Pat Cash on Djokovic's pod pressure chamber

I must admit when I first saw an article on here about the pod I was inclined to think that as technology advances, it is logical that professional athletes who are required to play a full schedule, year after year, will benefit from those advances, however.....

I can't post the link here because it is in The Sunday Times and you have to be a registered user to access articles - but Cash makes the following points about the pod, of which there are only 20 in the world, each one a mere £45,000!

1). "Before using it, Djokovic habitually suffered from a dubious breathing capacity and a susceptibility to all kinds of allergies. Now he is probably the fittest, most durable player out there, as his record of 59-2 in 2011 underlines"

2). "But the majority of the players in the 128-strong men's draw, and all the prospective qualifiers and contestants on the second and third tier Challenger and Futures circuits have no possibility of ever using such a machine, so does Djokovic have an unfair advantage?"

3). When WADA opted against banning but contented themselves with stating they were against the spirit of the sport Cash emphasises that "their use all comes down to a player's conscience".

Now as a fan of Djokovic, I am relieved to seeing him addressing his breathing difficulties so I was a little slow to respond to the implications the first time I read about the pod. Point 2 has really hit home though and I have been trying to think how this facility could be made available to all players - failing miserably to see how this could be done, short of stocking a few treatment centres at major tournaments with one or two, but even then the guys on the Challenger and Futures circuit are disadvantaged further.

Cash also quotes Dr Stuart Miller of the ITF whose responsibility it is to make decisions on technological advances - Miller hasn't to date seen any research relating to the CVAC pod so he couldn't comment, but Cash notes that enhancement of oxygen transfer is prohibited under section M1 on the prohibited list even though the pod is not on banned list. Miller also makes the point that probably a similar effect could be gained by living and training at altitude and you can't restrict someone doing that because you discrimate against people coming from countries with mountains!

I have to say, on reconsideration, I think creating a level playing field in terms of being able to achieve the optimum fitness of a top class player is the only sane way forward.

Discuss

TP,

you must be a very sore fan of one of Novak's opponents, otherwise you wouldn't be buying any of this trash...
There's is nothing to discuss on the topic.
It's embarrasing to watch lame efforts from former wannabes heal their ununcomplished egos this way.
You will never hear this kind of stab in the back from players who have nothing to prove. Both former and current.

Its a very contentious debate, as to whether or not it boils down to player enhancement when using such a machine.

As and when they become more available, the price will come down and they will be more affordable. To me I don't see anything wrong with them if they are used to allow players to rehabilitate quicker after a long tournament or from injury. such is the state of the sport today, players get injuries quicker and the tour is more demanding.

In that respect, continued use of the system should be restricted to convalescent periods, not as part of a players fitness regime.

Where Djokovic falls into this picture is moot until we know his frequency of use, but it has paid dividends towards his breathing which has also been improved with a better diet. that he has become a "better" player is more down to his confidence, but his health has helped him to endure longer periods of strain and stress. This is not a problem as I see it, most players strive towards this kind of regimen in their training, building stamina.

For me, its is a grey area until more research is available to make a more educated opinion, but any of the top players could afford this if they wanted to pursue it.

Most of the top 50 could afford it I would think, so the field could be as level as they want, if they deem this a worthwhile cause to their career.

3). When WADA opted against banning but contented themselves with stating they were against the spirit of the sport Cash emphasises that "their use all comes down to a player's conscience".
--------------------

That's only the tip of the iceberg. Only a few influenceable people decide what is Physically Enhancing and there is no science behind it.

I woudl like to see one day sport organisations droping the increasingly long list of what is forbidden for a shorter list of products "authorised only"! And that woudl be a short list of food available in our groceries and butchers, nothing else.

The help they get from today's science make them achieve things so distant from what we can do in our clubs that we can;t even judge how talented or skillful they are. In teh past we could relate to McEnroe's genius or Borg's amazing footwork and stamina but know we can;t see anything.

To me I just think that Djokovic's form of late should be that of someone that took stock of their physical condition and looked at ways to improve. The diet and now this chamber. That coupled with a mental mind set that is far improved and in tandem with that of his physical condition will produce such results we have seen. The effort and attitude should really be applauded and not so scrutinised.

Top players enjoy a host of other advantages - they can afford better coaches, travel with personal racket stringers, hire jets with beds for long haul travel. I hardly think one more thing is going to affect those on the Challenger circuits a great deal.
As for the 'spirit of the sport' - who can define that objectively anyway?

time please wrote:
2). "But the majority of the players in the 128-strong men's draw, and all the prospective qualifiers and contestants on the second and third tier Challenger and Futures circuits have no possibility of ever using such a machine, so does Djokovic have an unfair advantage?"

Well you wouldn't buy one would you? Presumably you just go to a place where they have one of these pods and pay a fee to use it regularly, like a tanning booth. At the moment it seems as if the pods are only available in the US but there seem to be a number of locations where any member of the public could go to try it out.

http://www.cvacsystems.com/index.php/locations/

In any case there are a number of things that top players can afford that lower ranked players cannot. But the top players weren't always top players and millionaires. They have had to use their considerable talent and work hard to get where they are. They have earned any commercial advantage that they have over the lesser players and shouldn't feel guilty about investing in future success by hiring the best personnel and using the latest technology to improve performance and possibly gain a fair and legal advantage.

tenez wrote:The help they get from today's science make them achieve things so distant from what we can do in our clubs that we can;t even judge how talented or skillful they are. In teh past we could relate to McEnroe's genius or Borg's amazing footwork and stamina but know we can;t see anything.

How do we know what McEnroe, Borg, Laver etc might have been using in the past? Performance enhancing drugs have been around for a very long time but drug testing in the 60s, 70s and 80s was a complete nonsense compared to the draconian tests that players undergo now.

Djokovic's pod. Is this like the one Wacko Jacko and Bubbles used to have?

Seriously wouldn't it be cheaper just to use 100% oxygen with a mask. He could even use it during his matches.

Novak just doing what he has to do to keep up with Nads imo, afterall, if Nads can use science to cure his knees then why can't Nole cure his allergies?

WADA and ATP have already let Nads off the hook with his blood platelets, and you can't tell me "popeye" Murray just got those arms by eating sushi can you?

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Novak just doing what he has to do to keep up with Nads imo, afterall, if Nads can use science to cure his knees then why can't Nole cure his allergies?

WADA and ATP have already let Nads off the hook with his blood platelets, and you can't tell me "popeye" Murray just got those arms by eating sushi can you?

Good point on Djoko/Nad. Djoko did what he had to do to keep up with Nad; bring in the science. Whether you agree with it or not.
Murray's arms do not reveal a secret supplement diet though. Many posters are making too much out of strong looking arms. The muscles are not necessarily suspicious, the way players are able to recuperate after tough matches, sets, games, points or injuries, is. That's where the science brings in it's benefit (for the usual tennis player that is). To say it boldly: a tennis player would have more benefit from HGH or fourth generation EPO than Steroids.

Murray is almost as fit as Nadal and Djoko BTW.

Nole's egg chamber has been spotted guys, must've been 1 helluva chicken to lay these ones.... http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcReZhWKXw2lxD-toU98BOuVwZYPYi81yFE5R0RkdkBwxPuaQrZK6w

Well if you look at the size of some players thighs, surely, steroids could help too GP,don't you think? Of course, if they wanted to use some. And I believe IGF 1 is probably one of the most used drug in sport, including tennis.

I have a feeling that one of these days tennis is going to get an Earthquake of a revelation on PEDs and the like.

bogbrush wrote:I have a feeling that one of these days tennis is going to get an Earthquake of a revelation on PEDs and the like.

I had this feeling for a long time but now I am convinced it won't come out anytime soon. Maybe when they retire. They have made it so easy to use PED that's almost impossible to prove even when caught red handed. The Odesnik case simply sums it up.

Tenez wrote:Well if you look at the size of some players thighs, surely, steroids could help too GP,don't you think? Of course, if they wanted to use some. And I believe IGF 1 is probably one of the most used drug in sport, including tennis.

You should see my thighs T, and i'm clean as a whistle

Tennis is not a clean sport, and it's getting worse every year. But I believe they're more interested in stamina and recovery than muscles.
IGF 1 is related to HGH is it? But like i said, they want to recover, and fast! Not necessarily increase body weight.
Doesn't matter much though, dope is dope

http://yfrog.com/h4oh5rhj

Those are a tennis player legs...and they are not the biggest on tour. You woudl not even notice they are big under the short.

tipsy's legs? yep, you're right, this does not look natural

Big armed muscles also help some players. Davydenko and Simon for instance rely a lot on their timing and hit a ball flat therefore would not need added muscles but guys like Roddick, Nadal, they muscle (topsin) the ball and having a bigger arm gives them the extra pace they woudl not have with weaker arms.

Just look at the difference in frames between Andy and Jamie Murray or simply at Murray when he came on tour and now. Also it was striking the difference between Haase and Murray the other day. Haase looked like a 1990 player. Lots of work in the gym...for sure.

icecold wrote:

time please wrote:
2). "But the majority of the players in the 128-strong men's draw, and all the prospective qualifiers and contestants on the second and third tier Challenger and Futures circuits have no possibility of ever using such a machine, so does Djokovic have an unfair advantage?"

Well you wouldn't buy one would you? Presumably you just go to a place where they have one of these pods and pay a fee to use it regularly, like a tanning booth. At the moment it seems as if the pods are only available in the US but there seem to be a number of locations where any member of the public could go to try it out.

http://www.cvacsystems.com/index.php/locations/

In any case there are a number of things that top players can afford that lower ranked players cannot. But the top players weren't always top players and millionaires. They have had to use their considerable talent and work hard to get where they are. They have earned any commercial advantage that they have over the lesser players and shouldn't feel guilty about investing in future success by hiring the best personnel and using the latest technology to improve performance and possibly gain a fair and legal advantage.

tenez wrote:The help they get from today's science make them achieve things so distant from what we can do in our clubs that we can;t even judge how talented or skillful they are. In teh past we could relate to McEnroe's genius or Borg's amazing footwork and stamina but know we can;t see anything.

How do we know what McEnroe, Borg, Laver etc might have been using in the past? Performance enhancing drugs have been around for a very long time but drug testing in the 60s, 70s and 80s was a complete nonsense compared to the draconian tests that players undergo now.

Lots of different posts, but I think, on reflection, that I agree most with you icecold, and Jubbahey's points, and Legends of course. I applaud Novak for tackling his fitness issues, and I think sport does have to take advantage of the latest technology - like everyone else on this forum, I am absolutely opposed to peds because of the risk to the athlete if nothing else. Cash just made me wonder whether it is healthy for the sport as a whole to have such an expensive fitness aid to take the top players further away from the other stratas of athletes, not on their skill alone but because they can afford cutting edge technology - obviously that would create great difficulty for players to break through because it is not a team sport where young athletes are apprenticed to an elite club which is equipped with the best. However, of course icecold you are right that the top players will always be able to afford better care, trainers etc so that point is moot. The question I was really trying to pose in my intial waffle was how can this treatment be made available to all, but as ice pointed out, there are several pods in the US where treatment can be received.

It probably wasn't necessary to post this as the matter had been discussed already, but as Cash's article was today's Sunday Times, I thought I'd just bring it up again

Interestingly I play cricket with some guy called Clinton Ferreira, who's related to Wayne Ferreira and himself was a pretty decent doubles player. He reckons that the top players (I think he said top 4 at least) are all on PEDs, but says that he doesn't think that was the case back when he was playing (era of Becker, Edberg, etc.). Thoughts on this? Does he have a point?

Mad for Chelsea wrote:Interestingly I play cricket with some guy called Clinton Ferreira, who's related to Wayne Ferreira and himself was a pretty decent doubles player. He reckons that the top players (I think he said top 4 at least) are all on PEDs, but says that he doesn't think that was the case back when he was playing (era of Becker, Edberg, etc.). Thoughts on this? Does he have a point?

Would he be able to prove all that in court? If so, let's find him a good lawyer...

Dunno but the WADA boss thinks it's more than 10%, much more he says actually. Would be funny if those using PED were lower ranked while the top would be clean.

Isn't that sometimes the case? The lower ranked guy does it because he lacks the talent?

Of the top 4 the only one I would regard with any suspicion is Nadal, and that's not because of muscular development but only because the knees seem to have received some magical treatment.

I can't see what Djokovic, Federer or Murray are supposed to have done. Can't see much evidence of it in the bodies.

It's a tough question...we have no proof of anything just what we "see". I just see enough "evidence" to make my mind up.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Top players enjoy a host of other advantages - they can afford better coaches, travel with personal racket stringers, hire jets with beds for long haul travel. I hardly think one more thing is going to affect those on the Challenger circuits a great deal.
As for the 'spirit of the sport' - who can define that objectively anyway?

Much to do about nothing. I didn't know oxygenated air or pressure is such a controversial issue. First I thought it was gluten free diet that was the reason for Novak's success, now its this oxygen pod, so on so forth. The guy should be commended for taking his fitness seriously. WADA is an anti-doping agency, are we now going to classify air pressure and oxygen as dope. Their opinion in my mind is really irrelevant, the ITF can make a rule, if they do the players have to follow it. In my mind this is just controversial because it is new and people are frightened by new technology. Completely, agree with julius there is no fairness argument at all as the OP seems to think. The challenger players and row ranked players have loads of other disadvantages that have always been present.

noleisthebest wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:Interestingly I play cricket with some guy called Clinton Ferreira, who's related to Wayne Ferreira and himself was a pretty decent doubles player. He reckons that the top players (I think he said top 4 at least) are all on PEDs, but says that he doesn't think that was the case back when he was playing (era of Becker, Edberg, etc.). Thoughts on this? Does he have a point?

Would he be able to prove all that in court? If so, let's find him a good lawyer...

obviously not, it was just his personal opinion, offered over a beer. I'm not sure I belive him, but I do have my doubts about how clean tennis is as a whole. On the whole "pod" issue, much ado about nothing I reckon. The point about it offering the best players (those who can afford it) an advantage is ridiculous, as these players also have the advantage of being able to afford the best team of people around them. Should we therefore not allow players to have any entourage anymore, even a coach, on the basis that we want a level-playing field? Of course not...

socal1976 wrote:Completely, agree with julius there is no fairness argument at all as the OP seems to think. The challenger players and row ranked players have loads of other disadvantages that have always been present.

I think on reflection again socal, I have reverted to my initial reaction to your post about the pod, which was that I didn't see it as an issue.

It probably wasn't the best considered post here - just leafing through Sunday papers and posted quite a bit of the article just because you can't link to the Times newspaper without subscribing, and I didn't know how many other people may have seen it. I had a slight knee jerk reaction to Cash's point 2, but I think you guys have put the case v well here and I'm persuaded!

No problem timeplease, you are the only reasonable person on this site who actually seems to be swayed by information and logic. Myself excluded of course.

socal1976 wrote:No problem timeplease, you are the only reasonable person on this site who actually seems to be swayed by information and logic. Myself excluded of course.

Naaa we're not alone Anyway it's great that there are a lot of passionately held beliefs on a forum - some of the best threads So tired now, can't think straight because decided to stay up and watch TMF but fell asleep anyway so only woke up for last set! Novak looked workmanlike yesterday I thought - not thrilling, but he didn't need to be and he is probably pacing himself well - fantastic first set from both he and Dolgopolov.

Yes, timplease, its just good when someone actually learns something or changes their opinion when presented with good facts and arguments. Very refreshing when compared to certain people who repeat the same boilerplate comments over and over again and never give an inch when other facts are brought in.

Djoko is doing what it takes, neither Davy or Dolgo are players that give you a lot rhythmn or playing in what would be called an orthodox manner and he dispatched both in straights. The first set was magnificient for sure.

socal1976 wrote:Yes, timplease, its just good when someone actually learns something or changes their opinion when presented with good facts and arguments. Very refreshing when compared to certain people who repeat the same boilerplate comments over and over again and never give an inch when other facts are brought in.

Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?

..comes to mind.

I have often conceded points when someone actually makes sense. If you start arguing within reason and stop making extreme statements about how Nadal isn't a talented tennis player then I will agree with you. But if you want to take every argument to the extreme and make counterintuitive arguments I will disagree with every one.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:Interestingly I play cricket with some guy called Clinton Ferreira, who's related to Wayne Ferreira and himself was a pretty decent doubles player. He reckons that the top players (I think he said top 4 at least) are all on PEDs, but says that he doesn't think that was the case back when he was playing (era of Becker, Edberg, etc.). Thoughts on this? Does he have a point?

Would he be able to prove all that in court? If so, let's find him a good lawyer...

obviously not, it was just his personal opinion, offered over a beer. I'm not sure I belive him, but I do have my doubts about how clean tennis is as a whole. On the whole "pod" issue, much ado about nothing I reckon. The point about it offering the best players (those who can afford it) an advantage is ridiculous, as these players also have the advantage of being able to afford the best team of people around them. Should we therefore not allow players to have any entourage anymore, even a coach, on the basis that we want a level-playing field? Of course not...

Fed for one does not have the body type and aggresion that would resemble someone who is on anabolic steroids/nandrolone etc, for instance you watch him in the 5th set v Nadal at AO or the 5th against Delpo in US he looked like he was walking through games, totally opposite of Nad/Djo, and then there's Murray who can often get tired after 2 sets, saying that he looked suspiciously fresh in the 5th when playing Haase...

The answer could lie in some expensive vitamin supplements, then again i'm not involved in WADA so how do i know...

There is only a problem with secretive "expensive vitamin supplements" or anything else for that matter if they are effective.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:Interestingly I play cricket with some guy called Clinton Ferreira, who's related to Wayne Ferreira and himself was a pretty decent doubles player. He reckons that the top players (I think he said top 4 at least) are all on PEDs, but says that he doesn't think that was the case back when he was playing (era of Becker, Edberg, etc.). Thoughts on this? Does he have a point?

Would he be able to prove all that in court? If so, let's find him a good lawyer...

obviously not, it was just his personal opinion, offered over a beer. I'm not sure I belive him, but I do have my doubts about how clean tennis is as a whole. On the whole "pod" issue, much ado about nothing I reckon. The point about it offering the best players (those who can afford it) an advantage is ridiculous, as these players also have the advantage of being able to afford the best team of people around them. Should we therefore not allow players to have any entourage anymore, even a coach, on the basis that we want a level-playing field? Of course not...

Did he explain WHY he thinks the top 4 are on PEDs?

I mean.. what circumstantial evidence points towards that, or is it just a case of them being too far ahead of the rest of the field for it all to be down to talent and hardwork?

It would be very strange for a person to make that kind of statement without having some kind of logical deductive process behind it, especially Wayne's brother!