Question to Fed fans - Is there anything Fed can do to get back his legacy?

[brokenshoelace]

Question to resident tennis/PED experts @Front242 and @GameSetAndMath...

Which of Nadal's last half a dozen majors or so was won due to his physicality and his alleged super human stamina? Is it when he barely broke a sweat in his last 3 French Open wins? Or his US Open win where hit Del Potro off the court completely (or is shot making exclusive to Federer?). Nadal's supposed physical style is verging on a myth at this point. Yes he's a great athlete, yes he's physical, but he's more aggressive than 90% of the tour and a far better shot maker than like...97% of the tour. It's well known his resurrection from a tennis perspective has been due to improved serve, backhand, aggression etc...

So if you apply the same logic you guys are applying to Fed...PEDs don't make you hit a good forehand up the line.

 

[Front242]

So wait, the doctor is...qualified? That's it?

He's qualified to pass doping controls for cyclists and Olympic athletes and that's all you need to know since they are the worst doping offenders. That's it? No. You forgot he's also Nadal's doctor and works with other Spanish tennis players.

I'll reply to your longer post later if I get time.

 

[brokenshoelace]

He's qualified to pass doping controls for cyclists and Olympic athletes and that's all you need to know since they are the worst doping offenders. That's it? No. You forgot he's also Nadal's doctor and works with other Spanish tennis players.

I'll reply to your longer post later if I get time.

So the guy has a great resume including working on anti-doping controls and your conclusion is Nadal's juicing.

 

[Front242]

So the guy has a great resume including working on anti-doping controls and your conclusion is Nadal's juicing.

It's a pretty safe bet. Cyclists and Olympians dope all day and day-lee and Spain is rife with doping. So that's a yes. But then you're convinced they all dope anyway so nothing new here. I'm convinced some are a lot more obvious than others.

 

[Moxie]

I don't think they have invented doping techniques which makes one hit a drive backhand well instead of always slicing.

They have, however, invented doping techniques that strengthen the arm/shoulder so that it withstands punishment that it used not to. And a better BH and getting used to a racquet he'd been working with for literally years aren't all that goes into it, as Broken pointed out, above. Stamina, which helps with footwork and timing can also be improved, and in an older player, that would be huge.

 

[Moxie]

It's a pretty safe bet. Cyclists and Olympians dope all day and day-lee and Spain is rife with doping. So that's a yes. But then you're convinced they all dope anyway so nothing new here. I'm convinced some are a lot more obvious than others.

I posted a link to WADA a few months ago with stats that Spain is WAY down the list of athletes that dope. I believe they had the same number of athletes that tested positive as Sri Lanka (for the last year of WADA stats available that I found.) And yet, you keep saying this about Spain. Merely because you choose to believe it. And your hair goes on fire about how long it was before doping was illegal in Spain...when the same was true of the UK, USA, amongst others. You see "shady" where you want to, but your arguments aren't fact-based and are deceitful and prejudiced.

 

[brokenshoelace]

It's a pretty safe bet. Cyclists and Olympians dope all day and day-lee and Spain is rife with doping. So that's a yes. But then you're convinced they all dope anyway so nothing new here. I'm convinced some are a lot more obvious than others.

It is a safe bet that Nadal is doping. It's not a safe bet that you think he and Djoker do but not Roger because of some arbitrary criteria (and you still haven't responded to my other points highlighting the inconsistency and bias in your argument).

 

[brokenshoelace]

They have, however, invented doping techniques that strengthen the arm/shoulder so that it withstands punishment that it used not to. And a better BH and getting used to a racquet he'd been working with for literally years aren't all that goes into it, as Broken pointed out, above. Stamina, which helps with footwork and timing can also be improved, and in an older player, that would be huge.

GSM's post is cute if it was strictly tongue in cheek, but if he's serious then honestly, it's laughably simplistic and ignorant.

 

[Moxie]

It is a safe bet that Nadal is doping. It's not a safe bet that you think he and Djoker do but not Roger because of some arbitrary criteria (and you still haven't responded to my other points highlighting the inconsistency and bias in your argument).

You say they all dope. In fairness to you, you also say this is just your opinion. My question to you is: do you really think they all actually take banned substances, or that they skirt the edges of the regulations? Do you think they all always have, or that they do, sometimes?

 

[Moxie]

GSM's post is cute if it was strictly tongue in cheek, but if he's serious then honestly, it's laughably simplistic and ignorant.

GSM doesn't have that much of a sense of humor.

 

[Ricardo]

It is a safe bet that Nadal is doping. It's not a safe bet that you think he and Djoker do but not Roger because of some arbitrary criteria (and you still haven't responded to my other points highlighting the inconsistency and bias in your argument).

well in general people tend to be more suspicious of Nadal (as we all know) and Novak (suddenly jump in his physical prowess in 2011) for various reasons, and much less so of Roger (so effortless and whatnot), and since no concrete evidence has ever been presented (which would destroy the sport) it is based on individual judgement, or in a lot of cases, bias....what else can it be?

 

[brokenshoelace]

You say they all dope. In fairness to you, you also say this is just your opinion. My question to you is: do you really think they all actually take banned substances, or that they skirt the edges of the regulations? Do you think they all always have, or that they do, sometimes?

I think they've all taken banned substances at some point, yes. There's too much on the line, science is way too advanced, their doctors are excellent, they're all very smart, etc...

I'm not saying they sit there and regularly inject themselves with steroid like body builders, mind you.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

What about doing something legal makes someone "on the fringe"? If it's legal it's legal. It got outlawed later, so to retroactively use that as a potential red flag is really odd.

These things are never binary and they are usually a continuum. For legality purposes, they need to make it concrete which makes it binary.

Suppose 0.08 is the legal limit for blood alcohol concentration while driving, if someone has 0.07 they cannot be legally charged with DWI. Nonetheless they were driving while drunk.

Now, if their blood alcohol concentration level (BACL) is more than 0.08 they could be charged with DWI if caught. We all know that not everyone with BACL more than that actually gets caught.

If there are three people A,B and C (or N,D and F) who were never charged with DWI and if A and B have been stopped multiple times and have readings slightly less than the BACL limit of 0.08 and C is a tea-totaller, it is reasonable to suspect that perhaps A and B did sometimes indeed drive when their BACL level is more than the official limit, but did not actually get caught (but not suspect C, especially as he is a tea-totaller).

That is the point of the fringe argument. If one is known to be at the fringe, it is reasonable to suspect them of actual doping.

 

[Moxie]

These things are never binary and they are usually a continuum. For legality purposes, they need to make it concrete which makes it binary.

Suppose 0.08 is the legal limit for blood alcohol concentration while driving, if someone has 0.07 they cannot be legally charged with DWI. Nonetheless they were driving while drunk.

Now, if their blood alcohol concentration level (BACL) is more than 0.08 they could be charged with DWI if caught. We all know that not everyone with BACL more than that actually gets caught.

If there are three people A,B and C (or N,D and F) who were never charged with DWI and if A and B have been stopped multiple times and have readings slightly less than the BACL limit of 0.08 and C is a tea-totaller, it is reasonable to suspect that perhaps A and B did sometimes indeed drive when their BACL level is more than the official limit, but did not actually get caught (but not suspect C, especially as he is a tea-totaller).

That is the point of the fringe argument. If one is known to be at the fringe, it is reasonable to suspect them of actual doping.

This is a really poor analogy, though it exposes a lot about what you think. Firstly, you don't seem to grasp the concept of "legal." (Again.) There is a legal BACL limit for a reason, and this does not mean that the person is "driving drunk." It means that the law/society believes that a reasonable person can have a glass of wine at dinner and still be able to competently operate a car. However, it's a bad analogy because you're equating that with doping in tennis, which basically implies that you think certain players are skirting the edges of legality while still indulging in some form of doping, which isn't true, or at least based on the examples you cite. They have been actually completely legal and forthcoming. Oh, and then there's the bit where your "Suspect C" is a tea-totaller. I know you like to think so. Make no mistake that, if tennis is at all corrupt, and we know for sure it's not without blemish, then one thing is for sure: the single person who would get a free pass for doping is Roger Federer. If he ever got done for doping, it would be the end of men's (and I believe women's) tennis for a couple of decades. He is completely protected, and don't think he doesn't know it.

 

[Moxie]

I think they've all taken banned substances at some point, yes. There's too much on the line, science is way too advanced, their doctors are excellent, they're all very smart, etc...

I'm not saying they sit there and regularly inject themselves with steroid like body builders, mind you.

I take your point, and appreciate your candor. I don't subscribe to it, personally, though I think they avail themselves of everything on offer that is (still) legal. This includes Roger. They have great doctors, as you say. The rich guys also can afford to travel with physios, etc. This is a perfectly legal advantage, but an economic one.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

well in general people tend to be more suspicious of Nadal (as we all know) and Novak (suddenly jump in his physical prowess in 2011) for various reasons, and much less so of Roger (so effortless and whatnot), and since no concrete evidence has ever been presented (which would destroy the sport) it is based on individual judgement, or in a lot of cases, bias....what else can it be?

Yes Federer will still be in the top 5 when he's 60 years old and people will still say "oh it's normal cause he has a great technique and he's so effortless"...

Open your eyes people! :cuckoo:

 

[britbox]

These things are never binary and they are usually a continuum. For legality purposes, they need to make it concrete which makes it binary.

Suppose 0.08 is the legal limit for blood alcohol concentration while driving, if someone has 0.07 they cannot be legally charged with DWI. Nonetheless they were driving while drunk.

Now, if their blood alcohol concentration level (BACL) is more than 0.08 they could be charged with DWI if caught. We all know that not everyone with BACL more than that actually gets caught.

If there are three people A,B and C (or N,D and F) who were never charged with DWI and if A and B have been stopped multiple times and have readings slightly less than the BACL limit of 0.08 and C is a tea-totaller, it is reasonable to suspect that perhaps A and B did sometimes indeed drive when their BACL level is more than the official limit, but did not actually get caught (but not suspect C, especially as he is a tea-totaller).

That is the point of the fringe argument. If one is known to be at the fringe, it is reasonable to suspect them of actual doping.

You can't make it binary because of naturally occurring hormones and the number of things in everyday foodstuffs. (outside of finding synthetic abuse).

 

[GameSetAndMath]

This is a really poor analogy, though it exposes a lot about what you think. Firstly, you don't seem to grasp the concept of "legal." (Again.) There is a legal BACL limit for a reason, and this does not mean that the person is "driving drunk." It means that the law/society believes that a reasonable person can have a glass of wine at dinner and still be able to competently operate a car.

As I originally posted here both Novak and Ralph have been officially recorded to be on the fringe (see links in the post above), even though what they did is technically not illegal and hence it is completely justifiable to suspect (but not accuse them with certainty) them. On the other hand, Roger was never ever been caught doing shady things which are legal and hence it is justifiable not to suspect him (but not exonerate him with certainty).

You don't have to give me lectures on the concept of legality. I myself said in the original post that what Novak and Ralph did were indeed legal. The point is that in all matters of law, it has to be binary (as there should be an incontrovertible way of determining whether somebody violated the law or not). However, things are never binary.

There is the question of whether you are merely obeying the letter of the law or the spirit of the law.

 

[Moxie]

As I originally posted here both Novak and Ralph have been officially recorded to be on the fringe (see links in the post above), even though what they did is technically not illegal and hence it is completely justifiable to suspect (but not accuse them with certainty) them. On the other hand, Roger was never ever been caught doing shady things which are legal and hence it is justifiable not to suspect him (but not exonerate him with certainty).

You don't have to give me lectures on the concept of legality. I myself said in the original post that what Novak and Ralph did were indeed legal. The point is that in all matters of law, it has to be binary (as there should be an incontrovertible way of determining whether somebody violated the law or not). However, things are never binary.

There is the question of whether you are merely obeying the letter of the law or the spirit of the law.

I don't agree with how you characterize these things as being on the "fringe" of legal. They were legal, by definition. That egg is perfectly legal, and there is one in Melbourne which lots of players use, as I understand it. (There was a story on it during the AO a few years back, with various lower-ranked players interviewed as to how useful they found it, or not.) As for Nadal, the TUE's he used were checked with the ITF, and granted, for knee issues. Therefore, not illegal. Nadal has made a lot of his treatments for the knee issues a matter of public record, like that weird machine he hooked his knee up to to repair the torn ligament or meniscus (I forget), which he also cleared with the ITF.

You see these things as dodgy because you choose to. You speak of letter of the law, well it IS the letter of the law. What is the "spirit," then? That athletes shouldn't use methods for recovery that are available to them? You say that Roger has never been "caught" doing shady things. Well, neither have Rafa or Novak. The things you cite were on the up-and-up. However, you don't know what Roger does that may also, and probably does skirt the lines of "legal." How much do we know about his surgery and methods used for recovery? Exactly nothing. Chances that he had to use something medically for recovery that would require a TUE during his 7 month lay-off? High, I'd say. There are lots of things that doctors prescribe for recovery from surgeries, etc. that are not allowed to athletes in competition, but that can be allowed in other circumstances. IMO, you're spinning too hard to discredit RN and ND, and way too convinced that Roger is above all that.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I love the concept of "officially on the fringe." Using the word "official" makes it more amusing. What the fuck is "on the fringe of being illegal?" It's either legal or it isn't. There's no moral attachment to this, and people who view PED in moral terms make me chuckle the most. So much of the shit that is legal now ends up being illegal later, so attaching morality to that is pretty fickle. We have no idea what these guys are putting in their bodies, including all the legal stuff, the "on the fringe" stuff, etc...

"There is the question of whether you are merely obeying the letter of the law or the spirit of the law."

There is? Why?