Wednesday, March 20, 2013

Retesting Stored Samples: Dr. del Moral's Tennis Clients?

The IOC has announced that it will retest samples from the 2006 Winter Games in Turin. The IAAF recently retested samples from the 2005 World Championships, resulting in five medalists testing positive.

The International Tennis Federation claims to store samples (they haven't disclosed for how long they store them). And it's unknown if they've ever gone back to retest any stored samples.

Does the ITF currently have any stored samples of tennis players that worked with Lance Armstrong's former doctor, Dr. Luis Garcia del Moral? If so, have (or will) these samples be retested samples using the latest anti-doping technology?

Dr. del Moral worked with tennis players through the TenisVal academy starting "approximately 14-15 years ago." So, if the ITF stores samples for 8 years (as the IOC does), they should have quite a few samples from Dr. del Moral clients that could be retested using the latest anti-doping technology.

If there ever was a reason to retest a stored sample, surely working with a doctor banned by the USADA and ITF for life is one of them.

Paging Dr. Stuart Miller...

106 comments:

  1. That would mean they would have to back up their words with action. I'm not holding my breath on this. It would take take some very significant pressure to get them to do these tests, I'm sure they would use some excuse to avoid it e.g 'prohibitively expensive' or some such nonsense.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Is it true Ricci Bitti is trying to find out who you are? The blog used to be slanderous but it really changed since you started

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So a blog author's opinion that tennis has a PED problem ceased to be slanderous when a new author backed up the original author's opinion with severe lack-of-testing data? Seems to me that Sen has bolstered THASP's case. That means THASP's thesis wasn't "slanderous."

      The only way THASP's original opinion would be proven "slanderous" is if tennis doesn't have a PED problem. But you seem to believe it does if you think Sen has "changed" things. Not speaking for Sen but I don't think his intent is to prove that tennis is clean.

      Slander = lies. What lies were put forth on this blog before Sen came along? There may be some opinons with which you don't agree, but that doesn't make them lies or slander.

      If you believe THASP's opinion was a lie then you must also believe Sen's opinion is a lie. They're the same opinion - that tennis players are using PED's.

      Has Sen's approach somehow convinced you that Nadal and Serena are clean?

      Delete
    2. Unfounded accusations about Serena are lies. I know that for sure. For the rest, I think some of them are exagerated. Also, there is no direct correlation between a limited number of tests and the number of players doping. Like you swisscheese40, no test has been conducted on you but it doesn't mean you're doping.
      The difference between Sen and THASP is that Sen uses figures while THASP uses accusations. Noone can quote baseless accusations even if they may end up being true. Sen figures even though inconclusive can be used to make a case.
      slanderous: "false statements injurious to a person reputation" I don't think it is wrong to use it in this scenario even though Sen final conclusions from his statistical data may fit in the slanderous category.
      It is one thing to say there are overall few tests in Tennis. It is another thing to say because there are few doping tests in Tennis, there must be a high level of doping in Tennis.

      Delete
    3. Well done on slandering Sen and THASP there. Hypocrite much?

      Delete
    4. Of course slander can still be truthful (as it generally is about Serena.) The innocent who have been slandered will often sue. Serena doesn't. Neither does Nadal. You wonder why, if they are so concerned about their reputation.

      Delete
    5. Serena doesn't worry about anonymous bloggers. I didn't realize Federer, Djokovic, Murray and the rest sued any blogger yet.

      Delete
    6. So "Eric Ed" are your "unfounded accusations" against Henin, Stosur, Nadal, Djokovic and Federer "slanderous?"......are those crickets I hear chirping in the distance?

      Is it ok for you to "slander" those players while simultaneously whining like a stuck pig that Serena is being slandered?

      Is it ok for you to agree with Sen's and THASP's "slanderous" allegations against, Federer, Nadal and Djokovic, and then cry like a baby when their "slanderous," heat-seeking missiles hone in on a target named Serena?

      You state "Noone can quote baseless accusations even if they may end up being true," This laughingly and embarrassingly shows your total ignorance because there is no such thing as an accusation that is both baseless and true. If an accusation is true it isn't baseless. If it is baseless it can't be true. "Eric Ed" aka "The Thinker" "Eric Ed" aka "The Brainiac" "Eric Ed" aka the "The Hypocrite" Most poignantly "Eric Ed" aka "The Jackass"

      You're the current embodiment of the definition of pathetic. (and sad, too....I HONESTLY feel sorry for you.)

      Delete
    7. Swisscheese40
      Oh my... Which insult(s) will I choose. I enjoy imagination and it may surprise you, but I do enjoy insults too. Not all of them were funny but I see the effort and I am a partisan of hard work.
      I don't see anything in my writing that indicates that my accusations against the players you listed are not slanderous. You may want to clarify me about it. Even when I accuse a player of doping, I could bring many pages of justification other than pictures, to prove my points. But I don't think my arguments should be taken as final evidence to convict anyone of doping. But knowing myself, and being highly humble, I know I am usually at least 90% right.
      Words don't have a single meaning... baseless in this case means unfounded, unproven, and it you paid more attention, you would notice I say ...may end up being true. It means, at the beginning of the process, there is no proof to support the accusations but later in the future, there are conclusive tests.
      I am here to help though in case you need some wisdom. you seem to hold your breath while you're replying to me. Calm down and relax, everything will be fine. No need to jump constantly on your seat, look closely at your screen or rotate my words around just to make a meaning out of them.
      Relax...

      Delete
    8. Professional sportsmen and women do care - a lot - about their reputations. It's a big part of the purse. They have public relations teams to help them look good in the eyes of the public. (Some of them are hacks, writing for the mainstream media.) That they don't carry through with their bluster and sue, as Nadal has previously threatened to do, is not because they fear they will lose - how can they when they have never 'failed' a drug test? - but because a case would be bad publicity, and would open a can of worms. It would easily raise the question in the minds of the public that maybe they are drug cheats after all. To a liar and a cheat like Lance Armstrong, reputation is all - even more than the yellow jerseys - because when it is lost then everything is lost. Serena knows that, too, which is why she hit the 'panic room'. But, no, she won't sue.

      Delete
    9. haha...Always funny as usual. Nadal's situation was getting out of hand. After the french "Guignols" that they were really offended by and not just Nadal but also the Spain National federation of Sports, some threats needed to be thrown out to slow down allegations.
      What you forget is suing is not a good thing for one's public image either and that is why some who do win these cases promise to give the whole money they gain from it to charity.
      Suing the media that claim rights to free speech, satire, and anything one can think of usually turns into a backlash as the media world turns against anyone suing one of them. No matter how nice you are, you don't want to have the media as enemy. you will lose.
      As far of Serena is concerned, the discontents are everywhere and suing when so many who have been willing to see your downfall for so long is not a good thing.
      No public figure that I know of accused Serena of doping. I am not including blogs as everything could be said on blogs. That's how unfortunately many are able to suppress their anger.
      Serena is a nice and wealthy person. She doesn't want to make people poorer than what they already are.

      Delete
    10. Yes, I remember how nice she was to a lines-woman at the USO.

      Of the millions of tennis fans world wide only one is dumb enough to come here and argue blindly that he knows Serena isn't doping.

      Delete
    11. Thou shall not be nice to someone whose job is to mess you up. That lady was on a mission. Any black person knows there is nothing unusual about Serena.
      Serena is a strong black woman

      Delete
    12. And you, Eric Ed, are, obviously, also "on a mission" - either as a weak black man or as a "troll". Well, which self-imposed role is it? Or is it, after all, and God forbid, the third possibility: you being both, that is, a weak black man and a "troll" - "on a mission"?

      Delete
    13. @Ed

      Your excuse for Serena's abuse of a lines-woman insults black people. You are not only dumb but racist.

      Delete
    14. Bad people are racist. Humble people are not.

      Delete
    15. Someone who says he is right "90% of the time" isn't humble. You may not be bad but you sure are dumb. And, yeah - your views are racist.

      Delete
    16. Venus and Serena, 11 and 12 years old.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=p31aGy_jD3E

      Delete
    17. Nothing new... We seen that before. Show us athletes when they were 10 years. Everyone at 12 years is mostly skinny. If you have showed 15 years old, that would be more credible. That's actually pretty silly to show pictures of kids as if all of a sudden we are expected to be fully developed before we are born. It shows what damage discomfort could do to the brain. It is obviously not pretty

      Delete
    18. I always make sure to add that the 90% is mainly because of my humility

      Delete
    19. People are actually responding to this guy? Jesus wept...

      Delete
    20. Well He did cleanse a few like this guy...

      Delete
    21. And here's the thing. It's got the topic off the real issue which is re-testing of samples and instead derailed the thread.

      Delete
    22. Well.. Believers are coming out of the woods

      Delete
    23. Hey Adam, long time no hear... Hasn't cooked up another theory about Serena's success yet? Just curious

      Delete
    24. Melche
      Cut your name to Melche and i will probably understand you better. That zanikhar dimension of your name kind of freak me out

      Delete
    25. Adam:
      The crowd is hungry for good holy news( if french they would call it nouvelles de delivrance). As jesus miraculously pulls a sentence out of his pocket and reads: Serena is strong because....oh hold on, there is no ..white people... in the sentence..... as Jesus makes another miracle to make white appear in the sentence.

      All in the mind, body... all in the mind... sadly so

      Delete
    26. I think we are seeing what it takes to be a fan of a certain unnamed female tennis player. Beyond belief. Time to ring for the men in white coats.

      Delete
    27. By all means, tennis_fan_1982, do feel free to freak out - any time you feel like it. I'd sure do what you ask of me, but, you see, I've yet to hear of any remedy for bad understanding capability, and I also have reasons to doubt that cutting my name short would prove to be the one. (Though, I'll admit, I envy your own distinguished, short, creative, and oh-so readily understandable name, no end!)

      Delete
    28. Congrats Mel, you finally said something interesting. Not bad after so many comments

      Delete
    29. Wow, tennis_fan_Eric Ed_1982, this was a bad mistake on your part, but such are the ways of the ego. No need for me to elaborate on it, though, since I've noticed that some folks below already saw through your ... eh, your problem, and that you graciously (seem to have) admitted to having a multiplicity of sorry personalities. So, farewell, and may your mirror ever be curtained, your sand-glass lay horizontal: I, being only mortal, take my leave ... though I may be back - as soon as you, in your inexhaustible creativity, reinvent yourself again and I, at the same time, happen to have a tumbler or two too much at the end of the day.

      Delete
    30. Why is it so difficult for you guys to be a little more complex. If you can't understand why i am using 2 usernames, it will be 10 times harder for you to understand why serena doesn't dope. For feable minds, only the first thought counts. There are many justifications for
      everything.
      First lesson of wisdom... Beware of the obvious.. I know i can count on you since you seem like a fast learner

      Delete
  3. Apparently Baseball is suing PED distributors. You think the ITF would pursue anything similar against TenisVal?

    http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/03/22/breaking-mlb-sues-biogeneis-anthony-bosch-claims-interference-with-contract/related/

    ReplyDelete
  4. Why test when you already had backdated TUE? It is soo easy to stay clean, isn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Something that occurs to me - isn't one of the problems that tennis faces is the lack of samples.

    The lack of OOC testing for the Williams means that there are few samples to go back and test.

    The loser targeted testing means again that the likes of Nadal will have very few samples stored.

    The thing about retesting samples in athletics or cycling is that they give a lot of samples so there is plenty of material to re-test.

    Maybe Sen or someone could work out how many samples the ITF holds for someone like Nadal or the Williams' based on OOC data and in competition tests.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I bet Nadal didn't expect to get tested at Wimbledon last year when he lost early. Or did he skip it?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Watching a replay of the Murray-Seppi match at Miami. Depressing. Murray is characteristic of the top players now (like Nadal and Djokovic, and Ferrer), with a near impenetrable defensive game through fantastic speed, court coverage, and the ability to feed balls back into court from seemingly impossible positions. And he can do it indefinitely, without apparently tiring. His opponent, Seppi, is typical of many he faces, lacking big weapons or superior consistency or athleticism, and driven seemingly mad trying to find a part of the court than Murray can't get to. Also, when Seppi does have a chance to finish the point near the net or off a short ball, like so many players today, he butchers the shot. Club players would be embarrassed by such blunders. Murray is playing the kind of game that was effectively introduced to the tour in 2004 by Nadal. It destroys most opponents through sheer attrition and backcourt power, and exposes the prevalent weakness in the transition and attacking game of modern players. Few today can volley successfully. Most are afraid to approach the net. Indeed everyone today is effectively a baseliner, but some are clearly much better at it than others.

    I don't know if Seppi is doping, but if he is he isn't taking what makes Murray the defensive machine that he is. I have followed the game for over forty years. To my perception the tennis of the last five years or so is a travesty, because it wasn't possible to play the way we see today until the advent of the physical supermen. And it is so boring and one-dimensional - a test of preternatural endurance more than anything else.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The fans love it though.

      Delete
    2. Richard, wasn't Harold Solomon and his ilk doing this in the seventies with their moonball tactics? What about Borg too?

      I think net play today has been drastically affected by the power and speed that modern pros can apply to the ball. Fast court conditions apart, who would want to approach the net these days other than those occasions when the approach is made simply to put the ball away, Agassi-style. The net today can either be a scary place or a player made to look completely hapless.

      Delete
    3. Peter, the tactics or style of Borg/Solomon might be similar in principle to the base-liners of today but they are like club players in comparison with today's pro's. Everything in the older game appears to be in slow-motion. Partly, that's wood racquets. But when you see historical footage of the older era players they look like kids. Hardly any muscle in evidence. With the older guys there just isn't the same court-speed or power of shot. No screaming winners from well behind the baseline. Sure they were fit, but they weren't sprinting like Bolt while seeming to run a marathon on court. Agassi said recently that in his day he saw guys play marathon matches, but he never saw guys sprint for a marathon. Very telling.

      Another thing to remember is that improvements in racquet technology and strings in the 80's and 90's gave the advantage to the "power" player - either a base-liner like Lendl (and then Agassi) or an attacking player like McEnroe (and then Sampras, and Federer.) The day of the retriever/counterpuncher appeared to be largely over. The principle of the game was that "you can't out-run the ball." Well, that has all changed. The behind-the-baseline grinder is again now supreme - and, yes, he does regularly outrun the ball, despite the enormous pace that it is now hit. It hardly seemed possible but Nadal showed us how, and others are increasingly following suit. The only reason for it is that today's top players in this style have strength, speed and stamina that previous generations of pro could only dream of. You don't get that naturally or we would have seen it earlier.

      Delete
    4. I don't really disagree with you, Richard. In fact I thought your summary above was pretty much on the money. What you remarked about Seppi would equally apply to Cilic today who was driven to the point of exasperation and beyond in his match with Murray. There is a pattern to this, as you say.

      Delete
    5. Watching Murray play I ask myself the question, if he isn't doping then how much bigger faster stronger and more tireless could he get if he did start doping? Hardly bears thinking about.

      Delete
    6. I think he's attained Nadal's prime, physical level, I really do. Some of his recovery shots in the Cilic match were insane.

      Delete
  8. Couldn't agree more. But Fed does have the same level of endurance as the top guys since he is 31 after all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I doubt that Federer could play a single point the way they do.

      Delete
    2. Fed can. He just saves his body from injuries by not chasing all balls. You seem to forget that Federer played many 4 hours, 5 hours games.

      Delete
    3. Being on court for the same amount of time as his opponents does not mean he is playing the same style of tennis. He is not a tireless retrieving counter-puncher playing from way behind the baseline. If he could play that way he would - because it works. By the same token, his opponents can't do what he does. But his game doesn't depend on physical strength and stamina the way that it does for Djokovic, Nadal, Murray, Ferrer, et al. In fact, as he ages he shows a relatively deficiency in those departments compared with his opponents. It is only his craft and shot-making skills that allow him to win against these guys. Sometimes that's not enough.

      Delete
    4. Watch Federer games over again, He plays 95+% from the baseline essentially against the top guns. No way you play 5 hours without running. Running less relatively to your opponents doesn't mean you are not running a lot. Federer will not win a single set against these top players without running. He does cut the rallies short to avoid injuries and fatigue but usually it results in a 3 hours game. There is no way you play 4.5 or 5 hours without running a lot. Go watch some of federer past games if you want on youtube.
      Federer plays from the baseline. he doesn't play serve and volley. He runs less compared to the others and is more offensive but you have to run a lot for that too.

      Delete
    5. Anyone who can't see that a certain unnamed female tennis player built like an armoured personnel carrier could be doping doesn't see very much. No one suggests Federer is walking through these games or playing from an armchair. it is a relative comparison with other players, which clearly you can't grasp. That isn't surprising.

      Delete
    6. Federer almost never plays 4 hour matches and when he does he almost always loses.

      Federer has played ONE 5 hour match in his career (Nadal in 2005). Uno. Un. He lost. So stop saying he's played "many" 5 set matches. You're about as accurate as a broken clock.

      Four hour matches:

      Nadal AO 2009 - lost (4:20)
      Nadal Wimb 2008 - lost (4:20)
      Djokovic USO 2010 and 2011 - lost both (both acutally just short of 4 hours)
      Del Potro Oly 2012 - won and got slaughtered 2 days later because he had nothing left (4:25)
      Nalbandian 2005 WTF - lost (almost 4:30)
      Safin 2005 AO - lost (actually under 4:00)
      Murray 2013 AO - lost (barely 4:00)
      Roddick 2009 Wimb - won (4:15)

      Nine 4-hr matches in a career isn't "many" either. His career record is basically 800-200. So out of 1000 matches in his career 10 of them have lasted 4 hours or more. One percent. Less than one per year. And the point is the only long matches he's won were against a giant (Del Potro) and Roddick in a match that had 80 aces and about 20 rallies of more than 5 shots.

      Serena's power is much more incriminating that Federer's stamina.

      Delete
    7. Also, those two matches that he won were on grass, and won by his serve.

      Delete
    8. Swisscheese, why don't you give us the four to five hour games for the other players? Out of all these matches the only one federer lost due to stamina is the one against safin. He could have won many of the others from the ones against djokovic to the wimbledon final against nadal.

      Delete
    9. I have an even better idea.......why don't YOU do it?

      Also, if you don't think Federer was gassed in the 5th set of the 09 AO final, the fifth set of 13 AO SF and the 5th sets of both Djokovic USO SF's you weren't paying attention. He was obviously gassed against Del Potro, despite the fact that he won, as evidenced by the way he played 2 days later. The Nadal match at Wimbledon barely counts because there was such a long break between the 4th and 5th sets, but I'd argue he was till clearly tired, certainly much more tired than Nadal.

      It's entirely possible Federer dopes but using his 10 4-5 hour matches in his career as evidence don't bear it out. Especially if the premise is that he plays "many" 4 and 5 hour matches.

      Interesting that both you and "Eric Ed," despite being "tennis fans" have a habit of calling matches "games."

      Delete
    10. Eric Ed and Tennis Fam are the same person. Where was it said they are different. I don't know why you always try to focus on a single aspect of an argument. Even if federer played 10 5 hours or 4 hours set, what does it change to the fact that he is one of the greatest defender to ever play the game, and shall I stress, on all surfaces.... He broke all records and is still fresh at the end of year tournaments. Federer is never gased. You are the one making it sound like he was fatigued in 4 hours games.... You don't achieve Federer records without being a freak of nature. Do you remember when Blake called Federer the best athlete in the world? He wasn't talking about technic, but athletic ability. Tennis is extrememly demanding and to think that federer who used to be so fast that he was always in balance for his returns never took anything, is simply unthinkable. People like to say Federer makes everything look easy. Sometimes doping makes difficult moves easy to accomplish. Since Djokovic has been doping, a lot of moves became easy for him and he was also waiting for all balls. When Djokovic said that everyone had their own secrets while he was using the oxygen chamber, it was because behind close doors they know who use substances. He thought he wasn't in the wrong and was happy to share his secret knowing that others do the same. For him, it was the first time they all were on the same playing field, so he was happy to share it with the world. Then he realized he made a mistake.
      Federer doesn't waste time in between points so normally most of his 4 hours games would correspond to Ndal and Djokovic 4,30 to 5hours games. I listed many reasons why I thought Federer dopes. There is no need to focus on the 4hours thing.
      I play Basketball a lot so I will probably keep using game till I stop playing it.
      Eric_Ed, Tennis_fan_1982

      Delete
    11. Eric Ed, tennis_fan. If Fed is proven illegally doping. We can say goodbye to tennis, we can conclude everyone is illegally doping, especially the top 5 who has better physique and brutal playing style. I think Fed might get TUE pass for his back injury, but I didnt see him exploiting the TUE to the point where he become the most powerful with also best recovery and stamina to outplay everyone.

      Delete
    12. I have never said the others were or are not doping.

      Delete
    13. Don't worry about it. No one attaches a whit of credibility to anything you say.

      Delete
    14. In this case, one is for white i assume.

      Delete
    15. No, one is for all. Basic English beyond you?

      Delete
    16. Blacks are too strong to be part of one

      Delete
    17. Yep, they are strong all right. Ben Johnson, Marion Jones, Florence Griffiths Joyner, Barry Bonds, Dwayne Chambers, Linford Christie, Justin Gaitlin, Shelly-Anne Fraser - just to name a few...

      Delete
    18. Even if you chose to list black athletes who doped (Barry Bonds, I am not quite sure... there may be some pride thing going on..), these athletes were still strong before they doped and didn't dope to beat whites. They doped to beat blacks so my point is still valid

      Delete
    19. So it's ok when blacks cheat to beat blacks? If I didn't know how dumb you are I would swear you were pulling my leg.

      (And since you can never get your facts right - there is no doubt Barry Bonds was a doper: he admitted it. He had to - he was on Balco's list of clients. He just tried to say he didn't know he was taking steroids. Sounds like your kind of guy. He shoulda had a 'panic room'.)

      Don't get too discouraged, though. You serve a useful purpose in coming here. You're a "dumb-meter" by which we can measure the sheer stupidity of some comments - like yours.

      Delete
    20. Where did I say it is ok for blacks to dope as long as they are doing it against blacks? You seem to lose sight on the facts in the debate. I replied to one specific point. Read it over and you will understand.
      My point is that Blacks are built strong. Read my comments as many times as you can till you finally get it

      Delete
    21. Yep, we have a new record on the dumb-meter. Congratulations.

      Delete
  9. Quiz for Eric Ed:
    Who has the worst knee in the history of tennis?
    Who has the quickest move to chase every ball from every position, while returning with more power also, in the history of tennis?
    Who has the most muscular body in the history of tennis?
    Who has the best stamina and recovery in the history of tennis?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you're logged into your "tennis_fan" account then "tennis_fan" shows up above your response. You have to be logged in to your "Eric Ed" account for "Eric Ed" to show up.

      Unforced error.

      Delete
    2. Haha...thanks for letting me know... Does 90% (all humility included) sound like he can make an unforced error?

      Delete
  10. Such is my cynicism regarding today's professional game, I'm now reduced to wondering whether Tommy Haas, Florida resident, has been attending one of those fabled, anti-ageing clinics for which that state is now renown. A thirty five year old running around like a spring chicken does raise the eyebrow a tad.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You know what, it is very true to say that this is the STRONG ERA of tennis.. For a specific reason. As Fed said, we cannot compare players from different era. Different era.. Different set of rules..

      Delete
    2. At near 35, Haas is currently playing better tennis than he was ten years ago, when he was no.2 in the world. He just took out the no.1 in the world in straight sets. Watching this octogenarian-equivalent hurtling around the court reminds me of the 80's sci-fi movie "Cocoon", when retirement home residents - boosted by alien power - threw themselves into a burst of break-dancing at a night club. Seemed comical then but I guess it's soon to arrive if today's sportsmen are any indication. (And by the way, it isn't so much Haas's age that is itself the issue - we saw Kenny Rosewall playing into his forties, and Jimmy Connors was a USO semi-finalist at 39 - it is the sheer speed and power he brings to his game that although ten years older than his opponent enables him to completely outplay a probably doped world no.1. Bring on the break-dancing.)

      Delete
    3. I don´t buy gluten-free diet miracles or marathon sprinters on injured knees, but Haas? I´d at least wait until he gets thrashed by Del Moral´s duracell creature, before throwing certain disrespectful comments.
      By exercising their bodies beyond their fingertips, some could learn that great fitness and sports high performance is perfectly feasible at ages their narrow minds judge as too old.

      Delete
    4. So it's "perfectly feasible" for an athlete to reverse the aging process and be better at 35 than he was at 25? Enlighten us.

      Delete
    5. I like Haas, but was pretty suspicious even before Miami.

      Simon said Haas was defending as well as Murray.

      Delete
    6. And Simon defends as well as .. anybody. Maybe they all go to the same doctor.

      Delete
    7. Maybe Haas has just realized that if Ferrer can do it, so can he. Why not? If all the top guys are doping (or most of them) then why not get a piece of the pie? I'm not saying it's right, just saying I can understand it. Nadal comes back after 7 months on hiatus and wins everything in site and no one seems to care so why not challenge that?

      Delete
    8. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    9. Start training seriously, live a healthy lifestyle and you may enlighten yourself, Richard.

      Delete
    10. Well, we have established that you aren't going to enlighten anybody. You have no explanation for how an athlete can become better at 35 than he was at 25, when he was at his physical peak as an athlete and would have been training professionally for many years prior to that. Having been a sportsman all my life, I can come up with an explanation that has little to do with "training seriously", or "living a healthy lifestyle".

      Delete
    11. Right on, Lopi. Keep up that gap between them Moral Giants and them Idolatrous Midgets, both on Mission, open: it's the only passageway to any, however unlikely, beginning of the solution to this unsolvable problem of whether any, some, or all tennis players dope.

      Delete
  11. So, despite a strong first set Gasquet gets worn down by the human backboard Murray, and Haas - also starting well in his match - suffers the same fate at the hands of the roadrunner Ferrer. Maybe Tommy should train in Spain rather than Florida?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So, Haas was just less doped than Ferrer, in the end. Didn´t I tell you?...
      To begin with, not all athletes reach their physical peak at 25. Just like some guys are almost fully developed men by 18, while others still look like kids at 22. Some spend their mid-twenties dealing with unfortunate injuries. If you can´t see these facts, I don´t expect you to understand that one can keep his best or near-best fitness level for a long time, without doping.
      I´m talking about sports where, admittedly playing fitness an essential role, there´s no need to push human body to the limit all the time. Moreover, just by improving technique, not to mention other important capabilities, any tennis or soccer player, for instance, can always become better. Is that impossible beyond 25, too?. I wouldn´t expect such assertions from a "sportsman all his life".

      Delete
    2. So did Tommy give you his autograph, too?

      Delete
    3. Dismissing an athlete for his age is against the very fundamentals of sports.
      Idiocy doesn´t help the anti-doping cause.
      The key to sports degeneration at different levels: too many idiots allowed in and around.

      Delete
    4. I agree. What are you doing here?

      Delete
    5. Try to help genuine sportsmen, sportswomen and true sports lovers; I didn´t come to damage unknown honest people who do their best to keep pursuing their dreams/goals, battling even the aging process.
      Unlike others, unworthy of one more second of my time.

      Delete
    6. Pompous, self important, and naive. You assume Haas can't be doping because you don't want to believe he could be. Any pro sportsman could be, and especially one who is peaking beyond the years of retirement of most top athletes. How many masters age athletes - 35 and above - which is where Haas is - would be capable of beating the current world no.1 tennis player (in straight sets), who is himself clearly not above suspicion here? You dribble on about hard work and training as though Haas had done none of that earlier in his career, and that this in itself would be sufficient to turn back the clock. Do you even know what his training is, and what it was in the past? It must have been pretty serious to put him in the top 5 in the world a decade ago. So Tommy is only motivated to achieve his potential as he is about to acquire a zimmer-frame? Gimme a break. The developmental differences you cite between the ages of 18-22 are irrelevant: at those ages an athlete is still physically improving. But that is not the case - in any top athlete - as he passes the age of 30. This is well-established. We are not talking about making technical changes or improvements to technique, which may help continue a sportsman's career as he ages. Has Haas has changed his game technically? His game is pretty much the same as what I saw ten years ago. No grip changes. But even his opponents are now acknowledging that he is physically up there with the best defenders in the game, like Murray and Nadal. As the latter are likely doping, then how is Tommy keeping pace with them - at ten years older? Don't give us some bull about him suddenly discovering the virtues of hard work. That insults him - as well as our intelligence. If there is one thing this site has latterly established it is that under the appalling weak apology for an anti-doping programme that is run by professional tennis any player who wants to dope could get away with it. No one, including Tommy, can be declared clean and simply "battling the aging process" (which I know something about!)

      Delete
    7. Not so long ago, it was also "well-established" that most people over 60-65 (and I´m not talking about Ethiopia)) could barely move and weren´t far from passing away.
      What a shame that, with all that knowledge about "battling the aging process", such a sublime intelligence has even yet to realize that my point has so little to do with "declaring Haas clean".

      Delete
    8. Then what is your point, if not to maintain that Haas is not doping because we can now "battle the aging process"? Are we somehow now debating the nature of improvements in modern medicine, nutrition or training in combating physical decline, all as a matter of general principle?

      I don't think so. Your initial indignant claim that Haas is being unjustly accused here, and thus cannot be doping, is the only point, and your subsequent opaque and lofty observations about the "aging process" are merely an attempt to slither around a demonstrably untenable and unsubstantiated position by attempting to change the ground of discussion. You are full of it.

      Delete
    9. And you are full of judgmentalism. Don´t be surprised when you harvest indignation.
      Yes, Haas might be doping, just like any other player on the Tour could, if he wanted, given the ITF/ATP policies. Happy?. But there is no need to disrespect and bring up suspicion on ALL athletes over 30 (or 35 or whatever age). By doing so, one becomes no better than a doper: both are damaging to Sports.
      Understood, now?.

      Delete
    10. Sanctimonious drivel - and wrong. No claim was made about all players over 30 (why don't you make it 25 - or even 20 - to suit your specious claims a little better?) This is a website dedicated to the proposition that doping is widespread in tennis, and so there will be speculation that named players are likely to be doping. Dramatic improvements in the performances of much older players legitimately raises suspicion. If you are offended by that I suggest you retreat to the comfort of your favorite fan site.

      Delete
    11. More offended look you when legitimately contradicted. Great display of sportsmanship, again, from mister know-it-all-barely-capable-of-understanding-what-he-reads, now self-proclaimed website owner, too.
      Keep on throwing up your roid-like rage, discrediting yourself. Sorry for the excellent job done by others on this site.

      Delete
    12. .. except for those others here who suggested Haas might be doping. Yeah, you forgot. I didn't raise it.

      Delete
  12. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Battling the ageing process in this age of universal medical redemption, joaneche, involves the ingestion or injection of pharmaceuticals that are not permissable for a tennis player under the WADA code.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Then it´s easy: when a player older than, say, 32?, wins a match, we can ban him for a doping offense. No sampling, no expensive labs required, no budget excuses.
      Whatever. I already wrote what I had to say, clearly enough, I think.

      Delete
    2. I have a better suggestion. Why don't you address the actual arguments - no one here suggests bans on the grounds of mere suspicion - rather than attacking straw men that suit only the expression of your own views. The only thing you have demonstrated is your belief without proof that the aging process has somehow been overcome for older athletes without recourse to doping - yeah, sure - and a misplaced condescension towards opinions that don't match your own.

      Delete
    3. Spreading mere suspicion may become more harmful than a ban to an innocent person. Why don´t you ask yourself what have YOU demonstrated, before demanding?.
      As I said earlier on, for those open to listening, by --really-- exercising and living a healthy lifestyle one can learn that many (not all, but certainly more than imagined) things regarded as impossible are, in fact, achievable. And thus become more tolerant.
      What are the requirements for a physical activity? In the end, just proper functioning of a bunch of biochemical processes in the body. What do PED´s do? They speed up, slow down, block or unblock some of these processes. All drugs do that. The substances we eat do that, as well. And exercise. And sleep and rest. It´s all about finding/keeping the right balance. There are plenty of resources out there, PED´s aside.
      That´s the theory. The best proof, though, is to be found in personal experience, by means of one´s own effort.

      Delete
    4. I thought you weren't going to waste one more second of your time responding? Promises, promises.

      Delete
    5. @ richard: Lay off, man, most of joanache's arguments hold ground, and most of yours (if they be arguments at all) simply don't.
      Now, I don't doubt you've got some empty vitriolic verbosity left in your full bag of such supplies, so - pull it out! It'll be well worth it, you know, since I don't have the patience of a joanache, or, simply put: you'll win!

      Delete
    6. Yes, yes, Richard, off with your head. We can't be having you saying these things now.

      Actually, Joaneche, if you read the evidence (take Tyler Hamilton's book for instance) peds offer a surefire way to guaranteed performance gains. Successful athletes will be following healthy lifestyles anyway so your sound sleep theory can be discounted. The peds provide the performance edge they want, not snoring.

      Delete
    7. I find it amusing that exercise, rest and plenty of fresh vegetables are the magic new formula. Of course athletes have never used these in the past. Clearly, some like Haas didn't start until they were 35. If only we'd known - we would never grow old!

      Delete
  14. The Strong Era of Tennis, The Greatest Omerta of All Time.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Well, if Haas is doping, I would advise him to find a better doping doctor considering that he can't win any five set matches anymore because of his poor stamina.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Haas hasn't played a five-setter this year.

    Not all ped's are for stamina. Some increase strength and power - and even hand-eye.

    What do you think it takes for a 35 year old pro to be able to beat the current world no.1, who is a decade his junior and one of the greatest defenders in the history of the sport, in straight sets?

    ReplyDelete