TUE: Truly Unruly Exploitation

Here's a link to the latest names leaked
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/sep/23/steve-cummings-british-athletes-named-latest-fancy-bears-leak-wada

Yep don;t want to say but the list of brits is pretty extensive. I mean everytime they release a list teh British atheletes come in buckets.

Veejay wrote:Well the images in this article pretty much sums up my opinion of Putin

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/06/06/queen-d-day-obama-putin_n_5459920.html

The huffington post is an ultra left and totally biased news source.  It makes Fox News look impartial - and at least Fox isn't batshit crazy like the Huff n Puff.

Daniel wrote:

Veejay wrote:Well the images in this article pretty much sums up my opinion of Putin

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/06/06/queen-d-day-obama-putin_n_5459920.html

The huffington post is an ultra left and totally biased news source.  It makes Fox News look impartial - and at least Fox isn't batshit crazy like the Huff n Puff.

youre obviously a massive putin fan daniel,but the pictures in that article dont lie.its fine if you want to admire the guy,but theres no need to try and convince everyone else,shouldnt it be enough for you that you admire him or wont you stop until everyone agrees with you? 
all media are bias because their opinions all lean one way or the other even if its just very slightly...it couldnt be more true of fox news..its completely bias.everyone knows that it has the reputation for being  a platform for extreme right wing republican muppets like anne coulter 
in fact some americans  that i know believe that you can only get ebola from watching fox news 

I must say I don't mind Putin either. If anything I think we are lucky he is providing some resistance to the colonialist American empire.

I was certainly not always thinking like that. I had a visceral fear of communism and Russian nuclear power.
But I learnt my lessons over the years and currently it's the US powers which worry me. Proof is that they are even bringing the battle on the sport stage...while being teh biggest cheats themselves.

i dont care much for world leaders,most of them are just clowns in my opinion.its the power behind that worries me 

i am wondering if tom dailey will end up being named in this TUE scandal 
for a while its looked to me like he has been micro dosing on stanozolol

Fox News viewers are consistently the most uninformed. Consistently.

luvsports! wrote:Fox News viewers are consistently the most uninformed. Consistently.

I think all news viewers are consistently misinformed.
That is the sole purpose of media: to misomform and brainwash.

luvsports! wrote:Fox News viewers are consistently the most uninformed. Consistently.

Fox News is charicatural, if not grotesque, in their views but in a more subtle, cunning and smarter (hence more devious) way the BBC is as much misleading in their reporting. They sound much more balanced and credible...but they are not.

Lucifer is God's cleverest angel! (That's a typical wisdom Religious books can teach us).

Talking about in the US though. Fox News is the worst. 
Iraq War, climate change, health care, Benghazi and all sorts of misinformation. 


Agreed Nitb. That is why trust in the mainstream media is at record lows.

luvsports! wrote:Talking about in the US though. Fox News is the worst. 
Iraq War, climate change, health care, Benghazi and all sorts of misinformation. 


Agreed Nitb. That is why trust in the mainstream media is at record lows.

I didn't know that.
How is that kind of fact established?

I still think majority watch TV and all they talk about is what they saw on TV.
I feel like a black sheep in my tennis club!

So good to have internet.
Esp being able to read Serbian sites as they have lots of Russian/Chinese etc links, though even all that bores me.

There is nothing new under the sun.

I go into High Street (under duress), see shops full of GM and polyester junk, not to mention unhealthy looking people.

Everything and everyine is fast but going nowhere.

All I want to do is retire in some nature and stare into space...

In France all the mainstream media are owned by Billionaires cause their original owners went bankrupt. So those billionaires are using their media to influence and weight on politicians.

More or less smaller Murddock versions.

Yes, I noticed people there are quite militant and uniform in their convictions.

But the food and the country are still so good it kind of doesn't matter as much as elsewhere.

If only they can contain & pacify those lunatics.

noleisthebest wrote:

luvsports! wrote:Talking about in the US though. Fox News is the worst. 
Iraq War, climate change, health care, Benghazi and all sorts of misinformation. 


Agreed Nitb. That is why trust in the mainstream media is at record lows.

I didn't know that.
How is that kind of fact established?

I still think majority watch TV and all they talk about is what they saw on TV.
I feel like a black sheep in my tennis club!

So good to have internet.
Esp being able to read Serbian sites as they have lots of Russian/Chinese etc links, though even all that bores me.

There is nothing new under the sun.

I go into High Street (under duress), see shops full of GM and polyester junk, not to mention unhealthy looking people.

Everything and everyine is fast but going nowhere.

All I want to do is retire in some nature and stare into space...

Polls. 40% dont trust them and just under 10% are confident in them in the us.

noleisthebest wrote:

luvsports! wrote:Fox News viewers are consistently the most uninformed. Consistently.

I think all news viewers are consistently misinformed.
That is the sole purpose of media: to misomform and brainwash.

i think that fox news are the most blatant when it comes to brainwashing and also seem to be the successful cause their viewers are by far the most gullible,they literally believe everything that is reported as if it were the gospel truth
its also a media platform where no one is allowed to question anything or have an opinion that differs in the "land of the free" 
anyone who does is ie dixie chicks will be branded anti- american,unpatriotic,thats what happens in fox news when you question the establishment,especially the republican establishment,its very much a dictatorship in the media world

Has anyone noticed how the BBC was so much against Corbyn and they (and probably other media) organised the rebellion against him last summer. They really did their best to portray Corbyn as devisive leader like they did their best to push for remain.

But again the people went their way like with Brexit and in that sense it supports what LS was saying. They (BBC and other media) are losing their credibiity.

We can see it in Sport here but it's actually for every subject. They keep lying.

Tenez wrote:Has anyone noticed how the BBC was so much against Corbyn and they (and probably other media) organised the rebellion against him last summer. They really did their best to portray Corbyn as devisive leader like they did their best to push for remain.

But again the people went their way like with Brexit and in that sense it supports what LS was saying. They (BBC and other media) are losing their credibiity.

We can see it in Sport here but it's actually for every subject. They keep lying.

Absolutely, they've shot their bolt.

The BBC bias in favour of the liberal left is absurd.

bogbrush wrote:...

The BBC bias in favour of the liberal left is absurd.

Yep, that;s the trend in France and Germany too....to the point that "populists" in Europe are gaining ground.

this is why i love serena...the TUE scandal is probably the quietest we have ever heard her...but she aint staying quiet for long.. 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37491889

the plot thickens for sir bradly wiggins as he finally opens up about his conditions that requested TUE's
its a little too convenient that those TUE's were given right before competitions where he had his best results ( where you would  actually expect his worst results if his condition was prohibiting from performing to the best of his ability) 
his competitors are quick to point out that the drugs used is definitely a game changer which i would consider more then just an edge 


https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/sep/30/bradley-wiggins-interview-tues

I bet someone else wrote all that for him...plus the long face in the photo... 


I never thought doping could be amusing, but seeing how everyone has been reacting to TUE revelations is quite funny.

noleisthebest wrote:I bet someone else wrote all that for him...plus the long face in the photo... 


I never thought doping could be amusing, but seeing how everyone has been reacting to TUE revelations is quite funny.

his ego definitely looks bruised

so WADA are now claiming that the Fancy Bears may have altered the information that they hacked and released but they havent specifically named an athlete or pointed out anything that Fancy Bears may have changed so until they do this,this accusation just looks like a pathetic attempt to make FB look bad and to try and take their credibility away 
if TUE's are completely legal and theres nothing suspicious going on then theres nothing WADA has to be worried about

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/37570246

Veejay wrote:so WADA are now claiming that the Fancy Bears may have altered the information that they hacked and released but they havent specifically named an athlete or pointed out anything that Fancy Bears may have changed so until they do this,this accusation just looks like a pathetic attempt to make FB look bad and to try and take their credibility away 
if TUE's are completely legal and theres nothing suspicious going on then theres nothing WADA has to be worried about

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/37570246

That is why they are claiming the information may have been altered....cause they knew FB woudl release another piece of information:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/37576197

And that is a real bomb! That's what I call a smoking gun! No surprising teh Beeb is only showing this article at the bottom of its page and late on the day.

SYSTEMATIC DOPING COVERING FROM OUR ANTIDOPING AGENCIES....and that's very bad! 583 TUEs in 2015 alone!

Wow...583 TUEs!

That's a lot. Hopefully we'll see some more names.

What do you think is he best case scenario with all this?
Can anything change?

sir bradly wiggins and team sky are now under investigation by the U.K anti-doping agency

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-3825849/UK-Anti-Doping-investigate-Sir-Bradley-Wiggins-Team-Sky.html

Don't see anyone implicated or involved in this who will come out with any credibility

I wish all those stories had appeared before the Olympics. ...when all the focus was on Russia states sponsor doping.

legendkillar wrote:Don't see anyone implicated or involved in this who will come out with any credibility

agreed,if theres one things this fancy bears hacking will probably end up achieving is seeing sir bradly being stripped of some titles
its a shame that the same principle doesnt seem like it will ever apply to tennis players

Great piece in the Daily Telegraph by Paul Hayward on Team Sky. Worth a read if anyone can access a copy.

The more that comes out the more Bradley's grave gets deeper.

legendkillar wrote:Great piece in the Daily Telegraph by Paul Hayward on Team Sky. Worth a read if anyone can access a copy.

The more that comes out the more Bradley's grave gets deeper.

do you reckon he will end up being stripped of his knighthood? 
saw a clip on the bbc about sir philip green and the bhs scandal..calls for him to be stripped of his knighthood but it doesnt look like he will 
has there ever been an athlete who has been stripped of any honours given to them?

Veejay wrote:

legendkillar wrote:Great piece in the Daily Telegraph by Paul Hayward on Team Sky. Worth a read if anyone can access a copy.

The more that comes out the more Bradley's grave gets deeper.

do you reckon he will end up being stripped of his knighthood? 
saw a clip on the bbc about sir philip green and the bhs scandal..calls for him to be stripped of his knighthood but it doesnt look like he will 
has there ever been an athlete who has been stripped of any honours given to them?

Not known an athlete to be stripped. You have to very much do something severe to do so ala Jimmy Saville.

Depending what comes out in relation to Wiggins, as his knighthood is due to "service to the sport" I wouldn't be surprised if he was stripped if it is discovered he cheated.

Now in regards to Philip Green, it's a much more complex case. The BHS farce is still being kicked over and it's unclear exactly Green's role in the demise of that company.

legendkillar wrote:

Veejay wrote:

legendkillar wrote:Great piece in the Daily Telegraph by Paul Hayward on Team Sky. Worth a read if anyone can access a copy.

The more that comes out the more Bradley's grave gets deeper.

do you reckon he will end up being stripped of his knighthood? 
saw a clip on the bbc about sir philip green and the bhs scandal..calls for him to be stripped of his knighthood but it doesnt look like he will 
has there ever been an athlete who has been stripped of any honours given to them?

Not known an athlete to be stripped. You have to very much do something severe to do so ala Jimmy Saville.

Depending what comes out in relation to Wiggins, as his knighthood is due to "service to the sport" I wouldn't be surprised if he was stripped if it is discovered he cheated.

Now in regards to Philip Green, it's a much more complex case. The BHS farce is still being kicked over and it's unclear exactly Green's role in the demise of that company.

well the bbc's little documentary of what went down with sir phillip and lady green was really really scandalous 
but you never really know if that was purposely politically motivated especially taking into consideration how they tried to avoid paying tax

Veejay wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

Veejay wrote:

legendkillar wrote:Great piece in the Daily Telegraph by Paul Hayward on Team Sky. Worth a read if anyone can access a copy.

The more that comes out the more Bradley's grave gets deeper.

do you reckon he will end up being stripped of his knighthood? 
saw a clip on the bbc about sir philip green and the bhs scandal..calls for him to be stripped of his knighthood but it doesnt look like he will 
has there ever been an athlete who has been stripped of any honours given to them?

Not known an athlete to be stripped. You have to very much do something severe to do so ala Jimmy Saville.

Depending what comes out in relation to Wiggins, as his knighthood is due to "service to the sport" I wouldn't be surprised if he was stripped if it is discovered he cheated.

Now in regards to Philip Green, it's a much more complex case. The BHS farce is still being kicked over and it's unclear exactly Green's role in the demise of that company.

well the bbc's little documentary of what went down with sir phillip and lady green was really really scandalous 
but you never really know if that was purposely politically motivated especially taking into consideration how they tried to avoid paying tax

The liability and tax laws around this case are so loose that he'd manage to find something to distance himself from the disaster that was. There is clear malpractice going on with BHS and I know there is a queue forming to be part of that firing squad that takes aim at him! He got off lightly at the MP's hearing (most of them do). What I always find so heart wrenching is when the pensions go pop. They seriously need to look at the laws so people who spend years paying into one for 30 years don't screwed 29 years later if their employer goes bust!

The worst case scenario for Green is just reputational damage. I would imagine he'll get fined or some kind of financial penalty. It doesn't take away the pain and deceit. Should be jailed for fraud!

legendkillar wrote:

Veejay wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

Veejay wrote:

legendkillar wrote:Great piece in the Daily Telegraph by Paul Hayward on Team Sky. Worth a read if anyone can access a copy.

The more that comes out the more Bradley's grave gets deeper.

do you reckon he will end up being stripped of his knighthood? 
saw a clip on the bbc about sir philip green and the bhs scandal..calls for him to be stripped of his knighthood but it doesnt look like he will 
has there ever been an athlete who has been stripped of any honours given to them?

Not known an athlete to be stripped. You have to very much do something severe to do so ala Jimmy Saville.

Depending what comes out in relation to Wiggins, as his knighthood is due to "service to the sport" I wouldn't be surprised if he was stripped if it is discovered he cheated.

Now in regards to Philip Green, it's a much more complex case. The BHS farce is still being kicked over and it's unclear exactly Green's role in the demise of that company.

well the bbc's little documentary of what went down with sir phillip and lady green was really really scandalous 
but you never really know if that was purposely politically motivated especially taking into consideration how they tried to avoid paying tax

The liability and tax laws around this case are so loose that he'd manage to find something to distance himself from the disaster that was. There is clear malpractice going on with BHS and I know there is a queue forming to be part of that firing squad that takes aim at him! He got off lightly at the MP's hearing (most of them do). What I always find so heart wrenching is when the pensions go pop. They seriously need to look at the laws so people who spend years paying into one for 30 years don't screwed 29 years later if their employer goes bust!

The worst case scenario for Green is just reputational damage. I would imagine he'll get fined or some kind of financial penalty. It doesn't take away the pain and deceit. Should be jailed for fraud!

this is my issue and i would assume pretty much everyone else's issue 
those workers have been robbed,literally stolen from and no one should ever be able to get away with something like that
thing is sir philip could easily sort it out,its not like he hasnt got the capital but i think he is the kind of person who would rather bribe his way out of something like that 

back to sir bradly...really interesting days..i think we are just a few weeks away from seeing him being stripped of this tour de france title,its such a shame cause i was really fooled into believing that he actually did it clean 

apparently sir bradly wont be attending the olympic parade in manchester...i wonder why...?? lol

Veejay wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

Veejay wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

Veejay wrote:

legendkillar wrote:Great piece in the Daily Telegraph by Paul Hayward on Team Sky. Worth a read if anyone can access a copy.

The more that comes out the more Bradley's grave gets deeper.

do you reckon he will end up being stripped of his knighthood? 
saw a clip on the bbc about sir philip green and the bhs scandal..calls for him to be stripped of his knighthood but it doesnt look like he will 
has there ever been an athlete who has been stripped of any honours given to them?

Not known an athlete to be stripped. You have to very much do something severe to do so ala Jimmy Saville.

Depending what comes out in relation to Wiggins, as his knighthood is due to "service to the sport" I wouldn't be surprised if he was stripped if it is discovered he cheated.

Now in regards to Philip Green, it's a much more complex case. The BHS farce is still being kicked over and it's unclear exactly Green's role in the demise of that company.

well the bbc's little documentary of what went down with sir phillip and lady green was really really scandalous 
but you never really know if that was purposely politically motivated especially taking into consideration how they tried to avoid paying tax

The liability and tax laws around this case are so loose that he'd manage to find something to distance himself from the disaster that was. There is clear malpractice going on with BHS and I know there is a queue forming to be part of that firing squad that takes aim at him! He got off lightly at the MP's hearing (most of them do). What I always find so heart wrenching is when the pensions go pop. They seriously need to look at the laws so people who spend years paying into one for 30 years don't screwed 29 years later if their employer goes bust!

The worst case scenario for Green is just reputational damage. I would imagine he'll get fined or some kind of financial penalty. It doesn't take away the pain and deceit. Should be jailed for fraud!

this is my issue and i would assume pretty much everyone else's issue 
those workers have been robbed,literally stolen from and no one should ever be able to get away with something like that
thing is sir philip could easily sort it out,its not like he hasnt got the capital but i think he is the kind of person who would rather bribe his way out of something like that 

back to sir bradly...really interesting days..i think we are just a few weeks away from seeing him being stripped of this tour de france title,its such a shame cause i was really fooled into believing that he actually did it clean 

Team Sky have always been suspect in my mind.

I will always be of the opinion that cycling will never be clean. It's like the running joke of sport. It's a shame in that cycling has had to try and pick itself up from the Armstrong scandal. It's only moved from illegal doping to legal doping! Essentially nothing's changed. What this Wiggins scandal will do is cast a spotlight on British cycling. Eyes will now turn to the likes of Cavendish, Froome, Hoy. You name it. If Wiggins is shot down for this, you guarantee he won't go down alone!

cycling may have a reputation of being a very dirty cheating sport but if theres one thing i admire about them is that they arent afraid to talk about the subject of drugs and cheating,they are very open minded when it comes to the subject of drugs and cheating and they arent afraid to discipline or to strip any athlete of a title no matter how big a celebrity sports star that cyclist is
they seem to be very consistent in that regard..its not one rule for one cyclist and another rule for another 
now compare that with tennis...
no one wants to even touch the subject,its seems forbidden to even say the word "doping" almost like "he who must not be named!!" 
you have muppets like navratilova and willander who believes that athletes who test positive for banned substances are innocent and didnt try to cheat,they were most likely completely ignorant and had no idea that what they were doing was wrong
it doesnt seem like anyone will ever get stripped of any title if they tested positive
in tennis everything is gets swept under the rug and the powers that be pretend like theres nothing wrong 
its all so hypocritical and theres so much double standards 


it should be very interesting to see what gets revealed in british cycling especially as you mentioned the potential impact it could have cyclists like sir chris hoy etc

Well tennis has not done itself any favours by overturning bans handed down to players testing positive for banned substances. Gasquet/Cilic being cases in which bans were overturned with some rather far fetched stories.

Tennis I think still holds itself high as an elite sport. Similar to golf when Gary Player in the late 90's spoke of drugs in golf and he was vilified for it. Almost like it had no place being mentioned in that sport.

A tennis season is long. With the frequent travel to all parts of the world and crazy scheduling and more so the gruelling standards of the game. These players have to be on something (legal/illegal) to keep up with the pace. As much as players talk about diets or massages or what have you. I'd never completely blame the players if they were doping, they'd even be the first to argue that the tour is that demanding it requires something to keep them running.

Cycling is a gruelling sport. Total endurance. Not sure what the sport can do that really takes the demand off the body. However, tennis has more to it and more can be down to take the demand and tolls off the players bodies. Technology takes sport so far before you realise it requires super human capacity to perform at the levels technology takes it.

Take golf. Heavier club heads and graphite shafts have enabled golf to become what I would call easier. Players can hit 330 yards + off the tee. So what you have is say that if a course is say nearly 8,000 yards long, the field is not limited by power hitters. Clubs are more forgiving. So irons allow players to hit longer and more accurately. Now the advances in putting are stunning. You have the tall putters (where the player holds the top of the club grips the middle of the club) and isn't holding the club with both hands in the same place. Then belly putters came along and makes it easier to control and steady oneself. Eventually the PGA realised this is making the game too easy and offers many advantages to putters. So it's been outlawed. Setting that aside, the developments in other clubs has allowed for a more even field. However, has the technological advances in tennis allowed for an even field? I don't think so.

i agree,the tennis world love to give off the impression that its squeaky clean sport played by gentlemen when its anything but that
its pretty much impossible for any competitive sport where money in involved to be free of scandals and corruption
its just ridiculous when you see a case like sharapova rock the sport,theres this huge pink elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about, address or even admit that its there...every one is walking around on eggs afraid to say the wrong thing..but what i find even worse is the lengths taken to protect these athletes once they are exposed for their offenses...
if you really think about it,the sporting world have set themselves up to fail,banking on public interest and ratings to see records being broken in return for profit and revenue and then going on to ban substances..but perhaps that part of the appeal,like tabloids-building you up just to tear you down
theres nothing the public love more then seeing someone fall from grace 
sad but true..
why do you think that technology in tennis has created an uneven playing field?

Purely because of the gulf between the top of the field and the rest. Has the advance of equipment helped the field in bringing them closer? It hasn't. Now what you could argue is that courts have been homogenized to the point they more or less play the same and I guess that is one advantage golf has is that same courses bar the Masters and the Open (to a degree) are not played on each year at the same venues. Not saying that tennis needs to change venues, but at least attempt to vary the surface speed. Yes it might hit their pockets, but crikey if the equipment isn't going to generate the variety, the surfaces might.

Strings have encouraged a more top spin based game and even the surfaces and balls to some extent as there is no purchase for flat out hitting. So one style progresses ahead of the other. I am sure the anti 90's brigade would come out in full vocal voice to say how a return to those days would be a death blow and I would agree, but it's not to say that that style should be made obsolete.

In golf, when Jack was winning everything, they lengthened the courses as back then drivers and woods were made from wood. Jack played a high ball and the longer distance of the courses took that advantage out of play. The development of titanium club faces changed the game massively and allowed more accurate hitting. When Tiger started winning everything when distance was less of an issue because he took that out of the equation, they narrowed fairways and sped up greens.

In tennis, they blunted Sampras and then Federer. And now seem all out of answers on how to blunt Djokovic.

legendkillar wrote:Purely because of the gulf between the top of the field and the rest. Has the advance of equipment helped the field in bringing them closer? It hasn't. Now what you could argue is that courts have been homogenized to the point they more or less play the same and I guess that is one advantage golf has is that same courses bar the Masters and the Open (to a degree) are not played on each year at the same venues. Not saying that tennis needs to change venues, but at least attempt to vary the surface speed. Yes it might hit their pockets, but crikey if the equipment isn't going to generate the variety, the surfaces might.

Strings have encouraged a more top spin based game and even the surfaces and balls to some extent as there is no purchase for flat out hitting. So one style progresses ahead of the other. I am sure the anti 90's brigade would come out in full vocal voice to say how a return to those days would be a death blow and I would agree, but it's not to say that that style should be made obsolete.

In golf, when Jack was winning everything, they lengthened the courses as back then drivers and woods were made from wood. Jack played a high ball and the longer distance of the courses took that advantage out of play. The development of titanium club faces changed the game massively and allowed more accurate hitting. When Tiger started winning everything when distance was less of an issue because he took that out of the equation, they narrowed fairways and sped up greens.

In tennis, they blunted Sampras and then Federer. And now seem all out of answers on how to blunt Djokovic.

but wouldnt you say that gap is down to talent?
the motive behind technology is to help improve,make something thats hard to achieve much easier etc but i dont think technology can guarantee beating talent
whoever has the more talent already has the greater edge so logically speaking the more talented athlete will remain having the bigger edge with the same technology
i dont think that technology will ever close the gap between the most talented athletes and the ones with less talent
if two tennis players are using the exact same technology then the edge would go to the player who is more talented no?

Veejay wrote:

legendkillar wrote:Purely because of the gulf between the top of the field and the rest. Has the advance of equipment helped the field in bringing them closer? It hasn't. Now what you could argue is that courts have been homogenized to the point they more or less play the same and I guess that is one advantage golf has is that same courses bar the Masters and the Open (to a degree) are not played on each year at the same venues. Not saying that tennis needs to change venues, but at least attempt to vary the surface speed. Yes it might hit their pockets, but crikey if the equipment isn't going to generate the variety, the surfaces might.

Strings have encouraged a more top spin based game and even the surfaces and balls to some extent as there is no purchase for flat out hitting. So one style progresses ahead of the other. I am sure the anti 90's brigade would come out in full vocal voice to say how a return to those days would be a death blow and I would agree, but it's not to say that that style should be made obsolete.

In golf, when Jack was winning everything, they lengthened the courses as back then drivers and woods were made from wood. Jack played a high ball and the longer distance of the courses took that advantage out of play. The development of titanium club faces changed the game massively and allowed more accurate hitting. When Tiger started winning everything when distance was less of an issue because he took that out of the equation, they narrowed fairways and sped up greens.

In tennis, they blunted Sampras and then Federer. And now seem all out of answers on how to blunt Djokovic.

but wouldnt you say that gap is down to talent?
the motive behind technology is to help improve,make something thats hard to achieve much easier etc but i dont think technology can guarantee beating talent
whoever has the more talent already has the greater edge so logically speaking the more talented athlete will remain having the bigger edge with the same technology
i dont think that technology will ever close the gap between the most talented athletes and the ones with less talent
if two tennis players are using the exact same technology then the edge would go to the player who is more talented no?

You raise an interesting point

We are led to believe that the ilk of Djokovic/Murray are not as talented as others and yet there they stand at the top of the game. I am not saying that you close the gap and give say the top 100 all a fair chance of beating one another on the back of technology alone, however players utilising the same technology would be interesting to see.

legendkillar wrote:

Veejay wrote:

legendkillar wrote:Purely because of the gulf between the top of the field and the rest. Has the advance of equipment helped the field in bringing them closer? It hasn't. Now what you could argue is that courts have been homogenized to the point they more or less play the same and I guess that is one advantage golf has is that same courses bar the Masters and the Open (to a degree) are not played on each year at the same venues. Not saying that tennis needs to change venues, but at least attempt to vary the surface speed. Yes it might hit their pockets, but crikey if the equipment isn't going to generate the variety, the surfaces might.

Strings have encouraged a more top spin based game and even the surfaces and balls to some extent as there is no purchase for flat out hitting. So one style progresses ahead of the other. I am sure the anti 90's brigade would come out in full vocal voice to say how a return to those days would be a death blow and I would agree, but it's not to say that that style should be made obsolete.

In golf, when Jack was winning everything, they lengthened the courses as back then drivers and woods were made from wood. Jack played a high ball and the longer distance of the courses took that advantage out of play. The development of titanium club faces changed the game massively and allowed more accurate hitting. When Tiger started winning everything when distance was less of an issue because he took that out of the equation, they narrowed fairways and sped up greens.

In tennis, they blunted Sampras and then Federer. And now seem all out of answers on how to blunt Djokovic.

but wouldnt you say that gap is down to talent?
the motive behind technology is to help improve,make something thats hard to achieve much easier etc but i dont think technology can guarantee beating talent
whoever has the more talent already has the greater edge so logically speaking the more talented athlete will remain having the bigger edge with the same technology
i dont think that technology will ever close the gap between the most talented athletes and the ones with less talent
if two tennis players are using the exact same technology then the edge would go to the player who is more talented no?

You raise an interesting point

We are led to believe that the ilk of Djokovic/Murray are not as talented as others and yet there they stand at the top of the game. I am not saying that you close the gap and give say the top 100 all a fair chance of beating one another on the back of technology alone, however players utilising the same technology would be interesting to see.

even if you were to do that it would still be unfair and an uneven playing field
i dont think that sport could ever be an even playing field simply because some athletes are more talented then others
its just your luck if your born with that innate talent

Veejay wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

Veejay wrote:

legendkillar wrote:Purely because of the gulf between the top of the field and the rest. Has the advance of equipment helped the field in bringing them closer? It hasn't. Now what you could argue is that courts have been homogenized to the point they more or less play the same and I guess that is one advantage golf has is that same courses bar the Masters and the Open (to a degree) are not played on each year at the same venues. Not saying that tennis needs to change venues, but at least attempt to vary the surface speed. Yes it might hit their pockets, but crikey if the equipment isn't going to generate the variety, the surfaces might.

Strings have encouraged a more top spin based game and even the surfaces and balls to some extent as there is no purchase for flat out hitting. So one style progresses ahead of the other. I am sure the anti 90's brigade would come out in full vocal voice to say how a return to those days would be a death blow and I would agree, but it's not to say that that style should be made obsolete.

In golf, when Jack was winning everything, they lengthened the courses as back then drivers and woods were made from wood. Jack played a high ball and the longer distance of the courses took that advantage out of play. The development of titanium club faces changed the game massively and allowed more accurate hitting. When Tiger started winning everything when distance was less of an issue because he took that out of the equation, they narrowed fairways and sped up greens.

In tennis, they blunted Sampras and then Federer. And now seem all out of answers on how to blunt Djokovic.

but wouldnt you say that gap is down to talent?
the motive behind technology is to help improve,make something thats hard to achieve much easier etc but i dont think technology can guarantee beating talent
whoever has the more talent already has the greater edge so logically speaking the more talented athlete will remain having the bigger edge with the same technology
i dont think that technology will ever close the gap between the most talented athletes and the ones with less talent
if two tennis players are using the exact same technology then the edge would go to the player who is more talented no?

You raise an interesting point

We are led to believe that the ilk of Djokovic/Murray are not as talented as others and yet there they stand at the top of the game. I am not saying that you close the gap and give say the top 100 all a fair chance of beating one another on the back of technology alone, however players utilising the same technology would be interesting to see.

even if you were to do that it would still be unfair and an uneven playing field
i dont think that sport could ever be an even playing field simply because some athletes are more talented then others
its just your luck if your born with that innate talent

I don't see that as being unfair. If the gap is on talent alone, sods law.

If there is a way in which a big gap can be reduced, by all means it should be explored. I want to see Grasscourt/Hardcourt start playing like they should be.

i mean in a sense that life is unfair,those who are born with more talent are fortunate and those who are born with less ability are unfortunate 
i agree that if a gap can be reduced then all means should be explored,but within reason obviously...thats what keeps things super competitive and keeps sport evolving

Talent and physical performance are 2 very different different thing.

In short the more physical an event, the less talent is involved (at least in tennis).

In short it is the talent of the players versus the talent of the chemical industry and its doctors.

I ahave explained many times that the purpose of being fitter than his opponent is to take the battle away from talent and bring it to a purely physical battle.

One can say that between 2 very physical players like Djoko and Nadal, the more talented one woudl win more often bit that is not even true. The one winning is the one lasting longer. However Djoko probably lasts longer than nadal cause he needs less energy and therefore uses more talent....but that is probably false when comparing Murray to Djoko. I'd say Murray has probably the better shots (not great, just better), but he is not nearly as energy efficient as Djoko.

In fact I am convinced that without those big muscly body, Murray woudl move much slower and and his racquet sweetspot woudl be much smaller hence more inclined to many UEs.

Guys like Stan and federer are probably 4 times more talented than Murray and Djoko. But science helps them to catch up immensely. A talented player doesn't gain nearly as much from doping as a less talented player.

Tenez wrote:Talent and physical performance are 2 very different different thing.

In short the more physical an event, the less talent is involved (at least in tennis).

In short it is the talent of the players versus the talent of the chemical industry and its doctors.

I ahave explained many times that the purpose of being fitter than his opponent is to take the battle away from talent and bring it to a purely physical battle.

One can say that between 2 very physical players like Djoko and Nadal, the more talented one woudl win more often bit that is not even true. The one winning is the one lasting longer. However Djoko probably lasts longer than nadal cause he needs less energy and therefore uses more talent....but that is probably false when comparing Murray to Djoko. I'd say Murray has probably the better shots (not great, just better), but he is not nearly as energy efficient as Djoko.

In fact I am convinced that without those big muscly body, Murray woudl move much slower and and his racquet sweetspot woudl be much smaller hence more inclined to many UEs.

Guys like Stan and federer are probably 4 times more talented than Murray and Djoko. But science helps them to catch up immensely. A talented player doesn't gain nearly as much from doping as a less talented player.

Which shots, serve, FH, BH?
None of these.

Admit it, you are a Murray fan.

Hence the OTF photo still gracing us.

The BH (for sure), smash, volley, slice BH. They have close matches despite Djoko being a much better mover.

Tenez wrote:The BH (for sure), smash, volley, slice BH. They have close matches despite Djoko being a much better mover.

Hehe...

As far as I am concerned, a player is measured by his serve and FH...

As for the BH - no chance, Murray may muscle his basic BH more, that's about it, he doesn't even come close with variety.

Slice - yes it's better but what does he use it for? Pushing!

Nole's slice is now good enough to enable him to do what he wants most of the time.

Finally - volleys....same as Nadal, non existant, but I am sure they look beautifully clean in practice.

Their matches are close usually for a set most of the time despite Murray being considerably fitter.