PED

RosyLily · 10-07-2014 12:03pm

Enough of the snide comments.

Either discuss the topic or leave.

Halloween Jack · 10-07-2014 12:21pm

walshb wrote: »

If the conversation is boring, or you can't contain your snottiness then bid me a good day. Nobody is forcing you to try and debate in a civil fashion.

Picking out a tiny percentage of my words to try and belittle my posts is not really helpful.

Best to read a bit more and maybe take some of the 'better' points that I made.

The Tiger issue. You ready to label him a drug user because of "Tiger Woods walking around with a 'MusclePharm' logo on his bag" is just as silly and daft as you are claiming my retort is. Maybe I should have just said that to the best of my knowledge Tiger has never tested positive for PEDs. Would that be daft as well? As daft as you labeling him a cheat because of a logo?

If the debate needs to be all agreeing with you then I will no longer post. It seems you are wanting this. Maybe it's annoying you that I don't agree with all that you say?

Do you see where people are coming from though walshb?

Only the other day tiger admitted he hadn't been tested once all year. WADA have confirmed the ITF did hardly any tests for EPO and no test at all for HGH. Furthermore there is a long list of dopers whoe successfully cheated the system for years without testing positive.

These are the reasons why your stance believing athletes to be clean unless they test positive could irk some people.

We all know golfers dope, we all know tennis players dope, the authorities surely know athletes dope. How then can the testing across the sports be so lax unless by design?

Not failing a test is proof of absolutely nothing with all this in mind.

walshb · 10-07-2014 12:29pm

Halloween Jack wrote: »

Do you see where people are coming from though walshb?

Only the other day tiger admitted he hadn't been tested once all year. WADA have confirmed the ITF did hardly any tests for EPO and no test at all for HGH. Furthermore there is a long list of dopers whoe successfully cheated the system for years without testing positive.

These are the reasons why your stance believing athletes to be clean unless they test positive could irk some people.

We all know golfers dope, we all know tennis players dope, the authorities surely know athletes dope. How then can the testing across the sports be so lax unless by design?

Not failing a test is proof of absolutely nothing with all this in mind.

For the umpteenth time I am aware that cheats slip through the net. I couldn't be clearer. I said this several times. It's in many posts.

Here is where we essentially are debating: Applying the rule of not failing a test (as being of no relevance) to almost any great athlete. Surely that is naive?

We may as well close the debate. Drugs tests means NOTHING. All great achievements and performances must be down to doping. I believe you said it, that if the great players are not doping then they are idiots? I think it was you who said this.

Imagine applying that or saying that to many many greats in sport through the years. Sure, some may well have cheated, but applying it so liberally just doesn't sit with me.

walshb · 10-07-2014 12:31pm

Halloween Jack wrote: »

Not failing a test is proof of absolutely nothing with all this in mind.

And labeling them cheats with hearsay and speculation and innuendo also proves nothing. You surely can agree with this. I agree with your claim.

If an athlete does not get tested at all in a year then we still can't label him/her a cheat. That's ridiculous. If said athlete is evading tests then yes, I am ready to be very suspicious.

walshb · 10-07-2014 12:40pm

Take Michael Phelps. The guy was tested non stop for many years. He is a great. The GOAT. Does the testing mean nothing as regards him? Is he somehow cheating but not getting caught?

Maybe he isn't a good example, as FINA seem fairly stringent with testing.

Halloween Jack · 10-07-2014 12:56pm

walshb wrote: »

And labeling them cheats with hearsay and speculation and innuendo also proves nothing. You surely can agree with this. I agree with your claim.

If an athlete does not get tested at all in a year then we still can't label him/her a cheat. That's ridiculous. If said athlete is evading tests then yes, I am ready to be very suspicious.

Obviously its wrong to flat out label people cheats with out anything approaching hard evidence. I dont think ive claimed anybody to be doping outright?

That however is precisely the tradgedy in all this. Im not here arguing about this with you because im a conspiracy nut, or i claim to have insider knowledge, or i like a good yarn. Im arguing the toss with you over this because i care, and im angry and i feel like ive been robbed of the enjoyment of something i cherished so much.

The Armstrong stuff was a bit of a watershed for me. Previous to that i had zero, and i mean zero interest or knowledge in doping. I thought it was something that happened in athletics and cycling, but even then predominantly in the past. But the more i read around the armstrong case the more i believed that those notions were exactly what certain interests wanted me to think. I cant unread or unlearn what ive read, and common sense tells me that a lot of what im seeing just isnt plausible anymore.

I still watch sports and enjoy them, but the feeling you describe, one of wonder and awe and inspiration at extrordinary feat performed my mortal men and women, will be tainted for me until things change drastically.

Re: phelps, dont know much about him, other than the records etc. As far as i know he's clean. But as ive iterated, nothing would surprise me. A big, big factor in me getting belief back in the authorities would be a system of storing samples and re-testing periodically them in line with improved tests. If athletes knew for a fact that even if they were ahead of the curve, they would be caught in future then id be happier. Id also advocate jailing dopers when caught as to my mind its outright fraud.

walshb · 10-07-2014 1:14pm

No real argument with that, Halloween Jack. In a nutshell it boils down to what we view as humanly possible and what we really suspect as being aided by PEDs.

I strongly disagree with the view that athletes at the top who aren't doping are silly because the testing in their sport is not very stringent. I believe there are honest and clean and wanting to be honest and clean athletes. Win/lose or draw, they are not going to cheat! I will throw in the big four of Federer and Murray and Nadal and Nole in that. I think all four are great players. I believe them to be attaining success through dedication. I don't see anything extraordinary that cannot be put down to dedication and technology and improvements through the years.

One great athlete I believe in is Ed Moses, the hurdler. So dominant and great, in a time when track and field was not near as tested as it is today. Why do I believe him? Well, from all I have read about the guy, his manner/attitude and preparation. It all points to a clean athlete. Now, if I was to take the view that he must be a doper because he was the best in the world at a time when doping tests weren't as strict as post 1988, then I dismiss the man completely. I dismiss that a man can do what he did through hard work and dedication. Would I be completely shocked if it transpired that he doped? No. But a shock nonetheless.

walshb · 10-07-2014 1:22pm

Michelle Smith at the time for me was given the benefit of the doubt, (why dope in 1998 after all she achieved in 1996)? But when you look back over her career and her times and improvements it is hard to accept that it was done without PEDs. I was annoyed with the sour grapes attitude from the Americans. Plus, Michelle wasn't swimming remarkable times; but I suppose they were remarkable for her! Now, never tested positive for a PED as far as I know, had some positive test that was dismissed I believe, (I am open to correction), but I do think she used PEDs. Found guilty of tampering with a drugs sample.

Halloween Jack · 10-07-2014 1:38pm

There are indeed athletes who are clean and would never cheat, unforunately its hard to know who is who. It is indeed another tradgedy of doping some that such athletes are being robbed of the careers they should be having by those who are prepared to cheat.

Re: the comment about athletes being idiots for not doping, that was meant to infer that the testing was so obviously obviously beatable that honesty really is the only thing that would hold an athlete back. The chances of getting caught are slim to none and the rewards for doping potentially huge. I mentioned Johnson's coach before, he raised a point about the culture of doping in athletics in the 80's. He claimed that the athletes didnt really even see it as cheating, their reasoning being that it would only be cheating if you were alone in doping, if everybody is doing it, you are only levelling the playing field by joining in. It is this type of thinking that makes doping widespread, and means that the scandals always involve whole echelons of individual sports.

Imagine you keep hammering a guy in the juniors, then all of a sudden he starts blowing you away, you start to think, this guy isnt legit, im better than him, he must be using. What do you do then, even if your an honest athlete? Do you accept that this guy who isnt as good as you will go on to have the career you should be having or do you go looking for whatever he's having to level the terms again?

I think you are correct in assuming that most athletes are honest or at least start out so. But the way the authorities habdle doping (ie: tacitly accept it) corrupts athletes and entire sports. Eradicating doping protects athletes from having to make this kind of compromise and protects their health. The human body was designed to be able to do so much. Pushing it beyond what it was designed for can only be a bad thing.

walshb · 10-07-2014 1:48pm

Halloween Jack wrote: »

He claimed that the athletes didnt really even see it as cheating, their reasoning being that it would only be cheating if you were alone in doping, if everybody is doing it, you are only levelling the playing field by joining in. It is this type of thinking that makes doping widespread, and means that the scandals always involve whole echelons of individual sports.

This is one point that sort of cements my view that Carl was not a PED user. It's not a provable belief or fact, but Lewis was clearly faster than Ben. That IMO was just talent. Then Ben starts to clearly dominate Carl. A complete turnaround. Lewis knew something was up quite a while before Seoul, but still, Lewis' performances and times were steady and consistent. It was Ben who was booming with dramatic time improvements.

The U.S. surely had access, or could have had access to the same good stuff that Ben was on, and the knowledge and expertise to use it wisely, but Lewis was still Mr. consistent. Nothing extraordinary happening with him. I reckon a Lewis doped on the juice that Ben was on could have run faster than anything Ben achieved. Holy god, imagine Lewis with a much more explosive start, for example? The guy used to take 50 metres to get going. Imagine taking 20 metres off that and Lewis was booming down the track? 9.5/9.6?

walshb · 10-07-2014 2:51pm

Interesting question. Flo Jo's 10.5/21.3 has never been reached, not even close. Now, assuming athletes at the top in sprinting are PED users, why are the records still so unattainable? Just a question. Is it that the drugs that she "may" have been using are far too risky to use today?

Halloween Jack · 10-07-2014 3:01pm

walshb wrote: »

Interesting question. Flo Jo's 10.5/21.3 has never been reached, not even close. Now, assuming athletes at the top in sprinting are PED users, why are the records still so unattainable? Just a question. Is it that the drugs that she "may" have been using are far too risky to use today?

That is an interesting point. i dont know enough about sprinting to have an answer. Maybe it was to do with the volume of substances she was on, if indeed she was using. She did succumb to fairly dire health problems later in life, so it could point to heavy, heavy use.

One thing to note about doping though, is the fact that it effects people's bodies in different ways. Im open to correction on this but i believe armstrongs body was highly responsive to the type of doping which was prevalent in cycling at that time, which allowed him to thrash other doped up athletes who had more natural capacity for cycling. In fact i remember reading that riders who had a naturally high hematocrit, which would have been an advantage if riders were clean, were actually disadvantaged in the epo era as they wouldnt receive the same boost in performance as a doped rider with a low hematocrit.

walshb · 10-07-2014 3:24pm

Halloween Jack wrote: »

That is an interesting point. i dont know enough about sprinting to have an answer. Maybe it was to do with the volume of substances she was on, if indeed she was using. She did succumb to fairly dire health problems later in life, so it could point to heavy, heavy use.
.

It's probably that she was on a cocktail of "brilliant" drugs. To risk it today would be futile, in or out of competition. 1988 was the last year that athletes were free from random testing. She was a natural talent, very fast woman, and aided by whatever. But, the other question, which you answered somewhat, is how come she was so far ahead of the 2nd and 3rd and 4th and 5th etc? Were they clean and playing by the rules? Or, as you implied, was Flo Jo reacting much better to drugs, if indeed she was on them?

whiterebel · 11-07-2014 12:27pm

Just to address a comment made about Fed and Agassi. Look at the way Federer moves, he 'glides' around court, better than most in the world. He rarely looks like he has broken sweat, even at the end of 5 setters. Agassi hated playing tennis, and if you read his book, will understand why, and never looked a naturally smooth mover around the court. Look at the absolute limits of reach that ND, RN etc get in the matches, and you can see why they get injured more often. And as for not doing much in 5 sets of tennis, maybe they'd need to play it themselves to find out how much work is involved.

walshb · 11-07-2014 3:43pm

whiterebel wrote: »

JAnd as for not doing much in 5 sets of tennis, maybe they'd need to play it themselves to find out how much work is involved.

What does this mean, and who is it addressed to?

whiterebel · 11-07-2014 4:58pm

walshb wrote: »

What does this mean, and who is it addressed to?

1)Someone said that the ball isn't actually in play much, and seemed to imply it wasn't too difficult. I'm suggesting that they actually try playing 5 sets
2)Who ever posted it.
It was about tennis so probably got lost in all the crap about Lewis, Bolt et al.

walshb · 11-07-2014 5:08pm

whiterebel wrote: »

1)Someone said that the ball isn't actually in play much, and seemed to imply it wasn't too difficult. I'm suggesting that they actually try playing 5 sets
2)Who ever posted it.
It was about tennis so probably got lost in all the crap about Lewis, Bolt et al.

Okey doke. The point made, that I agreed with, was that in 5 sets of tennis there is not 4-5 hrs of actual effort and play. There is many rests and breaks and lulls. Still takes a lot of fitness and athleticism. The more important point was that it was to counter the argument that players playing 5 setters back to back in a couple of days are somehow doing unbelievable and extraordinary things. They are not. The players are fit and strong and 21st century sports stars.

Another point about 5 setters and 4-5 hrs of court time was that it wasn't easy to tell if the players were as fresh after 4- 5 hrs as they were after 1-2 hrs. Posters were wondering how it was possible that players were playing with the same intensity in set 5 as in any other set. I asked how they could know this? They may have been playing with intensity in set 5, but maybe it wasn't as intense as in set 1 and 2.

I have watched many 5 setters and for me the players were showing real fatigue in the closing stages. They weren't as fast or as strong in set 5 as they were in the preceding sets. They were depleting, as would be expected.

Post 14 on this thread is a very interesting read and comparison.

Giruilla · 23-07-2014 3:16pm

I see Andy Murray has gone from being coached by Ivan Lendl - A confirmed juicer by Victor Conte...
.. to Amelie Mauresmo - suspected of steroid abuse her whole career, especially during a time when female tennis players weren't included in out of competition testing.

Interesting company he's keeping.

RosyLily · 23-07-2014 3:43pm

Stop with the baseless accusations!!

Next time the thread will be closed.

Halloween Jack · 23-07-2014 3:45pm

Giruilla wrote: »

I see Andy Murray has gone from being coached by Ivan Lendl - A confirmed juicer by Victor Conte...
.. to Amelie Mauresmo - suspected of steroid abuse her whole career, especially during a time when female tennis players weren't included in out of competition testing.

Interesting company he's keeping.

I have always been a huge Murray fan, but since i took an interest in doping in the sport i have grave misgivings.

However any of the things i put forward as indicators that something untoward was going on would seem spurious and probably breach the charter.

As ive said though, nothing in relation to doping in tennis would surprise me.

walshb · 28-07-2014 3:08pm

RosyLily wrote: »

Stop with the baseless accusations!!

Next time the thread will be closed.

They are not baseless, after all Murray was seen/associated with someone who is "suspected" of being a doper. That's major evidence there!

Giruilla · 29-07-2014 9:31am

walshb wrote: »

They are not baseless, after all Murray was seen/associated with someone who is "suspected" of being a doper. That's major evidence there!

Did you actually read that line about Victor Conte?

You're point is so remarkably banal, I'm wondering how many times you're planning on trotting it out? These tennis players have never been convicted of juicing... therefore they are not juicers. Ok.. I get it.

Giruilla · 29-07-2014 9:35am

“Possibly, and this may sound ridiculous, cycling is one of the cleanest sports left because the controls are full on. But f***ing tennis, I find it nauseating to watch it on TV to see the McEnroes and all the commentators engage in this big love-in. And the bottom line is we are all getting rich here folks, lets not upset the apple-cart.”

- Paul Kimmage

walshb · 29-07-2014 12:09pm

Andy Murray can be linked to Victor Conte in some way. Major evidence there!

walshb · 29-07-2014 12:10pm

Giruilla wrote: »

You're point is so remarkably banal, I'm wondering how many times you're planning on trotting it out? These tennis players have never been convicted of juicing... therefore they are not juicers. Ok.. I get it.

Some tennis players have never failed dope tests, so they are juicers. Yes, that makes so much more sense!

walshb · 29-07-2014 12:14pm

With 6 degrees of separation we can convict them all...Just link them to Conte!

Giruilla · 29-07-2014 12:32pm

walshb wrote: »

Andy Murray can be linked to Victor Conte in some way. Major evidence there!

walshb wrote: »

Some tennis players have never failed dope tests, so they are juicers. Yes, that makes so much more sense!

walshb wrote: »

With 6 degrees of separation we can convict them all...Just link them to Conte!

You're embarrassing yourself.

What has 'being linked to Conte' got to do with anything anyway?! Victor Conte is a whistleblower..

walshb · 29-07-2014 12:41pm

Andy Murray and Roger Federer have both been advocates for more stringent testing in Tennis. The problem is the ITF and its lax testing, but hey, Murray can be somehow linked to Victor Conte. That's all the proof we need! Or, through 6 degrees, Murray is linked to Lendl, who is a "confirmed" doper according to Conte, and to Mauresmo, who has been "suspected" of steroid abuse her whole career. Murray needs to keep better company, no?

And no, I don't feel that I am embarrassing myself.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO · 29-07-2014 5:43pm

Saw yesterday that Andy Roddick had been looking to get into the US Open this year to play doubles with Mardy Fish. They wouldn't allow him because he needs to have been in the doping pool for 3 months prior to competing. 3 months is a relatively short time compared to the full year that swimmers have to be in the doping pool before being allowed to compete.

Halloween Jack · 29-07-2014 6:17pm

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Saw yesterday that Andy Roddick had been looking to get into the US Open this year to play doubles with Mardy Fish. They wouldn't allow him because he needs to have been in the doping pool for 3 months prior to competing. 3 months is a relatively short time compared to the full year that swimmers have to be in the doping pool before being allowed to compete.

You'll find the entire anti doping apparatus in tennis is far more lax than the supposed 'dirty' sports like athletics, cycling, swimming.

walshb · 30-07-2014 12:27pm

Halloween Jack wrote: »

You'll find the entire anti doping apparatus in tennis is far more lax than the supposed 'dirty' sports like athletics, cycling, swimming.

It seems to be a lot more lax. I fully agree that we should ask questions, and even be suspicious, but why go so far as to really try and tarnish a tennis player like Nadal or Murray or Nole? Just because a sport/organization isn't testing to the standards that other sports are does not mean that the athletes in said sport are dopers. They could be, but I still believe that there are good and honest and clean players in the top ten that are there because of hard work and dedication, and who do not want to cheat to compete.

Anyway, tennis is far more skill than power/strength. Yes, drugs will help in stamina and recovery, but I have yet to see such obvious performances from the top 4 that would lead me to believe that drugs are involved.

Halloween Jack · 30-07-2014 1:52pm

walshb wrote: »

It seems to be a lot more lax. I fully agree that we should ask questions, and even be suspicious, but why go so far as to really try and tarnish a tennis player like Nadal or Murray or Nole? Just because a sport/organization isn't testing to the standards that other sports are does not mean that the athletes in said sport are dopers. They could be, but I still believe that there are good and honest and clean players in the top ten that are there because of hard work and dedication, and who do not want to cheat to compete.

Anyway, tennis is far more skill than power/strength. Yes, drugs will help in stamina and recovery, but I have yet to see such obvious performances from the top 4 that would lead me to believe that drugs are involved.

The testing is a joke, everybody can agree on that surely after the recent wada numbers were released surely?

What you then have to ask is why is it a joke? Why is the doping program so chronically underfunded when there is money pouring in to the game?

The quotes I posted a while back from Ben Johnson's former coach provide the answer for me.

You said murray and federer have advocated more stringent testing, but that was only in the aftermath of the Armstrong scandal. Murray in particular has made a number of ambiguous statements regarding doping in the past.

It wouldn't be difficult to improve the testing regime and the ITF certainly have the resources to do so, this leafs me to believe they are not serious about ensuring a clean sport and would rather the whole issue disappeared.

In the absence of decent journalists it's up to fans to be vigilant imo and the guys at tennishasasteroidproblem deserve a lot of credit

Giruilla · 30-07-2014 2:17pm

walshb wrote: »

Anyway, tennis is far more skill than power/strength. Yes, drugs will help in stamina and recovery, but I have yet to see such obvious performances from the top 4 that would lead me to believe that drugs are involved.

Do you realise the advantage a player has in tennis if he can add 10/20 mph to his serve or forehand?

Theres a very easy illegal way to do this and its called juicing.

When you're playing at the level of Fed/Nadal/Djokovic skill will get you so far.
Power, strength and stamina are where the matches are won.
You only need to listen to the commentators themselves recently to know it. Listen to Murrays comments about his need to get back in the gym lifting weights right after a loss.

walshb · 30-07-2014 2:51pm

Giruilla wrote: »

Do you realise the advantage a player has in tennis if he can add 10/20 mph to his serve or forehand?

Theres a very easy illegal way to do this and its called juicing.

When you're playing at the level of Fed/Nadal/Djokovic skill will get you so far.
Power, strength and stamina are where the matches are won.
You only need to listen to the commentators themselves recently to know it. Listen to Murrays comments about his need to get back in the gym lifting weights right after a loss.

Has Murray or Fed or Nadal or Nole added 10-20 mph to their serve with something that cannot be explained other than PEDs? I am with you as regards PEDs being advantageous for tennis, as my second post on this thread indicates. Post 10. Never said otherwise. Allows tennis players to train harder and longer. Still waiting for some decent evidence in their (top 4-5) game that would say that they are PED users.

I am also with you as regards the testing as being lax. I said this many times. We do all agree here. I also added that it is only right to question it and to be somewhat suspicious. Where I have an issue is when this goes from questions and suspicion to almost certainty, without anything credible to back it up.

I hear about the players being able to play 5 set matches. Wow. Big deal. It's not 5 hrs of actual play, as has been pointed out, and nobody has proved that in the 5th set the players are as strong and powerful and fast and skilled as they are in the preceding sets.

Murray saying he needs to get to the gym to lift weights. What is this meant to mean or imply? I take it as it is. That he needs to get to the gym to lift weights.

Who's denying that power and strength and stamina aren't important factors? They become more important when two players are very close as regards natural skill and talent. Power and strength and stamina have always been important. More important today than in other eras? Probably. But is this an indicator of the top 4 being juicers?

walshb · 30-07-2014 2:59pm

Halloween Jack wrote: »

The testing is a joke, everybody can agree on that surely after the recent wada numbers were released surely?

t

I think we have agreed on this several times. To then automatically paint the top 4 as cheats, or to be highly suspicious, is for me a bit unfair. I don't think I am being all that naive to believe that there are "some" great athletes out there who are also clean and honest, and who would not cheat to compete.

walshb · 30-07-2014 3:40pm

Halloween Jack wrote: »

Murray in particular has made a number of ambiguous statements regarding doping in the past.
t

So what?

Halloween Jack · 30-07-2014 4:23pm

walshb wrote: »

So what?

You claimed murray had advocated stricter testing, I was pointing out that he adopted this stance only after the Armstrong affair and some media traction regarding doping in tennis.

All his comments prior to this we're moaning about doping controls or advocating omertà by calling Odesnik a snitch for providing 'substantial assistance' to the authorities regarding doping in the game.

We get that you think the top 4 are clean, you've stated this. I don't think I have accused anybody of cheating outright, but I have my suspicions and they won't be assuaged until the testing improves and samples are kept and stored and retested periodically as technology has improved.

These cyclical arguments are getting nobody anywhere

Giruilla · 30-07-2014 4:27pm

walshb wrote: »

Has Murray or Fed or Nadal or Nole added 10-20 mph to their serve with something that cannot be explained other than PEDs?

Rafael Nadal says he has no explanation for his big serving during the U.S. Open except for a change in his grip.
Nadal is the only player who has not been broken so far in the tournament. He hit a serve at 135 mph during his fourth-round match against Feliciano Lopez, likely the fastest of his career, following the 134 mph he hit in his second-round match against Denis Istomin.
No, I wasn't on the gym," he joked in a courtside interview after defeating Lopez. "Seriously, I don't know. I think sometimes it's part of the confidence, the serve. It's true, I'm serving faster than ever."

http://tennishasasteroidproblem.blogspot.ie/2010/09/nadals-serve.html

I'm sure you'll 100% take Nadals word for it that this was down to a grip change. After all he's never failed a drugs test, and drug testing is lax but it doesn't mean we can taint people, and absence of evidence is evidence of absence and...

walshb wrote: »

Who's denying that power and strength and stamina aren't important factors? They become more important when two players are very close as regards natural skill and talent. Power and strength and stamina have always been important. More important today than in other eras? Probably. But is this an indicator of the top 4 being juicers?

C'mon.. you wrote this a few posts earlier..

walshb wrote: »

Anyway, tennis is far more skill than power/strength. Yes, drugs will help in stamina and recovery, but I have yet to see such obvious performances from the top 4 that would lead me to believe that drugs are involved.

We're not talking about a kids tournament here where the skillful players can hit hit some dink shots into the corner..
Tennis now has players incredibly evenly matched and players are constantly losing out solely to fatigue and strength of shots. Stamina and power in tennis is HUGE at the highest level now and cannot be overstated enough.

walshb · 30-07-2014 4:31pm

Halloween Jack wrote: »

You claimed murray had advocated stricter testing, I was pointing out that he adopted this stance only after the Armstrong affair and some media traction regarding doping in tennis.

All his comments prior to this we're moaning about doping controls or advocating omertà by calling Odesnik a snitch for providing 'substantial assistance' to the authorities regarding doping in the game.

We get that you think the top 4 are clean, you've stated this. I don't think I have accused anybody of cheating outright, but I have my suspicions and they won't be assuaged until the testing improves and samples are kept and stored and retested periodically as technology has improved.

These cyclical arguments are getting nobody anywhere

Murray did call for stricter testing. You said he made ambiguous statements prior to this? So what if he did. I don't see much relevance in that, same way as Novak offering Victor Troicki support after his doping issue doesn't mean much to me.

I too would have suspicions. Not as strong as yours. That is all that separates us; so yes, going around in circles. I would be surprised if any of the top 4 were doping. Not shocked, but surprised.

walshb · 30-07-2014 4:35pm

Giruilla wrote: »

C'mon.. you wrote this a few posts earlier..

We're not talking about a kids tournament here where the skillful players can hit hit some dink shots into the corner..
Tennis now has players incredibly evenly matched and players are constantly losing out solely to fatigue and strength of shots. Stamina and power in tennis is HUGE at the highest level now and cannot be overstated enough.

I believe that skill is more important in tennis than strength and stamina. That doesn't mean that strength and stamina are not important. Never did I say that strength and stamina weren't important. Again, see post 10 from me to cement this view.

Giruilla · 30-07-2014 4:42pm

walshb wrote: »

I would be surprised if any of the top 4 were doping. Not shocked, but surprised.

Why would you be surprised?
Because the top 4 don't get the million dollar contracts as opposed to the short term 10k/100k contracts?
Because theres no money in winning tournaments?
Because the money doesn't increase in tournaments the further you get?
Because they're not under huge pressure from sponsors to win sh*t?
Because they have too much to lose and wouldn't put their reputations at stake? (Conveniently ignoring the likelihood that if they were juicing now, they got to that stage of their career doing it anyway)
Because you can get to the TOP in tennis through pure skill, even though the advantages to having higher shot power and stamina like the Williams sisters is outrageous?
Because the testing in tennis is too stringent and they wouldn't get away with it if they tried?

.. or.. because you want to believe what you are watching is 100% natty real?

Halloween Jack · 30-07-2014 4:44pm

walshb wrote: »

Murray did call for stricter testing. You said he made ambiguous statements prior to this? So what if he did. I don't see much relevance in that, same way as Novak offering Victor Troicki support after his doping issue doesn't mean much to me.

I too would have suspicions. Not as string as yours. That is all that separates us; so yes, going around in circles. I would be surprised if any of the top 4 were doping. Not shocked, but surprised.

I found Murray's comments re: Odesnik and djokovic's behaviour re: troicki as as absolutely shameful myself and it resonates with the culture of omertà which existed in other sports in eras of rampant cheating.

Besides, advocating stricter controls in public means absolutely nothing, especially when the comments were made in the aftermath of the biggest doping scandal in history.

I'm sure I could find page after page of quotes from lance himself calling for rigorous testing

walshb · 30-07-2014 4:45pm

Giruilla wrote: »

Because you can get to the TOP in tennis through pure skill, even though the advantages to having higher shot power and stamina like the Williams sisters is outrageous?

No player gets to the top in a physically demanding sport from skill alone.

Still waiting on evidence that what the top players are doing is somehow not possible without PEDs.

Giruilla · 30-07-2014 4:47pm

walshb wrote: »

No player gets to the top in a physically demanding sport from skill alone.

Still waiting on evidence that what the top players are doing is somehow not possible without PEDs.

post #239

walshb · 30-07-2014 4:47pm

Halloween Jack wrote: »

I found Murray's comments re: Odesnik and djokovic's behaviour re: troicki as as absolutely shameful myself and it resonates with the culture of omertà which existed in other sports in eras of rampant cheating.

Besides, advocating stricter controls in public means absolutely nothing, especially when the comments were made in the aftermath of the biggest doping scandal in history.

I'm sure I could find page after page of quotes from lance himself calling for rigorous testing

Lance did fool a lot of people. No doubt. The testing needs to be upped. We get this. Other than this happening we can only suspect, OR hope that our "idols" at the top in tennis are fair and clean. I am more the latter.

walshb · 30-07-2014 4:50pm

Giruilla wrote: »

post #239

Wow, he hit a couple of 130 + mph serves. Serena and Venus do this, and Sabine Lisciki can hit 130 +. They are women. He's a man. Heavier, bigger and more explosive. You want to use these couple of fast serves as your evidence of doping is really clutching!

Halloween Jack · 30-07-2014 4:52pm

walshb wrote: »

I believe that skill is more important in tennis than strength and stamina. That doesn't mean that strength and stamina are not important. Never did I say that strength and stamina weren't important. Again, see post 10 from me to cement this view.

Most observers would agree that the physical aspects of the game are now far more of an issue than they were previously and that's what makes people suspicious. The last 5 years or so have seen physicality in the game really ramp up. You've gone on record stating you believe this is down to better nutrition/improvements in sports science etc, I find it hard to believe that our knowledge in these fields has improved so drastically in such a short space of time.

Giruilla · 30-07-2014 4:53pm

Halloween Jack wrote: »

I found Murray's comments re: Odesnik and djokovic's behaviour re: troicki as as absolutely shameful myself and it resonates with the culture of omertà which existed in other sports in eras of rampant cheating.

Spot the difference:

"You want to make sure that people who are fined and suspended aren't let off because they are telling on other players. That is snitching."

- Andy "full natty" Murray.

"For someone like Asafa [Powell] to get a ban of 18 months for that
[stimulant oxilofrine] and then Tyson Gay get just one year because of
cooperating, it is sending a bad message into the sport that you can
do it [dope] but, if you cooperate with us, we'll reduce the
sentence."

- Usain "full natty" Bolt.

Giruilla · 30-07-2014 4:56pm

walshb wrote: »

Wow, he hit a couple of 130 + mph serves. Serena and Venus do this, and Sabine Lisciki can hit 130 +. They are women. He's a man. Heavier, bigger and more explosive. You want to use these couple of fast serves as your evidence of doping is really clutching!

*cough*.. the point is the change in his speed.. not what speed he's hitting *cough*

... but do go on

walshb · 30-07-2014 4:56pm

Halloween Jack wrote: »

Most observers would agree that the physical aspects of the game are now far more of an issue than they were previously and that's what makes people suspicious. The last 5 years or so have seen physicality in the game really ramp up. You've gone on record stating you believe this is down to better nutrition/improvements in sports science etc, I find it hard to believe that our knowledge in these fields has improved so drastically in such a short space of time.

But, surely the game and its strict regimes and professionalism has made players just better in terms of lifestyle and fitness. It has to. I don't think the likes of Borg and Mac were as finely tuned and monitored compared to Murray and Nole. Borg and Mac likely enjoyed a lot more wilder nights out than these guys. These guys are machines. Treated like finely tuned machines, just like the top snooker players today aren't out in the booze or partying etc; the top players are like finely tuned race horses. Everything they do is monitored and analysed for improvement, This has to have made a noticeable difference.

PED

Comments