Nadal shows doping at the top of tennis

Jim Courier was asked about this and his answer was that players simply still want to play longer.

Agassi was world number one well past 30 as well.

There no reason for any of those three to still be playing apart from that desire to play the game.

Dope Hardstrong wrote:

One lopsided match proves that?

That isn't what I said. You haven't read anything else I said about those players and the changes in the sport.

Nadal has played 120+ best-of-5 sets on clay in his career. He has lost 2. 2 matches. Out of 120.

Not doping. Just absolute dominance on a specific surface.

Find a new slant.

Dope Hardstrong wrote:

Jim Courier was asked about this and his answer was that players simply still want to play longer.

Agassi was world number one well past 30 as well.

There no reason for any of those three to still be playing apart from that desire to play the game.

Agassi finished his career with a back that had seized up. Players retired earlier because their injuries typically got to them. They also began to lose speed and strength by their late 20's. They would have played longer if they could have.

Players - sportsmen - are lasting longer now because that's what doping can help them to do. At 35 they can perform at the same level as when they were 25, without slowing, losing strength or fitness.

usetobefast10 wrote:

Nadal has played 120+ best-of-5 sets on clay in his career. He has lost 2. 2 matches. Out of 120.

Not doping. Just absolute dominance on a specific surface.

Find a new slant.

Same argument for Armstrong - till he was caught. "Absolute dominance" by any sportsman can be because of doping - and probably is.

Sure I have and I've followed them closely. They've all blown each other away at times or had closely contested long matches. They've also lost and re-gained form. That's the nature of the game.

Armstronglivs wrote:

usetobefast10 wrote:

Nadal has played 120+ best-of-5 sets on clay in his career. He has lost 2. 2 matches. Out of 120.

Not doping. Just absolute dominance on a specific surface.

Find a new slant.

Same argument for Armstrong - till he was caught. "Absolute dominance" by any sportsman can be because of doping - and probably is.

It's just after 7 a.m in NZ. You are here. A couple of days ago it was 3 a.m., you were posting here.

Your life = LRC

Armstronglivs wrote:

usetobefast10 wrote:

Nadal has played 120+ best-of-5 sets on clay in his career. He has lost 2. 2 matches. Out of 120.

Not doping. Just absolute dominance on a specific surface.

Find a new slant.

Same argument for Armstrong - till he was caught. "Absolute dominance" by any sportsman can be because of doping - and probably is.

Cyclists who dope suddenly become great at everything.

Nadal has not really done that.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Dope Hardstrong wrote:

Jim Courier was asked about this and his answer was that players simply still want to play longer.

Agassi was world number one well past 30 as well.

There no reason for any of those three to still be playing apart from that desire to play the game.

Agassi finished his career with a back that had seized up. Players retired earlier because their injuries typically got to them. They also began to lose speed and strength by their late 20's. They would have played longer if they could have.

Players - sportsmen - are lasting longer now because that's what doping can help them to do. At 35 they can perform at the same level as when they were 25, without slowing, losing strength or fitness.

You're forgetting about better training and physio/surgical techniques too. Better shoes and rackets that are not like wooden mallets.

You have to let go your post 30 decline . It's not a rule that you think it is.

123 5 wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Same argument for Armstrong - till he was caught. "Absolute dominance" by any sportsman can be because of doping - and probably is.

It's just after 7 a.m in NZ. You are here. A couple of days ago it was 3 a.m., you were posting here.

Your life = LRC

Well I must be very important to yours, that you try to follow every movement of mine. I understand that. Yours is probably very boring - even to you.

Dope Hardstrong wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Agassi finished his career with a back that had seized up. Players retired earlier because their injuries typically got to them. They also began to lose speed and strength by their late 20's. They would have played longer if they could have.

Players - sportsmen - are lasting longer now because that's what doping can help them to do. At 35 they can perform at the same level as when they were 25, without slowing, losing strength or fitness.

You're forgetting about better training and physio/surgical techniques too. Better shoes and rackets that are not like wooden mallets.

You have to let go your post 30 decline . It's not a rule that you think it is.

And in your private cloud, the world of doping doesn't exist. And that's what they'd like you to think.

Also quite a few guys and gals played WAY past 30 back in the day. Sure they often declined but that's also because they were led to believe that's just how it had to be.

You are from that generation, people now have a different mindset.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Dope Hardstrong wrote:

You're forgetting about better training and physio/surgical techniques too. Better shoes and rackets that are not like wooden mallets.

You have to let go your post 30 decline . It's not a rule that you think it is.

And in your private cloud, the world of doping doesn't exist. And that's what they'd like you to think.

It exists very much. I just don't attribute every performance to doping.

Armstronglivs wrote:

123 5 wrote:

It's just after 7 a.m in NZ. You are here. A couple of days ago it was 3 a.m., you were posting here.

Your life = LRC

Well I must be very important to yours, that you try to follow every movement of mine. I understand that. Yours is probably very boring - even to you.

You are so predictable. Your reply was textbook Armstronglivs.

You are not important to me, you are just polluting the boards all the time and I was curious to see what time it was in NZ and was (not) surprised to find out that you have no life outside LRC.

I am going for a long run in a couple of hours. Boring life, me? Not at all. Freedom and health, love and friendship. I have all I need.

Enjoy your screen life.

All the best!

Bye

Dope Hardstrong wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Same argument for Armstrong - till he was caught. "Absolute dominance" by any sportsman can be because of doping - and probably is.

Cyclists who dope suddenly become great at everything.

Nadal has not really done that.

Sprinters who dope don't become "great at everything". Nor do distance runners who dope. Doping will help you be better at what you're good at; it won't turn you into what you are not. Nadal will never be a player like Djokovic or Federer.

123 5 wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Well I must be very important to yours, that you try to follow every movement of mine. I understand that. Yours is probably very boring - even to you.

You are so predictable. Your reply was textbook Armstronglivs.

You are not important to me, you are just polluting the boards all the time and I was curious to see what time it was in NZ and was (not) surprised to find out that you have no life outside LRC.

I am going for a long run in a couple of hours. Boring life, me? Not at all. Freedom and health, love and friendship. I have all I need.

Enjoy your screen life.

All the best!

Bye

Your life sounds mesmerizing. I am so envious. But then I'm not you. Whew! Life is kinder than I thought.

I wouldn't be surprised if Nadal is doping- I heard rumors 10+ years ago too. But as others pointed out, no reason a 34 year old can't be in top shape today. It was more impressive 20 years ago when Connors was hustling around the court at 39.

Nadal was well rested and in peak shape, Djokivic didnt come to play. Quite simple, it happens.

So you're alleging that a higher blood cell count or increased testosterone would only help him in the French Open? Not Wimbledon , USO, or AO? You're grasping at straws here.

The fact that he's only dominant on one surface takes away the cycling comparison.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Sprinters who dope don't become "great at everything". Nor do distance runners who dope. Doping will help you be better at what you're good at; it won't turn you into what you are not. Nadal will never be a player like Djokovic or Federer.

But they are doping too, right?