Nadal receives Stem cell therapy on his injured back

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
May 26, 2010
28,144
1
0
ralphbert said:
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.
Stem cell therapy would come under WADA performance enhancement.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
1
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."
There is the possibilty that Nadal's doping has caused some of his problems.

Tiger Woods suffers a bad back and knee problems allegedly caused by over use of steroids.
 
Jul 15, 2013
550
0
0
Beaten by a 37 yo journeyman (Berrer) today after wining the first set 6-1. Berrer's first win against a top 5 player in 15 attempts (i think). He is retiring at the end of this year.
 
Mar 12, 2009
2,527
0
0
bewildered said:
Beaten by a 37 yo journeyman (Berrer) today after wining the first set 6-1. Berrer's first win against a top 5 player in 15 attempts (i think). He is retiring at the end of this year.
Nah, unless he pics another injury, he'll go on for couple more years. Berrer is 34 yo, fine win for him.

(I jinxed Rafa. :eek:)
 
Dec 11, 2013
1,138
0
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..
Seems to me you are confusing standard of proof with probablility of testing positive.
 
Dec 11, 2013
1,138
0
0
I'm not following the argument here.

Are we saying that stem cell treatment is doping and these injuries are a cover story or that the injuries are genuine but caused by doping?
 
TailWindHome said:
I'm not following the argument here.

Are we saying that stem cell treatment is doping and these injuries are a cover story or that the injuries are genuine but caused by doping?
I believe what's being said is that Nadal has a history of suspicious "injuries" with subsequent "treatments" from suspicious doctors which result in better performance, and this is yet another one. Further that the nature of the treatments may be a mask for doping, as in "Altitude Tents" in cycling back in the 2000's.
 
Jun 5, 2014
883
0
0
red_flanders said:
I believe what's being said is that Nadal has a history of suspicious "injuries" with subsequent "treatments" from suspicious doctors which result in better performance, and this is yet another one. Further that the nature of the treatments may be a mask for doping, as in "Altitude Tents" in cycling back in the 2000's.
I don't know about EPO but I'd bet my house that he uses sh!tloads of testosterone for many many years. His upper arms were so large and packed full of muscles when he was 20/21 - not normal.
I know people who train in the gym at age 22 ...training 5 times a week ...since they were 16..just to gain muscle mass...and they don't have the same size (clean) at that age.
 
TailWindHome said:
Seems to me you are confusing standard of proof with probablility of testing positive.
They're not the same thing, but they are related. The probability of a doper testing positive is quite low, in large part because the standard for testing positive is so rigorous. The standard of proof (in a doping appeal, e.g.) is not especially high (between preponderance of evidence and beyond reasonable doubt) but given that evidence is based on a positive test, very few dopers ever need to reach that point.
 
Merckx index said:
They're not the same thing, but they are related. The probability of a doper testing positive is quite low, in large part because the standard for testing positive is so rigorous. The standard of proof (in a doping appeal, e.g.) is not especially high (between preponderance of evidence and beyond reasonable doubt) but given that evidence is based on a positive test, very few dopers ever need to reach that point.
Forgive me, but I don't follow this so can you put it another way?

By the way, thanks for your other post, not all of which I fully understood either.

I do have more than a passing acquaintance with concepts of assessing the value of evidence and of the burden of proof but I can't be totally sure what you mean in your argument.

I am sure you won't mind elaborating. :)
 
wrinklyvet said:
Forgive me, but I don't follow this so can you put it another way?

By the way, thanks for your other post, not all of which I fully understood either.

I do have more than a passing acquaintance with concepts of assessing the value of evidence and of the burden of proof but I can't be totally sure what you mean in your argument.

I am sure you won't mind elaborating. :)
In the context of this thread, it’s pretty simple. It’s not necessary to get into the standard of proof at all, which I think confuses the issue.

The odds of a doper testing positive—there was a very interesting link here a few weeks ago estimating the percentages for various substances, taken according to various schedules, which maybe I can dig up later—are very low. Sometimes that’s because the standard for a positive test is very rigorous—as with EPO, the biopassport, and testosterone—and usually also because testing is not frequent enough to catch dopers. Every drug has its glow time, the period after which taking it at a PE dose it’s present in the system in high enough concentration to be detected. These time ranges are known, and can be used, in conjunction with data on how often athletes are tested, to determine the probability of a positive test.

That means that for every recognized doper there are numerous athletes who are likely doping, but haven’t tested positive. If, e.g., three athletes in some sport test positive for some substance in a year, and statistically it’s shown that only 10% of the users of this substance are likely to be detected with current testing protocols, this suggests that there might be 20-30 undetected dopers. As I pointed out before, the Clinic tries to identify them, using evidence that is not recognized as relevant to a sanction—e.g., suspicious performances, suspicious associations, what may be said about them by others--but is nevertheless often substantial, even rising to the level of certainty that we often use in our everyday lives.

Many dopers were outed in this forum in this way before they were officially recognized as such. Not just LA, e.g., but Contador, Vino, Frank Schleck, DiLuca (the second or third time around), et al.
 
Merckx index said:
Many dopers were outed in this forum in this way before they were officially recognized as such. Not just LA, e.g., but Contador, Vino, Frank Schleck, DiLuca (the second or third time around), et al.
Oh really? Do you believe that? Did the forum 'out' them

When did this forum start? 2009 seems to be the earliest post I can find.

Armstrong was written about by Walsh and L'Equipe in 2005
Contador, Vino and Schleck were linked to Puerto in 2006
Vino was busted in 2007
Di Luca's Oil for Drugs suspension was in 2007

All long before any of you appeared.

Be honest and recognise this forum for what it is - people obsessed with doping who, in the absence of a doping scandal, will just construct one themselves from very little and congratulate themselves on their insight. They aim their sights like a shotgun to cover as many people as possible, focusing on the ones that get push back from other forum members in an attempt to recreate the glory days of Armstrong, which social media largely missed out on and for whom they pine.
 
Parker said:
Oh really? Do you believe that? Did the forum 'out' them

When did this forum start? 2009 seems to be the earliest post I can find.

Armstrong was written about by Walsh and L'Equipe in 2005
Contador, Vino and Schleck were linked to Puerto in 2006
Vino was busted in 2007
Di Luca's Oil for Drugs suspension was in 2007

All long before any of you appeared.
My bad. By forum, I should have said I mean the people who actually post here. A great many of them were active on other forums before the Clinic, e.g., Daily Peloton.

Be honest and recognise this forum for what it is - people obsessed with doping who, in the absence of a doping scandal, will just construct one themselves from very little and congratulate themselves on their insight. They aim their sights like a shotgun to cover as many people as possible, focusing on the ones that get push back from other forum members in an attempt to recreate the glory days of Armstrong, which social media largely missed out on and for whom they pine.
There's a lot of sound and fury, yes, but also some very good information posted here. I don't agree with every view expressed here, and in fact there's a lot of disagreement among posters here--just consider Digger vs. RR, e.g.
 
May 16, 2012
321
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.
You have to consider that some of the clinic posters are strong believers in the church that is Everyone Dopes. Everything an athlete does is a sign of doping. There is no grey area. Everyone is filthy sinners and the evidence is out there for everyone to see, if you just look for them and believe in them.

I would be skeptical about Nadal tho :p
 
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 am not a doctor, and I definately don't have any inside knowledge into Nadal's physical condition, but it would appear that the SENSIBLE thing for Nadal to do from a health standpoint would be to give up playing competitive tennis.
 
Jul 15, 2013
550
0
0
for as long as he can pick up a slam a year at the French Open, he will continue. He wants to surpass Federer in slams (17 v 14 down) and he always seems to be in tip-top shape for that tournament in early June and more lately in horrible shape come Wimbledon in late June, due to injury.

Yes sorry Berrer is 34 not 37.
 
Jul 26, 2012
524
0
0
wrinklyvet said:
The tendency to ascribe ulterior motives to everything a sportsman does is frankly bizarre to anyone not weaned in the Clinic.
For those who think Nadal should receive the benefit of the doubt, perhaps they should consider those fake medical timeouts and other questionable tactics for which he is now renown (forget the Clinic). In case you've overlooked that aspect too, here's one outside-the-Clinic commentator's opinion.

http://www.fawcette.net/2011/06/rafael-nadal-abuses-time-rules-against-del-potro-at-wimbledon.html

And another's:- http://nymag.com/daily/sports/2011/06/rafael_nadal_and_the_dark_art.html[

Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus.
 
zebedee said:
For those who think Nadal should receive the benefit of the doubt, perhaps they should consider those fake medical timeouts and other questionable tactics for which he is now renown (forget the Clinic). In case you've overlooked that aspect too, here's one outside-the-Clinic commentator's opinion.

http://www.fawcette.net/2011/06/rafael-nadal-abuses-time-rules-against-del-potro-at-wimbledon.html

And another's:- http://nymag.com/daily/sports/2011/06/rafael_nadal_and_the_dark_art.html[

Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus.
I can recognise gamesmanship, as it's known, when I see it and yes, he has that reputation.

"False in one thing , false in all" is a maxim that offers guidance in many situations but no, I don't see the need to apply this to his surgery.

Perhaps you have inside information about his motives, but if you think it's scientific to jump to conclusions I can honestly say I don't believe that.

I may be wrong, but I have the right to say what I think even if it's not mainstream clinic-think.
 
Jul 26, 2012
524
0
0
The maxim applies nonetheless; to the probability of his doping. The surgery is incidental and in any case is possibly or probably, attributable one way or another to his doping.
 
zebedee said:
The maxim applies nonetheless; to the probability of his doping. The surgery is incidental and in any case is possibly or probably, attributable one way or another to his doping.
Possibly or probably is the best that can be said. That's true. Equally possibly not.

Look, I'm not a Nadal supporter and never even thought of saying something to flip the coin over until someone leapt to the conclusion his treatment is spurious in some way. I insist on still thinking as I did before.

But I do wish he would stop picking his shorts out of his backside before serving.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY