Tennis players don't necessarily need blood doping to win
Just like cyclists don't necessarily need blood doping to win.
People had been winning cycling races for almost a century before blood doping.
,yeah there is a point for lasting longer,recovering quick,but it seems only this past couple of yrs that suddenly everyone starting to accuse top players.And everyone seems to jump on the bandwagon without proof.
You might have become aware of the accusations during these past two years, but this has been going on for decades really.
Operacion Puerto started in 2006, and the accused doctor, Eufemiano Fuentes, said himself there were tennis players among his clients. However, only the names of his cyclist clients have been revealed. The World Anti-Doping Agency has made repeated calls for the Spanish authorities to release the names of those footballers, tennis players etc. involved.
Without talent you're screwed
Certainly. So? I never said doping makes you an instant slam winner.
So i chose to believe it's clean,more so than cycling
You are free to believe that, but I'm also free to say that belief is completely unfounded and irrational.
1910 they needed hours,days to compete a stage,now every year they seem to ride faster and faster,
I thought the issue was that stages were too hard to complete.
You can say the same thing about tennis though. I still remember the days when tennis players actually
got tired, and that's despite the fact that matches were significantly shorter.
there is a reason why cycling needs a strict doping policies,and yet imo they'll always be behind,cause the cheat will find new ways to avoid being caught.
The reason why cycling needs strict anti-doping policies is the same reason why tennis needs strict anti-doping policies.