Ultra or Die wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Same argument for Armstrong - till he was caught. "Absolute dominance" by any sportsman can be because of doping - and probably is.
He dopes -- only for Clay
You have missed the point. He dopes to maximize his advantages. These are greatest on clay.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Dope Hardstrong wrote:
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.
Doping also changes your mind about "what has to be". You are also not aware that according to the medical experts the physiological peak for strength is typically the late 20's. That is why most sportsmen in the past were on their way down at 30.
Not for athletes. In the past athletes got out of shape in the off season and thought they were old when they started back.
round and round wrote:
heads of clay wrote:
Nadal is known as the King of Clay.
If near peak form, no one is beating Nadal on clay.
beat me to it.
Nadal is KING of clay.
As Armstrong was King of the TDF.
The fast running and sprinting in tennis is aerobic.
It's under 3 or 4 seconds . And it stops . With conditioning an athlete can go on .
Fatigue in tennis champions shows after very long matches .The winner like in sprints is not going faster ,he is slowling slower.
Dope Hardstrong wrote:
He also thinks Federer is doping but those guys temporarily become clean when building a case for another one doping.
You need to polish your thinking skills. If Federer and Djokovic are doping - as they may be - then that makes the case certain against Nadal. But the case of his doping doesn't require a similar case be made for others.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Dope Hardstrong wrote:
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.
Doping also changes your mind about "what has to be". You are also not aware that according to the medical experts the physiological peak for strength is typically the late 20's. That is why most sportsmen in the past were on their way down at 30.
IDK who you are, but this is just plain moronic.
What “experts”?
What “strength”?
How does whatever “strength” improve performance in tennis?
RUBBISH. You are writing garbage.
And I will say it again: it is entirely possible that Nadal is using, but none of what you are saying tends to prove such a proposition. None! IMO an easier doping target is Djokovic.
Why do you keep hammering away at this?
Ultra or Die wrote:
Dope Hardstrong wrote:
He also thinks Federer is doping but those guys temporarily become clean when building a case for another one doping.
It must be that LeBron James is doping too, right Armstrong?
Now you're being a bit dim. A case against one sportsman doesn't make the same case against another in an unrelated sport.
Armstronglivs wrote:
round and round wrote:
beat me to it.
Nadal is KING of clay.
As Armstrong was King of the TDF.
Nadal has never not been great. He's still managed to win the other slams somehow despite apparently not doping for them.
Armstrong was all over the place before nailing his doping regime.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Ultra or Die wrote:
It must be that LeBron James is doping too, right Armstrong?
Now you're being a bit dim. A case against one sportsman doesn't make the same case against another in an unrelated sport.
Um, you just did that in your next post.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Dope Hardstrong wrote:
He also thinks Federer is doping but those guys temporarily become clean when building a case for another one doping.
You need to polish your thinking skills. If Federer and Djokovic are doping - as they may be - then that makes the case certain against Nadal. But the case of his doping doesn't require a similar case be made for others.
They won after 30. That's impossible.
Dope Hardstrong wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Doping also changes your mind about "what has to be". You are also not aware that according to the medical experts the physiological peak for strength is typically the late 20's. That is why most sportsmen in the past were on their way down at 30.
Not for athletes. In the past athletes got out of shape in the off season and thought they were old when they started back.
Athletes share the same physiology as you or I. They are human - not something else. Despite the higher level of their base performance they age, too. They don't live longer than other people.
Sprintgeezer wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Doping also changes your mind about "what has to be". You are also not aware that according to the medical experts the physiological peak for strength is typically the late 20's. That is why most sportsmen in the past were on their way down at 30.
IDK who you are, but this is just plain moronic.
What “experts”?
What “strength”?
How does whatever “strength” improve performance in tennis?
RUBBISH. You are writing garbage.
And I will say it again: it is entirely possible that Nadal is using, but none of what you are saying tends to prove such a proposition. None! IMO an easier doping target is Djokovic.
Why do you keep hammering away at this?
I suggest you do some reading on human physiology. You also clearly know nothing about tennis. If strength wasn't a factor in the game - for power and explosive speed - there would be no difference in level between the men's and women's game. There is a huge disparity. You should stick to your specialty of talking about sprinting.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Dope Hardstrong wrote:
Not for athletes. In the past athletes got out of shape in the off season and thought they were old when they started back.
Athletes share the same physiology as you or I. They are human - not something else. Despite the higher level of their base performance they age, too. They don't live longer than other people.
Speak for yourself. You are not an athlete. If your physiology was the same you would be an athlete.
Much like "other" people they age at different rates and some do live longer than average.
Your shoebox doesn't fit everybody.
Dope Hardstrong wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
You need to polish your thinking skills. If Federer and Djokovic are doping - as they may be - then that makes the case certain against Nadal. But the case of his doping doesn't require a similar case be made for others.
They won after 30. That's impossible.
Well, we know doping changes that.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Dope Hardstrong wrote:
They won after 30. That's impossible.
Well, we know doping changes that.
Therefore it DOES require that you make the same case for others. We all have the same physiology.
Dope Hardstrong wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Now you're being a bit dim. A case against one sportsman doesn't make the same case against another in an unrelated sport.
Um, you just did that in your next post.
No, I didnt. I pointed out that doping exists at the top in most sports, which is not making a case that because a top tennis player likely dopes the same must be said of a top NBA player.
But if you did any research on the practice of doping you would have come across the comments of the Jamaican whistleblower and antidoping expert Renee Shirley, who said "doping is prevalent at elite levels in all sports and across all countries, with the collusion of sports governance bodies".
You can form whatever view you want about James. I am not discussing him but Nadal.
Also how do teens win slams? They are not at their peak strength.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Dope Hardstrong wrote:
Um, you just did that in your next post.
No, I didnt. I pointed out that doping exists at the top in most sports, which is not making a case that because a top tennis player likely dopes the same must be said of a top NBA player.
But if you did any research on the practice of doping you would have come across the comments of the Jamaican whistleblower and antidoping expert Renee Shirley, who said "doping is prevalent at elite levels in all sports and across all countries, with the collusion of sports governance bodies".
You can form whatever view you want about James. I am not discussing him but Nadal.
You compared Armstrong dominating the Tour to Nadal dominating the FO.
Do you have slight short term memory loss? Apparently it strikes everyone at the same rate due to the same physiology.
Dope Hardstrong wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Well, we know doping changes that.
Therefore it DOES require that you make the same case for others. We all have the same physiology.
Doping - like nutrition - will benefit anyone, not just some individuals. But no one will be affected exactly the same as anyone else. The effects are general. If you or I doped we are both likely to improve but not necessarily to the same extent.
Dope Hardstrong wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
No, I didnt. I pointed out that doping exists at the top in most sports, which is not making a case that because a top tennis player likely dopes the same must be said of a top NBA player.
But if you did any research on the practice of doping you would have come across the comments of the Jamaican whistleblower and antidoping expert Renee Shirley, who said "doping is prevalent at elite levels in all sports and across all countries, with the collusion of sports governance bodies".
You can form whatever view you want about James. I am not discussing him but Nadal.
You compared Armstrong dominating the Tour to Nadal dominating the FO.
Do you have slight short term memory loss? Apparently it strikes everyone at the same rate due to the same physiology.
I mentioned Armstrong because of a previous point made that dominance in a sport will be because that athlete is simply so much better - and clean. Armstrong's case proves otherwise. Doping may explain dominance.