Is this a strong or a weak era? Confusing

First topic message reminder :

Given that one of Federer/ Nadal/ Djokovic have to lose before the finals and two have to lose before the tournament ends, it is a strong era. Those are 3 potential all time greats playing together. They could end up with more than 40 grand slams between them.

However, given that the top 4 have made it to the semis in 3 of the 4 slams (with Federer narrowly missing out at Wimbledon), it is a weak era.

Which is it? Or is it neither?

What treatment would we reserve for extreme bores with a pathological love/hate relationship with a Swiss tennis player?

Electro-shock therapy would be a place to start. I've no idea if it would work but it would be fun trying.

Simple_Analyst wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Simple_Analyst wrote:No Julius but you said " Perhaps I also should go out and make a citizen's arrest on people I don't like the look of?" So perhaps given a hypothetical power to arrest, you mind will be made up to arrest people's look you don't like.

So then given such luxury to accuse a top 10 player, how will you go about it?

I'd choose whoever's at Number 7 on the first of every other month.
Or I'd spend a few months researching PED's and their effects, then take blood and urine samples and have them analysed by an independent body.Seriously, we could go on like this all day. At the moment I'm in a patient and reasonably good mood.

How would you go about it?

Julius, some "matured" Federer fans have joined us above but they are best left ignore. Back to you.
So don't you think those test are carried out in tennis recently? Since that's what you think you would do, does that imply those are not currently done? Good suggestion though. Perhaps we can put those ina formal letter and send it to the relevant authorities?

But also why will you accuse the Number 7? Will he be muscular, fit and run alot for hours? The perfect profile of a drug offender in tennis?

No, back to you. How would you do it?
I don't really know how's it's currently done. I don't have enough interest to find out, but it's probably something along those lines. You can put it in a letter if you want. Sign it with a 'X' if you're not sure of how to do a signature.
I'd accuse Number 7 because about 35 years ago I won a game of Life (the board game) with a spin of number 7.
Is that the 'perfect profile' - you see, I knew you could educate me.

I answered how i'll do it, see my edited post. But the point here is what if No.7 is not muscular enough? Could he be guilty? Remember you said " should you arrest people who's looks you don't like.

Julius, an empty can above seems to be making too much noise here. Perhaps i should create a thread on drugs in tennis where we can all attempt to profile possible offenders without mentioning any names?

Stop twisting his words you megalomaniac...

Simple_Analyst wrote:I answered how i'll do it, see my edited post. But the point here is what if No.7 is not muscular enough? Could he be guilty? Remember you said " should you arrest people who's looks you don't like.

No, I didn't say that. It had a question mark after it i.e. not a statement. It was a rhetorical question, not a statement.

Simple_Analyst wrote:Julius, an empty can above seems to be making too much noise here. Perhaps i should create a thread on drugs in tennis where we can all attempt to profile possible offenders without mentioning any names?

By all means do that. I can then not look at it.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Simple_Analyst wrote:I answered how i'll do it, see my edited post. But the point here is what if No.7 is not muscular enough? Could he be guilty? Remember you said " should you arrest people who's looks you don't like.

No, I didn't say that. It had a question mark after it i.e. not a statement. It was a rhetorical question, not a statement.

But Julius the question was out of the fact that you contemplated arresting people who's looke you do not like. So you know given the choice, those are the people you'll arrest.

Simple_Analyst wrote:But Julius the question was out of the fact that you contemplated arresting people who's looke you do not like.

No, I didn't. I realise that English isn't your first language, so perhaps the intonation of a written rhetorical question understandably escaped you. But I can assure you, that is not what I stated, or even contemplated.

JuliusHMarx

I sincerely doubt English is his first language...I hope not anyway.

Simple_Analyst wrote: Television evidence is conclusive enough. I'll arrest players with the most muscles and those that run alot. Couldn't have been a better evidence than that.

Yes but you forgot to mention the new rule.
New Official rule (made by Fed fans): Whoever beats Federer is on drugs.

I only have my doubts about those players who have been implicated in huge doping scandals.

amritia3ee wrote:

Simple_Analyst wrote: Television evidence is conclusive enough. I'll arrest players with the most muscles and those that run alot. Couldn't have been a better evidence than that.

Yes but you forgot to mention the new rule.
New Official rule (made by Fed fans): Whoever beats Federer is on drugs.

I DON'T remember anybody saying this when he lost USO to Del Po, or recently to Novak...

Nope, I recall Fed fans all over 606 congratulating JMDP on the USO win.

Unwelcome news to poor little am, desperate to recruit any help to the cause of Nadal.

The big question is whether by Madrid, the third anniversary of the beginning of Nadals ownership by Djokovic, that Nadal will have squandered a 10 match h2h lead and actually be trailing!

Realy on 606? Congratulations? I might have missed it. I thought part of the congratulatory messgaes given to Del Potro as recently was Federer lost because he got tired. I don't know whether he was tired in the 2nd set then was not in the 3rd set then got tired in the 5th against the 20 year Old Argentine.

bogbrush wrote:What treatment would we reserve for extreme bores with a pathological love/hate relationship with a Swiss tennis player?

Electro-shock therapy would be a place to start. I've no idea if it would work but it would be fun trying.

I certainly remember exchanging messages with mac on 606 when delpo beat federer and even when Djokovic beat federer at USO, congratulating both delpo and Djokovic on their wins and applauding the positive tennis played by both

Really? Also remembered exchanging messages with a few Federer fans after FO 08 to congratulate them on Federer's fine showing in the finals that i wasn't late for my flight scheduled for that day. I was even gracious in my favourite players victory, that is classy.

Simple_Analyst wrote:Realy on 606? Congratulations? I might have missed it. I thought part of the congratulatory messgaes given to Del Potro as recently was Federer lost because he got tired. I don't know whether he was tired in the 2nd set then was not in the 3rd set then got tired in the 5th against the 20 year Old Argentine.

It's not incompatible. Federer tiring after a tough 3 setter less than 24 hours can be a factor. However, I am still very pleased Delpo won. Federer played much better than delpo for nearly 3 sets. Didn't you notice?

How did 20 yeard old Argentine fared against the other legendary player of the game during the strong era?

socal1976 wrote:Veejay, I actually agree with what you say. if you look at my goat list I don't have Novak close to the top.

The point on Nadal's drug testing is this, it has nothing to do with whether he is rated number 2 or 222. If you came out and said Michael Russell was doping without producing any evidence other than your opinion of his physique on TV I would defend said player. You fail to recognize my point because maybe you want to ignore it. Are their players that are doping yes, am I going to accuse one particular player (ie Nadal) when I have no specific evidence, no I am not, and I believe it is distasteful and beneath you Veejay to do that.

You still cannot see the contradiction,if you have no proof how can you believe that anyone is doping?
You can base your opinion on what you see but I cant do the same thing,why not?
Your opinion that an athlete is doping is based on the fact that there needs to be proof,ie. a positive test,so how can you believe there are players who are doping when you don't have a single positive test to back such allegations up?
Whether you're talking in general or singling a specific player out,it doesn't matter,your point has no logic and makes no sense
I also find it very hypocritical for you say "it is distasteful and beneath you Veejay to do that" when you you are doing the exact same thing.Just because you're not singling a player out doesn't mean you're not accusing anyone,you're accusing players,many of whom you don't even get to see play because we don't get any coverage of the lower ranked players,while at the same time you base your opinion on what you see.If you don't see the lower ranked players how do you believe there is a doping problem in the sport when you base your opinion on your vision?.Whether you're generalising,or singling a player out,youre still accusing someone of doping
You cant say thee is a problem in the sport and then say its wrong to single a player out cause theres no evidence.If you cannot see the contradiction in that then theres no hope you ever will
I dont base my opinion of the fact that I need proof because as I pointed out before,under the current system there will never be any proof.I base my opinion on my personal experience of PED's having taken them myself and trained people who take them I know to a 100% certainty that Im correct.At least my opinion is consistent with my vision,you're implying people who you have never even seen play could be doping.The funniest thing is the players you do see,you don't think are doping which proves your ignorance of the subject.If a athlete who makes it quite obvious that he/she is doping and you don't believe that,how can you believe anyone else is doping?
Im not here to try and change your opinion,its quite clear I never will cause I cant even get you to understand the double standards in your point of view.

Veejay wrote:
I know to a 100% certainty that Im correct.

OK we get it, all players who have ever beaten Federer are on drugs
Anyway let's talk about something else now. Tenez made a very valid point earlier when he implied that every match Federer has lost is due to him tanking (as well as mass cheating from the opposition).
What did you think of these claims, with so much evidence I think we're going to have to call every single match Federer lost as void (because he was clearly tanking).

Since 2008, beacuse weak era finished in 2007 Nadal has won 7 slams and lost 3 finals. In 2008 he won two, in 2009 he won only one, in 2010 he won 3 and 2011 he won only one. Until 2010 all his slam victories came over Fed who is the by product of weaK era anyway. Fed kept making to the finals until 2009 which means that 2009 was part of weak era as well.

In 2010 Nadal beat some really strong opponents in the slam finals who failed to take a set against him- Bedych and Soderling. Not to overlook that he beat a half dead djoko in uso 2010 and virtually faced no competition until the finals despite of this being strong era.

2011 is a strong era as Novak has completely trounced the DOMINANT players from weak era 2003 -2010 although he slightly struggled against Fed but had no wahtsoever issues in dismantling nadal in 6 times they faced each other.

I think everyone will agree and this thread can be concluded with the cocnlusion and verdict- WEAK ERA = 2003-2010

You're talking a load of garbage wow.
How can any era with Federer be weak. Of course on hard court and grass he did not face much competition between 2003-2007, but that time period could have only been classed as weak if:
Federer was not there
Nadal did not play on clay

I truly believe Federer is in the top 5 greatest of all time, which makes Nadal's 8-2 record against him in slams even more incredible.

1st half of 2011 can also be considered as weak era because Fed did make into the finals of RG and saved Rafa from the ignominy of losing 4 slam finals in a row.

No era with players like Federer and Nadal playing can be weak, but arguable if not for Fed and Nadal on clay 2003-2007 would be very weak; i.e. there was not much competition for Fed apart from Nadal on clay.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Veejay, I actually agree with what you say. if you look at my goat list I don't have Novak close to the top.

The point on Nadal's drug testing is this, it has nothing to do with whether he is rated number 2 or 222. If you came out and said Michael Russell was doping without producing any evidence other than your opinion of his physique on TV I would defend said player. You fail to recognize my point because maybe you want to ignore it. Are their players that are doping yes, am I going to accuse one particular player (ie Nadal) when I have no specific evidence, no I am not, and I believe it is distasteful and beneath you Veejay to do that.

I agree with socal on this. I'm certain some of the people living in my town must have gotten away with criminal offences. But I have no idea who they are, as I have no evidence, so I can't accuse specific people.

You cant be suspicious unless there is a reason to be.Thats the point you're missing.You wouldn't be suspicious of anyone if no one has ever committed a crime and was prosecuted.Youve just prove my point,I don't generalise the way Socal does,my opinion is about very specific athletes where there is enough evidence linking them to PED's
Socal is the one who is generalising,saying there must be athletes doping but we cant accuse anyone because there no proof.If theres no proof of anyone doping how then cause you be suspicious that they are?
To even begin to believe there is a problem when you have no proof you have to be suspicious that there is,so how can Socal believe there is a problem and then say there isn't proof to be suspicious or accuse anyone? Socal doesn't have a single positive test for any player in the draw so how can Socal say there has to be a problem?
You're only suspicious that there are thieves out there because we all know for a fact that there have been thieves since the dawn of time and some of us have had things stolen from us
You're not going too be suspicious of anyone unless they give you a reason to be suspicious of them.Nadal has given us plenty of reason to be suspicious of him,so why then suddenly cop out and say we cant be suspicious because theres no proof when youre suspect that there is a problem?
If you're open the the fact that there are players doping you have to be open to the fact that any single athlete could be doping,so why then say you cant be suspicious of an athlete where suspicions are rife? I base my opinion on my personal experience of PEDs,having taken them myself I can tell if someone else is using them.Its the same as being able to tell if someone is abusing drugs,alcohol etc if you have dome the same thing,it takes one to know one.You don't need to catch them red handed to know

amritia3ee wrote:No era with players like Federer and Nadal playing can be weak, but arguable if not for Fed and Nadal on clay 2003-2007 would be very weak; i.e. there was not much competition for Fed apart from Nadal on clay.

Spoken like a true Rafa fan! (that's a genuine compliment by the way). It's an elegant way to denigrate Fed and build up Rafa. The bit I like is that Rafa, in his 2nd Wimby final, is 'weak opposition' for Fed, whereas Fed in his first FO final is 'strong oppostion' for Rafa.

This is particulary amusing. So can we go through the Federer tiring sequence after the tough 3 setter against Djokovic in the semi -finals which lasted 2 hours 34 minutes

So he was fresh in the 1st set then got tired in the 2nd set allowing Del Potro to level up the match, then was fresh again in the 3rd set, was fresh again in the 4th set and came within 2 points of winning the match in the 4th set at 5-4 but when those points were lost, he got tired from his 2 hour match, could barely move and watched Del Potro hit countless winners pass him to win the match in the 5th set.

amritia3ee wrote:

Veejay wrote:
I know to a 100% certainty that Im correct.

OK we get it, all players who have ever beaten Federer are on drugs
Anyway let's talk about something else now. Tenez made a very valid point earlier when he implied that every match Federer has lost is due to him tanking (as well as mass cheating from the opposition).
What did you think of these claims, with so much evidence I think we're going to have to call every single match Federer lost as void (because he was clearly tanking).

Im suspicious of Serena and Sam Stouser to name a few...must be because they beat Federer...
And what about Agassi...must be because he beat Federer...
My suspions have nothing to do with Federer,if the athletes in question where playing in another era and never ever faced Federer,then I would still be suspicious if there was enough evidence to support those suspicions
If you cannot understand that by now then you never will..

Simple_Analyst wrote:Realy on 606? Congratulations? I might have missed it. I thought part of the congratulatory messgaes given to Del Potro as recently was Federer lost because he got tired. I don't know whether he was tired in the 2nd set then was not in the 3rd set then got tired in the 5th against the 20 year Old Argentine.

Nope, there was idespread applause.

He'd played shots you see and entertained.

Veejay wrote:You cant be suspicious unless there is a reason to be.Thats the point you're missing.You wouldn't be suspicious of anyone if no one has ever committed a crime and was prosecuted.Youve just prove my point,I don't generalise the way Socal does,my opinion is about very specific athletes where there is enough evidence linking them to PED's
Socal is the one who is generalising,saying there must be athletes doping but we cant accuse anyone because there no proof.If theres no proof of anyone doping how then cause you be suspicious that they are?
To even begin to believe there is a problem when you have no proof you have to be suspicious that there is,so how can Socal believe there is a problem and then say there isn't proof to be suspicious or accuse anyone? Socal doesn't have a single positive test for any player in the draw so how can Socal say there has to be a problem?
You're only suspicious that there are thieves out there because we all know for a fact that there have been thieves since the dawn of time and some of us have had things stolen from us
You're not going too be suspicious of anyone unless they give you a reason to be suspicious of them.Nadal has given us plenty of reason to be suspicious of him,so why then suddenly cop out and say we cant be suspicious because theres no proof when youre suspect that there is a problem?
If you're open the the fact that there are players doping you have to be open to the fact that any single athlete could be doping,so why then say you cant be suspicious of an athlete where suspicions are rife? I base my opinion on my personal experience of PEDs,having taken them myself I can tell if someone else is using them.Its the same as being able to tell if someone is abusing drugs,alcohol etc if you have dome the same thing,it takes one to know one.You don't need to catch them red handed to know

I can understand your point, but I think you've not understood mine and socal's. Take cycling and athletics, there have been many previous established previous doping offenses (i.e. crimes) and there is still incentive to dope. However, if there are no positive tests for 2 months, does that mean those sports are now clean, or is it still reasonable to have suspicions, in the same way I have suspicions that there will be criminal offenses in my town this weekend, based on previous experience?
The same applies to tennis, or any sport, where there have been previous offenses coupled with incentive.
So whilst I am not 100% certain anyone in tennis is using PEDs, it is reasonable to have suspicions about the sport in general.
However, in order to convict any specific person, evidence and the burden of proof is required. If you think the ATP testing procedure is cr@p or that there are recent cover ups, that's an individual, subjective assessment, and I have no problem if that's your view.
If you can tell that someone is using PEDs, then fair enough. I can't and, without wishing to be disrespectful, you (and I, of course) and just anonymous posters on an internet forum and there's no reason for either of us to take each other's word on anything.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Veejay wrote:You cant be suspicious unless there is a reason to be.Thats the point you're missing.You wouldn't be suspicious of anyone if no one has ever committed a crime and was prosecuted.Youve just prove my point,I don't generalise the way Socal does,my opinion is about very specific athletes where there is enough evidence linking them to PED's
Socal is the one who is generalising,saying there must be athletes doping but we cant accuse anyone because there no proof.If theres no proof of anyone doping how then cause you be suspicious that they are?
To even begin to believe there is a problem when you have no proof you have to be suspicious that there is,so how can Socal believe there is a problem and then say there isn't proof to be suspicious or accuse anyone? Socal doesn't have a single positive test for any player in the draw so how can Socal say there has to be a problem?
You're only suspicious that there are thieves out there because we all know for a fact that there have been thieves since the dawn of time and some of us have had things stolen from us
You're not going too be suspicious of anyone unless they give you a reason to be suspicious of them.Nadal has given us plenty of reason to be suspicious of him,so why then suddenly cop out and say we cant be suspicious because theres no proof when youre suspect that there is a problem?
If you're open the the fact that there are players doping you have to be open to the fact that any single athlete could be doping,so why then say you cant be suspicious of an athlete where suspicions are rife? I base my opinion on my personal experience of PEDs,having taken them myself I can tell if someone else is using them.Its the same as being able to tell if someone is abusing drugs,alcohol etc if you have dome the same thing,it takes one to know one.You don't need to catch them red handed to know

I can understand your point, but I think you've not understood mine and socal's. Take cycling and athletics, there have been many previous established previous doping offenses (i.e. crimes) and there is still incentive to dope. However, if there are no positive tests for 2 months, does that mean those sports are now clean, or is it still reasonable to have suspicions, in the same way I have suspcions that there will be criminal offenses in my town this weekend, based on previous experience?
The same applies to tennis, or any sport, where there have been previous offenses coupled with incentive.
So whilst I am not 100% certain anyone in tennis is using PEDs, http://www.docstoc.com/docs/71231087/Tennis-Off-The-Record
However, in order to convict any specific person, evidence and the burden of proof is required. If you think the ATP testing procedure is cr@p or that there are cover ups, that's an individual, subjective assessment, and I have no problem if that's your view.
If you can tell that someone is using PEDs, then fair enough. I can't and, without wishing to be disrespectful, you (and I, of course) and just anonymous posters on an internet forum and there's no reason for either of us to take each other's word on anything.

Yeah but no one in the current draw has ever tested positive for banned substances so how can you then say the sport isn't clean? Socal's whole argument surrounding Nadal is innocent until proven guilty
Why does that only apply to Nadal and not everyone else? See the double standard
If no one has tested positive recently for several seasons then you have to assume the sport is clean until proven otherwise,that is of course if your opinion needs proof like Socals does
Is it really fair to generalise and suggest players are doping and the sport isn't clean,when theres no proof and your opinion is based on the fact that there needs to be proof to be able to make such accusations?
Of course we know players have been caught in the past but if you want to trumpet innocent until proven guilty and theres not a single player in the draw who has tested positive for banned substances,you then cant turn around and say the sport isn't clean.You have to be consistent and say the sport is clean right now until proven otherwise because no one has tested positive for banned substances recently.You cant have it both ways like you were trying to in your comment above,thats trying to have your cake and eat it too
Thats the double standard Socal and you cannot understand

Socal's opinion is based on the fact that there needs to be proof so how can Socal say a sport isn't clean when he/she has nothing to go on,but at the same time say no one else is allowed to be suspicious or single any athletes out because theres no proof
Why is Socal allowed to be suspicious of everyone by generalising and saying the sport isn't clean when there isn't enough evidence to make such blanket statements and I cannot be suspicious of athletes where theres enough evidence linking them to PED's?
Thats the other double standard you and Socal cant seem to understand
I really don't think fair to say: "it is reasonable to have suspicions about the sport in general. " and then attack someone for having suspicions about a particular athlete which is what Socal has basically been doing all along,calling my opinion low
You and Socal are being suspicious of every single athlete in the draw by making such a generalisation so why cant I being suspicious of a specific athlete?
Further more whats the point of being suspicious and then it ends there?
Shouldn't your suspicions naturally increase if theres an athlete with scandal involving a Dr and magazine exposing him and his countries own law enforcers trying to cover such a scandal up by a virtual super injunction? Or is that proof of you're not really being suspicious at all?
So why does Socals suspicions just end at generalisation? My take on it so far is because Socal would like to think everyone else could be doping,just not the athlete in question,thats really what all this boils down to

The difference between you/Socal and me is that I single specific athletes out where suspicions are rife,I don't make blanket statements.I base this on my personal experience with PED's,whether you believe I have any because you never met me is completely irrelevant.
Either you take my word for it or you don't,Im not here to prove myself,Im here to voice my opinion.This isn't about how credible a poster you think I am,the point I am making is that Im basing my opinion on my experience,thats what my opinion is based on-personal experience.We all have opinions which we are all entitled to,many of them probably based on personal experience and you cant really knock someone credibility because of a personal opinion based on experience.Sure I may trumpet my opinion as fact but once again I do that because as I said it takes one to know one.Take it or leave it.

But thats never been the issue here,the issue is Socals constant double standards which I keep having to point out

I think so far I have given enough evidence of my knowledge of PED's,( you can have a look on the thread I started,unfortunately I doubt I can give more as I have already been warned),some of my comments have been deleted but the ones that havent,hasn't at all been challenged by anyone least of all Socal which leads me to believe I know a whole load more about the subject then he/she does.
In fact I have asked Socal several questions several times over without as much as a single response to any of the questions.Not even an attempt
If you want to have an idea of the reason why I don't think any athlete ever will test positive for banned substances
have a look at this article written by Magnus Norman

docstoc dot com /docs/71231087/Tennis-Off-The-Record

This is how the ATP death with the sports biggest doping scandal and it sums the ATP's credibility up

Veejay wrote:I really don't think fair to say: "it is reasonable to have suspicions about the sport in general. " and then attack someone for having suspicions about a particular athlete which is what Socal has basically been doing,calling my opinion low

Well, that's where I differ from socal, I haven't attacked you for your opinions on particular players. As far as I'm concerned you're entitled to have suspicions and say so, and whilst I have no proof that your knowledge is greater than mine, I suspect it is. (Unless, by saying that, you think I then logically have to suspect everything socal says is true also, because the actual evidence for trusting either of you is equal from my point of view.)

And even if I have more suspicions about some players than others, I'm entitled to a) keep them to myself, given my lack of knowledge on the subject and b) require something more than suspicions for any action to be taken.

Anyway, my point of view is, I think, consistent, rather than double standards, and possibly the main difference is that you seem quite keen to put the tennis world to rights, as you see it, whereas I'm admittedly more indifferent to it. At least the guy who runs the THASP site is actively pursuing his case, even if seems to attract some loony comments. But I guess I just don't have time to worry too much about it, sorry.

My main enjoyment from tennis is playing rather than watching and I very much doubt any of my opponents use PEDs - although, of course, maybe they all are!

P.S. Changing my quote to include a link I didn't put? What's that all about?

I''m a Nadal fan.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Veejay wrote:I really don't think fair to say: "it is reasonable to have suspicions about the sport in general. " and then attack someone for having suspicions about a particular athlete which is what Socal has basically been doing,calling my opinion low

Well, that's where I differ from socal, I haven't attacked you for your opinions on particular players. As far as I'm concerned you're entitled to have suspicions and say so, and whilst I have no proof that your knowledge is greater than mine, I suspect it is. (Unless, by saying that, you think I then logically have to suspect everything socal says is true also, because the actual evidence for trusting either of you is equal from my point of view.)

And even if I have more suspicions about some players than others, I'm entitled to a) keep them to myself, given my lack of knowledge on the subject and b) require something more than suspicions for any action to be taken.

Anyway, my point of view is, I think, consistent, rather than double standards, and possibly the main difference is that you seem quite keen to put the tennis world to rights, as you see it, whereas I'm admittedly more indifferent to it. At least the guy who runs the THASP site is actively pursuing his case, even if seems to attract some loony comments. But I guess I just don't have time to worry too much about it, sorry.

My main enjoyment from tennis is playing rather than watching and I very much doubt any of my opponents use PEDs - although, of course, maybe they all are!

P.S. Changing my quote to include a link I didn't put? What's that all about?

Fair enough, as you can see from the last part of that comment,I was ctually referring to Socal,if that didn't come across that way then I apologise.You certainly havent attacked me and you certainly didn't call my opinion " low"

I commend the author of THASP,he does an excellent job especially for awareness,but its never been my motive to expose anyone,I only have to look at operations Puerto and Galgo and the whole Contador case to know that its a losing battle
How would I or anyone else ever be able to take on high court judges and prime ministers who exonerate athletes and are involved in cover ups for athletes caught by such operations?

Im not here to put the tennis world to rights either,I think the link I posted is enough evidence that no one will ever be able to do it,no matter how much influence you have or if your status is of some weight within the sport,the powers that be seem pretty keen to keep the sports image as clean as they can even if its to sweep everything under the rug,at least with sports like athletics and cycling they have no issues to strip or expose any drugs cheats caught

I just voiced my opinion which as I said is based on personal experience and Socal seemed to have a problem with that which then resulted in me having to point out his/her double standard.I seem to have to point out his./her double standard in almost every comment made

" I just don't have time to worry too much about it, sorry."
You must have enough interest to go on that blog and read all those comments,especially if you know someone of them are a little crazy

"P.S. Changing my quote to include a link I didn't put? What's that all about?"

I was trying to post that link but this site is a bit funny when it come to cut and paste
pasted it at the wrong part and that erased part of your comment

No problem, VJ.

Perhaps, in tennis, as in most of life, the little man is screwed if he's up against the big boys, no matter in the right he may be. Of course, if he's in the wrong, he's snookered as well.

Still, always look on the bright side of life, eh?

On the subject of doping with evidence but no proof:

LOS ANGELES (AP)—The case against Lance Armstrong is closed. His legacy as a seven-time Tour de France champion endures.



Federal prosecutors dropped their investigation of Armstrong on Friday, ending a nearly two-year effort aimed at determining whether the world’s most famous cyclist and his teammates joined in a doping program during his greatest years.

<p>Armstrong steadfastly has denied he doped during his unparalleled career, but the possibility of criminal charges threatened to stain not only his accomplishments, but his cancer charity work as well. Instead, another attempt to prove a star athlete used performance-enhancing drugs has fallen short, despite years of evidence gathering across two continents.

<p>So what are the chances of catching and naming tennis players if even Lance can get away with it?
<p>http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news?slug=ap-doping-armstrong
Note they had years of "evidence" but still failed to prove.

Yeah but no one in the current draw has ever tested positive for banned substances so how can you then say the sport isn't clean? Socal's whole argument surrounding Nadal is innocent until proven guilty
Why does that only apply to Nadal and not everyone else? See the double standard
If no one has tested positive recently for several seasons then you have to assume the sport is clean until proven otherwise,that is of course if your opinion needs proof like Socals does

Again, Veejay you fail to acknowledge my point. When you target accusations at a specific person without more evidence than viewing them on the television than I think it is wrong. There is no double standard in my opinion. When relating to sports in general or tennis in particular out of the hundreds of players on tour I am sure someone is cheating. That is not leveling and accusation against the reputation of a particular person. And also there have been past cases like Odesnik recently and others that have been caught.

As for me visually exonerating Nadal that isn't the case. I wanted to show that opinions by people that Nadal looks like he does PEDs is not universally held or so clear cut that you can make a determination from that. You say that watching him on TV and seeing his performance leads you to believe he is doping. I say that I have seen him up close he looks like a normal athletic person. My point is not to exonerate him but to show that a visual determination is just opinion and neither convicting or exonerating him.

So Veejay there is no double standard. My point with the quote visual inspection test, is to show it is not accurate. You can voice your opinion all you like. I will never challenge your right to say it as odious as may your opinion is or isn't. But those who voice opinion have freedom of speech, and others can look at the opinion you voice and feel that your comments are unsporting and distasteful. You have your freedom of expression and I have mine.

And I am the last one to criticze anyone because I like long posts too, but could you just limit the length a little because I am trying to give everything you write proper attention.

Tenez wrote:On the subject of doping with evidence but no proof:

LOS ANGELES (AP)—The case against Lance Armstrong is closed. His legacy as a seven-time Tour de France champion endures.



Federal prosecutors dropped their investigation of Armstrong on Friday, ending a nearly two-year effort aimed at determining whether the world’s most famous cyclist and his teammates joined in a doping program during his greatest years.

<p>Armstrong steadfastly has denied he doped during his unparalleled career, but the possibility of criminal charges threatened to stain not only his accomplishments, but his cancer charity work as well. Instead, another attempt to prove a star athlete used performance-enhancing drugs has fallen short, despite years of evidence gathering across two continents.

<p>So what are the chances of catching and naming tennis players if even Lance can get away with it?
<p>http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news?slug=ap-doping-armstrong
Note they had years of "evidence" but still failed to prove.

Obviously the charity implications plays a huge part here,but still cycling has a healthier attitude to exposing drugs cheats then tennis does.The ATP and ITF would most likely never disclose any failed drug tests of the sports heavy weights cause if they did the world of tennis would fall with these athletes
Perfect example being Agassi's failed drug tests
There are also a whole load of rumours and suspicions about Henin retiring from tennis 2 weeks before RG and that perhaps she was silently suspended,when she returned to the tour almost exactly after a regular suspension would be up
If this is true well then at least theres a case of a better effort to enforce a stricter policy and proves that no names are being named,but they still make it as easy as it possibly can be for athletes to dope through their lax testing programs

I doubt Lance would ever have faced a prison sentence,its a misconception that Marion Jones is in jail because she doped,she's in jail for perjury

I don't want the dopers in jail though they are in effect stealing money from honest atletes. But certainly having them exposed would be great to start with.

Agassi line on ao final: "I've played (opponents) who can play a marathon match; these guys played the whole marathon like a sprint"

socal1976 wrote:Yeah but no one in the current draw has ever tested positive for banned substances so how can you then say the sport isn't clean? Socal's whole argument surrounding Nadal is innocent until proven guilty
Why does that only apply to Nadal and not everyone else? See the double standard
If no one has tested positive recently for several seasons then you have to assume the sport is clean until proven otherwise,that is of course if your opinion needs proof like Socals does

Again, Veejay you fail to acknowledge my point. When you target accusations at a specific person without more evidence than viewing them on the television than I think it is wrong. There is no double standard in my opinion. When relating to sports in general or tennis in particular out of the hundreds of players on tour I am sure someone is cheating. That is not leveling and accusation against the reputation of a particular person. And also there have been past cases like Odesnik recently and others that have been caught.

As for me visually exonerating Nadal that isn't the case. I wanted to show that opinions by people that Nadal looks like he does PEDs is not universally held or so clear cut that you can make a determination from that. You say that watching him on TV and seeing his performance leads you to believe he is doping. I say that I have seen him up close he looks like a normal athletic person. My point is not to exonerate him but to show that a visual determination is just opinion and neither convicting or exonerating him.

So Veejay there is no double standard. My point with the quote visual inspection test, is to show it is not accurate. You can voice your opinion all you like. I will never challenge your right to say it as odious as may your opinion is or isn't. But those who voice opinion have freedom of speech, and others can look at the opinion you voice and feel that your comments are unsporting and distasteful. You have your freedom of expression and I have mine.

And I am the last one to criticze anyone because I like long posts too, but could you just limit the length a little because I am trying to give everything you write proper attention.

Im not just basing my opinion on my vision I am basing my opinion on a clear cover up involving the athlete in question
Explain to me what L'Equipe and Dr Feuntes have to gain out of naming Nadal as one of the athletes who received treatment from him?Why would they lie and risk being sued for libel and defamation of character? Wouldn't a credible magazine like L'Equipe have proof before exposing a high profile athlete like that?
Why has the evidence been sealed through a virtual super injection by a high court Spanish judge why hasn't the athlete in question bothered to clear his name?
Further more I am basing my opinion of my extensive personal experience of PEDs,having taken them myself and trained people who take them on a daily basis,I think I have more credibility on a subject then you do cause what are you basing your opinion on? Clearly nothing and no experience as I have asked you several questions several times over and you havent as much as answered a single one of them.They were pretty simple straight forward questions that anyone who has taken PEDs would be able to answer.If you knew what you're talking about you would have been able to answer me
You are the one making blanket statements without proof and then telling me I cant have an opinion because I don't have proof
You're the one basing your opinion of this particular athlete on your vision,but I cant and then you can my visual opinion "low" because it clearly rubs you up the wrong way
Why is your vision opinion ok but my visual opinion is "low"?
Is that really fair? What are you basing your opinion on other then your ignorant opinion,but yet mine based on my experience is "low"?
You're the one trumpeting "innocent until proven guilty" and you go on to make generalisations that the sport isn't clean when you have no proof to back such allegations up

Odesnik was caught with vials of Nandrolone,theres no proof he ever took them and he hast tested positive for the drug so how do you know he wasn't carrying it for someone else?
But here is another double standard,are you not pointing the finger at Wayne without proof? But yet when I link Nadal to PED's you claim its nothing but "innuendo"
You're singling an athlete out to prove there is a problem in the sport but I cant do the same thing
If you say you are certain theres cheating going on how can you be certain if you trumpet the innocent until proven guilty argument? Shouldn't everyone in the draw be innocent until proven guilty and therefor the sport be clean until proven otherwise?
Obviously not in your book,you want to have to both ways..have your cake and eat it too
You want to have the opinion that sport is dirty so that if ever a player who you don't support is exposed it will be a personal victory and you can then carry on saying,you knew and you were saying it all along..but if no one ever tests positive you can also prove you were right all along
Im sorry but theres no other way to read this,you believe theres cheating going on,possibly by anyone just not Nadal

Guys, just want to confirm that no libellous comments are to be posted. We can not allow any accusations of players being on peds. Im going to have to look through this article and edit/remove any comments that are libellous.

Well Veejay I agree the Dr. Fuentes stuff is very troubling and very unusual that there would be such a super injunction by the spanish government. Give me a good link for that story again and I promise to look at it, If you got it send it. If you sent it resend it.

Lol YI Man don't edit any post. Having amusing reads on this subject where it seems only Federer fans a doping expects and accuse players who beat him consistently.18-9 surely is a factor here

Vjeey or what ever the name is, you are claiming to be a doping expert and knows more than Socal. You know you can be anything you want on the internet right? So far all you have written is long posts with no substance with a sense or two found hidden in there. Perhaps you can profile the drug cheats for us and tell us why you think they are using drugs and provide evidence. Me, i'm curious.

Sorry SA, but no libellous stuff can be posted on v2 at all. We are now in the media's eye because of how successful v2 has become. I dont fancy going to court.

socal1976 wrote:Well Veejay I agree the Dr. Fuentes stuff is very troubling and very unusual that there would be such a super injunction by the spanish government. Give me a good link for that story again and I promise to look at it, If you got it send it. If you sent it resend it.

I had articles saved a while back I don't have it anymore as someone spilled a drink on that laptop and I had to get a new one ,but in the mean time you can google "the curious case of Rafael Nadal" theres some info about the subject on there and I will look to see if I can find any of those other articles and get back to you

Also Mr Founder i keep getting notification messages to post here. My mail is littered with them. How do i disable it, it's getting me worked up now.

SA:
https://www.606v2.com/t21647-topic-reply-notification-emails-and-how-to-turn-them-off

Dont forget to do the 2nd part, to stop watching topics already watching.

Y I Man wrote:Sorry SA, but no libellous stuff can be posted on v2 at all. We are now in the media's eye because of how successful v2 has become. I dont fancy going to court.

I've meant to post my strong approval and congratulations to the way 606v2 has carefully managed but permitted a debate on this controversial subject.

It would have been so easy to close it at origin, which would have been awful, but it's been very well handled.

I think most posters have responded responsibly too, which is as I'd hope.

bogbrush wrote:

Y I Man wrote:Sorry SA, but no libellous stuff can be posted on v2 at all. We are now in the media's eye because of how successful v2 has become. I dont fancy going to court.

I've meant to post my strong approval and congratulations to the way 606v2 has carefully managed but permitted a debate on this controversial subject.

It would have been so easy to close it at origin, which would have been awful, but it's been very well handled.

I think most posters have responded responsibly too, which is as I'd hope.

I agree with this. Without accusing players its important to keep the discussion going on this sensitive subject which affects all sports.