Nadal out of Australian Open with stomach virus

First topic message reminder :

Just seen it on BBC Sport.

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

@craig Re dark suspicions. The pitiful state of testing in tennis and the fact that it has fallen hook-line-and-sinker for marketing the sport by a 'star system' means that the absence of a positive in one of it's most important 'stars' is not conclusive of cleanliness, it is only one part of the overall picture about whether a player can fairly be considered clean.

The rest of the picture has to be for us to decide upon as best we can from what we see of a player's conduct. I don't believe you can, without naivety, proclaim any tennis player as 100% clean (including Federer, who I understand missed a test in 2009), although clearly some players give rise to more cause for legitimate questions than others. Top of the pile of those who excite my scrutiny is 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.

There are other players, but since this article is about Nadal I concentrate on him - in relation to the top 4 I'd put it Nadal-Djokovic-Murray-Federer in terms of levels of scrutiny, and for me Federer excites far less suspicion than the other 3 - I am as confident as I think it prudent to be that he is a clean, which is short of 100%.

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.

Like others I expect that the real reason for not coming back is that Nadal lacks the necessary confidence in his knee to take on such a tough test as the Aus Open, he's not got a lot to gain from entering it unless he is 100%; the virus provides cover which, to be fair, I think he is entitled to use. To me it is an unsurprising and sensible decision. Like others I have been suggesting for some time that he's best off finding his feet in early season clay tournaments. What will be interesting if he does that is to see how he tackles the IW/Miami double. For me the crunch pre-RG tournament to guage where he is at is MC, so we have a while to wait.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Very sad to see people with dark suspicions about Rafa. Frankly, it seems clear to me that Rafa is being sensible and waiting until he feels absolutely right about his knee. The virus may just be an invention but I doubt it and as he says he can take this further time off to rest up the knee. I mean really those with dark suspicions need to ask themselves serious questions. Why would he not play the Australian Open? If any form of drugs were the reason and these same doubters have been hinting at this for years how come we have never had even one remotely positive test result in all that time? Please do us all a favour and character assasinate somewhere else. Hope to see Rafa back very soon and firing on al cylinders.

Totally agree Craig. To those doubters I have to ask the question that stretches the imagination and bounds of possibility.. IF RAFA and RAFA alone was take PEDs and or Steroids are you seriously asking me to believe that noone within the tennis world had the slightest incling ... none of his Spanish team?? his oponents (lets face it there are a few that would like to hang that on him) nobody within the coaching world nobody even in his own camp who might think Ill blow the gaff there´s a few quid in this for me and yet not a word not a smidgen of proof. Credit the rest of us with a bit of intelligence at least.
Soderling has been off for yonks with mono... is anyone doubting that
What about Montfils... with those biceps ??? is anyone doubting he is injured

Im sorry but it is blatantly obvious to me and other Rafa followers there is nothing more the anti-Nadal clan would love to see. But when you are proven wrong you will sweep it under the carpet and not so much as apologise for thinking it.

Sorry barry but if those wish to cast aspersions about Rafa with absolutely no grounds ie no positive tests and yes tests do happen as it has been tapped into in the past then your idol Federer, my idol Murray, socal's idol Djokovic are just as much under scrutiny as Nadal as they are all on an equal footing ie play tennis yet have never been tested positive so please leave out all this who is more likely to be guilty cobblers.

Sorry if I seem prickly on this Barry but I am from the old school that believes people are innocent until proven guilty and it irks me that Rafa is always singled out and this comes from a Murray fan.

Until the WTA will get serious about anti-doping, we'll always have a big shadow cast over the whole tour and obviously all of its top athletes. It's completely naive to think that a couple of million $ spent on testing is enough to counter the sophisticated techniques, based on science miles ahead to that in the hands of the doping agencies, that dopers use nowadays. Like it is naive to think that everyone in tennis is clean. Why should this be true only for tennis? We just don't know although it's way more realistic to think at least someone isn't. Who says the opposite is in denial.

No one Jk is denying that it can and probably does happen.,. but like Craig says the finger of suspicion is pointed at one person i.e. Nadal. Why should he be more under the microscope than anyone else... because he has been out of the game for 7mths ?? is that the reason.. did DelPotro get "a silent ban" when he was out for over a year.. and as I say where is Montfils ..."pumping up the steroids" ????!! Why is it that its Nadal who is assumed to be the druggie.. because of his stamina... then you could say the same about Djoko and Ferrer.. This whole debate leaves me totally mystified and nobody has yet come up with a complete answer as to what makes them so suspicious.

CaladonianCraig barrystar .... Oh I can't be bothered... but I'm sure you will find many others to take the bait.

I agree, if nadal were on doping, he wouldn't certainly be the only one. Cycling docet Haddie.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Sorry barry but if those wish to cast aspersions about Rafa with absolutely no grounds ie no positive tests and yes tests do happen as it has been tapped into in the past then your idol Federer, my idol Murray, socal's idol Djokovic are just as much under scrutiny as Nadal as they are all on an equal footing ie play tennis yet have never been tested positive so please leave out all this who is more likely to be guilty cobblers.

Unless a testing regime is water-tight, it's up to spectators to make their own decisions, and in doing so they must be fair, not naive and not cynical.

I've never said or hinted that Nadal is a doper - I raise questions and explain why I am asking them. He is a pretty muscle-bound guy who is one of the fastest movers on tour and sustains one lung-busting marathon after another. He has openly criticised the testing regime, although my view is that it is both inadequate and a small price to pay for what he gains from tennis. He openly supported Contador after the guy is found guilty. He is not averse to bending the rules on court in other respects. Like many other Spanish athletes he has got the cloud of Operacion Puerto hanging over him. None of that proves anything (unlike the case against Armstrong, which was an entirely different kettle of fish). It does, however, in my view justify me having more doubts about him than I do about others who have a more economical style of play and demonstrate an understanding of the importance of accepting the need for testing.

If you want to dismiss that as cobblers you might like to reflect on the fact that you share your apparent stance of 'no positive tests = no proof' with Lance Armstrong.

Yes and on your last comment then we can also put all the hundreds of tennis players on the circuit under scrutiny so people should leave it out just singling out one player as it makes them look sad, vindictive and malicious. Unless concrete evidence comes to light with regards Nadal then people should desist from their snide remarks.

Craig .. it is without doubt a smear campaign reserved for Rafa only.. When this whole sad affair is over they will have to find someone else to throw the mud at .. but the can of worms may well come up with something for Rafa to put on the end of his fishing line ..there may be a few people that have so far dodged the firing squad.

I haven't trawled through all of this thread but I don't think barrystar can be accused of 'snide remarks' - perhaps that is directed elsewhere?

there is bound to be debate and speculation on a forum, all of which can be refuted or argued in return.

Those wishing to shut certain musings down should just consider that a busy forum will have all sorts of opinions and a a quiet one will have perfect consensus - good to see this place a little livelier!

Craig, I don't see the problem with people expressing a thought out opinion, as Barry does.
You asked why suspect Nadal over another, he answered. Your response is effectively to ask the same question. Why not move it forward?

CaledonianCraig wrote:Yes and on your last comment then we can also put all the hundreds of tennis players on the circuit under scrutiny so people should leave it out just singling out one player as it makes them look sad, vindictive and malicious. Unless concrete evidence comes to light with regards Nadal then people should desist from their snide remarks.

This is a cop out I'm afraid - if you say I've been snide point to it and explain why. I've set out my reasons which are basically factual and I've been open about what inference I draw from them.

It is not unheard of to concentrate on one of the most prominent players in history to make a point - I am not suggesting that similar points don't apply to others. I think that they do. I have been explicit that the absence of a decent regime puts everyone under scrutiny. My point is that some excite higher levels of scrutiny than others and on a thread about Nadal it is legitimate to concentrate on him, although it would be legitimate to concentrate on him anyway.

You have not addressed anyone of my points, but have chosen to play the man rather than the ball and lob up a few smokescreen arguments. So be it, but that's not debating.

Nadal it is legitimate to concentrate on him, although it would be legitimate to concentrate on him anyway.



No but you see barry you have done it again... I know what Craig is saying in that sentence above you say it is legitimate to concentrate on him on this thread.. but then you cast doubt again by saying it would be legitimate anyway. WHY.. is what Craig is asking and so am I

Not saying you have been snide that is aimed at others who have openly come out and expressed their views with absolutely no evidence but keep insisting on dragging Nadal's name through the mud which I find distasteful.

You could look at any player in tennis and single out reasons or perceived evidence if drugs use. I mean we could say Fed had a dip in form a year or so ago and despite getting older he once more came back revitalised to regain No.1 and win Wimbledon. Oooooh he must be on drugs then. Do you now see how easy it is to cast unfounded aspersions but Federer is never thrown into the mix all the time like Nadal. The same unfounded stuff could be thrown at every other player so why pick on Nadal?

OK haddie nuff

It's legitimate because he is one of the ten or so most famous and successful players there has ever been - he is a far more interesting topic than, say, Tipsarevic, and far more worthy of discussion.

The additional hard and fast reason is that part of the problem with anti-doping in tennis is the ITF/ATP's conflict of interest arising from their reliance on promoting the sport so over-heavily through stars. They let Agassi off the hook with his crystal meths and no doubt their fear of the harm it would do to tennis played on their minds. Since they still have a pathetic testing regime the suspicion remains that were they faced with busting Federer or Nadal for PED use they might blink for fear of the damage it would do - you can't really say that about any other player with the same force.

Hence my view that Nadal is the single most interesting and important player to discuss in relation to this point because, for reasons I have set out openly, I think that more concerns surround him than Federer.

In fact, someone like Tipsarevic would be a perfect scalp because his profile is tiny outside tennis but sufficiently big within tennis for the ATP could say that they do catch cheats.

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?

So barry, Federer is even more successful than Rafa so surely even more of a suspect for keeping at the top of the sport despite his age. You see how pathetic this all becomes.

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.

Ah ok

OK barry I follow your thinking on the one hand.. yes Nadal may be a legitimate TARGET because of his high profile .. but still it remains he appears to be the ONLY target.. I could equally have my suspicions about Nole and his gluton free diet which enhanced his performance .. some could have their suspicions on that score.. but it is one thing having suspicions and another proving anything.
Agassi´s crystal meths was a use of drugs admittedly.. but they were not taken as PED´s so that is why he was "let of the hook" Have you still suspicions about Gasquet... he was proven innocent !!!!!! Yet nothing has been remotely proven against Nadal. So Ill leave it like this barry.. Rafa is a one off and because of his unique style and physical game and strength.. he prompts people to believe he cannot be doing this without the aid of Peds. Usaine Bolt seems to attract no such suspicions.. but hey !!! then his name is not Nadal is it ??

But like Craig says it is distasteful that Rafa is under constant scrutiny and criticism for everything he does or indeed does not do. The tennis tour is a drab as it gets at the moment because of the absence of this man and I sincerely hope all of you doubters are made to eat your words.

I would disagree though Haddie that the tennis tour is drab at the moment. It may be drab if you are a Rafa fan as your player has not been in action but certainly would not call the tour drab. Anyway hopefully Rafa is back and competitive soon.

Well suppose but some of the pundits have missed him also.
But yes Craig I want to see him back but am still concerned for him
He has a mountain to climb

For me HH and I think we did agree on another thread that Rafa's PR machine is a massive hinderance that casts a shadow on his integrity given they kept on announcing he would participate at the WTF, DC, Exhibitions and the AO. It does him no favours. I would fire his PR machine and stick a sock in Toni's gob!

However, some may take the view that maybe in Toni's 'opinion' Rafa is fit enough to take to court and hence when Rafa declares himself un-fit, it becomes a 'Who is telling the truth?' Saga that gets many detractors foaming at the mouth ready to pounce.

Circumstantial incidents also don't help the cause. The Fuetenes case. Is it bad timing that the case is just around the time of the AO? Again yes a straw clutching theory, but the components are there for people to draw theories and opinions about the possibility that something else could be at hand bar injury and illness. You could argue also Rafa is running into some bad luck. Let's be fair history has taught us that an illness or injury can then provoke another injury/illness. In recall Delpo being injured after his wrist injury which I think was his knee IIRC.

If the knee is still not right, I would sooner he declare that being the issue. Throwing things out there such as virus given there is enough time for him to recover and make up the lost time on the practice court. If it is the knee it would've been smarter to have said so. I have always held the position that returning at a GS after so much time out is daft. Many like yourself have shared this view. However, it has to be said that the PR machine of Nadal is an un-necessary pain in the arss. As one of my favourite lines from Pulp Fiction states "This business is filled to the brim of un-realistic motherphuckers"

Oh yes he has been missed not only by pundits but that doesnt mean the tennis tour has been drab. I still feel he has more slam wins in him myself.

Well barrys reasons for singling him out are a little suspect.

a) yeah hes muscular and can play for long periods, but rugby players are pretty muscular, and Novaks played back to back marathons too, a lot

b) He wasnt the only one protesting the drug tests, Murray disliked them too. The main complaint was that they could show up at ungodly hours in the morning

c) There are spanish athletes who have doped clearly... and a LOT who haven't as well.

d) He may have just found Contadors ban hard to believe and tried to show support... Lance Armstrong got a lot of support at first from people who couldn't believe it either.

It's all circumstantial, its picking a few things that might look iffy, then putting them together to make it look a compelling argument.

I mean if you made one long video of every recorded UFO sighting it would look like stonewall evidence, cos the video would be hours long, but its deliberately ignoring everything around it.

What about the hours and hours of gym work Nadal does? His physique certainly isn't ridiculous, hes stronger than the rest yeah, but he does huge amounts of gym work.

What about his ability to play for hours and hours being as a result of his mental strength, to keep pushing him when hes physically out of gas, hes not the only one who goes on for hours remember, Fed's done that too.

Anyway when you suspect just one person on circumstantial evidence, it can look like you're trying to find things to drag their name through the mud, even if that wasn't your intention, it can happen by accident, I certainly don't feel that singling him out just cos he's more famous is enough reason

Haddie-nuff wrote:OK barry I follow your thinking on the one hand.. yes Nadal may be a legitimate TARGET because of his high profile .. but still it remains he appears to be the ONLY target.. I could equally have my suspicions about Nole and his gluton free diet which enhanced his performance .. some could have their suspicions on that score.. but it is one thing having suspicions and another proving anything.
Agassi´s crystal meths was a use of drugs admittedly.. but they were not taken as PED´s so that is why he was "let of the hook" Have you still suspicions about Gasquet... he was proven innocent !!!!!! Yet nothing has been remotely proven against Nadal. So Ill leave it like this barry.. Rafa is a one off and because of his unique style and physical game and strength.. he prompts people to believe he cannot be doing this without the aid of Peds. Usaine Bolt seems to attract no such suspicions.. but hey !!! then his name is not Nadal is it ??

But like Craig says it is distasteful that Rafa is under constant scrutiny and criticism for everything he does or indeed does not do. The tennis tour is a drab as it gets at the moment because of the absence of this man and I sincerely hope all of you doubters are made to eat your words.

regarding bolt, if you search around it doesn't take you very long to find the doubters

Caledonian Craig
Legendkiller
Falzy

falzy21 wrote:
What about the hours and hours of gym work Nadal does? His physique certainly isn't ridiculous, hes stronger than the rest yeah, but he does huge amounts of gym work.

Yeah, what about that:

I hate the gym.


I don’t spend much time in there and I never have done – I just don’t see why. I only ever run when there’s some point to it – say, if it’s in a game of tennis. I do a lot of aerobics in the pre-season period, but after that I keep fit by playing in tournaments. I also love playing football – my preferred position is striker. I can’t play as often as I’d like because of the injury risks.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1200180/Rafael-Nadal-talks-fashion-avoids-gym.html#ixzz2GRM5AQHs

Look - I am not suggesting that there is proof that Nadal is a doper, I've been explicit about that. I am saying that because of the weakness of the testing regime no tennis player is above suspicion, and that Nadal's physique, conduct, and what he says puts more suspicion on him than others which is important because he is one of the most prominent players ever.

It's particularly important for him to be supportive of what is an unacceptably feeble testing regime - he has a similar responsibility, yet he still criticises it.

But he does go to the gym

I've liked a Nadal fan page on Facebook, and all throughout the year I see pictures of Nadal working out in the gym.
Does he just do it for the cameras?

But what others are saying on this subject and I am sure even you will agree barry, it would seem that it is only Nadal who is seen as prime suspect and seemingly the rest are above suspicion and I ask why? Okay he has a physique and great stamina....so? Conversely we could say that Fed looked washed up a year or so ago with slam finals and wins drying up and despite his age he has reversed that (without any noticable physique) and become a slam winner once more so we could easily presume he must be on PED or similarly you could levy that at Andy just because he has finally won a slam after years of trying. You could go right through every player in the sport with such loose accusations yet we only keep hearing the cheap shots at Nadal's expense.

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.

It Must Be Love wrote: and I firmly believe that one should be innocent until proven guilty.

Exactly what I said earlier.

It Must Be Love wrote:But he does go to the gym

I've liked a Nadal fan page on Facebook, and all throughout the year I see pictures of Nadal working out in the gym.
Does he just do it for the cameras?

how many pictures? just because you have seen pics throughout the year doesn't mean he goes lots

People talk about Rafa's physique as one of the elements that merits suspicion towards him... I find this incredibly naive.

In terms of size, any average sized guy could get to Rafa's shape in a few months with just an hour a day at the gym and the right food. I put on a stone of muscle in 1 month last January by going to the gym5 times a week for less than an hour a day and eating plenty of protein. It really is that simple.

People talk about him like he's a modern day Arnie, it's simply not the case. He is well built for sure... But a build which is easily attained by any young guy with access to a gym.

It's particularly important for him to be supportive of what is an unacceptably feeble testing regime - he has a similar responsibility, yet he still criticises it.

This quote is spot on. Murray and Federer have recently criticised the testing regime and have called for a stricter testing amongst players.

Be fair.

Nadal didn't cover himself in glory when offering public support to Contador. Again statements like that cast doubt over morals if he is supporting a drug cheat despite the damning evidence. If he wanted to support Alberto, I think a phone call might have sufficed.

Athletes as role models in any sport for me have a responsibility to promote clean participation and before IMBL puts that video up of Rafa, yes while he does promote clean sport, if he can see that the testing regime needs revamping and needs looking at, maybe just maybe a statement to declare he agrees that the testing regime could be tighter would win over doubters who view he dreads and avoids the testers like the plague.

CC - there is some vindictive stuff about Nadal, I agree, some of it bile-filled nonsense.

I don't think you should confuse that with legitimate querying, nor in my view is it legitimate to ask why people don't focus on other less interesting or less prominent people for two reasons: (a) being prominent for whatever reason makes you a topic of conversation, it comes with the territory and Nadal and his fans have to accept that - he takes the upside of sponsorship and takes trouble to keep in the limelight with his own site and regular postings on Facebook and so-on, he's not a recluse; (b) the fact that people don't discuss legitimate concerns about A, B, and C does not invalidate discussion of legitimate concerns about X.

There are concerns about tennis, Nadal is not the only person giving rise to those concerns, but he is the most famous and that's the way it goes.

As others have said, he'd do his general credibility a lot of favours by communicating to the public with one clear voice rather than the stream of contradictory nonsense that flows about the place.

Danny_1982 wrote:People talk about Rafa's physique as one of the elements that merits suspicion towards him... I find this incredibly naive.

In terms of size, any average sized guy could get to Rafa's shape in a few months with just an hour a day at the gym and the right food. I put on a stone of muscle in 1 month last January by going to the gym5 times a week for less than an hour a day and eating plenty of protein. It really is that simple.

People talk about him like he's a modern day Arnie, it's simply not the case. He is well built for sure... But a build which is easily attained by any young guy with access to a gym.

Of course - it's the combination of that and being one of the quickest guys on tour able to sustain regular marathons of scurrying around and not looking to shorten points that people find so extraordinary.

But your idea that Nadal is 'not guilty' because he never failed a drug test is daft.

Marion Jones and Lance Armstrong never (officially) failed a drug test. Still cheats.

You can't come out and straight up say that the guy is doing it, but it's fine to look at the (mountain of) evidence against him, and say that it's very unlikely that he's not (or never did).

Why did the tennis authorities go to great lengths to make sure the tennis portion of the Puerto list was not allowed to be released into the public? Why didn't Nadal sue 'Le Journal de Dimanche' when they straight up stated him as someone involved in the scandal?

I have a feeling we'll start to find out a few of these things once the court case begins next month. Could be interesting times ahead.

Luvsports... Lots of pictures throughout the year... tonnes.
Legendkiller... Nadal has never actually criticised more testing, in-fact I remember him saying that testing is crucial. I only remember him complaining that he has to write an e-mail everytime he changed his whereabouts, and the rules are it has to be from him or something along those lines... He was saying he doesn't know how to work computers quickly and wondered if there were other forms of avenues of contact.
I think the ATP did listen and ensure there were other ways of contact, but I can't remember the exact details.

djlovesyou wrote:But your idea that Nadal is 'not guilty' because he never failed a drug test is daft.

Marion Jones and Lance Armstrong never (officially) failed a drug test. Still cheats.

On that basis everyone in professional sport is a cheat.

Because essentially that is what you are saying.

legendkillarV2 wrote:

djlovesyou wrote:But your idea that Nadal is 'not guilty' because he never failed a drug test is daft.

Marion Jones and Lance Armstrong never (officially) failed a drug test. Still cheats.

On that basis everyone in professional sport is a cheat.

Because essentially that is what you are saying.

It's not though is it? Not even close to that.

The point is that nobody fails drug tests - you've got to be dimwitted or incredibly unlucky (most likely both) to fail a drug test. The higher up in the sport you're in, the likelyhood of failing a drug tests falls further (particularly when the sport's NGB is in charge of your testing.)

My (rather obvious) point is that not failing drug tests is not an indicator of anything at all.

Perhaps he doesn't gym like he used to... but the point stands his physique isn't by any means impossible to get legitimately, according to that sounds like he does do a lot of work outside the gym instead.

Be careful..Suggesting hes the poster boy of drug suspicion does sound a lot like dragging someone through the mud,especially as hes yet to fail one

falzy21 wrote:Perhaps he doesn't gym like he used to... but the point stands his physique isn't by any means impossible to get legitimately, according to that sounds like he does do a lot of work outside the gym instead.

Be careful..Suggesting hes the poster boy of drug suspicion does sound a lot like dragging someone through the mud,especially as hes yet to fail one

I see what you mean - perhaps not an apposite expression for what I meant to say - it has too much baggage attached and I have re-visited it.

barrystar wrote:

Danny_1982 wrote:People talk about Rafa's physique as one of the elements that merits suspicion towards him... I find this incredibly naive.

In terms of size, any average sized guy could get to Rafa's shape in a few months with just an hour a day at the gym and the right food. I put on a stone of muscle in 1 month last January by going to the gym5 times a week for less than an hour a day and eating plenty of protein. It really is that simple.

People talk about him like he's a modern day Arnie, it's simply not the case. He is well built for sure... But a build which is easily attained by any young guy with access to a gym.

Of course - it's the combination of that and being one of the quickest guys on tour able to sustain regular marathons of scurrying around and not looking to shorten points that people find so extraordinary.

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 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.

(Typo corrected)

Dj i believe that's to do with burden of proof... you can't prove he is but then can't prove categorically that he isn't either.

However the burden of proof is on the accuser, you need something compelling, not just circumstance and suspicion,

Its a vicous circle though barry... the baggage comes from rumor, people talking about it, soo we revisit it and suddenly it looks like baggage. We need to wait for more info to come out about it, maybe a mention or lack of in that Jan case, otherwise were just stirring up rumor with nothing really compelling to back it

falzy21 wrote:Dj i believe that's to do with burden of proof... you can't prove he is but then can't prove categorically that he isn't either.

However the burden of proof is on the accuser, you need something compelling, not just circumstance and suspicion,

This isn't a court of law though, I don't have to prove anything.

I can take the evidence and give an opinion as to what I think's going on however I please. There is nothing defamatory in me saying that I think that Nadal is a doper.