Supporting your player through thick and thin.

First topic message reminder :

What with the recent mentions of drugs in sport, something occured to me.
If your favourite player was found to be on drugs, would you still support them?
Are we just as bad as those sponsors who drop all support for an athlete after they test positive for banned substances?
Is is not just about money?

I would be so torn if Feds was on drugs, it would pain me as I am a huge fan. Nothing in other sports compare, my objectivity may go completely out the window as it doesn't in most other sports linked with drugs?
Would you v2 posters still support your Federer, your Nadal, your Djokovic, your Murray and even your Del Potro IC?

If it was any other sport or any other athlete I would but with Feds I just don't know.
Over to you, thoughts?

hawkeye wrote:^ Well you said it. You have been taken in by one player and your objectivity has gone out the window. I'm sure you don't have any evidence about other players so all you have is your suspicion. Why should anyone trust your suspicion when you admit that you have been taken in by one player and been blinded by it all?

But he did not suggest any suspicion. The question was entirely player-neutral. He just asks what we would do if our favorite player was found doping. No player gets singled out. As a Federer fan, he has to answer his own question assuming Federer were found doping.

lydian wrote:I bet LA would be almost as successful had he, and everyone else, not taken EPO.

I doubt it. Of course he would still be a very good cyclist, but why assume he would be almost as successful as without drugs? I suspect it is not true that "everyone dopes equally well" and that a big component of being successful was being a better doper than most.

Once you're doping, ethically what difference does it make how much though summerblues?

Ethically I don't see it makes any difference. I think SB'S point was that some people obtain better results than others through doping. Therefore, Lance might not have been so successful if everyone was clean.

For those who think doping is prevalent in tennis, when do you think this started? Has it been the case throughout the Open era or did it start later - say the Lendl era or that of Agassi/Sampras? If it started later, then what do you think was the catalyst and how has it become endemic (ie. who is persuading players presumably at a young age that they need to dope)?

I think doping in tennis started perhaps around the 70's and has slowly improved more and more until its peak today, like most sports.
The game is so physical now, with a paucity of youngsters coming through because of that physicality. I think drugs has helped that process along.
I bet it comes from parents, coaches, support team etc.
Like cycling, they get to a point when they realise i have to dope to forge a career for myself or even just keep up, maybe more so after juniors.
Just spit-balling here.

An interesting question, and I think any answer has to be given some context.

1 - Clearly, tennis is primarily a 'skill' sport, where athletic ability alone does not make the player a success. Doping in tennis could have (at least) 3 functions - enhanced endurance on court (EPO / blood doping), greater strength and endurance in training phases (HGH / anabolic steroids) and recovery either between matches or from injury (stimulants, pain killers etc). There are potential gains, but doping wouldn't turn Dan Evans into Federer, just into a slightly fitter and stronger Dan Evans.

2 - Are we talking about systematic use of doping products (as per track and field or cycling), or something of a one-off? Remember the case of British skier Alain Baxter, who was srtipped of his Olympic bronze medal because he had ephedrine in his system as a result of carelessly not reading the contents of the American version of a Vicks inhaler (which contains ephedrine) and assuming it was an identical product to that he used in Europe (which didn't). You would have to be fairly heartless to not have some sympathy for him in that case, but doping has a full spectrum from this up to (and perhaps beyond) Lance Armstrong and the doping of the US Postal cycling team (including paying hush money to the sport's administrators to turn a blind eye to the means by which they were straying even further beyond the rules that their competitors).

I've said before that I would be amazed if no-one in the top 100 was doping, and clearly the Cilic case shows that players are at least sailing very close to the wind. However, I doubt that systematic doping is rife in the mens game (have more doubts about the WTA) - the players physiques certainly aren't consistent with steroids being a huge feature, and I'm not sure that the endurance gains from EPO or blood doping are worth either the risk or complexity and cost for a middling level player and so there isn't the doping 'arms race' that occurred in cycling and athletics.

However, back to the initial question, and assuming that we are talking about a clear and systematic intention to improve performance by doping, my reaction would be:

Federer - Devastation, both as a fan and for the damage that would be done to the wider game.
Murray - Crushing disappointment from a personal view (again as a fan), but I don't think the ramifications would be significant outside of the UK.
Djokovic - Surprise and disappointment. Would be a major blow for tennis's credibility, but perhaps not a mortal one (unlike if Bolt tests positive, which would kill athletics).
Nadal - Similar to Djoko.

In a way I hope a fairly significant player (although not one of the big 4) does test positive, as it would force the ATP to take the issue of drug testing more seriously to protect the credibility of the sport.

Oh, and if you think tennis has a potential problem, can I just say one word:
FOOTBALL

I think drugs is in all sports. Especially ones that you hear nothing about, like football, rugby, most US sports.

A significant player already has in Cilic, but they hid it away for months making people worry about the horrible silent B...

bean?

LS

American pro sports have been swimming in drugs for at least 40 years. Baseball and now hockey have at least tried to get a grip on things in the last few years, but the NFL largely turns a blind eye to it. Check out the story of Lyle Alzado for some insight.

Rugby is probably reasonably clean by the time players reach the elite teams and international stage (testing is getting quite serious at the top of the game), but it is widely rumoured that the academies and development teams are hotbeds of steroid and growth hormone use. The way some players have bulked up certainly is consistent with that thought.

Football - well, there have been quite a few doping controversies over the years that have been conveniently swept under the carpet (Juve on EPO in the 90s), and Operacion Puerto certainly gave credibility to the rumours of blood doping being prevalent around Spanish football. Fuentes was on the payroll of Real Sociedad, but the rumours of involvement with other major teams on a more freelance / consultancy basis are strong. The (absurd) decision by the Spanish judge in the OP trial to destroy any remaining blood samples suggested that there was major pressure being put on behind the scenes - I doubt very much that Spanish cycling (even Contador) has that sort of political clout.

As for other sports, including tennis, I guess I'm just less jaded and cynical than you. It will probably never be known which of us is closer to the truth, because it is not in the interests of the ATP to bring down the top guys if there really is a doping house of cards out there...

That's a good point by dummyhalf. I think temptation to dope is much greater in sports where strength and endurance are a greater proportion of the overall mix than tennis.

In athletics and cycling, the link between better results and better strength and endurance is clear.

In tennis though, let's say Joao Sousa (I pick him because his #50 ranking is a conveninent milestone) is hypothetically doping. He's not suddenly going to be winning the big titles because he is fitter and stronger. What would be the pay-off for taking that risk with the authorities and for doing that to his body? 4th round at a slam? I just don't see that being a big enough motivation. And where does endurance come into play when he's getting beaten in straights by the superior skill of top guys?

Ironically, I actually find the Cilic ban reassuring. As offences go, it's pretty innocuous - an ingredient in a glucose tablet that is allowed out of competition but not in competition.

I can't pretend the testing regime is great but if it is good enough to detect this, why should we assume that it is missing all more serious infringements?

I'd speculate there may be a tiny number of players actively doping. I'd also speculate that a larger number are sailing close to the wind without actually committing a technical infringement.

But I would be stunned if doping were commonplace in tennis.

HM
Your example of Sousa was good for the point I was trying to make. Doping, whether oxygen vector doping to enhance endurance or steroids to improve physical srtength, will only win him a few extra matches a year against players who are at about his level, and might take him from #50 to #40 in the world. It's not going to take him to the top 10, because they are simply better tennis players in terms of tactics, shot production and consistency. Small gains in achievement and winnings for a significant risk of failing a drugs test and loss of livelihood. OK, I'm sure a few have tried it over the years, but I just doubt that it is endemic.

The one area where the risk to reward might be sufficient is at the real elite end of the game - turning a top 10ish player into a top 5 one or a #4 or 5 into a grand slam contender / champion.

The other consideration is that tennis players are largely self-reliant rather than being part of a larger training group or team. It is much more likely that systematic doping exists in these later situations because of the ability fo the team to see the benefits of doping and to develop the expertise in administering the drugs ito gain the maximum benefit (for example, the use of EPO in cycling is rumoured to have started around 1990, but there was a marked change in effectiveness around 1993 when Dr Ferrari discovered the benefits of including an iron supplement alongside the dope).

OK, there are strong rumours of tennis players as clients of Dr Fuentes blood doping clinic (as an aside, my suspicion is that this was not Nadal), but there is nothing to suggest that most tennis players are involved in similar practices.

My thoughts exactly, dummyhalf.

If there is outright cheating, I would expect it at the very top level where the financial rewards could make the risk worthwhile.

I don't really see it there. For all the talk about Novak's endurance, it's really only AO2012 where he did something astonishing. For all the talk about Rafa's physique, it's really only his biceps that are unusually large and have been since he was a teenager.

Good post DH, but i have a few questions.
How do you know drug testing is stringently enforced in rugby? I have heard otherwise.
B'ball doesn't even test for hgh.
SOme sports testosterone to epitesterone levels are such a joke. Swimming was at 6;1. 6;1!!!! I think tennis was at 4;1.
I am going to write a blog about "why we will never win the war on drugs" with puerto as a decent example.

LuvSports! wrote:

invisiblecoolers wrote:

LuvSports! wrote:
Would you v2 posters still support your Federer, your Nadal, your Djokovic, your Murray and even your Del Potro IC?

If it was any other sport or any other athlete I would but with Feds I just don't know.
Over to you, thoughts?

Really a very good question LS, will I support Del Boy if he is found to abuse the system with drugs and stuffs?  the honest answer at the moment is " I don't know", a part of the reason why I like Del Potro is for the way he conducts himself on Victories and defeats, I would say I liked him coz he is a guy who tries hard and end of the day the results don't matter.

So if he found to have abused drugs to get advantage over other athletes certainly that respect factor would die down on him, I would realize that he cheated his wins and hence all his sportsmanship are fake, I would still forgive him now and support him if he comes forward and openly gives a speech that he made a mistake in his early career to succeed and ready to apologize for the mistake , if he does that then I would love him more, but this have to come in his playing career and not after its over.

I am certainly against drugs and unfair play so not sure I would support Del Po if he gets stuck in such a scandal and not ready to come forward himself during his playing career.

Sorry IC but I have to take you to task on this after re-reading it.
Pretty much every single sportsmen who gets caught either says they didn't know what they took, say well everyone else took it, or come clean. What makes Delpo any better or different if he was caught? |Countless players have wept and come clean and admitted to their misdemeanors, but they are really only sad they got caught.

I told you its a difficult question to answer  , I would stand by Del Po if I feel he is genuine if not I will move on , but I won't support him if I don't find his answers genuine and ethically right.

So is that because as you are a fan, you have been sucked in by your support for delpo and have lost objectivity? I said I would do the same if feds was on drugs as there would be conflict but I would never "love him more" if he came clean as you would.

I am absolutely amazed and gobsmacked that any supporter/fan of a tennis player would stand by/defend their favourite player if caught doping.

Okay if it were a freak case like Alain Baxter taking something once as a medical remedy without realising its contents then that may be different. Large scale doping though would be cheating - pure and simple. It would totally destroy any respect for that player and admiration for their achievements would disappear completely. Not only should it leave myself empty but it would be akin to the recent celebs unearthed in child pornography scandals - as in that people I once admired and looked up to are shown in a sickening and new light and admiration transforms to disgust and abhoration.

Alain Baxter Is always an interesting one. Unprecedented result in the Olympic skiing followed by an unlucky drug bust for which he had an explanation of incompetence...........

Change his nationality and do we buy it?

For my part I would cut no slack to a favourite of mine done for drugs. There's no room for excuses in the sporting context (although there may be room for forgiveness in the human context as there always is).

Agreed.