Why is Rafa only threatening to sue over doping accusations now?

[DarthFed]

She has not said she heard it, nor that she'd seen evidence, which is why I quoted earlier exactly what she said. And if she hasn't, it's not going to be that she overheard it from a couple of guys in a bar. It's going to be that she's bought into the implications of others, and felt free to speculate out loud. Which is why I think all this long-term slur campaign against Nadal has been so damaging and unfair. And why Rafa is fed up and fighting back.

Let me be clear here: it may or may not be the case that Nadal is completely clean. But the singling of him out for a campaign of implication, and that's what it is - in the absence of proof - has been unfair, particularly when others get such a head-in-the-clouds pass. It's been going on since 2006, because of Dr. Fuentes. I've made what I think was a common sense case for why that was too early for Nadal to have looked for an advantage in chemistry. If anything, one can see why he might have looked for it, but much later than 2006. There's a much better argument for any of Federer, Djokovic or Murray earlier in their careers than Nadal. But speaking of Nadal and dope has become an easy crutch for those with various prejudices and motivations. And now people speak of so much "smoke," without realizing that they and their ilk have created most of it. And there, very possibly, is how you get such a comment from Mme. Bachelot.

Given the context she was never going to say "such and such told me Nadal received a silent ban" in the course of an interview. Let's wait and see before we jump the gun, no?

As for the rest it is a difference of opinion. I think every athlete has the incentive to cheat pretty much at any point in time. Why? Because they are all striving to improve and contrary to what the resident general will tell you, one EASY way to improve significantly is to juice. Anyone who is currently clean can improve in no time if they choose to go to the dark side and it is easy to avoid detection. That is the reality. Most people who are caught taking PED's have been doing it for a long time, likely near the beginning of their careers. Nadal was around #50 in the world and already had significant injuries around the time 2005 started. I think your "common sense" case is seeing what you want to see and that being "he is my favorite, no way he would ever cheat." Federer, Djokovic, Murray it's all the same, I'd be lying through my teeth if I said Roger had no incentive to cheat throughout his career, especially before he became great. All the top guys would have had plenty of incentive at various times in their career especially near the beginning when they were virtual nobodies. If a player was caught cheating tomorrow I'd assume they'd been doing it for a long time. It's more unlikely that someone who has been clean their whole career, and has achieved all time great status, suddenly decides to cheat one day. Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens in baseball are about the only notable exceptions I can think of.

 

[Moxie]

Twisted, my problem with your argument about how everyone has an incentive, and they would has started early is that it implicates everyone, as it is completely generic. It makes juicing as much a part of their arsenal as shoes. So that means everyone juices, doesn't it? Blandly, you offer that others might have done it, feet to the fire, but without any conviction.

You have, however, given specifics as to when and how you think Nadal has. You made some case for how small he was at the AO 2005, and how buff Miami 2005. But you have no comment when I say that Nadal beat then-#1 Roger in March 2004, and then-#2 Roddick in Dec. 2004. As well as that he'd been beating other of previous #1's and FO champions since he was 16. So what was the incentive to juice starting early 2005? Beyond your generic notion that it's a lucrative sport and there's a lot of money involved? It's your timeline that doesn't make sense.

We've done this before, and you keep trying to spin it your way: Nadal didn't have "significant injuries" prior to 2005, he'd had one. He was ranked #50 around early 2005, but that had dropped from #34, due to one injury. It's not that nefarious. He was a prodigiously talented teenager on a pretty steep trajectory from age 16, without many bumps in the road before he started beating everyone on clay in 2005. He didn't come out of nowhere, and he didn't have more than one injury patch since turning pro at 15. You've tried to make the argument for this period as specifically being when you think Nadal started doping. I'm saying this period doesn't make sense. And now you're just mumbling about generic notions of athletes who dope and probably always dope. I would respect you more if you'd address my specific rejoinders to your very pointed accusations.

As to the Bachelot case, perhaps we're all jumping the gun, but I have quoted you what she said, and she makes no claims to any evidence. I've just said what I think about the slinging of mud that has gone on for years, and why it is injurious. If people had been throwing the same crap at Roger all these years, you'd been just as protective about it, and I suspect you'd see how unjust it is.

 

[DarthFed]

Twisted, my problem with your argument about how everyone has an incentive, and they would has started early is that it implicates everyone, as it is completely generic. It makes juicing as much a part of their arsenal as shoes. So that means everyone juices, doesn't it? Blandly, you offer that others might have done it, feet to the fire, but without any conviction.

You have, however, given specifics as to when and how you think Nadal has. You made some case for how small he was at the AO 2005, and how buff Miami 2005. But you have no comment when I say that Nadal beat then-#1 Roger in March 2004, and then-#2 Roddick in Dec. 2004. As well as that he'd been beating other of previous #1's and FO champions since he was 16. So what was the incentive to juice starting early 2005? Beyond your generic notion that it's a lucrative sport and there's a lot of money involved? It's your timeline that doesn't make sense.

We've done this before, and you keep trying to spin it your way: Nadal didn't have "significant injuries" prior to 2005, he'd had one. He was ranked #50 around early 2005, but that had dropped from #34, due to one injury. It's not that nefarious. He was a prodigiously talented teenager on a pretty steep trajectory from age 16, without many bumps in the road before he started beating everyone on clay in 2005. He didn't come out of nowhere, and he didn't have more than one injury patch since turning pro at 15. You've tried to make the argument for this period as specifically being when you think Nadal started doping. I'm saying this period doesn't make sense. And now you're just mumbling about generic notions of athletes who dope and probably always dope. I would respect you more if you'd address my specific rejoinders to your very pointed accusations.

As to the Bachelot case, perhaps we're all jumping the gun, but I have quoted you what she said, and she makes no claims to any evidence. I've just said what I think about the slinging of mud that has gone on for years, and why it is injurious. If people had been throwing the same crap at Roger all these years, you'd been just as protective about it, and I suspect you'd see how unjust it is.

You're reading too much into what I'm saying. The incentive to cheat is there for every athlete. That doesn't mean every athlete cheats, I'd still venture to guess that most don't. But the incentive is there and it is obvious. I've never said Nadal was some worthless hack before 2005 but he was still looked at as an up and comer. Yes, he had scored some big wins (though I wouldn't call beating Roddick on clay a big time win) but he was not anything out of the ordinary at the time. Back then there were teenagers in the top 50 fairly often. You're making it sound like his 2005 wasn't some huge step up in play. Note that I'm not making the equation that "Rafa improved incredibly in 2005 so he must have juiced" Athletes do improve significantly in a short period of time. Where you are losing me is your insistence that Rafa was already a great player before 2005 and therefore would have no incentive to juice. This is simply narrow-minded and false. And I talked about athletes in general so as not to single out Rafa in this context. The incentive would certainly have been there for Roger pre-2003 when he had risen slowly up the ranks but had not had a big break through. The incentive would have been there for Novak before 2011 when it seemed he was destined to be a long-time third fiddle and possibly a one slam wonder. The incentive would have been strong for Murray for many years. The incentive is there for the world #200 at the current time who is probably damn near broke and just hoping to make something of himself. Now since these athletes and pretty much all others had the incentive to cheat do I think they all have cheated? No. Do you get the point now?

 

[Moxie]

You're reading too much into what I'm saying. The incentive to cheat is there for every athlete. That doesn't mean every athlete cheats, I'd still venture to guess that most don't. But the incentive is there and it is obvious. I've never said Nadal was some worthless hack before 2005 but he was still looked at as an up and comer. Yes, he had scored some big wins (though I wouldn't call beating Roddick on clay a big time win) but he was not anything out of the ordinary at the time. Back then there were teenagers in the top 50 fairly often. You're making it sound like his 2005 wasn't some huge step up in play. Note that I'm not making the equation that "Rafa improved incredibly in 2005 so he must have juiced" Athletes do improve significantly in a short period of time. Where you are losing me is your insistence that Rafa was already a great player before 2005 and therefore would have no incentive to juice. This is simply narrow-minded and false. And I talked about athletes in general so as not to single out Rafa in this context. The incentive would certainly have been there for Roger pre-2003 when he had risen slowly up the ranks but had not had a big break through. The incentive would have been there for Novak before 2011 when it seemed he was destined to be a long-time third fiddle and possibly a one slam wonder. The incentive would have been strong for Murray for many years. The incentive is there for the world #200 at the current time who is probably damn near broke and just hoping to make something of himself. Now since these athletes and pretty much all others had the incentive to cheat do I think they all have cheated? No. Do you get the point now?

You've walked back what you've said before about Rafa in early 2005, to some extent, so I'm fine with that. I've long gotten the point, but I will say that you've changed it. And I think at least now you agree with me there is a fair reason to believe that Nadal never has doped.

I didn't say that Nadal was already a great player before 2005. I said that he was a great teenager on a trackable trajectory, specifically on clay. (And sneer if you like that he beat Roddick on clay in DC, but Roddick was #2 at the time, and Nadal was considered a questionable choice over Ferrero for that tie. It was a big win for Nadal. Don't look at it retroactively, but think of it in its time.) Tennis insiders consider 2004 to be Rafa's break-out year, so 2005 is not as much of a surprise as you make it. He'd beaten Roger that year, and Roddick, and won a clay title. My contention that he would have no incentive to juice at that point is that he was on a clear and heady upward path, and he was only 18. There was no need to be immediately better at 18. He'd already beaten #1 and #2. If he'd gotten stalled at 20 or 21, I would see the incentive, but not at 18, with such good results. Otherwise, what...he had to juice so he could already start beating Guillermo Coria on clay? I'm saying that, if he was beating Albert Costa and a 26-year old Moya on clay at 16, he was probably on track to beat Coria at 18 without a bump. And you already dismissed him beating Roddick on clay. So you're conceding that he was very good on clay. Again, I'm just saying I don't believe that specific part of his career would be when he would have felt he needed a leg-up.

You could say the same for Roger. In 2002, he'd won only 3 fairly unimportant titles, at 20. In 2003, he won 7, including Wimbledon and the YEC, and he never looked back. It's not that different, in terms of each kicking up their games to "prime" level after a year of revving their engines.

 

[mrzz]

OK, I didn't get the joke, but I think everyone is being careful, though, as it's a sensitive topic, and a lawsuit is kinda serious.

Just to point out, too, though, no one but you has called her "crazy," and no one has called her a "bitch," which you've done twice, in the guise of paraphrasing others. Personally, I have no reason to think she's a bitch, but I do think she's spoken unwisely, as her statement doesn't imply anything other than assumption. I know you were congratulating yourself for not making a sexist joke, but you're the only one making anything of the fact that the minister is a woman, which is pretty irrelevant, I'd say. But not to be too serious....

Here we go again. Yes, I was the one who called her "crazy". But I could make a list of the adjectives used to describe her in this thread and in others, and isolate some phrases. The point of the expression I used was exactly this: to let explicit, and in one sentence, what people were saying. If you feel more confortable saying, for example, "Mrs. Bachelot is being criminally irresponsible saying on purpose things that she can not back up", or "Mrs. Bachelot is spreading lies just to get more public attention", fine, but in the end you would be saying that she is:

a) not to be trusted, and/or;
b) stupid

and I summed it up on the "crazy bitch" phrase. Why? Again, to let things explicit: don't mind what this persons says, she's just an "airhead". This is "your" (and here I mean "all of you") point, after all.

Ok, I was being sexist on purpose, just to be a bit annoying. I saw the "opening" right after a poster said something about "this woman". As you noticed, no one used this kind of adjectives, no one called the attention to the fact she is a woman. Sign that discussions do take place outside the gender issue.

But, ok, you'Å•e right. I pushed too hard. But I hope now you see my point as well. Oddly enough, I am the closest thing to a "defense" she's got on this thread.

 

[Carol]

But if we believe what each person says (ex minister, writer, coaches, posters, antis, haters, fans, pro, etc etc etc.) then none player is free of accusations before he become great and also after. ('m sooooo tired of this subject)

http://federerisdoping.blogspot.com/2010/11/federer-linked-to-epo-and-other-peds.html

 

[Federberg]

But if we believe what each person says (ex minister, writer, coaches, posters, antis, haters, fans, pro, etc etc etc.) then none player is free of accusations before he become great and also after. ('m sooooo tired of this subject)

http://federerisdoping.blogspot.com/2010/11/federer-linked-to-epo-and-other-peds.html

I'm not sure this qualifies. Any idiot can post nonsense on a blog. Has anything been published in a credible media outlet? There's not much difference in putting this link here than showing us a screen shot of a hater's facebook page. I mean.. seriously??

 

[Carol]

I'm not sure this qualifies. Any idiot can post nonsense on a blog. Has anything been published in a credible media outlet? There's not much difference in putting this link here than showing us a screen shot of a hater's facebook page. I mean.. seriously??

Exactly, any idiot can say anything through the Internet and more worse through the TV and not for that reason it qualifies more, as you can see everyone has the "right" to think or to say whatever he/she wants but later they should wait for the consequences

 

[Ricardo]

Here we go again. Yes, I was the one who called her "crazy". But I could make a list of the adjectives used to describe her in this thread and in others, and isolate some phrases. The point of the expression I used was exactly this: to let explicit, and in one sentence, what people were saying. If you feel more confortable saying, for example, "Mrs. Bachelot is being criminally irresponsible saying on purpose things that she can not back up", or "Mrs. Bachelot is spreading lies just to get more public attention", fine, but in the end you would be saying that she is:

a) not to be trusted, and/or;
b) stupid

and I summed it up on the "crazy bitch" phrase. Why? Again, to let things explicit: don't mind what this persons says, she's just an "airhead". This is "your" (and here I mean "all of you") point, after all.

Ok, I was being sexist on purpose, just to be a bit annoying. I saw the "opening" right after a poster said something about "this woman". As you noticed, no one used this kind of adjectives, no one called the attention to the fact she is a woman. Sign that discussions do take place outside the gender issue.

But, ok, you'Å•e right. I pushed too hard. But I hope now you see my point as well. Oddly enough, I am the closest thing to a "defense" she's got on this thread.

ok she is a woman and she said stupid things, fact no?

let me guess what's next, misogynist?

I hear women say 'men are pigs' many times, never thought they were being 'sexist'.....or whatever.

 

[Federberg]

Exactly, any idiot can say anything through the Internet and more worse through the TV and not for that reason it qualifies more, as you can see everyone has the "right" to think or to say whatever he/she wants but later they should wait for the consequences

I agree with that. But my point is that if a former French Minister makes accusations, true or false; or you see an article in a credible journal.. again true or false. That's one thing. But a blog from some unsubstantiated source is several rungs below. You might as well provide a link from someone's facebook page. It's utterly baseless.

 

[Carol]

I agree with that. But my point is that if a former French Minister makes accusations, true or false; or you see an article in a credible journal.. again true or false. That's one thing. But a blog from some unsubstantiated source is several rungs below. You might as well provide a link from someone's facebook page. It's utterly baseless.

I don't see too much difference what the ex sport primer minister with pretty bad reputation said to what a writer said. She messed up it very badly

 

[Federberg]

I don't see too much difference what the ex sport primer minister with pretty bad reputation said to what a writer said. She messed up it very badly

There's a big difference between a form sports minister, or professional journalist and a blogger. Huge...

 

[Moxie]

There's a big difference between a form sports minister, or professional journalist and a blogger. Huge...

In fact, that kind of blog is my initial answer to why Rafa is "only" suing now...people say crap anonymously over the internet all the time. An actual person with a public forum is someone you can sue.

 

[britbox]

In fact, that kind of blog is my initial answer to why Rafa is "only" suing now...people say crap anonymously over the internet all the time. An actual person with a public forum is someone you can sue.

 

[DarthFed]

You've walked back what you've said before about Rafa in early 2005, to some extent, so I'm fine with that. I've long gotten the point, but I will say that you've changed it. And I think at least now you agree with me there is a fair reason to believe that Nadal never has doped.

I didn't say that Nadal was already a great player before 2005. I said that he was a great teenager on a trackable trajectory, specifically on clay. (And sneer if you like that he beat Roddick on clay in DC, but Roddick was #2 at the time, and Nadal was considered a questionable choice over Ferrero for that tie. It was a big win for Nadal. Don't look at it retroactively, but think of it in its time.) Tennis insiders consider 2004 to be Rafa's break-out year, so 2005 is not as much of a surprise as you make it. He'd beaten Roger that year, and Roddick, and won a clay title. My contention that he would have no incentive to juice at that point is that he was on a clear and heady upward path, and he was only 18. There was no need to be immediately better at 18. He'd already beaten #1 and #2. If he'd gotten stalled at 20 or 21, I would see the incentive, but not at 18, with such good results. Otherwise, what...he had to juice so he could already start beating Guillermo Coria on clay? I'm saying that, if he was beating Albert Costa and a 26-year old Moya on clay at 16, he was probably on track to beat Coria at 18 without a bump. And you already dismissed him beating Roddick on clay. So you're conceding that he was very good on clay. Again, I'm just saying I don't believe that specific part of his career would be when he would have felt he needed a leg-up.

You could say the same for Roger. In 2002, he'd won only 3 fairly unimportant titles, at 20. In 2003, he won 7, including Wimbledon and the YEC, and he never looked back. It's not that different, in terms of each kicking up their games to "prime" level after a year of revving their engines.

Oh boy...please show me an insider saying 2004 was Rafa's breakout year. Yes, he won a small clay title and won a match vs. the world #1 but let's not act like this is some major breakthrough. He finished 2003 ranked in the top 50 and finished 2004 ranked 51. The Davis Cup was of course a big win but at the end of the day Roddick was terrible on clay. I think it's fair to say he was not #2 or even #50 when it came to clay courts.

Anyways the gist of it is we have a fundamental difference of opinion. You fail to see, or refuse to see, how most if not all athletes have an incentive to cheat. It all starts from there...incentive, without that there would never be any athletes doping. And I hope even you realize that that's not the case. And you also seem to think that most of the people getting caught are athletes who rolled out of bed one day in the middle of their careers and decided to cheat. No need to go back and forth...difference of opinion.

 

[Carol]

To me it doesn't matter from whom are coming the accusations if it's without any reason and evidence, it's the same madness and violation, it doesn't matter the president or a simple writer (usually the politics are more liars than the writers)
My point is that people likes to talk too much depending their 'interest' it doesn't matter the damage they can do, they think that later saying "I'm sorry, I din't know...." everything is ok, yeah.....

 

[Federberg]

In fact, that kind of blog is my initial answer to why Rafa is "only" suing now...people say crap anonymously over the internet all the time. An actual person with a public forum is someone you can sue.

Agreed! Any loser can put nonsense on the internet. We all know that! Ahem!

 

[Carol]

And there are so many losers hiding behind the Internet, I wish they could be sued too, maybe one day.....

 

[Moxie]

ok she is a woman and she said stupid things, fact no?

let me guess what's next, misogynist?

I hear women say 'men are pigs' many times, never thought they were being 'sexist'.....or whatever.

If you were keeping up, you would see that I was really calling Mrzz out on his paraphrasing of others, which he's been failing on a bit, in this thread. He full-on admitted that he introduced gender and sexism into the equation, just for a reaction, I guess. This conversation is not about gender, so try not to get your man-pants in a twist. Otherwise, take it up with Mrzz.

 

[Moxie]

Here is a link to the video that gives the context to Mme. Bachelot's comment. It's in French, but not that hard to understand. They're talking about the Maria Sharapova case. Bachelot goes into when a player (and she uses the feminine form) has an injury time break of several months, it's really because of a positive drug test. Then she goes on to mention Nadal's "famous" lay-off of 7 months, as an example. She says that "every time" a player is out for several months with injury, this is really because of a positive drug test. Then the woman next to her questions her on "every time," and she says, "No, of course not every time, but a lot of the time." I recommend watching it, even if you don't speak French. It's very chat show-style toss off opinion. (You have to put up the volume on the video.)

http://www.closermag.fr/tele/videos...-rafael-nadal-se-serait-il-dope-video-598827#