Monday, April 18, 2016

Case Closed

Novak Djokovic ends the debate: "As long as we don’t have proof that game is not clean, then it is clean [...] I think it all comes down to anti-doping agencies, governing bodies; they need to come out with proofs, if they don’t it’s only rumours. I’m proud to be part of a sport that is clean."


  1. Oh dear. Well I guess he's clean then. ***eye roll***.

  2. Novak Djokovic and Serena Williams have won Laureus Sportsman and Sportswoman of the Year. How sweet.

  3. Funny how this site and are polar opposites in terms of comments on a similar post. only, the comments there are 100X more than here. i have no faith in things ever being revealed now

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

  5. So who are these players who can play six-hour matches and never tire? No one seems to know who they are. All we know is they cannot be those who obviously fit the description. They tell us that themselves. "Who - moi?" There is therefore no "proof". Ergo, the sport is clean. Business as usual. And the band played on.

  6. How can any vaguely intelligent individual (which includes Djokovic) decide that lack of a positive is "proof" of the negative. These people need a lesson in basic logic. But don't let that get in the way of the tennis media reporting Becker's strange rant and Djokovic's insubstantial words as though they have the high moral ground.

    Djokovic and Becker also ignore the fact that quite a few players actually have been caught (if they didn't refuse the drug test in the first place). So how can they say it is a clean sport? If Djokovic really was clean he would say things that are forceful, such as "I don't think tennis has a big problem, apart from the ones already caught, but if anyone else is doping, I want them caught! Of course we can never know for sure that the top level is clean, but I am certainly clean and I think most are, but I still want to step up anti doping testing to make sure we catch any dirty rotten cheaters out there."

    But instead, we get the vague, same non-committal comments we are used to hearing from him. I await Federer to be asked about this stuff also.

  7. 1) Here is the inscription written by Djokovic in his book "Serve To Win"!!

    "To my family and friends,
    to my coaches and teammates,
    who has worked hard to help me making my dream come true.

    To Jelena Ristic, she is everything to me.

    And to Serbian people"

    To Serbian people??

    He has been living in Monte Carlo ( a famous European tax haven! ) for ages since he was just a teenager, he hasn't paid a cent of taxes in Serbia ( the poorest country in Europe!! ) and he has even dedicated his book to Serbian people??

    "You Cannot Be Serious!!!!" by John McEnroe, tennis legend.

    2) Apart from that, in his book, he said that the definitive turning point in his career was only the gluten free diet; about couple of years ago, he denied it because in an interview he said that his great success is also based on other important factors, journalists asked him to tell them something about it but he said that it was a professional secret!!

    I had already written a post ( reported the exact link ) about this fact in this blog!!

    3) In his website, tennis shoes made by Adidas ( his sponsor for tennis shoes ) branded as "Novak Pro" are sold ( )but they aren't at all the same tennis shoes used by Djokovic when he plays tennis because he always wears special shoes insoles made only for him by a very skilled Jewish artisan in Israel!!

    I had also written a post ( reported the exact link ) about this fact in this blog!!

    4)The CVAC pod device always used by Djokovic meets two of the three criteria for inclusion on the Prohibited List by WADA and as a logical consequence, it should be on that list.

    My posts and complete discussion about this issue on:

    5)Not to mention the "Magic Gas of Djokovic"!!
    I already sent an email to THASP about it!
    For a spoiler:
    "Wada brings in ban on xenon and argon, but has no test"

    In conclusion, as "three clues make a proof" and in this case we have much more than just 3 clues, whenever Djokovic speaks about doping and anti doping, he is just telling a story for tennis fans and servant sport journalists!!

    Best regards.


    PS as far as "servant sport journalists", they are the vast majority, almost 95%-98%!!

    What a strange coincidence....!!

    1. THANK YOU, Fabrice. We need a 'love button' here. This person and countless others would like to just see this subject die, BUT IT WON'T! We won't let it, and another like in the dam is bound to show up eventually! May it not be that someone has to expire from their excesses before real TRUTH is made known.

  8. This is more a summing up than new info but it's great that it's receiving coverage, however it happens. And I have to say, Andy Murray has grown up and maybe, just maybe, it isn't because of doping, which would be an encouraging thing compared to some of his fellow players:

  9. "Passed tests mean clean athletes" " accusations require proof"
    Djokovic sounds exactly like Lance Armstrong did...... Makes me nauseated.

    1. And seems as if someone at the Washington Post agrees with me......
      Good read

    2. If Djokovic was sponsored by Nike, I think I know how the Ad would sound......

      "What am I on? I'm on my gluten-free diet and busting my *** in a CVAC pod 8 hours a night. What are you on?"

    3. @arcus

      Thank you very much for the link!!
      They have just crushed Djokovic!!
      The most ironic thing is that Djokovic had said that Sharapova's communication strategy in the Meldonium case wasn't good at all !!

      In other words, he who lives by good communication ( telling stories to cheat like Djokovic!! ) will die by bad communication!!

      All the best!


  10. Croatian umpire Denis Pitner banned for 10 years

    "A Croatian umpire who worked at the US Open despite being suspended as part of a betting investigation has been given a 10-year ban.

    Denis Pitner was originally banned for a year in August for passing on details about a player's fitness and accessing an account used for betting.

    But a United States Tennis Association error meant he was able to work at Flushing Meadows for the 2015 event.

    Pitner's suspension will run until 19 April 2026.

    The ban covers any officiating at Grand Slam tournaments and events organised or sanctioned by the ATP, WTA and ITF.

    The suspension of Pitner and a life ban for Kazakh umpire Kirill Parfenov were revealed following a Guardian investigation earlier this year.

    Despite his original ban, Pitner also successfully applied to work at the Qatar Open in Doha in January.

    The announcement of his 10-year suspension by the International Tennis Federation on Tuesday also revealed he applied to work at this year's Wimbledon Championships."

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

  11. I know this blog has written about Monfils in the past, but this from his final press conference was interesting (I don't think he's accusing Nadal):

    Q. This match was incredible. What do you think? What was lacking for you today?

    GAEL MONFILS: What was lacking? Well, a few details. Today it was cloudy and it was more difficult to serve hard. I knew this would mean more rallies for his benefit, which means I would have fewer free points with my serve.

    When you play Rafa on clay, and you have to play rallies, it is more difficult physically. In a way, it didn't help me. But in another way, it did help me.

    He was playing well. But I thought, Okay, physically you're a bit tired. But I knew I had the resources for pushing him a bit more.

    From that moment on, I believe he played with more intensity. He changed his game plan a little. So maybe the 5% or 10% that I didn't have anymore made it tough for me.

    Q. After the first brilliant two sets, we thought the third might be a fight, too. Were you impressed?

    GAEL MONFILS: No, I'm not impressed. You're not impressed. You're just submissive to his power. Suddenly in the third set he increased his power and accelerated and you just don't cope.

    You feel good. But when the other player is the best, you have to recognize it. Of course, you can see the score, 6-Love. He was a lot better. He was relaxed, hitting hard. I felt he was really in control. He felt good. He was hitting harder.
    (Hitting harder as the match went along, who would have thought?)

    Q. Although you lost, you were fighting against him on an equal footing for two hours and more. Yesterday Murray only sustained the pace for a bit more than one hour. Does this give you more confidence or more satisfaction? Secondly, on your serve, you lost more points than you won, 49% won on your serve.

    GAEL MONFILS: I'm going to start with the end.

    As I said, the conditions were heavier today. It was tougher to hit big first serves. It was tougher also to open up the court. The effects on the ball were not as obvious. Rafa covers the court well. So I was losing a lot of energy forcing it out. It was not easy.
    6-Love is a bad score, but I had an opponent that became a lot stronger suddenly.

    Players that don't get tired indeed. Nadal the day before had just come through a gruelling 3 set match against Murray.

  12. Good to see some positive mainsteam news coverage such as the Washington Post article. I guess some real coverage and analysis from the tennis websites is too much to expect.

    Wertheim is probably the best of the website tennis writers these days on the doping issue. Tignor used to be acceptable, but even he has deliberately dropped the ball lately. He wrote about Sharapova's positive doping test (he could hardly ignore it), but mostly simply to claim that he believed her story(!!) Is he trying to look stupidly gullible, or does he not realise how foolish he looks? Now with all the Russian athlete doping outings we have for the same drug he just conveniently ignores the whole issue.

    I want journalists at the upcoming Masters and the French Open, to ask players about the doping issue, so we can gauge their responses. In the same way that they asked every top player about it at the 2013 AO immediately after the whole Lance Armstrong saga.

    1. @Mystery

      Tignor writes on and is owned by IMG ( even Jean Bill King and Christ Evert have invested their money in ) and Maria Sharapova has been one of the IMG’s most lucrative client!!

      What a strange coincidence...!!

      Everyone should smell a rat when you read something like that:

      there is no one single word about who really owns this web business!!

      It's super evident that it isn't just a distraction, simply, they don't want readers to know their conflicts of interest!!

      Here is just a tiny aperitif about conflicts of interest in tennis:

      All the best!




      So, they are like a Mega Octopus in professional tennis!!

      ( not only in professional tennis!! )

    2. I think I was vaguely aware of the IMG link to but haven't thought of it in so long, I didn't make the link between Tignor's embarrassing recent Sharapova stance and it.

      Good to see Dick Pound call out the bleeding obvious too as well as the WSJ. I guess we need to rely on non-tennis websites (apart from this one) to actually tackle the issue!

    3. I don't see where and Tennis Magazine are owned by IMG. It looks to me that Tennis Media Company (the owner) is owned by something called Miller Publishing Company. Both Chris Evert and Billie Jean King are listed as investors. I don't mean to suggest that isn't overly influenced by protecting the sport as opposed to reporting on it, I just haven't been able to find the IMG connection.

    4. You're right!!

      Pardon, I was in a hurry because I relied on something a friend of mine ( a business insider ) told me, it's evident that I misunderstood his words because in reality, he just wanted to tell me that IMG has influenced very heavily!!

      Which obviously is another thing!!

      Anyway, there is still a conflict of interest because:

      a)IMG has also partnered with John and Chris Evert to found the Evert Tennis Academy located in Boca Raton, Florida.

      b)Nick Bollettieri founded the Nick Bollettieri Tennis Academy in 1978. Sports and entertainment company IMG purchased the academy in 1987.


      And Nick Bollettieri was the most important tennis coach of Maria Sharapova!!

      And as I already pointed out Maria Sharapova has been one of the IMG’s most lucrative client!!

      What a strange coincidence....!!

      All the best!


      PS obviously because of the fact that Billie Jean King is the most important founder of WTA and she always boasts about the fact that WTA has become a cash cow machine, she will do anything..... to make the WTA a cash cow machine for a long time!!

    5. Well then Tignor's stance on believing Sharapova makes no sense at all, other than he's decided that his livelihood is a part of the tennis industry and he will seek to protect it. i.e. the normal stance by commentators. Since all the subsequent Russian athletes, including an entire ice hockey team, have now tested + for meldonium, Tignor has safely ignored the issue, and time will tell if he brings it up again, or mentions Murray's comments.

  13. HA! One of his WORST jokes! That's what they all (the 'ivory tower', 'brain trust', 'gate-keeper', admins-of-governing-body types, as well as long-time 'cheating players)... That is what THEY ALL want to hear: CASE CLOSED!!! We are CLEAN!!

  14. Dick Pound rejects Djokovic's claim that tennis is clean, suggests that doper numbers are in the double digits, and says sponsors and sports organizers should be doing more, but that the later don't want to find the cheats because of the negative PR. Right as usual.

    "Asked if Djokovic's remarks were naive, Pound told STV: "Yes. That's a Lance Armstrong approach. 'I never tested positive therefore I am clean.' Wrong.

    "I think it goes deeper than most people expect, and certainly deeper than they are prepared to acknowledge."

    Djokovic's remarks followed criticism from Andy Murray last week, when the Scot spoke of his suspicion of some of his fellow professionals.

    Pound believes there are far more athletes doping than the current numbers suggest.

    "Let's assume it's double digits and let's be really charitable and say it is only 10%," he said.

    "Our level of positives is 2%. Why is the testing not more effective than that?

    "The science is pretty robust and the system is good for whatever it does. It's the people that don't want it to work.

    Asked if sport organisations, and their sponsors, should be doing more to clean up sport, Pound was clear that not enough is being done.

    "A lot of the resistance we get comes from the sports organisations themselves who don't want to find people in their sport are using drugs because they think it reflects badly on them," he said.

    "As far as the sponsors are concerned, I think they buy into sport because of the values.

    "They should be looking more, could be looking more, to the organisations and say 'listen, we're putting in a lot of money to support this vision of sport that you have marketed to us. Now we want you to deliver it'."

    Could sponsors coming together to insist more is done to eradicate doping be an effective approach?

    "I think that's a very good scenario," he answered. "Whether you can get them that far or not is a matter of some doubt.

    "But in the FIFA crisis, many of the main sponsors said 'you've got to sort this or we're going to have to rethink our involvement with you'."

  15. Andy Murray to remain outspoken against doping

    "Andy Murray plans to remain outspoken against doping, despite facing a backlash for some of his recent comments on performance-enhancing drugs in tennis.

    The world No.2 was branded "out of order" by Novak Djokovic's coach, Boris Becker, for saying in a newspaper interview that he wonders whether some players are doping.

    Murray said on Friday he has cleared the air with Becker but won't be deterred from speaking his mind if it means protecting the integrity of tennis."

  16. The Spaniard Rafael Nadal ended the interview, with evident anger, tired of being asked about the accusations made Roselyne Bachelot, former French Minister of Health and Sports, who accused him of doping in 2012.

    ( there is a short video! )

    Best regards.




    if his conscience was totally clean, would he get angry if any sport journalist asked him about something he has never made?

    Obvious Answer:

    no, he wouldn't!! He would even laugh at that kind of questions!!

  17. I'm just wondering if there's any testing done in Barcelona. I guess not. After all, it's only a 500 event. Maybe that's why RN has won it a gazillion times (soon to be a gazillion + 1). ***groan***

  18. Once again, after struggling with his fitness and firepower for absolutely ages, Nadal is suddenly constantly outlasting everyone in back to back matches and tournaments. It's no wonder the Spanish flag has so much red in it.

  19. Maybe Team Nadal decided that it would be more cautious to cheat only every other year? This team is so smart that I wouldn't be surprised:-) This accurate, powerful, and hyper fit Nadal is very different from the 2015's version of him.

  20. After Armstrong, I think the sport cleaned up, because it had to. Or did it.

    For a couple of years now you have seen much more in the way of physical issues than ever before. I think a lot of players were very cautious with their off-court behaviors as the Armstrong case amped up awareness across the globe. But here's the thing - - the new Technology/Medicine is constantly evolving. There are continuing efforts to aid athletes off court in their performances on.

    I believe we are going to now start seeing the results as many things that should be banned won't be for a while. And many players - especially top players with means - will continue to experiment with ways to maximize performance.

    Novak most likely does nothing illegal - and probably never has. Does that mean that using an Oxygen Chamber to pump his blood and aid in recovery should be legal?? That's a big question. I know a lawyer who's client developed a new neuroscience that injects waves into the motor cortex to improve hand / eye. I was told Novak has already used this - greatly improving his ability to take the ball so early. I am working on getting an answer directly from the creators of this new technology. IF I do, though, I will probably have to keep my mouth shut - and so it goes.

    I understand the great desire for athletes to be the best - I played sports thru college. I worked hard at my craft, but I was never on the level of a Pro - so I can only imagine the ferocity and dedication to their craft. But I do not want to see sports played OFF COURT. That's a travesty imo.

    One day we may see only the genetically engineered athlete competing at top levels and all the magic of sport will be lost to engineered "machines" with nothing left but the wins and losses. Boring and sad.

    This is a very tough problem for those sincere about keeping sport on the field of play. New drugs, technology, millions of dollars, many with huge interests, scared and conned media, on and on. Whew.
    Credit to Murray - I hope he keeps it up.

    Lastly, here's a little tid bit I learned about Novak that I feel is ok to say. His usage of the Oxygen Chamber came about from simply finding ways to combat his breathing issues. Many times this is how it works. A player is not trying to cheat, but is trying to fix a physical issue. At first, from what I learned, the chamber didn't do much for him. It's when he learned to breath properly - yes, simple breath - that he started gaining huge benefits of recovery.

    Watch for yourself - the next grueling djokovic match. Or go back and watch the Simon AO match. Hear Novak grunting hard, looking fatigued, then watch him breathe - through the nose (yoga breath) - he makes a kind of grotesque face. After a few times of this, the grunting stops and the recovery begins. But this doesn't happen all by itself. Enhancement from the Chamber and who knows what else + a lot of hard work is involved. It's all legal. The question is "should it be?"

    1. I don't know about Novak not doping, the signs are that he most likely could be using something else than the chamber etc. However, I am of the opinion that his rise isn't due to doping alone and that he has significantly improved his game. I still regard him the third most likely high profile doped after the two obvious ones.

    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    3. We all know Djokovic us using the egg machine and/or oxygen chamber. But he is just so cagey about talking about doping, I cannot believe he is not also using PEDs. As these above articles state, he sounds like Lance Armstrong in his vagueness and blaming the media. He says nothing about doping other than to stick up for dopers, say that there is already enough testing, and to tell us that tennis is clean (which it isn't even just based on positive tests).

      To say that his 2011 onwards form is down to learning how to breathe is about as believable as saying it's all down to "confidence", or going "gluten-free" (his 2 excuses when it first happened).

    4. Yes, although voicing your opinion against doping, or calling for tougher tests really proves nothing because talk is cheap, the fact that Novak doesn't do this is quite suspicious.

    5. I think Djokovic and Nadal were doping more heavily pre 2014. They went from playing 6 hour matches of tireless and ridiculously brutal tennis (Aus Open 2012) to struggling in a 4 set match at Roland Garros in 2014 (the first time I ever seen Rafa tire). I would be interested to know exactly when the biological passport came into effect. Some sources say 2014, some 2013. Something definitely changed IMO. Nowadays Novak has probably toned it down and is micro dosing instead.

      Also interesting is how Novak went from having an AMAZING 2011 to not even managing bronze at the 2012 olympics. His results also improved quite considerably AFTER the olympics. Will be interesting to see how he performs this time round (and Rafa too). I'd be flabbergasted if Rafa plays the same kind of tennis we've seen these past 2 weeks in Rio, he'll probably get a timely injury instead.

      As for Novak's recent comments (and his coach too), really there is no reason for him to get defensive unless he's doping. A clean athlete would surely be asking the same questions as his good friend Andy Murray.

    6. 1)As far as "His usage of the Oxygen Chamber came about from simply finding ways to combat his breathing issues"

      Actually, I read his book "Serve To Win" ( published August 2013 )from the first page to the last page and he said something completely different:

      "I had even tried with a surgical operation on my nose but things had improved just a little bit and it wasn't good at all. Now, I've also solved my breathing issues once for ever with my new gluten free diet"

      Apart from that, in his book, he has never mentioned the usage of the Oxygen Chamber, not even a single one word!!

      What a strange coincidence....!!

      2) However, here is another big contradiction from Mr. Djokovic:

      a)Djokovic said before adding that he doesn't believe in using performance-enhancing drugs. "I wouldn't say that there is a magic potion or an elixir that can make you feel better."


      b) Top athletes around the world, including football, basketball and soccer stars, use hyperbaric oxygen therapy. Djokovic said he only uses hyperbaric pods in the U.S. and Australia, because access and regulations are challenging in Europe. He said there is still a stigma about oxygen therapy, that it gives athletes who use it an unfair advantage.

      “It’s very sensitive, especially in the European part of the world,” he said. “I wish I can have this all over the place, I wish.”


      In other words, in the USA it is a legal practice but in some parts of Europe, it is considered an illegal practice, that is doping!!


      how come he has just said ( point a) ) that he doesn't believe in using performance-enhancing drugs ( which are illegal ) because he wouldn't say that there could be a magic potion or an elixir that can make you feel better but last year ( point b) ) he had said that he would like to use hyperbaric pods everywhere??

      What a mystery...!!

      Best regards.


      1PS just for an example, in Italy, the usage of hyperbaric pods is considered doping 100%!!

      Obviously, it doesn't mean at all that in Italy professional sports are clean because for example doping was, has beeen and is rampant in Italian football, several Italian football players have died from diseases caused by massive doping!!

      Athletic enhancement
      Breathe it in
      An obscure gas improves athletes’ performance

    7. This is an interesting point about contradictions. I vaguely remember Djokovic in the 2013 Australian open after his QF against Berdych when they asked him how he recovered from the Wawrinka classic. He mentioned ice baths and said he will do anything LEGAL to recover to the best of his abilities. The way he stressed legal stood out at the time, as though he'd found a way to beat the system, I.e. oxygen chamber.

      I also agree with the point made about Novak 2011 not being the same one as 2015. The 2011 version was far more physical and relied less on streamlined efficient tennis. The 2015 version is a better player and needs to rely less on pure physicality.

    8. This is an interesting point about contradictions. I vaguely remember Djokovic in the 2013 Australian open after his QF against Berdych when they asked him how he recovered from the Wawrinka classic. He mentioned ice baths and said he will do anything LEGAL to recover to the best of his abilities. The way he stressed legal stood out at the time, as though he'd found a way to beat the system, I.e. oxygen chamber.

      I also agree with the point made about Novak 2011 not being the same one as 2015. The 2011 version was far more physical and relied less on streamlined efficient tennis. The 2015 version is a better player and needs to rely less on pure physicality.

    9. First, I just want to say thanks for all the replies here! It's interesting that when I first went online and started yelling about doping - '09-10 - the replies were not nearly as educated. Also, there was such a huge backlash to even bringing the subject up.

      The first time I started yelling DOPING was of course Nadal. His activities on and off the court at Wimbledon in 2010 were deplorable to say the least. But the way I went about sharing the info I learned- it was immature. I got kicked off of sites, in trouble with the person who shared with me the info, and in trouble from strange sources I don't want to share. Also - fans of Nadal - whew - they may have been the most vicious.

      In retrospect I should have focused with only the MTO vs Petschner and other 'on court' activities that needed no "proof". BUT... even these actions are sneaky and can be perceived as Ethical in the rules of the game. They certainly were not "breaking" rules. Just pushing the envelope. Sort of like the time violations for serving that continue to be ignored.

      Anyway - one of the sites that suspended me - Tennis Warehouse - now has a forum for doping if Im correct. Same with Tennis Forums. So I feel it was good that I spoke up after all.

      For the record, I am now not saying that Nadal has ever done anything illegal - for 1 I don't want him to sue me (hehe) - 2, Im no longer 100% sure that what he did was illegal. But let me say this - about the most ambitious and pressured players at the top - many times they will do whatever it takes to be the best. Anyone who does not understand this does not understand sport in our culture. To me the problem isn't PROOF or LEGAL OR ILLEGAL. It's the ethics of the game and winning with skills On Court not by attrition due to enhancements Off Court. Nadal has worked very hard On Court to improve his skills. He deserves big credit for this. But to be #1 on clay again, he hasn't improved his skills enough. He must go back to the old way - out lasting the other player physically through attrition. Too bad. I think Tennis is a bigger and better sport than this.

      Here is an excerpt from a great read - Sport and Exercise Psychology: The Key Concepts by Ellis Cashmore. This is the subject of Deviance. I think Deviance is the issue we are faced with now in all of Sport because Winning is BIG MONEY and has a lot of invested interested outside only the player. But it starts with the player...
      (next post)

    10. "particular individuals or groups. It refers to the process in which a
      label is stuck onto people designated as rule-breakers and their actions
      nominated as transgressions. So, deviance is a relative
      . What
      constitutes rule breaking in one
      at a certain stage in history
      may not in another culture or at a different time. In other words,
      deviance is
      -sensitive: The reaction of society to behavior
      determines whether or not that behavior will be designated deviant,
      as the example of drugs illustrates.
      Rule breaking 1: Drugs.
      was originally designed to enhance
      athletic performance and was practiced systematically in many coun-
      tries, both in and out of the Soviet sphere of influence, particularly
      from the late 1950s, when the utility of anabolic steroids became well
      known. A great many athletes took drugs with impunity. The intro-
      duction of rules prohibiting doping (from 1972) officially changed
      the status of this behavior and of the athletes engaging in it. So, the
      enactment and enforcement of the rules created the conditions under
      which this piece of deviance came into being. Progressively strict
      testing procedures and punishment for violators aided by an occa-
      sionally hysterical media were all features of a reaction that defined
      doping as deviance and those discovered taking drugs as deviants.
      Even once the rules are introduced, it is perfectly possible to break
      them habitually and not be caught. Only after the behavior is known
      publicly can what many call the ‘‘labeling process’’ click into motion.
      The classic example in sport is Ben Johnson. Once hailed as the
      fastest man in the world, he was labeled the ‘‘world’s greatest cheat’’
      following his expulsion from the 1988 summer Olympics.
      Doping is example of how a behavior defined as a serious violation
      of rules in one context may be permissible in another. The types of
      substances typically taken by athletes are often legally available either
      on prescription or over the counter of any pharmacy. The reverse is
      also true: behavior tolerated and, in some cases, approved of in sport
      would be harshly punished outside the context of sport. Imagine
      what would happen if a violent incident from a typical NHL game
      took place in a shopping mall. In some circumstances, perpetrators of
      violent behavior in, for example, hockey, rugby, and soccer, has been
      held accountable through civil and criminal courts.
      Rule breaking 2: Control
      . The
      to break rules lies in the
      desire to win at any cost, a desire that has been nurtured by the
      copious amount of money available in professional sports. This may not
      be the only factor, but it combines with, for example,
      and a cluster of situational
      variables to produce a propensity to transgress"

    11. Fabrice, awesome info above. I knew most of what you said, but I'm glad you coherently stated it for everyone. Yes - gas. There are a lot of technologies and medicines out there. I don't know them all. And the fact is that none of us know for sure the exact truth.

      My info is not from books or public interviews. What I shared was private and I have more , of course, that I will not share at this time. BUT,, I am not sure the truth either. There is so much deception in any big business that it's hard to know the truth whether you have inside info or you read it from publications and interviews. I'm just adding what I can to this forum.

      Also, I'm not saying no one is cheating per say. I think all of this is absolute and utter BS! I hate it. Improving one's body and mind is great. But where does it become ALL about off court competition?? Team sports are different. Individual sports can start to become a battle off , not on court. And that sucks imo! I feel like instead of watching the matches the last 2 weeks, we should have been allowed to watch all of Nadal's training and day to day activities as that was a BIG part of his supposed "comeback". Possibly a bigger part than anything he's done on court.

      So for those angry with me for not saying "illegal" or "doping", relax. We agree - whatever it's called and whatever it is - it's not cool!

      For those who say - nothing is wrong and everything the players are doing off the court is fine - you need to pull your head out of the sand and stop waiting for "proof" then vilify those you once loved as your heroes.

    12. @Drew

      thank you very much for your response and your interesting comments!!

      1)First of all, let's start from the followig premise:

      "The search for truth is more precious than its possession" by Albert Einstein.

      2)Apart from reading books about doping in professional sports, reading public interviews and getting in touch with people who are business insider in professional tennis, my info basically come from my personal experience as a regular sportsman for several years in my free time!!

      I've watched with my eyes the huge difference between sport performances without any PED and sport performances with PED!!

      Furthermore, I've never taken any PED, only normal supplements and obviously a regular and strict diet!!

      I don't say I've been a saint for all my life because in the past sometimes I smoked some joints and got drunk, but only sometimes and on special occasions with friends!! But never taking heavy drugs!! Never!!
      Always refused!!

      3)I point out something that I've written in my first post that maybe you haven't read, here it is:

      the CVAC pod device used by Djokovic for a long time ( by now! ) meets two of the three criteria for inclusion on the Prohibited List by WADA and as a logical consequence, it should be on that list.

      My posts and complete discussion about this issue on:

      4)As far as "Yes - gas. There are a lot of technologies and medicines out there", here is another interesting article about the "Magic Gas":

      Wada brings in ban on xenon and argon, but has no test

      5)For a your possible curiosity, "Milos Raonic and Rafael Nadal share something very tricky", my post about it on the following link:

      It starts in this way:

      "Fab FarnMarch 21, 2016 at 4:48 AM

      Milos Raonic under the guide of tennis coaches like Riccardo Piatti and Ivan Ljubičić ( best ranking N 3 ATP ) has improved:

      a) his tennis

      b) physically, a strict diet made him lose something like 6-8 chilos..... "

      ( that post of mine is in the middle of that web page! )

      All the best!!


    13. This comment has been removed by the author.

    14. @Fab Farn

      There's a browser plug-in for that:

      For both Chrome and Firefox.

      "Lazarus: Form Recovery
      Recover lost forms with a single click
      Ever had one of those "oh $*#@" moments when you realize you've just lost half an hour of your life because something went wrong while you were entering stuff into a web form and there doesn't seem to be any way to recover it? If so, you need Lazarus. If not, install it anyway, before disaster strikes!"

    15. @Tardigrade

      thank you very much for your piece of information,
      that's very kind of you!!

      Anyway, I repeat that it was published straightaway but within very few hours it's like it vanished, but I don't think it's happened by chance!!

      I'll realize in the next days what really happened, we'll see!!

      Thank you again for your help!!

      All the best!


    16. @THASP

      Thank you very much for having retrieved my post ( my long detailed reply to Drew that had disappeared! ) and having published it again!!

      I'll keep on reading your very good blog and writing some post whenever it is possible for me!!

      All the best!



      Problem Solved!!

      THASP has just published my last post that had disappeared!!

      Thank you again for your prompt help!!

      All the best!


    17. Hey "drew" I'd love to talk to you about a post you made in 2012. Anyway of contacting you. I can provide an email

  21. Just looking at for any more news, found a couple of interesting quotes:


    "I was not surprised [at Nadal winning Monte Carlo]," Federer told Marca, having traveled to Barcelona for a sponsor appearance. "What happens is that we are used to seeing Rafa, despite a long injury, rapidly return to his best level. And that was incredible for me. It is not normal, even though he has done it many times."

    "Incredible" indeed, Roger.

    And this article:

    "I've spoken to Boris and Novak and we're all good," Murray said. "I'm practiding with Novak next week in Madrid. It's a topic that's always difficult for athletes to discuss these days but we have to try and do our best. All I want is to try and make sure tennis is as clean, a sport, as possible—it's very difficult to keep a sport that way these days."

    It's only difficult and touchy for DOPING athletes to discuss this Andy, it should not be for clean ones. Don't let Novak nor Becker off the hook. There is one reason alone that Novak slaughters you in every AO final's 4th set you play - he just does not get tired.

  22. It makes one wonder how a player can avoid the temptation to dope when they are soundly beaten over and over again by a certain opponent. Clearly the system is broken. The dirty players know when to dope and when not to drop so that they won't get caught but sometimes they mess up and then you have a Cilic or Troicki or Sharapova. Kudos to Murray if he is indeed clean because he's got to feel cheated.

    1. How many slams would Fed have added to his tally, if not for raging bull 'Roid Rafa'! I guess if it comes out in the open that he has been cheating they'll change those results and charge him a hefty fine as they did with the Mac-daddy and I-love-tennis Andre! Oh, but they didn't take a cent or a token away from those two, did they!
      From 'The Wrestler', I got the impression that if one wants to keep their physique and performance up, 'once a user, always a user!' I think they should publish those who just happen to be on the TUE list, for LIFE!

  23. and my guess is Nadal will be stricken by illness or injury right before the Rio Olympics and will pull out.

  24. Nadal has officially filed a defamation lawsuit against Roselyne Bachelot

    Link to the press release:

    1. Let's say this does go to trial, wouldn't it be awesome if the judge were to say, "Mr. Nadal, this can be solved very easily, just give the court a blood sample. We have medically certified staff right here. Etc."

      As awesome as this may sound, I wonder if a court could really do something like that...

      One can only dream...

    2. I do think that kind of demand is outside the authority of the Court but you can bet some very expensive chemists will be combing over every detail of Rafa's biological passport.

  25. One more thing...
    Does anyone find it interesting that Nadal went crazy on the former French Sports Minister at this time? Right before he was about to show renewed physicality and strength, knowing that the public would say "Nadal is back!"

    Nadal would know that the doping talk would start up again, no? There were many others who have defamed him. Why didn't he sue Yannik Noah?

    Whatever is happening off the court, and again, I do not know or have any proof that it's anything illegal, Rafa had to know he's starting to regain strength at this late stage in his career. After all the wear and tear on his body he also had to know the doping talk would spring up like never before. Suing the French Minister is a nice precedent set for any future talk about him doping at the perfect time.

    Now, Nadal is not only going 100% on the court as well as off the court. He's also going 100% at all opponents across the world who have anything derogatory to say about his sudden physical progress after all these years of brutal tennis. Even Freedom of Speech is being denied. No longer can anyone speculate. Without physical proof nothing is allowed to be spoken on the subject. Except maybe on Thasp. hehe

  26. When Bachelot spoke, I got the impression that she was speaking as though she had heard the information from a second hand source and that she didn’t have any hard proof herself.

    In 2006, when Le Journal Du Dimanche accused Nadal of being a client of Fuentes, they sounded very certain:

    “Les noms du tennisman Rafael Nadal (ATP 2) et de cinq footballeurs du Real Madrid seraient notamment également sur la liste transmise à l'Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) par les autorités judiciaires espagnoles

    “Dans une brève parue dans le Journal du Dimanche, le président de l'UCI, Pat McQuaid affirme que les noms de nombreux joueurs de football et de tennis, de nageurs et d'athlètes figureraient sur la fameuse liste. Le journal dominical cite également des sources espagnoles.
    “The names of the tennis player Rafael Nadal (ATP 2) and five players from Real Madrid would also be included on the list sent to the International Cycling Union (UCI) by the Spanish judicial authorities.

    “In a brief published in the Journal du Dimanche, the UCI president , Pat McQuaid says the names of many football and tennis, swimmers and athletes reportedly on the famous list . THE SUNDAY NEWSPAPER ALSO CITES SPANISH SOURCES .


    Then Nadal threatened to sue them, but he didn't:

    Q. There was coverage in a French newspaper yesterday according that your name is on a list of Dr. Francis who is suspected of doing blood doping for sportsmen.

    RAFAEL NADAL: I gonna speak in Spanish and he gonna translate.

    INTERPRETER: I don't want to speak about untrue statements, nonsense. I've never taken anything in my life, and I never will. I'm well enough educated in the sporting world and out of sporting world to not cheat. People who write lies about other people are bad people. There's nothing more to say about this. It's lies and it's just people who write lies are bad people. He's a coward. He should sign what he writes at the bottom. My manager is speaking to my lawyers.


    So why didn’t he go forward with it? Because he knew that if he did take Le Journal Du Dimanche to court, the publication would have been ordered to produce credible evidence and he would have been found guilty and his career finished.

    1. It’s very similar to when Barcelona and Real Madrid sued Le Monde over the Puerto allegations. The journalist who wrote the article (Stéphane Mandard) mentioned that Fuentes himself had showed him the team’s doping program (documents which were not confiscated by the Spanish authorities - )

      However he/Le Monde didn’t have these documents. So when they were taken to court to prove the allegations, Le Monde lost the case and was ordered to pay damages.

      Same scenario with Nadal here. Unless Bachleot can provide documents of Nadal’s failed test, well…

      P.S: I guess the article “The Curious Case of Rafael Nadal” will no longer be hosted on this site any more.

  27. I think this is a PR own-goal by Nadal and his team.

    The case's primary effect will be to pour petrol on the shouldering embers of media and public suspicion that he's a doper.

    Even if he wins the case (quite likely, IMO, as I don't think he would move forward if he thought there was a risk of genuine exposure), what on earth can he gain? He certainly doesn't need the money and few will believe that a French minister being unable to prove he doped means that he's clean. Bringing out the legal talons will just remind people of Armstrong, and I bet that comparison will be referenced ad nauseum by journos.

    IMHO, he would have been better off issuing a bland statement that "there have always been doubters, especially the French. I know I'm clean etc"

  28. From what I have read, the lawsuit does not challenge general statements about doping but rather the specific statement alleging a failed test and by implication, a silent ban. Assuming this is correctly what the lawsuit targets, it should be very straightforward, either there is a test or not. Other evidence of doping assuming some exists or could be found would probably be least in a US Court.

  29. I guess the court can subpoena any past doping results for Nadal and if he has in fact tested positive in the past and has served silent bans this would come out. Unless the proof has been destroyed. I'm going to grab some popcorn and sit back and enjoy this little soap opera as it plays out.

    1. Far more likely this will be settled out of court.


    Maria Sharapova is back on the practice court...meanwhile Markus Gunthardt, WTA Stuttgart tournament director, spoke about the absence of the Russian. He said the event coped well with her absence, but 'it was not helpful and I hope it will be solved soon. My personal point of view is they [WADA] are not doing a good job. I have a lot of questions.'

    Her provisional ban started on March 12, but it could be substantially reduced. She has to give a substantial help in the investigations, and has to show lack of fault or negligence.
    According to what Sharapova said, she took it because of recurring illnesses, low magnesium, irregular electrocardiogram results and a family history of diabetes. So she could have not improved her performances.

    She could face maximum a four-year suspension, but if she will show that took this medicine only to improve her health, could return soon on Tour

    1. And according to her TL on twitter "Hello...backhands!! After two months of wrist rehab. #LittleRewards" So no Meldonium closed indeed.

  31. A what if here... As in, be careful for which you ask.

    How could this backfire on Nadal? Once in court, would Nadal actually swear under oath that he has never take PEDs, etc? Could test results be compelled as evidence? If so, what if "none were found?" Would the ITF be called to answer why? Etc.

    My point being that Nadal could be causing his own public downfall. Not to mention blowing up the ITF.

    Shades of FIFA...

    Any legal oriented folks care to comment?

    I know, it's wishful thinking but... One can only dream...

    1. Bachelot has two possible defences. She can argue that her claim is true, in which case she has to produce evidence that supports that, or she can say that her claim is fair comment, in other words is a reasonable assertion made in good faith based on information in the public domain on a matter of public interest. The latter would be easier for her to maintain, as it wouldn't require her to produce actual evidence of a failed test. She could argue that people have been saying publicly for years that Nadal has been doping and he hasn't legally challenged that, so her assertion merely reflects widely circulated and often well-informed opinion about Nadal.

      If the case goes to court, the rumours about Nadal become a central feature of the case. He is dumb to risk that, because even if he wins the case the question-mark of his doping becomes firmly entrenched in the public mind. No smoke without fire, as they say. He will be gambling that Bachelot will settle before it goes to court.

      As we know that Armstrong sued his critics the Bachelot case cannot prove Nadal is not or has not been a doper. It is a legal contest only. I remain one of those whose mind has been made up by watching him play over the years and observing the strange vicissitudes of his career. His recent assertions convince me of nothing.

    2. You're right. He's dumb to take this risk. I'm pretty sure the average tennis spectator didn't even hear her comments but now they have. Nadal and his uncle should have let it lie because, as you say, why didn't they sue everyone else who has insinuated that he's a doper? Yannick Noah, etc. And now, people are just saying, well Armstrong sued and look how that turned out.

    3. I think from a legal prospective the burden of proof is on Bachelot not Nadal so theres very little risk involved. Nadal is suing because of the damage to his image and brand by the accusation not that he's not doping. He doesn't have to supply evidence, Bachelot will have to defend her comments as necessary and true. As for Nadal releasing his medical data (Below) - it took Chris Froome some time but he was able to come up data to prove he's clean and i'd image Nadal has superior resources in this regard.

    4. I notice that the statement Bachelot is being sued over includes the word probably...Nadal's injury break was "probably" due to a failed doping test. I wonder if she can win by proving (I think easily) that other injury breaks in tennis were in fact provisional suspensions and that the rules still allow for that slight of hand. I don't know enough about French law to know if that would work but if I were her lawyer, I would certainly focus on her use of the word "probably" given the Cilic story.

    5. To correct a misunderstanding, Bachelot does not have to prove her claims are true, only that they were "fair comment" made in good faith. Easier to defend. And plausible.

    6. Here is a little bit more information on the good faith defense in France. It is not nearly as broad as the fair comment defense in the US. "Good faith Defendants who are unable to establish
      truth can present evidence of good faith, such as belief in the truth of the statement, deadline pressures, desire to inform the
      public, and the use of the word "allegedly". A publisher/broadcaster/journalist/author could have a defence based on good faith if he can prove all of the following:
      „ the statement is based on a serious investigation,
      „ the statement concerns a matter of public
      importance,„ the tone and balance of the statement is
      measured and objective, and „ there is no trace of personal hostility in the statement."

    7. Mary, Bachelot didn't say Nadal "probably" failed a drug test and hence was on a tennis break, she said:
      “We know that Nadal’s famous seven-month injury was without a doubt due to a positive [drug test]. When you see a tennis player who stops playing for long months, it is because he has tested positive and because they are covering it up. It is not something that always happens, but yes it happens more than you think.”
      The burden of proof is on Bachelot and unless she has some evidence we don't know about, I doubt she will be able to meet either the truth or good faith burdens of proof. I think Nadal will come out the winner on this one and Bachelot will probably have to issue a retraction and perhaps pay damages which in France are normally very low in these types of cases and could be as low as $1.

    8. Richard, I think Bachelot will probably settle and will probably issue a public retraction. I doubt Nadal's lawyers would proceed with this lawsuit if they thought Bachelot had any hard evidence to support her comment. But even if they do go to court, in France the defamation laws are with the claimant or the person being defamed. Unless Bachelot has some hard evidence we don't know about, it's hard to see how Nadal won't come out a winner here.

    9. You are correct about her initial comments, but she subsequently qualified them, as reasonable conjecture rather than hard fact. That is "fair comment". It is not only Nadal's reputation that is at stake here; hers is also. She may not wish to concede on this.

    10. Any subsequent qualified statement doesn't matter because the damage of the first statement is already out there. I don't see how she can prove the good faith qualifications as her original statement did sound like it had personal hostility in it.

      Believe me, I think Nadal is a likely doper but I can't see how Bachelot wins this case unless she has some smoking gun we don't know about.

    11. A subsequent statement can be relevant - otherwise what validity would any retraction have? - if it either reduces or reinforces the effect of the initial statement. It is also relevant as to issues of good faith or malice. Legal arguments are not generally straightforward. The question in this case may not come to any single statement made by Bachelot but the combination of statements - the later ones appearing to lessen her initial claim - and the accompanying context, which was the discussion of these issues on a television programme. Bachelot may be in a corner but I would warrant she could mount a defence that says she withdrew from her original comments to the realm of reasonable conjecture. And there she might find agreement by a court.

    12. I have to agree with J Johnson given the actual quote. It is phrased with certainty and not as an opinion. Unless some positive test is out there, I see a settlement.

    13. You are right if that is all she said. But it wasn't. I hope she doesn't simply roll over for him. The rest of the tour has.

    14. Expect Bachelot to roll over. The law in France is not on her side here based on her comments. I think it will be difficult for her to prove truth or good faith. Advantage Nadal.

    15. This comment has been removed by the author.

  32. A very new twist!!

    Rafael Nadal Wants His Drug-Test Results Made Public

    Now, this truly becomes a curious case...

    1. Marion Jones could have done the same. She never failed a drug test. But we found out she was still a doper. Masking.

  33. Methinks he doth protest way too loudly! I hope it comes back to bite him in the a$$!

  34. Geez I guess we've been wrong about Nadal all these years. ಠ‿↼

  35. "Wimbledon to beef up measures against doping, corruption"

    "The Wimbledon championships will protect its squeaky clean image with enhanced anti-doping and anti-corruption measures for this year's 130th tournament, organizers said on Tuesday.

    Tennis was rocked by allegations of match-fixing on the eve of this year's Australian Open and suffered another blow to its integrity when former Wimbledon champion Maria Sharapova said in February she had failed a drugs test.

    At a news conference announcing yet another substantial hike in prize money, the All England Club pledged to beef up its safeguards against sport's two biggest threats.

    Measures will include data streams and videos of all matches, including in qualifying events, enhanced data monitoring and player education as well as additional anti-doping controls to complement those already run at the tournament by the International Tennis Federation (ITF)."

    1. Oh I predict many withdrawals this year.

    2. Back in the day, it was only a few "crazy people on the internet" who speculated about doping in tennis....
      Nowadays, even Wimbledon feels the need to publicly address the issue.

      It's all PR, but it's interesting that key organizations see this issue as something that can't be ignored.

  36. This comment has been removed by the author.

  37. My sources say this is all BS. But I honestly am wondering if possibly whatever Nadal has done is legal. It doesn't mean it's right. I think either way - whatever the heck is going on, Tennis needs to take account of all of this. And I'm not just talking peds that are known. All the new stuff out there - homeopathic stuff, the stuff they are drinking and ingesting on the court, the painkillers, the bathroom breaks - even the MTOs - THIS ALL NEEDS TO BE LOOKED AT.

    Tennis is becoming too much about attrition. Basically the healthiest and strongest wins. Everyone is trying to improve their skills and strategies, but ever since the racquet technology of the 70s/80s tennis has changed course and become more of a reduced version of american football or boxing. Where is the magic? No more. All about brutality. This needs to change. Possibly restrictions on racquet technology as well. But first and foremost limit all the performance enhancing out there by first defining it , then attacking it! No More Oxygen Chambers!! hehe

  38. My sources say this is all BS. But I honestly am wondering if possibly whatever Nadal has done is legal. It doesn't mean it's right. I think either way - whatever the heck is going on, Tennis needs to take account of all of this. And I'm not just talking peds that are known. All the new stuff out there - homeopathic stuff, the stuff they are drinking and ingesting on the court, the painkillers, the bathroom breaks - even the MTOs - THIS ALL NEEDS TO BE LOOKED AT.

    Tennis is becoming too much about attrition. Basically the healthiest and strongest wins. Everyone is trying to improve their skills and strategies, but ever since the racquet technology of the 70s/80s tennis has changed course and become more of a reduced version of american football or boxing. Where is the magic? No more. All about brutality. This needs to change. Possibly restrictions on racquet technology as well. But first and foremost limit all the performance enhancing out there by first defining it , then attacking it! No More Oxygen Chambers!! hehe

  39. None other than Dick Pound weighed in:

    "Djokovic told CNN at the Laureus World Sports Awards earlier this week: "As long as there is no proof that somebody is doping, the sport is clean."

    Tennis was recently rocked by a drugs ban for Maria Sharapova, who tested positive for the recently prohibited substance Meldonium.

    Asked if Djokovic's remarks were naive, Pound told STV: "Yes. That's a Lance Armstrong approach. 'I never tested positive therefore I am clean.' Wrong.

    "I think it goes deeper than most people expect, and certainly deeper than they are prepared to acknowledge."

    Djokovic's remarks followed criticism from Andy Murray last week, when the Scot spoke of his suspicion of some of his fellow professionals."

  40. Came across this which I found quite interesting re PEDs: