General Doping/PEDs Discussion

[tented]

Broken wasn't around when the doping policy was discussed, so he isn't aware of it. He's not trying to get people to do things in order to get them in trouble.

I'll post a copy here:

- Doping, PEDs, biological passports, etc. can and should be discussed, but within boundaries.

- Restrict conversation to threads specifically set up to discuss these topics, and do not let it become part of other threads.

- Don't name players unless they have been explicitly implicated through failed or refused test(s).

- If a player has had known contact with a doctor who has been caught doping, that fact can be mentioned, but no other conclusions can be drawn from it. No guilt by association.

- Don't accuse any governing organization (ATP, WTA, ITF, etc.) of being complicit in illegal activities (for example, knowing a player is doping, and hiding it).

- All attempts at spurious innuendo, or any posts outside of these guidelines will be deleted, and could result in a member receiving a warning.

 

[brokenshoelace]

There have been matches in the last decade where it's just not physically possible to not be even the slightest bit tired the next day but some of the players out there on both the ATP and WTA tour may be fooling a lot of people but they're not fooling me. This super human recovery is just that...super human. And not natural. If you absolutely kill yourself in the gym or cycle a huge distance one day (without the help of all that cyclists in the Tour De France use - I'm talking normal people here), there's no chance of being fresh as a daisy the next day. None. Likewise going all out on chest or legs in the gym today and expecting to do the same again next day on the same body parts is pretty much not happening without drugs.

Name examples. Name names. Stop being so vague.

I thought it was against the policy of TF to name as any such naming would be considered
slandering and accusing specific players of doping. Isn't that right tented? Or is this a way of
inciting folks to do banned things on the forum.

I told him to bring up matches in which he thought players made super human recovery because players "aren't fooling him."

I have no idea what this rule is you speak of. If you actually think I'm trying to get him banned you're thinking way too hard.

 

[brokenshoelace]

^ It is and that's why I didn't take the bait.

Yeah, that's exactly what it was, a bait. Jesus Christ this place is seriously getting dumber by the day.

 

[brokenshoelace]

As far as doping goes, I find it funny how the accusations try to implicate specific players known for physicality, but never 30+ year old men who are doing superhuman things for their age.

 

[Front242]

As far as doping goes, I find it funny how the accusations try to implicate specific players known for physicality, but never 30+ year old men who are doing superhuman things for their age.

Such as winning a slam once in the last 4 years and having a totally crap 2013? Agassi won more slams over 30 than the guy you're referencing. Not really that superhuman given how much better he is on grass than everyone still on tour when he plays his best because the surface suits his game perfectly. No PEDs are needed to win short points and it wouldn't surprise me to see him win it at even 35 if he plays to potential and wins matches quickly. That's the key.

 

[brokenshoelace]

As far as doping goes, I find it funny how the accusations try to implicate specific players known for physicality, but never 30+ year old men who are doing superhuman things for their age.

Such as winning a slam once in the last 4 years and having a totally crap 2013? Agassi won more slams over 30 than the guy you're referencing. Not really that superhuman given how much better he is on grass than everyone still on tour when he plays his best because the surface suits his game perfectly. No PEDs are needed to win short points and it wouldn't surprise me to see him win it at even 35 if he plays to potential and wins matches quickly. That's the key.

LOL yeah, because Agassi was totally that consistent match in and match out in his 30's, being able to compete with physical freaks as his main rivals, going deep in every tournament, moving like a rabbit, staying injury free... What a remarkably flawed analogy. Roger is a guy who virtually hasn't skipped a week since 2003, and was reaching every final and winning pretty much every tournament back then, for about 4 consecutive years, and he NEVER looked tired until he started getting a bit older. I guess that doesn't qualify as superhuman because he didn't wear sleeveless shirts and flex his bicep.

Of course I don't believe Roger is doping. But your agenda is clearer than day. If you don't think what Roger is doing now is superhuman (and I mean that as a compliment, not as malicious implication), you're out of your mind.

But, THAT bait, at least, you took. Which is to highlight that you only think Roger's rivals are on PEDs, but not Roger. Yes, that part, I admit, was a bait (the initial comment where I asked you to name names wasn't). It was a bait to see your agenda by the way, not to get you in trouble. And no, it shouldn't get you banned because you didn't name anybody, but we now at least fully understand your agenda. Good job.

PS: For accuracy's sake, Roger won 2 slams in the last 4 years, not one.

 

[brokenshoelace]

There have been matches in the last decade where it's just not physically possible to not be even the slightest bit tired the next day but some of the players out there on both the ATP and WTA tour may be fooling a lot of people but they're not fooling me. This super human recovery is just that...super human. And not natural. If you absolutely kill yourself in the gym or cycle a huge distance one day (without the help of all that cyclists in the Tour De France use - I'm talking normal people here), there's no chance of being fresh as a daisy the next day. None. Likewise going all out on chest or legs in the gym today and expecting to do the same again next day on the same body parts is pretty much not happening without drugs.

Going back to the 5% difference I mentioned at the top level though...if both players are pretty fit already, the benefit to the fitter guy/gal is also 5% higher so it's pretty much game over in a long match decided by physicality. I also think there's probably more PED abuse and blood doping in women's tennis than men's.

I want to highlight this post as a clear example of a terrible fanbase. Now, every time Nadal fans are accused of being excuse making sore losers, let's look at Federer fans, who are accusing players (but not Federer, as evidenced by the above response) of being on PEDs. So, I wonder, which excuse making is worse: "Player A was injured" or "Player's A rivals are on PEDs."

Of course, you can claim you didn't necessarily imply Fed's main rivals, but you said "at the top level." That's a direct quote. Hmmm, I wonder who plays "at the top level." Richard Gasquet and his miraculous superhuman recovery, I'm sure.

Good to see some Fed fans being such sore losers that they can't accept a clean defeat. What a joke. I wonder what GSM, Federberg and the rest think about that.

 

[brokenshoelace]

By the way, I wonder how Nadal and Djokovic looked ready to pass out at this year's FO, which was a 4-setter, and not even an especially draining one. Bad batch of PEDs? They must contact their dealers ASAP.

 

[brokenshoelace]

One more post, because this is really irritating:

How come you never bring up the PED issue when a guy won almost literally everything for four consecutive seasons? Jesus, he barely broke a sweat. So if PEDs are as rampant as you think, and are affecting results as much as you think, then surely the first abuser should be the one doing the most winning? Or did PED use go viral post-2007?

Am I the only one seeing what a joke of an argument this is?

 

[Front242]

By the way, I wonder how Nadal and Djokovic looked ready to pass out at this year's FO, which was a 4-setter, and not even an especially draining one. Bad batch of PEDs? They must contact their dealers ASAP.

If you've ever seen guys on gear in the gym all pumped up when on and then see what they really look like when off that would answer that. You can't be on all year, hence why they're called cycles.

 

[Front242]

As far as doping goes, I find it funny how the accusations try to implicate specific players known for physicality, but never 30+ year old men who are doing superhuman things for their age.

Such as winning a slam once in the last 4 years and having a totally crap 2013? Agassi won more slams over 30 than the guy you're referencing. Not really that superhuman given how much better he is on grass than everyone still on tour when he plays his best because the surface suits his game perfectly. No PEDs are needed to win short points and it wouldn't surprise me to see him win it at even 35 if he plays to potential and wins matches quickly. That's the key.

LOL yeah, because Agassi was totally that consistent match in and match out in his 30's, being able to compete with physical freaks as his main rivals, going deep in every tournament, moving like a rabbit, staying injury free... What a remarkably flawed analogy. Roger is a guy who virtually hasn't skipped a week since 2003, and was reaching every final and winning pretty much every tournament back then, for about 4 consecutive years, and he NEVER looked tired until he started getting a bit older. I guess that doesn't qualify as superhuman because he didn't wear sleeveless shirts and flex his bicep.

Of course I don't believe Roger is doping. But your agenda is clearer than day. If you don't think what Roger is doing now is superhuman (and I mean that as a compliment, not as malicious implication), you're out of your mind.

But, THAT bait, at least, you took. Which is to highlight that you only think Roger's rivals are on PEDs, but not Roger. Yes, that part, I admit, was a bait (the initial comment where I asked you to name names wasn't). It was a bait to see your agenda by the way, not to get you in trouble. And no, it shouldn't get you banned because you didn't name anybody, but we now at least fully understand your agenda. Good job.

PS: For accuracy's sake, Roger won 2 slams in the last 4 years, not one.

I'd forgotten about the AO '10 but look who he beat in the final. Not exactly world class opposition that needed PEDs to win that match. Murray simply wasn't good enough to win a slam in 2010. I don't think what Roger is doing now is superhuman, no. If he'd won all the finals or even most he reached this year then the answer would be yes but he didn't come close to winning all of them and runners up are rarely remembered in the same light as winners in years to come. He reached loads of high profile finals but lost most of them and couldn't even compete in the WTF final. Not exactly superhuman if you ask me. Also, Roger won matches with ease in his prime and hence why he didn't look or get tired because they were over so fast unlike some of his opposition who can't win points anywhere near as easily and have to wear their opponents down to win points. That's why he didn't get tired, the matches were fast. Now that his forehand is nothing like it was in his prime he struggles to finish points and matches and obviously gets more tired since he's playing longer matches. It's not rocket science.

 

[Kieran]

By the way, I wonder how Nadal and Djokovic looked ready to pass out at this year's FO, which was a 4-setter, and not even an especially draining one. Bad batch of PEDs? They must contact their dealers ASAP.

If you've ever seen guys on gear in the gym all pumped up when on and then see what they really look like when off that would answer that. You can't be on all year, hence why they're called cycles.

Ah. Okay. Soooo....when they recover quickly, it's proof they're on drugs.

And when they don't recover quickly, it's absolute proof they're on drugs? The insinuation works both ways?

But only with some players, and not the most super high achiever the world has ever seen?

Come on Front, gimme a break. If we're gonna have a sensible discussion on drugs, you're gonna have to limit yourself to the rules, and just state what's true, and proven. All this guess-work is tired. Nobody is saying Federer is on drugs, but as long these games are played, the conversation will suffer from partisan muck-raking.

Why don't we limit ourselves to what's proven, leave insinuations aside - because as you agreed with me, the same accusations you want to hurl at your least favourite players could just as easily, and with equal proof and logic, be thrown against your most favourite player...

 

[Front242]

One more post, because this is really irritating:

How come you never bring up the PED issue when a guy won almost literally everything for four consecutive seasons? Jesus, he barely broke a sweat. So if PEDs are as rampant as you think, and are affecting results as much as you think, then surely the first abuser should be the one doing the most winning? Or did PED use go viral post-2007?

Am I the only one seeing what a joke of an argument this is?

Pretty much and I've answered that above. Winning matches quickly is why he was able to be so consistent 'cos the other top players simply don't have the same degree of ability to win quick matches/points and therefore tire themselves out more as it takes a huge degree of physicality to beat a guy blasting winners left, right and centre. The more defensive players out there struggle to win quick points and rely on their stamina to wear down opponents by making them hit one more ball but if the other guy is hitting winners all the time that won't work. In his prime Roger was like a machine but that forehand is no longer the potent beast it once was and he can no longer win matches as fast or easily as before. Same happened to Roddick's forehand. Drastically declined as he got older.

 

[Front242]

By the way, I wonder how Nadal and Djokovic looked ready to pass out at this year's FO, which was a 4-setter, and not even an especially draining one. Bad batch of PEDs? They must contact their dealers ASAP.

If you've ever seen guys on gear in the gym all pumped up when on and then see what they really look like when off that would answer that. You can't be on all year, hence why they're called cycles.

Ah. Okay. Soooo....when they recover quickly, it's proof they're on drugs.

And when they don't recover quickly, it's absolute proof they're on drugs? The insinuation works both ways?

But only with some players, and not the most super high achiever the world has ever seen?

Come on Front, gimme a break. If we're gonna have a sensible discussion on drugs, you're gonna have to limit yourself to the rules, and just state what's true, and proven. All this guess-work is tired. Nobody is saying Federer is on drugs, but as long these games are played, the conversation will suffer from partisan muck-raking.

Why don't we limit ourselves to what's proven, leave insinuations aside - because as you agreed with me, the same accusations you want to hurl at your least favourite players could just as easily, and with equal proof and logic, be thrown against your most favourite player...

When was the last time you saw Roger win a REALLY physical and long match?

 

[Kieran]

We're not going to get into a flame war on individual players on this thread, because it's against the rules. And it's unfair on Federer to claim that his exceptional his endurance and stamina in staying so close to the top for more than a decade are dodgy, just as it is unfair for you to say the same about players you obviously despise.

Let's keep the thread on-topic, and if there are any developments which are substantial and proven, we should discuss them. But all this sneakiness has long been tawdry... :nono

 

[Front242]

We're not going to get into a flame war on individual players on this thread, because it's against the rules. And it's unfair on Federer to claim that his exceptional his endurance and stamina in staying so close to the top for more than a decade are dodgy, just as it is unfair for you to say the same about players you obviously despise.

Let's keep the thread on-topic, and if there are any developments which are substantial and proven, we should discuss them. But all this sneakiness has long been tawdry... :nono

But he doesn't have exceptional stamina. That's the point here.

 

[Front242]

^ Roger has never ever relied on his stamina winning him matches. He either wins them with ease or likely loses and that's pretty much always been the case unless the other guy went lame.

 

[Kieran]

^ Roger has never ever relied on his stamina winning him matches. He either wins them with ease or likely loses and that's pretty much always been the case unless the other guy went lame.

Buddy, it's a grueling tour. The hard work to stay at the top, similar high achievers got burnt out long before Federer will. This is unusual. Is it drugs? Nobody could - or should - say it is. To be honest, the only reason this has come up is because you make everything so simple and one-dimensional - and so obviously biased - that myself and Broken are holding a mirror up to your hypocrisies.

If Federer was Spanish, you'd have posted a million links by now. But he's not, he's your favourite player.

NOTE TO MODS: I am not saying that Federer is on drugs, I don't think he is, no more than any top players are. All these great players are entitled to be treated with respect, and not with gossipy partisan hatred being used to slander them.

I agree wholeheartedly with the Admin rules regarding this topic. I am merely pointing to an obvious and long-standing bias which ruins this topic every time...

 

[Front242]

^ Roger has never ever relied on his stamina winning him matches. He either wins them with ease or likely loses and that's pretty much always been the case unless the other guy went lame.

Buddy, it's a grueling tour. The hard work to stay at the top, similar high achievers got burnt out long before Federer will. This is unusual. Is it drugs? Nobody could - or should - say it is. To be honest, the only reason this has come up is because you make everything so simple and one-dimensional - and so obviously biased - that myself and Broken are holding a mirror up to your hypocrisies.

If Federer was Spanish, you'd have posted a million links by now. But he's not, he's your favourite player.

NOTE TO MODS: I am not saying that Federer is on drugs, I don't think he is, no more than any top players are. All these great players are entitled to be treated with respect, and not with gossipy partisan hatred being used to slander them.

I agree wholeheartedly with the Admin rules regarding this topic. I am merely pointing to an obvious and long-standing bias which ruins this topic every time...

I've gone over that already. The guys getting burnt out simply couldn't win points as easily and their style of play resulted in injuries prematurely slowing them down or ending their careers. The tour is grinding, Federer's style of play is not. He wins most matches quicker and easier than his rivals as his game style is effective and aggressive. If his opponents can only win by wearing out their opponents and can't win matches quicker that's their problem and not his and doesn't make him look superhuman, rather it should show them that maybe they should alter their style of play to also win easier.

 

[Kieran]

A long rally for Pete Sampras meant he had to hit a second serve.

And Pete did none of the business on clay that Federer does. Rafa does none of the indoor stuff. Borg was gone aged 25.

Roger is exceptional. Good genes, I'd say...