Taking a close look at doping control in professional tennis. How stringent is it? We also look at other issues related to the integrity of the sport.
Yay! a new thread. Let me kick off by noting the TIU new investigating uncovered yet more match fixing at Challenger and Future events. "Thirty-four people, including six tennis players, have been arrested in Spain on suspicion of match-fixing." and "It is estimated those involved made more than 500,000 euros from their alleged activities, which took place on the lower-tier Challenger and Futures tours." 500,000? oh please!Earlier this year Buzzfeed and BBC reported before the AO of alleged match fixing at tournaments including Grand slams. Their report revealed that the sport's authorities were aware of the activity and didn't do anything. Considering Bet fair and other gambling co's plug money into most of the elite events, why would they bite the hand that feeds them?
Maybe 2017 will be a new year. Some interesting hints from Federer:https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/dec/23/roger-federer-return-injury-hopman-cupAsked if the record $50m prize money on offer for the first major of the season in Melbourne suggested the game might direct more funds towards hunting down users of performance-enhancing drugs, Federer said: “It’s hard for me to tell but with all the money there is in the sport you would think there would be more anti-doping money. We’ve had issues in the past.“I would like to see more funding, especially in the off-season; this is when the players work hardest. There are a few countries who test and other countries never test. We definitely could use more funding for all sports, not just tennis.”
So I'm thinking that Azarenka got a silent ban.This is a snap after she "delivered" her baby 10 days ago: https://twitter.com/lawanda50/status/814205964115054592There's also a photo floating around of her back in her regular jeans a few days post-delivery. I know that there's no set amount of weight women gain from pregnancy and that pregnant women carry weight differently, but Azarenka literally doesn't look like she had a child. I've seen some of the tennis media talking about how Azarenka's return might be delayed until grass season, which runs June 12th (Nottingham, 's-Hertogenbosch), 19th (Birmingham, Mallorca), and 26th (Eastbourne) before Wimbledon begins July 3rd. Her pregnancy announcement came this past July 15th, so that'll make it about a year from announcement to return.My conspiracy theory here is that Azarenka tested positive and is using this surrogacy baby as a smokescreen. Her form from January through the end of April was nuts enough that I'd believe she was on something and since the WTA didn't want another Sharapova, they were complicit in this cover up.
Sorry i think this was photo shopped or perhaps a picture from her earlier years. Can't find this pic on either Vika's twitter or Instagram either. And i'm sure if there was a positive Fancy Bears would have published it.I do think though her pregnancy was the perfect (and best out of all of them) excuse not to partake in the Rio Olympics though. Theres a lot of injuries, retirements plaguing the WTA in 2017 which shout out more as silent bands to me.
Yeah, uh, no! As much as I dislike Azarenka there is no way she concocted a baby in order to avoid the Olympics or have an excuse for a ban. That is just plain crazy talk. A baby isn't a puppy. You're kind of stuck with it, like forever. Although I do think it's odd how she's kept the baby daddy such a secret. Not one pic of him on any of her social media. Actually that's not totally true. There are some pics of him on her Twitter feed from over a year ago but there's no indication that he's her BF. I just think it's a pretty far-fetched scenario to think she manufactured a baby to save her career. I suppose Kvitová made up the story of the home intruder who slashed her hand? Actually, come to think of it, that is something a professional athlete would do to save their career.
So 2016 ends with Murray on the honours list to be knighted and Sir Bradly wiggins retiring under a cloud of suspicion
And Mo Farrah's on there too for knighthood, i wasted some good prosecco hearing that. Happy new year!
Clearly they've lowered the bar for knighthood.
How to get away with doping: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/16/opinion/sunday/how-to-get-away-with-doping.html?_r=2
Excellent article by a confessed doper in cycling - thanks for the link, Jasmine. One comment about TUEs really stood out: Andrew NYC October 16, 2016As an endurance athlete, professional cycling enthusiast and physician, I think the entire TUE system is a farce. The best athletes on the planet appear 10-20 times more likely to suffer from serious medical conditions requiring these drugs than the general public - not very likely. How is it so many world champion riders suffer from allergies and asthmas so severe as to be given drugs virtually never prescribed to mere non-world champions. No one gets IM shots of triamcinolone for asthma, hay fever usually is treated with an anti-histamine, and testosterone is almost never indicated in anyone, ever.
So Djokovic announced today that he thinks he can play until he is 40.
Play or compete at highest level?
"Highest" being the operative word!
This comment has been removed by the author.
Watching a Murray vs Anyone final is always a sober reminder that the anti-doping fight is 10% a fairness/ethical issue, 10% health issue, 80% stupid attacks/defense from fanboys/haters.
If anyone believes that all international athletes at the top of any competitive sport aren't doping, then they haven't dug deep enough.
Congratulations to the new WTA #1 doubles player Bethanie Mattek-Sands and her doctor, Eric "I can get you a TUE" Serrano. Probably she'll celebrate at HyperMED's hyperbaric chamber alongside chiropractor Malcolm Hooper, involved in the Essendon doping program, and his famous client Novak Djokovic.
Congrats indeed. And Tennis players other than Djokovic who have visited Hooper's clinic/HyperMed:Andy Murray http://web.archive.org/web/20140125012946/http://hypermed.com.au/images/2013/any%20murray%20team%202.JPGBethanie Mattek-Sands http://web.archive.org/web/20160227150147/http://hypermed.com.au/images/2015/Bethcryo.jpgMilos Raonic http://web.archive.org/web/20160412182840/http://hypermed.com.au/images/2015/Milos%20Cryo2.pngAna Ivanovichttp://web.archive.org/web/*/http://hypermed.com.au/images/Patients/Ivanovic%20coach.jpgDjokovc, Mattek-Sands & Hooper himself:http://web.archive.org/web/20160227150039/http://hypermed.com.au/images/2015/novakbethmal5.jpgMike Bryan & Bob Bryan (Just once...apparently).And probably a whole host of others. Some of the images of Tennis players have been deleted from their website, but some pics have been archived.
"A "farcical scene" unfolded at the Hobart International on Tuesday when tennis players Sachia Vickery and Elise Mertens both claimed to suffer injuries at the same time — just one game into their second round match — and called for a trainer, reportedly in order to bow out of the tournament ahead of the Australian Open."http://uk.businessinsider.com/tennis-match-ends-one-game-retire-australian-open-2017-1?r=US&IR=T
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/tennis/2017/01/10/maria-sharapova-return-atporsche-grand-prix-despite-tournament/Meanwhile Sharapova will play Stuttgart (Porsche Tennis Grand Prix), her first tournament after her doping ban. She's still banned on the day the tournament starts but apparently she'll play her play her first match on Wednesday (April 26) the day her ban ends. She received a wildcard. Porsche is the major tournament sponsor, and they also happen to be one of Sharapova's major sponsors off-court. Nothing to see here.
One wildcard down, seven to go before Maria find herself on the ranking board. She's desperate enough to get back there she'll probably even play a few 25K events with the delusion she'll be back in the top ten next year. Unless the tourneys bend over backward for her (as Stuggart seems to have done) i think those days are over.
She will get any wildcard she wants. Serena just plays 8 tournaments a year, Azarenka is out, youngsters can't fill the stands, there are no rivalries. Maria's presence is needed to bring something interesting to the WTA.
And she needs those wildcards. Maria won't even get onto the ranking board until she plays eight tournaments. However what she'll bring to the WTA is debatable and if she learns to make friends maybe she'll end up in the doubles with the other disgraced dopers.
Also doesn't Stuggart start on April 24th and Sharapova's still banned. Is this legal?
In the run-up to the Australian open last year, Buzzfeed and the BBC published a story suggesting that the Tennis Integrity Unit was (cough, cough) not as effective as it should be.......Hurrah! No room for negative speculation this year, as the TIU announced yesterday (what timing!) that two minnows of tennis have been sanctioned for violating the sport's betting code (Mihaita Damian - doubles #1645, and Calum Puttergill - singles #1207). Thank goodness tennis is such a clean, well policed sport!!http://www.tennisintegrityunit.com/media-releases/mihaita-damian-suspended-and-fined-tennis-betting-offencehttp://www.tennisintegrityunit.com/media-releases/calum-puttergill-suspended-and-fined-betting-tennis
Reading some option pieces on the Aukland ASB Classic. The Kiwi's don't seem to be happy with WTA. "No shows and mysterious injuries capped off by the curious case of Serena Williams led to irate fans and social media awash with accusations of a big star who fronted only for the appearance money and didn't ever really give a stuff about this tournament."http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11782559&ref=rss"Luring women's tennis superstars to Auckland might not be worth their bloated appearance incentives."http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/sport/tennis/88294101/This made me wonder if drawing personalities rather than promoting the sport damaging Tennis?"In theory, the Auckland tournament could attract more top 10 players by increasing their prizemoney, but Simon said that the WTA was unlikely to sanction two Premier-level tournaments in the same week"
Do Federations learn from doping scandals?Kenyan runners continue to dominate athletics and are now competing for countries they don't live in the European cross country championships: Irish runner Fionnula Mccormack having lost out of on bronze said“I honestly don’t know what to say about this anymore, Some would say too much, I don’t really think I have. It’s a problem and it’s not just Kenya to Turkey and I don’t think a transfer of allegiances is the only problem, there are way more problems out there.http://www.the42.ie/fionnuala-mccormack-european-cross-country-3132607-Dec2016/
So djuicervic goes out. You wouldn't know that 7 months ago he was in top of the world on track to calendar year GS, since then he's lost to Querry at Wimbledon and now Istomin! On his favourite surface! What's up with his regimen??
Djokovic is back on the gluten. And Nadal is back on the juice.
What a farce this game is. The so often injured Spaniard is running and hitting the ball like a player who is ten years younger. We know what he has been doing while he has been recovering from his "wrist injury".
If Nadal is clean - like he insists he is - it is impossible to imagine what a doped version would be of the player who is currently destroying Baghdatis. Why has Nadal been unable to play like this for the better part of two years?
"What a farce this game is. The so often injured Spaniard is running and hitting the ball like a player who is ten years younger. We know what he has been doing while he has been recovering from his "wrist injury".If Nadal is clean - like he insists he is - it is impossible to imagine what a doped version would be of the player who is currently destroying Baghdatis. Why has Nadal been unable to play like this for the better part of two years?"Uhm, hyperbole much? While Nadal is an obvious doper, people around here continuously act as if NADAL IS BACK as soon as he wins a tennis match - never mind that he didn't show anything special and his opponent played like utter crap (42 UEs in 25 games). Now, if Nadal plays well and defeats Zverev convincingly tomorrow, that would be some cause for concern but until then, nothing of note has happened yet. Not to mention that Nadal isn't the only player returning from a long injury layoff this week. There's a certain Swiss master who crushed a top 10 player in straight sets today, but I forget, said Swiss master is not to be questioned - EVER!
Nadal has played two washed up guys, and you want to say that he is playing like he's 20 years old again? Lmfao! Nadal is not playing great tennis by a long shot, much less like the tennis he produced at 20. He will most likely be eliminated tonight by Zverev, and I will stunned if he wins more than a set much less the match. Don't worry Fedtards; Nadal won't win the tournament, and won't come anywhere close to winning it. Fed's 17 slams are still safe. Lol.
Once a f*ckwit, always a f*ckwit - you have no idea what you are looking at when you watch Nadal play. His speed power and stamina all reek of doping - regardless of his results. His opponents could well be doping - or have a better game than him; that doesn't refute the claim that he is a conspicuous doping suspect. I couldn't give a stuff about protecting Federer's records. Federer may well be a doper but he doesn't fit the criteria anywhere as well as the Spaniard does - or a number of other physical specimens who dominate the sport - men and women.
Question: why is Nadal virtually the only athlete in the history of sport who is invariably better - stronger, faster, more tireless - after he has been injured?
Federer is another who plays well after long lay-offs.
Federer has few injuries - Nadal is always injured. Federer's back gave him problems a few years back - it was likely that his game would improve if his back didn't bother him; a knee issue took him off the tour last year, he clearly plays better without that problem. That's just about the extent of Federer's injury issues - that I am aware of - in his nearly 19 years on the tour. On the other hand, it has often been said that Nadal's career was over because of his continuous injury issues; it was nearly ten years ago that Andre Agassi said of Nadal that he was "writing cheques that his body couldn't meet". Against every prediction, Nadal returns, playing the most physically demanding style of tennis ever seen, without impediment. It is boggling that a player so apparently susceptible to serious injury always completely recovers, when such injury has usually finished the careers of most other athletes.
Yeah, few injuries until recently. This freshly minted Fed is already destroying top teners after missing six months of competitive tennis. Come to think of it, his run to Wimbledon semi's last year post surgery was not too shabby either.
and 35... *cough*
Richard is as transparent as they come. If anyone challenges Federer they are immediately labeled a doper who couldn't have possibly beaten his mancrush without the aid of pharmaceuticals. Federer(who will be 36 years old this year, I might add) misses 6 months and comes back demolishing top 10 players and yet Richard makes every ridiculous excuse in the book as to why it was possible, and why he is clean as a whistle. This place is Federer fan site and should be named as such. There is no interest in catching dopers, just trying to salvage Federer's records. Credibility is lost when you let Fedtards like Richard post his butthurt nonsense on here. Taking this place seriously is not possible because of it.
Moron. You think the only test of whether players are doping is their results. I don't care a damn about that - or preserving Federer's records. Federer may be doping to move around the court like a player who is ten years younger but his game is physically nothing like Nadal's, and nor does he have the history of miraculous recoveries from injury that the Spaniard does. Nadal has always been the most glaring doping suspect observable in the tour - and the way he plays - his insane speed, power and tireless court coverage - points to that more than any other player. It makes no difference if he loses his next match - my conclusions would be the same. Yet I also think that a high proportion of the top players now dope. Which could include Federer. But you are too transparently thick to grasp any of that.
@ Richard "nor does he have the history of miraculous recoveries from injury that the Spaniard does."I think the point being made here is that in the past year or so Fed HAS started to create a Nadal-esq track record of miraculous comebacks (twice!) And he seems to be playing at a level few other players in history have matched at such a ripe old age.
Keep proving my point, dumbass. You just proved exactly why this place is a fucking joke, and why it is impossible to take it seriously. Federer is untouchable here, and that alone destroys any credibility this place may have had. Federer has been practically injury free for most of his career, which is unbelievable all in itself, and then when he is out injured, he comes back better than he was before, and at the ripe old age of 35. I guess him making a Wimbledon semi after hurting his leg while walking with his kids(does anyone really believe that story?), or demolishing a top 10 player after being out for 6 months, is all down to his beautiful, balletic tennis, and not because of peds like every other player according to this website. Nadal, otoh, wins two matches against scrubs and you have a fucking fit. It is very clear what this place is about, Dick. The name of this place should be fedtardsuniteagainstanyonewhobeatsourplayer.blogspot.com.
Butthurt Nadal fan.
No argument to be made, I see. Thank you for admitting you are really just an asshurt Fedtard, and not really serious about the doping problem in tennis at all. As long as Federer wins and his opponents lose, you don't give a flying fuck if he is full of peds or not. Fed's records matter more to you than anything else, as if you had some sort of hand in his winning them. Sorry to break it to you, but if all of Fed's younger opponents are doping, then I bet he is too. Tough shit if you don't want to hear it, Dick.
I know you can't write but reading skills are also beyond you. I said Federer may well be a doper and I don't give a damn for protecting his records. You are still just a butthurt Nadal fan.
Humphrey, while I understand what you are saying you need to articulate it more unpassionately (and less insultingly) exactly why you think Federer is doping. If you think it's because of how he's come back after having about six months off that's fine and you make a good point, but the name calling and slagging off the site as a whole makes you look as one-sided as what you are claiming Richard is.
Sorry, but Dick started insulting me right off the bat, so I gave him the same in return. He has proven my point about his true intentions here again and again since Fed beat Kei last night. He is a Fedtard who wants to accuse all of Fed's opponents of doping, but not the 36 year old who just came back from a 6 month layoff, yet is already demolishing top ten players years younger than himself, and over five sets to boot. Let me ask you, Mystery; Why is Roger Federer off limits on this website? Why is it that all of the players except him, and especially his rivals, dope but not Federer? Does it really make sense that if everyone else is using peds that Federer wouldn't be either? Maybe if this place weren't so chock full of Fedtards, it could be taken more seriously. Seems to me that if a player beats Fed too many times he becomes a target. Am I to believe that is just a coincidence?
So anyone that doesn't confirm your ill-informed prejudices is a deluded "Fedtard"?
The same ill-informed prejudices you have about players like Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray? Funny, those guys are all ped users that are years younger than Federer, yet Federer still manages to keep up with them, and even notches wins against them as well. Federer must be a modern medical miracle to able to keep up with those guys pumped full of peds, and not be on them himself.
where are we? Kindergarten?
What does kindergarten have to do with anything? Typical deflection from the rabid Fedtard base, Lopi. You are another one who defends Federer at all costs, no matter how ridiculous it is.
Humphrey,the best way to get out of a hole is not to cover yourself...quit while you are behind, you are ruining an intelligent discussion with your emotionally biased rants
whatever happened to Nadal's lawsuit against the former French health minister?
Is still lingering with a future court date later this year, last I heard.
Nadal is certainly looking as fit as he's been for a couple of years. Amazing fitness and power. Now Djokovic is out he has a good draw too. Only Raonic in the semi will seemingly stop him from making another final. And if he does make the final, playing like this, a win is well possible.
Correction - Nadal and Raonic will play in the qtr final, not the semi.
What about Venus Williams? Looking better than ever thanks to the power of a diet?!
Has anyone here seen the Kuznetsova/Jankovic match? They were playing for roughly 4 hours and while Jankovic was clearly on her last legs, Kuznetsova looked so fresh, she could have played another hour easily. Very impressive for a 31-year-old(?). I can't wait to see how well she's going to recover physically for her next match against Pavlyuchenkova.
Jankovic announced she's about to start training with doper Guillermo Cañas. Cañas was Wayne Odesnik's coach. Let's see how it works. https://twitter.com/tennisbanter/status/822430982414495744/photo/1
Another performance that catched my eye this week was Victor Estrella-Burgos against Bernard Tomic. Victor Estrella-Burgos was a career journeyman until he suddenly made the top 50 at the ripe age of 35! His ranking has fallen out of the top 100 again after a poor second half to his 2016 season, but his physicality in the Tomic match leaves little doubt that he isn't on a heavy doping program. While Tomic was dead on his legs by the end of the fourth set, Estrella-Burgos was covering the court like a Duracel bunny although he's A) 12 years older than his opponent and B) had to cover a lot more ground during the match (4.8km vs. 3.8km). If he hadn't beaten himself with silly unforced errors in the tiebreaker, he would have walked away with a 6-1 or 6-2 victory in the final set.
You are right. The signs are everywhere.
Watching Zverev v Nadal at the moment is like watching a stickman playing the Incredible Hulk. To think back when Nadal was 19 he had serious Popeye muscles and was winning his first slam. Look at the current 'young' men on tour, Zverev, Goffin, Kyrgios, Thiem, they actually look like tennis players used to look - wirey and tire-able!
Zverev is getting a lesson from Nadal. In how to make the best use of ped's.
So, Zverev is completely gassed while Nadal is good for another 5 sets. Alex needs to get with the programme. I suspect he will.
Yep, this is why I've more or less lost interest in watching tennis (although I still play the game) and become a bit bitter. I've only seen a bit of Zverev play, but he looks like a supreme talent. He reminds me of Michael Stich of yester-years in his build and style of play. In the yester-years, a guy like that would have broken through and won a few slams by now. Sadly, he'll be out-muscled in the later sets by the likes of Nadal and Murray. Until as you say, Richard, he learns that the only way to win is to take what the others are taking.
Yeah, I have got to admit Nadal's victory over Zverev came as a big surprise to me. I was sure that Zverev would be able to hit him off the court because Nadal's defense isn't as inpenetrable as it once was, but I guess I underestimated Nadal's still impressive stamina. I still don't see him winning the tournament or even reaching the final, though. There are too many guys in the lower half who have the ability to outhit him on a hardcourt (Monfils, Raonic, Thiem and Dimitrov) and I expect him to lose to one of them.
Strangely, I feel this is a match Zverev could have won had he not starting cramping in the 5th set after he broke back.But it says it all at 19 Zverev was cramping, Nadal at 19 already an unusual muscly build not seen in Tennis and he was already out-grinding his opponents on clay.Says it all.
Just seen that you had made the same point earlier.And as usual the Tennis authorities and fans (most of them) do not care, as they are so invested monetary and emotionally in the players.In 2017, I guess I'm just waiting to see how tournament goers are going to receive Sharapova and also how Nadal will settle lawusuit. Even if Bachelot retracts her statement, I hope it puts him even under more scrutiny that the very few serious journalists in Tennis will have no choice but to address his long suspicious career.
Roger is looking 35 again against Nishikori. For those looking for signs of doping in the former champ you'll have to dig pretty deep, based on this present sluggish performance.
Dude, you may not realize it but you are proving Humphrey right with every word that you post on here today. Federer quickly loses 5 games against a top-5 player who's playing completely out of his mind (7 winners and 0 UEs) and you waltz in here to absolve him of each and every suspicion that was ever said on this website. Federer completely dominated said top-5 player for the rest of the match (it would have never went to 5 sets if it weren't for Federer's slight dip of concentration in the fourth) and instead of admitting that you may be wrong about him, you're now posting yourself in a frentzy to prove his innocence. Even a guy like Boris Becker just uttered surprise at Federer's ability to outlast Nishikori physically, but that probably doesn't mean a damn thing to you, either. I am sorry to say this, but you are sounding as deluded as our good ole' friend Eric Ed, who sees doping in every male and female tennis player except for Serena Williams.
Federer must have given himself an injection under the umpire's nose. "Dude", you are sounding more and more like good old Humph, yourself.
Really. I think the fact that at almost 36, after a 6 month layoff, he is destroying Nishikori I think there are a great many signs. Either he has discovered the secret of eternal youth or he is cheating. If this were Nadal nobody would be in any doubt.Murray just lost. I was expecting him to go out early in this tournament. He had to have had an empty tank after his derring deads at the end of last year. So in a sense I am quite relieved about it.
Surprised that Federer still knows to play? Is he physically dominant? No. Is he unusually muscular, strong, fast, or running more than others? No. Has he more shot making abilities and intelligence than most others? Yes. Is he able to win his games routinely in hardly more than a minute to put pressure back on his opponents? Yes. What kind of cheating or PEDs you suggest for this?
Sorry if you are accusing every other player of doping, then Federer has to be included. Ferrer of whom I have always been suspicious is finally showing the signs of aging. Federer is running younger players off the court. I repeat if this was Nadal, returning from a layoff due to injury, nobody would be in any doubt. It is the assumption on this site that everyone but Federer is doped to the eyeballs, which makes people question it.
With a great serve and attacking off the first ball an in-form Federer can hit anyone off the court - he always has - because he has virtually no court to cover. By the same token, Ivo Karlovic does the same at 37 with his serve and first volley. But once Federer has to run to cover the court you see how much slower he has become and how much less effective he is on defence than many of his opponents - including Nishikori. Outside the baseline, and on defence, Federer has nothing on players like Nadal, Murray and Djokovic, who have built their unnatural games around that super-human capacity. But you have to know what you are seeing on court to know this. Results by themselves tell you nothing about how someone plays - only that they won or lost. Only in one match at this AO have I seen Federer move like the Federer of old, and that was against Berdych. He had a good day. He isn't moving like that tonight. Without the racquet skills that have made him arguably the greatest of all time, Federer wouldn't have a chance against players like Nishikori- who can demonstrably outrun him. To my perception, Federer is not the athlete he was. If he was, he would run through these guys as he used to do in his prime. Effortlessly. If he wins this it will be because losing is what Nishikori has become good at.
Federer rarely seems to get tired, or does not show it. Given his age, that may rise eyebrows. His career record over 5 sets is 24-20, not extremely good given his other stats. Also is his game style not physically exhausting, quite the opposite. All this makes it for me a possibility that he might actually be clean, but odds are that all top athletes do whatever it takes or a bit more. So yes, Federer is not above suspicion, but you can still try to back it up with some better arguments.
Federer is not above suspicion but there are other more glaring suspects.
BTW, if the current excuse for Murray's loss is burn-out, then why doesn't that apply to his 29 year old opponent, who beat him so convincingly, and has reportedly battled years of injury? No signs of burn-out in Zverev, who will have played as many matches as Murray in the last year.
Can't find details of matches. However in 2016 Murray played 1985 games, Zverev 595. You really are desperate aren't you. Of course he didn't play anything like as many matches. Murray got to the end of about 12 tournaments last year and won about 9 of them. Zverev went out early in most if his.
But you still stick to the old "burn-out" theory when he only just made no.1 in the latter part of the year. What about those players - Sampras (and Federer), Lendl, Borg and so on - who successfully held the top spot for a number of years? Why didn't they burn out like poor old Muzza? The stresses of staying at the top much longer must have been much greater. Of course they may have simply been much better players. Feeble explanation. And even if Mischa didn't play as many matches as Murray last year he has had so many injuries he wasn't ranked in the top 1000 two years ago. You're full of it.
I didn't mention burn out you did. I said I expected him to go out early in this tournament because he would still be exhausted from his run at the end of last year, which happened. You are contradicting yourself. First Zverev played as many matches as Murray did, then he didn't. Your last sentence makes no sense at all. Federer's pattern is as suspicious as anyone else discussed on here. You refuse to see or acknowledge that. As a result your opinion counts for nothing. There are non so blind as those that can't or won't see. It's is attitudes like yours which mean the valuable work this site has been doing will be ignored by many. Federer is as white as the driven snow. All other players are doping.
Er - there is a difference between burn-out and exhaustion? English doesn't seem to be your strong suit. Neither is your comprehension: I have never maintained that Federer cannot be doping; I simply suggest that the hysterical accusations that accompany a match victory over a relative non-achiever like Nishikori hardly offer evidence let alone conclusive proof of his alleged doping. Yes - I'll say it again - it is possible that Federer dopes or has doped - but your fatuous splutterings inform me of nothing on the topic except your confused state of mind, and rather poor understanding of the game. Well done.
I wouldn't say Federer "destroyed" Nishikori. After all, it did go five sets. And Nishikori is not known for his stamina. He seems to always pull up lame.
Into a 5th set, has been playing over 3 hours and is still running around like a spring lamb. Sorry some of you are deluded.
Like Pancho Gonzalez did at age 41 at Wimbledon in 1969, or Ken Rosewall did at 39 at Wimbledon in 1974, or Jimmy Connors did at age 39 at the USO in 1991. All doping?
The past is a different place as they say. I don't think the situations are at all comparable. I think Federer is as suspicious, as some of the others. Djokovic and a Nadal are still romping ahead. It's going to be interesting to see how the man with eternal youth performs against Wawrinka.
"The past is a different place". I guess it is if you weren't there to see it. But they were the top tennis players of their generation. And nearly 40 and still winning long matches.
They were still winning matches in a totally different era, with a totally different playing style to that of Federer. Can you honestly look at those old matches and think it looks anything like the war of attrition we see today?
They played matches without tie-breakers. Sets were sometimes concluded 22-20. Those were certainly "wars of attrition" - even if not conducted at the furious pace they are today. The equipment they used looks old-fashioned - and it surely is - but the athletic effort was undeniable. Just as it was for Olympians in the 20's, 30's and 50's, for example. But if you knew anything about the training regime that Harry Hopman, for example, put his charges through (Laver, Rosewall, Hoad and others) you would know it was no picnic. This is why there is so much respect between players of different generations like Laver and Federer. Those old guys were the real deal - and Federer recognises that. They pay him the same respect.
A five set match, and the man who never ages comes through in 5. How can it not be suspicious? What age will you start to question him - 40, 45, 50? Long lay off coming back like a spring chicken........
Sorry, but Fed is fast rising to the top of the pile of most likely dopers. First signs were a few seasons back when in his thirties he was keeping a pace with prime Djokovic for year end no 1. We really need to question the reasons why he was out for two long spells last season and then ask how he managed to come back looking so match sharp on both occasions. He does not display a typical recovery profile of an injured player who has been out for long spells, exactly like Nadal didn't either in 2013.Bottom line is, a player of 35 who has only played five tournaments since last year's Aussie Open shouldn't be reaching quarter finals of a grand slam first tournament back, beating top teners on the way. Especially not five set matches against a guy like Kei Nishikori, who himself is suspicious, being the master of winning deciding sets.
So how many points over 3 shots (including the serve) did Roger play - and win - tonight? Perhaps you can list the convincing physical characteristics that clearly point to doping - physical characteristics in Roger that are vastly superior to his opponents like Nishikori, for example (or Nadal, Djokovic or Murray). Is he faster, stronger, as tireless and capable of playing and winning continuous 20+ shot rallies from the back of the court? Does he grind his opponents into submission - or simply outplay them with one or two devastatingly accurate shots? You tell me - since you are the expert on this.
Even quick points require huge levels of stamina at this level, not to mention recovery time between matches. But the main reasons for my suspicions surround his time outs last year and his ability to be beating the very best so early in his recovery cycle. As a comparison it took Murray until the US Open in 2014 to beat his first top ten player after returning from surgery at the Aussie Open after just 3 or 4 months out. And then throw in Fed's age, and it all starts to look very stark.
Quick points don't require anything like the stamina that long points do - at any level. That is how players often try to conserve energy - they shorten the points. Results by themselves don't point to doping; you have to assess the physical characteristics that produce those results: is Federer faster than he was, stronger - bigger - and able to endure protracted energy-sapping baseline rallies? I don't see it. He cannot beat baseliners like Nadal, Murray and Djokovic at the same game. He plays nothing like them. In what way does his playing style benefit from doping and clearly demonstrate its presence? A great serve, first strike tennis and great hands are not of themselves indicative of doping - especially as he has always had them since he became a professional. Speculation does not constitute evidence.
I note you address neither his time outs last year or his subsequent speedy return to match sharpness. Surely a player convalescing post surgery etc would not be expected to be quite so sharp so quickly, no?
The injury and his surgery was almost a year ago. You don't think he has had time to recover? He has been playing tennis since childhood and been a pro for almost half his life. Do you think he would forget how to play in 6 months? Although he hasn't been on the tour in that time he does say he has been using his time off to train. So - no, I am not surprised at how he is playing. If his fitness is adequate and he is not carrying injury he will beat a lot of players - as he always has. I am not yet persuaded that looks like doping.
"Even quick points require huge levels of stamina at this level, not to mention recovery time between matches. But the main reasons for my suspicions surround his time outs last year and his ability to be beating the very best so early in his recovery cycle. As a comparison it took Murray until the US Open in 2014 to beat his first top ten player after returning from surgery at the Aussie Open after just 3 or 4 months out. And then throw in Fed's age, and it all starts to look very stark."Not only does it require huge levels of stamina, but it also requires excellent footwork. You have to be standing perfectly to the ball in order to let it rip and paint the lines as consistently as Federer does. If you reach the ball too late, you won't be able to hit it as cleanly and will shank it more often than not. But why do I even bother? The Federer Defense Squad understands no rhyme or reason. They will just refer to the 60's and 70's again and continue to wallow in their delusions.
As you clearly do in yours.
I logged in after many months to see what resident Fedtards are saying about this miraculous return of the 35 and half years young tennis player, just so I can have a good laugh at their ridiculousness. Guess what I was not disappointed. Apparently there was only one player who was playing tennis there, the one who looked drained in the 5th set. Our 35+ champion was actually playing chess and winning it with his intelligence. Never mind his incredible speed, court coverage, serve speed throughout, powerful ground strokes, and amazing defense. Last time I checked, his contemporaries are Safin, Hewitt, Roddick etc. To put things into perspective, to match his age Nadal would have to do this at 2022 Australian Open, and Djokovic in 2023. Go figure! And if you dare to insinuate any cheating get ready for the resident Federer Defense League to counter your every point, as if they are paid to defend Federer. This circus is quite amusing. PS- I am not here to engage in pointless back and forth arguments with the defenders who would inevitably post below in defense of their boy. So leave your comment without expecting a reply. Thanks.
Last I recall from you you were promising to leave this site. But Federer just keeps drawing you back, doesn't he? Not any other player, mind.
Richard... And your level of cluelessness keeps drawing you back to the site.
I never left it since it began 9 years ago. So I guess I am a little better informed than a few of the teenage johny-come-latelies who turn up here. And what explains your occasional appearance here other than your religious devotion to the cult of Serena? Someone say "panic room" in your hearing?
Translation: I am irrationally obsessed with hating on Roger Federer but I really don't have any intellectual ammo that could hold up in a real debate, so I am just going to post a quick emotional angry rant and then run back to my safe zone...
I think this site has and is playing a valuable role in keeping the idea of doping in the public arena. It is spoilt by the deluded Federer supporters.I am a Murray supporter through and through, but loses like today actually reassure me. I predicted before this tournament started that he wouldn't go deep into it. He half killed himself at the end of last year to get and retain the number 1 slot. There had to be a consequence. If there hadn't I would have had to accept the accusations directed at Murray. That's not to say he isn't suspicious - they all are.But to come on here to see all the deluded Fed supporters giving excuse after excuse for their beloved is rather sickening.Federer is almost 36. He is showing no signs of that or his long layoff. The players Richard cited earlier were playing in a very different era. Doping was nowhere near as sophisticated. You are virtually comparing two different sports. Federer has been out with purported injury since just after Wimbledon. At the age of 36 he has strolled back onto the tour with no signs of ever being away. I would say at the moment in terms of active dopers, he is probably the most suspicious. I appreciate that will send the Federer supporters into apoplexy, but if this site is to be taken seriously, then Federer has to be looked at under the same microscope as any of the others.At the moment like it or not Federer is stinking to high heaven. Federer feeds on the fawning and adulation. Losing that was always going to be hard for him.Do I think he was serving a silent ban - no.Do I think he used his time away to make a few chemically induced tweaks? - I can't see any other viable explanation.
The only argument that you produce for Roger's doping is his success. And your clear dislike. That isn't an argument.
You are wilfully ignoring the points I have been making. To the detriment of the fight against doping in tennis.It not his success that is the issue, it's the fact he has returned from a 6 month layoff with absolutely no signs of ever being away. It's is as though he walked off the Wimbledon court a week or so ago, and has strolled straight into his next tournament. Regardless of age you would expect there to be a period of readjustment. Add age into the mix and it is stinking to high heaven. I am sorry that you are so deluded that you can't see it. In your world every player but one must be doping. I repeat my earlier points - that if we were talking about Nadal, not Federer nobody would have any doubt, and at what age would you start being suspicious, 40, 45, 50?
I am not wilfully ignoring your points - as you put it - I just don't think your assertions - which is all they are - are convincing of anything except your own suspicion. I do note, however, you address none of my questions.
I have addressed your points.you have chosen to ignore them. At the moment there is more evidence in support of Federer doping than not. You are choosing to ignore anything that doesn't fit your narrative of Federer as God.
Shut the hell up Richard and lets make January 22nd a common sense day
Cynic, you adduce no "evidence" except your own suspicions.
Richard - by your pathetic, besotted little girl defence of Federer you devalue this site. If any of us had actual evidence then there would be rather more players than Sharapova banned. Most of us, regardless of our favourites are open to considering that all of them are at it. Your blinkered defence of Federer does you no favours and makes you look rather sad. It negates the value of this site. That is sad to me.
Well, you are clearly a sad little guy.
Actually a middle aged woman, as distinct from a deluded Fed supporter.
Wow - even sadder. You voted Trump?
You really are a waste of space. Can you go away now and leave the grown ups to have a rational discussion? Haven't you got a poster of Federer to kiss or something?
That's a bit catty. But now I understand why.
All this bickering is really achieving nothing. I think Federer's current success is a little suspicious although he did play Hopman Cup as a lead-up so it's not as if he hasn't stepped on court in 6 months and he's played players that he has pretty much owned throughout his career. Berdych is probably ready to retire, Nishikori is an underachiever who, although a top-10 player has a way of losing matches. He seemed to be fighting off some kind of injury in that match. I think Federer has seen Djokovic and Murray lose and it has revitalized him. Zverev has had a pretty amazing run and he'll probably lose to Federer but no way will Federer beat Stan the Man. It seems Federer wanted to defend his SF points from last year and that's what he's done (that is if he beat Misha). I don't know if Zverev is suddenly doping or if it's just that Murray is burnt out but it's nice to see new blood in the latter stages of a slam.
Lopi, if Nadal or Djokovic(especially Nadal since this place is full of bitter Fedtards),came back and played the way Federer is playing right now after being out six months, you lot would roast them both over an open flame without a trial. There are two sets of standards for this website...one for Federer and one for everybody else. Unfortunately, you just proved yourself to be a total hypocrite right along side your bestie, Dick. Again, no one takes this place seriously for damn good reason.
About the Nadal match, it was really "amusing" to hear French Eurosport "journalists" babbling about how Zverev was too young to be in his physical prime, because today's tennis is very demanding...which actually explains why there are so many 30+ years old at the top of the game! Wow. So :- they conveniently forgot the 19-20 years old Nadal- since when being 30 years old makes you fitter? That is some reality-bending stuff to say the least...Reminds me of Dimitrov who was cramping all over the place after two sets when he was 20, paired with Rasheed, and never had any stamina problem whatsoever in his carreer after that. Must have hit "physical prime"... Zverev knows what to do I guess, maybe he's just too young to be that pragmatic and thinks he can win undoped, but even immense talent is not enough sometimes.Speaking of immense talent, about Fed, as much as I am a fan of his beautiful and entertaining game, the whole thing is starting to stink. The elements put forward to explain his level of play (racquet change in 2014, switching back to a more aggressive style of play etc.) are in my opinion not enough...and that is true that without Djokdroid he would be around 20 slams. Nobody's that good, not even him. So I don't know if he's doping since 2004 or 2014, but I'm pretty sure he's doing something...like most of elite players, sadly.Anyhow, with Djokovic and Murray out, it will be interesting to see what happens, as we are safe from the awful Djoko-Murray that has become the grand slam final standard nowadays.
What catches my attention more than Roger playing tennis much as he always has is how a female player ranked 35 on the tour - Coco Vandewghe - generates the same pace on her forehand as the very top male players (including Roger). She averaged 124kph for her topspin forehand - compared to 108kph by Angelique Kerber, the current world number one (whom she unsurprisingly thrashed). So what is Vandewghe on?
The same stuff as Federer - sorry Federer is the only clean player on the tour. Is that a flying pig I see passing......
I can believe it. You are capable of any kind of fantasy.
There speaks the person that can't see anything untoward about an almost 36 year old, returning after a 6 month layoff, with absolutely no signs of it. The fantasy is on your part, not mine.
So tell us what you know about meniscus tears and their rehabilitation for professional sportsmen? And also what was Federer's programme for recovery in that period - you must know in detail what it was. Oh, right - you aren't a professional sportsman.
Please tell us. You are obviously in the know. The older you get the harder it is to recover from injury, that is established fact. I might not be a professional sportsperson - but Federer's return stinks to high heaven. I repeat if this was Nadal people would be all over him. I ask again - what age will the Fed worshippers start being suspicious 40, 45, 50?
You are the one claiming to know these things, that I would think would require some medical expertise at least. So what exactly are your qualifications in this regard?
I haven't claimed anything. I am still waiting for answer to my questions.
You don't have questions: you claim proof. But you still don't have any sports medicine qualifications, do you?
I find it kinda silly that you can spend so much time accusing other players of doping and still be defensive when it comes to someone you like or support. You can either face the reality or cower away in your delusions. There was something extremily fishy about Federer in 2016 and this run in 2017 looks even more suspicious.As someone that has watched him play for over 10 years, none of this seems to fit his profile as an athlete.Just like Nadal´s and Djokovic´s resurgence.
Fishy were his 'strange' injuries, I agree. His comeback so far, two shaky matches against fellowmen, a very solid performance against Berdych and a difficult five-setter that could have gone both ways. So far, this is tennis as you would expect from him coming back after a long break but intense training. If he goes on to win all tournaments in sight for 6 months, like Nadal did, it'd be obvious. But that has not yet happened. Let's keep observing and collect "the curious case of Roger Federer" based on real arguments. The other question, is it illegal? Does he have a TUE? Does he do a 'gluten-free' oxigen-egg thing that helps within what is legal? Or is he just 10 years ahead of doping control?
It cracks me up that the teenage commenters who come here, who haven't seen a match before 2010 let alone 2000, scream "doper" because a 17-times grand slam winner beat someone called Nishikori - and it even took five sets to do it. And if age is their conclusive argument - tell that to George Forman, who became a world boxing titleholder at 46.
LMAO, anyone who knows just a little bit about doping in professional sports knows that boxing is rife of it, so using athletes like George Foreman or Bernard Hopkins as proof of Federer's innocence doesn't impress anyone. At least, not anyone with common sense. But go on, keep posting yourself in a frentzy! It's absolutely hilarious to watch.
You are becoming funny. How long does a boxing bout last v a 5 set tennis match? We are all teenagers are we? Strange I thought that about you. Besotted teenage, girl fan. I bet you were wetting yourself with excitement today.
Actually, I did box in my younger days and even at amateur level it's a damn sight harder than any tennis match. Tennis - well, I've played it and followed it since the Laver era. So I guess your perceptiveness is about what I thought it was.
I guess if George Forman was doping then so were his opponents, so not much advantage there after all.
Manas, dont forget his Wimbledon run and sudden demise. Having said this, its way harder to make a case against Federer than it is to do it against Nadal or Djokovic, because it is almost blatant to anyone who followed their careers. What im trying to say is that it doesnt make any sense to be on the fence when it comes to doping, if you are going to take sides on it. I always thought Nadal doped because it was sily how he managed to come back stronger than before from supposedly devasting injuries. Djokovic was a talented but physically meek and with the power of gluten, manages to the human tennis wall that knows no fatigue.richard, you are the one reacting like a teenager fanboying over his idol. You are making a fool of yourself when there is no need for that. Im 26, btw.
26! You must have it all figured out by now then! I'm impressed. And - yep - you might even remember seeing tennis matches as long ago as 2000. For me, it does however go back as far as the 1960's.
Ok, so what is the argument or point in this?
Good question: what exactly is your argument?
"I guess if George Forman was doping then so were his opponents, so not much advantage there after all."Well, that's the case if you assume that all things are created equal. But, it's reasonable to think that a guy of Foreman's stature would have access to drugs that other athletes can only dream of and then there's also the fact that not everyone responds to PEDs the same way. It's quite possible that Foreman and Hopkins were hypo-responders.
@manas Best comment in this discussion so far It would be deluded to assume that any pro athlete in any physical sport or discipline competes on pure adrenaline aloneThey all use drugs,you simply stand no chance otherwise The real question as you said is whether is legal or banned substancesDoes he have a TUE etcIn my opinion a doper isn't just an athlete who uses a banned drug .i.e a game changing drug but more so about how much of a difference it make performance wiseDopers can't be consistent cause if you're depending on the drug to achieve a certain level of performance,it will be impossible to maintain that level once you cycle down This is why we have seen a pattern with Rafael Natal who can win 1,2 maybe 3 majors in a row when he cycles up,and suddenly be unable to take a set off a top 10 player when he cycles downIn my opinion this is the definition of a true doper,an athlete who cannot possibly achieve what he/she achieves without the drugsFederer is by no means is beyond reproach but his sheer level of consistency throughout her long career makes it incredibly difficult to determine it as a clear cut case No one has ever matched an ability to be so consistent for so long,I personally would love to know what drug you can take for that long that will help you be that consistent Anyone know?
Shadow, you have no evidence of any concrete nature that Forman doped to win a world title at 46, do you? You just assume he was doping - because others were or might have been. That doesn't really do it as any kind of argument.
"Shadow, you have no evidence of any concrete nature that Forman doped to win a world title at 46, do you? You just assume he was doping - because others were or might have been. That doesn't really do it as any kind of argument."Of course I don't have any concrete evidence, but considering that boxing as a sport is primarily based on power, endurance and reflexes and that the sport as a whole has always had a doping culture, it's preposterous to think that Foreman could have won the World Championship at the age of 46 without the aid of PEDs. It's also rather clear that you're incredibly naive when it comes to your favourite athlestes, therefore there's no point to continuing this particular conversation.
"Dopers can't be consistent cause if you're depending on the drug to achieve a certain level of performance,it will be impossible to maintain that level once you cycle down This is why we have seen a pattern with Rafael Natal who can win 1,2 maybe 3 majors in a row when he cycles up,and suddenly be unable to take a set off a top 10 player when he cycles downIn my opinion this is the definition of a true doper,an athlete who cannot possibly achieve what he/she achieves without the drugsFederer is by no means is beyond reproach but his sheer level of consistency throughout her long career makes it incredibly difficult to determine it as a clear cut case No one has ever matched an ability to be so consistent for so long,I personally would love to know what drug you can take for that long that will help you be that consistent Anyone know?"Well, if we are going to use consistency as the sole baseline to determine who does and doesn't dope, then we would have to take Novak Djokovic out of the equation, wouldn't we? Because during his 6-year dominance, he was every bit as consistent as Federer has been. As for which drug you can take to be consistant year in and year out, I have no idea, but that doesn't have to mean anything. It's fairly well-known in the sports world that if you have a lot of cash, you can approach a PED supplier and they will design an undetectable PED just for you and your specific needs.
@Manas and Magicalgrasshopper good comments. I don't know who is doping and who isn't but I know who looks more suspicious out of the top players. To be honest it's just nice to see the top 2 players out of the tournament for a change. There are some surprising names in the remaining 12 players and it's refreshing: Istomin, Goffin, Thiem, Zverev, Dimitrov. I hope one of them makes it to the final.
@ shadow i would have to seriously disagree with that commentThroughout Djokovic's career we have seen 2 almost completely different players,even within his most dominant 6 years,2012 and the second half of last season Through Federers most dominant years,he was the same player from the beginning of the season right til the end for 4-5 years straightThe only set back was when he had mono,even his decline has been more consistent then Djokovic There's never been any overnight improvements that's suddenly nowhere to be seen a few months laterI have never heard of this well known secret that if you have money then an undetectable drug can be designed for youWhile anything is possible ,my point is you're making the accusation based on nothing but a 5 setter that could have gone either wayIf you want anyone to take your opinion seriously you're going to have to give us more then that
" I would have to seriously disagree with that commentThroughout Djokovic's career we have seen 2 almost completely different players,even within his most dominant 6 years,2012 and the second half of last season"I was not talking about Djokovic's entire career. My comment was referring solely on the Djokovic we have seen since early 2011. In 2012, he won 1 Grand Slam, reached 2 Grand Slam finals and 1 semi, won the YEC and finished the year ranked #1. That's pretty consistent in my book. It's true that Djokovic completely fell apart in the back half of 2016, but at least among us cynics, it's agreed upon that it happened because he stopped taking whatever it is he was taking. Anyways, Djokovic should probably be a prime example that there have to be designer PEDs out there that allow for consistent performances week in and week out over long periods of time. "I have never heard of this well known secret that if you have money then an undetectable drug can be designed for you"This is from an interview with known PED supplier Andre Heredia:SPIEGEL: Is there doping at every level of athletics?Heredia: Yes, the only difference is the quality of the doping. Athletes with little money use simple steroids and hope they don’t get tested. The stars earn 50,000 dollars a month, not including starting bonuses and shoe sponsorship contracts. The very best invest 100,000 dollars – I’ll then build you a designer drug that can’t be detected.https://www.reddit.com/r/MMA/comments/3pulwn/long_read_extremely_insightful_interview_on_peds/The interview is relatively old (2008) but it's still a true eye-opener for anyone that wants to know the truth about professional sports and how dirty it really is. "While anything is possible ,my point is you're making the accusation based on nothing but a 5 setter that could have gone either wayIf you want anyone to take your opinion seriously you're going to have to give us more then that"Actually, if you had read this thread a little bit more carefully, you would know that I am basing my hunch on a lot more than that and I am not going to regurgitate every single point for you. You're gonna have to do that yourself.
You're basically proving my point,you believe when Djokovic stopped taking whatever he was,there was a significant drop in his level.He went from just winning 4 majors in a row,to suddenly not winning a single tournament since In the link that you posted the guy talks about cyclesHe's talking 8-10 weeks cycles and then you cycle downThis confirms what I'm saying,dopers cannot be consistent because you have to cycle downIf you're depending on a drug to achieve a certain level,that level will drop when you cycle down Can you point out when Rogers level has dropped after 10 weeks for a couple of weeks and then you see a resurgence?The only time we all know his level dropped was when he had mono So what else are you basing you accusation on apart from an article you read which doesn't prove a single thing that Roger is using illegal drugs
So, Shallow - er, Shadow - tell us what drugs has Roger been using to inflate his performances, and how he would have been using them, and the specific benefit he would have gained from those particular drugs? (And while you are about it, perhaps you can do the same in respect of George Forman? Or are you just gonna waffle on generally about a "drug culture"?)
"You're basically proving my point,you believe when Djokovic stopped taking whatever he was,there was a significant drop in his level.He went from just winning 4 majors in a row,to suddenly not winning a single tournament since In the link that you posted the guy talks about cyclesHe's talking 8-10 weeks cycles and then you cycle downThis confirms what I'm saying,dopers cannot be consistent because you have to cycle downIf you're depending on a drug to achieve a certain level,that level will drop when you cycle down "You really do have reading comprehension problems, don't you? When did Djokovic's level drop after 8-10 weeks in 2011? 2012? 2013? 2014? 2015? Or even the first half of 2016? The point I have been trying to make is that it didn't and that there clearly has to be a way - be it in the form of a specific drug or the way the drugs are being administered to the athlete - that allows for a consistant level of performance over a prolonged period of time. Sports like the NFL, NHL, NBA and soccer further underline this. They all feature obviously juiced athletes who perform consistenly at the highest levels - in case of the latter 3 leagues 3-5 times a week - over a 7-9-month period and the span of 10-15 year careers. Therefore, it's pretty weak to use Federer's consistency to absolve him of any and all suspicion in regard to potential PED use. "Can you point out when Rogers level has dropped after 10 weeks for a couple of weeks and then you see a resurgence?"First of all, what makes you think that the skeptics on here are accusing Federer of using PEDs his entire career? I don't think anybody is doing that, but just for the heck of it, I seem to remember that even in his absolute prime, he would have plenty of tournaments where he was playing like crap. His opponents were just too in awe of him to take advantage when he was ripe for the taking. "So what else are you basing you accusation on apart from an article you read which doesn't prove a single thing that Roger is using illegal drugs"Again, I have made plenty of points in this comment section - some of which went right over your head - and I am not going to repeat them again. Quite frankly, it's of no use anyway because as we can already see from this thread, no matter what happens out on court, you Fed faboys will always have some ready-made excuse for your boy. If Federer loses to Wawrinka, it will prove his innocence as if the previous rounds never happened and if he were to win the title, which I doubt, it won't mean anything either because Murray and Djokovic already lost in previous rounds. Wash, rinse, repeat.
I never said anything about Djokovics,I was talking about Federer I pointed out that Djokovic has been far more inconsistent and even you admitted that you believe that its down to either not taking the drugs or possibly cycling downLol @ your comparison with " obvious juice up athletes" ( more blanket statements or do you have some proof to back that up?) in the NBA NHL NFL to someone paying an individual sport If you're going to compare doping in group sports to doping in individual sports then not only have you exposed you ignorance on the subject but you've already lost the argumentregardless,you still haven't answered my question,You're just spinning crap here lol,I ask you basic simple questions to back up your opinion and accusations but so far in several comments you've given absolutely nothing to buy into what you're saying You've written long paragraphs telling me about how you're not going to reapeat anythingIf you can write long paragraphs surely you can repeat your credible points, give us some hard core facts or something credible to legitimise your argument.So far you've given us nothing hence the reason why I keep askingCome on,list us some drugs that you believe he is taking,the side effects of the drugs and the reason why you believe he is taking that,cause otherwise standing up in a court of law and saying "in his absolute prime he would have played plenty of tournaments where he was playing like crap" as proof that he was doping and cycling down will not hold up in a court of law as proof or evidence,in fact even as an opinion it would be rendered pathetic and inadmissible It's quite clear to everyone here that you're not really here to talk about doping but rather to vent your personal agenda against Roger,when someone challenges you,you resort to childish name calling I.e "fed fat boys"How the hell can you then expect anyone to take you seriously?No one here is disputing the possibility that Roger could be using PED's we are all open to that possibility,because if you're open to the possibility that 1 single athlete could be using PED's then you have to open to the possibility that anyone could be doing it too You're the one who has so far been making baseless accusations with virtually nothing to back it upIf you want people to take you seriously you're going to have to give us more then thatSo I'll be waiting for your response and I hope that you'll give us an idea of what drugs he is using,what you think his cycles on the drugs are,the side effects and reasons why you believe he is using this particular drug and how he is getting away with itCome on give your opinion an ounce of credibility
Sport, or rather professional sport is a history of legends who were in fact cheats. - Arsene Wenger said this when trying to get blood doping into football (soccer). To automatically assume Tennis is separate from drug taking / doping scandals etc is horibly naive. There is no smoke without fire and i don't know in depth enough about Federer or to some extent Djokovic, but in tennis from the elite level down to amateur level and ever further, no-one is more rumoured to have taken drugs than Sr Nadal.
Also, for Federer to be a cheat, for me personally I'd need more than "long injury layoff" and his "ripe old age of 35" to convince me he is a doper. Can anyone enlighten me here and provide me with something more concrete and evidential, citing examples? I am, however very Skeptical of Novak. His surprising losses since Wimbledon, the 3 retirements and then monfils "performance" at last years US Open, Krygios comments when saying that "novak would be ready to play" - "dfefinately legal, definately legal" (in a very sarcastic tone) see here -> http://www.menstennisforums.com/1133-off-topic/840441-tired-kyrgios-during-practice-novak-would-ready-go-definitely-illegal.html....murrays comments about doping in tennis pre French open 2016... soimething is up at the top of mens tennis and im sure Novak wouldve brushed aside Wawrinka at last years US open had it not been for the surprising amount of people that clearly, didnt want to play him. Novak and Rafa are alot more suspect if not guilty than Roger. (unless someone can say / send me anything to prove otherwise)
Dear old Fartface (surely you could have come up with a more flattering moniker?), you are inviting a tirade of abuse from the legion of experts here who claim proof of Federer's doping with his latest win over an historical non-achiever. At your peril.
That there is something up with tennis I think is as near to a fact as it's possible to be. That could equally apply to any top level sport. There is an unwillingness across sports to deal with the problem. Undoubtedly due to money. Even cycling, which went through it with Armstrong is undoubtedly still at it. The recent revelations- (still unexplained), about Wiggins testify to that. Silent bans in tennis were thought to be the province of conspiracy theorists, until it was revealed that a number of bent umpires were given them. The joke of bans that were dished out to Cillic, Troiki and Sharapova, with reductions given for excuses on the level of "the dog ate my homework" show just how toothless the doping control is in tennis - when it actually happens at all. However when you have situations like today, when various people including myself are questioning Federer, and attempts are made to beat us downdown by deluded Fed worshippers like Richard, it is difficult to make progress. Djokovic has undoubtedly been up to his eyeballs in it. A lot of people suspect his deterioration is due to the banning of Meldonium. The on running farce of Nadal and his knees is another case in point.However when people come to this site and see the likes of Richard the deluded, frantically defending saint Federer, they are correctly going to see this site as one occupied by deluded Federer supporters. Federer is not the most obvious doper, but there is enough there to raise valid suspicions. Being shouted down by the likes of Richard doesn't alter that.
I shall await their interesting theories with open mindededness and genuine interest, but im gonna need more than "long injury lay off".. taking time off, time that invariabloy is used to train, sharpen your agme etc is not directly linked to doping. So, like i said above, i need more circumstantial and noteworthy points like in the cases of Rafa & Novak.
Im hoping that one day USADA will take tennis by its grasp. Then we will see how a true anti-doping agency works and the mighty will fall.
@CynicHow am I a "deluded Federer worshipper" if I have said here - repeatedly - that it is possible that Federer has doped or is a doper? You obviously only read your own comments, and (like Trump) you simply make up what suits you. What really offends commenters like yourself is that I am not convinced by your shrieking that any win of Roger's ipso facto is proof of his doping. Your response more than a little smacks of narcissistic rage. Yes - that's what it is really about on your part. Offended ego.
Interesting points Cynic, but wasn't Mldonium banned at the start of this year? I suppose it's after affects could last well into the year and any "drop off" in form would be much later on down the line which is why Meldonium for Djokovic is not an unreasonable theory. I wil definately agree that any doping in tennis has been allowed and covered up by tennis "anti" doping authorities.. and yes, once the Americans get involved as seen with corruption in football, things miraculously tend to get done. Forget Federer for a second, i think alot of people have systemativcally and routinley been duped by "sporting legends" who are nothing more than cheical experiments. I still want more on Fed tho...
Well, you won't find much in terms of evidence on any of the players on tour because every player has their own, tight-knit entourage and the tennis media does their part by holding it's protective hand over the sport. So, much of what you read on here is based on rumors and the eye-test. However, in terms of Federer, there is the fact that he was the most tested player for EPO on both the men's and the women's tour from 2008-2009. Those were the only years we got the data for and according to the ATP doping protocol, EPO tests are conducted only if blood screening indicates a player may be using the drug. I'm sure you can still find the full list of suspects somewhere deeply buried on this blog.
I am still intrigued at how a woman tennis player, currently ranked 35, who has won only two WTA titles in her 9 year career, is now hitting the ball as hard as the top men (124kph av speed topspin forehands). How does she do it - and so suddenly? Wait - I think I can guess.
So Federer can now only hit as hard as a woman? That's some serious dope he must be taking. I would feel cheated, if I was him.
This argument with Federer being a doper is being looked at purely from a fitness/age point of view Yes the game is more about fitness now then it ever has been but it seems most here people are ignoring or over looking just how good and talented a player he actually is His game doesn't rely purely on attributes that can be enhanced with performance enhancing drugs
No one's overlooking his talent and style of play. People are just really interested to uncover the truth about his time outs last year and his ability to beat the world's best over five sets having only playing 5 tournaments in the last 12 months.
Of course Federer is an incredible talent, but no amount of talent is going to hold off father time. Federer is about to turn 36 years old. He has been on the tour for 19 years and played over 1300 singles matches. I think what many people conveniently forget is that Federer already appeared to be on his way out in 2013. There he was losing to mugs ranked outside the top 100 and losing early at the Grand Slam events. 2014 was actually his first remarkable comeback and it was also the first time I started to become suspicious of him. After a short off-season, he was completely rejuvenated and threatening for Grand Slams and the #1 ranking again. If it wasn't for a doped up Djokovic, he would have won 4(!) slams and 2 YEC in a 2-year span. And he has pulled off 2 further comebacks since that time.
Obviously he isn't competing on pure adrenaline alone,no pro athletes does.You simply cannot compete at that level day in and day out without using something whether it be banned or legal.So that is debatable,but just because he is producing results you guys think that should be completely impossible doesn't automatically mean that he is using illegal drugs,he could just be using everything and anything available to him that's legalIt's not like the guy has come back and whipped the floor blowing everyone off the court through unrealistic fitness and power we've never seen from him beforeIt's not like he has come back and won everything he entersThis pretty much the consistent player we more or less see from himThis is a guy who as you said has been on tour since 19, is going on 36 and has 1300 matches in his legs and has only ever been injured enough to have to take time off tour once- last year How hard can it be to believe this is legit from someone who has been able to be that consistent taking into consideration that dopers can't really be consistent,cause if you're depending on a game changing drug to achieve a certain level,you're not going to be able to achieve it when you're cycling downBut for the sake of the argument,if Roger is hypothetically using illegal drugswhat illegal drugs would he be using,and give me some tangible and legitimate reasons why you think he is using that drug
Federer still hasn't won a slam in 5 years and has only won 3 Masters titles in over four years. Those results don't reek of doping. If he is doping he needs to get a better doctor. And beating Melzer, Rubin, Berdych and Nishikori isn't that convincing either. I always believed he wouldn't win another slam unless he got really lucky. This is lucky. When the draw opens up like this. Will anyone be surprised if he beats Zverev? Probably nt. If he beats Stan? Maybe. But Stan still has to play Tsonga who can be a tough opponent. Nadal has had it pretty easy too although I thought Zverev the younger would beat him. I was a bit surprised by that result. Monfils may be his undoing if he's playing inspired but Monfils can be such a head case. I'd say Nadal will make it to the next round and face Raonic.
Who was he losing to when he was failing to lose slams? That matters a lot. Remove Djokovic and Nadal and he will have 45+slams. That is the reality. Doping doesn't guaranty slam or masters wins
But isn't that the point? If a player as great as Federer can't win slams and masters by doping then what's he doing wrong? You're saying that if he wasn't doping he wouldn't even win a match? And to be accurate, he's lost to plenty more players than Nadal and Djokovic in the past 5 years: Berdych, Murray, Tsonga, Stakhovsky, Robredo, Gulbis, Cilic, Seppi, Wawrinka, Raonic. Djokovic four times and Nadal once. If you're going to make a statement like that then make sure it's true. Just saying.
Doping doesn't guarantee anything against all timers like Djokovic and Nadal. Doping doesn't give you eternal life. It can help you gain an advantage but it doesn't guarantee anything. So he never lost to any player when he was winning slams?
well argued lopi
Nadal more than Djokovic, lets not forget that Nadal had 2x TUE's that were backdated... in other words he took drugs then applied for their "specialist use" ... Elite sports has never been an equal playing field.
Competitive sports will never be on an equal playing field even if you were to take all drugs out of the equation simply because some athletes are far more talented then others Hard work with little or less talent will never beat hard work with genius talent
Whatever happened to the Curious Case of Rafa Nadal. I'd like to read that again.. anyone know where it is ?
No. They should b working on the Curious case of Federer.
Here you go, FF. It's 6 years old and could do with an update. Anyone, anyone....? http://web.archive.org/web/20150418121853/http://tennishasasteroidproblem.blogspot.com/2011/02/curious-case-of-rafael-nadal.html
Thanks, gonna give it a read again.
Where was this Nadal at Brisbane?
Good question. Monfils has been very underwhelming so far, but the quality of Nadal's backhand is really catching my eye today. He's hitting it with impeccable length and speed.