tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
That's not the point; the only point that I'm making is that Federer in his early years showed far less promise than Djokovic did before they both won their slams. Djokovic before winning his slam had consistently made deep runs in slams (SF at Wimbledon, SF at FO, F at USO), won multiple Master titles (won Canada, Miami), and beat many top players in those years (Federer, Nadal, Roddick, etc). Oh, and somehow that is all overshadowed by the fact that Federer beat old man Sampras at Wimbledon. So what about Novak's accomplishment of beating Federer during his prime? LOL.
And yet somehow we're suppose to believe that Djokovic is the one doping. He was always consistently very good. Federer on the other hand, is a much stronger candidate for the PED case considering before his slam, he was just a wildly inconsistent player who could lose to just about anyone.
What's the point of this? It won't matter one bit if Djokovic fails to have a Federer-like career which looks unlikely even if he goes unbeaten this year.
Before the Federer era started in 2004 he had some decent results prior. Beat Sampras at Wimbledon in 2001, reached 2 consecutive Slam quarters in 2001 as a teenager, won a Masters title at 20 a year later and then won Wimbledon/Masters Cup in 2003. So you suggest he took just a little PED in 2001 to try out, took a little bit more in 2002 and then thought "hey the **** is working!" and has been taking huge dozes since?
Last edited: