McLovin said:
damn, look at the match between mahut and isner . they are 57-56 in 5th after 9 1/2 hours. so it's possible, maybe clean.
it would be unlikely for isner and mahut to be on doping programs; mahut especially. not because doping doesn't happen in the ATP, but because it would be very hard for players outside of the top ten to coordinate and fund a doping program for themselves.
pro-tennis is very different from cycling and football, and most other sports really, because each player has to pay for everything themselves (including the airfare and accommodations of anyone in their entourage). and they only earn what they win. and they usually play all year long with no breaks between tournaments for topping off and "recharging." and tournaments are scheduled so that players are typically flying to a different country every few weeks, which would entail a lot of risk going through customs in places as diverse as doha and singapore, every few days, with a small pharmacy and bags of blood in your bag
take mahut, he's only ranked 148 and has made about $87,000 this year. that seems like a lot, but factor in all the airfare and lodging for himself and his coach and his physio (if he has one--isner doesn't; he had to borrow one last night).
isner is currently ranked 19th, which would make doping more feasible, since he's made about $683,000 so far this year, but still--it's not cheap to fly around the world and pay for accommodations in places like wimbeldon every two weeks.
i actually think that something happened this year because the results are lot more random this year than they've been in the past few--maybe there was a gentlemen's agreement or something, but to me it has looked a lot cleaner than anytime in the past 10 years. or i guess it could have just gotten a whole lot dirty this year, evening the playing field....
but then again, i've never really been able to decide how much of an edge i think doping provides someone in tennis. i think in most instances a clean player with superior skill and talent will beat a doped inferior player. no offense, but it's takes a lot more skill to hit a ball traveling 130 miles per hour with precision than to ride a bike up a hill.
certainly, not being tired can help someone keep from losing touch due to exhaustion, but it can't magically bestow it if you don't already have it. moreover, the "yips" and "choking" plays a big part in most matches--EPO can't quiet the stress and fear that a player has serving love-40, a game down, two sets down. what was amazing about the mahut/isner match was that they were hitting aces and winners at will for so long--hitting aces and winners with insane placement for so long. even if he's doped to the gills, mahut is a god for having managed to handle the pressure of serving from behind for 67 games before he finally blinked. that was incredible.
it seems likely that doping in tennis would be the most helpful on the clay courts, and if you notice, clay court grinders make up the majority of players who've ever been busted over the years (like canas) or implicated (like nadal/operation puerto).
but on a fast grass court, between two players whose strongest part of their game is their serve, like the match between mahut and isner, the fatigue mostly comes from the mental strain, not the actual play--mahut and isner didn't really have to run all that much in their match, because they weren't relying on return of serve (like a nadal or an aggasi--another one who has always been rumored to have been a doper). plus isner has such a huge reach, from being 6'9" tall, that on most of the points he only had to moved a step or two in any direction.
i hate doping. so i hope this post doesn't sound apologetic or naive--i would not be shocked to learn that doping in rampant in tennis--i'd just be really interested in how they managed it and what sort of advantage it gives players of differing skill levels against each other. i have no doubt it has made a huge difference between players of equal talent, at least on the slower surfaces. and that is surely bad enough.