Andy Murray wants harsher drug testing in tennis

Anyway, NITB, care to explain how you can tell the difference between people's naturally athletic ability by how they walk?

No?
Thought not.

noleisthebest wrote: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.

No no and no.

Djokovic is not the most naturally athletic of them all. If he was, he wouldn't need the egg chamber.

The guy moves like a gazzelle punched out by Tyson sometimes. He is a guy that relies on sliding around the court.

Federer, Ferrer and Tsonga are guys that move with great fluidity. Rarely look off balance. Murray, Nadal and Djokovic for exert more energy when moving side to side or up and down the court. Ferrer may look un-spectacular when playing, but his footwork is smooth. Tsonga and Federer have better skills with the racquet and certainly have greater expansions on their movement. Ferrer for a guy with a DHBH is a real smooth mover.

Legend,

Yes yes and yes. Nole is the best athlete on the tour. By far.
I don't even know where to start.

Ferrer...glorified footballer.

noleisthebest wrote:Legend,

Yes yes and yes. Nole is the best athlete on the tour. By far.
I don't even know where to start.

Ferrer...glorified footballer.

He isn't.

Ferrer is a fantastic mover. Has more athletism in his little finger than Djokovic has in his body. Nole is not naturally athletic. If Ferrer wasn't so limited on his racquet, he would've won Slams by now.

legendkillar wrote:

If Ferrer wasn't so limited on his racquet, he would've won Slams by now.

I see....

Looks like Federer wants tougher testing.



"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."


So LK that arguments the conversation we had about testing being tougher nowadays!

I actually blame Nadal for that …though I am serious. He was very popular and it coincides with his reign. Federer was simply too good and had no rival and tennis became predictable. Nadal’s arrival really created one the greatest rivalry but everything was done to help Nadal reach the later stages of tournaments outside of clay: slower conditions were made on all the other slams bar the FO, turning a blind eye on the 20s rule, less testing as mentioned and even draw rigging. From 2008 to 2011 (4 years) Djokovic was drawn in Federer’s draw as Nadal main threat was already Djokovic then. But it’s funny cause in Spring 2008 (beginning of those 4 years draw oddity) Nadal admits that Djoko is his biggest threat.

Bizarre that when teh sport makes max money less money is spent on anti-doping and all players develop amazing muscles (check the shape of 1990s players for comaprison).

Cor Tenez I had to squint for the last passage

Well I am glad Andy's words have been carried and echoed by Federer and Djokovic. Be good if Nadal could stick his neck out and agree with the other pro's.

Blaming Nadal for the lack of testing? Bizarre I would've blamed Federer. I think it is fair to say in that little pool of players in 2003-2007 that there was better players in terms of their ball striking and is nowhere near the physical limits the game is now. Federer if anything represents the players who demand less on their bodies. Were Ljubicic, Blake, Davydenko, Nalbandian known for physical prowless? Certainly not. You had Hewitt, then Roddick and Nadal became healthier versions of Hewitt. Roll on 2012 you have Djokovic, Murray, Ferrer, Tsonga who could run the back legs off a donkey!

I think we need to point to Federer's 'pomp era' when testing became less I feel because the game hadn't become an iron man fest it is now.

Some might argue testing dropped off because the amount of players they could've caught

My point is pretty clear, like we saw with Agassi, a positive test on such a big name is better covered up than exposed. Unfortunately this really exposes in turn how biased the sport organisation is when it all comes out. This is why the ITF/ATF woudl rather not catch them in the first place than being accused of covering up tests. And this is exactly what happened in cycling when they covered up Lance and Contador.

I also think it is a pretty good reason to validate PRP (a blood doping method) despite having no clear and proven benefits and also relaxing the TUE rules, giving potential dopers a good escape in case they are tested positive.

Frankly it all makes sense.

The Agassi affair was very immature from the ATP/ITF. I think if we talk in nature of the test that it was Cocaine which showed up and they swallowed the explanation.

Not so sure they would be the same on performance enhancing substances.

legendkillar wrote:The Agassi affair was very immature from the ATP/ITF. I think if we talk in nature of the test that it was Cocaine which showed up and they swallowed the explanation.

Not so sure they would be the same on performance enhancing substances.

C'mon LK...we are the immature ones to believe that the ATP/ITF believed the Agassi story. They simply wanted to believe it. In fact they had no choice but to believe it. It was not cocaine, it was meth! A well known doping substance. They had more problems believing Gasquet's, old Wilander, or Korda's similar stories.

Tenez wrote:

legendkillar wrote:The Agassi affair was very immature from the ATP/ITF. I think if we talk in nature of the test that it was Cocaine which showed up and they swallowed the explanation.

Not so sure they would be the same on performance enhancing substances.

C'mon LK...we are the immature ones to believe that the ATP/ITF believed the Agassi story. They simply wanted to believe it. In fact they had no choice but to believe it. It was not cocaine, it was meth! A well known doping substance. They had more problems believing Gasquet's, old Wilander, or Korda's similar stories.

I wouldn't say we were immature to believe. Frankly it makes a mockery of them for not actually following Agassi's story up.

Put the shoe on the other foot and try and explain how nandrolone or testosterone in their system? I kissed a guy excuse

Let's be honest the system is much better than it used to be. The only failing is the lack of testing it seems. You have 3 out of the big 4 now calling for more stringent testing. Has to count as a start.

I find it amusing that the Spanish players are quiet given the Fuentes case coming up. Silence by all means is no admission of guilt, though if I was concerned I would at least beat the same drum which is being beaten at the moment

legendkillar wrote:Let's be honest the system is much better than it used to be. The only failing is the lack of testing it seems. You have 3 out of the big 4 now calling for more stringent testing. Has to count as a start.

But that is everything...isn't it? I disagree that it's much better now. It's much worse especially as doping methods have seriously improved, blood testing has gone down, including the retrospecting TUE whcih can give a good excuse in case they are being caught.

Of course the big 4 are calling for it but frankly who are the most suspicious, if not them? That's why I don;t buy a word of what they say. They may have extremely good doping methods and this is why they want to be able to put pressure on the less advanced, poorer players trying to dope.

Tenez wrote:

legendkillar wrote:Let's be honest the system is much better than it used to be. The only failing is the lack of testing it seems. You have 3 out of the big 4 now calling for more stringent testing. Has to count as a start.

But that is everything...isn't it? I disagree that it's much better now. It's much worse especially as doping methods have seriously improved, blood testing has gone down, including the retrospecting TUE whcih can give a good excuse in case they are being caught.

Of course the big 4 are calling for it but frankly who are the most suspicious, if not them? That's why I don;t buy a word of what they say. They may have extremely good doping methods and this is why they want to be able to put pressure on the less advanced, poorer players trying to dope.

It is much better for the methods. Given the amount of substances and methods which have been developed since must make it a nightmare for testers.

I know your not a fan of the PR machine, but isn't calling for more testing making it that much more difficult for them ellude? Going back to the LA case, they would announce when they would show up and still the athletes managed to find the time to eradicate the evidence. For me what needs to happen is for them not to announce as and when they are to arrive.

I know your not huge on PRP, but that is now something available to the whole field. As I said before, why don't the ATP/ITF/WADA monitor the financial transactions of players. That way least they can identify the transactions which cause the suspicions behind motive.

At least you may have noticed the contradiction between saying they want more testing and then complain about having to provide their location all year round.

They perfectly know that substances can clear in a day and therefore this rule is a must for fighting doping. Federer complained about it but was in favour, Nadal and Murray complained about it but were against it. SO it's a pretty good U turn from Murray here.

And yes, I do not believe in those PR statements. It no coincidence it comes right after the LA case and all those lengthy tennis matches records they have broken in the last 3 years.

But then in fairness the standard of tennis hasn't been high. We are seeing even more risk adverse tennis paying off. Murray for example won't expose himself by going for more aggressive tennis. Players running longer for me doesn't make them dopers, but less gifted with the racquet. The bigger pay off is to be fitter. Murray is a classic example of someone who had variation and has sacrificed it for more of baseline rally style. Other players who are gifted find themselves in the least favourable position of trying to hit through an opponent who can return 5-6 winning shots from a defensive position. Very labourous game. A slight tweak on court speeds could help the talented not hit themselves out so frequently.

legendkillar wrote: Players running longer for me doesn't make them dopers, but less gifted with the racquet. The bigger pay off is to be fitter. Murray is a classic example of someone who had variation and has sacrificed it for more of baseline rally style.

When you are a professional player you don;t "sacrify", you only make your game better.

In the past players running longer could be seen as more athletic and betting on their natural fitness (Borg and Wilander ie). But nowadays the balls goes too fast the angles created with those new string make you cover twice as much ground twice as fast without taking a risk so I would say NO_ONE can choose to run rather than take risk without being helped by blood doping in 2012. It's as simple as that.

I am sure you watched the program the "dirty race" about the 1984 and 1988 100m races. They say in teh past athletes were all slowing down after the 70th, 80thm mark ...excpt for Carl Lewis....and then Ben Johnson. Now we know how this is done...excpet in tennis they run a 100 x 50ms....

legendkillar wrote: Murray is a classic example of someone who had variation and has sacrificed it for more of baseline rally style.

I guess what we call variation was the drop shot he was throwing there and then, essentially trying to move his opponent around cause he coudl not do the running. That is when he was top 30 and could actually not run the distance with the top players.

When one cannot run, one may have no choice but to vary one's game. Ferrer doesn;t have that problem!

Tenez wrote:

legendkillar wrote: Murray is a classic example of someone who had variation and has sacrificed it for more of baseline rally style.

I guess what we call variation was the drop shot he was throwing there and then, essentially trying to move his opponent around cause he coudl not do the running. That is when he was top 30 and could actually not run the distance with the top players.

When one cannot run, one may have no choice but to vary one's game. Ferrer doesn;t have that problem!

In his earlier days he varied the slice beautifully in ralies. I think that compensated for the weak FH.

Now he has a BH dominated game.

mmhhh The slices were actually pretty short, pace less and it;s actually quite an easy shot.

OTH, hIs DHBH is certainly one of the best.