The doping program joke of the ITF!!!

noleisthebest wrote:

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 ?

lol

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.

I was hoping to hear Amirtia's response but I get the feeling he is really glad you stepped in

I dont see any evidence of photoshop being used nor can I think why anyone would want to do that,especially when he looks no different watching him on t.v or up close ( live) during certain parts of the season.This is my personal opinion which is based on my vision,I have to go by that,you cannot expect me to go by what you see.I can understand that its a two way street,you go by what you see and I go by what I see,the only way we can fairly compare our opinions is to go by the pictures ( which you claim is photoshoped)
For years now he has inflated and deflated,but I dont expect many to really take much notice unless they know thats going on,its not always obvious,sometimes its very slight,other times theres a massive difference
If you wish to believe that those pictures are photoshopped,then thats your opinion which youre entitled to but thats no less a conspiracy theory then basing your suspicions solely on that photograph or what you see
I would like to know why THASP has no credibility,putting their opinion and suspicions aside,the information they post on that blog is factual,you cant say the interviews,articles and research has no credibility,cause if that was truly the case the blog would have been buried ages ago

It is my opinion based my personal experience that it is impossible for anyone to develop such a ripped muscular look with absolutely no weight training.Nadal has admitted on several occasions that he does all his training on court and none in the gym,so how is he developing a body like that during certain parts of the season,i.e. the business end of spring going into summer when its obvious he has virtually no time to even go to a gym but yet during the off season when he probably has more time to go to the gym then he does while he is on tour,he looks far more "out of shape" or less muscular
Even if you were going to the gym and using legal supplements,your muscles dont inflate with water due to the water retention from growth hormones so you wont ever get that "hot air " inflated look unless you're finishing it off with stanazol which then gives you an unnatural ripped look where the lines your muscles makes is way too symmetrical
Bottom line is if we go back to the picture for reference,the one you claim is photoshopped,it is impossible to develop a physique like that with virtually no weight training,so the question remains is how did he do it?
As for Murray I have said several times before that I believe he was on Nandrolone when he was being coached by Brad Gilbert

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

Precisely my point,Ameritia wanted to imply that Nadal was using protein shakes to bulk up,my question is why would a pro tennis athlete would want to bulk up as its only common sense that such a move will hinder speed.Not only that,why would any
tennis player decide to put such strain on their ligaments and skeleton,especially a player who claims to have the "career threatening" injuries.Osteoporosis is the last thing someone who claims they have hoffa's syndrome wants
My opinion is simply that Nadal gaining weight is a side effect of taking steroids which contains growth hormones,he isnt intentionally trying to gain weight to improve

I agree that muscles can atrophy if an athlete is injured,faster for some then others.I question if it would waste away that fast and to such an extent for someone who is considered the greatest natural athlete/athletic player the game has ever seen,especially to such a degree that there isnt even any definition left.In 09 when Nadal lost a significant amount of weight,he only missed 2 tournaments,Queens and Wimbledon,he was back on tour by Rogers Cup and it wasn't till the end of the season at the WTF when there was a clear significant difference,so his muscles didnt atrophy because he was off tour injured.To hammer it home,why didnt his muscles atrophy when he was injured and off tour for around 6 weeks,but then it did 5 months later?
Whats really strange about all of this is if Nadal could lose that much weight,how come didn't he lose it long before when he is doing 8+ hours of cardio a day training or playing?
Tennis is very much an endurance sport,the amount of running a player does could be compared to running a marathon,when youre doing that much running eventually your muscles will catabolise,so how come Nadal can play for several months running virtual marathons and maintain such a physique and then all of sudden lose it if the ability to lose weight was always there?

Mac's comments do need to be taken with a grain of salt but I have never been one to pay much attention to him anyway.I thought what he said way before he said it,I only used him as reference to prove Im not the only one who saw what I saw

I found this a very interesting read:

"
Lance Armstrong's US Postal Service Pro Cycling Team "ran the most
sophisticated, professionalised and successful doping programme that
sport has ever seen", the United States Anti-Doping Agency have said.
USADA
chief executive Travis T Tygart said in a statement that there was
"conclusive and undeniable proof" of a team-run doping conspiracy.
Eleven of Armstrong's former team-mates testified against him, Tygart
said.
USADA are sending their "reasoned decision" in the Armstrong
case to the International Cycling Union, the World Anti-Doping Agency
and the World Triathlon Corporation.
This will be the explanation
for their decision to strip the retired cyclist, who now competes in
triathlons, of his seven Tour de France titles and hand him a lifetime
ban. The evidence, Tygart said, was "overwhelming" and "in excess over
1000 pages".
He said it contains "direct documentary evidence
including financial payments, emails, scientific data and laboratory
test results that further prove the use, possession and distribution of
performance enhancing drugs by Lance Armstrong and confirm the
disappointing truth about the deceptive activities of the USPS Team, a
team that received tens of millions of American taxpayer dollars in
funding".
Tygart also claimed the team's doping conspiracy "was
professionally designed to groom and pressure athletes to use dangerous
drugs, to evade detection, to ensure its secrecy and ultimately gain an
unfair competitive advantage through superior doping practices".
Twenty-six
people in total, he said, gave sworn testimony. Among the former
team-mates who did so were Tyler Hamilton and Floyd Landis. The other
team-mates who gave evidence against Armstrong were Frankie Andreu,
Michael Barry, Tom Danielson, George Hincapie, Levi Leipheimer, Stephen
Swart, Christian Vande Velde, Jonathan Vaughters and David Zabriskie.
Tygart
praised those riders involved in the "doping conspiracy" for having
"tremendous courage" to come forward and "stop perpetuating the sporting
fraud". He said: "I have personally talked with and heard these
athletes' stories and firmly believe that, collectively, these athletes,
if forgiven and embraced, have a chance to leave a legacy far greater
for the good of the sport than anything they ever did on a bike. Lance
Armstrong was given the same opportunity to come forward and be part of
the solution. He rejected it.
"Instead he exercised his legal
right not to contest the evidence and knowingly accepted the imposition
of a ban from recognised competition for life and disqualification of
his competitive results from 1998 forward."
Armstrong has
repeatedly denied accusations of doping. But in August announced he
would not fight the doping charges filed against him by USADA, saying in
a statement he was "finished with this nonsense" and insisting he was
innocent."

Are there any tremendously courageous tennis players left in this world?

Amritia3ee wrote:

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

So youre not going to answer my questions Ameritia?
Laverfan didnt give me a plausible explanation for anything I asked,just responded by asking me more questions
So I'm still waiting to hear what you have to say

Amritia3ee wrote:You can't accuse me of not debating this issue

If you do some research to counter the points, it's not quite like doing some research to verify the points.

A Typical example is your refusal to consider THASP as a possible reasonable source. They simply use the data available from ITF, WADA, other sources and come up with excellent questions. You might not agree with their conclusions but the facts they provide are extremely interesting for an open mind.

You do not appear that open on the subject.

Amritia3ee wrote: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.

I am in SW18.

Tenez wrote:

Amritia3ee wrote:You can't accuse me of not debating this issue

If you do some research to counter the points, it's not quite like doing some research to verify the points.

A Typical example is your refusal to consider THASP as a possible reasonable source. They simply use the data available from ITF, WADA, other sources and come up with excellent questions. You might not agree with their conclusions but the facts they provide are extremely interesting for an open mind.

You do not appear that open on the subject.

I don't see THASP as a very neutral or objective site at all. It seemed to it had a bit of an agenda, so I found it a bit difficult to trust it.

In my article on v2 I actually did a paragraph by paragraph analysis on the THASP article on Rafa.
Laverfan you are mod on v2, can you dig out that article please? I can't access it.

Amritia3ee wrote:

Tenez wrote:

Amritia3ee wrote:You can't accuse me of not debating this issue

If you do some research to counter the points, it's not quite like doing some research to verify the points.

A Typical example is your refusal to consider THASP as a possible reasonable source. They simply use the data available from ITF, WADA, other sources and come up with excellent questions. You might not agree with their conclusions but the facts they provide are extremely interesting for an open mind.

You do not appear that open on the subject.

I don't see THASP as a very neutral or objective site at all. It seemed to it had a bit of an agenda, so I found it a bit difficult to trust it.

In my article on v2 I actually did a paragraph by paragraph analysis on the THASP article on Rafa.
Laverfan you are mod on v2, can you dig out that article please? I can't access it.

If youre talking about the one that was deleted...some on Ameritia,we were all there.
It was hardly a detailed paragraph by paragraph analysis,it was everything youre accusing THASP to be, not neutral, nor objective and clearly had an agenda

Veejay wrote:

Amritia3ee wrote:

Tenez wrote:

Amritia3ee wrote:You can't accuse me of not debating this issue

If you do some research to counter the points, it's not quite like doing some research to verify the points.

A Typical example is your refusal to consider THASP as a possible reasonable source. They simply use the data available from ITF, WADA, other sources and come up with excellent questions. You might not agree with their conclusions but the facts they provide are extremely interesting for an open mind.

You do not appear that open on the subject.

I don't see THASP as a very neutral or objective site at all. It seemed to it had a bit of an agenda, so I found it a bit difficult to trust it.

In my article on v2 I actually did a paragraph by paragraph analysis on the THASP article on Rafa.
Laverfan you are mod on v2, can you dig out that article please? I can't access it.

If youre talking about the one that was deleted...some on Ameritia,we were all there.
It was hardly a detailed paragraph by paragraph analysis,it was everything youre accusing THASP to be, not neutral, nor objective and clearly had an agenda

No, I went through it paragraph by paragraph.
Can you not remember the colour coding??
L.F. you have to get that out.

Veejay, just looked at your 8\;21 pm post, it's very long.
To summarise, can you tell me:
a) What PEDs Nadal is taking
b) Why is he taking them.

I type of skim read the post, and it wasn't bad, so I'm prepared to hear you out.

Remember how I accused you plagiarism?
You denied it claiming you wrote it all yourself...well here is your chance to prove it Ameritia
Surely if you wrote it yourself,you will remember what you wrote and there would be no reason for Laverfan to go and dig out it no?

Veejay wrote:Remember how I accused you plagiarism?
You denied it claiming you wrote it all yourself...well here is your chance to prove it Ameritia,surely if you wrote it yourself,you will remember what you wrote and there would be no reason for Laverfan to do and dig out it no?

Well I can't remember it word for word, apologies.
But this is the main points:

1/ I first started with a paragraph by paragraph dissection of the THASP article, curious case of Rafael Nadal.
2/ I colour coded each paragraph

3/ Then as an edit I added in the claims you made, and I refuted them:
-I talked about how there was no actual proof
-The cycling down- was just due to the fact Nadal plays better on some surfaced than others
-I talked about the Fuentes case, and even after Fuentes was caught there was no decline in Nadal's performance.


4/ Then lastly I added as a final conclusion a few days later how in general the claims against him (made by you mainly) were mere speculation, and there was no concrete evidence.

That's all I can remember from what I wrote last year.
If I had plagiarised it, I would just copy and paste it out again.

Amritia3ee wrote:Veejay, just looked at your 8\;21 pm post, it's very long.
To summarise, can you tell me:
a) What PEDs Nadal is taking
b) Why is he taking them.

I type of skim read the post, and it wasn't bad, so I'm prepared to hear you out.

It's an insult to Veejay to skim-read his posts as he writes very intelligently and doesn't beat about the bush obscuring his points like some.
He puts a lot of painstaking effort in giving us the dumbed down version of the world of doping.

He is very knowledgeable on the subject and I've learnt a lot by reading from his first-hand experiences. I am the last person on any forum that enjoy reading long posts, but Veejay's are definitely not boring, so do make an effort, it's worth it.

Also I remember throughout the article and analysis, when I was 'refuting' the claims, I specifically quoted you and mentioned you, so it's unlikely that I had copy and pasted of wikipedia or something.

If you did that then it would prove you plagiarised it
Because it would be same word for word,so OBVIOUSLY you're not going to do that
If you did write it yourself there wouldnt be any problem to remember it and write it again

You didnt refute anything Ameritia,you challenged it and the ignored the majority of comments that challenged your points

Yes I remember how you never believed a word I had said up to that point but then suddenly used what I said as proof to back your clams up

I dont know what exact PED's Nadal is taking,the drugs available to pro athletes are way ahead of whats available on the circuit.The longer it remains that way,the greater the chances that it remains undetected in drug tests
I can only speculate that he uses something similar to Sustanon
Why is he taking them? For the simple reason that it enables him to achieve things he would never be able to do naturally
My 8;21 pm post was in response to Laverfan,the post Laverfan responded to was directed at you

noleisthebest wrote:

Amritia3ee wrote:Veejay, just looked at your 8\;21 pm post, it's very long.
To summarise, can you tell me:
a) What PEDs Nadal is taking
b) Why is he taking them.

I type of skim read the post, and it wasn't bad, so I'm prepared to hear you out.

It's an insult to Veejay to skim-read his posts as he writes very intelligently and doesn't beat about the bush obscuring his points like some.
He puts a lot of painstaking effort in giving us the dumbed down version of the world of doping.

He is very knowledgeable on the subject and I've learnt a lot by reading from his first-hand experiences. I am the last person on any forum that enjoy reading long posts, but Veejay's are definitely not boring, so do make an effort, it's worth it.

Thanks NITB

Veejay wrote:

I dont know what exact PED's Nadal is taking,the drugs available to pro athletes are way ahead of whats available on the circuit.The longer it remains that way,the greater the chances that it remains undetected in drug tests
I can only speculate that he uses something similar to Sustanon

Something similar to Sustanon?
A bit vague.

Veejay if you can't be specific, then I can't directly argue against anything.
Do you think he is using Sustanon or not? If so, why?

Amritia3ee wrote:

Veejay wrote:

I dont know what exact PED's Nadal is taking,the drugs available to pro athletes are way ahead of whats available on the circuit.The longer it remains that way,the greater the chances that it remains undetected in drug tests
I can only speculate that he uses something similar to Sustanon

Something similar to Sustanon?
A bit vague.

Veejay if you can't be specific, then I can't directly argue against anything.
Do you think he is using Sustanon or not? If so, why?

Why do you want it to be so specific? Any player could benefit from a combination of steroids, growth hormones and EPO and many other drugs, including a good dosage of crystal meth. So I am not sure why you want Vee to be more specific! A bit like LF you are trying to lose the debate in some irrelevant details.

Now let;s say your game is based on power like hitting the ball very hard with spin to make sure the ball has pace yet is high enough over the net and spinny enough to curve in before it reaches the baseline. That is a pretty exhausting shot, especially as one is staying 4m behind the BL so he can get to the ball. Yet you have to hit all balls as hard and that for 3 or 5 sets.

Do you really think steroids and EPO would not help that kind of games? ANd if they do what is preventing a player from taking some?

1 - A very tight anti-doping control?

2 - Ethics?

3 - ????

Well PEDs do enhance performance, we know that from the name.

I was asking Veejay for specifics, it's hardly 'irrelevant details' but the crux of the matter!

No. It's not the crux of the matter at all. In which way would it bring to this discussion to specify what is being taken.

We still do not know what LA has been taking. Yet we knew all along he was on something. Sure we coudl have been wrong but right or wrong we had very good reasons to speculate.

So what prevents you from speculating when it comes to tennis players?

Tenez wrote:
So what prevents you from speculating when it comes to tennis players?

Nothing. You can speculate all you like. On any topic.
Does God exist?

Amritia3ee wrote:
Nothing. You can speculate all you like. On any topic.
Does God exist?

Sure but that's the wrong forum.

Tenez wrote:

Amritia3ee wrote:
Nothing. You can speculate all you like. On any topic.
Does God exist?

Sure but that's the wrong forum.

lol I wasn't asking that, it was a rhetorical question.
I was agreeing with you, we can speculate all we like.

The answer is yest, btw.

Yes but my point was to speculate based on tangible clues. Like Can Djoko beat Federer or vice versa. We don't speculate much on whether Lu can beat Federer....even if he probably can.

THat's why I am somehow surprised you refuse to speculate on the benefits of doping in tennis and would benefit most from doping.

Well...I say that but of course I am not surprised.

noleisthebest wrote:The answer is yest, btw.

Can you introduce Him to me?

Tenez wrote:Yes but my point was to speculate based on tangible clues. Like Can Djoko beat Federer or vice versa. We don't speculate much on whether Lu can beat Federer....even if he probably can.

THat's why I am somehow surprised you refuse to speculate on the benefits of doping in tennis and would benefit most from doping.

Well...I say that but of course I am not surprised.

No one is denying that steroids/PEDs would help- they're called performance enhancing drugs for a reason.

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:The answer is yest, btw.

Can you introduce Him to me?

It will be my utmost pleasure

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:The answer is yest, btw.

Can you introduce Him to me?

Amritia3ee wrote:No one is denying that steroids/PEDs would help- they're called performance enhancing drugs for a reason.

But you have not answered my question. Why would players whose game coudl benefit most from those would not take them?

Yuo are asking Vee to be specific but you cannot provide reasons why a player woudl not touch something that can turn a mediocre career into a fantastic one.

noleisthebest wrote:

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:The answer is yest, btw.

Can you introduce Him to me?

It will be my utmost pleasure

"He is already in you"...coudl have been the right answer.

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:The answer is yest, btw.

Can you introduce Him to me?

It will be my utmost pleasure

"He is already in you"...coudl have been the right answer.

That would be one prayer answered .

Tenez wrote:

Amritia3ee wrote:No one is denying that steroids/PEDs would help- they're called performance enhancing drugs for a reason.

But you have not answered my question. Why would players whose game coudl benefit most from those would not take them?

Yuo are asking Vee to be specific but you cannot provide reasons why a player woudl not touch something that can turn a mediocre career into fantastic one.

No reasons.
We go round in circles, there is no proof either way.

Give me reasons why God doesn't exist? NITB has said God exists, give me reasons why a being such as God wouldn't exist?

Amritia3ee wrote:
No reasons.
We go round in circles, there is no proof either way.

There is plenty of proof, you just don't want to see it. You are happy to accept Armstrong doped, but not Nadal.

So you agree that though there is no proof (doesn't mean no evidence) there is NO reason why a player would not use PED!

Good! debate closed then! There are indeed solid reasons why a player would take PEDs in tennis.

noleisthebest wrote:

Amritia3ee wrote:
No reasons.
We go round in circles, there is no proof either way.

There is plenty of proof, you just don't want to see it. You are happy to accept Armstrong doped, but not Nadal.

Thanks NITB, can you clarify this further please

Tenez wrote:So you agree that though there is no proof (doesn't mean no evidence) there is NO reason why a player would not use PED!

Good! debate closed then! There are indeed solid reasons why a player would take PEDs in tennis.

lol, never saw that one coming!

As I said, speculate away,,, just don't pretend you have proof.

Fuentes Case re-opened in January btw. Let's have some patience.

Just read through the USDA report on Armstrong.

Jesus wept. 45 podium finishes in the TDF between 1996-2010 36 were tainted by doping!!

I encourage people read it.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B9YzclxcT0NHNHNQTUV4MkpSSWc/view?sle=true&pli=1

Amritia3ee wrote:

As I said, speculate away,,, just don't pretend you have proof.

And you don't pretend you are open to accepting it. That answers your question to me as well.

This is an excellent report LK which to me simply shows that humans are just humans. And that means 2 things:

1 - Physical exploits from any sport should be looked at systematically with the greatest suspicion. The list of heros turning cheats is growing: Flo-jo to Marion Jones, Carl Lewis, Ben Johnson, Armstrong and many others.

2- Where there is money humans with will bend the rules.

I do not want to hear again the argument that "they are tested thousands of times. First this is not the case in tennis, secondly if they were it woudl mean absolutely nothing unless an organisation were to seriously look into it like USADA. WADA is simply the whore of sport organisations.

Tenez wrote:This is an excellent report LK which to me simply shows that humans are just humans. And that means 2 things:

1 - Physical exploits from any sport should be looked at systematically with the greatest suspicion. The list of heros turning cheats is growing: Flo-jo to Marion Jones, Carl Lewis, Ben Johnson, Armstrong and many others.

2- Where there is money humans with will bend the rules.

I do not want to hear again the argument that "they are tested thousands of times. First this is not the case in tennis, secondly if they were it woudl mean absolutely nothing unless an organisation were to seriously look into it like USADA. WADA is simply the whore of sport organisations.

I find some of the comments like a typical soundbite like "Liquid Gold"

However the evidence was rather startling. The doctor in this case which Armstrong denied any 'professional' link to was the architect of the whole thing. The remote training spots, the measuring of the Hemotract levels, the use of masking agents. The fact the USDA had e-mails from Armstrong to Ferrari and also financial transactions between the two.

I agree with USDA who said it was the most 'sophisticated' doping program they had seen. It shows it can be done and that timing and proper monitoring controls can succeed.

What is more alarming is that Dr Ferrari still works with cyclists!!

legendkillar wrote:What is more alarming is that Dr Ferrari still works with cyclists!!

And Dr del Moral with tennis players.....up to this report anyway.

From the report:

"Dr. Ferrari advised the use of hypoxic chambers to reduce the effectiveness of the EPO test in detecting the use of synthetic EPO."

Those "doctors" should be stripped of their licence and locked behind the bars.

There was the time Armstrong dropped out of a race in 2000 when he had taken Testosterone and the drug testers were waiting at his hotel.

The cortisone story of 1999 is more fascinating as he tested positive for cortisone in a test and they came up with a story about cortisone cream used for 'saddle sore' despite the test showing that he had been injected!! The story was accepted by WADA!!!

legendkillar wrote:The story was accepted by WADA!!!

As I said WADA is the whore of sport organisations. THat's why its founder, an honest genuine man, resigned after a few years as he knew he could not tell the truth.

Does that make it really frustrating when they go after smaller names like Gasquet and Malisse or even Korda when they know there are bigger fishes to fry?

Tenez wrote:

legendkillar wrote:The story was accepted by WADA!!!

As I said WADA is the whore of sport organisations. THat's why its founder, an honest genuine man, resigned after a few years as he knew he could not tell the truth.

Does that make it really frustrating when they go after smaller names like Gasquet and Malisse or even Korda when they know there are bigger fishes to fry?

Well reading the report left me with steam coming out of my ears due to level of corruption!!

UCI were bribed for a positive test from Armstrong to the tune of $100,000.

I think more than anything this shows suspicions can be harboured. I really hope that nothing comes out on the scale of this and really damages tennis.

I don't think tennis will be damaged, at least not for me. It will be the players that get caught and the organisations/individuals that allowed them to do so that should hang their heads in shame.

Nothing can bring glorious tennis down

Interesting tenez re: hypoxic use, is that what Novak was doing last year to boost red blood cells?

What was WADAs take on the egg chamber?

wilson_nxt wrote:Interesting tenez re: hypoxic use, is that what Novak was doing last year to boost red blood cells?

What was WADAs take on the egg chamber?

From what I know he used it twice. It's not something you carry around in your bag on the tour. WADA is undecided on it.