Tennis Volume 7: Roger That!

[Jeor]

Petr Korda was done for doping a while back - early 2000s I think.

I might be naive here, but I think doping is probably not as "sinful" in tennis as it is in other sports. It might add to your fitness and give you a bit more juice on your serve, but tennis still has a vast emphasis on skill and technique, which doping can't really help you with. For instance, even if they are doping, I'm sure most people would say that Federer and Nadal are successful largely because of their skill with the doping helping them a bit on the side.

Whereas in sports like cycling or swimming, doping is obviously a far greater advantage as the essence of the sport is on physical fitness, endurance and strength.

[lessthanluke]

1 hour ago, Jeor said:

Petr Korda was done for doping a while back - early 2000s I think.

I might be naive here, but I think doping is probably not as "sinful" in tennis as it is in other sports. It might add to your fitness and give you a bit more juice on your serve, but tennis still has a vast emphasis on skill and technique, which doping can't really help you with. For instance, even if they are doping, I'm sure most people would say that Federer and Nadal are successful largely because of their skill with the doping helping them a bit on the side.

Whereas in sports like cycling or swimming, doping is obviously a far greater advantage as the essence of the sport is on physical fitness, endurance and strength.

Bolded part isn't really true. You can train more often while on steroids. Therefore you can increase your skill and technique at a quicker rate.

 

[Jeor]

2 minutes ago, lessthanluke said:

Bolded part isn't really true. You can train more often while on steroids. Therefore you can increase your skill and technique at a quicker rate.

 

Hmm, fair enough - yes, I suppose you could train more often. Still, perhaps less immediate or direct effects than as in cycling etc.

 

[baxus]

12 hours ago, SpaceForce Tywin et al. said:

Honestly, at this point I just assume everyone is doping, regardless of the sport.

That's my point. If we picked any top level athlete, regardless of the sport, and asked him/her to show us their LEGAL stash, we'd most probably be shocked.

3 hours ago, Jeor said:

Petr Korda was done for doping a while back - early 2000s I think.

I might be naive here, but I think doping is probably not as "sinful" in tennis as it is in other sports. It might add to your fitness and give you a bit more juice on your serve, but tennis still has a vast emphasis on skill and technique, which doping can't really help you with. For instance, even if they are doping, I'm sure most people would say that Federer and Nadal are successful largely because of their skill with the doping helping them a bit on the side.

Whereas in sports like cycling or swimming, doping is obviously a far greater advantage as the essence of the sport is on physical fitness, endurance and strength.

The main purpose of doping is not to help you get stronger or faster. You would still need to put in the work to achieve that. What doping usually is used for is to help reduce the recovery time after training sessions, matches, competitions etc. You would have to agree that THAT would be really helpful in tennis, wouldn't you? I mean, if we take AO 2012 as an example - Djokovic having played for 5 hours in the semifinals against Murray IIRC, then 6 hours final against Nadal. The speed of recovery after the semifinals could definitely be the deciding factor in the finals.

And Federer and Nadal sure have had their share of eyebrow raising moments. They have both had parts of their careers where they looked done for after which they came back stronger than ever and achieved results comparable to the ones they achieved when they were on the top of their game and much younger.

Of course, we have no proof of this, but since the official stats showed that top level tennis player is tested for doping 6-8 times per year, I'm pretty sure getting away with it is nowhere near as difficult as it is in cycling or weightlifting, for example.

Swimmers are probably the athletes that get the least credit for the skill level required to make it to the top level. Some 4-5 years ago one of my colleagues at work made a similar comparison regarding skill and technique required for tennis and swimming. At that time, there were eight of us in the office, two of which have competed in swimming at national level (nowhere near the elite level in swimming but still pretty serious) and I have trained swimming for years. You can't imagine the roaring laughter that the three of us let out simultaneously.

[lessthanluke]

Yeah people seriously underestimate the recovery aspect. The difference for me when I'm on vs off is crazyy.

Anyway with regards to Djokovic I've just personally never been able to warm to him as much as I have Federer and Nadal. I don't dislike him just can't route for him as much as the others.

[Calibandar]

What's also interesting is how several former top players are coming back into the top 10.

Del Potro has been showing he's fully returned for the past 12-18 months and is becoming more and more consistent, and his level of play is excellent. One of the best five players at Wimbledon.

Nishikori is also finally returning and looking better and better. Stan the Man who many thought would never return to his old level again after many horrible performances this year is also looking better all of a sudden, but still has a good way to go.

And on the other hand young guys like Kyrgios, Shapovalov, Zverev and an assortment of others must battle to overcome these established guys. Some thought that would have been done by now.

[Mladen]

20 hours ago, baxus said:

Let's not forget that Djokovic turned from the player described in Jeor's post to a beast that could play 5 hours AO semifinal against Murray and 6 hours AO final without having significant problems in a couple of months. The official explanation? Gluten. Makes sense? Didn't think so.

I remember quite a lot of immunologists raised their eyebrows to this. I was at med school back then and it was one of the heavily discussed topics at the Department of Immunology's halls and classrooms. No one wanted to say the abhorrent D word, but no one actually bought it.

 

[Jeor]

37 minutes ago, baxus said:

Swimmers are probably the athletes that get the least credit for the skill level required to make it to the top level. Some 4-5 years ago one of my colleagues at work made a similar comparison regarding skill and technique required for tennis and swimming. At that time, there were eight of us in the office, two of which have competed in swimming at national level (nowhere near the elite level in swimming but still pretty serious) and I have trained swimming for years. You can't imagine the roaring laughter that the three of us let out simultaneously.

Alright, alright...I'll concede, consider my doping argument kaput!

All that being said, if this level of tennis is what we're getting for it, most people are probably going to turn a blind eye.

On the women's side, I have always been suspicious of Serena's muscular bulk and her capacity to keep playing well into her thirties. Venus has always been the much thinner sister but in the early few years, Serena was nowhere near the massive battle tank that she is now.

[baxus]

1 hour ago, Risto said:

I remember quite a lot of immunologists raised their eyebrows to this. I was at med school back then and it was one of the heavily discussed topics at the Department of Immunology's halls and classrooms. No one wanted to say the abhorrent D word, but no one actually bought it.

 

I'm a software engineer, by no means an expert on immunology or medicine in general. Hell, I have trouble remembering if antibiotics are used against bacteria or viruses.  

On the other hand, I do have some basic understanding of sports and training and some things just don't add up.

1 hour ago, Jeor said:

All that being said, if this level of tennis is what we're getting for it, most people are probably going to turn a blind eye.

Well, if we're going to "turn the blind eye" then let's stop doing that and allow everything. Let's not pretend that everything is fine while we all know what's going on.

While I do appreciate all these epic matches we've been having for a decade now, I don't think that this silent legalization of doping is good for the sport long term. If we think about it, this is creating a whole culture based on "everything goes" attitude and the longer it remains unchecked the worse it'll be once tennis comes to the decision to start fighting it, the way weightlifting and cycling did.

[lessthanluke]

25 minutes ago, baxus said:

.

Well, if we're going to "turn the blind eye" then let's stop doing that and allow everything.

That's the dream!

[BigFatCoward]

8 minutes ago, lessthanluke said:

That's the dream!

There are really only 2 options when it comes to doping in sports, go draconian on the cheats or allow everything.  I'd prefer the former, but accept that latter is a lot easier. 

[Mladen]

33 minutes ago, baxus said:

I'm a software engineer, by no means an expert on immunology or medicine in general. Hell, I have trouble remembering if antibiotics are used against bacteria or viruses.  

On the other hand, I do have some basic understanding of sports and training and some things just don't add up.

Well, it seems that half of Serbian population is treating common cold with penicillin, so don't give yourself a hard time.

As for Djokovic, of course no one wanted to cast a doubt on Serbian's golden boy. Needless to say, they were rather up to the task when Nadal's recoveries didn't make any sense. As for Federer, he does seem somewhat strict on the issue, openly calling for more tests and making public records. I would be thoroughly disappointed if it would one day be revealed that he was also using something, 

But, then we come to more difficult question. What is doping anyway? If the list grows every couple of month and if the methods are getting more and more obscure, how the hell are we going to judge anyone? Like Sharapowa case. It wasn't doping on December, 31st and then it became on January, 1st, What does it mean? Like all those who weren't caught, are they clean? Morally? Does legality of one drug means that it is not doping? Or is it some new grey area?

[baxus]

 

1 hour ago, Risto said:

As for Djokovic, of course no one wanted to cast a doubt on Serbian's golden boy. Needless to say, they were rather up to the task when Nadal's recoveries didn't make any sense. As for Federer, he does seem somewhat strict on the issue, openly calling for more tests and making public records. I would be thoroughly disappointed if it would one day be revealed that he was also using something, 

But, then we come to more difficult question. What is doping anyway? If the list grows every couple of month and if the methods are getting more and more obscure, how the hell are we going to judge anyone? Like Sharapowa case. It wasn't doping on December, 31st and then it became on January, 1st, What does it mean? Like all those who weren't caught, are they clean? Morally? Does legality of one drug means that it is not doping? Or is it some new grey area?

It's easy to call for more tests and stricter control when you are all but certain you won't get caught.

Federer's rejuvenation could have been achieved by smart training, more stretching, careful planning of his schedule etc. but pharmaceutical improvement could easily have had something to do with it. Of course, there's no proof of him or Djokovic or Nadal or pretty much any tennis player (man or woman) anywhere near the top ranking having used doping so we may be overreacting here, but with the doping control in tennis being as it is now we are not likely to get that proof any time soon.

Regarding Sharapova's case, the whole mechanics of anti-doping system is that athletes always try to be at least one step ahead of the control, and control trying to catch up. As a result, you have an always expanding list of banned substances. If you get tested for something today and it is not on the banned substance list then anti-doping agency has no case against you. But if you get tested positive for it after it gets on the list then you are in trouble. Sharapova didn't test positive on January 1st, she tested positive at the end of January, after AO. Now, I don't know how long it takes for that substance to get out of your system, but she was notified about that medicine being illegal well in advance and, as a pro athlete, she should've made sure to do all that's in her power to get clean before January 1st.

Like any system, it is open to manipulation and abuse. I'm pretty sure that there are quite a few athletes with fake "medical conditions" that require specific medications that lo and behold contain some substances that are on the banned substance list but it's ok if you have a note from your doctor.

[lessthanluke]

1 hour ago, BigFatCoward said:

There are really only 2 options when it comes to doping in sports, go draconian on the cheats or allow everything.  I'd prefer the former, but accept that latter is a lot easier. 

Truth. 

I am glad the sport I compete in goes with the latter.

[Maithanet]

As for why Djokovic is disliked, I think a lot of it is simple timing and tribalism.  Federer and Nadal had been great for years, and most of the tennis world had become fans of one or the other.  Then this new guy comes up and starts challenging them, and that is irritating to both the Nadal and Federer camps. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, BigFatCoward said:

There are really only 2 options when it comes to doping in sports, go draconian on the cheats or allow everything.  I'd prefer the former, but accept that latter is a lot easier. 

It doesn’t have to be an either/or situation. If you allow unmitigated doping, it will creep down into the youth level. And I say that because I’ve seen it. What they should do is allow a very limited scope of doping that’s solely for recovery from injury, and it should have to be documented by a physician. Anything else should warrant a significant ban.

[BigFatCoward]

1 hour ago, SpaceForce Tywin et al. said:

It doesn’t have to be an either/or situation. If you allow unmitigated doping, it will creep down into the youth level. And I say that because I’ve seen it. What they should do is allow a very limited scope of doping that’s solely for recovery from injury, and it should have to be documented by a physician. Anything else should warrant a significant ban.

TUE's partially do this already. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

24 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

TUE's partially do this already. 

I had to read up a bit about this and I think they should expand it. They just have to make sure it’s all out in the open and fans need to not stigmatize athletes for using it.

[lessthanluke]

32 minutes ago, SpaceForce Tywin et al. said:

I had to read up a bit about this and I think they should expand it. They just have to make sure it’s all out in the open and fans need to not stigmatize athletes for using it.

Bingo. There's some awesome drugs out there that are banned frrom sports for very little reason. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

4 hours ago, lessthanluke said:

Bingo. There's some awesome drugs out there that are banned frrom sports for very little reason. 

You would know more about the subject than I, but yeah, I have seen dudes get suspensions in the NFL for some absurd things.