Murray calls for Dope Testing Reform

[Moxie]

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.

Do you know what? The first photograph you posted of Davis Cup is from 2009. Notice he's even wearing a different kit from the photograph in 2004. So that kind of messes with your theory. Did he shrink again? And PS: plenty of men go bald in their 20s.

 

[Front242]

Do you know what? The first photograph you posted of Davis Cup is from 2009. Notice he's even wearing a different kit from the photograph in 2004. So that kind of messes with your theory. Did he shrink again? And PS: plenty of men go bald in their 20s.

2009 yeah? And? That was the point....he was clearly juiced like a Tropicana factory in 2004 and you gullible people have believed his lies from 2009 onwards about losing size to protect his knees when actually he is apparently the very same weight, just his body composition has gone to shit from lack of drugs. Back then he was clearly on cycles of compounds for size and strength whereas later on in his career it's been largely just PEDs for stamina and hence how he shrunk massively.

 

[Moxie]

2009 yeah? And? That was the point....he was clearly juiced like a Tropicana factory in 2004 and you gullible people have believed his lies from 2009 onwards about losing size to protect his knees when actually he is apparently the very same weight, just his body composition has gone to shit from lack of drugs. Back then he was clearly on cycles of compounds for size and strength whereas later on in his career it's been largely just PEDs for stamina and hence how he shrunk massively.

That doesn't explain your misrepresenting/mistaking that first picture for the 2004 Davis Cup. And, again, it's not fair to compare completely resting photos from ones of a player in action, or just after play.

Here's a link to an article on the Nadal/Federer match in Miami 2004, with photos, including of Nadal's muscles working, so you can see the evolution of a growing boy into man and how it makes sense. And you can read Roger's impressions of him. At this point, Rafa was 17.

 

[Front242]

That doesn't explain your misrepresenting/mistaking that first picture for the 2004 Davis Cup. And, again, it's not fair to compare completely resting photos from ones of a player in action, or just after play.

Here's a link to an article on the Nadal/Federer match in Miami 2004, with photos, including of Nadal's muscles working, so you can see the evolution of a growing boy into man and how it makes sense. And you can read Roger's impressions of him. At this point, Rafa was 17.

There is no evolution here, it's called drugs. Here it is again for all the sane people who can see what's in front of them...

 

[Moxie]

There is no evolution here, it's called drugs. Here it is again for all the sane people who can see what's in front of them...

You don't debate any better than Darth does. You ignore what I say, or just say it's "wrong", say something condescending, in your case that "sane people" should be with you, and then just stick your tongue out at me, even though I make any number of common sense points that you both blithely ignore. I tell you that you've used a photo from the wrong year to make (an erroneous) point, and you ignore that. I show you photos of Nadal before you claim he doped where his body was developing into that body, and you blow me off. No real comment.

I'll ask you a question that you've never answered, and I have asked it of you before, several times: given that Rafa's career was going along very well, on a better incline at an earlier age than Roger's, or Novak's or Murray's, why would he have decided to start doping late 2004/2005? He'd already beaten Roger at 17. On HC. In straights. He'd beaten #2 Roddick. He'd beaten former #1 and past-RG winners at 16; Newcomer of the Year that year. He beat Pat Cash (34 and recently retired) in an exhibition when he was 14. I could go on, but tell me why 18-year-old Rafa would have decided, at that particular moment, that he needed a leg up and was willing to risk it, in terms of WADA and his own health, when It really was going swimmingly for him up until and at that point?[/QUOTE]

 

[Ricardo]

You don't debate any better than Darth does. You ignore what I say, or just say it's "wrong", say something condescending, in your case that "sane people" should be with you, and then just stick your tongue out at me, even though I make any number of common sense points that you both blithely ignore. I tell you that you've used a photo from the wrong year to make (an erroneous) point, and you ignore that. I show you photos of Nadal before you claim he doped where his body was developing into that body, and you blow me off. No real comment.

I'll ask you a question that you've never answered, and I have asked it of you before, several times: given that Rafa's career was going along very well, on a better incline at an earlier age than Roger's, or Novak's or Murray's, why would he have decided to start doping late 2004/2005? He'd already beaten Roger at 17. On HC. In straights. He'd beaten #2 Roddick. He'd beaten former #1 and past-RG winners at 16; Newcomer of the Year that year. He beat Pat Cash (34 and recently retired) in an exhibition when he was 14. I could go on, but tell me why 18-year-old Rafa would have decided, at that particular moment, that he needed a leg up and was willing to risk it, in terms of WADA and his own health, when It really was going swimmingly for him up until and at that point?

[/QUOTE]
Cash recently retired? From weekend comp?

 

[Moxie]

Cash recently retired? From weekend comp?[/QUOTE]
When your English and typing skills return to you, perhaps you'll explain this post and I can respond.

 

[DarthFed]

You don't debate any better than Darth does. You ignore what I say, or just say it's "wrong", say something condescending, in your case that "sane people" should be with you, and then just stick your tongue out at me, even though I make any number of common sense points that you both blithely ignore. I tell you that you've used a photo from the wrong year to make (an erroneous) point, and you ignore that. I show you photos of Nadal before you claim he doped where his body was developing into that body, and you blow me off. No real comment.

I'll ask you a question that you've never answered, and I have asked it of you before, several times: given that Rafa's career was going along very well, on a better incline at an earlier age than Roger's, or Novak's or Murray's, why would he have decided to start doping late 2004/2005? He'd already beaten Roger at 17. On HC. In straights. He'd beaten #2 Roddick. He'd beaten former #1 and past-RG winners at 16; Newcomer of the Year that year. He beat Pat Cash (34 and recently retired) in an exhibition when he was 14. I could go on, but tell me why 18-year-old Rafa would have decided, at that particular moment, that he needed a leg up and was willing to risk it, in terms of WADA and his own health, when It really was going swimmingly for him up until and at that point?

[/QUOTE]

You ignore every damn thing we say. I tell you that all athletes have an incentive at all times and you don't even understand that basic point. Nadal supposedly has/had a serious foot injury and guess what REALLY REALLY helps you recover from injury? But I guess you'll ignore that too. There are plenty of promising young athletes that have juiced all along, it is just silly and lazy thinking to say that Rafa did well in juniors, or Rafa did well in 2003 so why would he juice? You do know there is a world of difference between being a top 50 player and being a top player right? You don't think young guys in the top 50 don't want to be A LOT better and get to the top faster and stay there longer? I believe all athletes wish they were just that little bit better and PED's make you better then you are. That's why there have been and will continue to be a lot of cheaters. Everyone who does it knows they have the edge over the test and most won't be caught. And to make matters worse in tennis we clearly have a corrupt governing board. None of the top guys need to worry about being exposed if they fail a drug test.

And with Rafa the fact of the matter is he is from a country that was, shall we say, pretty involved in known widespread doping around the time he rose the ranks. That part of it might not be fair but that's what you get when you have a widespread conspiracy from the nation to destroy the evidence and protect the identity of all the juicers from the Fuentes case. We know there were tennis players (plural) on that list.

 

[Moxie]

I haven't ignored you, I have countered what you have said. It's you and Front who have ignored everything I've said and you know there have been a lot of points made. I don't ignore your point about incentive to dope, I have only said that that excuse it so broad as to be meaningless, as it encompasses every player in tennis. I also said I don't think it fixes a bum ankle. You didn't even respond to that until now. And you haven't explained how. Backed into a corner, you respond with anger, but not especially informatively, or in any spirit of debate. You say that tennis is corrupt, (classic dope conspiracy theorist answer) but you never addressed my point that, if Rafa had doped when you say, he wasn't famous enough to be protected, which doesn't answer all, but it's a decent point. You don't acknowledge that. Nor that he was coached by his uncle and lived at home with his parents at 18, which also makes me find it less likely he'd do it: they wouldn't approve and so it wouldn't happen. I won't go over everything again. I invite you to read back and address specific points before you tell me that I've ignored you and Front. I haven't. I've engaged. The problem is that you believe the only way I'm taking you seriously would be to say, OK, fine you're right. I have said that I understand about incentives to dope. I have countered with why, as that may be so, Nadal would have had less incentive than others, and for specific reasons. Which you ignore. The fact that I asked Front for HIS reason why was that I want to know. I've asked him many times. It doesn't mean that I don't already know your reason. It does mean that I think it's really, really limp.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I haven't ignored you, I have countered what you have said. It's you and Front who have ignored everything I've said and you know there have been a lot of points made. I don't ignore your point about incentive to dope, I have only said that that excuse it so broad as to be meaningless, as it encompasses every player in tennis. I also said I don't think it fixes a bum ankle. You didn't even respond to that until now. And you haven't explained how. Backed into a corner, you respond with anger, but not especially informatively, or in any spirit of debate. You say that tennis is corrupt, (classic dope conspiracy theorist answer) but you never addressed my point that, if Rafa had doped when you say, he wasn't famous enough to be protected, which doesn't answer all, but it's a decent point. You don't acknowledge that. Nor that he was coached by his uncle and lived at home with his parents at 18, which also makes me find it less likely he'd do it: they wouldn't approve and so it wouldn't happen. I won't go over everything again. I invite you to read back and address specific points before you tell me that I've ignored you and Front. I haven't. I've engaged. The problem is that you believe the only way I'm taking you seriously would be to say, OK, fine you're right. I have said that I understand about incentives to dope. I have countered with why, as that may be so, Nadal would have had less incentive than others, and for specific reasons. Which you ignore. The fact that I asked Front for HIS reason why was that I want to know. I've asked him many times. It doesn't mean that I don't already know your reason. It does mean that I think it's really, really limp.

That is a lot of assumptions. It assumes his family/uncle/parents are pure. You know that tennis parents are often hyperactive as compared to parents of other sportsmen. You realize that Meldopova's father put her on stuff from a very early age to make sure she has good endurance. What makes you think that just because Ralph was living at home, he was not doping. Actually, it makes it more probable. I believe in Rafa as an individual much more than his clan.

 

[Moxie]

That is a lot of assumptions. It assumes his family/uncle/parents are pure. You know that tennis parents are often hyperactive as compared to parents of other sportsmen. You realize that Meldopova's father put her on stuff from a very early age to make sure she has good endurance. What makes you think that just because Ralph was living at home, he was not doping. Actually, it makes it more probable. I believe in Rafa as an individual much more than his clan.

I have made a lot of points. If you want to comment, please read them all. I know a lot more about Rafa's life and family than you do, I think it's safe to think. But if it's a stretch on my part to assume that parents wouldn't let their already successful 18-year-old kid dope for an extra leg up, then I think it's also a lot to assume that Rafa started doping because he injured his ankle, on Darth's.

But do read. I made a lot of common sense arguments, where as the dope fiends, Darth and Front, made few of any kind.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I have made a lot of points. If you want to comment, please read them all. I know a lot more about Rafa's life and family than you do, I think it's safe to think. But if it's a stretch on my part to assume that parents wouldn't let their already successful 18-year-old kid dope for an extra leg up, then I think it's also a lot to assume that Rafa started doping because he injured his ankle, on Darth's.

But do read. I made a lot of common sense arguments, where as the dope fiends, Darth and Front, made few of any kind.

I actually sympathize with some of your points, but this one is way off. Fact of the matter is that none of us know them personally and so to claim that Rafa or his clan would not indulge in it due to their rectitude is ridiculous.

 

[Moxie]

I actually sympathize with some of your points, but this one is way off. Fact of the matter is that none of us know them personally and so to claim that Rafa or his clan would not indulge in it due to their rectitude is ridiculous.

That was one point of many. It was an cumulative argument. If you do find sense in any of my points, I'd appreciate it if you'd say so. Specifically. Because people who think Rafa dopes just ignore what doesn't fit in their world view, and most others around here avoid the argument completely. (Rather sensibly, I imagine.) I've been listening to these two, Darth and Front (in particular) make unfounded slurs against my favorite player for years, and I'm really sick of it. I'm telling them 'back it up or quit slandering,' and I think I've made many good arguments. Many sensible ones. You don't have to like them all. I'm not saying they're all true. All any of us has is circumstantial evidence upon which to draw a conclusion, one way or another. I have given a lot of reasons why I don't think Rafa is a particularly good candidate. I don't see much on the other side except for what people like to believe.

 

[Federberg]

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.

I don't have anything invested in this fight, but with regards to his build, surely genetics has something to do with that? Just look at his uncles and father. They're all big men too. I've made the same point about Serena in the past....

 

[DarthFed]

I don't have anything invested in this fight, but with regards to his build, surely genetics has something to do with that? Just look at his uncles and father. They're all big men too. I've made the same point about Serena in the past....

Of course it has a lot to do with it but we are talking an insane transformation in a two month span. And apparently it was 2004 AO to 2004 Miami (Front corrected me).

 

[DarthFed]

I have made a lot of points. If you want to comment, please read them all. I know a lot more about Rafa's life and family than you do, I think it's safe to think. But if it's a stretch on my part to assume that parents wouldn't let their already successful 18-year-old kid dope for an extra leg up, then I think it's also a lot to assume that Rafa started doping because he injured his ankle, on Darth's.

But do read. I made a lot of common sense arguments, where as the dope fiends, Darth and Front, made few of any kind.

It's not like he'd be doping in his parent's kitchen... It'd be pretty easy to hide something like that from his family if he wanted to. Maybe it'd be difficult to hide it from Tony but that'd be it.

And you continue to show your lack of knowledge when it comes to PED's. Tons of athletes take HGH and other stuff to recover quicker and better from injuries. And supposedly this was a career-threatening injury before Nadal broke out. The topic all goes back to you're thinking that Nadal has never had motivation to dope outside of 2015. And my point is that they all have an incentive but motivation of course isn't proof, otherwise every athlete cheats.

 

[Moxie]

It's not like he'd be doping in his parent's kitchen... It'd be pretty easy to hide something like that from his family if he wanted to. Maybe it'd be difficult to hide it from Tony but that'd be it.

And you continue to show your lack of knowledge when it comes to PED's. Tons of athletes take HGH and other stuff to recover quicker and better from injuries. And supposedly this was a career-threatening injury before Nadal broke out. The topic all goes back to you're thinking that Nadal has never had motivation to dope outside of 2015. And my point is that they all have an incentive but motivation of course isn't proof, otherwise every athlete cheats.

This is where knowing a lot about Nadal and his family makes a difference. Firstly, Toni has often called young Rafa an "obedient boy." The family held a meeting, including Toni and Miguel Angel, just to decide if he'd train in Barcelona or stay in Mallorca. I don't see how Rafa was going to figure out how to dope without Toni, and I don't think Toni would keep it from his parents, so in my strong opinion, if RN did dope then, the family agreed to it. That's what rings false to me.

I asked you how PEDs cure his ankle and it only took how many posts for you to say it does? (No how, but I do know that recovery is a PED benefit.) Still, as to my point that you quoted above, even if he took something to fix an ankle, you project it across his entire career, so that's a lot of assumption, on your part, too, right?

Look, I understand your point about incentives and motivation, and it does mean that they all have monetary/fame incentive, whether or not they are personally motivated, which is part of what I'm arguing in Nadal's case. Everyone has incentive, but I don't believe he had the personal motivation, certainly not in 2005, when you say he did. In any case, neither of us can prove our theories, only make our points. I know I won't change your mind, but, since you and Front feel quite free to make endless implications about Nadal, in the form of snarky remarks, I felt that I needed to make my case for other folks, who really only get your side the majority of the time, since my case takes more time to make, over your cynical and baseless slurs about doping.

 

[Jelenafan]

That is a lot of assumptions. It assumes his family/uncle/parents are pure. You know that tennis parents are often hyperactive as compared to parents of other sportsmen. You realize that Meldopova's father put her on stuff from a very early age to make sure she has good endurance. What makes you think that just because Ralph was living at home, he was not doping. Actually, it makes it more probable. I believe in Rafa as an individual much more than his clan.

Ridiculous assumption.

You’ve obviously never seen or observed parents of sportsmen who played baseball, football, soccer,hockey, basketball, wrestling, golf, gymnastics, field and track, etc, etc, etc.

It starts very early in many sports; Try going to a little league baseball game , talk about hyperactive parents.

 

[Moxie]

Ridiculous assumption.

You’ve obviously never seen or observed parents of sportsmen who played baseball, football, soccer,hockey, basketball, wrestling, golf, gymnastics, field and track, etc, etc, etc.

It starts very early in many sports; Try going to a little league baseball game , talk about hyperactive parents.

Interesting how everyone jumps on my point about his parents and uncle. Firstly, that suggests you haven't read back, and secondly, I'm not really sure how all of this compares to parents of athletes in general, as they aren't "all parents," (I have described them: they are prosperous, and they far less hovering than Federer's, Djokovic's or Murray's, for example) and to little league in particular. Are they doping in Little League, now?

PS: Nice to see you around again, Jelenafan!

 

[Moxie]

And you continue to show your lack of knowledge when it comes to PED's. Tons of athletes take HGH and other stuff to recover quicker and better from injuries. And supposedly this was a career-threatening injury before Nadal broke out. The topic all goes back to you're thinking that Nadal has never had motivation to dope outside of 2015. And my point is that they all have an incentive but motivation of course isn't proof, otherwise every athlete cheats.

To this point, I don't know why you and Front play so coy about Roger's comeback in 2017, then, and outraged when anyone suggests anything about a better strategy for his BH. He had both incentive (Nadal and Djokovic on his tail, specifically,) and personal motivation (his records, lack of a Major win for 4 1/2 years, etc.) to use something to help his own recovery along. As I've said many times, I'm not saying that he did. But it fits your description. My disgruntlement with you guys is, as always, your double-standard.