Not Good News For Olympics

First topic message reminder :

With Nadal's withdrawal from the Olympics quite a few may be rubbing their hands together in glee at another draw opening up with golden opportunities being handed out yet again. But it isn't really such good news.

Does Federer want another * attached if he manages to fill an important gap in his achievements? Just when Olympic tennis has gained a little credibility by having a number one ranked player win gold does it need another Massu, Kafelnikov, Rossit or Mercir? (no disrespect) clutching a medal? When everyone knows a certain player will be resting at home (no doubt polishing their very own shiny gold Olympic medal) and will re-emerge (hopefully...) fresh for the US Open. Will it make the Olympics suddenly feel like very hard work? Will dodging the rain, fighting for a gap under the roof (when Andy isn't playing), playing 6 matches including one 5 setter... all for a measly 750 points and no trophy leave the winner feeling a little short changed? Will doing all this whilst everyone else is watching something more riveting like clay pigeon shooting or dressage leave the players feeling a little neglected?

Nadal withdrawing from the Olympics is not good news... But somehow I feel a little happier now.

reckoner wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

reckoner wrote:So, as I said, any doctor could cross reference the BNF with a list. Why does one need a "licensed physician for completion of doping control"?

Quite aware of the BNF, thank you.

Like I said the BNF covers Britain. Not internationally.

Not any old doctor could do it like you imply.

It would require someone who has had dealings with WMO

Do tennis players get a lot of colds or something?

Most medication is fairly straightforward.

Well no it's not actually. We all remember the case of the British Skier at the 2006? Winter Olympics who bought a decongestant to help clear his nose and prevent it streaming as he completed the downhill. He bought it in the Olympic village as well but it contained a banned ingredient.

I know from competing horses (many moons ago) that the amount in the bloodstream is irrelevant, it is just the fact that it is present and I presume that human athletes are treated the same?

I think debating peds in sports is fine and of course public scrutiny helps ensure that individual sports stay clean. I just think you need to be careful reckoner and use hypothetical scenarios. Personally I suspect that Nadal does not want to compete when he knows he can't win because of form and soreness in knees but I haven't seen anything in his play the last two years or lately to suggest that he is about to burn out or break down or that the knees are giving him as much pain as Nadal camp claim (v ready to eat humble pie by bucketload if wrong, but still remember the 'which leg' at AO and the 'broken foot' last year) - that was why I laughed at jet ski comment and I would like to make it plain that is a world away from suspecting any player of failing to compete because they are worried about the drug testing at the Games.

Does denial work for you? You asked why does he need a physician?

-> No, I asked why such a specialist was required.

Where did you say performance enhancement?

-> Earlier. Do try and read what people post.

Also many Wrestling fans in that section could point to many performers who have died in their 30's 40's from excessive steroid intake.

-> Techniques have evolved and become much more sophisticated.

Don't you think more tennis stars past who died early if roids were the rage like it is being implied?

-> I'm not confining the discussion to roids.

So do you know for fact then that Nadal doesn't have an allergy to the banned substances in PED's?

Do tell me of these techniques......

laverfan wrote:May I gently suggest a separate banned substance discussion, please.

I agree. Talking of all things "banned" or (banbrotamed ) just what is the cricket score?

Where did you say performance enhancement?

-> Earlier. Do try and read what people post.

No posts found on this thread with Performance Enhancement

Nice try though

Well no it's not actually. We all remember the case of the British Skier at the 2006? Winter Olympics who bought a decongestant to help clear his nose and prevent it streaming as he completed the downhill. He bought it in the Olympic village as well but it contained a banned ingredient.

->That's fine if you accept his explanation.

I know from competing horses (many moons ago) that the amount in the bloodstream is irrelevant, it is just the fact that it is present and I presume that human athletes are treated the same?

-> I believe the levels are important. Hence the relevance of PRP as it can cause higher than usually accepted levels of certain substances to be accepted.

I think debating peds in sports is fine and of course public scrutiny helps ensure that individual sports stay clean. I just think you need to be careful reckoner and use hypothetical scenarios. Personally I suspect that Nadal does not want to compete when he knows he can't win because of form and soreness in knees but I haven't seen anything in his play the last two years or lately to suggest that he is about to burn out or break down or that the knees are giving him as much pain as Nadal camp claim (v ready to eat humble pie by bucketload if wrong, but still remember the 'which leg' at AO and the 'broken foot' last year) - that was why I laughed at jet ski comment and I would like to make it plain that is a world away from suspecting any player of failing to compete because they are worried about the drug testing at the Games.

-> That's fair comment, didn't really set out to beat an anti Nadal drum - got somewhat sidetracked by lkv2's pugnacious style of debate (where only lkv2 knows what he is talking about and the rest of us mere mortals are cluelesss).

reckoner wrote:Didn't you see the race that shocked the world? I think it's distasteful for tennis to turn a blind eye to performance enhancement. A player can employ a "licensed physician for completion of doping control" and no one finds it remarkable. Meanwhile, you see female players that wouldn't look out of place on the East German swimming team and no one bats an eyelid!

Carl Lewis has gone on the record saying Usain Bolt's improvement from running 10.02 to 9.69 in less than a year was highly suspect and given Jamaica's patchy adherence to standards should be investigated. Is he being distasteful too?

Do try and read lkv2... sigh.

reckoner wrote:

reckoner wrote:Didn't you see the race that shocked the world? I think it's distasteful for tennis to turn a blind eye to performance enhancement. A player can employ a "licensed physician for completion of doping control" and no one finds it remarkable. Meanwhile, you see female players that wouldn't look out of place on the East German swimming team and no one bats an eyelid!

Carl Lewis has gone on the record saying Usain Bolt's improvement from running 10.02 to 9.69 in less than a year was highly suspect and given Jamaica's patchy adherence to standards should be investigated. Is he being distasteful too?

Do try and read lkv2... sigh.

Was that in connection with tennis? :sigh:

laverfan wrote:May I gently suggest a separate banned substance discussion, please.

Once I've dealt with these ridiculous ad hominem attacks from lkv2...

How do I complain about his appalling manners?

legendkillarV2 wrote:

reckoner wrote:

reckoner wrote:Didn't you see the race that shocked the world? I think it's distasteful for tennis to turn a blind eye to performance enhancement. A player can employ a "licensed physician for completion of doping control" and no one finds it remarkable. Meanwhile, you see female players that wouldn't look out of place on the East German swimming team and no one bats an eyelid!

Carl Lewis has gone on the record saying Usain Bolt's improvement from running 10.02 to 9.69 in less than a year was highly suspect and given Jamaica's patchy adherence to standards should be investigated. Is he being distasteful too?

Do try and read lkv2... sigh.

Was that in connection with tennis? :sigh:

yes.

reckoner



So your not throwing around sarcasm??

You and denial go hand in hand

reckoner wrote:

laverfan wrote:May I gently suggest a separate banned substance discussion, please.

Once I've dealt with these ridiculous ad hominem attacks from lkv2...

How do I complain about his appalling manners?

You report any posts, as you see fit.

legendkillarV2 wrote:reckoner



So your not throwing around sarcasm??

You and denial go hand in hand

I'd like to point out what an epic failure your last post was.

Being sarcastic is different to insulting people - didn't anyone teach you manners?

You can:

PM a Mod, Add me to your foe list or report any of my attacks

reckoner wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:reckoner



So your not throwing around sarcasm??

You and denial go hand in hand

I'd like to point out what an epic failure your last post was.

Being sarcastic is different to insulting people - didn't anyone teach you manners?

Did anyone teach you not to throw stones in a glass house?

Good luck with any decision you reach.

laverfan wrote:May I gently suggest a separate banned substance discussion, please.

laverfan. Can't you "suggest" this a little more forcibly? This thread has been hijacked by posters wanting to discuss something I have no interest in. Why can't they make their own thread to discuss this then I like anyone else with no interest in this topic could avoid it? It would be easy enough for them to do. Maybe those that want to talk about cricket could find a more suitable place too?

legendkillarV2 wrote:Good luck with any decision you reach.

Thanks!

banbrotam wrote:

laverfan wrote:May I gently suggest a separate banned substance discussion, please.

I agree. Talking of all things "banned" or (banbrotamed ) just what is the cricket score?

England all out 385, SA 27-1.
Now raining Im afraid.

Hawkeye, why don't you start a new thread yourself, I heard that Murray has just given this quote to journalists:

"I laugh a lot, just not in front of you guys because your questions are not that funny".

That could be a 2 pager for you, surely.

djlovesyou wrote:Hawkeye, why don't you start a new thread yourself, I heard that Murray has just given this quote to journalists:

"I laugh a lot, just not in front of you guys because your questions are not that funny".

That could be a 2 pager for you, surely.

djlovesyou wrote:Hawkeye, why don't you start a new thread yourself, I heard that Murray has just given this quote to journalists:

"I laugh a lot, just not in front of you guys because your questions are not that funny".

That could be a 2 pager for you, surely.

The day gets better and better, what with it set to be a 'green top' at The Oval and South Africa out for 59 and Murray set for Olympic Gold.................there's another article for you Hawkeye

Apparently Murray had beans on toast yesterday - the sheer effrontery of the man!

Yet another idea for an article for you, hawkeye.

Andy rhymes with 'candy'.

What kind of example is that setting to kids? Murray is clearly responsible for child obesity.

I expect.... No, DEMAND a Hawkeye article on this disgrace!!

I don't see why we all suddenly have to pick on Hawkeye now
I didn't agree with the article and said why. In-fact there are a few articles in the past (on Murray or otherwise) that I did not agree with and I expressed my views on it. Also there were some I did agree with and did the same.

Don't see the need for this

I was merely offering a suggestion. Murray saying something completely innocuous and in jest seems like an ideal subject for hawkeye to get all excited about.

Was just concerned she may have missed the quote and therefore missed a good opportunity.

IMBL - it's not really picking on her, is it.

She's being very gently mocked for creating article after article criticising Murray. If she's going to keep doing it, she should expect to gain a rep for it and to be teased a little.

It's all in good humour. Or I think it is anyway.

Reckoner and LKv2... please help and let us discuss HEs OP.

A civil debate is very possible, even on the subject of banned substances.

Reckoner and LKv2.. and to both of you.

^^ totally agree Danny!

hawkeye wrote:

laverfan wrote:May I gently suggest a separate banned substance discussion, please.

laverfan. Can't you "suggest" this a little more forcibly? This thread has been hijacked by posters wanting to discuss something I have no interest in. Why can't they make their own thread to discuss this then I like anyone else with no interest in this topic could avoid it? It would be easy enough for them to do. Maybe those that want to talk about cricket could find a more suitable place too?

I dislike using any force to mold a specific discussion. I have requested that reason prevail rather than emotion amongst the protagonists/antagonists.

BTW, JHM can be very 'forceful'.

Returning to the OP.

Am I missing something? You appear to be saying that any event without Nadal is pointless or lacks credibility?? Really?

I am obviously ignoring the poorly concealed Murray dig as an HE article without one is about as likely as me winning Euromillions (I haven't bought a ticket).

I am genuinely sad that Nadal has had to pull out and wish him a speedy recovery but don't get the point of this article at all. Please enlighten me if I am missing something.

laverfan wrote:Reckoner and LKv2... please help and let us discuss HEs OP.

A civil debate is very possible, even on the subject of banned substances.

Reckoner and LKv2.. and to both of you.

No worries laverfan, please note that I'm not the one calling bull crap!

laverfan wrote:

hawkeye wrote:

laverfan wrote:May I gently suggest a separate banned substance discussion, please.

laverfan. Can't you "suggest" this a little more forcibly? This thread has been hijacked by posters wanting to discuss something I have no interest in. Why can't they make their own thread to discuss this then I like anyone else with no interest in this topic could avoid it? It would be easy enough for them to do. Maybe those that want to talk about cricket could find a more suitable place too?

I dislike using any force to mold a specific discussion. I have requested that reason prevail rather than emotion amongst the protagonists/antagonists.

BTW, JHM can be very 'forceful'.

laverfan. You have a difficult job. No worries I don't expect you to handcuff anyone... but was a bit fed up for lots of reasons when I looked back at this thread.

HE....Toni Nadal gave an interesting interview in Spanish with some curious comments, namely:

"He had a problem before losing to Rosol. His knees are ok. He has a new injury but I don't want to talk about it. I won't talk about it. He needs to rest."

Hmmm....maybe the injury isn't physical, perhaps mental. Or perhaps even something going on in his off-court life, who knows. But all that said, further updates seem to indicate that Nadal's doctor said today he has to rest another 15 days continuing his rehab but no tennis during this period. It maybe that Nadal misses Toronto or Cincy also. It's all very curious...

carrieg4 wrote:Returning to the OP.

Am I missing something? You appear to be saying that any event without Nadal is pointless or lacks credibility?? Really?

I am obviously ignoring the poorly concealed Murray dig as an HE article without one is about as likely as me winning Euromillions (I haven't bought a ticket).

I am genuinely sad that Nadal has had to pull out and wish him a speedy recovery but don't get the point of this article at all. Please enlighten me if I am missing something.

carrieg4 : when you say that you "don't get the point of this article at all" I somehow feel you're not alone (in fact, I can guarantee you're not ... ! )

There seem to be some very mixed messages and muddled thoughts here on the part of the OP.

Of particular note is HE's comment that "Nadal's withdrawal from the Olympics is not good news ....But somehow I feel a little happier now"

Quite some contrast between hawkeye (for whatever reason ) feeling "happier" about Rafa's absence versus the comments from the player himself, in which he describes his withdrawal as "one of the saddest moments in my career"

lags72 wrote:

carrieg4 wrote:Returning to the OP.

Am I missing something? You appear to be saying that any event without Nadal is pointless or lacks credibility?? Really?

I am obviously ignoring the poorly concealed Murray dig as an HE article without one is about as likely as me winning Euromillions (I haven't bought a ticket).

I am genuinely sad that Nadal has had to pull out and wish him a speedy recovery but don't get the point of this article at all. Please enlighten me if I am missing something.

carrieg4 : when you say that you "don't get the point of this article at all" I somehow feel you're not alone (in fact, I can guarantee you're not ... ! )

There seem to be some very mixed messages and muddled thoughts here on the part of the OP.

Of particular note is HE's comment that "Nadal's withdrawal from the Olympics is not good news ....But somehow I feel a little happier now"

Quite some contrast between hawkeye (for whatever reason ) feeling "happier" about Rafa's absence versus the comments from the player himself, in which he describes his withdrawal as "one of the saddest moments in my career"

Thanks Lags72, glad it's not just me!

carrieg4 and lags72

Ok I will try and spell it out. It is not a disaster for Nadal to miss the Olympics. He already has a gold medal. The schedule is crazy for any player capable of winning any tournament they enter in an Olympic year. It is however bad for the Olympics not to have the Olympic champion and one of the top players present. An Olympic gold medal is not the holy grail of achievement in tennis. Oh and I also think it's sad when certain posters jump around in glee when Nadal has an injury as they see it as a "golden opportunity" for another player. I hope that makes it clear although I don't expect you to agree.

lydian wrote:HE....Toni Nadal gave an interesting interview in Spanish with some curious comments, namely:

"He had a problem before losing to Rosol. His knees are ok. He has a new injury but I don't want to talk about it. I won't talk about it. He needs to rest."

Hmmm....maybe the injury isn't physical, perhaps mental. Or perhaps even something going on in his off-court life, who knows. But all that said, further updates seem to indicate that Nadal's doctor said today he has to rest another 15 days continuing his rehab but no tennis during this period. It maybe that Nadal misses Toronto or Cincy also. It's all very curious...

Reading around it now appears it was obvious to everyone other than the viewing public that Nadal wasn't fit coming into Wimbledon. Maybe in hindsight he shouldn't have played. I can fully understand why he did though. He still isn't fit now and this time has taken the decision not to play. If he plays when not 100% he gets criticized and if he doesn't play when he's not 100% he gets criticized. He can't win so no wonder Uncle Toni or Nadal don't want to talk about it. Of course they must also be very disappointed too.

Why do you think his problem isn't physical? I've seen nothing to indicate that. Nadal does have the ability to tip some of his detractors over the edge though as they search in vain to discredit him. As to Nadal's off-court life I think it's fair to say that he's made it clear that he want's privacy. Doesn't he deserve that? I do wonder if some of the crazy criticism he attracts has something to do with his refusal to deliver the sort of "Posh and Becks" media friendly vesion of a sportsman that the public expects or demands.

Well you know Nadal, Hawkeye.

Cast your mind back to the last troubles in 2009 and that weird loss to Delpo at Miami, the way he was listless in the match hitting nothing balls - with a lot of family members there watching him which was unusual. It transpired his parents had separated after the AO win he had just secured.

Nadal 2 years later comments one the effects it had on him here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/tennis/rafaelnadal/8704892/Rafael-Nadal-family-crisis-destroyed-my-body-and-soul.html

What's clear is that yes he had 'body issues', but his mind was all over the place. He ascribes the losses at FO and Wimbledon withdrawal to those family troubles - as he says, he was simply unable to compete.

Normally we might scoff at this but everyone knows how tightly knit the Nadal clan are. When most other kids at 13-14 would leave to go to academies in Barcelona or Miami, etc, Nadal stayed at home in Majorca. He's commented many times how his family are his rock and he more than many other players, relies on heart and mind to play his matches.

So...my point? I think there could be another 'crisis' in his family, after all his parents got back together last year but maybe it hasn't worked. Toni says its not his knees and he doesn't tend to suffer injuries elsewhere. I also think the clay season took a lot out of him, especially the FO - and I wonder if he was fighting the personal issue there too, having had 6 weeks off in Feb he did seem to get mentally worn quickly during the clay season. After winning FO (where his dad was very emotional about the win...) he was completely listless at Halle despite FO not being that hard to win across 7 rounds. Then Wimbledon.

It's all supposition but it wouldn't surprise me if another family breakdown has taken the wind out of his sails again. Not to say his knees aren't an issue but perhaps not an the primary issue for withdrawal. If he could withdraw from Wimb09 for personal reasons he could do the same with Olympics.

lydian wrote:Well you know Nadal, Hawkeye.

Cast your mind back to the last troubles in 2009 and that weird loss to Delpo at Miami, the way he was listless in the match hitting nothing balls - with a lot of family members there watching him which was unusual. It transpired his parents had separated after the AO win he had just secured.

Nadal 2 years later comments one the effects it had on him here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/tennis/rafaelnadal/8704892/Rafael-Nadal-family-crisis-destroyed-my-body-and-soul.html

What's clear is that yes he had 'body issues', but his mind was all over the place. He ascribes the losses at FO and Wimbledon withdrawal to those family troubles - as he says, he was simply unable to compete.

Normally we might scoff at this but everyone knows how tightly knit the Nadal clan are. When most other kids at 13-14 would leave to go to academies in Barcelona or Miami, etc, Nadal stayed at home in Majorca. He's commented many times how his family are his rock and he more than many other players, relies on heart and mind to play his matches.

So...my point? I think there could be another 'crisis' in his family, after all his parents got back together last year but maybe it hasn't worked. Toni says its not his knees and he doesn't tend to suffer injuries elsewhere. I also think the clay season took a lot out of him, especially the FO - and I wonder if he was fighting the personal issue there too, having had 6 weeks off in Feb he did seem to get mentally worn quickly during the clay season. After winning FO (where his dad was very emotional about the win...) he was completely listless at Halle despite FO not being that hard to win across 7 rounds. Then Wimbledon.

It's all supposition but it wouldn't surprise me if another family breakdown has taken the wind out of his sails again. Not to say his knees aren't an issue but perhaps not an the primary issue for withdrawal. If he could withdraw from Wimb09 for personal reasons he could do the same with Olympics.

I think you might have hit the nail on the head lydian.

hawkeye wrote:carrieg4 and lags72

Ok I will try and spell it out. It is not a disaster for Nadal to miss the Olympics. He already has a gold medal. The schedule is crazy for any player capable of winning any tournament they enter in an Olympic year. It is however bad for the Olympics not to have the Olympic champion and one of the top players present. An Olympic gold medal is not the holy grail of achievement in tennis. Oh and I also think it's sad when certain posters jump around in glee when Nadal has an injury as they see it as a "golden opportunity" for another player. I hope that makes it clear although I don't expect you to agree.

As I said previously, I am sad for Nadal that he cannot compete and wish him a swift recovery. What I don't understand is how his absence would make it an asterisked victory for anyone else and how the event itself would be lessened by his absence. Obviously it is always nice to have the defending champion there but the event is bigger than any individual competitor. Also, why are you happy that he is not competing? Surely as a Nadal fan you enjoy watching him play even at times his form is not at its peak. As you said it is odd to revel in others misfortune, I wonder what your article would have said had Murray withdrawn though. Glass houses...............

Overall, the article seemed muddled to me.

hawkeye wrote:An Olympic gold medal is not the holy grail of achievement in tennis.

hawkeye wrote:When everyone knows a certain player will be resting at home (no doubt polishing their very own shiny gold Olympic medal)

I will let Agassi and Steffi know.

BTW... HE what do you think of this comment from the horses' mouth.

In an interview with Reuters, the 25-year-old said that for him personally the Olympics ranked above the four grand slams in prestige.
"The Olympic Games is very special for many reasons and in my opinion the biggest one because you are representing your country," Nadal said as he prepares for the Madrid Masters event starting next week. "You have the feeling that you are with all the Spanish sportsmen representing our country," added the Mallorcan, who beat Chile's Fernando Gonzalez to win the gold in 2008.

http://www.nbcolympics.com/news-blogs/tennis/olympic-gold-the-pinnacle-of-the-sport-rafael-nadal.html

I am glad Lydian (or IMBL) do(es) not write such articles.

Where are all the posters who scoff at Federer beating Gonzalez at AO 2007 (an year earlier than the Olympics)? Does AO 2007 need an '*' or is it Beijing 2008 that needs it?

Also Hawkeye, if you feel that the Olympics is not the holy grail of achievement then why would Nadal be polishing his Gold medal. That suggests he treasures the Olympics as does his quote about this being the biggest disappointment of his career.

lydian wrote:Well you know Nadal, Hawkeye.

I have very serious doubts about that, Lydian.

lydian wrote:What's clear is that yes he had 'body issues', but his mind was all over the place. He ascribes the losses at FO and Wimbledon withdrawal to those family troubles - as he says, he was simply unable to compete.

Normally we might scoff at this but everyone knows how tightly knit the Nadal clan are. When most other kids at 13-14 would leave to go to academies in Barcelona or Miami, etc, Nadal stayed at home in Majorca. He's commented many times how his family are his rock and he more than many other players, relies on heart and mind to play his matches.

Whatever be the reasons for his withdrawal, denigrating others who are still competing, which is the primary thrust of this article, despite all the empty words, is irksome, and a repeated tactic that HE uses. The anti-Murray rants are a prime example of lack of respect for players across the net.

lydian wrote:So...my point? I think there could be another 'crisis' in his family, after all his parents got back together last year but maybe it hasn't worked. Toni says its not his knees and he doesn't tend to suffer injuries elsewhere. I also think the clay season took a lot out of him, especially the FO - and I wonder if he was fighting the personal issue there too, having had 6 weeks off in Feb he did seem to get mentally worn quickly during the clay season. After winning FO (where his dad was very emotional about the win...) he was completely listless at Halle despite FO not being that hard to win across 7 rounds. Then Wimbledon.

For a player who considers and plays every point as a match point, this 'mental' anguish angle from the toughest competitor in Tennis today seems strange.

lydian wrote:It's all supposition but it wouldn't surprise me if another family breakdown has taken the wind out of his sails again. Not to say his knees aren't an issue but perhaps not an the primary issue for withdrawal. If he could withdraw from Wimb09 for personal reasons he could do the same with Olympics.

I have repeatedly seen comments to the effect that Nadal is very 'honest' about his injuries. I think if it was a physical injury, he would discuss it openly.

Lydian..

The 2012 calendar has been published since 2010, IIRC. Players in the top echelons know how to schedule their time. If Olympics was important, perhaps one of the tourneys prior to the clay buildup (like the 'blue clay' Madrid) could have been skipped to preserve 'freshness'. Compared to the others in Top 4, Nadal has had an extra week as well.

As you say, perhaps Nadal would be willing to discuss this topic next year after the dust has settled down in his personal sphere.

Carrieg4 : I can’t help but agree with you that the opening article seems muddled (in fact horribly so) but I will give hawkeye credit as regards the subsequent attempt to clarify things.

hawkeye : in clarifying (or at least attempting to) your thoughts, you say “I don’t expect you to agree.”

I genuinely have no problem whatever with you there because we all disagree at some point or another, that’s why the Forum exists. My issue is much more about your enthusiasm for penning so many articles where facts and a calm sense of reason very often seem to play second fiddle to emotive waffle and unfounded accusations - whether aimed at other posters or players.

In support of my argument here I would point to the contrast between your original article and your post made in response to comments by carrieg4 and myself. Much of that post (9.59am) makes perfect sense to me , viz :


- “It is not a disaster for Nadal to miss the Olympics” :

- “It is however bad for the Olympics not to have the Olympic champion and one of the top players present”
.
- “An Olympic gold medal is not the holy grail of achievement in tennis”

But, but …. oh dear he …. you then go off the rails again and simply can’t resist “reverting to type” as it were, with this ……

“and I also think it's sad when certain posters jump around in glee when Nadal has an injury as they see it as a "golden opportunity" for another player”.

I have looked back at posts made on other threads in the immediate wake of the withdrawal announcement, but prior to your own main article, and I can find no trace of posters “jumping around in glee.”

It’s symptomatic of allegations you often make (most commonly in countless articles about Andy Murray) with the sole aim, it seems, of then criticising posters for making claims they never actually made to begin with. 'Straw Man' argument being the popular term, I believe ....

Sure, I can see that a number of people are taking the line that prospects for Federer and others may well be better. That much is undeniable when we’re talking about the absence of a guy with a hugely impressive 11 Slams – inc. two on grass - and who was World No.1 just 13 months ago. However, any such remarks have also been qualified by a simultaneous reality check and awareness that a) there was absolutely no certainty that Rafa would have won Gold anyway (indeed his grass form this year would point the opposite way) and b) there remain any number of other very serious contenders for Federer et al to worry about – not least given how variable his own Bo3 record has become in this later part of his career.

So to sum up, I agree 100% that the Olympics would be better with Nadal present than not, and I wish him a speedy recovery to match fitness and the main tour. In common with many other members here I’m not a big fan of tennis as an Olympic event per se. But ..... once you try to denigrate the achievements of players by silly talk of “asterisks ….a measly 750 points ….. the winner feeling a little short changed …. and people watching something more riveting like clay-pigeon shooting” etc etc .... then I firmly believe you’re only damaging your own credibility in the eyes of so many other posters.

And finally he, I’m still puzzled as to precisely why – as carrieg asks – you feel happy that Rafa is not competing …?

lydian

Thank you for your speculation about Nadal. Ha ha I don't know Nadal but he certainly appears sensitive and emotional. That's one of the things that comes out in his play and makes him so good to watch. If he has got some sort of off court problem hope it gets resolved in just the same way as any physical injury.

lags72

I find myself agreeing with almost everything you say... apart from the stuff about me "going off the rails", "reverting to type", "straw men" and accusation's of criticizing posters... obviously...

Isn't the truth that this is irrelevant news for the Olympics?

If Usain Bolt isn't fully fit, that is bad news for the Olympics. This is just unimportant..

laverfan wrote:

I am glad Lydian or IMBL does not write such articles.

If I wrote the same articles as Hawkeye, or Hawkeye wrote the same articles as me this forum would be very repetitive. Your taste (in articles) might be different to others and hence we need a range and variety.

laverfan wrote:
Whatever be the reasons for his withdrawal, denigrating others who are still competing, which is the primary thrust of this article, despite all the empty words, is irksome, and a repeated tactic that HE uses.

This is an exaggeration, clearly.
I think, and have expressed, that I do not think this article is in the 'Olympic Spirit' and over-emphasises the importance of Nadal to the Olympic Tennis Games. I do agree that the absence of Nadal will mean that other players will benefit, but that can happen anywhere.
But is that 'denigrating'? It might not be in the Olympic Spirit but it's hardly player bashing as you make it out to be
If you want to see real player bashing and denigrating perhaps I can provide a link to another forum

It Must Be Love wrote:

laverfan wrote:
Whatever be the reasons for his withdrawal, denigrating others who are still competing, which is the primary thrust of this article, despite all the empty words, is irksome, and a repeated tactic that HE uses.

This is an exaggeration, clearly.

Just search for hawkeye and Murray on 606v2, if you please.

It Must Be Love wrote:I think, and have expressed, that I do not think this article is in the 'Olympic Spirit' and over-emphasises the importance of Nadal to the Olympic Tennis Games. I do agree that the absence of Nadal will mean that other players will benefit, but that can happen anywhere.

So will the absence of many others who are not playing.

It Must Be Love wrote:But is that 'denigrating'? It might not be in the Olympic Spirit but it's hardly player bashing as you make it out to be
If you want to see real player bashing and denigrating perhaps I can provide a link to another forum

Do I need to quote Lags72 and CarrieG4 again?

There is no need for a link to another forum. If posters so choose, they have the ability to read a forum, or more, of their choice.

I have provided a quote from Nadal on importance of Olympics, yet the Gold Medal that Nadal has is somehow more 'valued' than Mecir, Massu, Kafelnikov, Agassi, Graf, etc. ? Is such a 'devaluation' not denigration?

Do we need a semantic analysis of words now?

laverfan wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

laverfan wrote:
Whatever be the reasons for his withdrawal, denigrating others who are still competing, which is the primary thrust of this article, despite all the empty words, is irksome, and a repeated tactic that HE uses.

This is an exaggeration, clearly.

Just search for hawkeye and Murray on 606v2, if you please.

laverfan? Huh! Denigrating others? Who? Where? By saying they will have to compete in the Olympics whilst Nadal is injured? And what has this got to do with anything I may have said about Andy Murray. Why ask others to search my name with Murray? If you disagree with something I've said about Murray does it mean you have to out of loyalty disagree with everything I say about everything? Are you by providing a link asking others to do this. Huh again. I thought you were a moderator... and more important nice!