Armstronglivs wrote:
Ultra or Die wrote:
@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.
My Point > Your Point
Sprintgeezer wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
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?
You have oversimplified my argument and it isn't entirely correct. It isn't simply that he is fitter and stronger than his opponents. Quite a few great players have shown that and I don't suspect them of doping. But the wider the margin the more likely the question of doping can arise. Nor do I assume that the players Nadal beats are themselves not doped - although if they are that tends to reinforce the argument that he is, too.
I understand from what you say above that you think that all top sportsmen are "on something" - which may well be true - but that isn't of itself why I think Nadal dopes.
I explained in previous comments some of the reasons why I am sceptical about Nadal - to put it mildly - but my full reasons are too comprehensive, covering most of his career, to recount here.
However, what I don't believe is that a player who has been consistently dominated by the player that is the current world no.1, who is clearly one of the best of all time, should wipe him off the court in the fashion of a heavyweight boxer disposing of a middleweight, and in doing it show levels of speed, strength, stamina and accuracy that are off-the-charts for any tennis player, let alone a player now in his mid-thirties.
If I understand you correctly, Djokovic is just as likely to be doping in your view- if that is so then Nadal also has to be. But the latter point doesn't require the former to be true.
So, I can either adopt your view that all top athletes are on something and therefore my argument about Nadal's performance in the French Open final is beside the point and proves nothing, or I can also maintain that the manner of his victory over the opponent he beat also cries out doping. The latter position is incidentally that taken by the sports journalist Skip Bayliss after Nadal beat Federer in the 2008 Wimbledon. I understand this is also the point you are unconvinced by.
We don't resolve these questions simply through logic - it isn't mathematics - but our understanding of the sport involved. As a sprint follower you will of course recall Ben Johnson's victory in Seoul. Similarly, as a follower of tennis and a tennis player, for me Nadal's absolute demolition of Djokovic in the French Open was another "Ben Johnson moment". But I have seen many of such in his career. It is a view formed out of a lifetime of being a student of the game.
BTW, I see you didn't really address the point I made about the role of strength in tennis, as demonstrated by the huge disparities in power between men's and women's tennis. I also have been informed by medical experts that absolute strength peaks at around age 27 and from there on the decline begins, however apparently imperceptibly.
Ultra or Die wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
As you said, that is your point. You are free to make it.
My Point > Your Point
Labouring the point > your point
There’s so much here...but I don’t have the time.
You didn’t define strength. Grip strength? Aerobic endurance? Upper body/core power? Sprint explosiveness? CP system maintenance? Lactate tolerance/clearance?
“Strength”.
I didn’t oversimplify your argument. Claiming he is somehow “off the charts” in some dimension you don’t define isn’t evidence.
Supps can make you better than you were, in some dimensions. Comparing him to his comp doesn’t work, because tennis is multivariate, unlike the 100m or olympic lifting or the thon. You would need to compare him to an earlier yet mature version of himself, and then take into account training effects. You have done neither.
He is not demonstrably better than anyone. Yes he has a phenomenal record at the French, but he is not the tennis Ubermensch that Borg was. Yes he looks thicker, more muscular, and appears to have good ball control, from a platform that is stable in different attitudes—but these are benefits no matter what the surface. Yes clay balls are heavier, and yes a racquet that gives more control gives less power, which needs to be compensated for with muscles—and it is that, along with his bigger legs giving better performance on slippery clay, that permit his bulk to be used to advantage on that surface, and on that surface only. I would have the same advantages over Federer and Djokovic, only my lower-than-Nadal level of initial skill would mean that I would still get beaten.
He has never destroyed Djokovic like this before, which suggests that Djokovic played weakly, rather than Nadal playing super strongly.
As far as bulk goes, Federer has never even seen a weight room in his life, in any serious way. Have you ever stood next to him? He’s a rake. Djokovic is in-between.
Long matches are all about energy management, and recovery between points, and hydration. The top 3 are all very good at this, but smaller guys will gas out first in such a system because they are using more of what they have available, as long as the bigger guy plays the right kind of game.
I played exactly like Nadal. Nothing was getting past me if I played ok, even if I was behind the baseline. I still play like that, and love to wear down opponents over time. When you van get everything, you find your opponent unready and out of position many times, and that is from where the points come.
As long as you can step up and return serve, you will eventually get breaks this way. Clay is your special friend because the lag exacerbates your opponent’s bad positioning and unreadiness. Power works because there can be no hesitation, there has to be commitment when your opponent moves, so both hard shots, inside-outs, and those shots where you wait as long as you can to contact the ball are especially successful on clay. Also it saps energy of weaker players faster, unless they mail in points and play only baseline rallies and ignore hard-to-reach shots.
There is much that you don’t talk about. The fact that he just destroyed Djokovic at the French is not good evidence of doping.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Ultra or Die wrote:
My Point > Your Point
Labouring the point > your point
You keep saying Djok was whipping Nadal for a long time up until this match. Allow me to interject FACTS.
Since 2017 Nadal owns a 4-3 head to head advantage over Djoker
Thank you, NEXT
Arm I wonder if you even saw the match.
Even early on when they were both fresh, Djokovic was showing WAY less shot creativity than was Nadal. Try putting it somewhere other than right down the middle of the court. Nadal was progressively creating angles, Djokovic was not. Nadal could stay well back on the serve because clay is not a serve-and-volley surface, and because there is less ball action.
Djokovic was out-skilled early on, massively. Weak angles, same pace on every shot, same lame spin on the ball.
By "student of the game" you must mean repeating the lower grades.
Your knowledge seems as weak as your actual game likely is. Has to be since you've been declining for over 30 years.
Sprintgeezer wrote:
Arm I wonder if you even saw the match.
Even early on when they were both fresh, Djokovic was showing WAY less shot creativity than was Nadal. Try putting it somewhere other than right down the middle of the court. Nadal was progressively creating angles, Djokovic was not. Nadal could stay well back on the serve because clay is not a serve-and-volley surface, and because there is less ball action.
Djokovic was out-skilled early on, massively. Weak angles, same pace on every shot, same lame spin on the ball.
My son who is not a tennis player said the same thing. And as I pointed out earlier Nadal was dripping with sweat 20 minutes into the match and Djokovic was looking as though he hadn't yet warmed up.
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.
The set of arguments you've outlined across 10 pages of posts here is completely nonsensical.
The clearest evidence to suggest that Nadal is doping is that he apparently had some association with Fuentes, who has been confirmed without a doubt to have doped tons of athletes.
THAT is evidence.
But what you're arguing here?? That Nadal must be doping because he beat Djokovic at the French Open? On Clay? The same French Open where he has a 7-1 record against Djokovic, and has something like a 100-2 lifetime record? We think Nadal is doping because he won handily in a situation where every intelligent person would expect him to win handily??? That's idiotic.
Ultra or Die wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Labouring the point > your point
You keep saying Djok was whipping Nadal for a long time up until this match. Allow me to interject FACTS.
Since 2017 Nadal owns a 4-3 head to head advantage over Djoker
Thank you, NEXT
Inconvenient facts: Djokovic leads Nadal in the h2h 22-10 since 2011. He leads 20-7 on hard court, and 11 consecutive wins over Nadal. Without clay Nadal doesn't figure against Djokovic. Next.
Until Nadal the greatest number of major titles amassed on clay was Borg with 6. He was regarded as invincible on the surface. There have been many great players in the history of the game but even for them 2 or 3 titles at Paris was a very big ask. (Lendl, Wilander, Kuerten). Even 1 title was hard enough. Ask Agassi.
Yet a player comes along who amasses 13 major titles on the most physically demanding surface, the most recent in his mid-30's, and shows no signs of slowing and you all accept it without question. I remember in 1990 being amazed that a 30 year-old won the French Open (Andrez Gomez). Nadal has more major titles on just one surface than all the other great players won an all surfaces - with the exception of Sampras, who had a total of 14, and of course Federer and Djokovic. Nadal may win half a dozen more at the French and you still won't wonder about it. What would he have done - what would he do - if he were doped? Silly question - unlike every other sport, doping doesn't exist in tennis (or if it does it can't be the winner of 13 French titles).
I'm sure you have won many of your matches. I'm not aware that any of them are titles on the ATP tour. Were you 13x better than all of your opponents? Because that is Nadal on clay at Paris. The next best - Federer and Djokovic have only 1 French title each. Yet they are regarded as two of the very best of all time. But nothing to see here.
I don't accept it without question, I remembering hearing rumors a while back. Any pro athlete doping wouldn't be a shock.
I just don't believe that his dismantling of Djokovic is evidence of doping.
“Tennis is in the top four when it comes to doping. Anabolic steroids are the classic, ”explains the professor from Nuremberg. The reason for this is the intensity of the sport and the resulting strain on the players.
When asked which of the big tennis players he suspected of being doped, Sörgel mentioned above all an athlete. And none other than the current world number one, Rafael Nadal. The German professor had a permanent suspicion against him: “Rafael Nadal has shown some abnormalities. Regarding regeneration and all of its athletics. Anabolic substances would be the candidates here. ”The Mallorcan is repeatedly confronted with doping allegations - and also actively defends himself against those who accuse him of taking illicit substances.
Michael Chang won the French open, so many great Americans of his era never did. Some people love clay, others are frustrated by it. I can't play on grass yet I'm decent on hard court. I only played on clay a few times and I loved the surface and was much better on it relative to my competitors who I played on other surfaces.
I was always impressed that Borg was great on both clay and grass. He either couldn't play on hard court or he was just psyched out at the US Open or probably too hungover or stoned.
Armstronglivs wrote:
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.
So, what is his secret?
EPO, a little HGH and a cycle or two of testosterone?
coach wrote:
I don't accept it without question, I remembering hearing rumors a while back. Any pro athlete doping wouldn't be a shock.
I just don't believe that his dismantling of Djokovic is evidence of doping.
But it doesn't even arouse suspicions? What is evidence then?
Lost in space wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
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.
So, what is his secret?
EPO, a little HGH and a cycle or two of testosterone?
I dont know specifically what he would take, but it would have produced greater muscle bulk than most other tennis players and unlimited stamina. A WADA official told me he believed he was using EPO. He could also have used HGH. But doping is very sophisticated now. It could be a designer cocktail that enables him to avoid detection.
coach wrote:
I don't accept it without question, I remembering hearing rumors a while back. Any pro athlete doping wouldn't be a shock.
I just don't believe that his dismantling of Djokovic is evidence of doping.
If Federer had 13 Wimbledons and had dismantled Djokovic in last year's final 6-0, 6-2 and won in straight sets I would have argued exactly the same about him. (He lost in 5). He (and Djokovic) may be doping anyway - quite likely. But less obviously, perhaps.
Sprintgeezer wrote:
Arm I wonder if you even saw the match.
Even early on when they were both fresh, Djokovic was showing WAY less shot creativity than was Nadal. Try putting it somewhere other than right down the middle of the court. Nadal was progressively creating angles, Djokovic was not. Nadal could stay well back on the serve because clay is not a serve-and-volley surface, and because there is less ball action.
Djokovic was out-skilled early on, massively. Weak angles, same pace on every shot, same lame spin on the ball.
You also only play as well as your opponent lets you. Nadal simply couldn't miss. He gave Djokovic no errors - but drew many errors from Djokovic, who couldn't find a way through him. So natural for a player in his mid-thirties to do that to the world no.1.