Nadal shows doping at the top of tennis

That simply means Borg is garbage on clay compared to Nadal. As is everyone else. Nadal's absurd record on clay is confirmation of that.

Doping most DEFINITELY exists in Tennis. As I mentioned, a doctor who had some association with Nadal was quite literally convicted of doping athletes. Again, THAT is evidence. That's like saying that Daniel Komen, who competed during the EPO era, likely used EPO. It's a perfectly sensible conclusion.

But Nadal is doping because he's good on clay? A surface he has been dominating for FIFTEEN YEARS? That makes no sense. At all.

Let's say that this his performance on Clay, and at the French Open is particular, is strong evidence that he is doping. This would mean that he has apparently been on a cocktail of drugs for fifteen years that has made him near-superhuman on a single surface, and strangely, even more superhuman on a specific court. A cocktail of drugs that apparently, either no one else knows about, or no one else can use successfully, given that almost anyone who plays him at the French Open is badly dominated.

You think that for a decade and a half, Nadal has been drugging up in some specific way to give him an utterly insurmountable advantage on a single court, and that in all this time, not a single other player has managed to get themselves on something similar? And that as PEDs have continued to develop, he has continually maintained a combination that gives this exact same advantage every single year?

It is certainly likely that Nadal (and other top players) may be doping. However, the fact that Nadal, who has performed well on clay since he was effectively a child, continues to perform well clay is extremely poor evidence of this.

Armstronglivs wrote:

coach wrote:

I don't accept it without question, I remembering hearing rumors a while back. Any pro athlete doping wouldn't be a shock.

I just don't believe that his dismantling of Djokovic is evidence of doping.

But it doesn't even arouse suspicions? What is evidence then?

Why on Earth would Nadal defeating Djokovic at the French Open, which he has done SIX TIMES before this, arouse suspicion? He very obviously is better than Djokovic on this surface.

Seyta wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

But it doesn't even arouse suspicions? What is evidence then?

Why on Earth would Nadal defeating Djokovic at the French Open, which he has done SIX TIMES before this, arouse suspicion? He very obviously is better than Djokovic on this surface.

What evades your understanding is that overwhelming superiority of itself is likely to be the result of doping in a sport that has been identified by antidoping experts as being amongst the most doped of sports.

Borg was also an incredible player - one of the all time greats. To have more than twice as many titles as he had on clay - and he is regarded as one of the best ever on the surface - reeks of doping. You really know nothing about the game.

It is certainly likely that Nadal (and other top players) may be doping. However, the fact that Nadal, who has performed well on clay since he was effectively a child, continues to perform well clay is extremely poor evidence of this.[/quote]

So he may be doping but it isnt reflected in his results or how he plays? So what does doping do then? Cure headaches?

Armstronglivs wrote:

The 34 year old Spaniard is destroying the world No.1 Djokovic in the final of the French Open. 6-0 in the first set. No player at this stage of their career can be physically so dominant and over a player of Djokovic's calibre.

Spoken like a devout doping worshiping fanatic.

It's like there is nothing that cannot be accomplished with drugs, and nothing can be accomplished without them.

Doesn't this belong in "letstennis.com"?

34 years old is old, but is it that old? Djokovich himself is 33 years old, and Federer is now 39 years old.

Jimmy Connors and Serena Williams are two more tennis players who were/are still going strong at 39, able to win a tournament.

Was Nadal at 34 stronger than usual, or Djokovic at 33 weaker than usual?

Because no tennis player ever in history has ever had a bad day, or some niggling injury, or end of season fatigue.

I'm looking forward to factual responses.

Armstronglivs wrote:

https://www.tennisnet.com/en/news/doping-expert-fritz-sorgel-nadal-under-permanent-suspicion

“Tennis is in the top four when it comes to doping. Anabolic steroids are the classic, ”explains the professor from Nuremberg. The reason for this is the intensity of the sport and the resulting strain on the players.

When asked which of the big tennis players he suspected of being doped, Sörgel mentioned above all an athlete. And none other than the current world number one, Rafael Nadal. The German professor had a permanent suspicion against him: “Rafael Nadal has shown some abnormalities. Regarding regeneration and all of its athletics. Anabolic substances would be the candidates here. ”The Mallorcan is repeatedly confronted with doping allegations - and also actively defends himself against those who accuse him of taking illicit substances.

Dope Hardstrong wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

https://www.tennisnet.com/en/news/doping-expert-fritz-sorgel-nadal-under-permanent-suspicion

“Tennis is in the top four when it comes to doping. Anabolic steroids are the classic, ”explains the professor from Nuremberg. The reason for this is the intensity of the sport and the resulting strain on the players.

When asked which of the big tennis players he suspected of being doped, Sörgel mentioned above all an athlete. And none other than the current world number one, Rafael Nadal. The German professor had a permanent suspicion against him: “Rafael Nadal has shown some abnormalities. Regarding regeneration and all of its athletics. Anabolic substances would be the candidates here. ”The Mallorcan is repeatedly confronted with doping allegations - and also actively defends himself against those who accuse him of taking illicit substances.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

So there are no experts on anything in this world? Just you? I'll give you this - you are world-leading when it comes to ignorance.

If you actually play—which I’m beginning to doubt—you will know that in any rally, the first player to cede control most often loses the point. Once control is gained against a similar opponent, it is like a wedge—it widens, under the progressive direction of the one in control—who then decides when the time is right for the kill.

On clay , Nadal is great at not giving away that control once he has it—whereas last match, Djokovic was totally crap at not letting him have it.

This is not an effect of doping—it is an effect of clay-specific intelligence. Nadal has very much more than Djokovic. On each surface, when you have 2 good, non-fatigued players, the gaps to be exploited are very small. It is the job of the player to exploit these gaps to his advantage when he can, while at other times preventing his opponent from doing so.

Djokovic was totally carp at the second. His shots were homogenous—same speed, same spin, same depth, same central location. The perfect gift for Nadal. You might not see it in a point that starts out on the baseline, but it is there. Even if they look like they are just trading baseline howitzers, they are not: while Djokovic is just mechanistic and relying on Nadal to make a mistake, Nadal is actively going at Djokovic by creatively varying spin, speed, and side, probing for what will work, keeping Djokovic guessing, not allowing Djokovic to set up, to get into any rhythm. Many of Nadal’s cross-court baseline shots were actually off-speed, but with good spin. Those times when Djokovic hit a good-looking shot were few and far between, and often were just responses that were forces by Nadal’s previous shot, so Nadal was ready for them because it was he who created the situation.

Djokovic was hugely out-skilled from the very beginning of the match. He played like junk, against the king of the surface. Happens to everyone, just that this time it was in a major final.

Once again, Nadal could very well be doping—but nothing you have said proves it.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Doping expert Fritz Sörgel: "Nadal under permanent suspicion"

Doping expert me: “ALL pro athletes under permanent suspicion”

The reasonableness of that suspicion is what provides the legal justification for testing in the absence of specific evidence.

Despite the fact that doping is known to be a significant feature of tennis - it has been grouped amongst the top 4 of sports in that regard - you dismiss the possibility that any of the top players are amongst them. Of course. That is perfectly consistent with your view about running.

1. There is a high likelihood of doping amongst the top tennis players. Former WADA head, Richard Pound: "tennis has a doping problem".

2. Doping enables players to prolong their careers. You mention older players but in the past none were grand slam champions past 30. That is a recent phenomenon.

3. Nadal has long been regarded as the most suspicious athlete on the tour. Players, coaches and commentators have openly speculated about it since he came to attention on the tour in 2004. That suspicion has never gone away. Despite his suing the former French sports minister for claiming he doped, antidoping experts still comment about it, as I posted above.

4. Djokovic may have had a "bad day" but observing the match and considering their respective records the outcome said more than that. Djokovic is the world no.1 and one of the greatest players of all time, with a 22-10 record against Nadal since 2011, including a win over him at the French. He was an in-form player, having just won at Rome where Nadal was defeated by a journeyman, and yet he suffered possibly the worst beat-down of his career, losing as badly as a player ranked 200.

5. Because it is such a slow surface, clay rewards Nadal's physical superiority - his speed, strength, retrieving ability and tirelessness.. He is 13x more successful on that surface than Federer and Djokovic, who have 19 and 16 non-clay majors respectively to Nadal's 7. They are better players overall. Federer has 6 end of year championships; Nadal has none. His is the most lopsided resume in the history of the sport. Yet it does not occur to you that the very qualities that make him unbeatable on clay are exactly those which can be enhanced by doping.

Only someone who has no understanding of the game thinks that Djokovic's annihilation by a player who is also getting older is just the run of play in another tennis match. But I guess that's you.

Also, iirc Djokovic’s lobs were shallow and his volleys were weak. Poor execution, again leading to not only a loss of control, but a transfer of control to Nadal.

Not to mention Djokovic’s 52 unforced errors, in a mere 26 games. That is 2 unforced errors, per game—absolute club-level junk.

Nadal? 14

This thread is ridiculous. i’m out, have at it.

Djokovic was hugely out-skilled from the very beginning of the match. He played like junk, against the king of the surface. Happens to everyone, just that this time it was in a major final.[/quote]

The problem with your observation is that you are talking about Djokovic, not a rank journeyman. It is plausible that on clay Nadal might still have an edge, even though Djokovic beat him when they last met at the French. But to be hugely out-skilled I just don't buy.

I have followed the sport since Laver - and played it. I have known professional players and coaches from the tour, and known top WADA officials. I have also observed and followed Nadal's career since I first saw him play in 2004. It would not be possible for me to recite all the reasons I have formed over the years for concluding that he has built his career out of doping. You are not convinced that the last French Open final demonstrates that. Fair enough.

I saw it in much the same light as if I had seen Federer, as a winner of 13 Wimbledons (and not 8) had obliterated Djokovic in the same way in the Wimbledon final last year. (He lost in 5 sets). What stood out for me in the French final is that it is Nadal's physical superiority that was once again decisive; it is his speed that enables him to get to every ball, that also gives him time to hit with unerring accuracy, his strength that imparts the power to his massive topspin, and his tirelessness in being able to do it again and again without error. He destroyed Djokovic's mind as much as his game.

All of that can be greatly aided by doping. It is enough to make him unbeatable on a slow surface like clay and yet have only a fraction of the success that Djokovic and Federer have had on other surfaces that reward their superior playing skills. Nadal has played like a physical freak for 15 years; he showed again at 34 that he is still doing it undiminished.

Sprintgeezer wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Doping expert Fritz Sörgel: "Nadal under permanent suspicion"

Doping expert me: “ALL pro athletes under permanent suspicion”

The reasonableness of that suspicion is what provides the legal justification for testing in the absence of specific evidence.

Some athletes are more suspicious than others; some dope more than others. It isn't a level playing-field; it is an arms race.

Ken Rosewall was still making Grand Slam finals at 39. Pancho Gonzales was the best player in the world in his early 40s but was ineligible for the Slams because he'd become part of a

"Pro" tour that he dominated for about a decade. Tennis players can stay fit and near the top for a long time if they're still willing to work. I'm not particularly a Nadal fan; Federer is a much much more interesting player and person. But Nadal is remarkably fit and has the strongest will of anyone in the sport. You can see how obsessive he is. No other top tier player has anywhere near the elaborate set of tics that he has.

Armstronglivs wrote:

So there are no experts on anything in this world? Just you? I'll give you this - you are world-leading when it comes to ignorance.

No. But you are not an expert either.

Ad Hominem. A weak retort after a failed appeal to authority.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Ultra or Die wrote:

You keep saying Djok was whipping Nadal for a long time up until this match. Allow me to interject FACTS.

Since 2017 Nadal owns a 4-3 head to head advantage over Djoker

Thank you, NEXT

Inconvenient facts: Djokovic leads Nadal in the h2h 22-10 since 2011. He leads 20-7 on hard court, and 11 consecutive wins over Nadal. Without clay Nadal doesn't figure against Djokovic. Next.

You said recently, now you go back all the way to 2011 to support your flimsy argument.

NEXXXXT

I repeat, and it is FACT, NADAL owns H2H over Djoker since 2017.

this is symbolic, pie to the face!

Rosebud wrote:

Ken Rosewall was still making Grand Slam finals at 39. Pancho Gonzales was the best player in the world in his early 40s but was ineligible for the Slams because he'd become part of a

"Pro" tour that he dominated for about a decade. Tennis players can stay fit and near the top for a long time if they're still willing to work. I'm not particularly a Nadal fan; Federer is a much much more interesting player and person. But Nadal is remarkably fit and has the strongest will of anyone in the sport. You can see how obsessive he is. No other top tier player has anywhere near the elaborate set of tics that he has.

At 39, Rosewall was destroyed by a young Connors. Gonzales wasn't the best player in the world in his early 40's. He played Wimbledon at 41, where he lost an epic early round match to Charlie Pasarell. He was at his best a decade earlier. In that era the sport was played with nothing like the physical demands of today's game. Another "benefit" from doping.

Players are no more "willing to work" today than they were in the past; but doping makes it easier to do the work - and to maintain the strength and fitness of your 20's well into your 30's. It isn't just technology that has changed the game.

I have been told by a top WADA official that they consider the top Spanish players dope and have done so for years - but they know how to get away with it.

Ultra or Die wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Inconvenient facts: Djokovic leads Nadal in the h2h 22-10 since 2011. He leads 20-7 on hard court, and 11 consecutive wins over Nadal. Without clay Nadal doesn't figure against Djokovic. Next.

You said recently, now you go back all the way to 2011 to support your flimsy argument.

NEXXXXT

I repeat, and it is FACT, NADAL owns H2H over Djoker since 2017.

this is symbolic, pie to the face!

Because you are counting clay - the doper's specialty. On hardcourt, Djokovic hasn't lost to Nadal in 11 matches. He's 20-7 on hardcourt, 22-10 overall since 2011; that is dominance. Off-clay he has 16 slams to Nadal's 7. Without the dirt Nadal is simply not in the same class. But you wouldn't know much about class.