The doping program joke of the ITF!!!

Bodo is a funny guy. He actually was one of the first whistle blower about doping and actually suspected Pete himself of doping in his 2002 USO run to victory. Then he was told off and threatened to never get published if he did not retract. Up to this article you posted he has actually been telling us that tennis was clean and we should not suspect if we had not proof (the lesson he received in 2002!!!). However it's clear that since LA and teh few articles out on doping Bodo feels he can revisit the subject more freely and speak his mind at last.

Never liked him...only goes with the trend. Tell us something new Bodo...you are always a train late!

Tenez wrote:Bodo is a funny guy. He actually was one of the first whistle blower about doping and actually suspected Pete himself of doping in his 2002 USO run to victory. Then he was told off and threatened to never get published if he did not retract. Up to this article you posted he has actually been telling us that tennis was clean and we should not suspect if we had not proof (the lesson he received in 2002!!!). However it's clear that since LA and teh few articles out on doping Bodo feels he can revisit the subject more freely and speak his mind at last.

Never liked him...only goes with the trend. Tell us something new Bodo...you have always been train late!

Very true!
Still, every little helps esp in the States where there is almost a veto on dope talking in tennis.

Tennis agrees new anti-doping biological passport programme
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/tennis/21699175

A few points.

1 - The ITF "wants to show the world tennis is clean". I wish they wanted tennis to be clean more than showing it's clean. They are very good at teh former but not efficient in dealing with the latter.

2 - I like Federer saying that he was less tested than 6, 7 or 8 years ago!!! This is a pretty clear message imo aimed at raising questions. Essentially as it also fits perfectly with period of courts slowing down all over the circuits, draws rigged (clearly from 2008) and referees suddenly turning a blind eye on the 20/25s rule. (yeah call me conspirationist and I 'll call you dumb!).

3 - I am not sure about the validity of that passport. Imagine teh passport is made while someone has a high red cells rate thanks to doping....then this person woudl have a "naturally high red cell rate" and can carry on doping all his life. Bedych thighs for instance or Nadal's left arm will never look weird in the bilogical passport so for most steroids it;s useless. Also even if teh red cells rate is right at the limit of what coudl be considered natural or even going over, you might say you have been in one of those chambers or trained in altitude and that will never consititute a proof you doped. So all this leads me to that 1st point again....it's about showing tennis is clean more than cleaning the sport.

DO we know if ever an athlete was caught thanks to his "blood passport" showing irregularities? I believe some sports have implemented that for some times and I do not recall a case of doping thanks to that method. Maybe you know better LS.

Great extract from inrng, cycling blog.
This is pro cycling’s Schleswig-Holstein Question:

“The Schleswig-Holstein question is so complicated, only three men in Europe have ever understood it. One was Prince Albert, who is dead. The second was a German professor who became mad. I am the third and I have forgotten all about it.”
- Lord Palmerston, British statesmen

Not many actually know how it works the bio passport and there are ways around it and its effectively a way to save some money from the authorities as they say you don't need to update/check the values.

Michael Ashenden, one of the only good eggs in cycling, created it and it is a step forward for cycling, but he criticised the UCI (where he used to work) for not using it properly and under funding and testing it.

Some have been caught, pelizotti, serrano, valjavek and dekker (not huge names but well known enough) but since its inception in 08 it hasn't caught that many to say the least.
It's also worrying when the complicit UCI never shut up about how good it is, "future for clean cycling" bollocks.
Verbruggen used to warn cyclists if their hematocrit levels were too high, how big a joke is that?!?

http://inrng.com/2012/04/whats-up-with-the-bio-passport/

good piece on what its about

Well honestly this article says what I am saying. It;s simply a tool which tehy cannot in effect use cause of toleration of high margins. It means one thing.....you can dope in peace now. And if we think about it, that's exactly what teh ITF wants. Cause what they don't want is simply being accused of covering up like they did for Agassi. WIth this system they are simply protecting the dopers and themselves.

The reason is simple. Those "allowed" rates of high red cells in the blood are simply way too high already and am told only seen in one case out of 100 000 anormal people's population though 99% of athletes show those ridiculous rates. In essence they use the exceptional pathological case as a norm for athletes. Rotten for the word go.

It's more effective in cycling because the testosterone to epitestosterone ratio is at 2;1 with tennis at 4;1 and swimming at a laughable 6;1!

All huff and puff. I'll believe it when they catch somebody and ban them for life stripping them of all titles and prize money.

initttt

Latest...the founder of drug testing against biological passports in tennis:

Don Catlin, one of the founders of athletic drug testing, tells The Guardianthat tennis is wasting its time adopting a biological passport program.The ITF and the tours announced they would do so last week, as well as increase out-of-competition testing. Catlin is the president of Anti-Doping Research, a company in Los Angeles.

“I would tell them not to bother,” Catlin said.They’re better off to increase the number of tests they do rather than spend it all on the passport. Doubling or tripling urine tests would be of more value than starting a passport because you need such a long lead-in. You need data over four or five years.”

The ITF’s anti-doping program budget was just given a boost by the Grand Slams and the two tours, increasing from about $2 million annuallyto $3.6 million.

“It seems it’s because there’s so much flak in the newspapers that they’re trying to do something,” he said. “A lot of it looks like grandstanding - whenever there’s pressure, sport wakes up and looks to do something, but then they realize later that it’s not really changedanything.

“It’s always hard to be critical of someone when they’re trying to do something that’s worthwhile. But if you’re only taking two steps when 100 are needed, it’s not going to work. If you started with the top 100 male players, that would be a good representation, and then if you test them five times a year … but tennis probably can’t afford to do that or doesn’t want to. If you don’t start with something of that magnitude,you’re not going to get far.”

In a statement to The Guardian, the ITF defended its decision.

“The Anti-Doping Working Group has identified the introduction of biological passports as a key enhancement of the detection and deterrence of doping under the Tennis Anti-Doping Program,” said programme chief Dr. Stuart Miller. “The implementation of the passport in accordance with the World Anti-Doping Agency recommendations, including
the required budget, is now being discussed by the four parties in the programme.”

Exactly what I said. Wanting to show they are doing something more than really chasing the dopers. I actually believe the passport is actually a passport to dope cause it will automatically give a free pass to be right on the limit of "possible" physiology.

I am 95% sure this is a way for the ITF to carry on covering up the biggest dopers.

A disgrace.

Tenez wrote:Exactly what I said. Wanting to show they are doing something more than really chasing the dopers. I actually believe the passport is actually a passport to dope cause it will automatically give a free pass to be right on the limit of "possible" physiology.

I am 95% sure this is a way for the ITF to carry on covering up the biggest dopers.

A disgrace.

Of course it is.

Glad we think alike on this one. I'll keep you a bit longer on MY forum.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-21841829

This could be the solution.....and no more testers knocking at the door at 6am.

Well, if that device CAN catch dopers, I'm sure it won't be used. Larry Ellison will be buying the patent

There is something wrong when ITF/WADA cannot catch a 34-yo back from injury pro who is beating many of the Top players willy-nilly.

ITF/WADA should deploy this device to every player and also attach a GPS tracker to their ankles, so the where-abouts requirement is obsoleted.

Should there be a web-cam attached to their personal belongings as well?

And isn't there something wrong when someone who says to be watcing tennis for decades can't understand simple things and post stupid comments with the only intent to annoy others.

There should be a a brain attached to every poster, isn't it??

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:And isn't there something wrong when someone who says to be watcing tennis for decades can't understand simple things and post stupid comments with the only intent to annoy others.

There should be a a brain attached to every poster, isn't it??

ROTLA, I think you should apologise to NITB for that comment.

is that a dig at nitb? or did you accidentally put nitb when it should be to laverfan?

I agree with Luvsports, ROTLA you should apologise to either NITB or LF for your dig.

no haha i was responding to your post amrit

I'm confused.

I don't need any apology

raiders post was in response to laverfan's post i think.

so you said raiders should apologise to nitb. So i said were you taking a dig at nitb (bad blood over nadal and all that) or did you just accidentally put nitb instead of laverfan by mistake?

?
OK now I'm even more confused.

What's Nadal got to do with it?

never mind

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:And isn't there something wrong when someone who says to be watcing tennis for decades can't understand simple things and post stupid comments with the only intent to annoy others.

Are you annoyed and you have a brain, correct? How is it that a 34yo can beat anyone in the Top 4 on a nearly Clay court?

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:There should be a a brain attached to every poster, isn't it??

Chill ROTLA. Very soon, clay will be the only official surface of the ATP. Just different colours, if you will.

Imagine... AO - Blue Clay, USO - Blue Clay, W - Green Clay. RG - Red Clay. All MSes get to pick their colours of clay. Larry would be thrilled.

How is it that a 34yo can beat anyone in the Top 4 on a nearly Clay court?

Did you see the entire match?? Now unless you have seen it how would you be able to know that how a 34 year old ailing player can beat #1 on a slow court.

Have you realized that the 34 yo is still seeded #15? Do you know that it is possible that a player can just catch fire and have a great day where every tactic clicks well for him? Do you realize that there could be circumstances like wind where completely throw off one of the player into making absolutely unusual errors?

If a 34 year old can win a GS why is it so surprising that another 34 year old has beaten a #1 player?

And just because of a 34yo beats has beaten #1 player, you have concluded he must be on dope? Not very intelligent conclusion , ins't it?

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

How is it that a 34yo can beat anyone in the Top 4 on a nearly Clay court?

Did you see the entire match?? Now unless you have seen it how would you be able to know that how a 34 year old ailing player can beat #1 on a slow court.

Yes. I did. Haas played brilliantly. Slice wide of FH, BH in BH corner, push Djokovic back to the base line, slice low in BH, BH DTL and start again. Djokovic had no answer.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:Have you realized that the 34 yo is still seeded #15?

Ranked #145 on 19 Mar 2012.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:Do you know that it is possible that a player can just catch fire and have a great day where every tactic clicks well for him?

Yes, I know many players. Berdych, Hewitt, Tsonga, Dodig, Mayer, Melzer, ....

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:Do you realize that there could be circumstances like wind where completely throw off one of the player into making absolutely unusual errors?

Like Ferrer v Djokovic first set at USO or Murray v Djokovic @USO. Yes. Watch Federer v Soderling at USO (first two sets).

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:If a 34 year old can win a GS why is it so surprising that another 34 year old has beaten a #1 player?

Yes, but it is not Stepanek.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:And just because of a 34yo beats has beaten #1 player, you have concluded he must be on dope? Not very intelligent conclusion , ins't it?

So when a 17yo beats #1, he gets accused for his entire career of illegal enhancements, not very intelligent conclusion, isn't it? That too, without proof.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

How is it that a 34yo can beat anyone in the Top 4 on a nearly Clay court?

Did you see the entire match?? Now unless you have seen it how would you be able to know that how a 34 year old ailing player can beat #1 on a slow court.

Yes. I did. Haas played brilliantly. Slice wide of FH, BH in BH corner, push Djokovic back to the base line, slice low in BH, BH DTL and start again. Djokovic had no answer.

Good. So if you knew how did a 34 yo beat the #1 player on a slow court, why did you raise the Question?

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:Have you realized that the 34 yo is still seeded #15?

Ranked #145 on 19 Mar 2012.

So?? What's your point? If he was ranked #145 on 19 May 2012 it still doesn't change the fact that he was seeded #15 this Miami.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:Do you know that it is possible that a player can just catch fire and have a great day where every tactic clicks well for him?

Yes, I know many players. Berdych, Hewitt, Tsonga, Dodig, Mayer, Melzer, ....

Good. So why post silly questions like asking how did a 34 yo ailing player beat #1 on slow court.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:Do you realize that there could be circumstances like wind where completely throw off one of the player into making absolutely unusual errors?

Like Ferrer v Djokovic first set at USO or Murray v Djokovic @USO. Yes. Watch Federer v Soderling at USO (first two sets).

Did I ask you to give examples? I just asked do you realize of such a possibility. Good that you do. Fine. So back to where we started i.e. why ask stupid questions.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:If a 34 year old can win a GS why is it so surprising that another 34 year old has beaten a #1 player?

Yes, but it is not Stepanek.

Such kind of replies are the ones that make people question your ability to understand the point.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:And just because of a 34yo beats has beaten #1 player, you have concluded he must be on dope? Not very intelligent conclusion , ins't it?

So when a 17yo beats #1, he gets accused for his entire career of illegal enhancements, not very intelligent conclusion, isn't it? That too, without proof.

[/quote]

1. That 17 yo isn't accused of dope because he beat #1 player. He is accused of dope because he/his actions/his play styles give me a reason. There are many other who have never beaten that #1 player yet they are still accused because they do fall in that suspect category. There are many in WTA as well. Have they also beaten that #1 player? There are many who even retired without facing that #1 player yet I can accuse them of dope because their actions were suspicious.

Did you get the difference here? My view is not that narrow where just because a player is beating someone I'll start accusing him.

2. You talk about proof? Fine. Where is your proof that the 17 yo player was not on dope and has never been on dope in his entire career? Where is your proof LF? Ahh.. innocent untill proven guilty? Fine. Then that is only an opinion not a proof sadly. I need your proof. Do you have any?

So people who don't have a proof of innocence can shut up and stop asking for proofs of guilt. Did you get it?

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

So people who don't have a proof of innocence can shut up and stop asking for proofs of guilt. Did you get it?

You'd be a really good lawyer. The poor judge would be silenced.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:
1. That 17 yo isn't accused of dope because he beat #1 player. He is accused of dope because he/his actions/his play styles give me a reason. There are many other who have never beaten that #1 player yet they are still accused because they do fall in that suspect category. There are many in WTA as well. Have they also beaten that #1 player? There are many who even retired without facing that #1 player yet I can accuse them of dope because their actions were suspicious.

Did you get the difference here? My view is not that narrow where just because a player is beating someone I'll start accusing him.

So what is the basis of such baseless accusations?

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:2. You talk about proof? Fine. Where is your proof that the 17 yo player was not on dope and has never been on dope in his entire career? Where is your proof LF? Ahh.. innocent untill proven guilty? Fine. Then that is only an opinion not a proof sadly. I need your proof. Do you have any?

So people who don't have a proof of innocence can shut up and stop asking for proofs of guilt. Did you get it?

There is proof. All tests, so far, have been negative. No guarantees in the future. This is public information. You and rest of the accusers have failed to grasp such a simple fact. You can give the example of LA, who was assumed innocent, till there was conclusive and positive proof.

The Spaniard said earlier this week that he had passed six blood and urine tests since losing on 28 June at Wimbledon, his most recent tournament before competing in Chile, his comeback event after seven months off to recover from a left knee injury.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/feb/09/rafael-nadal-testing-respect

There may be proof LF that is not released to the public ala 1999 tdf positive and tour de suisse 01 positive.

That could apply to all players though, innit?

btw LS, check your inbox.

Yes exactly. As I said before, I am suspicious of many and also that its not in the sports bodies to catch a big cheat.

For instance a few other examples in tennis who is suspect imo: Tipsarevic, monaco, seppi, ferrer, verdasco

luvsports! wrote:There may be proof LF that is not released to the public ala 1999 tdf positive and tour de suisse 01 positive.

LA is from a different sport, the governing bodies are different. There is a renewed push to make ATP/ITF be public with their results.

Scribd has public documents from ITF/WADA for the Tennis tests from 2009-2010 as does THASP, IIRC.

LF again you make the mistake of thinking that I am accusing/saying that they (atp/itf) are covering it up. This could relate to any sport who has a lot to lose from a doping scandal.
We've been over this so let's not do it again.

But this could happen correct? A positive test could come out, but it is hushed up. Right?
That would be proof, but not published proof.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:
1. That 17 yo isn't accused of dope because he beat #1 player. He is accused of dope because he/his actions/his play styles give me a reason. There are many other who have never beaten that #1 player yet they are still accused because they do fall in that suspect category. There are many in WTA as well. Have they also beaten that #1 player? There are many who even retired without facing that #1 player yet I can accuse them of dope because their actions were suspicious.

Did you get the difference here? My view is not that narrow where just because a player is beating someone I'll start accusing him.

So what is the basis of such baseless accusations?

See this again:

1. Since you are asking me, I presume you don't know anything about the basis of such accusations. And if you don't know it, how you can call them baseless. Do you get it now?

2. I and many other posters for years hav been giving ample basis to be suspicious. If you still haven't got it, i'm not going to waste my time repeating those to you. There are still blind-fans who believe LA is innocent and just been a victime of the system. I don't waste my time discussing what is the basis of this being utter nonsence. I know they will never understand.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:2. You talk about proof? Fine. Where is your proof that the 17 yo player was not on dope and has never been on dope in his entire career? Where is your proof LF? Ahh.. innocent untill proven guilty? Fine. Then that is only an opinion not a proof sadly. I need your proof. Do you have any?

So people who don't have a proof of innocence can shut up and stop asking for proofs of guilt. Did you get it?

There is proof. All tests, so far, have been negative. No guarantees in the future. This is public information. You and rest of the accusers have failed to grasp such a simple fact. You can give the example of LA, who was assumed innocent, till there was conclusive and positive proof.

The Spaniard said earlier this week that he had passed six blood and urine tests since losing on 28 June at Wimbledon, his most recent tournament before competing in Chile, his comeback event after seven months off to recover from a left knee injury.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/feb/09/rafael-nadal-testing-respect

Its funny that after the LA story someone can still talks about negative tests as any sort of proof. 6 tests passed?? ha ha ha.. LA passed over 500, MJ over 150, TH too numerous.. and all this while doping. Haven't you heard that "If someone fails a doping test, he probably will even fail a IQ test".

Keep your tests results with you. I don't regard them as any proofs. I rather trust my own observation.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

See this again:

1. Since you are asking me, I presume you don't know anything about the basis of such accusations. And if you don't know it, how you can call them baseless. Do you get it now?

2. I and many other posters for years hav been giving ample basis to be suspicious. If you still haven't got it, i'm not going to waste my time repeating those to you. There are still blind-fans who believe LA is innocent and just been a victime of the system. I don't waste my time discussing what is the basis of this being utter nonsence. I know they will never understand.

1. And subjectivity for such accusations does not matter, correct?

2. This obsession of equating LA/TH to others seems to be a justification often touted in subjective analysis.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:2. You talk about proof? Fine. Where is your proof that the 17 yo player was not on dope and has never been on dope in his entire career? Where is your proof LF? Ahh.. innocent untill proven guilty? Fine. Then that is only an opinion not a proof sadly. I need your proof. Do you have any?

So people who don't have a proof of innocence can shut up and stop asking for proofs of guilt. Did you get it?

There is proof. All tests, so far, have been negative. No guarantees in the future. This is public information. You and rest of the accusers have failed to grasp such a simple fact. You can give the example of LA, who was assumed innocent, till there was conclusive and positive proof.

The Spaniard said earlier this week that he had passed six blood and urine tests since losing on 28 June at Wimbledon, his most recent tournament before competing in Chile, his comeback event after seven months off to recover from a left knee injury.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/feb/09/rafael-nadal-testing-respect

Its funny that after the LA story someone can still talks about negative tests as any sort of proof. 6 tests passed?? ha ha ha.. LA passed over 500, MJ over 150, TH too numerous.. and all this while doping. Haven't you heard that "If someone fails a doping test, he probably will even fail a IQ test".

Keep your tests results with you. I don't regard them as any proofs. I rather trust my own observation.

Guess who was testing and why they were never caught. TH did not pass. He was suspended twice. I can state the same - I rather trust my own observation. Observations are fairly subjective. Who was on the other side of the net at AO 2012, and what happened to observation skills then?

The way I see it LF is that you are still trying to appear as "moderate and fair", sitting in the very uncomfortable fence between Nadal and Federer. So you feel obliged to try to defend Nadal while being short of arguments to explain Nadal's (And the other beepbeeps) amazing physical prowess.

Surely you must scratch your head when you see Nadal running that much and hitting that gard in a Wimbledon's final after 4 months of non-stop tennis yet getting really tired in November despite 2 months of rest. Not easy to explain that is it?

Tenez wrote:The way I see it LF is that you are still trying to appear as "moderate and fair", sitting in the very uncomfortable fence between Nadal and Federer. So you feel obliged to try to defend Nadal while being short of arguments to explain Nadal's (And the other beepbeeps) amazing physical prowess.

Surely you must scratch your head when you see Nadal running that much and hitting that gard in a Wimbledon's final after 4 months of non-stop tennis yet getting really tired in November despite 2 months of rest. Not easy to explain that is it?

I am not uncomfortable at all, unlike you. Neither am I obliged to defend any one. Amazing physical prowess - let us ask Djokovic what that is?

I do not scratch my head, I know he dislikes HC, but still plays them. I recall a player in 2006 with a 92-5 W/L for a season.

laverfan wrote:

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

See this again:

1. Since you are asking me, I presume you don't know anything about the basis of such accusations. And if you don't know it, how you can call them baseless. Do you get it now?

2. I and many other posters for years hav been giving ample basis to be suspicious. If you still haven't got it, i'm not going to waste my time repeating those to you. There are still blind-fans who believe LA is innocent and just been a victime of the system. I don't waste my time discussing what is the basis of this being utter nonsence. I know they will never understand.

1. And subjectivity for such accusations does not matter, correct?

2. This obsession of equating LA/TH to others seems to be a justification often touted in subjective analysis.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:2. You talk about proof? Fine. Where is your proof that the 17 yo player was not on dope and has never been on dope in his entire career? Where is your proof LF? Ahh.. innocent untill proven guilty? Fine. Then that is only an opinion not a proof sadly. I need your proof. Do you have any?

So people who don't have a proof of innocence can shut up and stop asking for proofs of guilt. Did you get it?

There is proof. All tests, so far, have been negative. No guarantees in the future. This is public information. You and rest of the accusers have failed to grasp such a simple fact. You can give the example of LA, who was assumed innocent, till there was conclusive and positive proof.

The Spaniard said earlier this week that he had passed six blood and urine tests since losing on 28 June at Wimbledon, his most recent tournament before competing in Chile, his comeback event after seven months off to recover from a left knee injury.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/feb/09/rafael-nadal-testing-respect

Its funny that after the LA story someone can still talks about negative tests as any sort of proof. 6 tests passed?? ha ha ha.. LA passed over 500, MJ over 150, TH too numerous.. and all this while doping. Haven't you heard that "If someone fails a doping test, he probably will even fail a IQ test".

Keep your tests results with you. I don't regard them as any proofs. I rather trust my own observation.

Guess who was testing and why they were never caught. TH did not pass. He was suspended twice. I can state the same - I rather trust my own observation. Observations are fairly subjective. Who was on the other side of the net at AO 2012, and what happened to observation skills then?

See I already told you what my opinion about your ability to understand a point is or I need to make it any more clear? So You keep your subjective analysis and observations with you, I'm not discussing those with you because very frankly its like talking to a robot.

Tenez wrote:The way I see it LF is that you are still trying to appear as "moderate and fair", sitting in the very uncomfortable fence between Nadal and Federer. So you feel obliged to try to defend Nadal while being short of arguments to explain Nadal's (And the other beepbeeps) amazing physical prowess.

Surely you must scratch your head when you see Nadal running that much and hitting that gard in a Wimbledon's final after 4 months of non-stop tennis yet getting really tired in November despite 2 months of rest. Not easy to explain that is it?

1. Trying to appear as moderate and fair? Yes

2. Uncomfortable fence? NO. Infact its easier for some to sit on a fence and throw mud on both side rather than picking up a side to come down to. They have no point in any conversation, they will just have a counter point.

3. Obliged to defend Nadal? Not at all. That is for amritia and Lydian, not LF. People who sit on a fenace have no obligation. Their only intent is to counter whatever is said.

Surely you must scratch your head when you see Nadal running that much and hitting that gard in a Wimbledon's final after 4 months of non-stop tennis yet getting really tired in November despite 2 months of rest. Not easy to explain that is it?

Not easy? You are underestimating LF. Its too easy for her. Look at the explanation below:

I recall a player in 2006 with a 92-5 W/L for a season.

Yes. Fed's 92-5 W/L is the reason why one need not scratch one's head looking at Nadal's spikes in performances. Fed's remarkably consistent season where is sliced through the entire ATP circuit almost effortlessly is the reason why we should not question Nadal's spikes in performance where he looked almost unbreakable during the April-July season and absolutely vulnerable for the rest.

laverfan wrote:I am not uncomfortable at all, unlike you. Neither am I obliged to defend any one. Amazing physical prowess - let us ask Djokovic what that is?

You see you reply to my accusation of Nadal is to be suspicious of Djoko. So you see this as a fans' war. To me it's clear Djoko dopes. The egg chamber is doping and that is just one method they have at hand. As nothing is done to stop doping, at least I am glad other have joined too. Woudl have been boring to see Nadal winning everything in 2011 too cause no-one had caught up with his methods.

I do not scratch my head, I know he dislikes HC, but still plays them. I recall a player in 2006 with a 92-5 W/L for a season.

How noble of you not to scratch your head at seeing the most bizarre pattern from Nadal's ups and down. He doesn't like HC and gets bagelled by Fed but 2 month later beats Fed in 4...on HC. Unfortunately this is the reason why this world goes round. Too many credulous people not questioning anything. That's why we are sent to wars by our elites.

Fed playes teh same in Januray like in December. He played a lot certainly but his form was very much the same, so once again you find a poor comparative example.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:
2. Uncomfortable fence? NO. Infact its easier for some to sit on a fence and throw mud on both side rather than picking up a side to come down to. They have no point in any conversation, they will just have a counter point.

indeed.

3. Obliged to defend Nadal? Not at all. That is for amritia and Lydian, not LF. People who sit on a fenace have no obligation. Their only intent is to counter whatever is said.

But still LF doesn't want to upset her "reasonable, well thinking" friends from either side so spends more time asking more question than she can answer.

Surely you must scratch your head when you see Nadal running that much and hitting that gard in a Wimbledon's final after 4 months of non-stop tennis yet getting really tired in November despite 2 months of rest. Not easy to explain that is it?

Not easy? You are underestimating LF. Its too easy for her. Look at the explanation below:

I recall a player in 2006 with a 92-5 W/L for a season.

Yes. Fed's 92-5 W/L is the reason why one need not scratch one's head looking at Nadal's spikes in performances. Fed's remarkably consistent season where is sliced through the entire ATP circuit almost effortlessly is the reason why we should not question Nadal's spikes in performance where he looked almost unbreakable during the April-July season and absolutely vulnerable for the rest.

You must be a programmer rotla! You are excellent at debugging a faulty application. However I am afraid you cannot do anything for LF. She needs rebooting maybe.

interesting interview from todd martin. Doping part a few minutes in
http://www.tennisnow.com/News/Featured-News/Todd-Martin-Talks-Djokovic,-Prize-Money,-Doping,-a.aspx

Interesting interview. I suppose anybody from tennis world saying anything about doping in tennis is gong to get attention.

What he said was ok, but so wrapped up in layers of understatement because of fear.
And it's infuriating: the fear to speak out.

That's why I love the French, they just say it as it is.

its the omerta nitb, its everywhere!