Tennis

Page 123 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Mar 13, 2009
16,854
0
0
Edit, when I reckon Rafa had one of his shoulder injury silent bans, he came back about 10lbs leaner. Atm, only about 5lbs leaner than his peak weight.

Jo Wilfred, about 10-12 lbs.

Maple Leaf Missile (I luv that name delgados) I reckon his is about 15 lbs lighter, he is like damn anna ivanovic pro rata
 
Jun 16, 2015
292
0
3,030
Joseph Keul, apart from head doping doctor at Freiburg, also happened to act as doctor in charge of Germany's Davis Cup team, right up to his death apparently.

Boris Becker cleans?
 
Jun 21, 2015
377
0
4,280
D1ck Pound rejects Djokovic's claim that tennis is clean, suggests that doper numbers in tennis are at least in the double digits, and says sponsors and sports organizers should be doing more. He also say that the later don't want to find the cheats because of the negative PR. Right as usual.

http://stv.tv/sport/tennis/1351457-novak-djokovics-attitude-to-doping-is-the-lance-armstrong-approach/

Asked if Djokovic's remarks were naive, Pound told STV: "Yes. That's a Lance Armstrong approach. 'I never tested positive therefore I am clean.' Wrong.

I think it goes deeper than most people expect, and certainly deeper than they are prepared to acknowledge.


Djokovic's remarks followed criticism from Andy Murray last week, when the Scot spoke of his suspicion of some of his fellow professionals.

Pound believes there are far more athletes doping than the current numbers suggest. "Let's assume it's double digits and let's be really charitable and say it is only 10%," he said.

"Our level of positives is 2%. Why is the testing not more effective than that?

"The science is pretty robust and the system is good for whatever it does. It's the people that don't want it to work.
Asked if sport organisations, and their sponsors, should be doing more to clean up sport, Pound was clear that not enough is being done.
"A lot of the resistance we get comes from the sports organisations themselves who don't want to find people in their sport are using drugs because they think it reflects badly on them," he said.


As far as the sponsors are concerned, I think they buy into sport because of the values.

"They should be looking more, could be looking more, to the organisations and say 'listen, we're putting in a lot of money to support this vision of sport that you have marketed to us. Now we want you to deliver it'."

Could sponsors coming together to insist more is done to eradicate doping be an effective approach?
"I think that's a very good scenario," he answered. "Whether you can get them that far or not is a matter of some doubt.

"But in the FIFA crisis, many of the main sponsors said 'you've got to sort this or we're going to have to rethink our involvement with you'.
 
May 13, 2009
407
0
9,280
blackcat said:
BullsFan22 said:
Sure, he isn't a muscular brute like Nadal or Serena or Stosur, but his endurance and his lunging, sliding, flexibility is as good as anyones in the history of this sport.
the big 4 are the best defenders

Nadal Fed Djoker Murray.
You can't leave out little David Ferrer, 34 years old and has made a career of top 10 by defensive grinding and hustling. Three of those four you mentioned have much bigger weapons.
 
Ferrer is basically done.

Defensive tennis reaping so many results isn't just clinical, its also courts slowing down by a lot.

I have little doubt many tennis players are juicing. But Djokovic is benefiting so *** much from the fact that the entire generation after hims sucks so much.

In fact, Djokovic won his first masters 1000 in Miami 2007, 9 years ago, and he remains the youngest winner of such a tournament to date. Djokovic has been playing very mediocre in a lot of matches in 2016, but the competition is barely there to punish him. You've got a couple of guys who've been in the top 10 for eons, but who have been totally useless against the Big 4 since forever.

You basically have 3 ATG in a short time span, and then you have a gaping hole in the talent pool. Only now are there some very talented players coming up, but they're still pretty far away from challenging the likes of Djokovic and Federer.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,854
0
0
robow7 said:
blackcat said:
BullsFan22 said:
Sure, he isn't a muscular brute like Nadal or Serena or Stosur, but his endurance and his lunging, sliding, flexibility is as good as anyones in the history of this sport.
the big 4 are the best defenders

Nadal Fed Djoker Murray.
You can't leave out little David Ferrer, 34 years old and has made a career of top 10 by defensive grinding and hustling. Three of those four you mentioned have much bigger weapons.
but my 4, they go from defending back to neutral rally (50-50) in one stroke.

now many tennis players can recover from defense to 50-50 rallies. But not with the consistency of my 4.

And my 4 can often hit winners or force forced errors from a seemingly untenable defensive corner
 
Jun 21, 2015
377
0
4,280
"Andy Murray to remain outspoken against doping"
Andy Murray plans to remain outspoken against doping, despite facing a backlash for some of his recent comments on performance-enhancing drugs in tennis.

The world No.2 was branded "out of order" by Novak Djokovic's coach, Boris Becker, for saying in a newspaper interview that he wonders whether some players are doping.

Murray said on Friday he has cleared the air with Becker but won't be deterred from speaking his mind if it means protecting the integrity of tennis.
http://espn.go.com/tennis/story/_/id/15303494/andy-murray-remain-outspoken-doping-facing-backlash
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,854
0
0
Re:

Red Rick said:
Ferrer is basically done.

Defensive tennis reaping so many results isn't just clinical, its also courts slowing down by a lot.

I have little doubt many tennis players are juicing. But Djokovic is benefiting so **** much from the fact that the entire generation after hims sucks so much.

In fact, Djokovic won his first masters 1000 in Miami 2007, 9 years ago, and he remains the youngest winner of such a tournament to date. Djokovic has been playing very mediocre in a lot of matches in 2016, but the competition is barely there to punish him. You've got a couple of guys who've been in the top 10 for eons, but who have been totally useless against the Big 4 since forever.

You basically have 3 ATG in a short time span, and then you have a gaping hole in the talent pool. Only now are there some very talented players coming up, but they're still pretty far away from challenging the likes of Djokovic and Federer.
I dont think the next generation is axiomatically weak.

With the new PEDs, 28 is the new 18, it takes a few years for the 20-somethings to learn to play the top10 game and harness the PEDs which give a new ability.

I always thought Tsonga would have won SLAMs plural.

That he has not, might be the fact that his physical 'game' came back to the field. A 1990s era epoch doping decade alliterationz, if it was this epoch, we would have riders nee tennis players like Richard Gasquet winning slams, not Stanislaw Warinka.
 
Re: Re:

blackcat said:
Red Rick said:
Ferrer is basically done.

Defensive tennis reaping so many results isn't just clinical, its also courts slowing down by a lot.

I have little doubt many tennis players are juicing. But Djokovic is benefiting so **** much from the fact that the entire generation after hims sucks so much.

In fact, Djokovic won his first masters 1000 in Miami 2007, 9 years ago, and he remains the youngest winner of such a tournament to date. Djokovic has been playing very mediocre in a lot of matches in 2016, but the competition is barely there to punish him. You've got a couple of guys who've been in the top 10 for eons, but who have been totally useless against the Big 4 since forever.

You basically have 3 ATG in a short time span, and then you have a gaping hole in the talent pool. Only now are there some very talented players coming up, but they're still pretty far away from challenging the likes of Djokovic and Federer.
I dont think the next generation is axiomatically weak.

With the new PEDs, 28 is the new 18, it takes a few years for the 20-somethings to learn to play the top10 game and harness the PEDs which give a new ability.

I always thought Tsonga would have won SLAMs plural.

That he has not, might be the fact that his physical 'game' came back to the field. A 1990s era epoch doping decade alliterationz, if it was this epoch, we would have riders nee tennis players like Richard Gasquet winning slams, not Stanislaw Warinka.
In a lot of ways, Wawrinka is, after Federer, the most classic tennis player in the top 10 at the moment. He plays an offensive game, a beautiful one handed backhand, can slice, can chip, a good serve, a solid forehand and pretty good movement. His problem is still consistency and toughing matches out. I don't disagree about him being suspicious, but I'd rather watch him play than guys like Nadal, Djokovic and Murray. Gasquet and Tsonga lack the mental strength as well, and like most French tennis players, they like more flair in their games. That's not going to win you grand slams, even though both have been to the semis or better at the slams. And what's to say that either of them aren't doping? Gasquet is a natural, no doubt, but he shouldn't be immune to criticism.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,854
0
0
Re: Re:

BullsFan22 said:
blackcat said:
Red Rick said:
Ferrer is basically done.

Defensive tennis reaping so many results isn't just clinical, its also courts slowing down by a lot.

I have little doubt many tennis players are juicing. But Djokovic is benefiting so **** much from the fact that the entire generation after hims sucks so much.

In fact, Djokovic won his first masters 1000 in Miami 2007, 9 years ago, and he remains the youngest winner of such a tournament to date. Djokovic has been playing very mediocre in a lot of matches in 2016, but the competition is barely there to punish him. You've got a couple of guys who've been in the top 10 for eons, but who have been totally useless against the Big 4 since forever.

You basically have 3 ATG in a short time span, and then you have a gaping hole in the talent pool. Only now are there some very talented players coming up, but they're still pretty far away from challenging the likes of Djokovic and Federer.
I dont think the next generation is axiomatically weak.

With the new PEDs, 28 is the new 18, it takes a few years for the 20-somethings to learn to play the top10 game and harness the PEDs which give a new ability.

I always thought Tsonga would have won SLAMs plural.

That he has not, might be the fact that his physical 'game' came back to the field. A 1990s era epoch doping decade alliterationz, if it was this epoch, we would have riders nee tennis players like Richard Gasquet winning slams, not Stanislaw Warinka.
In a lot of ways, Wawrinka is, after Federer, the most classic tennis player in the top 10 at the moment. He plays an offensive game, a beautiful one handed backhand, can slice, can chip, a good serve, a solid forehand and pretty good movement. His problem is still consistency and toughing matches out. I don't disagree about him being suspicious, but I'd rather watch him play than guys like Nadal, Djokovic and Murray. Gasquet and Tsonga lack the mental strength as well, and like most French tennis players, they like more flair in their games. That's not going to win you grand slams, even though both have been to the semis or better at the slams. And what's to say that either of them aren't doping? Gasquet is a natural, no doubt, but he shouldn't be immune to criticism.
why did Stanimal take to 28 to break thru?

And I wont buy a rebuttal that is was cos others were doping much more and he did not have the work ethic, we have heard that before.

I will hear however, that he flipped the switch to full genius.

I actually will blame Uncle Toni and Rafa for changing doping parameters for a material percentage of top100. May only be 10%, but it is still material. All the Australians for instance, when they can train at home or in Monaco, guarantee full ret@rd.

@Rainman #rainman
#Hoffman
#Cruise

#ritard #phonetics
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjEAqrFmAXM
 
Re: Re:

blackcat said:
BullsFan22 said:
blackcat said:
Red Rick said:
Ferrer is basically done.

Defensive tennis reaping so many results isn't just clinical, its also courts slowing down by a lot.

I have little doubt many tennis players are juicing. But Djokovic is benefiting so **** much from the fact that the entire generation after hims sucks so much.

In fact, Djokovic won his first masters 1000 in Miami 2007, 9 years ago, and he remains the youngest winner of such a tournament to date. Djokovic has been playing very mediocre in a lot of matches in 2016, but the competition is barely there to punish him. You've got a couple of guys who've been in the top 10 for eons, but who have been totally useless against the Big 4 since forever.

You basically have 3 ATG in a short time span, and then you have a gaping hole in the talent pool. Only now are there some very talented players coming up, but they're still pretty far away from challenging the likes of Djokovic and Federer.
I dont think the next generation is axiomatically weak.

With the new PEDs, 28 is the new 18, it takes a few years for the 20-somethings to learn to play the top10 game and harness the PEDs which give a new ability.

I always thought Tsonga would have won SLAMs plural.

That he has not, might be the fact that his physical 'game' came back to the field. A 1990s era epoch doping decade alliterationz, if it was this epoch, we would have riders nee tennis players like Richard Gasquet winning slams, not Stanislaw Warinka.
In a lot of ways, Wawrinka is, after Federer, the most classic tennis player in the top 10 at the moment. He plays an offensive game, a beautiful one handed backhand, can slice, can chip, a good serve, a solid forehand and pretty good movement. His problem is still consistency and toughing matches out. I don't disagree about him being suspicious, but I'd rather watch him play than guys like Nadal, Djokovic and Murray. Gasquet and Tsonga lack the mental strength as well, and like most French tennis players, they like more flair in their games. That's not going to win you grand slams, even though both have been to the semis or better at the slams. And what's to say that either of them aren't doping? Gasquet is a natural, no doubt, but he shouldn't be immune to criticism.
why did Stanimal take to 28 to break thru?

And I wont buy a rebuttal that is was cos others were doping much more and he did not have the work ethic, we have heard that before.

I will hear however, that he flipped the switch to full genius.

I actually will blame Uncle Toni and Rafa for changing doping parameters for a material percentage of top100. May only be 10%, but it is still material. All the Australians for instance, when they can train at home or in Monaco, guarantee full ret@rd.

@Rainman #rainman
#Hoffman
#Cruise

#ritard #phonetics
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjEAqrFmAXM

So Wawrinka was on the program, but didn't start to go 'full ret@ard' until 28? That's quite a while to wait to go 'full ret@ard' in tennis years.
 
Jun 21, 2015
377
0
4,280
*** Pound talks briefly about doping in tennis at 19:50 in this hardTALK BBC interview. The discussion at the end is about how doping scandals drive fans away from sport. I've been a major tennis fan all my life, but I rarely watch anymore, because I just don't trust what I see. If enough fans felt the same (in all sports), the pressure would mount on sport, governments, and industries involved in the production and distribution of doping substances, to improve the rigor of anti-doping efforts.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b079znp4/hardtalk-***-pound-former-president-world-antidoping-agency
 
Aug 5, 2014
173
0
3,830
Re:

arcus said:
**** Pound talks briefly about doping in tennis at 19:50 in this hardTALK BBC interview. The discussion at the end is about how doping scandals drive fans away from sport. I've been a major tennis fan all my life, but I rarely watch anymore, because I just don't trust what I see. If enough fans felt the same (in all sports), the pressure would mount on sport, governments, and industries involved in the production and distribution of doping substances, to improve the rigor of anti-doping efforts.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b079znp4/hardtalk-***-pound-former-president-world-antidoping-agency
For me its the same.
 
Re:

arcus said:
**** Pound talks briefly about doping in tennis at 19:50 in this hardTALK BBC interview. The discussion at the end is about how doping scandals drive fans away from sport. I've been a major tennis fan all my life, but I rarely watch anymore, because I just don't trust what I see. If enough fans felt the same (in all sports), the pressure would mount on sport, governments, and industries involved in the production and distribution of doping substances, to improve the rigor of anti-doping efforts.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b079znp4/hardtalk-***-pound-former-president-world-antidoping-agency

I really can't take Pound too seriously. The guy supports people like Coe and Radcliffe for goodness sake. Coe helped cover up the doping positives, then when they come out of those covers, he says he'll ban dopers and acts all high and mighty. Pound supports that kind of garbage talk. So does Craig Reedie. This would make for a classic Monty Python movie.
 
Jun 21, 2015
377
0
4,280
Re: Re:

BullsFan22 said:
arcus said:
**** Pound talks briefly about doping in tennis at 19:50 in this hardTALK BBC interview. The discussion at the end is about how doping scandals drive fans away from sport. I've been a major tennis fan all my life, but I rarely watch anymore, because I just don't trust what I see. If enough fans felt the same (in all sports), the pressure would mount on sport, governments, and industries involved in the production and distribution of doping substances, to improve the rigor of anti-doping efforts.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b079znp4/hardtalk-***-pound-former-president-world-antidoping-agency

I really can't take Pound too seriously. The guy supports people like Coe and Radcliffe for goodness sake. Coe helped cover up the doping positives, then when they come out of those covers, he says he'll ban dopers and acts all high and mighty. Pound supports that kind of garbage talk. So does Craig Reedie. This would make for a classic Monty Python movie.
I hear you. Generally, though, he has been one of the more rational voices in the doping debate.

I suspect, at some point, he felt compelled to support a strategy to try and get Russia back on track without sanctions that would take them out of the Olympics, because of the potential political ramifications. Not saying I agree, but I think that's how it played out.
I do think he should have pressed for an untainted outsider to run IAAF vs Coe. The fact that he's still supporting him makes me feel there are twists in this tale that were not privy to.
 
Mar 12, 2009
2,521
0
0
Re: Re:

BullsFan22 said:
arcus said:
**** Pound talks briefly about doping in tennis at 19:50 in this hardTALK BBC interview. The discussion at the end is about how doping scandals drive fans away from sport. I've been a major tennis fan all my life, but I rarely watch anymore, because I just don't trust what I see. If enough fans felt the same (in all sports), the pressure would mount on sport, governments, and industries involved in the production and distribution of doping substances, to improve the rigor of anti-doping efforts.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b079znp4/hardtalk-***-pound-former-president-world-antidoping-agency

I really can't take Pound too seriously. The guy supports people like Coe and Radcliffe for goodness sake. Coe helped cover up the doping positives, then when they come out of those covers, he says he'll ban dopers and acts all high and mighty. Pound supports that kind of garbage talk. So does Craig Reedie. This would make for a classic Monty Python movie.
This, pretty much. He blasted Lance and Floyd yet Paula is ok and believable? Ridiculous.

Pound is a politician, says what suits him
 
I think Pound might just be an idiot. I mean he did humiliate Brailsford and JV by saying 1 week after the 2013 Froome clean TDF that cycling isn't clean at all. He's gone after tennis a few times. I don't know what he sees in Coe though. Maybe he's a bit like Lemond. Sometimes speaks out, sometimes pretends its all clean. Bipolar like.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,854
0
0
Re: Re:

peloton said:
Pound is a politician, says what suits him
this

nothing more be said.

If he was going to inherit the mantle (he was second in line in the queue, i think) after Samaranch, he would be like all the others and toe the line for Nike et al.
 
Aug 31, 2012
7,550
1
0
Nadal (who also won Barcelona? I hope he can derail the Djokovic express in Paris) suing former French sports minister Roselyne Bachelot for defamation

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/apr/25/rafael-nadal-sue-french-cabinet-minister-doping-allegations
Bachelot was quoted as saying after Sharapova’s high-profile confession: “We know that Nadal’s famous seven-month injury was without a doubt due to a positive [drug test]. When you see a tennis player who stops playing for long months, it is because he has tested positive and because they are covering it up. It is not something that always happens, but, yes, it happens more than you think.”
While Nadal has obviously been doped to the eyeballs throughout his career, I'm on record as a silent ban doubter, always found those hard to reconcile with the incentives of the parties involved. Yet Bachelot's comment, quoted above, suggests she has some evidence they're real, which will hopefully be revealed in the course of the trial
 
Jun 21, 2015
377
0
4,280
I think this is a PR own-goal by Nadal and his team.

The case's primary effect will be to pour petrol on the shouldering embers of media and public suspicion that he's a doper.

Even if he wins the case (quite likely, IMO, as I don't think he would move forward if he thought there was a risk of genuine exposure), what on earth can he gain? He certainly doesn't need the money and few will believe that a French minister being unable to prove he doped means that he's clean. Bringing out the legal talons will just remind people of Armstrong, and I bet that comparison will be referenced ad nauseum by journos.

IMHO, he would have been better off issuing a bland statement that "there have always been doubters, especially the French. I know I'm clean etc"
 
Aug 31, 2012
7,550
1
0
It's probably to deter future accusations by people with a big enough profile for it to be news.
and few will believe that a French minister being unable to prove he doped means that he's clean.
You sure? The reasoning that would have one conclude he's clean is the exact same that had, and still has, so many people thinking that Froome is clean. Didn't test positive, you see.

Now, I believe Brits will be highly suspicious that this Johnny Foreigner is really clean even when he wins in court, especially now that Murray has indicated he thinks some of the infinite stamina players might be on something, but the Spanish press and his fans?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY