Tennis

[the delgados]

@Cookster:

There is no denying that both Osaka and Barty are tremendously gifted athletes. Also, Barty has a nice touch--e.g. changing pace of a point. Unless I have no idea what power tennis means, both Barty and Osaka can hit baseline bombs with the very best. I don't know if Barty is out of her teens, but regardless, she looks strong like bull. She has shoulders similar to those of Olympic rowers, and she has tremendous stamina.
Re No strong evidence of recovery doping. Admittedly I am just a layperson who played tennis at levels many depths of the sea below what we see on tv, but good lord, man. It does not take an expert to note players in their mid-thirties are barely breaking a sweat in matches that reach the fifth set. I am sure I don't need to remind you those players are.
Take a look back at matches between McEnroe and late 30's Connors back in the very early 90's. They were clearly knackered after a 5-set match.

 

[Bolder]

@Cookster:

There is no denying that both Osaka and Barty are tremendously gifted athletes. Also, Barty has a nice touch--e.g. changing pace of a point. Unless I have no idea what power tennis means, both Barty and Osaka can hit baseline bombs with the very best. I don't know if Barty is out of her teens, but regardless, she looks strong like bull. She has shoulders similar to those of Olympic rowers, and she has tremendous stamina.
Re No strong evidence of recovery doping. Admittedly I am just a layperson who played tennis at levels many depths of the sea below what we see on tv, but good lord, man. It does not take an expert to note players in their mid-thirties are barely breaking a sweat in matches that reach the fifth set. I am sure I don't need to remind you those players are.
Take a look back at matches between McEnroe and late 30's Connors back in the very early 90's. They were clearly knackered after a 5-set match.

I think you can attribute some of that to improved training/conditioning, but of course, not all. McEnroe was not in great shape, in any event. I've always considered tennis to be fertile ground for doping: A propensity to cheat (see: match fixing, whining like a baby if a call doesn't go your way); a cutthroat qualifying system that rewards playing in as many tournaments as humanely possible; satellite tournaments so far off the grid that they probably don't have electricity, let alone doping controls; a game that largely rewards power; and a huge risk/reward ratio.

I have zero doubt that Nadal doped early and often, and continues to do so. Same with Djoko. Federer? I suspect he's got some secret doctor that's keeping him on the legal side of the line, but just barely.

 

[buckle]

I love this forum and how nobody could be bothered to post about the farce taking place at Wimbledon as I write. It's 5-5 in the final set and who gives a ***?

 

[Singer01]

I love this forum and how nobody could be bothered to post about the farce taking place at Wimbledon as I write. It's 5-5 in the final set and who gives a ***?

A match going to 5 all in the 5th set isnt remarkable or evidence of anything.

 

[Pantani Attacks]

Federer is an actual joke LMAO

 

[buckle]

I love this forum and how nobody could be bothered to post about the farce taking place at Wimbledon as I write. It's 5-5 in the final set and who gives a ***?

A match going to 5 all in the 5th set isnt remarkable or evidence of anything.

This is WWE pure and simple.

 

[the delgados]

Today two players age 37 and 32 went the distance in a Wimbledon final, yet there remains some who insist there is no evidence or even suspicion of recovery doping.
Seriously, someone said that.

 

[Danskebjerge]

I'm not sure tennis is a clean sport, either. But still, tennis is about so much more than power and endurance, so I can live with it, as a spectator. In cycling, power and endurance is everything, so it annoys me more if doping is involved in cycling than if it is involved in tennis (or other sports that have to do with balls).

 

[Red Rick]

Tennis has some of the strongest propaganda anyway.

 

[Forever The Best]

There are still people believing that the likes of Serena, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Sharapova etc. are clean.

Some people go as far as saying Serena is a hero and saviour of sport because Sharapova cheats yet can't beat Williams. And then they bring examples of Bolt, Phelps and co. saying that they are other heroes and saviours of sports

They used to add Armstrong to those exclusive saviours and heroes of sports list as well till 2012.

 

[Pantani Attacks]

Tennis fans are the worst. At least in sports like Basketball, Cycling, Boxing and MMA the fans know the story and know what it takes to be elite in terms of doping.

Although I adore Nadal and to me he is the GOAT as he faced and conquered the most during the time when the prime years of the big 3 interlocked most but he's so obviously juiced and was juiced to the gills it is silly. It is the blatant refusal that Federer and to a lesser extent Djokovic could take anything is crazy. Federer never ever ever appears to be tired, at least with Nadal he's a petrol engine with a stupidly big tank whereas Federer and Djokovic are these insane diesel engines who never falter or go off during a game.

Serena Williams is the biggest doping junkie in the history of all sport if we're being honest. HGH and test literally made her career. She's a dog *** useless tennis player from a technical POV.

 

[DanielSong39]

They all dope, it's absolute farce at this point
But if it's entertaining, does that really matter?

 

[DanielSong39]

My favorite moment is the 2012 Australian Open, Djokovic played a 5-hour semifinal with Andy Murray then showed zero signs of fatigue during a 6-hour final with Rafael Nadal

You know it when you see it

To be fair Nadal played for 4 hours in the quarterfinal and another 4 hours in the semifinal, and showed no signs of fatigue in the final either

 

[scapewalker]

With the big 3 continuing their dominance and still outperformaning the next gen by a mile do you guys reckon they are on more stuff especially because the get more leeway when it comes to testing?

 

[gregrowlerson]

Re:

There are still people believing that the likes of Serena, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Sharapova etc. are clean.

Some people go as far as saying Serena is a hero and saviour of sport because Sharapova cheats yet can't beat Williams. And then they bring examples of Bolt, Phelps and co. saying that they are other heroes and saviours of sports

They used to add Armstrong to those exclusive saviours and heroes of sports list as well till 2012.

Of course. Probably 95% of people believe that. The anti Sharapova attitude is rather annoying (because of where that comes from). It would be better if they were more anti her for her generally pouty attitude.

Having said that, it is difficult to come out and declare somelike Federer as a 100% major doper. Like, with cycling, with Lance, we knew that he was riding pretty close to the fastest time ever up ADH, and we KNEW - thanks to what happened at the '99 Giro - that that rider was doped to the gills. Also given the discovery at the '98 Tour, there was some evidence that a large percentage of the peloton was doped to the gills. So how could Lance ride close to the speeds that he was climbing at, if he wasn't doped? It wasn't really possible.

Even more so with someone like Bolt; we KNOW that many previous great sprinters were doped to the gills, and the great times that they ran were totally destroyed. Without enormous improvements to track/shoes quality. Insane.

Whereas with tennis, it is more of a game that is based on skill, then power. I mean, Roger doesn't even have close to the fastest serve on Tour, so it's nothing like cycling. He has always had a big forehand, but not greatly more powerful than many of his rivals. If people want to argue that the big three have protection then all well and good (it would actually make some sense as to why there has never been a 'next generation'), but it's not really a claim that can be made to any large group in general society. There isn't a "Bolt was at least 2% faster than highly talented athletes who were super dedicated to their sport and who 100% doped, so how could Bolt be clean?" argument with Roger, really. Also he, Novak and especially Rafa, were great at a young age.

 

[gregrowlerson]

Actually 99.8% of people would assume that Federer was as clean as a whistle. To think otherwise just wouldn't even enter their minds.

 

[Red Rick]

Re:

With the big 3 continuing their dominance and still outperformaning the next gen by a mile do you guys reckon they are on more stuff especially because the get more leeway when it comes to testing?

Think it's certainly possible. I don't believe for a second Nadal or Fed would ever test positive AND have that positive be announced.

But then again who knows what a top notch program costs these days and that would simply be a financial barrier for a lot of players.

However, tennis is also just really struggling for talent, and the young players are generally technically worse than the Big 3, so while their sustained domination may partially be due do doping and protection by the authorities, that is not the only reason. You have dudes like Verdasco, Kohlschreiber and Lopez who have been very consistent throughout their careers and are still getting results in their mid 30s.

One theory I heard is there's a lack of development in racket tech, which will usually help younger players beat down and older generation cause they can adapt more quickly

 

[ClassicomanoLuigi]

Re: Re:

There are still people believing that the likes of Serena, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Sharapova etc. are clean. Some people go as far as saying Serena is a hero and saviour of sport because Sharapova cheats yet can't beat Williams.

Of course. Probably 95% of people believe that. The anti Sharapova attitude is rather annoying (because of where that comes from). It would be better if they were more anti her for her generally pouty attitude.
Having said that, it is difficult to come out and declare someone like Federer as a 100% major doper.

Federer is an artist, brilliant in technique and tactics in a way that is not going to be improved by doping. Skill vs. power, there is that always that comparison... also I'm not convinced that endurance in itself is proof doping in tennis

Even more so with someone like Bolt; we KNOW that many previous great sprinters were doped to the gills, and the great times that they ran were totally destroyed. Without enormous improvements to track/shoes quality. Insane. Whereas with tennis, it is more of a game that is based on skill, then power. I mean, Roger doesn't even have close to the fastest serve on Tour, so it's nothing like cycling.

Cycling is more complex, unpredictable, and dangerous than tennis, because of having more participants at higher momentum, in a more varied terrain. There are similarities... in cycling having good reaction time and spatial reasoning, to anticipate something which will happen fast. Other than that and aerobic endurance, I think cycling will tend to make people worse tennis players, not better. Endless mashing on pedals in basically the same motion - develops the legs in the wrong way and is counter-productive. I'm good at the serve-and-volley spatial part of tennis but rubbish at the footwork, it's like I know where I ought to be on the court, but can't get there in time. And gripping the handlebars in cycling endlessly requires upper body strength, but does nothing for swing or overhand coordination. Plus, a lot of cyclists who are weight-conscious let upper-body waste away. The power profiles of cycling vs. tennis are not similar - in tennis, there is not a demand for prolonged anaerobic power or depth, and in aerobic performance, professional cyclists at the tour level may have VO2max of 75 - 85... whereas in professional tennis VO2max of 55 - 65 may be good enough. A five-hour tennis match is like a joke compared to a five-hour cycling road-race, and furthermore tennis is more highly compensated at the top level because of prize money... So with the high incentive, why would there not be some outliers in tennis with both exceptional skill and very high aerobic endurance

There isn't a "Bolt was at least 2% faster than highly talented athletes who were super dedicated to their sport and who 100% doped, so how could Bolt be clean?" argument with Roger, really. Also he, Novak and especially Rafa, were great at a young age.

Sharapova doped... the Williams sisters' TUE collection looked like a cabinet full of prescription medications and they are very interested in pharmacy... Djokovic I have no opinion... Nadal looks like a Neanderthal and grunts like one too - for me, Nadal's personality and crudeness are more distasteful than his likely doping... Not truly in the same class of artistry as Federer.
As for whether Federer dopes, I like the suggestion of user Bolder in this thread above: "on the legal side of the line but just barely", that sounds like a good guess

 

[AustCyclingFan]

Re:

Actually 99.8% of people would assume that Federer was as clean as a whistle. To think otherwise just wouldn't even enter their minds.

Admittedly very little goes through the minds of 99.8% of the population. I mean Friends is still the biggest show on television.

 

[BullsFan22]

Any of the top three men having a publicly announced failed doping test would be a massive disaster. There's too much at stake. If it was ever going to happen it was likely to happen early on when let's say Nadal won his second RG in 2006. It was virtually that time period at RG when operation puerto was made public and the news that among the athletes involved were tennis players. Of course I don't have proof that Nadal was one of those, but he very well could have been. That may have been early enough to bust a big name. Now, with 18 slams, 12 at RG alone, so much money, sponsors, fans, tv...it's not going to happen.

 

[DanielSong39]

Well the confounding factor is that so much stuff is allowed, you can be a walking pharmacy and be doped to the eyeballs and still be "legal".

Obviously they're all juiced, the real question is what kind of stuff is allowed.

Then again there are those who break the rules too.

 

[Danskebjerge]

For me as a spectator, doping is mainly a psychological thing. I want to have the feeling that things are what they seem and that rules are met. If in running or cycling this is not the case - if some participants are enhancing their performance illegally -, it partly ruines my experience (I can still find joy in watching the drama of a descent and so on, but the fraud annoys me because it increases the number of unknown factors too much). In sports like golf, football or tennis it doesn't bother me as much because the performance of a golfer, football player or tennis player depends on so many other things than endurance. A relatively good bike rider can become a really good bike rider with drugs involved. That's not the case with a tennis player.

 

[DanielSong39]

Well as for me I assume it's all a show and sometimes I enjoy it, sometimes I don't. I try to enjoy sports for what it is, not for what it ought to be.

 

[Danskebjerge]

Re:

Well the confounding factor is that so much stuff is allowed, you can be a walking pharmacy and be doped to the eyeballs and still be "legal".

Obviously they're all juiced, the real question is what kind of stuff is allowed.

I agree - I'm pretty sure a big majority of them take medicine (for asthma at the very least), and depending on the doctors they are using they can build up quite a large arsenal of drugs. At the same time, there are undoubtedly things going on between the teams and the organisations (nationally and internationally) about how to avoid doping scandals. As long as the leading organisations of the sport itself play a major role in controlling medicine use among the riders, there is always a high risk of corruption.

 

[buckle]

Re: Re:

Well the confounding factor is that so much stuff is allowed, you can be a walking pharmacy and be doped to the eyeballs and still be "legal".

Obviously they're all juiced, the real question is what kind of stuff is allowed.

I agree - I'm pretty sure a big majority of them take medicine (for asthma at the very least), and depending on the doctors they are using they can build up quite a large arsenal of drugs. At the same time, there are undoubtedly things going on between the teams and the organisations (nationally and internationally) about how to avoid doping scandals. As long as the leading organisations of the sport itself play a major role in controlling medicine use among the riders, there is always a high risk of corruption.

Corporations lobby the sporting federations plus we have the impact of the TV companies putting their own poison in. The 2006 calciopoli scandal in Italy which was not drug related (although Italian soccer was riddled with drug abuse) revealed the operating model of contemporary corruption.