Rafael Nadal has filed his defamation lawsuit today in Paris against Roselyne Bachelot.

First topic message reminder :

https://twitter.com/BenRothenberg/status/724617054440054784

Don't know how to post the copy of the lawsuit shown on this link?

Didn't Fed win that Wimbledon 2007 and 2009 final, or that FO SF vs Delpo both times?

They - Fed, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, even Delpo - have won some and lost some long five setters, I just don't understand why only Nadal is being singled out. It's not like Nadal always won his five setters, he lost Miami 2005 final, Wimbledon 2007 final, 2012 vs Rosol, AO2012 final, USO2015 vs Fog, AO2016 vs Verdasco

It's because people subconsciously WANT it to be that way, and they join the dots and ignore the fact you could apply that to a lot of other guys they're not as invested in.

It Must Be Love wrote:

Matchpoint wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:I think Nadal winning Monte Carlo and Barca have left some people angry!

If only.

Can you post some more dictionary definitions for us, like you did for the word scandal, that was really funny.

IMBL, if you don't get it, I'm happy to,elaborate. I don't know what to make of your reply. There's nothing funny in that scandal definition post. Or are you confused?

Haddie-nuff wrote:

temporary21 wrote:Surely the reason he's sued is because of WHO said it, and how blatantly it was said. everyone before has implied it in some way, but you cannot just sit there and swallow someone stupid enough to DIRECTLY say you are a cheat with no hard proof

Ill be honest, I've lost where everyone stands in this, what's the contention here?

Do you really need it pointed out to you temp when you read comments such as this

quote//


What does she have to gain by singling out Nadal in doping? I bet to defer. There's a lot more to Nadal's doping accusation than a simple question of fan envy.

.
Matchpoint

HN,  if you have any problem with my post, address it to me directly. You're welcomed to challenge any point I made in your own words. Don't go behind my back. That's rude. You can speak for yourself can't you? Otherwise, get off my case. Go get your gin & tonic or just buzz off.

Matchpoint wrote:There's nothing funny in that scandal definition post. Or are you confused?

Yeah I'm confused, can you post the dictionary definition for me again?

Matchpoint wrote:

Haddie-nuff wrote:

temporary21 wrote:Surely the reason he's sued is because of WHO said it, and how blatantly it was said. everyone before has implied it in some way, but you cannot just sit there and swallow someone stupid enough to DIRECTLY say you are a cheat with no hard proof

Ill be honest, I've lost where everyone stands in this, what's the contention here?

Do you really need it pointed out to you temp when you read comments such as this

quote//


What does she have to gain by singling out Nadal in doping? I bet to defer. There's a lot more to Nadal's doping accusation than a simple question of fan envy.

.
Matchpoint

HN,  if you have any problem with my post, address it to me directly. You're welcomed to challenge any point I made in your own words. Don't go behind my back. That's rude. You can speak for yourself can't you? Otherwise, get off my case. Go get your gin & tonic or just buzz off.

MY post was in direct response to MOD.. I do not need your permission to address a moderator.. and how the hell can
anything be said behind your back when it is on the forum for everyone to see. Do not threaten me Im not on your case any more than you are on Nadal's. you are treading a fine line with your inferences and suggestions. You are no better than the accuser he is suing. and I will not, to quote your infantile suggestion, buzz off

Match point. Maybe don't be so rude and condescending? That way maybe they will address you directly. Don't give out dictionary definitions as though Imbl is stupid, because imbl isn't...

temporary21 wrote:Even if you say the word "think" you need evidence. You cannot say you think someone is probably doing something without some real evidence or its defamation. She's no leg to stand on.

No way. If I were in anyway influential and I said 'I think there is a strong possibility Nadal (any player) doped during their career' there is absolutely zero case they could bring on me in court in terms of defamation.

You would just argue that it's a perfectly reasonable statement given the financial incentives in the sport and that it's pretty common knowledge that there are a lot of people doping. A case would be thrown out in seconds.

If I said, 'I saw Nadal shooting up EPO in the pub toilet on Saturday night' then I'd have a problem.

Without evidence, expect to be 1, roundly criticised for stirring things up, and 2, expect a lawsuit

When it's that serious an accusation, you can't say it in any way and relate it to a player without some good evidence

temporary21 wrote:Match point. Maybe don't be so rude and condescending? ...

Oh, ok, I'm rude and condescending. It's all my fault then. Thanks for letting me know. No problem. I am outta here ...:censored.

Cya later... Come back when you've calmed down and ready to treat people equally.

U must be kidding, temp. I'm not stupid either. In just the last few days I've seen enough double-standard, censorship to last the rest of my life. No thanks, and no hard feelings!

The problem with these insinuations against Rafael Nadal based solely on his power and stamina and his recovery abilities (plus the fact he is Spanish) is that he is clearly second best in terms of stamina and recovery when it comes to Djokovic Mk II.  

As others have mentioned Nadal emerged from the cloven head of Zeus fully formed.  I mean he was one of those boy-men that emerged from the beginning with awesome man power and stamina.  If anything his power and stamina have been steadily decreasing from the get go.  We know his attempts at expanding time between points to give him recovery time.  We know that his body has been deteriorating structurally and if it wasn't for platelet rich plasma technology to help speed up repair and recovery of his cartilage he would probably be in a wheelchair by now.  Other players have managed to come through more or less unscathed a game based on energy sapping power play.

Didn't say you were, but don't treat other people like they are. Clearly you're having a bad day, maybe take a break and come back another time. You're popping off at people over completely nothing here.

Swig of vodka and watch the football, it'll be a lot better than this.

The issue with discussing evidence of him taking stuff is that there isn't any. There's circumstance that MIGHT link to there being a higher chance he might have, but that too genius to be discussing it as though it's close to matter if fact

Certainly not enough to name him directly in a public spat...

temporary21 wrote:The issue with discussing evidence of him taking stuff is that there isn't any. There's circumstance that MIGHT link to there being a higher chance he might have, but that too genius to be discussing it as though it's close to matter if fact

Certainly not enough to name him directly in a public spat...

But he's only suing her because she said he'd served a silent doping ban, not because of the insinuation of doping. As I said, you can insinuate all you want.

The reason why he's in a strong position legally is because all he needs is the tennis governing bodies to solemnly swear under oath that a silent ban didn't happen and he's golden. Personally I don't think he did serve a ban.

Insinuating about doping in sport at the highest level is certainly not grounds for a lawsuit.

djlovesyou wrote:

temporary21 wrote:The issue with discussing evidence of him taking stuff is that there isn't any. There's circumstance that MIGHT link to there being a higher chance he might have, but that too genius to be discussing it as though it's close to matter if fact

Certainly not enough to name him directly in a public spat...

But he's only suing her because she said he'd served a silent doping ban, not because of the insinuation of doping. As I said, you can insinuate all you want.

The reason why he's in a strong position legally is because all he needs is the tennis governing bodies to solemnly swear under oath that a silent ban didn't happen and he's golden. Personally I don't think he did serve a ban.

Insinuating about doping in sport at the highest level is certainly not grounds for a lawsuit.

Is that how the lawsuit reads? suing for saying he served a ban, but not necessarily suing her for saying he doped? IF so, that is interesting as it plays into what I talked about were strategies back in my day of represesenting athletes during scandals or accusations.

Also, didn't Koellerer flat out accuse Nadal of doping? and I seem to remember Odenisk did as well? Both players who were banned by tennis? No lawsuits against them for saying he doped.

TRuffin wrote: ... Also, didn't Koellerer flat out accuse Nadal of doping? and I seem to remember Odenisk did as well?  Both players who were banned by tennis?   No lawsuits against them for saying he doped.  

I doubt they had any evidence.  But the only reason I pick up on this is didn't Sharapova make an insinuation about silent bans when she stood up to the world's media to claim she was a martyr to the system ... saying she was going to be open about her situation rather than take a medical time out / silent ban like what others have done in the past or something.

Sharapova was referring to Cilic more likely, when Cilic withdrawn from Wimbledon 2013 after playing two matches there citing knee injury. We later found out he was asked to stop competing until ITF/WADA gave further notice after they'd done their investigations; that's what people refer to as silent ban but that's not serving an actual punishment in itself, it's just asking him to stop competition when his case was under investigation. The actual sentencing of his case, i.e. a ban from competition, was later announced publicly.

People just jump into conclusions straight away that Sharapova was referring to Nadal, I doubt so when Sharapova won't have any info about Nadal, and ITF won't disclose anything about other players to her except those already publicly known cases.

Saying that Nadal was serving a silent ban is as good as saying he's doping (hence the silent ban) so I really see no difference there.

Why Nadal didn't sue the likes of Koeller or Chris Rochus but now he decides to sue the French ex minister? Nadal already explained, i.e. a person of the stature of a minister saying things so irresponsibly is something he viewed as seriously wrong. Imagine the damage she could cause should Nadal keep quiet about it!

@imbl .. I do not steer debates as a moderator. If a debate follows house rules, there is no need to.

I am glad to see Nadal win MC and Barcelona and assert his Clay resume and prowess.

His career has been an injury-prone jig saw puzzle with many ups and downs. Many others in the top echelons have maintained there rankings very well, in contrast. It is strange to see a 15-year veteran start a law suit for defamation, whatever be the specifics of this one.

I question the drivers of this lawsuit.

Releasing the results of ITF tests is unlikely to do any good. ITF has stated that Nadal is free to publish results. Iirc, there was a comment about a priori knowledge of being woken up at 7am for such tests. If an athlete is tested once every quarter, whoever it may be, such tests and the corresponding results hold very little information anyway.

If another peer athlete's comments lead to this lawsuit, it should be this athlete, not some Sports Minister, who needs to be sued.

Does anyone have such test results for the MahIsner match ?

You say its strange that Rafa has started one now. What i dont see is why you think its strange.

As in what do you think has motivated rafa to do this? Guilt? or something else?

djlovesyou wrote:

temporary21 wrote:Even if you say the word "think" you need evidence. You cannot say you think someone is probably doing something without some real evidence or its defamation. She's no leg to stand on.

No way. If I were in anyway influential and I said 'I think there is a strong possibility Nadal (any player) doped during their career' there is absolutely zero case they could bring on me in court in terms of defamation.

You would just argue that it's a perfectly reasonable statement given the financial incentives in the sport and that it's pretty common knowledge that there are a lot of people doping. A case would be thrown out in seconds.

If I said, 'I saw Nadal shooting up EPO in the pub toilet on Saturday night' then I'd have a problem.

I think you should buy a newspaper company, print a front page article saying "We think [famous athlete] is doping" and see what happens when you try and run that defence! If you are in the UK, I feel you would get a very nasty surprise!

Im not sure , i mean dj may not come from the UK, but I know that public speculation without any real good evidence gets you sued up here.
This is especially true if the claim can lead to loss of reputation or money, in that case you up for a rogering

Rafa's ranking,well, he always maintained it in top four except from 2015 onwards, so there's not much up and down! He's in top two for seven straight years, then was no.4 in 2012 due to long injury break, returned to no.1 in 2013 and then was no.3 in 2014 . Fed for eg, was top two for eight straight years, dropped to no.3 in 2011 and then remained in top four except in 2013.

Rafa, like Fed, was pretty consistent ranking wise for at least a good ten years.

Rafa already explained his reasons for suing, I don't see why we should question why he's suing now. Also disclosing his test results will clarify that he's not under any silent ban, so it's not what that ex Minister claimed.

Disclosing his test results at least serve the purpose that he didn't fail any test, hence there's no silent ban. If tested negative is still not good enough proof that one's not doping, then that also applies to all players, not only Rafa.

I think there is a case to be made now of locking this thread.  

There is a circularity of some people finding it "suspicious" that Nadal should be taking legal action against an ex sports ministers claim that Nadal is a ped user and has served a "silent ban".  

There is a circularity of some peoples claim that a complete opening up of Nadal's testing details and results plus his biological passport is meaningless because ped users pass all the tests.  

There is a circularity of some peoples demand that Nadal himself should individually release all his data returned to him from the ITF rather than the ITF, even though they say it is meaningless because ped users pass the tests anyway and the information released will go through Nadal's PR team.  

I think this thread has been well and truly diverted into an endless and boring insinuation list that seems never to go away and constantly ends up in pointless going around in circles.  There is only so many times one can repeat ones view of ones suspicions of Nadal - okay we / I get it.  

That is just my opinion which some may take for a mellow rant. Please carry on and on and on.  

My own view is that rather than hounding one individual tennis player one should be reflecting on the sport itself and asking for systematic and transparent mechanisms for testing and reporting via some independent testing agency paid for by the ITF/ATP/WTA or / and the tournaments.

Let me apologise again for this uncharacteristic release of exasperation from myself.  I need to take one of those beta blockers to calm my nerves. Tomorrow I will probably need a dose of amphetamines to help me face a new day.

Nore Staat wrote:My own view is that rather than hounding one individual tennis player one should be reflecting on the sport itself

Agree with this.

Unless a player tests positive, there is usually no proof that the player dopes.  There can never be proof that he/she does not.  Getting very close to claiming that the player dopes runs into the libel territory.  As a result it is impossible to have a free discussion.  So it is better to stay clear.

But that does not mean we have to choose to believe that all players are clean just because they were never caught doping.  That would be very naïve.  We should be mindful of the risks of doping, compare against other sports, try to derive some general opinions on the likelihood of problems in tennis etc etc.

Nore Staat wrote:My own view is that rather than hounding one individual tennis player one should be reflecting on the sport itself and asking for systematic and transparent mechanisms for testing and reporting via some independent testing agency paid for by the ITF/ATP/WTA or / and the tournaments.

My thoughts as well...

laverfan wrote:If the ATP/ITF wants the sport to be the clean, they should publish the top 100 athletes' results voluntarily, every year, without Nadal or anyone else asking for them. Tennis is a public sport, and earns money from ticket sales and sponsorships. The public has a right to know.

Nore Staat wrote:Let me apologise again for this uncharacteristic release of exasperation from myself.  I need to take one of those beta blockers to calm my nerves.  Tomorrow I will probably need a dose of amphetamines to help me face a new day.  

Send a PM to Galea or Ferrari and see if they can assist. I have heard Fuentes in Canary Islands is also an excellent source for curing what ails you.

Nore Staat wrote:I think there is a case to be made now of locking this thread.  

There is a circularity of some people finding it "suspicious" that Nadal should be taking legal action against an ex sports ministers claim that Nadal is a ped user and has served a "silent ban".  

There is a circularity of some peoples claim that a complete opening up of Nadal's testing details and results plus his biological passport is meaningless because ped users pass all the tests.  

There is a circularity of some peoples demand that Nadal himself should individually release all his data returned to him from the ITF rather than the ITF, even though they say it is meaningless because ped users pass the tests anyway and the information released will go through Nadal's PR team.  

I think this thread has been well and truly diverted into an endless and boring insinuation list that seems never to go away and constantly ends up in pointless going around in circles.  There is only so many times one can repeat ones view of ones suspicions of Nadal - okay we / I get it.  

That is just my opinion which some may take for a mellow rant. Please carry on and on and on.  

My own view is that rather than hounding one individual tennis player one should be reflecting on the sport itself and asking for systematic and transparent mechanisms for testing and reporting via some independent testing agency paid for by the ITF/ATP/WTA or / and the tournaments.

Let me apologise again for this uncharacteristic release of exasperation from myself.  I need to take one of those beta blockers to calm my nerves.  Tomorrow I will probably need a dose of amphetamines to help me face a new day.  

This whole thread is peppered with my exasperation NS.. you are singing from the same Hymn sheet as me. There are those who will insist on bringing the whole subject back to doping in tennis as a whole.. I have called for a sticky on this subject. But hey!! lets be realistic the topic is nowhere near as interesting unless you have one player in the spotlight on centre stage ... stand up Rafa Nadal..the star of the show !!! The longest running show on 606v2..dont worry if you miss this time round it will doubtless be repeated up until (or indeed even after) he retires !!!!!

Haddie-nuff wrote:This whole thread is peppered with my exasperation NS..

The 'doping' applies to all players, till information is available in public domain and remains in the speculative domain. Nadal seems to be the lightening rod for such debates.

It is unfortunate that such topics lead to the usual thrust/parry/defend discussions.

And the hornets nest gets prodded and poked until he and his fans get stung again and again.
and perhaps you can tell us why he is the lightening rod !!! I like NS feel that it is time this thread is locked.
If I am exasperated God only knows how he feels

To try and clear up the doping sitch on the forum.

Its fine to talk about your suspicions of drug use and PEDs in the gane of tennis as a whole, especially given recent news. No one expects you to buy that the sport is squeaky clean just because there's almost no failed tests

If individual players are being singled out for it though, that's more serious, and there would need to be fairly good evudence beyond circumstantial for us to be able to justify "picking" on that particular player

Despite the thread being about rafa. It is too much into the latter at the moment tbf

I'll leave it le boss to decide to let it run or not

Obviously, this thread should be allowed to run. It's an important issue in the sport of tennis and, for the most part, the debate has been sensible and balanced. Deal with individual posters who cross the line.

The question was asked with supporting evidence. Il let the green tinged one take a look

Born Slippy wrote:Obviously, this thread should be allowed to run. It's an important issue in the sport of tennis and, for the most part, the debate has been sensible and balanced. Deal with individual posters who cross the line.

Then have a separate thread concerning the whole business of doping in the sport..
Don't keep it on this one which is essentially about Nadal.. it is obvious that the whole issue surrounds him and he should not be a named player in an issue which can, and probably does, include more players than him

Haddie-nuff wrote:And the hornets nest gets prodded and poked until he and his fans get stung again and again.
and perhaps you can tell us why he is the lightening rod !!! I like NS feel that it is time this thread is locked.
If I am exasperated God only knows how he feels

Excuse me but isn't Nadal the one involved in this lawsuit? Do you see any other tennis players names attached to this lawsuit or any other lawsuit? You are asking why Nadal is the lightning rod?

Why do some fans have to be so sensitive? I believe that probably all of the top players use or have used something to help their performance. Why is it out of the realm of possibility for Nadal to be in that mix and why do so many fans become incensed with the idea that their favourite player may dope but they have no problems pointing fingers at their favourite player's rivals? And furthermore, who cares if they dope? It's likely part of the culture and there is nothing anybody can ever do to stop it, not the biological passport, not transparency with the testing, etc. There is too much money involved and too much collusion that could go on between the players, sponsors and the governing bodies. By becoming so sensitive about your favourite player all you are doing is exposing your insecurity on the issue IMO.

Because theres no evidence...nor does anyone have any solid basis to say its part of their culture.

If were attracting comments like this, then i think we maybe should lock it... its turned into a "how Nadal probably dopes thread", which is the exact opposite of the point of the OP, and its a lawsuit waiting to happen

To maybe put this back on track a bit. What evidence does this woman actually have in defence of the public claim she made? Bearing in mind the obvious negative publicity and attempted defamation of character it brought rafa.

Specifically, how is she going to defend naming and isolating one player?

There's nothing wrong with expressing an opinion that doping in tennis could be part of the culture though. That post above (whilst I don't agree with it) also carefully steers clear of any defamatory comments.

So if the thread gets locked does that mean we can't discuss Nadal's case further, where do we post other stuff about this ongoing debate in tennis - on which the top players are currently commenting?

The only reason for closing a thread of this nature is if the number of defamatory comments is too many to monitor and posters aren't behaving responsibly. Unless you are telling me that you've had to delete multiple posts from different people commenting on the issue, it obviously should not be locked.

temporary21 wrote:To maybe put this back on track a bit. What evidence does this woman actually have in defence of the public claim she made? Bearing in mind the obvious negative publicity and attempted defamation of character it brought rafa.

Specifically, how is she going to defend naming and isolating one player?

She's accepted she has no evidence. She was ignorant and, despite holding a prominent position, chose to state a specific player had been banned for doping. Even in France (which has far more relaxed rules on this than the UK), I suspect she is in serious difficulty.

Rafa wouldn't have risked issuing this case if there was any prospect he would lose. Even if it's on a technicality of French law, can you imagine the reputational damage it would do to him if the claim does not succeed?

We arent discussing nadals case right now. This is currently being used as a thinly vieled method to associate doping with both Nadal and Spanish tennis based currently on nothing.

Whether Spain has a doping culture has nothing to do with the case,

so yes, you can dscuss the case on the thread for the case, but no we cant have "Nadal isnt doping, but if he is, this is exactly how he would do it".

This also isnt the "heres how much i think people/Nadal are doping thread" we already had a thread for that somewhere.

People would be rioting if we did that for other players, so we have to apply the rule fairly here.

Born Slippy wrote:... So if the thread gets locked does that mean we can't discuss Nadal's case further, where do we post other stuff about this ongoing debate in tennis - on which the top players are currently commenting?

The only reason for closing a thread of this nature is if the number of defamatory comments is too many to monitor and posters aren't behaving responsibly ...

No.  This thread has gone off topic.  That's the point.  

And all the insinuations against Nadal and all the "personal" "suspicions" against Nadal that are being raised on this thread are the same insinuations and the same "personal" suspicions" that have been raised ad nauseum without a shred of evidence and without advancing the debate.  Why do people have to keep posting the same thing over and over again to the same audience.  And they justify their right to repeat ad nauseam their "personal suspicions" because it is their human right to free speech to be heard.

Yes we / I get it.  But what about our human right not to have our ears bashed time and time again with the same thing.   It like going into the pub and seeing old Joe drunk at the bar - and he repeats the same thing over and over about the missus or about the "youth of today" or about "those foreigners".  The same thing over and over to the same audience. In the end people will begin looking for another bar to go to which doesn't contain Joe.

To make the point bs, at least two people have complained about the thread being off topic. One officially asked for it to be shut down, we wouldnt be doing very well if we didnt take a hard look at it

@NS...

Event 1. ATP Player X makes veiled accusations.
Event 2. ATP Player Y's coach comes to their 'defense'.
Event 3. ATP Player Z files a lawsuit.
Event 4. HE writes an article about Event 3.

It is very difficult to draw a box. Perhaps the reference to Puerto is a non-sequitur. Will this lawsuit uncover evidence, which otherwise is currently outside the public domain?

I agree with BS, deal with specific individual posters (and mods, if necessary ), but the overall discussion, IMVHONAM  (== Not As Moderator), is fine to have.

It Must Be Love wrote:That's fair Bogbrush, but there is also another element which is genetic; some people may have athletes in their family which may suggest they have an inherent advantage, like how some people are naturally more talented at net-play, some people may be naturally more athletic.

In which case their performance wouldn't change over the short term.

lydian wrote:Yes is true. People can be born with much higher concentrations of mitochondria (fuel processing units) in their cells.
I suspect this was true of Nadal, especially given sporting pedigree in the family too.
In terms of exception physical changes - I agree, look to massive boosts in performance over a short window.
I suspect this is what Murray is really alluding too...

Didn't you mean midi-chlorians?

bogbrush wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:That's fair Bogbrush, but there is also another element which is genetic; some people may have athletes in their family which may suggest they have an inherent advantage, like how some people are naturally more talented at net-play, some people may be naturally more athletic.

In which case their performance wouldn't change over the short term.

But have many players at the real top end changed performances over time? The usual argument is that the same 4 guys have been dominant. Without naming names, how many of the top 10 would you regard as suspicious on this basis?

Thing is. A performance boost at the highest level is almost totally dictated by confidence, of which can come simply by their nemeses dropping off the radar

I've seen all the big three suddenly jump up in level, simply because of a few confidence boosting wins, or morale boosts because the other two have fallen away a bit

Trying to separate a performance jump based on suspicious physical circumstances, or just a mental lift is on dodgy foundations.

In athletics people posting personal bests in their late twenties and into their thirties is a cause for concern.  

In tennis being a mano o mano competition there is no such thing as "personal best" you just have to beat whoever is on the other side of the net.  It is a "game" rather than pure athleticism.

That said if there was data for pure serving speed and ground stroke speed and running speed across court one could better assess the situation.

PS please note this debate I am now engaged in is off topic to the OP and we are now discussing general doping issues.  This is of course better than what was happening before with people claiming their right to free speech to post their "personal suspicions" regarding the Mallorcan one and posting their "strong personal beliefs" that no matter what evidence Nadal released it will do nothing to change their "personal suspicions" because the evidence is no evidence at all according to them because of people beating the tests rather than passing the tests and so on.  In fact they say their suspicions are elevated further because they find it suspicious why Nadal wants to release evidence now rather than in the past and they find it suspicious that Nadal is raising a law suit now rather than in the past etc etc.  It doesn't matter what Nadal does or what he doesn't do, it doesn't matter what Nadal says or what he doesn't say they find it suspicious.  So in response to LF for example.
Event 1 X on matter Y
Event 2 Z on matter aleph
Event 3 Alpha on matter Dilly Ding.
HE creates OP on something related to Event Dilly Dong. Where does one draw the line?

Born Slippy wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:That's fair Bogbrush, but there is also another element which is genetic; some people may have athletes in their family which may suggest they have an inherent advantage, like how some people are naturally more talented at net-play, some people may be naturally more athletic.

In which case their performance wouldn't change over the short term.

But have many players at the real top end changed performances over time? The usual argument is that the same 4 guys have been dominant. Without naming names, how many of the top 10 would you regard as suspicious on this basis?

Two come immediately to mind. I am very clear about the criteria for this and it is not driven by results but by what contributes to results.

I cannot be drawn further on this or temp will lecture me, and I don't find that experience comforting.