Biogenesis / Troicki / Cilic / Doping in Tennis

[ClayDeath]

RE: Biogenesis Scandal - Tennis Players on the books

any fool can start cycling 200 miles a week and he will have stamina to burn. muster often went on 20 mile runs on a bad knee. becker would accuse him of doping too.

lendl started riding bicycles when he felt he needed to improve his endurance.




any idiot can take his fitness to the next level. all it takes is work. ferru did.



doping doesn't buy you fitness. its just a myth.

even in cycling the top cyclists are riding around 30,000 miles a year.


I refuse to believe that some players in our sport would consider doping simply because they want to outlast the other.

there has to be more plausible reason: perhaps to recover faster from hard training or recovering from an injury.




if you people are so hung up on this then list your suspects here. right now.


do it.



I explained it about 100 different ways already that doping in tennis nets you nothing. those who do it are not your slam winners. they are hardly driving the sport. the will, the skills, and the athletic ability required to win the big events and the slams in tennis cant be bought with doping.


only the fools and a few low level players might experiment. we never said they were that bright anyway.


and it is not doing them any bloody good. perhaps they were just curious initially.

it is not an issue in out sport.

 

[Front242]

RE: Biogenesis Scandal - Tennis Players on the books

I give up. It's like telling Stevie Wonder to check out the picture quality on your new high tech tv. You just can't see the light. If you think drugs can't buy you fitness then why did Lance Armstrong take drugs pretty much his whole career? Zzzzzz.

 

[ClayDeath]

RE: Biogenesis Scandal - Tennis Players on the books

a lot of doctors are actually coming forward and saying that lance could have won without doping. lance is not an expert but the doctors are.

he trained much harder than anybody has ever trained and he hardly ever missed a day.


even on the days of very heavy chemo, he went for 50-60 miles bikes rides. the man was driven and his relentless will was 2nd to none.


he made a mistake. he made 2 mistakes actually:

1. he should have never doped
2. he should have told the truth right from get go



here is the deal front242:


why don't you make a list of players that you think are doping. otherwise you don't have a case of any kind.

you are just engaged in a fishing expedition.



once again, the elite cyclists are riding around 30,000 miles a year. there is no way around that.


and yes they are doping in cycling and have been for the last 20-25 years. the sport is just too demanding physically. they feel they need an edge.

so nobody is denying this.

the problem is that it is a nonissue in a sport like tennis.


its a different sport mate. I think you are not getting this.

I have played the sport at a relatively high level. i know what is involved in tennis.

no amount of doping can help you beat the better players day in and day out.

 

[Front242]

RE: Biogenesis Scandal - Tennis Players on the books

the problem is that it is a nonissue in a sport like tennis.

no amount of doping can help you beat the better players day in and day out.

We'll agree to disagree there and so will the players who are doping. And we'll see what transpires in the next 5-10 years when hopefully we'll get someone at the top with the balls to expose players at the top. The truth always finds its way out in the end. Ben Johnson got caught and Carl Lewis had to nerve to object that he was beaten by a steroid user. Not long after that it was made public that Lewis himself was as dirty as a skiddy pair of y-fronts. Lance Armstrong probably thought he'd get away with it but he didn't. Lynford Christie retired from the shame of being caught. It was pretty obvious to anyone that a guy who looked like a pro bodybuilder was rife with drugs in any case. UFC fighters, footballers. They're all getting caught. It's just a shame the Spanish courts are such a corrupt bunch and Fuentes blood bags will never be exposed. Quite an eye opener I'd imagine.

 

[ClayDeath]

RE: Biogenesis Scandal - Tennis Players on the books

so stop beating around the bush. who are the players on your suspect list?

 

[Front242]

RE: Biogenesis Scandal - Tennis Players on the books

so stop beating around the bush. who are the players on your suspect list?

All I'll say is it should be obvious to anyone without biased eyes. I'll leave the rest up to you and hopefully we'll get the definitive answer in a few years down the line.

 

[ClayDeath]

RE: Biogenesis Scandal - Tennis Players on the books

i see you continue to beat around the bush while have zero evidence of any kind.


i call that reckless, speculative fishing expedition.

you also failed to explain to me why first time in human history 9-10 players aged over 30 were able to grab titles this year.

why is tommy haas still doing well at age 35?


why are the bryan brothers who are nearing 40 still dominating the slams in doubles on all surfaces?



did rosewall, Agassi, and Connors dope too? how about andres gomez at RG--the toughest slam to win? how the hell was he able to win it at age 31? let me guess: he doped.

Connors was top 20 for 2 decades with a rinky dink racquet with the sweetspot the size of a dime. and he was barely 5 foot 10.

sure he must have doped too.


you better lay off that cheap liquor old sport.

 

[Front242]

RE: Biogenesis Scandal - Tennis Players on the books

i see you continue to beat around the bush while have zero evidence of any kind.


i call that reckless, speculative fishing expedition.

you also failed to explain to me why first time in human history 9-10 players aged over 30 were able to grab titles this year.

why is tommy haas still doing well at age 35?


why are the bryan brothers who are nearing 40 still dominating the slams in doubles on all surfaces?



did rosewall, Agassi, and Connors dope too? how about andres gomez at RG--the toughest slam to win? how the hell was he able to win it at age 31? let me guess: he doped.

Connors was top 20 for 2 decades with a rinky dink racquet with the sweetspot the size of a dime. and he was barely 5 foot 10.

sure he must have doped too.


you better lay off that cheap liquor old sport.

Obviously players over thirty can and do perform well. This has been an exceptional year. Are they all clean? Who knows. I hope so. But no one can be sure given how poor the testing is. Doubles is nowhere near as physical as there's no running along the baseline like in singles so hence why the Bryans and indeed any doubles team can keep playing well at a late age. Navratilova was playing at 50.

Top 20 for 2 decades will be achieved again. Federer could manage that if he so chose and his back held up I'd imagine but credit to Connors all the same. There will always be anomalies and we can't just go by general stats that all players are officially dead and buried after a certain age. I for one am a big Tommy Haas fan and hope he continues playing another few years and also hope he's clean but no one knows. I'm happy for all the guys over 30 doing well. Mahut's always been good on grass and it's great to see him winning titles so late in his career. Karlovic well, he could play till 40+ with that serve and always be in with a shot at a title so no doping is needed for his game which has always been mostly serve so there's another 30+ title winner accounted for.

And I barely drink at all.

 

[ClayDeath]

RE: Biogenesis Scandal - Tennis Players on the books

http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2013/07/drawing-blood/48521/#.UfSKXJ0o59A

---

I think our sport is clean for the most part. we have nothing to worry about.

lets hope so anyway. we don't need a black mark on our sport.

 

[ClayDeath]

RE: Biogenesis Scandal - Tennis Players on the books

I just saw this article:


http://www.tennis-x.com/xblog/2013-07-27/13149.php

 

[Moxie]

RE: Biogenesis Scandal - Tennis Players on the books

^ Front, if you believe this, then why do you even follow tennis? Or, (let's just say it,) is it that you think Roger is sterling, and squeaky clean, and Rafa, and perhaps the other 2 dope? Or do you even suspect Federer? If you're going to make the Armstrong analogy, and talk about players "winning everything in sight" then you do imply TMF. So, how far do you think it extends?

For my own part, I do wonder why anyone would follow cycling, at this point.

so stop beating around the bush. who are the players on your suspect list?

All I'll say is it should be obvious to anyone without biased eyes. I'll leave the rest up to you and hopefully we'll get the definitive answer in a few years down the line.

Front, I believe you're avoiding my question. If you think the doping problem reaches to the "top players," as you say, does that mean top 10? Top 5? And if so, doesn't that include your man, Federer? And if it does, why do you still follow tennis, and care about it enough to participate on a discussion board? As CD says, stop beating around the bush. I suspect that when you make inferences about some "top players," without being specific, you are not thinking of Federer, but you won't say who you mean because it would smack of sour grapes...which it does.

If you think doping is so insidious that it reaches even the top 5, then you have to include Federer in your thinking. It's not fair for the paranoid imagination to wander across some, and not others. (Though I find the paranoid imagination is not especially fair.)

 

[tented]

RE: Biogenesis Scandal - Tennis Players on the books

so stop beating around the bush. who are the players on your suspect list?

All I'll say is it should be obvious to anyone without biased eyes. I'll leave the rest up to you and hopefully we'll get the definitive answer in a few years down the line.

I would put Federer at the top of the list. How else to explain so many ridiculous records?
- 17 GSs
- 10 consecutive GS finals
- 23 consecutive GS semis
- Only man to go 3 years in a row winning at least 10 consecutive titles
- 81-4 win/loss in 2005
- 92-5 win/loss in 2006
- Three consecutive years winning 90%+ matches played
- 41 match winning streak
- 56 match winning streak on hards
- 65 match winning streak on grass
- 26 match winning streak against Top 10 players
- 24 finals won in a row
- 17 finals played in a row
- 237 consecutive weeks at No. 1
- 418 consecutive weeks in top 2

And so on, and so on. If we're going to point fingers, anyone who doesn't put Roger at the top of the list based on all of those astonishing feats is bereft of objectivity. It should be obvious to anyone without biased eyes that numbers like those "aren't natural."

 

[Kieran]

RE: Viktor Troicki banned for 18 months

It is not a fact that Marin Cilic got 3 month's ban only. There is
no official announcement yet from ITF about Marin Cilic. It is my
belief that the tribunal is still considering the case and needs to
decide on the punishment and then make it public. As an aside,
it is also not a fact that Cilic's ban is being kept silently intentionally.
I assume ITF would soon make an official announcement with the
details.

The players involved often decide (especially if they know
they are guilty) not to participate in tournaments for a while
until the verdict is out (as any prize money and points that
they gain in the mean time would only go down the drain).
For example, Wayne Odesnik did it before.

Umag is Cilic's home tournament. He was the titlist there
in 2012 and finalist in 2011. Given that suddenly he is not
playing in Umag, the Croatian media go to the bottom of
it and released the news.

Great post, GSAM! I'm sure an official report will be available after due process is complete...

 

[Kieran]

RE: Biogenesis Scandal - Tennis Players on the books

Yeah, Roger never missed a tournament, even when he said he had mono. His powers of recuperation are legendary! Obviously he's as clean as all the other top players...

 

[britbox]

RE: Biogenesis Scandal - Tennis Players on the books

Regarding naming names, it would be futile without more information in the public domain BUT the general principle is to look at the doping doctors and then establish their clients. This doesn't prove doping in itself, but it arouses suspicion. The ITF follow a similar principle.

Currently the ITF have one doctor on the banned list - Luis Garcia del Moral and a second doctor Eufemiano Fuentes is banned from practicing for four years in any sport. I'd suspect the doctors at the Miami lab will follow a similar fate.

Fuentes client list is under lock and key.

Luis Garcia del Moral ran the Valencia Academy and he worked with (amongst others) Sara Errani, David Ferrer and Dinara Safina.

 

[britbox]

RE: Biogenesis Scandal - Tennis Players on the books

so stop beating around the bush. who are the players on your suspect list?

All I'll say is it should be obvious to anyone without biased eyes. I'll leave the rest up to you and hopefully we'll get the definitive answer in a few years down the line.

I would put Federer at the top of the list. How else to explain so many ridiculous records?
- 17 GSs
- 10 consecutive GS finals
- 23 consecutive GS semis
- Only man to go 3 years in a row winning at least 10 consecutive titles
- 81-4 win/loss in 2005
- 92-5 win/loss in 2006
- Three consecutive years winning 90%+ matches played
- 41 match winning streak
- 56 match winning streak on hards
- 65 match winning streak on grass
- 26 match winning streak against Top 10 players
- 24 finals won in a row
- 17 finals played in a row
- 237 consecutive weeks at No. 1
- 418 consecutive weeks in top 2

And so on, and so on. If we're going to point fingers, anyone who doesn't put Roger at the top of the list based on all of those astonishing feats is bereft of objectivity. It should be obvious to anyone without biased eyes that numbers like those "aren't natural."

If Federer was doing out-of-competition doping, then I hardly think he'd pick Dubai as a base. Absolute zero tolerance drug laws, possibly the strictest on the planet.

 

[ClayDeath]

RE: Biogenesis Scandal - Tennis Players on the books

^ Front, if you believe this, then why do you even follow tennis? Or, (let's just say it,) is it that you think Roger is sterling, and squeaky clean, and Rafa, and perhaps the other 2 dope? Or do you even suspect Federer? If you're going to make the Armstrong analogy, and talk about players "winning everything in sight" then you do imply TMF. So, how far do you think it extends?

For my own part, I do wonder why anyone would follow cycling, at this point.

so stop beating around the bush. who are the players on your suspect list?

All I'll say is it should be obvious to anyone without biased eyes. I'll leave the rest up to you and hopefully we'll get the definitive answer in a few years down the line.

Front, I believe you're avoiding my question. If you think the doping problem reaches to the "top players," as you say, does that mean top 10? Top 5? And if so, doesn't that include your man, Federer? And if it does, why do you still follow tennis, and care about it enough to participate on a discussion board? As CD says, stop beating around the bush. I suspect that when you make inferences about some "top players," without being specific, you are not thinking of Federer, but you won't say who you mean because it would smack of sour grapes...which it does.

If you think doping is so insidious that it reaches even the top 5, then you have to include Federer in your thinking. It's not fair for the paranoid imagination to wander across some, and not others. (Though I find the paranoid imagination is not especially fair.)

excellent post princess moxie.



i am starting to smell those "sour grapes" to a small extent.


the man he has in mind has been gasping for breath ever since the end of 2010. that is when he stopped trying to so hard. complacency got the best of him and he declared that he felt like he "had been playing tennis for 100 years".



he completely ran out of gas at the end of the 4th set at the u.s open in 2011. he was worn out during the latter stage of the match in the final at indian wells. he was the same damn way at Miami.


so not only he is battling injuries, he was battling himself. he refused to train hard and he refused to improve.


you can see pretty damn clearly the dramatic drop in his once supreme fitness.

perhaps the injuries discouraged him to some extent.


bottom line: i am not looking at the top players at all. i believe they are clean.

 

[DarthFed]

RE: Viktor Troicki banned for 18 months

Where's the silent ban, if "they announced it?"

People love conspiracy theories, but the truth will out eventually. Let's stick only to what we know...

ITF didn't announce it. Croatian Media broke the story.

Exactly. We only just heard about it from the accused player's home country. Maybe the ITF will now decide to spill the beans and will likely add some BS as to why Cilic's failed test and subsequent ban were kept from the public. This was a silent ban, simple as that.

 

[Kieran]

RE: Viktor Troicki banned for 18 months

I don't think so, Darth. I find GameSetAndMath's post on the previous page to be the most mature and practical analysis of this "silent ban" mullarkey. It's strictly one for conspiracy theorists...

 

[DarthFed]

RE: Viktor Troicki banned for 18 months

Where's the silent ban, if "they announced it?"

People love conspiracy theories, but the truth will out eventually. Let's stick only to what we know...

Er maybe 'cos it's practically August and he was caught in April? And also because he was told to make up a fake injury to forfeit his 2nd round match at Wimbledon this year.

But that's the point, isn't it? The idea that a top player could merrily serve a ban without anyone ever knowing is pie in the sky - and unfair on everyone. Cilic's suspension was announced, possibly after due process had happened.

If any of the top 4 were to serve a "silent ban", then the others in the top 4 would know about it sooner than internet chatrooms - and it wouldn't be very silent any more...

They'd probably be paid to keep quiet mafia style. Case in point, the guy involved in the Biogenesis case has already received a death threat.

According to him. And while he says he turned down $125,000, he admits to taking $5K. People are taking him seriously enough to investigate, and to interview him, but a gimlet eye might suspect him of a bit of self-aggrandizement, and maybe being a bit of a drama queen.

So we should believe some of the ridiculous excuses of athletes who have failed drug tests (what incentive could they possibly have to lie right?) but the whistleblower exposing a ton of cheaters has to be making up stuff. It is kind of expected he would receive threats as he is ruining the life of Bosch and the athletes involved in this scandal.

---

I don't think so, Darth. I find GameSetAndMath's post on the previous page to be the most mature and practical analysis of this "silent ban" mullarkey. It's strictly one for conspiracy theorists...

The fact is that, unless the Croatian media made this up, Cilic failed a test and has subsequently not played and in true shady fashion was told to fake an injury and pull out of Wimbledon. There is no reason that the failed test should be mentioned well after the fact. They inform the player of the failed test, player comes up with a reason/excuse and likely decides if he wants to appeal and then they go from there. You really think all that work takes more than a month to sort through? So I am curious as to why you think they kept quiet on this so far?

Of course the ITF is now going to say something soon, they don't want to look even more ridiculous than they do right now.