General Doping/PEDs Discussion

[Front242]

RE: 2014 US Open Final: Nishikori vs. Cilic

^ Yeah, can't believe she married him after that. Absolutely nuts.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

RE: 2014 US Open Final: Nishikori vs. Cilic

^ Yeah, can't believe she married him after that. Absolutely nuts.

Dude, you can be wickedly funny...that comment above made me crack up.:clap

 

[Moxie]

RE: 2014 US Open Final: Nishikori vs. Cilic

^ Yeah, can't believe she married him after that. Absolutely nuts.

Dude, you can be wickedly funny...that comment above made me crack up.:clap

I'm not clear why that's funny, but take it to here if you want to discuss this one:

http://www.tennisfrontier.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=20

 

[DarthFed]

RE: 2014 US Open Final: Nishikori vs. Cilic

^ Yeah, can't believe she married him after that. Absolutely nuts.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

[Luxilon Borg]

RE: 2014 US Open Final: Nishikori vs. Cilic

^ Yeah, can't believe she married him after that. Absolutely nuts.

Dude, you can be wickedly funny...that comment above made me crack up.:clap

I'm not clear why that's funny, but take it to here if you want to discuss this one:

http://www.tennisfrontier.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=20

Well..it must be the heat wave...forgive us...

One interesting note about Marin's victory is that it is the first slam won with a Head Prestige since Marat in 2005.

 

[Moxie]

RE: 2014 US Open Final: Nishikori vs. Cilic

^ Yeah, can't believe she married him after that. Absolutely nuts.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Deep approach to the complications of domestic violence, Darth. I think you make my case for, at the very least, moving it to an appropriate thread. I doubt the answer is one-note, or 2300 $$.

Either we're going to discuss Nishikori v. Cilic here, or we're done with this thread.

 

[Moxie]

RE: The Cilic Question and General doping issues

I've given the conversation it's own thread. Clearly, we're going to discuss Cilic. But it's another thread to discuss PEDs generally, which we've begun doing, and it doesn't have to make the passport thread the only clearing-house, which is an interesting conversation, on its own.

 

[Kenneth]

RE: The Cilic Question and General doping issues

"Marin Cilic doping scandal hangs over US Open final as short bans leave questions about drugs in tennis".

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/tennis/article-2747037/Marin-Cilic-doping-scandal-hangs-US-Open-final-short-bans-leave-questions-drugs-tennis.html

Disappointing...

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

RE: The Cilic Question and General doping issues

I have a question:

We have allowed everything to improve, right? For example, look at rackets. No more lumber, much lighter sticks with strings on them that give you so much more top spin and consistency. Shoes have so much better support and durability, the clothes absorb sweat better, surfaces are much more even and easy to play on ( keep in mind, wimbledon grass was so bad in the past you HAD to play serve and volley because you did not want the ball to bounce).

So, why are we against the human body improving? Maybe the human body reaches its full potential ONLY with chemical assistance. I mean look, if you sent Rafa's racket back in time to a player and he entered tournaments with it, I am sure he would not be allowed to play with it. It would be considered same as doping, no? But now everyone is allowed to use it, so it is fine.

So if everyone was allowed to use PEDs, knowing full well what the advantages and the side effects are, would you be OK with it?

 

[DarthFed]

RE: The Cilic Question and General doping issues

^ No. As mentioned in some other thread yesterday an athlete should not have to choose between being at a major competitive disadvantage or putting their health at risk. If you have a sport where "everything goes" then that is the exact situation we'd have. In tennis think of it like this: Player A and Player B are of similar talent levels, both work just as hard, etc. but Player A juices and Player B knows it. Now the choice is between being left in the dust by someone you're "naturally" equal with or possibly putting your health at risk. Until it's certain that PED's are 100% safe I don't think they should be legal.

 

[brokenshoelace]

RE: The Cilic Question and General doping issues

I have a question:

We have allowed everything to improve, right? For example, look at rackets. No more lumber, much lighter sticks with strings on them that give you so much more top spin and consistency. Shoes have so much better support and durability, the clothes absorb sweat better, surfaces are much more even and easy to play on ( keep in mind, wimbledon grass was so bad in the past you HAD to play serve and volley because you did not want the ball to bounce).

So, why are we against the human body improving? Maybe the human body reaches its full potential ONLY with chemical assistance. I mean look, if you sent Rafa's racket back in time to a player and he entered tournaments with it, I am sure he would not be allowed to play with it. It would be considered same as doping, no? But now everyone is allowed to use it, so it is fine.

So if everyone was allowed to use PEDs, knowing full well what the advantages and the side effects are, would you be OK with it?

100% yes. As I said, the stance on PEDs is extremely hypocritical. As if these athletes aren't putting substances and chemicals in their bodies already. They just happen to be legal.

 

[DarthFed]

RE: The Cilic Question and General doping issues

Bro, there is a difference between taking protein shakes, multivitamins and fish oil vs. doing anabolic steroids, EPO, blood doping, etc.

 

[Front242]

RE: The Cilic Question and General doping issues

I have a question:

We have allowed everything to improve, right? For example, look at rackets. No more lumber, much lighter sticks with strings on them that give you so much more top spin and consistency. Shoes have so much better support and durability, the clothes absorb sweat better, surfaces are much more even and easy to play on ( keep in mind, wimbledon grass was so bad in the past you HAD to play serve and volley because you did not want the ball to bounce).

So, why are we against the human body improving? Maybe the human body reaches its full potential ONLY with chemical assistance. I mean look, if you sent Rafa's racket back in time to a player and he entered tournaments with it, I am sure he would not be allowed to play with it. It would be considered same as doping, no? But now everyone is allowed to use it, so it is fine.

So if everyone was allowed to use PEDs, knowing full well what the advantages and the side effects are, would you be OK with it?

100% yes. As I said, the stance on PEDs is extremely hypocritical. As if these athletes aren't putting substances and chemicals in their bodies already. They just happen to be legal.

You can be sure there are plenty of illegal substances being used for years given the shambolic state of the testing in tennis and unless WADA take over it'll continue like this sadly and I don't see the ITF stopping testing their own sport for fear of it turning out like cycling.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

RE: The Cilic Question and General doping issues

Regarding most tennis players not taking steroids, I agree it's mostly drugs for stamina being used and testosterone patches for recovery but if PEDs were made legal then I'd imagine the skinny guys out there would likely jump at the chance to add a bit/a lot(!) of extra power as it'd clearly help their games no end.

I am not so sure of this. The power of a shot comes primarily from the technique and
only secondarily from the basic physical strength of the person. Knowing this, the skinny
guys would probably not go for steroids even if they were corrupt and/or even if they
were legal.

Cilic is able to hit 100 mph forehand groundies and I don't hink Baghdatis does it.
Baghdatis is probably lot stronger than Cilic.

 

[brokenshoelace]

RE: The Cilic Question and General doping issues

Bro, there is a difference between taking protein shakes, multivitamins and fish oil vs. doing anabolic steroids, EPO, blood doping, etc.

This would imply that athletes are only taking protein shakes, multivitamins and fish oil. I know I limited my previous comment to "they just happen to be legal," but we both know that's not the only thing going on.

 

[DarthFed]

RE: The Cilic Question and General doping issues

Bro, there is a difference between taking protein shakes, multivitamins and fish oil vs. doing anabolic steroids, EPO, blood doping, etc.

This would imply that athletes are only taking protein shakes, multivitamins and fish oil. I know I limited my previous comment to "they just happen to be legal," but we both know that's not the only thing going on.

For athletes that are concerned about not taking a banned substance I'd imagine it isn't much more than that really. Maybe some athletes do some heavy research on whether a specific product isn't on the banned list (anything legal that could potentially boost oxygen levels would be big) but there is a reason some things are banned and most things are perfectly legal.

 

[Moxie]

RE: The Cilic Question and General doping issues

@Front:

I copied this post from you on the Rankings thread. I hope you will respond here, so as not to derail the other thread, but I am curious. You posted this:

"Nice progress. Viktor Troicki is back to 227 in the live rankings now and still in the latest challenger event so will hopefully move higher still pretty soon. In light of the Cilic situation I feel less bad about the whole issue with doping surrounding Troicki as he served a 1 year ban as opposed to the totally unfair 4 months that Cilic's was reduced to. Given Troicki has been fighting back the hard way through challengers I'm actively following his progress and feel a lot sorrier for him than Cilic. He was clearly given the $h1t end of the stick and shame on the authorities for the double standards."

I'm curious as to why you're championing Troicki so much, given your general inclination to suspicion. What's different about Troicki's case, as you see it? I'm asking sincerely. Thanks.

 

[Front242]

RE: The Cilic Question and General doping issues

@Front:

I copied this post from you on the Rankings thread. I hope you will respond here, so as not to derail the other thread, but I am curious. You posted this:

"Nice progress. Viktor Troicki is back to 227 in the live rankings now and still in the latest challenger event so will hopefully move higher still pretty soon. In light of the Cilic situation I feel less bad about the whole issue with doping surrounding Troicki as he served a 1 year ban as opposed to the totally unfair 4 months that Cilic's was reduced to. Given Troicki has been fighting back the hard way through challengers I'm actively following his progress and feel a lot sorrier for him than Cilic. He was clearly given the $h1t end of the stick and shame on the authorities for the double standards."

I'm curious as to why you're championing Troicki so much, given your general inclination to suspicion. What's different about Troicki's case, as you see it? I'm asking sincerely. Thanks.

Hey Moxie,

Mostly it's about the double standards and the way the authorities handled it. Why ban one guy for a whole year when he didn't even fail a test and ban the guy would did a mere 4 months? Now, I'm well aware that there's a strong possibility Troicki had something to hide and that's why he refused the blood test but either way the treatment towards him was completely unjust in comparison to Cilic.

Actually, put it another way, Cilic probably should've served a 1 year ban too. Then we'd call it evens. Neither guy should be only serving a 4 month ban. What sort of a message does that send out to potential cheats?

 

[Front242]

RE: The Cilic Question and General doping issues

Cilic didn't have to go through challengers and start off from scratch again with zero ranking points as a result of only being banned a mere 4 months.

 

[Moxie]

RE: The Cilic Question and General doping issues

I really do get the equal treatment, to some extent. One fails a test, and has a shorter ban, and one refuses a test, and gets a longer one. On the one hand, it seems odd. But refusing a test has to be taken seriously, too, does it not? But my other curiosity is that you do have an inclination to be suspicious. Why so inclined to champion Troicki, when you're also so willing to think poorly of players with no sanctions?

Anyway, I do think the Cilic/Troicki situation seemed clearly unfairly handled. I can't believe that the ITF thinks that makes sense.