Andy Murray wants harsher drug testing in tennis

http://larrybrownsports.com/tennis/andy-murray-drug-testing/160568

Andy Murray has not always been a fan of the drug
testing process in tennis, but now he wants harsher testing in the sport
to get rid of those who are cheating.
Murray, who won the US Open and the gold medal in men’s singles at
the Olympics, was blood tested when he arrived in Paris ahead of the BNP
Paribas Masters, prompting his comments.

“They came to the hotel on Saturday and it was completely random,” Murray said, per The Herald in Scotland.
“I think that’s good. We’re not used to doing that many blood tests in
tennis – I’ve probably had four or five blood tests this year – so it’s
something that’s obviously necessary.”

Though Murray doesn’t think tennis has the reputation or problems of
cycling, the fallout involving Lance Armstrong has him concerned about
achieving a level playing field for all players.

“I’ve probably had four or five blood tests this year, but a lot more
urine, so it’s obviously completely necessary when you hear things like
about Armstrong. It’s a shame for their sport but how they managed to
get away with it was incredible, for so long,” Murray said, via the Daily Mail.

“The one thing I would say with a sport like cycling is it’s purely
physical, there’s very little skill involved in the Tour de France. It
is the power, how many watts you’re producing, whereas with tennis you
can’t learn the skill by taking a drug.

“I think tennis at the top level has been pretty clean compared to
most sports. But that isn’t to say more can’t be done to make 100
percent sure there are no issues.”

Murray noted that the top players are tested more frequently than the
lower-ranked ones, which is something he knows from personal
experience.



“It doesn’t necessarily always make sense just to test the guys that
are at the top, you need to do it throughout the whole sport,” he said.
“We get tested throughout the whole year [but] I think the
out-of-competition stuff could probably get better.”

One of the potential challenges of having more blood testing is the
cost. The International Tennis Federation reportedly only had 21 blood
tests last year, which they say can cost up to $1,000 at a time.

When players are caught, Murray thinks they have been let off too
easily. He alluded to tennis player Wayne Odesnik, who was caught
transporting HGH internationally. Odesnik received a two-year
retroactive suspension, but only had to serve one year because he was
cooperative.

“If people are going to go through the process of doing the whole
‘whereabouts’ thing, then if people fail the tests, don’t let them off
and don’t say, ‘okay, it’s going to go from two years to six months,’
because that’s not how it should work.

“That’s what was frustrating for me about it because we’re going
through all of this and they’re being too lenient with guys that are
travelling with human growth hormone to other countries. It’s just
ridiculous.”

Murray’s new stance is a change from how he felt as recently as January. He complained about the testing process
after being asked to stick around for a half-hour to receive a blood
test following a loss to Novak Djokovic at the Australian Open. He also
complained about being tested on an off-day at the US Open in 2009.

Some of his contemporaries have recently stated that they feel the
testing is fine. That’s probably because they view it as a nuisance, the
way Murray once did.

Tennis.com notes that both Maria Sharapova and Serena Williams don’t think more testing is needed.

“Considering I landed from New York [after the U.S. Open] and my
first day back at home I got a wake-up call at 6:00 a.m., I think that’s
enough,” Sharapova said last week. “Yep, knocking on my door. I was
like, ‘Thank you. Welcome home.’”

“Stringent enough is putting it mildly,” Williams said. “People show
up at my house at 5:00 in the morning trying to test me. You never know
when they come. I get tested a lot. I don’t know about the other
players, but for me it’s a pretty intense system, and I know a lot of
the players feel the same way.”

Murray obviously feels differently. Maybe that’s because he can overlook the nuisance to see the benefit of testing.

“The out-of-competition stuff could probably get better,” he said.
“When we’re in December, when people are training and setting their
bases, it would be good to do more around that time.”

When one of the world’s top players speaks, people tend to listen.
We’ll see if tennis makes any changes in light of his comments.





A

I have not read it all but I find it ironic to have him talk about tennis involving skills when the only thing he has been talking about the last 4 years was to get fitter.

I think the LA case is having some repercussion in all other sports, especially tennis as more and more were wondering how this gruelling tennis can be played 5 days a week, week in week out.

Also annoying to see that all this Out of competition testing is systematically done after the tennis and slam season. I'd like to see it before and throughout the clay season.

OOps, just realised noley posted this article already.

Admin, please delete this thread. Thanks.

Thanks vj

Though Murray doesn’t think tennis has the reputation or problems of
cycling, the fallout involving Lance Armstrong has him concerned about
achieving a level playing field for all players.

Another classic failure of a statement from the Scot ( I'm not surprised ). Just because there are not as many athletes caught ( importantly brought to public's notice) in tennis it doesn't mean tennis doesn't have the problem of doping like cycling. What is he trying to suggest that no one ( nearly) in tennis is doping? It would only be stupid to think that a professional sport like tennis which involves millions of $$$ at stake will be clean. Impossible. We see how many things people try to get a raise at work place which only involves a few 100 dollars ( or even less ) and are we to believe that in a business where millions are in line, all people will be clean? Its only laughable.

Dopers are not caught in tennis because their program is not effective enough. Tennis governing bodies are also likely to be be involved in cover-ups just to keep their image clean. We have seen already many instances of sporting bodies being involved in cover-ups and trying to hide the truth. We have seen the kind of ridiculous reasons accepted by the spots governing bodies. If they can do once, there is no reason think they won't do it again.

Tennis spends peanuts compared to what cycling spends in their anti-doping programs. Its impossible that their program will be any way close to what cycling can be. Still there are 1000s of doper in cycling that escape.


Player making such statement is just trying to put the dirt under the rug. Murray is not that stupid as he is acting to be. This is a farce eye-wash of a comment, just like 1000s of anti doping comments given by LA and many other doping athletes. I don't believe any such statements.

t is the power, how many watts you’re producing, whereas with tennis you can’t learn the skill by taking a drug.

1. All these years he has only been talking about getting stronger, building fitness. If tennis didn't need those watts to win, why was he harping so much about it.

2. If doping didn't help in tennis, why would anyone take it in the first place and risk getting caught? If it didn't help there shouldn't even be a single player in the whole tennis history involved in doping. See Chess, I bet there won't be any dopers in Chess. Does Chess has any anti doping program? . Or at least no one tried to use them as PEDs. Tennis is just like Chess in those terms, isn't it? Chess = All gaming strategy, Tennis = All skill of a ball and racquet. Bah!!

Or even lets for a second we assumed some morons did try with this hopeless hope that it could miraculously work in tennis, why didn't the future morons learnt from the failures of the previous morons that it doesn't work at all. Tennis is all about skills, no point building those watts. Kodra's case should have been enough to show doping doesn't help in tennis, so how stupid was it for Canas to try it and get banned for 2 years. Isn't it?


3. If doping didn't help in tennis, tennis shouldn't have any anti-doping program at all. Why is it needed anyway? Stupid waste of money. Perfect. So why is he suggesting more stringent testing? This is now a paradox. On one hand he says tennis needs more testing. On the other he says doping won't help in tennis which is a skill game unlike cycling. And again he goes to say, probably no one in tennis is doping anyways unlike cycling.

4. Murray thinks people are morons who will buy such nonsense. No Mr. USopen 2012 winner, not everyone.

Another classic failure of a statement from the Scot ( I'm not surprised ). Just because there are not as many athletes caught ( importantly brought to public's notice) in tennis it doesn't mean tennis doesn't have the problem of doping like cycling. What is he trying to suggest that no one ( nearly) in tennis is doping? It would only be stupid to think that a professional sport like tennis which involves millions of $$$ at stake will be clean. Impossible

I don't see it as a failure. LA is one isolated case with someone with the financials and contacts could get away with it for so long. Dopers in cycling were still caught. If tennis is anywhere near riddled as cycling, there would be regular cases of players testing positive. It would be impossible for it not to.

Dopers are not caught in tennis because their program is not effective enough. Tennis governing bodies are also likely to be be involved in cover-ups just to keep their image clean. We have seen already many instances of sporting bodies being involved in cover-ups and trying to hide the truth. We have seen the kind of ridiculous reasons accepted by the spots governing bodies. If they can do once, there is no reason think they won't do it again.

What is not effective? Murray clearly identifies that he takes blood and urine tests throughout the calendar year. Is it because the players who are disliked are not testing positive means it is a failure? There was Hasse who was moaning about being tested too frequently.

Player making such statement is just trying to put the dirt under the rug. Murray is not that stupid as he is acting to be. This is a farce eye-wash of a comment, just like 1000s of anti doping comments given by LA and many other doping athletes. I don't believe any such statements.

What a ridiculous statement. I am sure if Federer made these comments he would be heralded as a hero in the face of such evil adversity. I like the logic of 'oh he is talking about doping so it must mean he does' brilliant. I can't wait for Roger to the same so I can label him a doping cheat.

If doping didn't help in tennis, why would anyone take it in the first place and risk getting caught?

Because athletes in general can be desparate and stupid. Canas as you rightly pointed out being that type of athlete who got caught twice I believe.

If doping didn't help in tennis, tennis shouldn't have any anti-doping program at all. Why is it needed anyway? Stupid waste of money. Perfect. So why is he suggesting more stringent testing? This is now a paradox. On one hand he says tennis needs more testing. On the other he says doping won't help in tennis which is a skill game unlike cycling. And again he goes to say, probably no one in tennis is doping anyways unlike cycling.

I cannot believe you would this stubbornly silly. He is suggesting testing off season. This is actually a decent point. Yes he bemoaned being tested so soon after his Australian Open match with Djokovic. It is evident the LA case has ruffled many feathers. Andy is suggesting improvements and he is shot down for it? I would sooner listen to what he says than most on here.

I think Tennis is now as bad with drugs as cycling actually, if not worse. But as many cyclists say the anti-doping program is simply not efficient as in cycling.

If you have someone like Odesnik doping, yet physically doesn;t come close to the top players, you know it's extremely fishy.

What Murray is saying is that someone as talented as Federer can probably still win if he can keep points short and has a very good day. Certainly in that case there is no pill to give that genius....but for pulling a FH like Murray, Nadal and Djoko for 5 hours, one certainly needs the lungs and legs.

legendkillar wrote:

Another classic failure of a statement from the Scot ( I'm not surprised ). Just because there are not as many athletes caught ( importantly brought to public's notice) in tennis it doesn't mean tennis doesn't have the problem of doping like cycling. What is he trying to suggest that no one ( nearly) in tennis is doping? It would only be stupid to think that a professional sport like tennis which involves millions of $$$ at stake will be clean. Impossible

I don't see it as a failure. LA is one isolated case with someone with the financials and contacts could get away with it for so long. Dopers in cycling were still caught. If tennis is anywhere near riddled as cycling, there would be regular cases of players testing positive. It would be impossible for it not to.

You don't see it as any failure, your choice. LA is not one isolated case of a doper getting away for many years. There have been many of them. LA got nailed by USADA but still many dopers will get away without a trace. You needed USADA revelation to know about LA's doping, not everyone. So it might be a one off case for you, its not actually.

If there are very few cases of positive doping test in tennis, it can only mean the following things:

1. Very few players in tennis dope. Their % is too low as it shows in the amount of players caught .This also shows how effective the testing program is to be able to catch even those doping players who are so much in minority.

2. Many players in tennis dope but the anti-doping program in tennis is not effective enough to catch them. Their structure is poor and marred by corruption which doesn't want to catch the dopers. Like I already said we have instances of sporting bodies trying to cover up doping involving certain athletes. ATP/ITF, UCI, USA track and field.. almost every sports governing body.

Now its up to you to pick which one you want to go with. Like I said I find it impossible to believe in point (1) given the amount of $$$ involved in tennis. Its just not human nature.

Lets take an analogy for point (1). In some of the corrupt countries, the police often refuse to lodge an FIR against most crimes in their zone. Now if it were someone like you, he would look at the number of complaints filed and draw a conclusion how low the crime rate is in that zone, isn't it? Is that really the fact. The fact is the Police wants to keep their record clean in their zone by not registering the case. They want to show how crime-free is the area under their region. .

Low numbers of cases registered doesn't mean low crime.

Understand the difference. Low number of players caught in tennis doesn't mean low number of players doping. What it means is point (2)

Dopers are not caught in tennis because their program is not effective enough. Tennis governing bodies are also likely to be be involved in cover-ups just to keep their image clean. We have seen already many instances of sporting bodies being involved in cover-ups and trying to hide the truth. We have seen the kind of ridiculous reasons accepted by the spots governing bodies. If they can do once, there is no reason think they won't do it again.

What is not effective? Murray clearly identifies that he takes blood and urine tests throughout the calendar year. Is it because the players who are disliked are not testing positive means it is a failure? There was Hasse who was moaning about being tested too frequently.

1. I clearly said the tennis anti-doping program is not effective.

2. No its not.

Player making such statement is just trying to put the dirt under the rug. Murray is not that stupid as he is acting to be. This is a farce eye-wash of a comment, just like 1000s of anti doping comments given by LA and many other doping athletes. I don't believe any such statements.

What a ridiculous statement. I am sure if Federer made these comments he would be heralded as a hero in the face of such evil adversity. I like the logic of 'oh he is talking about doping so it must mean he does' brilliant. I can't wait for Roger to the same so I can label him a doping cheat.

What a ridiculous misinterpretation. Did I say Murray is a doping cheat? I said I don't believe such statements and still say that. Whether it comes from Murray, Nadal or Federer or the Prime minister of England, I don't care. I don't believe such statements.

If doping didn't help in tennis, why would anyone take it in the first place and risk getting caught?

Because athletes in general can be desparate and stupid. Canas as you rightly pointed out being that type of athlete who got caught twice I believe.

What's stupid would be to believe that professional athletes are stupid. Players don't dope because they are stupid. They dope because they are smart to know it can tremendously raise their performance. If it didn't help in tennis , there wouldn't have been any dopers in tennis at all. I never heard of anyone doping in chess. Why?? What you want to believe: 1. The players are smart unlike in tennis or 2. they know that doping is useless in a game like chess involving only gaming strategy.

If doping didn't help in tennis, tennis shouldn't have any anti-doping program at all. Why is it needed anyway? Stupid waste of money. Perfect. So why is he suggesting more stringent testing? This is now a paradox. On one hand he says tennis needs more testing. On the other he says doping won't help in tennis which is a skill game unlike cycling. And again he goes to say, probably no one in tennis is doping anyways unlike cycling.

I cannot believe you would this stubbornly silly. He is suggesting testing off season. This is actually a decent point. Yes he bemoaned being tested so soon after his Australian Open match with Djokovic. It is evident the LA case has ruffled many feathers. Andy is suggesting improvements and he is shot down for it? I would sooner listen to what he says than most on here.

Stop uttering abuses, and address the points.

1. Did Murray say tennis needs more testing? Yes
2. Did he says doping won't help in tennis which is a skill game unlike cycling? Yes. So if doping doesn't help in tennis why would anyone dope at all? You may want to buy that players are stupid, I don't.
3. Did Murray suggest that tennis doesn't have the doping problem like cycling? Yes. So if tennis is already clean with almost no one doping due to point (2), why would it need a more stringent OOC or more blood testing. Anyway almost no one in tennis dopes.

[quote="raiders_of_the_lost_ark"]

legendkillar wrote:

Another classic failure of a statement from the Scot ( I'm not surprised ). Just because there are not as many athletes caught ( importantly brought to public's notice) in tennis it doesn't mean tennis doesn't have the problem of doping like cycling. What is he trying to suggest that no one ( nearly) in tennis is doping? It would only be stupid to think that a professional sport like tennis which involves millions of $$$ at stake will be clean. Impossible

I don't see it as a failure. LA is one isolated case with someone with the financials and contacts could get away with it for so long. Dopers in cycling were still caught. If tennis is anywhere near riddled as cycling, there would be regular cases of players testing positive. It would be impossible for it not to.

You don't see it as any failure, your choice. LA is not one isolated case of a doper getting away for many years. There have been many of them. LA got nailed by USADA but still many dopers will get away without a trace. You needed USADA revelation to know about LA's doping, not everyone. So it might be a one off case for you, its not actually.

If there are very few cases of positive doping test in tennis, it can only mean the following things:

1. Very few players in tennis dope. Their % is too low as it shows in the amount of players caught .This also shows how effective the testing program is to be able to catch even those doping players who are so much in minority.

2. Many players in tennis dope but the anti-doping program in tennis is not effective enough to catch them. Their structure is poor and marred by corruption which doesn't want to catch the dopers. Like I already said we have instances of sporting bodies trying to cover up doping involving certain athletes. ATP/ITF, UCI, USA track and field.. almost every sports governing body.

Now its up to you to pick which one you want to go with. Like I said I find it impossible to believe in point (1) given the amount of $$$ involved in tennis. Its just not human nature.

Lets take an analogy for point (1). In some of the corrupt countries, the police often refuse to lodge an FIR against most crimes in their zone. Now if it were someone like you, he would look at the number of complaints filed and draw a conclusion how low the crime rate is in that zone, isn't it? Is that really the fact. The fact is the Police wants to keep their record clean in their zone by not registering the case. They want to show how crime-free is the area under their region. .

Low numbers of cases registered doesn't mean low crime.

Understand the difference. Low number of players caught in tennis doesn't mean low number of players doping. What it means is point (2)

That is based on speculation of doping. Interpret how you will. The old age argument of countries not doing enough and yet there is no speculative figure to the amount of money involved in players doping. The dope market if compared with the on street market of recreational drugs is miles apart. The system in preventing drug taking is failing and yet the police controls in place can at least speculate to the value of the potential market. Now because no-one can actually produce a round figure to the money involved in doping suggests one of 2 things.

1) The problem isn't as rife as many are assuming

2) The corruption is that rife.

Dopers are not caught in tennis because their program is not effective enough. Tennis governing bodies are also likely to be be involved in cover-ups just to keep their image clean. We have seen already many instances of sporting bodies being involved in cover-ups and trying to hide the truth. We have seen the kind of ridiculous reasons accepted by the spots governing bodies. If they can do once, there is no reason think they won't do it again.

What is not effective? Murray clearly identifies that he takes blood and urine tests throughout the calendar year. Is it because the players who are disliked are not testing positive means it is a failure? There was Hasse who was moaning about being tested too frequently.

1. I clearly said the tennis anti-doping program is not effective.

2. No its not.

How is it failing? How many players are going un-detected? How many substances are going un-detected? Why not come out and say how it is failing. I don't see other top players coming out and actually speak about the lack of testing or actually being encouraged to dope by sponsors or their team if it is as widely available and un-detectable.

Player making such statement is just trying to put the dirt under the rug. Murray is not that stupid as he is acting to be. This is a farce eye-wash of a comment, just like 1000s of anti doping comments given by LA and many other doping athletes. I don't believe any such statements.

What a ridiculous statement. I am sure if Federer made these comments he would be heralded as a hero in the face of such evil adversity. I like the logic of 'oh he is talking about doping so it must mean he does' brilliant. I can't wait for Roger to the same so I can label him a doping cheat.

What a ridiculous misinterpretation. Did I say Murray is a doping cheat? I said I don't believe such statements and still say that. Whether it comes from Murray, Nadal or Federer or the Prime minister of England, I don't care. I don't believe such statements.

So what dirt is Andy actually sweeping under the rug exactly? He is open to the testing he undergoes. I can't see anyone else with the fortitude coming out and saying dis-similar. Exactly how clever is Andy being? What makes the statement reek of dishonesty? Oh what because he talks about getting fitter? It makes sense if the tour and the game is dominated by 20-30 stroke rallies.

If doping didn't help in tennis, why would anyone take it in the first place and risk getting caught?

Because athletes in general can be desparate and stupid. Canas as you rightly pointed out being that type of athlete who got caught twice I believe.

What's stupid would be to believe that professional athletes are stupid. Players don't dope because they are stupid. They dope because they are smart to know it can tremendously raise their performance. If it didn't help in tennis , there wouldn't have been any dopers in tennis at all.

So that is smart? I can dope, but their is a high risk I will get caught and banned? Very clever. Like saying oh I will take a bribe and ignore the inherent risks. Stupid is overlooking risks. Something athletes do if they think they can not get caught.

If doping didn't help in tennis, tennis shouldn't have any anti-doping program at all. Why is it needed anyway? Stupid waste of money. Perfect. So why is he suggesting more stringent testing? This is now a paradox. On one hand he says tennis needs more testing. On the other he says doping won't help in tennis which is a skill game unlike cycling. And again he goes to say, probably no one in tennis is doping anyways unlike cycling.

I cannot believe you would this stubbornly silly. He is suggesting testing off season. This is actually a decent point. Yes he bemoaned being tested so soon after his Australian Open match with Djokovic. It is evident the LA case has ruffled many feathers. Andy is suggesting improvements and he is shot down for it? I would sooner listen to what he says than most on here.

Stop uttering abuses, and address the points.

1. Did Murray say tennis needs more testing? Yes
2. Did he says doping won't help in tennis which is a skill game unlike cycling? Yes. So if doping doesn't help in tennis why would anyone dope at all? You may want to buy that players are stupid, I don't.
3. Did Murray suggest that tennis doesn't have the doping problem like cycling? Yes. So if tennis is already clean with almost no one doping due to point (2), why would it need a more stringent OOC or more blood testing. Anyway almost no one in tennis dopes.

I have addressed the points. Suggesting off calendar testing is something which clearly isn't happening if one he is suggesting that.

Point (2) doping is stupid. Players who do are stupid. I can't see any intellect if they are going to risk a career tainted with cheating. I don't hear budding athletes wanting to be the next Ben Johnson, Marion Jones or Lance Armstrong now.

I think Tennis is now as bad with drugs as cycling actually, if not worse. But as many cyclists say the anti-doping program is simply not efficient as in cycling.

Just not tennis or cycling, its about all professional sports. If in any professional sports, almost no one is getting caught doping, it only means that their anti-doping program is not good enough.

Almost no one caught doping != Almost no one doping

Almost no one caught doping => Anti-doping program is not effective.

If you have someone like Odesnik doping, yet physically doesn;t come close to the top players, you know it's extremely fishy.

He wasn't caught by the ITF/ATP/WADA. Its the customs that nabbed him.

What Murray is saying is that someone as talented as Federer can probably still win if he can keep points short and has a very good day. Certainly in that case there is no pill to give that genius....but for pulling a FH like Murray, Nadal and Djoko for 5 hours, one certainly needs the lungs and legs.

Well I couldn't read those in Murray's words. What I read was he is now trying to make us believe that doping would be of no use in tennis which is a skill game unlike cycling where its only the watts that count. Now if he didn't need those watts in tennis, why did he kept on harping for years about getting stronger, getting fitter huh?
His skill with the racquet won't increase with those muscles.

So what dirt is Andy actually sweeping under the rug exactly?

He is trying to suggest that tennis doesn't have the problem of doping like cycling has. The 'doping in tennis' is the dirt he is trying to sweep under the rug by making such statements.

We will reach an impasse here on this topic. As always.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

So what dirt is Andy actually sweeping under the rug exactly?

He is trying to suggest that tennis doesn't have the problem of doping like cycling has. The 'doping in tennis' is the dirt he is trying to sweep under the rug by making such statements.

We will reach an impasse here on this topic. As always.

We will.

I don't think the problem is as big as cycling. Something like cycling and the 3 tours will encourage those to dope to keep punching longer.

The one thing that I found disappointing in the whole USDA report was that they had bank statements to prove that Armstrong was making large donations to doctors and the UCI.

Could've had him years ago.

legendkillar wrote: I don't think the problem is as big as cycling.

WHy you don't think the doping problem is as big as cycling. Even so, but there is a doping problem in tennis, correct?

According to some current ( Nadal camp, Ferrer )and retired pros, tennis is very clean. So any reason to disagree with them??

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

legendkillar wrote: I don't think the problem is as big as cycling.

WHy you don't think the doping problem is as big as cycling. Even so, but there is a doping problem in tennis, correct?

According to some current ( Nadal camp, Ferrer )and retired pros, tennis is very clean. So any reason to disagree with them??

When we say problem are we elluding to 'weak' testing protocols in terms of the amount of times a player is tested and their methods? Or is this more players are doping but we don't know with what in terms of the favoured substance? Or both?

For me there needs to be a clear line of players who have played in the same period of time who have tested positive/been banned to really suggest that yes it is something spiralling out of control. The clear frustration on this site is that the doping is 'blindingly obvious' and that commercially it is controlled. The one thing which was clear in the LA case/report was that in no circumstances did the sponsors ever step in to cover up up anything of their conduct. You say their is doping, I say where, you say everywhere. That is far too generic. when I get home later I will post a link about shotputting. A reporter in NZ did a brilliant piece which looked at how the standards in the event increased and then all of a sudden every WR was produced by cheats. It looked over from the 70's till today and the amount of athletes who were caught doping. See what made that report so brilliant is that there were so many factors which were measured, so there was something there to say yes doping still exists in shot putt. Historical data.

Now look at tennis. What have we to go by? Cases such as Odesnik/Canas. Look at the game in general. Both mens and womens. There is nothing of massive value which lends credit to there being a 'widespread' problem with doping. If there was a long line of failed tennis players who endured success through cheating, it would be so much easier to pinpoint where this could be occuring. What do we have here? Suspicions and theories. "players run longer, run faster, hit harder, hit longer" this is the whole thing whilst the standards of play have increased what we also have is technological advances in racquets, balls. Dietry. Now look at cycling and look at shot putting. Has shot putting improve in technology? Not really. The ball is metal and that's about it. Cycling. What has massively changed technological wise? Bikes have become lighter and vary in material, tyre advances. That's why it is much obvious in sports without technological advances say compared with tennis which has encountered many.

LK - It is obvious. There is no way around that and I am not picking on Nadal only.

Have you seen Tips thighs? Berdych thighs? Murray thighs (compared to his brother for instance?).

http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-tgrTBigCh78/Tb265hM5f_I/AAAAAAAAA5U/4LFJPmbA9v0/s1600/tipsariviclegs.jpg&imgrefurl=http://tennishasasteroidproblem.blogspot.com/2011/05/knocking-me-out-with-those-serbian.html&h=425&w=453&sz=33&tbnid=5iY-NJTNmnTXqM:&tbnh=92&tbnw=98&zoom=1&usg=__IFkZZ88z42GXLmm0haHOvA56rt4=&docid=sqZgbCnLVGCuYM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xKCSUI_PIIbK0QXkwYC4Bw&sqi=2&ved=0CDcQ9QEwBA&dur=144

DO you really believe one can turn an asthamtic with breathing problem into one who can outrun Nadal overnight?...Have you ever seen in the history of the sport someone of 1m90 playing a retriever style like Murray? Please provide a name of a player who would choose to defend when actually build to hit winners past anybody.

It's endless. I am aware that by saying this I probably upset many fans but as we have no proof it's important to point out to the evidence cause thus far when there has been strong evidence, proof has almost always been supporting it.

And if you think the system is not behind it, how do you explain that anti-doping funding has actually decreased in teh recent years when tennis has never made as much money? How do you explain that umpires are likewise just happy to turn a blind eye on this very simple 20s rule which in effect has exactly the same effect as EPO doping? Is tha a coincidence again?

Tenbo,

I am actually embarrassed because my thighs are huge!! That was down to 5 days a week walking 6 miles per day. My calves were solid and I have what I would deem fat legs.

I am entirely dismissing the notion of doping, but it needs something for it to measure. You had guys in the 60's in a BO5 playing sets like 14-12. In today's money thats like 2 sets in 1.

Tell me why a big name hasn't been busted since the 90's? This is the whole thing. Yes Murray is a big lad, but he doesn't fit the criteria to dominate the game.

I have never came face to face with someone on the roids, but do see what in essence I am saying? Metrics. History in tennis on doping tells us absolutely nothing.

For me there needs to be a clear line of players who have played in the same period of time who have tested positive/been banned to really suggest that yes it is something spiralling out of control.

Then this is a matter of opinion and how you see it. So nothing left to talk on this point.

The clear frustration on this site is that the doping is 'blindingly obvious' and that commercially it is controlled.

Its not obvious, no one said its obvious. Even LA is not proven an obvious doper, his case is also based on evidences, witness depositions, probabilities. Its not a 100% open obvious truth like the "sun rises in the east". But still it a very valid case that LA was guilty.

The one thing which was clear in the LA case/report was that in no circumstances did the sponsors ever step in to cover up up anything of their conduct.

Yes nothing such came out. But didn't Nike openly supported LA even after USADA declared its decision. Of course that doesn't claerly mean Nike also tried to suppress LA's case but thats just a hint which is now up to you to use your own judgement. Not a single sponsor withdrew its support for LA until it was UCI who too had to agree to USADA's decision on stripping LA of all his titles. Why was it hard for them to part ways from a dope tainted athlete. Because he is a very marketable product and no major NMC would like to lose such a cash-cow so easily. Such MNCs don't care about the truth or sports or even their own players who make them 1000s of $$$. How long did it take for NIke to to a complete turnaround and blamed it all on LA? Just a few days.

I'll give you an example of an NMC trying to suppress a case against its major brand endorser. Indian cricketer Sachin Tendulkar was once found evading certain import duty tax for his Ferrari car. Sachin was endorsing for Fiat that time and Fiat did try to clear Sachin name from the case. In the end it was Fait itself who paid US$141,000 for the government import duty taxes just to clear off Sachin's name from the controversy. Sachin is the biggest sporting brand in India ( the biggest market for cricket ).

Now if one NMC can do it, I wouldn't need a verdict of the federal court to believe that another MNC too can do it.

Now look at tennis. What have we to go by? Cases such as Odesnik/Canas. Look at the game in general. Both mens and womens. There is nothing of massive value which lends credit to there being a 'widespread' problem with doping. If there was a long line of failed tennis players who endured success through cheating, it would be so much easier to pinpoint where this could be occuring. What do we have here? Suspicions and theories. "players run longer, run faster, hit harder, hit longer" this is the whole thing whilst the standards of play have increased what we also have is technological advances in racquets, balls. Dietry. Now look at cycling and look at shot putting. Has shot putting improve in technology? Not really. The ball is metal and that's about it. Cycling. What has massively changed technological wise? Bikes have become lighter and vary in material, tyre advances. That's why it is much obvious in sports without technological advances say compared with tennis which has encountered many.

See I told you the 2 possibilities which could result in the fact that there aren't many positive doping in tennis. You want to believe in point (1), you choice. I said I have more reasons to believe in point (2).

No one said that just because the current players "run longer, run faster, hit harder, hit longer" they are surely doping. I even used to think Nadal could really be a "freak of Nature" as Agassi said about him. But I'll have my doubts if more such freaks of nature start to appear like they are now.

And are we the only people who think tennis is tainted? What about some of the pros themselves. Sure they must know more than us in this regard. If Rios can believe that tennis governing bodies will do cover-ups for its certain players, I don't see how its impossible for some to totally defy the idea. If a certain pro player can say he knows who are doping just by playing against them, why is it so difficult to see his view. If certain pros can be suspicious about a player's super human stamina, I don't see any reason not to doubt it myself.

Tell me why a big name hasn't been busted since the 90's? This is the whole thing. Yes Murray is a big lad, but he doesn't fit the criteria to dominate the game.

See this is what I already said when I gave the example of how the corrupt police tries to show a low crime rate in their zone. They don't register the case itself.

This is the also the case with the low number of positive doping cases coming out. If there are more positive cases, it could mean more athletes are doping. But just because there aren't many cases that too with big names, it doesn't automatically mean that there aren't just many athletes doping at all.

Amritia3ee wrote:http://www.itftennis.com/antidoping/education/antidopingcartoon.asp?cartoonname=Whereabouts

Good post. I've found my SAHARA STALLION.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

Amritia3ee wrote:http://www.itftennis.com/antidoping/education/antidopingcartoon.asp?cartoonname=Whereabouts

Good post. I've found my SAHARA STALLION.

Good for you.

Amritia3ee wrote:http://www.itftennis.com/antidoping/education/antidopingcartoon.asp?cartoonname=Notification

Won't you post the Nadal's "Say no to doping" video? Since you have posted it many times and apparently you are on a video posting spree, why leave that out.

Those of you insisting on "everyone is doping" are just funny. You of course have two major problems.

You are Fed devotes and cannot accept Nadal beating Fed like a drum. So, you start with the conclusion that Nadal is a doper and then find every possible argument to come to that conclusion, that is of course not how logical thinking works. So your arguments are useless to whoever has any sense at all.

Second thing is rotla says "ts not obvious, no one said its obvious." Now this is laughable in view of Tenez' post just few posts before, he basically says he can walk around, look at peoples thighs and tell you who is doping.

Comparing situation in tennis and cycling and drawing half baked conclusions is terribly misguided. What can be learned is the way to detect doping and expose dopers should be seen as a process. LA was tested at TdF in 1999 and there was nothing found. Same urine samples tested 5 years later were loaded with EPO, there was no test for EPO in 1999.

The only way to stop doping in sports is to keep samples over a longer period of time. It is the only way to truly assure that dopers get cough and that should be enough of a deterrent to stop players from even tinkling about doping.

OK, fair enough ROTLA.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjjyVzMzES8

Those of you insisting on "everyone is doping" are just funny.

What's more funny is you are suggesting that there are some who are suggesting that "everyone is doping" where the fact is there isn't anyone who is. You are looking to disagree with someone who doesn't even exist.

You are Fed devotes and cannot accept Nadal beating Fed like a drum....

Nadal must have beaten you too like a drum. You just can't think anything else.

rotla,

It's a match up problem, of course Fred is way more talented and elegant.

lol butthurt Federina.

Johnnn wrote:rotla,

It's a match up problem, of course Fred is way more talented and elegant.

lol butthurt Federina.

Clearly your only interest being on this forum is abusing others and talking trash. You got your second chance but you just couldn't make use of it. This place is not for you.

Get out now, take away your ugly presence from here.

After Murray, Federer & Novak speak out, as well:

"I feel I'm being less tested now than six, seven, eight years ago," said the world number one.


"I don't know the reasons we are being tested less and I agree with Andy, we don't do a lot of blood testing during the year.
I'm OK having more of that.I just think it's important to have enough tests out there," said the Swiss. "I don't like it when I'm only getting tested whatever number it is, which I don't think is enough or sufficient during the year.
I think we should up it a little bit, or a lot - whatever you want to call it - because I think it's key and vital that the sport stays clean. It's got to. We have a good history in terms of that and we want to make sure that it stays that way."

"I agree," said Djokovic. "We are trying to make this sport as clean as possible, as fair as possible for everybody, so I have nothing against testing and, why not, we should do it more."

what else could they say: "i'm against dope testing"?

gallery play wrote:what else could they say: "i'm against dope testing"?

If you cast your mind back to two years ago when Nadal was moving and shaking at number one (Murray was in his camp, too), he was moaning and complaining about being disturbed by testers at all hours....All of a sudden, Murray's singing a new tune and Nadal is doing a Say no to doping video....
This is Nadal in 2009
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/tennis/7886137.stm

What's funny is actually the title of this thread (article). Is Murray worried about Gasquet's fitness? Dolgo's maybe? Llodra? clearly with the kind of game he, Djoko and Nadal play Murray's concern could only be shared between and about those top players.

Who do you think are the 5 fittest players at the moment?

noleisthebest wrote:Who do you think are the 5 fittest players at the moment?

1. Kirilenko
2. Sharapova
3. Azarenka
4. Ivanovic
5. Robson

I am not sure about the top 5 but we all know about the top 3.

Tenez wrote:I am not sure about the top 5 but we all know about the top 3.

I think all of the 8 players taking part at the WTF are exceptionally fit, the only difference is that Novak and Federer are supreme athletes on top.
I don't really know where Murray fits in as he is not as natrually athletic as the other two, but is fast on the court and has pumped his body to such levels where he produces a lot of power with his groundstrokes, with which he makes up for the lack of his ball-striking.

Tenez wrote:What's funny is actually the title of this thread (article). Is Murray worried about Gasquet's fitness? Dolgo's maybe? Llodra? clearly with the kind of game he, Djoko and Nadal play the concern Murray could only be shared between and about those top players.

that was exactly what i was thinking.

noleisthebest wrote:

gallery play wrote:what else could they say: "i'm against dope testing"?

If you cast your mind back to two years ago when Nadal was moving and shaking at number one (Murray was in his camp, too), he was moaning and complaining about being disturbed by testers at all hours....All of a sudden, Murray's singing a new tune and Nadal is doing a Say no to doping video....
This is Nadal in 2009
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/tennis/7886137.stm

That was when Lance was still a saint

noleisthebest wrote:

Tenez wrote:I am not sure about the top 5 but we all know about the top 3.

I think all of the 8 players taking part at the WTF are exceptionally fit, the only difference is that Novak and Federer are supreme athletes on top.
I don't really know where Murray fits in as he is not as natrually athletic as the other two, but is fast on the court and has pumped his body to such levels where he produces a lot of power with his groundstrokes, with which he makes up for the lack of his ball-striking.

The top 100 are extremely fit but again you know the fittest players are those who will want to extend rallies. Exactly what we saw again today between Ferrer and JJ. One was trying to shorten the points, the other was trying to keep the rally going. That tells you who is fit and who is not as much. Delpo, Federer, Tsonga and Berdych are fit but they know they will lose their main weapons if they accumulate long rallies. On the other hand the fittest players know their chance improve as the rallies extend.

What else can poor Ferrer do with his size, serve 251 km/ph ?
He is playing the only way he possibly can with what he's been given, both in terms of his physical predispositions/ability and playing conditions.
In my opinon JJ was simply tired in this match, he missed some sitters, and showed a bit of inexperience when playing important points,but again, that's the beauty of his game, he plays instinctively.
Or maybe he was a bit nervous.
I thought he was going to win the match. If it was played again next week, I'm sure he would.

noleisthebest wrote:What else can poor Ferrer do with his size, serve 251 km/ph ?
He is playing the only way he possibly can with what he's been given, both in terms of his physical predispositions/ability and playing conditions.

Well this is why I actually quite like Ferrer cause unlike others you feel he never had many other options. However he plays like that whether he faces a giant or a dwarf. Not a brilliant tennis.

noleisthebest wrote:

Tenez wrote:I am not sure about the top 5 but we all know about the top 3.

I think all of the 8 players taking part at the WTF are exceptionally fit, the only difference is that Novak and Federer are supreme athletes on top.
I don't really know where Murray fits in as he is not as natrually athletic as the other two, but is fast on the court and has pumped his body to such levels where he produces a lot of power with his groundstrokes, with which he makes up for the lack of his ball-striking.

I doubt that Djokovic is 'naturally' athletic. Federer is a good mover.

Natural athletes in the top 10 for me is Ferrer and Tsonga.

legendkillar wrote:
Natural athletes in the top 10 for me is Ferrer and Tsonga.

Yes they woudl be my natural peaks too though I doubt Ferrer woudl have been "that" fit naturally....I have never seen him tired.

Tenez wrote:

legendkillar wrote:
Natural athletes in the top 10 for me is Ferrer and Tsonga.

Yes they woudl be my natural peaks too though I doubt Ferrer woudl have been "that" fit naturally....I have never seen him tired.

I agree. Before many Ferrer matches you here 'Get ready for running' His tactic is to defend defend and defend. He tends to have the ability to run an run and that is his strength.

We shall find out how natural it is in January

Nole is the most naturally athletic of them all. You've got to see him live to believe it if you cant already see it.
His coordination is second to none.

You can tell a lot just by observing how someone walks.

noleisthebest wrote:
You can tell a lot just by observing how someone walks.

Yeah...

Amri, keep your moronic comments for v2.

No need for personal insults NITB... stay tranquil and keep it clean.

Amritia3ee wrote:No need for personal insults NITB... stay tranquil and keep it clean.

But it would help if yuo could comment without having to throw little and insignificant digs at posters. It can only escalate into agressive and senseless posts. So please "keep it clean".

lol Tenez don't make me laugh.
Saying 'yeah...' is hardly a comment which is 'moronic' irrelevant of whether you are NITB's friend or not.