PED

Giruilla

Walshb, what's your opinion of Flo Jo's world records?
How many drugs tests did she fail?

walshb

Halloween Jack wrote: »

Why then, are there plenty of womens world records in athletics that exist from the 80's?

The consensus is that those records are a result of athletes who were 'doped to the eyeballs'. Surely the professionalism and increased investment you speak of would have obliterated those times by now?

And for the record, doping is not a recent phenomenon. Its as old as sport itself. It has been conclusively proven that many many track and field athletes doped during the 80's and earlier. Why wouldnt leading tennis pros of the time chance it?

I was speaking strictly about tennis and other less measurable sports. Soccer and Rugby you can add to the mix.

Yes, there are records form the 80s by women that are highly suspicious. That is well documented. Should clean athletes today and very recently have beaten them records? Maybe. Not necessarily.

Go check the PBs and times from the athletes in the 70s and 80s who were likely clean athletes. Check their times and compare them to the athletes of today. The athletes of today are faster.

I never said tennis pros from the 70s and 80s were immune from risking the doping route. But, again, that is tennis. Different sport to track and field. Skill plays a bigger part in tennis. Doping would help with stamina and endurance. The guys today are ultra professional. Dieticians/technolgy/big money and much improved rackets IOM are a lot more improving than the 80s guys doping.

walshb

Giruilla wrote: »

Walshb, what's your opinion of Flo Jo's world records?
How many drugs tests did she fail?

As far as I know she failed none. You asked me already about Flo Jo. I gave an answer. You did not answer about Linford? You are so certain that Ben Johnson's failed test was down to Car Lewis and his team. What caused Linford's in competition fail?

Giruilla

walshb wrote: »

As far as I know she failed none. You asked me already about Flo Jo. I gave an answer. You did not answer about Linford? You are so certain that Ben Johnson's failed test was down to Car Lewis and his team. What caused Linford's in competition fail?

Is that the failed drugs test in 1999 when Linford Christie was 39 years old your talking about?
When Christie had already retired from the sport and was only competing in selected meets probably for a bit of fun? Thats the one?

You're actually comparing that to someone running in the final of an olympics breaking the world record and going for gold?

Giruilla

walshb wrote: »

As far as I know she failed none. You asked me already about Flo Jo. I gave an answer.

It's nigh on a certainty she was juiced to the gills. The reason it isn't a 100% certainty.. because she never failed a drugs test. They're idiot tests, not drug tests.

Giruilla

Halloween Jack wrote: »

Why wouldnt leading tennis pros of the time chance it?

Victor Conte named Sharapova, Lendl, Chang and Rusedski by name as working with a doping doctor. Of course nobody bats an eyelid at this.

walshb

Giruilla wrote: »

Is that the failed drugs test in 1999 when Linford Christie was 39 years old your talking about?
When Christie had already retired from the sport and was only competing in selected meets probably for a bit of fun? Thats the one?

You're actually comparing that to someone running in the final of an olympics breaking the world record and going for gold?

Yes, that is the one. Was that a conspiracy? He was in competition. Is Ben the only man to fail an in competition test for steroids?

walshb

Giruilla wrote: »

It's nigh on a certainty she was juiced to the gills. The reason it isn't a 100% certainty.. because she never failed a drugs test. They're idiot tests, not drug tests.

And the testing back then was abysmal. We know all this. She retired shortly after. Just when the testing procedures were changed and ramped up.

Giruilla

walshb wrote: »

Yes, that is the one. Was that a conspiracy? He was in competition. Is Ben the only man to fail an in competition test for steroids?

Do you not realise why it is ridiculous to compare someone failing a dope test in a olympic 100 metre sprint final and a 39 year old who's already retired?

walshb

Giruilla wrote: »

Do you not realise why it is ridiculous to compare someone failing a dope test in a olympic 100 metre sprint final and a 39 year old who's already retired?

Who is comparing? Was Linford's test a conspiracy. Remember, he said it was down to avocado. Why would he be doping when in a competition. And, again, was Ben the only man ever to fail an in competition drugs test?

Giruilla

walshb wrote: »

Who is comparing?

You are.

walshb wrote: »

Was Linford's test a conspiracy.

No.

walshb wrote: »

Why would he be doping when in a competition.

Because he was retired, didn't care anymore, and probably wasn't expecting to be tested.

walshb wrote: »

And, again, was Ben the only man ever to fail an in competition drugs test?

No.

Now can you answer my above question?

Do you not realise why it is ridiculous to compare someone failing a dope test in a olympic 100 metre sprint final and a 39 year old who's already retired?

Giruilla

Do you think that was the first in competition test Christie ever failed?
Do you think he wasn't using steroids his entire career?

walshb

Giruilla wrote: »

Now can you answer my above question?

I wasn't comparing. I asked what you made of his failed in competition test. You have tried to excuse it. Fine. You also conceded that Ben wasn't the only person to fail an in competition drugs test. It can happen. But, you seem to believe that it must have been a conspiracy in Ben's case. Fine.

Anyway, the issue is that one side, you, are very very skeptical of any great human achievement. I can understand skepticism, of course. But, there are people who are doing marvelous things that may well be clean. They have never failed tests, which you dismiss completely. Their passing tests is their only way to prove themselves clean, yet you won't entertain it at all. That for me is OTT.

I conceded that even though athletes pass tests that this doesn't mean that they are clean. The testing procedures are not perfect, but it is unfair to label certain athletes as cheats because of this.

I find it odd that you think 10 seconds or below is suspicious. Sure, 9.5 would raise eyebrow, but would you not think that in the late 20th and early 21st centuries that we could produce clean 9.9 runners?

On the subject of tennis. Yes, the testing isn't as stringent as Track and Field or Swimming, but I still believe we have many honest players on the tour, and that these honest players are just brilliant tennis players. They are better than the cheats, and it's their skills on the court that shine through. I do not see anything extraordinary in 5 set matches as regards stamina. There are many rests and breaks involved.

Hand on heart regarding Nadal and Nole and Murray and Roger? The top players of the last 10 years. I believe all are clean and hard working greats.

walshb

Giruilla wrote: »

Do you think that was the first in competition test Christie ever failed?
Do you think he wasn't using steroids his entire career?

Christie failed a test for a stimulant in Seoul. Same/similar stimulant I believe as Lewis was caught for in the '88 U.S. trials. Both cleared of any intentional wrong doing.

I am skeptical of Christie. Much more so than Lewis. Christie seemed to be improving and getting faster and stronger when others were declining due to nature. Not skeptical that Christie was capable of 10 seconds. He was a sprinter, and a very fast one, but he was getting below 9.9 when others were struggling to break 10. Carl's career followed a naturally believable course.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

WADA numbers from 2013. Interesting to see no hGH tests in tennis in 2013.
http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/Resources/Testing-Figures/WADA-2013-Anti-Doping-Testing-Figures-SPORT-REPORT.pdf

Halloween Jack

The comment regarding current players being 'hard working greats' is another one those things that irk me. Somehow the myth has got out that doping is some sort of short cut to success.

The whole bloody point of the majority of doping products is to allow athletes to train far harder and recover quicker, allowing people to gain large amounts of muscle mass etc. Of course they are hard working, especially if they are doping.

Absolutely scandalous to see not a single test for hgh in 2013. You'd almost have to be an idiot not to dope.

You'd also have to question why there wasn't a single test for a substance which tennis players have tested positive for before. A cynic might say because use of such a substance is rampant and we don't want a tarnished image for our sport would outline the tacit response

walshb

I agree, dopers too are very hard working. It's not like a nobody can dope and step on the court to beat the best. They must have the real pedigree and talent to begin with. Doping allows small increases, intangible increases in performances. With Tennis it is very difficult to see or analyze or assess, as it's such a skill based game. In track and field we can see real improvements and compare them that bit more.

"You'd almost have to be an idiot not to dope."

This is a very pessimistic approach. Do you think Federer is a doper? If not, does this make him an idiot.

There are honest athletes and sports stars in all sports. Again, this pessimism, which I can understand to a degree, seems to be devoid of alternatives.

Here is a question. Do the tennis players know for certain what type of tests will be carried out in a given year? How many, what for etc?

Maybe some honest and decent athletes just don't cheat, and maybe some who think about cheating won't risk it, and then there are the dopers! There are categories. Seems you are lumping it all into one category. The dopers!

Halloween Jack

Federer moves around the court like a 22 year old, at an age when many pros of the past had already retired. He has also hardly ever been injured in his long career, in a sport which is renowned for causing athletes severe hardship as regards their joints etc. I remember reading agassi's book and him talking about barely being able to get up in the mornings his body was so stricken. Now this is all circumstantial stuff, and I wouldn't accuse him of doping outright, but it wouldn't surprise me at all.

I've said it previously but I can't trust anybody who's competes in a sport where the testing regime is so emminently beatable. It doesn't matter whether or not the athletes know what precisely they are going to be tested for (although you can bet the cheaters will have a fair idea), when the tests are so limited and infrequent.

The argument about skill sports being less poisoned by doping has been debunked so many times I don't know why you keep bringing it up. There are obvious gains to be made from doping in any sport. The archers in the Olympics dope for god's sake.

There a quote from ben Johnson's old coach about doping which pretty much describes the pattern of every doping scandal ever.

We're in an era of tennis with a number of prominent champions achieving things in a manner almost unthinkable from before. This pretty much describes cycling in the 90's. In that case practically every major figure in the sport was found to be systematically cheating.

What would make tennis any different?

Halloween Jack

This is quote from Johnson's coach:

"Since the networks and their sponsors pay the piper, they expect to call the tune. They demand wholesome (read: drug free) family entertainment to keep the vast Olympic viewing public content and sheltered from disillusionment. At the same time they need new world records and superb (read: drug dependent) performances to keep the public coming back for more.

These conflicting demands sow fertile ground for compromise and caprice. When the IOC's medical commission disqualified 10 people at Seoul but opted NOT to act on 20 other positive tests, it subjectively decided who would be lionized and who would be destroyed."

This to me describes what has been found to have happened in both baseball and cycling in the 90's and what i believe is happening right now in tennis and other prominent sports.

walshb

Halloween Jack wrote: »

The argument about skill sports being less poisoned by doping has been debunked so many times I don't know why you keep bringing it up. There are obvious gains to be made from doping in any sport. The archers in the Olympics dope for god's sake.

I never said that skill based sports are less poisoned. I said that they can be that bit more difficult to measure and discuss.

Halloween Jack

walshb wrote: »

I never said that skill based sports are less poisoned. I said that they can be that bit more difficult to measure and discuss.

You said doping leads to intangible increases in performance. It doesnt, whether in tennis or track and field. This is incorrect. If the benefits were intangible nobody could be sure they even worked at all. Doping will give tangible, measurable performance gains, allowing an athlete to hit a forehand with the same ferocity in 5th set as the first.

Like i mentioned earlier, the amount of metres covered in a game, percentage of court covered etc etc, these things are measurable and we know that these types of measures have increased dramatically in recent times.

This argument is going to go round and round (and to some extent already has), im never going to convince you that the people you think are clean without a fgailed test, similarly you wont be able to erase my doubts until tennis has at the very least, a testing regimen as stringent as any sport in the world, and even then, i believe such regiments fall short of what is required.

Still, its been fun trying:)

walshb

Halloween Jack wrote: »

We're in an era of tennis with a number of prominent champions achieving things in a manner almost unthinkable from before. This pretty much describes cycling in the 90's. In that case practically every major figure in the sport was found to be systematically cheating.

What would make tennis any different?

Achieving what unthinkable things? Winning majors in their late teens and 20s? Having 10 + year careers? Am I missing something?

Giruilla

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

WADA numbers from 2013. Interesting to see no hGH tests in tennis in 2013.
http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/Resources/Testing-Figures/WADA-2013-Anti-Doping-Testing-Figures-SPORT-REPORT.pdf

Thats incredible. Drug testing in tennis is an absolute joke. Lucky that the top pros are all such inherently good honest hard working people.

Halloween Jack

walshb wrote: »

Achieving what unthinkable things? Winning majors in their late teens and 20s? Having 10 + year careers? Am I missing something?

Back to back 4hr 5 sets matches at breakneack intensity played in an attritional and physically exhausting style.

Like, some things these guys do i fully believe are down to better equipment/better understanding of the sport/genuine talent etc. Your right in the sense that doping wont help you place a sliced backhand on the baseline etc, or give fed the rich array of shots he has or allow nadal to get so much spin on his shots (though raquet head speed would be increased by doping id imagine) But it will allow them to cover every inch of court and hit the same shots 5hrs in to a match.

But its the way these guys are playing the game that is so staggering.

walshb

Halloween Jack wrote: »

Doping will give tangible, measurable performance gains, allowing an athlete to hit a forehand with the same ferocity in 5th set as the first.

Let's be strict here. What ferocity? Who is measuring every tangible act? How can you know that in set 5 after 4-5 hrs on court that a player is as fast or ferocious as he/she was in set 1 and 2 and 3 and 4? You can assume and guess, but we need precision and science and fact to tell. That is why some sports are more difficult to measure and assess. Take the 2012 AO final; one of the greates tennis matches in history. Was Novak as fast and ferocious in set 5 as he was in set 3? I don't think he was. I also don't think Nadal was. And there are many other tough and brutal 5 set matches through history that will dispel your belief.

Halloween Jack

walshb wrote: »

Achieving what unthinkable things? Winning majors in their late teens and 20s? Having 10 + year careers? Am I missing something?

Also, i read that recently marked the first time there was no teenager in the top 100 for decades. It has been suggested that younger players cant compete at the top right now as their bodies havent developed to the extent to allow them to hang physically with the older pro's. This is a pretty marked difference from the pasr when generally tennis players were finished at the top end of the game by their late 20's. We also have sudden spurts of success for athletes late in their careers (ferrer, wawrinka) again this type of stuff tallies with dope ridden eras in other sports.

walshb

Halloween Jack wrote: »

Back to back 4hr 5 sets matches at breakneack intensity played in an attritional and physically exhausting style.

Like, some things these guys do i fully believe are down to better equipment/better understanding of the sport/genuine talent etc. Your right in the sense that doping wont help you place a sliced backhand on the baseline etc, or give fed the rich array of shots he has or allow nadal to get so much spin on his shots (though raquet head speed would be increased by doping id imagine) But it will allow them to cover every inch of court and hit the same shots 5hrs in to a match.

But its the way these guys are playing the game that is so staggering.

I fully agree that doping in Tennis will help. It has to. It allows players to train harder and for longer and to recover quicker. One of my first posts on this thread says this. This should allow a player to remain that bit more intense for longer. But, again, measuring it is difficult, as my post above says.

walshb

Halloween Jack wrote: »

Also, i read that recently marked the first time there was no teenager in the top 100 for decades. It has been suggested that younger players cant compete at the top right now as their bodies havent developed to the extent to allow them to hang physically with the older pro's. This is a pretty marked difference from the pasr when generally tennis players were finished at the top end of the game by their late 20's. We also have sudden spurts of success for athletes late in their careers (ferrer, wawrinka) again this type of stuff tallies with dope ridden eras in other sports.

Younger players excelling against mid 20s players is dropping. We know this. There will always be exceptions. Nadal was a brilliant teen talent, more so than a Federer. Federer came to the top a little later, early 20s. Nadal was a beast aged 18/19/20. He has wins over established players when he was a teen.

Halloween Jack

walshb wrote: »

Let's be strict here. What ferocity? Who is measuring every tangible act? How can you know that in set 5 after 4-5 hrs on court that a player is as fast or ferocious as he/she was in set 1 and 2 and 3 and 4? You can assume and guess, but we need precision and science and fact to tell. That is why some sports are more difficult to measure and assess. Take the 2012 AO final; one of the greates tennis matches in history. Was Novak as fast and ferocious in set 5 as he was in set 3? I don't think he was. I also don't think Nadal was. And there are many other tough and brutal 5 set matches through history that will dispel your belief.

Take a look at the list of longest matches in tennis history. A hndful from 80's and 90's and pretty much all the rest come from the last 15 years.

Halloween Jack

walshb wrote: »

Younger players excelling against mid 20s players is dropping. We know this. There will always be exceptions. Nadal was a brilliant teen talent, more so than a Federer. Federer came to the top a little later, early 20s. Nadal was a beast aged 18/19/20. He has wins over established players when he was a teen.

Surely a well esatablished trend is far more indicative than one outlier?