Boris "Omerta" Becker

Someone should tell Boris what he said about Thomas Muster's miracle comeback in '96. He too is then 'totally out of order' right?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/tennis/article-3544745/Boris-Becker-slams-totally-order-Andy-Murray-British-No-1-admits-doping-suspicions.html

This is one of the reports on the Becker-Muster comments controversy.

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/06/20/sports/sports-people-tennis-atp-hits-becker-with-fine.html

Here is another interesting tid-bit...

Down the years he has stood by such luminaries as Boris Becker, who rushed to [Hans] Muller-Wolfahrt's clinic at the merest twinge. At times we have seen Becker, on the brink of exhaustion, sip from a tiny capsule during a tennis match and recover to make one of his phenomenal comebacks. The potion, prepared in Munich, is a trade secret, though there do not appear to be any ethical or legal doubts over the ingredients.

http://www.nytimes.com/1998/01/14/sports/14iht-socc.t.html

Djoko, calls Andy 'unbelievably disrespectful'.

Hmm.

Becker protests loudly when I didn't hear Murray actually mention Djokovic. Why in Earth would he leap to Novaks defence?

Because it's pretty clear what Murray is insinuating?
Personally I like breakdown Murray a lot. Just needs to trash a court and his transformation is complete. Having a baby seems to have unhinged him somewhat

Murray's comments can really only be taken to mean one of 2 players - whether he meant them that way or not. I'm not sure what benefit there is to him stirring up this particular controversy - it's different to making some blander statements about needing more testing or about the professionalism or otherwise of players who have been caught like Cilic. Having seen some of the reaction of Djokovic's most enthusiastic supporters on social media to this, I don't fancy the welcome Andy is going to get in Serbia for the DC QF.

But although I think Murray shouldn't have made these particular remarks, the subject of doping in tennis should be open to discussion.

kingraf wrote:Because it's pretty clear what Murray is insinuating?
Personally I like breakdown Murray a lot. Just needs to trash a court and his transformation is complete.  Having a baby seems to have unhinged him somewhat

Unhinged?

Interesting to know that what has seemed odd to viewers on TV, a notoriously unreliable standpoint to form views, was shared by the guy at the other side of the net. Makes you think doesn't it?

Much ado about nothing, I am sure if you asked any world class pro-athlete they would voice suspicions that some opponent at some point was juicing. He can't mean djokovic by the way he always makes sure that his opponents can tell that he is tired or hurting, before he comes back to win of course. This would be like a single woman in her 50s having suspicions that some of the old farts she beds use Viagra, no you can't be serious?

"Murray's comments can really only be taken to mean one of 2 players"

Nonsense, if you look at the original text he was Generalising.

If you think for a minute that he was having a dig at Novak or Rafa you are sadly mistaken, (If these aren't the players then who are the two players?)

This is what I love about forums such as V2 when everbody becomes an expert and helps fuel the fires that the Press and Media create!

He seems to be generalising but at the same time one cant help feel he's pointing the finger at Djokovic given he played a 5hr+ match vs. Murray at AO12, then did the same vs Rafa less than 36 hours later (and it was Rafa clearly wilting at the end not Djokovic). After all, who else plays the types of long matches Murray refers to anyway...Isner vs Mahut???
Clearly Becker also feels this because he's responded in defence of his charge!

So Andy Murray... Andy Murray!... is saying that he thinks it's suspicious when players don't seem to get tired?!

Next he'll be saying it's suspicious when players shout at their box and talk to themselves like a lunatic.

He's shocked at the mere notion of testing someone at 7am too!

bogbrush wrote:

kingraf wrote:Because it's pretty clear what Murray is insinuating?
Personally I like breakdown Murray a lot. Just needs to trash a court and his transformation is complete.  Having a baby seems to have unhinged him somewhat

Unhinged?

Interesting to know that what has seemed odd to viewers on TV, a notoriously unreliable standpoint to form views, was shared by the guy at the other side of the net. Makes you think doesn't it?

Well yeah. Chucking balls at umpires certainly makes me think.

Also FYI - Murray also went over the "shot clock" the whole match

sportslover wrote:"Murray's comments can really only be taken to mean one of 2 players"

Nonsense, if you look at the original text he was Generalising.

If you think for a minute that he was having a dig at Novak or Rafa you are sadly mistaken, (If these aren't the players then who are the two players?)

This is what I love about forums such as V2 when everbody becomes an expert and helps fuel the fires that the Press and Media create!

Well quite; which is why Becker has me so confused as him coming out of the traps with all his denials at the ready.

It's almost like he felt Djokovic was being referenced, when of course he wasn't. Why would he be like that?

HM Murdock wrote:So Andy Murray... Andy Murray!... is saying that he thinks it's suspicious when players don't seem to get tired?!

Next he'll be saying it's suspicious when players shout at their box and talk to themselves like a lunatic.

Odd criticism as Andy doesn't strike me as immune from tiredness. Despite clearly working extremely hard, Andy does seem far more susceptible to losing his footwork and first serve percentage over the course of a match (both classic signs of tiredness) than any other top player. I can't really think on any match he has won on fitness - even US12 he basically had to take a two set rest to give himself a shot at the 5th.

Generally, his matches with Novak and Rafa (when Andy is playing well) tend to be characterised by a couple of close sets and then, unless Andy wins both, he fades physically and gets whipped. I can see why he would find that perplexing given how hard he works on his fitness. My view is that he has been a bit unlucky as genetically I just think he isn't really designed for peak stamina levels.

bogbrush wrote:It's almost like he felt Djokovic was being referenced, when of course he wasn't. Why would he be like that?

Exactly, Becker doth protesteth too much... ;-)

Born Slippy wrote:

HM Murdock wrote:So Andy Murray... Andy Murray!... is saying that he thinks it's suspicious when players don't seem to get tired?!

Next he'll be saying it's suspicious when players shout at their box and talk to themselves like a lunatic.

Odd criticism as Andy doesn't strike me as immune from tiredness. Despite clearly working extremely hard, Andy does seem far more susceptible to losing his footwork and first serve percentage over the course of a match (both classic signs of tiredness) than any other top player. I can't really think on any match he has won on fitness - even US12 he basically had to take a two set rest to give himself a shot at the 5th.

Generally, his matches with Novak and Rafa (when Andy is playing well) tend to be characterised by a couple of close sets and then, unless Andy wins both, he fades physically and gets whipped. I can see why he would find that perplexing given how hard he works on his fitness. My view is that he has been a bit unlucky as genetically I just think he isn't really designed for peak stamina levels.

I agree, Murray clearly tires. I would add to that list that you could see him going by the 3rd set against Federer in W12, particularly during / after that epic 5th game.

He's very heavy - or at least appears so for his build.

Born Slippy wrote:
I can't really think on any match he has won on fitness

Fitness has played a huge role in Andy's success. This year alone, you don't think it might have crossed the minds of Raonic and Nishikori as they lost the 5th set that Murray was incredibly fit and wasn't going away?

Born Slippy wrote:Generally, his matches with Novak and Rafa (when Andy is playing well) tend to be characterised by a couple of close sets and then, unless Andy wins both, he fades physically and gets whipped. I can see why he would find that perplexing given how hard he works on his fitness.

This is exactly the point that shows Andy's lack of self awareness. There are perhaps two players in the whole world who have shown they are capable of outlasting Murray in a war of attrition. Does Andy assume that he should be the fittest player on tour and the fact he's not is suspicious?

A more sensible analysis might be for him to ponder why he's built himself a physique that weighs a stone more than Djokovic, and then to contemplate how much that helps him in a long match.

I wish there were expert physiologists / sports scientists that could comment on the endurance and recovery levels of the modern tennis player.  Is it purely down to diet, nutrition, ice bathes, massages, oxygen chambers, careful match management (time between points, feeding between points ...).  Or are they on a course of natural growth hormones etc?  It seems clear they are passing the tests.  The level of fitness and power maintenance seems to be an order of magnitude greater than in the past.  

In the Tour de France they had some French physiologist saying one of Chris Froomes mountain ascents was physiologically impossible.  That led to a lot of debate and a release of medical data.  But you don't get that type of thing in the tennis, when physiologists / sports scientists question whether something is physiologically possible or otherwise. With the Sharapova incident it was revealed that Sharapova's per annum earnings was greater than the entire WADA annual budget.

Murray is simply not as fit as Djoko, Rafa and Fed (when Fed was at his physical peak). Fed during his younger days was as fit as ever, remember him playing long matches at Rome 2006 on consecutive days and spent 5+ hours playing Rafa in the final and almost won?

They are very fit guys and, they really need not play long matches all the time! Talking about long 5 set matches, there are no lacking of long 5 setters at the early rounds of the slams and at DC ties played by lower ranked players. The players still managed to proceed through the draw, not always going far but some still managed to do so. I also remember one DC match, was it Karlovic vs Stepanek? That match went over six hours i believe.

I find it hard to judge Fed's fitness levels.

On the one hand, matches like v Del Potro at the Olympics and v Roddick at Wimbledon 2009 show he's very capable of playing long matches.

On the other hand, his record in 5 set matches is clearly inferior to the other statistics he's notched up in his career.

My feeling is his endurance stems/stemmed from the economy of his movement and playing style more than it does/did from his lungs.

Both matches on grass and his serve was a big help both times. You got to look at his long drawn out matches on other surfaces- his matches vs Delpo and Haas at FO2009 for eg.

I honestly don't think Murray is referencing Novak or Nadal. I think he has too much respect for these guys he has been around and competed against for many years. Maybe he is, we can't really know for sure one way or the other. I don't think fitness has played much of a role in Murray's losses to Djokovic in recent years frankly. Novak has more often cut through like a knife through butter. He is outgunned in that match up not physically but by Novak's more fluid and easy change of direction and earlier ball striking. He gets pushed off the baseline and pulled wide, in the end that his problem not that he isn't fit enough. I mean he loses a lot of two set matches or one sided matches to Novak in recent years are those because he can't handle 90 minutes of tennis?

socal1976 wrote:I honestly don't think Murray is referencing Novak or Nadal. I think he has too much respect for these guys he has been around and competed against for many years. Maybe he is, we can't really know for sure one way or the other. I don't think fitness has played much of a role in Murray's losses to Djokovic in recent years frankly. Novak has more often cut through like a knife through butter. He is outgunned in that match up not physically but by Novak's more fluid and easy change of direction and earlier ball striking. He gets pushed off the baseline and pulled wide, in the end that his problem not that he isn't fit enough. I mean he loses a lot of two set matches or one sided matches to Novak in recent years are those because he can't handle 90 minutes of tennis?

I dont think for a minute either that Andy is refering to Novak or Rafa but forums such as this and the Media in general love to make 2+2 = 5.

There is another Topic about Andy and the top five.

The author of that one should be more concerned that his beloved Rafa has lost Nine out Ten of his last meetings with Novak - and how is he going to change his fortunes here!

sportslover wrote:

socal1976 wrote:I honestly don't think Murray is referencing Novak or Nadal. I think he has too much respect for these guys he has been around and competed against for many years. Maybe he is, we can't really know for sure one way or the other. I don't think fitness has played much of a role in Murray's losses to Djokovic in recent years frankly. Novak has more often cut through like a knife through butter. He is outgunned in that match up not physically but by Novak's more fluid and easy change of direction and earlier ball striking. He gets pushed off the baseline and pulled wide, in the end that his problem not that he isn't fit enough. I mean he loses a lot of two set matches or one sided matches to Novak in recent years are those because he can't handle 90 minutes of tennis?

I dont think for a minute either that Andy is refering to Novak or Rafa but forums such as this and the Media in general love to make 2+2 = 5.

There is another Topic about Andy and the top five.

The author of that one should be more concerned that his beloved Rafa has lost Nine out Ten of his last meetings with Novak - and how is he going to change his fortunes here!

There is this obsession in tennis about talking just about fitness as to why certain players win and certain players lose, which generally ignores the fact that Nadal and Djokovic don't wear down their opponents. No instead they have them on the ropes with their shots all match long and are dictating the points from the word go. Novak is beating everyone and not just Andy, like you said Nadal hasn't exactly lit things up recently against Novak either.

PS it was stupid of Becker considering his position to make any comment if asked about Murray's comments. It does lead people to wonder why you are so defensive. Maybe the way the question was portrayed or asked was in a manner where Becker was lead to believe it was directed at Djokovic or Nadal specifically. Either way he should have kept his mouth shut. Or could Boris be pulling a double bluff mind game and trying to psyche up Novak or psyche out Murray?

socal1976 wrote:PS it was stupid of Becker considering his position to make any comment if asked about Murray's comments. It does lead people to wonder why you are so defensive. Maybe the way the question was portrayed or asked was in a manner where Becker was lead to believe it was directed at Djokovic or Nadal specifically. Either way he should have kept his mouth shut. Or could Boris be pulling a double bluff mind game and trying to psyche up Novak or psyche out Murray?

Andys comments comes at a time close to the Sharapova incident when both he and Novak agreed that it was bad and this is probably a continuation to the original Sharapova incident.

As far as his relationship with Novak goes I doubt if it will affect it one little bit and no doubt they have already spoken to each other about it.

As for Boris and his comments they may well be tied in with Novaks early Madrid exit and he in turn is trying to justify his position( and large salary)

Good grief what a bitter little man Murray is. Casting allegations against other players without a shred of evidence. The difference is if say Ferrer had questioned Murray's fitness, muscle tone and ability to outlast opponents the media would be outraged. Murray is just ****** because he is not as good as the big three and the truth is that is despite the fact that he is "fitter" than them. Sour grapes and they would be seen as sour grapes if it was any other player being so disrespectful

Good on Becker for saying something. Murray was stupid but not stupid enough to name names otherwise he would have likely had a legal case to defend. Shocked that the ATP haven't said something or even sanctioned him. Murray is under contract with them not to bad mouth either the ATP or his fellow colleagues.

May I join you there LK?

You may LS.

I was thinking what a shame I don't have the Sean Bean GOT gif

sportslover wrote:"Murray's comments can really only be taken to mean one of 2 players"

Nonsense, if you look at the original text he was Generalising.

If you think for a minute that he was having a dig at Novak or Rafa you are sadly mistaken, (If these aren't the players then who are the two players?)

This is what I love about forums such as V2 when everbody becomes an expert and helps fuel the fires that the Press and Media create!

You removed the last bit of my sentence there. The original was "Murray's comments can really only be taken to mean one of 2 players - whether he meant them that way or not." I've no idea what his intention was, but the problem with including specific examples of back-to-back 6 hrs matches is that almost everyone will immediately think of the same 2 players - especially when combined with the strange phrase about opponents of his "won't go away". There aren't that many players that outlast Murray. Maybe it was just clumsy wording. I've no problem with any players, including Murray, speaking out about how doping could help in tennis for endurance and recovery, and talking about testing improvements. But that wasn't what these quotes were, and it seems dumb to me to make them. They do him no good whatsoever.

I pretty much agree with HMM about the self awareness. Why does he think that players should be just "going away" in matches against him. It's a ridiculous phrase to use.

HM Murdock wrote:I find it hard to judge Fed's fitness levels.

On the one hand, matches like v Del Potro at the Olympics and v Roddick at Wimbledon 2009 show he's very capable of playing long matches.

On the other hand, his record in 5 set matches is clearly inferior to the other statistics he's notched up in his career.

My feeling is his endurance stems/stemmed from the economy of his movement and playing style more than it does/did from his lungs.

At his peak, Fed's fitness was phenomenal. It's often forgotten that the exceptional Rome 2006 final followed two brutal matches against Almagro and Nalbandian on the two days before. Despite that, I thought Fed looked stronger physically than Rafa in the 5th.

I always remember how he outlasted Tipsy in Oz 08 as well. Tipsy just couldn't match his fitness in the end. Of course, that match was made all the more remarkable subsequently as Fed was struggling with glandular fever at the time!

Oh oh...somebody mentioned mono.
Talk to Ancic or Soderling about that one...

I knew I should have installed a Mono panic button!

What's more amusing is Murray didn't name names which is smart of him and then Becker goes the full 9 yards and mentions names in his statement! If you're Nadal, you'd be thinking why is my name being dragged into another argument about doping. Becker isn't PR savvy that's for sure.

Becker isn't all that clever and he's reacted. The question is why.

Dim people like him walk head-first into things like this.

Washington Post take on Djokos silly talk.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2016/04/19/novak-djokovic-isnt-accused-of-doping-but-he-sounds-eerily-like-lance-armstrong/

bogbrush wrote:Becker isn't all that clever and he's reacted. The question is why.

Dim people like him walk head-first into things like this.

Well, Murray didn't mention names. Surely in the interest of his client, Becker would advise or he himself be advised not to say anything. No-one bites, then the attention is back on Murray to provide further substance to his claims. If Becker thinks his statement is going to deflect attention or the spotlight back on Murray, he couldn't be more wrong. In a world of intense media scrutiny, it seems neither silence or coming to confront allegations is deemed as adequate enough for some.

Or Murray in true 606V2 fashion just trolled Becker!

...blimey...
He wants to avoid comparisons with Armstrong...or else they might do something stupid like link a shared habit of using oxygen chambers next...

Lance Armstrong never failed a test.
Ben Johnson never "failed" a test ... he failed a test for something he wasn't taking because someone spiked his drink with something that did show up in the test.  Ben Johnson's body was in fact drugged up with non detectable drugs etc.  His complaint was that everyone else was on these drugs.
Marion Jones never failed a drug test.  They said she was fast because she was tall and had a long stride length.  She was discovered after the fact through discovery of documentary evidence during the BALCO investigation.
Dwain Chambers never failed a test ... he was discovered when someone gave the US Anti Doping Agency a syringe containing the designer steroid that athletes had been taking (THG steroid).  WADA then developed a test specifically for that and found it present in blood samples of his that they had stored away. After his post sample failure and ban he admitted to taking a whole raft of other drugs that had passed the drugs tests.

Elite sports people earn more money than the entire anti-doping programme hence are usually able to stay several steps ahead of the anti-doping agency.  Hence the insight into misuse of the heart drug Meldronium, which took WADA TEN YEARS to catch up.

In catching drugs cheat it is nowadays often more about noticing strange behaviours, liaison with dodgy doctors in private clinics or in "foreign" countries, lack of openness etc.  Andy Murray referred to locker room talk ...  Stored blood and urine samples, blood passports + investigative methods are the only way forward.

To fund anti-doping programmes I would put a "tax" on all tournaments claiming to represent "sport" with a certain proportion of the funds that would normally go into prize money going to the anti-doping programme.  Then WADA or its equivalent can say this is a WADA approved tournament etc.  Otherwise WADA can say this is a non-WADA approved tournament etc.  

Professional sport where there is significant money involved has to be restructured from the ground up.  If the tournament or sport fails to commit to this then it should not be called a sport - in the publicity nor the record books - it should be called entertainment.

What is best for society? Are drugs good for society? The medical profession say yes if it is to treat a disease or as a preventative. But what about drugs that improve physiology - improve strength, improve endurance, improve concentration and the speed of thought - if these have no detrimental side effects surely the general public should be allowed to use these drugs - although not necessarily in something officially sanctioned as "sport".

In each of those 5 the bigger question always in my mind is whether any of them experienced a career turn-around; for example (and I was never interested enough in cycling to know) did Armstrong go from having weaknesses in his performance to suddenly having them disappear? I know it's complicated by his cancer but would any fans know?

Isn't that the basis of the biomedical passport concept - that someone experienced a big change?

I thought Marion Jones was always rated.

The majority of performance enhancing drugs are products of modern medicine where there is precise physiological knowledge of how they operate in the body.  Some drugs are direct acting and need to be in the body to get the effect (e.g. stimulants), other drugs are indirect acting helping to reshape the body with the reshaped body providing the performance enhancement, or causing the body to generate more blood cells and so forth.

In addition to this knowledge there are unknowns such as variability in people's responses, side effects and interactions with other drugs in the body.  This is why it is so expensive to take a drug from concept through to trials and then having them pass all the trials to be sanctioned by medical bodies for sale.

Floyd Landis gives an example of someone taking a PED and then producing an extraordinary athletic performance - stage 17 of the 2006 Tour de France.  He had a meltdown on the previous stage losing a lot of time.  Then the next day he was transformed into super Floyd.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floyd_Landis_doping_case

I've always been of the view that doping in professional tennis is probably far more prevalent than some would like to think. I certainly don't buy the argument that tennis, being a skill based sport, does would not benefit so much from doping. What? which planet are you living on? Have you seen how physical it is out there? Is it a coincidence that the four fitters guys on tour have been the top four players in the world four the best part of 8 years? Of course there is a large skill component but let's not kid ourselves; Djokovic doesn't beat Federer over five sets because he is more skilled. He is physically more durable, can extend the rallies and knows that the longer the rallies are the better his chances of winning. He is currently the most physical player in the world - the best endurance in any individual point and the best endurance for the  duration of a match.

Murray may have very good reasons to believe that some of his fellow competitors are doping. I don't he would make such a statement lightly knowing the implications. However, without concrete evidence, he is forced to stay quiet. The fact that he's said as much as he has this time, makes it certain in my mind that he believes some of the players he is losing slams to are doping. That must be a hugely bitter pill to swallow and I feel for him.



emancipator

So now, you think Djokovic is winning because of doping is that the meaning of your post emanci, because I do feel it interesting that all the number 1 players who supplanted Roger, both Rafa and Novak had this doping stigma attached to them namely by Federer fans frankly.

I mean the idea that Andy Murray loses slams because he isn't fit enough is the dumbest thing I have heard well since someone tried to sell me on the idea that with 6 players holding over 95 percent last year on Grass we needed to speed up Wimbeldon. He gets beat in slam matchups against the other big 4 because he has the poorest FH and the weakest second serve of the Fed, Djoko, and Nadal group of players. He gets beaten in his matchup with Novak because Novak treats his second serve like a glorified WTA offering.

Maybe instead of feeling for Murray that he can't beat players who are technically better than him you should feel sorry for logic; which you just murdered, raped, and chopped logic's head off with your last offering. If I was a Murray fan I wouldn't spend my time feeling for him losing to players who are doping, I would feel sorry for the fact that he has not been able to keep those guys namely Rafa, Roger, or Novak off of his second serve after playing them like 100 times more effectively than he has. I bet if we go back and analyze Murray's losses and wins against those players we will find that the matches in which he served well and protected the second he won or did well to run things real close. But in most of those matches he lost we would find he did a very poor job of defending the second serve or he had too low of a first serve percentage.

Seriously, you guys are all like Bruce Willis in the Sixth Sense you really only see what you want to see and what already fits in your narrative. He doesn't lose to Djokovic because of inferior fitness, and no matter how many times you guys repeat this nonsense based in your biases by just repeating something that isn't true won't make it so.

bogbrush wrote:Becker isn't all that clever and he's reacted. The question is why.

Dim people like him walk head-first into things like this.

List of players who've done "If it’s
purely physical and you’re watching someone
playing six-hour matches over and over and
showing no signs of being tired, you’d look at
that.”

reads Djokovic. And Well Djokovic

I don't know if Djokovic is doping - i'm interpreting what AM has said. His statement suggests to me that he believes some of his main competitors are doping. The 6 hour reference narrows it down a lot. But no-one is above suspicion as far as i'm concerned - and that includes Federer, who lets not forget, was ridiculously fit himself at his peak.

For a tennis player to say this much, and they're usually a very reticent bunch, and for AM in particular to say this (and he's always come across to me as a straight up, candid individual) suggests that doping is a bigger issue than we'd like to think. On top of that, Boris comes out steaming and frothing and slamming Andy for making comments that are no worse than what he himself said about his own rivals!

You shouldn't get so worked up. My posts are perfectly logical. You don't have a monopoly on opinions and we are all allowed to form our own. I'm happy to discuss anything; if you don't like my posts - ignore them - I usually ignore yours

PS yes sure exhaustion is the reason Murray has lost the first set to Djokovic in 7 of the last 8 meetings. I mean if he was only fitter he could figure out how not to get tired in the first twenty or thirty minutes of a match.

I mean all these running narratives you guys have created for yourselves are so laughably fact free that even a cursory look at the numbers reveals how silly most of your arguments are. This reminds of the time that Jeremy Kyle tried to convince me that Novak hit 4 volleys in a 5 set match I had just watched. The whole entire echo chamber of 606v2ers were shocked at how Novak had hit 4 volleys in a grandslam final and whoa is me and whoa is tennis. Funny, I just watched that match and in actuality there were games alone that Djokovic hit 4 volleys in and said statistic was off by a factor of probably 20 to 1. Whatever fits into the fact free running narratives of the 606v2er I suppose is the new version of reality we must all adhere to. The funny thing is that Kyle hadn't even watched the match and was arguing with me off of the second handed certainty of the other clueless posters who were egging him on, and he said as much.

The debate here is highly civilised and calm compared to the debates had over suspected persons in cycling and in athletics of the past.  Often there was a nationalistic aspect to the accusations - for example the French press moaning about the lack of success of French riders compared to other riders including American riders named Lance Armstrong etc.

Now as is well known tennis is a different type of sport with its stop start aspects and ability to take breathers and feed between points etc.  But what is clear is that the power and endurance levels have increased substantially compared to past tennis - even when those past tennis players have admitted to taking drugs:

"In 2004, McEnroe said that during much of his career he had unwittingly taken steroids. He said that he had been administered these drugs without his knowledge, stating: "For six years I was unaware I was being given a form of steroid of the legal kind they used to give horses until they decided it was too strong even for horses."

Now if PEDs are endemic in tennis it is likely to be at all levels rather than just at the highest of the highest elite level. It is one of those amusing facts of reality that Roger Federer's parents were high powered executives in a pharmaceutical company.

emancipator wrote:I don't know if Djokovic is doping - i'm interpreting what AM has said. His statement suggests to me that he believes some of his main competitors are doping. The 6 hour reference narrows it down a lot. But no-one is above suspicion as far as i'm concerned - and that includes Federer, who lets not forget, was ridiculously fit himself at his peak.

For a tennis player to say this much, and they're usually a very reticent bunch, and for AM in particular to say this (and he's always come across to me as a straight up, candid individual) suggests that doping is a bigger issue than we'd like to think. On top of that, Boris comes out steaming and frothing and slamming Andy for making comments that are no worse than what he himself said about his own rivals!

You shouldn't get so worked up. My posts are perfectly logical. You don't have a monopoly on opinions and we are all allowed to form our own. I'm happy to discuss anything; if you don't like my posts - ignore them - I usually ignore yours

You are entitled to your own opinions you aren't entitled to your own facts. The claim that Murray loses to other people in slam finals and on tour because he isn't fit enough and they are doping and beat him because they are fitter; is just nonsense that many others in the fact free echo chamber that this place has descended into probably would agree with.

Sorry, your thesis is full of crap, is exhaustion why he lost 7 of 8 first sets against Novak in their most recent matchups?

I am glad you ignore my posts, if someone was exposing my logic as completely contrafactual I would try to do the same.