Rafa Nadal

[Hawkwood]

no what people on this forum don't like is that tennis players are allowed to go around doped to gills and nothing happens while cycling in general is seen as a dirty sport with no hope to ever become clean and cyclists are mostly seen as doped scumbags that have no talented and all they can do is due to doping.

+1

A couple of interesting links: http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/news/story?id=1708773 and http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/tennis/mcenroe-used-steroids-says-former-wife-tatum-646541.html

I remember back in the early 80s that we were told that the apparent increase in the power of tennis players was due to improved rackets, in retrospect this sounds like the UCI saying that improved bikes was causing the increase in speed in the 1990s.

 

[Albatros]

What tennis players used to look like a few decades ago.

What they look like now.

Both then and now, training was about the same (flexibility exercises, cardio, and most importantly practising their tennis swings). Because fatigue/travel/media obligations/tennis specific training/family time takes so much out of them, there is little time/energy to do weight training.


There is only one difference between then and now.

"Nutrition".

That change in physique is evident in almost every sport. Athletes today are more muscular, explosive and durable across all the sport disciplines. How much is down to nutrition, training methods or better doping is open to speculation.

I am of the opinion that sports have not been clean for many decades. Probably McEnroe and Borg were at it too, the difference being the quality of the doping regimes.

In football which is the sport I follow the most, reported doping cases have happened as far back as in the 50's and I don't see any reason for other sports not to have followed suit.

 

[Albatros]

Nadal is a special case however. The guy has very little tennis skill. Most of his fans don't actually play the game, so have no idea that Nadal's technique is awfull. He succeeds almost solely based on his speed, strength, and endurance.

He has taken the cheating to a new level, and is VERY brazen in doing it (claiming that he could do something that no other tennis player has done before, dramatically improve his serve in the middle of his career, by changing how he holds onto his racket). It's about as believable as a cyclist "just upping his cadence" to win races.

I am Spanish and I believe Nadal dopes, but what you are saying is erroneous. Nadal poor serve was all down to technique.

He was serving very soft because he couldn't combine power and accuracy, and thus had to hit it safe. I remember as far back as 2004 that he could hit some serves at 130 mph. His problem was accuracy, not power and that is down to technique. For all his doping Nadal is technically a much better player than he was years ago and that reflects not only on his serve.

 

[ultimobici]

That change in physique is evident in almost every sport. Athletes today are more muscular, explosive and durable across all the sport disciplines. How much is down to nutrition, training methods or better doping is open to speculation.

I am of the opinion that sports have not been clean for many decades. Probably McEnroe and Borg were at it too, the difference being the quality of the doping regimes.

In football which is the sport I follow the most, reported doping cases have happened as far back as in the 50's and I don't see any reason for other sports not to have followed suit.

What doping would you suggest was likely in the Borg-McEnroe era? I remember the matches being about technique over power then. IIRC it was when Lendl appeared on the scene that the modern power game was born.

 

[Albatros]

What doping would you suggest was likely in the Borg-McEnroe era? I remember the matches being about technique over power then. IIRC it was when Lendl appeared on the scene that the modern power game was born.

Well, the concept of the "modern power game" has always been present. If you compare the way Borg or McEnroe played their tennis against the players in the 60's or even early 70's there would be a significant difference in athletic prowess . Borg was a tremendous athlete in his days, the Nadal of his era. McEnroe less so, but still a better athlete than players from two decades earlier.

I have no idea what these players may have been on, but looking at other sports like football where I have investigated the subject more thoroughly I wouldn't be surprised if they were already practising blood doping which originated in athletics in the early 70's and extended to many other sports. Or perhaps they were doing amphetamines, the drug of choice for footballers or cyclists of that era. Why would tennis be any different?

I am very cynical when it comes to honesty in sports (or in any way of life). We have this inbuilt cheating behaviour in our make up and the higher the prize and the lesser the chances of getting caught, the more we are likely to incur in it.

 

[sniper]

That change in physique is evident in almost every sport. Athletes today are more muscular, explosive and durable across all the sport disciplines. How much is down to nutrition, training methods or better doping is open to speculation.

I am of the opinion that sports have not been clean for many decades. Probably McEnroe and Borg were at it too, the difference being the quality of the doping regimes.

In football which is the sport I follow the most, reported doping cases have happened as far back as in the 50's and I don't see any reason for other sports not to have followed suit.

I think you're right about the time-depth of doping in sports including tennis and football.
And what you say doesn't conflict in any way with what andynonymous stated/s.
His point is basically that present-day tennis is characterized by well-developed doping regimes and that some (Nadal, Murray, Djokovic, and some others) have undergone staggering physical developments in the last couple of years that can be most plausibly (though of course not exclusively) be explained by assuming an increase in their level of doping.
Though there is always speculation involved, I like that andynonymous at least tries to back up his claims with empirical, fotographic evidence.

 

[thirteen]

<snip>
Though there is always speculation involved, I like that andynonymous at least tries to back up his claims with empirical, fotographic evidence.

i am a photographer and there are many ways (especially now with digital photography) to enhance muscles and make them seem more cut than they are.

same tricks of the trade such as airbrushing a model's lines and blemishes away... or, in the case of the rags, increasing contrast and such to make an actress seem tired or showing her age.

not saying i disagree with the many of the points made... simply that i do not find photographic proof empirical.

 

[sniper]

i am a photographer and there are many ways (especially now with digital photography) to enhance muscles and make them seem more cut than they are.

same tricks of the trade such as airbrushing a model's lines and blemishes away... or, in the case of the rags, increasing contrast and such to make an actress seem tired or showing her age.

not saying i disagree with the many of the points made... simply that i do not find photographic proof empirical.

good point, and point taken.

 

[Paco_P]

no what people on this forum don't like is that tennis players are allowed to go around doped to gills and nothing happens while cycling in general is seen as a dirty sport with no hope to ever become clean and cyclists are mostly seen as doped scumbags that have no talented and all they can do is due to doping.

I was responding to the sort of subthread discussing his on court behavior rather than the accusations of doping. It's important to separate one's personal feelings about an athlete from one's analysis of whether he's a doper. I don't think Armstrong is a doper because I think Armstrong is an ******* - though I do think Armstrong is an ******* - I think he is a doper because there is a huge amount of evidence that he is a doper. I find Nadal more appealing personally, but could be convinced that he was a doper, particularly if some compelling evidence came forward (so far I've not seen more than speculation based on physique and personal impressions of his performance none of which rises to the level of convincing).

You can count me among those that think that there are more dopers caught in cycling for the following reasons:
a. like track and field, it is not a big time sport like football or tennis or motorcycle riding, there is less money at stake, and the mafia forces are less powerful - and the anti-doping authorities find it a convenient target
b. there is more effort in cycling to do something about doping than there is in the bigger money sports.

I'm quite prepared to believe that all of Nadal, Djokovic, Federer, Murray, etc. are doping in all sorts of ways. It should also be said that I've not seen evidence that they are (though this could just confirm the point above). Supposed evidence like Nadal's supposed corpulence doesn't convince me, not the least because Nadal is remarkable for how thin he is - he's almost exactly the same size as Federer. Actually, it's the remarakble thinness of these guys that catches my eye.

I mentioned motorcycles above for a reason. In professional motoGp there's a serious need for drivers to keep their weights down - and endurance does matter too - on top of that they have to look good on posters - doping seems likely in such a context - the same way it is for jockeys.

When it comes to something like football - I know with the certitude of a religious fanatic that doping in all its forms is rife in professional football - although hard evidence for this is not accessible to me.

 

[Paco_P]

That change in physique is evident in almost every sport. Athletes today are more muscular, explosive and durable across all the sport disciplines. How much is down to nutrition, training methods or better doping is open to speculation.

I am of the opinion that sports have not been clean for many decades. Probably McEnroe and Borg were at it too, the difference being the quality of the doping regimes.

In football which is the sport I follow the most, reported doping cases have happened as far back as in the 50's and I don't see any reason for other sports not to have followed suit.

Such photographic comparisons are ridiculous.
1. The old guys have shirts on - the Spaniards don't.
2. The Spaniards' photos are posed and probably photoshopped marketing photos - with an eye to exaggerating their physiques.
3. When I watch Nadal on the court he looks like Bjorg. His *** is bigger, but that's just how he's built.

None of this is to say that they are not all taking steroids. It's to say that such photo comparisons don't show anything.

 

[sniper]

Such photographic comparisons are ridiculous.
1. The old guys have shirts on - the Spaniards don't.
2. The Spaniards' photos are posed and probably photoshopped marketing photos - with an eye to exaggerating their physiques.
3. When I watch Nadal on the court he looks like Bjorg. His *** is bigger, but that's just how he's built.

None of this is to say that they are not all taking steroids. It's to say that such photo comparisons don't show anything.

.........

 

[sniper]

Such photographic comparisons are ridiculous.
1. The old guys have shirts on - the Spaniards don't.
2. The Spaniards' photos are posed and probably photoshopped marketing photos - with an eye to exaggerating their physiques.
3. When I watch Nadal on the court he looks like Bjorg. His *** is bigger, but that's just how he's built.

None of this is to say that they are not all taking steroids. It's to say that such photo comparisons don't show anything.

Agreed, the photos on covers of magazines might be manipulated slightly.

But we've also seen photos that were clearly not photoshopped. photos of players in action, on court.
Guys (e.g. Murray, Djokovic) taking off their shirts shortly after the match or during training. stuff like that.
I thought some of those photos were quite compelling and clearly suggest
that the musculature of the modern generation of tennis players has increased significantly with respect to the 80s, and has increased to an extent that cannot be explained only by nutrition and training.

instead, they merely confirm the obvious: the doping regimes have changed and have improved significantly, and particularly in the past few years.
Nadal and Djokovic are taking 'fitness' to a new level.

 

[Albatros]

Such photographic comparisons are ridiculous.
1. The old guys have shirts on - the Spaniards don't.
2. The Spaniards' photos are posed and probably photoshopped marketing photos - with an eye to exaggerating their physiques.
3. When I watch Nadal on the court he looks like Bjorg. His *** is bigger, but that's just how he's built.

None of this is to say that they are not all taking steroids. It's to say that such photo comparisons don't show anything.

I have noticed what you are saying, but I am not basing my judgement on those particular set of pictures. I am basing it on many years of watching different sports. I was around when Borg or even Nastase were holding a racket and I have noticed a large increase in muscle bulge across almost every sport discipline. Not only that, but the percentage of fat in modern athletes is at is lowest, with perfect muscular definition in most cases.

If you don't believe me go to Google Images and do a search for famous athletes of let's say 30 years ago and compare with current ones. There is a noticeable change in physique.

 

[Suedehead]

3. When I watch Nadal on the court he looks like Bjorg. His *** is bigger, but that's just how he's built.

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/6/24/1245854489274/Bjorn-Borg-001.jpg

Yup, can't tell Nadal and Borg apart either

And if Borg or Nastase or others back then were using drugs it probably was more of the champagne, caviar and cocaine kind.

 

[sniper]

so...... Now that nadal is no longer the numero 1, who's going to start the thread on novak djokovic?????

According to this article, Djokovic was just welcomed by some 100.000 Serbian tennis fans.
If tomorrow Djokovic tests positive, will you do the honors and tell him and his family the good news?

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/04072011/58/wimbledon-100-000-serbs-welcome-home-djokovic.html

Gives you a good idea of why we won't see anybody within the top 10 of the ATP ranking test positive in the coming years.

 

[Albatros]

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/6/24/1245854489274/Bjorn-Borg-001.jpg

Yup, can't tell Nadal and Borg apart either

And if Borg or Nastase or others back then were using drugs it probably was more of the champagne, caviar and cocaine kind.

Based on what? That they didn't display the athletic prowess of today players or were less muscular?

In that case footballers of that era didn't dope either, if not for the fact that a few players, coaches and doctors have confessed to widespread doping. Would tennis or any other sport activity where there is important money involved be any different?

 

[Zoncolan]

Yes, they made a big deal of Nole's win here in Belgrade.
As Nole's supporter, I'm glad he's winning.
Is he doping? Sure!
He probably wasn't before and is now, hence the vastly improved stamina. The gluten story is just too ridiculous! Like VDV's a few years back. L
Like someone wrote, he caught up with Nadal.
Tennis does have a big doping problem, being all the bigger when they won't admit it.
BTW: nobody could live with Borg back in the day. The guy was notorious for wearing down his opponents when he couldn't outplay them. Superior fitness all the way. Whether it was down to doping or not, I couldn't say.

 

[sniper]

Based on what? That they didn't display the athletic prowess of today players or were less muscular?

In that case footballers of that era didn't dope either, if not for the fact that a few players, coaches and doctors have confessed to widespread doping. Would tennis or any other sport activity where there is important money involved be any different?

any links you'd like to share?

 

[Paco_P]

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/6/24/1245854489274/Bjorn-Borg-001.jpg

Yup, can't tell Nadal and Borg apart either

And if Borg or Nastase or others back then were using drugs it probably was more of the champagne, caviar and cocaine kind.

Your last comment is really my point - a more conservative hypothesis is that back then professionals weren't as professional as they are now (there was less money and less media circus, and less institutional infrastructure to support them) and didn't train as hard as they do now. More directly relevant - it's quite possible that in the 70's it was even thought a bad idea for a tennis player to do something like lift weights, while now clearly it is seen differently, if only because there is a need to pose without a shirt for marketing reasons. I'm not saying there hasn't been a change in physique, although I don't find photographic evidence compelling (particularly because photographic technique has changed) - and I'm not saying that they don't use various drugs/assistance (I suspect they do) - I am saying that the simplest explanation for the putative change in physique would simply be that they train more now, and drink less champagne, and eat less caviar, and take less cocaine.

 

[Albatros]

Your last comment is really my point - a more conservative hypothesis is that back then professionals weren't as professional as they are now (there was less money and less media circus, and less institutional infrastructure to support them) and didn't train as hard as they do now. More directly relevant - it's quite possible that in the 70's it was even thought a bad idea for a tennis player to do something like lift weights, while now clearly it is seen differently, if only because there is a need to pose without a shirt for marketing reasons. I'm not saying there hasn't been a change in physique, although I don't find photographic evidence compelling (particularly because photographic technique has changed) - and I'm not saying that they don't use various drugs/assistance (I suspect they do) - I am saying that the simplest explanation for the putative change in physique would simply be that they train more now, and drink less champagne, and eat less caviar, and take less cocaine.

They were professionals back then. Don't make me feel older than I already am . Tennis was not their second job and the dividends, although not as high as today, were good enough to become rich if you belonged to the elite.

The reason why they trained less is because their body could not cope with more training. Surely some of them took recreational drugs, but that also happens in today's game. How much of that ability to train hard for longer periods is due to better nutrition, training techniques or better doping is anyone guess, but don't ever think that the majority of those tennis players didn't take their job seriously.

 

[Albatros]

any links you'd like to share?

I have over 100.

I'll post a few this evening.

 

[Señor_Contador]

Did you guys know that Nole has a diplomatic passport?

Why in the world does a tennis player, who isn't a diplomat, fly around with a diplomatic passport?

 

[Andynonomous]

Did you guys know that Nole has a diplomatic passport?

Why in the world does a tennis player, who isn't a diplomat, fly around with a diplomatic passport?

I haven't heard that before. Do you have any links ?


A diplomatic passport may have some benefits, like not being searched as often at entry points into countries. It wouldn't make sense for a player to have PEDs in his possession however (no "deniability"). I am pretty sure there are third parties that deliver the Peds to the athlete.

 

[Señor_Contador]

I haven't heard that before. Do you have any links ?


A diplomatic passport may have some benefits, like not being searched as often at entry points into countries. It wouldn't make sense for a player to have PEDs in his possession however (no "deniability"). I am pretty sure there are third parties that deliver the Peds to the athlete.

From http://www.elpais.es: http://www.elpais.com/articulo/deportes/tenista/acero/elpepidep/20110705elpepidep_2/Tes.

It states that "'Y sí', cuenta el campeón, que siempre se declaró un patriota, que tiene pasaporte diplomático y hace frecuentes donaciones a la Iglesia serbia, 'tras la victoria en la Copa Davis, en 2010, me quedé lleno de vida, lleno de energía, deseoso de volver a la pista, deseoso de jugar más, de ganar más torneos. Sin miedo'".

Which translates to "And yes, so the champion tells us, that he has always been a patriot, that he's got a diplomatic passport and that he makes many donations to the (orthodox) Church in Serbia, 'after the 2010 Davis Cup win I was a new man, full of energy, wishing to get back to playing, playing more, winning tournaments. No fear.'".

 

[thirteen]

I haven't heard that before. Do you have any links ?

in english: http://www.tennistalk.com/en/news/20110427/Djokovic_handed_Serb_diplomatic_passport

google is your friend