The doping program joke of the ITF!!!

What a brilliant thread! I hope it runs till the Fuentes case closes in January

Just thought I'd say it in order to hit the jubilar 600th post

noleisthebest wrote:Just thought I'd say it in order to hit the jubilar 600th post

Good achievement.

laverfan wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:Just thought I'd say it in order to hit the jubilar 600th post

Good achievement.

It's all about being in the right place at the right time

Some thoughts supporting and regarding Vee Jays post"



Athlete or Celebrity managament 101 when dealing with a scandol is to "threaten" to sue. Its the 1st thing we would do if a story broke and we wanted to create doubt-- esp if the story was true. It's human nature.. if they hear something bad about you, but you show enough outrage, the people mentally gravitate towards your side of the story.. "If he's going to sue, he must be innocent" It's all smoke and mirrors though... Tiger threatened to sue when the affair rumours 1st started,, everytime a celebrity sex tape comes out they threaten to sue... but never do and the tape comes out anyway (the secret is that often its the celebrity putting out the tape themselves and still threatening to sue!" It's an act.. Also, read the wording carefully, what are they threatenng to sue for? In Nadals case with the French - the threat was to sue for using copyrighted images of the Spanish Federeration, NOT for defamation for falsely spreading rumours. There is a distinction there.. To the public they her the word "sue" and tie it to defending Nadal agianst rumors.. the reality is- that's not what it's about.. Nadal or the Spanish wouldn't dare sue for defamation because the French would then have the right to do every test in the books on Nadals samples in order to prove or disprove that they weren't spreading false info.

I've been around wonderful, charitable, god fearing athletes who cheat like there's no tomorrow to get an edge.. Fans says "he's nice, he would never dope" B.S.... Millions of dollars, luxury and accolades that most of us can't fathom are at stake.. These guys will do anything to be at the top... and that goes for anyone.. I'm not just targeting Nadal...

I do know from sources tied to Nadals USA management that there was a elevated test in late 2011 that led to an agreement to clean up in Feb and undergo extra testing afterwords. I do know the ATP/ITF went ballistic becasue the NAdal team broke the agreement around Miamii. These same sources now say that the info coming out of the team since Wimbledon has been top secret... nothing is leaking out so no one I know has heard of what actually went down/whether there was a suspension... but I was directly told that "they aren't saying what's gong on, but the injury announcements are just cover"

I also know that the activities that Nadal has been engaged defy reality for someone with a torn patella tendon.. Try jet sking with a bum knee and tendon and tell me if you can smile in a picture... It's just not going to happen.

That's funny I know a friend who also knows a friend in IMG, and he categorically told me that no silent ban had been issued to Nadal. I also know a close source to Nadal who showed me an X-ray of Nadal's knee, and I'm pretty sure I saw a torn patella.

Anyway once my friend tore his patella, he could play golf fine but couldn't play tennis or football for 1 year. Even from personal experience golf puts far less stress on your knees than tennis.

All images can be modified Laverfan,have you heard of photoshop?
Even the ones you use can/could have been be photoshopped or edited and most likely would have been airbrushed for publication
Telling me that you dont trust images that can be doctored doesnt give me an answer as to why you believe the images are doctored
Anyone can dispute or claim anything but how can you expect me to believe that you think the image is doctored if you cannot even give me 1 plausible reason why
You havent said to me "I believe the image is doctored for the following reasons" and then give me your reasons
You just said you dont trust images that have been doctored,if you cant tell me why you believe it is doctored then how the hell can you believe the images is doctored to begin with?
Why does your suspicion not apply to pictures you use? Its entirely plausible that the pictures have been photoshopped so why dont you trust them either?
Also what qualifies you to conclude which pictures have been doctored and which ones hasnt
What do you base your opinion on?
Does the picture first have to suit your agenda before you make your conclusion or do you actually use photoshop techniques to prove why you believe it to have been doctored?

Youre the only one who is talking about Murrays apparent physical change,I dont see anyone else claim he has gotten bigger over the last few months.But there is a major contradiction in what youre saying here,in previous comments you clearly said Murray has gotten bigger in the last 12 or so months,but now youre claiming Lendl said Murray needs to get fitter,getting bigger doesnt = getting fitter
The 2 are very different Laverfan,very very different
To get fitter you need to increase stamina and endurance and you do this by doing various cardio exercises,running,cycling,rowing,skipping,aerobics get my drift?
To get bigger would mean Lendl asked him to gain weight by going to the gym and pumping iron
We have already established that getting bigger hinders movement,we have already established that its impossible to get bigger if youre doing a lot of cardio,so something has to give,either you stop the cardio ( tennis) and get bigger or you keep doing the cardio and the weight training with little to no results
I am suspecting that you got confused between saying Murray has gotten fitter the last 12 months by saying Murray has gotten bigger.
No one can dispute that Murray is a lot fitter.His results clearly prove it,and I certainly would be 100% behind you claiming that Lendl told him to get fitter.I believe that Lendl would definitely have asked Murray to get fitter
What you're mistaking for as getting bigger,youre probably implying is that his physique has become more defined,there is quite a big difference so now you know for the future
I dont see anything that suggest Murray has used steriods recently,if that was the case then he would truly have gotten bigger,like the time he was being coached by Brad
But just because I say this doesnt mean I rule out the possibility that he could still be using othr PED's

I never said I was Nadal Laverfan..I asked you a question why you think he never sued the Channel T.V,which means I asked you to give me your opinion why he did.I then went on to give you my opinon on what I would do if I was Nadal
Nowhere did I ever say that what I would do if I was Nadal would or should translate into what Nadal does or should do
Nothing wrong with asking you for your opinion and giving you mine

"He let RFET deal with the specific issues. "
Who or what is RFET? and what specific issues did he let RFET deal with?
No the skits havent been aired again,why should they? The t.v channel aired one,and the another the next day and then another.After they aired the first one there was a huge backlash,they were expected to apologise but instead of apologising they aired another and then another showing a kind if defiant arrogance which could be read as " you cant stop me"
What exactly is it that youre trying to imply by asking if the skits have been aired recently? Just come out and say it,if someone has done something to prevent it from ever being aired again come out and say it so that we all know,no point hinting at thngs and then expecting us to guess

What doe this "If you go to a medical professional, the treatments are specific to each individual. Woods may have been treated differently than some of the other Galea patients. As a player, you get what you need, without asking details about other players regimens unless they are specifically brought up."

have to do with what I was saying about dr Luis Garcia and his comments about not being professional unless you use drugs?

Of course a dr will treat every patient/client individually,of course every treatment would be specific to each individual,who ever sad anything to the contrary?
If your paying someone for a service then usually what happens is you get what want or need,that is basic common sense,so what does this have to do with anything especially the subject? Did someone imply that athletes go to dr Luis Garcia or Galea and they all paid but they didnt get what they wanted or needed? Did anyone ever say that?
Even if you had to ask these doctors about the details or fish around about other athletes there is no way a dr will disclose the details of who his other patients are and what treatments he is suing on them.That information will be completely confidential,especially when we are talking about doping.There is an understanding that a policy of absolute discretion will be advocated
Stating the obvious again.....


Suspicions by association...good we are getting somewhere

If steroids dont help tennis players,why have tennis players tested positive for them
Why are tennis players using them if they dont help tennis players?
Why have tennis players been caught with them
How many cases has there been for Nandrlone? I believe Mr Ings over on THASP who claims to be the person who worked with all the Nandrolone cases from something like '04 until recently said something along the lines of 40 tennis players and thats for Nandrolone alone
Steroids help athletes run faster,endure longer,recover from matches faster,get into shape faster and stay in shape for longer,rehabilitate injuries faster,hit harder,add more pace,be more aggressive,can improve their serve more by generating more power....I would have thought you knew this but now youre telling me you don't?
Are you now saying that tennis players should ditch taking steroids and replace it with EPO blood-oxygenation Autologous blood enrichment and similar techniques are favoured purely based on the fact that ABS cant detect gradual changes ?
So what ever happened to taking a drug for what it can offer you? You should take drugs purely becasue ABp's cannot detect grandual change?
Apart from the reason you say above,can you give me some plausible explanations why EPO blood oxygenation and Autologous blood enrichment is better for tennis players then using steroids? I mean talk me through step by step why you think it would be better their game,and how it will improve their game

"The points was the difference in natural physiques due to natural changes and injuries."
We were discussing Nadal and the whole discussion was centered around why I believe he uses steroids so therefore its only logical to assume we are talking about an athlete on drugs not natural physiques.But even when we discussed the possibility of what would happen if someone wasnt on steriods and we concluded that
1 a muscular physque would not be achievable due to cardio
2 it will be impossible to achieve such an "inflated" look
3 there isnt enough time to visit a gym enough to even give the player a legitmate chance to even try to build a physique like that
4 muscle catabolism for a muscular physique would be instant not only start happening several months later if somehow you were able to build a muscular physique
5 without the drugs there wouldnt even be weight gaining and then weight loss


"Nadal is one of the few players who can inject the highest RPMs (~4800). This is one aspect which requires much more energy and hence is exercised the most. Do you know what muscles play part in such a rotation? In comparison, Federer goes to about 3300 rpms, correct?"

The ability for Nadal to do this is purely because of racket technology
Im sure it requires energy,I dont know if it would be more or less then usual but Ill take your word for it
What does this exactly prove then,that he is bruning more energy?
If thats the case then what does the fact that he is burning more energy prove?
Im sure muscle plays part is such rotation,I would be shocked if it didnt
What does this prove especially in comparison to your argument about bicep size?
Was my arguement not that a players mucle tone will be consistent with how the exercise is developing it?
Is it your argument that because Nadal injects the highest RPM that that explains why his biceps are bigger then anyone else's?
How then do you explain the mix of cardio
If someone isnt on drugs and they are doing that much cardio while exercising thier arm muscles like that,they will not get bigger,in all likelihood they will tone down and become more defined.This doesnt however mean because the bicep becomes more defined that it loses all the strength it had when it was bigger

"The conclusions are questionable. If I were to accept the allegations, a large number of players would be banned for life."

No one ever said you have to except anything least of all the allegations on THASP.I told you it is only plausible explanations,no one is going around trumpeting it as 100% fact.People are merely discussing their suspicions surrounding the subjects that documented there
Explain to me how a large number of players would be banned if you accept the allegations?
What planet are you living on Laverfan,if you accepted the allegations absolutely nothing will happen,those players will continue to play because you are a person just like me.We have no impact or power to be able to change anything no matter how many playes we are suspicions of
No player will be banned if you except the allegations,all that will happen is that your opinion of the players could change and become very different,you may stop supporting them,you may start hating them,you could even end up hating the sport
Is this what really scares you about being suspiciosn of players?
Is this the real root of the problem?

"In a previous discussion, I had even suggested that ITF/WADA recruit some well known dopers, perhaps Ben Johnson and the like, to play the role of 'advisors' and employ someone like Fuentes/Moral/Ferrari to help WADA see 'inside' that world. There is a very similar practice in the Internet Security world which is an equivalent.

this is actually an excellent idea

"Nadal's genetic lineage contradicts the 'Nadal not being a natural athlete' statement."
I have heard that he supposedly comes from an athletic family,so even if my comment contradicts it,I havent been presented with any evidence by you or anyone else to prove otherwise
Until I do my opinion remains the same

"To me Borg and Vilas had the 'perfect' bodies for Tennis, closely followed by Federer, Laver, Nadal. Pancho was the biggest 'non-Tennis' body, Mecir could have been Vilas or Borg in the making."

Your opinion which you are entirely entitled to,my point was that looking at the players I mentioned ,their physiques were all different,not significantly but they all had a unique physique in comparison the the others mentioned
Their physiques didnt really have much to do with their natural talent,ie they could all have such unique and different physiques but yet at the same time they can all be so incredibly talented
I dont think one physique is necessarily better then another for tennis in regard to the players I mentioned part from maybe Del Potro and Nalbandian,so for me there isnt really a " ideal perfect tennis physique" only talent
If I had to chose one Id say Federer because his physique makes tennis look so beautiful

The one thing people disecting the rule book on provisional suspensions,etc as a way of showing it doens't fit the Nadal situation don't seem to understand-- preferntial treatment for superstars exists and is real... Not everyone is treated the same and I can assure you not everyone is held to the rules the same.. we only have to look at how the Agassi drug test was handled. WE know the ATP/ITF did not follow procedures in that case, why so sure they are following now? I can say with certainy that a Federer, Nadal, Djokovic are not going to be exposed by their Sport unless there is no option. Here's a shocker- Sports are a business, created to make money- Look at Baseball- the owners/management KNEW that the stars were doping, there's 100% proof of that... not a thing was done.......... UNTIL finally the fans who spend the money that lines the business started to object adn the money started to dry up.. then the government got involved and the owners had no choice.. Suddenly- strtic testing, superstars being banned, superstars being publicaly exposed... becasue it brought back the money.

Until the tenns fans/public start objecting with their wallets... there will be cover ups, tests and suspension not made public.. If you don't beleive that then I have a bridge to sell you..

That's all well and good, but it's hardly conclusive is it.

truffin1 wrote: preferntial treatment for superstars exists and is real... Not everyone is treated the same and I can assure you not everyone is held to the rules the same.. we only have to look at how the Agassi drug test was handled. WE know the ATP/ITF did not follow procedures in that case, why so sure they are following now? I can say with certainy that a Federer, Nadal, Djokovic are not going to be exposed by their Sport unless there is no option. Here's a shocker- Sports are a business, created to make money- Look at Baseball- the owners/management KNEW that the stars were doping, there's 100% proof of that... not a thing was done.

Indeed! Like UCI knew LA was doping. In fact UCI is still studying ways to defend LA and did their best to oppose the right of USADA to void the 7 TDFs of LA.

Wasn't the case of Agassi's meth abuse a classic example of a high-profile cover-up?
After all...Image is everything!

Amritia3ee wrote:That's all well and good, but it's hardly conclusive is it.

No cause you don't want it to be.

laverfan wrote:

Veejay wrote:
TRuffin has a friend who works for IMG and claimed Nadal failed a drugs test last November and was silently suspended for the month of February
I dont expect anyone to buy this but I trust the source for personal reasons, it does however seem rather pathetic to ban Nadal in February when he was going to take time off tour anyway
Either way the possibility of silent bans apparently do exist,is Nadal serving one now? Who knows,possible that he is but no one can say for sure
I just dont buy the notion that he is injured for the reasons I told you
I remember when that scandal with the Argentines happened,I recall Canas failed a drugs test around IW/Miami and continued to play until Wimbledon while even moving up in the ranking before he was suspended

Should I trust Luiz-Cotorro and Mikel Sanchez or not? They are RFET doctors and are trusted by multiple Tennis players. They are involved in Nadal's diagnosis. Yet someone keeps bringing up that the news from the Nadal camp is suspect. Why? A personal source is trustworthy, but an official source is suspect. Very subjective.

PS: I would be also curious, if Truffin has an inside source within IMG, what was the discussion within IMG regrading the betting issue?

Youre entirely entitled to trust who ever you want to Laverfan
It has nothing to do with being subjective or of not,stop trying prove double standards or hypocrisy
I told you I am open to the possibility that any athlete can be doping, I didnt however go on a crusade to prove how subjective I am.I state my opinions,nothing more nothing less,I dont claim to be the second coming of christ while doing that so stop trying to make out that I am
If you want to believe those sources then that is your opinion,its your right and your choice to trust those sources
Just because you chose to trust those sources doesnt mean everyone else has to,it also doesnt automatically prevent you from being questioned about those sources
The information the Nadal camp have put out has been contradictory,inconsistent and conflicting
The suspicion on whether they are telling the truth or not is not a result of 1 or 2 misquotes,it a result of several years worth of inconsistencies,several years worth of contradictions and several years worth of conflicting information
Im sorry Laverfan but you cannot blame me for this,I havent done anything wrong,I cannot be blamed for the all the false contradicting information the Nadal camp has released over the years and you cannot blame me for the opinion and suspicions I have been forced to develop by the Nadal camp because of it.This is their fault not mine,if they had released sound credible information that has no holes or cannot be disputed I wouldnt have been forced to have this opinion and be so suspicious of anything they said
The blame lies entirely with them
If I chose to believe someone thats my prerogative Laverfan,if I chose to believe someone I know in real life and not on a forum thats my choice
Who are you to question my right to do that when you dont even know the personal reason why I believe someone?

Amritia3ee wrote:Veejay, I am going to write an article including that Nadal 'say no' video which will of course include the translation in English. Stay tuned!

Ok Amritia...I take it youre reviving the old curious case of Ameritia's plagiarism
So i guess that the youtube clip you posted means that you have absolutely no clue what Nadal said,you just saw someone claiming Nadal said no to doping and decided to post it?

Amritia3ee wrote:That's funny I know a friend who also knows a friend in IMG, and he categorically told me that no silent ban had been issued to Nadal. I also know a close source to Nadal who showed me an X-ray of Nadal's knee, and I'm pretty sure I saw a torn patella.

Anyway once my friend tore his patella, he could play golf fine but couldn't play tennis or football for 1 year. Even from personal experience golf puts far less stress on your knees than tennis.

No originality whatsoever
And more evidence of plagiarism

Amritia3ee wrote:That's all well and good, but it's hardly conclusive is it.

Thats a bit rich coming from you Ameritia what conclusive evidence have you brought to the table?
Googled links about the health risk involved in using steroids?

Veejay wrote:

Amritia3ee wrote:That's all well and good, but it's hardly conclusive is it.

Thats a bit rich coming from you Ameritia what conclusive evidence have you brought to the table?
Googled links about the health risk involved in using steroids?

I keep being told that coffee is bad for me all the time, all by overweight, unexercised ladies

Veejay wrote:All images can be modified Laverfan,have you heard of photoshop?
Even the ones you use can/could have been be photoshopped or edited and most likely would have been airbrushed for publication
Telling me that you dont trust images that can be doctored doesnt give me an answer as to why you believe the images are doctored
Anyone can dispute or claim anything but how can you expect me to believe that you think the image is doctored if you cannot even give me 1 plausible reason why
You havent said to me "I believe the image is doctored for the following reasons" and then give me your reasons
You just said you dont trust images that have been doctored,if you cant tell me why you believe it is doctored then how the hell can you believe the images is doctored to begin with?
Why does your suspicion not apply to pictures you use? Its entirely plausible that the pictures have been photoshopped so why dont you trust them either?
Also what qualifies you to conclude which pictures have been doctored and which ones hasnt
What do you base your opinion on?
Does the picture first have to suit your agenda before you make your conclusion or do you actually use photoshop techniques to prove why you believe it to have been doctored?

All digital images can be doctored to suit purposes. We are no longer in the age of Silver Nitrate. The reasons behind image doctoring are

1. defame someone - (for example, nude bodies with known faces)
2. blackmail someone - same as above.
3. make someone look better - air-brushing, blemish-removal, etc.
4. accuse someone - (different from 2. like compromising pictures)
5. threaten someone - (different than 2)

Veejay wrote:Youre the only one who is talking about Murrays apparent physical change,I dont see anyone else claim he has gotten bigger over the last few months.But there is a major contradiction in what youre saying here,in previous comments you clearly said Murray has gotten bigger in the last 12 or so months,but now youre claiming Lendl said Murray needs to get fitter,getting bigger doesnt = getting fitter
The 2 are very different Laverfan,very very different
To get fitter you need to increase stamina and endurance and you do this by doing various cardio exercises,running,cycling,rowing,skipping,aerobics get my drift?
To get bigger would mean Lendl asked him to gain weight by going to the gym and pumping iron
We have already established that getting bigger hinders movement,we have already established that its impossible to get bigger if youre doing a lot of cardio,so something has to give,either you stop the cardio ( tennis) and get bigger or you keep doing the cardio and the weight training with little to no results
I am suspecting that you got confused between saying Murray has gotten fitter the last 12 months by saying Murray has gotten bigger.
No one can dispute that Murray is a lot fitter.His results clearly prove it,and I certainly would be 100% behind you claiming that Lendl told him to get fitter.I believe that Lendl would definitely have asked Murray to get fitter
What you're mistaking for as getting bigger,youre probably implying is that his physique has become more defined,there is quite a big difference so now you know for the future
I dont see anything that suggest Murray has used steriods recently,if that was the case then he would truly have gotten bigger,like the time he was being coached by Brad
But just because I say this doesnt mean I rule out the possibility that he could still be using othr PED's

The discussion about Murray is to point out that there is subjectivity involved in observers.

Veejay wrote:I never said I was Nadal Laverfan..I asked you a question why you think he never sued the Channel T.V,which means I asked you to give me your opinion why he did.I then went on to give you my opinon on what I would do if I was Nadal
Nowhere did I ever say that what I would do if I was Nadal would or should translate into what Nadal does or should do
Nothing wrong with asking you for your opinion and giving you mine

"He let RFET deal with the specific issues. "
Who or what is RFET? and what specific issues did he let RFET deal with?
No the skits havent been aired again,why should they? The t.v channel aired one,and the another the next day and then another.After they aired the first one there was a huge backlash,they were expected to apologise but instead of apologising they aired another and then another showing a kind if defiant arrogance which could be read as " you cant stop me"
What exactly is it that youre trying to imply by asking if the skits have been aired recently? Just come out and say it,if someone has done something to prevent it from ever being aired again come out and say it so that we all know,no point hinting at thngs and then expecting us to guess

RFET is the Spanish Tennis Federation as spelled in Spanish, like FFT is in French. - http://www.rfet.es/

Now you see my point. Like Dimanche pulling it's accusatory tone (or running out of disk space on a server - take your pick), the TV channel is probably under a lot of pressure. You yourself allude to corporate slavery. How is this any different? This is a battle for ratings and 'hearts and minds' (for lack of a better word). If the TV channel was sued and actually went out of business, the corporation behind it would have the risk analysis and consequences of such a defamatory tirade.

Veejay wrote:What doe this "If you go to a medical professional, the treatments are specific to each individual. Woods may have been treated differently than some of the other Galea patients. As a player, you get what you need, without asking details about other players regimens unless they are specifically brought up."

have to do with what I was saying about dr Luis Garcia and his comments about not being professional unless you use drugs?

Of course a dr will treat every patient/client individually,of course every treatment would be specific to each individual,who ever sad anything to the contrary?
If your paying someone for a service then usually what happens is you get what want or need,that is basic common sense,so what does this have to do with anything especially the subject? Did someone imply that athletes go to dr Luis Garcia or Galea and they all paid but they didnt get what they wanted or needed? Did anyone ever say that?
Even if you had to ask these doctors about the details or fish around about other athletes there is no way a dr will enclose the details of who his other patients are and what treatments he is suing on them.That information will be completely confidential,especially when we are talking about doping.There is an understanding that a policy of absolute discretion will be advocated
Stating the obvious again.....

This was the prior discussion about Ferrer and Errani.

Veejay wrote:Suspicions by association...good we are getting somewhere

If steroids dont help tennis players,why have tennis players tested positive for them
Why are tennis players using them if they dont help tennis players?
Why have tennis players been caught with them
How many cases has there been for Nandrlone? I believe Mr Ings over on THASP who claims to be the person who worked with all the Nandrolone cases from something like '04 until recently said something along the lines of 40 tennis players and thats for Nandrolone alone
Steroids help athletes run faster,endure longer,recover from matches faster,get into shape faster and stay in shape for longer,rehabilitate injuries faster,hit harder,add more pace,be more aggressive,can improve their serve more by generating more power....I would have thought you knew this but now youre telling me you don't?
Are you now saying that tennis players should ditch taking steroids and replace it with EPO blood-oxygenation Autologous blood enrichment and similar techniques are favoured purely based on the fact that ABS cant detect gradual changes ?
So what ever happened to taking a drug for what it can offer you? You should take drugs purely becasue ABp's cannot detect grandual change?
Apart from the reason above you say,can you give me some plausible explanations why EPO blood oxygenation and Autologous blood enrichment is better for tennis players then using steroids? I mean talk me through step by step why you think it would be better their game,and how it will improve their game

Nadrolone, specifically, would provide lower benefits than say EPO.

In Tennis cases, there are very few steroid users, but primarily users who want to enhance blood oxygenation or use of diuretics to clean up afterwards. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_sport

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nandrolone#Publicized_cases

Blood enrichment and transfusion using the player's own blood is much easier and can look similar to oxygen-tent or high-altitude related activity with no adverse effects that a biological passport can detect. The arbitrary 6:1 T/E ratio for testosterone, for example, may no longer be a good metric, because it gets abused very often.

Veejay wrote:"The points was the difference in natural physiques due to natural changes and injuries."
We were discussing Nadal and the whole discussion was centered around why I believe he uses steroids so therefore its only logical to assume we are talking about an athlete on drugs not natural physiques.But even when we discussed the possibility of what would happen if someone wasnt on steriods and we concluded that
1 a muscular physque would not be achievable due to cardio
2 it will be impossible to achieve such an "inflated"
3 there isnt enough time to visit a gym enough to even give the player a legitmate chance to even try to build a physique like that
4 muscle catabolism for a muscular physique would be instant not only start happening several months later
5 without the drugs there wouldnt even be weight gaining and then weight loss

I have pointed out there is not much difference between the Tennis physiques, but you think there is. My example is perhaps unsuitable. I will try and find others.

Veejay wrote:"Nadal is one of the few players who can inject the highest RPMs (~4800). This is one aspect which requires much more energy and hence is exercised the most. Do you know what muscles play part in such a rotation? In comparison, Federer goes to about 3300 rpms, correct?"

The ability for Nadal to do this is purely because of racket technology
Im sure it requires energy,I dont know if it would be more or less then usual but Ill take your word for it
What does this exactly prove then,that he is bruning more energy?
If thats the case then what does the fact that he is burning more energy prove?
Im sure muscle plays part is such rotation,I would be shocked if it didnt
What does this prove especially in comparison to your argument about bicep size?
Was my arguement not that a players mucle tone will be consistent with how the exercise is developing it?
Is it your argument that because nadal injects the highest RPM that that explains why his biceps are bigger then anyone else's?
How then do you explain the mix of cardio
If someone isnt on drugs and they are doing that much cardio while exercising thier arm muscles like that,they will not get bigger,in all likelihood they will tone down and become more defined.This doesnt however mean because the bicep becomes more defined that it loses all the strength ithad when it was bigger

Is it your argument that because nadal injects the highest RPM that that explains why his biceps are bigger then anyone else's?

There is a whole paper on this for which I do not have a link right now. I will try and dig it up. If he was playing with wooden racquets, his shoulder and elbow would be in a museum. I would suggest you watch Federer's follow through vs Nadal's and we can discuss further.

Veejay wrote:"The conclusions are questionable. If I were to accept the allegations, a large number of players would be banned for life."

No one ever said you have to except anything least of all the allegations on THASP.I told you it is only plausible explanations,no one is going around trumpeting it as 100% fact.People are merely discussing their suspicions surrounding the subjects that documented there
Explain to me how a large number of players would be banned if you accept the allegations?
What planet are you living on Laverfan,if you accepted the allegations absolutely nothing will happen,those players will continue to play because you are a person just like me.We have no impact or power to be able to change anything no matter how many playes we are suspicions of
No player will be banned if you except the allegations,all that will happen is that your opinion of the players could chance and become very different,you may stop supporting them,you may start hating them,you could end up hating the sport
Is this what really scares you about being suspiciosn of players?
Is this the reak root of the problem?

No. I would much rather rely on authorities to their jobs, corruption aside. BTW, I do not watch ANY US ball sport anymore. The MLB/NFL scandals are absolutely mind-numbing.

Veejay wrote:"In a previous discussion, I had even suggested that ITF/WADA recruit some well known dopers, perhaps Ben Johnson and the like, to play the role of 'advisors' and employ someone like Fuentes/Moral/Ferrari to help WADA see 'inside' that world. There is a very similar practice in the Internet Security world which is an equivalent.

this is actually an excellent idea

Thanks.

Veejay wrote:"Nadal's genetic lineage contradicts the 'Nadal not being a natural athlete' statement."
I have heard that he supposedly comes from an athletic family,so even if my comment contradicts it,I havent been presented with any evidence by you or anyone else to prove otherwise
Until I do my opinion remains the same

Let me give you an example. Federer's parents have no sporting pedigree, yet he is considered the most gifted Tennis player. His parents played amateur club-level tennis in SA and SUI. I do not question his 'natural gift' or his genetic lineage. By contrast, Nadal family does have well known Footballers.

Veejay wrote:"To me Borg and Vilas had the 'perfect' bodies for Tennis, closely followed by Federer, Laver, Nadal. Pancho was the biggest 'non-Tennis' body, Mecir could have been Vilas or Borg in the making."

Your opinion which you are entirely entitled to,my point was that looking at the players I mentioned ,their physiques were all different,not significantly but they all had a unique physique in comparison the the others mentioned
Their physiques didnt really have much to do with their natural talent,ie they could all have such unique and different physiques but yet at the same time they can all be so incredibly talented
I dont think one physique is necessarily better then another for tennis in regard to the players I mentioned part from maybe Del Potro and Nalbandian,so for me there isnt really a " ideal perfect tennis physique" only talent
If I had to chose one Id say Federer because his physique makes tennis look so beautiful

McEnroe, Borg, Laver, Rosewall and many others precede Federer. Beauty also lies in the eyes of the beholder.

Amritia3ee wrote:That's funny I know a friend who also knows a friend in IMG, and he categorically told me that no silent ban had been issued to Nadal. I also know a close source to Nadal who showed me an X-ray of Nadal's knee, and I'm pretty sure I saw a torn patella.

Anyway once my friend tore his patella, he could play golf fine but couldn't play tennis or football for 1 year. Even from personal experience golf puts far less stress on your knees than tennis.

maybe you do....... i'm sure there is no sarcasm in your post.. look-- believe what you want-- those who know who I am/my past personally like VeeJay know the truth.. I don't expect you to believe it , you don't know me.

btw-- patella tendon-- try jet sking... then look at the pictures of Nadal jetsking after Wimby which his team is sayng he already had the tear... tell me if you could do what he's doing.

Amritia3ee wrote:That's funny I know a friend who also knows a friend in IMG, and he categorically told me that no silent ban had been issued to Nadal. I also know a close source to Nadal who showed me an X-ray of Nadal's knee, and I'm pretty sure I saw a torn patella.

Anyway once my friend tore his patella, he could play golf fine but couldn't play tennis or football for 1 year. Even from personal experience golf puts far less stress on your knees than tennis.

maybe you do....... i'm sure there is no sarcasm in your post.. look-- believe what you want-- those who know who I am/my past personally like VeeJay know the truth.. I don't expect you to believe it , you don't know me.

btw-- patella tendon-- try jet sking... then look at the pictures of Nadal jetsking after Wimby which his team is sayng he already had the tear... tell me if you could do what he's doing.

Giving me the reasons behind image doctoring doesnt explain to me how you can come to the conclusion that a particular image has been doctored
Youre simply using your suspicions based on the reasons why you believe images are doctored to try and prove an image is doctored
That doesnt prove that an image is doctored
Proving that an image is doctored is showing me evidence there off
Specifically focusing on the picture and pionting to certain clues or or part of the picture and giving a plausible explanation to what exactly was tampered with,how it was tampered with,how photoshop was used in changing the image,what exactly needs to be done to change the picture from A to B
A plausible explanation would enable me to take the same picture ( obviously if it was doctored then there would be a before and after version) the "before" one and then use photoshop to transform the picture into the doctored one myself
Can you do that Laverfan? Can you take me through step by step and tell me the reasons why you believe the photo s doctored,show me the clues and give me a plausible way I could change the "before" picture to the "after" one myself by suing photoshop?
Giving me the reasons why someone doctors a picture doesnt prove that a picture

"The discussion about Murray is to point out that there is subjectivity involved in observers."

No thats not it,I exposed the fact that you were confused between getting fit and getting bigger

No I dont see your point and I dont know what the hell that has to do with the previous paragraph.The t,v channel was under a lost of pressure? So what..they aired what they wanted to....its not like they were running a series and an episode every week and came under pressure...how the hell can they come under pressure if they arent even airing the skits anymore.It doesnt suggest anything Laverfan,only possibly that they were warned to never show the skits again.LOL Like they care...they already showed what they wanted to,accused who they wanted to and had as much fun with it while the joke was funny

"Nadrolone, specifically, would provide lower benefits than say EPO."

Can you go into detail please,talk me through the lower benefits of Nandrolone and then talk me through the higher benefits of EPO

"In tennis there are very few steroids users"
Ok so
1 You admit there are steroids users
2 If thats the case then who are they
3 We already established that mr Richard Igns on THASP claims to have caught no less then 40 players using Nandrolone..thats a pretty high number,its not like its just 1 or 2 its 40% of the draw of the top 100 players in a sport where there is legitimately only around 200 jobs
I wouldnt call that few,would you?

"Blood enrichment and transfusion using the player's own blood is much easier and can look similar to oxygen-tent or high-altitude related activity with no adverse effects that a biological passport can detect. The arbitrary 6:1 T/E ratio for testosterone, for example, may no longer be a good metric, because it gets abused very often."

Ok I dont know what the hell you just said,lets just stick to the benefits that EPO blood-oxygenation Autologous blood gives a tennis player
Youre telling me its easier and can look similar to oxygen tent and high altitude related activity,this doesnt give me a detailed explanation of why you think the drugs you claim are better then taking steroids
Youre only telling me what it will look like,well I dont care what it will look like.If I was doping I would only care what it will do,how will I benefit from taking it?


No one is disputing the hard work that goes with swinging racket and creating such spin that Nadal does or that doing that repeatedly will significantly strengthen the muscles in his arm,but dont confuse building strength with getting bigger
The 2 arent the same,ie Someone who is pushing 100 kg on a bench press doing and only doing 10 reps x 3 vs someone doing 30 kgs and 20 reps x 5

I can guarantee you that the person lifting less weights and doing more repetition is building far more muscular strength then someone pushing significantly more weight and less reps.the person lifting the heavier weight is building muscle but not much muscular strength
The longevity of benefits the person doing less weight lifting is doing is a lot longer then that of someone just building muscle

I know about Nadals family being quite athletic,uncle Tony was a sportsman himself no?
But as you pointed out with Federer its not always genes that you inherit
I said my opinion is Nadal is not a true natural athlete so whether he has his families genes or not its totally irrelevant

Veejay wrote:

Amritia3ee wrote:Veejay, I am going to write an article including that Nadal 'say no' video which will of course include the translation in English. Stay tuned!

Ok Amritia...I take it youre reviving the old curious case of Ameritia's plagiarism
So i guess that the youtube clip you posted means that you have absolutely no clue what Nadal said,you just saw someone claiming Nadal said no to doping and decided to post it?

lol
I'm gonna write an article based on this tomorrow.
He says 'I play a clean sport, you should to.' The message across the screen translates as 'to doping, we have zero tolerance.'

Veejay wrote:

Amritia3ee wrote:That's funny I know a friend who also knows a friend in IMG, and he categorically told me that no silent ban had been issued to Nadal. I also know a close source to Nadal who showed me an X-ray of Nadal's knee, and I'm pretty sure I saw a torn patella.

Anyway once my friend tore his patella, he could play golf fine but couldn't play tennis or football for 1 year. Even from personal experience golf puts far less stress on your knees than tennis.

No originality whatsoever
And more evidence of plagiarism

Yep, bullet-proof evidence there

Veejay wrote:

Amritia3ee wrote:That's all well and good, but it's hardly conclusive is it.

Thats a bit rich coming from you Ameritia what conclusive evidence have you brought to the table?

None. Because there isn't any.
I can't prove Nadal is not doping, unless I follow and track him.

That took a really long to answer Ameritia...

From Wooffie's website, the injured Nadal:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=tKwrCPgonj8

Apologies, I wasn't on the computer for a while.

noleisthebest wrote:From Wooffie's website, the injured Nadal:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=tKwrCPgonj8

Look how he is bending his knees!!
torn patella tendon?

Veejay wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:From Wooffie's website, the injured Nadal:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=tKwrCPgonj8

Look how he is bending his knees!!
torn patella tendon?

Maybe it's just the hairline tear like that crack in his heel bone during the 2011 Wimbledon....

noleisthebest wrote:

Veejay wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:From Wooffie's website, the injured Nadal:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=tKwrCPgonj8

Look how he is bending his knees!!
torn patella tendon?

Maybe it's just the hairline tear like that crack in his heel bone during the 2011 Wimbledon....

Laverfan will do the MRI scan for him...only way to prove the injury inconclusive
Sorry Laverfan I couldnt resist

truffin1 wrote:Some thoughts supporting and regarding Vee Jays post"



Athlete or Celebrity managament 101 when dealing with a scandol is to "threaten" to sue. Its the 1st thing we would do if a story broke and we wanted to create doubt-- esp if the story was true. It's human nature.. if they hear something bad about you, but you show enough outrage, the people mentally gravitate towards your side of the story.. "If he's going to sue, he must be innocent" It's all smoke and mirrors though... Tiger threatened to sue when the affair rumours 1st started,, everytime a celebrity sex tape comes out they threaten to sue... but never do and the tape comes out anyway (the secret is that often its the celebrity putting out the tape themselves and still threatening to sue!" It's an act.. Also, read the wording carefully, what are they threatenng to sue for? In Nadals case with the French - the threat was to sue for using copyrighted images of the Spanish Federeration, NOT for defamation for falsely spreading rumours. There is a distinction there.. To the public they her the word "sue" and tie it to defending Nadal agianst rumors.. the reality is- that's not what it's about.. Nadal or the Spanish wouldn't dare sue for defamation because the French would then have the right to do every test in the books on Nadals samples in order to prove or disprove that they weren't spreading false info.

I've been around wonderful, charitable, god fearing athletes who cheat like there's no tomorrow to get an edge.. Fans says "he's nice, he would never dope" B.S.... Millions of dollars, luxury and accolades that most of us can't fathom are at stake.. These guys will do anything to be at the top... and that goes for anyone.. I'm not just targeting Nadal...

I do know from sources tied to Nadals USA management that there was a elevated test in late 2011 that led to an agreement to clean up in Feb and undergo extra testing afterwords. I do know the ATP/ITF went ballistic becasue the NAdal team broke the agreement around Miamii. These same sources now say that the info coming out of the team since Wimbledon has been top secret... nothing is leaking out so no one I know has heard of what actually went down/whether there was a suspension... but I was directly told that "they aren't saying what's gong on, but the injury announcements are just cover"

I also know that the activities that Nadal has been engaged defy reality for someone with a torn patella tendon.. Try jet sking with a bum knee and tendon and tell me if you can smile in a picture... It's just not going to happen.

Hey Muffin
Did you tell everyone youre a juniors Wimbledon winner?

Veejay wrote:

truffin1 wrote:Some thoughts supporting and regarding Vee Jays post"



Athlete or Celebrity managament 101 when dealing with a scandol is to "threaten" to sue. Its the 1st thing we would do if a story broke and we wanted to create doubt-- esp if the story was true. It's human nature.. if they hear something bad about you, but you show enough outrage, the people mentally gravitate towards your side of the story.. "If he's going to sue, he must be innocent" It's all smoke and mirrors though... Tiger threatened to sue when the affair rumours 1st started,, everytime a celebrity sex tape comes out they threaten to sue... but never do and the tape comes out anyway (the secret is that often its the celebrity putting out the tape themselves and still threatening to sue!" It's an act.. Also, read the wording carefully, what are they threatenng to sue for? In Nadals case with the French - the threat was to sue for using copyrighted images of the Spanish Federeration, NOT for defamation for falsely spreading rumours. There is a distinction there.. To the public they her the word "sue" and tie it to defending Nadal agianst rumors.. the reality is- that's not what it's about.. Nadal or the Spanish wouldn't dare sue for defamation because the French would then have the right to do every test in the books on Nadals samples in order to prove or disprove that they weren't spreading false info.

I've been around wonderful, charitable, god fearing athletes who cheat like there's no tomorrow to get an edge.. Fans says "he's nice, he would never dope" B.S.... Millions of dollars, luxury and accolades that most of us can't fathom are at stake.. These guys will do anything to be at the top... and that goes for anyone.. I'm not just targeting Nadal...

I do know from sources tied to Nadals USA management that there was a elevated test in late 2011 that led to an agreement to clean up in Feb and undergo extra testing afterwords. I do know the ATP/ITF went ballistic becasue the NAdal team broke the agreement around Miamii. These same sources now say that the info coming out of the team since Wimbledon has been top secret... nothing is leaking out so no one I know has heard of what actually went down/whether there was a suspension... but I was directly told that "they aren't saying what's gong on, but the injury announcements are just cover"

I also know that the activities that Nadal has been engaged defy reality for someone with a torn patella tendon.. Try jet sking with a bum knee and tendon and tell me if you can smile in a picture... It's just not going to happen.

Hey Muffin
Did you tell everyone youre a juniors Wimbledon winner?

Nah, that's that crzy bleacherreport tim ruffin who pretending to be a player and coach to gvie his Fed hate credibility... lol.. until someone posted his REAL resume...lol...

truffin1 wrote:

Veejay wrote:

truffin1 wrote:Some thoughts supporting and regarding Vee Jays post"



Athlete or Celebrity managament 101 when dealing with a scandol is to "threaten" to sue. Its the 1st thing we would do if a story broke and we wanted to create doubt-- esp if the story was true. It's human nature.. if they hear something bad about you, but you show enough outrage, the people mentally gravitate towards your side of the story.. "If he's going to sue, he must be innocent" It's all smoke and mirrors though... Tiger threatened to sue when the affair rumours 1st started,, everytime a celebrity sex tape comes out they threaten to sue... but never do and the tape comes out anyway (the secret is that often its the celebrity putting out the tape themselves and still threatening to sue!" It's an act.. Also, read the wording carefully, what are they threatenng to sue for? In Nadals case with the French - the threat was to sue for using copyrighted images of the Spanish Federeration, NOT for defamation for falsely spreading rumours. There is a distinction there.. To the public they her the word "sue" and tie it to defending Nadal agianst rumors.. the reality is- that's not what it's about.. Nadal or the Spanish wouldn't dare sue for defamation because the French would then have the right to do every test in the books on Nadals samples in order to prove or disprove that they weren't spreading false info.

I've been around wonderful, charitable, god fearing athletes who cheat like there's no tomorrow to get an edge.. Fans says "he's nice, he would never dope" B.S.... Millions of dollars, luxury and accolades that most of us can't fathom are at stake.. These guys will do anything to be at the top... and that goes for anyone.. I'm not just targeting Nadal...

I do know from sources tied to Nadals USA management that there was a elevated test in late 2011 that led to an agreement to clean up in Feb and undergo extra testing afterwords. I do know the ATP/ITF went ballistic becasue the NAdal team broke the agreement around Miamii. These same sources now say that the info coming out of the team since Wimbledon has been top secret... nothing is leaking out so no one I know has heard of what actually went down/whether there was a suspension... but I was directly told that "they aren't saying what's gong on, but the injury announcements are just cover"

I also know that the activities that Nadal has been engaged defy reality for someone with a torn patella tendon.. Try jet sking with a bum knee and tendon and tell me if you can smile in a picture... It's just not going to happen.

Hey Muffin
Did you tell everyone youre a juniors Wimbledon winner?

Nah, that's that crzy bleacherreport tim ruffin who pretending to be a player and coach to gvie his Fed hate credibility... lol.. until someone posted his REAL resume...lol...

You little fibber you!!
Thats ok Ruffin ...youre still my favourite muffin Ruffin

Where is he? Still hiding?
I wish he would come out of hiding so I can taste those tears...Wasnt Fed supposed to be back to no3 a few weeks ago...??
God imagine how painful 300 weeks at no1 must be for someone who claimed Roger would never see the no1 ranking again and that the 2010 AO was his last hurrah
And then there are all these rumours of El Toro being banned from the sport for cheating and doping...my my how things have changed...a few months ago after Nadal bt Monaco he told me to leave the forum in shame...never thought things were so desperate and bad that a win over Monaco (who??) could be cause for such celebration
Turns out that the only one who ended up leaving the forum in shame was himself!

Interesting we have a 'TRuffin' and a 'TimRuffin' posting on this forum;
https://ourtennisforum.forumotion.co.uk/memberlist.

Who is who?

Amritia3ee wrote:Interesting we have a 'TRuffin' and a 'TimRuffin' posting on this forum;
https://ourtennisforum.forumotion.co.uk/memberlist.

Who is who?

One is TRuffin and the other is TimRuffin

Veejay wrote:

Amritia3ee wrote:Interesting we have a 'TRuffin' and a 'TimRuffin' posting on this forum;
https://ourtennisforum.forumotion.co.uk/memberlist.

Who is who?

One is TRuffin and the other is TimRuffin

OK, that's conclusive

Amritia3ee wrote:

Veejay wrote:

Amritia3ee wrote:Interesting we have a 'TRuffin' and a 'TimRuffin' posting on this forum;
https://ourtennisforum.forumotion.co.uk/memberlist.

Who is who?

One is TRuffin and the other is TimRuffin

OK, that's conclusive

Is "conclusive" your new word of the month or something?

Veejay wrote:

Amritia3ee wrote:

Veejay wrote:

Amritia3ee wrote:Interesting we have a 'TRuffin' and a 'TimRuffin' posting on this forum;
https://ourtennisforum.forumotion.co.uk/memberlist.

Who is who?

One is TRuffin and the other is TimRuffin

OK, that's conclusive

Is "conclusive" your new word of the month or something?

I don't really have a conclusive 'word of the month' as such.

Amritia3ee wrote:

Veejay wrote:

Amritia3ee wrote:

Veejay wrote:

Amritia3ee wrote:Interesting we have a 'TRuffin' and a 'TimRuffin' posting on this forum;
https://ourtennisforum.forumotion.co.uk/memberlist.

Who is who?

One is TRuffin and the other is TimRuffin

OK, that's conclusive

Is "conclusive" your new word of the month or something?

I don't really have a conclusive 'word of the month' as such.

Not conclusive enough for someone so inconclusive....

Veejay wrote:Giving me the reasons behind image doctoring doesnt explain to me how you can come to the conclusion that a particular image has been doctored
Youre simply using your suspicions based on the reasons why you believe images are doctored to try and prove an image is doctored
That doesnt prove that an image is doctored
Proving that an image is doctored is showing me evidence there off
Specifically focusing on the picture and pionting to certain clues or or part of the picture and giving a plausible explanation to what exactly was tampered with,how it was tampered with,how photoshop was used in changing the image,what exactly needs to be done to change the picture from A to B
A plausible explanation would enable me to take the same picture ( obviously if it was doctored then there would be a before and after version) the "before" one and then use photoshop to transform the picture into the doctored one myself
Can you do that Laverfan? Can you take me through step by step and tell me the reasons why you believe the photo s doctored,show me the clues and give me a plausible way I could change the "before" picture to the "after" one myself by suing photoshop?
Giving me the reasons why someone doctors a picture doesnt prove that a picture

You talked about 100% certainty about someone doping from 'visual' clues. Photoshopping has many visual clues. A very simple technique to enhance musculature is by using shading gradations of the same object and giving it what is called 'definition'. It has no 'size' alterations. Another approach is to change the light source angle to change the 'perception'. I gave you the 'motivation' and an example. The example was clearly outlandish to emphasise the ability to do so. Unless I have a before and after image, the visual clues alone are not 100% guaranteed to prove that an image has been changed. There are hundreds of magazine photographs which are photoshopped for colour acuity and visual impact. The images of Stosur, Nadal, Monfils, Serena, Russell, Mauresmo and others that I have seen on THASP fall under this visually-something-is-wrong category. There is a bold claim on THASP, but I have no way to verify it.

For testing purposes, download Photoshop evaluation version. It has limited functionality though. Pick a photograph in your image library and it can show what you can do in a demo. I would also suggest asking someone that you might know who is a photographer and can show you some neat tricks. Here is a features list - http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshopextended/features.html

Veejay wrote:"The discussion about Murray is to point out that there is subjectivity involved in observers."

No thats not it,I exposed the fact that you were confused between getting fit and getting bigger

No I dont see your point and I dont know what the hell that has to do with the previous paragraph.The t,v channel was under a lost of pressure? So what..they aired what they wanted to....its not like they were running a series and an episode every week and came under pressure...how the hell can they come under pressure if they arent even airing the skits anymore.It doesnt suggest anything Laverfan,only possibly that they were warned to never show the skits again.LOL Like they care...they already showed what they wanted to,accused who they wanted to and had as much fun with it while the joke was funny

Whether they stopped due to external pressure, or due to having had a fill with the joke? You also seem to ignore Ruffin's sue-to-deter mindset.

TRuffin1 wrote:Athlete or Celebrity managament 101 when dealing with a scandol is to "threaten" to sue. Its the 1st thing we would do if a story broke and we wanted to create doubt-- esp if the story was true.

Veejay wrote:"Nadrolone, specifically, would provide lower benefits than say EPO."

Can you go into detail please,talk me through the lower benefits of Nandrolone and then talk me through the higher benefits of EPO

"In tennis there are very few steroids users"
Ok so
1 You admit there are steroids users
2 If thats the case then who are they
3 We already established that mr Richard Igns on THASP claims to have caught no less then 40 players using Nandrolone..thats a pretty high number,its not like its just 1 or 2 its 40% of the draw of the top 100 players in a sport where there is legitimately only around 200 jobs
I wouldnt call that few,would you?

"Blood enrichment and transfusion using the player's own blood is much easier and can look similar to oxygen-tent or high-altitude related activity with no adverse effects that a biological passport can detect. The arbitrary 6:1 T/E ratio for testosterone, for example, may no longer be a good metric, because it gets abused very often."

Ok I dont know what the hell you just said,lets just stick to the benefits that EPO blood-oxygenation Autologous blood gives a tennis player
Youre telling me its easier and can look similar to oxygen tent and high altitude related activity,this doesnt give me a detailed explanation of why you think the drugs you claim are better then taking steroids
Youre only telling me what it will look like,well I dont care what it will look like.If I was doping I would only care what it will do,how will I benefit from taking it?

The WiKi link I had posted has a list of Tennis people on it who have been caught using Nadrolone. Compared to oxygenation agents or broncho-dilatory agents, the number of Nadrolone cases is few. BTW, who is Richard Igns? I do not read THASP anymore, so I am not sure who he/she is?

Since I do not read THASP anymore, as much as perhaps you do, can you find out if there is a picture of any other member of the current Top 4, other than Nadal on the Men's side, on THASP.

Veejay wrote:No one is disputing the hard work that goes with swinging racket and creating such spin that Nadal does or that doing that repeatedly will significantly strengthen the muscles in his arm,but dont confuse building strength with getting bigger
The 2 arent the same,ie Someone who is pushing 100 kg on a bench press doing and only doing 10 reps x 3 vs someone doing 30 kgs and 20 reps x 5

I can guarantee you that the person lifting less weights and doing more repetition is building far more muscular strength then someone pushing significantly more weight and less reps.the person lifting the heavier weight is building muscle but not much muscular strength
The longevity of benefits the person doing less weight lifting is doing is a lot longer then that of someone just building muscle

I am not disputing your weight-lifting argument. Neither am I disputing strength vs size argument. What I am stating is that Nadal is unique in this respect. There is no one who can generate such rpm, even given the same racquet technology in a different hand. Murray and Djokovic come to mind. Federer also uses a mixed configuration hence, if the named players were willing, they had access to same technology and could produce the same spin as Nadal if they wanted. Apparently, they are happy with what they produce now.

Veejay wrote:I know about Nadals family being quite athletic,uncle Tony was a sportsman himself no?
But as you pointed out with Federer its not always genes that you inherit
I said my opinion is Nadal is not a true natural athlete so whether he has his families genes or not its totally irrelevant

Natural athleticism is not inherited genetically, is that what you are saying? Let us step back a little and agree on the definition of natural athleticism then. Both Nadal and Murray could have been excellent footballers, as would have been Federer. Perhaps NITB can provide what other sports Djokovic was perhaps good at.

Veejay wrote:Laverfan will do the MRI scan for him...only way to prove the injury inconclusive. Sorry Laverfan I couldnt resist

Mikel Sanchez and Cotorro will check it out on my behalf. Nadal is in good hands and the ever-loving care of Wooffie.

If photography has so many visual clues then why dont you show me the many visual clues that are in the photographs you claim has been doctored

"Unless I have a before and after image, the visual clues alone are not 100% guaranteed to prove that an image has been changed. "
If this is this case why are you claiming certain pictures are doctored,if you cant 100% prove that the image has changed then how can you believe that it is and then on top of that expect me to believe it too?
If you cant prove a picture is doctored beyond a shaddow of a doubt then its just a suspicion,nothing more.Now you are free to believe what you want,if you dont trust pictures you suspect are doctored thats your choice and your right,but you cannot question the authenticity of a picture I use if you suspect its doctored
Unless you can prove to me that it is doctored you have to accept that the picture is genuine and 100% real until proven otherwise just as I have to accept any picture you use is genuine until I can prove otherwise
So while you may have suspicions,you have no grounds to dismiss any picture I use,if you cannot prove its been doctored then your suspicions cant be used to argue,you may voice your suspicions but you cant use it as a legitimate reason to dismiss the picture or argue against it
None of the pictures I have used on this thread have come from THASP,they have all been taken google
THASP is the last place I look for images
I have an idea of how to use photoshop as I have it,I am pretty crap.The whole point was for you to back your claims up by posting a picture and then showing the reasons why you believe its doctors.If it was doctored surely you wouldnt be struggling as much to prove it is

"Whether they stopped due to external pressure, or due to having had a fill with the joke? You also seem to ignore Ruffin's sue-to-deter mindset."

What?

"
The WiKi link I had posted has a list of Tennis people on it who have been caught using Nadrolone. Compared to oxygenation agents or broncho-dilatory agents, the number of Nadrolone cases is few. BTW, who is Richard Igns? I do not read THASP anymore, so I am not sure who he/she is? "

None of this give me a step by step guide as to why you claim blood oxygenation and Autologous blood enrichment is better for tennis players then using steroids? I mean talk me through step by step why you think it would be better their game,and how it will improve their game
I dont even know what youre saying?
You say theres a list of athletes on WIKI who are listed to have used Nandrolone,so why dont you list them? I asked you who the athletes were who took steroids

Richard Ings is someone who claims to have worked with the doping cases in tennis,specifically Nandrolone since 04 I think up to recently
If you want to know more or challenge mr Ings,he is over on THASP,I am sure he would be very happy to answer anything you asked.
I dont need to back his claims up because you just admitted that several players are listed on WIKI who were caught using Nandrolone,whether thats 40 or a lot less,I dont know,youll have to ask Mr Igns

" can you find out if there is a picture of any other member of the current Top 4, other than Nadal on the Men's side, on THASP."

I recall seeing one of Monfills

"What I am stating is that Nadal is unique in this respect. There is no one who can generate such rpm, even given the same racquet technology in a different hand. Murray and Djokovic come to mind. Federer also uses a mixed configuration hence, if the named players were willing, they had access to same technology and could produce the same spin as Nadal if they wanted. Apparently, they are happy with what they produce now."

I dont know what this has to do with the argument...I am completely lost here Laverfan.
Ok it seems like you want to talk about Nadals top spin,yes there is no one who can generate such top spin,but dont ignore the fact that without the racket technology Nadal wouldnt be able to achieve that.What does the fact that no player produces as much top spin prove apart from the fact
1 Nadal can and they cant
2 They chose not to cause they are happy with what they produce now

Laver even hinted that Nadal is manufactured by racket technology
But what is the point of all of this in relation to muscle discussion etc?


No I believe that athleticism can be genetically inherited I just dont believe Nadal has
When I refer to a natural athlete Im talking about someone who has a very athletic muscular physique,someone like Monfills for instance,a pure athlete who has a shot at playing any sport.Someone who sport comes completely natural to,who is a natural runner,is fast etc

Veejay wrote:If photography has so many visual clues then why dont you show me the many visual clues that are in the photographs you claim has been doctored

"Unless I have a before and after image, the visual clues alone are not 100% guaranteed to prove that an image has been changed. "
If this is this case why are you claiming certain pictures are doctored,if you cant 100% prove that the image has changed then how can you believe that it is and then on top of that expect me to believe it too?
If you cant prove a picture is doctored beyond a shaddow of a doubt then its just a suspicion,nothing more.Now you are free to believe what you want,if you dont trust pictures you suspect are doctored thats your choice and your right,but you cannot question the authenticity of a picture I use if you suspect its doctored
Unless you can prove to me that it is doctored you have to accept that the picture is genuine and 100% real until proven otherwise just as I have to accept any picture you use is genuine until I can prove otherwise
So while you may have suspicions,you have no grounds to dismiss any picture I use,if you cannot prove its been doctored then your suspicions cant be used to argue,you may voice your suspicions but you cant use it as a legitimate reason to dismiss the picture or argue against it
None of the pictures I have used on this thread have come from THASP,they have all been taken google
THASP is the last place I look for images
I have an idea of how to use photoshop as I have it,I am pretty crap.The whole point was for you to back your claims up by posting a picture and then showing the reasons why you believe its doctors.If it was doctored surely you wouldnt be struggling as much to prove it is

https://imgur.com/LVxDi and https://imgur.com/jW4Y4. Can you tell which one has been doctored? I will also give you a bonus point if you can tell me what tool was used. (Let me know if the links do not work).

Veejay wrote:

"Whether they stopped due to external pressure, or due to having had a fill with the joke? You also seem to ignore Ruffin's sue-to-deter mindset."

What?

"
The WiKi link I had posted has a list of Tennis people on it who have been caught using Nadrolone. Compared to oxygenation agents or broncho-dilatory agents, the number of Nadrolone cases is few. BTW, who is Richard Igns? I do not read THASP anymore, so I am not sure who he/she is? "

None of this give me a step by step guide as to why you claim blood oxygenation and Autologous blood enrichment is better for tennis players then using steroids? I mean talk me through step by step why you think it would be better their game,and how it will improve their game
I dont even know what youre saying?
You say theres a list of athletes on WIKI who are listed to have used Nandrolone,so why dont you list them? I asked you who the athletes were who took steroids

I had posted the link earlier, but Coria, Sesil Karatantcheva, Korda, Rusedski (who was later exonerated). Coria sued some company, IIRC.

Veejay wrote:Richard Ings is someone who claims to have worked with the doping cases in tennis,specifically Nandrolone since 04 I think up to recently
If you want to know more or challenge mr Ings,he is over on THASP,I am sure he would be very happy to answer anything you asked.
I dont need to back his claims up because you just admitted that several players are listed on WIKI who were caught using Nandrolone,whether thats 40 or a lot less,I dont know,youll have to ask Mr Igns

I will try and read it. Thanks.

Veejay wrote:" can you find out if there is a picture of any other member of the current Top 4, other than Nadal on the Men's side, on THASP."

I recall seeing one of Monfills

Thanks. Even though he has not been in the Top 4, he has been ranked #7 at the highest.

Veejay wrote:"What I am stating is that Nadal is unique in this respect. There is no one who can generate such rpm, even given the same racquet technology in a different hand. Murray and Djokovic come to mind. Federer also uses a mixed configuration hence, if the named players were willing, they had access to same technology and could produce the same spin as Nadal if they wanted. Apparently, they are happy with what they produce now."

I dont know what this has to do with the argument...I am completely lost here Laverfan.
Ok it seems like you want to talk about Nadals top spin,yes there is no one who can generate such top spin,but dont ignore the fact that without the racket technology Nadal wouldnt be able to achieve that.What does the fact that no player produces as much top spin prove apart from the fact
1 Nadal can and they cant
2 They chose not to cause they are happy with what they produce now

Laver even hinted that Nadal is manufactured by racket technology
But what is the point of all of this in relation to muscle discussion etc?

Indulge me here. I was reading this article - http://www.scpr.org/news/2012/10/12/34618/prehistoric-kennewick-man-was-all-beefcake/

What stood out for me was this part...

Owsley can read the bones like we might read a book. He looks for ridge lines that indicate which muscles Kennewick Man used the most, and what he was doing with them. First off? He had muscular legs like a soccer player — likely from running, trudging and hunting.
...
He also likely had killer arms from throwing a tricky kind of spear. Owsley says Kennewick Man was so strong in his right arm, he was like a pro baseball pitcher, and the bones show he got today's equivalent of a career-ending sports injury.

The point I am trying to make is that musculature is a derivative of repetitive nature of work that a person does. The body has a way of making stronger, what it needs the most. And in Nadal's case, it is his left arm, perhaps, overdeveloped due to repetitive use.

If you get a chance, please look at Michael Chang's legs. I think it is one of the AO finals or the FO finals. Ah found the two...

FO - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6iY4Te10tc&feature=related
AO - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD7S5JIm4mc&feature=related

Veejay wrote:No I believe that athleticism can be genetically inherited I just dont believe Nadal has
When I refer to a natural athlete Im talking about someone who has a very athletic muscular physique,someone like Monfills for instance,a pure athlete who has a shot at playing any sport.Someone who sport comes completely natural to,who is a natural runner,is fast etc

We are not that far off in our definitions then.

I have used image 1 before,you know that.The picture youre using seems to have been tampered with in regards to what I would assume to be light or shade,the colours have been altered

Here s the exact same picture

http://mystarclub.com/2012/06/rafael-nadal-challenge-ahead-needs-no-reminding/

You can find the exact same picture here too

http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?q=nadal&start=172&um=1&hl=en&client=safari&sa=N&rls=en&biw=1136&bih=454&tbm=isch&tbnid=4FdebtXNR-gtHM:&imgrefurl=http://flacko.info/rafael-nadal-muscles/&docid=Cvw8CHWUeGI6AM&imgurl=http://flacko.info/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/rafael-nadal-muscles.jpg&w=775&h=643&ei=Vnd7UNLnH-eQ0AWxwoDwDw&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=112&vpy=162&dur=358&hovh=154&hovw=196&tx=150&ty=167&sig=113819094801944464436&page=12&tbnh=132&tbnw=174&ndsp=16&ved=1t:429,r:3,s:180,i:13

There you have 3 photographs they are all exactly the same,the only difference with yours is that the colours,light and shade has been manipulated with
There is no clear evidence of any photoshop,by this I mean that Nadals head was chopped off one photo and placed on the torso of another,there is also nothing to suggest that the picture has been doctored to suggest a more muscular physique then normal
All 3 pictures are consistent,these are the only 3 pictures available on google,there is no original,I cannot find anything to suggest there is a "before" and "after" photo to support the theory that its been doctored,there is only 1 picture where Nadals physique is exactly the same in all 3 pictures
I have no reason to believe that this picture isnt 100% genuine and you have yet to prove to me to a 100% certainty that it has been doctored
If you have anything to add please do,you may voice your suspicion but until you can actually prove to me that all 3 photos have in fact been doctored,your opinion remains just an opinion based on speculation
The other link you posted dont work

Ok you named some athletes from WIKI I guess,not going to check Ill just take your word for it
But you stilll havenet given me a step by step explanation why you believe blood oxygenation and Autologous blood enrichment is better for tennis players then using steroids?
Come on Laverfan,its been a couple comments now,if youre not going to give me step by step guide as to why you believe these drugs are better for tennis players then steroids then its proof that you cant.If you could have you would have done so by now
Sorry I didnt see you mention top4...I dont bother with photos from THASP,if you want a picture of one of the top4 players just use google
Why on earth should I do it?
What does that prove,that I can use google?
Im not going to indulge you in any reading cause in all my responses I have answered your questions comprehensively,I have spent quite a lot of time giving you detailed explanations.You however pick and choose which you want to answer and even then the answer you give me makes absolutely no sense,sometimes it doesnt even have anything to do with the subject
If you want me to indulge you,you first give me a step by step explanation why you believe blood oxygenation and Autologous blood enrichment is better for tennis players then using steroids
And by this I dont mean answering by asking more questions,or one sentenced responses,I want a detailed report.

"The point I am trying to make is that musculature is a derivative of repetitive nature of work that a person does."

Laverfan...I dont know whether to laugh or cry.I have said the exact same thing over and over and over to you in several different comments,I must have said it at least 10 times by now
How many times have I said your physique is moulded by the type of exercise youre doing,how many times have I used marathon runners as an example that their physiques is a direct result of the amount of cardio they do
Repetitive exercise on a consistent basis will shape your physique and muscle tone into a physique which is more consistent with the type of exercise youre doing-thats is a simple fact

After what must be about 20 comments back and forth,it seems that you havent even figured out what it is your arguing or disputing

What about Changs legs? I recall in several responses to you,I was specifically talking about cardio stripping your torso,I have never spoken about legs.Why?
Because I know that legs is a very grey area especially in sports where running is involved
You can actually build more muscular thighs by doing more running or cardio,but this very much depends on the technique or the way you run
For instance,if you run with your weight foreward and your legs sort of behind your torso,you'll find that the upper part of your quads,close to you hip joint,lets say the first 8 inches from your hip down to your knee will be working the hardest,therefore you should and most probably will start developing a more defined quads and muscle tone,especially the area what working the hardest
If youre running and kicking your legs behind you straight up so that youre almost kicking the bottom of your bum,you start working the back of your legs more where your hamstrings are.You will lose more weight between your thighs and where the back or your leg meets your bum,you will also work your gluteus maximus and could tone or lose some weight there
These are just 2 basic examples of how running can work complete opposite muscles and parts of your legs
However if youre doing stretching exercises after your workout,stretching out your quads and hamstrings or even doing pilates exercises or yoga,the chances of bulking up in your legs significantly drops,what stretching will do it give the muscles in your legs a long lean looks
The combination of running and the correct stretching exercises can result in beautifully toned long lean legs and muscles that youll see on ballet dancers

This is one of the 1000s of examples of how useless and irrelevant post LF keeps posting. Some will accuse me of attacking her. Trust me, I don't intend to do it. I hate to be having to bring it out. But this is not baseless:

Veejay posts:

Veejay wrote:All images can be modified Laverfan,have you heard of photoshop?
Even the ones you use can/could have been be photoshopped or edited and most likely would have been airbrushed for publication
Telling me that you dont trust images that can be doctored doesnt give me an answer as to why you believe the images are doctored
Anyone can dispute or claim anything but how can you expect me to believe that you think the image is doctored if you cannot even give me 1 plausible reason why
You havent said to me "I believe the image is doctored for the following reasons" and then give me your reasons
You just said you dont trust images that have been doctored,if you cant tell me why you believe it is doctored then how the hell can you believe the images is doctored to begin with?
Why does your suspicion not apply to pictures you use? Its entirely plausible that the pictures have been photoshopped so why dont you trust them either?
Also what qualifies you to conclude which pictures have been doctored and which ones hasnt
What do you base your opinion on?
Does the picture first have to suit your agenda before you make your conclusion or do you actually use photoshop techniques to prove why you believe it to have been doctored?

The above post asks many questions. Many question. But none of them have been answered. Instead what is posted is this:

laverfan wrote:All digital images can be doctored to suit purposes. We are no longer in the age of Silver Nitrate. The reasons behind image doctoring are

1. defame someone - (for example, nude bodies with known faces)
2. blackmail someone - same as above.
3. make someone look better - air-brushing, blemish-removal, etc.
4. accuse someone - (different from 2. like compromising pictures)
5. threaten someone - (different than 2)

Did anyone asked about the reasons why will someone doctor an image? NO
Did anyone say we are living in the age of Silver Nitrate? NO

So why this useless irrelevant piece of information needed when something totally different was asked. Now, laverfan does appear to be a good knowledgeable poster, but its becoming clearer that she has difficulty in understanding things. You will spin up the whole world but still missing the exact point.

Do you know if LF posts this kind of things on v2 as well? From memory I think she did. I remember already back then it was very difficult to have a logical discussion. She was good at throwing tables and stats in but beyond that I was never able to conclude any basic argument.

Let's say she just has "another way of thinking" and she has not met Logos yet.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

His team is now saying the tendon tear was there in additon to the soft tissue syndrome. Impossible

So the fact you have no medical background makes this absolutely certain?

Classic.

Do you have any medical background to question the above statement?

Classic.

Well I am not stating it is impossible medically now am I?

Classic fail from you both

1. How do you state is as a 'fact' that he doesn't have any medical background? Do you know him personally? He might have it.
2. There are lot of things I might know doing my own study, I don't need to have a medical degree to understand it. It may not be my profession, but that doesn't mean my knowledge will necessarily be low.

Classic fail from you.

This gets better.

So a guy who claims to work in advertising is medically trained and yet can provide the facts to back his statement?

So you think that because you research online about medical conditions mean you understand it better than a medical professional?

Brilliant.

Maybe you could world hunger while your at it

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:This is one of the 1000s of examples of how useless and irrelevant post LF keeps posting. Some will accuse me of attacking her. Trust me, I don't intend to do it. I hate to be having to bring it out. But this is not baseless:

Veejay posts:

Veejay wrote:All images can be modified Laverfan,have you heard of photoshop?
Even the ones you use can/could have been be photoshopped or edited and most likely would have been airbrushed for publication
Telling me that you dont trust images that can be doctored doesnt give me an answer as to why you believe the images are doctored
Anyone can dispute or claim anything but how can you expect me to believe that you think the image is doctored if you cannot even give me 1 plausible reason why
You havent said to me "I believe the image is doctored for the following reasons" and then give me your reasons
You just said you dont trust images that have been doctored,if you cant tell me why you believe it is doctored then how the hell can you believe the images is doctored to begin with?
Why does your suspicion not apply to pictures you use? Its entirely plausible that the pictures have been photoshopped so why dont you trust them either?
Also what qualifies you to conclude which pictures have been doctored and which ones hasnt
What do you base your opinion on?
Does the picture first have to suit your agenda before you make your conclusion or do you actually use photoshop techniques to prove why you believe it to have been doctored?

The above post asks many questions. Many question. But none of them have been answered. Instead what is posted is this:

laverfan wrote:All digital images can be doctored to suit purposes. We are no longer in the age of Silver Nitrate. The reasons behind image doctoring are

1. defame someone - (for example, nude bodies with known faces)
2. blackmail someone - same as above.
3. make someone look better - air-brushing, blemish-removal, etc.
4. accuse someone - (different from 2. like compromising pictures)
5. threaten someone - (different than 2)

Did anyone asked about the reasons why will someone doctor an image? NO
Did anyone say we are living in the age of Silver Nitrate? NO

So why this useless irrelevant piece of information needed when something totally different was asked. Now, laverfan does appear to be a good knowledgeable poster, but its becoming clearer that she has difficulty in understanding things. You will spin up the whole world but still missing the exact point.

Right because you seem to be hard of interpretation allow me to highlight some things which are obvious.

Veejay posts:

Anyone can dispute or claim anything but how can you expect me to believe that you think the image is doctored if you cannot even give me 1 plausible reason why
You havent said to me "I believe the image is doctored for the following reasons" and then give me your reasons

To which LF posts:

The reasons behind image doctoring are

1. defame someone - (for example, nude bodies with known faces)
2. blackmail someone - same as above.
3. make someone look better - air-brushing, blemish-removal, etc.
4. accuse someone - (different from 2. like compromising pictures)
5. threaten someone - (different than 2)

So Veejay asks the same question in a different context

Also what qualifies you to conclude which pictures have been doctored and which ones hasnt
What do you base your opinion on?
Does the picture first have to suit your agenda before you make your conclusion or do you actually use photoshop techniques to prove why you believe it to have been doctored?

LF posted above her suspicions and also quoted actually seeing Nadal in the flesh at matches she has attended.

So are we going to dodge her points with a valid argument or keep dismissing it and asking the same question over and over which is proving to be annoying and retarded to read to be honest.

And also will someone answer why it is impossible for Nadal to be Jetsking or will you dodge it with another question?

After all you don't want to sound like LF now do you

legendkillar wrote:
This gets better.

Of course

legendkillar wrote: So a guy who claims to work in advertising is medically trained and yet can provide the facts to back his statement?

So you think that because you research online about medical conditions mean you understand it better than a medical professional?

Brilliant.

1. No one claimed to be medically trained. Don't make things up.
2. If I change my profession, I will certainly be knowledgeable enough to understand things related to my previous profession. Why is this so hard for you to understand. I studied lot of biology in my college. I studied maths and computers in my bachelors. What I work right now is totally different. But I have knowledge of a lots of things I studied previously.

3. Who said anything about being better than a medical professional? Whi said his sources are online researches? Truffin's source of knowledge is not known to you and yet you are making things up. When did he or I say his knowledge is better than a medical professional? And what medical credentials do you have to defy his claim? Are you a medical professional with a minimum degree of a Masters?

Now this is Brilliant.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

legendkillar wrote:
This gets better.

Of course

legendkillar wrote: So a guy who claims to work in advertising is medically trained and yet can provide the facts to back his statement?

So you think that because you research online about medical conditions mean you understand it better than a medical professional?

Brilliant.

1. No one claimed to be medically trained. Don't make things up.
2. If I change my profession, I will certainly be knowledgeable enough to understand things related to my previous profession. Why is this so hard for you to understand. I studied lot of biology in my college. I studied maths and computers in my bachelors. What I work right now is totally different. But I have knowledge of a lots of things I studied previously.

3. Who said anything about being better than a medical professional? Whi said his sources are online researches? Truffin's source of knowledge is not known to you and yet you are making things up. When did he or I say his knowledge is better than a medical professional? And what medical credentials do you have to defy his claim? Are you a medical professional with a minimum degree of a Masters?

Now this is Brilliant.

So can you answer the question you conveniently dodge? Or does your 'knowledge' prevent that and that of truffin prevent that? I have worked in the NHS for 14 years and worked with medical professionals, but I won't come out with statements I cannot add substance or proof of knowledge to. Like I stated I am not medically qualified, but I hold a pharmacy qualification and a buying qualification. So you won't hear me making just statements like it is impossible for Nadal to do things without anything to back it up.

How am I making things up when you guys have no problems doing that here with the silent suspension.

Let me answer your points earlier.

As you were harping on on about Kendrick serving a provisional suspension.

Let me understand your logic here, feel free to add spin.

You claim there is substance to them existing though the author of your article based them on them being made public knowledge. As you pointed out and this is a big word now. the ATP/ITF COULD place the player under provisional suspension. But you and the author have no proof that this would've been the actions they carried out. Kendrick placed himself under provisional suspension. So did the ATP/ITF suspend him prior to the ban? No. Korda continued to play which pretty much fucks up his whole article.

So that said you and many others criticise Nadal as being dishonest because of what comes out his camp and his own court actions. So you expect me to believe then Nadal pulled out a massive bit of integrity to himself and the game of tennis and placed himself on a provisional suspension?

Now that is some logic.

Good points LK



However I think what ROTLA/Truffin are trying to say is this:
-ATP/ITF are corrupt- i.e. they will do things and cover things up for money.

-They found out Nadal was on steroids, then silently banned him, this meant that punished him but tennis did not lose any credibility (as no one knows).

-Korda and Kendrick are interesting examples- but Nadal is a different ball-game (i.e. ATP might not be consistent).



That's what their argument is, and to be fair what they're saying is technically possible.

However the only evidence they have provided is Truffin saying he knows someone in IMG who claims that he has found out Nadal failed a drugs test, it's a case of whether we believe him or not.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:This is one of the 1000s of examples of how useless and irrelevant post LF keeps posting. Some will accuse me of attacking her. Trust me, I don't intend to do it. I hate to be having to bring it out. But this is not baseless:

Veejay posts:

Veejay wrote:All images can be modified Laverfan,have you heard of photoshop?
Even the ones you use can/could have been be photoshopped or edited and most likely would have been airbrushed for publication
Telling me that you dont trust images that can be doctored doesnt give me an answer as to why you believe the images are doctored
Anyone can dispute or claim anything but how can you expect me to believe that you think the image is doctored if you cannot even give me 1 plausible reason why
You havent said to me "I believe the image is doctored for the following reasons" and then give me your reasons
You just said you dont trust images that have been doctored,if you cant tell me why you believe it is doctored then how the hell can you believe the images is doctored to begin with?
Why does your suspicion not apply to pictures you use? Its entirely plausible that the pictures have been photoshopped so why dont you trust them either?
Also what qualifies you to conclude which pictures have been doctored and which ones hasnt
What do you base your opinion on?
Does the picture first have to suit your agenda before you make your conclusion or do you actually use photoshop techniques to prove why you believe it to have been doctored?

The above post asks many questions. Many question. But none of them have been answered. Instead what is posted is this:

laverfan wrote:All digital images can be doctored to suit purposes. We are no longer in the age of Silver Nitrate. The reasons behind image doctoring are

1. defame someone - (for example, nude bodies with known faces)
2. blackmail someone - same as above.
3. make someone look better - air-brushing, blemish-removal, etc.
4. accuse someone - (different from 2. like compromising pictures)
5. threaten someone - (different than 2)

Did anyone asked about the reasons why will someone doctor an image? NO
Did anyone say we are living in the age of Silver Nitrate? NO

So why this useless irrelevant piece of information needed when something totally different was asked. Now, laverfan does appear to be a good knowledgeable poster, but its becoming clearer that she has difficulty in understanding things. You will spin up the whole world but still missing the exact point.

Laverfan gives motive but not proof
Her motive theory is entirely plausible,but thats not whats being discussed or asked
I think this debate is way out of Laverfans league,he/she seems completely out of depth.The only sense I can make of it is that he/she is trying to save face,but the more Laverfan insists on arguing whatever it is he/she is arguing,the more damage is done to his/her credibility