Atp World Tour 2015 - Page 3 - Other Sports - Tartan Army Message Board Jump to content

Atp World Tour 2015


min

Recommended Posts

Okay here is further evidence of how often top players are dope tested:-

http://www.tennis-x.com/xblog/2015-02-04/18347.php

As i said earlier

Dope tests in Tennis didn't really start to get semi-serious till 2014.

that's the 2014 schedule , i know all these schedules you've put out i read them ages ago when i was discussing doping on another forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 500
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

So if you have read the schedules then you know how often (now) tests are taken. Right so your suspected dopers Federer, Djokovic and Nadal well we have to include Murray in there as well and nothing has been found. If you think the tests aren't thorough enough (do you?) then how come Troicki and Cilic have been caught yet your chief suspects haven't? Also if you say dope testing has been tightened up since 2014 then surely dopers would have been at it more regularly prior to that so why have Nadal and Djokovic both went through lean spells in that pre-2014 time as has Federer who is without a slam win since 2012? If doping then the dominance would have been even more apparent. Also since dope testing is more widescale now why not a big drop in the consistency of those you question most about doping? Djokovic remains pretty much the man to beat and Federer is ranked 2 and Nadal 3.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

high level doping is extremely expensive and the best doctors only work with a few people.

Wait i have chief suspects? Why do you feel the need to invent positions for me then argue them, i wrote everything down, you can just use the words i used no need to switch in your own words then destroy the meaning of what i said.

Well you change techniques based on testing, if they're not testing for EPO you just take it, if they are, you micro dose it with synthetic testosterone. If they're applying the CIR test to that you either cycle before hand or just micr-dose epo then use autologous blood tranfusions which no one can test for. Or use something like happened with BALCO designer steroids that have no test. Designer drugs can cost hundreds of thousands of pounds. Also you get things called hyper responders, in which the drug is much more effective for you then the average person. Armstrong was a notorious hyper responder to epo, hence why he used EPO as his drug of choice. If someone else is responding better to one drug which is easier to detect then they might get caught quicker. Or as happened in cycling instead of paying 100,000's of euros to get on-site medical assistance you do it yourself and feck it up.

Don't take my word for it here's Dick Pound the ex head of WADA

"

“It used to be fun during rain delays at Wimbledon to see matches of [John] McEnroe and [bjorn] Borg of a few years ago,” Pound said. “They looked like little old men.

“Even [ivan] Lendl, who was notoriously fit, would look like a little old man compared to these folks now, running, lunging, lashing for three hours at a stretch. Look at the difference in build and sustained level of activity. If the tennis authorities don’t believe there is EPO or HGH use now they are not paying attention.”

He uses Lendl as an example who was caught up in the BALCO scandal and was also Murrays coach.

Edited by phart
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right so by your theory Cilic and Troicki got detected as they were responding better to it? In what sense? Their results? Certainly not in Troicki's case and this would be after Cilic won his slam when doping would have been especially cautious about him.

As for Dick Pound he is rather poo pooing your theory of consistency meaning more likelihood of doping (or words to that effect) as he fawns after the days of Borg and McEnroe. Heck they were both mightily consistent. Borg perhaps even more consistent than the top players of today. That being the case were they not doping candidates as well especially as doping would have been non-existent then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right so by your theory Cilic and Troicki got detected as they were responding better to it? In what sense? Their results? Certainly not in Troicki's case and this would be after Cilic won his slam when doping would have been especially cautious about him.

As for Dick Pound he is rather poo pooing your theory of consistency meaning more likelihood of doping (or words to that effect) as he fawns after the days of Borg and McEnroe. Heck they were both mightily consistent. Borg perhaps even more consistent than the top players of today. That being the case were they not doping candidates as well especially as doping would have been non-existent then.

I wasn't proposing a theory i was stating one of the ways in which someone could be caught, not an exhaustive list of the reasons, as i'm hardly aware of them all.

Dick Pound is talking about the naivety of people not believing there is doping in Tennis, he is speaking to you, not mentioning "my theory". He's comparing standards of fitness and strength, and saying the people who think there are no doping issues are "not paying attention".

lets go back for the third time and reproduce what i said, as you keep morphing it into something else.

dips in form like this happen though, if you're able to maintain the same form consistently through out a year that raises doping suspicions (well from me anyway, which might not amount to much).

So this statement by me has been classified as a theory by you. Do you think you're debating this in good faith?

Dick Pound says "“It used to be fun during rain delays at Wimbledon to see matches of [John] McEnroe and [bjorn] Borg of a few years ago,” Pound said. “They looked like little old men."

your translation "as he fawns after the days of Borg and McEnroe"

Fawns:

  1. to seek attention and admiration (from) by cringing and flattering

Really saying it used to be fun is fawning now? Let's keep the cheap rhetorical nonsense out of the discussion.

Edited by phart
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Craig, you're really not doing yourself any favours with your debating style here. First off, I'm nowhere near the knowledge level of phart on this subject but I have read several books and articles as well as watched some documentaries on the subject. I personally think there is doping in every major sport at some level and as phart says, it's probably proportional to the amount of money in a sport. Looking at the American sports, it was found that following on from several steroid scandals in baseball, the number of spectators, sponsors, viewers etc. did not drop and in fact more money was invested into sport. Either knowingly or unknowingly people enjoyed seeing the improvement in performance from the players and spent more money on the sport even following drug scandals coming out. From a cynical point of view, sports authorities don't mind doping to a certain extent as it will improve the spectacle and decrease the time that big names are out with injuries resulting in more money to the sport.

Looking specifically at tennis, it's pretty clear there's doping to some extent going on in my opinion. I personally think that Nadal is a dead-cert for doping, he's been mentioned in the Operation Puerto files (allegedly) and his whole style of tennis, body shape screams doper to me. Djokovic also has warning signs with his whole gluten-free sudden improvement in performance. Federer's style doesn't scream doper to me as he doesn't rely on athleticism compared to the other players plus tends to fade in 5 setters more than the others. Murray's season where he won the US Open, Wimbledon and Olympics with Lendl was suspicious to me considering his dip in form following that and lack of form beforehand

This is all speculation though and is simply my own thoughts, I don't know if any of them do or don't dope but the fact an athlete doesn't test positive for doping is not concrete proof they are clean. As phart said, there are a lot of different techniques to dope as well as techniques to get around the tests. The anti-doping tests are always behind the dopers as well so by the time a new test is out, the doping scientists have found a new way to dope that then needs to have a test developed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking specifically at tennis, it's pretty clear there's doping to some extent going on in my opinion. I personally think that Nadal is a dead-cert for doping, he's been mentioned in the Operation Puerto files (allegedly) and his whole style of tennis, body shape screams doper to me. Djokovic also has warning signs with his whole gluten-free sudden improvement in performance. Federer's style doesn't scream doper to me as he doesn't rely on athleticism compared to the other players plus tends to fade in 5 setters more than the others. Murray's season where he won the US Open, Wimbledon and Olympics with Lendl was suspicious to me considering his dip in form following that and lack of form beforehand

I agree with most of your post and there will undoubtedly be some doping in Tennis and we can argue forever about how widespread it is. However, Murray's two Major wins were achieved in different seasons.

Taking a couple of steps back, the original point was about the consistency (or lack of) of Murray and this point is valid regardless of the doping angle. I agree with phart that a clean player will suffer some dips in form during a season, but Murray suffers more than anyone and I think that is down more to personal to motivation than what substances his competitors may be taking. Between 2008-2011, Murray won eight Masters titles yet he's only won one since - why? Last season and without a tournament win for 14 months, it appeared that Murray would miss out on the Tour Finals - he then suddenly found a bit of form and won three tournaments in as many weeks to qualify. He can do it when he wants! I can understand him focussing on the Majors, but surely it would benefit him to be getting to finals more regularly and having a winning mentality throughout the season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly min. I have never argued there is no doping in tennis. My stance was on the basis originally put forward that Murray hasn't reached No.1 because others are doping which I think is unfair to others without evidence. Even more so when the whole of tennis knows of Murray's shortcomings that hold him back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dips in form like this happen though, if you're able to maintain the same form consistently through out a year that raises doping suspicions (well from me anyway, which might not amount to much).

Sounds like it here and you do realise Murray has had dips in form throughout his career due to his shortcomings we all know of.

I am truthful enough to admit he has technical and mental flaws that prevent him from reaching No.1 and see it as no more than that. Consistency does not mean automatic doping or else do we question every sportsman who can get consistency?

Phart, don't get me wrong - you know a heck of a lot about doping and testing there is no denying that - a heck of a lot more than me.However, that knowledge does not make your opinion on certain players doping being spot on. You may be proven right or maybe not but I will wait before deciding.

Edited by Caledonian Craig
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correct! Consistency does not equal automatic doping., i said it raises doping suspicions for me, which might not amount to much.

"dips in form like this happen though, if you're able to maintain the same form consistently through out a year that raises doping suspicions (well from me anyway, which might not amount to much)."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meanwhile in Indian Wells.

A tough draw for Murray. After a bye in the first round - his potential route to the title:

(R64) - Pospisil

(R32) - Kohlschreiber

(R16) - Gulbis

(QF) - Nishikori

(SF) - Djokovic

(F) - Federer or Nadal

His match against Pospisil should take place tomorrow.

Edited by min
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the keyvmstch there is against Nishikori. In the past year or so he has been one of the players making a case for a top four spot. Will Murray be able to show Nishi who really belongs in the top four?

I agree. That would be a huge match for Murray. Nishikori missed three Masters tournaments during the middle of last year and also didn't gain many ranking points at Roland Garros or Wimbledon - Murray needs a big gap over Nishikori going into that part of this season, to remain in the top 4.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. That would be a huge match for Murray. Nishikori missed three Masters tournaments during the middle of last year and also didn't gain many ranking points at Roland Garros or Wimbledon - Murray needs a big gap over Nishikori going into that part of this season, to remain in the top 4.

And Murray needs to beat Nishikori in that quarter-final (should they meet) otherwise Nishikori will replace Murray at No.4 in the rankings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Murray through to the last 16, after a wee wobble in the 2nd set. Gulbis lost his match, so (on paper) an easier tie next than it could have been.

Wawrinka is the highest profile casualty so far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Murray through to the last 16, after a wee wobble in the 2nd set. Gulbis lost his match, so (on paper) an easier tie next than it could have been.

Wawrinka is the highest profile casualty so far.

Sadly though I see patterns in Murray's game at the moment - with slumps in form guaranteed. I can see Murray bombing out before the semis after a few decent performances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And with Lopez completed the win over Kei Nishikori it means that Murray is sure to keep his No.4 ranking after this tournament.

Good news with the ranking - especially with the Miami Masters only a week away.

It appears to have been a focused performance from Murray, so hopefully bodes well for the latter stages of the tournament. A much easier QF now!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andy Murray has beaten Adrian Mannerino (France) 6-3 6-3 in the 4th Round of the Indian Wells Masters. It is something of a milestone win (the 496th of his career) and takes him level with Tim Henman for wins in the Open Era.

I heard that on sky earlier and was gobsmacked that Henman won that number of matches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets be fair Henman was a top notch player who played on into his 30s. Sure he never has the slam wins that Murray has but he reached a number of semis (not just at Wimbledon) which far outdone anything any of his countrymen had done in the Open Era. He may not have been a prolific tournament winner but he was mighty consistent at winning matches hence his final total. The difference between Henman and Murray is that Andy has got to 496 wins losing about 120 matches less than Tim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets be fair Henman was a top notch player who played on into his 30s. Sure he never has the slam wins that Murray has but he reached a number of semis (not just at Wimbledon) which far outdone anything any of his countrymen had done in the Open Era. He may not have been a prolific tournament winner but he was mighty consistent at winning matches hence his final total. The difference between Henman and Murray is that Andy has got to 496 wins losing about 120 matches less than Tim.

Technically Henman didn't far outdo any other British player - Rusedski had 436 wins and got to the US Open final so arguably had a better record. Rusedski had more career titles and Henman won more money and had a better record in Masters series. So kind of even really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Technically Henman didn't far outdo any other British player - Rusedski had 436 wins and got to the US Open final so arguably had a better record. Rusedski had more career titles and Henman won more money and had a better record in Masters series. So kind of even really.

But was Canadian..... :wink2:

Link to comment
Share on other sites




×
×
  • Create New...