Nadal shows doping at the top of tennis

Just dropping in to make sure Don is not literally thrashing Rocinante again.

On the cusp I see.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

That you can count doesn't prove you can add up. You will never see what you don't want to. Doping.

I have nothing to prove -- I am not the one who started a thread wishing to discuss how a 34 year old clay expert beating a 33 year old on clay can be best explained by doping.

It looks like no one in this thread was particularly interested in discussing the topic with you, and like all threads I have seen you participate in, it quickly degrades in an exchange of personal insults, as if that was the real goal.

So, 22 pages of a thread in which no one wanted to discuss the topic? So what were they talking about - and at such length? Perhaps it was the chance to "exchange personal insults" that drew them here. But not you, of course.

You didn't start the thread, as you say, but no one was compelling you to come here - again and again. So why did you bother? It appears to be your self-appointed role to deflect at every opportunity an accusation of doping directed at any sportsman, regardless of their discipline and what you know - or how little you know - of that athlete or their sport. Of course - it is clear you are here as the champion of "fact, truth and logic". We are indeed fortunate that you condescend to bestow your wisdom upon us more humble mortals.

At the risk of entering a possible exchange of personal insults - although we know you are above that - your contribution is pure humbug.

Dope Hardstrong wrote:

Just dropping in to make sure Don is not literally thrashing Rocinante again.

On the cusp I see.

Olé!

Many might like to discuss the topic, but apparently just not with you.

As you should remember, woven through the fabric of these 22 pages are distractions, and false analogies (like Viagra works), personal attacks, and pseudo-witty retorts.

All of the real content could probably be reduced to one page.

What draws us here is another question. I come here looking for substantial content, only to find it is the same circular argument with the same assumptions=conclusions, and then the predictable merry-go-round. Yet it is not the same, but worse -- apparently tennis only ranks "4th" in doping, and there are no supporting scientific studies that exist investigating the question of improved tennis performance, or longer careers.

The most interesting thing was probably the background on Don Quixote and the genius of Miguel de Cervantes.

Speaking of circular arguments - and your all too apparent attachment to fiction.

So who were they (and you of course) debating with in 23 pages - each other?

We were just confirming that there's no evidence Nadal needed to dope to do what he did.

He was a prodigy not even taking help from his federation.

usain was a prodigy and you have 180⁰ different opinions about him. hmmm

Armstronglivs wrote:

Speaking of circular arguments - and your all too apparent attachment to fiction.

So who were they (and you of course) debating with in 23 pages - each other?

I wouldn't say anything in this thread rose to the level of debate, and surely not a substantial debate about "Nadal shows doping".

In most cases, the "who" in the various other merry-go-round off topics was you -- yet you've run out of things to say about doping and tennis and Nadal, so you create sideshow false analogies about drugs like Viagra, and when others aren't convinced by your arguments loosely based on sparse truths, you turn to insults like "inability to grasp" child like ideas.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Speaking of circular arguments - and your all too apparent attachment to fiction.

So who were they (and you of course) debating with in 23 pages - each other?

I wouldn't say anything in this thread rose to the level of debate, and surely not a substantial debate about "Nadal shows doping".

In most cases, the "who" in the various other merry-go-round off topics was you -- yet you've run out of things to say about doping and tennis and Nadal, so you create sideshow false analogies about drugs like Viagra, and when others aren't convinced by your arguments loosely based on sparse truths, you turn to insults like "inability to grasp" child like ideas.

You never addressed one of my points - and nor did you contend with those supplied in the articles I provided links to - because you can make no credible response to any of them. You typically ignore what you cannot disprove and then choose to re-state or misrepresent arguments so that you might discredit or refute them. It is what you always do in every thread on the subject of doping when confronted with an opposing view. You troll others - and dishonesty is part of your method.

You further say there has not been any debate over the course of the thread - so why do you persist in commenting and only in response to mine? If you aren't debating, what are you doing? Is endless tiresome repetition of your own opinions your objective?

I realise that on social media generally and in a thread like this - which you seem to forget I originated as the OP - there will be some who choose to comment who have little knowledge of the subject of the thread , or whose agenda is to deny any claim of doping, or who are simply here to give vent to their particular personality disorder (of whom there are quite a few). In your case, it appears it could be all three.

You whine like a baby when your sensibilities are offended but the answer to your objections is quite simple: don't come here, don't read the comments, don't bother to respond, or start your own thread - but whatever you do you are unlikely to find an echo chamber that matches perfectly your particular parcel of delusions.

mr. nice guy wrote:

usain was a prodigy and you have 180⁰ different opinions about him. hmmm

It is little more than the empty claim that because someone is exceptionally good they aren't doping - when it may well be doping that makes them that good. But without detailed knowledge of the sportsman involved and their career it is a claim without substance. And that is all that has been offered to defend Nadal over the course of the thread.

That's exactly what you've done to discredit him.

If he's good because he doped then his family doped him. That seems a little unlikely.

Also Dick Pound is the quintessential "I hate that athletics progressed beyond my peak" dude.

His comparison of McEnroe and Connors as " little old men" is ludicrous as proof of modern doping.

Particularly since McEnroe is certain that he was actually given steroids.

I responded to all of your points collectively. My response to your points was that if you put them all together, you cannot logically conclude "Nadal shows doping", unless you assumed it in the first place, because of the many knowledge gaps and logic fails. It's not so much that you have an opposing view, but that your "headline" cannot be supported without liberal doses of faith - a faith which I do not take for granted.

I could ask about small details like where tennis' #4 doping ranking comes from -- according to WADA's latest ADRV report, tennis is not even in the top 10. But then what would be the point? That might come across as pedantic.

The rest seems to be a lot of fabrication, if not projection, in your post but I'll just highlight one I find illuminating -- you think I'm looking for an "echo chamber", as if that is the kind of thing that anyone should be looking for. I don't seek the emotional support of others saying things I like to hear. Is that why you started this thread?

mr. nice guy wrote:

usain was a prodigy and you have 180⁰ different opinions about him. hmmm

Seriously, watch Bolt as a teenager and if you are not suspicious of him then, any debate with you is a complete waste of time.

Agreed ,

Mr bolt doping since he was 15/16 .

The speed peptide

changed track and sports ever since and sheer apathy and work of iaaf and wada etc have brilliantly given it nessary cover ..

war on doping , joking right.

The progression of some other similar aged younger athletes suggests the exact same.

Igf-1 lr3 has made many of these sprinters

Forcing progression beyond natural during most highly adaptable teen years , and obviously does so much more and for older athlete too.

increasing nervous sys beyond norm and in the taller athletes bigger gains to be had which never was case with older gen. ,roids

And given roids to teens will most likely do damage in long run,

and most gains will be strength which don't gaurantee similar speed gains like nervous s.

so this peptide is win win and never been a ped like it before .

Bolt is dirty as can be ... ...

and from very early age.

Dirty , as can be.

and public none the wiser.

Those Japanese they wud never dope

oh but is it doping if not tested for , or most people don't know about .

no this is even worse , hardcore .

pick on Japan as has afew very obvious stand out sprinters with said progression.

nobody has benefited more from this stuff than him , not even nadal or other Swiss tennis chap who jumped on this stuff since 2004 , one of first but first to my knowledge

Was Chinese hurdler. Now that is well connected .

If look at Asia where alot of stuff coming from , see what did for Chinese athletics when non existent beforehand in men's side as rightly so , too busy building empire ,men's side that is .

Just conincidence that their new American Sprint coach was so confident in producing world class talent from beginning .

Or look at other Asian countries , Indonesia had afew guys pop up to , looks similar .

And Japanese scene , very obvious .

People here who say they don't dope .

some younger Japanese guys progression very obvious and see where times top out if not willing to add androgens to mix which obviously don't or won't go there , the societal shame of failed test ensures that.

See exactly where this stuff takes in terms of times , then to do what bolt and Jamaican,s

and gay and others of that era , need androgens and see what combo does then .

See when he added roids to regime in late 2006 and made next jump ,

and given all rubbish why never competed in 100m until broke such and such time in 200.

Igf-1 lr3 has made many of these sprinters

roids could never do this , saw that during that era , increase in strength only aid speed so much and many topped out in 10.20 -.10

range ,

still lacking in nervous sys where real speed gains are , some roids do increase igf intracellularly if remember but alot less and see when hgh hit scene and effect had on times that mainly igf mediated from the hgh.

Bolt is dirty as can be ... ...

and from very early age.

22 pages.

say that certain poster is spook personified.

Nobody goes out of way to deflect , divert from doping than this chap ,.

seems like treating it like job .

any thread on subject , jumps in and sabotages ,

even at this moment on another epo thread doing such . so obvious and embarrassing.

Spooks are going to spook

Knew Halloween was approaching.

Dope Hardstrong wrote:

That's exactly what you've done to discredit him.

If he's good because he doped then his family doped him. That seems a little unlikely.

Also Dick Pound is the quintessential "I hate that athletics progressed beyond my peak" dude.

His comparison of McEnroe and Connors as " little old men" is ludicrous as proof of modern doping.

Particularly since McEnroe is certain that he was actually given steroids.

Dick Pound was the head of WADA. But you know more about doping than him. You also think that the entirety of a case for doping is made by a single sentence, rather than seeing it as indicative of the point of view of an expert who has spent years studying the subject.

McEnroe didn't dope - he confused anti-inflammatories with doping because they contain cortisoids. He later admitted that.

My argument was never that Nadal doped because he was good (or the simple opposite of the assertion that he is clean because he is good). It doesn't take over 20 pages to make that claim - I said a great deal more than that. The case against Nadal is complex and extends over his career. I know a great deal about his career, having followed it since I first saw him play in 2004. Many who are expert in the game and are also knowledgeable about doping have expressed scepticism over many years that he is clean. I did say that in my view his performance at the French Open reeks of doping - but that is because it confirms many prior arguments made about Nadal made by others over the years.

This board regularly features speculation on doping in running and often about named individuals. It is well known that the practice is rife. The same goes for many other major sports. Tennis is one of them. Yet the inevitable response in any discussion is either denial of the extent of the problem, or to admit it does exist but never, it seems, to include the top athletes. It is a naive and ill-informed perspective, because it cannot be reconciled with our knowledge of a billion dollar black market industry that infects professional sports world wide.

Doping is in all sports at elite levels and in all countries. If the best aren't doping then doping doesn't work, because it doesn't improve athletic performance at any level and especially enable the talented athlete to get to the top. We know that isn't true.

Of course Dick Pound was the head of WADA. He was the founder. I still think he's bitter that his idea didn't work out like he hoped it would so he just hurled accusations.

You should have started following Nadal earlier when he beat Pat Cash as a virtual child.

He beat Moya when he was 16 and Federer when e was 17

Do you really think Uncle Toni doped him as a child?

Dope Hardstrong wrote:

Of course Dick Pound was the head of WADA. He was the founder. I still think he's bitter that his idea didn't work out like he hoped it would so he just hurled accusations.

You should have started following Nadal earlier when he beat Pat Cash as a virtual child.

He beat Moya when he was 16 and Federer when e was 17

Do you really think Uncle Toni doped him as a child?

Nadal didn't beat Pat Cash as a child. At 15 he played an exhibition match against a retired player in his forties, which he narrowly lost.

Contemporaries of Nadal have said that as a junior he was just one of many other young Spanish players, and that the players who stood out were Djokovic and Murray.

I have seen video footage of a young Nadal. There was nothing truly exceptional about him - either physically or in his game. I saw him play a final at age 17, when he lost to the journeyman Hrbaty. Again he didn't signal that he was going to become anything like the player he has. That year he suddenly became transformed physically, developing what a former top French player described as "construction worker arms". He also transformed his stamina - which had been suspect. In his first match against Federer he wilted in the final set to lose it 0-6. Contemporaries said that in the time he took off the tour in 2004 he went from being another routine Spanish claycourter to "the monster" described by other players. This has all the hallmarks of doping (through growth hormone) more than physical maturation. I can well believe that those developing Nadal as a player knew when he was a junior that the best chance of maximising his success as a player would require physical attributes that would give him an edge over his competitors.

All of this occurred at the time it has been well documented that Spanish sport had become rife with doping - as we have seen with Operacion Puerto, Dr Fuentes etc (and as acknowledged by the Spanish Minister for Sport). I also have it from a former top WADA official, who is also a personal friend, that they believe Nadal dopes, like most other top Spanish sportsmen. They don't believe he is clean but that the Spaniards are skilled at evading detection.