Doping in tennis

First topic message reminder :

With recent cycling events, doping in sports has gained some cover page exposure. I would like to get a sense for how much posters here think doping in tennis is a problem. But in order to avoid the infighting that this topic often brings, as well as to stay away from accusations of this player or that one, I ask that you answer one simple question:

As your best guess, how many of the current ATP top 100 do you think use banned substances?

Giving one number is all it takes to answer.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

socal1976 wrote:I disagree on one point in particular. I think the vast majority of the athletes in a choice between an approved PED that works, is safe, and has been tested, and has no legal sanction; would take that PED over another PED B that has not gone through the proper testing, could be made anywhere, and may not work or be dangerous.

I do agree with that (don't think I said otherwise) just as I think the majority now are clean. But let's say 5% still take the dangerous and more effective ones. Either you let them get away with it by allowing it, in which case the winners are decided by who is willing to take the health risk, not by talent/natural ability. Or you keep banning the dangerous ones and keep testing, which is the same as now.

We currently have regulation and monitoring. The only way to change that is to allow everything, however dangerous.

No we don't have regulation and monitoring, we have basically a hundreds of banned substances so I don't know what you are talking about on this particular point. This argument that if we legalize we have to legalize everything is in my mind a false choice why is that? There are plenty of legal drugs and plenty of illegal drugs, we take it on a case by case basis based on testing for negative side effects. Just like how every other drug gets apporved when coming into the market.

What about genetic advances. If we could safely genetically create a breed of super-athletes, shoud we go that far?
Or nanotechonlogy, with nanites that can artifically boost muscle performance, so that PEDs are no longer enough?
At what point does the scientists lab take over to determine the winners/losers.

socal, I may be wrong, but it appears that you don't like athletes getting caught cheating, so you're saying let's not call it cheating anymore. I don't hear the athletes themselves calling for that - they seem to want ways to clean up sports instead.

socal1976 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

socal1976 wrote:I disagree on one point in particular. I think the vast majority of the athletes in a choice between an approved PED that works, is safe, and has been tested, and has no legal sanction; would take that PED over another PED B that has not gone through the proper testing, could be made anywhere, and may not work or be dangerous.

I do agree with that (don't think I said otherwise) just as I think the majority now are clean. But let's say 5% still take the dangerous and more effective ones. Either you let them get away with it by allowing it, in which case the winners are decided by who is willing to take the health risk, not by talent/natural ability. Or you keep banning the dangerous ones and keep testing, which is the same as now.

We currently have regulation and monitoring. The only way to change that is to allow everything, however dangerous.

No we don't have regulation and monitoring, we have basically a hundreds of banned substances so I don't know what you are talking about on this particular point. This argument that if we legalize we have to legalize everything is in my mind a false choice why is that? There are plenty of legal drugs and plenty of illegal drugs, we take it on a case by case basis based on testing for negative side effects. Just like how every other drug gets apporved when coming into the market.

OK, so you legalize a hundred more substances, but leave some banned? In what way is that different to the current system in terms of regulation and monitoring? The only thing that's changed is the number of items on the banned list.

Julius why do you think no athletes would call for that? It is putting yourself into a highly controversial position where by just voicing an opinion could cost you endorsements.

Julius the things you talk about for the most are going to happen man and machine are becoming closer together. Do you have a problem with hearing aids and pacemakers? Of course all of the future advances have to have a legal and moral framework for their use. I mean we have nuclear technology you can't just buy some plutonium at walmart, for every technology proper rules and regulations are needed to prevent abuses that are immoral and unjust.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

socal1976 wrote:I disagree on one point in particular. I think the vast majority of the athletes in a choice between an approved PED that works, is safe, and has been tested, and has no legal sanction; would take that PED over another PED B that has not gone through the proper testing, could be made anywhere, and may not work or be dangerous.

I do agree with that (don't think I said otherwise) just as I think the majority now are clean. But let's say 5% still take the dangerous and more effective ones. Either you let them get away with it by allowing it, in which case the winners are decided by who is willing to take the health risk, not by talent/natural ability. Or you keep banning the dangerous ones and keep testing, which is the same as now.

We currently have regulation and monitoring. The only way to change that is to allow everything, however dangerous.

No we don't have regulation and monitoring, we have basically a hundreds of banned substances so I don't know what you are talking about on this particular point. This argument that if we legalize we have to legalize everything is in my mind a false choice why is that? There are plenty of legal drugs and plenty of illegal drugs, we take it on a case by case basis based on testing for negative side effects. Just like how every other drug gets apporved when coming into the market.

OK, so you legalize a hundred more substances, but leave some banned? In what way is that different to the current system in terms of regulation and monitoring? The only thing that's changed is the number of items on the banned list.

You change people's perspective and the basis of banning drugs. Currently PEds are banned not because of health risk alone but because they do enhance performance and damage the health. The new criteria would not look at if a drug increases performance as a reason for banning, the only valid reason for a ban will be health risk or incomplete testing. Now adays a PED could have limited or manageable health risks but if it is really effective it will be banned because of performance enahancement aspect.

socal1976 wrote:

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

socal1976 wrote: Do any of you feel like Lance Armstrong and his case is a victory of any kind, for anyone involved? Or do you seriously believe it deters anyone? No it just destroys whatever good the man accomplished and gives cycling another black eye, wow what a victory.

What????

Are you saying that you would rather let the cheater retain all of his trophies? Are you on drugs?

No I would rather create a system that is more transparent, filled with less witch hunts, less scandal, and an end to never ending speculation. I never bought a bracelet, and never watched one second of lance armstrong's races. I could care less about him retaining his trophies or not. But this continous fiasco situation has to end. Tell me how many more public shamings and multimillion dollar investigation are needed before we attain the mythical level playing field that we all say we want? So lance Armstrong is destroyed like dozens of athletes before him are you any closer to that level playing field and a clean sport? No, because nothing is done to address the fundamental issue, most of us really dislike the dishonesty and cheating it isn't so much the drug aspect that is disturbing.

You know what's really disturbing about the whole story? The fact that he and his team got away clean and undetected for ten years of rutine testing by the UCI, while years later, they were only cought as a result of an independent investigation carried out by USADA, an external body . Now, doesn't this prove what utter joke the antidoping agencies are and what little effectiveness the testing programs currently have?

But what would stop athletes taking the ones that have the health risk, if they are more effective - that's what they've been doing all along. You'd still need testing to catch that right? All you've done is move the goalposts, you haven't changed the game.

Are you assuming there are some PEDs that have no negative health effects, or do you have examples of some?

I guess, at the end of the day, you (as you said) would like to watch some safely drugged up athletes run a 5 second 100m. I would have no interest in that.

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

socal1976 wrote: Do any of you feel like Lance Armstrong and his case is a victory of any kind, for anyone involved? Or do you seriously believe it deters anyone? No it just destroys whatever good the man accomplished and gives cycling another black eye, wow what a victory.

What????

Are you saying that you would rather let the cheater retain all of his trophies? Are you on drugs?

No I would rather create a system that is more transparent, filled with less witch hunts, less scandal, and an end to never ending speculation. I never bought a bracelet, and never watched one second of lance armstrong's races. I could care less about him retaining his trophies or not. But this continous fiasco situation has to end. Tell me how many more public shamings and multimillion dollar investigation are needed before we attain the mythical level playing field that we all say we want? So lance Armstrong is destroyed like dozens of athletes before him are you any closer to that level playing field and a clean sport? No, because nothing is done to address the fundamental issue, most of us really dislike the dishonesty and cheating it isn't so much the drug aspect that is disturbing.

You know what's really disturbing about the whole story? The fact that he and his team got away clean and undetected for ten years of rutine testing by the UCI, while years later, they were only cought as a result of an independent investigation carried out by USADA, an external body . Now, doesn't this prove what utter joke the antidoping agencies are and what little effectiveness the testing programs currently have?

Ding, Ding, ding, now you are seeing what I am saying. This is all a farce the demise of lance armstrong's reputation till the day he dies brings you no closer to the mythical playing field. Now replay this battle against Armstrong times 1000 that is what it will take to win this war on PEDS. Fight the wars you can win, don't continue to fight the wars you have already lost.

Fight for what's right, whether you can win or not. Don't just give up.

They got away with it because EPO is so hard to detect..and quickly leaves the body.

What's the skill/stamina ratio of tennis vs cycling?

lydian wrote:They got away with it because EPO is so hard to detect..and quickly leaves the body.

What's the skill/stamina ratio of tennis vs cycling?

There's not the difference there once was, that's for sure.

Soc: I am not seeing any of the weird hallucinations.

I still think the war on doping can be won by traditional means, provided there is the good will from the federations, the agencies are given enough resources and enough autority to take the difficult and unpopular decisions they are required to take.

But for me its still a massive difference.
Cycling is nearly all stamina, no skill...there isnt that much skill in revolving pedals for hour after hour aside from race tactics. I say that from experience as I used to compete in triathlons.

Tennis is vastly different. Ok, you may have to run for hours but you still need to be able to play highly skilled shots the whole way...EPO does not make you more skilled but I can see it has more of a role if matches are becoming longer.

If we shortened matches, pushed the fulcrum back to the skill based end then EPO/HGH, etc, would have less of a potential role in tennis. If we keep slowing things down then we reduce skill base, reduce variety and give the players more of a need to dope.

If this will be the case, you won't see other grotesque episodes of famous athletes locking themselves into panic rooms to skip the tests......

lydian wrote:But for me its still a massive difference.
Cycling is nearly all stamina, no skill...there isnt that much skill in revolving pedals for hour after hour aside from race tactics. I say that from experience as I used to compete in triathlons.

Tennis is vastly different. Ok, you may have to run for hours but you still need to be able to play highly skilled shots the whole way...EPO does not make you more skilled but I can see it has more of a role if matches are becoming longer.

If we shortened matches, pushed the fulcrum back to the skill based end then EPO/HGH, etc, would have less of a potential role in tennis. If we keep slowing things down then we reduce skill base, reduce variety and give the players more of a need to dope.

Yeah. We all know for years that Murray's mantra has been "I need to get fitter". It's not difficult to believe that dozens of other players all thought the same, and 1 or 2 then took the easy route.

Yes there is a level of fitness you need at the very top of tennis. Murray was cramping in 2 hour matches.

Sure, guys will always be tempted to take easy routes - you cant stop cheaters from cheating. But even more will be tempted to cheat if tennis continues down the "stamina path". This isnt a black and white argument...its surely about trying to mimimise the need to dope, having good and regular testing procedures and having strong deterrents in place by means of serious consequences for those who cheat.

lydian wrote:Yes there is a level of fitness you need at the very top of tennis. Murray was cramping in 2 hour matches.

Sure, guys will always be tempted to take easy routes - you cant stop cheaters from cheating. But even more will be tempted to cheat if tennis continues down the "stamina path". This isnt a black and white argument...its surely about trying to mimimise the need to dope, having good and regular testing procedures and having strong deterrents in place by means of serious consequences for those who cheat.

I wouldn't call taking doping taking the easy route, but the necessary one. Taking doping alone won't transform you into a champion, it's a combination of doping and hard work that does. I doubt that Armstrong was sitting on a sofa all day.

Jeremy_Kyle wrote: Soc: I am not seeing any of the weird hallucinations.

I still think the war on doping can be won by traditional means, provided there is the good will from the federations, the agencies are given enough resources and enough autority to take the difficult and unpopular decisions they are required to take.

You are being very naughty JK with hallucination references and drug references. But that is ok Socal is all about peaceful coexistence JK. By the way if I was going to hallucinate about anything it would involve Scarlett Johannson and a king sized bed not a world free of PEDs. Yes, yes, enough resources and enough authority, we have been hearing the same mantras of faith from the war on drugs people for generations. These tools did a cracking job of solving society's wider drug problem I am sure it will work wonders when applied to athletes who have megamillion dollar incentives to break the rules.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Fight for what's right, whether you can win or not. Don't just give up.

Ok Julius, now that you have done your best braveheart impersonation what makes you think just doubling down on the same failed policies and going through decades of endless investigation and scandal is quote "right".

Chydremion wrote:

lydian wrote:Yes there is a level of fitness you need at the very top of tennis. Murray was cramping in 2 hour matches.

Sure, guys will always be tempted to take easy routes - you cant stop cheaters from cheating. But even more will be tempted to cheat if tennis continues down the "stamina path". This isnt a black and white argument...its surely about trying to mimimise the need to dope, having good and regular testing procedures and having strong deterrents in place by means of serious consequences for those who cheat.

I wouldn't call taking doping taking the easy route, but the necessary one. Taking doping alone won't transform you into a champion, it's a combination of doping and hard work that does. I doubt that Armstrong was sitting on a sofa all day.

JHM mentioned "easy route", I just repeated it to make my point.

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:You know what's really disturbing about the whole story? The fact that he and his team got away clean and undetected for ten years of rutine testing by the UCI, while years later, they were only cought as a result of an independent investigation carried out by USADA, an external body . Now, doesn't this prove what utter joke the antidoping agencies are and what little effectiveness the testing programs currently have?

Specifically about USADA, it is an utter joke. I assume you are aware of US MLB, NFL and other scandals. USADA would have had nothing if LA's colleagues (like TH) had not come out and confessed. They USADA even allowed known doping athletes to participate in the Olympic Games.

Rochus, Noah, Santoro keep hinting, but no one has the cojones to come out and name names. I wonder why this omerta?

lydian wrote:

Chydremion wrote:

lydian wrote:Yes there is a level of fitness you need at the very top of tennis. Murray was cramping in 2 hour matches.

Sure, guys will always be tempted to take easy routes - you cant stop cheaters from cheating. But even more will be tempted to cheat if tennis continues down the "stamina path". This isnt a black and white argument...its surely about trying to mimimise the need to dope, having good and regular testing procedures and having strong deterrents in place by means of serious consequences for those who cheat.

I wouldn't call taking doping taking the easy route, but the necessary one. Taking doping alone won't transform you into a champion, it's a combination of doping and hard work that does. I doubt that Armstrong was sitting on a sofa all day.

JHM mentioned "easy route", I just repeated it to make my point.

You right, I should have replied on JHM comment.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

lydian wrote:They got away with it because EPO is so hard to detect..and quickly leaves the body.

What's the skill/stamina ratio of tennis vs cycling?

There's not the difference there once was, that's for sure.

Come on, how can the skill difference of today's tour be compared in anyway with a sport that can more easily be accomplished with a simple electromotor? Are you telling me Novak Djokovic's return of a 135 mile hour serve is closer in skill today to mindless peddling than lets say Sampras' serve or Andre' return? Well Tenez is gone but at least his arguments are alive and well, no wonder he gloats at me that on V2 everyone thinks like he does, on this point he is right.

As long as people will have to strike the ball in tennis, the skill factor will remain. But would be naive to think because of this that doping aint used in tennis.

socal1976 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Fight for what's right, whether you can win or not. Don't just give up.

Ok Julius, now that you have done your best braveheart impersonation what makes you think just doubling down on the same failed policies and going through decades of endless investigation and scandal is quote "right".

What makes you think giving up is "right"? I prefer to see rule-breakers in sport caught, rather than change the rules, which are there what I consider to be a good reason.
The athletes that break the rules are creating the scandal, whether they are caught or not. The authorities are not creating the scandal.

Chydremion wrote:

lydian wrote:

Chydremion wrote:

lydian wrote:Yes there is a level of fitness you need at the very top of tennis. Murray was cramping in 2 hour matches.

Sure, guys will always be tempted to take easy routes - you cant stop cheaters from cheating. But even more will be tempted to cheat if tennis continues down the "stamina path". This isnt a black and white argument...its surely about trying to mimimise the need to dope, having good and regular testing procedures and having strong deterrents in place by means of serious consequences for those who cheat.

I wouldn't call taking doping taking the easy route, but the necessary one. Taking doping alone won't transform you into a champion, it's a combination of doping and hard work that does. I doubt that Armstrong was sitting on a sofa all day.

JHM mentioned "easy route", I just repeated it to make my point.

You right, I should have replied on JHM comment

Perhaps 'easy' is not the correct word. But it is easier to PED and train 4 hours a day, than not PED and train 6 hours a day. I'm assuming that some athletes take PEDs just to reach journeyman level.

socal1976 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

lydian wrote:They got away with it because EPO is so hard to detect..and quickly leaves the body.

What's the skill/stamina ratio of tennis vs cycling?

There's not the difference there once was, that's for sure.

Come on, how can the skill difference of today's tour be compared in anyway with a sport that can more easily be accomplished with a simple electromotor? Are you telling me Novak Djokovic's return of a 135 mile hour serve is closer in skill today to mindless peddling than lets say Sampras' serve or Andre' return? Well Tenez is gone but at least his arguments are alive and well, no wonder he gloats at me that on V2 everyone thinks like he does, on this point he is right.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying the physical element of tennis is now a lot closer to cycling than it was in the day, of say, Vitus Gueralitis.

socal1976 wrote:

Jeremy_Kyle wrote: Soc: I am not seeing any of the weird hallucinations.

I still think the war on doping can be won by traditional means, provided there is the good will from the federations, the agencies are given enough resources and enough autority to take the difficult and unpopular decisions they are required to take.

Yes, yes, enough resources and enough authority, we have been hearing the same mantras of faith from the war on drugs people for generations. These tools did a cracking job of solving society's wider drug problem I am sure it will work wonders when applied to athletes who have megamillion dollar incentives to break the rules.

On the contrary, I don't think the various sport federations have put a big effort into fighting against doping, so far. Personally I wish they did.

Socal, I totally totally disagree with you on this one.

1. Doping being legal doesn't lead to a level playing field.
2. Doping being legal doesn't make it safer, just because it's legal.
3. Side Effects being publicised doesn't make it safer.
4. The gamble for athletes to take even more dangerous PEDs which give even better enhancing effects will still remain for athletes, in-fact is may become even more attractive to try and gain an advantage.
5. People won't be able to relate to what they are watching on tv, unless they also take PEDs.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Chydremion wrote:

lydian wrote:

Chydremion wrote:

lydian wrote:Yes there is a level of fitness you need at the very top of tennis. Murray was cramping in 2 hour matches.

Sure, guys will always be tempted to take easy routes - you cant stop cheaters from cheating. But even more will be tempted to cheat if tennis continues down the "stamina path". This isnt a black and white argument...its surely about trying to mimimise the need to dope, having good and regular testing procedures and having strong deterrents in place by means of serious consequences for those who cheat.

I wouldn't call taking doping taking the easy route, but the necessary one. Taking doping alone won't transform you into a champion, it's a combination of doping and hard work that does. I doubt that Armstrong was sitting on a sofa all day.

JHM mentioned "easy route", I just repeated it to make my point.

You right, I should have replied on JHM comment

Perhaps 'easy' is not the correct word. But it is easier to PED and train 4 hours a day, than not PED and train 6 hours a day. I'm assuming that some athletes take PEDs just to reach journeyman level.

Maybe at the journeyman level, but not top level. Many sportsman take PED to be able to train 6 hours a day instead of 4, it has little to see with lazyness but just with getting that little extra edge.

OK - I officially withdraw the word 'easy' It's a bit like saying bank robbers take the easy option - I suspect it's actually quite hard to rob a bank.

Socal, this isnt about tenez views being replicated on this forum.
Many of us just happen to have similar opinions OF OUR OWN you know.

Fact: The game is generally slower than it used to be.
Fact: Technology makes it easier to sustain a ralley than before.
So...: Matches are longer than they used to be.
Therefore: Stamina is more important now than say 15-20 yrs ago.

Tennis is much more skill based than cycling...however, the motivation to dope will increase further if stamina continues to become MORE of an important factor in tennis matches. And yes, I can still say this as a Nadal 'fan'.

It Must Be Love wrote:Socal, I totally totally disagree with you on this one.

1. Doping being legal doesn't lead to a level playing field.
2. Doping being legal doesn't make it safer, just because it's legal.
3. Side Effects being publicised doesn't make it safer.
4. The gamble for athletes to take even more dangerous PEDs which give even better enhancing effects will still remain for athletes, in-fact is may become even more attractive to try and gain an advantage.
5. People won't be able to relate to what they are watching on tv, unless they also take PEDs.

Well it is ok IMBL, you can't be right all the time! LOL

-Doping being illegal doesn't lead to a level playing field either, right now the players and in three groups. Those that don't cheat, those that cheat and are dumb enough to get caught, and those that cheat and get away with it. So we don't have the mythical level playing field now either.

-Yes Doping being legal is safer than getting it off the street or from shady practicioners of medicine on the fringes.. Also when it isn't stigmatized you cut down on self medication, you get more information on proper use to the patient. You protect against untested substances being used, you also protect against tainted medication something that kills many people each year.

-No but risks that you are informed of may deter you, at the least you have informed consent tand that knowledge has value to the patient himself in making a good decision on his health with his doctor.

-I disagree, if all peds are tested and if they can somewhat safely be used why would the athlete not want to use a drug that has been tested and proven to work, with manageable side effects and no legal sanction AND instead buy an untested brand made by some shady company in the third world where he has no guarantee either that it works or that it isn't dangerous. And furthermore open himself up to sanction as well. The motivation is not the same when choosing between a tested working PED and a PED that is an unknown and illegal quality. When you have pain do you go to the doctor to get a pill or do you go to the street corner and score some heroine? Both will cure your back pain by the way, why do you go to the doctor and not self medicate with heroine, same thing is true for the athlete.

-tell that to the NFL, probably the dirtiest and richest pro league in the world.

lydian wrote:Socal, this isnt about tenez views being replicated on this forum.
Many of us just happen to have similar opinions OF OUR OWN you know.

Fact: The game is generally slower than it used to be.
Fact: Technology makes it easier to sustain a ralley than before.
So...: Matches are longer than they used to be.
Therefore: Stamina is more important now than say 15-20 yrs ago.

Tennis is much more skill based than cycling...however, the motivation to dope will increase further if stamina continues to become MORE of an important factor in tennis matches. And yes, I can still say this as a Nadal 'fan'.

I know Lydian I am sorry but he does actually gloat about this on Our Tenez Forum (copyright laverfan) Lydian, and this was a bit of wummery on my part I suppose, you know I can't help myself sometimes, don't mean to be nasty to you or Julius aka the DICtator. Not that you would be interested I am sure but he calls you his all time worst student, but he is glad according to him that you finally learned something from him. Just in the interests of disclosure don't want you to think I was slagging people on other sites. I am sure you are not interested in that but since your name came up I thought it better to say something. Not to worry I am very popular over there Smearjay in particular really loves my charm and wit.

hee hee - he called me a DIC...tator - hee hee

Legal doping simply means a person who wants to compete clean can't. I just can't see how that's a desirable outome.

JuliusHMarx wrote:hee hee - he called me a DIC...tator - hee hee

I like your spelling better, no letter K in there huh julius?

I left the K out? Oh fuc

bogbrush wrote:Legal doping simply means a person who wants to compete clean can't. I just can't see how that's a desirable outome.

BB you are right it isn't desirable at all. But you know what the current situation of doubt, inneundo, scandal and endless investigation in my mind is even less desirable. Also the situation of global PED gestapo style storm troopers hounding athletes to their grave is not desirable either. I really don't want to say I approve of people using PEDs I do not, but I honestly believe of the three choices 1. status quo 2. more intense investigations and scandal or 3. regulation and repeal of prohibition that the last one is the lesser of three terrible choices.

In the words of the Private Joker's CO in Full metal Jacket: "Even Cronkite now says the war is unwinnable, in other words it is a big sheet sandwhich and we all got to take a bite."

JuliusHMarx wrote:I left the K out? Oh fuc

Is anyone moderating the moderator around here talk about the inmates being put in charge?

By the way BB, plenty of people are doping now and many clean athletes are successfully competing against them right now. So the second part of your statement I don't know if I agree with but I do agree that my suggestions are no utopia, but the lesser of three evils in my mind.

No worries socal - you're obviously in combative mode after spending time 'over there'.
His worst student hey?...lol.
I didnt learn anything from tenez.

Clearly he and I didnt see eye to eye but it doesnt mean we didnt have similar views on some things.
Where he and I disagreed profusely was around the whole thing of Nadal changing his timing strategy after Miami 2005. I showed with factual information time and again that Nadal served slow in Miami 2004 and even Wimb 2003. Nadal has always taken around 27s on average between serves throughout his whole career. But he wouldnt admit to being wrong in the face of clear and contradictory evidence. Evidence that others also corroborated. We also disagreed over how fit Federer was (he tried to make out Nadal was so much fitter and yet they went toe to toe for 6 hrs in the heat at Rome 2006), and when the courts started to slow down (I argued 2001, he argued 2002). That was the nub of it really.

But in reality these were really just semantics...underneath these points we both agreed on a) the game has slowed down, b) the game has become more physical and c) the skill level has dropped. It was pretty obvious that underneath it all Tenez only argued with me because I was a Nadal "fan" because we know he's had a pathological aversion to the guy since he beat Federer at Miami 2004 and hence anything associated to him since then, including his fans!

Lydian I completely disagree with your point C and we should continue discussing that one day because as you know I do not believe the skill level has dropped but it is just a giant sidetrack of this thread. I agree with a) an b) as well. And of course his Nadalphobia is well documented.

Yes I almost peed myself when he said "lydian was my all time worst student, but I am glad that he finally learned something from me". Got to love the self belief. I told him that if he thought you were his worst student that he must think that I am a short bus rider who is forced to use the rounded edge scissors at school. Because my differences of opinion with him are much, much more extreme.

I bet you didn't know you were signing up for the University of Tenez when you first started posting on 606.

We can argue point C some other time...my point is that the breadth of skill on display is lower than it used to be.

Tenez and I have been locking horns since 2007 or so...the discussions became a well worn path. Yes, he always was very good at self-promotion. Unfortunately that self-promotion seemed to result in the well worn path getting truncated when he got banned from one forum to the next...lol. In the end he's had to create his own forum given he's ran out of tennis forums to PEDdle said path. I really fear for his passion for the game once Nadal hangs his boots up, his whole raison d'etre behind posting will evaporate overnight. Anyway, he loves me really...

JuliusHMarx wrote:Fight for what's right, whether you can win or not. Don't just give up.

Socal, yes the Lance Armstrong case was a victory.

A victory for honest people against liars.
A victory for decent people against cheats.
A victory for the people who were sued by LA for saying he was a drug cheat.
A victory for the agency that bought the case.
A victory for mainstream press (like L'Equipe) and bloggers alike that questioned his integrity.
A victory for every clean athlete that participated in the tour de France and finished below Lance Armstrong.
A victory for justice against criminality.

socal1976 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:I left the K out? Oh fuc

Is anyone moderating the moderator around here talk about the inmates being put in charge?

Watching.... yes. . Inmates are Tennis lovers too, not just steroid mamas.

Henman Bill wrote:A victory for every clean athlete that participated in the tour de France and finished below Lance Armstrong.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/08/24/sports/top-finishers-of-the-tour-de-france-tainted-by-doping.html

The 2012 OG Gold Medalist in Cycling (Vinokourov) is an ex-doper (banned in 2007 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinokourov), correct?

Is he a 'clean' athlete or not?

Henman Bill wrote:Socal, yes the Lance Armstrong case was a victory.

A victory for honest people against liars.
A victory for decent people against cheats.
A victory for the people who were sued by LA for saying he was a drug cheat.
A victory for the agency that bought the case.
A victory for mainstream press (like L'Equipe) and bloggers alike that questioned his integrity.
A victory for every clean athlete that participated in the tour de France and finished below Lance Armstrong.
A victory for justice against criminality.

Hear, hear, I concur.

You shall be placed on the potential list of potential disciples with immediate effect.

For future reference you must also include the following:

A victory for humanity
A victory for all intergalactic beings, past and present
A victory for trees
A victory for butter
A victory for Mandela - freeeeeeeeedoooooooooooom
A victory for the Eiffel tower.

'Tis a mandatory requirement for discipleship







emancipator - chief of the disciples and CEO of disciples inc.

lydian wrote:We can argue point C some other time...my point is that the breadth of skill on display is lower than it used to be.

Tenez and I have been locking horns since 2007 or so...the discussions became a well worn path. Yes, he always was very good at self-promotion. Unfortunately that self-promotion seemed to result in the well worn path getting truncated when he got banned from one forum to the next...lol. In the end he's had to create his own forum given he's ran out of tennis forums to PEDdle said path. I really fear for his passion for the game once Nadal hangs his boots up, his whole raison d'etre behind posting will evaporate overnight. Anyway, he loves me really...

Very funny post he still mentions you, I personally think he misses you for sure. That is so true I wonder if when Nadal retires if Tenez will ever find a passion like his one man cyber campaign against Nadal. I actually missed the guy and decided to pop in to say hello to him, I don't know why nostalgia I guess, regardless of the fact that he is terribly wrong in my opinion I do like his single minded passion.

But the warm reception I got "over there" from all the kindhearted and highly rational posters made me want to stay and commune with them a little. Don't worry Julius, V2 is my permanent home so you will have the pleasure of deleting my posts for a long time to come.