The doping program joke of the ITF!!!

legendkillar wrote:.

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.

LK,
in today's suing culture, I think newpapers will think twice before naming and shaming anyone. They are not there to perform the duty of a court and conduct a trial, just to pint out to things which potentially could lead to trials.

How full of himself was Armstrong for years....thinking he was untouchable, and look what happened? Did you think it would happen 5 years ago?

The dodgy thing in Nadal's case is that his team chose to keep quiet. That can be interpreted twofold: he's innocent and can't be bothered.
He's guilty and does have a leg to stand on in case his lawyers get on to those newspapers.

Remember how Jeffrey Archer got caught?

My take on this is that the newspaper (I believe it was l'equipe) had the source but then agreed to pull out because the sponsors put lots of pressure.

If it did not have a source they woudl have agreed to pay compensation and as far as I know they did not.

L'equipe is a great sport paper but like all paper it si so dependant on its sponsors money.

Essentially, the reason is that even if they got the list from so and so it's not a proof in legal terms. Since l'equipe had only that list, it was not enough tangible to go all the way.

One thing for sure is that l'equipe woudl not venture suggesting someone is doping without having some form of serious clues.

They have been very much on LA's back for all his successful years while all other papers were just happy to sell the cheat. And all their evidence at the time turned out to be true.

The African Giraffe serving for the match, and fails 6 all in the third set tie-break, c'mon Izzey !

wrong thread... again

noleisthebest wrote:

legendkillar wrote:.

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.

LK,
in today's suing culture, I think newpapers will think twice before naming and shaming anyone. They are not there to perform the duty of a court and conduct a trial, just to pint out to things which potentially could lead to trials.

How full of himself was Armstrong for years....thinking he was untouchable, and look what happened? Did you think it would happen 5 years ago?

The dodgy thing in Nadal's case is that his team chose to keep quiet. That can be interpreted twofold: he's innocent and can't be bothered.
He's guilty and does have a leg to stand on in case his lawyers get on to those newspapers.

Remember how Jeffrey Archer got caught?

I salute the US authorities for having the courage and conviction to go after Armstrong. Not sure that the Spanish authorities would do the same. There are often sporting cultures that breed a form of cheating and dishonesty. Match fixing in football in Italy. Match fixing in Cricket in Pakistan. If there was such a culture in tennis in Spain, I would certainly be well suspicious.

If newspapers have direct proof that someone is doping, I can't see how they could be subjected to litigation. Yes Nadal's team could challenge such publication, though those court orders are not so strong nowadays.

If there is a massive doping problem in tennis, then I would like for someone to step forward.

legendkillar wrote:.

If there is a massive doping problem in tennis, then I would like for someone to step forward.

Much easier said than done. Players speak about it in muffled tones now and then, they'd be the first ones to know, but it's a bit unrealistic to expect the players to do anything.
They have enough on their plate just tying to survive on tour and look after their career.
You'd need a great tennis lover and enthusiast to stand up to the giga $$$ of sponsors.

Those whose job it is to do something about are chosing to keep quiet at the moment. So quiet they are possibly issuing silent bans.

legendkillar wrote:If there was such a culture in tennis in Spain, I would certainly be well suspicious.

Isn't the fact that doping was not illegal in Spain till 2007!!!!(if not later) enough a good reason to be suspicious? Isn't the fact that they attracted lots of foreign athletes because of this law and their great "doctors" not a good reason to be suspicious?

Its quite funny to see Spain's record at the Olympics since that Law banning doping passed on!

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F05E4DD163DF930A35751C1A96F9C8B63

Tenez wrote:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F05E4DD163DF930A35751C1A96F9C8B63

I made sure I read this link. You haven't posted it here before have you

LOL! Nope! But the content shoudl be old news for us!

Veejay wrote:

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?

No no you really don't get the point.

The ball is in your court, it is upto you to prove what you have said.

You can't just say 'Everything I say on this matter is true, and I say Nadal is doping, so therefore he is.'

Find a link showing how legal protein supplements can't get him the muscles that they have- I believe they can. A reliable revelant link too, not Yahoo answers or THASP.

Tenez wrote:

legendkillar wrote:If there was such a culture in tennis in Spain, I would certainly be well suspicious.

Isn't the fact that doping was not illegal in Spain till 2007!!!!(if not later) enough a good reason to be suspicious? Isn't the fact that they attracted lots of foreign athletes because of this law and their great "doctors" not a good reason to be suspicious?

Its quite funny to see Spain's record at the Olympics since that Law banning doping passed on!

[url=http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F05E4DD163DF930A35751C1A96F9C8B63

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F05E4DD163DF930A35751C1A96F9C8B63[/quote[/url]]

That is across sport Tenez. Not specifically tennis. Given the strength in testing nowadays don't you think it is more highly suspicious that doping was more rife in tennis in thr 80's/90's when testing wasn't so stringent?

Yes it is suspicious that it wasn't illegal in Spain until 2007, but we are making allegations at one player and not others of the same nationality. I think it should be asked of all of them.

If you look at players who can compete with Nadal, does it not bring them into the argument because what we are looking at is an athlete dominant in his sport. Take the Lewis and Johnson race of Seoul in 1988 when Johnson was doping, then it turned out 7 of the 8 athletes were doping. Yet when looking at the race and past results, only Johnson really stood out. Yet on the face of that race no-one really spared any suspicions on other athletes in that race. I don't for a second believe that Nadal has surpassed Federer in the sport in any capacity bar Clay.

Problem Amri is that like most fan you don't seem open to the idea, You do not want to believe. On our side we have many clues pointing and though they are not 100% proof they are substancial enough to make most suspicious. But you throw all this through the window cause the sole proof you have on your side that he doesnt dope is a nice smile from your man you trust over everything else.

There is no point from Vee showing your more clues (and I agree clues only) because clearly you want to live your fanship a bit longer. Nothing wrong with that but please do not pretend you are open to face those "clues" objectively.

legendkillar wrote:

That is across sport Tenez. Not specifically tennis. Given the strength in testing nowadays don't you think it is more highly suspicious that doping was more rife in tennis in thr 80's/90's when testing wasn't so stringent?

Yes, its across all sport but incuding tennis. I am not sure why tennis should be considered any differently. If anything there is more reason to dope in tennis where every win double your gains than any other sport where you are part of a team for instance. Doping I think is as easy now as it was in the 80s. I actually think the system makes it easier cause the sponsors and the sport oprganisation is handling a much bigger budget and in itself is enough to protect its key players better. I doubt that in the 80/90s players were that protected. Well we saw Agassi was cause he was already a very big name but I am sure that the doping science was not so much ahead of the testing one and we did not have those Treatment Use Exemptions (TUE) which really is washing everything that needs to be washed. I am sure you know a positive test nowadays can be hidden from the public with a TUE. Now proving that a TUE was not necessary is clearly impossible.

But also, the conds were fast enough in the 90s/80s to allow a skilled player to win. Nowadays, without the physical base on those slower conds, they simply have no chance. They can shine for a set at best and that's it. SLams are simply a physical challenge only the top players can now try to have a look. In the past we had many players going all the way to the final thanks to a good form. Impossible to see that nowadays.

Yes it is suspicious that it wasn't illegal in Spain until 2007, but we are making allegations at one player and not others of the same nationality. I think it should be asked of all of them.

I think we have enough trouble pin-pointing the one who comes with most obvious clues. There was no point trying to convince some in the pack were doping when clearly the main suspect was LA.

If you look at players who can compete with Nadal, does it not bring them into the argument because what we are looking at is an athlete dominant in his sport. Take the Lewis and Johnson race of Seoul in 1988 when Johnson was doping, then it turned out 7 of the 8 athletes were doping. Yet when looking at the race and past results, only Johnson really stood out. Yet on the face of that race no-one really spared any suspicions on other athletes in that race.

But with Federer we can obviously see why he woudl be dominant, and in particular on those surfaces where physique is not teh sole factor. With Nadal it's just too obvious what are his weapons: His power and stamina.

But yes..for me its clear, others have caught up physically to some extend. The one-in-a-century "physical freak" is not alone anymore.

I don't think it is that simple to dope nowadays compared with the grand old days of the 80's/90's. Chemically only so much can be done nowadays to prevent detection. I hear this about sponsorship, but the biggest lure is television. The rights. The issue at hand is that the major sport brands in Nike and Adidas have a cluster of players under their umbrella. For me to concieve a conspiracy in doping would be for more than 1 player being a doper. We are saying is Roger is clean, the type of character he is from my own observations would be one that would not tow 'corporate' lines. The guy is beyond wealthy and the money aspect would noth bother him if he were to break free of Nike. For me there would be more than 2-3 players under any sponsor who would be doping for me to comtemplate the influence of sponsors on players forcing them to dope.

If we said take the top 10 and name who you think is doping, then we would come up with 1 name. It is bigger than that for me for sponsors to be the dominat force. Mind you look at the physical aspect. We are saying that is what is overtaking the game and as simplistic as it may seem the suggestion is doping is needed to perform at such levels which would indicate that stamina is hard thing to maintain.

legendkillar wrote:I don't think it is that simple to dope nowadays compared with the grand old days of the 80's/90's. Chemically only so much can be done nowadays to prevent detection. I hear this about sponsorship, but the biggest lure is television. The rights. The issue at hand is that the major sport brands in Nike and Adidas have a cluster of players under their umbrella. For me to concieve a conspiracy in doping would be for more than 1 player being a doper. We are saying is Roger is clean, the type of character he is from my own observations would be one that would not tow 'corporate' lines. The guy is beyond wealthy and the money aspect would noth bother him if he were to break free of Nike. For me there would be more than 2-3 players under any sponsor who would be doping for me to comtemplate the influence of sponsors on players forcing them to dope.

If we said take the top 10 and name who you think is doping, then we would come up with 1 name. It is bigger than that for me for sponsors to be the dominat force. Mind you look at the physical aspect. We are saying that is what is overtaking the game and as simplistic as it may seem the suggestion is doping is needed to perform at such levels which would indicate that stamina is hard thing to maintain.

It's easier because science and the system has made it easier. You can use micro doses, cleaning agents, fast clearing agent etc... But also cause legally they have allowed substances and means which frankly are PEDs to be used when they should not. You see those great athletes pulling inhalers under their towel at change of end in the middle of a match in front of millions and we are to believe the athlete has an asthma problem which needs him to inhale something whihc is going to help him clear his nose!

We are also told to believe that top players get constantly tested in tennis when the facts actually reveal something completely different with one or 2 out of competition tests max a year...often at the end of the season when the 4 slams have been played!

I do think the system needs its big names and like we saw in cycling with LA, they would go the extra mile to protect them. That's something we should all be aware.

Tenez wrote: But you throw all this through the window cause the sole proof you have on your side that he doesnt dope is a nice smile from your man you trust over everything else.

I don't see how smiling affects doping at all, so not sure what you're on about there T.

Tenez wrote:

legendkillar wrote:I don't think it is that simple to dope nowadays compared with the grand old days of the 80's/90's. Chemically only so much can be done nowadays to prevent detection. I hear this about sponsorship, but the biggest lure is television. The rights. The issue at hand is that the major sport brands in Nike and Adidas have a cluster of players under their umbrella. For me to concieve a conspiracy in doping would be for more than 1 player being a doper. We are saying is Roger is clean, the type of character he is from my own observations would be one that would not tow 'corporate' lines. The guy is beyond wealthy and the money aspect would noth bother him if he were to break free of Nike. For me there would be more than 2-3 players under any sponsor who would be doping for me to comtemplate the influence of sponsors on players forcing them to dope.

If we said take the top 10 and name who you think is doping, then we would come up with 1 name. It is bigger than that for me for sponsors to be the dominat force. Mind you look at the physical aspect. We are saying that is what is overtaking the game and as simplistic as it may seem the suggestion is doping is needed to perform at such levels which would indicate that stamina is hard thing to maintain.

It's easier because science and the system has made it easier. You can use micro doses, cleaning agents, fast clearing agent etc... But also cause legally they have allowed substances and means which frankly are PEDs to be used when they should not. You see those great athletes pulling inhalers under their towel at change of end in the middle of a match in front of millions and we are to believe the athlete has an asthma problem which needs him to inhale something whihc is going to help him clear his nose!

We are also told to believe that top players get constantly tested in tennis when the facts actually reveal something completely different with one or 2 out of competition tests max a year...often at the end of the season when the 4 slams have been played!

I do think the system needs its big names and like we saw in cycling with LA, they would go the extra mile to protect them. That's something we should all be aware.

Thing is Ten cycling has had history of dopers. Tennis hasn't had a major doping problem in terms of countries themselves doping their athletes to such an extent. Yes this Spain problem does have milege to run on it, but I think it needs a bit of common sense attached in terms of yes we have suspicions, but let's treat them as just those. Sometimes it gets to a point where we want to believe in something so much that we convince ourselves it is fact before realising it is suspicions and doubts.

I think anything like this needs more substance. For example I don't think only 1 out of the top 10 would be doping if it was a major issue.

Amritia3ee wrote:

Tenez wrote: But you throw all this through the window cause the sole proof you have on your side that he doesnt dope is a nice smile from your man you trust over everything else.

I don't see how smiling affects doping at all, so not sure what you're on about there T.

I am not sure where you read that smiling affected doping so I am even less sure what you are on about here.

However it is noted again that you have avoided providing a reasonable response to my post, in the same typical fashion you keep avoiding the consideration of reasonable clues about your player possible use of PEDs.

legendkillar wrote:Yes this Spain problem does have milege to run on it, but I think it needs a bit of common sense attached in terms of yes we have suspicions, but let's treat them as just those. Sometimes it gets to a point where we want to believe in something so much that we convince ourselves it is fact before realising it is suspicions and doubts.

I think anything like this needs more substance. For example I don't think only 1 out of the top 10 would be doping if it was a major issue.

Yes but that works both ways obviously. If you allow youself some "suspicions" then you allow yourself to have strong and weak suspicions. And that's all we are doing here. My suspicion is close to 99% Yours might be closer to the 1%. To give you a clue I give Federer a 20% chance he is. All arbitrary of course but when it comes to some athletes, let's say like LA and here in tennis, I am glad I don;t take their exploits very seriously...I 'd be a very disappointed fan nowadays.

Tenez wrote:

legendkillar wrote:Yes this Spain problem does have milege to run on it, but I think it needs a bit of common sense attached in terms of yes we have suspicions, but let's treat them as just those. Sometimes it gets to a point where we want to believe in something so much that we convince ourselves it is fact before realising it is suspicions and doubts.

I think anything like this needs more substance. For example I don't think only 1 out of the top 10 would be doping if it was a major issue.

Yes but that works both ways obviously. If you allow youself some "suspicions" then you allow yourself to have strong and weak suspicions. And that's all we are doing here. My suspicion is close to 99% Yours might be closer to the 1%. To give you a clue I give Federer a 20% chance he is. All arbitrary of course but when it comes to some athletes, let's say like LA and here in tennis, I am glad I don;t take their exploits very seriously...I 'd be a very disappointed fan nowadays.

I think if Nadal was doping, it would cause paranoia overdrive. Many would state they were not surprised which is fair, but I would certainly look past Nadal and wonder who else slipped through the net.

Depends on the extent of the doping too. If players used doping to recover from injuries, how much would that be frowned upon compared if someone used it for performance enhancement?

I haven't avoided anything- there is nothing to avoid.

It's clear there's no actual substance to any of these claims.



Federer has 20% chance of doping? Nadal 99% Where do you get these figures from?

He is quantifying his suspicions Amri

Amritia3ee wrote:I haven't avoided anything- there is nothing to avoid.

It's clear there's no actual substance to any of these claims.



Federer has 20% chance of doping? Nadal 99% Where do you get these figures from?

What is clear is that you do not want to be suspicious despite the alarming reliance on fitness to win from your hero. A real fan!

I knew literally nothing about doping (not a lot better now), but the first thing that crossed my mind when I saw Nadal in 2009 was that he doped.

Tennis players don't look like Nadal did in 2008:

http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=kBx&sa=X&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&biw=1233&bih=777&tbm=isch&prmd=imvns&tbnid=L69yYAf1_m-lVM:&imgrefurl=http://sports-celebs.blogspot.com/2011/12/shirtless-rafael-nadal-hunk-in-pictures.html&docid=YmLIlnLPVEuNcM&imgurl=http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Oop_qW_GeRc/TvBP0ls0ZdI/AAAAAAAACcQ/5ZieFo11thE/s1600/Rafael-Nadal-shirtless.jpg&w=500&h=781&ei=Mzt0UMOqKY7P0AXgxIGoBQ&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=766&vpy=144&dur=2230&hovh=281&hovw=180&tx=112&ty=237&sig=118096469239334426961&page=1&tbnh=139&tbnw=91&start=0&ndsp=29&ved=1t:429,r:5,s:0,i:100

Tenez wrote:

legendkillar wrote:If there was such a culture in tennis in Spain, I would certainly be well suspicious.

Isn't the fact that doping was not illegal in Spain till 2007!!!!(if not later) enough a good reason to be suspicious? Isn't the fact that they attracted lots of foreign athletes because of this law and their great "doctors" not a good reason to be suspicious?

Its quite funny to see Spain's record at the Olympics since that Law banning doping passed on!

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F05E4DD163DF930A35751C1A96F9C8B63

tenez is that really true about it only being illegal in spain till 2007??? I may do my dissertation on drugs in cycling so if that is true it would be a big help!

Yes it's true. Or at least to be precise blood doping was legal until Nov 2006.

wow thanks so much man seriously really appreciate it! if i can repay ya i will haha!

You should read the link I posted above from the NY times there...they confirm it too.

Good luck with your dissertation. I wish I had this kind of job!

yes thanks i did fascinating!!!!

and cheers kinda scared about it

luvsports! wrote:yes thanks i did fascinating!!!!

and cheers kinda scared about it

what are you scared about?

finishing uni, writing 10,000 on something, trying to get a good degree and getting old.

luvsports! wrote:finishing uni, writing 10,000 on something, trying to get a good degree and getting old.

Count your blessings!
When I went to Uni, we had to store it all in the good old upstairs and have it at the fingertips both for the written and oral exam....those were the days
I'm still having regular nightmares that I have one exam left as a result of all that

You'll be fine, the real fun is yet to begin, life is great if you know how to enjoy it

luv that response nitb thanks

luvsports! wrote:

Tenez wrote:

legendkillar wrote:If there was such a culture in tennis in Spain, I would certainly be well suspicious.

Isn't the fact that doping was not illegal in Spain till 2007!!!!(if not later) enough a good reason to be suspicious? Isn't the fact that they attracted lots of foreign athletes because of this law and their great "doctors" not a good reason to be suspicious?

Its quite funny to see Spain's record at the Olympics since that Law banning doping passed on!

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F05E4DD163DF930A35751C1A96F9C8B63

tenez is that really true about it only being illegal in spain till 2007??? I may do my dissertation on drugs in cycling so if that is true it would be a big help!

Fuentes is still a practicing doctor in Canary Islands. (http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eufemiano_Fuentes - The Spanish Wiki)

Lower Spanish courts had previously twice blocked legal action in the Puerto case because judges ruled that no laws were broken. Spanish authorities have since approved stricter anti-doping law, but that still does not apply to the Puerto case.

http://velonews.competitor.com/2011/11/news/eufemiano-fuentes-manolo-saiz-and-others-face-trial-on-public-health-charges_198469

"It's a Pandora's Box and if opened one day, it could bring down sport," Perez said.

"But out of respect for my companions, to the people who sacrificed so much, I'm keeping mum although I could speak out and ruin all those caught up in this little world."

I doubt the veracity of this link - http://grg51.typepad.com/steroid_nation/2008/11/cristina-perez.html - but if true, why are the Spanish authorities so reluctant?

This from Marca is perhaps more reliable - http://archivo.marca.com/edicion/marca/otros_deportes/otros_deportes/es/desarrollo/1185353.html

The singling of a specific player is what I object to. Photoshopped images, French skits, a retired Tennis player from 1980s (20 years before the current Spanish team) making arbitrary claims is not evidence, but a product of paranoia and fear.

I had much rather see Puerto evidence made public so this innuendo becomes irrelevant.

The case is re-opened in January, not too long to wait I suppose.

laverfan wrote:



http://velonews.competitor.com/2011/11/news/eufemiano-fuentes-manolo-saiz-and-others-face-trial-on-public-health-charges_198469

"It's a Pandora's Box and if opened one day, it could bring down sport," Perez said.

"But out of respect for my companions, to the people who sacrificed so much, I'm keeping mum although I could speak out and ruin all those caught up in this little world."

I doubt the veracity of this link - http://grg51.typepad.com/steroid_nation/2008/11/cristina-perez.html - but if true, why are the Spanish authorities so reluctant?

January can't come quick enough....No wonder Nadal doesn't know when he's coming back....

Amritia3ee wrote:

Veejay wrote:

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?

No no you really don't get the point.

The ball is in your court, it is upto you to prove what you have said.

You can't just say 'Everything I say on this matter is true, and I say Nadal is doping, so therefore he is.'

Find a link showing how legal protein supplements can't get him the muscles that they have- I believe they can. A reliable revelant link too, not Yahoo answers or THASP.

I dont need to prove anything Amiritia,I asked you a bunch of simple logical questions and asked you to give me a plausible explanation for them
You havent explained to me how someone who does that much cardio can maintain such a ripped muscular physique for several months and then all of a sudden,out of the blue lose it
You havent explained to me how someone who does that much cardio could then come back and develop such a muscular and ripped physique without any kind of weight training
You came back giving me a wish wash bunch of pathetic links about protein shakes and creatine and fat burners ( LOL) which clearly suggests you have no clue what youre talking about,I mean do you even know what creatine it?
How can a pro athlete bulk up like that doing that much cardio without weight training even if they drank all the protein shakes in the world?
Why would a tennis player even want to bulk up?
Muscle mass doesnt automatically = strength and power so why would Nadal want to get bigger and then a few months later lose it all again? If it was his intention to get bigger why not stay that way?
Could you give me a plausible explanation for the above?

Veejay wrote:You havent explained to me how someone who does that much cardio can maintain such a ripped muscular physique for several months and then all of a sudden,out of the blue lose it

The ripped look is a reminder of image doctoring with free tools. I would highly recommend going to a live match. He takes off his shirt and puts on a top where no such look is visible. THASP has no credibility with me.

Veejay wrote:You havent explained to me how someone who does that much cardio could then come back and develop such a muscular and ripped physique without any kind of weight training

You seem to focus on the ripped look too much. Can you explain what regimen is required to develop a ripped look? Consider a 'legal' and 'illegal' route and let us discuss? BTW, take a look at Murray.

Veejay wrote:How can a pro athlete bulk up like that doing that much cardio without weight training even if they drank all the protein shakes in the world?
Why would a tennis player even want to bulk up?

You want a balance between muscle and speed. Too much muscle (and consequent weight) will actually hinder speed.

Veejay wrote:Muscle mass doesnt automatically = strength and power so why would Nadal want to get bigger and then a few months later lose it all again? If it was his intention to get bigger why not stay that way? Could you give me a plausible explanation for the above?

Muscles would atrophy very fast for a person who is injured but had a regular regimen of diet and exercise in the past. Since you work with injured people, physiotherapy is the recommended route back to being 'normal', correct?

McEnroe's comments need to be taken with a grain of salt.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19903716

If the ITF and WADA could be as courageous!!!!

Do you think players would be ready to join the "Truth and Reconciliation programme" ?

laverfan wrote:

Veejay wrote:You havent explained to me how someone who does that much cardio can maintain such a ripped muscular physique for several months and then all of a sudden,out of the blue lose it

The ripped look is a reminder of image doctoring with free tools. I would highly recommend going to a live match. He takes off his shirt and puts on a top where no such look is visible. THASP has no credibility with me.

Veejay wrote:You havent explained to me how someone who does that much cardio could then come back and develop such a muscular and ripped physique without any kind of weight training

You seem to focus on the ripped look too much. Can you explain what regimen is required to develop a ripped look? Consider a 'legal' and 'illegal' route and let us discuss? BTW, take a look at Murray.

Veejay wrote:How can a pro athlete bulk up like that doing that much cardio without weight training even if they drank all the protein shakes in the world?
Why would a tennis player even want to bulk up?

You want a balance between muscle and speed. Too much muscle (and consequent weight) will actually hinder speed.

Veejay wrote:Muscle mass doesnt automatically = strength and power so why would Nadal want to get bigger and then a few months later lose it all again? If it was his intention to get bigger why not stay that way? Could you give me a plausible explanation for the above?

Muscles would atrophy very fast for a person who is injured but had a regular regimen of diet and exercise in the past. Since you work with injured people, physiotherapy is the recommended route back to being 'normal', correct?

McEnroe's comments need to be taken with a grain of salt.

+1

Tenez wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19903716

If the ITF and WADA could be as courageous!!!!

Do you think players would be ready to join the "Truth and Reconciliation programme" ?

I do not believe tennis has the same problem with doping as cycling did.
Look at this:
http://www.itftennis.com/shared/medialibrary/pdf/original/IO_45851_original.PDF

Amritia3ee wrote:

Tenez wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19903716

If the ITF and WADA could be as courageous!!!!

Do you think players would be ready to join the "Truth and Reconciliation programme" ?

I do not believe tennis has the same problem with doping as cycling did.
Look at this:
http://www.itftennis.com/shared/medialibrary/pdf/original/IO_45851_original.PDF

That is clearly wishful thinking.

This story actually demonstrates how easy it is to make a mockery of the anti-doping programs. WADA certainly looks stupid here if not dishonest!

And to believe that "my player is of course innocent cause his smile is genuine" is laughable. Amri it is about time you start to ask the right questions! OTF is not about fanboyism, it's about tennis! Its good AND it's bad sides.

Tenez wrote:

And to believe that "my player is of course innocent cause his smile is genuine" is laughable.

I've never said that.

Tenez wrote:
Amri it is about time you start to ask the right questions! OTF is not about fanboyism, it's about tennis! Its good AND it's bad sides.

Yes, and we have to see the facts in a balanced, clear-minded way.
Not haplessly jumping to conclusions every two seconds.

Amritia3ee wrote:

Tenez wrote:

And to believe that "my player is of course innocent cause his smile is genuine" is laughable.

I've never said that.

BUt what else have you got to fight the many clues we have put forward?

Yes, and we have to see the facts in a balanced, clear-minded way.
Not haplessly jumping to conclusions every two seconds.

BY saying that you "believe" tennis is different and has not got the same problem as tennis, you do not sound very clear-minded and balanced.

1 - It's a sport

2 - Lots of money involved. Probably more than in cycling.

That is enough to be asking systematic questions.

Tenez wrote:

Amritia3ee wrote:

Tenez wrote:

And to believe that "my player is of course innocent cause his smile is genuine" is laughable.

I've never said that.

BUt what else have you got to fight the many clues we have put forward?

Tenez, do you remember my article on this on 606v2.
I wrote around a very very long article on this issue, where I covered every claim against him, did a lot of research, and found for every claim a more plausible explanation.
Of course it didn't prove that Nadal is not guilty, as I have said unless I actually follow him I can't find that out, but I can provide more reasonable explanations. The article was archived, or I would have posted it here.
You can't accuse me of not debating this issue

Tenez, which part of London are you from?
Apparently we are on the same road practically on the maps thingy.
Although they have got my location wrong, but we could still be in the same place.

OK this is ridiculous, apparently me, you and Veejay are all practically on the same road.

Amritia3ee wrote:OK this is ridiculous, apparently me, you and Veejay are all practically on the same road.

no, you're not, it's just where your wi-fi picks up the signal.

noleisthebest wrote:

Amritia3ee wrote:OK this is ridiculous, apparently me, you and Veejay are all practically on the same road.

no, you're not, it's just where your wi-fi picks up the signal.

That makes sense

Amritia3ee wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

Amritia3ee wrote:OK this is ridiculous, apparently me, you and Veejay are all practically on the same road.

no, you're not, it's just where your wi-fi picks up the signal.

That makes sense

Why, did you start to get worried ?