The doping program joke of the ITF!!!

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

legendkillar wrote: Why cannot the same logic and concession be made to someone like Nadal? It is through choice what we decide to believe.

Can you elaborate this point?

You dismiss Federer's mono on the principle that it affects people in different ways.

Nadal's latest injury setback can only be explained by some as a 'silent ban' which I have never heard of in the world of sport. Now come on 'silent ban'? How on earth is that more plausible than questioning say Federer's 2008 and how his performances were still of a standard that he made 3 GS finals that year.

All's I am saying is that Nadal is out due to injury. What further proof does it really require or legitmacy does it need? Are we to attribute some of his on court behaviour to a full character analysis that nothing he says or does can be taken at face value?

noleisthebest wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

Tenez wrote:

legendkillar wrote:
You make the sensible argument that illness's affect different players and I agree that is a sensible position to take. Why cannot the same logic and concession be made to someone like Nadal? It is through choice what we decide to believe. I personally don't believe Federer has doped, but would understand if people make the case for it like they would with any athlete.

But clearly style of play shoudl be the prime clue for looking for possible dopers. It;s clear that some games woudl benefit more than other from PED.

Having said that, yes we need to be open to the fact that all players are possible suspects. And if anything I believe that any player wanting to be successful in tennis has actually no choice but to use illegal substances.....unless one might be exceptionally talented....much more than Llodra for instance.

Well by logic his style of play is demanding on the body. When he pulls out of events or declares himself injured, people don't believe it. The guy has spent 18 months on the treatment table in his whole career.

This latest setback is clear indication that his body is catching up with him. A guy that comes from a sporting background within his family to me suggests there's something in the genes.

Ferrer runs just as much if not more than Nadal, plus he's older but he never seems to be "suffering" like his younger compatriot.

Are they related?

What do you mean?

I think it goes on a slippery slope if we start to compare other players bodies which is essentially what we would be doing.

legendkillar wrote:
Well by logic his style of play is demanding on the body. When he pulls out of events or declares himself injured, people don't believe it.

My comment was relating to this statement.

It's safe to compare Ferrer to Nadal, slippery slope would be if I tried to compare him to Karlovic.
What is it about Nadal that makes him spend 18 months on the recovering table and Ferrer who is older and runs more not?

Well was there not the story that broke about 'Hoffa's Syndrome' which was also confirmed by his doctor?

What I am saying is that earlier in the thread I mentioned about Federer and Mono and gave examples that others who suffered a more severe case and was told it is not comparable because illness and injury affect those differently.

As Ferrer hasn't suffered injuries, does that not throw the door open to doping accusations because of the fact he hasn't suffered injuries despite running all day?

legendkillar wrote:Well was there not the story that broke about 'Hoffa's Syndrome' which was also confirmed by his doctor?

What I am saying is that earlier in the thread I mentioned about Federer and Mono and gave examples that others who suffered a more severe case and was told it is not comparable because illness and injury affect those differently.

As Ferrer hasn't suffered injuries, does that not throw the door open to doping accusations because of the fact he hasn't suffered injuries despite running all day?

I don't believe anything Nadal camp says. They contradict themselves all the time.
Problem with his "injuries" is that he is conveniently never injured during clay season and always has problems after USO.

noleisthebest wrote:
I don't believe anything Nadal camp says. They contradict themselves all the time.
Problem with his "injuries" is that he is conveniently never injured during clay season and always has problems after USO.

Amen to that!

Thanks for your post.

legendkillar wrote:

You dismiss Federer's mono on the principle that it affects people in different ways.

Nadal's latest injury setback can only be explained by some as a 'silent ban' which I have never heard of in the world of sport.

Sure some do explain 'silent ban' a reason for his absence. Do they have any reasons to believe it? They sure do. If you or me or anyone hasn't heard of something in the world of sport, does it mean it doesn't exits? I haven't heard of 1000s of species of animals but it doesn't mean they don't exits. And what do we the fans, know about how the sporting bodies function? We all know from what is told to us. They, like any multinational business company will have their workings strategies which they definitely won't expose to the world. They will say something, but may do something entirely different. So if we haven't heard of those, it doesn't mean it doesn't exits. We can all speculate based on what we observe.

legendkillar wrote: Now come on 'silent ban'? How on earth is that more plausible than questioning say Federer's 2008 and how his performances were still of a standard that he made 3 GS finals that year.

I already gave an example in my earlier post on this thread ( this is an old thread ) where a doped athlete continued to lie about a non-existent injury and was covered up by the sporting body of the country. Why is it impossible to happen with Nadal and ATP/ITF?

legendkillar wrote: All's I am saying is that Nadal is out due to injury. What further proof does it really require or legitmacy does it need? Are we to attribute some of his on court behaviour to a full character analysis that nothing he says or does can be taken at face value?

I'll just ask some things. Did Nadal look anyways injured to you during the clay season when he played and won 4 out of the 5 tournaments he played, beating Djokovic in 3 of them. Did he look injured at wimbledon? He even said he was completely fine from the Miami withdrawal. Now months later he wants us to believe that he played through the injury all this time? What should we believe now, his previous statement or this new one. If Nadal was injured, why didn't he say about it right when he decided to drop Wimbledon. Infact he didn't even say it for weeks. Why was all those talk about mysterious "not ready to play" things. Nadal is not someone who hides his injuries. In fact he talks about it more than anyone.

How long does it take for someone like Nadal with all the doctors and specialist at service to find out a knee problem. I too have suffered torn ligament in my knees playing football. The knee injury is something so painful, that its impossible for anyone to keep running and playing like Nadal. Besides its gets detected very easily, even for common people like me. The symptoms of a knee problem is so obvious, it just can't take months to find it out. Then why could it not be done for him?

You may not find anything suspicious with all this, but I do.

Here, it was on another thread.

http://espn.go.com/olympics/story/_/id/8395043/long-jumper-was-pulled-olympic-final-doping

I'll just ask some things. Did Nadal look anyways injured to you during the clay season when he played and won 4 out of the 5 tournaments he played, beating Djokovic in 3 of them. Did he look injured at wimbledon? He even said he was completely fine from the Miami withdrawal. Now months later he wants us to believe that he played through the injury all this time? What should we believe now, his previous statement or this new one. If Nadal was injured, why didn't he say about it right when he decided to drop Wimbledon. Infact he didn't even say it for weeks. Why was all those talk about mysterious "not ready to play" things. Nadal is not someone who hides his injuries. In fact he talks about it more than anyone.

How long does it take for someone like Nadal with all the doctors and specialist at service to find out a knee problem. I too have suffered torn ligament in my knees playing football. The knee injury is something so painful, that its impossible for anyone to keep running and playing like Nadal. Besides its gets detected very easily, even for common people like me. The symptoms of a knee problem is so obvious, it just can't take months to find it out. Then why could it not be done for him?

During the French Open I would say he looked what I would deem fit and able. I would also say that in the final he looked sluggish after the first 2 sets.

Now with his withdrawal from tennis in February would suggest something was niggling him. In terms of how much his knees were troubling him I would argue again people have different pain fresh-holds. I was a semi pro footballer before I succumbed to knee injury which forced me into retirement. There were days I could barely walk after a game. I would've played on one leg, but doctors warned that continuous football was wrecking my knee and would wreck the other if I continued.

Me I think the guy is injured. I think this time if he drops a yard or 2 of pace on the HC, we might see him consider retirement. I just think it is way to simplistic to overlook the seriousness of his injury.

[quote="legendkillar"]

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

legendkillar wrote: Why cannot the same logic and concession be made to someone like Nadal? It is through choice what we decide to believe.

Can you elaborate this point?

You dismiss Federer's mono on the principle that it affects people in different ways.

Nadal's latest injury setback can only be explained by some as a 'silent ban' which I have never heard of in the world of sport. Now come on 'silent ban'? How on earth is that more plausible than questioning say Federer's 2008 and how his performances were still of a standard that he made 3 GS finals that year.

All's I am saying is that Nadal is out due to injury. What further proof does it really require or legitmacy does it need? Are we to attribute some of his on court behaviour to a full character analysis that nothing he says or does can be taken at face value?[/quote]

If youre open or suspicious about the possibility that Roger doped during his 08 season,then why are you so completely closed to the possibility of a silent ban? Both can be classified as conspiracy theories,so how can you be open to one theory and not another?Baring in mind that if hypothetically Roger did dope,there would be clear signs to indicate that.In fact someone with mono who is doping would find it near on impossible to be so consistent,that you could make 3 grand slam finals,for the simple fact that if youre depending on the drugs to enhance your abilities,then you will need them to maintain that level.For the drugs to work,you will need to cycle down as you cannot take the drugs all the time,the more you take over a long period of time the less effective it becomes the greater the health risk,the longer you cycle down,the more effective the drugs will be on your next cycle,therefore dopers cant be consistent.Look at his previous results then look at 08,3 grand slam finals and 1 grand slam win was pretty poor by his standards,but yet still the kind if consistency we expect from him

If Federer did dope,then why stop there,why not continue to dope at the 09 AO or 2010/2011? If he's morally corrupt to do it once,its a stupid excuse to say, hes not really a doper,he only doped cause he had mono
That has to be the biggest flaw in this theory,especially if someone is becoming accustomed to the benefits PED's give that an athlete would only dope for 1 season and then never again
So taking all of the above into consideration why is it so much more outlandish to consider the possibility of silent bans and far more plausible to suspect that Roger doped in 08?

If a silent ban isnt the reason why Nadal hasnt played a match since June,then what is?

When your reputation and credibility is shot,is there any other way to look at it?

Conspiracy on Mono compare with a silent ban?

In terms of Mono we have comparable cases in other players. Soderling and Ancic. REal life cases of the illness. ROTLA counter argued with Roddick which was a legitimate comparison and one that stacks in favour that not all players are struck by the illness severely. Have you actually got a case for a silent ban to compare Nadal with? No you haven't. Being opened minded to an illness and being opened minded to something like a silent ban to which no-one has actually provided a case is totally different and warrants no comparison in the slightest.

Nadal has stated injury to the reason he hasn't competed since June due to injury. Now what is far more plausable? An injury? Or silent ban? I know where I would hedge my bets.

Now the question on Federer why would he dope? Why does anyone do anything? Your asking for purpose. Roger having Mono is a serious illness as illustrated can take years off someone's career. Maybe he doped because he wanted to stay at the top? That is incentive. I am not making the accusation he has doped, but stated that on other sites this has been something whuch has been discussed and many believe he did. Personally I don't believe he has.

I don't believe Nadal has. All this protectionism surrounding him is just nonsense because I cannot foresee for one second that everyone in the tennis world would want to keep a cheat at the top of the game which is what is being suggested. All this garbage about Dr Fuentes and Nadal. There was the 'list' to which a 'tennis star' was on the list. I find this amusing as he is on trial in January in 2013 I believe, so wouldn't Nadal retire to avoid being fingered at the trial? What is more convenient is that a Spanish tennis player is retiring this year.

TRuffin had mono and gave quite a compelling insight into what its like having it
Ill ask him to come and make a comment on about that.I do remember him saying that its quite inconsistent,something along the lines that youre not sick all the time.Anyway I will leave it to him
Its quite obvious,or at least its obvious to me that Roger had quite a mild case.If I remember correctly,they were unsure about the diagnosis and thought it was a ruptured spleen at first
I think too much is made out of Roger having had mono,he has never used it as an excuse for any loss and he played through it,if he was on court he was healthy enough to compete.He has also never given us a reason to doubt him,his word is credible,if his camp says he has mono then he has mono
What having mono did do was set him back,he was unable to prepare during the off season so he spent much of the 08 season trying to catch up
The side effects also affected his performance from time to time but he has never blamed any loss during 08 on having mono

I could ask the same of you,do you have a case to back your suspicions about Roger doping up? Or is it just pure speculation,cause if thats the case then why are you allowed to speculate but not me,and why does your speculation hold more weight then mine?
Theres information about these so called silent bans over on THASP,go have a look they explain in detail what the procedure is when a player fails a drugs test and the manner in which they disclose such information

Whats more plausible...and injury or a silent ban? LOL when it comes to Nadal an injury is probably the very very very least plausible possible scenario,maybe he isnt serving a silent ban,but one thing we know is...the last thing Nadal is,is injured

The argument about Federer having a motive makes no sense,if mono was his motive in 08,surely losing the ranking and going into a slamless drought for 2 seasons would be enough motive for him to consider doping again
Bottom line is,if Roger did dope,he wouldnt be consistent,his results would depend on his cycles,there would be a significant drop in form when he cycles down.You cant produce that kind of consistency throughout an entire season if you depend on the drugs to enhance your ability
But lets say he did,why then did he still suffer from the side effects of having mono
If Federer was doping,no one would have stood a chance against him,and as I said before why stop doping,why not continue to dope?

Where ever and when ever large amounts of money is involved theres almost certainly a lot of corruption.Soprt by nature is extremely competitive and some people lose sight and are willing to do anything it takes to win,even if its cheating
You cant be so naive to think that its not going on or at least the possibility of it
Its pretty easy to dope and get way with it,plus dopers and doctors who help athletes dope are usually always ahead of the testing
If youre open to he possibility that doping happens in sport and tennis then you have to be open to the possibility that any single athlete could be doping,including the heavy weights
I am curious to know why you think Fuentes would list Nadal as one of his clients if that wasnt true? It cant be such garbage if the guy is standing trail,there wouldnt be a trail if the law wasnt broken and there wasnt any evidence to implicate Fuentes

Did you actually read my post?

I said I don't believe Roger has doped. I was merely stating suspicions other people had. What I was discussing in terms of 'accusations' was about Mono. The cases of people who have had it and who haven't. My partners son had Mono and it lasted 13 months! Like I stated the case made for Roger doping at the time was down to Ancic having his career shortened by it. ROTLA made the Roddick comparison. You through the accusation of a Silent Ban with no case study to attribute a comparison. I made comparison of an illness which universally affects people in different ways. You say Nadal is not injured and yet have nothing to support that argument. On a different thread you stated a guy with a bad knee would not be riding on a jetski. Should a person with mental illnesses not go out and enjoy life? Your setting boundaries to which some with a knee injury should not be doing, yet not agree that same principles should not account to an illness as it affects people differently. Injuries like Illnesses affect people differently. The one thing Nadal is not doing on a jetski is running. So I think we can discount that people with bad knees should not be 'sitting'

Fuentes has not named anyone. He stands trial in Januray and I would imagine the list of athletes to have been his patients will need to be disclosed. If and I say IF this is to be Nadal, I would imagine in human nature to mask failures would be to make a radical decision regarding that persons position in the sport. To me if you have a player retiring in Ferrero, would that not seem more suspicious than Nadal who wishes to still be within the game?

I have no issue with people making speculation on the activities of players. However, I don't work on the basis of guilty till proven innocent. I mention that Federer had questions ask and it has generated a defensive response. For me if we are talking of silent bans, let's have something tangible to measure the likelihood of that occuring and how it could to Nadal.

But I gave an example already where the athlete claimed an injury, but was instead tested positive for a banned drug. The sporting body did try to cover this up.

http://espn.go.com/olympics/story/_/id/8395043/long-jumper-was-pulled-olympic-final-doping

Is this not a relevant case to consider?

It is something to consider, though I would throw it out to every athlete claiming injury. That person was clearly stupid enough to think they could chance Olympic participation without being caught.

If athletes are to cheat and be dopers for a long length of time, they need dates etc to ensure they bypass detection but also maintaining performance levels. Yes I know Marion Jones elluded the authorities, but tennis is a packed calendar. For someone to be regularly flouting the testers would take some precise and maticulous planning. apart from Canas I can't recall someone regularly testing positive for banned susbstances.

legendkillar wrote:. To me if you have a player retiring in Ferrero, would that not seem more suspicious than Nadal who wishes to still be within the game?

Ferrero is 32, a good age to retire from professional tennis.
I fail to see what Ferrero has got to do with Nadal and Fuentes?

noleisthebest wrote:

legendkillar wrote:. To me if you have a player retiring in Ferrero, would that not seem more suspicious than Nadal who wishes to still be within the game?

Ferrero is 32, a good age to retire from professional tennis.
I fail to see what Ferrero has got to do with Nadal and Fuentes?

Nadal hasn't officially been named as a patient, it was mentioned 'tennis players' so why can't Ferrero be included? Infact why can't Ferrer, Verdasco and Lopez also be mentioned.

legendkillar wrote:

Nadal hasn't officially been named as a patient, it was mentioned 'tennis players' so why can't Ferrero be included? Infact why can't Ferrer, Verdasco and Lopez also be mentioned.

Probably because they haven't tested positive.

I am not reading this in full as at the end of the day we can only speculate. There is nothing we know for sure....bar:

- Top players, in particular the famous 3, have adopted a game relying essentially on stamina.

- Nadal keeps mentioning injuries and his team has often been giving different reports about those injuries but strangely enough Nadal comes back regularly fitter than before injury. Delpo, Davydenko, and I woudl say all other players find it very hard to get back to pre-injury levels. Not Nadal. That might be due to his style which does not rely on much finess.

the rest is really speculation but because of the above I think we should be entitled to speculate.

noleisthebest wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

Nadal hasn't officially been named as a patient, it was mentioned 'tennis players' so why can't Ferrero be included? Infact why can't Ferrer, Verdasco and Lopez also be mentioned.

Probably because they haven't tested positive.

I can include Nadal on that list as neither has he.

I agree Tenez we can speculate because that is what it is.

If we look at Delpo for example. That wrist injury set him back quite considerably. To me his movement has never been great, but during this season he has looked much better movement wise and it is a real shame his wrist is flaring up.

Nadal and has injuries have been minor in terms of duration. Del Potro was out for a year. This time round it has been longer. If he didn't have so much ranking points, who is to say he would not struggle to climb the rankings again? Let's just see how he plays upon his return.

Really what the tour needs is 2-3 players who can compete with him on Clay.

legendkillar wrote: Let's just see how he plays upon his return.

.

I can tell you now how he'll play: he'll shake the match-playing rust off in the first 2-3 rounds and then be like there was no break at all.
He plays a very safe game and the only thing he needs to be sure of to have in abundance on his return is tip-top fitness.

legendkillar wrote:
Nadal and has injuries have been minor in terms of duration. Del Potro was out for a year. This time round it has been longer. If he didn't have so much ranking points, who is to say he would not struggle to climb the rankings again? Let's just see how he plays upon his return.

Really what the tour needs is 2-3 players who can compete with him on Clay.

But don;t you find his 2009 year very weird? This knee injury in the middle of RG despite having thrashed Hewitt the macth before his loss v Soderling? Then goes on to play an exhibition before Wimbledon to "test" his knee, not even wanting to try to defend his title? Why did he enter Wimby this year then if his knee was not good either? He did not have to defend the title there this time. And after that withdrawal of Wimby 09, his regular loss of weight acknowldeged by players, his fans and media and the reason was to ease the weight on his knees. However, Toni was smart enough to deny that as in Sept 09 PRP treatment gets WADA approval and Nadal comes back stronger than ever a few month later for the 2010 season having recovered has much muscles as needed to have his best year! (McEnroe saying he has never seen him "as big".

Same thing this year, wins everything on clay but suddenly his knees hurt again, conveniently after the FO final.

Yes, maybe he is injured this time, maybe he was back then, but I find his stories extremely weird. Look at Monfils who has need problem too and relies a lot on his mouvement like Nadal, he disappears regularly for weeks and can't find his form and mouvement back that easily.

I doubt however that Nadal will come back as strong as in the past this time cause I think the tennis authorities are trying to put a stamp on this physical tennis and I believe are doing their best to speed up the game again (we will probably see that in 2013).

I don;t think that Nadal can win the FO and have a fantastic clay season without that extra physical edge. It's detrimental to his game.

But then PRP being legalised like it has by WADA has cast doubt as to when he was recieving the treatment. It will remain one of life's great mysteries unless someone will come out and say otherwise.

Yes 2009 was strange when he lost at RG and didn't perform at Wimbledon. Some people do rush injuries and this is not un-common. He came back, lost in the semi at the US Open and didn't perform well at the back end of the season. 2010 was a great year for him, but he hasn't performed as well as that since. Similar from Djokovic last year to this year. The cycles they had compared with say the sustained dominance Federer had shows if anything that a punishing game built around stamina and speed is almost impossible to sustain for such high peaks.

I think we just see Nadal start to decline in standards given the time he has had away from the game.

legendkillar wrote: Similar from Djokovic last year to this year.

Can you please elaborate on the similarity.

noleisthebest wrote:

legendkillar wrote: Similar from Djokovic last year to this year.

Can you please elaborate on the similarity.

Nadal 2010 - 3 Slams and 3 Masters

Djokovic 2011 - 3 Slams and 4 Masters

Nadal 2011 - 1 Slam and 1 Masters

Djokovic 2012 - 1 Slam and 2 Masters

legendkillar wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

legendkillar wrote: Similar from Djokovic last year to this year.

Can you please elaborate on the similarity.

Nadal 2010 - 3 Slams and 3 Masters

Djokovic 2011 - 3 Slams and 4 Masters

Nadal 2011 - 1 Slam and 1 Masters

Djokovic 2012 - 1 Slam and 2 Masters

the year is not yet finished for Novak, so he can still win two 100 and WTF in theory.

That aside, what is the basis/intention of your comparison?

noleisthebest wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

legendkillar wrote: Similar from Djokovic last year to this year.

Can you please elaborate on the similarity.

Nadal 2010 - 3 Slams and 3 Masters

Djokovic 2011 - 3 Slams and 4 Masters

Nadal 2011 - 1 Slam and 1 Masters

Djokovic 2012 - 1 Slam and 2 Masters

the year is not yet finished for Novak, so he can still win two 100 and WTF in theory.

That aside, what is the basis/intention of your comparison?

The basis is the form and that the highest peak and the achievements in that peak are similar and that on a secondary basis they have not replicated that form. It is merely pointing out they have struggled to get anywhere near that form they showed. Nothing negative. Just highlighting the brand of tennis required is a hard thing to sustain.

legendkillar wrote:

The basis is the form and that the highest peak and the achievements in that peak are similar and that on a secondary basis they have not replicated that form. It is merely pointing out they have struggled to get anywhere near that form they showed. Nothing negative. Just highlighting the brand of tennis required is a hard thing to sustain.

I don't think Nole has been struggling with his form in 2012, and his form this year is very similar to 2012.
Had he not been wronged with FO final scheduling mess, and played the match in one day, not over two, he would have won it and then the storyline would have been very, very different.

His Nadal beating momentum was stuffed with his grandfather death in Monte Carlo.

noleisthebest wrote:...and his form this year is very similar to 2012.

I agree

2011 on the other hand...different story.

gallery play wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:...and his form this year is very similar to 2012.

I agree

2011 on the other hand...different story.

.... ....

legendkillar wrote:Did you actually read my post?

I said I don't believe Roger has doped. I was merely stating suspicions other people had. What I was discussing in terms of 'accusations' was about Mono. The cases of people who have had it and who haven't. My partners son had Mono and it lasted 13 months! Like I stated the case made for Roger doping at the time was down to Ancic having his career shortened by it. ROTLA made the Roddick comparison. You through the accusation of a Silent Ban with no case study to attribute a comparison. I made comparison of an illness which universally affects people in different ways. You say Nadal is not injured and yet have nothing to support that argument. On a different thread you stated a guy with a bad knee would not be riding on a jetski. Should a person with mental illnesses not go out and enjoy life? Your setting boundaries to which some with a knee injury should not be doing, yet not agree that same principles should not account to an illness as it affects people differently. Injuries like Illnesses affect people differently. The one thing Nadal is not doing on a jetski is running. So I think we can discount that people with bad knees should not be 'sitting'

Fuentes has not named anyone. He stands trial in Januray and I would imagine the list of athletes to have been his patients will need to be disclosed. If and I say IF this is to be Nadal, I would imagine in human nature to mask failures would be to make a radical decision regarding that persons position in the sport. To me if you have a player retiring in Ferrero, would that not seem more suspicious than Nadal who wishes to still be within the game?

I have no issue with people making speculation on the activities of players. However, I don't work on the basis of guilty till proven innocent. I mention that Federer had questions ask and it has generated a defensive response. For me if we are talking of silent bans, let's have something tangible to measure the likelihood of that occuring and how it could to Nadal.

You brought the subject up which suggests that you wanted to discus it,now that Im discussing it with you and it seems like you dont really like what youre hearing so youre trying to distance yourself from it.The strange thing about people who voice their speculation is that they usually only voice it about a particular player,like for instance I would give the reasons why I believe Nadal uses PED's.Then someone would suddenly add Federer or Djokovic into the mix and point the finger at them,saying something along the lines like " What about Federer,he managed to make 3 grand slam finals and win 1 while recovering from mono,or,look at the season Djokovic had last year" instead of sticking to Nadal ( the subject) and discussing that.They immediately try to mirror the accusations towards another player,by pointing out that youre over looking other players by not being suspicious of them too.What they fail to realise is that this proves they have always subconsciously suspected the players they mention and that proves that they believe that some players are doping.So Im afraid,I dont buy the fact that you dont believe any one of the top 4 could be doping for the simple fact that you mentioned Federer and mono to challenge the silent ban theory and you wouldnt have used that example if you didnt on some level believe it had substance to it

I have a lot of experience working with people who have injuries and helping them rehabilitate ,while i may not have actually torn my patella I have worked with people who have.I agree that injuries affect people differently but the science behind every injury is consistent for everyone,a broken leg is a broken leg,you cant tell me that someone fractured their femur and then expect me to believe that the common characteristics of the injury simply doesnt apply to the person in question's injury,I would then ask you if your injury was correctly diagnosed
The fact of the matter is that Nadal would have instantly known the day he tore his patella that he would be out for at least 3 months,yet his camp were saying he may be back this week or he may be back next week.No one even knew what kind of injury he had till the week of the U.S Open,thats several weeks of inconsistent contradictory information and its obvious his camp are lying because they would have been straight up from day one not wait for few weeks and in the process chalk up an injury while doing things that completely contradicts and conflicts your claim.The truth doesnt lie,there wouldn't be any holes or flaws in your story
The one thing I will agree with you on is that it seems injuries and illness are the same thing to Nadal,once his hypochondria surfaces,it somehow finds something wrong with him

If Fuentes hasnt named anyone,then whats written on the list thats been sealed by the Spanish judge? One can only assume that the reason why there is a seal is because at least 1 high profile athlete is listed,if it was just a bunch of nobodies there wouldnt be any reason to protect anyones identity but the implications of naming names is clearly potentially damaging not just for those listed but to Spain's reputation

Good point,and it clearly proves that you are suspicious enough to consider the possibility.As for the silent ban,as I said everything is over on THASP,Im sure if you really wanted something tangible you would have found it by now.If you still dont buy it just own it,but then let me ask you this,if he isnt injured and he hasnt been silently suspended then what do you blame his absence from on tour on?

Veejay wrote:

legendkillar wrote:Did you actually read my post?

I said I don't believe Roger has doped. I was merely stating suspicions other people had. What I was discussing in terms of 'accusations' was about Mono. The cases of people who have had it and who haven't. My partners son had Mono and it lasted 13 months! Like I stated the case made for Roger doping at the time was down to Ancic having his career shortened by it. ROTLA made the Roddick comparison. You through the accusation of a Silent Ban with no case study to attribute a comparison. I made comparison of an illness which universally affects people in different ways. You say Nadal is not injured and yet have nothing to support that argument. On a different thread you stated a guy with a bad knee would not be riding on a jetski. Should a person with mental illnesses not go out and enjoy life? Your setting boundaries to which some with a knee injury should not be doing, yet not agree that same principles should not account to an illness as it affects people differently. Injuries like Illnesses affect people differently. The one thing Nadal is not doing on a jetski is running. So I think we can discount that people with bad knees should not be 'sitting'

Fuentes has not named anyone. He stands trial in Januray and I would imagine the list of athletes to have been his patients will need to be disclosed. If and I say IF this is to be Nadal, I would imagine in human nature to mask failures would be to make a radical decision regarding that persons position in the sport. To me if you have a player retiring in Ferrero, would that not seem more suspicious than Nadal who wishes to still be within the game?

I have no issue with people making speculation on the activities of players. However, I don't work on the basis of guilty till proven innocent. I mention that Federer had questions ask and it has generated a defensive response. For me if we are talking of silent bans, let's have something tangible to measure the likelihood of that occuring and how it could to Nadal.

You brought the subject up which suggests that you wanted to discus it,now that Im discussing it with you and it seems like you dont really like what youre hearing so youre trying to distance yourself from it.The strange thing about people who voice their speculation is that they usually only voice it about a particular player,like for instance I would give the reasons why I believe Nadal uses PED's.Then someone would suddenly add Federer or Djokovic into the mix and point the finger at them,saying something along the lines like " What about Federer,he managed to make 3 grand slam finals and win 1 while recovering from mono,or,look at the season Djokovic had last year" instead of sticking to Nadal ( the subject) and discussing that.They immediately try to mirror the accusations towards another player,by pointing out that youre over looking other players by not being suspicious of them too.What they fail to realise is that this proves they have always subconsciously suspected the players they mention and that proves that they believe that some players are doping.So Im afraid,I dont buy the fact that you dont believe any one of the top 4 could be doping for the simple fact that you mentioned Federer and mono to challenge the silent ban theory and you wouldnt have used that example if you didnt on some level believe it had substance to it

I have a lot of experience working with people who have injuries and helping them rehabilitate ,while i may not have actually torn my patella I have worked with people who have.I agree that injuries affect people differently but the science behind every injury is consistent for everyone,a broken leg is a broken leg,you cant tell me that someone fractured their femur and then expect me to believe that the common characteristics of the injury simply doesnt apply to the person in question's injury,I would then ask you if your injury was correctly diagnosed
The fact of the matter is that Nadal would have instantly known the day he tore his patella that he would be out for at least 3 months,yet his camp were saying he may be back this week or he may be back next week.No one even knew what kind of injury he had till the week of the U.S Open,thats several weeks of inconsistent contradictory information and its obvious his camp are lying because they would have been straight up from day one not wait for few weeks and in the process chalk up an injury while doing things that completely contradicts and conflicts your claim.The truth doesnt lie,there wouldn't be any holes or flaws in your story
The one thing I will agree with you on is that it seems injuries and illness are the same thing to Nadal,once his hypochondria surfaces,it somehow finds something wrong with him

If Fuentes hasnt named anyone,then whats written on the list thats been sealed by the Spanish judge? One can only assume that the reason why there is a seal is because at least 1 high profile athlete is listed,if it was just a bunch of nobodies there wouldnt be any reason to protect anyones identity but the implications of naming names is clearly potentially damaging not just for those listed but to Spain's reputation

Good point,and it clearly proves that you are suspicious enough to consider the possibility.As for the silent ban,as I said everything is over on THASP,Im sure if you really wanted something tangible you would have found it by now.If you still dont buy it just own it,but then let me ask you this,if he isnt injured and he hasnt been silently suspended then what do you blame his absence from on tour on?

I am not distancing myself from anything. I brought the mono and whilst others don't share the view does not mean I am distancing. I chose to close my contribution on it as it would lead to a witch hunt and many arguments over what principles are allowcated to players in the form on concessions. I hear this Nadal isn't injured, but no substance to back that claim. I hear talk of silent bans, but not so thing has occured in any sport yet I am to believe that Nadal the only athlete in this world is suffering such a punishment. Is Nadal the biggest name in sport? No. Is he the biggest name in tennis? No. So I see no reason that supports this. If this was a badly hidden secret amongst sponsors which someone tried to claim, then I am certain a Roger Federer would've been the first to campaign and champion appropriate punishments to Nadal for the sake of the sport.

Now as you say what we can all agree on is that injuries and illnesses befall anyone and affect them differently. You ask the question why has so many dates been thrown about his comeback. Torn patella you say would take 3 months. He claimed injury in July and here we are 3 months later and he was talking of returning in end of December. Now if I didn't know right they are clearly over-compensating to be on the safe side. What he chooses to do in his recovery is down to him. I am not his doctor and I won't be casting judgments over what he should and shouldn't be doing in that period.

1 high profile player in the Fuentes report does not automatically equate to Nadal. Many other Spanish players have had high profiles. Moya and Ferrero are former Slam winners and by large would be considered in the PR world as High Profile. There is speculation and then there is pure bias. No harm in wishing that Nadal would be burdened with such controversy and wishing for his career to be tarnished by such activities, but for me until it comes out black and white that he has been doping and doing so throughout the duration of his career then I will be the first to call him a cheat and call for a lifetime ban and stripping of his achievements. Yes he has had PRP and other pain killing injections though nothing illegal has come to light.

How would I explain his absence? Simple. Injury.

When did I ever say or imply that 1 high profile athlete listed = Nadal?
Dont put words in my mouth,I said that for the list to be sealed there has to be at least 1 high profile athlete listed,otherwise whats the point?
Who cares if Fuentes treated a bunch of nobodies,there would be no need for a super injunction
Youre free to believe whatever you want,at the end of the day theres evidence which either implicates Nadal or proves his innocence
If he is listed then what more do you need,Fuentes records will prove that,if he isnt listed then that should prove his innocence in the matter no?
You still havent told me why a news paper would report that Fuentes listed Nadal as a client of his,would that be because they are bias?
Its pretty damaging,I find it hard to believe that a credible professional newspaper would be so cavalier with a high profile athletes name like that

I dont think there has been any witch hunt,but I can see why you may feel like that,if you could have disputed or addressed any points I made you would have,but you didn't so the only conclusion one can make is that you couldnt

Sorry but I dont buy your opinion that Federer would be the first to expose a cover up.Federer himself said just a few weeks back that he believed that the sport would suffer and the reputation be damaged if any one of the top players were caught doping
Youre free to read into that and the timing of it which ever way you want,but what you and many people need to understand is that its not Federer or Djokovic who are voicing their suspicions,and none of us are them so you and I cannot speak for them,we dont know what they know,we dont know how it will make them feel and we dont know how they will react
It is however obvious that none of them will embark on a witch hunt especially if they have no proof,and judging by a few tweets from certain players,just because no one says anything in the media,doesnt mean theres no of talk about it in the locker room.If the talk has led to nothing then you have to wonder why not,could be for a number of reason,could even be because Federer and Djokovic are doping too.Youre not going to shoot yourself in the foot by trying to expose someone if youre doping yourself cause it will likely come back to bite you too
Youre right how Nadal wishes to spend his time rehabilitating his injuries is his business,just dont expect me to believe youre injured if everything youre documented doing suggest the complete opposite
And dont use your injuries to try and gain an unfair advantage

Thats not explaining the reason for his absence,thats only he excuse.Two very different things

Veejay,

what do you think would have happened had Nadal not lost that match to Rosol? How long would he have lasted with his "injury"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/tennis/18636437

noleisthebest wrote:Veejay,

what do you think would have happened had Nadal not lost that match to Rosol? How long would he have lasted with his "injury"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/tennis/18636437

He most likely would have made it to the finals and could possibly have won,all on a partially torn patella
I think he would probably still have skipped the Olympics to prepare for the U.S hard court swing,so he would definitely play Rogers Cup,Cincinnati and the U.S Open
Incredible stuff,especially considering that Nadal claimed he has been injured since forever ( March)
He managed to dominate the clay season on this injury but somehow the injury is the reason why he lost to Federer at IW,Rosol at Wimbledon,Verdasco on the blue clay and excuses all other loses this season
The injury seems fine as long as he is winning,it only starts hurting after he lost

Its a good question NITB,I once asked the same when he lost at RG in 09
I seriously doubt Nadal would have withdrawn from RG due to injury had he won that match.Most people will agree that he would have continued to play,probably defend the RG title again,and then dominate the grass season

Veejay wrote:
The injury seems fine as long as he is winning,it only starts hurting after he lost

Its a good question NITB,I once asked the same when he lost at RG in 09
I seriously doubt Nadal would have withdrawn from RG due to injury had he won that match.Most people will agree that he would have continued to play,probably defend the RG title again,and then dominate the grass season

I never thought of it after RG, but it is almost the same scenario. Nadal has always struck me as a huge egomaniac, and I am choosing my words carefully here.
The way he disdainfully lets people wait for him at the net is just awful. Bumping into Rosol, and all other various intimadition tactics he uses when he needs them...
He is so thin-skinned I bet those 7 straight final losses to Nole in 2011-2012 AO final must have deeply shaken him beyond repair. I am so proud of Nole for doing that.
Nadal says all the right things after the losses, same boring PR stuff, but his actions speak a lot louder than words.

I am almost expecting that next time he loses early in a slam he'll be inured for a min of 3 months.

noleisthebest wrote:
He is so thin-skinned I bet those 7 straight final losses to Nole in 2011-2012 AO final must have deeply shaken him beyond repair. I am so proud of Nole for doing that.

Do tell me NITB, who has won the last 3 matches they have played

Veejay wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:Veejay,

what do you think would have happened had Nadal not lost that match to Rosol?

I think he would probably still have skipped the Olympics to prepare for the U.S hard court swing,so he would definitely play Rogers Cup,Cincinnati and the U.S Open

What suddenly happened to your 'silent ban' theory??



Comical inconsistencies.

It just proves what a farce the humble act/persona is ,if he was truly humble he wouldn't be so stunned by the fact that a player he had little respect for and underestimated beat him
He couldnt get his head around how Djokovic beat him at IW and then again in Miami

Veejay wrote:It just proves what a farce the humble act/persona is ,if he was truly humble he wouldn't be so stunned by the fact that a player he had little respect for and underestimated beat him
He couldnt get his head around how Djokovic beat him at IW and then again in Miami

Oh well this backs up your silent ban theory perfectly I suppose...

One day Nadal is out due to silent ban, the next he is out because is he too scared/scarred after his defeat to Lukas Rosol.

I swear they just make it up as they go along.

Amritia3ee wrote:

Veejay wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:Veejay,

what do you think would have happened had Nadal not lost that match to Rosol?

I think he would probably still have skipped the Olympics to prepare for the U.S hard court swing,so he would definitely play Rogers Cup,Cincinnati and the U.S Open

What suddenly happened to your 'silent ban' theory??



Comical inconsistencies.

When did I ever say that the silent ban is the only plausible expiation?
Part of the silent ban theory is that a failed drugs test could have distracted Nadal and Rosol rattled him even more
If there is some truth in that,then beating Rosol would obviously mean there wasnt a possible failed drugs test hanging over his subconscious
There are also rumours floating around that Nadal failed a drugs test around the time he lost to Solderling at RG and was silently banned for Wimbledon which is why he played the exhibition matches and then pushed the press conference till late that Friday to announce whether he would defend his Wimbledon title or not.The press conference was initially set for early afternoon,but Nadal pushed it back till after the draw was released
Did he wait for the draw to be released to first see what his chances where or was he waiting for a ruling on whether he would be allowed to play Wimbledon or not?
If Nadal was too injured to defend Wimbledon like he claimed he was,why did he first wait to see what his chances were,if youe injured you just withdraw,waiting to see what your chances are suggests that he is healthy enough to compete as he is considering it
Some reckon he waited to see the draw and then decided to withdraw when he saw a possible 2nd round meeting with a player he just lost to in straight sets
Whatever the case may be,its really suspicious how 2 early round exists at a grand slam can result in almost identical scenarios


I dont know what youre finding so funny,youve avoided me all day Amritia,do you really think I have forgotten about last night?
Im still waiting for you to respond to my comments,avoiding to answer them wont make it go away

Veejay wrote:
When did I ever say that the silent ban is the only plausible expiation?
Part of the silent ban theory is that a failed drugs test could have distracted Nadal and Rosol rattled him even more
If there is some truth in that,then beating Rosol would obviously mean there wasnt a possible failed drugs test hanging over his subconscious

Yes this theory seems far more likely than a knee injury....

Veejay wrote:
There are also rumours floating around that Nadal failed a drugs test around the time he lost to Solderling at RG and was silently banned for Wimbledon which is why he played the exhibition matches and then pushed the press conference till late that Friday to announce whether he would defend his Wimbledon title or not.
Did he wait for the draw to be released first to see what his chances where or was he waiting for a ruling on whether he would be allowed to play Wimbledon or not?

He must have been silently banned, but still waited for the draw the foolish chap.

Veejay wrote:
Some reckon he waited to see the draw and then decided to withdraw when he saw a possible 2nd round meeting with a player he just lost to in straight sets.

Yes he must have been shaking in his boots at the prospect of Lleyton Hewitt.

Veejay wrote:
I dont know what yore finding so funny, youve avoided me all day Amritia,do you really think I have forgotten about last night?
Im still waiting for you to respond to my comments,avoiding to answer them wont make it go away

You suddenly went into a really bad mood because you thought I had accused you of being a fraud and a liar.
To clear up, I didn't actually say that. What I'm saying is that I have no proof either way, whether you are really are what you say you are or not. Technically, you could be lying but still be a knowledgeable as you have done research. Also conversely you could be telling the truth and really be working with PEDs and stuff, but be manipulating your analysis to suit your theory/ agenda. So it doesn't matter too much either way.

Anyway goodnight.

Amritia3ee wrote:

Veejay wrote:
When did I ever say that the silent ban is the only plausible expiation?
Part of the silent ban theory is that a failed drugs test could have distracted Nadal and Rosol rattled him even more
If there is some truth in that,then beating Rosol would obviously mean there wasnt a possible failed drugs test hanging over his subconscious

Yes this theory seems far more likely than a knee injury....

Veejay wrote:
There are also rumours floating around that Nadal failed a drugs test around the time he lost to Solderling at RG and was silently banned for Wimbledon which is why he played the exhibition matches and then pushed the press conference till late that Friday to announce whether he would defend his Wimbledon title or not.
Did he wait for the draw to be released first to see what his chances where or was he waiting for a ruling on whether he would be allowed to play Wimbledon or not?

He must have been silently banned, but still waited for the draw the foolish chap.

Veejay wrote:
Some reckon he waited to see the draw and then decided to withdraw when he saw a possible 2nd round meeting with a player he just lost to in straight sets.

Yes he must have been shaking in his boots at the prospect of Lleyton Hewitt.

Veejay wrote:
I dont know what yore finding so funny, youve avoided me all day Amritia,do you really think I have forgotten about last night?
Im still waiting for you to respond to my comments,avoiding to answer them wont make it go away

You suddenly went into a really bad mood because you thought I had accused you of being a fraud and a liar.
To clear up, I didn't actually say that. What I'm saying is that I have no proof either way, whether you are really are what you say you are or not. Technically, you could be lying but still be a knowledgeable as you have done research. Also conversely you could be telling the truth and really be working with PEDs and stuff, but be manipulating your analysis to suit your theory/ agenda. So it doesn't matter too much either way.

If it doesnt matter then why do you spend your time challenging what is being said
And what did you expect my reaction to be? As I said before,everything can be found online,if you dont buy what Im saying why not authenticate it yourself,the opportunity to call me out if Im lying is there,and I know you would love nothing more then to shoot my credibility.Whats stopping you?

Veejay wrote:

do you really think I have forgotten about last night?
Im still waiting for you to respond to my comments,avoiding to answer them wont make it go away [/quote]

looool sorrry saw this and i thought i would go for it

Veejay wrote:When did I ever say or imply that 1 high profile athlete listed = Nadal?
Dont put words in my mouth,I said that for the list to be sealed there has to be at least 1 high profile athlete listed,otherwise whats the point?
Who cares if Fuentes treated a bunch of nobodies,there would be no need for a super injunction
Youre free to believe whatever you want,at the end of the day theres evidence which either implicates Nadal or proves his innocence
If he is listed then what more do you need,if he isnt listed then that should prove his innocence in the matter no?
You still havent told me why a news paper would report that Fuentes listed Nadal as a client of his,would that be because they are bias?
Its pretty damaging,I find it hard to believe that a credible professional newspaper would be so cavalier with a high profile athletes name like that

I dont think there has been any witch hunt,but I can see why you may feel like that,if you could have disputed or addressed any points I made you would have,but you didn't so the only conclusion one can make is that you couldnt

Sorry but I dont buy your opinion that Federer would be the first to expose a cover up.Federer himself said just a few weeks back that he believed that the sport would suffer and the reputation be damaged if any one of the top players were caught doping
Youre free to read into that and the timing which ever way you want,but what you and many people need to understand is that its not Federer or Djokovic who are voicing their suspicions,and none of us are them so you and I cannot speak for them,we dont know what they know,we dont know how it will make them feel and we dont know how they will react
It is however obvious that none of them will embark in a witch hunt especially if they have no proof,and judging by a few tweets from certain players,just because no one says anything in the media,doesnt mean theres no of talk about it in the locker room.If the talk has led to nothing then you have to wonder why not,could be for a number of reason,could even be because Federer and Djokovic are doping too.Besides youre not going to shoot yourself in the foot by trying to expose someone if youre dopingyourself
Youre right how Nadal wishes to spend his time rehabilitating his injuries is his business,just dont expect me to believe youre injured if everything youre documented doing suggest the complete opposite
And dont use your injuries to try and gain an unfair advantage

Thats not explaining the reason for his absence,thats only he excuse.Two very different things

So the fact we were discussing Nadal and you threw Fuentes into the discussion and then backtrack claiming that because you didn't come out and say it, insinuating is not so different now is it? So stop dancing around and just back your beliefs.

A newspaper listed Nadal and yet had no evidence to back the source? How is that credible? Shall I write a newspaper article and claim that Federer and Djokovic dope on the back of speculation? Because 'tennis players' dope? You talk about the spin the Nadal PR machine puts out and yet conveniently overlook that newspapers make a living out of the doing the same thing? Interesting.

I even more surprised that you think Federer would not call for transparancy if someone was doping. A guy who takes his duty on the ATP council very seriously and has always felt he had a personal responsibility for the game. Does disagreeing with Nadal on protected rankings ring any bells? No? How about the Hit for Haiti? No. How about the Australian floods and the charity matches he done? No Oh well let me enlighten you to those facts. If a guy like Federer who has done such things and acted like he had a personal obligation to the game when arranging such events or sitting on the players council would suggest to me that the guy is someone not to duck controversy.

So the fact that Nadal has claimed injury for his absence is not substantiated because you choose not believe that makes it any less of a fact? Sorry but he has declared himself injured. Unless you have something otherwise, I can't see how this can be disputed as anything else.