The GOAT conversation will reboot...

... wrote:Does anyone know who came up with this GOAT idea?

It must have been some Nadal fan.

Or was it about breaking Sampras' record?

I can't remember....


It is very easy to see who the best/greatest player is.

Only those who don't want to are trying to muscle the truth.

The GOAT idea I think emerged with the rise of Federer. He was the first player who actually had all court, all surfaces game that looked smooth like butter. 80s and 90s was mostly era of 'specialists' and before that tennis wasn't even a global sport to have these discussions.

Emancipator wrote:The OZ final must have felt like a dagger in the heart to the Nadal fans.

Across the forums they were exulting before the final, certain in their victory, and ready to proclaim their man GOAT. Then at 3-1 in the fifth they must have thought it was a done deal and probably began preparing their reams of tedious arguments about H2H's etc. - but then he lost. 

I have to say it's been great that they've been to forced to quieten down over the last couple of years. Remember how they used to hijack every thread with tedious arguments about H2H? They aggressively asserted their man's claim to GOAThood through this whataboutery even though the overall statistics where far from in his favour because they were so confident that it was only a matter of time before their man overtook Fed. Then the last 2 years happened and then of course OZ.

Alas, 'tis always the way with hubris. 

Hopefully, if Fed can get one more he can close this conversation down for good. It would be an absolute travesty if the limited artisan Nadal were to eclipse Federer in the slam stakes. By talent alone Federer should be at least 10 ahead. Sadly the conditions have allowed Nadal to win more slams than his talent deserves.



Emancipator

I have to say for the best part, Federer fans are right up there with Arnie's Army as being one of the most graceless bunch I've ever come across. Totally tribal with a failure to even conduct themselves in a manner befitting of the player themselves. I am not defending Nadal fans, because they irritate me just as much. However I do get sick to death of the whole "Well Federer would've won more if hadn't been for" for chuff sake give it a rest. Argument works the other way. Had Federer not been around than Djokovic and Nadal could easily lay claim to winning 20 Slams a piece. What if's. What if Borg hadn't retired early and played the AO? What if Laver benefited from turning Pro earlier in his career? What if the doormouse becomes extinct in Britain and pollination takes a hammering?

The GOAThood debate of anything is done to death galore in any sport. It is like watching a bunch of coroners overcome with n£crophilia at an autopsy!

I've always tried to keep it simplified. The one statistic that always sits above any other is the amount of Slams won. Federer is above the rest. Case closed. Until anyone surpasses that number of 18, will always come up short in that debate for an equal footing.

The constant flogging of Nadal. The guy is still 3 Slams short of equalling Federer's record and even with that lags in the weeks at No.1 which for me is the second most important achievement in the GOAThood criteria of importance. What is there to really get heated up about in regards to Nadal.

I'd say spend more time in enjoying Federer's tennis and less time in getting worked up about Nadal.

You do sound like a Fed fan LK!

I don;t know what they would and wouldn't have won - but I do know that this record:

Aussie - ATP Tour Finals
5-1-7-5-6 

is a lot better than this

1-10-2-2-0

The Nadal fans are by far the worst fans there are online (as a whole). You only have to look at 606v2 to know it for a fact.  Their members cry out for bans, throw toys out of the pram about ANY criticism, and the Nadal fan mods (which they CLEARLY ARE) duly respond with ponied-up excuses to ban members.  And it's always a Fed fan or Nadal critic on the receiving end.  When I see general forums led by Federer fans booting off Nadal fans, I'll see a valid comparison. Until then, you are talking shite. 

The one statistic that always sits above any other is the amount of Slams won

And that, as you can see above, is a stupid way of looking at it.

Oh Ten I am impartial to watching Federer. Did so yesterday infact.

Maybe it's the angry dad in me coming out, but when did tennis get so chuffing tribal? I can't ever remember a time in which there were drawn battle lines, but maybe I should blame the internet and explosion of forums. The rivalry amongst fans themselves is so alien to the sport it represents. I absolutely identify with the fact some players will grate more on most than others, hell McEnroe was the poster child of such a figure, but crikey it consumes most more than the pleasure of watching said favourite player.

As for Ronnie Pickering above, not sure what school of idiot you graduated from but let me speak in words you might understand just in the event you didn't understand my post in it's full context.

By my powers of mathematics the following equations are as follows:

1+10+2+2 = 15
5+1+7+5 = 18

As you can see 18 is greater than 15!! So your whole point is totally irrelevant until Nadal surpasses Federer's total tally by winning another 4 FO's!! So by your rationale Agassi's spread of 8 Slams is much more impressive than Borgs spread of 11.

As for the Nadal fan vs Federer fan. Getting the boot from forums isn't the measuring stick I'd use. If you read my post closely, I said Nadal fans irritate me just as much, but in different ways to Federer fans. Nadal fans I find a rather heroic bordering sexual appreciation for him more than his tennis (talking majority I have experienced and I know a few minority who appreciate his tennis more as a starter for 10). Federer fans it's all about how great is (no harm in that, because he is) but that is outweighed by the constant bemoaning of Nadal and the rest of it with a bit of Bullseye "Let's look at what you would've won"

He is going to go down as the greatest player ever (especially in my lifetime) on here, this forum specifically I haven't seen anyone trying to elevate Nadal above him in those stakes. That argument was left well behind. Confined to the history books of forum wars.

... wrote:Does anyone know who came up with this GOAT idea?

It must have been some Nadal fan.

Or was it about breaking Sampras' record?

I can't remember....


It is very easy to see who the best/greatest player is.

Only those who don't want to are trying to muscle the truth.

it was big loud mouth mccenroe who first started the GOAT conversation by anointing federer as the greatest ever,long before he even had the numbers and titles to back the argument up
evey time someone wins a major in a final that lasted 6+ hours he starts claiming that they must be the new GOAT
his opinion holds no credibility in my opinion

just looking at the different stats being used to prove GOATness everyone clearly has a different idea of what it takes to be anointed the GOAT
some nadal fans used to use the fact that nadal won the DC and federer at the time didnt  along with the H2H and olympic gold medal as the reasons why he is is the GOAT just as federer fans used the fact that nadal has never won the WTF as a reason why he doesnt deserve to be called the GOAT
its mostly just an opinion just like wimbledon being the pinnacle of the sport is an opinion shared by the majority
going by that opinion,7 wimbledon titles is by far greater then 10 RG titles 
i still struggle to agree with that...so to me it just proves how pointless this argument is cause everyone has a different idea of what the GOAT is or should be
i do however think that what makes an athlete great is their achievements and to date federer is the greatest by achievements
whether he is the best ever is an entirely different argument as i think that its impossible to compare eras 
too much has changed over time,conditions, racket technology etc and now that the scoring my be changing too it will become even harder to compare eras 
i think that its entirely possible to be the greatest of your era,but not so much of the sport as a whole
you just join the lists of all time greats of the sport

1+10+2+2 = 15
5+1+7+5 = 18

As you can see 18 is greater than 15!!

Yeah, I rationalize that a spread across surfaces and tournaments is far greater than the gap of 3 shows.  Do you actually get that? No, you don't.  You see it in rigid and brainless terms.  If Federer had 20 Wimbledon slams and 0 0 0 across the others, I would be putting Sampras and Nadal above him.  Do you understand?

legendkillar wrote:

Emancipator wrote:The OZ final must have felt like a dagger in the heart to the Nadal fans.

Across the forums they were exulting before the final, certain in their victory, and ready to proclaim their man GOAT. Then at 3-1 in the fifth they must have thought it was a done deal and probably began preparing their reams of tedious arguments about H2H's etc. - but then he lost. 

I have to say it's been great that they've been to forced to quieten down over the last couple of years. Remember how they used to hijack every thread with tedious arguments about H2H? They aggressively asserted their man's claim to GOAThood through this whataboutery even though the overall statistics where far from in his favour because they were so confident that it was only a matter of time before their man overtook Fed. Then the last 2 years happened and then of course OZ.

Alas, 'tis always the way with hubris. 

Hopefully, if Fed can get one more he can close this conversation down for good. It would be an absolute travesty if the limited artisan Nadal were to eclipse Federer in the slam stakes. By talent alone Federer should be at least 10 ahead. Sadly the conditions have allowed Nadal to win more slams than his talent deserves.



Emancipator

I have to say for the best part, Federer fans are right up there with Arnie's Army as being one of the most graceless bunch I've ever come across. Totally tribal with a failure to even conduct themselves in a manner befitting of the player themselves. I am not defending Nadal fans, because they irritate me just as much. However I do get sick to death of the whole "Well Federer would've won more if hadn't been for" for chuff sake give it a rest. Argument works the other way. Had Federer not been around than Djokovic and Nadal could easily lay claim to winning 20 Slams a piece. What if's. What if Borg hadn't retired early and played the AO? What if Laver benefited from turning Pro earlier in his career? What if the doormouse becomes extinct in Britain and pollination takes a hammering?

The GOAThood debate of anything is done to death galore in any sport. It is like watching a bunch of coroners overcome with n£crophilia at an autopsy!

I've always tried to keep it simplified. The one statistic that always sits above any other is the amount of Slams won. Federer is above the rest. Case closed. Until anyone surpasses that number of 18, will always come up short in that debate for an equal footing.

The constant flogging of Nadal. The guy is still 3 Slams short of equalling Federer's record and even with that lags in the weeks at No.1 which for me is the second most important achievement in the GOAThood criteria of importance. What is there to really get heated up about in regards to Nadal.

I'd say spend more time in enjoying Federer's tennis and less time in getting worked up about Nadal.

Actually I think Federer fans have been remarkably restrained. We could have gone to town on the Nadal fans after OZ given all the abuse and heckling we've been on the receiving end of regarding the H2H, but we didn't. In fact there was virtually no gloating at all. 

But since Nadal won the FO some of his fans (on other forums) have already started beating the GOAT drum again - they never learn!

Right now- with the caveat that Fedal can both add to their success- I'd have to have Federer's achievements ahead. For me winning a slam aged 35 was like when Sachin Tendulkar had a year where he scored 1000 runs+ in tests- jaw dropping and also incredible longevity.
Nadal for me has to have a few more years of success to be up there again. Big underdog as he has been so injury prone, and the fact his movement will start to decline and he doesn't have a big serve to make up for it (no cheap points). If I had to make a prediction I'd predict that Nadal won't win any more Slams, and I don't make those sorts of predictions lightly.

Daniel wrote: the Nadal fan mods (which they CLEARLY ARE) duly respond with ponied-up excuses to ban members.  

Your stereotype doesn't stand, I am regarded as the most hated Nadal fan, but yet in 2015 on 606v2 I remember Bogbrush getting banned (temporarily for a few weeks I think) and I private messaged the v2 tennis mods to tell them it was unfair and then it got overturned within the next hour. I'm a Nadal fan, and Bogbrush is a not very shy Fed fan. v2 mods btw are Julius (Murray fan who prefer Federer to Nadal), and Laver fan (Laver fan); for only a few months temporary21 a Nadal fan was mod, but like his username his stay as mod was very temporary.
You can check with this Bogbrush btw, he has a good memory so I'm sure he will remember.

Emancipator wrote:

Actually I think Federer fans have been remarkably restrained.

So you logged onto this forum, and the first thing which popped into your head was 'wow Federer fans remarkably restrained' 'Nadal fans bad'??
Was your apology two months ago sincere? Should we re-visit the issue?
Look Legendkiller clearly likes you as a poster, and even he thinks you've slightly lost the plot.

Err.. this thread has been running for weeks. 

I don't apologise for my opinions. On occasion I can be rude and for that I usually apologise to the people on the receiving end. 

I'm sure LK doesn't think I've 'slightly' lost the plot - I've always been a little bit mad 

Veejay wrote:

... wrote:Does anyone know who came up with this GOAT idea?
It must have been some Nadal fan.
Or was it about breaking Sampras' record?
I can't remember....
It is very easy to see who the best/greatest player is.
Only those who don't want to are trying to muscle the truth.

it was big loud mouth mccenroe who first started the GOAT conversation by anointing federer as the greatest ever,long before he even had the numbers and titles to back the argument up
evey time someone wins a major in a final that lasted 6+ hours he starts claiming that they must be the new GOAT
his opinion holds no credibility in my opinion

You're right!

It sounds just like it coul've been his "baby".

He carries on like a woman anyway... all over the place! /

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

... wrote:Does anyone know who came up with this GOAT idea?

It must have been some Nadal fan.

Or was it about breaking Sampras' record?

I can't remember....


It is very easy to see who the best/greatest player is.

Only those who don't want to are trying to muscle the truth.

The GOAT idea I think emerged with the rise of Federer. He was the first player who actually had all court, all surfaces game that looked smooth like butter. 80s and 90s was mostly era of 'specialists' and before that tennis wasn't even a global sport to have these discussions.

Yes, it's all Federer's fault.

People orobably ran out of superlatives...it does make sense.

Daniel wrote:I don;t know what they would and wouldn't have won - but I do know that this record:

Aussie - ATP Tour Finals
5-1-7-5-6 

is a lot better than this

1-10-2-2-0

The Nadal fans are by far the worst fans there are online (as a whole). You only have to look at 606v2 to know it for a fact.  Their members cry out for bans, throw toys out of the pram about ANY criticism, and the Nadal fan mods (which they CLEARLY ARE) duly respond with ponied-up excuses to ban members.  And it's always a Fed fan or Nadal critic on the receiving end.  When I see general forums led by Federer fans booting off Nadal fans, I'll see a valid comparison. Until then, you are talking shite. 

The one statistic that always sits above any other is the amount of Slams won

And that, as you can see above, is a stupid way of looking at it.

That's  very true. The existence of this forum is a living proof.

Such a cowardly, weak mentality it was there, don't know what it's like now.

I'll never understand those women who are so obsessed with Nadal. They are "special".

The funny thing was the other Sunday a lady from my clun sent me a text after Nadal's win...she was beside herself.

And even when she saw me a few days later she kept going about how lovely he is as a person...

And to conclude...

GOAT and all that is just about fandom.


In my glory student days I used to wear a keyring with this inscription: It's hard to be humble when you are the best.

That was it...none of this BS.

Ali knew how to carry on...I can't imagine him saying "Fraser was going to beat me in that stadium, I wasn't ready"

I have to disagree, Amri.  Sorry.  The fact is that 606v2 moderators are clearly biased.  I could go through it in a few hours (wasting my life) showing you how they apply massive double standards in debates.  I've seen it on numerous forums.  You'll get something like this>

A. Nadal is so one dimensional [an opinion]
B. A, you are an idiot! Why don't you go somewhere else. [Ad hominem]
C. A, God people like you know nothing about tennis. [Insulting]
D. A, I am so tired of seeing this shit.  What is your problem with Nadal? What, did he beat your hero, Fed, too many times!? [Insulting and deflecting onto Fed - even if the person isn't a Fed fan]

And after a few pages of this attack on a person for his or her opinion... you get this:

A.  All I did was state my opinion and you acted like jerks!
Moderator: Please don't call people jerks! You're acting like a child. Stop it. Now.


I have seen this over and over and over and over again on there and was also on the receiving end of it.  In fact, I had one moderator gloat that I had been banned - and he also posted a ban message saying "banned because you are an idiot"  - right after I complained that a member had called me an idiot. I even asked why the moderation wasn't being applied in accordance with the forum rules and got told "because we can".  Another gloat.  I hope that forum crashes and has no backup.

Also, as ... says, if what I was saying wasn't true, this forum wouldn't even be here! We all got banned for fuck all!  Tenez has taken a lot of shit from me - the vast majority of it genuine debate. Once or twice I've tried to see if he's as bad as they are - and he's never banned me despite me disagreeing with him aggressively numerous times. Yet, he's banned from there simply for questioning whether Nadal is a doper? And critizing Nadal?  Yeah - ponied up bullshit "libel" laws which aren't even accurate to law.  I've seen that a dozen times too - where someone wants certain subjects off limits - so suddenly we get "Libel" and "Respect" thrown in.  It's an excuse to make sure the forum agrees with the moderating staff and the darling-members. It's pathetic.

That's why forums are almost completely wiped out - replaced by Twitter and Facebook and Youtube - because there you are, more or less, free to state your opinion without moderators and their clique chums ganging up and shutting you down.  Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.  Give mod powers to your average joe and you get 606v2.

OK I agree they were banning too easily, but I got banned a few times as well, and I have some examples which I can PM you (won't do it publicly) which can 100% prove that the V2 mods (exception of temporary who was only mod for a few months) were NOT Nadal fans in any way.

Emancipator wrote:Err.. this thread has been running for weeks. 

I don't apologise for my opinions. On occasion I can be rude and for that I usually apologise to the people on the receiving end. 

I'm sure LK doesn't think I've 'slightly' lost the plot - I've always been a little bit mad 

I don't think you've lost the plot. It's a case of a generalisation by myself which is represented what I have seen across forums based on Federer fans contemplating a should, coulda, woulda in terms of achievements and the outrage of Nadal's achievements. The notion of Nadal fans feeling like it was a dagger to the heart the AO Final. Is it though? I can't I myself felt he could win it before the tournament started and I don't believe that even Federer fans envisaged an 18th at the AO so soon after the lay off. I did a piece on here not long after the AO where I said the Fed/Nadal rivalry needed a Federer GS victory given it was nearly 10 years since Federer has beaten Nadal at a Slam. I think the Federer fans have been over-indulgent on the recent victory as it crossed a lot of T's and dotted a lot of I's.

The GOAT debate as it were. I think after the AO it seemed a closed case (even before that it still felt that way) and I think there is a nervousness now among some Federer fans in light of Nadal's FO success that it could be game on, hence I think the re-ignition of this debate. Look at 2012 when Nadal had that lay off and came back and won the FO and USO in 2013 and reclaimed the No.1 ranking. I think that is in the mind of many fans, not just Federer's that Nadal could well do that again given how light the competition feels. To think as of this moment right now, Federer is the only real competition to Nadal. That's a right sad indictment just writing that. However, that's how it feels.

Now the AO made a slight tweak and look at all the difference it made. The gap between Federer and Nadal was bridged quite significantly. Hence I feel Federer was wise to miss the Clay (I could be cheeky and say Federer deliberately missed the Clay to avoid a further tarnish on the H2H ). I am not getting vibes from Wimbledon or the USO that they are feeling tweaky with their courts, which might see a return to normal service.

I do feel there has been an itching here for Nadal fans to show and cross swords again, more so with Federer beating Nadal as bragging rights in this debate has been based around the H2H which Nadal fans love and Federer fans hate.

To me it's the tribal sense of this debate that fascinates and at times annoys at the same time.

Wimbledon will be interesting, as it is open. The FO only ever felt there was only one likely outcome. Wimbledon I don't feel like that now, however by the end of week 1 it might have destiny written all over it.

@LK
i think that a lot of "coulda,shoulda" etc has to do with the operation peurto and galgo cases
a lot of fed fans feel that if nadal who was implied to be linked to the doping scandal was brought to justice then federer would have won more
theres also the fact that if its true,then he has cheated his way to those titles and its a fair opinion to have as we have all seen the massive difference between nadals highs and lows..

V2 was very pro-Fed (although obviously not to the extent of this forum). The mods spent far too much time trying to ensure no one was upset by any comments though - pretty much making a genuine debate impossible. There has to be some dispute to have a decent debate.

Daniel - your understanding of UK libel law seems to be quite flawed I'm afraid. If Tenez was making similar comments to those he makes on here, then they are clearly libellous. A respectable website simply couldn't allow such comments to remain, even though the chances of Rafa actually bothering to sue are very low.

My understanding of the libel law is perfect, actually. Yours is not. They warn people over there for discussing doping and expressing OPINIONS most of the time.  That isn't libel, mate. It's an opinion - and when clearly stated as one it doesn't fall under libel laws (it's even not really libel when an individual on a forum states something that seems factual - because it's assumed to be their opinion). They banned people and warned people for their OPINIONS. Many times. They've completely outlawed certain discussions by taking the libel law and using it completely out of what it is intended for. And libel law is nearly always only applied to the press and mainstream publications printing lies PRESENTED AS FACT, without any evidence.  It is perfectly ok to say you THINK someone is doping for X reason.  It's perfectly ok to discuss doping. It's also perfectly acceptable to say "Is Nadal a doper?" and then list arguments why you believe he is.   The libel law is not there to shut up individuals or even groups from discussing things or speculating.  Do you get that?

"A respectable website simply couldn't allow such comments to remain".  You're as bad as they are.  Who do you think you are fooling to suggest that Nadal and his lawyers are going to come prosecuting the forum for the view of a member on there.  It's never happened and will never happen.  Have you seen the stuff written on Youtube?  That's a massive multimillion pound organization and it isn't being sued because 1000000 people are calling Nadal a doper.  You need to hit reality street.

Their libel bollocks is an excuse to shut up discussions they don't agree with.  Nothing more.  

They'd also not allow this very post, btw, because they'd consider it "libel" on 606v2.  Stop making excuses for their bullshit.  

Good post, Daniel.

I don t thunk they were using libel to shut opinions; they were just trying give themselves some importance, weight without realising that they were just a forum amingst many others. .

Its the beauty of the internet....we can all troll yet speak and hear more truth than in the mainstream media.

Tenez wrote:I don t thunk they were using libel to shut opinions; they were just trying give themselves some importance, weight without realising that they were just a forum amingst many others. .

Yes...who can forget Gav The Great!

Do you remember him chasing us around JA 606 after banning us!!!

Yeah that libel shit was idiotic there, like any of the tennis players management goes searching forums for posters who talk trash.

Jahu wrote:Yeah that libel shit was idiotic there, like any of the tennis players management goes searching forums for posters who talk trash.

I know at least one player that does!

Who? Youzhni?

Daniel wrote:My understanding of the libel law is perfect, actually. Yours is not. They warn people over there for discussing doping and expressing OPINIONS most of the time.  That isn't libel, mate. It's an opinion - and when clearly stated as one it doesn't fall under libel laws (it's even not really libel when an individual on a forum states something that seems factual - because it's assumed to be their opinion). They banned people and warned people for their OPINIONS. Many times. They've completely outlawed certain discussions by taking the libel law and using it completely out of what it is intended for. And libel law is nearly always only applied to the press and mainstream publications printing lies PRESENTED AS FACT, without any evidence.  It is perfectly ok to say you THINK someone is doping for X reason.  It's perfectly ok to discuss doping. It's also perfectly acceptable to say "Is Nadal a doper?" and then list arguments why you believe he is.   The libel law is not there to shut up individuals or even groups from discussing things or speculating.  Do you get that?

"A respectable website simply couldn't allow such comments to remain".  You're as bad as they are.  Who do you think you are fooling to suggest that Nadal and his lawyers are going to come prosecuting the forum for the view of a member on there.  It's never happened and will never happen.  Have you seen the stuff written on Youtube?  That's a massive multimillion pound organization and it isn't being sued because 1000000 people are calling Nadal a doper.  You need to hit reality street.

Their libel bollocks is an excuse to shut up discussions they don't agree with.  Nothing more.  

They'd also not allow this very post, btw, because they'd consider it "libel" on 606v2.  Stop making excuses for their bullshit.  

may never have happened before but it seems that nadal,his camp or a member from his legal team have threatened the THASP blogspot for the article "the curious case of rafael nadal" which then had to be taken down 
i personally believe that they ( THASP) were well within their right to write the article or have the opinion,i just dont think that they stood much of a chance against the might of the nadal legal team or that they had the recourses to fight a case like that,let alone ending up having to pay $$ if they were unsuccessful against being sued for libel or deformation of character

Tenez wrote:I don t thunk they were using libel to shut opinions; they were just trying give themselves some importance, weight without realising that they were just a forum amingst many others. .

No.  They were clearly using it and still are.   As soon as you bring up doping, they bring up libel. Any criticism is suddenly labelled libel. What other way is there to interpret that? It's nonense. No one is ever likely to be prosecuted because one of its members on a poxy forum said something.  Not now, not ever.  As I said, not even Youtube moderates comments much.  Go look up some of the videos there and then try to defend 606v2 haha.

Whilst honest opinion is a defence to defamation, effectively you need to show a good factual basis for holding that opinion. Just putting "in my opinion..." wouldn't protect you. None of the "reasons" I've seen Tenez give for continually stating that Nadal is doping look valid to me. 

Whilst, of course, it's very unlikely Nadal would sue, i wouldn't blame any website for seeking to comply with the law. V2 closed down its athletics section after correspondence from British Athletics complaining about content on the site, so it's not surprising they try and avoid content that could land them in difficulty.

But to be fair slippy...you don t see much evidence for anything. You dont see Murray as a road runner, you dont see Murray as a defensive player and i m sure you did not see any evidence of doping to any athlete that failed a test.
I invite you to look at any player of the 90s like Henman for instance and compare his frame with Nadal and Murray. The fact they base their games on being fitter than the opposition won t be a proof either I guess. Knowing that some dope (facts), you don t find it strange that Nadal and Murray beat those cheats without cheating?!?  That of course won t be evidence to you cause according to you only a blue tongue would give them away.

Slippy wrote:Whilst honest opinion is a defence to defamation, effectively you need to show a good factual basis for holding that opinion. Just putting "in my opinion..." wouldn't protect you. None of the "reasons" I've seen Tenez give for continually stating that Nadal is doping look valid to me. 

Whilst, of course, it's very unlikely Nadal would sue, i wouldn't blame any website for seeking to comply with the law. V2 closed down its athletics section after correspondence from British Athletics complaining about content on the site, so it's not surprising they try and avoid content that could land them in difficulty.

Are you a lawyer?

Or just another fearful soul who does as they are told without questioning anything.

Daniel explained well how they operate there.

It's a cage run by mediocre wannabes who dream they'll float the site one day and retire before 30 - blind leading the blind.

ps

since Imdon't remember you from v2 when I was there....here is the thread through Tenez & I were banned.

I invite you to read it carefully and tell us what law was broken there:

http://www.606v2.com/t27820-draw-fixing-an-official-study

As far as I can remember only a few egos were bruised, hehe.

In fact, we even had a great thread & debate on doping back on BBC606, probably in 2009 when it really was a tabboo (started by moi  ) and nobody complained...it's called freedom of speech.

But one has to be free in the head to comprehend it, not cave into bullies and fearmongerers.

Tenez wrote:But to be fair slippy...you don t see much evidence for anything. You dont see Murray as a road runner, you dont see Murray as a defensive player and i m sure you did not see any evidence of doping to any athlete that failed a test.
I invite you to look at any player of the 90s like Henman for instance and compare his frame with Nadal and Murray. The fact they base their games on being fitter than the opposition won t be a proof either I guess. Knowing that some dope (facts), you don t find it strange that Nadal and Murray beat those cheats without cheating?!?  That of course won t be evidence to you cause according to you only a blue tongue would give them away.

to be fair slippy has recognised sharapovas failed drugs test as evidence of an athlete doping,while your opinion is that her failed drugs test makes her an unintentional doper ( if ever there has been such a thing) 
he has also pointed out that he thinks that its ludicrous to believe that she failed a drugs test simply because she is russian

This thread has everything in it

Anyone who thinks Libel isn't serious, check this out:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-34771007

I remember this very well as the forum that was served court proceedings had to do a crowdfund for legal fees!

So whilst the risk is low, it's not to say that its not a risk nonetheless.  

Many respectable forums will always utilise the delightful disclaimer "The views and opinions expressed [Venue where opinions are being expressed] are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of [Name of entity]. Any content provided by our bloggers or authors are of  their opinion, and are not intended to malign any religion, ethic group, club, organization, company, individual or anyone or anything."

Or something similar.

Veejay wrote:

Tenez wrote:But to be fair slippy...you don t see much evidence for anything. You dont see Murray as a road runner, you dont see Murray as a defensive player and i m sure you did not see any evidence of doping to any athlete that failed a test.
I invite you to look at any player of the 90s like Henman for instance and compare his frame with Nadal and Murray. The fact they base their games on being fitter than the opposition won t be a proof either I guess. Knowing that some dope (facts), you don t find it strange that Nadal and Murray beat those cheats without cheating?!?  That of course won t be evidence to you cause according to you only a blue tongue would give them away.

to be fair slippy has recognised sharapovas failed drugs test as evidence of an athlete doping,while your opinion is that her failed drugs test makes her an unintentional doper ( if ever there has been such a thing) 
he has also pointed out that he thinks that its ludicrous to believe that she failed a drugs test simply because she is russian

What??? So Slippy sees doping when doping is proved? Great....we were talking about "evidence" when there is no positive samples....

legendkillar wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-34771007.

Ouch! Jahu ...be careful!

Tenez wrote:

Veejay wrote:

Tenez wrote:But to be fair slippy...you don t see much evidence for anything. You dont see Murray as a road runner, you dont see Murray as a defensive player and i m sure you did not see any evidence of doping to any athlete that failed a test.
I invite you to look at any player of the 90s like Henman for instance and compare his frame with Nadal and Murray. The fact they base their games on being fitter than the opposition won t be a proof either I guess. Knowing that some dope (facts), you don t find it strange that Nadal and Murray beat those cheats without cheating?!?  That of course won t be evidence to you cause according to you only a blue tongue would give them away.

to be fair slippy has recognised sharapovas failed drugs test as evidence of an athlete doping,while your opinion is that her failed drugs test makes her an unintentional doper ( if ever there has been such a thing) 
he has also pointed out that he thinks that its ludicrous to believe that she failed a drugs test simply because she is russian

What??? So Slippy sees doping when doping is proved? Great....we were talking about "evidence" when there is no positive samples....

that may be what you meant but it isnt what you wrote
you said " any evidence of doping to any athlete that failed a test"
You no understand!

Tenez wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-34771007.

Ouch! Jahu ...be careful!

  Some of the content was far fetched, but Oyster was a shit about the whole thing. Took it all the way and won. Think the forum closed and everything.

I was a mod on 606V2 when the Athletics section was issued with a letter from the BAA's legal team and they were very explicit with what had been stated (despite in context seeming innocuous). That I believe it was highlighted by an athlete competing nationally. There was a knowledgeable poster (think he even attended the meetings Diamond League I think) in that section Isobel or something with Is and he warned the mods constantly about a WUM who kept making subtle allegations and he left the forum over it.

Was odd.

legendkillar wrote:This thread has everything in it

Anyone who thinks Libel isn't serious, check this out:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-34771007

I remember this very well as the forum that was served court proceedings had to do a crowdfund for legal fees!

So whilst the risk is low, it's not to say that its not a risk nonetheless.  

Many respectable forums will always utilise the delightful disclaimer "The views and opinions expressed [Venue where opinions are being expressed] are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of [Name of entity]. Any content provided by our bloggers or authors are of  their opinion, and are not intended to malign any religion, ethic group, club, organization, company, individual or anyone or anything."

Or something similar.

that should be enough dont you think
one person cannot be held accountable for what another persons says
as daniel pointed youtube wouldnt be held accountable for the comments people make on videos

Veejay wrote:

legendkillar wrote:This thread has everything in it

Anyone who thinks Libel isn't serious, check this out:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-34771007

I remember this very well as the forum that was served court proceedings had to do a crowdfund for legal fees!

So whilst the risk is low, it's not to say that its not a risk nonetheless.  

Many respectable forums will always utilise the delightful disclaimer "The views and opinions expressed [Venue where opinions are being expressed] are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of [Name of entity]. Any content provided by our bloggers or authors are of  their opinion, and are not intended to malign any religion, ethic group, club, organization, company, individual or anyone or anything."

Or something similar.

that should be enough dont you think
one person cannot be held accountable for what another persons says
as daniel pointed youtube wouldnt be held accountable for the comments people make on videos

Oh I agree. When I was mod on 606V2 I said if they were that concerned, put a disclaimer up.

Simple and effective.

Veejay wrote:

Tenez wrote:

Veejay wrote:

Tenez wrote:But to be fair slippy...you don t see much evidence for anything. You dont see Murray as a road runner, you dont see Murray as a defensive player and i m sure you did not see any evidence of doping to any athlete that failed a test.
I invite you to look at any player of the 90s like Henman for instance and compare his frame with Nadal and Murray. The fact they base their games on being fitter than the opposition won t be a proof either I guess. Knowing that some dope (facts), you don t find it strange that Nadal and Murray beat those cheats without cheating?!?  That of course won t be evidence to you cause according to you only a blue tongue would give them away.

to be fair slippy has recognised sharapovas failed drugs test as evidence of an athlete doping,while your opinion is that her failed drugs test makes her an unintentional doper ( if ever there has been such a thing) 
he has also pointed out that he thinks that its ludicrous to believe that she failed a drugs test simply because she is russian

What??? So Slippy sees doping when doping is proved? Great....we were talking about "evidence" when there is no positive samples....

that may be what you meant but it isnt what you wrote
you said " any evidence of doping to any athlete that failed a test"

You no understand! I clearly articulate that Slippy did not see any doping "evidence" before a test came positive.

But here you are trying stir some old matter..and I am not sure why.

Tenez wrote:

Veejay wrote:

Tenez wrote:

Veejay wrote:

Tenez wrote:But to be fair slippy...you don t see much evidence for anything. You dont see Murray as a road runner, you dont see Murray as a defensive player and i m sure you did not see any evidence of doping to any athlete that failed a test.
I invite you to look at any player of the 90s like Henman for instance and compare his frame with Nadal and Murray. The fact they base their games on being fitter than the opposition won t be a proof either I guess. Knowing that some dope (facts), you don t find it strange that Nadal and Murray beat those cheats without cheating?!?  That of course won t be evidence to you cause according to you only a blue tongue would give them away.

to be fair slippy has recognised sharapovas failed drugs test as evidence of an athlete doping,while your opinion is that her failed drugs test makes her an unintentional doper ( if ever there has been such a thing) 
he has also pointed out that he thinks that its ludicrous to believe that she failed a drugs test simply because she is russian

What??? So Slippy sees doping when doping is proved? Great....we were talking about "evidence" when there is no positive samples....

that may be what you meant but it isnt what you wrote
you said " any evidence of doping to any athlete that failed a test"

You no understand! I clearly articulate that Slippy did not see any doping "evidence" before a test came positive.

But here you are trying stir some old matter..and I am not sure why.

i understand perfectly fine,its you who wrote a comment that made slippy look like he didnt acknowledge a failed drugs test as evidence to doping,when ironically you do the exact same thing with sharapova 
what you really meant to say is that slippy isnt open to the possibility of an athlete doping and doesnt address the circumstantial evidence ,until the athlete fails a drugs test 

and thats his prerogative
just like you refuse to address the evidence in the sharapova case

my point tenez is
how can you expect slippy to give your opinion on circumstantial evidence (with no failed drugs test) some credibility when you yourself refuse to give evidence along with a failed drugs test any credibility?

legendkillar wrote:This thread has everything in it

Anyone who thinks Libel isn't serious, check this out:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-34771007

I remember this very well as the forum that was served court proceedings had to do a crowdfund for legal fees!

So whilst the risk is low, it's not to say that its not a risk nonetheless.  

Many respectable forums will always utilise the delightful disclaimer "The views and opinions expressed [Venue where opinions are being expressed] are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of [Name of entity]. Any content provided by our bloggers or authors are of  their opinion, and are not intended to malign any religion, ethic group, club, organization, company, individual or anyone or anything."

Or something similar.

Finding one exception out of the hundreds of thousands of forums that have ever existed isn't a good argument.  Youtube isn't sued for far worse than calling Nadal a doper - and as I said 100 times - they ban people on 606v2 for expressing an OPINION on things. Not a statement of fact.  But you are right that a disclaimer would go a long way if they really were concerned.  But they aren't, as it has nothing to do with libel why they are doing it.

It's a cage run by mediocre wannabes who dream they'll float the site one day and retire before 30 - blind leading the blind.

ps

since Imdon't remember you from v2 when I was there....here is the thread through Tenez & I were banned. 

I invite you to read it carefully and tell us what law was broken there:

http://www.606v2.com/t27820-draw-fixing-an-official-study

As far as I can remember only a few egos were bruised, hehe.

Case in point.


Also, nobody said libel wasn't serious.    It's very serious for the press.

I don't believe Tenez was banned from 606v2 for libel though?

I agree they banned people for expressing opinions which is a bit pathetic for a forum; but not aware of them using the libel reason too many times.