The doping program joke of the ITF!!!

Most of us don't know much about testing, but what we are spoon-fed through media.
Some say there's not enough money invested, I say where there's a will there's a way!
I just wish people/players who know more would have the bottle to come out with it. ATP must be having very strict rules on what they are allowed to say while they are abiding "under their roof"

he, he, just realised I hit the 700th post on this super thread

i remember a great interview mcenroe gave with charlie rose and he mentioned the atp and strongly vented his disdain towards them saying they didn't look out for the players interests.

Earlier this week, Armstrong lost three of his main sponsors with sportswear giant Nike, cycle maker Trek and Budweiser brewer Anheuser-Busch all cutting ties with him.

This is the real problem. Nike, Trek and co all got richer thanks to LA. Now that LA is not selling anymore they have no qualm dropping him and break their contracts. In other words LA takes the risk, Nike and other sponsors don;t. That is actually very unfair especially as the sponsors are most likely the ones pulling the threads between sport organisations and anti-doping agencies.

There should be a law compensating people who have bought products labelled with LA names (or other cheats). We should keep our receipts when buying labelled products and get some of the money back in proportion of the royalty associated with the cheats name. SO let say a bike which would typically sell for £300 but sold £600 because it has LA name on it, should see its buyers get half the money back.

The sponsors would be a bit more cautious in signing athletes and would have a keen interest in making sure anti-doping works.

Is it time to get a Babolat racquet then

noleisthebest wrote:Is it time to get a Babolat racquet then

As long as you keep your receipt!

Just sent an email to my old school friend to find out if he knows any more details on the hot topic

Tenez wrote:

Earlier this week, Armstrong lost three of his main sponsors with sportswear giant Nike, cycle maker Trek and Budweiser brewer Anheuser-Busch all cutting ties with him.

This is the real problem. Nike, Trek and co all got richer thanks to LA. Now that LA is not selling anymore they have no qualm dropping him and break their contracts. In other words LA takes the risk, Nike and other sponsors don;t. That is actually very unfair especially as the sponsors are most likely the ones pulling the threads between sport organisations and anti-doping agencies.

There should be a law compensating people who have bought products labelled with LA names (or other cheats). We should keep our receipts when buying labelled products and get some of the money back in proportion of the royalty associated with the cheats name. SO let say a bike which would typically sell for £300 but sold £600 because it has LA name on it, should see its buyers get half the money back.

The sponsors would be a bit more cautious in signing athletes and would have a keen interest in making sure anti-doping works.

As well you should pay all the children in developing countries back, for stolen wages and lost childhoods, because there were cheaper Tennis shoes, balls and racquets made and exported to Europe and US from Vietnam, Bangladesh, Pakistan, India and China.

laverfan wrote:As well you should pay all the children in developing countries back, for stolen wages and lost childhoods, because there were cheaper Tennis shoes, balls and racquets made and exported to Europe and US from Vietnam, Bangladesh, Pakistan, India and China.

Its not them I feel sorry for. Well not as much as the poor people who have lost their jobs in our western world. It's like the Easterners are in slavery to provide goods for the poor unemployed debt ridden westerners.

I am not sure whihc side is better.

Lost childhood?

Who's got childhood these days anyway? Born with mobile phones and computer games, wees, soul killing/numbing TV shows etc, pedophiles loose and on the prowl in almost every street of this country...no, childhood is dead in the West.
The one worth remembering that is.

Another interesting article doping related....I am liking the fact the storm seems to be gathering after yars of dead silence!

An extract:
" The facts say tennis isn’t clean: In the last 10 years, the ITF has reported 37 doping cases, according to USA Today.
While the cases have generally focused on lower-level players who
aren’t household names, it’s still enough to cast a shadow on tennis.
Consider, too, the case of Wayne Odesnik, the American who was caught
trying to bring HGH into Australia in 2010. The ITF reduced his two-year
ban in half, noting Odesnik provided “substantial assistance” in
uncovering other offenses. When asked about it at Wimbledon this year, Odesnik vehemently denied ratting anyone out.
If you choose not to believe Odesnik, then you buy into the notion that
there are more players out there who are doping, that the players know
about it and that the ITF, regardless of its testing policies, isn’t
catching them."

Full story:
http://tennis.si.com/2012/10/19/friday-five-doping-tennis/

Tenez wrote:

laverfan wrote:As well you should pay all the children in developing countries back, for stolen wages and lost childhoods, because there were cheaper Tennis shoes, balls and racquets made and exported to Europe and US from Vietnam, Bangladesh, Pakistan, India and China.

Its not them I feel sorry for. Well not as much as the poor people who have lost their jobs in our western world. It's like the Easterners are in slavery to provide goods for the poor unemployed debt ridden westerners.

I am not sure whihc side is better.

The poor unemployed debt-ridden westerners want to collect more materialistic wealth for which the Eastern slaves work below Western Minimum Wage laws so the profit margins for corporations in which the poor unemployed debt-ridden westerners can invest and cause further unemployment and call it globalization.

I am quite certain this is the definition of economic progress.

@NITB... Not exactly related to my description of lost childhood, yet, but this case is a real tragedy...

http://abcnews.go.com/International/malala-yousefzai-stand-write/story?id=17518973#.UIMLthZ24sk

I understand your PoV, but parental responsibility, in some cases is being ignored.

@ Laverfan

"Unless I was the one who actually edited the image and changed it, there is very little in terms of a proof that is possible. The image I had posted as a comparison was blatantly and obviously doctored. As the sophistication of such changes increases, it becomes harder to provide without a significant investment of technical resources."

No I disagree,if you suspect that a painting is forged giving me the reasons why someone would want to forge a painting doesnt prove that its forgery
For you to even have the suspicion it would need to come from somewhere and be based on something,ie visible evidence that immediately caught your attention.You cant just be suspicious of a photograph because theres why reason someone would want to alter it,until you actually have a legitimate reason to be suspicious how can you even be suspicious to begin with?
To date you havent given me one reason why you think that photograph is doctored so its pretty obvious to me that you believe that picture is doctored only because it doesnt suit your agenda
Yes the image you posted was clearly doctored but that was just the colour and the shade,your argument has always been that the picture is doctored because it makes Nadal look far more buff and muscled then what you believe he actually is in person,so I have no idea of what point you were trying to make by posting that image
The colour and shade may be different but apart from that the picture is identical to the ones I posted

'Neither is your claim for Nadal on PEDs 100% fact. You are providing a plausible explanation, while I have provided simpler explanations."

Yes I may be giving plausible explanations but I have yet to see anyone come up with a credible alternative
Until that happens I would say my case is incredible strong and I say its a 100% fact because like the argument about the picture,the evidence is visible for everyone to see.I know I am right just like a cosmetic surgeon would know they are 100% correct when pointing out if someone has had cosmetic surgery.You may not see it because youre not familiar with steroid use and your eyes arent trained to notice the subtle differences and visible side effects,a lot of which is very hard to explain in words,it can only really be grasped through personal experience
By the way I am still waiting for you to give me a reason why you think that blood oxygenation and Autologous blood enrichment is better for tennis players then using steroids

"This is a repetition of the Nadrolone fisaco. There is nothing new here. The known and proven Nadrolone cases are not that many, as the link I had posted, shows."

Im guessing you didnt read ithe link otherwise you wouldnt have said that
The link claims that the presence of Nandrolone was present ( at a level just under the allowed limit of 2.0 nano grams per millilitre) in up to a further 36 drugs tests.
Im sure I dont need to tell you that your body doesnt produce Nandrolone naturally,for anyone to test positive can only mean that the drug was used at some point
Whats even more shocking is the supposed ITF's response...they claimed that its impossible that so many athletes would consciously have placed themselves at risk to be suspended or relegated from play,they also made excuses that some athletes were uneducated and ignorant about PED's

Dick Pound, claims that drug-cheats are becoming harder to catch in all sports because of the widespread use of a micro-dosage program where athletes can get banned substances out of their system within six to eight hours.
Seems a bit futile case cause the ITFs excuse will be that no one would intentionally dope and put themselves at risk

"My agenda is not Nadal's defence, but the defence of Tennis. The interesting part is that despite Jones, Johnson, LA, etc., Tennis is yet to have a celebrity indicted. Gasquet, Hingis and Rusdeski may perhaps be the closest"

The defence of tennis?
Well firstly you were defending Nadal in this debate,I dont know why cause you later go on to say "Not just Nadal, but many others."
Secondly,tennis doesnt need to be defended as tennis isnt being accused of anything .We are specifically talking about the players not the game,the game cannot be held accountable for the actions of the players but if its your motive to defend tennis,how are you defending it?
As for your suspicions about many players,including Nadal,I am curious to know what youre basing these suspicions on?
I understand that you refuse to buy into (some) conspiracy theories so whats the reason behind these suspicions?
Yes I agree,tennis hasnt seen one of its heavyweights falling from grace,I dont think that a coincidence

So much talk about doping the last few months....

I dont know if this has already been posted....but James Blake is speaking out once again


James Blake has long been regarded as one of the most erudite and intelligent of professional tennis players. So when the former U,S. Davis Cup player and world no.4 insists tennis doping is still a major issue in the sport, it is time for the powers that be to take notice.



Speaking to USA Today, Blake insisted there are many players on the tours who are still resorting to performance enhancing drugs that are banned but remain undetected.



“In tennis I’m sure there are guys who are doing it, getting away with it, and getting ahead of the testers,” said 32 year-old Blake. “But I also am realistic with this much money involved, $1.9 million for the winner of the US Open, people will try to find a way to get ahead.



“It’s unfortunate, but I hope tennis is doing the best job of trying to catch those guys trying to beat the system.”



Just a few days earlier former French Open champion Yannick Noah said he believed the doping issue in tennis was more widespread than he had originally feared.



“I understand that many people are trying to play nice but are paying dearly for it,” said Noah who last year controversially infuriated Rafael Nadal amongst others by insinuating Spanish players across many sports were using performance enhancing drugs.



“Look what happened in cycling with Lance Armstrong. It took ten years to find something that everyone already knew long ago. This is very sad.”



Dick Pound, the former chairman of WADA (the World Anti Doping Agency) has stressed that drug-cheats are becoming harder to catch in all sports because of the widespread use of a micro-dosage program where athletes can get banned substances out of their system within six to eight hours.



And while International Tennis Federation president Francesco Ricci Bitti insists tennis’ anti-doping program is one of the “leaders” in pro sports, the body’s Head of Science and Technology said: “To think there is no doping in tennis is naïve.



“However at the other end of the spectrum, is it reasonable to assume that doping is endemic within tennis? We have no evidence.”



USA Today reported that the ITF’s anti-doping budget is about $1.6 million and between 2008 and 2011 there were 2,000 drug tests carried out annually, both in and out of competition. However in 2011, there were only 21 out-of-competition blood tests.“If we had more resources then we’d like to do more,” said Miller.”It’s clear that other sports are able to do more testing through whatever funding mechanisms they have.”

http://bleacherreport.com/tb/d8KmY?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=tennis

Veejay wrote:Im sure I dont need to tell you that your body doesnt produce Nandrolone naturally,for anyone to test positive can only mean that the drug was used at some point

I would suggest reading the highlighted part first, and then read the whole quoted material.

Drilling through the results patterns emerged. The common source nandrolone readings were coming from the same groups of tournaments. All outdoor events. Places like Indian Wells. Miami, Vina Del Mar, Scottsdale, Itaparica, Cincinnati from Masters Series to Challenger events.

None of the reading were coming from indoor events. Then we noticed that the readings were coming on the same days. So if we tested Mon/Tue/Wed..the same source readings were happening on Tuesday. Then we noticed they were coming in the same matches on the same day. So both singles players, or all four doubles players in the same match playing on a Tuesday afternoon in Acapulco or Cinci or Miami or Vina Del Mar or some obscure challenger event would return same source nandrolone trace readings.

Then the issue became clear. The common factor was extreme heat and long matches. In every case the samples were collected from outdoor events on excruciatingly hot days (up in the very high 30C to low 40C) following long matches. That was the common link.

We now know that nandrolone readings between 2.0 and 10.0 ng/ml can occur quite naturally where extreme heat and dehydration is impacting on the athlete. This combination of extreme heat and dehydration acts to boost the reading of natural nandrolone in a sample beyond 2.0 ng/ml.

The imposition of a mandatory 2.0 ng/ml cut off for doping has been turned on its head and new tests ensure that no athlete will stand wrongly accused of doping for nandrolone when it was just naturally in their body. All thanks to a new test which was developed in partnership between the ATP and the Cologne and Montreal labs which can conclusively determine if any level of nandrolone is synthetic and doping or natural and absolutely innocent.

Which leads me back to how could the science of nandrolone missed this. The impact of severe heat and dehydration on nandrolone levels. Remember where the statistical research into nandrolone levels was done to determine the cut-off of 2.0 ng/ml?

Part 2

It was done at the Nagano WINTER Olympics.

And in closing, back to the original 8 matters, why did the ATP lose. Because we were unable to satisfy the tribunal beyond their comfortable satisfaction that in those matters with the available dubious science and the available facts that the athletes doped and that the results were not caused by other factors outside the control of the players.

Thank goodness these tribunals had the guts to make this tough call. They got it right.

http://tennishasasteroidproblem.blogspot.com/2012/03/q-richard-ings-part-two-conclusion.html


From Uni of Bristol (in 2000)...

A much more likely theory has recently emerged from the results of a preliminary investigation at Aberdeen University. The findings are that dietary supplements themselves are harmless and produce no increased levels of nandrolone. Exercise alone, too, doesn't cause any problems. But a combination of both dietary supplements (none of which contain a banned substance) and exercise, can result in a positive nandrolone test. The reason for this is still unclear, but one theory is that there is a link between heavy training, the dehydration that goes with it, and their effects upon the components of high protein diets. Until more work is done, however, the 'nandrolone mystery' goes on...

http://www.chm.bris.ac.uk/motm/nandrolone/nandh.htm

What is nandrolone?

Nandrolone is an anabolic steroid which is produced naturally in the human body in tiny amounts.

Some tests can be positive, but it doesn't mean the athlete has taken the drug to improve their performance. Eating red meat can increase nandrolone levels
Sometimes an athlete can have more nandrolone than normal in their body if they have eaten a lot of red meat. ( LF's comment - There are known cases of meat-producing cows being given steroids and growth hormones, which may lead to contamination downstream ).

And perfectly legal dietary supplements can be broken down by the body to produce the same substances created when nandrolone is broken down.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sportacademy/hi/sa/in_the_gym/newsid_2380000/2380463.stm

Is the Beeb incorrect?

Will look at the other stuff you posted later.

Thats a pretty good read Laverfan,bet you never knew that till you decided to do a bit of digging
God peoples really need to get the facts straight...lots of confusion about Nandrolone

Nandrolone does not occur naturally in humans,your body doesnt produce it.Nandrolone is a derivative of testosterone which does occur naturally.

Nandrolone is a semisynthetic anabolic androgenic steroid C18H26O2 derived from testosterone and used in the form of its esters to control breast cancer and to treat certain anemias and postmenopausal osteoporosis

In the body, "Nandrolone" only occurs naturally as 19-norandrosterone as metabolite
19-Nortestosterone binds to and activates specific nuclear receptors meaning that its nothing more then a by product of what happens when other hormones break down in your body
Whats also really important to understand here is that 19 Nortestosterone has very little if any anabolic activity and is only really used as a prohormone for the weak anabolic steroid 19-nordehydrotestosterone that has only as little as around 70% of the potency of testosterone in humans.
On top of that levels of 19 Nortestosterone found in the body is also way too low to account for any significant effects
19 Nortestosterone is banned purely for being a detectable metabolite of Nandrolone even though theres little to no evidence that supports it being performance enhancing as it doesnt result in any anabolic activity on it own

Traces of 19-norandrosterone can easily found in human urine
Finding the potential doping offence with Nandrolone is based on the detection of 2 major metabolites- 19 Nortestosterone and 19 Noretiocholanolone

However recent research, suggests that increased levels of nandrolone could be because the urine samples may have been unstable. This would mean that changes in the chemical make-up of the sample may have occurred after the sample has been taken away from the competitor for testing leading to the spontaneous formation of nandrolone. A British expert on dope testing, Simon Davis, believes these findings may have a bearing on as many as 70% of positive nandrolone cases although further research into these findings must be carried out.

This pretty much sums up the reasons why I dont give studies much attention or credibility,theres always some study which leaves other studies inconclusive and every new study seems to always discover conflicting evidence to prior studies
Here you have a study which suggest that the cause of high levels of 19 Norandrosterone in urine samples could be down to the method of testing rather then it actually being a natural reaction of what happens when several hormones break down
http://www.rsc.org/Chemsoc/Chembytes/HotTopics/DrugsinSport/Nandrolonecontroversy.asp


Nandrolone itself is a modification of testosterone and is commercially sold as synthetic compound drug Deca Durobolin
I stand by my comment that your body doesnt naturally produce synthetic Deca Durobolin or semisynthetic Nandrolone,19Norandrosteroe is merely a reaction of various hormones which causes your body to produce the primary growth hormone thats used in these drugs, but not the synthetic drug itself Apart from the growth factors .19Norandrosterone in terms of performance enhancing couldnt be further away from the anabolic effect thats gained from suing these drugs

Its no secret that your body produces hormones,how else will steroids work?
Like for instance,if I cycled up on Deca or something like Sustanon at a very very high dosage its likely that my testosterone levels will go off the charts
If that happens my body will respond by starting to produce estrogen to over compensate by trying to level out my testosterone levels
This could result is Gyno,( lumps under the nipple tissue for men) there are drugs like Tamoxifen ( a cancer drug which works as an antagonist for the estrogen receptor) or Clomid which could treat it
But the point is the result of my drug abuse will result in my body not knowing whether I am male or female and even though I am male,my body is able to produce very high levels of the primary female hormone.

The problem I have with all the links and info you posted is that nothing is conclusive.A lot of it is inconclusive and speculating,some of it true but then there are clearly exceptions to the rule.You cant prove that so many players bordered on testing positive for Nandrolone because they used the drug,nor can you prove its down to their bodies producing the growth hormone,until you or someone can,the possibility of both are equally plausible
19Norandrosterone is merely a growth hormone your body produces in reaction to the break down of several other hormones (hence the reason for such low levels),Its levels could easily manipulated by diet,weight gain or weight loss supplement or herbal testosterone or even primrose oil,however,only synthetic steroids which set out to significantly increase your bodies production of the hormone will result in an abnormal level
My only suspicion would be that if this was truly the case then everyones tests should be coming back showing traces of 19N all the time,not just those who were suspected of doping or were linked to some dodgy doctor or scandal
Im not entirely sure about how effective the methods are that masks steroid use as I have never used any and Nandrolone is a drug for amateur dopers,the players at the lower end of the draw who cant afford anything else are the ones who will be using it,not the sports heavyweights

The real problem here is how its detected in a drugs test,you would have thought that there would be a far more sophisticated and sound way of tracing a drug that dates back to the dinosaur age

Besides none of this matters as your man Dick Pound claims that these micro-dosage programs enable athletes to rid their body of banned substances in as little as 6 hours.

As for Greg Rusedski...
Over on your favourite blog THASP,they are quoting him saying "if Im guilty of doping then so are over half the players in the draw"....something along those lines..
Hardly the words of someone proclaiming their absolute innocence
See THASP has a lot to offer you Laverfan,the world of tennis hasnt fallen because you decided to read a bit of whats discussed there.Plus you can even be selective in what your chose from there to back your arguments up with

laverfan wrote:

Is the Beeb incorrect?

A better question is: is it ever correct? Just a bunch of incompetent b******s covering each other's backsides. I hope this Jimmy Saville case gets a few heads rolling. It was about time someone wiped that smug grin off their faces.

Indeed people need to grasp the facts.

It is a progestagen, which is synthesized from pregnenolone(dirivitve of cholesterol), like all hormones in the body are.

Cholesterol and pregnenolone are the starting point. From pregnenolone there is two paths that could be taken

the delta-5 synthetic pathway with the intermediate product dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) and the delta-4 pathway with the intermediate stages progesterone and androstenedione. Both steps are regualted by enzymes, and nandrolone metabolites are a very small bi-product from the process.

It is produced in the human body in very small doses, then reduced to Dihydronandrolone.

The Metabolites can be produced naturally.

Veejay wrote:

Besides none of this matters as your man Dick Pound claims that these micro-dosage programs enable athletes to rid their body of banned substances in as little as 6 hours.

Sounds pretty bleak. Is there a testing solution available to deal with those programs at the moment?

noleisthebest wrote:

laverfan wrote:

Is the Beeb incorrect?

A better question is: is it ever correct? Just a bunch of incompetent b******s covering each other's backsides. I hope this Jimmy Saville case gets a few heads rolling. It was about time someone wiped that smug grin off their faces.

Oh my god how disgraceful is that? Apparently several people at the BBC knew what he was getting up to

noleisthebest wrote:

Veejay wrote:

Besides none of this matters as your man Dick Pound claims that these micro-dosage programs enable athletes to rid their body of banned substances in as little as 6 hours.

Sounds pretty bleak. Is there a testing solution available to deal with those programs at the moment?

Yeah,pretty bleak,unfortunately thats the world we live in,where there is a will there is a way
I have absolutely no idea about the testing,my bet is that the drugs that are used to mask doping could be effective within that time frame.Im not sold on the notion that athletes are "ridding their bodies of banned substances" I believe its far more plausible that there are drugs that they use to hide the evidence

Veejay wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

Veejay wrote:

Besides none of this matters as your man Dick Pound claims that these micro-dosage programs enable athletes to rid their body of banned substances in as little as 6 hours.

Sounds pretty bleak. Is there a testing solution available to deal with those programs at the moment?

Yeah,pretty bleak,unfortunately thats the world we live in,where there is a will there is a way
I have absolutely no idea about the testing,my bet is that the drugs that are used to mask doping could be effective within that time frame.Im not sold on the notion that athletes are "ridding their bodies of banned substances" I believe its far more plausible that there are drugs that they use to hide the evidence

It is bleak. The fact something as basic as saline can flush out traces of doping shows the lack of innovations there is in the testing the field. I read a thing at the weekend which suggested that Britney Spears shaved her head to avoid testing positive for a drug test!! I was also reading about a bobsleigher who tested positive for Nandrolone and blamed it on beef from a steroid infused cow! That excuse was accepted!

There is so much that is wrong with the testing system at the moment that it really is difficult to pinpoint a solution that can cure a large portion of the system.

What are we to expect REALISTICALLY from the Fuentes case in January then?

Well I am hoping for a transparent hearing. I hope that they will name and shame those on his list.

However, I have the feeling it will be a hush hush type hearing and that will piss me off if that is the case.

They have a situation which can follow on from the USDA's lead and out the cheats in sport.

Veejay wrote:See THASP has a lot to offer you Laverfan,the world of tennis hasnt fallen because you decided to read a bit of whats discussed there.Plus you can even be selective in what your chose from there to back your arguments up with

No it does not. Richard Ings does. It is rather unfortunate that Richard Ings decided to not have this discussion with WADA/ITF but chose the THASP route.

As LK says, if the body has alternative pathways and can produce variants, there is no test which is conclusive or will ever be.

1-5 ng/ml is a tough nut to crack. If the body can be stimulated to take specific pathways which already have a blueprint, I do not envy Dick Pound or his successors, micro-doses or not.

Regarding the Gender confusion, Caster Semenya is the latest example. ( http://www.sbnation.com/london-olympics-2012/2012/8/11/3234345/caster-semenya-gender-controversy-brings-back-images-of-babe-didrikson )

Going back to images, here is one...

http://www.zimbio.com/photos/Rafael+Nadal/Championships+Wimbledon+2012+Day+Four/1dD3_RvDKBt

See the body is relatively still and notice the RH vs LH difference. This is during the Rosol match.

One factor that I have noticed is that as high-speed photography becomes more prevalent, images during strenuous activity for athletes will cause further controversy.

legendkillar wrote:There is so much that is wrong with the testing system at the moment that it really is difficult to pinpoint a solution that can cure a large portion of the system.

Yes and PRP approval was a terrible move cause there was no evidence it was healing at the time. And they made it much worse by allowing retroactive TUEs. That was simply a green card for dopers!

I do think they have made it easier to dope than it was in the past.

Excellent points Legendkiller

I think the biggest problem about doping in sport is that no one really wants to talk about it.The first step to addressing the problem should be to get rid of whatever taboo is attached to the subject and have a frank open discussion about it.No need to name names, just create a healthy discussion and educate people about the truth,the ins and outs,put the correct information out there,cause even I have to admit that all our/my speculation ends up doing more damage then good
Until everyone,especially the professionals in the sport are willing to admit there is a problem things will only get bleaker
Yannick Noah tried to create debate,but went about it the wrong way by singling out an entire country
Thats where I think the real problem lies,the refusal to even admit there is a problem,and the general response to those who want to talk about it

Veejay wrote:
Thats where I think the real problem lies,the refusal to even admit there is a problem,and the general response to those who want to talk about it

To support your view:

"4. Does doping matter?: I was asked this earlier this
week and my answer has haunted me ever since. If it were to come out
that a high-profile player was doping, would that alter my enjoyment of
his or her tennis up to that point? Would my memories of their epic
conquests, the thrill I felt watching them compete, suddenly turn sour
and cold? My answer at the time was “no,” reasoning that for those few
hours on that day I was thoroughly entertained by what I saw and what I
saw was something I had never seen before. I thought back to the ’98
home run race and how Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa saved baseball, which
had been struggling since the 1994 strike, with every swing of the bat. I
still have fond memories of that summer even though I know what I know
now. It remains an untainted memory for me, and to be honest, in light
of everything we’re supposed to believe — that doping undermines the
integrity of sport — my response to my friend’s question worries me."

from:
http://tennis.si.com/2012/10/19/friday-five-doping-tennis/

I am about to scream now so cover your ears!

http://tracking.si.com/2012/10/16/nike-paid-cover-up-positive-drug-test-lance-armstrong/?sct=obnetwork

Nike allegedly paid $500K to cover up Lance Armstrong’s positive drug test



nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Veejay wrote:Excellent points Legendkiller

I think the biggest problem about doping in sport is that no one really wants to talk about it.The first step to addressing the problem should be to get rid of whatever taboo is attached to the subject and have a frank open discussion about it.No need to name names, just create a healthy discussion and educate people about the truth,the ins and outs,put the correct information out there,cause even I have to admit that all our/my speculation ends up doing more damage then good
Until everyone,especially the professionals in the sport are willing to admit there is a problem things will only get bleaker
Yannick Noah tried to create debate,but went about it the wrong way by singling out an entire country
Thats where I think the real problem lies,the refusal to even admit there is a problem,and the general response to those who want to talk about it

I quite agree with that. Have top faces of the sports talk about it. Even if it does mean exposing weaknesses in the current testing program and methods which athletes go to to avoid detection.

I think if there was an open forum for athletes to talk about it, we might get rough idea who is comfortable about the subject and who isn't. It is all well and good athletes promoting fair play and clean sports and say no campaigns, but if athletes spoke of the ease it is to take banned substances and access them, maybe then WADA and other anti-doping agencies might find routes to close out.

Why can their not be a sporting forum for all athletes from many sports to have which talks about drug taking and other doping methods and talks about the risks, accessibility and punishments applied to such offences and what can be done to erradicate it.

That woudl be an amazing news if true....though I have said many times before that sponsors are the ones behind it all.

“Nike vehemently denies that it paid former UCI president Hein Verbruggen $500,000 to cover up a positive drug test,” the company said in a statement. “Nike does not condone the use of illegal performance enhancing drugs.”

It makes you think about Adam Helfant joining as director of ATP in 2009 and left end of 2011 corresponding roughlly to Nadal's best years.

It makes you think about Adam Helfant

That guy was an arsehole full stop.

Tenez wrote:That woudl be an amazing news if true....though I have said many times before that sponsors are the ones behind it all.

“Nike vehemently denies that it paid former UCI president Hein Verbruggen $500,000 to cover up a positive drug test,” the company said in a statement. “Nike does not condone the use of illegal performance enhancing drugs.”

It makes you think about Adam Helfant joining as director of ATP in 2009 and left end of 2011 corresponding roughlly to Nadal's best years.

yeah, he certainly had that twinkle in his eye: ready for any deal if the money's right....

like his predecessor....the mikey guy ....remember? De Villiers...

http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2008/08/devilliersdecision.aspx

what an angelic face....

Didn't De Villiers bring in the robin round thing at the end of season masters cup?

Those guys were real business men and doping was teh least of their worries.

It reminds me a quote from Fed saying he was not sure the current director (can't remember his name) had the business skills of his predecessors and I think tennis players, all of them, are also behind this.

I am sure some would rather have a clean sport but that is not their priority. They'd rather have a dirty sport with lots of money than a clean one without it. Which is understandable.

I really do believe that Federer, like all other players, know what's going on but having a successful opponent like Nadal bringing millions more viewers is a compromise they are all happy to accept.

legendkillar wrote:Didn't De Villiers bring in the robin round thing at the end of season masters cup?

I think the masters had teh RR for a while. Only in the 90s, I believe, had they a period without it.

However yuo are right he has tried to implement the RR scheme for other tournaments, starting smaller ones to allow more matches for the big names. He also is teh one that allowed advertising and songs between ends' change and change the doubles format, favoured Madrid over Hamburg, made MC an otional TMS, etc.... It's not all wrong but a lot is!

Well I think we can thank Helfant for the 'elitism' we see in the mens game. Look at the Masters 1000. The lower ranked players have zero chance of making a dent in a tournament to improve rankings or earnings.

legendkillar wrote:Well I think we can thank Helfant for the 'elitism' we see in the mens game. Look at the Masters 1000. The lower ranked players have zero chance of making a dent in a tournament to improve rankings or earnings.

Not sure about that, it's seems to be very easy to move up the rankings in the top 100.
I was amazed to find out that Llodra and Stepanek had to play a qualifying match in Basel yesterday, and at the same time a guy like Matosevic (I am yet to see him play or hear win anything) is in the main draw, plus F. Mayer is the 7th seed.

Isn't that bloody hypocrit from McQuaid?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/20008520

"When I took over [as president] in 2005 I made the fight against doping my priority. I acknowledged cycling had a culture of doping. Cycling has come a long way. I have no intention of resigning as president of the UCI," McQuaid said.

and

UCI president Pat McQuaid said: "Lance Armstrong has no place in cycling. He deserves to be forgotten."

Oh...and Lance now officially stripped of his 7 TDFs.

This whole LA case is crazy. I haven't followed it in all its gory details, but find it staggering that LA had the bold audacity to keep doping, lying and laughing at those unable to catch him.
The sheer brazendess and confidence he would never get punished.
What made him so confident?
People?
System?
Nauseating when you think about it .

And then finally somebody had enough.

Who and why?
What was the tipping point?

Because it seems we need to look for one to occur in tennis.
I would like to believe that all this talk and more talk has kicked some momentum somewhere and will have the snowball effect.

noleisthebest wrote:This whole LA case is crazy. I haven't followed it in all its gory details, but find it staggering that LA had the bold audacity to keep doping, lying and laughing at those unable to catch him.
The sheer brazendess and confidence he would never get punished.
What made him so confident?

I don;t know but very similar to Toni who said last year "forget about Nadal being tested positive. It's never going to happen" ...or something along those lines.

I wonder if Federer would be interested in running ATP one day.

He's that kind of a tennis addict I think he wouldn't mind although it's probably not going to happen.

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:This whole LA case is crazy. I haven't followed it in all its gory details, but find it staggering that LA had the bold audacity to keep doping, lying and laughing at those unable to catch him.
The sheer brazendess and confidence he would never get punished.
What made him so confident?

I don;t know but very similar to Toni who said last year "forget about Nadal being tested positive. It's never going to happen" ...or something along those lines.

he,he, noticed that somebody in Madrid was reading this just now

noleisthebest wrote:This whole LA case is crazy. I haven't followed it in all its gory details, but find it staggering that LA had the bold audacity to keep doping, lying and laughing at those unable to catch him.
The sheer brazendess and confidence he would never get punished.
What made him so confident?
People?
System?
Nauseating when you think about it .

And then finally somebody had enough.

Who and why?
What was the tipping point?

Because it seems we need to look for one to occur in tennis.
I would like to believe that all this talk and more talk has kicked some momentum somewhere and will have the snowball effect.

I think reading through the report he was running a dictatorship. He threatened fellow team-mates that he would drop them in it if they exposed his regime. I find it sad that promising cyclist in Floyd Landis was corrupted so easily. He came on board as a youngster and was doped up to the hilt.

Clearly the USDA found something and like an American Pitball just would not let go and were unrelenting in reeling Armstrong in and what a job they did. They showed the way forward and the courage and conviction to pursue injustice that they had seen casting a massive stain on the sport and the country.

When Armstrong kicked Ferrari into touch in 2004 and then still used his services showed what deceitful and lying scumbag he was! Still was paying him when he professed not to work with 'tainted' personnel.

I can't imagine a european country will hunt their own to the extent the USDA did with Armstrong. Was Armstrong a big fish in terms of American Sport? Hard to gauge given the bigger sports in the US that exist like Football, Baseball, Basketball, Ice Hockey.

Look at Switzerland. Would they dare pursue and chase Federer? No. Would the Spanish authorities chase Nadal? Not likely. Would Serbia pursue Djokovic? No. They are such big stars in their countries if not the biggest in their relevant country. Your asking for auhtorities to bring a big name to roost and I think the top 3 of the sport are 'off limits'

legendkillar wrote:
I think reading through the report he was running a dictatorship. He threatened fellow team-mates that he would drop them in it if they exposed his regime. I find it sad that promising cyclist in Floyd Landis was corrupted so easily. He came on board as a youngster and was doped up to the hilt.

I think this is exactly what gave did it at the end. I believe he may have got away with it all had he been less of a bully. Cause they rest of the peloton is also doping but they don;t mind about the others. They must have hated him to guts.

Clearly the USDA found something and like an American Pitball just would not let go and were unrelenting in reeling Armstrong in and what a job they did. They showed the way forward and the courage and conviction to pursue injustice that they had seen casting a massive stain on the sport and the country.

Yes. Hats off. NOt easy to fight against the system though I think they were helped by the Fed's investogation. The Feds did not care about the doping but USADA probably collected the work and took it from there. Amazing that once again, it's not the anti-doping agencies that work but the police, customs and other governmental organisations which really uncover the dopers.

I can't imagine a european country will hunt their own to the extent the USDA did with Armstrong. Was Armstrong a big fish in terms of American Sport? Hard to gauge given the bigger sports in the US that exist like Football, Baseball, Basketball, Ice Hockey.

Well yes but let's not forget that they caught him when his image stopped selling. I woudl really like to see athletes being caught at their peak...like Ben Johnson was. I wish they had given in Lewis in the process.

Look at Switzerland. Would they dare pursue and chase Federer? No. Would the Spanish authorities chase Nadal? Not likely. Would Serbia pursue Djokovic? No. They are such big stars in their countries if not the biggest in their relevant country. Your asking for auhtorities to bring a big name to roost and I think the top 3 of the sport are 'off limits

2 different mentalities. We know how the spanish fed protected their owns in that Puerto affair but in the past the French organisation had uncovered the French cyclists (virenque) and a few others and I feel the Swiss would/coudl do the same. However if I were Swiss I woudl not give Federer in until other countries have done so with theirs cause at least Federer brings something else than brawn and sweat.

How can McQuaid keep a straight face? Are we treated like fools again????

"But cycling has changed a lot since then. What was available to the UCI then was much more limited compared to what is available now. If we had then what we have now, this sort of thing would not have gone on."



McQuaid was quizzed over the $100,000 (£62,300) donation made by Armstrong to the UCI in 2002, one year after the American cyclist had had a suspicious test for EPO at the 2001 Tour of Switzerland.

Asked by BBC sports editor David Bond how he could justify the payment, McQuaid said: "We used the money against doping, it was done openly and put to good use."

The management committee of the UCI will meet on Friday to discuss whether to reallocate Armstrong's Tour de France titles and prize money.

It's hilarious!!! "Good use"? Did not prevent LA to win 3 more times after that!!!! Frankly the more I read it the more I am stunned at McQuaid dodging the questions and facts. He shoudl go with LA. He is as responsible!!!!!

For me, it was a telling comment when, a few years ago, Federer said he would not mind his samples being frozen until the testing technology picked up.
That happened at the time when Nadal and Murray were moaning about having to be woken up in the morning to give samples.

Not to mention Serena locking herself in the panic room....

.