nil.

Then why a player saying they don't like the rule would indicate they dope?. Not to mention that several players don't like it.

Actually, Nadal's name came up during this, but it was in a French newspaper (of course), so, you know, more jealousy, etc. When asked about this at Wimbledon, Nadal said he would sue, but he never did. Not saying that this is significant, just stating the facts.

Links would help. Like, did that French newspaper just spill BS speculation like people do in here, of did they have something else?. I'm guessing they didn't, or something else would have happened with what they (allegedly) said.

Cycles are not 6-month long, btw. And Nadal *is* a very good tennis player, it would be stupid to say otherwise.

Yet you imply he needs PEDs to win RG, and that without them he lost.

You misread me. They don't use Rambo, they use Stallone, and he's even called things like Commander Sylvestre (French for Sylvester) when he's in a uniform, of Mr Sylvestre when he is in a suit, to make fun of the financial/corporate side of America. So it's clearly the same.

Are they implying with that that Stallone is doing something illegal?. No.
 
No, you couldn't use the razor like that at all. Nothing of that indicates he's doping. Your arguments about this are just pathetic... he defended a couple guys who used recreational drugs, so he must be using PEDs. Sure. Amazing logic.

This has got nothing to do with logic, I'm just throwing namelessone's argument back at him. About Nadal and possible doping, the Nadal fans sure shouldn't want to use Occam's razor, cause it points out to one inescapable conclusion, and that isn't that he is clean.

So, let's not draw Occam's razor into this, that was the point of my answer to namelessone. ;)

Of course you are. It's called bias and denial.

You're possibly right on the first count, Crisstti (ie bias). Denial is quite the opposite, though. If Magnus and celoft could be said to be biased, many people (you included) could be said to be in denial. ;)
 
Then why a player saying they don't like the rule would indicate they dope?. Not to mention that several players don't like it.

You tell me. Some people (ie Nadal, Murray) ask for less controls, some ask for more (ie Federer, who also asked that blood and urine were frozen and kept for years). This doesn't mean that the first two dope and the third one doesn't, but it implies (perhaps wrongly) that some have more to hide than the others. As we were talking about Armstrong, it's also worth noting that he was also firmly outspoken against antidoping controls, and we know how this turned out.

Links would help. Like, did that French newspaper just spill BS speculation like people do in here, of did they have something else?. I'm guessing they didn't, or something else would have happened with what they (allegedly) said.

Please, Crisstti. You didn't follow tennis in 2006? It was all Nadal was asked about during the first week of Wimbledon.

Yet you imply he needs PEDs to win RG, and that without them he lost.

I'm not, actually. Quote?

Are they implying with that that Stallone is doing something illegal?. No.

Ahem. About the war in Irak, they were implying much, much worse, believe me.
 
This has got nothing to do with logic, I'm just throwing namelessone's argument back at him. About Nadal and possible doping, the Nadal fans sure shouldn't want to use Occam's razor, cause it points out to one inescapable conclusion, and that isn't that he is clean.

So, let's not draw Occam's razor into this, that was the point of my answer to namelessone. ;)

I know the point you were trying to make. And the point I was trying to make was that you fail at it ;)

You're possibly right on the first count, Crisstti (ie bias). Denial is quite the opposite, though. If Magnus and celoft could be said to be biased, many people (you included) could be said to be in denial. ;)

Not really. There would have to be overwhelming evidence of Rafa using PEDs (and there's nothing approaching that) and we saying it isn't true. That would be denial.

They're in denial because they can't accept that someone can defeat Federer. And do so without cheating.
 
Please, Crisstti. You didn't follow tennis in 2006? It was all Nadal was asked about during the first week of Wimbledon.

It was all he was asked about?, I only remember an incredibly rude interview, that's on YouTube, where that was one of the questions.

I'm not, actually. Quote?

It's all over your posts in this thread. What else do you mean when you say Rafa and Novak "were said" to have been told to "calm down" before RG, that the AFLD was present that year, and that Rafa and Novak played awful that year. Then the AFLD wasn't present again, and they played better. What you're trying to imply is very clear. If not, explain yourself...

BTW, correlation doesn't imply causation.
 
Since when has Puerto become Spanish?


If-Ignorance-is-Bliss-You-Must-be-in-Heaven_4634-l.jpg
 
It was all he was asked about?, I only remember an incredibly rude interview, that's on YouTube, where that was one of the questions.

It was the Journal du Dimanche who printed this at the time, citing "anonymous sources". Which explains why it didn't go any further, because:
- either they didn't have anything and were just blowing smoke; or
- they *did* have a reliable source, but who wanted to remain anonymous, in this case they were stuck and couldn't prove anything

It's all over your posts in this thread. What else do you mean when you say Rafa and Novak "were said" to have been told to "calm down" before RG, that the AFLD was present that year, and that Rafa and Novak played awful that year. Then the AFLD wasn't present again, and they played better. What you're trying to imply is very clear. If not, explain yourself...

BTW, correlation doesn't imply causation.

I'm trying to explain (as much as I can) the French frame of mind, here, as some (a lot of?) people seem to think that they're saying this because of some hate for the Spanish. As I'm sure you know (you'd have to be in denial not to ;)), there have been tons of evidence of Spanish doping in sports recently (including government cover-up, etc.), hence it's no surprise that rumours start flying when people from that country show incredible stamina, etc.
 
and despite what people make of his physique and his stamina he is completely untainted.

and if one day the Operation Puerto list comes out, I suspect you will look even more like the arse you already act like!!!
 
Yes, some Spaniards are in the news, but then Nadal is being dragged into it only because he is Spanish so what more perfect example of ethnic stereotyping do you need???

Nadal thinks this is a good idea:
6847283887_962de4da01.jpg

6847283883_4de5ab672b.jpg


And then says this:

"The Contador news is incredible, there is no definitive evidence and they give him the maximum punishment...LAMENTABLE...keep your spirits up champion! All my support!"


If Nadal cared about clean sport why would he behave like this? Why on earth woud he support a convicted doper?
 
Yes. At that time, there was a sense of incredulity about this and lots of people on the (ahem, French ;)) tennis boards asked questions as to how two guys could go at it with such intensity for four hours (of course, we now know that they can sustain it for six, and probably much more ;)). It's in this sense that I wrote "suspect", coupled with the hearsay we got a couple of weeks later about what the ITF had supposedly told them. As far as I know, there was nothing suspicious about the match per se, just the sustained intensity.

Thanks. I may have missed it in another post, but is there a source for what the ITF supposedly told them? Anything in print? If only rumors, where and from whom did the rumors about what the ITF told them come from?
 
Thanks. I may have missed it in another post, but is there a source for what the ITF supposedly told them? Anything in print? If only rumors, where and from whom did the rumors about what the ITF told them come from?

No real source, no (none you could quote, anyway). It was on a tennis board such as this one, so nothing even remotely "official".
 
So I take it that the French never bothered to have a Larry Flynt court case that says you can mock public people?
 
Cancer

I have zero respect for you than, if you think catching someone cheating in sports is more important than saving peoples lives.

What is pathetic is that the whole "saving lives against cancer" narrative that Lance has going for him is another lie. What a crock!!! The cancer industry has not made one OUNCE of progress against cancer in 80 years!!!!

That's a complete cover!
 
At the end of the day satire is just satire.

It may or may not be based on truth but that doesn't even matter too much (this is not a news report or a documentary). The reaction to the skit has actually made things worse in terms of whatever perceived evil thing the skit is supposed to have brought about.

I'm not a law expert but I'm pretty sure this lawsuit would not stand a chance in any civilized court of law. Surely the Spaniards must know that a humor piece is supposed to be taken lightly? If no one has told them that I will do it myself (the next time I head down to Benidorm :twisted:
.
 
Last edited:
if evidence is revealed then one can change one's mind, but in its absence people are running on sheer prejudice.



and if one day the Operation Puerto list comes out, I suspect you will look even more like the arse you already act like!!!
 
if evidence is revealed then one can change one's mind, but in its absence people are running on sheer prejudice.

Did you read my response to you? I asked why you thought Nadal would hang out at football matches with and come out in support of a convicted doper. Don't you think this shows an incredible lack of judgement?

6847283883_4de5ab672b.jpg
 
If youre friends with someone and believe their story it could indicate loyalty.

In any event, you're talking guilt by association.




Did you read my response to you? I asked why you thought Nadal would hang out at football matches with and come out in support of a convicted doper. Don't you think this shows an incredible lack of judgement?

6847283883_4de5ab672b.jpg
 
From what I've read about Contador he had an innocent explanation for the reading.

That explanation couldn't be disproved and illegal ingestion/intake wasn't shown, but as strict liability obtained he was guilty.

So you can be innocent of any doping crime and still be guilty. His friends believe him, and there is room for this belief as there was no way of showing the existence of some sort of illegal doping criminal circle.
 
Did you read my response to you? I asked why you thought Nadal would hang out at football matches with and come out in support of a convicted doper. Don't you think this shows an incredible lack of judgement?

6847283883_4de5ab672b.jpg



Fed is still friends with Tiger Woods even after it came out that he was scr*wing everything with a hole in it,and perpetually cheating on his wife. Does that mean Fed is doing the same thing?
 
No real source, no (none you could quote, anyway). It was on a tennis board such as this one, so nothing even remotely "official".

So it's nothing then...

From what I've read about Contador he had an innocent explanation for the reading.

That explanation couldn't be disproved and illegal ingestion/intake wasn't shown, but as strict liability obtained he was guilty.

So you can be innocent of any doping crime and still be guilty. His friends believe him, and there is room for this belief as there was no way of showing the existence of some sort of illegal doping criminal circle.

Exactly. The guy's his friend, and it's not unreasonable from what I can see to think he's innocent.
 
Fed is still friends with Tiger Woods even after it came out that he was scr*wing everything with a hole in it,and perpetually cheating on his wife. Does that mean Fed is doing the same thing?

Fed did not come out and approved of what Tiger Woods has done, while still being loyal to him as a friend.

Ralph, dumb as usual, came out hollering "incredible", in the face of a cheater being officially labeled as such.

Fed is a class act. Ralph is... otherwise.
 
Fed is still friends with Tiger Woods even after it came out that he was scr*wing everything with a hole in it,and perpetually cheating on his wife. Does that mean Fed is doing the same thing?

I don't remember Federer going on Twitter and saying that it didn't happen and that Tiger is completely innocent. He said nothing.

These are Nadal's words on a convicted doper (now deleted, i think):

"The Contador news is incredible, there is no definitive evidence and they give him the maximum punishment...LAMENTABLE...keep your spirits up champion! All my support!"
 
Fed did not come out and approved of what Tiger Woods has done, while still being loyal to him as a friend.

Ralph, dumb as usual, came out hollering "incredible", in the face of a cheater being officially labeled as such.

Fed is a class act. Ralph is... otherwise.


Maybe not but he didn't come out against it,either.

And I agree with you that Nadal is dumb for defending Contador the way he is. He really just needs to shut his mouth and leave well enough alone. He's making himself look like a gigantic fool.
 
So Fed could have come out and said he approves of all the women Tiger's drilled?

Tiger also admitted to his infidelity, so he couldn't exactly deny what had already been admitted.

Who is to say who is really that close?
 
Maybe not but he didn't come out against it,either.

And I agree with you that Nadal is dumb for defending Contador the way he is. He really just needs to shut his mouth and leave well enough alone. He's making himself look like a gigantic fool.

Exactly. Which is basically the way Fed handled the Tiger Woods story. To shut up is sometimes the easiest and wisest thing to do. of course, you want to still be friends with the guy - you won't say anything against him either.

(Edit)
Of course, like I said a while ago, Ralph has really set himself up against the media for a good few months now, with all the complaining and all that. It's pretty obvious they're coming after him with every opportunity.
 
Last edited:
From what I've read about Contador he had an innocent explanation for the reading.

That explanation couldn't be disproved and illegal ingestion/intake wasn't shown, but as strict liability obtained he was guilty.

So you can be innocent of any doping crime and still be guilty. His friends believe him, and there is room for this belief as there was no way of showing the existence of some sort of illegal doping criminal circle.

To be clear on the CAS decision:

“Mr. Contador did not prove but should [of] prove[d] that he did ingest the specific meat he refers to for the meat contamination and that such meat contained the banned substance,” the panel noted. “In this respect, the UCI refers to reports concerning to the specific meat Mr. Contador considers as contaminated, which concluded that no contamination with clenbuterol is involved.
 
He had the burden of proof and he couldn't discharge it, which is what I said.

So the actual meat was still available for testing, or is it that kind of meat in general?
 
The Panel concluded that both the meat contamination scenario and the blood transfusion
scenario were, in theory, possible explanations for the adverse analytica
however equally unlikely. In the Panel’s opinion
presence of clenbuterol was more likely caused by the ingestion of a contaminated food
supplement.
 
So the panel says it was a contaminated food supplement.

Blood transfusion would be a more sinister scenario.
 
Ulrich, a Swiss, I believe:


The UCI alleges that Ullrich violated Article 15.2 of the UCI Rules, which prohibits
the “use or attempted use of a prohibited substance or a prohibited method.” In
particular, the UCI alleges that Ullrich engaged in blood doping (a prohibited method)
and used several prohibited substances, including growth hormones, IGF-1,
testosterone patches (PCH), EPO and a masking substance referred to as “magic
power” that is said to destroy EPO in urine samples.
 
As a β2 sympathomimetic, clenbuterol has also been used as a performance-enhancing drug. Cyclist Alberto Contador of Spain was banned for two years from professional cycling after testing positive for the drug at the 2010 Tour de France.[5] He was later stripped of the 2010 title of the Tour de France and the 2011 title of the Giro d'Italia.[6]
American swimmer Jessica Hardy tested positive at the U.S. trials in July 2008. She served a one-year suspension, having claimed she unknowingly took the drug in a contaminated food supplement. Former New York Mets clubhouse employee Kirk Radomski admitted to distributing clenbuterol to dozens of current and former Major League Baseball players and associates in his plea deal.[7]
Polish sprint canoer Adam Seroczyński was disqualified for taking this drug after he finished fourth in the K-2 1000 m event at the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing, and Chinese cyclist Li Fuyu tested positive for it at the Dwars door Vlaanderen race in Belgium on March 24, 2010.[8]
In September 2010, St. Louis Cardinals minor league shortstop Lainer Bueno received a 50-game suspension for the 2011 season as a result of testing positive for clenbuterol.[9]
In June 2011, players of the Mexico national football team were found with clenbuterol in their bloodstream but were acquitted by WADA after they claimed the clenbuterol came from contaminated food. FIFA have also claimed that 109 players from the Under 17 World Cup in Mexico tested positive for this drug, claiming that Mexican meat is contaminated.[cit
 
The Panel concluded that both the meat contamination scenario and the blood transfusion
scenario were, in theory, possible explanations for the adverse analytica
however equally unlikely. In the Panel’s opinion
presence of clenbuterol was more likely caused by the ingestion of a contaminated food
supplement.

Ironically, a whole bunch of Mexican athletes were given a free pass on the Clenbuterol. It was also discussed as to levels in athletic circles, but it didn't get changed. Of course, it would have looked bad, and I think the retroactive penalty was in part due to that.

I don't have enough knowledge about the whole Contador drama, but, it seems to be a grey area.
 
It isn't just for Armstrong or even myself, the hardest part of the whole thing was going to chemotherapy treatments and seeing all the sick people and their loved ones with them, woman and children and knowing more than half aren't going to make it, it hurt me mentally more than dealing with the disease physically, I knew I would make it, seeing all those people hurting around me is something I can't forget, because I know a lot of them didn't make it. Even if Armstrong cheated, I just can't see why anyone would think it is a good idea to try to destroy the man and his foundation when it would really end up hurting people that are in need, his foundation raises about 100 million dollars for cancer research, what is more important some Tour De France titles or those sick people, that is why it angers me people are so bitter and would like to see Armstrong fall, it won't hurt just him. Almost all of us will have someone close to us get cancer, or get it ourselves. The man is doing a lot of good when does that out way the bad of possibly cheating riding a bicycle, what is more important life or sport?

I read in a book recently that in most peoples minds it takes 20 good deeds to outweigh the though of one misdeed from someone, I now see this is probably true. I try not to be that way, everyone makes mistakes no one is perfect.

I too went through surgery/chemo/radiation and was given Lance Armstrong's book by a colleague, who was hoping I'd find inspiration. After reading the book, I was not impressed by Lance, and took off the yellow band given to me by a friend. The US govt doesn't want to expose that they supported a cheat, who happened to raise a lot of money for charity. Yes, Lance is most definitely both sides of the coin. And it would be hugely embarassing for the govt to expose Lance, given the Post Office supporting Lance. The number of laws and what it would do to the foundation made it easier to drop, especially after how little bang for the buck the govt got for prosecuting Barry Bonds....
 
In places like Mexico and China you'll find it in meat but apparently not in Europe and he said he ate Spanish meat.



Ironically, a whole bunch of Mexican athletes were given a free pass on the Clenbuterol. It was also discussed as to levels in athletic circles, but it didn't get changed. Of course, it would have looked bad, and I think the retroactive penalty was in part due to that.

I don't have enough knowledge about the whole Contador drama, but, it seems to be a grey area.
 
There was the substance in Contador's body and however it got there it's used to strip fat and gain muscle so it's illegal and he got caught.

So where are Nadal's failed drug tests?
 
At the end of the day satire is just satire.

It may or may not be based on truth but that doesn't even matter too much (this is not a news report or a documentary). The reaction to the skit has actually made things worse in terms of whatever perceived evil thing the skit is supposed to have brought about.

I'm not a law expert but I'm pretty sure this lawsuit would not stand a chance in any civilized court of law. Surely the Spaniards must know that a humor piece is supposed to be taken lightly? If no one has told them that I will do it myself (the next time I head down to Benidorm :twisted:
.

Nah, I think anyone could make a decent case against them. The lawsuit certainly stands a chance, as it should.

Exactly. Which is basically the way Fed handled the Tiger Woods story. To shut up is sometimes the easiest and wisest thing to do. of course, you want to still be friends with the guy - you won't say anything against him either.

(Edit)
Of course, like I said a while ago, Ralph has really set himself up against the media for a good few months now, with all the complaining and all that. It's pretty obvious they're coming after him with every opportunity.

Sure, it's the easiest and wisest thing to do if what you care about is your image. Maybe Rafa is caring about a friend here.
 
The Contador case was a bit of a witch hunt started by the French, but he was most definitely doping. Too many inexplicable symptoms.



If Nadal has nothing to hide he should just allow the French Federation federation to test him during his stay at the FO just to prove a point. That is, if he's not doping.
 
Back
Top