Davydenko's Views On Murray

by hawkeye Wed Jun 27, 2012 6:15 pm

Murray beat Davydenko in the first round of Wimbledon but Davydenko was less than impressed. Before the match he gave his views on Murray's displays of pain

The Russian, however, insisted that Murray’s on-court demeanour was not taken too seriously by the rest of the players in the locker room, saying: “We just laugh.”

"Sometimes he walks on court, he looks tired, like he doesn't want to run any more and then he runs like an animal. He has done that all his career. He's, like: 'Ah, I don't want to play any more.' Then he starts returning and running and you see his condition is very good. Maybe it is a special Scottish thing.

"It doesn't matter what he says; he will fight for everything, he will try to win. He may have a pain somewhere but if you ask any player they will all say they have pains here and there. Nobody says they are perfect. It's just not possible."

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/news/davydenko-mocks-murrays-court-conduct-071414528.html

So the rest of the locker room not only talk about Andy but they laugh at him too? After his match with Murray on centre court he had this to say

Asked if he still believed Murray would not be able to win a slam, Davydenko replied simply: "Yes."

The 31-year-old said: "He played fast, he served well, he pushed me back on the return, he made less mistakes. It's always what he does. And I started to make mistakes from the baseline, I felt like I had no confidence "In the third set I relaxed a little bit and I tried to get a bit more control from the baseline but it was tough. I don't like so much to play on grass."

http://www.sportinglife.com/tennis/news/article/2/7843749/davydenko-unmoved-by-murray

Davydenko also said he was pleased to have played on centre court as he has never done so at Wimbledon because of his poor results. I have to say it may not be just his poor results that have kept him off centre court as his diplomatic skills appear to need a little work. Maybe next time Djokovic decides to visit Scotland he should take Davydenko with him. I'm sure he could teach him a thing or two about the British media...

by bogbrush Wed Jun 27, 2012 6:19 pm

* sets up chair and waits for Craig to come in *

by CaledonianCraig Wed Jun 27, 2012 6:23 pm

bogbrush wrote:* sets up chair and waits for Craig to come in *

Nice one. I admit I laughed at that.

by Guest Wed Jun 27, 2012 6:32 pm

I think it follows from the comments many have said in the past - and what makes Murray a special player (although he has a little further to go to overcome the top three) - he is / was a very unpredictable player - he would tend to take his opponent out of their comfort zone - they did not like playing him - he worked them out and got under their skin.

by Josiah Maiestas Wed Jun 27, 2012 6:40 pm

Davy is brutally honest. Hates Murray's guts and doesn't pretend otherwise. Find it amazing Davy was warned for lack of effort in ATP match when Murray gives lack of effort far more times than him. Davy just proves that no one likes losing to ordinary Murray, he'd much rather lose to humble players Federer and Djoker.

by bogbrush Wed Jun 27, 2012 6:48 pm

CaledonianCraig wrote:
bogbrush wrote:* sets up chair and waits for Craig to come in *

Nice one. I admit I laughed at that.

by Guest Wed Jun 27, 2012 7:28 pm

2 days too late.

What a Muppet

by Guest Wed Jun 27, 2012 7:36 pm

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Davy is brutally honest. Hates Murray's guts and doesn't pretend otherwise. Find it amazing Davy was warned for lack of effort in ATP match when Murray gives lack of effort far more times than him. Davy just proves that no one likes losing to ordinary Murray, he'd much rather lose to humble players Federer and Djoker.

Are you suggesting asterisks be placed to the Grand Slam titles of Federer and Djoker, considering everyone likes losing to these "humble" opponents?

Ps I like the way Djoker acknowledges a good shot from his opponent. I don't know anyone else that does this.

by Guest Wed Jun 27, 2012 7:37 pm

Mind you I will give jersey his due. He's not a see you next tuesday 24/7 Ok!

and plus he is to the point of his dislike for a player

by Super D Boon Wed Jun 27, 2012 7:40 pm

Murray looked impressive yesterday but it was against an ageing pro who's best years are 5 years ago and was never very good on the cow food anyway.

I would so much like Murray to take down Nadal but I still don't see anything that makes me think he will.

by CaledonianCraig Wed Jun 27, 2012 7:45 pm

You see lk that is what sets some posters apart from others. We have people who post anti-Nadal stuff, anti-Murray stuff and anti-Djokovic and even the odd rogue anti-Fed stuff as well but I pride myself on the fact that I can enjoy all of the top players play and I respect them all for what they have achieved etc in the sport.

by Guest Wed Jun 27, 2012 7:46 pm

Not being funny, how can they call for jersey to be banned for spamming the same thing Headscratch

by Guest Wed Jun 27, 2012 7:47 pm

Super D Boon wrote:... I would so much like Murray to take down Nadal but I still don't see anything that makes me think he will.

Considering Nadals performances over the years, there are not many that can "take down" Nadal - in fact no-one really apart from Djokovic Mk II (the 2011 version).

by banbrotam Wed Jun 27, 2012 7:56 pm

bogbrush wrote:* sets up chair and waits for Craig to come in *

And what about me? I am very disappointed in you BB Wink

by banbrotam Wed Jun 27, 2012 8:02 pm

Super D Boon wrote:Murray looked impressive yesterday but it was against an ageing pro who's best years are 5 years ago.

Wasn't the O2 final, where Davy beat all-comers in Novemeber 2009? Whistle

People are sooooooooo quick to dismiss a Murray win

by banbrotam Wed Jun 27, 2012 8:05 pm

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Davy is brutally honest. Hates Murray's guts and doesn't pretend otherwise. Find it amazing Davy was warned for lack of effort in ATP match when Murray gives lack of effort far more times than him. Davy just proves that no one likes losing to ordinary Murray, he'd much rather lose to humble players Federer and Djoker.

Thanks for that kid. I'd say there's an awful lot of supposition in it, but your grammar is good. B+

by Danny_1982 Wed Jun 27, 2012 8:11 pm

I wonder why Davidenko dislikes Murray so much? Would love to know where the animosity comes from. I remember Naldandian used to detest Henman, which I never heard an explanation for.

As for who can take down Rafa, I really fancy Tsonga to push him very hard in the quarters. Long way to go for both of them obviously, but that's my prediction. Tsonga to knock out Rafa.

by banbrotam Wed Jun 27, 2012 8:28 pm

Danny_1982 wrote:I wonder why Davidenko dislikes Murray so much? Would love to know where the animosity comes from. I remember Naldandian used to detest Henman, which I never heard an explanation for.

Wasn't Murray a bit unsuportive about the whole match fixing thing? I seem to rememeber him saying something ever so slightly contraversial

I think Nalbandian detests all his rivals including his Argentinean team mates Laugh

by banbrotam Wed Jun 27, 2012 8:28 pm

Danny

See here. For once my hazy memory hasn't fooled me!!

http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/64257/sports/davydenko-criticizes-murray-for-match-fixing-comments

by Guest Wed Jun 27, 2012 8:33 pm

Henman on commentary just quipped "don't worry line judges theirs no advertising boards here"

Zinggggg

Laugh

by Guest Wed Jun 27, 2012 8:33 pm

banbrotam wrote:...I think Nalbandian detests all his rivals including his Argentinean team mates

He doesn't seem to take to line judges neither, judging from recent behaviour.

by Danny_1982 Wed Jun 27, 2012 8:36 pm

banbrotam wrote:Danny

See here. For once my hazy memory hasn't fooled me!!

http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/64257/sports/davydenko-criticizes-murray-for-match-fixing-comments

Ah, suddenly I understand why he can barely say a good word about him!

by Josiah Maiestas Wed Jun 27, 2012 8:38 pm

Just because Davy doesn't speak English in the locker rooms, it gives someone like Murray a reason to be suspicious. Davy's always been respectful to his opponents, the slam final choker on the other hand wasnt respecting him.
I'll leave this ship wreck of a thread now anyway, before the Murray groupies run off to the mods.

by djlovesyou Wed Jun 27, 2012 8:42 pm

I liked the fact that Davydenko turned that around on Murray.

It was like the whole classic "Whoever smelt it dealt it" routine.

It doesn't alleviate the fact that someone knew that Davy was going to lose that match, and to know Davy was going to lose that match, someone with a very close interest in that match would have had to have said something.

by Josiah Maiestas Wed Jun 27, 2012 8:51 pm

"to know Davy was going to lose that match"

If someone bets a big amount on a player to lose, that automatically means they knew he would lose on purpose?

Look at Davy when he stops playing well, he makes more errors than Federer on his worst day. As I say, Murray didn't seem too bothered when he lost in the clay masters this year, should he be called a match fixer?

by Guest Wed Jun 27, 2012 8:52 pm

djlovesyou wrote:I liked the fact that Davydenko turned that around on Murray. ...

Indeed, Davydenko should have shut his mouth - considering he was the one associated with anomalous on-line betting behaviour.

by djlovesyou Wed Jun 27, 2012 8:55 pm

Josiah Maiestas wrote:"to know Davy was going to lose that match"

If someone bets a big amount on a player to lose, that automatically means they knew he would lose on purpose?

Look at Davy when he stops playing well, he makes more errors than Federer on his worst day. As I say, Murray didn't seem too bothered when he lost in the clay masters this year, should he be called a match fixer?

Haha. The fact that they lumped on his completely unheralded opponent when Davydenko was a set and a break up was a bit of a giveaway.

Davydenko was still a set and a break up, and you could get odds against on him. Funny business indeed.

by banbrotam Wed Jun 27, 2012 9:04 pm

Josiah Maiestas wrote:"to know Davy was going to lose that match"

If someone bets a big amount on a player to lose, that automatically means they knew he would lose on purpose?

Look at Davy when he stops playing well, he makes more errors than Federer on his worst day. As I say, Murray didn't seem too bothered when he lost in the clay masters this year, should he be called a match fixer?

I thought you'd been asked to go in by your Mum for the night? No watching those naughty movies. You get straight to sleep

by Josiah Maiestas Wed Jun 27, 2012 9:13 pm

And yet Davy was not fined or suspended for this?

He quit the match as his foot was killing him, had the injury not occurred then he would have dominated the match. It was obvious from an earlier tournament that he wasnt moving good. ATP just wanted to punish him because he never liked giving them any interviews. devil

by Danny_1982 Wed Jun 27, 2012 9:31 pm

JM - surely you must admit the circumstances surrounding Davy and that loss are at best a little suspicious?

You can't point to Murray losing a match on clay and suggest 'same thing'. Come on man!!

by Guest Wed Jun 27, 2012 9:42 pm

JM,

Your happy to throw drug accusations at Nadal without any proof yet quite easily overlook tennis's best match thrower ever which has more suspicious actions than that of Nadal's alleged drug taking.

Davydenko's foot wasn't killing him. Just playing up to his bottlejob image.

by banbrotam Wed Jun 27, 2012 9:45 pm

Danny_1982 wrote:JM - surely you must admit the circumstances surrounding Davy and that loss are at best a little suspicious?

You can't point to Murray losing a match on clay and suggest 'same thing'. Come on man!!

Don't feed the troll Cool

by Josiah Maiestas Wed Jun 27, 2012 10:15 pm

What proof of Nadal are you looking for Legend? You won't believe any proof even if his former physicians come out with a story tomorrow. That won't happen though as they would be sued wouldn't they.

by hawkeye Wed Jun 27, 2012 11:55 pm

banbrotam wrote:Danny

See here. For once my hazy memory hasn't fooled me!!

http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/64257/sports/davydenko-criticizes-murray-for-match-fixing-comments

That's interesting! In that linked article it talks about how Murray said "everyone knows it (match fixing) goes on". Murray also said "I'm not going to name names, I've just spoken
to quite a lot of the players about that, and there's obviously
something that needs to be addressed." Davydenko threw it back at Murray saying "If Murray says that he knows, that means that he gambles himself,". It didn't rest there because Murray had to talk to the ATP about his accusiations.

After googling the subject I found this from the telegraph

On learning that Murray had last week suggested matches had been fixed and that "everyone knows that it's going on", Nadal had
indicated that the British No 1 had gone "overboard", saying he had
personally seen no evidence of corruption.

Murray yesterday told Nadal his words had been taken out of
context, saying he did not mean that players knew matches had been fixed
but that everyone had been aware of reports that players had rejected
bribes. Murray put out a statement clarifying his remarks last week, but
still wanted to talk to Nadal about the matter.

"I just spoke to Rafa five minutes ago and we were joking
about it," said Murray, who plays Czech Radek Stepanek in the opening
round. "I explained the whole situation to him. He understands. He has
been around the press for a long time and it's easy for them to change
words and not report the questions you've been asked and just put the
answers in. Rafa thought that maybe I was annoyed with him because he
had called me stupid. He's fine."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/tennis/atptour/2323405/Andy-Murray-and-Rafael-Nadal-clear-the-air.html

So it wasn't just Davydenko that go annoyed Nadal got involved as well. At some point Nadal had called Murray "stupid". Interesting that Murray then backtracked and said the press had twisted everything. Odd because we have his exact words and the meaning looks clear. He goes onto to say he had then "joked" about it with Nadal. No mention of him apologising and sharing jokes about it with Davydenko though...

by Jahu Thu Jun 28, 2012 12:37 am

Murray should shut up for a whole year and concentrate on his tennis. All his interviews end with a disastrous misunderstandings.

by Guest Thu Jun 28, 2012 1:14 am

Jahu wrote:Murray should shut up for a whole year and concentrate on his tennis. All his interviews end with a disastrous misunderstandings.

What is worse - "Davydenko tennis matches being associated with anomalous on-line betting" or reports claiming "Murray said that he thinks its pretty common knowledge there is a lot of this type of insider knowledge on-line betting going on". chin

On 606v2 someone admitted putting a large bet on an upset, after having spoken to the players physio (the player was tired and unwell).

Have you watched cricket recently?

by banbrotam Thu Jun 28, 2012 6:34 am

Jahu wrote:Murray should shut up for a whole year and concentrate on his tennis. All his interviews end with a disastrous misunderstandings.

That's simply because they are micro-analysed beyond belief and society now expects every one in the public to talk with the experience of 50 year old diplomat. Can we remember, that Murray was 20 at the time and new to the Top end of his sport

I'd go back and have a look at what to used to go on at the height of the Connors/Mac/ Lendl time (take any year from 1982-1985) that'd really have you asking for the mute button

Maybe we should ban free speech Wink

by banbrotam Thu Jun 28, 2012 6:37 am

hawkeye wrote:At some point Nadal had called Murray "stupid".

Have you never been called it? Rolling Eyes

Some might argue that googleling your heart out, just to find disparaging evidence of Murray a person you claim not to be bothered about, fits into this category Whistle

by Guest Thu Jun 28, 2012 8:16 am

Josiah Maiestas wrote:What proof of Nadal are you looking for Legend? You won't believe any proof even if his former physicians come out with a story tomorrow. That won't happen though as they would be sued wouldn't they.

JM,

If a former Physician came out tomorrow with 'claims' of Nadal taking PED's or substances designed to improve performance, he/she may as well sign a death warrant. Let me explain.

A Physician that comes out and makes such claims would never work again because of the following:

1) Breaching patient confidentiality.
2) Breaking laws in administrating banned substances.
3) Not taking patient welfare into consideration if administrating banned substances or recommending such substances.

Now what do posters seriously have as any evidence or circumstanstial patterns in Nadal being someone that takes PED's or banned substances? Oh I know because he wins. Only a cheat can beat Federer seems to be the law of thinking. When I see such accusations I think to myself hmmmm jealousy. Also what about Djokovic who starts cleaning up the Slams after not winning one for 3 years? That for me is stirs far more curiousity than someone who has proven success year after year.

Take Davydenko. 2 matches in which 'irregular betting patterns' occurred and also ties in with poor performances. Now if there was investigations into foul play and someone profitting from match fixing and you have 2 such determining factors in such claims, I am amazed that this can be overlooked compared with people who cry foul at an athlete who wins in his sport. So you tell me what looks more suspicious. A guy who wins year in year out without any of his fellow players who share the same locker room have not submitted any complaints or concerns to the ATP/ITF/WADA about performance levels, without doctors or physicians coming out with scientific conclusions about the player's level of performance or someone who is a former World No.3 who is renowned for chucking matches, even warned by chair umpires for lack of effort, has had matches with irregular betting patterns on it and also 'rumoured' to have received payments from syndicates?

So tell me, which of the 2 examples raises more questions about integrity?

by sportslover Thu Jun 28, 2012 8:28 am

banbrotam wrote:
Josiah Maiestas wrote:"to know Davy was going to lose that match"

If someone bets a big amount on a player to lose, that automatically means they knew he would lose on purpose?

Look at Davy when he stops playing well, he makes more errors than Federer on his worst day. As I say, Murray didn't seem too bothered when he lost in the clay masters this year, should he be called a match fixer?

I thought you'd been asked to go in by your Mum for the night? No watching those naughty movies. You get straight to sleep

lol - Can't you change his diaper banbro - I see he is still posting his usual juvenile crap

age 24 going on 14!!

by Guest Thu Jun 28, 2012 8:31 am

sportslover wrote:
banbrotam wrote:
Josiah Maiestas wrote:"to know Davy was going to lose that match"

If someone bets a big amount on a player to lose, that automatically means they knew he would lose on purpose?

Look at Davy when he stops playing well, he makes more errors than Federer on his worst day. As I say, Murray didn't seem too bothered when he lost in the clay masters this year, should he be called a match fixer?

I thought you'd been asked to go in by your Mum for the night? No watching those naughty movies. You get straight to sleep

lol - Can't you change his diaper banbro - I see he is still posting his usual juvenile crap

age 24 going on 14!!

Sampras was a match fixer.

Couldn't be bothered with Clay!

by Calder106 Thu Jun 28, 2012 9:25 am

Jahu wrote:Murray should shut up for a whole year and concentrate on his tennis. All his interviews end with a disastrous misunderstandings.

Jahu I suppose you looked at the date on the article quoted (October 2007). After Murray beating Davydenko on Tuesday why don't you say that "Davydenko should shut up for a whole year and concentrate on his tennis". You have also to remember the double standards of the OP who thinks that Murray is fair game for snide comments from other players but anytime he mentions another player even to say he would like to surpass their ranking position or that he thinks he can win a slam he is being disrespectful.

by barrystar Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:36 am

legendkillarV2 wrote:
Josiah Maiestas wrote:What proof of Nadal are you looking for Legend? You won't believe any proof even if his former physicians come out with a story tomorrow. That won't happen though as they would be sued wouldn't they.

JM,

If a former Physician came out tomorrow with 'claims' of Nadal taking PED's or substances designed to improve performance, he/she may as well sign a death warrant. Let me explain.

A Physician that comes out and makes such claims would never work again because of the following:

1) Breaching patient confidentiality.
2) Breaking laws in administrating banned substances.
3) Not taking patient welfare into consideration if administrating banned substances or recommending such substances.

Now what do posters seriously have as any evidence or circumstanstial patterns in Nadal being someone that takes PED's or banned substances? Oh I know because he wins. Only a cheat can beat Federer seems to be the law of thinking. When I see such accusations I think to myself hmmmm jealousy. Also what about Djokovic who starts cleaning up the Slams after not winning one for 3 years? That for me is stirs far more curiousity than someone who has proven success year after year.

Take Davydenko. 2 matches in which 'irregular betting patterns' occurred and also ties in with poor performances. Now if there was investigations into foul play and someone profitting from match fixing and you have 2 such determining factors in such claims, I am amazed that this can be overlooked compared with people who cry foul at an athlete who wins in his sport. So you tell me what looks more suspicious. A guy who wins year in year out without any of his fellow players who share the same locker room have not submitted any complaints or concerns to the ATP/ITF/WADA about performance levels, without doctors or physicians coming out with scientific conclusions about the player's level of performance or someone who is a former World No.3 who is renowned for chucking matches, even warned by chair umpires for lack of effort, has had matches with irregular betting patterns on it and also 'rumoured' to have received payments from syndicates?

So tell me, which of the 2 examples raises more questions about integrity?

There's no actual proof, but I think there's room for a lot of scepticism about tennis generally and about some of the more endurance-based muscly players more particularly. Yes, I include Nadal in that category.

Nadal does himself no favours with his publicized attitude towards testing, frequently complaining about its rigours despite the facts that without a testing regime there would less money in his sport and it's feeble compared to other sports. I also thought his tweet to the effect that Contador remained his champion after the guy had failed a test (after a career spent in teams which dope) was, let's just say, misjudged.

The actions of the Spanish authorities with regard to Operacion Puerto have also meant that it is perfectly legitimate to have a cocked eyebrow ready with which to view the endurance exploits of Spanish sportsmen. The fact that Nadal pushes the envelope with time-taking on Court does not help my view of his integrity generally (and that goes for all tennis players who do the same -it's just that Nadal is the poster boy for that conduct).

Scepticism is not the same as cynicism or unsustainable allegations, and I consider it is well-merited in the case of the ATP, and Nadal - in fact it is merited with pretty much every sport you care to mention.

Edit: To follow up on the difference between scepticism and more serious concerns - I completely lost interest in athletics from Seoul 1988 when it became apparent to even the most starry-eyed observer that what we were watching was not believable, and not just because of Johnson. Nor do I believe in swimming or cycling - although I still enjoy the latter as a spectacle. I have never believed that good-old fair-minded Brits are any less likely to cheat than anyone else. I still don't view tennis, or Nadal, with anything like the same suspicion as these other sports, but I'd like to see more support for the testers from the likes of Nadal.

by bogbrush Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:48 am

banbrotam wrote:
bogbrush wrote:* sets up chair and waits for Craig to come in *

And what about me? I am very disappointed in you BB

Craigs normally a bit faster off the mark than you, though I think you may have the edge in nakedly fanatical she-tiger style aggression, so apologies Cool

by Guest Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:49 am

barrystar wrote:
legendkillarV2 wrote:
Josiah Maiestas wrote:What proof of Nadal are you looking for Legend? You won't believe any proof even if his former physicians come out with a story tomorrow. That won't happen though as they would be sued wouldn't they.

JM,

If a former Physician came out tomorrow with 'claims' of Nadal taking PED's or substances designed to improve performance, he/she may as well sign a death warrant. Let me explain.

A Physician that comes out and makes such claims would never work again because of the following:

1) Breaching patient confidentiality.
2) Breaking laws in administrating banned substances.
3) Not taking patient welfare into consideration if administrating banned substances or recommending such substances.

Now what do posters seriously have as any evidence or circumstanstial patterns in Nadal being someone that takes PED's or banned substances? Oh I know because he wins. Only a cheat can beat Federer seems to be the law of thinking. When I see such accusations I think to myself hmmmm jealousy. Also what about Djokovic who starts cleaning up the Slams after not winning one for 3 years? That for me is stirs far more curiousity than someone who has proven success year after year.

Take Davydenko. 2 matches in which 'irregular betting patterns' occurred and also ties in with poor performances. Now if there was investigations into foul play and someone profitting from match fixing and you have 2 such determining factors in such claims, I am amazed that this can be overlooked compared with people who cry foul at an athlete who wins in his sport. So you tell me what looks more suspicious. A guy who wins year in year out without any of his fellow players who share the same locker room have not submitted any complaints or concerns to the ATP/ITF/WADA about performance levels, without doctors or physicians coming out with scientific conclusions about the player's level of performance or someone who is a former World No.3 who is renowned for chucking matches, even warned by chair umpires for lack of effort, has had matches with irregular betting patterns on it and also 'rumoured' to have received payments from syndicates?

So tell me, which of the 2 examples raises more questions about integrity?

There's no actual proof, but I think there's room for a lot of scepticism about tennis generally and about some of the more endurance-based muscly players more particularly. Yes, I include Nadal in that category.

Nadal does himself no favours with his publicized attitude towards testing, frequently complaining about its rigours despite the facts that without a testing regime there would less money in his sport and it's feeble compared to other sports. I also thought his tweet to the effect that Contador remained his champion after the guy had failed a test (after a career spent in teams which dope) was, let's just say, misjudged.

The actions of the Spanish authorities with regard to Operacion Puerto have also meant that it is perfectly legitimate to have a cocked eyebrow ready with which to view the endurance exploits of Spanish sportsmen.

Scepticism is not the same as cynicism or unsustainable allegations, and I consider it is well-merited in the case of the ATP, and Nadal - in fact it is merited with pretty much every sport you care to mention.

Yes I agree that Nadal done himself no favours with the Contador tweet, but I think the tweet can be confused with support. If a friend of yours was done for drug cheating, initially you wouldn't put distance between yourselves and also I am sure you would support that friend even if their conduct was incorrect. You're not supporting cheating, your supporting your friend who you know is getting crap. 2 different gestures which often get misconstrued.

Yes Spain's emergence in sport is somewhat unpresidented, but sports have changed in general and some of those changes have benefited other countries/teams/individuals.

by barrystar Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 am

legendkillarV2 wrote:
barrystar wrote:
legendkillarV2 wrote:
Josiah Maiestas wrote:What proof of Nadal are you looking for Legend? You won't believe any proof even if his former physicians come out with a story tomorrow. That won't happen though as they would be sued wouldn't they.

JM,

If a former Physician came out tomorrow with 'claims' of Nadal taking PED's or substances designed to improve performance, he/she may as well sign a death warrant. Let me explain.

A Physician that comes out and makes such claims would never work again because of the following:

1) Breaching patient confidentiality.
2) Breaking laws in administrating banned substances.
3) Not taking patient welfare into consideration if administrating banned substances or recommending such substances.

Now what do posters seriously have as any evidence or circumstanstial patterns in Nadal being someone that takes PED's or banned substances? Oh I know because he wins. Only a cheat can beat Federer seems to be the law of thinking. When I see such accusations I think to myself hmmmm jealousy. Also what about Djokovic who starts cleaning up the Slams after not winning one for 3 years? That for me is stirs far more curiousity than someone who has proven success year after year.

Take Davydenko. 2 matches in which 'irregular betting patterns' occurred and also ties in with poor performances. Now if there was investigations into foul play and someone profitting from match fixing and you have 2 such determining factors in such claims, I am amazed that this can be overlooked compared with people who cry foul at an athlete who wins in his sport. So you tell me what looks more suspicious. A guy who wins year in year out without any of his fellow players who share the same locker room have not submitted any complaints or concerns to the ATP/ITF/WADA about performance levels, without doctors or physicians coming out with scientific conclusions about the player's level of performance or someone who is a former World No.3 who is renowned for chucking matches, even warned by chair umpires for lack of effort, has had matches with irregular betting patterns on it and also 'rumoured' to have received payments from syndicates?

So tell me, which of the 2 examples raises more questions about integrity?

There's no actual proof, but I think there's room for a lot of scepticism about tennis generally and about some of the more endurance-based muscly players more particularly. Yes, I include Nadal in that category.

Nadal does himself no favours with his publicized attitude towards testing, frequently complaining about its rigours despite the facts that without a testing regime there would less money in his sport and it's feeble compared to other sports. I also thought his tweet to the effect that Contador remained his champion after the guy had failed a test (after a career spent in teams which dope) was, let's just say, misjudged.

The actions of the Spanish authorities with regard to Operacion Puerto have also meant that it is perfectly legitimate to have a cocked eyebrow ready with which to view the endurance exploits of Spanish sportsmen.

Scepticism is not the same as cynicism or unsustainable allegations, and I consider it is well-merited in the case of the ATP, and Nadal - in fact it is merited with pretty much every sport you care to mention.

Yes I agree that Nadal done himself no favours with the Contador tweet, but I think the tweet can be confused with support. If a friend of yours was done for drug cheating, initially you wouldn't put distance between yourselves and also I am sure you would support that friend even if their conduct was incorrect. You're not supporting cheating, your supporting your friend who you know is getting crap. 2 different gestures which often get misconstrued.

Yes Spain's emergence in sport is somewhat unpresidented, but sports have changed in general and some of those changes have benefited other countries/teams/individuals.

Re the tweet - I agree that supporting a friend is admirable, but friendships require mutual respect. If a friend were accused of cheating in something I'd say to him, "I love you, I hate cheating. If you look me in the eye and say you didn't do it I'll support you in your efforts to clear your name. If you look me in the eye and say you did and you are ashamed I'll support you as a loved friend". That, of course, leaves unsaid one of the most important bits that is not necessary between true friends, "you can't expect me to support a lie if that's what you are telling".

Nadal is not a lawyer or a politician, but he is surely aware enough of the situation to avoid ambiguity - I have not got it, but I recall that the most obvious reading of his tweet was to the effect, "I support you whatever"

Put it another way - would you give evidence to the police which demonstrated your friend's guilt in a serious crime? I would, I think true friendship is distinguishable from dishonest omerta.

by Guest Thu Jun 28, 2012 11:07 am

barrystar wrote:
legendkillarV2 wrote:
barrystar wrote:
legendkillarV2 wrote:
Josiah Maiestas wrote:What proof of Nadal are you looking for Legend? You won't believe any proof even if his former physicians come out with a story tomorrow. That won't happen though as they would be sued wouldn't they.

JM,

If a former Physician came out tomorrow with 'claims' of Nadal taking PED's or substances designed to improve performance, he/she may as well sign a death warrant. Let me explain.

A Physician that comes out and makes such claims would never work again because of the following:

1) Breaching patient confidentiality.
2) Breaking laws in administrating banned substances.
3) Not taking patient welfare into consideration if administrating banned substances or recommending such substances.

Now what do posters seriously have as any evidence or circumstanstial patterns in Nadal being someone that takes PED's or banned substances? Oh I know because he wins. Only a cheat can beat Federer seems to be the law of thinking. When I see such accusations I think to myself hmmmm jealousy. Also what about Djokovic who starts cleaning up the Slams after not winning one for 3 years? That for me is stirs far more curiousity than someone who has proven success year after year.

Take Davydenko. 2 matches in which 'irregular betting patterns' occurred and also ties in with poor performances. Now if there was investigations into foul play and someone profitting from match fixing and you have 2 such determining factors in such claims, I am amazed that this can be overlooked compared with people who cry foul at an athlete who wins in his sport. So you tell me what looks more suspicious. A guy who wins year in year out without any of his fellow players who share the same locker room have not submitted any complaints or concerns to the ATP/ITF/WADA about performance levels, without doctors or physicians coming out with scientific conclusions about the player's level of performance or someone who is a former World No.3 who is renowned for chucking matches, even warned by chair umpires for lack of effort, has had matches with irregular betting patterns on it and also 'rumoured' to have received payments from syndicates?

So tell me, which of the 2 examples raises more questions about integrity?

There's no actual proof, but I think there's room for a lot of scepticism about tennis generally and about some of the more endurance-based muscly players more particularly. Yes, I include Nadal in that category.

Nadal does himself no favours with his publicized attitude towards testing, frequently complaining about its rigours despite the facts that without a testing regime there would less money in his sport and it's feeble compared to other sports. I also thought his tweet to the effect that Contador remained his champion after the guy had failed a test (after a career spent in teams which dope) was, let's just say, misjudged.

The actions of the Spanish authorities with regard to Operacion Puerto have also meant that it is perfectly legitimate to have a cocked eyebrow ready with which to view the endurance exploits of Spanish sportsmen.

Scepticism is not the same as cynicism or unsustainable allegations, and I consider it is well-merited in the case of the ATP, and Nadal - in fact it is merited with pretty much every sport you care to mention.

Yes I agree that Nadal done himself no favours with the Contador tweet, but I think the tweet can be confused with support. If a friend of yours was done for drug cheating, initially you wouldn't put distance between yourselves and also I am sure you would support that friend even if their conduct was incorrect. You're not supporting cheating, your supporting your friend who you know is getting crap. 2 different gestures which often get misconstrued.

Yes Spain's emergence in sport is somewhat unpresidented, but sports have changed in general and some of those changes have benefited other countries/teams/individuals.

Re the tweet - I agree that supporting a friend is admirable, but friendships require mutual respect. If a friend were accused of cheating in something I'd say to him, "I love you, I hate cheating. If you look me in the eye and say you didn't do it I'll support you in your efforts to clear your name. If you look me in the eye and say you did and you are ashamed I'll support you as a loved friend". That, of course, leaves unsaid one of the most important bits that is not necessary between true friends, "you can't expect me to support a lie if that's what you are telling".

Nadal is not a lawyer or a politician, but he is surely aware enough of the situation to avoid ambiguity - I have not got it, but I recall that the most obvious reading of his tweet was to the effect, "I support you whatever"

Put it another way - would you give evidence to the police which demonstrated your friend's guilt in a serious crime? I would, I think true friendship is distinguishable from dishonest omerta.

I did grass my brother up to the council for fiddling payments on his rent. I gave him every opportunity to stop and do the right thing and he never did. A friend of mine grassed her dad to the DVLA for witholding information on a brain injury which would affect his judgment when driving and puts lives at risk.

I agree there needs to be a mutual respect between friends, but if we are taking this at the value of cheating in sport, the token of friendship would be "ok you got caught and punished. I am still your friend, but I wouldn't have taken the same actions"

If people are punished for their mistakes and conducts, I would still honour a friendship.

Now if they asked me to tow a line of deceit to aid them, that would be an entirely different thing and one I wouldn't honour.

When the tweet came out the reaction was like "oh he endorses cheating" which wasn't the case.

by barrystar Thu Jun 28, 2012 11:17 am

legendkillarV2 wrote:I agree there needs to be a mutual respect between friends, but if we are taking this at the value of cheating in sport, the token of friendship would be "ok you got caught and punished. I am still your friend, but I wouldn't have taken the same actions"

If people are punished for their mistakes and conducts, I would still honour a friendship.

There's a bit more to it than that, in the case of a serious bit of cheating (like meticulous doping) the friendship is going to suffer if the cheat requires the friend to live in a fantasy world of 'I'm not a cheat'; he's got to acknowledge what he did to enable them to move on. I don't mean abase himself for 20mins every day, nor do I compare this to a foul on a football pitch, but it's a big deal to dope and maintain a lie to the rest of the world, including your friends, that you didn't. To ask your friends to continue to love you as what you said you were is problematic - a punishment administered by the authorities does not of its own wipe the slate clean I'd suggest.

by banbrotam Thu Jun 28, 2012 11:38 am

bogbrush wrote:
banbrotam wrote:
bogbrush wrote:* sets up chair and waits for Craig to come in *

And what about me? I am very disappointed in you BB

Craigs normally a bit faster off the mark than you, though I think you may have the edge in nakedly fanatical she-tiger style aggression, so apologies

Thanks for the compliment. I haven't been mistaken for a girl since was forced to go around Barnsley on my stag do in a pink tu-tu!!

by lydian Thu Jun 28, 2012 11:53 am

Thats some cojones to do that banbrotam!

BTW, I know your neck of the woods extremely well - have they still got that mongolian restaurant - Temujin's - there? Wink

by Sponsored content