I showed interest in this thread, pointing out the obvious knowledge gaps and logical flaws in your arguments.
Briefly, you promised us that "Nadal shows doping", and then you have failed to show that a 34-year old specialist on clay, ranked #2 in the world, beating the 33-year #1 ranked player, did something unexpected or out of the ordinary range of expected possibilities.
You have also failed to show that doping could produce out of the ordinary results in tennis.
Some of what you have shown was disproved -- you tried to rank tennis as #4 in doping, based on one subjective comment, while WADA doesn't rank it in the top-10.
Rather than address or concede these faults, something that could be expected from an intellectual peer, you do what you always do, and turned this conversation into a childish battle of personal attacks and pseudo-witty insults.
I find it most comical to read your predictions of other posters' behavior, intended as some sort of out-of-the-box insult, as they can also be used to predict your behavior, and you fulfill these predictions each time you post.