Nadal Receiving Stem Cell Treatment On His Back

First topic message reminder :

A little bit of a rerun of an old thread but a big piece of news.
Nadal has confirmed that he is receiving stem cell treatment on his back. The treatment is being used on a specific joint in his back apparently quite commonly associated with tennis injuries. Its a treatment thats been used by a lot of NFL players previously and it means he will start his off season training early ish December. Its quite a drastic method to try and cure a back ailment, as a result I wonder how long he might take to hit his stride, if of course he does. Im sure we all wish him a good recovery, but any thoughts of the impact of this?

hawkeye wrote:Nadals weak body has affected his achievements because of the time he has missed on the tour but to try and imply it's because he is less skillful is laughable.

You have no evidence that Nadal has a weak body. He might just as easily have a stronger body but puts more stress onto it. I might just as easily say that Murray's body is far weaker than the other big 3and has far more significantly affected his achievements. I don't have evidence for that, but apparently I don't need any

You're both speculating the primary factor to his injuries . You're both perfectly allowed to do that

We're allowed to do it, but it holds no credence in either case.

I had a deformed foot from childhood. I had four corrective operations on that foot during my lifetime.. however it created a spinal problem because of the way I walked in later years. Leading to neuro- surgery on my spine.. the pain before and after were something I would not wish on anyone  Had this kind of treatment been available to me I would have taken it like a shot. Undoubtedly Rafa's foot problem has dictated, to some degree, how he plays. But that aside he has to retire some day but will still be left with the problem play or not. As we know that are no guarantees in this life but if he is listening, hopefully; to the good advice Im sure he has been given, he knows what to expect. I would make the world pain free if I could.. nobody deserves a life of pain no matter what the cause.

laverfan wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:Some conditions/injuries are alot simplier to manage than others.

I agree. This is what I meant when I said listening to one's body. In Nadal's case, the Orthotic shoes and the foot issues have been overcome, by ingenuous solutions, but has this caused issues elsewhere. Does it mean the doctors are using him as a Guinea Pig?

It's not to say Nadal hasn't listened to his body. Who is to say there is a 'safer' way to play professional sports? Nadal for me is a play hard or go home type and that has resulted in the success he has earned. Yes he has placed a huge cheque on his body, but instead of that being derided I think he deserves praise. Other athletes have also done similar with their bodies whilst enjoying success. I don't see Nadal has to be an isolated case. Agassi more or less did the same and he was quite loved by the crowd and fans for it. Especially his 'pigeon' walk!

It holds much credence. Both are opinions formed in part from objective observation. The truth is likely in the middle but both opinions are equally valid. Importantly they bring up good points and offer interesting takes on it

Hmm. I think some people may have slightly missed the point Bogbrush was raising.

Perhaps instead of using Nadal, using 'Player A' may mean less emotion and more objectivity in this discussion.
So if Player A uses treatment to elongate his career, that gives him more chances to accumulate stats, compared to Player B who may not have had this treatment available. (btw Bogbrush's argument only works when using aggregate stats rather than average match performance).
I think I would agree that the 'ability to have access to better medical treatment' doesn't come across as one which is crucial when deciding who is a better player, but would inevitably impact the statistics.

The only issue I have though is that Bogbrush doesn't raise the other side of the same coin. It could be that in the past players haven't had to play games which take so much out of their body to win (this could be due to a combination of surface and racket technology); and thus these two factors (propensity to get injured and ability to gain better medical treatments) could actually negate each other.

In reaching a conclusion, and back to talking about Nadal, I think his propensity to get injured (for whatever reason... bad luck or congenital problems) will actually outweigh the benefit of the ability to gain access to the better medical treatment.
Nadal is now 28, and I don't think he'll ever get back to his best now- he's had a pretty long career but not as long as some others.
The fairest way of looking at it is taking into account whether the two factors (both of which I see as pretty unimportant when judging how good a player is at tennis) negate each other or not, and then coming to a judgement on a player's stats looking at the circumstances rather than just the stats itself.

I think I see. Bb is making the point that having such advanced medical procedures available to top players constitutes an unfair advantage against the others if not illicit in any way. It's a good point although that may be coubntered by the fact generations above Nadal might have even more available to then

IMBL  I really am at a loss as to now see the purpose of this thread.
I wasn't aware at the outset that we were discussing Nadal's performance with that of his predecessors because he is to undergo medically advanced treatment for his back. Surely comparisons with current players and those of the past are a topic for further discussion on another thread. Intentionally or no this argument involves only Nadal surely we should compare those other players whose injuries may or may not have affected statistics

One solution might be to limit heavily the sort of medical procedures a player can have suring their career. That though comes with a major problem.

If player A says " my backs sore, I want this expensive revolutionary treatment to strenghten my back soo I can play better" You could probably say "no".

However if he says "my backs damaged, I need this treatment now to be able to stay active for the rest of my life", that is a legitimate medical necessity to operate, it suddenyl wouldnt feel quite as easy to say "dont have it or quit".

Now... when can you distinguish, without doubt when youre in one camp or another?

Nadal's back is damaged somewhat. For what we know he may well need this treatment to be able to stay active at all. If thats the case, then the treatment doesnt seem all that outrageous at all, hes earned all that money, and its taken the toll on his body. shouldnt he have the right to use that to repair legitimate damage to his body?

Its not medically ethical to deny someone potentially important treatment for quality of life, over some idea of "medical fair play" to the rest of the field. The two situations clearly overlap a lot, and it would be very easy to claim the latter group than the former.

Haddie-nuff wrote:IMBL  I really am at a loss as to now see the purpose of this thread.
I wasn't aware at the outset that we were discussing Nadal's performance with that of his predecessors because he is to undergo medically advanced treatment for his back. Surely comparisons with current players and those of the past are a topic for further discussion on another thread. Intentionally or no this argument involves only Nadal surely we should compare those other players whose injuries may or may not have affected statistics

Correct, that is ever soo slightly off topic, but still relevant to some degree as long as we dont go a full blown sticky goat. Though my previous post hopefully is on topic

temporary21 wrote:I think I see. Bb is making the point that having such advanced medical procedures available to top players constitutes an unfair advantage against the others  if not illicit in any way. It's a good point  although that may be coubntered by the fact generations above Nadal might have even more available to then

I don't think it's fair that Novak gets to wear contact lenses. If he'd taken better care of his eyes like Roger and Rafa he wouldn't have to rely on such an unnatural sight enhancer. I'm sure if past generations had had access to such advanced optical care they would have won more slams than "Cyborg Novak". I mean it's the slippery slope where will it end?

hawkeye wrote:

temporary21 wrote:I think I see. Bb is making the point that having such advanced medical procedures available to top players constitutes an unfair advantage against the others  if not illicit in any way. It's a good point  although that may be coubntered by the fact generations above Nadal might have even more available to then

I don't think it's fair that Novak gets to wear contact lenses. If he'd taken better care of his eyes like Roger and Rafa he wouldn't have to rely on such an unnatural sight enhancer. I'm sure if past generations had had access to such advanced optical care they would have won more slams than "Cyborg Novak". I mean it's the slippery slope where will it end?

My point HE this isn't a topic about whether Nadal compares with his predecessors.. its a pointless argument imo. That is not the topic under discussion .. as I have said and echoed by Temp21 that Nadal has paid his dues to the sport and earned his money and in doing so he may or even may not have caused his back problem. He has earned the money to use it as he feels fit, the medical treatment is not illegal, it is his body and his choice. The same choices are open to his peers.. he is not trying to gain advantage over them, why does it matter now that his predecessors were denied this. Can we establish that if Connors had been offered this treatment would he or would he not have taken it... The argument doesn't hold water.

Haddie. I am saying the same thing. Well I think I am...

hawkeye wrote:

laverfan wrote:

Perhaps, in my old-fashioned, naive view of athletes, I am drawing a line between 'natural' and 'artificial'. IMHO, this is not progress in the sport, but automation (Jahu's Cyborg may be a bit too far, but Pistorius athletic comparison may be more apt in this case).

@HE.. speculation causes all kinds of issues, so dragging player x into a player y discussion with a negative tone, lays the foundation for a contentious and acrimonious debate and lines on the map get drawn, and teeth and fangs bared. I would suggest, for the sake of the forum, not doing it. Would you consider such a request?

I presume you are referring to my talk about Federer's bad back? Why is speculation about what treatment he had that enabled him to recover so well this year "negative". I'm sure whatever treatment he had was legal. The only reason I can see that some might not like it mentioned is if they want to pretend he had no treatment. All players have access to legal medical treatment but we are meant to pretend that only Nadal makes use of it?

You really try to come across as a bit stupid sometimes. I'm sure you do yourself a grave injustice as you must understand the difference between things everyone knows and things they have to make up.

Haddie-nuff wrote:

hawkeye wrote:

temporary21 wrote:I think I see. Bb is making the point that having such advanced medical procedures available to top players constitutes an unfair advantage against the others  if not illicit in any way. It's a good point  although that may be coubntered by the fact generations above Nadal might have even more available to then

I don't think it's fair that Novak gets to wear contact lenses. If he'd taken better care of his eyes like Roger and Rafa he wouldn't have to rely on such an unnatural sight enhancer. I'm sure if past generations had had access to such advanced optical care they would have won more slams than "Cyborg Novak". I mean it's the slippery slope where will it end?

My point HE this isn't a topic about whether Nadal compares with his predecessors.. its a pointless argument imo. That is not the topic under discussion .. as I have said and echoed by Temp21 that Nadal has paid his dues to the sport and earned his money and in doing so he may or even may not have caused his back problem. He has earned the money to use it as he feels fit, the medical treatment is not illegal, it is his body and his choice. The same choices are open to his peers.. he is not trying to gain advantage over them, why does it matter now that his predecessors were denied this.  Can we establish that if Connors had been offered this treatment would he or would he not have taken it... The argument doesn't hold water.

It was a post I made pages ago about how it makes it impossible to compare player achievements across eras; some people understood it enough to respond accordingly, others didn't or couldn't.

I've not been surprised or disappointed in either case.

^ Sorry bogbrush. I'm just a fan girl I can't possibly understand everything a high brow Federer fan man such as you says. But I'm glad I didn't disappoint

bogbrush wrote:

Haddie-nuff wrote:

hawkeye wrote:

temporary21 wrote:I think I see. Bb is making the point that having such advanced medical procedures available to top players constitutes an unfair advantage against the others  if not illicit in any way. It's a good point  although that may be coubntered by the fact generations above Nadal might have even more available to then

I don't think it's fair that Novak gets to wear contact lenses. If he'd taken better care of his eyes like Roger and Rafa he wouldn't have to rely on such an unnatural sight enhancer. I'm sure if past generations had had access to such advanced optical care they would have won more slams than "Cyborg Novak". I mean it's the slippery slope where will it end?

My point HE this isn't a topic about whether Nadal compares with his predecessors.. its a pointless argument imo. That is not the topic under discussion .. as I have said and echoed by Temp21 that Nadal has paid his dues to the sport and earned his money and in doing so he may or even may not have caused his back problem. He has earned the money to use it as he feels fit, the medical treatment is not illegal, it is his body and his choice. The same choices are open to his peers.. he is not trying to gain advantage over them, why does it matter now that his predecessors were denied this.  Can we establish that if Connors had been offered this treatment would he or would he not have taken it... The argument doesn't hold water.

It was a post I made pages ago about how it makes it impossible to compare player achievements across eras; some people understood it enough to respond accordingly, others didn't or couldn't.

I've not been surprised or disappointed in either case.

I was one who didnt because its a pointless argument using conjecture, personal opinion, and bias.. nothing is fact and cannot be proven. Statistics when comparing present with the past as HE said a slippery slope.
"Lies, damned lies, and statistics"

You really didn't understand did you?

My comment is that you can't compare. You consider that it's pointless conjecture, then you agree with it.

I really don't know what to say next.

Then dont

It Must Be Love wrote:I see why he gets injuries as irrelevant...For example I'd say a guy who won 11 slams in a row since his first slam, but then either gets in a unlucky car accident where his legs get chopped off or brings it upon himself by playing a style which destroys his legs after those 11 slams; that to me is more impressive than someone who's won 12 slams with a career spanning 15 years with no injury problems at all.

Is it really largely irrelevant to you whether your guy stops due to an accident or because of his playing style?

Wow, I wonder how many others look at it that way; to me it makes quite a big difference.

temporary21 wrote:as natural as plastic surgery

???

summerblues wrote:

temporary21 wrote:as natural as plastic surgery

???

Well OK, what I meant was plastic surgery used to have a massive stigma attached to it. Nowadays though its not viewed as all that unusual.

summerblues wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:I see why he gets injuries as irrelevant...For example I'd say a guy who won 11 slams in a row since his first slam, but then either gets in a unlucky car accident where his legs get chopped off or brings it upon himself by playing a style which destroys his legs after those 11 slams; that to me is more impressive than someone who's won 12 slams with a career spanning 15 years with no injury problems at all.

Is it really largely irrelevant to you whether your guy stops due to an accident or because of his playing style?

Wow, I wonder how many others look at it that way; to me it makes quite a big difference.

I don't think this is the first time I'm making this point

Look, let's think about this issue looking at it logically and seeing the big picture.
Obviously if you are judging a player's 'propensity to get injured'- then the difference between the two is quite significant. It would be very unfair to make a negative judgement and say someone has high propensity to get injured if they have a car crash. On the other hand this would be entirely justified if you could accurately claim that the playing style is the main factor for frequent injuries.
However my point is that when judging a player as a whole, I don't see propensity to get injured as a particularly important category. For me I see: serve, forehand, backhand, volleys, movement, mental strength, reliability on shots, reflexes etc. all as far more important than 'propensity to get injured'.

It Must Be Love wrote:

summerblues wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:I see why he gets injuries as irrelevant...For example I'd say a guy who won 11 slams in a row since his first slam, but then either gets in a unlucky car accident where his legs get chopped off or brings it upon himself by playing a style which destroys his legs after those 11 slams; that to me is more impressive than someone who's won 12 slams with a career spanning 15 years with no injury problems at all.

Is it really largely irrelevant to you whether your guy stops due to an accident or because of his playing style?

Wow, I wonder how many others look at it that way; to me it makes quite a big difference.

I don't think this is the first time I'm making this point

Look, let's think about this issue looking at it logically and seeing the big picture.
Obviously if you are judging a player's 'propensity to get injured'- then the difference between the two is quite significant. It would be very unfair to make a negative judgement and say someone has high propensity to get injured if they have a car crash. On the other hand this would be entirely justified if you could accurately claim that the playing style is the main factor for frequent injuries.
However my point is that when judging a player as a whole, I don't see propensity to get injured as a particularly important category. For me I see: serve, forehand, backhand, volleys, movement, mental strength, reliability on shots, reflexes etc. all as far more important than 'propensity to get injured'.

Well, there are two somewhat separate issues here:

First:  Given two otherwise comparable players, should the fact that one is more injury prone count against him?  You take the view that no, it should not.  I suspect a good many - though certainly not all - people would take a similar view.

Second:  Given two otherwise comparable players, should the one that chooses the style that will give them fewer wins but in a more concentrated span be viewed more favorably?  You seem to be taking the view that yes.  This is the part that had me surprised.

I didn't say it shouldn't count against them, I said it is a factor that I see as less important compared to many others (and I gave the list).

It Must Be Love wrote:I didn't say it shouldn't count against them, I said it is a factor that I see as less important compared to many others (and I gave the list).

Yes, I simplified.  I think on the first point we know where you stand; the second point is what I find surprising.

summerblues wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:I didn't say it shouldn't count against them, I said it is a factor that I see as less important compared to many others (and I gave the list).

Yes, I simplified.  I think on the first point we know where you stand; the second point is what I find surprising.

Do you disagree with my first point ? Are there any factors I listed that you would see as more important than propensity to get injured ?

As for the second point, I think I didn't put my point across very well. The issue of concentration is another debate, the point I was trying to make is that it can occur that the better player out of two wins less due to injury problems.
My comparison assumed that a player with 11/11 is better than 12/30+, which I recognise is another debate which shouldn't get confused with the point I'm making here.

It Must Be Love wrote:Do you disagree with my first point ? Are there any factors I listed that you would see as more important than propensity to get injured ?

No, I do not think I outright disagree, I would also view injury-proneness as a somewhat justifiable excuse for lesser success.  I suspect we do differ on the degree to which we do so - you probably lean towards giving players more leeway with injuries than I do, but conceptually we probably do not disagree.

temporary21 wrote:

summerblues wrote:

temporary21 wrote:as natural as plastic surgery

???

Well OK, what I meant was plastic surgery used to have a massive stigma attached to it. Nowadays though its not viewed as all that unusual.

Natural and unusual are 2 different worlds.

Ever felt a silicone breast? It like the wheel of the wheelbarrow

Not natural at all

Jahu wrote:

temporary21 wrote:

summerblues wrote:

temporary21 wrote:as natural as plastic surgery

???

Well OK, what I meant was plastic surgery used to have a massive stigma attached to it. Nowadays though its not viewed as all that unusual.

Natural and unusual are 2 different worlds.

Ever felt a silicone breast? It like the wheel of the wheelbarrow

Not natural at all

Thankfully I havent. They look hideous though, I never understand any woman who thinks a guy can't tell and anyone I know thinks they look awful compared to the real thing.

I have conducted extensive research on this subject, by the way.

Hahaha, BB act your age papi

How can it be a research when you never compared?

Some illegal scientist you are

My research has focussed on the natural versions.

The others frighten me.