The judicial ruling simply found that there is no evidence to believe that Rafa sat out in 2012 due to a silent ban as the
French Madam accused. The judicial ruling is limited in scope. It does not declare that Rafa is drug free throughout his
career. I am not trying to accuse anybody of anything. But, we need to keep in mind as to what inferences can be drawn
from the judicial ruling.
I take your point, but that was always going to be the problem with it. The charge was defamation, not whether Nadal had doped. However, the woman in question was the Minister for Health and Sports in France for a period of time. There was an assumption, when she made her accusation, that she would have/might have had some inside information. She never provided any, or made any attempt, as far as can be seen, to back up her claim, even though she might have been privy to such information. Whereas Nadal did provide his own medical records. The French judicial system decided that he was defamed, based on no evidence to the contrary. It's very difficult to prove a negative, when mud is slung, but this is one compelling argument. Nadal did not waver from taking it to court. Any number of things might have come out. Those who want to believe that he's doped, at some point in his career, will continue to do so. But you have to say that the evidence does mount that it's just slime as has always been slung, for pretty obvious and spurious reasons. The Occam's razor test has always been when would he have logically started doping, and why? It has never made sense that he would, given that he was a prodigy.
No, use the money on fishing lures. :fishing: