Nadal receives Stem cell therapy on his injured back

Dec 30, 2010
850
0
0
Colonel said:
Interesting article for those interested

http://espn.go.com/tennis/story/_/id/11853811/rafael-nadal-receive-stem-cell-treatment-back-pain

Makes you think how many other athletes have already gone this similar route for performance enhancement and not the trusted old doping methods and therefore are cocksure about being clean.

These treatments don't enhance performance, however they can be used to mask other performance enhancing treatments (both result in elevated levels of IGF-1 in the body).

“If athletes choose to be guinea pigs, fine, but they need to be aware that success is not likely, that the risks are unknown and that the costs are around €7,000 for one infiltration.”

Since stem-cell treatments are probably not effective, they are probably being used by shady doctors to enhance performance. Dr. Anthony Galea (a big proponent of "PRP") was caught importing HGH into the US. Nadal's doctor (Sanchez) is a big proponent of "PRP" and "stem cell treatments".

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that Nadal is probably getting something else besides "stem cell treatments". He keeps getting "injured", over and over (without any outward signs), that requires experimental and unproven treatments (PRP, stem-cell injections), that he comes back stronger from. He is probably getting HGH, or IGF-1 injections. Hence Nadal's "magic serve" (his serve speed jumps after these treatments).
 
Andynonomous said:
These treatments don't enhance performance, however they can be used to mask other performance enhancing treatments (both result in elevated levels of IGF-1 in the body).

Since stem-cell treatments are probably not effective, they are probably being used by shady doctors to enhance performance. Dr. Anthony Galea (a big proponent of "PRP") was caught importing HGH into the US.

“If athletes choose to be guinea pigs, fine, but they need to be aware that success is not likely, that the risks are unknown and that the costs are around €7,000 for one infiltration.”
Well, I'm a simple man (as you are bound to agree) and I reckon, having seen Nadal in obvious agony with his back that if there's a chance it will help him recover he is sensible to give it a go. Why it should be thought he is trying to gain an advantage over somebody who has no such problem, just by being restored to health himself, I cannot see.

The tendency to ascribe ulterior motives to everything a sportsman does is frankly bizarre to anyone not weaned in the Clinic.
 
Dec 30, 2010
850
0
0
wrinklyvet said:
Well, I'm a simple man (as you are bound to agree) and I reckon, having seen Nadal in obvious agony with his back that if there's a chance it will help him recover he is sensible to give it a go. Why it should be thought he is trying to gain an advantage over somebody who has no such problem, just by being restored to health himself, I cannot see.

The tendency to ascribe ulterior motives to everything a sportsman does is frankly bizarre to anyone not weaned in the Clinic.
1) Nadal probably doesn't have a back injury. He didn't show any symptoms, or mention anything about it until he was getting his **** kicked in the 2014 Aus open final. He went on to have a fine 2014 season, winning the most grueling tournament of the year (Roland Garros). All of a sudden after many months of rest (he only played about three competitive matches in the last 6 months) , he has a sore back ?
He has a history of suspicious "injuries" (he claims knee injuries without ever showing any limp, or slowing,.he claimed he had a wrist "injury" last summer then he showed himself on youtube lifting a heavy bucket of water with the cast still on his wrist). His back looks fine in that video as well.

2) These suspicious injuries are always followed by experimental, and unproven treatments by a shady doctor, that result in a stronger Nadal.

3) There is a mountain of circumstantial evidence that Nadal is a doper (about the same amount as there was for Armstrong).
 
wrinklyvet said:
Well, I'm a simple man (as you are bound to agree) and I reckon, having seen Nadal in obvious agony with his back that if there's a chance it will help him recover he is sensible to give it a go. Why it should be thought he is trying to gain an advantage over somebody who has no such problem, just by being restored to health himself, I cannot see.

The tendency to ascribe ulterior motives to everything a sportsman does is frankly bizarre to anyone not weaned in the Clinic.
I thought I was pretty knowledgeable about the PRO peloton as I read the news, watch lots of races, discuss with friends, read the forums.

Then I entered the Clinic. I have no idea what is being discussed in most threads. I don't know if there are a lot of insiders or experts in here or just a lot of personal banter between frequenters. And, I'd have to give up on cycling for a few months to go back through the 1,000 reply threads, which are fairly common.
 
Dec 30, 2010
850
0
0
nayr497 said:
I thought I was pretty knowledgeable about the PRO peloton as I read the news, watch lots of races, discuss with friends, read the forums.

Then I entered the Clinic. I have no idea what is being discussed in most threads. I don't know if there are a lot of insiders or experts in here or just a lot of personal banter between frequenters. And, I'd have to give up on cycling for a few months to go back through the 1,000 reply threads, which are fairly common.
Yep, it is just "paranoid, tin-foil hat wearing conspiracy theorists" here in the clinic. At least, that is what the Armstrong and Contador fans used to tell us.
 
nayr497 said:
I thought I was pretty knowledgeable about the PRO peloton as I read the news, watch lots of races, discuss with friends, read the forums.

Then I entered the Clinic. I have no idea what is being discussed in most threads. I don't know if there are a lot of insiders or experts in here or just a lot of personal banter between frequenters. And, I'd have to give up on cycling for a few months to go back through the 1,000 reply threads, which are fairly common.
Perhaps you will find another (alternative) world here where anything trusting is thought to be naive. I will leave it one of the established regulars to answer your query if he will!
 
Dec 30, 2010
850
0
0
wrinklyvet said:
Perhaps you will find another (alternative) world here where anything trusting is thought to be naive. I will leave it one of the established regulars to answer your query if he will!
To be trusting of an obvious corrupt system is naïve. There are a lot of people who trusted Armstrong and Contador. Most clinicians doubted the cleanliness of either, BEFORE they were caught.


The truth can be weaned from "patterns" (yes, even without "proof").

- testers are playing "catchup" with the dopers.
- very high incentive to cheat (money and prestige).
- studies show that some people will cheat if they think they will get away with it.
- suspicious physical performances that are far superior to previous generations.
- conflict of interest between promoting the sport and keeping it clean.
- athletes using obvious bogus "explanations" for increased performance ("gluten free diets", "cadence", "working harder than other elite athletes",...)
- athletes associating themselves with suspicious doctors and trainers.
- athletes getting caught by authorities outside the sport (like Odesnik, Armstrong, Galgo, Puerto, Bonds, Clemens, Marion Jones).
- athletes admitting usage (Canseco), and claiming they have seen others using.

The patterns are clear. Doping is widespread in sports today. It doesn't take "cynicism" to come to this conclusion. Just a rational mind.
 
Feb 4, 2010
548
0
0
In the clinic world anything an athlete ingests or is injected (no never mind, ALL injections are suspect) with except water and Mom's good home cooking is suspect. (of course Mom once shopped at a grocery that Dr. Ferrari shopped at 5 years ago so she's suspect too) An athlete that uses anything that might relieve chronic pain or assist healing from an injury is a filthy cheating doper.
 
9000ft said:
In the clinic world anything an athlete ingests or is injected (no never mind, ALL injections are suspect) with except water and Mom's good home cooking is suspect. (of course Mom once shopped at a grocery that Dr. Ferrari shopped at 5 years ago so she's suspect too) An athlete that uses anything that might relieve chronic pain or assist healing from an injury is a filthy cheating doper.
Yes, poor Nadal. No doubt Andynonomous has forgotten that he had to withdraw from the Wimbledon tournament in 2012 in the second round because of the bad knee Andynonomous would say he never had.

The Washington Post says Nadal battled a back injury throughout the 2014 season after hurting it during the Australian Open final in January. They've been suckered in.

That's right, I'm sure there was nothing wrong with him all along. He must just be another cheating guy who likes to enlist public sympathy...

"The Spanish tennis star was already sidelined for the rest of the season after having his appendix removed last week." Probably just an excuse for injections.

Nadal may have to adopt Spike Milligan's famous epitaph, "I told you I was ill."
 
Dec 30, 2010
850
0
0
9000ft said:
In the clinic world anything an athlete ingests or is injected (no never mind, ALL injections are suspect) with except water and Mom's good home cooking is suspect. (of course Mom once shopped at a grocery that Dr. Ferrari shopped at 5 years ago so she's suspect too) An athlete that uses anything that might relieve chronic pain or assist healing from an injury is a filthy cheating doper.
Yep, strawman arguments that nobody has made here. You know people make these types of arguments when they don't believe their own position, right ?
 
Dec 30, 2010
850
0
0
wrinklyvet said:
Yes, poor Nadal. No doubt Andynonomous has forgotten that he had to withdraw from the Wimbledon tournament in 2012 in the second round because of the bad knee Andynonomous would say he never had.

The Washington Post says Nadal battled a back injury throughout the 2014 season after hurting it during the Australian Open final in January. They've been suckered in.

That's right, I'm sure there was nothing wrong with him all along. He must just be another cheating guy who likes to enlist public sympathy...

"The Spanish tennis star was already sidelined for the rest of the season after having his appendix removed last week." Probably just an excuse for injections.

Nadal may have to adopt Spike Milligan's famous epitaph, "I told you I was ill."

1) Nadal didn't "withdraw from Wimbledon in 2012". He lost in the second round in a 5 setter. He may have complained about his knees after the match, but he didn't show any impairment during the match. He ALWAYS claims he was injured after he loses.

http://espn.go.com/tennis/wimbledon12/story/_/id/8106990/wimbledon-2012-rafael-nadal-upset-second-round-lukas-rosol

2) All of the media , just repeats what the athlete says. Just because the Washington Post repeated what Nadal said, doesn't make it true. There was no mention of Nadal's bad back between the Australian open in January and November, until AFTER his appendix surgery.

3) Nadal's appendix surgery was at the tail end of the season (November). There was a 2 or 3 week recuperation before he started training again. It did not cause his 6 month absence from the tour (that started with a bogus wrist "injury" in July).

I gather you are a Nadal fan. You sound EXACTLY like the Armstrong fans did before he confessed (or the Contador fans did before he got caught). It's called DENIAL !

Nadal has three threads dedicated to himself here in the CYCLING clinic (including this one), and I didn't start any of them.
Why do you suppose that is ?

Rafa Nadal

Nadal/Tennis Doping
 
Andynonomous said:
1) Nadal didn't "withdraw from Wimbledon in 2012". He lost in the second round in a 5 setter. He may have complained about his knees after the match, but he didn't show any impairment during the match. He ALWAYS claims he was injured after he loses.

http://espn.go.com/tennis/wimbledon12/story/_/id/8106990/wimbledon-2012-rafael-nadal-upset-second-round-lukas-rosol

2) All of the media , just repeats what the athlete says. Just because the Washington Post repeated what Nadal said, doesn't make it true. There was no mention of Nadal's bad back between the Australian open in January and November, until AFTER his appendix surgery.

3) Nadal's appendix surgery was at the tail end of the season (November). There was a 2 or 3 week recuperation before he started training again. It did not cause his 6 month absence from the tour (that started with a bogus wrist "injury" in July).

I gather you are a Nadal fan. You sound EXACTLY like the Armstrong fans did before he confessed (or the Contador fans did before he got caught). It's called DENIAL !
No, not a Nadal fan at all but you are working him over for reasons I can't fathom.

However, I think I am mistaken about the 2012 defeat at Wimbledon and you are right. He withdrew from the U.S. Open after that without taking part.

I don't believe you are able to show his injuries were bogus, but the standard of proof here is very low, is it not?

Your interest in tennis is clearly greater than mine so I will leave you to theorise free from further comment.
 
Jun 5, 2014
883
0
0
Nice move. After that....just do a bit of EPO and Testosterone which is as useful in Tennis as in cycling. Endurance and strenght. Tennis players should be tested day and night.
 
wrinklyvet said:
the standard of proof here is very low, is it not?
The standard of proof for a positive test is generally, in effect, one in a thousand or less. This takes into account very imperfect tests--e.g., for EPO--and insufficient frequency of tests, providing major loopholes for doping programs scheduled to avoid these tests. Many studies have documented this problem.

What this means is that for every doping athlete who tests positive there are probably several, maybe ten or more, doping athletes who don't test positive. One of the things those of us in the Clinic try to do is identify these false negatives. Since our conclusions don't result in sanctions, we're not afraid of false positives--accusing someone who is really clean of doping. No doubt this happens here from time to time. But this must be weighed against the far larger number of real dopers who are outed here, again, without any sanctions.

So when you say the standard of proof here is very low, what you mean is that it's not at the one in a thousand or so level needed for a positive test. It's still far above the level needed for any reasonable person actually aware of the facts to conclude that someone is doping. This level is well beyond the 5O% level needed for a civil suit, e.g. It's well beyond the level that people routinely use in their everyday lives to say that something is certain--e.g., I might say I'm quite certain it won't rain today, when in fact my level of certainty is less than what is needed to establish a positive test. I might say I'm virtually certain that team A will beat team B in some sport in which team A is an overwhelming favorite, and yet there may never have been in the history of pro sports a team so heavily favored that one could bet on it with a certainty equal to what is demanded for a positive test.
 
Jul 15, 2013
550
0
0
nadal received Indiba treatment before the final v Stan at AO14. Cotorro flew over to Aus especially to treat him.It is normally used to treat injured athletes who won't play again for a while. He needed the treatment due to a massive blister on his hand, which the treatment was supposed to heal more quickly. It is stated to involve 'reorganizing oxygenated blood'. I'm not sure that this treatment would not have had a positive effect on his red blood cell count, he played the final a day or two after. http://www.marca.com/2014/01/23/en/more_sports/1390501069.html

What is strange in the final is that he complained of a back injury after he started poorly. Some people think it was a tactical medical timeout and there was nothing wrong with him. Not uncommon for him when things aren't going his way.
 
Mar 12, 2009
2,521
0
0
I'm a big Rafa fan and happy to see him back again, hopefully he can stay somewhat healthy and win a Slam or two before he retires. Uncle Tony might have caused him health issues for the rest of his life, but maybe it was worth it, dunno.

I don't think for a second that he is cleans, as I don't think it's possible in any top sports, but as there is absolutely nothing I can do about it, I still have my favorite athletes/dopers.
Vamos Rafa :)

 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
red_flanders said:
Some very good points being made here. Hope those being schooled can move away from defensiveness and argumentation and learn something.
I give it a 0.1% chance.

Any other takers?
 
Nov 14, 2013
527
0
0
Since stem cell theropy is not on the banned list then not doping imo. Still looks like a hgh/roided up crab tho and i suspect he has mossy balls, he can't stop pulling at them when on the court.
 
Sep 6, 2014
283
0
0
Dear Wiggo said:
I give it a 0.1% chance.

Any other takers?
Id give it a lot higher percentage than that. Now I definitely don't agree with everything you guys say in here. I don't believe all athletes dope. IE do I believe a GT can be won clean? NO probably not. Do I believe a classic can be won clean? YES I think it probably can.

But I have to hand it to you guys, I have learned a lot about doping in here and you are all very well informed. While I hugely respect your knowledge on doping im probably not quite as cynical as you guys. Each to his own though I suppose. That's what makes this place so interesting, debate and discussion.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
Merckx index said:
The standard of proof for a positive test is generally, in effect, one in a thousand or less. This takes into account very imperfect tests--e.g., for EPO--and insufficient frequency of tests, providing major loopholes for doping programs scheduled to avoid these tests. Many studies have documented this problem.

What this means is that for every doping athlete who tests positive there are probably several, maybe ten or more, doping athletes who don't test positive. One of the things those of us in the Clinic try to do is identify these false negatives. Since our conclusions don't result in sanctions, we're not afraid of false positives--accusing someone who is really clean of doping. No doubt this happens here from time to time. But this must be weighed against the far larger number of real dopers who are outed here, again, without any sanctions.

So when you say the standard of proof here is very low, what you mean is that it's not at the one in a thousand or so level needed for a positive test. It's still far above the level needed for any reasonable person actually aware of the facts to conclude that someone is doping. This level is well beyond the 5O% level needed for a civil suit, e.g. It's well beyond the level that people routinely use in their everyday lives to say that something is certain--e.g., I might say I'm quite certain it won't rain today, when in fact my level of certainty is less than what is needed to establish a positive test. I might say I'm virtually certain that team A will beat team B in some sport in which team A is an overwhelming favorite, and yet there may never have been in the history of pro sports a team so heavily favored that one could bet on it with a certainty equal to what is demanded for a positive test.
splendid post.

as for Nadal's stemcell therapy, I think he and his team are not worried at all about press and fans speculating about the (il)legality of it, as long as it distracts attention away from Nadal's more clear-cut PED-abuse
(EPO, HGH, steroids) and rumors about silent bans.
 
Jul 26, 2012
524
0
0
Merckx index said:
. . . . . . . One of the things those of us in the Clinic try to do is identify these false negatives. . . . . . . . we're not afraid of false positives--accusing someone who is really clean of doping. . . . . . But this must be weighed against the far larger number of real dopers who are outed here, again, without any sanctions. . . . .
I think you underestimate yourselves. You seem to out real dopers again and again and again; an uncanny ability to spot the phony and spotlight the charlatan behind him.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS