Doping in tennis

First topic message reminder :

With recent cycling events, doping in sports has gained some cover page exposure. I would like to get a sense for how much posters here think doping in tennis is a problem. But in order to avoid the infighting that this topic often brings, as well as to stay away from accusations of this player or that one, I ask that you answer one simple question:

As your best guess, how many of the current ATP top 100 do you think use banned substances?

Giving one number is all it takes to answer.

It's about time we got a victory for butter, can't stand that vat-made margarine slop

Henman Bill wrote:Socal, yes the Lance Armstrong case was a victory.

A victory for honest people against liars.
A victory for decent people against cheats.
A victory for the people who were sued by LA for saying he was a drug cheat.
A victory for the agency that bought the case.
A victory for mainstream press (like L'Equipe) and bloggers alike that questioned his integrity.
A victory for every clean athlete that participated in the tour de France and finished below Lance Armstrong.
A victory for justice against criminality.

I consider myself an honest person and I don't feel like I won anything. In fact I feel soiled by this whole neverending cycle of fiasco and witch hunt. Is this going to change sports? Or change anything in the lives of the riders who finished beneath him? If thousands of more of these LA cases over the years and billions of dollars of investigations and destroyed lives is what we have to look forward to as a victory well then I don't feel victorious in the least. Destroying lance armstrong will do nothing, because if it had any impact Ben Johnson being stripped of a gold medal and world record would have, or the NFL and MLB scandals would have. What your victory of constant investigation, inneundo, and public shaming looks like is not anything I am willing to fight for or support. Sounds like a very Pyrrhic victory to me.

socal1976 wrote:

lydian wrote:We can argue point C some other time...my point is that the breadth of skill on display is lower than it used to be.

Tenez and I have been locking horns since 2007 or so...the discussions became a well worn path. Yes, he always was very good at self-promotion. Unfortunately that self-promotion seemed to result in the well worn path getting truncated when he got banned from one forum to the next...lol. In the end he's had to create his own forum given he's ran out of tennis forums to PEDdle said path. I really fear for his passion for the game once Nadal hangs his boots up, his whole raison d'etre behind posting will evaporate overnight. Anyway, he loves me really...

Very funny post he still mentions you, I personally think he misses you for sure. That is so true I wonder if when Nadal retires if Tenez will ever find a passion like his one man cyber campaign against Nadal. I actually missed the guy and decided to pop in to say hello to him, I don't know why nostalgia I guess, regardless of the fact that he is terribly wrong in my opinion I do like his single minded passion.

But the warm reception I got "over there" from all the kindhearted and highly rational posters made me want to stay and commune with them a little. Don't worry Julius, V2 is my permanent home so you will have the pleasure of deleting my posts for a long time to come.

Yes, I'm sure VJ verily welcomed you with open PED-free arms

Tenez is persistent with his dogged denial of said Mallorcan, I'll give him that.
Enjoy your walks on the wild side

Oh you mean Smearjay, I find it amusing when a guy who has yet to learn basic sentence structure and paragraph composition has such an inflated opinion of his ability to win every argument.

socal1976 wrote:

Henman Bill wrote:Socal, yes the Lance Armstrong case was a victory.

A victory for honest people against liars.
A victory for decent people against cheats.
A victory for the people who were sued by LA for saying he was a drug cheat.
A victory for the agency that bought the case.
A victory for mainstream press (like L'Equipe) and bloggers alike that questioned his integrity.
A victory for every clean athlete that participated in the tour de France and finished below Lance Armstrong.
A victory for justice against criminality.

I consider myself an honest person and I don't feel like I won anything. In fact I feel soiled by this whole neverending cycle of fiasco and witch hunt. Is this going to change sports? Or change anything in the lives of the riders who finished beneath him? If thousands of more of these LA cases over the years and billions of dollars of investigations and destroyed lives is what we have to look forward to as a victory well then I don't feel victorious in the least. Destroying lance armstrong will do nothing, because if it had any impact Ben Johnson being stripped of a gold medal and world record would have, or the NFL and MLB scandals would have. What your victory of constant investigation, inneundo, and public shaming looks like is not anything I am willing to fight for or support. Sounds like a very Pyrrhic victory to me.

If everyone had that attitude in cycling socal the sport would die out but it isn't!

LuvSports! wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

Henman Bill wrote:Socal, yes the Lance Armstrong case was a victory.

A victory for honest people against liars.
A victory for decent people against cheats.
A victory for the people who were sued by LA for saying he was a drug cheat.
A victory for the agency that bought the case.
A victory for mainstream press (like L'Equipe) and bloggers alike that questioned his integrity.
A victory for every clean athlete that participated in the tour de France and finished below Lance Armstrong.
A victory for justice against criminality.

I consider myself an honest person and I don't feel like I won anything. In fact I feel soiled by this whole neverending cycle of fiasco and witch hunt. Is this going to change sports? Or change anything in the lives of the riders who finished beneath him? If thousands of more of these LA cases over the years and billions of dollars of investigations and destroyed lives is what we have to look forward to as a victory well then I don't feel victorious in the least. Destroying lance armstrong will do nothing, because if it had any impact Ben Johnson being stripped of a gold medal and world record would have, or the NFL and MLB scandals would have. What your victory of constant investigation, inneundo, and public shaming looks like is not anything I am willing to fight for or support. Sounds like a very Pyrrhic victory to me.

If everyone had that attitude in cycling socal the sport would die out but it isn't!

Exactly luv sports how about in the National Football league in the united states where the largest players are over 300 pounds and surprisingly agile at that size. NFL games draw about 5-10 times the ratings of basketball. And as you noted people are still watching cycling eventhough champion after champion after champion has been exposed in recent years. The current system isn't an even playing field either and on top of that it is filled with deception. At least under a legalization and regulation model we would for the most part end the cycle of lies and scandal. Whether people feel like my views are radical or not, we know that the current system isn't an even playing field either. And all the options facing the sports world and sports fan on this issue are not pleasant. And for me it has become quite clear between having to choose between the world of endless scandals and widespread PED use and the world of PED use and no scandal, well put me in the column of the latter.

Yes, we can end lying by declaring it truth. But what does that achieve? A superficial serenity at the cost of the original purpose.

As for legalisation and regulation ending trouble, that wouldn't happen. Regulation of what? Once you accept the principle that deregulation is acceptable to reduce scandal there's is no end to it; all regulation may as well be dumped. Is anyone ready for what that might mean?

By the way, I'm ok with PED sport so long as its an officially separate tour. Then we can let the people decide what they want to watch. I think that the PED boys need secrecy to survive, they'd be ignored if in the open. But if I'm wrong let it be put to the test.

There could be nothing worse than that for me BB.

I agree, it would be a pathetic circus taken seriously by nobody. What it might achieve is to remove the stuff socal discusses whilst simultaneously showing the disgust they would be held in.

problem is that the ones who dope will be lightyears ahead of the anti dopers. So for example an up and coming athlete may choose to go in the 'clean' version and beat the system as the clean side will probably have a greater following.

As they do now.

However, let the dirty athletes make a lifetime decision, and never have to option to switch. In the end if you or I want to create a dirty tour we must have the freedom so to do, but everyone else has the freedom to shun us, as I am sure they would.

Freedom of choice, with consequences.

so you would support a dopers and non dopers event like bodybuilders?

LuvSports! wrote:so you would support a dopers and non dopers event like bodybuilders?

I wouldn't support the dopers tour per se, I support;

- the right of people to do what they want, provided they don't harm others. That includes having a dopers tour.
- the right of others to have their own competition restricted to clean athletes only.
- the right of TV companies and spectators to treat dopers with the contempt they - in my opinion - deserve.

This way nobody can say dopers are illegal, they can have their way. They just can't breach the rules of the clean tour.

Then the market will speak. I think dopers will be shunned. Course if I wrong then it's what people want.

There is definitely a market for those fans who crave those record breaking performances and heroic displays. Just look at how some fans responded to the less frequent, awe inspiring performances in the nfl due to more stringent drug testing.
Just get rid of the UCI!

BB it isn't a superficial difference the real practical difference is that you don't have to spend millions and billions on investigations, you don't have to damage the public relations of sports with continual scandal, and we also end the tearing down of sports heros with public shaming. The fact of the matter is that these are realworld substantive gains, the difference between the two approaches is not just chosing to redefine cheating or semantic in nature. The costs are real world savings in money and emotionally frankly.

Secondly, when I say regulation I dont' mean some separate new regulation than what regular drugs go through. Today if Pfizer or Glaxo want to release a drug they have to go through trials, peer review, and 3rd party testing. Same things for PEDs. They should just be regulated like all other drugs so it isn't like I want to create a whole new bureacracy. In fact this change in the law would eliminate a great deal of bureacracy and wasted investigations.

By the way there won't be any second league or second tour thee just aren't the revenues to support two tours or leagues but if there is that is wonderful, more viewing options as opposed to less.

socal1976 wrote:BB it isn't a superficial difference the real practical difference is that you don't have to spend millions and billions on investigations, you don't have to damage the public relations of sports with continual scandal, and we also end the tearing down of sports heros with public shaming.

You wouldn't have to do that if athletes didn't cheat.
They're not heroes if they've cheated and broken the rules to win - they're villains.
By giving up, the cheats have won.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

socal1976 wrote:BB it isn't a superficial difference the real practical difference is that you don't have to spend millions and billions on investigations, you don't have to damage the public relations of sports with continual scandal, and we also end the tearing down of sports heros with public shaming.

You wouldn't have to do that if athletes didn't cheat.
They're not heroes if they've cheated and broken the rules to win - they're villains.
By giving up, the cheats have won.

Yes I agree they are cheating and doing wrong but life is never that simple Julius, the incentive is huge especially if you are a middling player struggling to make it and you think all or some of those ranked above you are also cheating. The players broke our hearts I agree but that doesn't mean that to spite them for their wrongdoing we should lose our mind in the process. There are many immoral activities that the law decides it is better just not to get involved. Not everything that is morally wrong can or should be punished regardless of the cost to innocent parties. The costs of enforcement are just too hgh in my mind and pretty much unwinnable.

We need to be mature and stop acting like jilted lovers tearfully holding the pistol to our own heads and the athletes demanding that they either stop lying to us or we will shoot both of us in some sort of weird societal crime of passion.

bogbrush wrote:
Then the market will speak. I think dopers will be shunned.

That is exactly what I think. There is a reason why no major sports (including the ones that are being presented here as both very successful and full of doping) have been openly allowing PEDs.

Of course, fans do want to see ever improving performances, which does introduce conflict of interest into sports policing themselves, but that is just something I think we have to live with. There are many areas of life where we ban behavior even though we run into similar conflict of interest issues.

socal1976 wrote:We need to be mature and stop acting like jilted lovers tearfully holding the pistol to our own heads and the athletes demanding that they either stop lying to us or we will shoot both of us in some sort of weird societal crime of passion.

If 70+% of your arguments were not silly hyperboles like this one I might find it interesting to discuss this topic with you.

socal1976 wrote:We need to be mature and stop acting like jilted lovers tearfully holding the pistol to our own heads and the athletes demanding that they either stop lying to us or we will shoot both of us in some sort of weird societal crime of passion.

An athlete cheats then gets punished for cheating - is what way is that a weird societal crime of passion? Is it mature to throw our hands up and say "You know what guys, we don't care if you're cheating, we can't stop you, carry on and we'll just forget about it"?

that is pretty much the approach UCI took towards LA

I don't think you've got much support on this one socal.
If you give in to cheating then what next?
We need 0% tolerance not 100%.

Surely a simple step forward is to take blood, hair and urine tests as players sign onsite into events and up to 2 weeks before if they've had an extended break between tournaments. If they have nothing to fear then they shouldn't object to regular testing. It's not working right now because players are only tested 6-7 times/year which seems crazy when they play 20-25 tournaments.

I have put my quotes in italics

socal1976 wrote:
IMBL: 1. Doping being legal doesn't lead to a level playing field.
-Doping being illegal doesn't lead to a level playing field either, right now the players and in three groups. Those that don't cheat, those that cheat and are dumb enough to get caught, and those that cheat and get away with it. So we don't have the mythical level playing field now either.

OK, we may not have a level playing field now, but the aim is to tighten doping controls and create deterrents which will lead to the majority of people playing without PEDs.
But you have accepted that having PEDs legal won't make it a level playing field at all, for many many reasons. One of them is money, the others will become apparent as I answer the rest of your post.
Anyway certainly I don't see this as a convincing argument to move to unbanned PEDs.

socal1976 wrote:
IMBL: 2. Doping being legal doesn't make it safer, just because it's legal.
-Yes Doping being legal is safer than getting it off the street or from shady practicioners of medicine on the fringes.. Also when it isn't stigmatized you cut down on self medication, you get more information on proper use to the patient. You protect against untested substances being used, you also protect against tainted medication something that kills many people each year.

Firstly in tennis PEDs are banned, and I can't remember any active tennis player dying due to PED usage (or anything that could potentially be that).
As for the actual harm it can cause, I will cover that in my next point.

socal1976 wrote:
IMBL: 3. Side Effects being publicised doesn't make it safer.
-No but risks that you are informed of may deter you, at the least you have informed consent tand that knowledge has value to the patient himself in making a good decision on his health with his doctor.

This is where the debate, in my eyes, is lost for you here Socal!
Now you have recognised that publishing side effects don't make it safer, correct. Now athletes you want to do well in a specific sport, will practically be forced to take PEDs (which always have harmful side-effects, especially if it's a powerful one), if they want to do well.
I repeat, if they want to do well they have to take PEDs if they want to have a chance.

socal1976 wrote:
IMBL: 4. The gamble for athletes to take even more dangerous PEDs which give even better enhancing effects will still remain for athletes, in-fact is may become even more attractive to try and gain an advantage.
-The motivation is not the same when choosing between a tested working PED and a PED that is an unknown and illegal quality. When you have pain do you go to the doctor to get a pill or do you go to the street corner and score some heroine? Both will cure your back pain by the way, why do you go to the doctor and not self medicate with heroine, same thing is true for the athlete.

One has to think this through.
As you have said the top of the game has a lot of money, it is uber-competitive. If a player ranked 20 had a chance to have a powerful PED, which can give him a even better edge but have unknown side effects, he might take the risk. If he takes the risk, he could have this edge, which could put him at the top of the game. But it could damage his health.
Tennis would just become a game of chess of health, whoever would take the bigger risk would gain the extra edge. Honest competitors would be forced to take PEDs if they want to compete. If people were desperate they would take dangerous PEDs which promise even more, and put their health at risk even further.

It would be the end of tennis as we know it.

Also socal, when you say PEDs should be checked like regular drugs you miss the point that nearly all PEDs ARE regular drugs.

The class of EPOs were developed to treat anaemia, for say, low RBC or palliative oncological support, similarly growth hormones are used for various endocrine disorders, nandrolone is used for various conditions from osteoporosis, male hormone deficiency, etc.

In advocating their legal use you are allowing athletes, and young people, to be exposed to their longer term effects which can be serious...e.g. Steroids have various cardio-toxicities.

At what age would you say an athlete be allowed to use them? 18 and over?
If 18+ (because drugs are mainly studied in clinical trials for over 18yo's) then why give them an unfair advantage over talented 16 year olds?

Or maybe you would allow "children" (<18s) to take drugs/PEDs too?
Where does your moral PED compass start and end socal?

summerblues wrote:

socal1976 wrote:We need to be mature and stop acting like jilted lovers tearfully holding the pistol to our own heads and the athletes demanding that they either stop lying to us or we will shoot both of us in some sort of weird societal crime of passion.

If 70+% of your arguments were not silly hyperboles like this one I might find it interesting to discuss this topic with you.

I wouldn't say 70+% of Socal's points are hyperboles at all, in-fact I think that statement itself is a hyperbole

Personally I don't mind debating with Socal at all, he defends his points well.

I was just searching on Google news using terms "drugs" AND "tennis" and this news article popped up in the results:

http://www.theleader.com.au/story/503615/stars-to-be-named-as-drug-cheats/?cs=1255

It says... "SOME of the biggest names in world sport — and outside of cycling — are expected to be named as drug cheats within the next three months. The Leader has been told their names will be revealed as a result of another long-running investigation into doping, separate to the USADA investigation which caught seven-time Tour de France winner Lance Armstrong and members of his former US Postal cycling team. A total of 190 sportsmen of interest are now involved, with only 35 being cyclists. Authorities are confident evidence can now be presented on some of the world’s top sportsmen — including football and tennis stars and well-known track athletes — after Spain’s long-running Operation Puerto finally goes to court in January, nearly seven years after the case started."



Note it says tennis stars. Not singular, plural. And 155 other sports stars outside cycling. What I'm unclear about is the link between "some of the biggest names in world sport are expected to be named as drug cheats"...does "named" mean alleged...or does "authorities are confident evidence can now be presented on some of the world's top sportsmen" mean there is evidence for all 190 sportspeople? Can't see how they would come out and name 190 people unless the evidence was clear, otherwise they would be subject to huge legal suits surely.

I know the Operation Puerto list is oldish news and many people thought the names would never see light of day but clearly they are! This has the power to potentially blow the lid off sport, particularly tennis, if the doping allegations can be proved to be true (or in legalese, beyond reasonable doubt).

Fed, Murray and Djoko all calling for more drugs testing
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/tennis/20199271

Sensible or immature?

lydian wrote:Note it says tennis stars. Not singular, plural. And 155 other sports stars outside cycling. What I'm unclear about is the link between "some of the biggest names in world sport are expected to be named as drug cheats"...does "named" mean alleged...or does "authorities are confident evidence can now be presented on some of the world's top sportsmen" mean there is evidence for all 190 sportspeople? Can't see how they would come out and name 190 people unless the evidence was clear, otherwise they would be subject to huge legal suits surely.

No riders will face charges as doping was not a criminal offence at the time. The six accused individuals are likely to face the allegation of endangering public health, and prosecutors will seek to prove that their actions endangered the cyclists concerned.

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/12902/Operacion-Puerto-trial-to-finally-begin-in-January.aspx#ixzz2BHjl7AjO

This is a problem and always has been. Due to differences between Spanish Law and IOC/WADA rules, such a trial in Spain will not make much of a difference.

lydian wrote:I know the Operation Puerto list is oldish news and many people thought the names would never see light of day but clearly they are! This has the power to potentially blow the lid off sport, particularly tennis, if the doping allegations can be proved to be true (or in legalese, beyond reasonable doubt).

It depends on who gets named. There are many who have left the sport since 2006.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Fed, Murray and Djoko all calling for more drugs testing http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/tennis/20199271

Sensible or immature?

More frequent tests may be just one aspect, but the current regimens are short cycles.

If we are so worried about sports, we should just have a Tennis Hotel and a Cycling Hotel, where all active athletes of the specific Sport live/eat/practice and enter when they turn pro and leave when they retire. (Sounds like Hotel California to me - You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave).

Well, let's pray that Operacion Puerto results in the name of any sports person who was treated by Fuentes being revealed and the result being a bloodbath for him or her. It's been an absolute running sore for Spanish sport that we've been told that there are big names on his list which have been kept secret and that there are other Doctors like del Moral who have been 'treating' players in Valencia.

Until there is transparency it is unfair on followers of sport who don't have the full picture, and on clean athletes who are faced with suspicion whilst nobody knows whether their names are on the list or not. A good example is Ferrer - assuming he's clean the Puerto shadow is doing him no favours.

I think Socal is wrong about Armstrong. Any doper needs to know that they may be singled out and destroyed after they have stopped - they need to be faced with the "is it worth it?" question forcefully; and Armstrong's de-frocking is a good example of that. I want my children and any aspirng sportsman or woman to see that anyone, anyone, who cheats can eventually be brought down. I'm not partial about this - I am a very big Federer fan, but if he is in truth a doper I'd want to see him turned into a pariah and have his reputation trashed.

PEDs can also help hand-eye co-ordination:
http://voices.yahoo.com/steroids-improve-hand-eye-coordination-ability-to-5271453.html?cat=14

barrystar wrote:Well, let's pray that Operacion Puerto results in the name of any sports person who was treated by Fuentes being revealed and the result being a bloodbath for him or her. It's been an absolute running sore for Spanish sport that we've been told that there are big names on his list which have been kept secret and that there are other Doctors like del Moral who have been 'treating' players in Valencia.

Until there is transparency it is unfair on followers of sport who don't have the full picture, and on clean athletes who are faced with suspicion whilst nobody knows whether their names are on the list or not. A good example is Ferrer - assuming he's clean the Puerto shadow is doing him no favours.

I think Socal is wrong about Armstrong. Any doper needs to know that they may be singled out and destroyed after they have stopped - they need to be faced with the "is it worth it?" question forcefully; and Armstrong's de-frocking is a good example of that. I want my children and any aspirng sportsman or woman to see that anyone, anyone, who cheats can eventually be brought down. I'm not partial about this - I am a very big Federer fan, but if he is in truth a doper I'd want to see him turned into a pariah and have his reputation trashed.

Me too, but I'm 100% confident he isn't.

The player I DESPERATELY hope is not implicated is Nadal. The thought that multiple Grand Slams, 24 Slams, 400 weeks @ #1were prevented by cheating would be catastrophic for Federer and the sport. I'm confident it won't, genuinely, though I suspect Spanish sport stinks of PEDs.

It's great what's happened to Armstrong.

It would hardly be catastrophic for Federer, it would raise his star. And 100% is a bit much for Federer. How can you be so sure?

Henman Bill wrote:It would hardly be catastrophic for Federer, it would raise his star. And 100% is a bit much for Federer. How can you be so sure?

It would be a cause of so much upset. It is one thing for his wonderful records to have been limited by a great rival, for the record books of the sport to be corrupted in that way would be awful. Who would really accept Federer getting the events reallocated? No, it would be awful for him.

I'm that confident of Federer because the truly gifted are never the guys who do this, it's always the mediocre who boost themselves. Federers always been a prodigy.

For me, ANY Tennis player on that list, tarnishes the sport, Spanish or not, Top 4 or Top 1000.

Cycling, by the current list of abusers, is ALREADY in the doldrums. There is not much worse it can do. The list of cyclists is astonishing, to say the least.

Federer will not want to get titles based on such revelations negatively impacting his rivals. Neither will his rivals accept titles if he is implicated in any way.

The systematic failure of ITF/WADA in preventing this from happening over the years of their control also tarnishes their credibility immensely.

NADOs (National Anti-Doping Organizations) must also bear the burden of such an outcome.

The sooner this is cleared, the better for all affected sport.

Yes, it'd be a disaster if anyone who has won anything big is implicated.

In some ways the ideal outcome would be a 'Tipsarevic' type player to be found out, unless that is you believe the sport is 100% clean, which I don't.
My gut feel is this around about where the problem may be found.

Yes wouldn't surprise me either. Infact I once saw a picture of Tipsy legs with his shorts pulled up and you wondered how you could ever get legs like that.
Clearly this case is "just" chasing the list of Dr Fuentes but I suspect there are plenty of other Fuentes's around...lord knows how many people have been doping in the past, it wouldn't surprise me if anyone was called out given the game has become so much more physical since 2002 onwards.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Fed, Murray and Djoko all calling for more drugs testing
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/tennis/20199271

Sensible or immature?

Sure your comment refers to something I haven't found JHM, but really just highlighting article again.

I think they are probably all, sensibly, aware that the cycling revelations have made punters begin to whether feats of endurance are aided artificially and the best way to make sure that no-one has those doubts about tennis, or that doubts are answered emphatically, is to have a much more rigorous and open testing policy.

Federer's assertion that he is tested less now than he was 8 years ago backs up Robin Haase's recent statement that he is tested about 4 times as much as the top guys in a year.