2019 Australian Open Quarterfinals: Nadal vs. Tiafoe

[Moxie]

^ The writing is on the wall, bitches haha.

As if. You old abdicator. You've never even copped to the fact that you go with the same old tropes, even when I keep telling you you're wrong. And you take to your fainting couch when Broken suggests that Fed is as guilty of pushing the margins (he actually suggests stepping over,) as anyone else. You keep a double-standard.

 

[Front242]

As if. You old abdicator. You've never even copped to the fact that you go with the same old tropes, even when I keep telling you you're wrong. And you take to your fainting couch when Broken suggests that Fed is as guilty of pushing the margins (he actually suggests stepping over,) as anyone else. You keep a double-standard.

I knew all this about Nadal's doctor already and you should have too but you don't work with a doctor in charge of doping controls for nothing. That's pretty much game over I'm afraid for your camp's defense. If you bothered reading my lengthy reply to Broken's post I stated the reasons it's a lot less obvious that Federer is on anything banned at all and I'm not gonna retype it here. They all use legal stuff. We're discussing a dirty doctor and EPO. Quite a difference.

 

[britbox]

^ The writing is on the wall, bitches haha.

Well, here's the thing... you've got to be suspicious of athletes in all sports. I had a conversation with a guy who had trained with a lot of British sprinters and he said they were all taking stuff. When Dwain Chambers got busted, they were all pretty pissed... his view was that they weren't pissed that Chambers was using so much as the fact that he got caught.

I think the more straight line the sport is, then the higher risk... i.e. cycling, athletics > football, tennis but the reality is that it's probably prevalent in all sports to a much higher degree than we could possibly imagine.

After Armstrong, we had Bradley Wiggins and Chris Froome on the back of Team Sky coming into the sport on a "clean cycling" card and winning the TDF. There have been questions asked since about Wiggins' asthma and of course Froome failed a test, which somehow he managed to get cleared on. Wiggins in his latest book lauds Lance Armstrong... I mean if you weren't cheating and competing against other cheats, then wouldn't you be seriously angry?

Of course, there are going to be clean athletes too - even in cycling... although some have been run out of the sport for questioning others in the peloton. Greg Lemond (possibly the last clean(ish)) winner of the TDF before EPO kicked into the peleton even lost his cycling business for raising concerns about Lance.

Tennis isn't a sport for running in straight lines and pure endurance, so you'd hope it's less prevalent than a lot of other sports, but you've always got to be a little suspicious. I'd imagine in many cases it's more recovery-enhancing.

 

[britbox]

I knew all this about Nadal's doctor already and you should have too but you don't work with a doctor in charge of doping controls for nothing. That's pretty much game over I'm afraid for your camp's defense. If you bothered reading my lengthy reply to Broken's post I stated the reasons it's a lot less obvious that Federer is on anything banned at all and I'm not gonna retype it here. They all use legal stuff. We're discussing a dirty doctor and EPO. Quite a difference.

Cotorro has never been nailed for EPO. He's never been nailed for anything as far as I can gather... but when you start putting doping controls, doctors and cycling in the same sentence it doesn't usually have a good ending.

Despite suspicions, I think you have to take things at face value until proven otherwise, or you'd never watch any high level sports.

 

[britbox]

If Italy was trying so hard, how come they come so high on the WADA list I provided? What about France? (Never mind Russia.) And what about Safin? It seems clear that you are intent on hammering on Spain, and also as clear why. You can drop your pretense at neutrality, then. "I'm interested as a hobby." You'd be interested in other countries, too, then, I'd think.

Which part about the British Olympic Sprinters and Team Sky did you miss?

and don't you think the jobs of these doctors are to pass WADA tests not fail them?

 

[Moxie]

I knew all this about nadal's doctor already and you should have too but you don't work with a doctor in charge of doping controls for nothing. That's pretty much game over I'm afraid for your camp's defense. If you bothered reading my lengthy reply to Broken's post I stated the reasons it's a lot less obvious that Federer is on anything banned at all and I'm not gonna retype it here. They all use legal stuff. We're discussing a dirty doctor and EPO. Quite a difference.

Oh, I read it. It's a huge justification. So many signifiers you've used against Nadal over the years come into play for Roger, and you're suddenly all, "nothing to see here." If you weren't such a dope hound, I'd buy it from you, individually. But you are. Across the years you've been sniffing out things that look suspicious. Until you don't want to. Like Djokovic. You had no interest in that oxygen egg when he was beating up on Rafa and it came to conversation in 2012. Then, when it looked like he might threaten Roger's records, you got all hair-on-fire about it. You are an opportunist about doping and an unreliable narrator on it. If you're so suspicious, you would have at least entertained suspicions as to Roger's resurgence in 2017, at 35, and being 4.5 years w/o a Major, and after 7 months off. But no. You certainty is based on what you want to know, and what you want to ignore. When the judgement in France came down in Nadal's favor, you claimed not to be following. You are actually laughable in terms of how fungible your opinions on doping are.

 

[Moxie]

Which part about the British Olympic Sprinters and Team Sky did you miss?

and don't you think the jobs of these doctors are to pass WADA tests not fail them?

As I said, I don't make a hobby of following like you and some others do. Give me a break. It seems to be a full-time job. I don't even know what Team Sky is.

 

[Front242]

Cotorro has never been nailed for EPO. He's never been nailed for anything as far as I can gather... but when you start putting doping controls, doctors and cycling in the same sentence it doesn't usually have a good ending.

Despite suspicions, I think you have to take things at face value until proven otherwise, or you'd never watch any high level sports.

Yeah but seriously, that's exactly it. Cycling is the most corrupt sport on the planet and having a doping control doctor in charge of cycling is fucking laughable. Maybe he's making sure their sandwiches aren't tainted. You listening Contador? How was that steak haha?

 

[Front242]

Oh, I read it. It's a huge justification. So many signifiers you've used against Nadal over the years come into play for Roger, and you're suddenly all, "nothing to see here." If you weren't such a dope hound, I'd buy it from you, individually. But you are. Across the years you've been sniffing out things that look suspicious. Until you don't want to. Like Djokovic. You had no interest in that oxygen egg when he was beating up on Rafa and it came to conversation in 2012. Then, when it looked like he might threaten Roger's records, you got all hair-on-fire about it. You are an opportunist about doping and an unreliable narrator on it. If you're so suspicious, you would have at least entertained suspicions as to Roger's resurgence in 2017, at 35, and being 4.5 years w/o a Major, and after 7 months off. But no. You certainty is based on what you want to know, and what you want to ignore. When the judgement in France came down in Nadal's favor, you claimed not to be following. You are actually laughable in terms of how fungible your opinions on doping are.

Suspicions of him doing well at 35? I already went over all of that. Clearly it helped that Djokovic was awol. Still playing but losing to nobodies and Murray though his pigeon most of the time was also missing. Federer didn't magically turn into Conan or develop crazy stamina. The only difference was he was hitting through his backhand more and being more aggressive on return. That has absolutely zero to do with doping and you know it. Talk about reaching and this coming from a fan of a guy who can play 6 hour matches lol and not find that suss.

The "judgment" in France was utter bs. We all know that and it was definitely a silent ban. I'm 100% on that. You should be too since it doesn't add up. He felt he wasn't prepared enough for best of 5 at the end of 2012 to play in the AO 2013 which began 3 weeks later 'cos of a supposed tummy bug. Fast forward to 7 years later and the guy suddenly has absolutely no problem playing at a much older age and just after an injury break with no prep and that too after a "minor surgery" which gives massive loopholes for another dubious TUE and comes back playing very high level. It really isn't looking good for his defense I'm afraid and hopefully Djokovic rips him a new one.

 

[Moxie]

Cotorro has never been nailed for EPO. He's never been nailed for anything as far as I can gather... but when you start putting doping controls, doctors and cycling in the same sentence it doesn't usually have a good ending.

Despite suspicions, I think you have to take things at face value until proven otherwise, or you'd never watch any high level sports.

Thank you for at least coming in with a bit of backbone. It's not fair to leave me as the only one trying to keep it at least a bit honest around here, when you know better. I'm not saying we have to pretend there's no doping in tennis, but the slagging in one direction, endlessly, and ignoring of counter-arguments is beyond unfair. I'll take some back-up in the spirit of fairness where I can get it.

 

[Moxie]

Suspicions of him doing well at 35? I already went over all of that. Clearly it helped that Djokovic was awol. Still playing but losing to nobodies and Murray though his pigeon most of the time was also missing. Federer didn't magically turn into Conan or develop crazy stamina. The only difference was he was hitting through his backhand more and being more aggressive on return. That has absolutely zero to do with doping and you know it. Talk about reaching and this coming from a fan of a guy who can play 6 hour matches lol and not find that suss.

The "judgment" in France was utter bs. We all know that and it was definitely a silent ban. I'm 100% on that. You should be too since it doesn't add up. He felt he wasn't prepared enough for best of 5 at the end of 2012 to play in the AO 2013 which began 3 weeks later 'cos of a supposed tummy bug. Fast forward to 7 years later and the guy suddenly has absolutely no problem playing at a much older age and just after an injury break with no prep and that too after a "minor surgery" which gives massive loopholes for another dubious TUE and comes back playing very high level. It really isn't looking good for his defense I'm afraid and hopefully Djokovic rips him a new one.

I'm sorry, but I am so way over you. If you say "tummy bug" one more time, I'll come through the screen at you. You make the same spurious arguments, I counter them, and you promptly forget. I can't argue with a person who has no short-term memory, or the honorability to acknowledge that counter-arguments have been made. Or refuses to play fair. You don't. I make counter arguments, you ignore them, and then just say the same things over and over on other threads, as if I never said them.

You're right now citing how Nadal came back from minor surgery to be playing now. You yourself having been making little of that surgery, rightly. Yet you made nothing of Fed's miraculous comeback in 2017. You are willfully ignore arguments that you don't like, and I can't keep making them.

 

[Front242]

I'm sorry, but I am so way over you. If you say "tummy bug" one more time, I'll come through the screen at you. You make the same spurious arguments, I counter them, and you promptly forget. I can't argue with a person who has no short-term memory, or the honorability to acknowledge that counter-arguments have been made. Or refuses to play fair. You don't. I make counter arguments, you ignore them, and then just say the same things over and over on other threads, as if I never said them.

You're right now citing how Nadal came back from minor surgery to be playing now. You yourself having been making little of that surgery, rightly. Yet you made nothing of Fed's miraculous comeback in 2017. You are willfully ignore arguments that you don't like, and I can't keep making them.

Yeah and what exactly is the counter to him not playing in 2013 when he had 3 weeks to practice and then at a much older age he has no problem? You don't think that's suspicious as hell 'cos most would? What exactly am I supposedly forgetting?

Again, I concur that surgery was nothing, but given his TUE history and the fact (yes, fact) that he has always stormed back after them it's more than a little suss. His best years followed his PRP treatments and I've gone over it enough and posted enough links for you to see unscrupulous doctors can inject much more than the patient's own blood to "heal" them and give them massive performance enhancement. Given Nadal's doctor doesn't exactly look to be a saint, (why else do you employ a doping control doctor who worked with cyclists of things) you put 2 and 2 together and it's not really looking good as I said. I answered about Federer's 2017 for the 1/1000th time above. He didn't storm back with crazy stamina (he had to tank 2 sets against Stan to conserve energy), he simply got time to practice his backhand and instead of hitting it like a clown as he had for years, he was going for his shots more and taking the ball on the rise. I don't see anything miraculous there personally other than a very good change by Ljubicic who I've given a lot of credit to already.

 

[Moxie]

Roger Federer, tennis genius and GOAT, with all of his amazing coaches, it took 13 years and Ljubicic to strengthen his back-hand and teach him to take the ball on the rise? Suddenly at 35 his BH was stronger? Because it still had to withstand 5 sets v. the Rafa pounding, which it never had before, much younger. Love the "tanking 2 sets v. Wawrinka to conserve energy." You are seriously working hard at this. Who looks naive now?

 

[tented]

How long are samples kept for tennis players? How often are old ones retested, since testing is always behind the latest doping techniques?

In short, even if they know they can safely get away with certain things right now, they must figure they’ll get caught at some point in the future once the testing has caught up. Right? And if that’s true, then they must know that they will eventually face having titles stripped from them, while watching their reputations suffering irreparable harm.

 

[Front242]

Roger Federer, tennis genius and GOAT, with all of his amazing coaches, it took 13 years and Ljubicic to strengthen his back-hand and teach him to take the ball on the rise? Suddenly at 35 his BH was stronger? Because it still had to withstand 5 sets v. the Rafa pounding, which it never had before, much younger. Love the "tanking 2 sets v. Wawrinka to conserve energy." You are seriously working hard at this. Who looks naive now?

Who said his backhand was stronger? Other than you. He used to block balls back and chip the return and slice a lot more in rallies. He simply started going for his shots more. It's called a change of tactic. Fed up with sitting on his boat fishing due to being run ragged by nobodies like Thiem, Nadal's coach also decided he needed new tactics so they changed his service motion and got him to come forward more and go for shorter points. I don't consider that doping either. That's merely a change of game plan. The number 1 suspicion in tennis is stamina 'cos, let's be real, none of them are exactly bodybuilders the way you're going on about hitting harder and certainly not Federer with his tiny arms.

Naive about tanking 2 sets? Wtf? On the one hand you're telling us all Federer came back like Superman in 2017 but yet when I (correctly I might add) claim he tanked 2 sets, I'm supposedly naive lol. This was the score of the match 7-5 6-3 1-6 4-6 6-3. Having gone down early breaks in sets 3 and 4 he tanked them because his groin was at him and felt better in set 5.

Hilarious sour grapes that Federer's backhand could withstand the pounding btw. The courts were much faster that year, Federer was serving very well and is a much better shot maker than Nadal and he had been working on taking the ball earlier on the rise and not hitting limp backhands and not letting himself get pinned in the corner. A tactical change. The surface speed up greatly benefited him and no one looks naive. It'd be different if he was straight setting everyone as I've mentioned multiple times already but he was barely scraping through matches. The whole 2017 Superman narrative for Federer is frankly dumb as shit.

 

[britbox]

How long are samples kept for tennis players? How often are old ones retested, since testing is always behind the latest doping techniques?

In short, even if they know they can safely get away with certain things right now, they must figure they’ll get caught at some point in the future once the testing has caught up. Right? And if that’s true, then they must know that they will eventually face having titles stripped from them, while watching their reputations suffering irreparable harm.

According to the ITF policy, at the moment it's upto 18 months for a non-flagged test - one that is not reported as possibly suspicious. They can keep unidentifiable samples for 10 years... but cannot currently match those to individual athletes.

I think the Olympic policy is for 10 years. I know they retro-tested some samples from Beijing 2008 (without being able to map them to specific athletes) and there were an additional 30+ failed tests.

 

[Front242]

According to the ITF policy, at the moment it's upto 18 months for a non-flagged test - one that is not reported as possibly suspicious. They can keep unidentifiable samples for 10 years... but cannot currently match those to individual athletes.

I think the Olympic policy is for 10 years. I know they retro-tested some samples from Beijing 2008 (without being able to map them to specific athletes) and there were an additional 30+ failed tests.

Must head to sleep here before the match starts so I'll read the reply later but how come they couldn't map the samples to who they were taken from?

 

[Moxie]

Who tanks two sets at the SF of a Major to conserve energy for the final? Did anyone else remember it that way?

 

[britbox]

Must head to sleep here before the match starts so I'll read the reply later but how come they couldn't map the samples to who they were taken from?

If they keep samples that are classed as non-suspicious for that period of time they are anonymized. That might have changed with the IOC now - they were pushing for a 10-year retention where they could retro test outside of general research. But it's not the case with the ITF as it stands... although I think they can if there are queries on Biological Passport results.

By the way, while there are always going to be dopers and suspicions about dopers, I reckon right here and now would likely be cleaner than any other time over the last 20 years. I suspect Maria Sharapova would not have failed a drug test 15 years ago (yes, I know Melodonium wasn't banned then)... but you get the drift.

 

[Moxie]

Who tanks two sets at the SF of a Major to conserve energy for the final? Did anyone else remember it that way?

7-5, 6-3, 1-6, 4-6, 6-3. If he were tanking the 3rd and 4th, I'd suggest that you'd have seen the 1-6 as the 4th. Why try so hard in the 4th if you're tanking it, anyway? This account from the time doesn't suggest any tanking or conserving of energy. It went 5 sets because of Stan.