Monday, February 18, 2013

Dr Luis García del Moral: An Update

The Telegraph reports: "International Tennis Federation to increase testing on players linked to Dr Luis García del Moral". Specifically, "Telegraph Sport understands anti-doping bodies remain concerned that some players may be continuing to work with Del Moral despite the warning and have therefore increased the level of testing undergone by those under suspicion"


  1. I wonder if Ferrer will play Acapulco? I was actually hoping he might beat Nadal there.

  2. This is an interesting development for sure!

    "Two major drug makers, Roche and GlaxoSmithKline, have begun evaluating every new drug candidate for its potential to be abused by athletes and have agreed to share information about those products with the World Anti-Doping Agency, known as WADA, which polices drug use in international sports."


    An interesting interview with WADA head David Howman. He says among other things that tennis players would undoubtedly benefit from EPO micro-dosing, that players could face a ban under new WADA rules for continuing to associate with proven doping doctors like Del Moral, and the ITF will introduce a biological passport later this year..

    Here's what he had to say about silent bans.

    Q. Every time someone is injured for a long period, there are always rumours that it’s really a drugs ban that’s been covered up. Do you think things like that have been covered up in the past?

    Howman: It could have in the past, but not now. I don’t think there’s any cover-up going on now. If it’s a positive case, it goes into our system….I should pause…if it’s a positive case that doesn’t go into our system and somehow that there’s a deal (saying) ‘you just stand down for a while’, then we’d never know about it. The only way that could happen would be if there was a crook in the lab.

    1. The "crook in the lab" statement doesn't make much sense. It seems illogical to think that a "crook in the lab" would lead do a "stand down" order when that same "crook" could lead to a cover-up of the result all together. What seems more likely than somebody serving a silent ban (of which I put the chance at approximately 0%), is that an athlete could potentially serve a provisional suspension (legally without public knowledge) and then they are cleared to play again after being exonerated at tribunal. We know that (1) provisional suspensions do happen, (2) provisional suspensions happen without public knowledge, (3) provisional suspensions lead up to a tribunal, and (4) the public will not be made aware of tribunals that result in exoneration.

      What do you think is more likely?
      (a) A dishonest lab worker takes a bribe to cover up a dirty test, and the people who paid them off did so in order to let the player serve a silent ban (when that same bribe could make the test go away entirely), OR
      (b) A player serves a provisional suspension following a positive test (an analytical procedure that provides little room for discretion), and then that player is "exonerated" at tribunal (a process that contains a great deal of inherent discretion).

    2. I am not so sure. It depends on whether positive test results are passed on to WADA from the lab or from the sporting body. If it is the latter then it is quite possible WADA would never learn of it. The sporting body tells the player of the dirty test and requires them to take a break - ostensibly for an "injury" - and clean-up. A silent ban in other words.

      Alternatively, the lab worker first advises the sporting body of the result, which then pays the worker not to pass on the result officially so that it won't enter the WADA system, and the sporting body then imposes the ban on the player. WADA never hears of it. The test no longer exists officially. Both options assume the sporting body wants to take some kind of action against the player but not in away that publicly damages the sport. The result is the same. A silent ban.

    3. Saugy showing Armstrong around the UCI's Swiss antidoping facility in 2002, shows the crook in the lab might just be the laboratory's own director.

    4. I will only comment on what the WADA Code says. In particular, Section 7.1 spells out what happens:

      Upon receipt of an A Sample Adverse Analytical Finding, the Anti-Doping Organization responsible for results management shall conduct a review to determine whether: (a) an applicable therapeutic use exemption has been granted or will be granted as
      provided in the International Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions, or (b) there is any apparent departure from the International Standard for Testing or International Standard for Laboratories that caused the Adverse Analytical Finding.

      Section 7.2 says "If the Anti-Doping Organization decides not to bring forward the Adverse Analytical Finding as an anti-doping rule violation, it shall so notify the Athlete and the Anti-
      Doping Organizations as described in Article 14.1.2.[basically the WADA and the national organization]"

      So, the Lab reports to the ITF (which is typically the agency responsible for the test). The ITF then is supposed to report to the athlete and the other agencies no matter what the outcome is.

      Thus, there are two critical links -- the lab and the ITF. If a person did not properly forward information at either one of these, then the result would be buried. Obviously, the lab will always be a critical link and little can be done about it. However, the other critical link could easily be removed by having the lab report to the ITF and WADA simultaneously. It is curious as to why this is not done because WADA will always be informed anyway, if the ITF is doing its job.

      Of course, results being buried are completely different from a "silent ban," and I am simply commenting on the existing procedures and how they could result in problems.

    5. Mtracey it doesn't work like that for reporting. You need to look at the lab standards for which organisations labs must report adverse A findings to.

      The WADA Laboratory MUST report any adverse A findings(including any with a TUE) to the body that collected the sample (e.g ITF), AND WADA, AND the players NADO.

      So four separate agencies are aware of the adverse A simultaneously….ITF, WADA, NADO and Lab.

      All four agencies normally on 4 different continents (ITF in UK sends a sample to Cologne who reports to WADA in Canada and say USADA in the US) would have to conspire to "bury" a sample.

      What happens is the reverse of what you think.

      The agencies not responsible for the sample collection are continuously chasing up the agency responsible for the sample to know how the matter is progressing, and when it will be announced following a tribunal. If the matter is progressing too slowly the other agencies have a right to appeal or challenge any delayed process.

    6. Ok, so this is covered in the International Standard for Laboratories "In addition to reporting to the Testing Authority, the Laboratory shall simultaneously report all test results as defined in ISL provision to WADA via ADAMS."

      So it would appear that the ITF could not simply bury the results as the WADA would have a copy as well. This leaves only the lab as a critical link -- which it always would be.

      For clarity's sake, the WADA should codify all the reporting requirements in the Code and then leave the ISL for the more technical details -- which they appear to do for just about everything else other than this additional reporting requirement.

    7. The ISL and the IST are components of the Code but are separated to allow for annual review. Technical aspects can change quickly. That is why the technical aspects are separated into the ISL and IST.

      The Code is reviewed every 4 years. So it more contains the doping rules which are subject to broader stakeholder consultation processes.

      I think the responsibilities of the lab are codified in the ISL well. And labs that fail to meet the requirements of the ISL have their accreditation suspended or even revoked.

    8. I'm curious Richard. You keep on telling us that there can be no corruption. And yet Michael Ashenden is pointing towards rampant corruption in the UCI handling of the biopassport. What say you?

      Ashenden claims that Armstrong's bioprofile was has subsequent by USADA been shown to show evidence of manipulation was not sent to him or the other experts for the period when the data was most suspicious?

      Why is this? Why was a suspicious bioprofile not sent to the experts?

      You've defended Anne Gripper here previously - she was in charge of the biopassport at the time.

      It is very clear that the sporting authorities DO suppress evidence and do prevent suspicious data from reaching the public.

      You keep on maintaining this 'no corruption' line but the evidence from the Armstrong case shows time and time again across a 12 year period corruption and collusion.

  4. Wow, the ITF is really making an effort to convince us that they are actually trying to catch dopers! Before the Armstrong case they were just trying to convince people that doping would not be beneficial for tennis players. Of course, they won’t actually catch anyone; nobody would want that…

    1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    2. Really guys? Removing comments that involve me calling another guy a bassoon?

      I am disappoint.

  5. They're cocking a snook at a regulatory body they judge to be toothless, just like Wayne Odesnik continuing to dope with Hgh courtesy of Anthony Bosch.

  6. Why would you tell dopers that you are going to target them? Seriously, if you wanted to catch dopers and think that the ones working with Del Mora are dopers, then you would suddenly and without announcing it focus test those players.

    Saying, "Please don't use Del Mora. Ok, well if you do use Del Mora, we are going to test you." Is not how you catch dopers. It is how you tell dopers to switch to a different doping doctor.

    It appears from the article that the "investigation" into the players consisted of a phone call wherein Dr. Stuart Miller asked them, "Are you doping? No, ok. Sorry to bother you." How about asking how much money they paid for these "routine" physical examination and why they felt the need to go to Spain when any doctor on the planet can give you an EKG.

    1. The ITF's anti-doping non-action regarding del Moral is consistent with its stated mission objective to protect the integrity of tennis and the health of its athletes. What they say in effect is 'The ITF sets out to warn dopers, not catch them'.

    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    3. Sorry …typo

      Doing more tests is all the ITF can really do. They can't interview Del Moral as they have no jurisdiction over him. They can't get his patient records as he is a Spanish doctor and the ITF is a British sporting body.

      They have no compulsive power over the players to force them to testify under oath.

      In fact the only thing the ITF can do is a few more tests. Sporting bodies are incredibly powerless when it comes to tackling serious doping which uses difficult to detect through testing methods.

      And as I have outlined such testing is extremely unlikely to pick up doping even if doping was occurring.

      Serious dopers with medical support of their doping do not dope in a way that allows for easy detection via testing.

      And if doping was occurring, with all the publicity any such doping has in all likelihood been ceased by anyone involved.

    4. Mr Ings, on a different topic, I understand that you expressed real dismay at the much-publicised inquiry revealing Australian sport is rife with doping, as it involves your own country. I am wondering why, that after all the official rhetoric, we have heard no details about which sporting codes or even individual competitors are allegedly involved in doping practices. As usual, the media haven't followed this up. Personally, I find that just as dismaying. What is your view? Why have we heard nothing more?

    5. Action can be taken via the Olympic committee. No cooperation over del Moral or Fuentes means no possibility of the 2020 summer games going to Spain. Arms can be twisted when the political will exists.
      Anti-doping requires a world consensus and rogue, pro-doping countries like Spain need coercing into line.

    6. Doing more tests and coming up with nothing is really confirmation of the belief that players who are doping know how to prevent themselves testing positive. Why would a tennis player go to Fuentes or del Moral other than to dope? The fact they are doing this with seeming impunity rather tells its own story. It's a story that really requires resolution in corridors that go way beyond the ITF.

    7. It it not necessarily "more" tests. Here is the very very very simple first steps:

      1. Stop loser targeted testing.
      2. Test winners in off days at tournaments. You can do exactly the same number of tests as the old loser targeted testing.
      3. When a player misses a "whereabouts" test (an OOC test), re-test the player twice within the next 30 days. The current system of "three strikes" only works if you actually can accrue 3 strikes in 18 months.

      What the press can do:

      For any athlete that discloses a disease, ask the player exactly what treatments and TUEs they have been issued. The player has already given up privacy information in disclosing the exact diagnosis of the disease (Sjorens, anemia, etc). Now, ask then what treatments allow a player to compete at the professional level with such a disease. If the treatment is "private," then at least the world knows that the player is only seeking public sympathy regarding the illness and is unwilling to help other people with the disease by explaining how they are able to treat is so successfully.

      None of the above requires any more tests. (If more OOC "whereabouts" test are required because players are dodging the testers, simply take fewer in competition tests to balance this out.) None requires any more money. None of the above requires any new programs to be developed. It won't solve the problem but it will eliminate the two biggest jokes in the "anti-doping" effort: loser targeted testing and the three strikes rule that can never be reached.

      Also, stop telling players that you are not testing for a certain drug at a certain tournament. This also does not require any additional money.

    8. In response to "richard", yes I have comments on the recent announcements by the Australian Ministers for Justice and Sport, the CEO of the Australian Crime Commission and ASADA about their investigations into doping and organise crime links to Australia's professional sporting codes.

      The report is publicly available on the Australian Crime Commission website. What is in that report is all that is available in the public domain. The media has reported that sporting codes have received briefings of confidential sections of the report. Breaching that confidence by the Codes is a criminal offence under the Crimes Act.

      The Australian Media have actually had (and continue to have) saturated coverage of this matter including naming clubs (all of whom have gone on the record as having been mentioned in the ACC report) and naming players and support personnel linked to the report.

      But at this stage I am sure that the media is very mindful that this is an investigation now by ASADA, there is due process to follow, there is presumption of innocence till the investigation is complete, and statements by media and media commentators need to measured till this matter is resolved by the authorities.

    9. Mr Ings, thank you for that. I have since read the report on the Australian Crime Commission website. It does not identify specific codes or competitors (for the likely reasons you refer to about confidentiality.) I haven't seen any of your local media coverage that you say offers more detail.

      In view of the report claiming that drug use is widespread in professional sport in Australia I would be surprised if tennis players would prove to be an exception. What is your view of that? Is tennis likely to be involved?

    10. I know only what is in the public version of the report. My understanding is that the intelligence in the report focuses on professional football codes, use of PED's and links between players and organised crime.

      The report makes no mention of specific sports however some sports and clubs have come forward having been named in the confidential sections of the ACC report.

      Tennis players tend not to be in the country much by nature of their sport. I am more concerned about the Del Moral types in regard to tennis players. Del Moral is beyond the reach of the ACC of course.

    11. Surely there are Del Moral types in every major country where there is professional sport - including Australia. If they are in football you can bet they will be in tennis. Or is the problem only in Spain?

    12. Yes indeed there are such types everywhere. International Sporting Federations are effectively just big (very big on some cases) sports clubs organising and promoting that sport.

      IF's have no power to investigate physicians. IF's have no power to even talk to such physicians. If for example there was a rogue doctor in some country and tennis players were clients, the ITF in fairness would have zero power to interview the doctor, seek his patient records etc etc.

      This is why I am a relentless advocate for governments to have appropriate laws and appropriately empowered government backed agencies to investigate to supply chain of PED's and take action at any step along that supply chain.

      Doping is not an issue for a single sporting community. It is an issue that cuts across the total global community of sport and it cuts across it with disregard for international boundaries. A rogue doctor in country A can easily supply PED's and expertise to athletes doping in a multitude of sports across many nations.

      IF's are in my view not structured to be able to mount the types of responses needed to fully investigate these types of cross border, multi-national, organised crime driven integrity threats to global sport. Only government agencies can.

    13. The problem with relying on government agencies is that you need every government in the world to participate.

      Let's say that Ireland starts an intense anti-doping effort and they investigate anything that remotely looks like doping. Ok, the players simply relocate to a different country. Let's say Kenya.

      So, unless Kenya is also going to put anti-doping on the top of its list, then the only thing Ireland did was export jobs to Kenya, as the players, coaches, trainers, and facility staff will all find work in Kenya and not Ireland.

      Also, if you look at the Lance Armstrong "investigation" by the US Department of Justice, it was closed for some unknown reason. Hardly an ringing endorsement of the unbiased nature of government actions. It appears that Lance was well connected with various politicians and was able to use that to drop the criminal case. Why would it be any different for any other athlete? Do you think Djokovic doesn't have political friends in Serbia? Federer is unknown is Switzerland?

      What would be logical is for the ITF to use its contractual powers to get the investigative powers you describe above. The ITF could require disclosure of any treatments provided to the athlete. See for how this is allowed under the HIPAA. If the athlete failed to disclose a treatment, the ITF could then arbitrate against the athlete for breach of contact and compel the testimony of the doctor, get bank records, etc.

      Numerous private companies have successful anti-drug programs and they don't rely on the government's anti-narcotics programs. It would be ridiculous for a trucking company to say, "We will just let the government police the use of drugs." Why would professional sports be any different?

    14. As a follow up, the DOJ investigation that was dropped was for criminal charges. It appears that US government will sue Armstrong for civil damages relating to the US Postal service paying for a "clean" athlete when they were provided a "doped up" athlete. However, the criminal case remains closed and this civil case is essentially a type of "breach of contract" case in that Armstrong was supposed to provide drug free services according to the contract but did not.

      For issues on the "breach of contract" issue, note the article: " Legal experts say Armstrong could argue that his contract with the team owners never explicitly prohibited blood doping, and he could claim that he never signed any agreement directly with the Postal Service that banned the practice."

    15. MTracy the ITF already has a rule in place for its anti-corruption unit that requires players to hand over financial records, telephone records and emails in the event of a "valid suspicion" that the player may have been involved in or be knowledgeable of corruption. I drafted the rule so I know it well.

      This is not carte blanche for the ITF. Evidence must be submitted to a HRO (Hearing Review Officer) who will determine if the request for what is effectively seizure of personal documents is valid and not a fishing expedition.

      So sporting rules can be used to compel certain things from athletes where fairness, natural justice and rights of appeal are not ignored. And that is before we get into that rules by national federations can't trump local laws for privacy with citizens of those countries. It is hellishly complex.

      But the issue here is that it still relies on athletes sharing that information and indeed being prepared to incriminate themselves by so doing. There is a long history of athletes not being prepared to do that even if the penalties for doing so are criminal.

      Why I support the involvement of government agencies is that it they have access to powers that can uncover doping without requiring an athlete to cooperate. Government can pass laws giving agencies rights to seize medical records, hard disks, emails etc without having to request them from people.

      ASADA has used such seizures by law enforcement agencies to investigate and prosecute athletes for doping.

      My point remains that sporting organisations will never ever be given powers of seizure against their own athletes let alone those that may be trafficking PED's to their athletes.

      As to conflicts of interest, I have posted on this before. There are conflicts of interest with every anti-doping body whether government or sporting. One can argue that governments are conflicted as they will not want to expose their national heroes One can argue that sports are conflicted as they will not want to expose their sports heroes. One could argue that WADA has a conflict of interest as it is funded by governments and the IOC. One could argue the IOC has a conflict of interest as banning star athletes has an impact on the commerciality of the Games. Etc etc.

      Look for a perceived conflicts of interest in any stakeholder and you will find them everywhere.

      The current system of WADA publishing the Code, all sports and governments having to implement the Code, and WADA being a very active watchdog is in my view very solid and a very reasonable way to align governments and sports to a common anti-doping platform.

      Id just like to see a USADA/ASADA/UKAD/AFLD clone in every country back by strong laws to take it to the next level.

  7. Monaco begins to look even more attractive than ever if the reliance shifts to national governments. Can't imagine they have much capability to investigate such things (or desire, given their economy is based on luring rich, glamorous foreigners).

  8. Does anyone remember when the power of observation said that Serena Williams' picture showing her bulky arms was due to how the picture was taken? For those who are new to the site or who were not born at the moment, I ask them to take a long look at the picture on this following link

    1. Kvitova may well be doping. Just like Serena. (Although I will say in Kvitova's favour she's not hiding from drug testers - or serving as big as the top men while in the twilight of her career. But then nobody has arms like Serena - except maybe The Rock.)

      That's funny, telling others to look at photographs when you won't see what's staring you in the face about your idol.

    2. Serena doesn't dope and is not hiding from drug testers... Get over it richard. Serena doesn't serve like a top man. Check the speeds stats on Wikipedia. The rackets are different nowadays and generate a lot of power. Moreover Serena is a strong black woman. All I see in my face is a black woman who physical attributes can be undertood on by a black man.

    3. As you say, that's all you can see. I am sure you picked Flojo and Marion Jones as strong black women, too.

    4. No this is a different situation. Marion jones doesn't need steroids to get that shape and speed but to maximize her winning potential. Check the Olympic games, European the majority of the foreign athletes that represented Europeans were of African origin or black. It doesn't take a lot for blacks to get bulky if they are not born skinny. Everyone interested in sports knows that. Before the steroid era, all other have always been in awe with how strong blacks tend to be compared to other races. It is basic knowledge to those who are not in perpetual denial.
      Serena is a strong black woman.

    5. So if she was white she would be doping. It's pretty clear where you are coming from.

    6. Never wrote that. You're putting words in my fingers. Likeliness is a key word in this context.

    7. So it's only "likely" that Serena is a strong black woman?

    8. The likely only applies to the general public. Serena is one of a king. Even a sick Venus has more power than the majority of the women on the tour. Even when she plays a few times a year, she never lost her power. The willams sisters power have been steady throughout their careers. The dopers'one from the men and the women side fluctuate constantly.

    9. The only consistent point you make in an otherwise incoherent stream of assertions that are an apology for an argument is that the Williams sisters' strength must be natural. Why? Because you simply believe it to be so. It is an assumption that cannot be proven. Indeed, on the circumstantial evidence, we could well believe their strength is anything but natural. Serena, for example, can now serve at 207kph - the same as Roger Federer's fastest serve at the last Australian Open. They are both 31. Federer's fastest serve speed has not increased in ten years. Serena's continues to do so. She has gained speed as she ages. Extraordinary. By the time she retires she could be serving up there with Karlovic and Isner, if that trend continues. Natural? Nonsense. But you will keep reciting your mantra - that they are "strong black women" - as though that answers everything. Ever thought how they might have acquired that strength?

      We know many black athletes have doped in the past (Ben Johnson, Marion Jones, Justin Gaitlin, Dwayne Chambers, Barry Bonds - the list can go on, and will likely continue to do so.) Doping is now endemic in professional sports, and amongst all races. Being black clearly doesn't give an athlete a pass as a "natural athlete", because we have seen too many of them are not.

      You are either too young to know or have a poor memory, but the greatest African-American tennis players before the Williams bashers appeared were Arthur Ashe and Althea Gibson. Look them up some time. About the only thing they had in common with the Williams sisters was that they were African-American and held a tennis racquet. Arthur Ashe was a tremendous player with a great serve. But he couldn't match Serena. By all appearances she is twice the man that Arthur was. Natural? You are naive beyond belief.

    10. "The (power of) dopers from the men........fluctuate(s) constantly." You have posted several times that you think Federer is a doper. When has his power fluctuated?

    11. Lemme guess - like Marion Jones, Federer doesn't dope to make himself faster or stronger....he only dopes to maximize his winning potential????

    12. I watched Federer play against Tsonga in a tournament that preceded a major. Federer arms was shaking just to return Tsonga's ball. You can see the vibration during the slow motion. He was beaten by Tsonga I think in 2 sets. During the major one week later, Tsonga couldn't even see Federer's balls let alone return them. He was beaten by a series of 6 to 1. I use many criteria. Also I never say I blame Federer for doping as I am a fan of his.

    13. I don't just believe the williams don't dope. I have followed them for a long time. white females are no match for black females as far as their athletic ability required to play tennis are concerned. The list of white players who dope and have dope since the 1930 or 1940 is infinite. You can't just generalize to hide the reality. When anything favors whites, they single themselves out but when it is the other way, they generalize and say it is normal. If after all these years you never realized that black are in general more athletic than other races, then it is a mental blocade and I can't convince you. Try to watch more sports. I don't know how many you watch. Watch various ones and analyze.
      What you don't understand is that there are skinny blacks and there are big blacks. Are you telling that Serena is the only woman bigger than a man???? I don't understand your reasonings. They are limited beyong belief.
      By the way, check for serve speed:
      Why should someone loses his serve spped around 30. I am around 30 and is stronger than in my 20s because I gained weight. Federer didn't gain weight. Why should he get stronger? I can't repeat myself all the time. Evander holified fought in higher divisions in boxing as he aged because he gained weight and became stronger. This is why they have different weight divisions in boxing to avoid lighter boxers being sent in coma. This i swhy it was impossible for Henin to trade balls with the williams or kim.

    14. @Eric Ed: I'm sorry that I've first seen your comment below, and have answered it - for, discovering this one afterwards, I have to conclude that you are even less than a racist-in-reverse: you are only "a fan" of hanging on the Net and laying your verbal turds wherever possible, a newly-proverbial troll, getting your miserable satisfaction from provoking people, otherwise in every way superior to you, to react, so as to prove, to yourself, your own mental "supremacy". Be you the latest Boreman-incarnation or not: you are pitiful.

    15. Your reasoning regarding Federer is hilariously flawed. Before getting to the "facts" in regards to his Tsonga matches you reference I'll first point out that successive posts you claim both that he dopes to gain strength (arm wobbled from Tsonga's shots in one match then blew the ball by Tsonga in their next match) and, oddly, also claim he's never gained strength in his career ("didn't gain weight. Why should he get stronger").

      You've made the ignorant "trembling arm" claim before. The match in which you're referring is when they played in 2011 at the Rogers Masters in either Toronto or Montreal. You claim that Federer was so weak due to his lack of being doped that he lost in straight sets. That's factually incorrect. He lost in 3 sets. He lost a tiebreak in the 1st, won the 2nd 6-4 and got drubbed in the 3rd 6-1. Tsonga played very well. What you fail to factor into your "analysis" is that this was the first tournament played after a little-known, unheralded grass tournament played in London called, I believe, Wimbledon. In that unheralded tournament in 2011 Federer had also lost to a guy with a similar name to Jo Tsonga - his name was Jo Tsonga. So by your logic Federer must not have chosen to juice up for Wimbledon, because on that particular day he couldn't handle Tsonga's power either. He didn't break him a single time in 5 sets (he won the first 2 sets in TB's). You are correct he came back to beat Tsonga in 3 sets about a month later (not a week later as you claim) but none of those sets was 6-1 as you claim. 6-4, 6-3, 6-3. So your logic is that Federer dopes because he got overpowered by a player 2 inches taller and 20 lbs heavier, huh? You sure do "use many criteria." The problem is that none of your "criteria" has any validity.

      My question was when does Federer's power fluctuate? You're 0-1. Care to try again? By the way, if fluctuation in power is one of your criteria, care to comment on Serena's inexplicable loss of power in Ciny 2012 against Kerber, and her subsequent regaining of said power less than 2 weeks later?

      So sure Federer dopes. So sure Serena Williams doesn't. I can barely type that without laughing.

    16. It is not the outcome of the games that is in play, it is the inability to return balls that are too heavy and powerful to his own strength. Regarding the set lost by Tsonga, you must recognize that he has the tendency to take off for sets for whaterver reasons even against players, he should be able to dispatch easily.

  9. Please continue to direct nay-sayers (the handful that are left) to pics of Petra Kvitova's ridiculously flabby, undeveloped arm as evidence that Serena Williams is clean. Are you defending Serena or trying to bury her? It's impossible to tell.

    So Marion Jones' use of PED's didn't make her faster or stronger but maximized her winning potential, huh? Do you even read what you write?

    "Before the steroid era" people were in awe of how high blacks could jump and how fast they could run, not how strong they were. "White Men Can't Jump" worked as a movie title - "White Mean Can't Bench as Much as Black Men" was never made for reason.

    1. yeah right... How could I be so blind??? I forgot that these abilities are important in all sports blacks dominate(without chemical elements being involved) like boxing and many other domains. Ever heard of Teddy Riner???

    2. Yes I have heard of Teddy Riner. Thanks for so aptly proving my point. Teddy Riner is 6'8" and 280 lbs and happens to be black. And by the way if you blindly assume he's PED-free you're an absolute moron. Name one other athlete, black or white or green or red, that is 6'8" and 280 lbs with his quickness and athletic ability that is clean.

      Anyway the point is this: assuming he's clean and assuming there exists somewhere a white 6'8" 280 athlete with relatively the same body fat %/lean muscle % (let's use Rob Gronkowski from comparison sake) the following three points can be made:

      1) It's better than 50/50 that Teddy can jump higher than his Rob
      2) It's better than 50/50 that he can run faster and is quicker than Rob
      3) It's ONLY 50/50 that he can bench, squat, curl, deadlift, etc. more than Rob

      Beyond that, serves in tennis are very very similar to pitches in baseball. Do black pitchers inherently throw faster than white pitchers? NOPE. But if two professional pitchers of the same height, weight and body composition had to sprint 100 yds and you had to pick the winner to save your own life 9/10 people would pick the black athlete to win the race.

      So your ludicrous assertion that Serena Williams, because she's black, has some inherent, built-in pre-disposition to being more powerful than her white counterparts is utterly laughable.

      Maybe you can get Spike Lee to produce a movie called "White People Can't Run to Their Panic Rooms To Hide From Drug Testers As Fast As Black People."

    3. Which white players you're talking about? the doped ones or the clean ones that are no one to be found. If you want to see the clean whites, take a look at the ones with belly in 1930s. Besides, Teddy doesn't. He is faster compared to whites. In Basketball, blacks who are 6'8 and 230+ pounds are twice as faster than their whites counterpart. May be you're not familiar with a lot of sports. No one is his right mind has ever compared blacks and whites in terms of their athletic ability. Check Laurent Blanc who as a coach the french national soccer team proposed that french soccer school revise their criteria away from strength, speed and endurance to allow non blacks to qualify at a higher. What more sport and you will understand. Do you know how long whites have been doping??? probably since the 1930s.
      Serve in tennis has nothing to do with pitching. MOreover, serves and pitching have to do with technic. The better the technic, the easier one can throw faster serves. The taller the player, the faster the serve. There are many factors that don't involve pure physical strength. i remember watching a fight between Anderson Silva and a white man and was like: There is no way this guy could be natural. He looks like a result of a biological experiment and he was indeed caught after a fight that he lost. Once again I was right. Even scientifically, blacks have ticker skin, larger bones, which one develop when exercising. I almost forgot the ultimate test: Sex....No comment lollllll

    4. @Eric Ed: Why don't you just summarise all your comments, up until now, by simply stating: "Say it loud: I'm dumb and I'm proud!"
      Now, this comment of mine, as much as you'd like, has got nothing to do with racism - only with the racism-in-reverse... Know what I mean? I doubt it. Sadly.

    5. "Besides, Teddy doesn't." Oh, ok. How can anyone argue with that logic. And again, if it's obvious to you that Federer dopes and obvious to you that Teddy Riner doesn't you need help.

      If you argued that Serena is faster than her peers because she's black I'd agree. But trying to argue that she's more powerful because she's black is a losing argument. Her recent dominance has nothing at all to do with a quickness advantage. It's power, power, power. That power can't be explained away by "she's a strong, black woman." The power can be explained away by the fact that she has a freakish amount of muscle mass for a woman, black, white, yellow or green. Freakis amounts of muscle mass aren't associated with being black. They're associated with using PED's.

      "Once again I was right." Un, when was the first time, again?

    6. I am 90% right in my statements and that number is so low just because I am humble. I listed many signs that tell if a player is doping. Federer has had few injuries over his entire career and for someone who has broken most of the records and played against some of the athletic monsters the game has ever seen. I just don't think he's done it naturally. When he was dominating against roddick and al these guys, he was always fresh, rarely sweat ( signs you see from post doping Djokovic, Steffi Graff, Henin, etc), never shown signs of exhaustion on his face even after 5 hours matchs that include the highest number of long rallies in tennis matches, at least till he was around 30. Federer just like Djokovic, Steffi Graff, and Henin doesn't breathe as heavily as the situations require him to do. The same signs could be seen from Barca players. When one's body needs to remember to breathe heavily and sweat, there must be agents blocking them because these are natural occurances in all sports. Not only that, Federer is the skinniest guy who is able to battle against the heaviest, tallest, strongest players in all his career without being overpowered. Djokovic is skinny or has become skinny but his forearm is massive and help him deliver powerful blows. In no other sports, weight, height, and corresponding strength have been less of a factor than in Tennis.
      After Henin came back without doping, did you realize how weak her backhand was and how relatively her forehand was compared to her prime. That's what doping does to a person. It allows them to deliver a lot of power without being bulky and play with the same strength as those who under normal circumstances whould obliterate you. Do you remember how Tsonga overpowered Nadal in Aussie, that is more of the norm. For a Federer who at 19 years old couldn't advance past the next round after he beat Pete Sampras during a serve and Volley area, to have more stamina than everyone on the tour with the exception of 2 or 3 guys, is not normal. There are many other factors but I will stop here.
      Serena doesn't dope.

    7. Melchekzanikhar, I always have difficulty reading the whole name. It shows it must have require a lot of equations and dedications to come up with a name like an dthat is to your credit. Unfortunately, you don't seem to own up to your name when it comes to thinking.
      When are you talking about reverse racism when there is no accusation of racism up to this point??? Probably you don't understand what you're saying and therefore will have greater difficulty understanding mine.
      Like I said, there is likeliness in my statement. Making an observation is not racism. I have positive observation in other domains about whites too. Does that make me a racist against my own race? I am an observer, not a believer and no amounts of movies and manipulative propaganda and statements will convince meto live in a reality that doesn't exist.

    8. @Eric Ed.

      It is a great relief to me, and I am sure to others, that no one in real life would ever depend on your views for anything that matters. But you are just not smart enough to see that. Every crowd has a Homer Simpson and I guess, here, you are it. Poor Serena.

    9. richard!

      I don't have the pretention to convince you guys because you usually need to be fed false realities and I am pretty sure the media, writers and movie makers serve you well. I do understand your fears of reality and I sympathize. The real world is for grown men so enjoy your dreams and never let reality unsettle you. If you ever manage to come out of your dreams, remember to look around because reality will chase you down and I don't want to imagine that scene.... Let's name it the final encounter and it will be between a man who forgot to grow and the reality that has been waiting for him all along. I can only wish you good luck since you are a friend of mine after all

    10. And when you're at it, since you're familiar with cartoons and rightly so, you may want to borrow some holex exits strategy from Jerry. That may prove valuable when you gather enough mental strength to get out of your dreams

    11. Baffling. Your comments remind me of a chimpanzee striking a typewriter and words somehow randomly emerging.

    12. Change that. A chimpanzee is an intelligent primate.

    13. Someone seems hurt. Take a look at animals and tell me which race share less features with animals.... You will be shocked by your findings.
      In case I am a chimpanze, as long as i a stronger and smarter than you, I am the norm so I am comfortable with that. I wouldn't wanna be scared of my own shadow and be an ultimate loser

    14. Yep, definitely more sense to be found in a dumb animal. With supporters like you Serena doesn't need enemies.

    15. The silly buffoon has finally revealed to the whole world that Serena has enemies not objective observers. The good thing with kids is that they are easy to understand even though they make very little to no sense.

    16. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    17. Someone who speculates that Federer is doping but cannot even contemplate the possibility that Serena dopes can make no claim to being objective. You are a tedious propagandist, who convinces no one.