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?

Ha, I've every right to suspect Fed, Djoko and Murray of doping too! I mean what stop them from doping in order to catch up with Nadal, should Nadal be doping?

They each has something suspicious imo - Fed at 34 still as good as ever?? Djoko's sudden surge during 2011 and thereafter? Murray's sudden bulging muscular body??

'A public figure's reputation is determined by the public'

So? Majority of the public think that Nadal is clean! If not why his popularity? His detractors, I'm sorry to say, are the minority, unless the fans of his main rivals, all decided to think otherwise, which speak more about themselves rather than about Nadal!

legendkillarV2 wrote:

Guest82 wrote:Sadly it doesn't matter how many tests he's passed of passes in the future. The suspicion will always be there. Cheats like Lance Armstrong have made everyone suspicious of everything.

I am no expert but would guess that science moves on before the tests catch up.

Very much this. The moment anyone makes an allegation against an athlete with no proof, the justification always gets referred to Armstrong. Seems to be the norm nowadays as they now have their Trojan Horse.

Armstrong did it very very well. People forget during his last comeback he set up a website where they videotaped him getting a drug test EVERY day by legitimate outside doctors and Armstrong had the results posted on the site.... every test clean. He declared it at the time the most open and honest exposure any athlete has ever allowed and proof the people claiming he was a doper were crazies. Now we know he was doping the whole time. He just knew there was no test that would catch him. So he has ruined it for the clean guys for sure because nothing can be trusted. You just have to hope the sport has enough of a lid on it that it doesn't alter results too much.

The whistleblower docs at the lab that the Peyton Manning HGH scandal came out of (proven they were doping many athletes, jury still out on Manning)- the one doc said the lab docs didn't even pay attention to what tests the athletes were exposed too because their doping regimens were "years ahead of any current test" and constantly evolving to stay that far ahead.

Only way an athlete gets caught now is through a sloppy mistake, dumb luck, or someone ratting them out. Most of these lab docs are dabbling in other illegals and sometimes get caught for those things and start spilling the secrets.

I just don't think Rafael Nadal is as organised and mercenary as Lance Armstrong.  I just don't think he is a rational thinking superped mastermind.  It's him and his uncle, but mainly him.  He is as superstitious as hell and even has to align his water bottles up for fear of angering the gods.

Someone prepared to allow all his medical data to be exposed including all his tests and the results of his tests gets all the credit in my  book.  If everybody did this then there would be less "hiding".  We could see when they were tested, how often they were tested and whether they have been missing tests with the duck and dive technique etc. We could also see what medical exemptions they were on such as some powerful Bulgarian drug for improved sexual performance like one 400 m American runner or some powerful heart drug as a precaution against sweaty feet or something such as half the Russian professional sports people.

The factor that is forgotten in this is the way that Rafa has been brought up.
He is constantly reminding us that he would be nothing without Uncle T who has even forbidden him since his infancy not to break a racquet.
His deeply entrenched in family values and he knows he would bring shame and disgrace on his whole family.  His win at MC he dedicated to his Grandfather Rafael snr.. who he has recently lost.
His academy is being built on the back of Rafa's reputation and one I am sure he would not risk.
However this is my own opinion but one I know is upheld by many who have supported Rafa over the years.. and from a fan who has lived for the  past 16 yrs (give a few months) in Spain where he has been voted the top sportsman in the country and a personal friend of the king.
I rest my case

Whilst I realise this has no bearing on this particular topic
The breaking news for Rafa is he has been elected as Spain's flag bearer at the Rio Olympics

TRuffin wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

Guest82 wrote:Sadly it doesn't matter how many tests he's passed of passes in the future. The suspicion will always be there. Cheats like Lance Armstrong have made everyone suspicious of everything.

I am no expert but would guess that science moves on before the tests catch up.

Very much this. The moment anyone makes an allegation against an athlete with no proof, the justification always gets referred to Armstrong. Seems to be the norm nowadays as they now have their Trojan Horse.

Armstrong did it very very well.  People forget during his last comeback he set up a website where they videotaped him getting a drug test EVERY day by legitimate outside doctors and Armstrong had the results posted on the site.... every test clean.   He declared it at the time the most open and honest exposure any athlete has ever allowed and proof the people claiming he was a doper were crazies.  Now we know he was doping the whole time.    He just knew there was no test that would catch him.   So he has ruined it for the clean guys for sure because nothing can be trusted.   You just have to hope the sport has enough of a lid on it that it doesn't alter results too much.

The whistleblower docs at the lab that the Peyton Manning HGH scandal came out of (proven they were doping many athletes, jury still out on Manning)-  the one doc said the lab docs didn't even pay attention to what tests the athletes were exposed too because their doping regimens were "years ahead of any current test" and constantly evolving to stay that far ahead.

Only way an athlete gets caught now is through a sloppy mistake, dumb luck, or someone ratting them out.   Most of these lab docs are dabbling in other illegals and sometimes get caught for those things and start spilling the secrets.

I don't disagree with any of that. What I don't agree with is that the blueprint is Armstrong. Look at the amounts of silencing it took to maintain and the disgruntled former teammates. I don't believe those not successful on tour would sit back and do nothing.

legendkillarV2 wrote:

TRuffin wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

Guest82 wrote:Sadly it doesn't matter how many tests he's passed of passes in the future. The suspicion will always be there. Cheats like Lance Armstrong have made everyone suspicious of everything.

I am no expert but would guess that science moves on before the tests catch up.

Very much this. The moment anyone makes an allegation against an athlete with no proof, the justification always gets referred to Armstrong. Seems to be the norm nowadays as they now have their Trojan Horse.

Armstrong did it very very well.  People forget during his last comeback he set up a website where they videotaped him getting a drug test EVERY day by legitimate outside doctors and Armstrong had the results posted on the site.... every test clean.   He declared it at the time the most open and honest exposure any athlete has ever allowed and proof the people claiming he was a doper were crazies.  Now we know he was doping the whole time.    He just knew there was no test that would catch him.   So he has ruined it for the clean guys for sure because nothing can be trusted.   You just have to hope the sport has enough of a lid on it that it doesn't alter results too much.

The whistleblower docs at the lab that the Peyton Manning HGH scandal came out of (proven they were doping many athletes, jury still out on Manning)-  the one doc said the lab docs didn't even pay attention to what tests the athletes were exposed too because their doping regimens were "years ahead of any current test" and constantly evolving to stay that far ahead.

Only way an athlete gets caught now is through a sloppy mistake, dumb luck, or someone ratting them out.   Most of these lab docs are dabbling in other illegals and sometimes get caught for those things and start spilling the secrets.

I don't disagree with any of that. What I don't agree with is that the blueprint is Armstrong. Look at the amounts of silencing it took to maintain and the disgruntled former teammates. I don't believe those not successful on tour would sit back and do nothing.

Armstrong held an authoritarian control over the team.  It also occurred in a sport that was allegedly historically and ongoingly corrupt.  One of my cycling heroes Graeme Obree was kicked out of a professional road racing team (for the Tour de France etc) because he refused to take PEDS and everyone thought he was crazy because of his refusal.  It was the culture, it was assumed you needed PEDS to survive the Tour de France and all those mountain climbs.

Belovedluckyboy wrote:'A public figure's reputation is determined by the public'

So?  Majority of the public think that Nadal is clean! If not why his popularity?  His detractors, I'm sorry to say, are the minority, unless the fans of his main rivals, all decided to think otherwise, which speak more about themselves rather than about Nadal!

So too bad, despite nadal going public with his drug test results, there will always be those in the public unconvinced, as Guest82 reiterated above. He'd never totally silence "the other" side of the same story, told by others, not just nadal fans.

What majority? You got a link for that? Armstrong was even more popular but totally guilty beyond anyone's imagination. So don't tell me about popularity. Irrelevant.  And blaming "his detractors" when Nadal got himself involved in yet another doping episode, the current first ever ATP doping lawsuit, only raises more questions.

legendkillarV2 wrote:

TRuffin wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

Guest82 wrote:Sadly it doesn't matter how many tests he's passed of passes in the future. The suspicion will always be there. Cheats like Lance Armstrong have made everyone suspicious of everything.

I am no expert but would guess that science moves on before the tests catch up.

Very much this. The moment anyone makes an allegation against an athlete with no proof, the justification always gets referred to Armstrong. Seems to be the norm nowadays as they now have their Trojan Horse.

Armstrong did it very very well.  People forget during his last comeback he set up a website where they videotaped him getting a drug test EVERY day by legitimate outside doctors and Armstrong had the results posted on the site.... every test clean.   He declared it at the time the most open and honest exposure any athlete has ever allowed and proof the people claiming he was a doper were crazies.  Now we know he was doping the whole time.    He just knew there was no test that would catch him.   So he has ruined it for the clean guys for sure because nothing can be trusted.   You just have to hope the sport has enough of a lid on it that it doesn't alter results too much.

The whistleblower docs at the lab that the Peyton Manning HGH scandal came out of (proven they were doping many athletes, jury still out on Manning)-  the one doc said the lab docs didn't even pay attention to what tests the athletes were exposed too because their doping regimens were "years ahead of any current test" and constantly evolving to stay that far ahead.

Only way an athlete gets caught now is through a sloppy mistake, dumb luck, or someone ratting them out.   Most of these lab docs are dabbling in other illegals and sometimes get caught for those things and start spilling the secrets.

I don't disagree with any of that. What I don't agree with is that the blueprint is Armstrong. Look at the amounts of silencing it took to maintain and the disgruntled former teammates. I don't believe those not successful on tour would sit back and do nothing.

A tennis player wouldn't need to keep anyone silenced though, besides perhaps the dodgy doc that provided whatever they were using.

1) how did Nadal get himself involved? Its his detractors that made him involved!

2) The majority dont believe Nadal is doping, so whats this 'cant convince the public....' when its only a minority of the public?

3) what has it got to do with Armstrong. We are not arguing whether he or Nadal is doping or not, but how the public perceived them. So your point about Armstrong supports my point, ie majority of the public trust that they are not doping.

If its easier to keep people silent, then that also means other players are or can do the same.

If Nadal is doping, then I have strong belief that the likes of Fed, Djoko and Murray probably are also doping. They couldnt beat or keep up with Nadal if they dont! They cant be kept silent anyway when they know Nadal is doping and would be the whistle blower themselves.

What is meant by "Nadal has got himself involved" it is Bachelot that has got him involved for JC sake.

Has nobody seen the irony in some of the detractor's comments on this thread.
It is virtually being said that no matter what the evidence that Rafa produces, no matter how hard he protests his innocence, no matter what his popularity, no matter what his moral upbringing.. there is absolutely nothing he can do... he will not be believed.
Yet without a shred of evidence to the contrary they think they have an argument. Without an ounce of proof they feel justified  in making the accusation  that Nadal is doping therefore  pouring suspicion on his character and integrity as a man not just an athlete  purely because of their hatred of him. What right do they have any more than Bachelot. she had no proof or evidence either so they are no better than she..as Uncle T said about her "she is an imbicile"..

I would be very surprised if Rafa was doping - he's largely a victim of circumstance in being a relatively muscular guy (although nothing that would require steroids to explain - well within the bounds of a normal athletic physique), and to be from a country where there has been a history of EPO use and blood doping primarily in other sports. Other than innuendo, there was nothing to tie Nadal personally to Operacion Puerto; Dr Fuentes said tennis players, but no names have emerged nor are likely to unless the Spanish courts change their mind regarding what to do with the blood samples.

However, BS is largely correct in making the argument that even in releasing all of his drug test results, Rafa cannot prove definitively that he has never taken PEDs. It is well known in other sports (cycling, athletics etc) how to have a doping programme that means you never test positive, bar some really unexpected random test or by a slip up or a change to specific PED analysis (e.g. the change a couple of years ago to a much more sensitive test for the steroid Clenbuterol, which is what caught the TdF winner Alberto Contador).

What releasing all his drug test data WILL demonstrate for Rafa is that he has never served the 'silent ban' that was alleged and which is the subject of this libel / defamation suit. No positive test or anomalous blood values = no reason for such a ban.

Anyway, let's hope Rafa gets around to releasing his results shortly. It will be interesting to see how often the top guys get tested, the pattern of testing etc.

Belovedluckyboy wrote:If its easier to keep people silent, then that also means other players are or can do the same.

If Nadal is doping, then I have strong belief that the likes of Fed, Djoko and Murray probably are also doping.  They couldnt beat or keep up with Nadal if they dont! They cant be kept silent anyway when they know Nadal is doping and would be the whistle blower themselves.

That's a bit of a weak fallback position.

Anyway, Murray isn't keeping silent is he?

Obviously, no doper is going to be shooting up in the locker room, so their fellow pros aren't going to have a clue (unless they are bumping into each other at the clinic).

Tennis isn't a sport where doping would make you unbeatable, so one of the big 4 could be doping and the other three clean (for example).

To use Murray's example, if someone came out and won 7 straight grand slam matches with each match being 6 hours + then I would be very suspicious. However, as it stands I've seen nothing which I consider outside normal human fitness.

(CNN) — In an extremely rare move from a high-profile athlete, Rafael Nadal wants all of his drug test results to be made public.
Nadal is suing the former French health and sports minister for claiming he failed a drug test and his request to international governing body the ITF is the latest move by the 14-time grand slam winner to prove he has nothing to hide.
Besides refuting the allegation made by Roselyne Bachelot, Nadal in the past has been forced to deny he has committed doping offenses.
 
In a letter addressed to ITF president David Haggerty, Nadal -- who turned pro in 2001 -- asked the ITF to disclose the outcome of all the tests he has ever taken.

He would like the ITF, too, to take legal action if "misinformation is spread."

"I know how many times I am tested, on and off competition," Nadal wrote in the letter, which was sent to CNN.

"Please make all my information public. Please make my biological passport, my complete history and Anti-Doping controls and tests.

"From now on I ask you to communicate when I am tested and the results as soon as they are ready from your labs," added Nadal, who won back-to-back clay-court titles in Monte Carlo and Barcelona this month to signal a revival on court after a disappointing season in 2015 for the Spaniard.

"I also encourage you to start filing lawsuits if there is any misinformation spread by anyone. It can't be free anymore in our tennis world to speak and to accuse without evidence."

In a statement sent to CNN, the ITF said it wouldn't be making public Nadal's results -- but that there was nothing stopping Nadal or his camp from doing so.

"The ITF can confirm that Mr. Nadal has never failed a test under the (Tennis Anti-Doping Program) and has not been suspended at any time for an anti-doping rule violation (or for any other reason related to the TADP)," the ITF said.

I like to keep things simple:

- doping appears widespread in sport
- tennis is a sport
- tennis has more money at stake than most sports
- fitness really matters, more than ever, in tennis
- therefore I can't believe tennis is doping free
- there's no sign elsewhere that doping is restricted to the lower ranks
- therefore I expect doping to be discovered at the high end of the rankings, but probably through some random event rather than a routine dope test

Modern day developments.
Nutrition and nutritional supplements during marathons, triathlons, road cycling, tennis. With tennis it is cycles of play and rest and feeding. That's why everyone was going crazy because Nadal/Djokovic/Del Potro/ Murray were taking up to 30% more time between points than "officially" allocated - although "officially" it is the umpire that is the final arbiter in "his/her" court.

Agree BB. I think the question is how widespread. Personally, I have a feeling that it's probably a minority of the top 100 (say 10-20) who may be doping. I know SB and a few others think it's probably the majority.

What is unfair is for any one player to be singled out when there is no evidence about them. The shame is that, as discussed above, it's nigh on impossible to show innocence for those who are innocent.

Belovedluckyboy wrote:1) how did Nadal get himself involved? Its his detractors that made him involved!

2) The majority dont believe Nadal is doping, so whats this 'cant convince the public....' when its only a minority of the public?  

3) what has it got to do with Armstrong.  We are not arguing whether he or Nadal is doping or not, but how the public perceived them.  So your point about Armstrong supports my point, ie majority of the public trust that they are not doping.

1) you're a nadal fan. Aren't you in a much better position to tell us how your guy end up in his current doping-related lawsuit? Oh, still blaming his detractors. You mean his detractors pushed him into such doping scandals just like that? How could nadal be "made" involved in anything by anyone? He's a grown man isn't he?  

2) You keep harping on "the majority don't believe nadal is doping." Really? So where is the link/source for this "majority" claim i requested earlier? Or that's just hot air you made up?

3) no, my point re Armstrong specifically refers to the fact that he was very popular, BUT later proven to be a major cycling fraud. Thus my point is, an athlete's popularity is not an indication of his integrity. The Armstrong case completely overturns your assumption that because Nadal is hugely popular, he must be clean.

Match point, it seems to me your first point is untenable. Nadal had no involvement in Bachelot naming him as someone who had received a silent ban (a position she has subsequently admitted she has no evidence of). He is not involved in a doping scandal. He is involved in a defamation claim against someone who made unfounded allegations against him.

Matchpoint wrote:You mean his detractors pushed him into such doping scandals just like that? How could nadal be "made" involved in anything by anyone? He's a grown man isn't he?  

lol

Born Slippy wrote:Match point, it seems to me your first point is untenable. Nadal had no involvement in Bachelot naming him as someone who had received a silent ban (a position she has subsequently admitted she has no evidence of). He is not involved in a doping scandal. He is involved in a defamation claim against someone who made unfounded allegations  against him.

You can twist it anyway you like, but the fact remains, Nadal is personally involved in a lawsuit he brought against a French ex-minister. He is suing this person for defamation because he claims she made unfounded doping allegations against him. No problem here. But the whole background of the lawsuit itself is something of a scandal imo, perhaps more for the French side than for Nadal. But nonetheless it's scandalous. So I standby this word, as defined here:

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/scandal

1.3: a state of affairs regarded as wrong or reprehensible and causing general public outrage or anger:
E.g. It's a scandal that shames the good name of noble Limerick.

IMO, the same word is perfectly applicable to Nadal lawsuit like this: It's a scandal that ----- (fill in the  blank) good name of Rafael Nadal.

Synonyms for scandal from the same source: disgrace, outrage, injustice; shame, pity, crying shame; affront, insult, reproach

So BS, to substitute  the synonyms for scandal, why is Nadal's lawsuit not associated with a perceived  injustice, insult, outrage, pity, crying shame etc?

Just because someone is popular doesn't mean he is not clean.

Just because there is smoke doesn't mean there is a fire.

Just because someone has muscles doesn't mean there on steroids.  People can naturally be big boned and muscly.  The Vikings that developed the art of rampaging and pillaging were big boned and muscly.  Genghis Khan and his band of marauding horsemen were big and strong.  Look at young Alexander the Great conquering his way up to India before lunchtime - he too was naturally big and strong.

Matchpoint wrote:

Born Slippy wrote:Match point, it seems to me your first point is untenable. Nadal had no involvement in Bachelot naming him as someone who had received a silent ban (a position she has subsequently admitted she has no evidence of). He is not involved in a doping scandal. He is involved in a defamation claim against someone who made unfounded allegations  against him.

You can twist it anyway you like, but the fact remains, Nadal is personally involved in a lawsuit he brought against a French ex-minister. He is suing this person for defamation because he claims she made unfounded doping allegations against him. No problem here. But the whole background of the lawsuit itself is something of a scandal imo, perhaps more for the French side than for Nadal. But nonetheless it's scandalous. So I standby this word, as defined here:

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/scandal

1.3: a state of affairs regarded as wrong or reprehensible and causing general public outrage or anger:
E.g. It's a scandal that shames the good name of noble Limerick.

IMO, the same word is perfectly applicable to Nadal lawsuit like this: It's a scandal that ----- (fill in the  blank) good name of Rafael Nadal.

Synonyms for scandal from the same source: disgrace, outrage, injustice; shame, pity, crying shame; affront, insult, reproach

So BS, to substitute  the synonyms for scandal, why is Nadal's lawsuit not associated with a perceived  injustice, insult, outrage, pity, crying shame etc?

i'm confused



emancipator

PS: Hasn't the debate suddenly become much more lively and interesting since Temp stopped waiving the big stick? Sorry Temp

Hi emanci, sorry to cause confusion. Maybe I can clear things up a bit, what are you confused about?

Now that you mention it, I just noticed, where is temp?

emancipator wrote:

Matchpoint wrote:

Born Slippy wrote:Match point, it seems to me your first point is untenable. Nadal had no involvement in Bachelot naming him as someone who had received a silent ban (a position she has subsequently admitted she has no evidence of). He is not involved in a doping scandal. He is involved in a defamation claim against someone who made unfounded allegations  against him.

You can twist it anyway you like, but the fact remains, Nadal is personally involved in a lawsuit he brought against a French ex-minister. He is suing this person for defamation because he claims she made unfounded doping allegations against him. No problem here. But the whole background of the lawsuit itself is something of a scandal imo, perhaps more for the French side than for Nadal. But nonetheless it's scandalous. So I standby this word, as defined here:

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/scandal

1.3: a state of affairs regarded as wrong or reprehensible and causing general public outrage or anger:
E.g. It's a scandal that shames the good name of noble Limerick.

IMO, the same word is perfectly applicable to Nadal lawsuit like this: It's a scandal that ----- (fill in the  blank) good name of Rafael Nadal.

Synonyms for scandal from the same source: disgrace, outrage, injustice; shame, pity, crying shame; affront, insult, reproach

So BS, to substitute  the synonyms for scandal, why is Nadal's lawsuit not associated with a perceived  injustice, insult, outrage, pity, crying shame etc?

i'm confused



emancipator

PS: Hasn't the debate suddenly become much more lively and interesting since Temp stopped waiving the big stick? Sorry Temp

Why are you confused em.. not like you not to pick up on the obvious. Simple

hatred


noun

noun: hatred; plural noun: hatred


intense dislike; hate.


synonyms: loathing, hate, detestation, dislike, distaste, abhorrence, abomination, execration, resentment, aversion, hostility, ill will, ill feeling, bad feeling; enmity, animosity, antagonism, antipathy, bitterness, animus, revulsion, disgust, contempt, repugnance, odium, rancour; raredisrelish


Sad really isn't it.. when you can have that kind of emotion about someone you don't even now

Wow HN, that's a lot of hate you put in this post above. you are the only poster to have used the word "hate" and "hatred" in this thread repeatedly, 6 times in the aggregate. Look, others might dislike Nadal, question his integrity out of curiosity, post a comment or two re his latest news. That's about it. But It sounds like you're the one actually filled with intense hatred. Yes, it's sad. I do hope you get this hate business out of your system soon. Can't be very good for the health.

Btw, have you any idea why the ATP decide not to release Nadal's test result after all? Has Nadal confirmed he himself is going to release the records instead?

I did wonder how long a thread about Nadal releasing his tests to prove his innocence would morph into a Nadal thread about how him releasing his tests shows he could he guilty

"No no paperwork, lets sprinkle
some crack on him and get out' a here."

Of course Nadal is popular, look at his endorsement income and his appearance fees!

MP missed the point again. I said 'perceived', meaning how the public perceived him and not whether he actually is or is not doping.

'Tennis isnt a sport where doping would make you unbeatable...'

So why suspect Nadal and not the rest of the big four???

'Murray isnt keeping silent is he'

He's practising on clay now with Nadal at Malloca. Would he practice with someone whom he thinks is doping?

Belovedluckyboy wrote:'Tennis isnt a sport where doping would make you unbeatable...'

So why suspect Nadal and not the rest of the big four???

'Murray isnt keeping silent is he'

He's practising on clay now with Nadal at Malloca.  Would he practice with someone whom he thinks is doping?

Quote from Facebook

Andy MurrayLike Page
17 hrs ·


Really enjoyed a few days practice with my good friend Rafa Nadal in his hometown of Manacor, was great to finally see, and play some tennis at the Rafa Nadal Academy. It's an amazing site with some incredible facilities, great job!

Belovedluckyboy wrote:'Tennis isnt a sport where doping would make you unbeatable...'

So why suspect Nadal and not the rest of the big four???

'Murray isnt keeping silent is he'

He's practising on clay now with Nadal at Malloca.  Would he practice with someone whom he thinks is doping?

I said Murray wasn't silent on the subject. That's a straightforward statement of fact; it was something which a coach of another player seemed to take quite personally.

The absence of positive tests does not prove that someone doesn't dope, it just proves they've never failed a test. How many tests did Armstrong fail?

hawkeye wrote:.

Murray has done the sport a favour; someone has to come out and start bringing this mainstream - this ridiculous atmosphere of denial is lifted straight from the cycling playbook of 10 years ago.

Er..like I said, if its easier to silent anyone in tennis, then ALL players can do that.

'Murray wasn't silent' - precisely!

'The absence of positive tests does not prove that someone doesnt dope' - right, and that applies to ALL players.

What Nadal is doing now is to prove that French woman wrong, that he's not under any silent ban.

There's two sides to this; I would agree that we can't assume tennis is doping free (and that includes any player), but at the same time we can't decide that every player is automatically Lance Armstrong eveyrtime they don't fail a blood test.

These two statements, BLB, are self-evidently true.

In which case there's loads of misunderstanding in the last few pages.

The way I see it, there's doping in tennis and I ignore a players clean record in forming an opinion of whether he dopes. I would look partly at indicators of exceptional physical feats and very closely at major changes in capability over fairly short periods of time.

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.

IMBL

Certainly, there is a family history to suggest Rafa has 'good genes' to be an athletic sportsman - uncles being international footballers and tennis players suggest that there's something there...

Obviously we can only know someone is doping when they are caught, and passing a test only demonstrates that they were within the required parameters at the time the test was taken. Obviously the more tests passed, the greater the likelihood that the player is clean, but unless testing is undertaken on an incredibly high frequency basis (probably more than 1 test per week), there will always be windows of opportunity to cheat.

Do I think tennis has a major doping problem (i.e. to the extent of cycling, where doping was (is?) necessary to be even remotely competetive? Probably not. The requirements for being an outstanding tennis player are not as easily obtained pharmaceutically as is the endurance required to ride the Tour de France or the power to be a weight lifter.

Do I think some professional tennis players dope? Almost certainly. These are competitive guys and girls, and will look to obtain every advantage going. I suspect most comply with the letter of the PED rules (even if as the MaSha case shows, some may be prepared to stray into allowed but ethically grey areas), but some will take the chance at times of breaking the rules. It's a balance between the benefit of potentially better results (so more money, more endorsements) balanced against the risk of getting caught. Given the frequency of tests (top players are tested roughly monthly), it would be a risk some would consider worth taking.

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...

Indeed Lydian; unfortunately some people are born lucky when it comes to genes.

Dummy Half; very points, agree with all you've said. My theory is that many players are taking substances that help them athletically, but they're ones which haven't been banned by WADA. So they're helping their performance and giving themselves an edge, but not taking a risk. Sort of like CVAC, I bet there's many things like CVAC which are legal but most non-athletes simply wouldn't know about.

Some excellent posts here. BB and DH eloquently express my own thoughts on the matter.

It Must Be Love wrote:Indeed Lydian; unfortunately some people are born lucky when it comes to genes.

Some people are born slippy

lol...very drole.

bogbrush wrote:

Belovedluckyboy wrote:'Tennis isnt a sport where doping would make you unbeatable...'

So why suspect Nadal and not the rest of the big four???

'Murray isnt keeping silent is he'

He's practising on clay now with Nadal at Malloca.  Would he practice with someone whom he thinks is doping?

I said Murray wasn't silent on the subject. That's a straightforward statement of fact; it was something which a coach of another player seemed to take quite personally.

The absence of positive tests does not prove that someone doesn't dope, it just proves they've never failed a test. How many tests did Armstrong fail?

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/general/others/cycling-lance-armstrong-failed-four-drugs-tests-in-1999-uci-admits-8577491.html
four in '99
And possibly one in 2001
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/lancearmstrong/9524361/Lance-Armstrong-failed-drugs-test-in-2001-claims-former-team-mate-Tyler-Hamilton-in-new-book.html

I've pointed this out a dozen times and it continues to get ignored but maybe today is the day.

Probably not

Haddie-nuff wrote:Lets hope this will also silence   the anti-Nadal posters, here and every other tennis forum.. where ever they may be.  Good  Luck Rafa about time

Unless Operacion Puerta is allowed to publicly put documents in public and Fuentes writes the details of all the blood bags, this lawsuit does nothing except put up a circus.

Still here. We've also had to warn people. Wumming is still something you will be banned for. Noones had a real go at winding up or getting personal yet, so we'll see how it goes...

laverfan wrote:

Haddie-nuff wrote:Lets hope this will also silence   the anti-Nadal posters, here and every other tennis forum.. where ever they may be.  Good  Luck Rafa about time

Unless Operacion Puerta is allowed to publicly put documents in public and Fuentes writes the details of all the blood bags, this lawsuit does nothing except put up a circus.

The whole bl@@@dy thread comes back to negative negative negative... and you have helped a whole lot with that LF
as a mod you have helped nobody except those that hope Nadal fails in his quest to clear his name and want to have another crack at him whilst he tries to pick himself up   great  

There are posters here that have been urging Nadal to sue.. so he has and then what???
He is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. according to you  !!!
So you are the clever one what would you have suggested he do.???
How much of this cr@p  is he supposed to stomach.. what would Fed.Novak or Andy have done.
Without someone like Rafa stands up and says enough is enough then there is a whole world  of media  out there who will take a pot shot at  ANY athlete without proof of their accusations.. lets hope it is someone like Federer or Djoko next and then lets see the uproar on here.