Nadal shows doping at the top of tennis

Dope Hardstrong wrote:

Also how do teens win slams? They are not at their peak strength.

It depends on the level of competition. It hasn't happened in men's tennis for over a decade - since Nadal was a teen in fact.

In the 70's and 80's tennis was more a skill sport with aerobic qualities. Fit younger players like Borg and Wilander could win majors in their teens. It is interesting that this hasn't been so for years, as the combination of greater strength and experience have counted for more. The best older players are still able to see off their younger competitors. This is a significant change in the sport.

Dope Hardstrong wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

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.

Yeah, wait for it. Because we have different physiology.

Well, not to the extent that I am a human and you are chimp - although I would understand some might be confused about that point.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Dope Hardstrong wrote:

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.

Yeah, like Lebron. You can't pick and choose when you've already made up your mind.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Dope Hardstrong wrote:

Yeah, wait for it. Because we have different physiology.

Well, not to the extent that I am a human and you are chimp - although I would understand some might be confused about that point.

But isn't it pretty telling that I can do all this despite sharing the same physiology as other Chimps? Or do only humans follow your same physiology rule?

I see that any suggestion a top athlete may be doping is met with much the same scepticism if not indignation as when it is made about anyone's favorite runner. It is characteristic of the boards. People don't want to believe it. But it is also apparent that the denials come strongest from those who have put the least effort into understanding about the practice of doping and how it works. Ignorance is bliss.

Armstronglivs wrote:

I see that any suggestion a top athlete may be doping is met with much the same scepticism if not indignation as when it is made about anyone's favorite runner. It is characteristic of the boards. People don't want to believe it. But it is also apparent that the denials come strongest from those who have put the least effort into understanding about the practice of doping and how it works. Ignorance is bliss.

You didn't make a suggestion. You stated it as a fact.

The doping accusations also tend to come from those most offended that others put more effort out after the age when one must get old.

There's still time to try in your retired years though. Trolling doesn't have to be be your only hobby now.

Dope Hardstrong wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

I see that any suggestion a top athlete may be doping is met with much the same scepticism if not indignation as when it is made about anyone's favorite runner. It is characteristic of the boards. People don't want to believe it. But it is also apparent that the denials come strongest from those who have put the least effort into understanding about the practice of doping and how it works. Ignorance is bliss.

You didn't make a suggestion. You stated it as a fact.

The doping accusations also tend to come from those most offended that others put more effort out after the age when one must get old.

There's still time to try in your retired years though. Trolling doesn't have to be be your only hobby now.

Because everything in your tiny world is about you you think the same has to apply to everyone else - that all of their views of the world are a reflection of their own ego. Sorry, that's you. But it really is a waste of time to discuss any issue with you - because it always ends up being about you, which is a subject of no interest to anyone except yourself. On everything else, your ignorance is ineffable.

Dope Hardstrong wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Well, not to the extent that I am a human and you are chimp - although I would understand some might be confused about that point.

But isn't it pretty telling that I can do all this despite sharing the same physiology as other Chimps? Or do only humans follow your same physiology rule?

What is telling is your own admission you are closer to a chimp than anything else.

Armstronglivs wrote:

usetobefast10 wrote:

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.

No, I'm not saying that. But the advantages from being doped are greatest for him on the slowest surface, that enhances the strongest parts of his game, while minimizing his opponent's. On faster courts he doesn't have the same skill base as Federer or Djokovic.

I'm pretty sure he's won 7 GRAND SLAMS other than the French Open - you know, on other surfaces. If Nadal never plays a single match on clay he's still one of the all-time greats. You're really having a tough time here.

And I agree with a previous poster - Djoker is the more likely doper of the two.

hispanics are triggered

Agree23 wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

No, I'm not saying that. But the advantages from being doped are greatest for him on the slowest surface, that enhances the strongest parts of his game, while minimizing his opponent's. On faster courts he doesn't have the same skill base as Federer or Djokovic.

I'm pretty sure he's won 7 GRAND SLAMS other than the French Open - you know, on other surfaces. If Nadal never plays a single match on clay he's still one of the all-time greats. You're really having a tough time here.

And I agree with a previous poster - Djoker is the more likely doper of the two.

Almost all of Federer's 20 slams are off-clay as are almost all of Djokovic's 17 - compared with Nadal's 7. Take away his clay specialty and he is simply not in the same class. They are superior tennis players while he has the advantage on clay because of his physical superiority - which is so extreme I can only attribute it to doping.

What is apparent to me is how few tennis players there are commenting on this thread. If you don't play the game I don't think you can understand how much physical exertion is required to generate the kind of topspin that is Nadal's game. Most of us would be out of gas after a single game played that way. You can see where it comes from, with the impressive and unusual muscle development in his left arm and bicep.

Then you add to that his tactical style of playing deep in the court, way behind the baseline, which means he typically has to cover so much more court than his opponents - and especially Federer and Djokovic, who play up on the baseline. He runs more than his opponents, as he tries to retrieve every ball, yet it is they who are invariably worn out before he is.

He is literally inexhaustible, despite the enormous effort that goes into his game. With the combination of power, speed and stamina that he has it would be an interesting exercise for those who think he is clean to ask themselves what would his game be like if he doped.

Speaking of a personal tiny World. Looks like you spent your day trolling this topic.

Hit the gym. You never know.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Dope Hardstrong wrote:

But isn't it pretty telling that I can do all this despite sharing the same physiology as other Chimps? Or do only humans follow your same physiology rule?

What is telling is your own admission you are closer to a chimp than anything else.

And so is Nadal. We have the same arms. I am ambidextrous though.

Replying to the last post in the thread. Not reading the preceding 9 pages but worth remembering if it hasn't been mentioned that there were plenty of whispers about Nadal in connection with Operation Puerto. If you google "Nadal / Puerto" now you get pages of reporting about his statements condemning the Spanish decision to destroy the blood bag evidence from that case. Along with Andy Murray he was very vocal about the pall that cast over Spanish sports stars and how it undoubtedly let some cheats off the hook.

But that's a pretty canny way to bury the fact that he was one of the athletes long suspected of being on the hook.

Fuentes was his doctor throughout his early career.

Abdoujaparov wrote:

Replying to the last post in the thread. Not reading the preceding 9 pages but worth remembering if it hasn't been mentioned that there were plenty of whispers about Nadal in connection with Operation Puerto. If you google "Nadal / Puerto" now you get pages of reporting about his statements condemning the Spanish decision to destroy the blood bag evidence from that case. Along with Andy Murray he was very vocal about the pall that cast over Spanish sports stars and how it undoubtedly let some cheats off the hook.

But that's a pretty canny way to bury the fact that he was one of the athletes long suspected of being on the hook.

Fuentes was his doctor throughout his early career.

You touch on only one factor that has been part of the long-time conjecture about Nadal. But the shadow of doping has applied to Spanish sport generally. It runs so deep that their own sports minister said publicly a few years ago that "Spain has a doping problem". I have heard the same from a high-ranking WADA official.

For years there has been a lot of speculation about Nadal, from many connected with the tour including players and coaches. Many could not understand the series of apparently serious injuries he incurred - such as to his knees - that nonetheless never required surgical intervention and that he also returned to play after injury even stronger than before. However, since he successfully sued a former French sports minister, who had claimed that he doped, all public discussion about this question has been effectively silenced. The media are afraid to discuss the issue or are simply not interested, as their role is largely pr for sport.

I have seen a lot of dopers exposed over the years in many sports. After a while they all seem pretty much the same. They are head and shoulders above their competition, they appear invincible, and are typically feted for opening up new frontiers in their sport for their achievements. They don't appear bound by the typical physical limitations that apply to their competitors. They are so much faster and stronger and, above all, are tireless. And they ascribe it to training or a new diet and a positive attitude. The usual adjective from sports commentators is how "unbelievable" their performances are. Indeed.

In the end, when it comes to sports doping we have a choice - we can take the red pill or the blue pill. We can see that doping either runs right through elite sport, to the very top - or we can choose to remain with our comforting notions that while it exists out there somewhere it is never amongst our heroes or on the track (or tennis court) in front of us.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Sprintgeezer wrote:

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.

This is ridiculous. I was a better tennis player than sprinter. I also have substantial education in physiology, biochem, and kin. I also competed among an entire track team of users, in addition to working at a Gold’s Gym in the 80’s, and training alongside NFL players in the 90’s. There is nothing—NOTHING—that you know about PED’s that I don’t.

I have rarely before read such rubbish, which is why I’m not really responding substantially.

This is your argument: Nadal is doping because 1) he seems to be in inexhaustible shape compared to his opponents, and 2) he is stronger than his opponents.

Here is logic, with assumptions made explicit: contrary to your suggestion, I assume that they are mostly all on some dose of something, therapeutic or not—an assumption I believe reasonable given the high monetary stakes. If this is the case, your points (1) and (2) are not demonstrably the products of doping.

Do you understand this?

Do you also understand that 1) I assume that he has used, and 2) that your arguments are not good proof of that proposition?

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.

@Rojo - I was called a dim wit. Please ban this poster.

Both James and Nadal are both in their 30s. You seem to make the argument it's impossible for an athlete (Nadal) to continue to be at the top of his game. My point is, if that's the case, then it must be that James dopes too.

Ultra or Die 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.

@Rojo - I was called a dim wit. Please ban this poster.

Both James and Nadal are both in their 30s. You seem to make the argument it's impossible for an athlete (Nadal) to continue to be at the top of his game. My point is, if that's the case, then it must be that James dopes too.

As you said, that is your point. You are free to make it.