I thought you said he tired against Federer in his first match with him? (Actually his third)
I thought you said he tired against Federer in his first match with him? (Actually his third)
Dope Hardstrong wrote:
I thought you said he tired against Federer in his first match with him? (Actually his third)
Actually his second - but their first final.
https://www.atptour.com/en/news/atp-heritage-federer-nadal-miami-2005He never tired like that against Federer again. Or anyone.
Armstronglivs wrote:
You cherrypick my arguments rather than taking them as part of a picture. No one element by itself establishes his doping.
1. Physiques will vary according to the sport. A runner's physique will not be a boxer's or weightlifter's physique. The point to make about Nadal's physique is:
- it changed overnight, in a matter of months in 2004/5. In 2003/4 he was a totally different build.
- his physique has varied significantly at times during his career, such as 2009, when he lost such muscle mass as to make him look just like any other player. He then put that muscle back on within a little over a month.
- his physical type hadn't been seen before in tennis and still hasn't been matched. The most conspicuous feature is that his racket arm development - deltoids and bicep - is extreme for a tennis player. It hasn't come from gym work, as that has never been part of his routine.
- his physique is part of his playing style, which includes strength and power of shot - as shown in his extreme topspin deliveries - that exceeds any other player. He is faster than any other player and yet is tireless, unlike his opponents.
2. Doping in tennis is believed by antidoping to generally include human growth hormone and a variety of steroids to increase strength, as well as testosterone, and EPO as well as drugs like meldonium to increase stamina. The hgh variant is IGF-1, which reduces body fat as well as building muscle. There is no test for it. You are right that tennis players tend not to dope for bulk, as that would slow them down, but the drugs that increase muscle strength without over-sizing are more favored, and especially those that enhance endurance, as well as recovery. It is well established that there are drugs that can enhance every aspect of physical performance, and so a cocktail is what works best for a tennis player - depending on their playing style and where they would be relatively deficient. Greater speed enables a player to get to more balls and on balance, greater strength enables more power delivered more easily, and greater endurance allows the same level of play over an entire match, which also reduces the effect of fatigue on concentration. Players will be less likely to miss.
3. The differential in tennis at the top level is very small. Sets can often be decided by a single point. Any increase in playing capacity will be reflected in better results. If a player like Nadal was to be a step faster, even more powerful and more tireless - hard to imagine, as I have never seen him tire - he would never lose on any surface, barring breaking a leg. Yet to take away a small percentage of his level would drastically reduce the number of his wins. We saw in 2009 that he lost 12% of his groundstroke power; he went from being a grand slam champion who could beat the best player of all time to being unable to win a set off another top-10 player. If he lost only 3-5% he would not have won another slam - that is how close tennis is.
4. Tennis has been identified as having serious doping issues - by Dick Pound/WADA - by antidoping experts (such as the German I linked to earlier, who put it in the big 4 for doping), and by an Al Jazeera special investigation that was published a couple of years ago, that said it was amongst that group that included cycling, track and field, boxing and wrestling and rugby - inside the top 10 at least. It is significant that testing in tennis has long been regarded as weak, with less than 10% of testing being OOC and a total antidoping budget less than what the winner of a slam would receive. Tennis does not want to catch its dopers.
5. The WADA official I spoke with was very highly ranked. You would know his name. However the conversation was private so I can't reveal who it was. At the time spoke to him I referred to a Nadal comeback after yet another prolonged "injury" break and I said to the official that what Nadal was doing was "impossible." He replied, "Yes, it is, he is on EPO - all the Spaniards are, they've been doing it for years - they've gotten really good at it". The official had himself been a tennis player.
I quite accept that some will say none of this definitively proves Nadal dopes. That is true - but we live in a world in which many things are probable without being provable beyond any doubt. I would bet the house, the car, and the dog that he is a tennis doper. (I also have a number of other reasons for concluding that. As I have said - I have followed his career and observed him play since 2004.)
Finally, in considering what I have said, I reiterate that no one point I make establishes the case. There are many dots that may have to be joined to arrive at a conclusion one way or the other. But ultimately the picture more suggests doping than otherwise.
Even if I don't cherry-pick (assuming I did for argument), your big picture sum of all the elements still cannot establish the case.
1) You missed the point -- how can Nadal's physique be unique, in all of time, and his unique physique be connected to doping, and at the same time doping is rife (i.e. not unique)? How do you reconcile this contradiction?
2) 3) Yes doping in tennis is believed to be many things ... You paint a magical picture about the power of doping that can cure all manner of weaknesses, and strengthen all manner of strengths, in the right undetectable cocktail. Margins are small at the top, but where is the objective evidence that doping can close these small margins? You say it is the best explanation, but no one has explained it yet -- objectively.
4) Sorry, but the 2017 WADA ADRV report does not rank tennis in the top 10. "cycling, track and field, boxing and wrestling and rugby" all are, but not tennis. What is the basis for your German expert's ranking? My basis is WADA.
5) Higher than your friend, Dick Pound is also highly ranked, and I respect his opinion on a great deal of anti-doping related matters. But he is neither scientist, nor coach. He is a lawyer, and (presumably) was a clean athlete decades ago. I don't think knowing your friend's name will change anything. What would change things is objective evidence. In the same WADA report, Spain ranks 9th, just below Belgium - a nation with 1/4th the population of Spain.
Finally the question you raised in this thread is not whether Nadal is a "tennis doper", but whether his *performance* "shows doping".
Armstronglivs wrote:
Dope Hardstrong wrote:
I thought you said he tired against Federer in his first match with him? (Actually his third)
Actually his second - but their first final.
https://www.atptour.com/en/news/atp-heritage-federer-nadal-miami-2005He never tired like that against Federer again. Or anyone.
He learned his lesson then.
Even if I don't cherry-pick (assuming I did for argument), your big picture sum of all the elements still cannot establish the case.
1) You missed the point -- how can Nadal's physique be unique, in all of time, and his unique physique be connected to doping, and at the same time doping is rife (i.e. not unique)? How do you reconcile this contradiction? [/quote)
No case will ever be established for you. But on the point of his physique, I have said that Nadal's physique was unprecedented in tennis but not that of itself it establishes doping. It is however consistent with the many other features of his game that suggest doping. Nor do I argue that there can only be one physical type that indicates a doper - since it depends on the kind of drugs or combination of drugs that a player might use that will influence their morphology. Players who dope mainly to increase endurance - such as with EPO or meldonium, for example - will show no significant change in physique. But with the style of tennis Nadal plays power is essential to his game, because he does not hit a flatter ball for pace- as most other players do - but with extreme topspin and a higher bounce. Without sufficient power his shot cannot penetrate the court and is more easily countered. We saw that through the latter part of 2009. When he loses muscle mass he loses power.
I said at the beginning of the thread why I consider Nadal's performance at the French Open shows doping - I am not going to repeat it - but that is to be taken in the context of the kind of player he is, the career he has had and the level of performance he showed against the quality of opponent - a player who has been consistently better than him (and everybody else) for years - and even on clay, as when they last met at the French. His feat utterly surpassed anything by that sporting paragon Lance Armstrong in the TdF.
But under the guise of scepticism doping denial is your thing. Nothing will convert you from your religious orientation.
Dope Hardstrong wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Actually his second - but their first final.
https://www.atptour.com/en/news/atp-heritage-federer-nadal-miami-2005He never tired like that against Federer again. Or anyone.
He learned his lesson then.
Yes. Like Lance, Marion, Rashid, Barry Bonds, Ben Johnson and so on.
None of those guys and gals beat the best player ever when they themselves were just 17 and THEN decided they need drugs to do it again.
But I am curious why you aren't equally riled by the two other clear dopers, (according to your theory) Djokovic and Federer. Is it just because you view it as less instrumental to their success?
455 Rocket wrote:
None of those guys and gals beat the best player ever when they themselves were just 17 and THEN decided they need drugs to do it again.
But I am curious why you aren't equally riled by the two other clear dopers, (according to your theory) Djokovic and Federer. Is it just because you view it as less instrumental to their success?
Each of them are suspicious - they are top of the sport in a doping era and have dominated for years in a way no others have previously. It's true they are also incredibly talented players - they have far more success off clay than does Nadal - but I wouldn't be surprised if they take stuff to improve their endurance and recovery - especially Djokovic. But Nadal is clearly a poster boy for doping. I've never seen anything like it. In any sport. I think every part of his game depends on it and it began in his late teens when his game was being developed. You can see how for Nadal each year follows a "cycle", and in the latter part of the year he routinely loses to journeymen you've never heard of. How is it that a player who can win 13 FO titles has never won a single year end championship? (Federer has 6). That, too, is unprecedented. He is simply not the same player at the year's end.
Looking at the bigger picture, the lesson of Nadal to my perception is that you can build a career on doping and get away with it. It didn't change after Armstrong. The sport of running is the same as tennis - all the major sports are afflicted. There is no elite or professional sport without doping and I cannot see how you can get to the top now without it.
But the fans will go on believing their heroes are clean. They have something in common with Trump supporters: wilful detachment from reality.
Armstronglivs wrote:
No case will ever be established for you. But on the point of his physique, I have said that Nadal's physique was unprecedented in tennis but not that of itself it establishes doping. It is however consistent with the many other features of his game that suggest doping. Nor do I argue that there can only be one physical type that indicates a doper - since it depends on the kind of drugs or combination of drugs that a player might use that will influence their morphology. Players who dope mainly to increase endurance - such as with EPO or meldonium, for example - will show no significant change in physique. But with the style of tennis Nadal plays power is essential to his game, because he does not hit a flatter ball for pace- as most other players do - but with extreme topspin and a higher bounce. Without sufficient power his shot cannot penetrate the court and is more easily countered. We saw that through the latter part of 2009. When he loses muscle mass he loses power.
I said at the beginning of the thread why I consider Nadal's performance at the French Open shows doping - I am not going to repeat it - but that is to be taken in the context of the kind of player he is, the career he has had and the level of performance he showed against the quality of opponent - a player who has been consistently better than him (and everybody else) for years - and even on clay, as when they last met at the French. His feat utterly surpassed anything by that sporting paragon Lance Armstrong in the TdF.
But under the guise of scepticism doping denial is your thing. Nothing will convert you from your religious orientation.
There are ways to establish a case that are better than assuming the conclusion and appeal to authority.
I have the impression that you reached your conclusions when you were a young and naive and impressionable in the '70s, and what we are seeing today is just the product of 50 years of confirmation bias.
I don't ask you to repeat things which had no value then, but to address the gaps I identified then, or alternatively admit they are gaps which haven't been, or maybe cannot be, closed.
You are also mistaken about what I am denying -- I am denying statements without basis and logic based on fallacy.
Armstronglivs wrote:
But the fans will go on believing their heroes are clean. They have something in common with Trump supporters: wilful detachment from reality.
Like you believe, Quax, Walker, Snell, etc. were clean.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
No case will ever be established for you. But on the point of his physique, I have said that Nadal's physique was unprecedented in tennis but not that of itself it establishes doping. It is however consistent with the many other features of his game that suggest doping. Nor do I argue that there can only be one physical type that indicates a doper - since it depends on the kind of drugs or combination of drugs that a player might use that will influence their morphology. Players who dope mainly to increase endurance - such as with EPO or meldonium, for example - will show no significant change in physique. But with the style of tennis Nadal plays power is essential to his game, because he does not hit a flatter ball for pace- as most other players do - but with extreme topspin and a higher bounce. Without sufficient power his shot cannot penetrate the court and is more easily countered. We saw that through the latter part of 2009. When he loses muscle mass he loses power.
I said at the beginning of the thread why I consider Nadal's performance at the French Open shows doping - I am not going to repeat it - but that is to be taken in the context of the kind of player he is, the career he has had and the level of performance he showed against the quality of opponent - a player who has been consistently better than him (and everybody else) for years - and even on clay, as when they last met at the French. His feat utterly surpassed anything by that sporting paragon Lance Armstrong in the TdF.
But under the guise of scepticism doping denial is your thing. Nothing will convert you from your religious orientation.
There are ways to establish a case that are better than assuming the conclusion and appeal to authority.
I have the impression that you reached your conclusions when you were a young and naive and impressionable in the '70s, and what we are seeing today is just the product of 50 years of confirmation bias.
I don't ask you to repeat things which had no value then, but to address the gaps I identified then, or alternatively admit they are gaps which haven't been, or maybe cannot be, closed.
You are also mistaken about what I am denying -- I am denying statements without basis and logic based on fallacy.
I decline the invitation to go further down your rabbit hole. But I can prove you are a doping denier: name an athlete or sportsman you consider is, or was, a doper that never got caught.
Armstronglivs wrote:
I decline the invitation to go further down your rabbit hole. But I can prove you are a doping denier: name an athlete or sportsman you consider is, or was, a doper that never got caught.
As usual, your proof fails.
I suspect many Eastern women from the '80s and the Chinese women from the '90s doped without getting caught.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
I decline the invitation to go further down your rabbit hole. But I can prove you are a doping denier: name an athlete or sportsman you consider is, or was, a doper that never got caught.
As usual, your proof fails.
I suspect many Eastern women from the '80s and the Chinese women from the '90s doped without getting caught.
Nope. You have proven my case. You can't name a single athlete. You duck the question, in the same way I could say many Kenyan athletes have doped without being caught. (Interesting that you don't choose to give that example.)
My question was to ask you to name an individual athlete or sportsman - not a nationality. You can't. Won't.
Armstronglivs wrote:
My question was to ask you to name an individual athlete or sportsman - not a nationality. You can't. Won't.
Jarmila Kratochvílova
Your failure is now complete.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
My question was to ask you to name an individual athlete or sportsman - not a nationality. You can't. Won't.
Jarmila Kratochvílova
Your failure is now complete.
That took some squeezing out of you - since you didn't offer it when first asked. Evidence?
Because she didn't break 53 until she was 27. Then she magically transformed into a sub 48 runner and set the longest standing current record that nobody has sniffed since. Not even a woman with testicles.
That's way more evidence than a prodigy getting a bit better and then lasting for a long time by getting better at some things while degrading in other areas.
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Jarmila Kratochvílova
Your failure is now complete.
That took some squeezing out of you - since you didn't offer it when first asked. Evidence?
It wasn't so hard to pick on a clearly steroidal woman athlete from the E Bloc at the height of their doping heyday in the 80's (yet no Marita Koch or even Flojo). Such caution.
But what is more telling is who you leave out. You can think of no one since EPO became prevalent in the 80's - and especially no distance runners. That is despite the parade of Kenyan busts in recent years - you never picked one of them or pointed to one left out by the testers - and also despite your claimed analysis of distance running results over the last few decades. It is as though EPO had never been invented, and there was no doping in distance running for decades (or none that you can see).
The only dopers you acknowledge in distance running are those who have been caught; the rest are invisible to you. Like Nadal. But we know that.
Dope Hardstrong wrote:
Because she didn't break 53 until she was 27. Then she magically transformed into a sub 48 runner and set the longest standing current record that nobody has sniffed since. Not even a woman with testicles.
That's way more evidence than a prodigy getting a bit better and then lasting for a long time by getting better at some things while degrading in other areas.
So one doper in 40 years. That is despite the growth in the use of increasingly sophisticated ped's in the succeeding decades and the thousands of athletes who have doped since then and still do today. What it means is that some of you literally can't see what is right in front of you.
You only asked for one. Might as well go with the most glaring.
To me Nadal seems like the least likely to need doping to do what he does.