Nadal under cover of Wada

[teddytennisfan]

i shall add -- the RUSSIANS ae -- to borrow that phrase the west oftne likes to FRIGHTEN ITSELF about the 'big bad russians" --

''they are coming" -- FOR WADA to explode its CORRUPTION AND BIAS for the world to see...like i said months ago...

this IS NOT OVER YET. because if the hacks were just by anonymous type hackers who are sick and tired of the double standards by the WADA -- --

WAIT UNTIL THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT itself fields lawyers or backing to the likes of MARIA, the russian track and field athletes, the paralympics athletes. etc. etc...

in court , civil, criminal, class-action suits againts WADA and SPECIFIC officials WHEN THE TIME IS RIPE.


roflmao...

 

[teddytennisfan]

From what I hear people who worry about this say there are countries where children as young as 12 are in the development program which includes doping. The country is a Western one famous for those thing in cold war era. They say they never stopped.

And here where I live we read of parents giving their children things like medication for hyperactivity even if they are not hyperactive just to make them perform in sports like superhumans. I also think that I saw some of those strangely "capable" children in action though I can't be sure.

NAME IT MASTOOR -- no need to be polite about it. NAME THEM.

 

[teddytennisfan]

I'm going to wait for the whole thing to unfold... reckon there is plenty more to come...

The whole episode generally, clearly shows there is an issue with exemptions and the furore from the organizations and the western media on this information coming out also indicate that there is an issue with transparency.

YOU --MARY AND MASTOOR are the ones with the FULL perspective of it all.

it is now NO LONGER about ''what maria did, or even what nadal did"

it is CERTAINLY NOT about the hackers FANCY BEARS or that, as some would put it -- because they are ''russian or belorussian'' hackers...

it is about wha twas REVEALED ABOUT WADA -- that it plays FAVORITES!!

as a WESTERN CONTROLLED ''RULES MAKER AND POLICE" THAT IS showing itself to be ONLY THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG as a CORRUPT SYSTEM itself.

LIKE I have said -- IF so many players are like that -- be they maria r serena or nole, or nadal or who-ever it is -- then let it be SO -- ADMIT IT -- FROM WADA - and not pretend all these years they were on the up and up and ''neutral" when EVERY EVIDENCE SHOWS they are NOT.

 

[Tennis Fan]

what i find funny as i silently watch the remarks cropping up is this:


most of you seemed to have NO PROBLEM with issuing condemnation of a RUSSKIE maria sharapova or were something found about NOLE the SLAV...

especially when it's because "wada discovered" them...

now that it HITS MANY FAVORITE WESTERN IDOLS -- IT IS somehow ''excusable"...for such players (which include MY tennis gods, like rafa and serena) - that there are so MANY of them on drugs for which a SHARAPOVA or DJOKOVIC OR TROICKI

would be or have been crucified like they were the biggest mafioso on earth...

it is fascinating to show how the double standards REALLY crawl out of the walls...

once agian -- i repeate -- as i had warned in JANUARY when everone jumped on MARIA'S CASE -- with all kinds of STRICTURES as to why she was GUILTY FOR ''CHEATING"

this was NEVER ABOUT PLAYERS taking medication or PED -- or whatever it is they need or want to enhance their careers...

it WAS ALWAYS ABOUT WADA and its us-uk-canada-western controlled system of judgment and ''penalties" that are used for POLITICAL reasons towards russia, and any country deemed INSUFFICIENTLY OBEDIENT to the western imperial paradigm

such as 'russia must be isolated"

THEREFORE -- include ts sports...just as sanctions , etc. etc. etc..

some of you need to face yourselves in the mirror as to how easily you are finding excuses or poo--pooing favorites for much the SAME finractions -- AND REPEATEDLY SO -- that were SECRETLY KEPT from the pulbic in WADA'S ''Permit'' issuances

that you yourselves or much of the western audience would not be caught giving the same ''allowances" towards someone named MARIA sharapova -- or if it were nole, or some slavic person -- that you so READILY GIVE to the nadal's, williamses, murray,s etc. etc. etc. when they or were they ever found out to have been given dispensations DENIED to someone such as maria for example or nole.

I disagree Teddy. The issue with Maria is non-disclosure. In the case of Rafa and Serena, these are two athletes who were aboveboard by asking and receiving permission from WADA for substances due to specific injuries. They could have very well have been denied. If they had been denied permission and they decided to take it anyway, then it would be drug cheating.

What Maria did was A.) take a substance that no one knew she was taking. B.) She never listed it as a drug that she was taking a requirement that was her sole responsibility to do so. C.) She took it for a decade for conditions that do not apply; no doctor will treat you for pre-diabetes based on your family history, ever. And if she really did have a special case of pre-diabetes that warranted the use of Meldonium the matter should have been taken up with the WADA officials; ergo going through the proper channels. D.) Maria was informed numerous times and her excuse is that she didn't open the emails? Isn't that her responsibility?

Maria's case in no way mirrors the other athletes because they were transparent, and Maria was not. When I go to my doctor or have to get a procedure it is mandatory that I disclose every medicine that I am currently taking because some drugs don't mix with each other or with my body. It is a health precaution to disclose what medicines you are taking as taking the wrong thing can interfere with prescribed medicines. I once, unknowingly took Advil, an over the counter medicine for a headache which wrecked my entire bodily functions and caused great danger because I wasn't aware that I was not supposed to take Nsaids such as Advil, Aleve and Moltrin, "harmless" over the counter drugs that conflicted with my prescription meds. Had I not disclosed what I took, or ignored it after being told it's a banned surface for me I would be dead. You disclose all medical information because non-disclosure can ultimately kill you.

Who knows what long lasting effects that Meldonium will have in those athletes' bodies when taken with other drugs that are not compatible?

 

[Carol]

Chris Kermode, ATP Chairman and President about Rafael Nadal: "NO rules have been broken, ONLY a violation of privacy"
Case closed and this thread should be closed too! :cuckoo:

 

[Mastoor]

Mastoor, are you proud of this? beware just in case that you would being hoist by your own petard, you know....backfire and it could be unless Serbia would be a Russian ally like I heard and read?

You mean those Western countries will start torturing us because we are considered a Russian ally? Guess what, even though we are not a Russian ally, those shitty Western countries don't miss a chance to torture us in last 25 years, so I don't know how a petard can backfire if we already suffered embargo, bombardments, destroyed countries and lives and if we talk about 15 tonnes of depleted uranium that Bill Clinton dropped on us dozens of thousands of more people died of cancer than normally would do all around Balkans and also Italy because it just spreads around with the wind.

 

[Carol]

You mean those Western countries will start torturing us because we are considered a Russian ally? Guess what, even though we are not a Russian ally, those shitty Western countries don't miss a chance to torture us in last 25 years, so I don't know how a petard can backfire if we already suffered embargo, bombardments, destroyed countries and lives and if we talk about 15 tonnes of depleted uranium that Bill Clinton dropped on us dozens of thousands of more people died of cancer than normally would do all around Balkans and also Italy because it just spreads around with the wind.

Ok, ok, ok, but whatever is happening in your country it's not Nadal's fault !

 

[brokenshoelace]

I'm just agog that a cigar smoking, whisky drinking dude like me takes less medication than these super fit athletes. Stunning!

Well, these athletes aren't taking medications in order to function normally every day like the rest of us mere mortals. They're taking these medications to be in the kind of physical shape that allows you to compete week in, week out in a grueling schedule.

 

[Mary]

Well, these athletes aren't taking medications in order to function normally every day like the rest of us mere mortals. They're taking these medications to be in the kind of physical shape that allows you to compete week in, week out in a grueling schedule.

I understand the huge physical demands all too well. In my early teens I was a ballet student at the UK Royal Academy. I had been training seriously from 7 years old. It is intensely demanding and uses the body in ways it is not meant to work. Without meds we would not have been able to complete classes and most dancers need regular medication all their working lives.

However what bothers me here is what seems to be a lack of scrutiny. I can't believe so many top UK athletes have asthma! And in the UK it is pretty easy to get a GP to prescribe, infact over prescribing is a recognised problem even with doctors who are not paid by private patients. I am sure an athlete would find it very simple to find a physician who would prescribe and complete required documentation with no questions asked.

We will probably never know whether the identified athletes were genuinely needed the medication they were taking. I prefer to believe they did. But the system surely needs to be robust enough to prevent abuse. I also have little confidence in WADA and even less in Seb Coe

 

[Carol]

Obviously it's not the same to take a few doses of medicines to take care an injury and not playing than to take some medicines for long time, even years and playing, big difference and not too much to discuss

 

[Moxie]

Obviously it's not the same to take a few doses of medicines to take care an injury and not playing than to take some medicines for long time, even years and playing, big difference and not too much to discuss

I do think it's valid to make a distinction between short protocols recommended to treat injury, and long-term use for questionable medical conditions.

 

[Moxie]

The Guardian draws some interesting distinctions in the debate: https://www.theguardian.com/comment...rs-leaks-athletes-doping-russia-cyber-hackers

 

[brokenshoelace]

I understand the huge physical demands all too well. In my early teens I was a ballet student at the UK Royal Academy. I had been training seriously from 7 years old. It is intensely demanding and uses the body in ways it is not meant to work. Without meds we would not have been able to complete classes and most dancers need regular medication all their working lives.

However what bothers me here is what seems to be a lack of scrutiny. I can't believe so many top UK athletes have asthma! And in the UK it is pretty easy to get a GP to prescribe, infact over prescribing is a recognised problem even with doctors who are not paid by private patients. I am sure an athlete would find it very simple to find a physician who would prescribe and complete required documentation with no questions asked.

We will probably never know whether the identified athletes were genuinely needed the medication they were taking. I prefer to believe they did. But the system surely needs to be robust enough to prevent abuse. I also have little confidence in WADA and even less in Seb Coe

In Nadal's case it's pretty obvious that the granted exemptions came during his two significant injury layoffs (2009 and 2012), but I've said it time and time again, I'm sure top athletes, Nadal included, have bent the rules and taken liberties (to put it politely) with this stuff, and I can't really blame them.

 

[Mary]

Obviously it's not the same to take a few doses of medicines to take care an injury and not playing than to take some medicines for long time, even years and playing, big difference and not too much to discuss

Nadal had major surgical procedures, a totally different situation. It's the long tern chronic complaints that are more worrying.

 

[britbox]

Doping-WADA defends TUE system after leaked data

SEVRES, France, Sept 28 (Reuters) - The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) on Wednesday defended the Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) system after some athletes' confidential medical data was leaked by a group of Russian hacker

Link to story

It's pretty clear the whole TUE thing is open to abuse and it's rife.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Doping-WADA defends TUE system after leaked data

SEVRES, France, Sept 28 (Reuters) - The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) on Wednesday defended the Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) system after some athletes' confidential medical data was leaked by a group of Russian hacker

Link to story

It's pretty clear the whole TUE thing is open to abuse and it's rife.

Absolutely, but I'm really surprised people are taken aback by this (not that it's OK mind you, although I'm in the legalize PEDs camp). Maybe it's because I'm an MMA fan where this stuff is more documented, so I'm kind of used to this stuff and just shrug my shoulders. Fighters were constantly granted exemptions, the most common of which was TRT (testosterone replacement therapy), and it was really open to abuse, as is this. Basically, how that worked was, you cite some medical condition whereby you're lacking testosterone (true story: athletes in their early thirties were citing low testosterone levels...in the fight game), they grant you an exemption, but come fight time, your testosterone levels should not exceed a specific limit.

Except, what about all those weeks leading up to fight night? Where your testosterone levels are off the charts and you're able to train like a mad man as a result?

Since then USADA has intervened and gotten things under control with random out-of-competition drug testing and outlawing TRT (although most MMA fans would tell you they've completely ruined things with too much control and rigid rules, and I'd agree), but yeah, it was really open to abuse.

I remember the conversations we had about this topic dating back to two years ago, and I've always maintained that so many athletes in different sports are probably on something and we just don't know it, and that it's naive to think PEDs aren't waaaay more widespread than we'd like to believe... a lot of people were in the "how do you know?" camp, but as time goes by, we're learning more and more, and I bet the stuff we don't know is twice as shocking.

That's why I think the whole PED thing is so hypocritical. Athletes at the top of their game in an incredibly competitive environment, playing with so much on the line, will generally do what it takes to stay on top. I know this is a separate issue that has to do with the morality of it all, but I think we'd all be disingenuous if we act completely appalled. Why wouldn't they do it, aside from the risk of being caught?

 

[britbox]

Yeah, I remember your view and I'm somewhere in the middle - many (some might say most) athletes will do what they can get away with... and I recall you mentioning performance enhancing drugs or processes that weren't banned and it's interesting - the only difference between a doper and a non-doper really being what's listed as being a banned substance at the time.

Before they had a proper EPO test in cycling, it was considered that anyone with a haematocrit level (relating to blood cell counts) of 50% or more must be doping and the UCI considered any count over that was a danger to a cyclists health (several cyclists died because they overdid it and their blood was like treacle).... and as you can guess most of the top cyclists were bang on the level - around 48-49%.

Some say it levels the playing field and I'd agree from a different angle... it levels the playing field for those with inferior natural attributes. A cyclist with a natural count of say, 47 and doping to 49 was obviously losing a lot to those who were naturally around 41/42 and doping to 49.... So, yeah it levels the playing field on that dimension, but it does the reverse when you look at natural attributes.

I'll take Greg Lemond as an example... Lemond was a phenomenon in cycling from his teen years. He had the highest recorded ever VO2 Max Level among cyclists (and the second highest among any athlete ever recorded)... He won the tour three times... but it's widely accepted he never took EPO. Most cyclists took some stuff - amphetamines etc... in those days. Not sure about Lemond, I wouldn't rule it out, although team managers said he "didn't require preparation". It was however, widely accepted in cycling that you couldn't turn a donkey into a racehorse whatever was taken... so you might get a benefit but it's not going to change the sport.... until EPO.... The difference EPO made was incredible... you had average cyclists in the early 90s becoming world beaters... mainly the Spanish and Italians initially... later the other teams... Bjarne Riis won the TDF and was known as Mr 60% Percent - he was using EPO to dangerous levels.

Lemond could barely hang onto the peloton as the early 90s unfolded.

However, I also remember Lemond getting an iron shot during a race... it wasn't banned and he took the shot... obviously for nothing other than performance enhancement.... but because it wasn't banned it wasn't doping... just like Sampras getting rehydrated through an intravenous drip before a Grand Slam final. Again, obviously for recovery and performance enhancement.

It's a fine line between the two..... but it can distort what we are seeing... otherwise, they wouldn't be doing it. That's my problem with drugs that make enough of a difference to distort results...

 

[brokenshoelace]

Yeah, I remember your view and I'm somewhere in the middle - many (some might say most) athletes will do what they can get away with... and I recall you mentioning performance enhancing drugs or processes that weren't banned and it's interesting - the only difference between a doper and a non-doper really being what's listed as being a banned substance at the time.

Before they had a proper EPO test in cycling, it was considered that anyone with a haematocrit level (relating to blood cell counts) of 50% or more must be doping and the UCI considered any count over that was a danger to a cyclists health (several cyclists died because they overdid it and their blood was like treacle).... and as you can guess most of the top cyclists were bang on the level - around 48-49%.

Some say it levels the playing field and I'd agree from a different angle... it levels the playing field for those with inferior natural attributes. A cyclist with a natural count of say, 47 and doping to 49 was obviously losing a lot to those who were naturally around 41/42 and doping to 49.... So, yeah it levels the playing field on that dimension, but it does the reverse when you look at natural attributes.

I'll take Greg Lemond as an example... Lemond was a phenomenon in cycling from his teen years. He had the highest recorded ever VO2 Max Level among cyclists (and the second highest among any athlete ever recorded)... He won the tour three times... but it's widely accepted he never took EPO. Most cyclists took some stuff - amphetamines etc... in those days. Not sure about Lemond, I wouldn't rule it out, although team managers said he "didn't require preparation". It was however, widely accepted in cycling that you couldn't turn a donkey into a racehorse whatever was taken... so you might get a benefit but it's not going to change the sport.... until EPO.... The difference EPO made was incredible... you had average cyclists in the early 90s becoming world beaters... mainly the Spanish and Italians initially... later the other teams... Bjarne Riis won the TDF and was known as Mr 60% Percent - he was using EPO to dangerous levels.

Lemond could barely hang onto the peloton as the early 90s unfolded.

However, I also remember Lemond getting an iron shot during a race... it wasn't banned and he took the shot... obviously for nothing other than performance enhancement.... but because it wasn't banned it wasn't doping... just like Sampras getting rehydrated through an intravenous drip before a Grand Slam final. Again, obviously for recovery and performance enhancement.

It's a fine line between the two..... but it can distort what we are seeing... otherwise, they wouldn't be doing it. That's my problem with drugs that make enough of a difference to distort results...

This raises an interesting thought for me, which has to do with the nature of the sport. Obviously the impact of PEDs in athletics or cycling is different than say tennis or fighting. Not that it doesn't matter in the case of the latter two, otherwise, as you said, people wouldn't do it. But that's kinda why I'm more OK with it in tennis, since I believe skill is still the ultimate difference maker.

 

[britbox]

This raises an interesting thought for me, which has to do with the nature of the sport. Obviously the nature impact of PEDs in athletics or cycling is different than say tennis or fighting. Not that it doesn't matter in the case of the latter two, otherwise, as you said, people wouldn't do it. But that's kinda why I'm more OK with it in tennis, since I believe skill is still the ultimate difference maker.

Agree on that to a large degree... the skill factor in tennis will always mean you can't turn a donkey into a racehorse under any circumstances... so the elite players will be elites.... but PEDs could easily swing the honours one way or another.

 

[Carol]

Well, I keep saying that every single player that has to go through surgeries, injections and most of the treatments to take care with their injuries then they have to take some medication with certain substances could be banned if they are taking without any permission or without any reason or for long time and more if they are playing unless they have some kind of disease and of course having the permission to take it