Wednesday, April 27, 2016

In the past...

From Wimbledon:
"In the past, the ITF has objected to requests from government-funded National Anti-Doping Organizations (NADOs) to test during grand slam events, seeing it as “a waste of resources” because of the duplication of effort.
'However, the ITF said in an email: “The TADP position is that NADO testing should supplement, not duplicate, TADP testing and the TADP will work with UKAD to ensure no duplication."'
It's amazing what bad press will make you do!

127 comments:

  1. I wonder if that will mean additional testing than is the usual practice by TADP, and testing by the NADO for different drugs. If so, we may see a few "injury" withdrawals before the tournament.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I found it odd that in one breath Philip Brook talks about increasing anti-doping measures at Wimbledon and in the next breath he says it would be a shame if Maria Sharapova wasn't able to play the tournament. Wow. Really?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am not replying to Lopi but directing this at the site owner. I had to put my comment in reply to someone otherwise it is not working for some reason.

      I am curious as to know why so many minor drugs stories are covered here and yet 2 major pieces of news (Nadal to sue and announced Nadal never failed a test) do not have an article and have just been ignored.

      Is this evidence of anti-Nadal bias, ignoring stories that make him look innocent and don't fit with your agenda. If not, what is the reason these 2 related stories were ignored?

      Delete
    2. With respect, Nadals legal action and negative tests do not make him look more innocent or more guilty. Armstrong had clean tests and initiated law suits against his accusers and was doping all along.

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

      Delete
    4. To Henman Bill,

      I have been interested in this blog for a while now, and although there are some good objective participants, there are quite a lot of frustrated Federer fans just throwing hate pieces to Nadal and Dokovic. so, anti Nadal bias, yes quite, but I find it quite amusing myself, don't take it personally and you will have some good laughs. If Nadal wins he is clearly doping. If he loses, he must have stopped. And the best is that apparently Nadal and Djokovic are average players that would have never achieved anything otherwise. And this is from people that talk as if they have discovered the wheel. Now wait for the unbiased replies why Nadal asking for all his test past or future to be published. If it would have been Mr Fed saying this, you would have your legion is thasp followers welcoming the news.. Any way, enjoy!


      Delete
    5. So the "unbiased" view is that Nadal is not a doper? Because he denies it? (Well, that's a surprise.) Or more interestingly, that he has never failed a dope test. (Hiya, Lance.)

      Delete
    6. And THASP didn't make a post acknowledging Bachelot accusations of Nadal being a drugs cheat and having served a silent Ban. Does that mean the blog is pro-Nadal?

      @Richard
      It has been amusing to read comments from people saying that Nadal is clean because he's suing and he claims he has never failed a test.

      Delete
    7. No Richard no, I never said it proves he does not dope/doped. My point is that this blog does not seem interested in seeing all the test history an biological passport from the enemy number one, not even to see how it fits with the silent bans you have been denouncing, but if instead Fed would say, "please publish this data"... You would make him another statue. Only that. Is that biased?

      Delete
    8. It is drivel. A blog is not its individual commenters, who have a variety of opinions. If I see any bias, it is in the superficial and inaccurate opinion you have just expressed about the range of comment on the blog. Along with your smug condescension you also avoid declaring whether you think Nadal is a doper, by maintaining only what you are "not saying" about that. So courageous of you.

      Delete
    9. Superficial and inaccurate :-) I like your style, always so deep and accurate :-)

      Please tell me what to say and what not to say please, please.

      Mira, si quieres profundidad y detalle te lo voy a decir en otro idioma, a ver que tal lo entiendes tú.

      Primero, ya he dicho muchas veces que es posible que la mayor parte de los tenistas profesionales se hayan dopado. Esto incluye a los 4 nombres que han acaparado los GSs y los Masters en los últimos 12 años y no creo que sea particularmente valiente el aceptarlo, sino sentido común. Si el programa antidoping al cual están sometidos los tenistas no es suficientemente serio, es muy posible que muchos profesionales se aprovechen ya que hay mucho dinero en juego y el dinero corrompe a la gente, y los tenistas son personas. En ese sentido, creo que este blog ha sido muy útil porque ha presionado a las instituciones para mejorar, o aparentar mejora.

      Pero, como ya he dicho muchas veces, una cosa es posibilidad y otra cosa es certeza. Si tu dices que sabes que "Mr X se ha dopado, y además lo sabe todo el mundo" estás acusando, y una acusación de ese tipo sin pruebas puede ser delito. Así que, Señora ex-ministra de Francia, presente las pruebas o si no, para eso están los tribunales.

      Si una ex-Ministra de Francia dijera "hay una asociación estadística sospechosa entre dopaje y mononucleosis, Mr X tuvo mononucleosis y por lo tanto se ha dopado", seguro que Mr X acudiría a los tribunales de justicia por difamación. No se si lo entiendes, pero me la trae floja.

      Delete
    10. You also write Nadal's pr? Not exactly blessed with economy of prose, though, are you? It's called being a "try-hard".

      Delete
    11. Someone is still trying to suggest that Mononucleosis is caused by Doping/EPO, even though there are zero studies to prove this theory?

      Looks like Sergio Cruz's (Nadal fanboy extraordinaire) article has a lasting effect for some.

      Delete
    12. people still believe vaccines cause autism even though the article and ex-doctor who made this false claim have been proved incorrect. People will believe what they want to believe if it helps their cause.

      Delete
  3. Those two stories are covered within the 80+ comments on this topic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It has been known that since the early 2000's you can dope and not fail a drugs test, through the use of masking agents - Marion Jones and Barry Bonds both furnished proof of that, as neither failed a dope test but were later revealed as dopers. Regrettably, there is no "proof" that an athlete may be clean, but there may be proof they have doped if they are "dumb or careless enough" to get caught (Dick Pound, ex WADA). Nadal may therefore only be able to show that Bachelot lacks the proof of her specific claims; he cannot prove he is clean, since no one can. Also, as we know, Armstrong followed the same route of litigation. And what did that "prove"?

      Delete
  4. Meanwhile in Manacor...

    https://scontent-ord1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xla1/t31.0-8/13064521_10153569551166966_9061316566418492834_o.jpg

    ReplyDelete
  5. WADA 2014 report: Tennis
    3841 tests, and 15 adverse analytic findings generated, of which
    3 cases athlete had TUEs
    2 cases "no case to answer"
    3 cases "no sanction"
    1 case pening
    6 anti-doping rule violations

    That means 40% of tennis' AAFs led to an ADRV, compared to 64% across all sports.

    https://wada-main-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/resources/files/wada-2014-adrv-report-en.pdf

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Funny how "no case to answer" translates to "silent ban" in Spanish.

      Delete

  6. The postings on your site are always excellent. essay writers

    ReplyDelete
  7. Sports Integrity Initiative interviews Hajo Seppelt, the journalist behind the ARD documentaries about doping in Russia.
    Excellent, lengthy(and at times depressing) read.

    WADA given a rough ride.

    http://www.sportsintegrityinitiative.com/interview-hajo-seppelt-on-how-collusion-in-sport-continues/

    ReplyDelete
  8. This is a good read

    http://www.denverpost.com/olympics/ci_29834380/how-broken-anti-doping-system-rewards-athletes-who-cheat

    Doping is not a victimless crime. Never forget the clean athlete.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I like these lines:
      _______________________
      Montaño was pretty sure the Russians who beat her were dopers. In elite track and field, improvements produced by honest hard work come in fractions of seconds. Big improvements arouse suspicion.

      "You can't say anything about it because it's just suspicion," Montaño said. "Being in the sport, you know. When you see not fractions of a second, you see huge increments, it's a red flag. Everybody that pays attention to the sport, if you didn't see it, you were trying not to see it."
      ___________________________

      Tennis too should be suspicious of sudden big improvements. Can anyone think of a December 2010 - January 2011 sudden big improver in tennis?

      Delete
  9. i don't know about you guys, but the federer withdrawals are really looking fishy to me lately. he also has only played on a non-mandatory masters even- monte carlo, which is a suspicious place for any controls in my book

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

      Delete
    2. Re: Non-mandatory masters.

      According to the rules I think Federer is allowed to skip any tournament he wants because he's met the criteria.

      http://www.atpworldtour.com/~/media/files/rulebook/2016/2016-rulebook_chapter-i_3apr16.pdf

      1.08 Reduction of ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Commitment

      A player’s number of ATP World Tour Masters 1000 commitment tournaments shall be reduced by one (1) tournament for reaching each of the following milestones:

      1) 600 matches* (as of 1 January of the commitment year);
      2) 12 years of service;
      3) 30 years of age (as of 1 January of the commitment year).

      If all three (3) conditions are met then the player has a complete exemption from ATP World Tour Masters 1000 player commitment. The first Year of Service shall be the first calendar year in which a player has competed in at least twelve (12) tournaments offering ATP ranking points.
      *From 2010 only main draw singles matches played in the following events will be used in the player’s match count for purposes of this rule.


      He can actually skip all ATP events if he wishes without facing a fine/sanction. But yes it is a bit strange; withdrawing after the draw has been made. Why turn up in the first place?

      Delete
    3. not that i am absolutely saying anything. i've always been an advocate of fair treatment of players in terms of suspicion in this site. seeing as serena's withdrawals before were a series of "unfortunate" events and how everyone jumped into the discussions, i don't think these series of events from fed are any different to be honest. abrupt and so many reasons. i am familiar with the rules. there is still something to be had by just showing up still like appearance fees and alibis (agains, if this was the case). i just want healthy suspicion on all players really

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

      Delete
    5. I agree with you. Not to mention also that some other player would have appreciated been seeded at the tournament, rather than the position been given to a lucky loser.

      Delete
    6. Well he did say he injured himself in his two hour practice on Saturday so it would have been hard to withdraw before the draw had been done. That is, if he's telling the truth; he didn't know he was going to be injured. He has never before skipped so many tournaments. Why all of a sudden would he start doping? It makes no sense. He doesn't need to keep playing. Why jeopardize his health at this point in his career? He played Monte Carlo so a silent ban is out of the question. I don't see why he would need to skip so many events in order to dope. Other players manage to dope and play events. I just don't buy it. Federer is almost 35 years old and has been on the tour for 18 years. There are no mandatory tournaments for him. He can play as many or as few as he wishes.

      Delete
    7. Just to add, many people think Federer should just be skipping the clay season altogether. Maybe he's buying into that thinking. But maybe he looked his draw and saw that he would have o play Nadal in the quarters and realized that that match would probably kill him. So instead he decided to play it safe and withdraw. In 2013 he played Nadal in Indian Wells and did more damage to his back and the rest of the year was a write-off. He said after that year that he would never again play injured. That it just wasn't worth it.

      Delete
    8. @Jericho20 I may be wrong but I don't think players get appearance fees for Masters series events. So, he didn't show up for the money.

      Delete
  10. I am a Fed fan but I do have concerns about this bizarre start to this year. Even with the operation and the pull outs aside, he has been strangely silent through the whole Sharapova news. He's been strangely silent on Nadal and his lawsuit against the former French minister.
    I have always suspected Nadal and Djokovic as being likely dopers but Fed's history of health consistency throughout the years always put him above the fray for me. However, if he was strict in his fitness regimen perhaps that discipline may have extended to doping as well.
    Federer is a competitor with passion to win. That competitive streak especially against his younger rivals, puts him at risk to dope even if it is in smaller, more refined form. I am not saying he is, but the temptation for all those years plus the fact that it is clear that the authorities were not interested in catching anyone of significance....
    In conclusion, I think if Federer was a doper, he would be more disciplined and dope in a more limited fashion. Hence he would never be in the category of an endurance behemoth where he would be involved in a six hour match. We have to get it out of our minds that all dopers are pushing the limits. I think there are a wide variety of dopers who use a variance of drugs at different times to spike performance. I am sure in many cases, players are not always full head-on doping but use it often in a limited way to give that extra boost. In this regard, Federer should be suspect just as everyone else.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Has Federer been asked about Sharapova and/or Nadal and declined to comment? I don't think so. If no one asks, why would he offer his opinion? And has anyone else commented on the Nadal lawsuit? Why would Federer? If he suspects that Nadal is doping, what would he say? Good for him for suing? If he didn't suspect Nadal is doping maybe he'd say good for him. I rest my case. ;)

      Delete
    2. He's spoken about Sharapova failed test on multiple occasions and regarding Nadal's lawsuit, I don't think any other player (other than Murray who was asked in his press conference) has commented yet. But I would expect Federer to say something non-controversial, how it's good that Nadal wants to clear his name and that there should be more tests, transparency e.t.c

      There's no way he'll explicitly state that he suspects Nadal of doping. That would just make him appear as a sore loser considering the amount of losses he's had against him. Instead I think Federer will just continue to complain about the amount of time Nadal takes between points...at least he won't be alone in that regard.

      Delete
    3. I am open to the idea Federer may be doping. Really the biggest "sign" is that he is 34 and right up there still. You look at players like Lendl and Sampras, they were shadows on themselves into their early 30's. Yes Federer has declined a lot since 04-07, but only a little since about 2012. But some players can just play longer than others too especially with his style, I don't think this means too much.

      And what's he meant to say about Nadal suing? I didn't know any players had? This is a bit of a red herring...

      Delete
    4. Perhaps to make my point clear, Federer has always been an outspoken leader on anything tennis. He even once addressed the issue of match-fixing several years back.
      I just found it strange that he was going through these unusual withdrawals from tournaments and keeping quiet about several prominent and explosive issues that affects tennis as a sport.
      I still maintain that doping can possibly be in a limited form of Federer's training regimen.
      Although his stamina is not on par with either Nadal or Djokovic, his vast shot making selections do require a maximized physical presence.
      Perhaps, I may be incorrect on him commenting on Nadal's litigation however, he has not led the field on Sharapova's case as he usually has and I find that a bit out of character for him. I may have missed it but I have seen Murray, Djokovic and Nadal all comment on Sharapova's failed tests but there were no news item that I saw on Federer's comments. They probably were there and I may have missed them but they were certainly under the radar compared to the other three.
      My point is that all the top players have to be scrutinized (even the vocal Murray) when the barnyard door of anti-doping has been clearly left open.

      Delete
  11. If Roger played the type of tennis Djokal play he would have been retired long ago. Even with his smoother, lighter type of tennis where the points are faster, he's still been caught in the physicality that today's game warrants. His back has been an issue off and on for a while now. While there's no official proof that his knee was anything but a fluke, it's pretty obvious that wear and tear has been happening to him as well. Just at a slower pace than a player like Nadal.

    The thing to look at is consistency and bizarre behavior. When a player says they have the Flu 3-4 times a year , this is bizarre. When they pass out on the court and have to be helped off and they say it's just another flu - again bizarre.

    There are all kinds of bizarre signs that jump out if one watches a lot of tennis and keeps an open mind. The open mind part is the tough one. I'm not sure I can say a single commentator out there seemes to have one. (Maybe a handful at most)

    Here's an example of the fairness I talk about. Sam Stosur. Look at her and I would think everyone on this site would think she's doping. I have worked in the background on this and have been privy to info about a dozen or so players. I have never heard anything about Sam from my sources (Im not talking publications or hearsay from the web). She did go thru a body change a long time ago, but since that time hasn't changed here physique much since. Also, her on the court behavior is pretty consistent. Nothing stands out. No huge improvements or downturns either. Her struggles now our what I would consider a normal gradual decline due to wear&tear and the struggles she's always had in trying to improve her strategy. So I am not going to come out and react suspiciously unless I have more to go on.

    This has nothing to do whether I'm a Stosur fan or not. Which for the record I'm not. I don't dislike her game either. Just not big fan or anything.

    I'm not a fan of the way tennis has become a one dimensional brutal war to some extent. But just because I want to more artistry come back into the game, I am not going to speculate what a player is doing off the court unless their are unusual inconsistencies. For example, suddenly Djokovic takes the ball early like never before. I'd love to get the stats on this, but he has definitely made an unusual leap in taking the ball early in the past year. He and Nadal have improved this aspect of their game over the years, but Novak's jumped tremendously recently. strange. But without stats I couldn't prove it. Then if I could prove it, how do I prove that it's unusual and not natural. I also know the lawyer of a client who developed Halo Technology. Neuroscience to enhance motor cortex functions. (Not sure I said that quite right?) But still - even if I get a statement that Novak used this science - still not real proof of anything.

    So as usual it's all speculation. It's nice to hide behind "lack of proof", but it is what it is. But I , for one, won't even speculate if it's just based on someone like stosur looking like a woman bodybuilder. Or Roger having back issues at 34. That's not enough. At the same time, what I consider "bizarre" performance or behavior is another item left to opinion. Not proof.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think you may be falling into the trap that I have pointed out earlier. You are mentioning extreme signs that players may be doping heavily. My point is that there are probably players who will not dope to such an extreme but in a limited way. As they age, they have to, I imagine, tweak or whittle down their doping practices. I suspect it is not all or nothing in the world of doping which you seem to be alluding to.
      I agree to a certain extent with you that it is all speculation. However when you see things like a six hour marathon, rather than speculate, the main points of pressure should be applied to the regulating bodies like the ITF and WADA as to why anti-doping has been so sporadic.
      The governing bodies such as the ATP and ITF also have to address the salaries at the low end that ultimately contribute to the problem of match-fixing.

      Delete
  12. Speaking of commentators. Justin Gimelsob will tell you that everything happening with Nadal is simply a matter of confidence. Nadal would tell you that too. That's when the word, "confidence" became such a big word for the commentators the last year or so. Nadal started using it a lot at press conferences.

    Here's the thing. Can Gimelstob consciously argue that Nadal would be able to reach his prior physicality simply thru confidence?? In other words, all the years of possibly the most brutal tennis ever seen in the game has no effect as long as Rafa is confident?? This is the bizarre happenings I speak of.

    Rafa has been playing good tennis all along and was consistently top 5 in the world. He just wasn't the physical specimen and would fail late in matches like a normal athlete who's rough on his body. But now after all these years, almost 30, he can go back to his original physicality - and quickly?? Right after the sickness (that he said he never experienced before) in Miami?

    See, these beg questions. This is not about fandom.

    Now Gimelstob would say it's all confidence and since he was a former Tennis Professional and gets paid for his opinions on tv, he is right and everyone who's speculating anything different is wrong. And again - NO PROOF.

    So there you have it. And now lawsuits on those who may speculate. No Freedom of Speech to even question, now. hmmm..... Obviously I'm exaggerating on that one- but making a point.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I read an article about the ITF's response to Nadal wanting his test results made public. The ITF responded:

    "Mr Nadal, as all other players who are subject to the TADP, has access to his anti-doping records through WADA's ADAMS (the World Anti-Doping Agency's Anti-Doping Administration and Management System) database and is free to make them available. The accuracy of any such release would be verified by the ITF."

    Makes you wonder why Nadal hasn't done this as yet? Or was it all just PR spin that was never designed to be followed up on?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Breaking News!!!

    Rafael Nadal: ´When people speak about the samples being destroyed, that is terrible for Spanish sport´

    http://www.tennisworldusa.org/Rafael-Nadal-When-people-speak-about-the-samples-being-destroyed-that-is-terrible-for-Spanish-sport-articolo32436.html

    Let's say that Nadal is liking very much to play the role of "Saint Doping Free"!!

    Anyway, it's too easy playing that role at the end of his career!!!!

    Best regards.

    Fabrice

    PS already written (in this blog ) a meaningful post about this issue a month ago, I'll post it again asap!!

    ReplyDelete
  15. I'm not sure if this was posted here, but another tennis player tested positive for Meldonium.
    --

    Decision in the case of Sergey Betov
    http://www.itftennis.com/news/228535.aspx

    29 April 2016 – London, ENGLAND - The International Tennis Federation announced today that Sergey Betov has been found to have committed an Anti-Doping Rule Violation under Article 2.1 of the Tennis Anti-Doping Programme (the “Programme”). Mr Betov, a 28-year-old tennis player from Belarus, provided a sample on 21 January 2016 at the Australian Open. That sample was found to contain meldonium. Meldonium is a non-specified substance that was added to the WADA Prohibited List (in category S4.5) on 1 January 2016 and is therefore also prohibited under the Programme. Mr Betov was charged with an Anti-Doping Rule Violation under Article 2.1 of the Programme, and was provisionally suspended on 12 March 2016.
    [...]
    The ITF accepted that it is more likely than not that the meldonium found in Mr Betov's sample came from a course of Mildronate tablets that he took for six weeks ending in late October 2015, and also accepted that Mr Betov did not know, and could not have known or suspected, even with the exercise of utmost caution, that the meldonium would still be in his system as of 21 January 2016.

    Accordingly, it was determined that Mr. Betov bore no fault or negligence for the violation, and that any period of ineligibility that might otherwise have been imposed is therefore eliminated entirely under TADP Article 10.4, and so he is free to start competing again with immediate effect. Mr. Betov’s prize money won at the Australian Open is automatically forfeited.

    -----
    Sharapova is definitely facing a ban, question now is how long?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "accepted that Mr Betov did not know, and could not have known or suspected, even with the exercise of utmost caution, that the meldonium would still be in his system as of 21 January 2016"
      "bore no fault or negligence for the violation"
      but
      "Mr. Betov’s prize money won at the Australian Open is automatically forfeited."
      ????????

      Delete
    2. What price money, huh? And based on this one when are they going to start acknowledging and confiscating some of the millions earned by people like the Mac-daddy and 'I love tennis' Andre? or any other known abusers from the past..

      Delete
  16. NADAL IS A "MASTER AT MANUFACTURING ENERGY" Justin Gimelsob. Tennis Channel in the 3rd Set of Sousa/Nadal at Madrid.

    Again - Im not saying Nadal is doing anything illegal or otherwise to performance enhance at this time. Just saying that maybe these "gems" I quoted above are simply not enough anymore. The hard questions need to be and ARE being asked. Is the response by the players to rant rave and sue??

    Anyway - I figured more than a few of you here would appreciate that Gimbelstob classic. hehe

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do you go around analyzing such comments from all the matches, or just the ones involving Nadal? Do you feel similar need when Federer wins a 3 setter? Or is it his style which requires no endurance (lol!) that puts him above suspicion? Of course Nadal is not good enough to win against Sousa, so I get your point somewhat.

      Delete
  17. Murray beat Nadal in straight sets. It remains to be seen if Djoker & Nadal are trying to appease him after Murray indirectly outed both of them. Nadal did his part & now it's Djoker's turn! Lol!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Murray is a smart man and realizes that having an agressive rethoric against doping makes him less guilty in the eyes of the fanboys. But arguing that he - one of the fittest athletes in the world, rivalling Nadal and Djokoic themselves - is clean while the other are not, it's too biased.

      Delete
    2. In a weird way, I am always a bit relieved when Murray loses to Djokovic. It confirms my hope that he is playing clean. If he started regularly beating Djokovic (which would make men's tennis watchable again), I would be worried.

      Delete
    3. Unless Djokovic comes of the meds e.g. for Wimbledon and Olympics.

      Delete
    4. @Mary

      Strangely I also feel similarly when Federer beats Murray. Federer, at 33-34 has won their last 5 matches. So weird.

      Delete
    5. You guys are confessing your bias and sadly, that you don't care about the sport or doping at all. Murray losing proves anything or even provides weak evidence? No. It does not. It does in your mind, though, which speaks a lot about you. Thank you for making the fight against doping less credible once again.

      Delete
    6. Murray and Federer are pushing Djokovic harder than Nadal has for some time. If not for Djokovic, Federer would still be world number 1 by some margin, at 34 years old, over 10 years since he first ascended to the spot.

      To state that only Djokovic/Nadal warrant suspicion is ludicrous. In my mind anyone is equally likely to be guilty, and fanboy bias cannot cloud what objective facts look like.

      Delete
    7. My point is to admit my bias. Given that so much of the evidence of doping, which I think is probably widespread, is circumstantial, I think it's important that we examine whatever personal bias we have against players and how we see the evidence. To me, Djokovic's supremacy reminds me of Lance Armstrong. But I was always turned off by his chest thumping antics on Court. So yes, I think I am guilty of some bias. That was the point of my post.

      Delete
    8. I think there is a lack of informed tennis opinion about matters such as playing techniques, biomechanics, racquets and strings when it comes to these discussions. Only when all factors and parameters are considered in conjunction with doping, do you get a complete picture of how the sport is being played today.

      A common opinion across this blog has been that certain players have improved solely because of doping. Some reference the change in Nadal's serve during the 2010 US Open as a consequence of doping. While I believe Nadal has doped in the past/ is doping now, to claim that improvements in his serve were down to doping when there is CLEAR FOOTAGE on how remarkably different his trophy position on the serve is, smacks of an uniformed opinion. In spite of doping tennis relies heavily on confidence, feel, muscle memory etc, and to ignore all these would be to present a very narrow picture of the situation.

      Delete
  18. "Nadal hits out at doping accusers, says rivals are 'totally clean'"

    " The 14-times grand slam winner said that people who have accused him of doping are unhappy with their own lives, and do not like his style of play.

    "They do it because evidently they have a personal problem and are unhappy with themselves"

    http://www.eurosport.com/tennis/nadal-hits-out-at-doping-accusers-says-rivals-are-totally-clean_sto5563210/story.shtml

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Childish comment!!

      Typical of Nadal, a business insider has told me that Nadal is still like an obedient child!!

      In other words, he only says and does all the things that his uncle Tony tells him to say and do!!

      A very original mind....!!

      Best regards.

      Fabrice


      Delete
    2. So, his detractors are totes jelly... What is he, a 14 y.o. girl? Next we'll see him arguing the merits of Katy over Gaga...

      Delete
    3. Laugh out loud! Fits in nicely with the 'see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil' mindset of the self-appointed tennis brain trust, i.e. the behind-the-scenes admin-types who suggest and implement one-size-fits-all bucket-of-crap policies such as 'everyone must train players to use the two-handed backhand'. SMFH! Twenty-five to thirty years later, who wants to take credit for the mutant thing that tennis has become? So much for special inerests. We may as well be aligned with the WWW!... So sad.

      Delete
  19. Breaking News!!

    Nobody in tennis is surprised by Andy Murray's split from coach Amelie Mauresmo, says Serena Williams' coach Patrick Mouratoglou.

    British two-time Grand Slam winner Murray, 28, and Frenchwoman Mauresmo, 36, mutually ended their two-year working partnership on Monday.

    "Everyone knows everyone in the locker rooms and players' lounges," said Mouratoglou, who has coached Williams to eight Grand Slams since 2012.

    "Obviously something was wrong."

    The Frenchman told BBC Sport that tennis has "codes" which "everyone" knows "how to interpret".

    Source: http://www.bbc.com/sport/tennis/36252618

    Question:

    do they also have "codes" which "everyone" knows "how to interpret" about doping?

    Answer:

    to think they don't have "codes" about doping is like believing in flying elephants!!!

    Best regards.

    Fabrice

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey Fabrice all your Italians are the ones doping.Serena was a 5 time grand slam champ at 21.Cut the jealous bull shit and check your country. They fix matches and dope.You have no information.Stop pretending to be something you wish you were.

      Delete
    2. @dtank77

      1)I've written in plain English ( not in Russian or Chinese!! ) the following question:

      "do they also have "codes" which "everyone" knows "how to interpret" about doping?"

      and obviously the word "they" in this context refers to all the professionals ( tennis coaches, athletic trainers and tennis players on ATP and WTA tour ) of the professional tennis world and not in particular to Patrick Mouratoglou and Serena Williams!!

      I took it for granted!!

      Hence, if you haven't understood a simple concept like this, the problem is yours not mine!!

      2) As far as "Cut the jealous bull shit and check your country. They fix matches and dope"

      I can't be jealous of your country at all because your national sport is the American football that is a sport in which the massive usage of steroids is widespread for a long time!!

      There isn't any national sport around the world that is like American football from a doping point of view!!
      In other words, it's the most corrupted national sport in the world!!

      A very good negative record!!

      Congratulations...!!

      Adios!!

      Fabrice

      PS just an aperitif:

      Steroid Nation: Juiced Home Run Totals, Anti-aging Miracles, and a Hercules in Every High School: The Secret History of America's True Drug Addiction

      http://www.amazon.com/Steroid-Nation-Anti-aging-Miracles-Addiction/dp/1933060379

      No further comment is necessary!!!!






      Delete
    3. You started this shit not me.You are always accusing other players from other countries of doping.There is no country that is clean but I am not accusing anybody of doping.You have no access to any real information that anyone is doping, only innuendos and accusations.Was Vinci juiced when she beat Serena? Who knows? Is everybody doing it? I have no clue but you know as well as I that any major change in a person's career from losing to all of a sudden winning,serving faster,groundstrokes harder,covering the court like never before lend itself to suspicion.Serena never had that issue.She was always great.Did you think Sharapova was doping?Hell no.She wasn't even on the radar.Do you realize that every European country has been juicing since the 70's and the US since the 80's.You cannot pinpoint one player or one country without a positive test or other indisputable truth.If people could be sued for the slanderous shit they write everybody on this forum including me would have a date in court.You got a bone to pick with America look in the mirror.Eastern Europe started this steroid shit not us.

      Delete
    4. It doesn't matter where it started - it's where it ends up that counts. You are right about one thing - it is everywhere now. Also, at the risk of sounding "slanderous", I have few doubts that Serena's "greatness" has had some special assistance.

      Delete
    5. @dtank77

      1) "You started this shit not me"

      Actually, you are the first one that started the shit, I already explained the reasons in the first point of my previous post, I'll report it again:

      I've written in plain English ( not in Russian or Chinese!! ) the following question:

      "do they also have "codes" which "everyone" knows "how to interpret" about doping?"

      and obviously the word "they" in this context refers to all the professionals ( tennis coaches, athletic trainers and tennis players on ATP and WTA tour ) of the professional tennis world and not in particular to Patrick Mouratoglou and Serena Williams!!

      I took it for granted!!

      Hence, if you haven't understood a simple concept like this, the problem is yours not mine!!

      2) "You are always accusing other players from other countries of doping"

      a)I don't accuse anyone in particular, I simply gather clues about doping in professional tennis given the fact that this blog is clearly called "Tennis Has A Steroid Problem", hence, I am in the right place to do it, if you don't like it, don't read this blog!!

      b) I also gathered clues about doping concerning two very famous Italian tennis players, here it is:

      http://tennishasasteroidproblem.blogspot.it/2015/12/itf-2015-agm.html

      My 2 posts signed as FabFarn, apart from that, Fabio Fognini's credibility when he speaks about doping is zero because he has complained several times ( interviews in Italian ) that he is a short tennis player
      and that is the reason for which he can't have a good serve!! Obviously, this is a big lie, because he is only two centimeters shorter than John McEnroe!!
      The same is true for Flavia Pennetta who said that Sharapova has been just an absent-minded person in the case of "Meldonium"!!

      3)" Was Vinci juiced when she beat Serena? Who knows? Is everybody doing it? I have no clue but you know as well as I that any major change in a person's career from losing to all of a sudden winning,serving faster,groundstrokes harder,covering the court like never before lend itself to suspicion. "

      I've watched their tennis matches several times and I've watched that match, semifinal at the US Open 2015, for two times, from the first minute to the last one and I can say for sure that Serena Williams lost that match because she didn't played at her best at all, she was faulty and she wasn't in good physical conditions, if she had played as she usually plays, she would have won in two straight sets for sure!!

      4)"Did you think Sharapova was doping?Hell no.She wasn't even on the radar."



      Obviously, I did!!

      I had even reported on this blog a very meaningful link ( with a video interview ) about a partnershp between the famous Victor Conte and Sharapova which dates back to some years ago!!

      5)" Do you realize that every European country has been juicing since the 70's and the US since the 80's. "

      I agree 100% with richard:

      it doesn't matter where it started, it's where it ends up that counts!!

      End of the discussion once for ever!!

      Adios!!

      Fabrice

      Delete
    6. You are not judge and jury to anything I say.And you can agree with anybody you want,doesn't mean a goddam thing.All opinions no facts, only interpretations of articles.Are you a private investigator?Just a person blogging like the rest of us.And it matters where it started and where it ends.And Sharapova was on nobody's radar.Who are you kidding.Show me your post about Maria doping before she got caught.Meanwhile,Serena,Federer,Nadal and Djokovic are going down in history as 4 of the greatest players of all time,period.As far as Serena and Vinci,I am telling you something you don't know.Serena was partying with Drake the night before the match and told Patrick she wasn't right the next morning.Thought she could just throw her racquet on the court and win and Vinci stood up to her.

      Delete
    7. @dtank77

      "And Sharapova was on nobody's radar.Who are you kidding.Show me your post about Maria doping before she got caught"

      Here it is:

      http://tennishasasteroidproblem.blogspot.it/2016/03/maria-sharapova.html

      My first post ( the first four lines ) signed as FabFarn!! It wasn't a secret among business insiders....!!

      If by chance you think that Victor Conte and Sharapova were meeting up just to drink a cool tea, the problem is yours not mine!!

      2) "Meanwhile,Serena,Federer,Nadal and Djokovic are going down in history as 4 of the greatest players of all time,period."

      There is an elementary, simple and logical concept which is true in all human events:

      "History is written by the winners"

      Hence, one thing is the history written by the winners and another thing completely different is the true history!!

      Here are some very meaningful doubts about the official history in tennis ( that written by the winners ) by the owner and manager of this blog,THASP, here they are:

      1) Why do people believe sports institutions should be immune to corruption? They're no different than banks and political institutions!

      Source: https://twitter.com/Tehaspe/status/690363442709004288

      2) "the sport [tennis] cannot decide if it wants vigilant PED testing or is a country club"

      Source: https://twitter.com/Tehaspe/status/693456220955545602


      3) "If the rigour...applied by sports journalists to...cycling was transferred to tennis, the sport would be in a lot more trouble..."-Boyd

      Source: https://twitter.com/Tehaspe/status/713887958898749441

      Go, make the lion with him and tell him the same things you have just told me like:

      "All opinions no facts, only interpretations of articles.Are you a private investigator?Just a person blogging like the rest of us"

      Listen carefully to his answer and print it in capital letters on your forehead!!

      ADIOS!!

      Fabrice

      PS "I am telling you something you don't know.Serena was partying with Drake the night before"

      It was public news on all newspapers, everybody knew that in that time of the year Serena Williams was enjoying herself with that guy!!


      Delete
  20. Fabrice! This place will fast become THE 'spot' for laugh out loud humor! It would be uproariously funny if the results weren't so devastatingly sad for the tennis playing public. Made my day though!! Programmer, how about some sort of 'thumbs up or down' buttons on these comments and/or choice of emote-icons?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Fabrice! This place will fast become THE 'spot' for laugh out loud humor! It would be uproariously funny if the results weren't so devastatingly sad for the tennis playing public. Made my day though!! Programmer, how about some sort of 'thumbs up or down' buttons on these comments and/or choice of emote-icons?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Seems Serena hungry for some publicity, posting a video on snap chat after eating a spoonful of her dogs dinner. We're living in an era where the prestige of the athlete and sport means nothing. For Serena though the sad thing is if she does pass Graffs GS record she'll probably only be remembered for doing things like this...

    http://www.bbc.com/sport/tennis/36274989

    ReplyDelete
  23. Interesting match up this time in the Murray/Djokovic Rome final. Djokovic has been out on court for a gruelling 5 1/2 hrs in the quarters and semis versus Murray's more leisurely 2 1/2 hrs. Surely Djokovic isn't outlasting Murray in this one?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Me thinks the war of attrition will continue. And no matter how many hours or matches Djoker has played, he seems to get better & better as the match goes on....but then again, so does Murray....stay tuned. It was actually sad watching Nishikori resort to gladiator type tennis b/c he was one of the few like Roger who had a pleasant game to watch in this day & age of tennis. But I guess it's just hard to win championships that way anymore

      Delete
    2. If it is a close attritional match and, despite his gruelling run to the final, Djokovic outlasts Murray again you'd think a few more eyebrows will be raised. It would certainly provide a gilt-edged opportunity for journalists to ask some awkward questions in the presser, given the backdrop of Murray's thinly veiled comments a few weeks back. Perhaps Djokovic hands this one to Murray to avoid the mutterings in the runup to the French Open.

      Delete
    3. Gotta say that don't think Djoker threw this one. He seemed really pissed off that Murray was slaughtering him the way that Djoker has been taking down everyone this year. But Murray's average mph per stroke this match was 114mph---up from maybe 6mph just from last week. That's very telling right there. At least the French Open will be hard to say who wins this year. Wish they were testing cause tennis has become so gruesome to watch

      Delete
    4. Where are you getting those stats from?

      Delete
    5. https://twitter.com/christophclarey/status/731880826133172228

      Murray average groundstroke speed vs Djokovic
      Madrid final 106 kph
      Rome final so far 114 kph
      #tennischannel

      -

      +8 kph one week later and in much slower conditions.

      Delete
    6. Djokovic looked a little cooked in this final; I guess we’ll see how he “recovers” for Roland Garros. As for Murray this is only his second victory against Djokovic since Wimbledon 2013.

      It’s interesting though that since the Wimbledon 2013 final, it seems Murray can no longer last in his grueling matches against Djokovic. Under Lendl he managed to keep their head-to-head close and in terms of physicality was close to both Nadal and Djokovic. Who can forget when Murray out grind-ed Djokovic in the 2012 US Open final (a 5 hour slugfest)

      Delete
    7. Thanx for correction on stats & source. Murray had a cupcake draw compared to Djoker in Rome, but can't stop feeling that if he plays like today he might actually out grind Djoker at French Open & win it like during his Lendl years. Hate watching those kind of gladiator matches where craftiness & creativity are overshadowed by superhuman power & speed!!

      Delete
    8. http://straightsets.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/14/physiological-cost-is-part-of-tenniss-evolution-reyes-says/

      Gil Reyes:

      At the same time, there has been an advancement in the physical conditioning of every athlete led by trendsetters like Agassi, Novak Djokovic and Andy Murray. He said he believed that as training programs continue to incorporate sports medicine and understanding of the skeletal wear and tear on the joints, then injuries would be prevented.
      [...]
      Djokovic is often perceived as being more lean and wiry than muscular, but Reyes said that the players at the top of the game now were far stronger than their counterparts in the 1990s.

      “Just look at Andy Murray when he won Wimbledon this year,” he said. “This past year, he’s really been looking kind of strong compared to years prior. He hasn’t necessarily become bigger and bulkier, but he’s just really lean and muscular and a powerful athlete. Djokovic, Murray and Nadal are very muscular men, and if you don’t think so I encourage you to watch the 2012 Australian Open final.”

      Djokovic beat Nadal over six hours that day, and Reyes was fascinated by Djokovic’s reaction afterward, when he walked towards his box, ripped off his shirt and let out a primal roar.

      “That’s the first thing he thought to do after one of the most physical, certainly the most sensational tennis match I’ve ever seen,” Reyes said. “That is him sending out a message, I’m here and I’m ready. You have to deal with me. I’ve worked for it, I just played one of the most amazing matches in history and I’m good to go. That was him asserting his physicality.”

      Delete
    9. "Rome final so far 114 kph"

      That's a tweet, not a solid stat, and it's a poor comparison. Madrid was a gruelling three setter, which would have brought down his average groundstroke speed. I don't now at what period in the match that Rome groundstroke speed comes from, but it was straight sets in 90 mins so I would imagine he was still able to hit with full intensity to the end.

      Delete
  24. Murray was fitter under Lendl, and mentally better also. (Lendl wouldn't entertain any of his whining.) But when Murray beat Djokovic (2012 USO, 2013 Winbledon), it was when Djokovic was the one who was less strong than he had been or has been since.

    After an amazing 2011, Djokovic won the 2012 AO against Nadal in 6 hours, which on face-value is amazing, but think about it. If he had played Nadal on that court, his "home" court, the year before, it would not have taken 6 hours and 5 sets to beat him, it would have taken less.

    Then the rest of 2012, Nadal beats him, Murray beats him. Wouldn't have happened in 2011. 2013 also, Djokovic was not up to his 2011/2015 astonishing standards. Either it was the biological passport he was wary of, or he was preparing himself for knocking up his wife (didn't want any dodgy stuff in his system, may cause trouble for the baby), but he was not the same in 2012 and 2013.

    Nadal was out "injured". And that's when Murray pounced and got his 2 slams. Somehow Djokovic came back in 2014 (despite a semi final loss at the USO, he still won Wimbledon using his brutal style) and 2015 is obviously back to amazement.

    I think Novak will win THE grand slam this year.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Djokovic is a very technically gifted player from the back of the court, and his enhanced physical prowess is astonishing, but the grand slam is almost an impossible feat. Worse still, it may raise a lot of questions. Novak is hungry but I doubt he's too foolish.

      Delete
    2. Agree it's almost impossible, or rather really damn hard. However right now he's only a few weeks away from a "Novak Slam", and last year only nerves against Stan (French Open final) cost him the 2015 Calender Year Grand Slam.

      I know Stan's beaten him on the biggest stages before, but I think nerves lost that one for Novak last year.

      It would raise loads of eyebrows if he won it of course, but it would also raise him to a greatness level he and his ego really want to get to.

      Delete
    3. I think Federer is also juicing himself for something big. He realized that he had no chance on clay anyway, so he is preparing himself for a grass assault. He was outlasted by Djokovic in the last two years and so he wants to come prepared this time. He might be using this AO-Wimbledon time period for that, playing a match here and there so that it won't raise eyebrows. I won't be surprised if he wins Wimbledon this year at nearly 35.

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

      Delete
    5. @John Clarke

      You obviously follow the game very closely.

      Delete
    6. @Mystery, it is true that nerves was the major player in last year's final. He is the favourite for the French, but I think he will not win Wimbledon for multiple reasons:

      1. The hunger might just be sated. Djokovic has a very big chip on his shoulder mentality, which is sometimes justified by the unreasonable crowd opposition he faces during a match. Losing the French last year was a big motivating factor for the rest of the year. Can he pick himself up for Wimbledon?

      2. Murray. Playing really well these days and wins their matchup on grass.

      3. The Olympics might mean Novak will go easy on juicing, although I think he does that in very minute quantities these days, as compared to 2011.

      Delete
    7. @richard

      I do. Without Djokovic being at one of the best phases of his career, a certain 33-34 year old would have won 4 slams in the last 2 years.That's after looking completely done in 2013. If this certain player was named Nadal or Djokovic, this place would have exploded with all kinds of theories but he is not and I hardly see any. I am just trying to keep a balance. You mind?

      Delete
    8. You are dreaming if you think Federer's current injuries are a strategy to win Wimbledon. As for his performances in recent years, he was quite capable of losing to players other than Djokovic if he had met them in slam finals. His age hardly convicts him of doping, as Jimmy Connors was in a slam semifinal at 39 and Ken Rosewall played a final at 41. No one claims they were doping.

      Delete
    9. While I don't agree with the notion that Federer's current injuries are a strategy to win Wimbledon, to compare his situation with Connors and Rosewall doesn't hold much ground. The game and its demand on the body were very different back then. A better reference would be 35 year old Agassi, who took a set off Federer in the 2005 final.

      Delete
    10. And Federer's body is now breaking down. I don't think he has much longer in the game.

      Delete
    11. How sure can we be that Connors or Rosewall or Vilas or anyone were not doping? Any extraordinary achievement in longevity should be taken with a pinch of salt

      Delete
    12. If you take that view then all achievement - and not just longevity - becomes suspect. Consequently, all are seen as possible dopers. But it is an assertion made without evidence. Easily made. But not convincing.

      Delete
    13. The evidence here is in many cases (the majority) circumstantial, based on the extraordinary resilience, and even mentality (that bloggers explain quickly with their assumptions that some players are doped) Over 1200 matches as a successful professional player is not just any achievement, it is an extraordinarily extraordinary one, that relies on physicality to an enormous extent and hence possibly helped by extraordinary (natural or artificial) condition. at a time when controls were even weaker than now. At a time that legal ways of being a super athlete still did not exist. If you fail to acknowledge that, very well. Bias as you like

      Delete
    14. You can't cherry pick one particular feature to make a case for doping. There needs to be a full range of evidentiary material (as Nadal often seems to provide). A 41 year old Rosewall seems an unlikely candidate from that perspective. Better, I think, to concentrate on those cases where a significant number of boxes can be ticked - and not just age.

      Delete
    15. lol when it comes to Federer you are so quick to defend him. What evidence do you have against Nadal other than the ones you collected by cherry picking? You are not really a crusader against doping. You are a Federer fan who has been scarred by how Nadal was able to beat your boy. So you convinced yourself that Nadal was a doper. Now Djokovic has also got that distinction after beating Federer in majors in the last few years. If we judge Federer by the same yardstick you use for Nadal and now Djokovic he is also as suspicious as them. He was one of the guys till 2003. This was the same guy who complained about his stamina after getting beat by Hewitt in the masters cup in 2003. He was very talented but pretty much at the same level as the other guys like Hewitt, Roddick, Safin etc. Come 2004, he suddenly exploded and became this monster that no one could beat, playing almost every possible match for years, going deep in every tournament and always peaking at slams. His recovery was something that was never seen before and it was at a time when doping controls were much weaker than now. I bet you don't find that suspicious, how he suddenly transformed from one of the top guys to a giant. OTOH you use that argument against Djokovic when Djokovic also went through a similar transformation at a similar age (22/23) in 2011. The convenient excuse to defend Federer is "playing style" lol. Nadal on the other hand never had such a crazy high and had a pretty consistent career till 2014, doing extremely well on clay where he was great even at 17-18 and on other surfaces too when he was at his physical peak (22-27). Yet you are 100% convinced that he is a doper as if he is the only guy on tour who has had injury issues. You remind me of the 11 folks from 12 angry men. Look I don't know if Nadal or Djokovic are dopers or not but in absence of anything concrete they are as suspicious as Federer in my eyes. To me everyone is a potential doper and that includes Mr. Federer too.

      Delete
    16. Sorry if I hurt your feelings by naming Federer.

      Delete
    17. You amuse me. But I guess you need your little obsession.

      Delete
  25. Funny. Another doper won but I'm not reading things like a "tennis is a joke".

    Sad bias, anyone?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So the correct "bias" is that everyone who wins is a doper? How about just everybody? At every level? Something you are very sure of.

      Delete
    2. Most posters here are Fed fans, so you can see where they come from.

      Delete
    3. Most posters are concerned about doping in tennis. I guess you missed that.

      Delete
    4. It seems that they are very selectively concerned. But anyway, that's just how I see it.

      Delete
    5. I'm disheartened by the number of members here who fail to connect 'juicing' with the brute-force bashing, baseline-hugging game. All-court players steeped in what I call 'REAL' tennis, the fluid, effortless classic backhand, variety of spins, change of pace, sleight of hand, ... hardly need to 'juice' and are very rarely injured. That's why Roger can walk off a court looking fresh after a two or three set match. What's so hard to understand about this? SMH

      Delete
    6. @Anonymous009 are you being sarcastic or facetious here? It's hard to tell from your comment. Are you accusing Federer of having a "brute-force bashing" game? Do you even watch tennis?

      Delete
    7. @Lopi, I think you should reread my comment. I am including and using Roger as an example of the 'all court, effortless, graceful player'. Such viciousness in your comment leaps off the page! I've been following the game for more than 40 years. I don't need to watch a lot of the brutish pseudo tennis match-ups all too common at this time. If I had the time, it would bore me to tears. Occasional YouTube Highlights or reruns are good enough for me. Thanks to this site however I have been able to do a survey of how many of the top 100 men and women actually use the classic game. The results are 25% of the men and 4% of the women! There's what's wrong with women's tennis today. I often hear comments on the artistry or the beauty of players like Vinci and Suarez Navarro, Moments that I don't happen to hear on the average, run-of-the-mill two-fisted baseline hugger. Clarify things a little for you?

      Delete
    8. viciousness? Aren't you the delicate one.

      Delete
    9. Laugh out loud! Well maybe there was another appropriate word, but as said the problem was that you miss read my comment. Yours was certainly an accusative one, based on malaprop or misunderstanding. Rosanne Rosanna Danna ring any bells? Don't lose your sense of humor, my friend.

      Delete
    10. Petr Korda didn't really stand out as a baseline hugging brute force player. Just saying.

      Delete
    11. Since when having style means that returning a shot from a brute force players requires less energy? Federer breaks the rules of physics.

      Delete
    12. Really? You're a physicist?

      Delete
  26. lets see... we might see some surprises...

    http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/general/athletics/rio-2016-31-athletes-test-positive-for-doping-and-face-bans-after-2008-olympics-samples-re-tested-a7033956.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wonder if they'll ever release the names.

      Delete
    2. Roger Federer has pulled out of the French Open.

      Delete
    3. yes he has. But if you're thinking this is some kind of silent ban, well...he played Monte Carlo and he played Rome so that isn't likely. It's more likely that he's almost 35 years old and his body is starting to feel the wear and tear of 18 years on tour. Why hurt his back further by playing a tournament he won't win. He might as well try to recover so he can play the grass season.

      Delete
    4. I agree with Lopi. Federer's doping years are ending. In Australia, he had a chance. In France, not even with twice the juice Nadal was taking.

      Delete
    5. I reckon you also think the Pope is a doper.

      Delete
  27. Marcelo Demoliner, a top 60 ranked doubles player, tests positive for a prohibited substance, (HCTZ, a diuretic and masking agent), admits to committing an anti-doping rule violation, and gets a THREE MONTH ban...

    Why so short? Why so little information?

    http://www.itftennis.com/news/229701.aspx

    ReplyDelete
  28. Breaking News!!



    Poll finds 22% of tennis pros know a player who has used drugs
    A quarter of players suspect match fixing, says ESPN poll
    A third say Serena Williams would finish outside ATP top 1000

    https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/may/18/tennis-drugs-maria-sharapova-espn-poll

    And just some weeks before, Novak Djokovic, N 1 ATP, had said:

    "I am proud to be part of a clean sport"


    Two so different versions of the tennis world, there must be something strange to say the least..!!

    Best regards.

    Fabrice




    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interesting. In other words, 78% may agree with Djokovic? That too when they were asked for an anonymous poll? I bet that number would go up significantly if they were asked in front of a camera. So if 4 out of 5 people might not disagree with him even when asked off the record, why single him out?

      Delete
    2. Poll finds 22% of tennis pros know a player who has used drugs.
      +
      A quarter of players suspect match fixing, says ESPN poll
      +
      Nearly two thirds said professional tennis players should be tested more often.

      =

      Not a clean sport!!

      In fact, because of the fact that nearly two thirds said professional tennis players should be tested more often, it simply involves that they know very well that anti doping controls in professional tennis aren't effective at all whereas Djokovic had recently said that anti doping controls in professional tennis are already effective enough!!

      Again: Two so different versions of the tennis world, there must be something strange to say the least..!!

      Best regards.

      Fabrice



      Delete
    3. Sure, it is not a clean sport but you can't target anyone for believing that it was. For all we know 80% of them would say the same thing, especially in front of a camera. That is my point.

      Delete
    4. As far as "For all we know 80% of them would say the same thing, especially in front of a camera"

      It must also be said that behind a camera there should be a journalist who makes his/her real job which is asking the right questions and not just an entertainer to make the show goes on!!

      Best regards.

      Fabrice

      Delete
  29. It is a wonderful information and also get good knowledge and ideas from this article. The author is giving good thoughts and suggestions to each and every readers through this article.The good advantages of this article is giving good thought to each and every readers and also it’s giving good impressions. Looking forward to another article.
    -David

    ReplyDelete
  30. It's great information and thanks for sharing.
    gclub
    golden slot
    gclub casino

    ReplyDelete