Tennis

[Unchained]

You sound like a Lance apologist

I certainly think that Armstrong deserves punishment for crimes and other offenses he committed. Would suggest that you try and make a map that would interconnect Williams ( Williams sisters) with Armstrong on his transgressions. Both athletes reached the highest level of their sports..both had major revenue streams through endorsement loot..some of the same companies!! But as far as ignoring some major differences, caught, convicted, admitted and was punished for numerous crimes, criminal and civil, and the other compared athlete, Williams who didn't do any of that. There really is one reality, regardless of current calamity.. Armstrong, accused, tried, punished, and contrite for his actions.
Williams just won until body broke and biological clock was running towards alarm going off. Nobody could make an serious comparison, starting using court as a key word, Armstrong couldn't get out of court, Williams can come and go as she pleased.

 

[Sciatic]

No weed or weeds for me!! Because of body metamorphosis during puberty, she was immediately accused of doping as a child. She also had out of the ordinary accomplishments as a youngster.
Her family and management were constantly complaining about what they saw as excessive testing. She later would suggest that she was treated, reprimanded differently because of her race. They also used very veiled language about the motivation behind multiple tests per months for almost 30 years ( according to Williams her career started 1995-2022) Certainly not much if any details about her getting tested pre 95. Not much mention of it in the 7 or 8 books written about or by her. She has obviously done hundreds of hours of video interviews and doesn't dwell on it.
Again Bigfoot, Lochness monster, Chuppacabra tooth fairy, Santa, balanced budget, and Williams doping positives ..all things to believe in. Her training and physical preparation, divine gifts have to at least have to factor into an educated guess. In other female sports being described as " big boned" is pejorative.. In her case her constant training to refine her muscle mass for maximum efficiency, effectiveness was truly phenomenal!! I remember watching a post match video analysis of her at French Open or tournament in Switzerland or US open and she took 2,3 steps less than other players to cover lateral distances of the baseline. Other pro athlete friends of hers commented that she did as much running and agility drills as pro mens basketball and football players.

I said nothing about body composition—I was pointing out how her performance level far, far outdistanced her opponents, who in general I regard as probable of doping.

 

[Unchained]

I said nothing about body composition—I was pointing out how her performance level far, far outdistanced her opponents, who in general I regard as probable of doping.

Oh I got what you said, her performance(s) are suspect in your opinion. Got that part, and my other back and forth about Armstrong.. It's often best to offer some proof, test failures, court hearings or deposition here or there. It's just to cheap and easy to say I know she doped and cheated and the proof is.. Just because

 

[Sciatic]

Oh I got what you said, her performance(s) are suspect in your opinion. Got that part, and my other back and forth about Armstrong.. It's often best to offer some proof, test failures, court hearings or deposition here or there. It's just to cheap and easy to say I know she doped and cheated and the proof is.. Just because

That’s what you think then that’s what you think. There are limits to outliers in human performance when one athlete so superior to others, who I assume a percentage of are doping, just on physical speed, strength, etc But that’s just my opinion, true. How is you’re not the one taking the “cheap and easy” path by agreeing with the 99% of tennis fans and 99.999 % of Americans who think she is clean?

 

[BullsFan22]

That’s what you think then that’s what you think. There are limits to outliers in human performance when one athlete so superior to others, who I assume a percentage of are doping, just on physical speed, strength, etc But that’s just my opinion, true. How is you’re not the one taking the “cheap and easy” path by agreeing with the 99% of tennis fans and 99.999 % of Americans who think she is clean?

Oh i am pretty sure the number is far less than 99%

 

[TourOfSardinia]

Sinner gains post-ban absolution!

 

[BullsFan22]

Nice to see a doper win Wikbledon. Maybe the other doper will win tomorrow?

 

[Pantani Attacks]

Nice to see a doper win Wikbledon. Maybe the other doper will win tomorrow?

No matter who is victorious tomorrow, doping wins.

 

[kingjr]

Nice to see a doper win Wikbledon. Maybe the other doper will win tomorrow?

Alcaraz is a doper?

 

[BullsFan22]

Alcaraz is a doper?

The guy that got caught doping is a doper.

 

[kingjr]

The guy that got caught doping is a doper.

Neither of the two has, so I don't know who you're talking about.

 

[Red Rick]

Neither of the two has, so I don't know who you're talking about.

Look if we're in the cyclingnews clinic and we call a guy who's been tested positive and served a suspension "not a doper" then who am I and what are we doing

 

[kingjr]

Look if we're in the cyclingnews clinic and we call a guy who's been tested positive and served a suspension "not a doper" then who am I and what are we doing

Whatever you said there makes no sense at all

Unless you're trying to say the word "doper" is completely meaningless

 

[Sciatic]

Whatever you said there makes no sense at all

Unless you're trying to say the word "doper" is completely meaningless

You’re being disingenuous. The message is clear: how can you call someone who was busted for doping, but got off on a flimsy excuse, “not a doper.” And to claim that in, of all places, the CN doping forum.

 

[kingjr]

You’re being disingenuous. The message is clear: how can you call someone who was busted for doping, but got off on a flimsy excuse, “not a doper.” And to claim that in, of all places, the CN doping forum.

You say this, and call me disingenuous? You've evidently taken in absolutely nothing concerning the case. There is nothing flimsy about the excuse.
One day, I hope I'll understand why people are so committed to their personal narratives that they'll defend them against all evidence to the contrary, I think it would go a long way to explaining a lot of what's going on in the world at large.

 

[AmRacer]

I hope I'll understand why people are so committed to their personal narratives that they'll defend them against all evidence to the contrary,

Exactly what I think.

 

[Sciatic]

You say this, and call me disingenuous? You've evidently taken in absolutely nothing concerning the case. There is nothing flimsy about the excuse.
One day, I hope I'll understand why people are so committed to their personal narratives that they'll defend them against all evidence to the contrary, I think it would go a long way to explaining a lot of what's going on in the world at large.

So, in other words, you did understand what Red Rick was saying. I think we disagree about the excuse once before, that won't change.

 

[kingjr]

So, in other words, you did understand what Red Rick was saying. I think we disagree about the excuse once before, that won't change.

Because you literally just explained it…. ("the message is clear", etc.)

Please tell me again, why do you not believe it? What about it seems so unlikely, especially in the light of the evidence provided?

 

[AmRacer]

Because you literally just explained it…. ("the message is clear", etc.)

Please tell me again, why do you not believe it? What about it seems so unlikely, especially in the light of the evidence provided?

Sinner is a convicted doper

 

[Sciatic]

Because you literally just explained it…. ("the message is clear", etc.)

Please tell me again, why do you not believe it? What about it seems so unlikely, especially in the light of the evidence provided?

Okay, I'll just copy and paste here. If they decided in a real court rather than CAS or whatever, attorneys for the prosecution would point out that Sinner's team has not shown what they claim can be easily replicated. That is, they would need to show how likely/unlikely the exact explanation is.
To replicate the process, they would need to do the following: sprayed (not rubbed) onto one spot on the hand (the approximate spot where the cut would be) of our test subject (trainer) a small amount of a substance containing a small amount of the steroid, and then that person give a massage to our experimental subject #2, and then tested that second person to see whether they could test positive for that steroid? That is the burden of proof I would like to see. If you can show me his legal team has done that, then okay.

The keys being that he didn't even claim that the substance was sprayed on him. Nor was it a big glob of testosterone-like gel spread on both hands. And the spray (which I would assume it would have less absorption than a gel) was just to one spot on one hand. That's not a lot of the substance. But yeah, steroids are absorbed through our skin, so it's possible. But why not just say the trainer grabbed the wrong spray or tube and put a bunch on his hands, which would be much more likely to produce secondary absorption?

 

[kingjr]

Sinner is a convicted doper

This is not a logical response to the post you quoted, but anyway:

Jannik Sinner's recent case resulting in a three-month ban was “a million miles away from doping” according to a senior official at the WADA

 

[kingjr]

The keys being that he didn't even claim that the substance was sprayed on him. Nor was it a big glob of testosterone-like gel spread on both hands. And the spray (which I would assume it would have less absorption than a gel) was just to one spot on one hand. That's not a lot of the substance. But yeah, steroids are absorbed through our skin, so it's possible. But why not just say the trainer grabbed the wrong spray or tube and put a bunch on his hands, which would be much more likely to produce secondary absorption?

Uh, because that's not what happened?

 

[AmRacer]

This is not a logical response to the post you quoted, but anyway:

Jannik Sinner's recent case resulting in a three-month ban was “a million miles away from doping” according to a senior official at the WADA

Convicted doper

 

[TourOfSardinia]

This is not a logical response to the post you quoted, but anyway:

Jannik Sinner's recent case resulting in a three-month ban was “a million miles away from doping” according to a senior official at the WADA

So why was he sanctioned?

 

[kingjr]

Okay, I'll just copy and paste here. If they decided in a real court rather than CAS or whatever, attorneys for the prosecution would point out that Sinner's team has not shown what they claim can be easily replicated. That is, they would need to show how likely/unlikely the exact explanation is.
To replicate the process, they would need to do the following: sprayed (not rubbed) onto one spot on the hand (the approximate spot where the cut would be) of our test subject (trainer) a small amount of a substance containing a small amount of the steroid, and then that person give a massage to our experimental subject #2, and then tested that second person to see whether they could test positive for that steroid? That is the burden of proof I would like to see. If you can show me his legal team has done that, then okay.

So you have (independent) expert testimony affirming that the levels detected were consistent with transdermal, inadvertent exposure, and none of them suggested the explanation is somehow inconsistent with the scientific analysis. That, among other things, was enough according to WADA and ITIA burden-of-proof standards, but you arbitrarily decide that standard is insufficient? Fine, but why? What is it about the explanation that seems so incredible that a different standard should be applied?
My point is this: calling Sinner a doper is like calling someone a cheater for accidentally breaking a rule, like a cyclist taking a shortcut without being aware of it. The term thus becomes both inaccurate and defamatory.