NADAL FANS

Actually its you who cant get over the left bicep,as once again youre the one who brought it up...so it seems youre the one who gets off on it,you should join woofies club,youd fit right on there with the rest of el toros hormonal followers

Is Socal telling you what to ask or say?
At least I know what I am talking about eh?
Does that make you jealous
Maybe you should reread your comments on the doping thread before acting so cocky

I managed to score myself a ban for 2 days over there.

Think Amri left on his own accord. He posted in a lot of places, so he will show up again soon.

Veejay wrote:Actually its you who cant get over the left bicep,as once again youre the one who brought it up...so it seems youre the one who gets off on it,you should join woofies club,youd fit right on there with the rest of el toros hormonal followers

How do you know I am not a member already?

Veejay wrote:Is Socal telling you what to ask or say?

Let me ask him.

Veejay wrote:At least I know what I am talking about eh?

The illusions of grandeur and narcissism.

Veejay wrote:Does that make you jealous

No. Just shows the monomania that posters can be afflicted with.

Veejay wrote:Maybe you should reread your comments on the doping thread before acting so cocky

I have no inclination to go over that discussion. Since you read it quite often, you are welcome to it. Perhaps it might give you some more material to address the writers block.

legendkillar wrote:I managed to score myself a ban for 2 days over there.

Congratulations! Did you use the word moonballing inadvertendly?

Tenez wrote:Let's try to get more people in.

You should try and contact Seifer.

Is he on V2? Is he also a "conspirationist"? Someone who believes that wars are not about bad dictators but money?

Here is my wish list:

Prostaff, Newball, BB, Barry and probably 3 or 4 more...You can keep the rest.

How do you know I am not a member already?

I gave you the benefit of the doubt before but I am glad you reminded me of how wrong I was of you

The illusions of grandeur and narcissism.

In reference to the saying it takes one to know one?

No. Just shows the monomania that posters can be afflicted with.

Like your obsessive wet dream of Nadal's bicep?

I have no inclination to go over that discussion.

Gee I wonder why
You obviously have no shame....

Veejay wrote:

How do you know I am not a member already?

I gave you the benefit of the doubt before but I am glad you reminded me of how wrong I was of you

It is better that you stay wrong about me.

Veejay wrote:

The illusions of grandeur and narcissism.

In reference to the saying it takes one to know one?

Like a PED user?

Veejay wrote:

No. Just shows the monomania that posters can be afflicted with.

Like your obsessive wet dream of Nadal's bicep?

No like your doping obsessiveness.

Veejay wrote:

I have no inclination to go over that discussion.

Gee I wonder why
You obviously have no shame....

But you do?

@Vee... and you just came back from a hiatus or cycling up.

children please! You're going the right way for a smacked bottom!

luvsports! wrote:children please! You're going the right way for a smacked bottom!

There is no moderation and no censorship, as we are all grown up, correct?

It is better that you stay wrong about me.

Actually you do enough of that for everyone all on your own

Like a PED user?

I find it hilarious how you continually try to take a jab at me because I admitted to recreational use,but yet you support players who abuse drugs for cheating and stealing but I have yet to see you call them out on it

No like your doping obsessiveness.

I would much rather be accused of being obsessed with doping because I have morals and believe in making a stand for fairness,ethics and good sportsmanship rather then be branded a hypocrite and a cowards who believes there is a problem but cannot even give any one single reason why you believe that

But you do?

Lets put it this way,if I ever debated the way you do and made some of the ridiculous comments you have I would never show my face here again

laverfan wrote:@Vee... and you just came back from a hiatus or cycling up.

No actually there was a death in my family and I had to attend a funeral
And I am the one obsessed with doping...

sorry to hear that vj hope you are holding up ok!

Veejay wrote:I find it hilarious how you continually try to take a jab at me because I admitted to recreational use,but yet you support players who abuse drugs for cheating and stealing but I have yet to see you call them out on it

I support players who have no public offences, unlike you, and the continual grasping of straws to equate your experiences with some one else's and accuse players without proof.

Veejay wrote:

No like your doping obsessiveness.

I would much rather be accused of being obsessed with doping because I have morals and believe in making a stand for fairness,ethics and good sportsmanship rather then be branded a hypocrite and a cowards who believes there is a problem but cannot even give any one single reason why you believe that

And such morals and ethics and standards of fairness allow you to accuse another person without proof based on anecdotal experiences? There is no proof and all tests are negative, find one positive test in public domain, rather than this silent ban BS and some French forum extracts and some cartoons. You claim such high standards and yet you have no respect for fans of another player, let alone the player himself. And there is a coterie of posters who seem to echo what you want to hear and that is considered debate. BTW, some French papers were sued, and paid for such claims, which is public domain information.

Veejay wrote:

But you do?

Lets put it this way,if I ever debated the way you do and made some of the ridiculous comments you have I would never show my face here again

Ad infinitum ad nauseam repetition and monomania is not debating.

Who is doping? A player who played for 5:53 and lost or another who won? Selective facts to suit your theories, and yet claims of fairness? Laughable.

If Player X was doping, but was beaten by player Y, 7+ times in 2011, I wonder who should be a suspect by your standards of fairness, ethics and sportsmanship, the winner or the loser?

Veejay wrote:No actually there was a death in my family and I had to attend a funeral

My condolences.

Tenez wrote:

legendkillar wrote:I managed to score myself a ban for 2 days over there.

Congratulations! Did you use the word moonballing inadvertendly?

If only. It was insulting another poster (if you can call it that)

I shall take a break from the forum thing. Sucking the enjoyment out of the sport for me and also the current feeling amongst posters is a tad intense. I shall take a spectator view of things and enjoy reading what people write

laverfan wrote:

Veejay wrote:I find it hilarious how you continually try to take a jab at me because I admitted to recreational use,but yet you support players who abuse drugs for cheating and stealing but I have yet to see you call them out on it

I support players who have no public offences, unlike you, and the continual grasping of straws to equate your experiences with some one else's and accuse players without proof.

Veejay wrote:

No like your doping obsessiveness.

I would much rather be accused of being obsessed with doping because I have morals and believe in making a stand for fairness,ethics and good sportsmanship rather then be branded a hypocrite and a cowards who believes there is a problem but cannot even give any one single reason why you believe that

And such morals and ethics and standards of fairness allow you to accuse another person without proof based on anecdotal experiences? There is no proof and all tests are negative, find one positive test in public domain, rather than this silent ban BS and some French forum extracts and some cartoons. You claim such high standards and yet you have no respect for fans of another player, let alone the player himself. And there is a coterie of posters who seem to echo what you want to hear and that is considered debate. BTW, some French papers were sued, and paid for such claims, which is public domain information.

Veejay wrote:

But you do?

Lets put it this way,if I ever debated the way you do and made some of the ridiculous comments you have I would never show my face here again

Ad infinitum ad nauseam repetition and monomania is not debating.

Who is doping? A player who played for 5:53 and lost or another who won? Selective facts to suit your theories, and yet claims of fairness? Laughable.

If Player X was doping, but was beaten by player Y, 7+ times in 2011, I wonder who should be a suspect by your standards of fairness, ethics and sportsmanship, the winner or the loser?

*rolls eyes*
As I said before your wooden spoon my work over on V2 but over here you need to cut the crap and move on
I have been through this with you before and judging from above it amounted to absolutely nothing,here you are with your wooden spoon asking the same dam questions I have answered many times before...
So I wont waste any more of my time with you...you can go back and find answers to the same questions you asked 6 months ago here:
https://ourtennisforum.forumotion.co.uk/t19p850-the-doping-program-joke-of-the-itf

For the record this thread was NEVER about doping,youre the one who steered debate in that direction but yet I am the one who is obsessed with doping

P.S werent you the one who spoke of Nadal openly admitting to his poor sportsmanship in his book but yet you still defend and support him claiming it has nothing to do with morals...
See the difference between him and me is even though I have done wrong in my life,I have never stolen or cheated my way to titles and millions upon millions in prize money

laverfan wrote:

Veejay wrote:No actually there was a death in my family and I had to attend a funeral

My condolences.

Thanks but its not wanted nor needed

luvsports! wrote:sorry to hear that vj hope you are holding up ok!

Thanks Luvsports,appreciate it

laverfan wrote:
I support players who have no public offences, unlike you, and the continual grasping of straws to equate your experiences with some one else's and accuse players without proof.

The proves are there. You simply do not want to see them. I do not need positive tests or else. Physiology is a science and we know that no athlete can win 2 marathons in a row versus a top marathon runner. At the top the margins are very thin. But in tennis for some reasons they are not.

In AO 09, you had a guy who was able to run a marathon at the pace of a 100m and 2 days later did the same versus a rested top player and managed to outlast him despite doing again most of the running.

It's physiologically impossible unless you consider Federer a poor athlete. As we know he has outlasted Nadal in their first 5 setter encounter we know he is not a poor athlete himself.

We also know that poorer athletes can now actually outlast that amazing marathonian himself.

You are like someone who believes magicians have divine powers and refuses to question the use of possible tricks.

It's fine by us...you can believe what you want but please do not come here and give us lessons about accusing players without proof. You have much less proof than they are not doping.

legendkillar wrote:

Tenez wrote:

legendkillar wrote:I managed to score myself a ban for 2 days over there.

Congratulations! Did you use the word moonballing inadvertendly?

If only. It was insulting another poster (if you can call it that)

I shall take a break from the forum thing. Sucking the enjoyment out of the sport for me and also the current feeling amongst posters is a tad intense. I shall take a spectator view of things and enjoy reading what people write

I agree. It's good sometimes to break away. I use my hols for that!

[quote="Tenez"]

laverfan wrote:
I support players who have no public offences, unlike you, and the continual grasping of straws to equate your experiences with some one else's and accuse players without proof.

I get the point you are trying to make lf, but the thing is look at LA. Although this was later disproved, LA said he passed over 500 tests.
Its almost like there is no way to prove that someone is clean really, it's a shame but it's just the way it goes.
Cycling fell under USADA's jurisdiction so they were able to carry out their investigation despite the govt trying to shut it down. This isn't the case for tennis and as the testing isn't nearly as stringent so the methods to combat it probably won't be as effective, meaning the evidence breadcrumbs may be few and far between.

Obvs we can't just stop supporting players who may or may not be on drugs, but I am always suspicious of someone, albeit not to nearly the same length as some other posters on here.
Im probs waffling a bit now, but do you get the point im trying to make?

But imo being suspicious is not good enough LS. It's simply physiologically impossible to do what some of those guys do without PEDs. The only real question is are those PED legal or not (ex egg chamber) but they are still PE drugs and/or methods.

We can't compare Llodra style and fitness with Nadal's for instance so it;s also a bit more complicated and we cannot put them all in the same basket but for some of those players there is enough evidence to constitute a proof.

Veejay wrote:P.S werent you the one who spoke of Nadal openly admitting to his poor sportsmanship in his book but yet you still defend and support him claiming it has nothing to do with morals...

I defend and support all of them, not just Nadal, unlike you.

Veejay wrote:See the difference between him and me is even though I have done wrong in my life,I have never stolen or cheated my way to titles and millions upon millions in prize money

If you can make it to the qualifying of a slam, you create an opportunity for yourself. Because you never created it in the first place, you were ineligible for what you consider cheating. Remember he was fined for coaching at W, but I have yet to see a fine for IW 2013.

Sportsmanship - have you seen Del Po challenge and call for hawkeye?

Tenez wrote:

laverfan wrote:
I support players who have no public offences, unlike you, and the continual grasping of straws to equate your experiences with some one else's and accuse players without proof.

The proves are there. You simply do not want to see them. I do not need positive tests or else. Physiology is a science and we know that no athlete can win 2 marathons in a row versus a top marathon runner. At the top the margins are very thin. But in tennis for some reasons they are not.

In AO 09, you had a guy who was able to run a marathon at the pace of a 100m and 2 days later did the same versus a rested top player and managed to outlast him despite doing again most of the running.

It's physiologically impossible unless you consider Federer a poor athlete. As we know he has outlasted Nadal in their first 5 setter encounter we know he is not a poor athlete himself.

We also know that poorer athletes can now actually outlast that amazing marathonian himself.

You are like someone who believes magicians have divine powers and refuses to question the use of possible tricks.

It's fine by us...you can believe what you want but please do not come here and give us lessons about accusing players without proof. You have much less proof than they are not doping.

AO 2012 - Djokovic

S Andy Murray (GBR) 4 W 6-3, 3-6, 6-7(4), 6-1, 7-5
W Rafael Nadal (ESP) 2 W 5-7, 6-4, 6-2, 6-7(5), 7-5

AO 2009 - Nadal

S Fernando Verdasco (ESP) 15 W 6-7(4), 6-4, 7-6(2), 6-7(1), 6-4
W Roger Federer (SUI) 2 W 7-5, 3-6, 7-6(3), 3-6, 6-2

And in my opinion Murray 2012 is much fitter than Verdasco 2009. Now what is physiologically impossible?

PS: The public information says there are no positives for the player's you suspect - http://www.itftennis.com/antidoping/news/suspensions.aspx

Show me your sources for public information, not the basis of you suspicions. My example contradicts the basis you have.

I also suspect there is ET, but I have no proof, do you believe me?

Veejay wrote:

laverfan wrote:

Veejay wrote:No actually there was a death in my family and I had to attend a funeral

My condolences.

Thanks but its not wanted nor needed

Absolutely marvellous.

luvsports! wrote:

laverfan wrote:
I support players who have no public offences, unlike you, and the continual grasping of straws to equate your experiences with some one else's and accuse players without proof.

I get the point you are trying to make lf, but the thing is look at LA. Although this was later disproved, LA said he passed over 500 tests.
Its almost like there is no way to prove that someone is clean really, it's a shame but it's just the way it goes.
Cycling fell under USADA's jurisdiction so they were able to carry out their investigation despite the govt trying to shut it down. This isn't the case for tennis and as the testing isn't nearly as stringent so the methods to combat it probably won't be as effective, meaning the evidence breadcrumbs may be few and far between.

Obvs we can't just stop supporting players who may or may not be on drugs, but I am always suspicious of someone, albeit not to nearly the same length as some other posters on here.
Im probs waffling a bit now, but do you get the point im trying to make?

Yes, and IRAQ WMD claim was later disproven. In LAs case no one died, but the war? .

USADA is the most incompetent organization I have come across, US NFL is prime case in point. There are players with public criminal cases who play in NFL.

Tennis is relatively cleaner.

Does LA's case justify widespread paranoia about every player or a selective player that posters may have a subjective dislike for?

@T... RG 2011 Federer loses the first set from being up 5-2, IIRC. It shows a loss of focus, rather than physical issues. He is a very good athlete, as are many others. The overal Federer 5-set record is now getting worse as he ages.

I know Federer played Singles and Doubles, both, at Beijing 2008.

Also, remember, you referenced Federer and made this universal statement.

Tenez wrote:Physiology is a science and we know that no athlete can win 2 marathons in a row versus a top marathon runner.

And you have empirical or statistical proof of this?

Tenez wrote: At the top the margins are very thin. But in tennis for some reasons they are not.

Including talent?

laverfan wrote:

Tenez wrote:

laverfan wrote:
I support players who have no public offences, unlike you, and the continual grasping of straws to equate your experiences with some one else's and accuse players without proof.

The proves are there. You simply do not want to see them. I do not need positive tests or else. Physiology is a science and we know that no athlete can win 2 marathons in a row versus a top marathon runner. At the top the margins are very thin. But in tennis for some reasons they are not.

In AO 09, you had a guy who was able to run a marathon at the pace of a 100m and 2 days later did the same versus a rested top player and managed to outlast him despite doing again most of the running.

It's physiologically impossible unless you consider Federer a poor athlete. As we know he has outlasted Nadal in their first 5 setter encounter we know he is not a poor athlete himself.

We also know that poorer athletes can now actually outlast that amazing marathonian himself.

You are like someone who believes magicians have divine powers and refuses to question the use of possible tricks.

It's fine by us...you can believe what you want but please do not come here and give us lessons about accusing players without proof. You have much less proof than they are not doping.

AO 2012 - Djokovic

S Andy Murray (GBR) 4 W 6-3, 3-6, 6-7(4), 6-1, 7-5
W Rafael Nadal (ESP) 2 W 5-7, 6-4, 6-2, 6-7(5), 7-5

AO 2009 - Nadal

S Fernando Verdasco (ESP) 15 W 6-7(4), 6-4, 7-6(2), 6-7(1), 6-4
W Roger Federer (SUI) 2 W 7-5, 3-6, 7-6(3), 3-6, 6-2

And in my opinion Murray 2012 is much fitter than Verdasco 2009. Now what is physiologically impossible?

PS: The public information says there are no positives for the player's you suspect - http://www.itftennis.com/antidoping/news/suspensions.aspx

Show me your sources for public information, not the basis of you suspicions. My example contradicts the basis you have.

I also suspect there is ET, but I have no proof, do you believe me?

You still fail to explain how Fed got more tired than Nadal in that AO 09 final. You simply cannot explain it. You don;t understand the trick of the magician and therefore you do believe that you believe he has divine powers. No wonder you believe in ET.

LF,
sport has sold its soul long time ago. It's sad. It's hard to stop all that's going on that shouldn't be going on.
Unlike a lot of other sports, tennis is very specific, complex and hard on every level, that's probably why doping got there last.
"Evolution" in the style of playing caused by technology and slowing the courts down in general have only further encouraged extreme fitness, so much so that that's what the players are praised for now.

I saw Tipsarevic's comment yesterday saying he thinks Murray is the fittest on tour right now. What a comment! I don't remember that kind of "compliments" being paid in the 80s&90s.

Imagine the tour when Federer's 30+ generation retires.

Something really needs to be done in order to stop the rot asap.
And that something certainly isn't pouring a layer of sand-laden paint in order to please Nadal.

laverfan wrote:@T... RG 2011 Federer loses the first set from being up 5-2, IIRC. It shows a loss of focus, rather than physical issues. He is a very good athlete, as are many others. The overal Federer 5-set record is now getting worse as he ages.

I know Federer played Singles and Doubles, both, at Beijing 2008.

Also, remember, you referenced Federer and made this universal statement.

Tenez wrote:Physiology is a science and we know that no athlete can win 2 marathons in a row versus a top marathon runner.

And you have empirical or statistical proof of this?

Yes - I do! If you look at Nadal's matches outside slams he gets tired pretty quickly...he can even get bagelled by Fed after a simple 3 setter the day before v Murray or bagelled even by Youszhny after a 3 setter v old Moya. Plenty of stats out there but stats are no proof either.

As I said I don;t mind you believing whatever you want,...even ETs but you counter arguments are simply very poor.

Tenez wrote: At the top the margins are very thin. But in tennis for some reasons they are not.

Including talent?
[/quote]

Not at all. That is what PEDs are for. To bridge a big gap in talent. There woudl be no PED otherwise.

Answer that: Why is it that the fittest player on the ATP is the one who takes the ball latest after the bounce? Isn't that a strange coincidence?

Just saw this on tennis.com and it made me smile



Be honest, which of the top men’s players, Federer, Nadal, or Djokovic, has the worst fans?—William



By "worst," I’m going to assume you mean the most passionate and defensive. If that’s the criteria, I honestly think it’s a three-way tie (whether that's a tie for first or last, I’m not sure). Like just about everything else in tennis, your own answer to this question will likely correspond to which player you prefer. It’s always the other guys’ fans who are the dangerous lunatics, not yours.



But there are differences in emphasis among the groups. If I can generalize for a minute, I’d say diehard Federer fans tend to think of him as the man who Plays the Game the Way It Was Meant to Be Played. He does it with flair and without much obvious effort, with a one-handed backhand and an all-court style. He doesn’t talk about injuries all the time. He doesn’t take too long between points. He doesn’t look at his player’s box for help. He doesn’t withdraw from tournaments. He is tennis to many—if he’s not winning, there must be something wrong with the sport; the courts must be too slow, the game must be too brutal.



Nadal fans seem to be more protective of him as a person. Is he smiling? Is he happy? Is he worried? Is he in pain? These were the things that the fans who waited (hours) to watch him practice in Indian Wells were asking each other. From his knee problems, to his facial expressions, to the fears and doubts he expresses, Nadal’s vulnerability is closer to the surface than Federer’s.



As for Djokovic, he obviously has a strong Serbian following, and his fans in general are as passionate and protective as Nadal’s and Federer’s, but I’m not sure what specifically about his game or personality or struggle draws them to him. Not that I can’t see what’s likable about Djokovic. He’s the most extroverted and entertaining of the three, he’s a good loser, he shows what he’s feeling, and he’s a tremendous athlete to watch. I’m sure some Novak fans can tell us more about why he’s their guy.

laverfan wrote:

luvsports! wrote:

laverfan wrote:
I support players who have no public offences, unlike you, and the continual grasping of straws to equate your experiences with some one else's and accuse players without proof.

I get the point you are trying to make lf, but the thing is look at LA. Although this was later disproved, LA said he passed over 500 tests.
Its almost like there is no way to prove that someone is clean really, it's a shame but it's just the way it goes.
Cycling fell under USADA's jurisdiction so they were able to carry out their investigation despite the govt trying to shut it down. This isn't the case for tennis and as the testing isn't nearly as stringent so the methods to combat it probably won't be as effective, meaning the evidence breadcrumbs may be few and far between.

Obvs we can't just stop supporting players who may or may not be on drugs, but I am always suspicious of someone, albeit not to nearly the same length as some other posters on here.
Im probs waffling a bit now, but do you get the point im trying to make?

Yes, and IRAQ WMD claim was later disproven. In LAs case no one died, but the war? .

USADA is the most incompetent organization I have come across, US NFL is prime case in point. There are players with public criminal cases who play in NFL.

Tennis is relatively cleaner.

Does LA's case justify widespread paranoia about every player or a selective player that posters may have a subjective dislike for?

Seriously? Usada the most incompetent? Ever heard of Fifa? Wada? or the worst of them all by far the UCI!??! Nobody is worse than them and that is something that i will not budge on one bit, they have ruined cycling, absolutely castrated it! :P But seriously just the pitts.

How do you know tennis is cleaner? Remember rusedski's quote? something along the lines of "if im on it, everyone is".

I think paranoia is the wrong word.
I cannot speak for the others here, but I am certainly not paranoid and I don't think they are either.
Athletes are no where near candid and forthcoming enough about drugs, so I don't really "trust" any of them, especially the more defensive, fitness orientated players with their miraculous powers of recovery.

I tend to not jump the gun with my views until I believe I know enough about a subject. I know more about cycling than tennis in regards to drugs.
I think the LA case has awoken people which I believe is a good thing.

Well one thing is clear is that Fed's fan are simply more mature and yes they know more about the game.

Look at v2 for a second...look who you have:

Fedfans: BB, Barry, HHill, Timeplease, etc...

Nadal fans: Haddie nuff, Amri, Woofie, Educator etc...

Simply a world apart.

And there's "us"

Tenez wrote:You still fail to explain how Fed got more tired than Nadal in that AO 09 final. You simply cannot explain it. You don;t understand the trick of the magician and therefore you do believe that you believe he has divine powers.

Federer's 5-set record already explains that. Losing to Hewitt or Nalbandian in the fifth set when he was TMF. Federer v Del Potro USO 2009.

Tenez wrote:Yes - I do! If you look at Nadal's matches outside slams he gets tired pretty quickly...he can even get bagelled by Fed after a simple 3 setter the day before v Murray or bagelled even by Youszhny after a 3 setter v old Moya. Plenty of stats out there but stats are no proof either.

As did Federer in RG 2008. And Federer was recovering from physical issues, but yet managed to beat Monfils, a very fit athlete on Clay in the previous match.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Roger-Federer.aspx?t=pa&y=2008&m=s&e=520#

Tenez wrote:As I said I don;t mind you believing whatever you want,...even ETs but you counter arguments are simply very poor.

As are yours.

Tenez wrote:Well one thing is clear is that Fed's fan are simply more mature and yes they know more about the game.

Look at v2 for a second...look who you have:

Fedfans: BB, Barry, HHill, Timeplease, etc...

Nadal fans: Haddie nuff, Amri, Woofie, Educator etc...

Simply a world apart.

Here are stellar examples of such maturity - https://ourtennisforum.forumotion.co.uk/t288p600-atp-1000-indian-wells#18165

I like your ability to classify, you missed some others.

noleisthebest wrote:And there's "us"

Absolutely.

luvsports wrote:How do you know tennis is cleaner? Remember rusedski's quote? something along the lines of "if im on it, everyone is".

Do you recall the conclusion of this specific case? There is enough material on THASP and whole ATP official's response which we have discussed several times over.

luvsports wrote: Athletes are no where near candid and forthcoming enough about drugs, so I don't really "trust" any of them, especially the more defensive, fitness orientated players with their miraculous powers of recovery.

Like my example of Djokovic or Federer.

This is a 30+ yo. Who do you want me to be suspicious of?

Q Jo-Wilfried Tsonga (FRA) 8 W 7-6(4), 4-6, 7-6(4), 3-6, 6-3 Stats
S Andy Murray (GBR) 3 L 4-6, 7-6(5), 3-6, 7-6(2), 2-6

Selective information, like the ESPN rigging theories, can be refuted with pure logic.

Generally LF I like to respond to someone's questions with answers, something you appear not too keen on.

I have not seen the "conclusions" on rusedski, can you tell me where? The one's I have found don't yield too much info. http://tennishasasteroidproblem.blogspot.co.uk/2009/03/curious-case-of-greg-rusedski.html

I am suspicious of the very quick recoveries from djoko and nadal etc compared to simon who was dead after his monfils match in aus.
Who said i wasn't suspicious of feds?

luvsports! wrote:Generally LF I like to respond to someone's questions with answers, something you appear not too keen on.

I have not seen the "conclusions" on rusedski, can you tell me where? The one's I have found don't yield too much info. http://tennishasasteroidproblem.blogspot.co.uk/2009/03/curious-case-of-greg-rusedski.html

I am suspicious of the very quick recoveries from djoko and nadal etc compared to simon who was dead after his monfils match in aus.
Who said i wasn't suspicious of feds?

Richard Ings (ATP)

"Very interesting these OOC testing numbers. Based on what the stats say, I would have hoped for higher OOC testing numbers on US tennis players by USADA especially in an Olympic year such as 2012.

In regard to the nandrolone matters, at the time of these cases the science held a view that any nandrolone reading above 2.0 ng/ml must be synthetic. The science was based on research carried out at the Nagano Winter Olympics.

Here is a BBC report of that research:

Olympic laboratories, tasked with ensuring that their tests are fair as well as effective, have researched natural nandrolone production regularly over the past quarter-century, the most recent study being conducted at the 1998 Winter Olympics in Nagano, Japan.

There, of 621 competitors tested after competition, only five produced results where their nandrolone levels exceeded 0.1 nanograms per millilitre of urine (ng/ml).All five were women. The levels in women are marginally higher, as a result of a different hormonal make-up and use of the contraceptive pill. But the levels are still minimal. Nobody in the Nagano tests exceeded 0.4ng/ml.

This just served to confirm the IOC's cut-off levels - a doping-control speed limit, where anything above 2ng/ml in men or 5ng/ml in women is regarded as an offence. Basic arithmetic suggests that the IOC scientists have set themselves a generous margin for error - 2ng/ml being 20 times what might be regarded as a "normal" level of nandrolone in men.

Are you with me so far….

The ATP's very broad anti-doping program was at that period doing close to 1000 samples per year. When it ramped up, it started getting nandrolone readings from 1.0 ng/ml to about 7.0 ng/ml. There were 8 samples above 2.0 ng/ml which were prosecuted as "positives" as required and close to 100 samples over 2 years between 1.0ng/ml and 2.0 ng/ml which are not "positive" but added to the intrigue and speculation.

What was interesting was that these 100 results (remember 8 positives and nearly 100 trace reading negatives) all had a common analytical fingerprint indicating that wherever the nandrolone came from the source was common. Remember that there were samples above 2.0ng/ml and well below 2.0 ng/ml with the same analytical fingerprint.

Now these results came from players from over 30 countries from qualifying to finalists from satellite players to top 10 from events on most continents all with absolutely nothing in common.

The ATP tried the 8 positive cases before tribunals comprising CAS arbitrators like Yves Fortier and Richard McLaren and including panel members such as Dr Gary Wadler and we lost. We could not satisfy the panels that the source of the nandrolone was not a ubiquitously distributed (it was available in every locker room) electrolyte of extremely dubious manufacture (the electrolyte was made by a supplement manufacturer that had a history of making 19-nor based supplements on the same pilling making equipment as the electrolyte…19-nor causes nandrolone positives).

While the cases were lost for these reasons, the ATP continued to try and find what was causing all this. Firstly we were able at a later date to conclusively rule out the electrolyte as the common source. That was good news. We also worked to develop a new analytical procedure to detect synthetic nandrolone conclusively in samples between 2.0ng/ml and 10.0 ng/ml. That was great news.

So what caused the common readings of over 100 players? (See Part 2)

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.




Does this help, LS. See the highlighted parts.
http://tennishasasteroidproblem.blogspot.com/2012/03/q-richard-ings-part-two-conclusion.html

.

wilson - From what I have heard, tenez believes that most players are on the juice, much more so than me.
He has gone into his thoughts on djoko at length as well.

.

No worries bud, good to have you on board, post as much as you like .

luvsports! wrote:wilson - From what I have heard, tenez believes that most players are on the juice, much more so than me.
He has gone into his thoughts on djoko at length as well.

But the accusations, so far unfounded (not sure what the future holds), seem that one player gets targeted more than others. This is the classic definition of a selective data set.

noleisthebest wrote:I saw Tipsarevic's comment yesterday saying he thinks Murray is the fittest on tour right now.

This is what I was saying earlier this year...even last year.


If Murray were 2 or 3 inches shorter like Nadal, his RH arm woudl be as big as Nadal's LH but with 3 times the sizes of legs.

wilson_nxt wrote:Fair enough luvsport, I don't post here v. often, just read some posts back on this thread but not all. It just seemed to me that Djokovik's huge leap looked somewhat amazing when he used to crumble a lot before. For all I know they all used to do it.

Murray, Berdych and Delpo are also huge suspects.

PS..Suspect? WHat am I talking about? simply users of PE substances.

laverfan wrote:

luvsports! wrote:wilson - From what I have heard, tenez believes that most players are on the juice, much more so than me.
He has gone into his thoughts on djoko at length as well.

But the accusations, so far unfounded (not sure what the future holds), seem that one player gets targeted more than others. This is the classic definition of a selective data set.

Of course I select one more than others! I select the one who leaves no choice for the others to catch up with the latest doping. Same applies for extra time taking between points. If the guy at the top shows the way to go, the others are also going to abuse the rule cause if the don't they might lose a key advantage. Why rules for one and not others?

You are showing again your weak logique. If it had been Federer who had started the big muscles trend and forcing the longer rallies on the rest of the field I would have the same language as for Nadal. I don't know either player. I just see that one brings more on the table than legs and lungs.

You are essentially posting to convince us that your are "fair" and don;t take side. I just tell the truth. That's teh difference between yuo and me...essentially.

laverfan wrote:

luvsports! wrote:wilson - From what I have heard, tenez believes that most players are on the juice, much more so than me.
He has gone into his thoughts on djoko at length as well.

But the accusations, so far unfounded (not sure what the future holds), seem that one player gets targeted more than others. This is the classic definition of a selective data set.

Im sorry but that sounds exactly like the same reasoning people used to defend lance!

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:I saw Tipsarevic's comment yesterday saying he thinks Murray is the fittest on tour right now.

This is what I was saying earlier this year...even last year.


If Murray were 2 or 3 inches shorter like Nadal, his RH arm woudl be as big as Nadal's LH but with 3 times the sizes of legs.