Taking a close look at doping control in professional tennis. How stringent is it? We also look at other issues related to the integrity of the sport.
"As alway, let me know if you find an error."Found one already.
Darn, you commented before I could correct it.
Interesting read. Finally some journalists are starting their suspicions.http://www.tennis-prose.com/bios/has-nadal-run-afoul-of-the-doping-laws/
hmm they probably found some stuff they didnt like in the period between 06-07by the way..anyone shocked at how "frail" nadal looked against fed in miami, cramping in a 5th set, to being such a physical "Freak" now..In fact..the transition from nadal circa 2004-2005 to clay warrior 2006-2007 is startling
maskedmuffin,Nadal's transition was sooner and sharper than that...using the current year's year-end rankings (for example, his 2004 record against players in the 2004 year-end top 30) his record from beginning of 2003 thru 2005 Aussie Open was 7 wins and 21 losses...from then until start of the '05 clay season (including IW, Miami and Valencia, all hardcourts) he was 5 wins and 3 losses (including, as you point out, being gassed in the 5th set of Miami)...from beginning of the clay season thru end of 2005 he was 30 wins and 2 losses (his 2 losses were Berdych in Cincy and Blake at the USO after beating Agassi to win Montreal)...he became the "clay warrior" in 2005.....12-24 before clay season 2005 to 30-2 thru end of 2005 and #2 in the world.
That Twitter exchange in the last post was telling. You have Brad Gilbert, asked to back-up a ridiculous statement (that tennis players are the most tested athletes of any sport) gives a deliberately sarcastic and stupid answer, thus avoiding the question altogether. He's just trying to keep alive the myth that because players have to give whereabouts for each day, that this somehow means they are stringently tested! Which they are certainly not, especially given they are completely allowed to miss two tests in 18 months. (They will be unlucky to get many more than that.)Secondly, both that twitter man with a unique name (forget it off the top of my head) and John Wertheim, when asked a question, completely and obviously FAIL to answer it in any way, shape or form, and start criticising someone for using a pseudonym! This is just too much! Just answer the question!
McEnroe "ANSWER THE QUESTION!!!"
You're right, Mystery, attacking someone for using a pseudonym is an example of an "ad hominem" argument, which is a fallacious argument. "Ad hominem" means "against the man". It's invalid because it fails to address the argument, instead seeking to discredit the arguer.