Is elite tennis now just a case of last man standing?

Tennis has become steadily more gladiatorial and it is losing a lot of quality because of the ‘last man standing’ nature of the matches at the highest level.

Many of the ATP finals are about one player outlasting another, and the concept of pure tennis does not come into it, sadly. It is a great shame that players have to concentrate all of their efforts on simply surviving physically.

A classic example was at the Miami Masters when the final between Andy Murray and David Ferrer simply came down to conditioning and the two players taking themselves to their limits in terms of fitness.

I am a Murray fan, but it was not great tennis: it was an error-strewn contest decided by the Brit’s astonishing levels of fitness and strength; it was a difficult match to watch with two players giving absolutely everything in tough conditions.

Novak Djokovic and Murray are the top two players in the world right now because they are fitter than anyone else and can outlast their opponents under all sorts of difficult situations and in testing match after testing match.

Rafael Nadal has relied upon his superior intensity and fitness levels for a long time at the top of the game, and his strength and power continues to see him thrive despite a spate of long-term injury problems.

But is this all we want from the game that we love? Do we just want to see marathon finals decided by one player outlasting another?

I am far from the biggest purist, but I sometimes despair when I see this survival tennis becoming such a theme in the modern game.

The last couple of tournaments in Indian Wells and Miami have left me increasingly concerned for the future of the sport, with American TV networks even cutting away from matches because of their seemingly endless plodding.

There has to be a solution, however, and I believe that it is to quicken up the courts – to shorten the rallies and to restore the game to be focusing primarily upon shot-making and not purely on fitness levels.

The sport is fast becoming a question of ultra fit players slogging it out on desperately slow courts, and the benchmark of a so-called good match is how long it lasted. This has to change, because spectators and TV networks are fast losing interest.

The courts at Indian Wells and Miami were shockingly slow, and this is becoming an issue across the board. Even at Wimbledon, the courts are slower by the year and that is not conducive to pure, attacking tennis.

No one wants to see consistently defensive play from the top players, and the issue of fitness should be a secondary aspect behind the quality of the shots that are produced at the top level. After all, why do we watch tennis if it is not to admire the play of the best in the world?

The talent is being taken away from the tennis, and incredibly gifted shot-makers are being crushed due to them not having enough strength or stamina – we will never again see a young player burst onto the scene in an exciting way because of how difficult it is to compete physically. An immensely talented player such as Grigor Dimitrov has not had a sniff of a Grand Slam, whereas in other eras perhaps he could have stunned the world.

The players have to put so much into matches that it is impossible for them to maintain such a high intensity throughout the season – this means that there are always going to be very serious blips in form and drops in quality. It has to be a real concern.

Tennis at the very highest level has totally changed, even in the last five years, and it is far too attritional now. We want to see the very best of the top players, and the courts and the approach has to change, because the game is only going in one direction.


One would think I wrote that 3 years ago....but I did not. All the above is from comical Simon Reed waking up to what tennis is many years after tennis fans. Give him another 3 years and he will question the substances helping those last ones standing.

It's all coming out now : During the match, Roddick, Karlovic, Darren Cahill and others tweeted:

================================================

ARod: I've seen everything now.... David ferrer cramping. I thought they would find Hoffa first
ARod: Conditions too slow...Guys dying playing 3 sets. So slow. Makes it impossible to hit winners which results in messed up winners/errors ratio

Karlovic: Men and women play with different balls. Men much slower balls...
Karlovic: Court and balls in Miami are too slow to play entertaining tennis. There is no winners, just unforced errors.
Karlovic: Playing on clay this week. Finally some faster courts..

Cahill: I take that 5 set final idea back. 3 sets of that style of tennis on these slow hard-courts is plenty. Well done to Muzza

Gilbert: Great effort from the Muzzard to get it done Winning Ugly
Gilbert: I have never seen Little beast Ferrerrr cramp in a 3 set match

Sergiy Stakhovsky : Ferrer & Murray both 0 aces in 3 sets..does that says something about the speed of the court & balls???

=======================================

But the funniest is Lydian complaining about it on v2 after kicking me out and then say what I had been saying since 2007. But don;t be fooled, he is only complaining now cause those courts are not helping Nadal beat Federer anymore, they will see better players make Nadal look average. Lydian woudl have never complained, and never did, when the most talented player ever, one in a century, was outlasted on the slowest courts but dodgy fitness. It's just that Lydian the fan now is sad to see his protege missing some tournaments and being possibly outlasted by fitter ones.

Thanks,T.
At last, the mystery has been solved: Simon Reed is Mickey!
He should at least show some manners and come and thank you here for all the fantastic insights you have been providing him with!

Interesting, and a bit surprising (I think I must'vegiven up on tennis world) to see those tweets...
All brave now, but where were they in 2009 and 2010?
Surely, they all knew what was going on...

Yes, the tweets are quite funny. But it will take them another few years to reaslise the strings are really to blame there. A good server can still pull some good serves with nat strings but returners woudl be a big disadvantage...even on those slow conds.

Lydian has always argued this Tenez...

I knew Lydian well from old 606, and when he was on MTL, and now on v2- and his arguments haven't changed.

No one is calling for faster courts all across the tour, what Lydian is arguing (and many others) is that we should have variety in speeds across the tour as it makes things more interesting.
According to you slow courts helps Nadal- so why on earth would Lydian be calling for less slow courts to help Nadal? Contradiction.

Larry Ellison wrote:Lydian has always argued this Tenez...

I knew Lydian well from old 606, and when he was on MTL, and now on v2- and his arguments haven't changed.

No one is calling for faster courts all across the tour, what Lydian is arguing (and many others) is that we should have variety in speeds across the tour as it makes things more interesting.
According to you slow courts helps Nadal- so why on earth would Lydian be calling for less slow courts to help Nadal? Contradiction.

Don;t tell me what Lydian argued about. I was the one arguing with him way before V2!!!

I was told about Talent all along when I was the one stressing on fitness. Here in this article Simon finally acknowledges that the physicality takes away teh talent side.

So it;s a bit rich to hear now that you finally all agree to that.

Tenez wrote:Yes, the tweets are quite funny. But it will take them another few years to reaslise the strings are really to blame there. A good server can still pull some good serves with nat strings but returners woudl be a big disadvantage...even on those slow conds.

I think they are all aware of the effect of strings.
I posted a video of Courier talk about it a while ago, but nobody picked up on it.

At the moment, I am extremely puzzled why everyone is brave to talk aboutit all of a sudden?

Especially Gilbert, what a joke!

But maybe you're right and not even players have a clue...
How else can you explain Murray's super stupid comment that slow conditions help longevity of players.....

Having said all this, it's good that at least people have started to talk about it...

I have always been growing this little hope that people who truly love tennis won't let it die.

You did mention that changing balls could countereffect the strings ... better than nothing!
Just hope at least one clay TD has (natural) guts to do something about it!

Yes, faster balls will mean less time to inject spin, less spiny means easier to time fand hit flat for the attacking players which will increase pace even more. With today's balls size, the pace on the baseline is very different than the pace 4m behind and that is what gives teh retrievers a big advantage.

I suppose when you have big muscles you don't even notice the weight of the ball ...I hate it when they get heavy from drizzle...

Another thing that Simon says here is that it;s the physicality of the sport that prevents younger players to succeed early in their career like they did in the past. It was those young players who were pushing out and down the 27 yo peak players off the top spot and shortening their careers. So unlike what SB says, if I understood correctly, it's actually the physicality of the game that gives those players a longer life and not the fact they are past their best at 27. There SB gets it plain wrong.

Yes, that was his best point.

I noticed that Dimitrov and Raonic both understood that well and changed their game from pure attacking to baselining now (with attacking as the main idea still) , and that really upset me!

You can't blame them, though.

Same happened to a lot of players long time ago, but now that Federer is out of the picture in most finals, there is nobody to provede beauty on the court and tennis world is finally beginning to work out why!!!

Also, physicality covers up for lack of talent. Tennis academies - ball-bashing factories must be rubbing their hands at the prospect of roaring trade!

I've managed to re-dig Courier's interview on modern strings technology:

http://www.tennis.com/gear/2012/09/gear-talk-jim-courier-part-1/39342/#.UVw0qxm0b
http://www.tennis.com/gear/2012/09/gear-talk-jim-courier-part-2/39355/#.UVw1aRm0bgq

noleisthebest wrote:I've managed to re-dig Courier's interview on modern strings technology:

http://www.tennis.com/gear/2012/09/gear-talk-jim-courier-part-1/39342/#.UVw0qxm0b
[url=http://www.tennis.com/gear/2012/09/gear-talk-jim-courier-part-2/39355/#.UVw1aRm0bgq

http://www.tennis.com/gear/2012/09/gear-talk-jim-courier-part-2/39355/#.UVw1aRm0bgq[/quote[/url]]

Excellent interview. He is spot on.

2 points where I think he is wrong:

- lighter balls are faster: That's not true....but not a big deal.

- when comparing small frame with larger ones: Though I agree Federer would certainly gain in adapting to larger frame, the smaller frames are simply more precise than bigger frames, especially on the serve. They lose their precision if you have to hit a fast moving ball as the sweetspot is smaller and therefore more difficult to time but there is nothing better than a small frame if you are having a good day....you feel you can paint the lines at will, whereas it;s harder to get that feel with a larger frame.

Haas made a comment on the topic, too in Miami:

"You look at some of the Tri-Athletes and Iron Man guys, they’re in their mid-30s and performing at the best, highest level. So I think what it comes down to is: The older you get, I assume you get wiser. You know, you just know what works best for you. When you’re 21, 22, 23, you’re still trying to get into your own body. Now with nutrition, the right training, the physios that you have. . . that’s why you see so many 30-year-olds now in the Top 100.”

If only it was that simple....

In a way I understand why someone can be still a very good athlete at 30-35 why I really don;t understand though is how they can recover so well from th ematch the day before.

This is where I believe some nice substances are available. Most athletes had problems in the past playing day in day out. Having a day in between was crucial. It seems they can do without nowadays and this is where I am suspicious.

I admit even I had my suspicions in Rome 2011 final.

of your man????

How interesting: your “last man standing” notion matches the last release in Ruans
Federer Blog entitled: MIAMI ROUND-UP – MURRAY LAST MAN STANDING
http://ruansfedererblog.com/?p=5805,
although Ruan’s article does not go into the fitness issue to the extend you
did here.

Seems to me if the average tennis fan today is happy with gladiatorial exhibitions and impressed with the “intensity (read: sex appeal)” of a particularly popular player whose every movement is otherwise slow like molasses, I’m afraid we’re stuck with the trend of fitness
and mediocrity. For the time being, talent is passe.

luvsports! wrote:of your man????

Yes. He played a brutal QF against Bellucci, than an even more brutal SF against Murray. I thought he would be dead in the final. But he annihilated Nadal in straight sets.
That was 3 days in a row and the first time I was surprised with how he was able to play and beat Nadal. Actually the match against Nadal was probably physically less challenging than against Bellucci and Murray.
I think at that stage he seriously had Nadal under his thumb, having beaten him in Madrid on clay for the first time the week before.

I did not know this guy's blog.

That's a very daring article (below). Though I think very similar when it comes to doping in tennis, I think being a fedfan makes him look a bit partial on the matter. Fun reading though.

http://ruansfedererblog.com/?p=3628

I think there must have been lots of complaints which forced the implementation of the 25s rule.

Talent is certainly not sort the winners from the losers nowadays.

noleisthebest wrote:

luvsports! wrote:of your man????

Yes. He played a brutal QF against Bellucci, than an even more brutal SF against Murray. I thought he would be dead in the final. But he annihilated Nadal in straight sets.
That was 3 days in a row and the first time I was surprised with how he was able to play and beat Nadal. Actually the match against Nadal was probably physically less challenging than against Bellucci and Murray.
I think at that stage he seriously had Nadal under his thumb, having beaten him in Madrid on clay for the first time the week before.

you're getting mixed up with madrid. Madrid he beat qf ferrer 3 sets, sf bellucci 3 sets, then straight sets rafa (best bh show ive ever seen him do).
Rome he destroyed soderling 6-3 6-0 in qf's then murray in 3 and then nadal in 2.

So you actually think djoko takes drugs? I thought you resolutely stuck up for him, both in him not being defensive and not taking drugs.

I don't know whether he takes drugs or not as I don't know much about drugs nor which drugs would enable a player to last day in day out (as most of them seem to be able to anyway).
Even last year he looked different and not so enduring like against Nadal in 2011. This year even less so.
I'm glad he slayed the beast, though.
As for "defensive" not sure what you mean.

Tenez wrote:

That's a very daring article (below). Though I think very similar when it comes to doping in tennis, I think being a fedfan makes him look a bit partial on the matter. Fun reading though.

http://ruansfedererblog.com/?p=3628

I think there must have been lots of complaints which forced the implementation of the 25s rule.

Talent is certainly not sort the winners from the losers nowadays.

Thanks T, nice quiet time to review old articles.


“daring”

Daring is precisely the point. In the spirit of open-mindedness
and fairness, why should anyone be afraid to say that every player is suspect, even
Federer, for using some form of PEDs just to keep up with the new demands of “enhanced”
competition. I can’t understand for the life of me why the likes of Lydian,
amrit et al nadal fans still deny the obvious that nadal is key suspect because
he renders the most relevant and undeniable circumstantial evidence against
himself, so much as that he’s actually daring us to perceive him as a doper. Ruan’s
analysis is not without good reason. It’s no more daring than http://tennishasasteroidproblem.blogspot.com.es/2011/02/curious-case-of-rafael-nadal.html


“25 sec rule”
Funny it was enforced during nadal’s absent. Was there ever
a problem with time violation before he came to the scene?


“talent”
Do you think the masses go to a Madonna concert to hear her sing?

Agree on every point even on Ruan's doping article.

What surprised me however is that Ruan's blog seems almost like an offcial Federer blog, though obviously it's not.

I honestly cannot remember regular time violation issue since the rule was implemented in the 70s or early 80s.

The 35s routine Nadal started to implement post Miami 05 is really unique and more absurd it was blindly ignored by the referees. We can see nowadays that implementing it was always a possibility AS LONG AS the system behind would agree with.

It just proves that it was wrong to blame the referees who are just told what to do.

I often see Fed fans everywhere, at BR or Ruan's blog, criticizing our own idol. I'm proud to be part of an honest and self-assured fans group capable of telling black from white. Ruan's himself has been often chided by fellow fed fans for being too tough on Fed.

If you go on a nadal fan site, it's just the opposite. They only see rainbows. Nadal can do no wrong. Of course so much easier to protect their hero comes what may. So spare the rod and spoil the child. Blame the referees instead. It'd be expecting far too much for hypnotised nadal fans to take an honest stand, no?

You are right SR but remember doping is seen as a taboo subject. Many feds fans may not want to discuss it either. That may be because of the strict rules of a forum for instance, ergo because of that we cannot truly know their views on it. For instance on v2 some just come straight out with who they think are dopers whereas others don't get drawn on it or change the subject with the usual.... "proof?"
I would be interested to know their thoughts on the matter.

For me, the question now is, where does tennis go from here?

It is good to see current and past players point out the obvious : that physicality has killed talent, not for the sake of people who already know that, but for those who don't or don't want to know, and especially those that require "proof".

Lydian's latest change of tune is the case in point.


Fans aside, I hope that this slowly building pressure can bring some more positive changes.
25 sec rule is good, but let's hope we can se a brave TD who will provide faster playing conditions.
From memory, those kind of moves have always been well received (RG 2011, Bercy 2010) ...

Why woudl it be interested to know their thought LS? What woudl they know better than any of us? If they knew they'd say.

What really interests me is why the players themselves are asking for tighter controls? especially the most suspect ones. What I really thought was the biggest dig at the anti-doping and tennis establishment was Federer asking why less controls/tests were done in the last 6 years which clearly corresponds to Nadal's rise at the top.

That says more than any of us could argue about.

noleisthebest wrote:For me, the question now is, where does tennis go from here?

It is good to see current and past players point out the obvious : that physicality has killed talent, not for the sake of people who already know that, but for those who don't or don't want to know, and especially those that require "proof".

Lydian's latest change of tune is the case in point.


Fans aside, I hope that this slowly building pressure can bring some more positive changes.
25 sec rule is good, but let's hope we can se a brave TD who will provide faster playing conditions.
From memory, those kind of moves have always been well received (RG 2011, Bercy 2010) ...

Yes pacing up conds is the only direction cause doping will always be around.

It was good to see even Nadal speeding things up even at IW. HI game was more watchable as a result. It was not enough to beat him cause he played an injured Fed and an exhausted Delpo who ran out of steam but it looked a bit more balanced even on those ridiculously slow courts.

Because I want to know what the tennis community thinks about doping in their sport.
You may not agree, but to me, who still has a lot to learn from there and on here, i would like to know how they think about it.

I think tenez players are that confident of evading detection and want to be seen as the standard bearer's in purging the sport from the scourge of doping.

luvsports! wrote:I think tenez players are that confident of evading detection and want to be seen as the standard bearer's in purging the sport from the scourge of doping.

Obviously they are confident they can evade detection or even better that they have the system backing them up. Imagine if they all know that one player got caught and went through a silent ban but is still allowed to play...that is a green card for doping. If they coudl not enforce a full ban on Odesnik...imagine on Nadal or Djoko!!!! So from then on, it's all about controlling the image of the sport cause drugs clearly cannot be controlled.

The fans will remain the fans. I was shocked actually to read on V2 that all, including the more knowledgeable posters, saying it was possible to play tennis the way they do without doping. That simply stunned me. Cause you might want to stay silent, I'd understand but say that you coudl play like Nadal, Murray and Djoko without taking substances is simply absurd.

But my biggest problem with the system is that PEDs can be divided between legal and not legal with margins simply set by men with partial views or simply with an interest. The egg chamber and PRP are the perfect examples of cheating being legal.

Corruption is an inherent part of the sporting structural system.
Everyone is part of this mess even the wada code is utter tripe.

Very interesting piece Ten

As Murray fan yes the final was a total drab. A non event in talent and just relentless running and moonballing for a case of a dirty word what is frustrating is that Murray and Gasquet can play a top match, the emphasis being Gasquet bringing out the aggressor in Murray whereas Ferrer just brought out the worst in Murray.

It gets to the point with a match like this where the ITF and ATP surely must say we need variation in the sport to keep it fresh but also give other talents the chance to breakthrough and utilise and even tweek their game without having to make wholesale changes to keep up with the current marathon matches!

I think some on 606V2 have change their views on the current state of the game. Many have suggested changing surface speed, even limits on string technology, ball sizes adjusted to the surface speed. The game needs to become the challenge in talent it was. Now it is who can outlast the other guy!

what are your views on drugs in tennis lk?

legendkillar wrote:Very interesting piece Ten

As Murray fan yes the final was a total drab. A non event in talent and just relentless running and moonballing for a case of a dirty word what is frustrating is that Murray and Gasquet can play a top match, the emphasis being Gasquet bringing out the aggressor in Murray whereas Ferrer just brought out the worst in Murray.

Thanks LK. I woudl not want to blame Ferrer for those kind of matches. Murray has been playing like that against many opponents, if not all bar Nadal, Djoko and Federer. He is a bit more aggressive with some but over all he is a player who relies essentially on his fitness and this is why he has developed this physique. That's the route he has chosen very early on and Gilbert must have been very proud when he twitted "Murray winning UGLY" on Sunday.

I think some on 606V2 have change their views on the current state of the game. Many have suggested changing surface speed, even limits on string technology, ball sizes adjusted to the surface speed. The game needs to become the challenge in talent it was. Now it is who can outlast the other guy!

Certainly. I just note that some don't mind it now that Federer is out and injured. He was by far the best on talent alone and would have won 15 more slams had they kept the pace as it was before 2007 but you know many fans wanted a challenge to Federer, if not a change of guard for some.

I do have reservations about it LS. For me it is more about the method in terms of how it is applied.

For example with Nadal/Murray/Djokovic I can see on the strength side of things of their performances why you would raise eyebrows and maybe cast doubt over whether they are able to maintain such levels without some form of drug.

On the other hand say with Federer, for a guy who has able to stay at the top without major injuries would lead me to believe he could've doped for recovery purposes more than say performance based.

I sort of have mixed views. I think something solid needs to come out shake the very foundations of the sport so that if it is clean let's see the proof let's have transparancy. If it is dirty and tainted well let's weed out the evil and rebuild the sport.

For me you can't account for achievements in the 70's or 80's given testing wasn't even part of the sport!

Tenez wrote:

legendkillar wrote:Very interesting piece Ten

As Murray fan yes the final was a total drab. A non event in talent and just relentless running and moonballing for a case of a dirty word what is frustrating is that Murray and Gasquet can play a top match, the emphasis being Gasquet bringing out the aggressor in Murray whereas Ferrer just brought out the worst in Murray.

Thanks LK. I woudl not want to blame Ferrer for those kind of matches. Murray has been playing like that against many opponents, if not all bar Nadal, Djoko and Federer. He is a bit more aggressive with some but over all he is a player who relies essentially on his fitness and this is why he has developed this physique. That's the route he has chosen very early on and Gilbert must have been very proud when he twitted "Murray winning UGLY" on Sunday.

I think some on 606V2 have change their views on the current state of the game. Many have suggested changing surface speed, even limits on string technology, ball sizes adjusted to the surface speed. The game needs to become the challenge in talent it was. Now it is who can outlast the other guy!

Certainly. I just note that some don't mind it now that Federer is out and injured. He was by far the best on talent alone and would have won 15 more slams had they kept the pace as it was before 2007 but you know many fans wanted a challenge to Federer, if not a change of guard for some.

I bet Gilbert was proud and for once it was good to hear Petchey saying what many have observed for a long time and that is the variation going out of Murray's game thanks to his sole focus on fitness. Your right it isn't fair to just blame Ferrer, Murray set his stall in that match to outlast Ferrer and didn't have a plan B. The fact he managed it was even more remarkable! Ferrer if anything guilty of maybe being way too aggressive in the first set.

Like you say yes many wanted a challenge for Federer, but the game has gone to such extremes now that players blunt each other and when you see such matches that many tennis fans will start to turn off.

Good points, we do need a "LA" case if you will in the sport to really shake things up.
That is where i differ from some on here. I am suspicious but i wont categorically state "player x is on drugs" because I don't know the quantifiable physiological capacities of player x when they are clean and when they are doped.
There are so many things to consider and a lot of it is unknown.

I don't think sport, incl tennis will ever be "clean" again.
We are very fortunate that in tennis unlike , let's say cycling or athletics, you can take away a lot of benefits of doping by speeding up playing conditions, i.e. taking away the advantage of being able to run all day can give you.

I also think that the idea of doping is beginning to lose the stigmatic image, as it's now being viewed as "medical" advance.

Bottom line, any unneccessary chemicals in the body will never be healthy and good for it.

We can now see that a lot of players have been "medically helped and enhanced", and thank God people are beginning to realise how ugly it is.

OK, LS, do you really think LA case has shaken up cycling and that they are all clean now? (or even want to be clean...)

That's the thing LS no-one really is above suspicion and even when I play it takes about 2 hot baths and massage to feel my legs and back again!! So I have no idea how the top guys recover from back to back matches and tournaments like they do

See tennis is at the cross roads right now. There have been numerous calls for stricter testing from players and supporters alike and they have to respond and if it means big names getting punished so be it. It can't continue to go on with it's head firmly planted in the sand and ignoring the issues at hand thinking it will go. Suspicions will always be there and one day we could see a Wiki leak style breakthrough.

The thing is LK, nobody wants to know.
Did you see that brilliant documentary about Seoul 1988 100m final called The Race That Shocked The World?
Results are all there, they are just not being published for obvious £££ reasons...
Once fans start financially contributing to the sport we may have a say.
In the meantime , it's sponsors that fund prize money and they all want a return on their investment.
Easy!

I did see that NITB. I think only 1 runner was clean! It was a disgrace.

luvsports! wrote:Good points, we do need a "LA" case if you will in the sport to really shake things up.
That is where i differ from some on here. I am suspicious but i wont categorically state "player x is on drugs" because I don't know the quantifiable physiological capacities of player x when they are clean and when they are doped.
There are so many things to consider and a lot of it is unknown.

You see I do not believe the LA case will change anything. It never has with past doping cases and never will in the future. The systems is not designed to erradicate doping, it's designed to make us believe it's clean.

So doping gets more spread, better, smarter and scandals bigger...to the point that soon we won;t even bother about it altogether. It might just be a non issue.

Back to sponsors wanting their return on the investment, the way they were able too engineer Nadal into a career slam holder says everything.
I can only begin to imagine how deeply frustrated Federer must (have) be(en).

We fans can be upset and feel a bit of that pain , but it's really the players that had to live with it. And most tragically, ADJUST!

noleisthebest wrote:I don't think sport, incl tennis will ever be "clean" again.
We are very fortunate that in tennis unlike , let's say cycling or athletics, you can take away a lot of benefits of doping by speeding up playing conditions, i.e. taking away the advantage of being able to run all day can give you.

I also think that the idea of doping is beginning to lose the stigmatic image, as it's now being viewed as "medical" advance.

Bottom line, any unneccessary chemicals in the body will never be healthy and good for it.

We can now see that a lot of players have been "medically helped and enhanced", and thank God people are beginning to realise how ugly it is.

Yes, very true. That's my point in my previous thread. I am not sure most fans see this as ugly. They simply don't care. Look at Larry Ellison, the real one as well as the poster...do they care to find out? They are just happy their man won IW. The rest is just comforting themselves their man is clean.

noleisthebest wrote:OK, LS, do you really think LA case has shaken up cycling and that they are all clean now? (or even want to be clean...)

Of course not did i say it did?
Average speed times have gone down, thats proven. Doping still occurs but just in less potent quantities.
Also harsher, longer bans are going to come into place that weren't going to happen. It has caused protest groups (CCN) to spring up due to the UCI's abysmal leadership. Rabobank (sponsor for 17 years) dropped out and are now under a white label name. I could go on btw.

My point is that for youngsters coming into the sport i think it acts as a stronger deterrent knowing that the biggest fish of them all has been caught.
But catching someone is a good thing imo, the bigger the better.

noleisthebest wrote:Back to sponsors wanting their return on the investment, the way they were able too engineer Nadal into a career slam holder says everything.
I can only begin to imagine how deeply frustrated Federer must (have) be(en).

We fans can be upset and feel a bit of that pain , but it's really the players that had to live with it. And most tragically, ADJUST!

It's a good lesson for us. There are far more important things than sport. Like GP says, at the end it's still better to watch a Federer lose than a winning beepbeep.

Festina did nothing tenez, balco not much, puerto meh.

LA has caused a change to the media's take on it, our take on it, young cyclists take on it. It's been extremely pervasive.

Never before have you had so many coming out and speaking against it. But the good thing is its not like it was before. They are attacking the system.

There won';t be as much change as people want, but there has and will be change.