Friday, November 9, 2012

"Useless at worst..." (Update #3: Pat Cash)

A new piece by Blair Henley of Tennis Now:

" a sea of opinions, one thing is certain: the ITF anti-doping program is useless at worst, ineffective at best. Even if they used their allotted $1.6 million last year (instead of somehow coming in nearly $300,000 under budget), they wouldn’t have had anywhere near the resources needed to uncover evidence of systematic doping, should it exist."
Update #1:

Jo-Wilfried Tsonga (Thanks, Asterix): "...I regret there is not many blood tests...When I hear some people's statements after the end of their career... I don't want to be a part of the debate. My impression is that we'll never know."

This now makes 5 of the ATP's top ten players asking for an increase in blood testing: Djokovic, Federer, Murray, Tsonga, and Gasquet. What does the ITF have to say?

Update #2:

An excellent piece on the weaknesses of the NBA's anti-doping program by Henry Abbott.

And here's a piece about MLB and synthetic testosterone by SI's Tom Verducci: "Players believe they can use the synthetic testosterone, which can be applied through creams, gels and patches, immediately after being tested or before off days without fear of being caught as part of a year-round regimen [...] Top baseball officials, however, privately acknowledge that synthetic testosterone is a problem in baseball, just as they believe it to be in all sports." (Thanks, Moonax)

Update #3:

Simon Cambers interviewed Pat Cash: "
It’s the perfect sport to take performance enhancing drugs, with the recovery, strengthening etc, but I think the lack of positive results shows that tennis is a clean sport."


  1. Tsonga speaks the same way than Gasquet :

    " [...] Roger a de la chance, j'ai l'impression d'être contrôlé tous les quatre matins", a dit Tsonga.

    "Dès que je rentre chez moi, ils (les contrôleurs) sonnent à six heures du matin. Je les accueille en caleçon et je fais pipi devant eux, c'est marrant."


    Quitte à se lever tôt, Jo-Wilfried Tsonga prône également des tests plus poussés.

    "Bien sûr que je regrette qu'il n'y ait pas plus de contrôles sanguins", dit-il. "Quand je vois les déclarations de certaines personnes après leur carrière... Je ne cherche pas à rentrer dans le débat. J'ai l'impression qu'on ne saura jamais."

    "Roger is lucky, I have the impression to be tested very often" said Tsonga.

    "As soon as I am back home, they (the inspectors) ring at 6 a.m. I welcome them in my underwears and I urinate in front of them, it's funny."


    I they have to wake up early, Tsonga advocates more complete tests as well.

    "Of course I regret there is not many blood tests", he says. "When I hear some people's statements after the end of their career... I don't want to be a part of the debate. My impression is that we'll never know."

    1. Well at least Tsonga doesn't head for the panic room when the testers call at 6am.

  2. Baseball has a testosterone problem.

  3. Hi guys, I was looking into MTF archive and I found an intresting topic going back to 2002. I'm sure you are going to like it.

    "In BN/DeStem, a local newspaper in the Netherlands, there was today[07-22-2002] an article about drugs in tennis. First it summed up what we already knew: all the fuss of the last weeks.

    But then it had some quotes from John van Lottum. He is known as a guy who's really anti-drugs, he even turned his back to Chela 2 years ago after a match when Chela was trying to make his way back up after his suspension.

    Van Lottum said: "I wouldn't be surprised if 50% of the top100 uses. The risk you get caught is really small, if you do it smart. And if it happens you get a small suspension. And the tennisworld stays nice for you. Juan-Ignacio Chela is crowd puller in Amersfoort, Guillermo Coria got a wildcard in Monte Carlo. And Adidas signed Chela. A big shame. These guys should be on the front page with a big picture, to make clear they don't play it fair.

    Colleagues who were around the 60th place in the rankings, like me, dissapeared a couple of months from the circuit. They came back with a complete different body. "

    He also names names: "I have big questionmarks at Guillermo Canas. I played against him on hardcourt, and after a set he was totally tired. He always had small injuries and got fast cramp. Now he is the fittest player in the circuit after Lleyton Hewitt and he makes the 4oth place in the rankings. How is that possible? Mariano Puerta is another example. He's number 300 of theworld, is gone for a while. Comes back and makes it #30. His raking gets worse, he's away for a while and gets to #30 again. His father is the guy who gave the drugs to Chela. Well, then one and one is two, right?"

    Paal Haarhuis also has something to say: "Until a year or 5 ago, I thought tennis was kinda clean of drugs. But at one moment you hear too much around you. About players who don't use for a while, cos there are all kind of side-effects. Due to these stories I got aware that also a tennisplayer can benefit from certain stuff.

    Then there's a story about Courier in the article, which says that when Courier suggested that the European players (he meant especially the Spanish claycourters) used drugs, the ATP told him that he could better quit himself, cos he would get caught at a drugstest."

    1. These are some of the more interesting, and potentially informative, quotes we have seen from players. When guys are talking about specific players and talking about stories of side effects it's intriguing stuff.

    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    3. Courier... interesting. He seems to be aware of what is going on, but somehow has to restrain himself.

      Nowadays even more so, for he is also dependent on the tennis establishment with all the jobs he got as tennis analyst for The Seven Network (AO), NBC, ITV and whatnot. He got sucked into their retired top-level player vortex, which conveniently keeps him in check and prevents open talk.

      For back in 2002, he was rather specific in naming the culprits: Spanish claycourters! Color me surprised!

    4. They all have to restrain themselves, lest they pee and/or shit into their pants. Understandably so, no? So: don't bite the hand that feeds ya - just lick it, lick it, lick it... for the rest of your sorry days. Ah, them hero's, them bloody Shakespeareoes, with their protruding jaws, one and all.

    5. They all have to restrain themselves, lest they pee and/or shit into their pants. Understandably so, no? So: don't bite the hand that feeds ya - just lick it, lick it, lick it... for the rest of your sorry days. Ah, them hero's, them bloody Shakespeareoes, with their protruding jaws, one and all.

  4. Meanwhile in Spain....

    The Spanish Athletic Federation is planning to reduce in up to a 50% his antidoping budget for 2013. Anyway, on the 2010-2011, this organism made 457 in-competition controls (98, EPO) and 235 OOC (yes, none of them of EPO).

    Link in Spanish.

  5. You do such a grear job on this blog. I read it every time I can. But I feel in times that there is no way to solve this. I'm a tennis player and to see guys like Ferrer, Murray or Djokovic. They are in a level that it's almost impossible to get to. No matter how hard you train. It gets my depressed. It is so not about talent now.....

  6. Regarding the Abbott piece, it might as well been about tennis...

    Also Daniel Coyle makes a nice guest appearance in it with a rather good observation (also true for the ITF/tennis):

    "Coyle explains that a sport policing itself is “structurally tangled,” and part of what led to a pervasive doping culture in cycling. “Whether in a conscious mind or an unconscious mind, everybody at [cycling’s governing body] knows that if Lance Armstrong gets popped, they get much less in TV rights. They get much less in everything. It costs them a lot of money to have a major guy get popped. You cannot put people in that position.”

  7. Like anyone deriving his living from the sport, Cash isn't going to bite the hand that feeds him though his admission that peds do the business rather undermines his professed belief that tennis is clean.

  8. Pat Cash : you can not be serious !!

    Off the subject - cycling :
    Is the international federation adequate ?

    [...] "Il se montre également favorable à la création d'une commission indépendante de l'Union cycliste internationale (UCI) pour l'organisation des contrôles ("on ne pourra plus reprocher à l'UCI d'être juge et partie", souligne-t-il) et demande la poursuite de l'aide des services de police et des douanes: "Bon nombre d'affaires ont pu éclater grâce à eux."

    "Ma progression et l'avènement de jeunes coureurs ne sont sans doute pas dus au simple hasard. Depuis la mise en place de la géolocalisation et du passeport, le champ de manoeuvre se réduit", conclut-il."

    "He also is in favour of the creation of a UCI independent commitee, in order to organize dope tests ("it won't be possible to criticize the UCI to judge and be judged", he emphasizes) and asks police and customs to continue helping : "many affairs have been brought to light thanks to them".
    "My progress and the advent of young riders are probably not only accidents. Since the whereabout system and biological passport were organized, the possibilities (to cheat) are reduced", he concludes."

  9. In other news. Sensational find in cycling! The last undoped one, lo and behold: Jens Voigt! (According to himself).

    This holier than thou dirty little dipshit cannot be serious...That delusional piece by him tops it off for me - SO in denial... He was working with all the right people and on all the teams knwon for rampant doping - and he is saying has been clean all along...have no words for him, really, other than he needs to STFU. Note, he was also taking part in that Armstrong Livestrong fanboy-party the other day in Texas and ran that race for Lances' foundation too.

    Another Armstrong fanboy and ex-teammate speaks up, Benoit Joachim. He is truely truely sorry for having missed that wonderful occasion to work with Dr. Ferrari, he says.

    This bit is interesting though:

    “If I think of what I could have done during my career working with Ferrari,” he continued. “It would have been a big boost and I could have made more money and learned a lot. If you look at all the races people won working with him. They had a longer career than me, they are healthy, and now they admit they have doped, but everyone forgives them. They take a six-month ban in the winter and are free to race next season. If we compare that to what’s happening to Armstrong, it’s disproportionate.”

    Now think of tennis and certain folks working with shady doctors... and do the math!

  10. Watched the Masters Finals. Both played well, Federer was exhausted after the first set, yes he's 31, but that's still an age where you can play sports:). His opponent, a few years younger, obviously had enough gas in the tank for a couple more hours. Both have top trainers, one is younger, but don't tell me age explains this difference in endurance. and 'confidence'. Thank you for reading ..

    1. Federer was clearly exhausted after that match, trying to keep up with Djokovic. Plus he played 3 days in a row; 3 tough matches. He obviously wanted it very badly and figured he had nothing to lose by giving it every ounce of energy he had since it was the last match of the season. But it didn't matter. Djokovic fell a few times, cut his playing arm, did the splits, and managed to get everything back. The age difference made a difference yesterday for sure but ND was like the pod using Djoker of 2011.



    While a few of his contemporaries, including Roddick, Ferrero and Fernando Gonzalez, retired from professional tennis this year, Federer showed no signs of slowing down in 2012. He recorded his first 70-plus match win season since 2006, and reclaimed the No. 1 South African Airways ATP Ranking following a record-equalling seventh Wimbledon triumph, breaking Pete Sampras’ record reign at the top spot.

    1. Yesterday during the final, the TV briefly showed the number of hours spent by both players on the court in 2012 : if I remember correctly, something like 143 hours for Federer, and 173 hours for Djokovic (82 matches Fed vs 86 matches Djoko). On average, more time per match spent by Djokovic on the court (+ 15%).

      Roddick, Ferrero and Gonzalez were injured, too ; which is not really the case for Federer.

      (well, I am not saying Fed is not doping)

    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    3. Is that your answer to my post above? If not, fine.
      If yes, why don't you address the topic instead of being upset that it was Federer who broke Sampras' record? Federer doesn't have the stamina against these guys, why don't you ask yourself where Djokovic gets it?
      Those excellent players who retired couldn't keep the enthusiasm going anymore. They also got injuries. Federer is mostly injury free thanks to perhaps luck, but also excellent management of his body and his efforts. Federer is also hungry for more.
      I was always sure Federer doesn't dope. I am now sure if it more than ever. I would with pleasure bet my last cent on it. There :)

    4. are you not?

      It is extraordinary that the same people that attack plenty of other players for extraordinary performances can't see anything extraordinary in the performance of RF over the years.

    5. Well, I at least make a distinction between athletic success and physical performance. They are related but, it's a bit like talking about the difference beyween working hard and working smart.

  12. JMF, the fact that Federer is competitive at over 30 against the other top 10 (who allegedly are all doing it) should be more than sufficient.

    1. "Feddy Is A Doper", let me ask you this:

      Let's hypothesize a scenario where all of the top 10 players, doping or not, became clean. How would you rank the top 10?

    2. I am used to read funny things here, but this one was just great

    3. What's so funny, actually?

      I really don't understand....

      Also, any relevant, half-relevant or irrelevant fact will always be 'more than enough' when you dislike someone.

  13. We have it on dear old Victor Conte's own authority that not all athletes have to dope to win a gold medal (though they won't run a 10.8)
    so why not leave the disusssion on Roger Federer to one side for the time being? He does after all possess a fairly unique skillset.

    1. Ok, what do you prefer, the economy, weather, ....?

    2. There isn't a shred of evidence to indicate that Federer is doping and a claim that he must be doping because he's over thirty and still doing well, is not evidence in my opinion. You need more than that before you can start accusing an individual player. Mere insinuation is unhelpful.

    3. Short of a positive drug test that was not covered by a TUE and which was not overturned by an appeal, what type of "evidence" would you like?

      If someone who never ran a marathon before suddenly runs one in under two hours (a world record), would you say "there isn't a shred of evidence" that he was doping?

      I will also point out that Mr. Federer does not say whether or not he has valid TUEs for any type of drug. We know the majority of top tennis players have TUEs. This means we also know that the majority of top tennis players are taking PEDS -- that is what a TUE is, permission to take PEDS.

      Thus, simply playing the odds, if a majority of top tennis players are documented to have taken PEDS, Mr. Federer is a top tennis player, I am going to say that it is more likely than not that he is taking PEDS. But, please tell me the names of all the other top tennis players that have valid TUES and once we have the complete list, we can simply see who is taking PEDS and who is not.

      However, it is a mathematically certainly -- 100% proven that at least 1 top tennis player is taking PEDS.

    4. Why do you keep saying Mr. Federer does not say whether he has a valid (sic) TUE?

      Is he supposed to talk about it?
      Has anyone asked him?

  14. "If someone who never ran a marathon before suddenly runs one in under two hours (a world record), would you say "there isn't a shred of evidence" that he was doping?"

    Q: How does that analogy even remotely apply to Peter Gilson's comment about Federer?

    Your "evidence" is that you think he had to get mono from EPO because you don't know how else he could have gotten it, as well as the fact that you think his "body hair," "jaw and general squareness of his face" and "shoulder width" all point to use of testosterone. That, my friends, is a what one calls a SHRED of evidence.

    "We know the majority of top tennis players have TUEs"

    Q: How in the world do you make the leap that 64 TUE in 2011 means "the majority of top players have TUE?" Did you not read Richard Ings' explanation of how many tennis players are under the ITF umbrella? For 64 to indicate a "majority of top players" would have to mean that the ITF includes 127 players total, including men, women, junior men and junior women, and wheelchaired men and women. It should be impossible to have less than zero evidence but somehow you've managed to find a way.

    You can't argue that a majority of players have TUE at the same time you're claiming you don't know who has TUE, which is exactly what you did by stating "please tell me the names of all the other top tennis players that have valid TUES." Sounds like the Armstrong fans that argued that all the witnesses against him were ex-drug cheats while simultaneously complaining the USADA wouldn't turn over the list of witnesses.

    You admit you have no idea who has a TUE but you know that 64 TUE were granted in 2011 and conclude that a majority of top players have a TUE. Solid. Solid as a rock.

    1. You can say with some justification that all WTA/ATP players come under a degree of suspicion simply because the ITF testing programme is so lamentable. Plus we have a history of lying and denial by dopers that cuts across all sports. The non-fanboy public has justifiably grown sceptical and I put myself in that category. Cycling, track & field and so on have taught us that. However, that's a far cry from saying player X is doping. If a player holds a valid TUE for a substance then under the current WADA rules he or she isn't commiting a doping offence for the substance covered, simple as that. More generally, suspicion grows as circumstantial evidence emerges. The players who associated with Dr del Moral for example can all reasonably be suspected of doping as by all accounts, notably that from the USADA report in particular, the doctor was a doping specialist and that is what he did for a living - dope athletes.

    2. How does that analogy even remotely apply to Peter Gilson's comment about Federer?

      Mr. Federer has been rated as the "greatest of all time." Thus, he has done something that no one else has ever done, in the entire history of mankind. That is analogous to someone running a marathon the fastest in the history of mankind. Any time a athletic record is broken in the modern age, doping can reasonably be suspected. Clearly, Pheidippides (ancient Greek runner of battle of Marathon) was not doping -- any 21st century athlete who is the "greatest," such as Lance Armstrong, Ben Johnson, and Roger Federer could reasonably be suspected of doping.

      Q: How in the world do you make the leap that 64 TUE in 2011 means "the majority of top players have TUE?

      Mr. Ings was incorrect in his statement -- as was clearly pointed out in the same thread that you read. Please, re-read it again, quote me the section where it is pointed out that Mr. Ing's was incorrect, and then ask your question again.

      Now, because I know you have issues reading things, I'll give you a little push... First, go to the thread

      Then, find the commend from "Tennis has a Seriod Problem" posted August 27, 2012 4:34PM. It starts out:
      "Richard Ings,
      I believe you are misreading the quote in the post...." There are a few posts going back and forth after this as well, you will need to read those too.

      Now, read the whole comment, then go back and re-read what the ITF said in the document. Then, re-ask your question if you are still not sure.

      To rehash it all for you, the doucment wereed the the TADP (Tennis Anti-Doping Programme). This TADP lists a pool of players -- the top players. The document says "A total of 64 Therapeutic Use Exemptions (TUE) were granted under the TADP in 2011."

      You and Mr. Ings claim that the 64 TUEs are for all of tennis, but then please explain why the document says "The total of 2,150 samples collected under the whole TADP in 2011 represents about 50% of all samples collected from tennis players."

      Using your interpretation, and that of Mr. Ings, this sentence does not make any sense. Clearly, the TADP does not represent 100% of tennis test -- it represents only 50% of tennis tests. So, who exactly does it cover? I claim it covers the top players, and the top players make up 50% of the tests. Yes, Mr. Federer is tested more than Mr. Rank #1012.

      Now, you may say "But Mr. Ings is correct." That is your opinion. The fact that so many tennis players test positive for PEDS but do not receive a testing violation is also indicative a a very large number of TUEs being issued. This would occur when an athlete tests positive for a drug, but has a valid TUE for it. There are other reasons it could occur as well, such as the athlete proving the sample was contaminated. Hover, given the large number of these that occur -- roughly 1/3 to 1/2 of the total positive tests, I doubt that it is contaminated samples. See for the data.

      In any case, the evidence is clear -- tennis players are taking PEDS. Tennis players test positive for PEDS. These tennis player are not named or punished in any way. There have been 11 in 2008, 6 in 2009 and 3 in 2010. So, the evidence is clear that tennis players are using PEDS and testing positive for them. Yes, this is "Solid. Solid as a rock." The ITF publishes the statistics.

      Now, I chose to believe that this is because of a large number of TUEs being issued -- this is just my opinion, it could be that 50% of the samples being collected are contaminated, you can believe what you want.

    3. "A total of 64 Therapeutic Use Exemptions (TUE) were granted under the TADP in 2011."

      Now go to the bottom of that same page. If you think that the TADP only includes the top 50 men/women and top 10 doubles then how in the world did Dimitar Kutrovsky end up getting busted in the 2012 TADP? Kutrovsky's highest ranking in the singles and doubles was 312/s and 475/d. Kutrovsky was tested in San Jose, under the TADP.

      From the ITF website regarding Kutrovsky's decisiion (very bottom of the decision):

      "The Tennis Anti-Doping Programme is a comprehensive and internationally recognised drug-testing programme that applies to ALL PLAYERS competing at tournaments sanctioned by the ITF, ATP, and WTA."

      Yes the TADP accounts for about 50% of tennis testing. The other 50% is most likely NADO's.

      The statement that "The pool of players for 2012 INCLUDES the top 50 men and women (singles), top
      10 men and women (doubles) and top 5 wheelchair players in each classification, plus players
      returning from suspension or returning from retirement," means just what it says. Those players are INCLUDED in the pool. It doesn't say the TADP ONLY INLCLUDES those players.

      So you don't "know" that a majority of top tennis players have a TUE. Not even remotely close. Nice try, though.

      And if you think Roger Federer's tennis career is analogous to someone who has never run a marathon that "SUDDENLY" set a world record......fine by me.

    4. Ok, thanks for the info. I think I have gotten to the bottom of this. There are essentially 2 difference groups of testing and TUEs -- something Swiss pointed out. The ITF administers one for "International Level" athletes. This generally consists of the top 50, but also includes other who compete at the international level. There is a separate system for all other tennis players. The "64 TUEs" were reported for International Level players only.

      "The WADA TUEC is established to review the granting or denial of TUEs for International-Level Athletes, Athletes entered in an International event as described under 7.1(b), or Athletes in their National Anti-Doping Organization’s Registered
      Testing Pool as set forth in Article 4.4 of the Code"

      Thus, the TUE would be evaluated for the top players, and those that enter international-level events or are considered International-Level Athletes (It appears that International-Level Athletes are the top 50, as described above.). Thus, the total people covered by the TADP who would be eligible to apply for TUEs is essentially the top level athletes in the sport, though it will be much larger than the top 50. Hence, the inclusion of non-top 50 athletes participating at major events.

      So, I was incorrect to say it was the "majority." However, using the above definition, the available group of athletes is probably 400. This gives a ratio of 15% rather than 50% -- but this is still a very high percentage. This analysis also explains why 50% of the tests would not be covered -- because they are not at the "international" level.

      I will point out that Mr. Ings was confused about the ITF's TUE program when he stated "The TUE program applies to any athlete subject to the TDP which includes challengers and even satellite events." The confusions is whether this TUE program is administered and reported by the ITF for by a national agency.

      The code section quoted above, 7.1(c) clearly limits the the ITF's TUE process to intentional level athletes. Code section 7.2 applies to all other athlete who can get a TUE from their national authority. So, Mr. Ings is correct that there is some way any athlete can get a TUE, but it is not through the ITF and the ITF would not include those numbers in the TUEs that it had granted. Thus, the TADP only covers international athletes -- though this pool is larger than the to 50 discussed previously.

      In any case, I thank you for bringing that to my attention because I believe the above analysis resolves the debate between Mr. Ings and THASP -- neither were right, but I think THASP was "more correct" in his analysis. Ultimately, there are a large number of TUEs out there.

      And just so Swiss doesn't get confused -- I am admitting that I was wrong as well. I had used the same analysis as THASP. Based on the information you brought up, I investigated it further and found that those statements were wrong. Hence, I have revised it to reflect "International" athletes -- which is a larger pool. It is NOT all tennis players. The result is that about 15% of "International" tennis players have TUEs. Of course, it is still possible that 50% of the top 50 have TUEs, but that can not be said for a certainty at this time.

      I still believe that 64 TUES for "International" level players is excessive. I would also speculate that these are concentrated into the higher ranking players.

      There is no apology to Mr. Ings. As noted above, Mr. Ings was wrong. Someone with his background should have easily spotted what the issue was and have known that the ITF administers TUEs only to international level athletes.

    5. Nope.

      1.1 The purpose of this Tennis Anti-Doping Programme (the “Programme”) is
      to maintain the integrity of tennis and to protect the health and rights of tennis
      players participating in Covered Events.

      1.10 For purposes of this Programme, the following are “Covered Events”: the
      Grand Slam tournaments, Davis Cup, Fed Cup, Hopman Cup, the Olympic
      Tennis event, the Paralympic Tennis Event, other IOC-recognised
      International Events, WTA Tour tournaments and season-end championships,
      ATP World Tour tournaments and ATP World Tour Finals, ATP Challenger
      Tour tournaments, ITF Pro Circuit tournaments, ITF Juniors events, ITF
      Seniors events, ITF Wheelchair events, and ITF Beach Tennis Tour events.

      How can you think it only includes 400 players when the one example they cite in their document involves a player outside of the top 300 in Men's singles?

      I appreciate your faux concern for my mental state but worry about yourself there, Dingleberry.

  15. And quite frankly you owe Richard Ings an apology. Period. I'm just some guy with a username on a blog and I don't give a flying crap what you say about me, but Richard Ings uses his real name and it's a name that's known in tennis circles. He wasn't "wrong" and he didn't misread, misunderstand or misinterpret anything. You did. Own up to it.

    1. In addition, regardless of whether Mr. Ings is or was correct, no apology would be forthcoming because disagreeing with someone does not require an apology. If I insulted Mr. Ings, called him names, etc, that would be different.

      In life, you ware going to disagree with a lot of people -- that is just the way it is. I am not "sorry" nor will apologize for engaging in normal debate on any subject. Sometimes I am right, someones I am wrong. I never ask for an "apology" for simply disagreeing with me. Perhaps you are taking this whole thing a little too personally -- it is just an internet forum debating various doping issues. No one here -- not the moderator, not Mr. Ings, not Mr. Federer, not Dr. Miller, has complete knowledge of all the facts. Any reasonable debate about the missing facts does not require an apology. As you can clearly, see, when I am wrong, I admit it -- but again, I don't apologize for being wrong in a legitimate dispute.

      Nor does demanding that I apologize to Mr. Ings - someone you apparently do not know, help advance anything. If Mr. Ings felt slighted by something I said, he is more than able to defend himself -- and has done so on numerous occasions on this site. I appreciate your contributions and going back and for with you -- it helps me understand the issues better, and I hope other people as well. It appears that your and I generally disagree -- but that is what keeps me posting on this site. It is interesting and informative. The above post requesting an "apology" simply is not.

    2. If you're going to tell someone they don't know what they're talking about try to, at a absolute minimum, have a clue what you're talking about.

      Your initial analysis couldn't have been more wrong if you had just thrown a dart while wearing a blindfold.

      Your "revised" analysis was only slightly better indicating you might have thrown the dart without a blindfold. But it was still WRONG.

      I'm actually surprised you even got the number of 64 TUE correct.

      Your ENTIRE theory about TUE has been totally shredded. First because you were utterly beyond incorrect in your assessment of how many players have TUE. Secondly because Richard Ings explained quite clearly how virtually impossible it would be for a player to get a TUE for EPO and still be allowed to play tennis.

      So explain again why you're so sure "Mr. Federer" has a TUE for EPO, or a TUE for ANYTHING for that matter.

  16. This comment has been removed by the author.