Murray calls for Dope Testing Reform

[GameSetAndMath]

This is so well-laid out, GSM, thanks.

1. I agree, and I think this is SOP. Players get tested when they win, is my understanding. Also late-stages of (especially) Majors. (Also good point about match-fixing and lower-ranked players, but I guess that's another conversation.)

2. Is the biological passport in place?

3. I'm sure we'd all agree to set a maximum number of test/year is a ridiculous idea. But here's where I might get Serena's complaint: if you get tested more in-competition because you're winning, it's one thing. But if you're randomly tested out of competition than other players, and perhaps by a lot, it might be a reasonable complaint. You understand that the Williams sisters have felt hard done by at times due to the color of their skin. I think that could be taken into consideration from Serena's POV, as well.

People on extended break from competition definitely needs to be picked more often for out of competition testing than another player who is active. Suppose you are an extended break for six months or more for whatever reason (injuries, child birth, marriage, Bollywood problems etc) and if no one tests them saying anyway they are not playing, the consequences will be disastrous. Players can dope during this break with the safeguard that they won't be tested that much. After the break, they can come to competition. When they do, they will have the benefits of doping and at the same time, they will not be getting caught as the stuff would not be in their blood or urine any more.

 

[DarthFed]

@DarthFed: It seems to me that every time I hold your feet to the fire about Nadal and doping early in his career, you abdicate the conversation. I have given you any number of reasonable, common sense examples of why it makes no sense that Nadal was doping in 2004-2005. Many times over the years. The reason that you are committed to late 2004-early 2005 is that, otherwise, your argument falls apart. If Nadal was playing long 5-setters in 2005, and winning the FO without help, then how can you imply that he has help, by calling him the "Energizer Bunny," all the time? Not if he demonstrated that he had the fitness, before, what you would say, was doping. Also, the Dr. Fuentes scandal came down in 2006. If Nadal didn't start doping in 2005, why would he have started doping in 2006, as a very successful 19-year-old? (There is no reason.) But if he didn't, then he was clean of the Fuentes scandal, the touch-stone that you and Front, particularly, love to embrace. Let's face it...you have to peg him to 2004-5, or your arguments don't hold water. One of your arguments is that he got more "bulked up" between 2004-2005. News flash: that can happen between 17-18 to a boy, especially if he has already topped out at his height. Though I would argue that he didn't look remarkably different from when he beat Roger as a 17 year and Roddick as an 18 year old. Nor did he play tennis in anyway differently. The other point you try to make is that he has great stamina in matches. He did, when he was younger. (Another news flash?) But he has definitely shown less stamina later in his career. He's helped by mental strength, but you can't make me believe that that is anything other than innate in him.

I'm sorry to be tedious about pressing this, but you are tedious when you ignore the conversation, and then just keep inserting snide remarks in other threads. It's a passive-aggressive way of forcing me to either ignore you, and not disrupt the thread, or to call you on it. And it's cowardly of @Front242 and @Wimbledonerer to "like" your post, but also not have the courage to back it up in conversation. If we don't debate it outright, it's not fair of you to make sleazy remarks all the time.

We've gone over this multiple times and you refuse the basic point that all athletes have a motive to use PED's. This doesn't mean that all of them do, of course, but regardless of standing they all have a motive. Nadal apparently had a serious, career-threatening foot issue before he broke onto the scene. Care to guess what helps athletes make speedy recoveries from injury? Nadal didn't always play the same way, even as a pro. His shots were much flatter in the early stages. His uncle realized what a huge edge the massive topspin would be as a lefty. To play the way he does requires incredible physicality, speed, strength and endurance. You know what can help those things? None of that is even remote proof that he has used PED's of course but if you think Nadal or any other athlete doesn't have a reason/motivation to do it then you are delusional.

Your refusal to acknowledge that basic point regarding the presence of a motive means it is pointless to go over it again for the 100th time.

 

[Moxie]

People on extended break from competition definitely needs to be picked more often for out of competition testing than another player who is active. Suppose you are an extended break for six months or more for whatever reason (injuries, child birth, marriage, Bollywood problems etc) and if no one tests them saying anyway they are not playing, the consequences will be disastrous. Players can dope during this break with the safeguard that they won't be tested that much. After the break, they can come to competition. When they do, they will have the benefits of doping and at the same time, they will not be getting caught as the stuff would not be in their blood or urine any more.

I think I get that, though I don't study it up as much as someone like Front does. But don't they have to tell their whereabouts for 1 hour every day of their lives, in or out of competition? And supposedly, they do show up, the WADA people.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I think I get that, though I don't study it up as much as someone like Front does. But don't they have to tell their whereabouts for 1 hour every day of their lives, in or out of competition? And supposedly, they do show up, the WADA people.

Yes, they have to do give whereabouts for 1 hour everyday. But, in the post of yours that I quoted you were kind of insinuating that at least the out of competition testing must be done roughly equally for all players. I am telling you as to why it should be done more for those on extended break.

p.s. In the quote of your previous post, I highlighted that part. But, it won't be visible unless you click on expand the quote.

 

[Moxie]

We've gone over this multiple times and you refuse the basic point that all athletes have a motive to use PED's. This doesn't mean that all of them do, of course, but regardless of standing they all have a motive. Nadal apparently had a serious, career-threatening foot issue before he broke onto the scene. Care to guess what helps athletes make speedy recoveries from injury? Nadal didn't always play the same way, even as a pro. His shots were much flatter in the early stages. His uncle realized what a huge edge the massive topspin would be as a lefty. To play the way he does requires incredible physicality, speed, strength and endurance. You know what can help those things? None of that is even remote proof that he has used PED's of course but if you think Nadal or any other athlete doesn't have a reason/motivation to do it then you are delusional.

Your refusal to acknowledge that basic point regarding the presence of a motive means it is pointless to go over it again for the 100th time.

I have never said that athletes don't have a basic motive to use PEDs. What I have said is that your argument that tennis is a big money game washes across the board, in terms of motivation. You paint the brush on all of them with that. It doesn't explain Nadal in particular, and it surely doesn't absolve Federer, if that's your argument. What you never address is that Nadal had a steady upswing across his whole career arch, really until 2015, except for injury. You have claimed in the past that he had to have started doping in 2005. Again, you now refuse to address that, except to say he had injury in 2004. It is far from proof, your notion that he solved his ankle problem by doping. He was tennis's last teenage prodigy, even before the ankle injury. To play the way he does also requires a lot of talent, which he's always had. You just refuse to recognize that.

Of course he's changed his game, in the interim years, but don't distract the argument...I was saying he played the same 2003-05 when beating Moya, Costa, Federer and Roddick. And it wasn't only his uncle that made him play lefty. His power is on his left side, and it was his decision. You trade too much in cliches. And you try to distract the argument with anecdotal things about Rafa, like his leftyness.

There is no good argument that Nadal needed a leg-up when he was 15-19 years old. His trajectory was solid, and he won a Major at barely 19. He even beat a recently-retired Pat Cash in an exhibition when he was 14, he was 12-under all Spain and all-Europe champion, and he even won an under-10 all Balearic Islands when he was 8. So, did he start doping when he was 7?

If there's motivation to dope, it's because a player is stagnating. As you know, I don't accuse Roger, only point out the double-standard that you hold them to. Roger has talked about walking away from tennis when he wasn't getting the results, earlier in his career. He was actually well down in finals-to-wins. But, what do you know? He turned the corner. Don't tell me one looks suspicious, when he really doesn't, and the other is above reproach, when the same argument could be made. And never minding the miraculous Fountain of Youth that Roger found in 2017. You love to trade in the notion that Roger is sublimely talented and Rafa just works hard, so that must imply a bump, but you don't look at their relative early rises. Rafa was full prodigy. Roger took his time. Eventually, both were became great champions. But you have to leave off thinking that Rafa cheated just because he has beaten up on Roger. There was no time in his career trajectory that would have inclined him to cheat. Surely, living with his family and having his uncle as his coach would have made it even less likely.

 

[Moxie]

Yes, they have to do give whereabouts for 1 hour everyday. But, in the post of yours that I quoted you were kind of insinuating that at least the out of competition testing must be done roughly equally for all players. I am telling you as to why it should be done more for those on extended break.

p.s. In the quote of your previous post, I highlighted that part. But, it won't be visible unless you click on expand the quote.

I would say that there should be a fair distribution of players being tested out of competition, but I get your point about players who are on break, for whatever reason.

 

[DarthFed]

I have never said that athletes don't have a basic motive to use PEDs. What I have said is that your argument that tennis is a big money game washes across the board, in terms of motivation. You paint the brush on all of them with that. It doesn't explain Nadal in particular, and it surely doesn't absolve Federer, if that's your argument. What you never address is that Nadal had a steady upswing across his whole career arch, really until 2015, except for injury. You have claimed in the past that he had to have started doping in 2005. Again, you now refuse to address that, except to say he had injury in 2004. It is far from proof, your notion that he solved his ankle problem by doping. He was tennis's last teenage prodigy, even before the ankle injury. To play the way he does also requires a lot of talent, which he's always had. You just refuse to recognize that.

Of course he's changed his game, in the interim years, but don't distract the argument...I was saying he played the same 2003-05 when beating Moya, Costa, Federer and Roddick. And it wasn't only his uncle that made him play lefty. His power is on his left side, and it was his decision. You trade too much in cliches. And you try to distract the argument with anecdotal things about Rafa, like his leftyness.

There is no good argument that Nadal needed a leg-up when he was 15-19 years old. His trajectory was solid, and he won a Major at barely 19. He even beat a recently-retired Pat Cash in an exhibition when he was 14, he was 12-under all Spain and all-Europe champion, and he even won an under-10 all Balearic Islands when he was 8. So, did he start doping when he was 7?

If there's motivation to dope, it's because a player is stagnating. As you know, I don't accuse Roger, only point out the double-standard that you hold them to. Roger has talked about walking away from tennis when he wasn't getting the results, earlier in his career. He was actually well down in finals-to-wins. But, what do you know? He turned the corner. Don't tell me one looks suspicious, when he really doesn't, and the other is above reproach, when the same argument could be made. And never minding the miraculous Fountain of Youth that Roger found in 2017. You love to trade in the notion that Roger is sublimely talented and Rafa just works hard, so that must imply a bump, but you don't look at their relative early rises. Rafa was full prodigy. Roger took his time. Eventually, both were became great champions. But you have to leave off thinking that Rafa cheated just because he has beaten up on Roger. There was no time in his career trajectory that would have inclined him to cheat. Surely, living with his family and having his uncle as his coach would have made it even less likely.

Always a response...and always making it seem like Nadal is the first athlete in the history of mankind that has never had a reason to use PED's. I've made it clear that ALL athletes have motive because of some very common sense facts; every athlete wants to get better. all of them want to make a lot of money, all of them want to win as much as possible.

You're way off the mark in thinking only struggling athletes will cheat. There are plenty of athletes that were juicers all along. There are also ones that had great careers before they started cheating (see baseball with Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens). I know you hate when I use the word naive to describe your viewpoint on PED's so I will just say it's just plain wrong.

 

[Moxie]

Always a response...and always making it seem like Nadal is the first athlete in the history of mankind that has never had a reason to use PED's. I've made it clear that ALL athletes have motive because of some very common sense facts; every athlete wants to get better. all of them want to make a lot of money, all of them want to win as much as possible.

You're way off the mark in thinking only struggling athletes will cheat. There are plenty of athletes that were juicers all along. There are also ones that had great careers before they started cheating (see baseball with Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens). I know you hate when I use the word naive to describe your viewpoint on PED's so I will just say it's just plain wrong.

Sure, I have responses, and specific ones, which you seem never to address. Your above is so general as to be meaningless. I've already said I know that you call that your reason that Nadal would dope, and I've given reasons why that doesn't make sense, in terms of his history leading up to 2005, when you have said you think he started doping. You seemed to figure if you restated that reason, and slathered it in condescension, maybe no one would notice a) that you don't address my specific points, and b) that if you really believe that, then it means everyone in tennis dopes, including Roger. And I know you are as sure that Roger doesn't as you are sure that Nadal has. So Roger has won 20 majors "clean," (including 3 post-35,) and Rafa 17 "dirty?" Now that sounds naive, based on your assertions. If dope could give Nadal 17 majors, why not Stan? Stan's good on clay...he could have beaten Rafa more at RG, if it were dope v dope. There is very little/no questioning of Stan's late-career surge from you and Front, though sports doctors would see more red flags there than from Nadal. Look, I'm happy to accept Magnus Norman and increased confidence as the reasons. It just seems you don't spread your generosity of opinion or open-mindedness even-handedly. Oh, right...but Stan's not a threat to Roger's legacy.

As to the bolded above, then I would like you to address why you think Nadal has always cheated, and Roger hasn't. And don't give me "talent," because Nadal has always displayed enormous talent. Will you acknowledge that you think he started doping in late-2004/early-2005? You have stated that before, and I think it says a lot about why you have these theories as to Nadal.

By dint of all of these conversations on the forums over the years, I've learned a lot about PEDs, and how and why they get used. I certainly don't say that "Nadal is the first athlete in the history of mankind who has never had a reason to dope." I understand that doping happens. However, I have given you good common sense reasons why a player with a great track record from 8-17 years old had no really good reason to start doping at 18 years old. It's worth remembering that, at 18, he wasn't yet famous or accomplished, and had no reason to believe that he'd be protected by the ITF/ATP. He'd even rejected the Spanish Federation's offer to train him in Barcelona in favor of staying home, so he would have had no reason to think even they would protect him. It would have been a big risk of exposure for someone who's career was already coming along very nicely anyway.

PS: "You're just wrong" is a poor debate point. B-)

 

[Moxie]

Sure, I have responses, and specific ones, which you seem never to address. Your above is so general as to be meaningless. I've already said I know that you call that your reason that Nadal would dope, and I've given reasons why that doesn't make sense, in terms of his history leading up to 2005, when you have said you think he started doping. You seemed to figure if you restated that reason, and slathered it in condescension, maybe no one would notice a) that you don't address my specific points, and b) that if you really believe that, then it means everyone in tennis dopes, including Roger. And I know you are as sure that Roger doesn't as you are sure that Nadal has. So Roger has won 20 majors "clean," (including 3 post-35,) and Rafa 17 "dirty?" Now that sounds naive, based on your assertions. If dope could give Nadal 17 majors, why not Stan? Stan's good on clay...he could have beaten Rafa more at RG, if it were dope v dope. There is very little/no questioning of Stan's late-career surge from you and Front, though sports doctors would see more red flags there than from Nadal. Look, I'm happy to accept Magnus Norman and increased confidence as the reasons. It just seems you don't spread your generosity of opinion or open-mindedness even-handedly. Oh, right...but Stan's not a threat to Roger's legacy.

As to the bolded above, then I would like you to address why you think Nadal has always cheated, and Roger hasn't. And don't give me "talent," because Nadal has always displayed enormous talent. Will you acknowledge that you think he started doping in late-2004/early-2005? You have stated that before, and I think it says a lot about why you have these theories as to Nadal.

By dint of all of these conversations on the forums over the years, I've learned a lot about PEDs, and how and why they get used. I certainly don't say that "Nadal is the first athlete in the history of mankind who has never had a reason to dope." I understand that doping happens. However, I have given you good common sense reasons why a player with a great track record from 8-17 years old had no really good reason to start doping at 18 years old. It's worth remembering that, at 18, he wasn't yet famous or accomplished, and had no reason to believe that he'd be protected by the ITF/ATP. He'd even rejected the Spanish Federation's offer to train him in Barcelona in favor of staying home, so he would have had no reason to think even they would protect him. It would have been a big risk of exposure for someone who's career was already coming along very nicely anyway.

PS: "You're just wrong" is a poor debate point. B-)

Aren't you even going to answer a direct question? I bolded it for you, in case you missed it.

 

[Moxie]

@DarthFed: Clearly, you have abdicated from this conversation. That's not just unfair, it's cowardly. You have made a career on these forums of slandering Nadal's name and career with doping insinuations. But when your feet are held to the fire on particulars, you have no response. I have offered you many common sense counters to your general slurs and you have nothing but pablum response. I have asked you to debate it on this thread, and you won't. IMO, you have no response. Therefore, going forward, I don't want to hear one more slur from you as to Nadal and doping. If you can't back up your points on the proper thread, you don't get to keep throwing it around on the other threads. Agreed?

 

[DarthFed]

@DarthFed: Clearly, you have abdicated from this conversation. That's not just unfair, it's cowardly. You have made a career on these forums of slandering Nadal's name and career with doping insinuations. But when your feet are held to the fire on particulars, you have no response. I have offered you many common sense counters to your general slurs and you have nothing but pablum response. I have asked you to debate it on this thread, and you won't. IMO, you have no response. Therefore, going forward, I don't want to hear one more slur from you as to Nadal and doping. If you can't back up your points on the proper thread, you don't get to keep throwing it around on the other threads. Agreed?

You win Moxie. You have convinced me that Nadal and every other promising young athlete has never had an incentive to take PED's.

 

[Moxie]

You win Moxie. You have convinced me that Nadal and every other promising young athlete has never had an incentive to take PED's.

I only ever made a case for anyone but Nadal, you sarcastic SOB. You pretend to concede because you have no real case of your own to present, and no counter-arguments to mine. Only snark.

 

[DarthFed]

I only ever made a case for anyone but Nadal, you sarcastic SOB. You pretend to concede because you have no real case of your own to present, and no counter-arguments to mine. Only snark.

It's simple really. We have a fundamental difference in sports psychology. I think all athletes at all times have an incentive to juice. Of course it doesn't mean they are all giving in and cheating as clearly it presents a huge risk to their legacy and even health (for those who care). But who wouldn't want to improve and win more, who wouldn't want more money and fame? And for those who are at or near the top...who wouldn't want to stay there as long as possible and even get better?

There have been hundreds if not thousands of high profile athletes that have been busted and that's only the ones who have been caught. Rafael Nadal, Roger Federer, LeBron James...they all had and continue to have incentive to cheat. If you can't see that then there is no need to have this conversation.

 

[Moxie]

It's simple really. We have a fundamental difference in sports psychology. I think all athletes at all times have an incentive to juice. Of course it doesn't mean they are all giving in and cheating as clearly it presents a huge risk to their legacy and even health (for those who care). But who wouldn't want to improve and win more, who wouldn't want more money and fame? And for those who are at or near the top...who wouldn't want to stay there as long as possible and even get better?

There have been hundreds if not thousands of high profile athletes that have been busted and that's only the ones we know about. Rafael Nadal, Roger Federer, LeBron James...they all had and continue to have incentive to cheat. If you can't see that then there is no need to have this conversation.

If you really believe that, then why to you constantly imply that Nadal, and essentially Nadal alone cheats, and completely deny that Roger does?

 

[DarthFed]

If you really believe that, then why to you constantly imply that Nadal, and essentially Nadal alone cheats, and completely deny that Roger does?

Why is it none or both? You know where I stand on Nadal. To play as he does day after day and year after year has taken an insane amount of stamina. He's shown no noticeable problems playing 10+ hours over the course of back to back matches. He turned from scrawny boy to looking like an NFL linebacker between AO and Miami 2005. Also the same time period he went outside the top 50 to dominant #2. And I won't go into 2012-early 2013. None of it is proof of course, and I've always acknowledged that. I'm more sure about your favorite Ferret as you know. Maybe Ralph has been clean as a whistle and just has legendary genetics. We can agree to disagree.

 

[Moxie]

Why is it none or both? You know where I stand on Nadal. To play as he does day after day and year after year has taken an insane amount of stamina. He's shown no noticeable problems playing 10+ hours over the course of back to back matches. He turned from scrawny boy to looking like an NFL linebacker between AO and Miami 2005. Also the same time period he went outside the top 50 to dominant #2. And I won't go into 2012-early 2013. None of it is proof of course, and I've always acknowledged that. I'm more sure about your favorite Ferret as you know. Maybe Ralph has been clean as a whistle and just has legendary genetics. We can agree to disagree.

From you, it should be both and all, because the reason you come up with is so general. That they want to be better and make more money. Who does that not describe? As to the bolded above, you keep trying various ways to restate the first part and keep getting told you're wrong. Now, it becomes simply lying. Nadal finished 2003 at 50-51 and was Newcomer of the Year (either ATP or ITF, whatever.) He was more like 38 when he got injured and so finished 2004 at 50-51, also. So please stop trying to make it as if Nadal came out of nowhere and far down in the rankings before 2005.

As to scrawny kid, do you mean this one? This is the Davis Cup final in Dec. 2004:

And this is the Miami final in 2005, when he was your "NFL linebacker":

Normally, I don't go in for the picture comparisons (and I would have used one of Rafa hitting in Miami, if I could have found one,) but you always talk about the difference in physique between the end of 2004 and early in 2005, and I don't see it. As to his genes, you know his uncle was a well-known footballer, which is surely a stamina sport. Anyway, as I've said, it suits your worldview tho have Rafa as a cheater, especially before that Miami Open, I guess, in spite of all arguments against. It's because he's done so much beating up on Roger. And if he didn't start by early 2005, your arguments about doping later don't work. And I've told you why 2005 makes to sense whatsoever. But you will believe what you choose to, despite what anyone tells you. As detailed even in this thread, you trot out old and erroneous statements over and over, and then we just have to tell you again why they're wrong and designed only to spin your argument. But you've used them so many times, I'm sure you've convinced yourself.

 

[Front242]

^ Perfectly normal bicep and shoulders for a guy his age there who does tons of cardio haha. For the record, it was between A0 '2004 and Miami 2004 when he put on massive size. What the videos of him against Hewitt in AO 2004 and he was a weed. Been posted a ton of times before. Clearly, if the Nadal fans can't see the difference between this (!) and what he looks like now I don't know what to say. He's like a weed by comparison nowadays but feel free to believe the media bullshit that it was to protect his knees lol. As a frequent gym goer who knows lots of guys on steroids and SARMs, this is called the difference between being ON and OFF.

Oh and btw, he didn't lose tons of weight to protect his knees because his legs have been pretty much same size ever since his younger days. He just lost tons of muscle from coming off what he was taking as he claims to be the same weight now. So his body composition has gone from very muscular to practically none apart from his left bicep and quads. Again, pretty much exactly what happens when you come off roids.

 

[Front242]

Huge here lol

Spot the difference lol

 

[Moxie]

Huge here lol

Spot the difference lol

This is why I said I was trying to find comparable pictures. Those aren't. But look at the one above and the one of Nadal likewise pumping his fist in 2004. Same.

 

[Front242]

This is why I said I was trying to find comparable pictures. Those aren't. But look at the one above and the one of Nadal likewise pumping his fist in 2004. Same.

Are you for real? He's clearly absolutely tiny in the top one 'cos he's not ON anything. Look, there comes a point when you just can't deny the obvious. If he never used steroids, then Lance Armstrong is a saint lol. Don't lie to yourself. Look at how he looks now compared to this...

For the record also, excess testosterone converts to DHT which causes hair loss and guess who went bald pretty young and needed a hair transplant.