NADAL FANS

luvsports! wrote:

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!

You understand the premise of 'Innocent till proven guilty', correct?

laverfan wrote:

luvsports! wrote:

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!

You understand the premise of 'Innocent till proven guilty', correct?

I'm sure Pistorius is understands it very well.

laverfan wrote:

luvsports! wrote:

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!

You understand the premise of 'Innocent till proven guilty', correct?

Told you! They are proven guilty. Facts do not lie! Enough evidence.

At teh last Olympics Marathon, the top 3 athletes were separated by 1.5mn...that about 1% of to run a marathon....it's also roughly 1% that separates the 100m racers. You can imagine that if one of those marathonian had covered a marathon 2 days before he woudl not be ablt to stay with the other 2....more so if he covered 20% more ground each time...



....yet in tennis no-one suspects!!!! Well some do the rest want to believe the hype.

Tenez wrote: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.

A player always has a choice. Do all players only play a specific player X throughout their respective careers?

Tenez wrote: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?

Djokovic took 48 seconds (according to ATP broadcast) yet argued with Bernardes that he was at the line? Djokovic is at the top, correct?

Here is another take on the time-between-points issue - https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=woUp5TTHybQ - Start watching at time 38:15, and then we can discuss the 20/25 second rule.

Tenez wrote: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.

One player does not make the tour, does he?

Watch this - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubmmOPuuGYc

Tenez wrote: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.

Fair? I do not have to convince anyone of my fairness, including you. You are an anonymous poster on an internet forum.

laverfan wrote:
A player always has a choice. Do all players only play a specific player X throughout their respective careers?

The thing is in general we do not know nor care about those who made the right choice. After Nadal there was no choice but to become more physical to have a chance to get close to the top and this is why everybody talked about becoming fitter. In that respect there was NO choice. So as usual your "simple truth" comments are wrong.

luvsports! wrote:

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!

“I don’t understand why we never get to the bottom of these things. We need to clean everything up. I believe this doctor has worked with foreign athletes but because he is Spanish it is Spanish sport that is being prejudiced.
 “As an athlete that hurts me. Because of people like Lance Armstrong, we all have a dubious image.”

Using LA to justify a witch hunt is rather tragic. IMHO.

Tenez wrote:

laverfan wrote:
A player always has a choice. Do all players only play a specific player X throughout their respective careers?

The thing is in general we do not know nor care about those who made the right choice. After Nadal there was no choice but to become more physical to have a chance to get close to the top and this is why everybody talked about becoming fitter. In that respect there was NO choice. So as usual your "simple truth" comments are wrong.

So Borg, Lendl, Wilander were wrong too. And Nadal is the evil personification of Satan.

laverfan wrote:

Djokovic took 48 seconds (according to ATP broadcast) yet argued with Bernardes that he was at the line? Djokovic is at the top, correct?

You are calling someone's bluff here, because some of us did see the match and we know that 48 seconds shown on the screen included 25+ seconds as well as Bernardes talking to Djokovic. The clock with 48 seconds was shown after Novak went back from talking to Bernardes back to the serving position.

LF, since you are into fairness, do you think it was "fair" to tennis and players when TDs (and whoever else) decided to slow down courts in order to give Nadal the chance to reach finals on anything other than clay i order to create "Fedal"?
How fairly treated do you think the rest of players at IW 2013 must have felt knowing Nadal stayed in Ellison's house, as well as had a specially designed slow court for him?

laverfan wrote:One player does not make the tour, does he?

Watch this - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubmmOPuuGYc

I am glad you pointed that rally. you give me the amunition to kill off your arguments (though I know you will not want to admit it). This rally exactly shows the difference there is between tennis then and tennis now...though Hewitt was certainly a leader in physical tennis and PE substances.

As yuo can see in this point, the first 10 rallies Federer simply do not move, they stay on the same half of the court pushing the ball pack. I can do that. Though Luxilon was out, players did not know how to best exploit the benefit of those strings. They used them to keep the ball in court as opposed to now topspinning like crazy with angles forcing the runing right and left. Both the running and power needed to spin the ball is 3 or 4 times more exhausting that the rallies we see here.

Besides, this is an exceptional point of Federer. He woudl typically finish the point much earlier, but decides to test Hewitt on one point to send a message but certainly not to play all the points like that.

So once again, you make a not very helpful point with an isolates (tennis) point.

At teh last Olympics Marathon, the top 3 athletes were separated by 1.5mn...that about 1% of to run a marathon....it's also roughly 1% that separates the 100m racers. You can imagine that if one of those marathonian had covered a marathon 2 days before he woudl not be ablt to stay with the other 2....more so if he covered 20% more ground each time...



....yet in tennis no-one suspects!!!! Well some do the rest want to believe the hype.

Interesting comments Tenez..it just reminded me of the time I once met Bruce Fordyce and Josiah Thugwane back in S.A
I was quite young at the time and obviously didnt even have a clue about doping etc but it was really interesting hearing what they had to say,both claimed that a marathon runner couldnt run more then 3-4 marathons a year,thats obviously spread out over 12 months,proving that it would be impossible to run one virtually back to back
I'd bet my life on the fact that Fordyce has far more credibility then Laverfan having won S.A's Comerades marathon a record 9 times...same goes for Josiah Thugwane who the gold medal for the marathon in the 1996 summer games

laverfan wrote:“I don’t understand why we never get to the bottom of these things. We need to clean everything up. I believe this doctor has worked with foreign athletes but because he is Spanish it is Spanish sport that is being prejudiced.
 “As an athlete that hurts me. Because of people like Lance Armstrong, we all have a dubious image.”

Using LA to justify a witch hunt is rather tragic. IMHO.

Ney....Nadal is wrong once again. Not all of them have dubious images. No-one woudl have raised a doiping question regarding Llodra. And even When Federer was at his best, doping or not doping people were not talking about him in doping terms cause they could clearly see that Federer had weapons which were not lung related like we can all see that Nadal is dubious....well more than dubious.

Veejay wrote:

At teh last Olympics Marathon, the top 3 athletes were separated by 1.5mn...that about 1% of to run a marathon....it's also roughly 1% that separates the 100m racers. You can imagine that if one of those marathonian had covered a marathon 2 days before he woudl not be ablt to stay with the other 2....more so if he covered 20% more ground each time...



....yet in tennis no-one suspects!!!! Well some do the rest want to believe the hype.

Interesting comments Tenez..it just reminded me of the time I once met Bruce Fordyce and Josiah Thugwane back in S.A
I was quite young at the time and obviously didnt even have a clue about doping etc but it was really interesting hearing what they had to say,both claimed that a marathon runner couldnt run more then 3-4 marathons a year,thats obviously spread out over 12 months,proving that it would be impossible to run one virtually back to back
I'd bet my life on the fact that Fordyce has far more credibility then Laverfan having won S.A's Comerades marathon a record 9 times...same goes for Josiah Thugwane who the gold medal for the marathon in the 1996 summer games

Yes, not surprise those guys were saying that. Back then we knew better what were the physiological limits. Nowadays science dictates what can be done.

noleisthebest wrote:LF, since you are into fairness, do you think it was "fair" to tennis and players when TDs (and whoever else) decided to slow down courts in order to give Nadal the chance to reach finals on anything other than clay i order to create "Fedal"?

I have argued for variety, balance of court speeds for fairness. I would love to see a Grass Masters.

noleisthebest wrote:How fairly treated do you think the rest of players at IW 2013 must have felt knowing Nadal stayed in Ellison's house, as well as had a specially designed slow court for him?

This is a benefit of knowing Larry. Larry, with his money, has become a 'collector' of 'trophies'. Nadal is a such a trophy. I am sure it would have been offered to others, who may or may not have agreed to follow through.

There is a certain amount of 'greed' or 'value' that is attached to players.

Dubai, for example, has resisted slowing their courts, because of Federer's second home being Dubai. I actually like that fact that they have stood up to ATP, and they have big money, that ATP wants to stay on tour. Nadal has rarely played in Dubai (effectively stopping after 2008). Djokovic, otoh, likes playing Federer and fast courts, as he does Basel.

I dislike (perhaps a bit too strong a word) IW/Miami because (to quote someone) it is slow as sh*t.

In fact, if there was greater variety, I think the current Top 4, would have adjusted their games accordingly. Nadal did play Miami and Dubai, when they were faster, early on. TDs do have a say in it. Rotterdam had Murray v Nadal and had Federer v Del Po. I am not sure why Krajicek elected to get a slower court.

If I recall, Davydenko, at one point was miffed, when he being at #3, was given less attention, than say Fedal. He was never very vociferous about it though.

I used to watch Tennis on Wood with likes of Pancho, Laver, Rosewall, so I like good shotmaking. If Federer says Nadal is unique, I would say Federer is unique as well. I may never see another like him in my lifetime. I am glad he is versatile and he has become an excellent BL from an SV player back in 2001.

Nadal, likewise, is changing towards shorter points, otherwise, it would result in premature retirement. Djokovic, from a fast HC, to slow HC, can adapt as well, as can Murray.

Would I like to see more variety of styles, you betcha!

Tenez wrote:

laverfan wrote:One player does not make the tour, does he?

Watch this - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubmmOPuuGYc

I am glad you pointed that rally. you give me the amunition to kill off your arguments (though I know you will not want to admit it). This rally exactly shows the difference there is between tennis then and tennis now...though Hewitt was certainly a leader in physical tennis and PE substances.

As yuo can see in this point, the first 10 rallies Federer simply do not move, they stay on the same half of the court pushing the ball pack. I can do that. Though Luxilon was out, players did not know how to best exploit the benefit of those strings. They used them to keep the ball in court as opposed to now topspinning like crazy with angles forcing the runing right and left. Both the running and power needed to spin the ball is 3 or 4 times more exhausting that the rallies we see here.

Besides, this is an exceptional point of Federer. He woudl typically finish the point much earlier, but decides to test Hewitt on one point to send a message but certainly not to play all the points like that.

So once again, you make a not very helpful point with an isolates (tennis) point.

Please count the number of shots at the BP in the first game.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSWmv8Wo9J0

laverfan wrote:

luvsports! wrote:

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!

You understand the premise of 'Innocent till proven guilty', correct?

Is that really necessary?
Generally I am suspicious of players and with some players I think they are on drugs, but I don't state they are.

You still sound like one of those lance defenders. He wasn't caught for a decade (unless you count the retrospective testing or the tour of suisse positive that was hushed up by the UCI in 01) but look what happened to him.

Do you still think usada is the worst? Why do you think this? Personally I admire tygart but can only comment in regards to cycling.

Tenez wrote:

laverfan wrote:“I don’t understand why we never get to the bottom of these things. We need to clean everything up. I believe this doctor has worked with foreign athletes but because he is Spanish it is Spanish sport that is being prejudiced.
 “As an athlete that hurts me. Because of people like Lance Armstrong, we all have a dubious image.”

Using LA to justify a witch hunt is rather tragic. IMHO.

Ney....Nadal is wrong once again. Not all of them have dubious images. No-one woudl have raised a doiping question regarding Llodra. And even When Federer was at his best, doping or not doping people were not talking about him in doping terms cause they could clearly see that Federer had weapons which were not lung related like we can all see that Nadal is dubious....well more than dubious.

I need to talk to Canas and Falla. .

luvsports! wrote:Generally I am suspicious of players and with some players I think they are on drugs, but I don't state they are.

For players who have made Tennis their career, they are very good athletes, and train very hard. It is a disservice to suspect. If the powers-be are not doing their jobs, it is rather sad. I am not very fond of TdF like endurance sport.

luvsports! wrote:You still sound like one of those lance defenders. He wasn't caught for a decade (unless you count the retrospective testing or the tour of suisse positive that was hushed up by the UCI in 01) but look what happened to him.

The French did all the leg work for Tygart. He deserves zero credit. Putting the legal case together with TH, Landis, et al, was the easier part, perhaps a lot of paperwork.

luvsports! wrote:Do you still think usada is the worst? Why do you think this? Personally I admire tygart but can only comment in regards to cycling.

You do realise that they allowed athletes to participate in O 2012, who should not have been there? Past cases, MLB scandals, NFL scandals just point to overall incompetence.

laverfan wrote:

luvsports! wrote:

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!

“I don’t understand why we never get to the bottom of these things. We need to clean everything up. I believe this doctor has worked with foreign athletes but because he is Spanish it is Spanish sport that is being prejudiced.
 “As an athlete that hurts me. Because of people like Lance Armstrong, we all have a dubious image.”

Using LA to justify a witch hunt is rather tragic. IMHO.

How on earth is being a "witch hunt" the same as being suspicious of athletes?

I have said before I do not share the views with everyone else who is further down the line ok?

Marathon Runs (Steady Long Distance Running) == Tennis (Short Sprints).

Fascinating.

Perhaps Bolt should participate in Rio 2016 Marathon.

luvsports! wrote:How on earth is being a "witch hunt" the same as being suspicious of athletes?

So how many of the current Top 100 Tennis ATP players do you suspect?

luvsports! wrote:I have said before I do not share the views with everyone else who is further down the line ok?

Very glad that some common sense prevails.

laverfan wrote:Marathon Runs (Steady Long Distance Running) == Tennis (Short Sprints).

Fascinating.

Perhaps Bolt should participate in Rio 2016 Marathon.

YAWN.....I believe we already covered that in dept here...

https://ourtennisforum.forumotion.co.uk/t19-the-doping-program-joke-of-the-itf

[quote="Veejay"]

laverfan wrote:Marathon Runs (Steady Long Distance Running) == Tennis (Short Sprints).

Fascinating.

Perhaps Bolt should participate in Rio 2016 Marathon.

YAWN.....I believe we already covered that in dept here...

https://ourtennisforum.forumotion.co.uk/t19-the-doping-program-joke-of-the-itf[/quote]

Yep typical of a no substance response from LF to dismiss real physiological data. The do sprint in marathons too..even after covering the 42km and they can jog at tennis too like in this clip of hewitt/federer.

laverfan wrote:

luvsports! wrote:Generally I am suspicious of players and with some players I think they are on drugs, but I don't state they are.

For players who have made Tennis their career, they are very good athletes, and train very hard. It is a disservice to suspect. If the powers-be are not doing their jobs, it is rather sad. I am not very fond of TdF like endurance sport.

luvsports! wrote:You still sound like one of those lance defenders. He wasn't caught for a decade (unless you count the retrospective testing or the tour of suisse positive that was hushed up by the UCI in 01) but look what happened to him.

The French did all the leg work for Tygart. He deserves zero credit. Putting the legal case together with TH, Landis, et al, was the easier part, perhaps a lot of paperwork.

luvsports! wrote:Do you still think usada is the worst? Why do you think this? Personally I admire tygart but can only comment in regards to cycling.

You do realise that they allowed athletes to participate in O 2012, who should not have been there? Past cases, MLB scandals, NFL scandals just point to overall incompetence.

Im sorry so my opinion doesn't count and yours does? Doping is doping. If I see a rider making huge gains with increases to power/watt ratio, hematocrit, vo2max, cadence, climbing and tt ability, i will be suspicious, very much so if I see rapid gains from someone who was a mediocre player into a top 10 or someone who went from a host of retirements into the fittest athlete in the game, i am suspicious, OK???
You are not very fond, which would lead some to believe that you don't follow the sport and therefore your views may not be entirely correct or biased.

I'm sorry but that is simply not true, yes the afld helped massively but to say he deserves no credit is a joke. They did retrospective testing on lance's old samples and compiled a 1000 page report. Tygart received death threats, did you know this? Because it appears that you seem to have a vendetta against the USADA, and there are so many org's so much worse than this e.g. UCI.

Do you realise that occurs in a plethora of sports and ngo's? No LF there is something else there and I am intrigued to find out what.

laverfan wrote:

luvsports! wrote:How on earth is being a "witch hunt" the same as being suspicious of athletes?

So how many of the current Top 100 Tennis ATP players do you suspect?

luvsports! wrote:I have said before I do not share the views with everyone else who is further down the line ok?

Very glad that some common sense prevails.

SO you mean when you stopped jumping to conclusions and making false accusations without apologising, now MY common sense has prevailed?
Is there a need for that LF? seriously? It doesn't help anything.

Veejay wrote:

laverfan wrote:Marathon Runs (Steady Long Distance Running) == Tennis (Short Sprints).

Fascinating.

Perhaps Bolt should participate in Rio 2016 Marathon.

YAWN.....I believe we already covered that in dept here...

https://ourtennisforum.forumotion.co.uk/t19-the-doping-program-joke-of-the-itf

I notice re-reading old threads does clear cob-webs and address some aspects of writer's block. Good to see regurgitating old material is the modus operandi.

.

luvsports! wrote:Im sorry so my opinion doesn't count and yours does? Doping is doping. If I see a rider making huge gains with increases to power/watt ratio, hematocrit, vo2max, cadence, climbing and tt ability, i will be suspicious, very much so if I see rapid gains from someone who was a mediocre player into a top 10 or someone who went from a host of retirements into the fittest athlete in the game, i am suspicious, OK???

You opinion counts towards what specifically? I am not sure your opinion is being discarded. We are discussing it correct? If a rider makes slower gains, he/she is less of a suspect?

luvsports! wrote:You are not very fond, which would lead some to believe that you don't follow the sport and therefore your views may not be entirely correct or biased.

I am going by past history of USADA, in a non-sport specific manner. My opinion is not Cycling-driven.

luvsports! wrote:I'm sorry but that is simply not true, yes the afld helped massively but to say he deserves no credit is a joke. They did retrospective testing on lance's old samples and compiled a 1000 page report. Tygart received death threats, did you know this?

Fuentes also received death threats. How is Tygart very different from Fuentes? Retrospective testing was a confirmatory test rather than initial discovery which, IMO requires much more leg-work.

luvsports! wrote:Because it appears that you seem to have a vendetta against the USADA, and there are so many org's so much worse than this e.g. UCI.

Do you realise that occurs in a plethora of sports and ngo's? No LF there is something else there and I am intrigued to find out what.

I do not have a vendetta against USADA. The political will to be truly independent of pressures and want to clean sports in general is where I see a lack of commitment. Why did US Congress get involved if USADA was producing results?

Tenez wrote:Yep typical of a no substance response from LF to dismiss real physiological data. The do sprint in marathons too..even after covering the 42km and they can jog at tennis too like in this clip of hewitt/federer.

How many times do marathon runners go sit down for 20/25 seconds and wipe their brow with towels after a couple of steps?

Can you post your real physiological data here instead of dubious claims like player X is doping?

AO 2009 v AO 2012 - with a rational explanation? Do you want to tackle it with real physiological data?

As NITB claims (and Tipsy corroborates) since Murray is the fittest on the tour, and Tsonga (under Rashad - recall Monfils) is a fitness fanatic himself, let us see how a 30+yo's real physiological data stacks up for these two matches?

Q Jo-Wilfried Tsonga (FRA) 8 W 7-6(4), 4-6, 7-6(4), 3-6, 6-3 (333 points in 214 minutes - very fast - http://www.atpworldtour.com/Share/Match-Facts-Pop-Up.aspx?t=580&y=2013&r=5&p=F324)
S Andy Murray (GBR) 3 L 4-6, 7-6(5), 3-6, 7-6(2), 2-6 (328 points in 240 minutes - very fast again - http://www.atpworldtour.com/Share/Match-Facts-Pop-Up.aspx?t=580&y=2013&r=6&p=F324)

laverfan wrote: As NITB claims (and Tipsy corroborates) since Murray is the fittest on the tour, and Tsonga (under Rashad - recall Monfils) is a fitness fanatic himself, let us see how a 30+yo's real physiological data stacks up for these two matches?

I didn't claim anything, just said what Tipsarevic mentioned in order to illustrate the ridiculousness of today's tennis where pros compliment each other on fitness rather than shot-making or game.

Personally, I think Nadal is the fittest and has the best stamina, i fact he has the best ratio/combination of strength, fitness and stamina.
Nole is super fit and has great stamina but is not as strong.

Murray is very fit, strong but does not have great stamina.

laverfan wrote:

Veejay wrote:

laverfan wrote:Marathon Runs (Steady Long Distance Running) == Tennis (Short Sprints).

Fascinating.

Perhaps Bolt should participate in Rio 2016 Marathon.

YAWN.....I believe we already covered that in dept here...

https://ourtennisforum.forumotion.co.uk/t19-the-doping-program-joke-of-the-itf

I notice re-reading old threads does clear cob-webs and address some aspects of writer's block. Good to see regurgitating old material is the modus operandi.

.

Like regurgitating the same old lame questions...ahhh...I am getting the jest of it now..you (like Amri) have too much time on your hands

Veejay wrote:Like regurgitating the same old lame questions...ahhh...I am getting the jest of it now..you (like Amri) have too much time on your hands

Personal attacks are so passe, Vee. You need to come up with something creative.

noleisthebest wrote:

laverfan wrote: As NITB claims (and Tipsy corroborates) since Murray is the fittest on the tour, and Tsonga (under Rashad - recall Monfils) is a fitness fanatic himself, let us see how a 30+yo's real physiological data stacks up for these two matches?

I didn't claim anything, just said what Tipsarevic mentioned in order to illustrate the ridiculousness of today's tennis where pros compliment each other on fitness rather than shot-making or game.

Personally, I think Nadal is the fittest and has the best stamina, i fact he has the best ratio/combination of strength, fitness and stamina.
Nole is super fit and has great stamina but is not as strong.

Murray is very fit, strong but does not have great stamina.

It was as ridiculous in 1974 as in 1987 as in 2012.

As they did in the days of Lendl - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/tennis/andymurray/8987499/Andy-Murrays-new-coach-Ivan-Lendl-demanded-fitness-as-a-player-and-may-expect-the-same-as-a-coach.html

laverfan wrote:

Veejay wrote:Like regurgitating the same old lame questions...ahhh...I am getting the jest of it now..you (like Amri) have too much time on your hands

Personal attacks are so passe, Vee. You need to come up with something creative.

You should look in the mirror and tell yourself that,your little digs are becoming as stale and old as the same questions you've been asking all your life..

.

wilson_nxt wrote:Strength and stamina will only get you so far though. He's no Federer, neither he is a Nadal either - both are shotmakers at crunch moments, Murray wins by truly grinding away in a Ferrer-Plus kind of way.
He's storing up injury issues with all that weight on that size of frame. Happened to Mecir, may happen to Murray.

If you look at Federer's frame in 2004-2006 and the muscle he carried vs what he has now, Murray may similarly 'shed' to become a leaner player, but his knee issues, like Nadal's are going to be harder to address.

Ferrer, for a 30+ yo, has really maintained himself very well physically. At least he is unlike Simon.

PS: ￡100+ Million is not too shabby, IMHO, is it? - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2201250/Andy-Murray-set-earn-100m-US-Open-triumph--celebrates-just-soft-drink.html

wilson_nxt wrote:Strength and stamina will only get you so far though. He's no Federer, neither he is a Nadal either - both are shotmakers at crunch moments, Murray wins by truly grinding away in a Ferrer-Plus kind of way.
He's storing up injury issues with all that weight on that size of frame. Happened to Mecir, may happen to Murray.

I disagree. Nadal is built for teh distance. Murray is not but trying hard to and this is why he cannot grind as much. PLus if you see Murray v Nadal, teh attacker is actually Murray, not Nadal. That was the case in the past. Clearly teh new 25s rule has turned Nadal into a bit aggressive version. Though as I mentioned, that played in his opponents hands and only after throwing a few long rallies in that 2set IW final and Delpo tiring with shorter length that Nadal really started to feel confident and attack.

Typical of Nadal to absorb while making sure his opponent does his share of running and then making the most of weaker shorter balls coming at him as he can go on for ever at the same pace.

laverfan wrote:
If you look at Federer's frame in 2004-2006 and the muscle he carried vs what he has now,

??? what's teh difference? if anything he is a bit bigger nowadays as you woudl expect with age.

Tenez wrote:Typical of Nadal to absorb while making sure his opponent does his share of running and then making the most of weaker shorter balls coming at him as he can go on for ever at the same pace.

Grind, pulverize, atomise, destroy, conquer, win.

Tenez wrote:

laverfan wrote:
If you look at Federer's frame in 2004-2006 and the muscle he carried vs what he has now,

??? what's teh difference? if anything he is a bit bigger nowadays as you woudl expect with age.

Just watch TMC 2005 v Nalbandian or TMC 2006 v Blake.

LF, it appears that v2 tennis section is in some kind of trouble and under thread of closing down. Please feel free to recommend our lovely forum to people there

noleisthebest wrote:LF, it appears that v2 tennis section is in some kind of trouble and under thread of closing down. Please feel free to recommend our lovely forum to people there

Let v2 survive on it's own merit. Let posters make their own choices.

laverfan wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:LF, it appears that v2 tennis section is in some kind of trouble and under thread of closing down. Please feel free to recommend our lovely forum to people there

Let v2 survive on it's own merit. Let posters make their own choices.

Sure, I just thought you could make them aware we exist here, a lot of them there don't know about OTF. As you can see, we don't eat people here

noleisthebest wrote:

laverfan wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:LF, it appears that v2 tennis section is in some kind of trouble and under thread of closing down. Please feel free to recommend our lovely forum to people there

Let v2 survive on it's own merit. Let posters make their own choices.

Sure, I just thought you could make them aware we exist here, a lot of them there don't know about OTF. As you can see, we don't eat people here

They already know of the existence of this forum.

Yes, most posters who post on 606v2 tennis section know about this forum.

[/quote] You opinion counts towards what specifically? I am not sure your opinion is being discarded. We are discussing it correct? If a rider makes slower gains, he/she is less of a suspect?

I am going by past history of USADA, in a non-sport specific manner. My opinion is not Cycling-driven.

Fuentes also received death threats. How is Tygart very different from Fuentes? Retrospective testing was a confirmatory test rather than initial discovery which, IMO requires much more leg-work.

I do not have a vendetta against USADA. The political will to be truly independent of pressures and want to clean sports in general is where I see a lack of commitment. Why did US Congress get involved if USADA was producing results?[/quote]

It did when you were talking down to me.
Gains in what sense? You have to be specific.

So your past opinion may be dated no? If your opinion is not cycling driven then maybe you may not be in the know as much and may not realise the work they have done in comparison to wada and the UCI?

You are comparing are doctor who for his own personal gain, chose to fund uneducated cyclists, that pumped at times lethal drugs into their bodies, potentially causing deaths (ala manzano)? Has Tygart endangered lives? Or is that the comparison we make, if someone has had death threats?

At least usada is a more independent entity (although i don't believe you can be completely independent) than many other org's.

luvsports! wrote:It did when you were talking down to me.

I was not talking down to you.

luvsports! wrote:Gains in what sense? You have to be specific.

If a cyclist does not win 7 TdFs, but just wins say a couple across a span of 15 years and does have low-key performances, say compared to LA, would he be suspected less than, say LA? Landis seems to fit this profile. His tests were first made in France, but were transferred to USADA. So French did the legwork here, yet again.

luvsports! wrote:So your past opinion may be dated no? If your opinion is not cycling driven then maybe you may not be in the know as much and may not realise the work they have done in comparison to wada and the UCI?

They have to do it for the survival of the sport's image. If Tennis found Nadal, Djokovic, Murray and Federer doping, guess what happens to Tennis worldwide. Is it not the same UCI that took donations from LA?

luvsports! wrote:You are comparing are doctor who for his own personal gain, chose to fund uneducated cyclists, that pumped at times lethal drugs into their bodies, potentially causing deaths (ala manzano)? Has Tygart endangered lives? Or is that the comparison we make, if someone has had death threats?

At least usada is a more independent entity (although i don't believe you can be completely independent) than many other org's.

I am just looking at one common factor. Tygart had BALCO under his nose, which continued to provide assistance unabated. What does it say about USADA?

I understand they are fighting a tough battle, but there are larger socio-economic issues specifically within US. You understand the northern Mexico territorial gang wars are primarily for drug supply into the US. Tony Galea was supplying from across the border to NFL for a long time. Bonds and McGwire were heroes, before the bust. I am not suggesting Tygart is personally responsible, but heading an organization which plays a critical role in clean sport.

I also dislike the Spanish hiding behind the pre-2006 laws to avoid a larger trial, perhaps because there is a fear. Perhaps Tygart does not really want to bring down US sport, like the Spanish may not want to bring down theirs. The tacit participation (by promulgating weak laws) by state governments is tantamount to state-run doping programs, IMVHO, akin to East German and Chinese programs.

I would even consider not scheduling TdF for the next five years and let UCI clean house. I wonder how much revenue loss the French would have to face for it.

Do you have financial impact numbers for such an event?

landis does not fit the profile. Did you see that 2006 tour?
The whole usp team were on it for a long time. Many played the role of domestiques and were not given leadership roles so their progress is harder to distinguish as they had to bury themselves for their leader.

I know all that, that is obvious. Of course it isn't in their best interests to come clean about drugs.

Balco began in 2002 correct? Tygart joined usada later that year and then only became CEO in 07, he again received death threats.

You said he deserves no credit and now it seems you are changing your tune by saying he is not personally responsible.

Taking out the tdf?? ARE YOU MAD!??! That would achieve nothing at all. You would bankrupt the ASO and the sport, that is an awful suggestion.
I don't think you understand how bad the UCI are. They cannot be trusted to do anything apart from build the omerta further still and increase the mess the sport is in.

I do.

luvsports! wrote:I don't think you understand how bad the UCI are. They cannot be trusted to do anything apart from build the omerta further still and increase the mess the sport is in.

Yes but unfortunately no much different than most sport organisations....and ATP/ITF/WTA are probably amongst the worst as they are so much behind anti-doping and wanted to remain that way.

Problem is they do not care about athletes doping or not cause they know they cannot quite fight it so their aim is to be able to wash their hands of it while of course being completely focused on revenue.

Tenez wrote:

luvsports! wrote:I don't think you understand how bad the UCI are. They cannot be trusted to do anything apart from build the omerta further still and increase the mess the sport is in.

Yes but unfortunately no much different than most sport organisations....and ATP/ITF/WTA are probably amongst the worst as they are so much behind anti-doping and wanted to remain that way.

I think Luvsports would naturally have that opinion knowing a lot more about cycling and in comparison to someone who would know more about the tennis world then the cycling world
Its impossible to say who is worse or how bad they really are,crime runs openly rife in one sport while organised crime runs rife in the other
The cycling world has had so many scandals,but then again tennis could have just as many taking various rumours into consideration,
Its scary when looking at both,you look at the scandals in cycling-how much worse could it potentially be if they are still trying to cover things up after everything thats already been exposed,and with regards to tennis,well you just dont even have a clue,but theres enough bizarre events to suggest its pretty bad
Truth is,where ever large amounts of money is involved,theres usually a lot of corruption

luvsports! wrote: Tygart joined usada later that year and then only became CEO in 07, he again received death threats.

So 11 years. When did Dick Pound join WADA?

luvsports! wrote:You said he deserves no credit and now it seems you are changing your tune by saying he is not personally responsible.

I am giving him the benefit of the doubt. Six years as CEO. How many more years does he need?

luvsports! wrote:Taking out the tdf?? ARE YOU MAD!??! That would achieve nothing at all. You would bankrupt the ASO and the sport, that is an awful suggestion. I don't think you understand how bad the UCI are. They cannot be trusted to do anything apart from build the omerta further still and increase the mess the sport is in.

I do.

Yet UCI controls cycling. Why?