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?

JuliusHMarx wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:emancipator, your (now removed) post would be much better on the GOAT thread - feel free to re-post it there (I haven't found a way to move posts from one thread to an existing thread).

And you've been a mod how long??

I don't think it's possible - you can merge a full thread or split to create a new thread, but not take one post from a thread and put it into another existing thread.

I thought you could many moons ago....

This technological lark!

legendkillarV2 wrote:Maybe Roger will send Rafa a bottle of Moët as a get well present

Jahu wrote:LF, Cortisone is steoride hormone, not the Advil stuff

Especially when administered in the middle of a match on the hallowed grounds of W. It has wondrous effects on Tennis, just ask Murray about it v Nadal at MC.

I was going to post a reference to a war somewhere on the globe, but shall refrain from it.

I guess most of have used it onece in our lives, in form of hydrocortisone cream, on skin

bogbrush wrote:Another reason to forget any comparison between Rafa and stars of yesteryear: he's already received many treatments denied to his predecessors without which he'd have long retired, this just adds to it.

But isn't that a reason that applies to every modern player when compared to players of 30,40, or 50 years ago. And it also applies to pretty much every sport. A great many footballers that play today into their 30s would have had their careers finished in their 20s after certain leg knee injuries. Also past greats don't have the benefit of modern nutrition or training methods either. But the fact is that all these benefits are available to all top line athletes that compete today. So you are measuring Nadal against others that have the same benefits. Are we to assume that only Nadal of the modern ATP player has access to these treatements and others do not?

Nope, he's the formula 1 of tennis. Apparently Federer being able get a racquet (and I'm assuming strings) tweaked to his preferences with the latest available technology is one of those things that just make him a throwback

Does this mean Rafa will be unbeatable ?

FedsFan wrote:Does this mean Rafa will be unbeatable ?

There's no guarantee this treatment will even work, people are getting way ahead of themselves.

Anyway even forgetting the back, he still has knee and wrist issues atleast.

socal1976 wrote:But the fact is that all these benefits are available to all top line athletes that compete today. So you are measuring Nadal against others that have the same benefits. Are we to assume that only Nadal of the modern ATP player has access to these treatements and others do not?

Do you know of any other Tennis player receiving stem cells for injuries till today, in the entire Tennis history since it has been recorded? There is no comparison between a cortisone injection and stem cells, is there? Availability does not mean a level playing field, does it?

BTW, HE has already 'speculated' vis-a-vis Murray, so Hewitt, perhaps could have received it.

The larger issues of legality are governed by individual countries with varying laws which can provide advantages and did so in many cases.

Embryonic stem cells will become legal, it is just a matter of time, like Prohibition of yesteryears died after a short run, the moral objections will fall away. They are disallowed now, but I am certain, 100 years from now, it will be routine and legal.

My comments are not for a specific player, but are using the same scope that you use for 'available' in your statement.

laverfan wrote:

socal1976 wrote:But the fact is that all these benefits are available to all top line athletes that compete today. So you are measuring Nadal against others that have the same benefits. Are we to assume that only Nadal of the modern ATP player has access to these treatements and others do not?

Do you know of any other Tennis player receiving stem cells for injuries till today, in the entire Tennis history since it has been recorded? There is no comparison between a cortisone injection and stem cells, is there? Availability does not mean a level playing field, does it?

BTW, HE has already 'speculated' vis-a-vis Murray, so Hewitt, perhaps could have received it.

The larger issues of legality are governed by individual countries with varying laws which can provide advantages and did so in many cases.

Embryonic stem cells will become legal, it is just a matter of time, like Prohibition of yesteryears died after a short run, the moral objections will fall away. They are disallowed now, but I am certain, 100 years from now, it will be routine and legal.

My comments are not for a specific player, but are using the same scope that you use for 'available' in your statement.

But unless I am misunderstanding what you say LF.. what has this to do with Nadal.. he is not receiving embryonic stem cells and so the treatment that is available to him is available to other athletes.. it is similar to that he had on his knees and that was using his own cells. Is it too late in the day and Im not grasping your point ???

"(Nadal) has a problem typical in tennis with a back joint, he had it at the Australian Open, and we have decided to treat it with stem cells," Ruiz-Cotorro said.

He said that stem cells were recently extracted from Nadal for a cultivation process to "produce the necessary quantities."

"When we have them we will put them in the point of pain," he said, with the goal of "regenerating cartilage, in the midterm, and producing an anti-inflammatory effect."

If I was in Nadals position, why do this? Whats the point of risking whatever health procedure, to play extra 12 months and become a cyborg?

Hes got money and everything, and is looking like a spoiled rich kid, taking beta treatments.

Embarrasing.

FedsFan wrote:Does this mean Rafa will be unbeatable ?

An injury free Rafa is pretty much unbeatable as the stats show. So yes with successful treatment that will be the aim

Jahu wrote:If I was in Nadals position, why do this? Whats the point of risking whatever health procedure, to play extra 12 months and become a cyborg?

Hes got money and everything, and is looking like a spoiled rich kid, taking beta treatments.

Embarrasing.

He has had this treatment before on his knees... embarassing

They should play with no medical treatment not even paracetamol just like they did in the good old days and just like Federer does today

hawkeye wrote:

FedsFan wrote:Does this mean Rafa will be unbeatable ?

An injury free Rafa is pretty much unbeatable as the stats show. So yes with successful treatment that will be the aim

As you always say, Rafa only ever loses when injured.

hawkeye wrote:They should play with no medical treatment not even paracetamol just like they did in the good old days and just like Federer does today

Yes, no medicine is obviously the only alternative to stem cells, blood platelet, etc.

hawkeye wrote:They should play with no medical treatment not even paracetamol just like they did in the good old days and just like Federer does today

Lol !

bogbrush wrote:

hawkeye wrote:

FedsFan wrote:Does this mean Rafa will be unbeatable ?

An injury free Rafa is pretty much unbeatable as the stats show. So yes with successful treatment that will be the aim

As you always say, Rafa only ever loses when injured.

As most players do

In the words of prime from the I.T crowd.  Steady gentleman  the treatment is Rafas rightful decision to take. He wants to play more so he's taking the treatment. These treatments always look stupid until you know someone close to you who's life and career can be rejuvenated by it

bogbrush wrote:

hawkeye wrote:They should play with no medical treatment not even paracetamol just like they did in the good old days and just like Federer does today

Yes, no medicine is obviously the only alternative to stem cells, blood platelet, etc.

Federer may have made use of cutting edge medical science too. We have no way of knowing what legal treatments players make use of. Nadal is under no obligation to tell us anything either. Maybe he just likes to give us things to talk about

hawkeye wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

hawkeye wrote:They should play with no medical treatment not even paracetamol just like they did in the good old days and just like Federer does today

Yes, no medicine is obviously the only alternative to stem cells, blood platelet, etc.

Federer may have made use of cutting edge medical science too. We have no way of knowing what legal treatments players make use of. Nadal is under no obligation to tell us anything either. Maybe he just likes to give us things to talk about

Shall we stick to what we know, then? I know, it's radical and controversial to suggest we don't just make stuff up but that's just me!

Haddie-nuff wrote:But unless I am misunderstanding what you say LF.. what has this to do with Nadal.. he is not receiving embryonic stem cells and so the treatment that is available to him is available to other athletes.. it is similar to that he had on his knees and that was using his own cells. Is it too late in the day and Im not grasping your point ???

The knee treatment is PRP, AFAIK, which is different from this. It is in-situ stimulation of body's cells. The cells originate in the athletes body, but what is done to them in a petri dish before being put back in the body is where the issues arise.

Such treatments are indeed very helpful for patients whose quality of life can be improved. That is the goal of advances in medicine and technology.

Availability of a specific treatment is not the leveller, there is a financial and affordability aspect to it. Buying a Peugeot vs a Mercedes is not the same, even though both are cars.

Nadal has always complained about HC being injurious to players. There are many others who play on HC and manage, without needing such treatments. He himself admits that professional sport is injurious to public health.

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 realise your last comment is not addressed to me so I make no response to that.  Whilst I understand what you are saying I still feel that if it is possible for Rafa to prolong his career by having such treatment, and he can afford financially to do so without compromising others, then good luck to him.  I see a whole world of people out there that can afford to do things I cannot.

Using the same analogy as you have with regard to cars. So if you can afford a Mercedes and I can only afford a Peugeot is it right that you should be prevented buying something because I cant afford to do likewise..? Rafa's injuries were caused by the very thing that has created his wealth and I hope it works

I think the question is Haddie is does Nadal 'need' this treatment. I may not be a doctor, but I am not convinced that this is the only treatment out there for the condition he has. I don't think there is anything morally incorrect with this treatment, though it seems excessive.

He is a modern day Hewitt with the treatments he has had. His body will be held together by threads!

He is becoming a Cyborg, to pass Feds 17 GS.

So one GS a year, is enough for next 4 years and keep himself on tubes and blood pipes

Suddenly, Djokos egg chamber is no big deal compared to this.

It's legal, fine. (Some if it wasn't always).

My point was it makes comparisons to players if the past ridiculous. How much would others gave won if they'd been able to overcome injuries and extend their careers like this?

Most of the greats were relatively injury free. Nadal is probably alone amongst the top 4/5 ATGs in having serious injury problems throughout his career. Is not better that he is given the chance to have a similar length career to his peers?

Born Slippy wrote:Most of the greats were relatively injury free. Nadal is probably alone amongst the top 4/5 ATGs in having serious injury problems throughout his career. Is not better that he is given the chance to have a similar length career to his peers?

The fact is that the records of predecessors were governed by the health of their bodies. Lendl for sure suffered chronic back problems. Pete had his blood problems. What might they have done had they been able to find relief in radical treatment?

All I'm saying is that these guys records can't be compared to Rafa because he has access to career extending stuff they didn't. Seems pretty obvious to me.

His ranking shouldn't be protected. Its his fault his playing style puts such stress on his body.

bogbrush wrote:

All I'm saying is that these guys records can't be compared to Rafa because he has access to career extending stuff they didn't. Seems pretty obvious to me.

In that case perhaps it's better then to look at average match performance as well, rather than just aggregate stats accumulated.

When I judge how good a player is, the 'propensity not to get an injury' ranks pretty low on the list of important factors too look at (i.e. baseline game, mental strength etc. are much more important).
But if we simply just look at stats, the 'propensity not to get an injury' is given priority as one of the most crucial factors... simply because no one can accumulate stats when they aren't even playing.
So yes I think it's right to look at people's career, keeping in mind their circumstances when it comes to injury. Nadal's an interesting example because he's been torn apart by injuries; it's remarkable he's even got into double digit of Slams given how much of the tour he's had to miss due to injuries. Frankly I don't think this stem cell treatment could work, and I don't see him returning to his best again, so really his career is ended at around 28 which is probably earlier than most other all time greats.

It Must Be Love wrote:When I judge how good a player is, the 'propensity not to get an injury' ranks pretty low on the list of important factors too look at (i.e. baseline game, mental strength etc. are much more important).
But if we simply just look at stats, the 'propensity not to get an injury' is given priority as one of the most crucial factors... simply because no one can accumulate stats when they aren't even playing.
So yes I think it's right to look at people's career, keeping in mind their circumstances when it comes to injury. Nadal's an interesting example because he's been torn apart by injuries; it's remarkable he's even got into double digit of Slams given how much of the tour he's had to miss due to injuries. Frankly I don't think this stem cell treatment could work, and I don't see him returning to his best again, so really his career is ended at around 28 which is probably earlier than most other all time greats.  

but that's not just bad luck, it is a function of how he plays.

greengoblin wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:When I judge how good a player is, the 'propensity not to get an injury' ranks pretty low on the list of important factors too look at (i.e. baseline game, mental strength etc. are much more important).
But if we simply just look at stats, the 'propensity not to get an injury' is given priority as one of the most crucial factors... simply because no one can accumulate stats when they aren't even playing.
So yes I think it's right to look at people's career, keeping in mind their circumstances when it comes to injury. Nadal's an interesting example because he's been torn apart by injuries; it's remarkable he's even got into double digit of Slams given how much of the tour he's had to miss due to injuries. Frankly I don't think this stem cell treatment could work, and I don't see him returning to his best again, so really his career is ended at around 28 which is probably earlier than most other all time greats.  

but that's not just bad luck, it is a function of how he plays.

I see why he gets injuries as irrelevant; but it is obvious that injuries limit the statistics you can accumulate. So when you judge a player's career, you have to judge how well he's done in the circumstances. If you take this step, the problem Bogbrush identified over different players having different career lengths due to injuries/treatments is no longer an issue.
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.

Thankyou Bogbrush, you've brought up an interesting issue and debate.

Whether it is because of his style of play is immaterial at this stage. He is 28 yrs of age and I think it highly unlikely that he can change that now. Even if he never returns to his best he is a young man with a future outside of tennis and I think it wise to nip it in the bud now, whatever the problem is with his back. He will undoubtedly suffer more pain in later years. It isnt all about prolonging his career why would anyone want to live a life of pain when it is not necessary to do so. I would advocate any player no matter who it is, to seek any treatment if it is available to them and it is legal

bogbrush wrote:

Born Slippy wrote:Most of the greats were relatively injury free. Nadal is probably alone amongst the top 4/5 ATGs in having serious injury problems throughout his career. Is not better that he is given the chance to have a similar length career to his peers?

The fact is that the records of predecessors were governed by the health of their bodies. Lendl for sure suffered chronic back problems. Pete had his blood problems. What might they have done had they been able to find relief in radical treatment?

All I'm saying is that these guys records can't be compared to Rafa because he has access to career extending stuff they didn't. Seems pretty obvious to me.

I see what you are saying, but I wouldn't say with great certainty that they didn't have access to the treatments. Simply Nadal has no blood conditions we know of. So we are comparing apples and oranges.

Agassi, Lendl and Federer all have had back issues and it has been more managing the conditions than finding a 'cure' Sampras and Dogopolov don't have access to treatments that could permanently extend their careers. Look at Murray and his surgery. Hasn't made a blind bit of difference to his form, apart from it has become worse! So there could be underlying factors why players don't have treatments.

Would Nadal keep playing if the treatments weren't available? Who knows. Again speculation.

Haddie-nuff wrote:
Using the same analogy as you have with regard to cars. So if you can afford a Mercedes and I can only afford a Peugeot is it right that you should be prevented buying something because I cant afford to do likewise..? Rafa's injuries were caused by the very thing that has created his wealth and I hope it works

I am not trying to prevent you buying either car, but at the same time, would you consider a 'fast' and 'slow' lane separation?

I hope his back gets better, whether it helps him win more titles or not, is not that relevant, rest is just numbers. Nobody believed that a-mile-a-minute would stand the test of time, but it has not. All records get broken.

I would love to see Fedal, holding hands, walk down the hallowed grass of W, when some kid named Stefan Djokovic has won 25 slams.

It Must Be Love wrote:When I judge how good a player is, the 'propensity not to get an injury' ranks pretty low on the list of important factors too look at (i.e. baseline game, mental strength etc. are much more important). But if we simply just look at stats, the 'propensity not to get an injury' is given priority as one of the most crucial factors... simply because no one can accumulate stats when they aren't even playing.

Nadal says Professional sport is injurious to public health, but yet there are players who do. What is the difference between smoking and professional sport, then? An injury-free player means two things,

a. managing the assets available efficiently, and,
b. listening to those assets for feedback.

One of child-hood friends lost the use of his left hand, because it broke repeatedly and ended up being replaced with steel plates and bolts. It is tragic. No amount of medical advice was ever listened to in this specific case. This person, till today, plays Cricket with right hand and bowls astounding leg-cutters, even at the age of 73. If he was injury-free, he would have definitely played in the National team of some country. His career never took off because fielding, even in the outfield, was a liability.

It Must Be Love wrote:So yes I think it's right to look at people's career, keeping in mind their circumstances when it comes to injury. Nadal's an interesting example because he's been torn apart by injuries; it's remarkable he's even got into double digit of Slams given how much of the tour he's had to miss due to injuries. Frankly I don't think this stem cell treatment could work, and I don't see him returning to his best again, so really his career is ended at around 28 which is probably earlier than most other all time greats.  

One is the master one's destiny, and must be aware of their 'limitations' and how to manage. Look at Ferrer. He is a shining example of accomplishing the most he can given the 'assets' at his disposal.

Are you injured because you play, or do not play because you are injured? Nadal is getting hurt playing a certain style, but Djokovic, using the same style, is not. To me that means Djokovic is a better manager of his 'assets'.

I know what you're saying Laverfan; and I did address that already in the post you're quoting.
The 'propensity not to get injured' may be used by some when judging how good a player is at tennis. For me as a factor it is pretty low down the list; for me forehand, backhand, serves, hand-eye coordination, mental strength etc. are all considerably above 'propensity not to get injured' in significance.

laverfan wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:When I judge how good a player is, the 'propensity not to get an injury' ranks pretty low on the list of important factors too look at (i.e. baseline game, mental strength etc. are much more important). But if we simply just look at stats, the 'propensity not to get an injury' is given priority as one of the most crucial factors... simply because no one can accumulate stats when they aren't even playing.

Nadal says Professional sport is injurious to public health, but yet there are players who do. What is the difference between smoking and professional sport, then? An injury-free player means two things,

a. managing the assets available efficiently, and,
b. listening to those assets for feedback.

One of child-hood friends lost the use of his left hand, because it broke repeatedly and ended up being replaced with steel plates and bolts. It is tragic. No amount of medical advice was ever listened to in this specific case. This person, till today, plays Cricket with right hand and bowls astounding leg-cutters, even at the age of 73. If he was injury-free, he would have definitely played in the National team of some country. His career never took off because fielding, even in the outfield, was a liability.

It Must Be Love wrote:So yes I think it's right to look at people's career, keeping in mind their circumstances when it comes to injury. Nadal's an interesting example because he's been torn apart by injuries; it's remarkable he's even got into double digit of Slams given how much of the tour he's had to miss due to injuries. Frankly I don't think this stem cell treatment could work, and I don't see him returning to his best again, so really his career is ended at around 28 which is probably earlier than most other all time greats.  

One is the master one's destiny, and must be aware of their 'limitations' and how to manage. Look at Ferrer. He is a shining example of accomplishing the most he can given the 'assets' at his disposal.

Are you injured because you play, or do not play because you are injured? Nadal is getting hurt playing a certain style, but Djokovic, using the same style, is not. To me that means Djokovic is a better manager of his 'assets'.

I agree with most of this post. However, the exception I make is if an athlete has a condition they born with or inherited. IIRC lydian posted an interesting article about Nadal having a foot condition that he was born with. Now if that is the case, maybe adjusting to managing that condition has had implications on other parts of his body. This is not to say injuries or conditions developed by other athletes don't face the same challenges post injury, just that sometimes is not as clear as "his style of play was always going to cause injuries" I was forced to retire from football and tennis due to knee injuries that were caused because of the style I had to adopt because of surgery I had on my back when I was 18. I got about 12 years of sport out of it. Now I have finished with sport on a competing level.

Look at Djokovic who you mention. He had a deformed septum which I know having myself is a git to play any sport with. That was linked to Djokovic's many retirements early in his career. I think he had corrected surgery in 2009/2010 perhaps (not sure when) and look at the results since.

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

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 Must Be Love wrote:
The 'propensity not to get injured' may be used by some when judging how good a player is at tennis. For me as a factor it is pretty low down the list; for me forehand, backhand, serves, hand-eye coordination, mental strength etc. are all considerably above 'propensity not to get injured' in significance.

Is it not the same as using a specific H2H, a subjective interpretation, in both cases, IMVHO?

Procedures on the back, especially near the spinal column are very risky and minor mistakes can cause catastrophic damage to the CNS. Herniated disks and associated surgery can lead to complications. We may never know the exact technical procedure, but to me, a scalpel for cutting is a dangerous thing to be around.

Medical science is not an exact one.

socal1976 wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Another reason to forget any comparison between Rafa and stars of yesteryear: he's already received many treatments denied to his predecessors without which he'd have long retired, this just adds to it.

But isn't that a reason that applies to every modern player when compared to players of 30,40, or 50 years ago. And it also applies to pretty much every sport. A great many footballers that play today into their 30s would have had their careers finished in their 20s after certain leg knee injuries. Also past greats don't have the benefit of modern nutrition or training methods either. But the fact is that all these benefits are available to all top line athletes that compete today. So you are measuring Nadal against others that have the same benefits. Are we to assume that only Nadal of the modern ATP player has access to these treatements and others do not?

Yes, it is exactly a good reason as you say to make era comparisons very difficult, if not impossible.

On a point of detail we only know of Rafa getting into stem cells etc. so we can only really talk about him on those subjects.

It Must Be Love wrote:When I judge how good a player is, the 'propensity not to get an injury' ranks pretty low on the list of important factors too look at (i.e. baseline game, mental strength etc. are much more important).
But if we simply just look at stats, the 'propensity not to get an injury' is given priority as one of the most crucial factors... simply because no one can accumulate stats when they aren't even playing.
So yes I think it's right to look at people's career, keeping in mind their circumstances when it comes to injury. Nadal's an interesting example because he's been torn apart by injuries; it's remarkable he's even got into double digit of Slams given how much of the tour he's had to miss due to injuries. Frankly I don't think this stem cell treatment could work, and I don't see him returning to his best again, so really his career is ended at around 28 which is probably earlier than most other all time greats.  

Where do you get that from? He was all right the other week and went off with appendicitis.

It Must Be Love wrote:Thankyou Bogbrush, you've brought up an interesting issue and debate.

It's what I do.



On the previous post, this makes Borg the GOAT, and clay GOAT in all likelihood.

Not getting injured is enormously about luck though. Stem cell treAtment still has this stigma attached that it's too far and not natural but in time it may well be as natural as plastic surgery or chemotherapy. Nadal gets injured a lot. Some if it is a stress type game by much if it is just he gets injured

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?

In advertising the word "natural" is extremely popular because it conjures up all kinds of wholesome images and feelings and it is virtually meaningless so can be applied to almost anything How to you draw your line between "natural" and "artificial" medicine and therapeutic treatment. What about Novak's contact lenses. Back in the day he would have been considered a cyborg  

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?

laverfan wrote:

Nadal says Professional sport is injurious to public health, but yet there are players who do. What is the difference between smoking and professional sport, then? An injury-free player means two things,

a. managing the assets available efficiently, and,
b. listening to those assets for feedback.

Nadal is correct. Playing professional sport is damaging to the body. You could even say that playing professional sport is unnatural It is not the way to maintain a healthy body

You could do an experiment with any two athletes and get them to do exactly the same grueling physical activity day in day out until they sustained an injury. Not tennis but something gym related to ensure their bodies were put under the same strain. They would never break down at the same point. Some would just have bodies that were more resistant and "strong". This would have nothing to do with skill.

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.

temporary21 wrote:Not getting injured is enormously about luck though. Stem cell treAtment still has this stigma attached that it's too far and not natural but in time it may well be as natural as plastic surgery or chemotherapy. Nadal gets injured a lot. Some if it is a stress type game by much if it is just he gets injured

Yes I agree with the way you've thrown the word "natural" about