Thursday, June 27, 2013

Sources...

Shaun Assael of ESPN writes:

"...a source close to the Florida state government investigation of Bosch told ESPN.com that ex-employees of Biogenesis have positively linked Odesnik to a broader group of athletes who received performance-enhancing drugs and masking agents.
"For him to say what he said is nonsense," this source said.

92 comments:

  1. This is great! he can be our Marion Jones.

    ReplyDelete
  2. As a repeat offender, wouldn't Odesnik have to be banned for life now?

    ReplyDelete
  3. If Odesnik told me the sky was blue and grass was green I would have to go outside and double-check because he is a habitual liar.

    Why would the ex-employees lie about Odesnik being a client? Why of all tennis players would they name a low-ranked, obscure tennis player as being a Bosch client? You'd think if they were lying they'd aim higher than a journeyman like Odesnik.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It wasn't the ex-employees that named Odesnik. His name appeared on handwritten notes found at the clinic during the bust. The employees provided further confirmation of his continued doping.

      Odesnik is stuffed basically, but it shouldn't stop there. If he was confident enough to carry on with hGh when he'd already been busted once, it was because he knew the risks of getting caught by the ITF were so low. That's the important inference to draw. And if Odesnik knows, then so does every other player, including fish a whole lot bigger than him.

      Odesnik's case shows just how routine doping in tennis actually is.

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

      Delete
    3. I am wondering how the ITF will react. Maybe they are doing something behind the scenes that we don't know about, but it seems they are putting forth little effort to uncover any truth about Biogenesis. If Odesnik is still playing at this time next year, then we will have further confirmation about how little the ITF cares about doping in tennis.

      Delete
    4. I tend to think that they will be like the UCI in cycling. They'll throw Odesnik under the bus in order to save the bigger names. This way they can claim to be tough without doing anything.

      Delete
  4. Off Odesnik topic, but on doping topic.
    Niki Pilic suspects Nadal of doping.
    "As far as Nadal is concerned, I am very suspicious regarding him. The Spaniard plays Roland Garros in fantastic shape two years in a row, and then is like a flat tire at Halle and Wimbledon."
    - What precisely do you have in mind?
    "I don't have proofs that he dopes, but where there's smoke, there is fire. But, I'm not the one who's supposed to be the judge or discover things. There are officials in tennis in charge of those things, and it is their job to pay attention".
    Pretty strong, more direct than Noah. And Pilic is not a nobody either.
    Interview was given to Serbian daily Novosti.
    Link: http://www.novosti.rs/vesti/sport.296.html:441218-Pilic-Federer-me-je-iznenadio-Rafa-mi-je-sumnjiv

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Really interesting - the most direct comments yet within the field.

      Delete
    2. Wow! Is the first time someone has actually used names? Wonder what Nadal will say?

      Rochus, Noah, and a couple of others say doping is a big problem in tennis but I don't remember them naming names (although Noah did target Spanish athletes, he still didn't name any outright).

      Delete
    3. I forgot one sentence.
      After he says Nadal is like a flat tire (actually more along the lines of 'a tire full of holes'). He adds: "This is definitely not a coincidence".
      Wow... Thank you Mr.Pilić for speaking of top players doping! Nadal being the most flagrant for now.

      Delete
    4. I wonder if sen can contact pilic and get him to write more articles on lack of transparency in tennis and use this site for data etc. this is a great break through as is what is happening on the woman's and men's side of Wimbledon right now. Lets just hope the momentum of trying to catch drug cheats finally is starting to swing in our favor.

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

    ReplyDelete
  6. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hey SnR, it looks like some tennis writers have started to directly speak out Nadal. Check this out from a guy called Michael Emmett:

    http://oncourt.ca/?p=6329
    Michael Emmett: “Is There a Connection between Rafa and Lance?”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And what is scarier, the outspoken suspicions by Michael Emmett or the nasty comments of angered readers asking him to shut up!

      Delete
    2. I think the outspoken suspicions. This is the first article I've read where someone directly accuses Nadal of using PEDs. Very gutsy. More writers like Emmett need to step up and confront this issue. To me it feels like Nadal's use of PEDs is an open secret on the tour and some are too scared to speak out. So kudos to Emmett for not being afraid to approach the issue.

      Delete
    3. Big kudos to this guy. He is sure to outline that this is simply his opinion that he would bet every penny he has that Nadal is using. The usual 'we need proof' brigade are there, failing to realize this.

      It doesn't take an official outing of a player to arouse a lot of confidence in the fact they are cheating. The fact that it really, really looks like they are cheating is enough. Historically, such confidence has rarely been misplaced, and in cases less suspicious than this one too.

      In hindsight, it was extremely obvious to everyone that Lance Armstrong used (to many it was all along). I feel like we can skip the hindsight this time. This guy has used. Bet your house on it.

      Delete
    4. Wow, that is a gutsy article which minces no words in pointing out the obvious. I hope this is the first among many such articles about obvious doping in tennis from various journos who so far have been silent and hiding behind the no proof curtain of shame.

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

      Delete
    6. Surprisingly, many of the comments on that site support the author. I find his mention that coaches are openly discussing what PEDs Nadal is using to be pretty revealing (if he is telling the truth).

      I think more and more people are finally opening their eyes to the fact that the King of Clay's crown is teetering on the edge of his head. Nadal has had far too many suspicious circumstances occurring for his form to be "natural."

      Delete
  8. If you think tennis is in the dark ages when it comes to clamping down on doping then it is positively enlightened compared to football.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/athletics/23102724

    ReplyDelete
  9. Nadal is hardly the only offender though. Djokovic looked like a player fro another planet yesterday. I never saw someone play such a perfect match.. in the words of Lance Armstrong, "not normal"

    And Janowicz, who is now third favourite for Wimbledon, also looks rather suspicious. Crunches down unreturnable serves, accompanied with grunts of barely controlled anger, suggesting likely roid abuse.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As a firm believer that tennis does indeed have a very significant steroid problem, I don't think it's good for the movement to expose the cheats when people perpetuate blown-out-of-proportion concepts like "roid rage" with suggestions that someone utilizing "grunts of barely controlled anger" is suggestive of steroid abuse.

      That sort of extremism is similarly silly to that of apologists who insist tennis is a clean sport and Rafael Nadal is just a gym rat.

      Delete
    2. I tend to agree. Someone grunting and hitting good serves is worlds apart from the body of circumstance that surrounds a player like Nadal. Said body spans about 8 years and features an incredible amount of suspicious developments. Let's wait and see before we put Janowicz in the same boat.

      Djokovic is indeed suspicious, if only for his incredible sudden improvement at the turn of 2011, at 23/24 years of age, to go from perpetual, retirement prone world no.3 (for 3 - 4 straight years) to unstoppable world no.1 (by a landslide) due to a 'gluten free diet'. Add to that his Nadalian efforts at the AO 2012, where he basically echoed Nadal's mythical feat of endurance and recovery from AO 09, and you have a fishy situation. Janowicz has yet to demonstrate such crazy anomalies.

      Delete
    3. I agree with Marcus and Adam. Everybody can take a bathroom break or grunt or scream. Nobody can play a slam final for 6 hours without "help".

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

      Delete
    5. Agree with the 3 comments above. If we said that everyone who grunted doped,then the WTA wouldn't have any players left.

      Nadal, Djokovic, and Ferrer have loads of circumstantial and suspicious evidence of them being dopers, Janowicz doesn't even come close to suspicion in regards to the bigger names on tour.

      Delete
  10. Djokovic is indeed suspicious but there are so many more reasons to have doubts about Nadal, can't even compare the two in this respect

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's different for me. Nadal is the only one I have absolutely no doubts about :-)

      Delete
    2. That's actually what Julien intended to convey. He meant "so many more reasons to have doubts" about Nadal's integrity, not his use of PEDs.

      Delete
    3. Djokovic has gone from average physical-fitness player on tour
      to the best one over night from somebody who is spent after few sets to guy who after 2 sets seems to be just warmed-up and starts to physicly dominate (fed,rafa,tsonga,andy have all experienced djokovic`s "physical-fitness level that goes only up during 5 sets, faking between point and after match does not count)

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

      Delete
  11. And Serena is out to Lisicki. The fight from Lisicki when down 0-3 in the third set was incredible.

    This has been the wackiest Wimbledon that I can remember in quite some time. I have no freaking clue who will win on the women's side - it is as wide open as I have seen it in years.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unbelievable!! I never thought this would happen in a cudgellion years given superhuman serving and pounding from Serena. Wow! I am liking this Wimbledon. This is what tennis should be like. Not sure who's gonna win or even make the finals is what Itz about. Now, if we can just avoid a Murray/Djoko final.

      Delete
    2. Lisicki is not without suspicion. She had a suspicious period of poor form followed by a surge. She is also a Florida-based player.

      Delete
    3. Ah yes. I remember Lisicki's amazing run awhile back and commentators asking what it is. She said gluten-free diet. that was about the time Djoke was having his run and gluten-free was the key. But Itz nice to have a more even playing field on the woman's side. But, of course, wish it were drug free. Murray just went for a bathroom break before the third set---hmmmm...

      Delete
    4. Well it is encouraging that even the biggest cheaters in sports don't win every time. If anything is shocking it's that Williams in her 30s was so dominant on her worst surface and now proves to be human on her best.

      As far as Lisicki is concerned, she's ranked outside the top 20 and has never reached a slam final. She's never even gotten to a QF in any slam but Wimbledon. If you want to be "suspicious" of everyone on tour be my guest, but then you might as well stop watching sports altogether.

      Delete
    5. Serena losing made my day. Today's loss reminded me a bit of her loss to Razzano at the French last year. She already seemed to have the match in the bag, but she suddenly went off the boil and made some really weird mistakes.

      Delete
    6. Well, if you look at the serve statistics, the question comes out, if Serena is doping, then why would you not suspect Lisicki?

      Fastest: 123 for Serena, 122 for Lisicki.
      Average 1st 108 for both
      Average 2nd 89 for Serena 85 for Lisicki.

      This is on the same court using the same radar gun under the exact same conditions -- because they were playing each other. If you look over at Djokovic and Haas, played on the same day on the same court using the same radar gun (but at a different time of day), the fastest serves were 126 and 123. So Serena has just as "big" a serve as Haas, and Lisicki is 1mph behind.

      As such, if Serena is "serving like a man," then so is Lisicki. Either that, or Haas is "serving like a girl."

      I am not aware of any other women serving in excess of 120mph in the tournament, but perhaps someone will fill me in. It is odd that Lisicki and Williams can break 120 in almost every match they play in given that they are listed as 5'9" and 5'10" respectively. The only male 5'9" player for which serve data is available in this tournament is Ferrer (no serve data on Mike Russell), and he serves about the same speed as both of them -- tops in the 120s, averages about 110-12.

      Note: The use of the same radar gun is important, as different guns and systems of measurements have different calibrations. So, please don't post, "Yeah, but XXX player in Farmville USA's juniors futures tournament served 150 mph and she is only 5'2"." To have any meaningful comparison, the numbers must be from the same type of gun in roughly similar conditions. As such, comparisons from within the same major tournament are useful, but comparisons to last year or some other tournament don't really mean that much because there is no way to determine if the guns were calibrated in a similar fashion.

      Delete
    7. Lisicki might very well be doping. I have stated several times that because tennis testing is so poor, every player - fair or not - is under suspicion.

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

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

      Delete
    10. Apparently, Lisicki is "allergic to grass" and has to take "medications" to deal with this: http://www.thetennisspace.com/sabine-lisicki-interview-i-used-to-hate-grass/

      So, it is possible that Lisicki can shoot up adrenaline whenever she plays on grass -- no doubt with a TUE to cover this "medication."

      Maybe Nadal will announce that his poor performances at Wimbledon have been caused by grass allergies, for which he has found a "medication."

      Delete
    11. well this just blows my mind. It's amazing that her best surface is also the one she's allergic to. Or maybe it's no coincidence at all! I'm sure whatever she takes to combat the allergy is some type of steroid. Anyway, she beat Serena so I can't knock her. I guess it's just a matter of fighting fire with fire.

      Delete
    12. Basing a reasoning on serve's speed is inaccurate and very limited. Not only nothing guarantees that all men must be stronger than all women, but the best stats will be the speed of the balls during the rallies. I am pretty sure from that, you will understand that Serve speeds tell very little about the strength of the players.
      What is hard to understand is why you guys take so long to understand basic things.

      Delete
    13. Ok, this revelation is very interesting because Lisicki's ingestion of medication seems to coincide with the part of the season where she gets by far her best results. Although her game translates well to hardcourts, she hasn't won a title on it in 2 years and I can't remember the last time she reached the quarters of a hardcourt slam (maybe she never did). I wouldn't rule out that whatever she's taking (legally due to TUE) has a performance enhancing effect.

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

      Delete
    15. And speaking of TUE's, according to this article in The Telegraph, Kirsten Flipkens is using blood-thinning drugs:

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/tennis/wimbledon/10156067/Wimbledon-2013-Kirsten-Flipkens-stuns-Petra-Kvitova-to-book-her-first-ever-semi-final-place.html

      Delete
  12. better gluten-free diet than panic room

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What is surprising is that Serena's performance hasn't changed even though there was no panic room (story of the haters) incident since then. On the other hand we have a lady who overpowers two muscular women in back to back games and who is on a diet that turns weak players like Djokovic into superheroes.
      Simply ridiculous

      Delete
  13. And let's not forget Serena is the oldest woman to ever hold the #1 ranking. How much longer can that farce continue?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Yeah, surely, Sibine Lisicki must be doping, since she has just beaten Serena Doped-to-the-Gills Williams. As sure as Robin Söderling is for the third time (and counting) serving his 9-months doping-sentence (eh, THASP?).
    Now, what I'm trying to say is the following: don't be as fucking childish in your jumps to conclusions as the proverbial Boreman and his avatars were/are/will be. Otherwise, spare us your stupid reasonings, as well-intended as they may be.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So what "medication" is Lisicki taking then? For her "grass alergies?" (See http://www.thetennisspace.com/sabine-lisicki-interview-i-used-to-hate-grass/ where she admits taking medication.)

      No doubt some herbal remedy grown in the Bavarian alps that is 100% natural and not on any banned substance list.

      She has admitted taking "medication." Frequently, the medication for allergies is found on the banned substance list. Not saying she doesn't have a TUE, but if you shoot up a PED, it is doping, whether you have a TUE or not.

      The WADA has ranked "allergies" the #2 reason TUEs are granted (after #1 Asthma). http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/Science_Medicine/Scientific%20Events/TUEC_Symposium_Strasbourg_2009/WADA-TUEC-Symposium-TUE-Screening-Process.pdf

      It doesn't take a genius to "jump to conclusions" that Lisicki has allergies to grass, she is taking medication for these, these medications are the #2 reason that TUEs are granted to any athlete -- therefore there is some reason to believe that Lisicki might be taking substances that require a TUE -- but please, tell us all this herbal remedy for allergies so that millions of people can avoid the high cost of prescription drugs for their allergies.

      I don't think she is taking OTC medication as she indicated that it was a sever allergy and had it been as simple as taking some OTC pills, she wouldn't have bothered to mention it. No doubt she gets headaches, etc and takes some aspirin/Motrin/etc for these -- you don't see her discussing it at a press conference.

      Given that corticosteroids are prescribed in 20% of the TUE's that are granted -- I might jump to the conclusion that she has a TUE for corticosteroids. Probably has one for epinephrine (adrenalin) for "emergency" situations. (Note, some corticosteroid products are not even banned and do not require a TUE. Others are permitted out of competition but not in competition. See http://www.usada.org/prohibited-list/athlete-guide/ ). See https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2657490/ for description of the use of corticosteriods in sports noting "Glucocorticosteroids have been used by athletes to improve their performance since the 1960s, but their use is restricted in professional sports."

      Delete
    2. I was censored (post was deleted) for pointing out how absurd MTracy's allegation of Lisicki "shooting up" adrenaline during matches was. It's a shame the credibility of all of the objective posters here is overshadowed by a minority of extremists, but given that moderation appears to be on the side of the nuts, I won't waste my time replying on this blog again.

      Delete
    3. @MTracy
      One of the article you linked says: "it should be stressed that a measurable performance enhancing effect of glucocorticoids could not be proved on the basis of the results of the scientific studies to date".
      Check out side effects of corticosteroids, they don't sound like a good choice for doping, rather quite the opposite.

      Delete
  15. I take it as a general rule of thumb that any woman who can hit the ball as hard as a male pro is doping, as is any player - male or female - who routinely grinds their opponent down while not succumbing to fatigue themselves. Neither is natural.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And as a further rule of thumb, Richard, I'd go as far as saying that any player making the top ten can be regarded as suspicious, on the basis that doping is probably what it takes these days to get there.

      Delete
    2. I think that goes for pretty much every sport. The only way you can make it to the top is with the best doctor you can afford.

      Delete
    3. Peter, the top ten is too arbitrary a cut-off point. Doping could extend well into the top 100, for the essential reasons that it improves performance and is difficult to detect. At every level, there are players who would look to gain improvements by whatever means they could. However, despite that, not all players are equally suspicious. There are many factors that might suggest doping, and not all players - even top players - demonstrate these.

      The question I imagine that faces any professional sportsman or woman would be, "if your living depends on professional success and doping will certainly enhance your chances, would you do it?" (Particularly if you don't think you will be caught.) Also, if you believe others are doing the same, the question becomes "why wouldn't you?" To not follow suit is to lose out.

      Delete
    4. I was only plucking a figure, Richard. That, and the comment made to me once by a challenger-level ATP player that "all top ten players dope, Federer, Nadal, the lot." He was adamant that plenty of doping was going on and felt the ATP was shielding the top guys. And I think this was said before the Agassi autobiography revealed his suspicion as well-founded.

      Odesnik, to me, is no out-of-the-ordinary player. The Bosch revelations, to me, are indicative of doping's routine nature.

      Delete
    5. I think it depends on the athlete, their medical condition, and how much they could benefit from doping. For instance, take Raonic. I don't think he dopes because it would not benefit him significantly. (Maybe he is also a "nice" guy, honest, etc, but I am just taking about the incentive to dope.) His game is not a "grid them down" type of game and he already has enough strength/power in his game -- which comes from his large frame, not extremely powerful muscles.

      Also, there are just medical facts that some people will respond differently to steroids than others. If a player has an issue with high blood pressure, then steroids like testosterone or EPO could greatly compound this problem.

      Tyler Hamilton had said that what steroids did was make it about the person who adapted best to the use of steroids rather about who was the better "natural" athlete. For example, if you have a natural hematocrit of 50%, you might be a great endurance athlete. However, if you naturally have a 40% and can boost it to 50% with EPO safely, then you have essentially "leveled" the playing field.

      So, I am sure that some athletes are clean. In terms of top 10, perhaps Tsonga is clean -- for similar reasons as Roanic. His sudden loss in weight does raise flags, but you could look at the "old" Tsonga and say "If he got in shape, he might play a lot better." Well, he got in shape, and not much changed, but probably the less weight will extend his career. Also, Wawrinka -- he is basically dead after a 5 set match, so if he is doping, he isn't getting much for his money. Tough to say about hGH -- it is basically undetectable unless you are stupid enough to carry it in your bag going to Australia, so maybe the big guys are using it to recover.

      On the women's side, I would like to think Radwanska is not doping -- certainly doesn't have power or much endurance. Maybe taking some type of ADHD drug as she has great focus, but doesn't show any indication of this. I think Sloan Stephens is clean as well -- but will need to dope if she is going to break through. (She is not in the top 10 currently.) Sharapova has also never stuck out as a doper either, but 6'2" as a female is basically the same as 6'10" for a male, so similar reasons as above apply -- though if Sharapova started on anavar, she could probably stop being Serena's bitch. Again, tough to say with hGH and her injuries, but nothing jumps out like some of the top 10 male players and their "injuries."

      Delete
    6. Maybe sloane stephens can break through because she is young and will naturally improve?

      Delete
    7. It will probably not happen. She would be labeled a doper once she starts winning and beating a certain category of people. People are taking it easy on her only because she seems so satisfied with losses just like Tsonga and that clown Monfils

      Delete
    8. What rule of thumb? Is is a rule of dumbs? Black women beat their husband all over the planet.Blacks are built differently.

      Delete
    9. It must have been very hard for you at school - always being the dumbest guy in the class.

      Delete
    10. I would hope that Sloane could break into the top 10 clean. She is 5'7" -- about the same as Aga Radwanska but has a lot more power. The issue is not so much whether she can get into the top 10 clean -- probably can, but whether she can stay in the top 10 and compete with the top players. If you play enough tournaments, you can get a pretty high ranking (Wozniacki). Whether she can win grand slams and be considered a top player takes a little more.

      Clearly, she can beat Serena. However, what she needs in order to do this on a consistent basis is more speed and power. I think she has done the best she can with what nature has given her, and certainly the USTA player development program is excellent, so it is not like she lacks the resources to properly train.

      Ultimately, she will have the same problems as Radwanska. That is, can a 5'7" clean player beat 5'9"+ players who are doping? (As well as the 5'4" ones that dope.) On the other hand, she clearly does have "focus" issues in that she seems to not care about portions of matches or some matches all together. Typically, this is something that players overcome as they get older, but as cited above, Tsonga and Monfils provide counter examples. Hopefully Sloane can overcome this as she fun to watch and has a far better personality than the likes of Azarenka.

      I'll also comment on Kvitova. I don't think she is doping, but I do think she has PCOS which gives her a significant amount of testosterone naturally. This explains her "spare tire" figure and acne. It is not clear whether a TUE for PCOS would improve performance, though a couple of the treatments are included on the banned substance list. (http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/Science_Medicine/Medical_info_to_support_TUECs/WADA_Medical_info_Infertility_POS_3.0_EN.pdf)

      Delete
    11. I'm a big fan of Sloane and unlike other WTA players who shall remain nameless, there is little evidence she is doping. I was rooting for her to make it to the finals on the bottom half but, alas, it wasn't meant to be. I would hope she can get to the Top 10 clean.

      As for Kvitova, I'm not discounting doping at all, but that "spare tire" might also be due to the fact that she doesn't train as hard as she should. She is also a mental midget (which describes a good 75% of the WTA tour). I know she has said she doesn't like playing in the States - she says the air quality here is bad for her "asthma."

      Delete
  16. @Marcus Blackfellow: Woke up today & realized I had as many Tour de France wins as Lance Armstrong... and twice as many testicles!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I mean, can't we give Lance Armstrong a break? I tried riding a bike once on drugs. If anything it was a lot harder! I was in a hedge within seconds...

      Delete
  17. I'm heartily sick of these Murray/Nadal/Djokovic marathon matches - their movement actually seems to improve after 3 hours+ on the court - so much so that opponents find it hard to hit past them - even on fast surfaces. They should be tired by this time.

    On the plus side well done to JMDP for beating that miracle of modern medicine Ferrer. No idea whether the Argentine is clean or not but certainly he's a guy who has had a lengthy layoff for a genuine injury and (as would be expected) taken a long time to return to form - not beating everyone in sight like he'd never been away. Plus he looks genuinely tired at the end of long matched not looking like he's ready to run a marathon.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's the type of tennis that makes it sick to watch-- hitting all balls from every angle anywhere on the court at all moments and getting fresher as the match goes on. So fresh in fact, that Itz as if the match just began. And u got to literally be a machine to get past that type of tennis. And verdasco is very suspect of doping, so imagine the level of juice it takes to take him down. Well, looks like headed for a Murray/ Novak marathon. I hope I'm wrong.

      Delete
    2. Right now, I am expecting a rather one-sided final. Murray seems to be struggling with the expectations again while Djokovic has been steam-rolling the competition. It's hard to see him not winning his second Wimbledon. As much as I dislike Nadal, I am grateful for one thing: That he stopped Djoko at the French Open.

      Delete
    3. Don't count Murray out. He's one of those players who always looks like he's gonna lose, esp with grabbing this part of the body/ that part of the body, but b/ c he manages to get to every ball from anywhere on court and hits it with substance, plus has lot of energy toward end of matches, serves and returns greatly, he's pretty evenly matched with djoker. And he wants Wimbledon badly. He's a very deceiving player in his mannerisms vs. the way he actually plays.

      Delete
  18. Jerzy Janowicz is in the semis! I hope he can thrash pusher Murray. I know some here don't like JJ but I watched a few of his matches and actually like his style of play. He looks to attack, is good at the net and throws opponents off guard with surprise dropshots. He is certainly not looking to grind away for 5-6 hours like the "elite" players.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, Murray certainly passed "the rule of thumb" test yesterday. Of course, the commentators will marvel how he is "as fresh as a daisy" when he plays his next match.

      Delete
    2. He has a fun game to watch b/c he's so huge but moves pretty well for such a big guy and has remarkable touch/grace with drop shots, volleys u wouldn't expect. Would be nice to see a delpo/JJ final. Both of them r very emotional in a sincere way that's good for the sport. But seems unlikely. Think it was jon Wertheim who said Murray/Djoko finals r very boring.

      Delete
    3. Yup, Muzza Djoker is a boring match up outside of the competitiveness and possible resulting drama. The actual quality of play is tiresome. US and AO finals were two of the worst I've seen. Never again please. Having said that, I prefer Murray's grass court game, and he could make it at least 1% interesting with some of his slicing and dicing.

      JJ is a very exciting player and as you've said, seemingly sincere in his emotions. He kind of reminds me of Goran in that respect. I hope he can achieve great things with his attacking brand of tennis, so that proactive artistry can overcome reactive athleticism.

      Delete
    4. I like JJ as well. He's very exciting to watch and I would choose attacking tennis over endless grinding and retrieving any day of the week. A JJ/DP final would be wonderful indeed.

      Delete
    5. A Janowicz-Del Potro final would be a treat for me at least.

      The Djokovic-Murray matches are utter borefests, I don't care how long they are. Even if it's Janowicz-Djokovic or Murray-Del Potro at least it would be something different.



      Delete
  19. "PEDs aren't going to help a tennis player..."

    http://www.sportsnet.ca/curling/canadian-curler-suspended-for-two-years/

    Yet apparently, doping has benefits for curlers. Nice try, Mr. Miller.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Have a good laugh at this guys. I think we all know what he means by testing the right people at the right time!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/tennis/23152605

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is a good laugh. "Dr." Miller offers up this pearl of wisdom: "What you try to do is have a programme in place that detects doping where it exists." Really? Gee, good thing that hundreds of thousands of dollars a year go to this guy's salary rather than to actual tests.

      Delete
  21. Heard this clown on the radio this morning - seldom have I heard anyone less interested in testing and catching cheats.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Does anyone else feel sad that Radawanksa was beaten by her opponent in the semi-final, Sabine Liscki, in what was truly a triumph for power and gym work (and god knows what else) over a good tennis brain and superior skill?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. Yes. I actually like Lisicki, but was rooting for Aga because she plays tennis the way it was meant to be played. Sadly, I'm starting to think her only chance at winning a Grand Slam is to get on the juice like many of her peers on the WTA Tour.

      Delete
    3. Daniel, I, for one, do not "feel sad". Why should I? Try to see the larger picture: it'll be a field day for women's tennis, regardless of who wins the title, since it won't be SW, MS, VA... For me, the encounter between these two ladies was a rare occasion to enjoy the game and not care about who'll win it. For, you see, there is a (mostly unrecognised) possibility of liking both competitors. And then, your "a triumph for [sic] power and gym work (and god knows what else) over a good tennis brain and superior skill" is as subjective as subjective goes - apart from the fact that, yes, SL (by her genetics to start with!) happens to be more powerful than AR... so what? SL is as fine a player as AR is, and there is no single objective reason why "god knows what else" should be applied (or not) to one and not to the other. Cheers.

      Delete
    4. I'm not sad at all. I like seeing fresh faces in the final. I thought the semifinal between Radwanska-Lisicki was fairly high quality (especially considering how awful women's tennis has been the past couple of years - and before you criticize me for saying that, I'm actually a huge fan of the women's game).

      3 of the last 4 women's Slam finals have been highly competitive and have gone the distance, hopefully this one will be a good one too.

      Delete
    5. Lisicki seems to show markers of PED use, and has already thanked her gluten-free diet for her marked improvement from insignificant nobody into top ten player, so I wouldn't jump for joy that she is succeeding. Does anyone believe she is a great tactician, or just very strong? The point is that players like Lisicki and the Williams sisters have largely beaten players by overpowering them rather than outplaying them, and the same goes for the men's game. It is unfortunate to see players who clearly have great court sense, skill and finely honed strategic thinking beaten by others who have nothing over them beyond brute strength, and racquet technology that does the rest of the work for them.

      Delete
    6. Samiracle (or is it, Daniel-in-disguise?): your "finely honed strategic" commentary "seems to show markers" of utter fannish subjectivity, as well as (its corollary) hate toward anyone happening to beat the one you happen to be a fan(atic) of. As such, it necessarily ends up being... how shall I put it... well, a load of rubbish. There.

      Delete