The doping program joke of the ITF!!!

Veejay wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

Veejay wrote:How do you filter someone?

go to My member page, then click the Members online, chose whomever you want to filter click on their name and then click on FILTER button 8)

Thanks done
Just curious what happens when you filter someone
Don't they see your comments or cant they respond to you or what?

you don't see their comments, but they see yours until they filter you, as well. They can't post on our threads and they won't even see it. You can still see their comments/threads if you log out. If you really want to

noleisthebest wrote:

Veejay wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

Veejay wrote:How do you filter someone?

go to My member page, then click the Members online, chose whomever you want to filter click on their name and then click on FILTER button 8)

Thanks done
Just curious what happens when you filter someone
Don't they see your comments or cant they respond to you or what?

you don't see their comments, but they see yours until they filter you, as well. They can't post on our threads and they won't even see it. You can still see their comments/threads if you log out. If you really want to

Ok thats how you've been following...

[BTW, assuming you're still in Spain, how has this news been received there in Spanish media?
Any suspicions yet from anybody?[/quote]

Noley, there are exceptions of course, but the words of my
neighbours, a worldly Spanish couple (she’s a doctor) pretty much sum up the majority Spanish view on the
matter in the following:

1) His early exit from Wimby was due to
injury.

2) His Oly withdrawal is because of
injury. We all know his style of play has brought him a lot of injuries;

3) Representing the country in the
Olympics is such a big and important event. He must have a good reason to pull
out. The injury must be very bad.

4) His is very sad to have withdrawn.

5) We like him because his style/background
is not elegant like Federer. He comes from a more humble and rough background
and had to work very hard for his successes. Spanish people always admire
athletes who came from very poor beginnings and had to work their way up and
up to the top. This type of rags-to-riches models win our hearts.

6) Oh, there have been drug tests in other
tennis events. Nadal never had problems with those tests. (Unspoken: You can’t
possibly linked his withdrawal with doping. You must be joking.)

So no, what suspicion? :sleep:

[quote="noleisthebest"]Chest is just being bitter because almost everyone has filtered him so he can't post on many threads and is being aggressive now.
"tennisfan" aka hawkeye aka DJB from tennis.com (haunted me even there with some stupid comments about Tenez"s and mine "love" for Nadal) loves nothing but blabbing about nothing. That's her forte as she has no interest in tennis, just Facebook style of following it.

Noley, are you sure hawkeye is a SHE? Sounds right to me, but Veejay is convinced she's a "he", someone who likes to exercise
"alpha male dominance", right VJ? :lol:

People buy what they are sold,if Nadal claims he is injured the gullible fools will lap it up
You also cant expect much living in Spain,many of them all think Spanish athletes are completely clean and are not the least bit capable of cheating

Quoted from NITB:

"Up to 6250 samples will be tested during Games time – more than any other Games
The anti-doping workforce at the Games will include over 1000 people
Up to 50 per cent of all competing athletes will be tested at the Olympic Games including every Olympic medallist
The laboratory will operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week during the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games
Up to 400 samples will be tested every day
The shortest test turnaround will be 24 hours (some tests will take longer)
The laboratory is 4400 square metres in size – the same size as 7 tennis courts
A team of more than 150 anti-doping scientists from around the world will carry out the testing during Games-time, led by Professor David Cowan from the Drug Control Centre at King’s College London
Over 240 prohibited substances will be tested for"

I found this really hilarious...no wonder they are all running scared
You should cut and paste this to rub in Ruffun and Haddad's faces over on BR Commonsense
As for Hawkeye,I was certain its an old man but Tennisfan is claiming she's a woman
Who cares...

CommonSense wrote:

Noley, there are exceptions of course, but the words of my
neighbours, a worldly Spanish couple (she’s a doctor) pretty much sum up the majority Spanish view on the
matter in the following:

1) His early exit from Wimby was due to
injury.

2) His Oly withdrawal is because of
injury. We all know his style of play has brought him a lot of injuries;

3) Representing the country in the
Olympics is such a big and important event. He must have a good reason to pull
out. The injury must be very bad.

4) His is very sad to have withdrawn.

5) We like him because his style/background
is not elegant like Federer. He comes from a more humble and rough background
and had to work very hard for his successes. Spanish people always admire
athletes who came from very poor beginnings and had to work their way up and
up to the top. This type of rags-to-riches models win our hearts.

6) Oh, there have been drug tests in other
tennis events. Nadal never had problems with those tests. (Unspoken: You can’t
possibly linked his withdrawal with doping. You must be joking.)

So no, what suspicion? :sleep:

I can't believe they forgot the main one: he's a great champion :| ......

VJ, a very good link from BBC is already posted on BR. The headline reads "The Biggest Anti-doping Operation in the History of the Olympic Games". Shortly after Branimir posted this, Hadda disappeared.

I've learned that ego-centric and deluded nadal fans such as Haddah, MeoCao et al will not be moved by any evidence of Nadal's woes no matter what you put in front of them. They insist on seeing what they want to see, which is 2008 & 2010. They don't want to know about the slightest hint of nadal's decline from any events post-dating 2010.

You know, that's not my problem. I'm not supposed to be anybody's history teacher.

noleisthebest wrote:

CommonSense wrote:

Noley, there are exceptions of course, but the words of my
neighbours, a worldly Spanish couple (she’s a doctor) pretty much sum up the majority Spanish view on the
matter in the following:

1) His early exit from Wimby was due to
injury.

2) His Oly withdrawal is because of
injury. We all know his style of play has brought him a lot of injuries;

3) Representing the country in the
Olympics is such a big and important event. He must have a good reason to pull
out. The injury must be very bad.

4) His is very sad to have withdrawn.

5) We like him because his style/background
is not elegant like Federer. He comes from a more humble and rough background
and had to work very hard for his successes. Spanish people always admire
athletes who came from very poor beginnings and had to work their way up and
up to the top. This type of rags-to-riches models win our hearts.

6) Oh, there have been drug tests in other
tennis events. Nadal never had problems with those tests. (Unspoken: You can’t
possibly linked his withdrawal with doping. You must be joking.)

So no, what suspicion? :sleep:

I can't believe they forgot the main one: he's a great champion :| ......

I think they did mention that but I neglected to include it because it kinda goes without saying.

CommonSense wrote:VJ, a very good link from BBC is already posted on BR. The headline reads "The Biggest Anti-doping Operation in the History of the Olympic Games". Shortly after Branimir posted this, Hadda disappeared.

I've learned that ego-centric and deluded nadal fans such as Haddah, MeoCao et al will not be moved by any evidence of Nadal's woes no matter what you put in front of them. They insist on seeing what they want to see, which is 2008 & 2010. They don't want to know about the slightest hint of nadal's decline from any events post-dating 2010.

You know, that's not my problem. I'm not supposed to be anybody's history teacher.

On which article is that?

HE is a female too but tennisfan is not same as HE she likes Murray whereas we all know that HE is anti Murray to the core.

Susprisingly they both havenot filtered you and are still debating with you. When I was going on about Nadal, MCH filitered me running away from me.

I really cant blame them, they are doing their best to defend their favourite player, No? for sure

Veejay wrote:

CommonSense wrote:VJ, a very good link from BBC is already posted on BR. The headline reads "The Biggest Anti-doping Operation in the History of the Olympic Games". Shortly after Branimir posted this, Hadda disappeared.

I've learned that ego-centric and deluded nadal fans such as Haddah, MeoCao et al will not be moved by any evidence of Nadal's woes no matter what you put in front of them. They insist on seeing what they want to see, which is 2008 & 2010. They don't want to know about the slightest hint of nadal's decline from any events post-dating 2010.

You know, that's not my problem. I'm not supposed to be anybody's history teacher.

On which article is that?

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1264931-rafael-nadal-withdraws-from-2012-olympics-in-london

Go way down to Haddah's post beginning "Considering his current knee problem....", then look under SR reply for Branimir post with the link.

wow3 wrote:HE is a female too but tennisfan is not same as HE she likes Murray whereas we all know that HE is anti Murray to the core.

Susprisingly they both havenot filtered you and are still debating with you. When I was going on about Nadal, MCH filitered me running away from me.

I really cant blame them, they are doing their best to defend their favourite player, No? for sure

Warning: Gossip material below, read at your own risk! :drunken:

Hi Wow, I've never spoken to tennisfan. For some reason HE avoids talking to me. She doesn't reply to my posts, so there's no debate or any chances of confrontation.

I'm just curious about her bc others often picked on her for making ridiculous comments. Yet she won't stop posting funny articles. Like the one she says she's happy that rafa is not playing Oly while rafa himself is famously reported to have said something like "this is the saddest day of my life" when he announced his withdrawal.

wow3 wrote:HE is a female too but tennisfan is not same as HE she likes Murray whereas we all know that HE is anti Murray to the core.

Susprisingly they both havenot filtered you and are still debating with you. When I was going on about Nadal, MCH filitered me running away from me.

I really cant blame them, they are doing their best to defend their favourite player, No? for sure

I'm pretty sure HE is "Tennisfan". Veejay gave them both a right portion of straight talking.
I don't think we'll hear much from her, although I know she reads this forum as well....quite a stalker...but enough of that stale, depressing level she thrives on.
Can't wait for the Olympics without Nadal

HE and amrita are the most annoyig posters. And both are rafa fans. Amrita is now IMBL on V2.

wow3 wrote:HE and amrita are the most annoyig posters. And both are rafa fans. Amrita is now IMBL on V2.

Was Amritia banned? Why did he have to change his username
If you speak to him on v2 tell him Veejay sends his luv

veejay I am banned on V2 too. I spoke to him on MTL but it wasn't quite pleasant. Like I said very annoying.

wow3 wrote:veejay I am banned on V2 too. I spoke to him on MTL but it wasn't quite pleasant. Like I said very annoying.

Whats MTL?
Why were you banned?

veejay, I was the first one to get banned in the series of many and that's why you never saw me on v2.



MTL-mytennislounge.com,

when 606 closed down I migrated to MTL but then I found tenez at V2 so I went to V2.

I got banned by an overzealous cricket admin, who was fine in throwing insults at the posters but acted heavyhanded when I gave him back.

Interesting piece of news:

"This month the US Anti-Doping Agency
banned Dr. Luis Garcia del Moral, along with another doctor and trainer
associated with Lance Armstrong’s Postal Service cycling team, for life.
The three of them accepted their bans, rather than, as USADA chief
Travis Tygart put it, “waste resources by moving forward with the
arbitration process, which would only reveal what they already know to
be the truth of their doping activity.”

As we found out before Wimbledon,
del Moral has been associated with a tennis academy in Valencia, Spain,
where various pros have trained. Will he be allowed to work with them?
The ITF hasn’t said. "

Surely the ITF will take the USADA findings into consideration? Farcical if they don't!

reckoner wrote:Surely the ITF will take the USADA findings into consideration? Farcical if they don't!

Watch this programme (if you haven't already) and tell me if ITF are going to do anything?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01ktf7y/The_Race_that_Shocked_the_World/

Yeah I've seen that, great documentary. This is a different situation though in that the good doctor has been banned for life for doping in another sport so it would be truly pathetic if the ITF didn't take that into account. I for one would protest if that was the case.

I think all those "doctors" should be in prison. What good are they doing supplying athletes illegal drugs?

Hi - No time to post for now and busy but is anyone serious about helping me managing this site, with some phpBB knowledge? it's not complicated but I have no time and some posters are having access problems.

Thanks.

Hello tenez, I can try to help. I don't know anything on this phpbb but I can try.

Thanks a lot rotla, that would be fantastic!

Another example of blood-doping in 2009:

"Great Britain's Mark Cavendish expressed frustration that rival teams
were content so long as he did not win the London 2012 Olympic Games
road race.
The 27-year-old world champion from the Isle of Man
finished 29th, 40 seconds behind, as controversial Kazakh Alexandr
Vinokourov triumphed on The Mall, with Colombia's Rigoberto Uran second
and Norway's Alexander Kristoff third.
Cavendish told BBC1: "It seems like most teams are happy not to win as long as we don't win.
"It's
the story of our lives in cycling. "It shows what a strong nation we
are. We've got to take the positives from that and take it as a
compliment."
Cavendish, a winner of 23 Tour de France stages, was
among the favourites for the 250-kilometre event, which included nine
ascents of Surrey's Box Hill. He had described Britain's five-man squad
as the "dream team", featuring Tour winner Bradley Wiggins, Chris
Froome, David Millar and Ian Stannard.
All four had ridden in
support of Cavendish when he won the World Championships road race in
Copenhagen last September, but this task was tougher, according to
Millar and Wiggins.
And despite phenomenal support from his four
British team-mates a late breakaway stayed clear and Vinokourov, who
served a two-year ban until 2009 for blood doping, won the sprint for
the line."

noleisthebest wrote:Another example of blood-doping in 2009:

"Great Britain's Mark Cavendish expressed frustration that rival teams
were content so long as he did not win the London 2012 Olympic Games
road race.
The 27-year-old world champion from the Isle of Man
finished 29th, 40 seconds behind, as controversial Kazakh Alexandr
Vinokourov triumphed on The Mall, with Colombia's Rigoberto Uran second
and Norway's Alexander Kristoff third.
Cavendish told BBC1: "It seems like most teams are happy not to win as long as we don't win.
"It's
the story of our lives in cycling. "It shows what a strong nation we
are. We've got to take the positives from that and take it as a
compliment."
Cavendish, a winner of 23 Tour de France stages, was
among the favourites for the 250-kilometre event, which included nine
ascents of Surrey's Box Hill. He had described Britain's five-man squad
as the "dream team", featuring Tour winner Bradley Wiggins, Chris
Froome, David Millar and Ian Stannard.
All four had ridden in
support of Cavendish when he won the World Championships road race in
Copenhagen last September, but this task was tougher, according to
Millar and Wiggins.
And despite phenomenal support from his four
British team-mates a late breakaway stayed clear and Vinokourov, who
served a two-year ban until 2009 for blood doping, won the sprint for
the line."

I don't understand. :oops: :oops: (Re)interpretation pls, anyone. What's Cavendish's key issue? What has the 2009 blood doping has to do with the current situation? :?:

SR wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:Another example of blood-doping in 2009:

"Great Britain's Mark Cavendish expressed frustration that rival teams
were content so long as he did not win the London 2012 Olympic Games
road race.
The 27-year-old world champion from the Isle of Man
finished 29th, 40 seconds behind, as controversial Kazakh Alexandr
Vinokourov triumphed on The Mall, with Colombia's Rigoberto Uran second
and Norway's Alexander Kristoff third.
Cavendish told BBC1: "It seems like most teams are happy not to win as long as we don't win.
"It's
the story of our lives in cycling. "It shows what a strong nation we
are. We've got to take the positives from that and take it as a
compliment."
Cavendish, a winner of 23 Tour de France stages, was
among the favourites for the 250-kilometre event, which included nine
ascents of Surrey's Box Hill. He had described Britain's five-man squad
as the "dream team", featuring Tour winner Bradley Wiggins, Chris
Froome, David Millar and Ian Stannard.
All four had ridden in
support of Cavendish when he won the World Championships road race in
Copenhagen last September, but this task was tougher, according to
Millar and Wiggins.
And despite phenomenal support from his four
British team-mates a late breakaway stayed clear and Vinokourov, who
served a two-year ban until 2009 for blood doping, won the sprint for
the line."

I don't understand. :oops: :oops: (Re)interpretation pls, anyone. What's Cavendish's key issue? What has the 2009 blood doping has to do with the current situation? :?:

I don't know how much you know about cycling, but when you cycle in a race like that one yesterday, you have guys take turns in leading the pack to keep the speed.
It's an understood code of carrying on.
Yesterday, the other teams so badly didn't want the best team to win they never did their duty of pulling any weight in burning the guys at the front.
So GB team did it DURING THE ENTIRE RACE. The other 3 on the team, all having won olympic gold previously wanted to give Cavendish a chance so they pulled their weight doubly for him.
Still the other guys who just sat behind them and enjoyed not having to break the wind, just broke away at the end and won the race.

I added this paragraph on this thread here because the winner of yesterday's race, had blood doping in 2009 just like someone else we know.

Blood doping is notorious in cycling and I don't think the drug tests would pick up anything bc no banned substance is used, right?

Yeah, Vino cheated before. Who would trust him now?

I feel for Cavendish.

James Blake-doping riffe in tennis

Doping rife in tennis, says Blake
NEW YORK Tennis, like other sports, was bound to have some players using performance-enhancing drugs, American James Blake said on Monday, but he felt authorities were doing all they could to ensure the sport was as clean as possible.

“I’m sure there are guys who are doing it, getting away with it, and getting ahead of the testers,” Blake said after defeating Lukas Lacko of Slovakia 7-6, 6-2, 3-6, 6-3 in his first-round match at the US Open.

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

The 115th-ranked Blake, who was once ranked as high as fourth in the world, said he was “realistic with this much money involved, $1.9 million for the winner of the U.S. Open, people will try to find a way to get ahead.”

The 32-year-old Blake, however also added he felt tennis authorities “do a great job of testing”.

“Of course at times it’s inconvenient to me when I get woken up at 6 a.m. to pee in a cup. It’s their job. I know they’re doing it,” he said.

“I know if they’re doing it to me, they’re doing it to everyone else. I’m happy to do that.”

Blake said he “didn’t know what to think” about cancer survivor Lance Armstrong, who was stripped of his seven Tour de France titles last week after he gave up fighting allegations he used performance-enhancing drugs.

“Cycling has seen what seems to be like the steroid era in baseball where it seems like everyone is clouded (with suspicion),” said Blake.

“You don’t know (but) like he said, he’s passed like 500, 600 tests.

“But have no idea. I don’t know Lance at all. Never met him. I don’t know what he’s like.

“I know his story is inspirational. I know how many people he’s helped. That’s incredible.”

http://www.omantribune.com/index.php?page=news&id=126382&heading=Sports

I am very surprised to read the cycling world is so supportive of Lance. Guys like Merckx and many others have spoken in his favour...despite Lance overtaking their record. Probably cause all dope.

So it's really strange that some former team mates, 10 witnesses, agreed to testify.

Tenez wrote:I am very surprised to read the cycling world is so supportive of Lance. Guys like Merckx and many others have spoken in his favour...despite Lance overtaking their record. Probably cause all dope.

So it's really strange that some former team mates, 10 witnesses, agreed to testify.

It is strange when you consider the magnitude this has on cycling as a sport,the sports credibility and reputation is left in tatters.Its like Federer being stripped of his 17 majors..
I guess they are putting up a united front to try and save the sports credibility but it doesnt really help much of they are being so supportive of an athlete who has literally stolen their sports biggest titles through cheating

Veejay wrote:Its like Federer being stripped of his 17 majors..
I guess they are putting up a united front to try and save the sports credibility but it doesnt really help much of they are being so supportive of an athlete who has literally stolen their sports biggest titles through cheating

Exactly. Imagine Federer being stripped of all his titles and the other players saying it doesn't matter he cheated, he is a nice person doing lots of good for charities.

It would be a clear admission that they all dope...which I guess in the case in cycling.

Tenez wrote:I am very surprised to read the cycling world is so supportive of Lance. Guys like Merckx and many others have spoken in his favour...despite Lance overtaking their record. Probably cause all dope.

So it's really strange that some former team mates, 10 witnesses, agreed to testify.

Do you understand plea bargains? Wayne Odesnik?

Interesting extract from Tyler Hamilton's interview (TH wrote a book recently uncovering how doping worked in his days of TDF supporting LA)

VN: Tyler, you said Armstrong was one of the best athletes in the world. But given how much you write about what a brilliant doctor Michele Ferrari was, and that he was forbidden from working with Tour de France contenders other than Armstrong, could an argument be made that he won because, at least in part, he had the best doping doctor in the world?

DC: I’d like to take that on, because you’re getting into the question of a level playing field — that if everyone is doping, then it’s a level playing field. I think this book explodes that myth. And it is a myth. When everyone can dope, it becomes a contest of who has the best information, who has the best access, who has the best doctor, and who has the most money. That’s what this contest is — it’s a chess game of information, connections and money. And whoever wins that chess game has the better chance of winning the Tour. What happens when you have a situation when there aren’t strong regulations, and people can dope, it’s the opposite of a level field, it’s a hugely distorted playing field, and it’s tilted toward people with access, with information and with money. And that’s the game you want to avoid playing. The level playing field of doping is a total myth.

Tenez wrote:Interesting extract from Tyler Hamilton's interview (TH wrote a book recently uncovering how doping worked in his days of TDF supporting LA)

VN: Tyler, you said Armstrong was one of the best athletes in the world. But given how much you write about what a brilliant doctor Michele Ferrari was, and that he was forbidden from working with Tour de France contenders other than Armstrong, could an argument be made that he won because, at least in part, he had the best doping doctor in the world?

DC: I’d like to take that on, because you’re getting into the question of a level playing field — that if everyone is doping, then it’s a level playing field. I think this book explodes that myth. And it is a myth. When everyone can dope, it becomes a contest of who has the best information, who has the best access, who has the best doctor, and who has the most money. That’s what this contest is — it’s a chess game of information, connections and money. And whoever wins that chess game has the better chance of winning the Tour. What happens when you have a situation when there aren’t strong regulations, and people can dope, it’s the opposite of a level field, it’s a hugely distorted playing field, and it’s tilted toward people with access, with information and with money. And that’s the game you want to avoid playing. The level playing field of doping is a total myth.

The read is sad, disturbing and grievous.
It is hard as it is to, being a professional athlete, get out of bed and grind soulless practice day in day out without any guaranteed hope of any return, and then this on top.
Sport by itself is one of the nicest and purest thing you can do in this life.
Sinful human nature, naturally interferes and tries to ruin everything, money being the most potent catalysts to bring that side out, as usual. So you get those who are envious, greedy and can't appreciate other athlete's talent and admit their shortcomings.
The saying that sport does not build but shows up character has a lot of truth in it.

Just like in "the race that shocked the world", all athletes have a choice. Yes, it is their job and yes they all sacrificed years of their lives to get to the position of making some money, but didn't we all?

And doesn't it hurt when you see others get shortcuts and temporarily overtake you by means of connections, lies and bribery.

"Sweet sleep" as Da Silva at the end of that documentary is priceless, though.
The world may not appreciate and you may not have the elusive, fickle glory and praise, but then again, the real joy of a race is running it and finishing it with your head high.

Just like in "the race that shocked the world", all athletes have a choice. Yes, it is their job and yes they all sacrificed years of their lives to get to the position of making some money, but didn't we all?

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

Those who are very talented have kind of a choice...the others have not.


I think we are seeing the end of professional sport as it is. None of us can relate to those athletes nowadays.

When McEnroe was pushing the ball in all corners, there was something we all tennis players dreamt of doing, it was not spectacular physically and therefore we coudl all reproduce those shots in our clubs, the difference was that he could do it more consistently than us and against players who were hitting harder than in our average club...but not so much harder.

Now you watch those top players and we know we'll never be close to run as fast and as much.

Tenez wrote:Interesting extract from Tyler Hamilton's interview (TH wrote a book recently uncovering how doping worked in his days of TDF supporting LA)

VN: Tyler, you said Armstrong was one of the best athletes in the world. But given how much you write about what a brilliant doctor Michele Ferrari was, and that he was forbidden from working with Tour de France contenders other than Armstrong, could an argument be made that he won because, at least in part, he had the best doping doctor in the world?

DC: I’d like to take that on, because you’re getting into the question of a level playing field — that if everyone is doping, then it’s a level playing field. I think this book explodes that myth. And it is a myth. When everyone can dope, it becomes a contest of who has the best information, who has the best access, who has the best doctor, and who has the most money. That’s what this contest is — it’s a chess game of information, connections and money. And whoever wins that chess game has the better chance of winning the Tour. What happens when you have a situation when there aren’t strong regulations, and people can dope, it’s the opposite of a level field, it’s a hugely distorted playing field, and it’s tilted toward people with access, with information and with money. And that’s the game you want to avoid playing. The level playing field of doping is a total myth.

Excellent link/info Tenez,this is exactly what I was trying to say earlier

Thanks...just from our preferred blog!

Tenez wrote:VN: Tyler, you said Armstrong was one of the best athletes in the world. But given how much you write about what a brilliant doctor Michele Ferrari was, and that he was forbidden from working with Tour de France contenders other than Armstrong, could an argument be made that he won because, at least in part, he had the best doping doctor in the world?

What a contradiction? And that too knowing he was in the same team and doping. The second highlighted sentence smacks of jealousy. A clear put-words-in-THs-mouth.

Tenez wrote:DC: I’d like to take that on, because you’re getting into the question of a level playing field — that if everyone is doping, then it’s a level playing field. I think this book explodes that myth. And it is a myth. When everyone can dope, it becomes a contest of who has the best information, who has the best access, who has the best doctor, and who has the most money. That’s what this contest is — it’s a chess game of information, connections and money. And whoever wins that chess game has the better chance of winning the Tour. What happens when you have a situation when there aren’t strong regulations, and people can dope, it’s the opposite of a level field, it’s a hugely distorted playing field, and it’s tilted toward people with access, with information and with money. And that’s the game you want to avoid playing. The level playing field of doping is a total myth.

How does this translate to Tennis?

What a contradiction? And that too knowing he was in the same team and doping. The second highlighted sentence smacks of jealousy. A clear put-words-in-THs-mouth.
============================

NO, there is no contradiction. Cycling wanted to design a hero to sell the TDF in the US and sell bikes too. They coudl have chosen Tyler and made him a hero but they needed to choose someone addressing the market they wanted to conqueer : LA for all the obvious reasons: Texan, good looking, cancer survivor, etc...). When they chose Landis afterwards, Landis won it too. It's dead easy.

How does this translate to Tennis?

Same thing. Nadal was a great image to sell. The best tennis icon since Borg and this is why they made everything easy for him as his popularity grew...including overlooking the time rule, reducing out of competion tests, rigged draws and so on....

Tenez wrote:

Those who are very talented have kind of a choice...the others have not.


I think we are seeing the end of professional sport as it is. None of us can relate to those athletes nowadays.

When McEnroe was pushing the ball in all corners, there was something we all tennis players dreamt of doing, it was not spectacular physically and therefore we coudl all reproduce those shots in our clubs, the difference was that he could do it more consistently than us and against players who were hitting harder than in our average club...but not so much harder.

Now you watch those top players and we know we'll never be close to run as fast and as much.

you've said just about everything that needs to be said on the topic here, and Mac is a good example. The truth in the first sentence is chilling but there's no point in keeping one's head in the sand.
Music, film industry, genetically modified food, socially retarded media brainwashed masses, it has all gone down the pan called "profit".
Still, it's a beautiful sunny day, I have just come back from the gym where I walked proudly wearing Nole T-shirt (I do that during slams and WTF) and we have this little corner to share our moans and happy times in .

Tenez wrote:What a contradiction? And that too knowing he was in the same team and doping. The second highlighted sentence smacks of jealousy. A clear put-words-in-THs-mouth.
============================

NO, there is no contradiction. Cycling wanted to design a hero to sell the TDF in the US and sell bikes too. They coudl have chosen Tyler and made him a hero but they needed to choose someone addressing the market they wanted to conqueer : LA for all the obvious reasons: Texan, good looking, cancer survivor, etc...). When they chose Landis afterwards, Landis won it too. It's dead easy.

But TH did not?

They had many other heroes from other countries, just look at LA's peers. This is a circular discussion.

Tenez wrote:

How does this translate to Tennis?

Same thing. Nadal was a great image to sell. The best tennis icon since Borg and this is why they made everything easy for him as his popularity grew...including overlooking the time rule, reducing out of competion tests, rigged draws and so on....

Why have Lopez, Ferrer, Verdasco not won a slam yet, but Ferrero, Bruguera have?

Lopez is a model, just ask Judy.

Cause Lopez relies on his talent to win matches and therefore was exposed to all other talents.

Toni on the other hand made sure that talent was going to play a minimum role in Nadal's success...I don;t know if you noticed yet! No wonder discussions go in circle.

It's a combination of things but Toni gave Nadal a winning solution and that contributed to Nadal's popularity....and the Nike MKG management team developed that charismatic image of Nadal. Maybe it's not coincidence that Nadal's best years were during Helfant's years at the top of ATP.

You need to see a wider world then what you so narrowly hang on to.

If McEnroe/Borg and many others at the top did not need to be artificially enhanced to be successful (unless you think everyone), why would ATP tinker with a known/working/clean method of producing champions and achieve same popularity as the 1980s Borg/McEnroe/Connors or Lendl/Becker/Edberg/Wilander or Agassi/Sampras/Courier and go into the murky world of enhancements?

Let me nip your forthcoming argument in the bud, viz.,

Federer was uber talented -> He was steamrolling the opponents -> ATP needed a rivalry like (Sampras/Agassi) -> hence Toni was instructed to manufacture Nadal and since he was in Spain with a pre-existing culture of such enhancements, ATP was willing to overlook such transgressions.

How does that sound?

What do we do with Safin, Hewitt, Rios, Djokovic, Del Potro, Raonic, Harrison, Young, Dimitrov? Perhaps you would care to suggest who is the next pair after Fedal and Djokovicurray retire? It is never too early to plan, is it?

Gosh! I wish I could have such a laugh each time I write a post. You seem to enjoy yourself no-end responding to posters. and and let's not forget .

However it's clear that in the 70/80s "social media" as they call it nowadays was almost inexistant and the players had their characters which no journalist or sponsors tried to control too much. They were characters and we simply liked them or not.

The game needs characters, a character is essentially formed by how often we see him/her on the screen. It's like bigbrother TV, you put idiots in a room and you observe them day and night, at the end crowds are going to warm up to them. Sport doesn't have that need to have cameras constantly on them as sport brings natural drama but the principle is somehow quite similar. Look at Lendl, no-one woudl have cared about him if he had been number 50 in the world. BUt because he was in all finals of GS, he was loved or loved to be hated. Same would happen to Berdych. Berdych with 10 slams would be a character everyone woudl follow and Berdych's character woudl also in turn change to become more universal. Look at Federer as a young champion with his zits and poney tale and look at him now. His image transformed considerably. It's the exposure to the spotlights.

Nadal's early tennis success contributed a lot to his future success...plus he had a tennis easy to understand for those who don;t play much and cannot see the difference between a moonball and a flat BH DTL.

Tenez wrote:Gosh! I wish I could have such a laugh each time I write a post.

I do enjoy a when I read such responses.

Tenez wrote: You seem to enjoy yourself no-end responding to posters. and and let's not forget .

However it's clear that in the 70/80s "social media" as they call it nowadays was almost inexistant and the players had their characters which no journalist or sponsors tried to control too much. They were characters and we simply liked them or not.

Are you saying that TV and newspapers were limited in their influence? IMO, Internet made the 'social media' real-time compared to a newspaper, but it did exist.

Tenez wrote:The game needs characters, a character is essentially formed by how often we see him/her on the screen. It's like bigbrother TV, you put idiots in a room and you observe them day and night, at the end crowds are going to warm up to them. Sport doesn't have that need to have cameras constantly on them as sport brings natural drama but the principle is somehow quite similar.

Borg and McEnroe were no less characters compared to Laver or Rosewall, were they, or Federer or Nadal. The environment in which they were was what was available at that time. There is no way to transplant them anywhere else. Comparing Tennis players to Madonna/MTV is quite a disservice to such players.

Tenez wrote:Look at Lendl, no-one woudl have cared about him if he had been number 50 in the world. BUt because he was in all finals of GS, he was loved or loved to be hated. Same would happen to Berdych. Berdych with 10 slams would be a character everyone woudl follow and Berdych's character woudl also in turn change to become more universal. Look at Federer as a young champion with his zits and poney tale and look at him now. His image transformed considerably. It's the exposure to the spotlights.

Nadal's early tennis success contributed a lot to his future success...plus he had a tennis easy to understand for those who don;t play much and cannot see the difference between a moonball and a flat BH DTL.

There was moonbaling in the days of Evert/Navaratilova and earlier. Remember Borg and Lendl at RG. Laver was hitting topspin flat BH DTLs in the 1960-70s. Calling spectators idiots is rather strange, you are also included in such a class, if you do so.

LF, check your v2 inbox.