Nadal/Tennis doping

[The Hitch]

And many believe in a non doping world contador would still win gts. But the reality is we live in the doping world, not the other one.

 

[the sceptic]

And many believe in a non doping world contador would still win gts. But the reality is we live in the doping world, not the other one.

Who knows, maybe Federer is the Riis of tennis?

 

[sniper]

Funny how Nadal only has his OCD/manerisms when he is playing.


Looks a LOT more like stimulants to me.

the guy is so pumped up when he plays.
haven't seen anything similar.
some come/came close (hewitt, muster, etc.) to showing similar agression and nervy manerisms, but still nadal is by far the worse in that respect.
i woulnd't be at all surprised if his being so pumped up is due to stimulants.

 

[blackcat]

@happyCycling re: Fed.

it may not be a personal allegation and an indictment on an individual.

It is triangulating the individual's status within the sport and an entire tournament and a game that has lifted its physical demands by 10%, mostly due to PEDs.

So if most of his opponents are doping, and they have lifted their physicality by 10%, then Fed has a choice. To give up an edge when he is the most talented. Or neutralise it.

Now if you look at the best players in the last decade, all are the best defenders. Fed, Djokovic, Murray, Nadal. And they also have the sill to turn the rally to offense in one shot, or make a winner on defense.

it is my position, i dont believe you can be the best defender in the game now, without PEDs.

It started with Lendl. Courier and Thomas Muster followed. And even Australians had the title of the "fittest, best prepared in the game". Bermuda. Australians plural. sorry mate

 

[blackcat]

the guy is so pumped up when he plays.
haven't seen anything similar.
some come/came close (hewitt, muster, etc.) to showing similar agression and nervy manerisms, but still nadal is by far the worse in that respect.
i woulnd't be at all surprised if his being so pumped up is due to stimulants.

Jim Courier too.

imo, Lendl was the one who started it.

 

[sniper]

Jim Courier too.

imo, Lendl was the one who started it.

true.
i was never a fan of any of those players, neither in terms of playing style nor in terms of their character (except perhaps courrier, who i think was always a gentlemen on court and did have a spectacular baseball forehand).

 

[blackcat]

true.
i was never a fan of any of those players, neither in terms of playing style nor in terms of their character (except perhaps courrier, who i think was always a gentlemen on court and did have a spectacular baseball forehand).

Nike had an ad with Courier, watching him haul a heavy wheeler truck tire on an grass pitch with that rope and belt to the 100kg tire.

it is a little like Armstrong "cycling" on a snowy mountain, then going back for a second ascent. What are you on? I'm on my bike <strikethru> soccer pitch tire trawling

 

[sniper]

Nike had an ad with Courier, watching him haul a heavy wheeler truck tire on an grass pitch with that rope and belt to the 100kg tire.

it is a little like Armstrong "cycling" on a snowy mountain, then going back for a second ascent. What are you on? I'm on my bike <strikethru> soccer pitch tire trawling

yeah, nike has a thing for dopers.

courier and agassi were first of a kind: the heavy returners.
as soon as these guys took over the beautiful classical serve-volley type of players of the likes of stefan edberg where never to be seen again.

 

[thrawn]

yeah, nike has a thing for dopers.

courier and agassi were first of a kind: the heavy returners.
as soon as these guys took over the beautiful classical serve-volley type of players of the likes of stefan edberg where never to be seen again.

Happened well after Courier, and right at the end of Agassi's career. Rafter, Goran etc. were still successful until the early 2000's.

 

[sniper]

Happened well after Courier, and right at the end of Agassi's career. Rafter, Goran etc. were still successful until the early 2000's.

true, though guys like ivanisevic, krajicek and sampras compensated with heavy serves.
and none of these three was as pure a serve volleyer as edberg was.
i don't remember edberg playing one single baseline rally in his own service games, not even at rolland garros.
but edberg's service was too meek, it was fresh meat for guys like courier and agassi.

 

[The Hitch]

Who knows, maybe Federer is the Riis of tennis?

Riis how? 60%? Manager. I fail to see what point you are trying to make.

 

[SeriousSam]

the Riis of X - someone who wouldn't be near the top in X if everyone was clean

 

[djpbaltimore]

the Riis of X - someone who wouldn't be near the top in X if everyone was clean

Or alternatively, someone who pushed the limits of doping to brand new levels not previously seen in the sport.

 

[sniper]

the Riis of X - someone who wouldn't be near the top in X if everyone was clean

in that case, Federer is not a likely candidate to be the Riis of tennis.
His talent is hardly up for discussion.

Or alternatively, someone who pushed the limits of doping to brand new levels not previously seen in the sport.

this cannot be discarded (no negative proof), but again, people who follow the sport and have doping awareness (e.g. the people who post in here) seem to think that prize goes to others, like Nadal.

when federer became nr. 1, there wasn't anything particularly suspicious or unusual about his appearance/perfomance from a physical point of view, although admittedly he was always very fit and demonstrated some of the finest footwork ever seen in the game.
but still very much unlike nadal, murray, djoker whom we can all see undergo physical transformations and combine it with unearthly endurance.

my verdict: federer doper? check. federer the riis of tennis? no way.

 

[djpbaltimore]

in that case, Federer is not a likely candidate to be the Riis of tennis.
His talent is hardly up for discussion.


this cannot be discarded (no negative proof), but again, people who follow the sport and have doping awareness (e.g. the people who post in here) seem to think that prize goes to others, like Nadal.

when federer became nr. 1, there wasn't anything particularly suspicious or unusual about his appearance/perfomance from a physical point of view, although admittedly he was always very fit and demonstrated some of the finest footwork ever seen in the game.
but still very much unlike nadal, murray, djoker whom we can all see undergo physical transformations and combine it with unearthly endurance.

my verdict: federer doper? check. federer the riis of tennis? no way.

Because of the thread title, I thought that comment was referring to Nadal, not Federer. Sorry, I didn't read that close enough. Like you, I don't feel that epithet fits Federer.

 

[HappyCycling]

bernhard kohls performancws were within the realm of possibility. More so than federers even. So were Sayers and that of many others.

But talent in Tennis relies more on instinctive qualities which are somewhat removed from the distortion of talent which doping products provide in cycling. I am not saying it wouldn't be beneficial to dope in order to train longer and 'perfect' a particular shot (arguable if this is possible in my opinion) or earn the conditioning which requires the positioning to pull off said shot, but what I am saying is some things in Tennis are heavily reliant on particular innate attributes which any degree of doping might not help improve.

A good example of this is Fabrice Santoro, and I am pretty much sure he never doped.

 

[zebedee]

. . . but what I am saying is some things in Tennis are heavily reliant on particular innate attributes which any degree of doping might not help improve.

A good example of this is Fabrice Santoro, and I am pretty much sure he never doped.

And he never got anywhere either.

You're trotting out that same old myth - that there's no doping in tennis because it's skill that decides matches - peddled time and again by fans as well as the old fart who heads up anti-doping at the ITF.

As a matter of fact, there is absolutely nothing in tennis that doping could not improve. In fact tennis is a perfect sport for doping - fast paced bursts and short recovery times present optimum conditions for steroids which have long-lasting effects and can be taken well away from competition.

Tennis is horribly doped.

 

[SundayRider]

And he never got anywhere either.

You're trotting out that same old myth - that there's no doping in tennis because it's skill that decides matches - peddled time and again by fans as well as the old fart who heads up anti-doping at the ITF.

As a matter of fact, there is absolutely nothing in tennis that doping could not improve. In fact tennis is a perfect sport for doping - fast paced bursts and short recovery times present optimum conditions for steroids which have long-lasting effects and can be taken well away from competition.

Tennis is horribly doped.

I agree with you to a point however. Unless you have the baseline of good skills (developed over years and years) the doping will get you absolutely nowhere. This in contrast to a sport like cycling (and sports like triathlon, running) where the skill aspect is almost non existent - Froome on a bike is a good example of this.

 

[The Hitch]

I agree with you to a point however. Unless you have the baseline of good skills (developed over years and years) the doping will get you absolutely nowhere. This in contrast to a sport like cycling (and sports like triathlon, running) where the skill aspect is almost non existent - Froome on a bike is a good example of this.

That is a bit of a distraction though. What the "baseline" point is arguing is that the talent pool for tennis is lower because there is a talent requirement. But you also have to consider that tennis is a far more popular sport so there are way more participants to begin with.

There are also more ways to dope in tennis. Speed, endurance, stamina, upper body strength, injury recovery. In cycling it's just the stamina really.

 

[sugarman]

And he never got anywhere either.

You're trotting out that same old myth - that there's no doping in tennis because it's skill that decides matches - peddled time and again by fans as well as the old fart who heads up anti-doping at the ITF.

As a matter of fact, there is absolutely nothing in tennis that doping could not improve. In fact tennis is a perfect sport for doping - fast paced bursts and short recovery times present optimum conditions for steroids which have long-lasting effects and can be taken well away from competition.

Tennis is horribly doped.

Add to this that its also easy to overlook that doping can be used to improve skills too. Higher intensity/more frequent training etc.

A couple of years ago Lendl apparently had Murray doing hours upon hours of full intensity training on one shot. Forehand down the line I think it was. Doping could certainly make such training easier, and skill improves as a result. Just an example.

 

[William H]

That is a bit of a distraction though. What the "baseline" point is arguing is that the talent pool for tennis is lower because there is a talent requirement. But you also have to consider that tennis is a far more popular sport so there are way more participants to begin with.

There are also more ways to dope in tennis. Speed, endurance, stamina, upper body strength, injury recovery. In cycling it's just the stamina really.

Which is one reason why doping is likely to be easier and more effective in Cycling.

To get the same performance impact by doping in Tennis as you would in Cycling, you'd need to take a lot more drugs in order to boost a whole variety of things, whereas in Cycling you just need to take EPO/blood doping.

 

[HappyCycling]

And he never got anywhere either.

You're trotting out that same old myth - that there's no doping in tennis because it's skill that decides matches - peddled time and again by fans as well as the old fart who heads up anti-doping at the ITF.

As a matter of fact, there is absolutely nothing in tennis that doping could not improve. In fact tennis is a perfect sport for doping - fast paced bursts and short recovery times present optimum conditions for steroids which have long-lasting effects and can be taken well away from competition.

Tennis is horribly doped.

Depends what you define as "somewhere". He made a lot of money, is considered a legend in the game, incredibly talented and now commentates for various broadcasters.

Also I never for one second suggested tennis is drug free. I know its a plague on the ATP tour, I have no rose tinted spectacles on this topic. All I was pointing out is the distortion and gains made in tennis doping aren't as directly impacting on a pure endurance sport such as Cycling.

 

[the sceptic]

Depends what you define as "somewhere". He made a lot of money, is considered a legend in the game, incredibly talented and now commentates for various broadcasters.

Also I never for one second suggested tennis is drug free. I know its a plague on the ATP tour, I have no rose tinted spectacles on this topic. All I was pointing out is the distortion and gains made in tennis doping aren't as directly impacting on a pure endurance sport such as Cycling.

I bet tennis still has super responders. Just look at Nadal. When he isnt 100% fit he gets beat by journeymen. Nadal rises to the top because of his incredible combination of speed and stamina. Take it away, and he looks very ordinary.

The 5 set statistics posted somewhere was quite telling. Federer doesnt win much more than 50%, as would be expected in a close match. Nadal and Djokovic win much more because of their superior stamina over the average opponent.

That said though, Djokovic was still a very good player before he discovered the fountain of youth in 2011. Just not Nadal beating level.

 

[HappyCycling]

For sure, I imagine the longer a match goes on the greater chance the responders have. But if you can't hit a decent forehand, it won't make a difference.

 

[SirLes]

While not suggesting that tennis is definitely clean; when I watch tennis matches I don't see "superhuman" performances. The level of physical performance is within limits that can be achieved without PEDs IMO. What distinguishes the better players from the others is not superior physical strength or endurance.

Mental toughness, experience and being able to sustain an overall higher level of technical performance are the deciding factors. If a top player doesn't play to their usual high standard then then get beaten by a "weaker" player who is playing at or near the top of their game.

The amount of tennis that top players play is not exactly extreme when it comes to the limits of human endurance.

When Nabli, Froome or Contador is going flat put up a mountain they are exploring the upper limits of what is humanly possibly and they are the only ones on the planet who can achieve those levels.