Becker criticises Murray

[Moxie]

I know you don't want to keep going back and forth about this, and you're correct...we're not changing each other's opinion, I guess. However, you've just said something slanted that you got called on recently, by JLLB, no less, a Fed man, and I won't leave it for others to read and take as true. Rafa didn't "skyrocket" up the ranks in 2005 out of nowhere. He was already ranked 34 in 2004 when he was still 17. That is already high for his age, and indicates a prodigy. As JLLB pointed out, he dropped down again due to injury. At 16 he was already beating Moya and Albert Costa on clay. At 17 he beat Roger on HC, and got a DC bump at the end of the year by beating Roddick (then #2) to give Spain the DC win over US. This led into his first big year, 2005. Borg also developed early, and Rafa is, to date, our last great teenager. But his early career tracks as a young phenom, not coming out of nowhere.

Post-2012, I would agree with you that that would have been when he would have logically looked for some mother's little helper, but, as the highest profile player under the most internet scrutiny due to old wives tales, it also would have seemed foolish. Though, I think you're implying that the 7-month injury lay-off was a "silent ban." That would have implied he was doping before 2012. But again, when and why would he have started there? Because of Djokovic? Sure, why not? But what change do you see that implies that it was doping that changed the dynamic with Djokovic in 2012? People like you like to speak in round terms about Rafa doping at some point in his career, but I've yet to see a good argument for when he would have started, and why, at that moment.

 

[brokenshoelace]

^ I have rarely if ever made snide insinuations about it. But truth is, yeah I would be shocked beyond belief if it turned out he's been clean all along. I know you fans see a choir boy but I see a ton of smoke. The sad state of sports today is that drug tests can only prove your guilt, not your innocence. That goes for every athlete by the way. All the top athletes, even ones that seem least suspicious, it's never been proven that they don't/never have used PED's. Sounds crazy but it's true because doping methods are far ahead of the testing. Add that to what I said about the ATP above and yes I have my doubts about the game as a whole being remotely clean. I will admit that but I pretty much never bring that up or even imply it because it ruins decent conversation and gets everyone's blood going.

And I know you'll see that as me being just a "bitter Federer fan" who just sees what he wants to see. All I will say is...you may also notice how much I dislike Ferrer and he's been one of Roger's greatest clients over the years (read between the lines, it isn't all about style of play with me). Certainly players like Tsonga and Berdych have been much bigger thorns in Roger's side and I don't mind them at all.

OK, I'm buying what you're saying above but... how come you're so OK with Djokovic? Surely the same red flags should rise, especially since his fitness was gained, shall we say, out of the blue. As in, he went from breathing difficulties and fragile wimp to inhuman superman almost literally overnight (oh yeah, gluten free diet). What about the 34 year old tennis player who still glides around the court effortlessly as if he were 23? Actually, what about that same guy who went on a 3 year rampage, never looked tired, one night to another dispatching elite tennis players with ease? You know the guy who barely lost, like ever. Recovered insanely well, didn't take time off, etc...

It's funny people have these idea of what a doper should look like. We both know there have been a crap ton of athletes who failed drug tests that hardly looked like physical specimen.

If red flags are there about Nadal or Djokovic (as Murray implies), then surely the same red flags are there for Roger. Just because his style isn't based on physicality doesn't mean anything. Honestly, if we're going with suspicions, I'll be fully honest and say I suspect all 3 (as in Federer, Nadal and Djokovic) took something banned at some point in their careers. And why not? You're fighting to be at the top of the game, millions of dollars are on the line, legacies are on the line, you probably know your competition could very well be juicing as well, and everyone is looking for any possible edge. So seriously, why wouldn't you dope?

I honestly think all the top guys did it at one point. And I think it's absolutely hypocritical to throw accusations at two players but somehow absolving the most successful player of the bunch.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Yes, I suppose I should have left the "if ever" part out of that. We can go back and forth on this all day long and no, I don't form an opinion based on what I read on internet message boards and I'm not sure how 9/11 ever got into this conversation. It's not like I'm talking about a huge conspiracy theory here though I will admit that the 2012 sudden injury followed by the 2013 AO withdrawal from a tummy ache, followed by him returning to dominant form right away after the major knee injury was all suspicious in my book. The Fuentes case broke out after Rafa had skyrocketed up the ranks in 2005. I'm not saying Rafa moving up the ranks in 2005 is reason to be suspicious but let's not pretend Rafa had been top 2 in the world for 5 years before that case broke out.

I already know how this works, I'm not changing your mind and you aren't changing mine. My opinion about Rafa was formed well before 2008 for what it's worth and you may have noticed my "venom" towards the sweetheart is a little worse after 2012. I will just leave it at that.

Nadal was like 18 before that case broke out. He couldn't have been top 2 in the world for a while even if he was on the best juice possible.

But let's play the same game. You know, before winning his first Wimbledon at 21/22 years of age, I recall Roger Federer being a bit of a potential head case who was not living up to his potential... then he "Sky rocketed" to the top of the rankings and never looked back, with unheard of dominance. That's evidence?

I'll reiterate, and I'm not saying that just to appear neutral, that I do think most top tennis players are on the juice. But I find it utterly baffling how somehow the most successful tennis player of all time, playing in the same era, doesn't get shade thrown his way, while others do.

 

[Federberg]

Interesting how this thread is evolving. I think the point raised by Moxie is a valid one. It's unlikely that a young phenom like Rafa would have been juicing right from the start. I hadn't really thought of that angle before. A parallel would be Usain Bolt who if you look at his records going through his teens, the guy had been breaking records from day one. I have no skin in the accusations game.. (at least I'm not accusing today! ), but logically it would make more sense to cast aspersions Novak's way as his bump in level is more similar to a Flo Jo, who was battling just to get major finals and had the pleasure of staring at Evelyn Ashfords behind in most races, and then all of a sudden in 88 was dusting everyone. That was definitely suspicious. My point is that of the top guys, the only one to have a step function up in performance, and particularly stamina is Novak. I'm no expert on performance enhancing drugs, but that should be where the suspicions take you, if you're of a mind to go there. As for Federer being a potential candidate? I don't see any evidence of it at all. Unless the suggestion is that PED's are being used for something else in his case? Where is the evidence of improved stamina? Where is the greater speed. If he's ever juiced it hasn't worked! The most noticeable thing about his move to the top was the change in his mentality. You only have to look at some of his earlier matches against Hewitt and Nalbandian. That tells the story. It was like he start running around faster or longer or was hitting the ball harder, so that argument seems a tad weak to me...

 

[brokenshoelace]

As for Federer being a potential candidate? I don't see any evidence of it at all. Unless the suggestion is that PED's are being used for something else in his case? Where is the evidence of improved stamina? Where is the greater speed. If he's ever juiced it hasn't worked! The most noticeable thing about his move to the top was the change in his mentality. You only have to look at some of his earlier matches against Hewitt and Nalbandian. That tells the story. It was like he start running around faster or longer or was hitting the ball harder, so that argument seems a tad weak to me...

Just to be clear, I don't think anything we "have" on these guys constitutes evidence. Not Nadal's muscle mass, not Novak's sudden superhuman powers, not Roger's dominance. But I do take issue with the above, because it simplifies PEDs to being this magic potion that once you take, there's a noticeable step up in power, fitness, etc... And that's not always necessarily the case. The improvements don't have to be visible in your game (I doubt Filippo Volandri was hitting the ball that much harder, and he got busted for PEDs), so to wonder where were the visible signs of Roger's potential PED use based on that is a bit too simplistic IMO.

PEDs have a big effect on recovery, healing injuries, etc... And when you factor in how dominant and consistent Roger was, day to day, without breaking a sweat, and say "where was the indication" is not something I can agree with, nor can I agree with the thought that it's impossible for a 34 year old athlete to be as good and as fit as he is due to PEDs.

Honestly, I think all these guys took something in their careers, and to be totally honest, I don't care.

 

[DarthFed]

OK, I'm buying what you're saying above but... how come you're so OK with Djokovic? Surely the same red flags should rise, especially since his fitness was gained, shall we say, out of the blue. As in, he went from breathing difficulties and fragile wimp to inhuman superman almost literally overnight (oh yeah, gluten free diet). What about the 34 year old tennis player who still glides around the court effortlessly as if he were 23? Actually, what about that same guy who went on a 3 year rampage, never looked tired, one night to another dispatching elite tennis players with ease? You know the guy who barely lost, like ever. Recovered insanely well, didn't take time off, etc...

It's funny people have these idea of what a doper should look like. We both know there have been a crap ton of athletes who failed drug tests that hardly looked like physical specimen.

If red flags are there about Nadal or Djokovic (as Murray implies), then surely the same red flags are there for Roger. Just because his style isn't based on physicality doesn't mean anything. Honestly, if we're going with suspicions, I'll be fully honest and say I suspect all 3 (as in Federer, Nadal and Djokovic) took something banned at some point in their careers. And why not? You're fighting to be at the top of the game, millions of dollars are on the line, legacies are on the line, you probably know your competition could very well be juicing as well, and everyone is looking for any possible edge. So seriously, why wouldn't you dope?

I honestly think all the top guys did it at one point. And I think it's absolutely hypocritical to throw accusations at two players but somehow absolving the most successful player of the bunch.

It wouldn't shock me if Djokovic was on it and it wouldn't shock me if he wasn't. But I will say again, and I know Moxie will see it as BS or just me being bitter, but I'd be absolutely stunned if Rafa was never on it. Youtube him at AO 2005 and then Miami 2005 (3 months later). I know appearances don't tell everything but he went from skinny boy to grown ass man and after the AO is when he became the 2nd best player in the world by a country mile. And just to be clear I'd be even more floored if Ferrer was clean. If he's clean he may have the best genetics of all time. As for Nole, Gluten can be a huge factor, repeat CAN, but it's definitely possible that it is a front. Certainly he has incredible endurance and again it goes to the sad state of sports today but it's hard not to have a suspicious mind.

With Roger, I think it's pretty obvious he isn't on anything currently. I see your point regarding his earlier days and it's possible (like I said nobody gets proven innocent in this day and age in sports) but now he gets tired pretty quickly and for all the fuss that people make about his level of play he is still much slower and overall much worse than he used to be. Compared to Nole and Rafa it's hard to see him as being more suspicious and yes I know the rebuttal is that I'm a homer and it clouds my view. But he's never had the type of endurance those guys had even despite playing a much less physical game.

 

[DarthFed]

Just to be clear, I don't think anything we "have" on these guys constitutes evidence. Not Nadal's muscle mass, not Novak's sudden superhuman powers, not Roger's dominance. But I do take issue with the above, because it simplifies PEDs to being this magic potion that once you take, there's a noticeable step up in power, fitness, etc... And that's not always necessarily the case. The improvements don't have to be visible in your game (I doubt Filippo Volandri was hitting the ball that much harder, and he got busted for PEDs), so to wonder where were the visible signs of Roger's potential PED use based on that is a bit too simplistic IMO.

PEDs have a big effect on recovery, healing injuries, etc... And when you factor in how dominant and consistent Roger was, day to day, without breaking a sweat, and say "where was the indication" is not something I can agree with, nor can I agree with the thought that it's impossible for a 34 year old athlete to be as good and as fit as he is due to PEDs.

Honestly, I think all these guys took something in their careers, and to be totally honest, I don't care.

I agree that none of it is clear evidence. I think at this point only a failed drug test or a witness testimony stating he saw "player X" dope counts as clear evidence.

But to not care is bizarre. Athletes doping are basically fake athletes. In most cases they aren't that good so they have to resort to artificial means to become great. We've certainly seen plenty of it in baseball. Long time dopers who are suddenly garbage after they get busted and suspended. If we found out today that Roger was doping all along I'd be disgusted and would root for him to lose every match and retire quickly.

 

[Federberg]

I agree that none of it is clear evidence. I think at this point only a failed drug test or a witness testimony stating he saw "player X" dope counts as clear evidence.

But to not care is bizarre. Athletes doping are basically fake athletes. In most cases they aren't that good so they have to resort to artificial means to become great. We've certainly seen plenty of it in baseball. Long time dopers who are suddenly garbage after they get busted and suspended. If we found out today that Roger was doping all along I'd be disgusted and would root for him to lose every match and retire quickly.

I agree. I would turn on him like a rabid Nadal fan if anything came to light

 

[Federberg]

Just to be clear, I don't think anything we "have" on these guys constitutes evidence. Not Nadal's muscle mass, not Novak's sudden superhuman powers, not Roger's dominance. But I do take issue with the above, because it simplifies PEDs to being this magic potion that once you take, there's a noticeable step up in power, fitness, etc... And that's not always necessarily the case. The improvements don't have to be visible in your game (I doubt Filippo Volandri was hitting the ball that much harder, and he got busted for PEDs), so to wonder where were the visible signs of Roger's potential PED use based on that is a bit too simplistic IMO.

PEDs have a big effect on recovery, healing injuries, etc... And when you factor in how dominant and consistent Roger was, day to day, without breaking a sweat, and say "where was the indication" is not something I can agree with, nor can I agree with the thought that it's impossible for a 34 year old athlete to be as good and as fit as he is due to PEDs.

Honestly, I think all these guys took something in their careers, and to be totally honest, I don't care.

That's fair, I didn't account for recovery time etc. For me, both Rafa and Roger have shown consistency throughout their careers so on the one hand it's difficult to see why either would have started taking something in the middle of their careers. But as you say if it's for recovery then anyone could be guilty, particularly the top guys who play far more than the rest. It's a dark dark hole to go down, this whole discussion. That said, I would definitely like to know one way or another

 

[brokenshoelace]

I agree that none of it is clear evidence. I think at this point only a failed drug test or a witness testimony stating he saw "player X" dope counts as clear evidence.

But to not care is bizarre. Athletes doping are basically fake athletes. In most cases they aren't that good so they have to resort to artificial means to become great. We've certainly seen plenty of it in baseball. Long time dopers who are suddenly garbage after they get busted and suspended. If we found out today that Roger was doping all along I'd be disgusted and would root for him to lose every match and retire quickly.

I agree it's not the conventional wisdom, but I really don't care. I don't have a big issue with PEDs and I understand why athletes would do them. I think there is way too much on the line every time they step on the court (or whatever other discipline they're competing in) and I understand why they would want to be in the best possible shape. I don't necessarily see it as them becoming fake athletes. We're not talking about pro wrestlers getting jacked up out of their minds here, we're talking about athletes who compete in a brutal schedule and want to be as prepared as possible. I can totally see why they would look for any edge they can get. I also don't think PEDs will greatly inflate your abilities (ie you're not going to improve your forehand by taking them, nor serve harder, as was ludicrously implied when Nadal was serving well at the US Open in 2010), but they help you to physically be ready to play the best tennis you can play. As a viewer, why wouldn't I want that?

Athletes are taking all sorts of substances anyway. And I'm not talking about proteins. It's just that some are rather arbitrarily banned while others aren't. The Sharapova case is a good example. The substance she took was newly banned (if I understand correctly). So athletes who took it say, 2 years ago were not fake athletes, but athletes who take it today are? It's not that cut and dry in my book.

 

[DarthFed]

Thankfully you are in the minority there. And the analogy between a sport full of juicers and the WWE is not as far off as you think. Cycling and baseball rightly took huge hits IMO when it was revealed that it was a bunch of juiced up clowns winning the Tour de France every year or guys with the foreheads the size of Jupiter hitting 60+ homeruns like it was nothing.

As for Sharapova, that's a valid point if we believe her story. She was given the chance to get out in front of it and spin it as best as she could just like everyone else does in her position. It's possible she was busted for something else that wasn't recently banned.

 

[Moxie]

It wouldn't shock me if Djokovic was on it and it wouldn't shock me if he wasn't. But I will say again, and I know Moxie will see it as BS or just me being bitter, but I'd be absolutely stunned if Rafa was never on it. Youtube him at AO 2005 and then Miami 2005 (3 months later). I know appearances don't tell everything but he went from skinny boy to grown ass man and after the AO is when he became the 2nd best player in the world by a country mile. And just to be clear I'd be even more floored if Ferrer was clean. If he's clean he may have the best genetics of all time. As for Nole, Gluten can be a huge factor, repeat CAN, but it's definitely possible that it is a front. Certainly he has incredible endurance and again it goes to the sad state of sports today but it's hard not to have a suspicious mind.

With Roger, I think it's pretty obvious he isn't on anything currently. I see your point regarding his earlier days and it's possible (like I said nobody gets proven innocent in this day and age in sports) but now he gets tired pretty quickly and for all the fuss that people make about his level of play he is still much slower and overall much worse than he used to be. Compared to Nole and Rafa it's hard to see him as being more suspicious and yes I know the rebuttal is that I'm a homer and it clouds my view. But he's never had the type of endurance those guys had even despite playing a much less physical game.

I don't think of you as being bitter. But I do think it's convenient for you to buy into the narrative that got spun on Nadal a long time ago and which gets taken as perceived wisdom by those whom it suits. I think a lot of compelling arguments have been put out here about why and how a lot of players may have taken something at some point. As I said before, I'm a lot less naive than I used to be, in the face of so much doping in so many sports, and also seeing how lame the ITF is about it. My main "crusade" has always been that a lot of the slur campaign against Nadal on the internet, and frankly, by some French people is speculation and much of it doesn't follow common sense. (Thanks, @Federberg for getting my point about a young phenom.) And the other point is that one can't be so convinced about one athlete based on nothing, and not even entertain the notion that others do it. That's it's own kind of naiveté.

As to your "eye test" on Nadal, you're right to say that videos aren't a good indicator. I looked at those again, and some of them are stretched, making everyone look bulky. Outfits change, too. To me, Nadal at AO 2005, (and DC 2004 v. US, 2 months prior) had some pretty big guns and broad shoulders. You can also see with your own eyes, if that's your measure, that he's built like his uncles and his father, and one of his uncles was a rather famous pro athlete. There is a DNA component. Britbox and I were discussing Hyeon Chung on a thread recently (he's 19,) and you can see the difference in his body just in the last year. Teenage boys grow and fill out. I don't see why at 18 either Chung or Nadal would have thought it was time to start juicing. It makes far less sense to suspect doping than assuming that teenagers would feel they had some time before they had to be world beaters. You'd have to be on the tour and getting discouraged to some extent before you think you need some kind of advantage that you don't have. Rafa never had a period of disappointing results from when he turned pro up to his breakout years 2004-2005. He started young, developed young, and is very talented. I don't see any time between 15-18 when he would have thought it was necessary to dope, or that his results show anything but solid progression.

I said before, I'd buy much more into Rafa being tempted to something later in his career. But the same can be said of Roger. In 2013, which was a decline year for him, he decided that a new racquet might give him an advantage he needed to keep up with the competition. Who's to say that he didn't think of something else that would give him that edge? He did come back to form and, to some extent, fitness.

For the record, I don't think Roger or Rafa or Novak are specifically dirty. I think they're very talented. I buy that Fed got a new mental attitude at 21, that Djokovic's diet really helped his fitness, and that Rafa was raised/coached by people who wouldn't let him dope. However, I think Broken's comment is compelling about what is and isn't legal, when it is, and what gets used in subtle ways for advantages. This meldonium case has been instructive. Legal up until January of this year, but was obviously misused by some athletes (plenty, it seems,) for better cardio fitness. These guys have loads of money and fancy doctors. They might just always stay ahead of the curve on "legal."

 

[DarthFed]

^ I shouldn't have brought the discussion down this road and this will be my last post on it. While you make a lot of good points Moxie the one thing I would stress is that career long doping is more common than you think. The incentive to dope in sports is always high, especially today with all the money and fame that greatness brings. An 17 year old who is #100 in the world will have plenty of motivation, he might not think he necessarily needs to take them to be great, but why not put the odds in your favor in an ENORMOUS way. It's been the case with baseball for many years, and I'd imagine it's the same for a lot of sports. Most of those guys were doping from the start, many of them probably did it in college too.

 

[Moxie]

^ I have no reason to doubt your word, though I don't have any specific examples. And different sports have different cultures, so tennis isn't baseball or cycling. But then you do agree, though, if it could be that way for Nadal, it could also be that way for Federer? I mean, if you think it's that dirty. And while you point out that doping throughout a career exists, general terms, you have not acknowledged any of my reasons why it wouldn't have made logical sense for Nadal, who was progressing very nicely in his early years. He came from a family of very comfortable means. He didn't need the money, short-term. In this case, I do think you're hanging onto a narrative that suits you, in the face of reasonable evidence against.

I don't see why this discussion shouldn't have gone "down this road." Beyond Murray's speculations, there's nothing to say about him. The question is essentially doping in tennis, and, by the assessment of most, amongst the top players. That's what we're discussing, and I don't see why you should stop contributing, unless you're bored. It does warm my heart that you've heard some of my points, in any case.