RE: Biogenesis Scandal - Tennis Players on the books
^ but how much innuendo was there, really? the innuendo is Front talking about it and a lot of us knowing his background. but again, on the topic, in the discussion, the arguments aren't framed for or against any player in particular. so i'd say that's where we should return to - discuss the topic. or do you want to ban a poster from debating this issue just because who might be or have been in the back of his head?
i understand that it'd be nice had Front taken the time to answer you - just like you, i deduct from his argumentation that all of the top, especially those who've been dominant for a prolonged period of time, are under strong suspicion of doping - btw, Front hasn't denied this either, so far. at worst, he might have avoided it. but why should that disallow any debate? also, if you ask one poster on one player, don't you have to ask him on the others as well? and then you're immediately in the full game of blame-calling, the one thing we're trying to avoid. so, we got the memo - a lot of posters, with good reason, believe that a certain other poster's beliefs about doping stem from his dislike for a certain player (or go hand in hand with it). however, however true it might (or might not) be, how does that the quality of his arguments? if they're bogus, they're bogus, if he's got a point, so be it. again, there was one true Rafa-pointing innuendo in all of these threads, at a ridiculously late point in the conversation, in a quick jab-sort of way, in response to a very direct attack against Djokovic. so let's adress the innuendo when and where it happens.
of course, me calling to concentrate on the arguments doesn't mean that i think they are very good, in the first place. for example, the one point that it's hard to believe the speed of recovery and physical stability necessary for the kind of prolonged dominance we've seen in the past decade in our beloved sport? yes, this would cast suspicions over each player who's done that. as for me, i just don't find it convincing. generally, i think using supremacy as a reason to assume the worst is something of a McGuire/Armstrong fallacy - just because it was true in some cases does not mean at all that the only way to rise to the top (and stay there for a while) would be PEDs. be it Gretzky (i know he didn't hit or get hit a lot, but it's still hockey, and he stayed incredibly healthy incredibly long) or Borg, there were so many wonderfully talented players who dominated their respective sports and of whom i'm certain they're 100% clean. so i need to see more than just some players being good and fit. but that's my opinion, and i reckon it won't change Front's.
btw, i agree that this is probably one topic too many. there hardly is any news value at all in that Fischer story so far - if he does go out and list names, alright, then we could resurface this.
Kieran said:
Exactly. Everyone knows how to read between the lines and that's why hunting pulled Front out. Threads like this are just like every other thread: fans circle wagons and sling arrows, but it's not just one set of fans...
i'm sorry, but not everybody does. i actually wasn't all that aware of the whole brouhaha, and before the accusations of a pro-Fed, anti-Rafa agenda came out, i was under the impression, by Front's arguments, that he'd suspect Fed all the same. and tbh, i don't see a lot of reason why anyone who's coming to this debate fresh (as in: in the past year or so) and hasn't been around since tennis.com, would recognize any "implications" in almost all of what's been discussed here. honestly - i just don't see it.
and if someone is basing all of his or her argumentation on having favorites and an agenda, then his or her argumentation will most likely suffer anyway - no need to wonder about any supposed hidden agenda, when the arguments are out in plain to be discussed - or dismissed.
again, i think britbox had a good point as to why we should stay away from using names - so i think when people stay clear of that, we should accept it and not try to pressure 'em into revealing what we think they keep in the back of their mind.
on the other side, the nasty, lawsuit-begging, rumour-creating and -peddling alternative is to just go ahead and call out all the (top) players and ask who thinks why or why not each of them is juicing. just from the top of my head, i already have great arguments as to why my two favorite players might be doping.
and while i'm at it, trying to go back to the arguments themselves: i don't think i ever adressed Front's "willpower comes from steroids" theory. personally, i think it's one of the worst i've ever heard on the subject of doping in tennis. claydeath already alluded to this a couple of times, think of the chess in moving aspect: 'roid rage would hardly be a great state of mind for playing tennis. i have yet to see a convincing article about the positive mental effects that Front claims come from PEDs, and wonder how on earth they should work in tennis. yes, confidence and aggression can help - but they also can hurt. and just as much, you need calm and peace at times. would that mean that a cleverly doping player would switch between Abilify and Prozac, sleeping pills and Red Bull, MDMA and cannabis at the changeovers? i don't think so.
). juicing up with anything from their labs wouldn't make you stronger, i reckon it'd kill you.
