Nadal out of Australian Open with stomach virus

by harrpau7 Fri 28 Dec 2012, 3:30 pm

First topic message reminder :

Just seen it on BBC Sport.

Shame, but something doesn't seem right with Nadal's absence.

by User 774433 Sat 29 Dec 2012, 12:43 pm

DJ, do you think Usian Bolt is a doper?

by barrystar Sat 29 Dec 2012, 12:44 pm

Danny_1982 wrote:
But Barry, is he considerably faster and stronger than Novak or Andy? He maybe edges both guys, but not by much. I just don't buy it I'm afraid. He lost 2 wars of attrition with Novak in recent times (US11, AO12) which would suggest that he is not a significantly better physical specimen than Novak.

Novak lost a war of attrition to Andy in New York last year. They all play a very physical game. Physically, all three should be under similar levels of suspicion... But they are not. It's mostly Rafa.

You are not articulating your points fairly and not in an anti-Rafa way so fair play for that, but I really don't believe Rafa's physical attributes make him stand out from the two I've mentioned, and maybe even Ferrer.

I think he does stand out from the others you mention, but I'd willingly accept that he does not stand out to an extent which justifies the different focus on him. The focus is because he has had iconic status for longer.

Re the current physicality of the game, it's obvious that former players are wary of what they are seeing, there were plenty expressing not entirely complimentary disbelief about last year's Australian Open. There may be an element of carmudgeonly "it was different in my day", but there's definitely some unease which the ITF/ATP could do a lot more to assauge.

by bogbrush Sat 29 Dec 2012, 12:45 pm

CaledonianCraig wrote:
legendkillarV2 wrote:Whoa. I would never describe barry as someone that resorts to snide remarks. I actually find that dis-tasteful given that barry for me is one of the most neutral and courtesy. I mean christ read his post and even speaks about Federer (His favourite player I believe) missing a test and casts aspersions about the ATP in general so his opinion wasn't based on tarnishing Nadal.

In fairness how many players can anyone recall who have a PR that declare himself available for every tournament post injury?

Already pointed out the snide remark was not directed at Barry.

Why be snide about it? Say who it is directed at.

by djlovesyou Sat 29 Dec 2012, 12:46 pm

It Must Be Love wrote:DJ, do you think Usian Bolt is a doper?

Yes.

by bogbrush Sat 29 Dec 2012, 12:47 pm

It Must Be Love wrote:Caledonian... If you want I can bring my suspicions about Federer here... but I don't have any real proof whatsoever, and I firmly believe that one should be innocent until proven guilty.

You just did, why not elaborate?

by Guest Sat 29 Dec 2012, 12:49 pm

Courts of law work like that for a reason, if you wanna accuse (even only personally) someone without sufficient evidence other than, "you cant prove he didn't, and theres these other things that look a bit dodgy..." thats not gonna hold up to many other people thus why people are calling you on it

by User 774433 Sat 29 Dec 2012, 12:53 pm

djlovesyou wrote:
It Must Be Love wrote:DJ, do you think Usian Bolt is a doper?

Yes.

Well I disagree.

BB... do you really want me to go there.

by barrystar Sat 29 Dec 2012, 12:54 pm

It Must Be Love wrote:
djlovesyou wrote:
It Must Be Love wrote:DJ, do you think Usian Bolt is a doper?

Yes.
Well I disagree.

BB... do you really want me to go there.

Why not, you'd make good your point.

by bogbrush Sat 29 Dec 2012, 12:55 pm

Why not? If you have reasoned opinions them share them......... or don't say you have them? Bit nonsensical to express the opinion the tell everyone you wouldn't say it, don't you think?

by User 774433 Sat 29 Dec 2012, 12:56 pm

by User 774433 Sat 29 Dec 2012, 12:58 pm

Just to clear up... before I start my comments, I don't have any sort of proof for anything. Not do I even think Federer is a doper.
My point was you could bring 'suspicions' about anyone, but without proof it doesn't mean much.

by djlovesyou Sat 29 Dec 2012, 1:00 pm

falzy21 wrote:Courts of law work like that for a reason, if you wanna accuse (even only personally) someone without sufficient evidence other than, "you cant prove he didn't, and theres these other things that look a bit dodgy..." thats not gonna hold up to many other people thus why people are calling you on it

I don't see why saying "These things look a bit dodgy, so therefore I believe the he's probably guilty" is that bad - it's how everything works. We assess the evidence, and then our opinions are formed based on this evidence.

When you see smoke coming out of a window of a house, do you call the fire brigade or just presume it's someone smoking a really big cigarette because you don't see any flames?

by Guest Sat 29 Dec 2012, 1:01 pm

Bring it baby.

ghost

emancipator

by Guest Sat 29 Dec 2012, 1:16 pm

Its situation dependent isn't it, in the case of the house fire you air on the side of caution, the result of not acting can lead to death, plus consequence of error, acting on it when you've got it wrong is little. You call them up because you see smoke, it ends up being nothing, and that's fine, its just a false alarm no harm done.

This situations different. The belief is that someones cheating, which is a bit thing to state, is pretty serious. The consequence of error is big, you drag their name through the mud, the games name through the mud, and when wrongly done, make a bunch of people look like fools.

The evidence analogy doesn't work too. In the fire case there's actual compelling evidence of a fire, the smoke coming out of the house. Not necessarily a fire, but very strong evidence of one.

There is not actual compelling evidence here, nothing you can put down and everyone says "yeah you're right that needs investigating" hence the arguments
The equivalent here would be if you smelt smoke, and then assumed the house was on fire and called the fire brigade.

Anyway this is getting a bit too long, soo how about we call it here dj, youre entitled to your opinion of course, and of course youre entitled to suspect nadal. However I feel given how serious the allegation it isnt right to be a credible argument until theres something more stonewall on the table to play with. If that happens then absolutely it should come back into discussion.

by User 774433 Sat 29 Dec 2012, 1:31 pm

As I said I DON'T think Federer is doping.
Certainly I have no proof at all.
I believe in innocent until proven guilty.

Just wanted to make those things clear before Fed fans get angry.

1.
http://touch.dailymotion.com/#/video/xk9eyv_roger-federer-and-rafael-nadal-laughing-long-version_sport
Federer sweats more in this encounter than I have seen him sweat in any tennis match. This is a 14 min while sitting down, while tennis is a active sport played for hours...

2. An overuse of EPO leads to mononucleosis.
The percentage if the overall population that has suffered from mono is drastically lower than the percentage in tennis.

3. Both his parents have worked in the pharmaceutical industry. Easy accessibility to new range products.

4. Incredible stamina- Rome 2006 and Wimbledon 2009. In Wimby 2007 Nadal became very tired much before Fed did (and Nadal has good stamina).

5. Federer trains at high altitude- we know the effect of that on red blood cells. Why?

6. Late resurgence in career, at an age where is fellow peers are losing it. Roddick is similar age, he's not been near his highest level for a few years now and had to retire this year. Federer meanwhile is resurgent, winning Wimbledon.

7. Won Australian Open in 2010... The same year of the HGH scandal. Maybe Odesnik was not the only one bringing PEDs to the Australia. Other less important players may have and supplied it to Federer.

8. His right arm is much stronger than his left arm, look at the video. Similar issues for Nadal, but other way around. This indicates possible doping, for both Nadal and Federer.

9. Compare Murrays record against Federer in Slams compared to non-Slams. Is Federer 'turned up' for the Slams.

by Haddie-nuff Sat 29 Dec 2012, 1:43 pm

If we are talking of physique then look no further.. yet are there being questioned asked as to his absence.

http://www.google.es/#hl=en&tbo=d&rlz=1R2ACEW_en&sclient=psy-ab&q=pictures+of+gael+monfils+biceps&oq=pictures+of+gael+monfils+biceps&gs_l=serp.12...7613.9298.0.10904.7.7.0.0.0.0.405.2230.2-2j4j1.7.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.lgEwhMF6M9s&pbx=1&rlz=1R2ACEW_en&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=992a0537fd3a6267&bpcl=40096503&biw=1009&bih=640

by Guest Sat 29 Dec 2012, 1:45 pm

A weak case but good try Amritia.

It does however demonstrate that cases can be made for any player using PEDs.

As I've said before, I don't think any of the top players are completely beyond suspicion.

I do however find it hard to imagine that Mirka, Annacone, Lynette (mum), Robert (Dad)and the twins would allow Roger to dope. They seem like such normal, well rounded people. They're also such a tight knit bunch that I can't imagine Roger secretly shooting up somewhere without them knowing about it. They're with him at all the tourneys too.

Of course he could use his training block as cycling up blocks but then Mirka and Annacone and the twins would probably have to be in on it.

ghost

emancipator

by djlovesyou Sat 29 Dec 2012, 1:49 pm

You stick in a link with an admitted drug peddling gynaecologist to that list and we're getting somewhere on the way to some credible evidence of a problem.

by Haddie-nuff Sat 29 Dec 2012, 1:55 pm

emancipator wrote:A weak case but good try Amritia.

It does however demonstrate that cases can be made for any player using PEDs.

As I've said before, I don't think any of the top players are completely beyond suspicion.

I do however find it hard to imagine that Mirka, Annacone, Lynette (mum), Robert (Dad)and the twins would allow Roger to dope. They seem like such normal, well rounded people. They're also such a tight knit bunch that I can't imagine Roger secretly shooting up somewhere without them knowing about it. They're with him at all the tourneys too.

Of course he could use his training block as cycling up blocks but then Mirka and Annacone and the twins would probably have to be in on it.

emancipator

O we are on to something quite different now em... so you think Rafa´s parents and girlfriend are not nice normal well rounded people. And you will never get a more tight knit family than the Nadals.. they all share the same apartment block including his Grandparents... you are opening another can of worms I fear.
Mr squeeky clean is the only one with a normal family so that makes him whiter than white....well I wouldn´t have guessed

picard

by User 774433 Sat 29 Dec 2012, 2:08 pm

'His family seem like normal people'

Laugh

Is that really the best defence you have?

Of course it's a 'weak' case, I myself don't believe Roger is doping (as I've said before). His twins are far too young btw to understand anything.

by Guest Sat 29 Dec 2012, 2:10 pm

Oh dear, looks like my sense of humour has gone over some heads.

by Haddie-nuff Sat 29 Dec 2012, 2:14 pm

Humour ????? what a get out... your a Fed fan and that says it all em´You never touched my funny bone
That really was not a smart move and dont blame us for your booboo
Humour indeed dont insult my intelligence
His family seem like normal people shame that some of his fans arnt mad

by User 774433 Sat 29 Dec 2012, 2:24 pm

Haddie, Emanci is a nice chap

Emanci... Apologies if I didn't catch which part you were joking. Were you implying that his family don't seem nice?
Personally I feel that they do seem nice, but I don't think it's really means anything as far as Roger and doping is concerned.

by CaledonianCraig Sat 29 Dec 2012, 3:07 pm

bogbrush wrote:
CaledonianCraig wrote:
legendkillarV2 wrote:Whoa. I would never describe barry as someone that resorts to snide remarks. I actually find that dis-tasteful given that barry for me is one of the most neutral and courtesy. I mean christ read his post and even speaks about Federer (His favourite player I believe) missing a test and casts aspersions about the ATP in general so his opinion wasn't based on tarnishing Nadal.

In fairness how many players can anyone recall who have a PR that declare himself available for every tournament post injury?

Already pointed out the snide remark was not directed at Barry.
Why be snide about it? Say who it is directed at.

The Veejays of this world and posters who post as though Nadal is guilty even though we have as much proof as that we do if Federer, Murray, Djokovic etc etc were taking drugs ie NONE.

by User 774433 Sat 29 Dec 2012, 3:12 pm

Caledonian, After Veejay's Hitler holocaust comments on another forum I think we have to keep in mind he may be mentally disturbed.

Anyway earlier I listed 9 accumulated points on why we may suspect Federer... if you want I can do the same with Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray. Or perhaps I can wait for Federer fans to respond to my 9 points (I even have 3 more in reserve).

Either way I have absolutely NO proof against Federer at all, if I made my 9 point case to a judge I would be laughed off.

by djlovesyou Sat 29 Dec 2012, 3:40 pm

Are any of your three in reserve more 'damning' than Nadal's link to Fuentes?

by User 774433 Sat 29 Dec 2012, 3:44 pm

Fuentes trial is in Januray

Nadal was not named in the list that has been published so far.

by bogbrush Sat 29 Dec 2012, 3:48 pm

It Must Be Love wrote:As I said I DON'T think Federer is doping.
Certainly I have no proof at all.
I believe in innocent until proven guilty.

Just wanted to make those things clear before Fed fans get angry.

1.
http://touch.dailymotion.com/#/video/xk9eyv_roger-federer-and-rafael-nadal-laughing-long-version_sport
Federer sweats more in this encounter than I have seen him sweat in any tennis match. This is a 14 min while sitting down, while tennis is a active sport played for hours...

2. An overuse of EPO leads to mononucleosis.
The percentage if the overall population that has suffered from mono is drastically lower than the percentage in tennis.

3. Both his parents have worked in the pharmaceutical industry. Easy accessibility to new range products.

4. Incredible stamina- Rome 2006 and Wimbledon 2009. In Wimby 2007 Nadal became very tired much before Fed did (and Nadal has good stamina).

5. Federer trains at high altitude- we know the effect of that on red blood cells. Would make sense if he was on EPO.

6. Late resurgence in career, at an age where is fellow peers are losing it. Roddick is similar age, he's not been near his highest level for a few years now and had to retire this year. Federer meanwhile is resurgent, winning Wimbledon.

7. Won Australian Open in 2010... The same year of the HGH scandal. Maybe Odesnik was not the only one bringing PEDs to the Australia. Other less important players may have and supplied it to Federer.

8. His right arm is much stronger than his left arm, look at the video. Similar issues for Nadal, but other way around. This indicates possible doping, for both Nadal and Federer.

9. Compare Murrays record against Federer in Slams compared to non-Slams. Is Federer 'turned up' for the Slams.

Wow, I thought you had better than this!

1. Lights? More stressed in that arena?

2. Mono is more common across all athletes than gen pop. That said, Federer had mono - it's been confirmed here.

3. OMG, top athlete needs Mum & Dad to smuggle stuff out? I guess they hide it under their lab coats?

4. Federer routinely comes up short for stamina against top rivals.

5. High altitude training is how you boost oxygen carrying without EPO.

6. Based on a more attacking game, to shorten points, to counter.. er..... effects of age. Roddick had a flourish using the same idea, he just lacked the ability to make it stick in the era of quagmire courts.

7. "Won in same year". Smile

8. He's a tennis player. When I played a lot I looked like a fiddler crab.

9. You bet he is. In the head.

You need to get your good stuff out, this doesn't even stand comparison to Barry's quality.

by Josiah Maiestas Sat 29 Dec 2012, 3:56 pm

Federer routinely comes up short for stamina against top rivals.

Not to disagree with you, but I find it's his technique especially on the first groundstroke that lets him down more than stamina.

by bogbrush Sat 29 Dec 2012, 4:02 pm

Josiah Maiestas wrote:
Federer routinely comes up short for stamina against top rivals.
Not to disagree with you, but I find it's his technique especially on the first groundstroke that lets him down more than stamina.

His reliability has declined with his ability to get in the right place. It's made him 'streakier'.

by djlovesyou Sat 29 Dec 2012, 4:04 pm

It Must Be Love wrote:Fuentes trial is in Januray
Nadal was not named in the list that has been published so far.

He was named - by a newspaper.

Why didn't he sue again?

by User 774433 Sat 29 Dec 2012, 4:07 pm

Bogbrush... This is exactly what I wanted, you've gone through the list and explained other more likely explanations for each of the 9 points.
I agree with you, by the way.
Anyway I'll just go through your answers anyway before looking at Barry's points.

1/ Why would sitting down and laughing with Nadal be more physically or mentally stressful than a Grand Slam Final? Weird.

2/ I was hinting that Federers 'mono' came possibly due to EPO usage, it is a side effect of EPO.

3/ No, obviously Im not saying his mum and dad smuggle it out. You missed my point. They would have connections.

4/ Wimby 2009? Rome 2006? USO 2010? USO 2011? Federer has great stamina.

5/ Why does he train at high altitude?

6/ OK, fair enough. There are attacking players at the same age though who have drastically fallen away.

7/ Not sure what you're reply meant there.

8/ Not sure that answers my question... his right arm is bigger than his left; even an YouTube user observed that.

9/ In the head... but also with steroids?? Maybe. I don't think so.

by User 774433 Sat 29 Dec 2012, 4:08 pm

djlovesyou wrote:
It Must Be Love wrote:Fuentes trial is in Januray
Nadal was not named in the list that has been published so far.

He was named - by a newspaper.

Why didn't he sue again?

Go on then... show me the article.

by djlovesyou Sat 29 Dec 2012, 4:17 pm

He was named by Le Journal du Dimanche.

They were forced to take it down due to the terms of the court order which stated that the cyclists could all be named and shamed but the tennis players and footballers were all protected.

He 'threatened to sue' but never did.

by User 774433 Sat 29 Dec 2012, 4:19 pm

From Barrystar:

Possibly Nadal for a number of reasons: (a) his physique and mode of playing and his track record of back-back marathons (b) his complaints about testing coupled with his laughable protestations that the regime is tough (c) the fact that he is a Spanish athlete - which like it or not creates a cloud for so long as Operacion Puerto remains hovering over Spanish sport unresolved (d) his tweeting "my champion" after Contador, an absolutley obvious drug cheat, was found guilty of doping.

To be clear, I consider it extremely unlikely that Nadal's absence from tennis is explained by a 'quiet' drugs ban - that would involve a conspiracy of too many people. Nor do I consider it very likely that he is timing his return to avoid doping tests - if he's a doper he is likely to be better organised than that.

OK a Bogbrush style dissection:

a) The only back to back marathon I remember Nadal doing is AO 2009. That wasn't as long as Djoko 2012.
In Madrid 2009, and WTF 2010, he played a long match and got tired the next day.
I think a lot of resilience to play marathons is in the mind, eg Djoko AO final looked out of it in the 5th set but summoned courage from nowhere to make one last push.

b) This claim he has called for less testing is categorically a lie. He has never called for less testing, I can only remember him once saying the communication system using e-mail was difficult.

c) Yes, he's Spanish.

d) He supported a fellow Spaniard on twitter. Not sure how its really evidence either way.
Also he had done promotional work in Spain against doping.

by User 774433 Sat 29 Dec 2012, 4:21 pm

DJ, They took it down because they knew they had no real evidence.

Anyway Fuentes trial is soon, why speculate when we will know the truth soon?

by Guest Sat 29 Dec 2012, 4:26 pm

Ok soo that was in 2006, le Dimanche never stated their sources though and apparently only "loosely linked " linked him. It doesn't appear as though anyones followed it up since, and i cant find any mention of where they got it from

by djlovesyou Sat 29 Dec 2012, 4:28 pm

It Must Be Love wrote:DJ, They took it down because they knew they had no real evidence.

Anyway Fuentes trial is soon, why speculate when we will know the truth soon?

It was taken down because they're not allowed to name non-cyclists that are on the list.

We've had this discussion before - it's the most simple lawsuit there is. There's a physical list of names - being on the list = bad, not on the list = good. Someone saying that someone else is categorically 'on the list' is damaging. They sue them, someone looks at the list, see's they're not on there - very simple. Wouldn't go to court, would be settled well before.

Why didn't he sue again?

by User 774433 Sat 29 Dec 2012, 4:37 pm

Because they took the article down...
No one asked them to take the article down... In that article they without any sort of proof hinted that the Barcelona team, Real Madrid team, many other footballers from La Liga, Nadal, Ferrero, and most of the Spanish tennis players could be on the list.
They then took the article down, unsurprisingly.

by Henman Bill Sat 29 Dec 2012, 4:39 pm

why do some assume the Fuentes case will reveal all? maybe secrets will remain

by User 774433 Sat 29 Dec 2012, 4:42 pm

Why does Federer train at high altitude?
Did he really have mono due to use of EPO?
Why does he sweat more in 14 minutes of sitting down compared to playing tennis for hours?

Who knows HB, who knows?

by User 774433 Sat 29 Dec 2012, 4:49 pm

Rumours that Christophe Rochus spoke out against Federer, and revealed how his team flush EPO bags down the toilet:
http://federerisdoping.blogspot.co.uk/2011/01/doping-cheat-roger-federer-gets-further.html?m=1

by User 774433 Sat 29 Dec 2012, 4:51 pm

http://ezinearticles.com/?Mononucleosis-and-EPO---Is-There-a-Connection?&id=1063041

No one has yet answered my question as to why Roger trains at high altitude? Is the result not similar to doping?

by djlovesyou Sat 29 Dec 2012, 4:54 pm

How do you know they had no proof? They had to take it down because it breached the court order. Why didn't he sue again? It would have cleared his name. (remember how simple the lawsuit would be?)

I don't understand why you think that training at high altitude would have anything to do with taking EPO? The two things provide the same assistance (of course, one more effective than the other), you wouldn't need to train high if you're on EPO - EPO covers what you would gain at altitude + whatever else you wanted.

Henman Bill - I don't - I personally think that this current absence is his punishment and in return he gains immunity when the excrement hits the rotating air mover. The tennis authorities and Spanish sport will have been working overtime to mitigate the damage in this case.

by User 774433 Sat 29 Dec 2012, 4:56 pm

DJ I said 'the result'.

by LuvSports! Sat 29 Dec 2012, 4:56 pm

maybe the same reason long distance runners train at altitude, increase in RBC's which improves your vo2 max, increased hemoglobin and i think increased blood vessel density.

by User 774433 Sat 29 Dec 2012, 4:58 pm

LuvSports! wrote:maybe the same reason long distance runners train at altitude, increase in RBC's which improves your vo2 max, increased hemoglobin and i think increased blood vessel density.

Should it not be banned?
It gives an advantage.

by The Special Juan Sat 29 Dec 2012, 4:58 pm

It Must Be Love wrote:http://ezinearticles.com/?Mononucleosis-and-EPO---Is-There-a-Connection?&id=1063041

No one has yet answered my question as to why Roger trains at high altitude? Is the result not similar to doping?

Training at high altitude results in the natural production of more red blood cells (which carry oxygen around the body) to compensate for the "thin air" at high altitude. These extra red blood cells remain in the bloodstream for a month or two afterwards, therefore enabling the athlete to carry more oxygen in their blood. A lot of professional athletes do it too; it's entirely legal because it's completely natural.

by LuvSports! Sat 29 Dec 2012, 5:01 pm

no i dont think it should Smile

ban that after banning the egg chamber Wink

by User 774433 Sat 29 Dec 2012, 5:03 pm

Yes, egg chamber should be banned too.

TSJ, yes you're correct, it's 'natural' but is it fair?

by Sponsored content