SeriousSam said:
carton said:
SeriousSam said:
This strongly suggests that Djokovic, Murray, Federer and Nadal are probably worse dopers than any athlete currently involved in pro cycling. .
I agree with your post but to be fair, Federer seems to be fighting for more testing while the other guys seem to be whining about whereabouts.
Agreed, that should be taken into account. And dismissed as having close to no bearing on the chance Federer is doping.
Or did you really adjust your beliefs about Froome being doped to the eyeballs after he tweeted about the lack of testing at Mt Teide? Cheap self promotion.
The Walsh book, the Kimmage interview, the constantly getting himself out there and answering questions, asking for more testing, checking the future testing box ... probably more than shaded by the fact that I tend to ride my bike similarly (relatively high cadence, constantly checking my HR, sit down even on some 'attacks', 1,700+ Vm/h): yeah I buy into the Kool-Aid to some extent (the marginal gains crap -not so much). Not that I'm going to be buying his jersey, but I do give Froome a chance of being clean. Certainly a much higher one than pretty much everyone else on here.
I've said this before and again I doubt I'll get any converts, but I think its good for the sport regardless that guys are out there asking for more testing and calling out "the dopers". Sure, it won't stop doping, but you can make it a little harder to do and a little easier to punish. Even if it turns out to have been a feint.
SeriousSam said:
As for the "skill sport" argument, there is some truth to that. The skill component in tennis means that strength, agility, speed and endurance are merely necessary, but not sufficient to succeed. You can't acquire the technique necessary to hit Nadal's or Federer's forehand from doping. We could take a gifted athlete and train his every measurable physical characteristic, using PEDs, such that it exceeds those of Djokovic. That guy wouldn't be in the top 10 of the ATP. By contrast, in cycling, skill isn't neeed. Pure physical ability will do.
But that merely means that it's easier to identify talent in tennis even though everyone is doping than it is in cycling. It does not change the incentive to dope, and so it does not change the prevalence of doping.
The difference between the Djokovics, Murrays and Nadals of the world and the other guys seems to be mainly endurance. Yeah, you need some skill, but the likes of Tsonga, Raonic, et al can hit the crap out of the ball as well (I'd say better than any of the "top" guys). When I was watching a fair bit of tennis guys like Safin and Nalbandian could outhit pretty much anyone for a set, they'd just tire quicker. So seems to go with Federer, so used to happen with Wawrinka.
In any case baseball has more than proven that if hitting something very quickly so as to make good contact is a skill, then doping also seems to help a great, great deal. I think I read somewhere the baseball "steroid era" might've impacted the batting averages more than the power numbers.
But yeah, I also think most of those guys are doped to the gills, but given the lack of awareness we might only find out in a couple of decades.