Daniel Koellerer: Nadal Is Doping!

Save your stories for the security guards

Also you didn't answer my earlier question:

Why do you support Djokovic if you hate doping, and think he is a doper?

Bit hypocritical, no?

Julia Santamaria wrote:Also you didn't answer my earlier question:

Why do you support Djokovic if you hate doping, and think he is a doper?

Bit hypocritical, no?

I suppose it is a bit hypocritical, but nowhere near as much as all the circus surrounding Nadal and his infantile fans.
It was him who started the trend and got tennis where it is right now.
I will support anyone who can stop the rot and him rampaging unchecked doped or not. Tennis would have been completely different had Nadal not come on the scene and soiled it with his unnatural physicality and doping.
Hadn't it crossed your mind why Kroellerer singled out Nadal and not anybody else?
I don't think Murray & the rest would have gone to transform themselves to what they are now and tennis would have been a lot healthier. Others had no choice but to follow just like they did in all other sports.
Henin probably did the same and I loved her, I didn't in the least mind her doping. She had no other choice in order to keep up with the doped Williams sisters.
Happy now?

Back to the topic...which you haven't addressed at all, but I am not expecting you to anyway. It's too much for you.

noleisthebest wrote:

Julia Santamaria wrote:Also you didn't answer my earlier question:

Why do you support Djokovic if you hate doping, and think he is a doper?

Bit hypocritical, no?

I suppose it is a bit hypocritical,

A bit? A bit?
lol it's more than just a bit.

noleisthebest wrote:
Back to the topic...which you haven't addressed at all, but I am not expecting you to anyway. It's too much for you.

I did address it !
This is what I posted yesterday, in response to it:

Julia Santamaria wrote:

He hasn't player 7 months because of an injury, then he came back and won 10/13 tournaments. That is impossible, impossible!

I don't see why.
Nadal didn't play tennis for around 5 months (July -mid December). Then he had 2 months of very high intensity training, he was out on the courts practising.
Then when he returned he seemed to be quite edgy, lacking match fitness and losing to Zeballos. In the first few events he was lucky he could get in the groove with a weak field in a clay 250 which no one really plays.
Eventually he kept on improving his play and played very well during a gruelling clay season. I don't see what's so hard to understand.

Another aspect of looking at it is:
Would Nadal, with the style he plays, go throughout his whole career without a serious knee injury? It's practically impossible, with his sliding and exertions he puts on his knee as he twists and turns. Medical experts thought his knee would be gone by age 25 or so, and it's only with significant rest periods that he can find the right balance.
For me the chances of him to have gone from 17-27 without serious knee problems given his style is around 2-5% very very small.

So amri, if there was undeniable proof that rafa was doping, you would instantly stop supporting him? That's just like all the sponsors! 
If feds was found to be doping, it would be hard for me to take as I love the guy, but i really don't know. This is when im at my most fan boyish. 
But ultimately i would be hurt and surprised but not that surprised. I love cycling but I am not nearly as fan boyish and am way more objective. My objectivity goes re feds, but not with the rest. 
I understand your side though. I don;t think you want to believe it. But for me feds pulls off shots that are sheer art and beauty and for me nadal is power.
So i think if you were a feds fan you would be gutted but still support him for his genius but imo nadal fans would take it harder as he doesn't have that talent and artistry.

I think Nadal fans are the worst in getting their head out of sand  since they don't support Nadal for his tennis, instead, his wins are their substitute for all daily losses and frustrations.

It's almost like a mass con/hypno seanse where entranced and hypnotised fans buy the entire package: the humble warrior, the poor boy woth ICD (or whatever) syndrome, the cruel, cruel fate of having stg wrong with his precious feet from birth (and who doesn't)...until one day the fingers of truth snap them out of their trance.  It really provides first class material for a social study...

Next thing they will ask is their human rights to be protected and ban anyone saying anything against Nadal....well, that's already happened on v2 ...

wow.

noleisthebest wrote:
It's almost like a mass con/hypno seanse where entranced and hypnotised fans buy the entire package: the humble warrior, the poor boy woth ICD (or whatever) syndrome, the cruel, cruel fate of having stg wrong with his precious feet from birth (and who doesn't)...until one day the fingers of truth snap them out of their trance.  It really provides first class material for a social study...

Next thing they will ask is their human rights to be protected and ban anyone saying anything against Nadal....well, that's already happened on v2 ...

You really are delusional, you live in a world a world of your own.

Nadal fans are normal human beings, and I can say proudly that I love his tennis and his style.
You on the other can stay confused in your swamp of great hypocrisy, claiming to be a Djokovic fan who hates doping yet thinks Djokovic is doping.

LS- Yes I do think that is the case, like any fan of any player I think it's normal to be disappointed if the player is doping.

noleisthebest wrote:I think Nadal fans are the worst in getting their head out of sand  since they don't support Nadal for his tennis, instead, his wins are their substitute for all daily losses and frustrations.

LOL. Where the hell do you come up with this total shit.
How many Nadal fans do you know well?


I would say you represent Djokovic fans, but that would be unfair as most of them aren't completely hypocritical and operating double standards.

So you would renounce your support for nadal if he was a doper? Yes?

I think i wouldn't for feds.

Yes, but I don't think that's the case.

noleisthebest wrote:Does anyone know if that idea of freezing blood samples for more advanced testing and catching dopers retrospectively is actually in place.

This is one thing that I think could actually work quite well in sports.  If someone is doping, even if they are confident that they cannot be caught using current techniques, it is much more difficult to be sure that techniques that will be developed in near future will not easily catch them - so it would become much riskier to take drugs.

It is hard to see why sports governing bodies would be very interested in this though.  Even if they do not think that their sport is tainted with doping, it must still look like a no-win proposition to them.  Either someone gets caught, in which case their sport will look bad, or nobody gets caught in which case they will more-or-less keep their status quo.  There will not be many fans who will say "sport A is not storing blod samples for future, so I will stop following it", so the motivation to store those samples must be minimal.

Julia Santamaria wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

Julia Santamaria wrote:Also you didn't answer my earlier question:

Why do you support Djokovic if you hate doping, and think he is a doper?

Bit hypocritical, no?

I suppose it is a bit hypocritical,

A bit? A bit?
lol it's more than just a bit.

Well, it is not all that hypocritical, is it?  If you say believe that one player is the first one to start doping, and the other ones then follow the suit in order to be competitive, then it is quite possible to make a big distinction between the first one and the rest.

Sort of like if two countries live happily side-by-side, and one of them all of a sudden starts spending huge amounts of money on their military, then you can expect the other one do the same, yet there would be a world of difference between the two.

Nadal took the game physically to unrivalled levels, so others followed suit and not in a good way is nitb's point.
But as we well know many doped before the current crop.

luvsports! wrote:Nadal took the game physically to unrivalled levels, so others followed suit and not in a good way is nitb's point.
But as we well know many doped before the current crop.

That is true, but as you said , we are talking about UNRIVALLED level now.
The level, which helped by current strings technology has killed tennis.
To me, it is a complete tragedy to have a player of Federer's unparalleled talent, athleticism and ability make look obsolete by someone who seems to have endless reserves of energy and able to pound the ball super hard for 5 sets and standing 5m behind the base line while able to run like possessed back and forth at the same time.
That's what is the problem.
Tennis has hit a brick wall.

summerblues wrote:

Julia Santamaria wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

Julia Santamaria wrote:Also you didn't answer my earlier question:

Why do you support Djokovic if you hate doping, and think he is a doper?

Bit hypocritical, no?

I suppose it is a bit hypocritical,

A bit? A bit?
lol it's more than just a bit.

Well, it is not all that hypocritical, is it?  If you say believe that one player is the first one to start doping, and the other ones then follow the suit in order to be competitive, then it is quite possible to make a big distinction between the first one and the rest.

Sort of like if two countries live happily side-by-side, and one of them all of a sudden starts spending huge amounts of money on their military, then you can expect the other one do the same, yet there would be a world of difference between the two.

That's a good illustration.
The question is where will it all end and at what point will the fans start getting bored?
I think momentum has been gathering for some time now among long term tennis fans and you could see it by more and more frequent complaining about the state of the game now.
I don't think many people have enjoyed tennis in 2013, there have been very few memorable matches.

I feel sorry for Federer who had to resort to racquet change in order to keep up with the " trend".
There is something so very wrong in it.
Look at Murray, already under the knife with back surgery.
What does that tell you?
Bodies cannot cope with physicality levels any more. Tennis is a beautiful, magical game, physically and mentally demanding even on an amateur level, so we can just imagine how badly the pros are suffering now with this "unrivalled" and unchecked level of unnatural exertion and stress everyone is trying to catch up with.

It is hypocritical. Pretty pathetic to suggest otherwise.

There's a distinction between hating someone less, and actually supporting someone.
Let's say Wiggins is doping, and Froome moves away from Team Sky. Then Froome feels he must start doping, and gets caught. For a Froome fan to then say he still loves Froome (doped or not), but hates doping with all his guts- that's the textbook definition of hypocritical.

But let's be honest we can't really trust NITB to be some sort of unbiased judge of the affair. NITB judging Nadal is like Kim Jong-Un making an 'unbiased' decision as to whether the UN should sanction North or South Korea; it's like giving Mugabe the job of counting votes at the Zimbabwe elections, it's like giving Britney Spears a role of judging singing talent.

The last one i dispute big time!

Julia Santamaria wrote:it's like giving Britney Spears a role of judging singing talent.

Why do you say that?  Do you think she has no singing talent herself?  Why?

On the X factor UK, I saw her mime when she performed!
Even Miley sings live.

You've been to a miley cyrus concert? 
Is this true? 
Cos if you did you really are the worst kind of person! :P

No, but you can tell by watching on TV.

Julia Santamaria wrote:On the X factor UK, I saw her mime when she performed!
Even Miley sings live.

It is unfair to conclude from this that she does not have singing talent.

Her singing talent could be an unutilized skill.  She has made a very successful career without it, so I think it is fair to say that in order to become a successful singer these days, you do not need to sing well.  But that does not mean that she could not sing well, if she needed to.

I agree that I cannot claim that she is a talented singer, but similarly you cannot claim that she is not.  We simply do not know.  It is possible that if singing was a requirement to become a successful singer, she would be able to sing very well.  So it is unfair to make an assumption that she is not as talented as any other singer out there, just because she does not make use of her - thus far unutilized and not needed - skill.

She has made a very successful career without it, so I think it is fair to say that in order to become a successful singer these days, you do not need to sing well.  But that does not mean that she could not sing well, if she needed to.

No ! I'm afraid not.
Britney has not just mimed in concerts in the past, in the rare occurrence of her singing she has been quite out of tune and struggled without the help of her back-up singers.
There is a significant difference between her situation and the one Nadal faces, and I'm surprised you didn't realise it:
There is no incentive for Britney not to sing superbly live (compared to miming/ singing out of tune) all the time. If not anything it will help her gain higher reputation etc. As it is, she was criticised in the media for it, and her latest album was quite a flop.
On the other hand Nadal has a clear incentive to keep his style of tennis as it is. Even if he did master serve and volleying or another similar style, it is very unlikely that even perfect application of it would serve him better in these conditions than his own current one.
Therefore, I think it's clear that the two scenarios are significantly different to the extent where your clever comparison doesn't really start to even get close to dismantling my earlier argument.

Lots of good discussions here which I missed unfortunately. 

Is Nadal Doping: YES, but there is not enough 'proof' to shut all his fans. But this is expected. Even LA's self confession wasn't enough for some.

But we have enough proof of Nadal's lying last year about his injury. He completely changed his statement in after few months.

Is Djokovic/ Murray doping: Yes. So must be a lot of players out there. The direction tennis has taken i.e. towards being a 'show', this is bound to happen.

Should people support one doper over another? Its a personal choice. But I don't like it when people have problems accepting that their player is on dope just because it appears immoral to support if doped athlete. Julia (amtiria ) is an example. Ben Jonhsson said people don't care about doping, they just want to see fast times, records being broken. He was so right.

There's a difference between opinion and fact; and when someone has clear dislike for a player it's obvious that their judgement can get clouded (of course it can work the other way too).

Julia Santamaria wrote:Therefore, I think it's clear that the two scenarios are significantly different to the extent where your clever comparison doesn't really start to even get close to dismantling my earlier argument.

You get so worked up around Nadal topics.  I was not trying to "dismantle" your "argument", yet you get into high gear trying to defend it.

Nadal can't lose twice in Shanghai SB, edit your predictions

LOL thank you.  Busy time at work, hardly any time to follow tennis, I guess it showed there.