Which is worse: Fixing or Doping? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Which is worse: Fixing or Doping?

v-money
12-26-2010, 12:22 AM
Both embarrassments to the game and problems that tennis has not been able to (or strongly attempted to) eliminate. But if you think about it, they are corruptions that result from two different mentalities. Dopers try to win at the expense of cheating, while fixers decide to lose for money. Tennis fans will certainly condemn both, but which in your opinion is worse and why? For example, if you were given the power to hand out bans to a known doper and a known fixer, who would you punish more harshly?

Topspindoctor
12-26-2010, 12:27 AM
Doping. Fixer will lose a few matches for money, but otherwise will try hard to maintain his rank as high as possible. Doping is just pathetic cheating and all of them should be banned for life. Every time doper comes on court, he disgraces the game.

abraxas21
12-26-2010, 12:32 AM
doping obviously.

Certinfy
12-26-2010, 12:35 AM
Doping - Not even close.

RedHotRafa
12-26-2010, 12:40 AM
Doping,

Filo V.
12-26-2010, 12:42 AM
Doping by an extremely wide margin.

misty1
12-26-2010, 12:45 AM
lets see..

fixing - your sacrificing integrity and are labeled a fixer for the rest of your career, even if you never really do again. It sets a bad mark on your integirty as a player

doping - your gaining an unfair advantage in the competition and then after your found out if you are everyone suddenly starts questioning your accomplishments.

so what's worse" sacrificing integrity or cheating?

cheating for sure

v-money
12-26-2010, 01:36 AM
Well the consensus for now seems to be that doping is worse, but I wasn't as convinced as you guys, which is why I posted the question- to see what other people think. But think about it this way, a fixer does not even care enough about the game that he grew up playing and relegates to simply taking money. They have completely given up their competitive spirit, just for money. I'm not sure the ban times for betting or fixing matches in tennis but for baseball for example, there is a lifetime ban for betting, much more serious than the few months someone gets for steroids.
I may just be playing devil's advocate there, because I also slightly lean toward doping as being the more serious offense. With doping you have the potential to leave a false mark on the game, but fixing just makes you a looser that is never really remembered.

Oh, and Filo V., is your vote at all influenced by your love of Italian players?

KaiserT
12-26-2010, 02:19 AM
Doping, which pretty much renders your entire career as fraudulent.

If I was a 140 ranked tennis player (roughly) who sometimes made it into a few ATP minor tournaments and was making £20,000 a year after travel/coach expenses, I imagine that I would be involved in fixing at some point in my career. The lifespan of a pro-tennis career is pretty damn short, for the guys that are slugging it out on the fringes and below they aren't making that much more than a living wage..... when you can make £15,000 for fixing a single first round match at ATP Bucharest (or more if you know betting well and orchestrate something a bit more creative) it's a huge temptation. Some of these guys have a wife/kids to think about, or just an uncertain future after retiring.

v-money
12-26-2010, 02:55 AM
Doping, which pretty much renders your entire career as fraudulent.

If I was a 140 ranked tennis player (roughly) who sometimes made it into a few ATP minor tournaments and was making £20,000 a year after travel/coach expenses, I imagine that I would be involved in fixing at some point in my career. The lifespan of a pro-tennis career is pretty damn short, for the guys that are slugging it out on the fringes and below they aren't making that much more than a living wage..... when you can make £15,000 for fixing a single first round match at ATP Bucharest (or more if you know betting well and orchestrate something a bit more creative) it's a huge temptation. Some of these guys have a wife/kids to think about, or just an uncertain future after retiring.

Well, the truth is both of these ways of cheating are a way of earning money. Fixing has become so common on the tour especially at these lower ranks, that it has almost become acceptable. I really have had the same reaction to it as you do: this player probably had no chance to win the tournament, so let him make some money, but maybe that's not the right way to think about it. Your example of the 140th ranked player is an interesting one because that 140th ranked player could take the fixing road to earn a profit, but he could take the doping road as well. Let's take Mariano Puerta as an example, entering 2005 ranked 132nd in the world. He could have found some people to work with, put on a good acting job and done nothing on the court to earn some money. But he decided to use performance enhancers to get ahead. Remember that this is not body building or weightlifting, and Puerta still had to go out there and work hard with his touch, with his game tactics and with his mental stability to earn that money. Some say that the levels of drugs in Puerta's blood were not even significant enough to give him an edge, but because some drugs were found, we still discredit all of his achievements. For the sake of argument, I say that Puerta taking some drugs and still having to play tennis every day is not as bad as if he took some money and became an actor out there instead of a tennis player.

Kat_YYZ
12-26-2010, 03:06 AM
Well, maybe I'm playing devil's advocate here... but if you look at it, fixing GUARANTEES a false result; doping doesn't. What was Odesnik's career high rank: 77! Great results from those drugs, eh? Really worth the cost and risking your health. :rolleyes:

In the Olympics and other competitions, you hear how the people who finished 45th and 50th were caught for doping. Not big news when it isn't a winner, but it happens quite often. So using PEDs is no guarantee you'll be any good. :shrug:

2003
12-26-2010, 03:26 AM
Was suprised by the poll.

Fixing definately.

Maybe tennis is a bit different, but there are many sports where pretty much everyone at the top is doping. Many dopers only cheat because they have no choice if they want to keep up with the competition.

Also, dopers pay the piper when they have serious health problems later in life.

Match fixers profit from their dealings with no punishment whatsoever.

Match fixers have no place in sport. Neither do dopers, but I think fixing is far worse.

Filo V.
12-26-2010, 03:28 AM
Oh, and Filo V., is your vote at all influenced by your love of Italian players?

Yes, it most certainly is.

Filo V.
12-26-2010, 03:34 AM
Fixing is more or less a business decision. Doping is different. Fixers aren't actively seeking to cheat. They don't have the intent in their minds of "well, I'm going to throw this match, because I don't give a fuck." No, they are generally guys from 50+ in the rankings, meaning not seeded in majors, losing early in most big events, having to play qualifying at some events and having to play challengers. And then of course the full time challenger/future/ATP Q players. These guys are literally trying to SURVIVE with nothing. No sponsors, going city to city, in filthy and dangerous conditions. No real family support, and extreme pressures from gamblers/mafia/etc. in their countries (which is why you see some of the most extreme fixers from Eastern Europe and Italy for instance) to fix and make money for them and for the gamblers. Is it cheating the game? To a certain extent, but it's more cheating yourself than anything else. I don't support fixing but it's definitely a business transaction made by people who are in desperate situations, or who have become so entrenched in that lifestyle, that they can't get out of it.

Johnny Groove
12-26-2010, 04:04 AM
They are both disgraceful to the game. This question is like asking which is worse, **** or murder?

Those that dope are disgracing the game, but at least are trying to win at all costs. Those that fix are trying to score some extra cash with a fake result.

As a player who is going to make his money playing and winning w/o fixing or doping, I am really not in any position to say which is worse. However, I can definitely see the temptation of a player trying either or both in an effort to, at the end of the day, make money. Some players also have a wife and/or kids to worry about.

When I am a top player and a guy ranked 50-100 spots below me is caught doping or cheating, I definitely WILL NOT call him out as a cheat etc. like most players did in Houston this year w/ Odesnik. To me, that's fucked up. I would tell the press all the pressures of the tour and why a player would make that decision instead of berating the guy for falling victim to temptation.

Pirata.
12-26-2010, 04:05 AM
Doping. Fixer will lose a few matches for money, but otherwise will try hard to maintain his rank as high as possible. Doping is just pathetic cheating and all of them should be banned for life. Every time doper comes on court, he disgraces the game.

This.

philosophicalarf
12-26-2010, 04:11 AM
Doping is probably worse - when tennis finally starts doing some serious testing the sport is going to be turned upside down, and it'll do a lot of damage. Fixing at least is largely limited to guys ranked outside the top40, and in early rounds - prize money and points take care of both counts.

ps some of the dopers fix also, eg Chela.

oranges
12-26-2010, 04:15 AM
Doping without doubt. Throwing matches for money vs trying to cheat you way to winning, no contest.

2003
12-26-2010, 04:32 AM
I think it depends on the sport.

Doping doesnt turn you into a magical superhuman, were talking about the top 2 % inches.

In tennis, its not going to make you win a GS you were going to lose. Equally, you cant say player x WOULDNT have won without the roids. Theyre just giving themselves mildy better odds. But with fixing, you can definitivly say most of the time the winner would have lost otherwise.

In sprinting though, where there is only miliseconds from 1st and last, then doping is as serious as it gets, also id imagine it almost impossible to fix a sprint race. The top 2% is much higher in sports like cycling and sprinting than it is in tennis. Tennis so multi faceted that doping really doesnt give you such a huge advantage, although more so now with the grinding style of play.

Serenidad
12-26-2010, 04:47 AM
As a player who is going to make money playing and winning
When I am a top player

I CAN'T @ Groove Dude being so PRESS. :lol:

Filo V.
12-26-2010, 05:07 AM
GD, I was going to say the same fucking thing about the **** and murder comparison. The same fucking thing. That's exactly what this question is. Both are awful, so it's really sort of irrelevant to declare one better than the other. Neither decision should be glorified or put in any positive light.

And if I were a tennis pro, I wouldn't say anything either, unless I was absolutely sure of my confidentiality, and the truth of the entire situation. At the end of the day, snitching is wrong, and there are pressures and valid reasons a person may believe they have to engage in doping/fixing, but integrity of the game should come first above all of that. With that said, if you do out a player who engages in this stuff, you will then have a target on your back. So it's a really whirlwind situation, that can be tempered if the ATP actually gave a damn.

2003
12-26-2010, 05:37 AM
GD, I was going to say the same fucking thing about the **** and murder comparison. The same fucking thing. That's exactly what this question is. Both are awful, so it's really sort of irrelevant to declare one better than the other. Neither decision should be glorified or put in any positive light.

Pre sure almost anyone would rather be ***** than murdered..just sayin.

oranges
12-26-2010, 05:39 AM
Pre sure almost anyone would rather be ***** than murdered..just sayin.

I think that was the point of analogy ;) While one is obviously even worse, it doesn't make the other one better.

2003
12-26-2010, 06:16 AM
I think that was the point of analogy ;) While one is obviously even worse, it doesn't make the other one better.

Well it does arguably make it less worse, which kind of was the question from the OP.

Langers
12-26-2010, 06:32 AM
Both disgraceful, really can't decide which is worse.

Lurking
12-26-2010, 07:42 AM
Fixing is more or less a business decision. Doping is different. Fixers aren't actively seeking to cheat.


It's been a long time since you got an edge from doping, especially for the journeymen pro's...

There both no worse than tanking, sadly.

Apophis
12-26-2010, 07:51 AM
Dopers try to win at the expense of cheating, while fixers decide to lose for money.

That nails it. Fixing is worse. I certainly rather watch dopers than fixers. Dopers typically love their sport and are highly motivated. Also, anti-doping rules are more arbitrary given the absence of a clear fundamental classification of stimulants.

oranges
12-26-2010, 07:56 AM
That nails it. Fixing is worse. I certainly rather watch dopers than fixers. Dopers typically love their sport and are highly motivated.

Your sporting spirit is high I see if you see dopers as someone who cares for the sport :haha: Haven't heard anything more absurd in a while. Tough to show more disrespect for the sport, actually.

abraxas21
12-26-2010, 08:01 AM
That nails it. Fixing is worse. I certainly rather watch dopers than fixers. Dopers typically love their sport and are highly motivated.

:retard:

2003
12-26-2010, 08:27 AM
:retard:

Well hes half right.

PEDs carry some serious health risks..look at the number of wrestlers and sprinters and cyclists that have died in their forties.

I seriously doubt anyone would risk that much if they didnt love what they did.

oranges
12-26-2010, 08:34 AM
Well hes half right.

PEDs carry some serious health risks..look at the number of wrestlers and sprinters and cyclists that have died in their forties.

I seriously doubt anyone would risk that much if they didnt love what they did.

Get a grip. It's about money and fame, not love for the sport. It goes against everything any sport stands for FFS.

abraxas21
12-26-2010, 08:38 AM
Well hes half right.

PEDs carry some serious health risks..look at the number of wrestlers and sprinters and cyclists that have died in their forties.

I seriously doubt anyone would risk that much if they didnt love what they did.

dopers care for their own personal success in the sport which is miles away from being the same as they care for the sport.

Apophis
12-26-2010, 08:38 AM
In the Olympics and other competitions, you hear how the people who finished 45th and 50th were caught for doping. Not big news when it isn't a winner, but it happens quite often. So using PEDs is no guarantee you'll be any good. :shrug:

I was wondering about that; are there any statistics on this? I can remember plenty of top athletes being caught of cheating (Marion Jones, Ben Johnson, Landis, Riis, Carl Lewis, tons of GDR and Chinese athletes etc), but obviously this may be a selection effect: famous people receive more press and are better remembered. Plus, they are tested more often. On the other hand, average athletes are more plentiful.

People using performance enhancing drugs (almost) by definition perform better then they themselves would without PEDs. It logically follows that if all athletes have the same probability of using drugs regardless of their original skills, then you would expect the top athletes to be dopers. If what you suggest is true, i.e. top athletes are less likely to be doping, then less-skilled athletes have a higher probability of using PEDs. Which could very well be, they need the PEDs to be competitive and have less reputation and contracts to lose.

Apophis
12-26-2010, 08:44 AM
Get a grip. It's about money and fame, not love for the sport. It goes against everything any sport stands for FFS.

Time to learn something about psychology. The ones that are exclusively interested in money are the fixers.

oranges
12-26-2010, 08:48 AM
Time to learn something about psychology. The ones that are exclusively interested in money are the fixers.

Like I said, you grip on what sport is about is about as good as mine on baseball rules. I don't have a single clue. I'd bet everything I own and throw in my brother and a dog you've never competed in any sport.

Apophis
12-26-2010, 09:02 AM
Like I said, you grip on what sport is about is about as good as mine on baseball rules. I don't have a single clue. I'd bet everything I own and throw in my brother and a dog you've never competed in any sport.

Then your betting talent compares favorably to your other talents as displayed on this forum.

2003
12-26-2010, 09:08 AM
Get a grip. It's about money and fame, not love for the sport. It goes against everything any sport stands for FFS.

Much easier ways to get famous that dont involve a death wish.

oranges
12-26-2010, 09:10 AM
Then your betting talent compares favorably to your other talents as displayed on this forum.

Well, the only other explanation is you've doped yourself and convinced yourself it's because you care for the sport so much. Haven't counted on that, tbh :haha:

Apophis
12-26-2010, 09:23 AM
Well, the only other explanation is you've doped yourself and convinced yourself it's because you care for the sport so much. Haven't counted on that, tbh :haha:

Wrong again, I never doped. :) But keep trying.

oranges
12-26-2010, 09:35 AM
Wrong again, I never doped. :) But keep trying.

Seriously, keep trying pulling off that an athlete could view doping as caring for the sport :retard:

Pipsy
12-26-2010, 09:45 AM
Very difficult question to answer.

Doping is obviously worse for the individual. Physically because a lot of performance-enhancing drugs have side effects as well as psychologically, because anything they do win past the point at which they started using PEDs will be tarnished in their mind. "Would I have won this without taking drugs?" Whereas fixing represents isolated occasions which a player may regret with no direct physical risk.

Fixing in my opinion is worse for the game. Tennis is a sport which is particularly susceptible to all sorts of fixing due to the range of things on which one can gamble and the money involved in gambling and in prize funds. As others have said, doping can only (if at all) increase your overall performance very marginally in tennis, and so most matches involving players using performance-enhancing drugs could be said to have the same result as they would if PEDs were not involved. It even gives extra support to the player who triumphs over a cheater, e.g. Nadal over Puerta RG '05. When fixing is clearly involved e.g. Przysiezny vs Tursunov at Moscow this year, it tarnishes both players, the tournament and the governing body who seem so ill-equipped to put a stop to it.

Anyway... almost equally bad. I still can't decide which is worse.

philosophicalarf
12-26-2010, 10:07 AM
I was wondering about that; are there any statistics on this? I can remember plenty of top athletes being caught of cheating (Marion Jones, Ben Johnson, Landis, Riis, Carl Lewis, tons of GDR and Chinese athletes etc....

Seems like almost every top 100m name is eventually caught or strongly linked with doping. Looking at their physiques, that's not exactly surprising.

Then you see Fuentes in Spain, doing "work" for Barcelona and Madrid, and have to wonder how much of any sport is clean at all. The whole Balco episode showed how far behind testing was - people like Marion Jones never tested positive (just as Odesnik didn't, and tennis' testing system is utterly laughable compared to athletics).

KaiserT
12-26-2010, 10:31 AM
Seems like almost every top 100m name is eventually caught or strongly linked with doping. Looking at their physiques, that's not exactly surprising.

Then you see Fuentes in Spain, doing "work" for Barcelona and Madrid, and have to wonder how much of any sport is clean at all. The whole Balco episode showed how far behind testing was - people like Marion Jones never tested positive (just as Odesnik didn't, and tennis' testing system is utterly laughable compared to athletics).

Yup, I've come round to this way of thinking recently, sadly.

UsD.AnDreS
12-26-2010, 11:24 AM
Very good question.
I'd go with fixing based on the purpose of doing any of these 2 thing. When player dopes he wants to play and show good results,he wants to do better in his sports. When player fixes.. he just shows up,acts like he's trying (or doesn't do even this) and then gets his money for "this".. It is less acceptable for me.
But both things are really disgraceful and unacceptable.

Helevorn
12-26-2010, 11:32 AM
Fixing is more or less a business decision. Doping is different. Fixers aren't actively seeking to cheat. They don't have the intent in their minds of "well, I'm going to throw this match, because I don't give a fuck." No, they are generally guys from 50+ in the rankings, meaning not seeded in majors, losing early in most big events, having to play qualifying at some events and having to play challengers. And then of course the full time challenger/future/ATP Q players. These guys are literally trying to SURVIVE with nothing. No sponsors, going city to city, in filthy and dangerous conditions. No real family support, and extreme pressures from gamblers/mafia/etc. in their countries (which is why you see some of the most extreme fixers from Eastern Europe and Italy for instance) to fix and make money for them and for the gamblers. Is it cheating the game? To a certain extent, but it's more cheating yourself than anything else. I don't support fixing but it's definitely a business transaction made by people who are in desperate situations, or who have become so entrenched in that lifestyle, that they can't get out of it.

even if I hate the 95% of all Italian tennis players I totally agree with you. Fixing is something that old players and players ranked from 50-70° position and below do. players like Di Mauro are perfectly aware that they are ridiculous old men who will never gain good results on the ATP tour, so they fix in order to obtain money and to survive with no other jobs than tennis.. your point is absolutely right

Nathaliia
12-26-2010, 11:32 AM
It's like to choose between puking all night and having watery shits all night.

There is no one correct answer to this question.

I'd probably pick doping since someone can fix 5 matches in a season and the rest play clean while doping is usually used in longer terms.

Johnny Groove
12-26-2010, 02:01 PM
I CAN'T @ Groove Dude being so PRESS. :lol:

Invest in a vibrator, sweetheart, it will do you a world of good.

GD, I was going to say the same fucking thing about the **** and murder comparison. The same fucking thing. That's exactly what this question is. Both are awful, so it's really sort of irrelevant to declare one better than the other. Neither decision should be glorified or put in any positive light.

And if I were a tennis pro, I wouldn't say anything either, unless I was absolutely sure of my confidentiality, and the truth of the entire situation. At the end of the day, snitching is wrong, and there are pressures and valid reasons a person may believe they have to engage in doping/fixing, but integrity of the game should come first above all of that. With that said, if you do out a player who engages in this stuff, you will then have a target on your back. So it's a really whirlwind situation, that can be tempered if the ATP actually gave a damn.

Can't agree more. The main problem in all of this is the lack of action by the ATP. Suspending a bunch of Italian players as well as Mathieu Montcourt (RIP) a few years ago for a couple of 5 euro bets on matches they didn't play in, while obvious fixes in post Wimbledon euro-clay events and Russian indoor tournaments go on w/o a hitch.

Apophis
12-26-2010, 02:20 PM
Seems like almost every top 100m name is eventually caught or strongly linked with doping. Looking at their physiques, that's not exactly surprising.

Then you see Fuentes in Spain, doing "work" for Barcelona and Madrid, and have to wonder how much of any sport is clean at all. The whole Balco episode showed how far behind testing was - people like Marion Jones never tested positive (just as Odesnik didn't, and tennis' testing system is utterly laughable compared to athletics).

Yes it's a major problem for sports' credibility. I would never be totally surprised if an athlete is caught, no matter how 'nice' and well-respected they are (with the possible exception of the ones voluntarily having blood samples stored for future testing, but then there may exist doping that can't be discovered even in principle). Drugs are too much part of sports. Everyone enjoying watching sports has to accept that they may be watching doped, cheating athletes. And that includes their favorites.

Allez
12-26-2010, 02:48 PM
Fixing is by far the absolute worst as the outcome is always guaranteed. The match is a total farce. the players are simply going through the motions :rolleyes: With doping there is no guarantee that dopers will always win. If that were the case Puerta and Canas would have been world number 1 & 2 in the world. Also dopers can't go overboard for the fear of being caught/ causing irrevocable bodily harm so what advantages there are tend to be very slim indeed. Finally you can bet your ass that the competition will be fierce, i.e. from a spectator's view point, the match will be high quality stuff (the bloke still needs to work his ass off. He still has to play quality tennis to win (unlike a fixed match)). Of course it is grossly unfair to the opponent and that is why doping is bad. It does not cheat the fans out of an exhilarating spectacle (unless we find out about it) but it does cheat those who prefer to compete cleanly. One point to consider though…An unintended, yet beneficial result of doping is that it makes the clean ones push harder and reach heights they would otherwise not have thought possible just to keep up with the dopers and that can only be a good thing for the sport :yeah: Of course I am not implying that drugs should be tolerated because of all these unintended benefits :lol:

This is a great topic :worship:

luie
12-26-2010, 07:19 PM
Doping is worst overall.
On a professional level both seek to alter a match/game's result via illegitimate means
However steriods/PED,s/HGH among others health risk alters the balance of the endocrine system & leads to health problems for the player but also the health of their future children.

Horatio Caine
12-26-2010, 08:18 PM
Doping is worse imo, simply because the player presumably has the intention of giving himself/herself an unfair advantage over other players. Fixing doesn't have that effect, although it is still morally wrong.

Sapeod
12-26-2010, 08:34 PM
Both are inexcusable and should result in long bans straight away.

In fact, doping should result in a permanent ban, so Canas, Puerta and other Argies should've been banned permanently, as should Gasquet and Odesnik.

Fixing should result in a 6 month ban, as it isn't as bad as doping but still shameful.

2003
12-26-2010, 08:59 PM
Seriously, keep trying pulling off that an athlete could view doping as caring for the sport :retard:

Your twisting his words around.

Im sure he thinks doping is an abomination. It kind of goes without saying ya know?

Am I going to suggest that you are implying fixers could love the sport, just because your condeming dopers? Of course not.

latso
12-27-2010, 08:23 AM
IMO fixing is worse.

Doping is a cheating way that envolves still some work (you take the drugs to help your body, but you have to work still, it doesn't work if you're sleeping), while fixing is a pure criminal activity.

You end up in jail for fixing, you end up suspended for doping, so i guess it's pretty clear which one is worse

oranges
12-27-2010, 08:45 AM
Your twisting his words around.

Im sure he thinks doping is an abomination. It kind of goes without saying ya know?

Am I going to suggest that you are implying fixers could love the sport, just because your condeming dopers? Of course not.

I'm not twisting anything around. He insists the fact they doing it for love the sport, rather than because they'd like the money and the fame, is an alleviating circumstance. I insist there is no love for the sport in it whatsoever. Quite the contrary, the love for any sport presupposes you love the (fair) competition it provides above all else. If you don't care about fair competition, you have no love for the sport. There is absolutely no way around it.

oranges
12-27-2010, 08:47 AM
You end up in jail for fixing, you end up suspended for doping, so i guess it's pretty clear which one is worse

Which begs the question, why do you end up in jail for recreational illegal drugs, but not for doping ones, at least for ones that are just as much an illegal substance.

2003
12-27-2010, 08:59 AM
Which begs the question, why do you end up in jail for recreational illegal drugs, but not for doping ones, at least for ones that are just as much an illegal substance.

A very good question.

Although, not everyone agrees that recreational drugs should even be illegal.

TheWall
12-27-2010, 10:35 AM
Doping. Fixer will lose a few matches for money, but otherwise will try hard to maintain his rank as high as possible. Doping is just pathetic cheating and all of them should be banned for life. Every time doper comes on court, he disgraces the game.

You should prepare already to be disenchanted in the next few years...

Nadal, Federer, Murray, Djokovic, Söderling are not just about vitamins and water.

KaiserT
12-27-2010, 11:47 AM
BOTH doping and fixing are little more than PR problems in the ATP's eyes, completely inept.

ExpectedWinner
12-27-2010, 06:16 PM
Nothing worse than seeing how glorified pharmacy creatures becoming role models for thousands of people around the world.

2003
12-27-2010, 09:45 PM
I'm not twisting anything around. He insists the fact they doing it for love the sport, rather than because they'd like the money and the fame, is an alleviating circumstance. I insist there is no love for the sport in it whatsoever. Quite the contrary, the love for any sport presupposes you love the (fair) competition it provides above all else. If you don't care about fair competition, you have no love for the sport. There is absolutely no way around it.

Your confusing two issues though.

Yes your right, no one "dopes for the love of the sport"

But its also highly likely that said doper may "love the sport" as a seperate entitiy.

For example, tennis is not usually a sport for late blossomers. You have to start at 4 or 5 to hope to become a pro. Who knows the ins and outs of doping at 5? Its something you contemplate later in life, however in order to carry through all the training for all those years until later in life, I think its safe to say you have to love the sport, no?

Some rare exceptions though, like Andre Agassi whos father pushed him into the sport.

But do you see the point? All he was saying was said doper loved sport to begin with, selfishly doped to gain the money, fame, and hope to rise to the top, but they still loved the sport.

r2473
12-27-2010, 10:19 PM
To the sport as a whole? Fixing. If people don't believe the matches are contested fairly and competitively (but have a predetermined outcome) the sport dies.

Many people assume that athletes are doping. In fact, many people prefer it that way.

Please, tell me one sport where the athletes are presumed 100% clean.

Now, tell me a sport where it is presumed that the contests are fixed.

Imagine two scenarios:

1) We learn in 5 years that Federer was taking PED's through his career and that PED usage on the tour was quite common for this era.

2) We learn in 5 years that every slam Fed won was fixed from the beginning just to create more interest in the sport and that matches were routinely fixed during this era.

Probably in scenerio (1), we put an * next to all the records (sound familiar?). But in scenerio (2), everything Federer did is just meaningless. It was all just like watching some weird "tennis play / drama".

I mean, come on. Is this a serious question? Cycling is very popular these days and most of the fans believe that most if not all of the competitors are doping. But I bet no one believes that cycling is fixed.

Now, if you want to ask me if sports ARE fixed, well that is a different story. Tennis is easy to fix and I'm sure happens often. tim donaghy wrote a book about how common fixing is in the NBA (and strangely nobody cares). The NFL games often turn on key penalties. Soccer is much the same way. BUT, people either honestly don't believe their sport is fixed or they just really don't want to know. There is always "plausible dependability" in this stuff. You never find "the smoking gun". And probably some things I think were fixed, weren't. There really is no way of knowing. So we watch and believe.

Doping has their smoking guns all the time. People really don't seem to care that much.

Monteque
12-28-2010, 04:39 AM
Both embarrassments to the game and problems that tennis has not been able to (or strongly attempted to) eliminate. But if you think about it, they are corruptions that result from two different mentalities. Dopers try to win at the expense of cheating, while fixers decide to lose for money. Tennis fans will certainly condemn both, but which in your opinion is worse and why? For example, if you were given the power to hand out bans to a known doper and a known fixer, who would you punish more harshly?

doping is far worrrrse. coz it has effect so long. fixing just one match, true?

straitup
12-28-2010, 05:46 AM
Fixing is a major moral issue, much bigger than doping in that regard. Doping certainly is cheating and can give certain players unfair advantages...it has its moral issues as well, but it seems to be easier to get involved in

I don't know, I have a lesser opinion of fixers as I do dopers

Topspindoctor
12-28-2010, 06:12 AM
1) We learn in 5 years that Federer was taking PED's through his career and that PED usage on the tour was quite common for this era.

2) We learn in 5 years that every slam Fed won was fixed from the beginning just to create more interest in the sport and that matches were routinely fixed during this era.

Probably in scenerio (1), we put an * next to all the records (sound familiar?). But in scenerio (2), everything Federer did is just meaningless. It was all just like watching some weird "tennis play / drama".



You are creating an extreme in order to support your own point. Federer fixing his masters wins, never mind slam finals is a downright impossible scenario, while him taking PED is theoretically possible.

A more realistic scenario is as following:

1)It is discovered Federer was taking PED's for a few years in his peak, rendering his accomplishments in most people's eyes as void. He would no longer be considered GOAT because no matter what he had achieved, someone will always say: He cheated.

2) It is discovered Federer, when he was young and low ranked player fixed a few of his matches for money. The result is that people would probably be disgusted, but will still consider him GOAT.

abraxas21
12-28-2010, 06:25 AM
To the sport as a whole? Fixing. If people don't believe the matches are contested fairly and competitively (but have a predetermined outcome) the sport dies.

Many people assume that athletes are doping. In fact, many people prefer it that way.

Please, tell me one sport where the athletes are presumed 100% clean.

Now, tell me a sport where it is presumed that the contests are fixed.

Imagine two scenarios:

1) We learn in 5 years that Federer was taking PED's through his career and that PED usage on the tour was quite common for this era.

2) We learn in 5 years that every slam Fed won was fixed from the beginning just to create more interest in the sport and that matches were routinely fixed during this era.

Probably in scenerio (1), we put an * next to all the records (sound familiar?). But in scenerio (2), everything Federer did is just meaningless. It was all just like watching some weird "tennis play / drama".

I mean, come on. Is this a serious question? Cycling is very popular these days and most of the fans believe that most if not all of the competitors are doping. But I bet no one believes that cycling is fixed.

Now, if you want to ask me if sports ARE fixed, well that is a different story. Tennis is easy to fix and I'm sure happens often. tim donaghy wrote a book about how common fixing is in the NBA (and strangely nobody cares). The NFL games often turn on key penalties. Soccer is much the same way. BUT, people either honestly don't believe their sport is fixed or they just really don't want to know. There is always "plausible dependability" in this stuff. You never find "the smoking gun". And probably some things I think were fixed, weren't. There really is no way of knowing. So we watch and believe.

Doping has their smoking guns all the time. People really don't seem to care that much.

i dont think you understand at all

you can only fix to lose, not to win (unless the other guy is involved as well but then again, what kind of guy would fix to lose, say, a GS final?).

and why the hell do you say "that PED usage on the tour was quite common for this era"? to make your point more valid?

FormerRafaFan
12-28-2010, 09:12 AM
Doping imo. Doping is much worse than fixing. Though I should mention that fixing is not accepted either.

Allez
12-28-2010, 09:49 AM
you can only fix to lose, not to win (unless the other guy is involved as well but then again, what kind of guy would fix to lose, say, a GS final?).


The kind of guy who loves getting paid tens of millions of dollars for each GS final loss :shrug: Unfortunately fixing can be a very lucrative business :eek:

oranges
12-28-2010, 11:09 AM
The kind of guy who loves getting paid tens of millions of dollars for each GS final loss :shrug: Unfortunately fixing can be a very lucrative business :eek:

I seriously doubt it can be as lucrative as prize money for a GS winner plus endorsements that follow ;) Perhaps for the whole host of people, but certainly not for the fixer himself. Far easier and far cheaper for betting mafia to pay low ranked players and earn the same money, more actually since they'll pay him peanuts compared to what they'd have to offer for a slam final. I won't even get into more risks due to high media exposure ;)

Allez
12-28-2010, 11:25 AM
I seriously doubt it can be as lucrative as prize money for a GS winner plus endorsements that follow ;) Perhaps for the whole host of people, but certainly not for the fixer himself. Far easier and far cheaper for betting mafia to pay low ranked players and earn the same money, more actually since they'll pay him peanuts compared to what they'd have to offer for a slam final. I won't even get into more risks due to high media exposure ;)

Well betting is a billion dollar industry so who knows what shenanigans these folk engage in behind closed doors :shrug: One can only speculate :)

oranges
12-28-2010, 11:28 AM
Well, use logic, I just outlined it to you. They can find as good or better odds in mathces easier and cheaper to fix :o

Allez
12-28-2010, 11:31 AM
But they will not get as many punters as they would for a GS final. The stakes are higher and the money infinitely more. Thanks for your logic :hug:

BodyServe
12-28-2010, 11:41 AM
To see it on a different point of view, doping increase the level of play while fixing decrease it so...

oranges
12-28-2010, 11:44 AM
But they will not get as many punters as they would for a GS final. The stakes are higher and the money infinitely more. Thanks for your logic :hug:

And they'd make up for the money they'd need to cash out for GS final? I'm sure you have an explanation why they like challengers and small ATP tournies far more.

Allez
12-28-2010, 11:48 AM
And they'd make up for the money they'd need to cash out for GS final? I'm sure you have an explanation why they like challengers and small ATP tournies far more.

OK I have to come clean...I do not know very much about the science of betting at all :lol:

KaiserT
12-28-2010, 11:48 AM
But they will not get as many punters as they would for a GS final. The stakes are higher and the money infinitely more. Thanks for your logic :hug:

Chances of a grand slam final being fixed are almost non-existent, if you get Vassallo Arguello vs Nadal in RG final it may change.... but this is unlikely......

KaiserT
12-28-2010, 11:49 AM
OK I have to come clean...I do not know very much about science of betting at all :lol:

What a shock :lol:

Monteque
12-28-2010, 01:10 PM
Chances of a grand slam final being fixed are almost non-existent, if you get Vassallo Arguello vs Nadal in RG final it may change.... but this is unlikely......

true. round 1 or round 2 is more likely

r2473
12-28-2010, 04:29 PM
You are creating an extreme in order to support your own point. Federer fixing his masters wins, never mind slam finals is a downright impossible scenario, while him taking PED is theoretically possible.

A more realistic scenario is as following:

1)It is discovered Federer was taking PED's for a few years in his peak, rendering his accomplishments in most people's eyes as void. He would no longer be considered GOAT because no matter what he had achieved, someone will always say: He cheated.

2) It is discovered Federer, when he was young and low ranked player fixed a few of his matches for money. The result is that people would probably be disgusted, but will still consider him GOAT.

Well that is why the question need parameters.

I thought the OP was essentially asking if it would be worse to discover that all the athletes were taking PED's or to discover that tennis is basically a rigged sport.

If we are asking if it is worse that meaningless matches are fixed or the 1000th ranked player is taking PED's (and nobody else is), that really isn't much of a question.

Look, many people believe that NBA basketball is basically fixed. Even (especially) the big games. Of course the fixing is done by the league and the officials are the ones that create the outcomes, not the players. Fixing tennis would be much different.

So the question as I understand it is nothing more than "which form of cheating do you personally find more morally reprehensible"? I guess to that I respond "Who cares".

r2473
12-28-2010, 04:44 PM
I seriously doubt it can be as lucrative as prize money for a GS winner plus endorsements that follow ;) Perhaps for the whole host of people, but certainly not for the fixer himself. Far easier and far cheaper for betting mafia to pay low ranked players and earn the same money, more actually since they'll pay him peanuts compared to what they'd have to offer for a slam final. I won't even get into more risks due to high media exposure ;)

This is the most plausible reality for tennis and is one of the many reasons I like it. I am pretty sure that most matches are "above board" and the sport is "real".

Other sports are different and are fixed for different reasons by different people (IMO), but this is getting off topic I suppose and is merely speculation on my part.

GlennMirnyi
12-28-2010, 05:51 PM
Doping.

latso
12-29-2010, 07:47 PM
Which begs the question, why do you end up in jail for recreational illegal drugs, but not for doping ones, at least for ones that are just as much an illegal substance.
i'm not even sure that dopes are illegal, at least not all of them and not everywhere

and the answer to the question should be - not dangerous for the society, while weed is still rated as a "first step" drug

GlennMirnyi
12-29-2010, 07:49 PM
Isn't doping a crime as well?

I mean, if fixing results is a crime, why isn't doping the same?

v-money
12-29-2010, 07:56 PM
Some people are asking what I meant by "worse" when I originally asked the question. I don't mean worse for the individual, because that is clearly doping, but worse for the sport. Thats why I asked which player should receive a harsher ban, a doper or a fixer. Maybe another way to put it is, would you feel more angry to find out that a player you like was fixing or doping. Basically, which is worse for tennis...and yes I do realize both are bad...it's just picking the worse of two evils.

Echoes
12-29-2010, 10:42 PM
I think it depends on the sport.
Doping doesnt turn you into a magical superhuman, were talking about the top 2 % inches.
In tennis, its not going to make you win a GS you were going to lose.

How d'you know? That's wishful thinking. Modern doping (hormon-based or blood doping) does transform the body. It's obvious.


Equally, you cant say player x WOULDNT have won without the roids.

I don't care about what a doper would have done if he didn't dope. He doped, that's all.



The top 2% is much higher in sports like cycling and sprinting than it is in tennis. Tennis so multi faceted that doping really doesnt give you such a huge advantage

Just a myth. Doping can enhance lucidity, stamina, power,... giving a huge advantage to the cheater in tennis. I'm fed up with these comments saying cycling is strictly physical, blabla. Just look at the many doping cases in soccer.

As long as there's money at stake, some are ready for anything.

oranges
12-30-2010, 08:04 AM
i'm not even sure that dopes are illegal, at least not all of them and not everywhere

and the answer to the question should be - not dangerous for the society, while weed is still rated as a "first step" drug

Some certainly are and the cheating part is also illegal in my book. It's fraud any way you look at it and it's certainly more detrimental to society than weed and the first step myth, which anyone arguing in favor of decriminalizing it would tell you would be eliminated by removing it from th criminal milieu. But that's beside the point, I just don't see the reasoning why dopers wouldn't receive the same treatment legally as fixers. Because the result is not as guaranteed?

latso
12-30-2010, 08:08 AM
Isn't doping a crime as well?

I mean, if fixing results is a crime, why isn't doping the same?
There are different levels of "crime"

Is DUI with 0.8% alcohol a crime? somehow yes, but you won't get to jail.

Fixing is fraud and it can be different levels as well, with regard to the event, the stakes etc.

Same goes with doping pretty much. Players who take dope would only get banned for a certain ammount of time, but a sports doctor carrying a bag of it and selling it, would get to jail.


The doping issue is a much more complicated one in terms of legislation i believe, as there are new drugs invented all the time, the body often can create some of them naturally in the blood and it's never easy to define at 100% if it has been added or just natural.

In the court of law any faul play should be proven with no shadow of a doubt to issue a sentence and this is quite hard when it comes to doping.


The agencies controlling that have their rules ofc looser than a court of law. Often there is a part of "assumption" in it and not hard evidence, simply because they are an organ of the body rulling the sport and they can do pretty much what they want within certain limits.

Example - Mourinho and few players of Real Madrid getting banned for a few matches for getting yellow cards on purpose in a Champion's league match in order to clean the players' record for future matches.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfozaEvWVSQ

Uefa doesn't have hard evidence about what happened, they just assume what these players and coach spoke about, but they punished them and they can do it as they are a state of their own and if anyone wants to participate he has to obey these rules.

In real life things don't work that way.

latso
12-30-2010, 08:16 AM
Some certainly are and the cheating part is also illegal in my book. It's fraud any way you look at it and it's certainly more detrimental to society than weed and the first step myth, which anyone arguing in favor of decriminalizing it would tell you would be eliminated by removing it from th criminal milieu. But that's beside the point, I just don't see the reasoning why dopers wouldn't receive the same treatment legally as fixers. Because the result is not as guaranteed?
Agree about the weed part ofc, to end the off topic part of the conversation :)


About the reason for different treatment - i don't think it's about the less guaranteed result.

I just think the doping issue is more like an internal problem of the sports "mini states", while fixing is totally matching the description of fraud in society and it involves more parties like mafia and bookies f.e. the latter being the eventual victims most of the time.

In other words, if we gather at my place, 6 of us and we play poker for 1$ stakes, and i cheat having marked cards or smth, you catch me, you're unhappy an you never play with me again, also i return the cash i "won". And that would be all.

While if i go to a casino and i cheat somehow, i might get in the station.

Billups85
12-30-2010, 11:20 AM
Fixing by far

Nathaliia
02-23-2011, 12:58 AM
And if you add two minuses you will receive a Chela.

v-money
02-23-2011, 01:02 AM
And if you add two minuses you will receive a Chela.

Chela is a great ambassador for the sport of tennis. :o

Say Hey Kid
02-23-2011, 01:04 AM
Most fixers are dopers and vice versa. Chela, Odesnik, Volandri etc.

Action Jackson
02-23-2011, 01:30 AM
Doping.

Smoke944
02-23-2011, 01:38 AM
Fixing x1000000000

philosophicalarf
02-23-2011, 01:41 AM
Still doping.

Fixing is only early rounds, between mugs. It's creeping into round 2 and even some 250 qfs of late, but have to guess doping is a far worse problem (since tennis drugtesting is a complete joke - once you look at the details it's more full of holes than a cheesegrater).

Action Jackson
02-23-2011, 01:46 AM
Still doping.

Fixing is only early rounds, between mugs. It's creeping into round 2 and even some 250 qfs of late, but have to guess doping is a far worse problem (since tennis drugtesting is a complete joke - once you look at the details it's more full of holes than a cheesegrater).

This is it, usually fixing happens at the lower events. Say the guy who loses in the 1st round, if the other cat is on it will get his prizemoney as well. Since the 2nd round cash should be more combined than their early round shenanigans.

The ATP have never been serious about match fixing, and the sad thing is they are even worse when it comes to doping.

Sunset of Age
02-23-2011, 02:21 AM
Doping, OF BLOUDY COURSE.

kinski76
02-23-2011, 02:45 AM
Which is worse; pest or cholera? What's with all these either/or binarisms? Is it off-season already?

allpro
02-23-2011, 05:24 PM
while doping undermines fair competition, fixing eliminates competition altogether. associated mob ties, blackmail, coercion, etc only heighten the problem. i would punish match-fixing far more severely. it’s the greater evil in my view.

BodyServe
02-23-2011, 05:30 PM
Both of them are good for the sport, the game needs some variety.

Agrajag
02-23-2011, 05:54 PM
Some people are asking what I meant by "worse" when I originally asked the question. I don't mean worse for the individual, because that is clearly doping, but worse for the sport. Thats why I asked which player should receive a harsher ban, a doper or a fixer. Maybe another way to put it is, would you feel more angry to find out that a player you like was fixing or doping. Basically, which is worse for tennis...and yes I do realize both are bad...it's just picking the worse of two evils.

Still definately doping. Even though i hate fixing in general, and som fixers especially, I still very much like Llodra. I know that makes me a hypocrite, but aren't we all...

If a player I like was caught doping, I would hate him immediately.

I honestly believe that a lot of the players are doping. After reading http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2011/landiskimmage, I feel even more sure.

tennis2tennis
02-23-2011, 05:58 PM
on another notedoes doping work? who took preformance enhancing drugs and became a better player?

Johnny Groove
02-23-2011, 06:04 PM
on another notedoes doping work? who took preformance enhancing drugs and became a better player?

Mariano Puerta.

Mjau!
02-23-2011, 06:40 PM
Doping is much worse! Fixing cannot result in undeserved success and adulation in addtion to lots of $. Only the money. A fixer cannot steal a victory from a clean opponent. Fixing does not put pressure on others to follow in the same (and in the case of doping, potentially unhealthy) footsteps.

The latter (doping) is a much greater fraud.

Mjau!
02-23-2011, 06:46 PM
while doping undermines fair competition, fixing eliminates competition altogether. associated mob ties, blackmail, coercion, etc only heighten the problem. i would punish match-fixing far more severely. it’s the greater evil in my view.

The same goes for doping! It has been well established that organisations involved in trafficing PED's are often involved in more traditional mob activities. Most of the clients of these doping networks are amateur bodybuilders/gym jocks (and sometimes minors) rather than elite athletes. What's really disgusting is that the drugs are sometimes stolen from hospitals. There was a recent doping bust in Spain in which a large amount of EPO was stolen from a hospital. A former italian pro-cyclist has revealed that doctors and nurses used to steal EPO intended for patients and replace it with saline. How sick is that?

rafa_maniac
02-23-2011, 07:01 PM
Fixing. As other have said, I'd rather everyone was on drugs and competing as hard as they can rather than every outcome being predetermined. Besides, I don't think most substances would seriously improve your tennis skills anyway.

Just like heaven
02-23-2011, 07:02 PM
Doping.

allpro
02-23-2011, 07:35 PM
The same goes for doping! It has been well established that organisations involved in trafficing PED's are often involved in more traditional mob activities. Most of the clients of these doping networks are amateur bodybuilders/gym jocks (and sometimes minors) rather than elite athletes. What's really disgusting is that the drugs are sometimes stolen from hospitals. There was a recent doping bust in Spain in which a large amount of EPO was stolen from a hospital. A former italian pro-cyclist has revealed that doctors and nurses used to steal EPO intended for patients and replace it with saline. How sick is that?

yes, doping is criminal and devalues competition, but the question op raised is which is worse for the sport? i think tennis would have a much bigger problem if 50% of matches were fixed than if 50% of matches involved players on ped’s. that said, i would argue doping is more dangerous in combat sports such as boxing or mma because it puts opponents lives at risk.

Mjau!
02-23-2011, 07:43 PM
yes, doping is criminal and devalues competition, but the question op raised is which is worse for the sport? i think tennis would have a much bigger problem if 50% of matches were fixed than if 50% of matches involved players on ped’s. that said, i would argue doping is more dangerous in combat sports such as boxing or mma because it puts opponents lives at risk.

Oh, I'm sure the ATP would much rather have 50% doping than 50% fixing, but doping is the slimier thing to do, imo.

oranges
02-23-2011, 08:11 PM
on another notedoes doping work? who took preformance enhancing drugs and became a better player?

Are you for real? Blood doping for starters is perfect for tennis. You'll certainly play better fresh as a daisy compared to your opponent.

Action Jackson
05-31-2011, 06:58 PM
Are you for real? Blood doping for starters is perfect for tennis. You'll certainly play better fresh as a daisy compared to your opponent.

Always helps with speed endurance. Funny no one in tennis has been done for EPO.

Elena.
05-31-2011, 07:17 PM
Fixing.It's just vicious and shows a poor 'loser' mind.Doping is a strive for perfection ,the wrong way but still it's a more noble intent .Dopers think big .

icedevil0289
05-31-2011, 07:24 PM
Pre sure almost anyone would rather be ***** than murdered..just sayin.

I'm sure there are those who were ***** who just wish they were killed so they wouldn't have to live with being *****.

MaxPower
05-31-2011, 07:43 PM
Both embarrassments to the game and problems that tennis has not been able to (or strongly attempted to) eliminate. But if you think about it, they are corruptions that result from two different mentalities. Dopers try to win at the expense of cheating, while fixers decide to lose for money. Tennis fans will certainly condemn both, but which in your opinion is worse and why? For example, if you were given the power to hand out bans to a known doper and a known fixer, who would you punish more harshly?


Have to say fixing is worse. Doping can happen "by mistake" like you take a medicine and didn't know it was on a doping list, your trainer gives you some health supplement that was banned and so on. (yeah i know those are common excuses by real cheaters but fact is it CAN happen by mistake)

Fixing by mistake? I'd like to see that. There is also an almost guaranteed payoff in fixing. You can't fail with fixing unless you are retarded or the involved people screw you over which probably is common since it would be shady people involved.

Improving yourself with doping doesn't necessarily mean a payoff in the same way. It's pretty much the opposite. It's commonly taking a huge risk for only a small chance of a big payoff. Would a top100 player juicing up suddenly beat Federer? No way. In some other sports than tennis doping is more effective. Like pure endurance sports or pure strength sports. Sports where technique and the mental game isn't main factors.

That is why i think fixing should ban you from the sport for life in almost every case. Doping should in some cases ban you for life. Sometimes ban you for a shorter time period. And in some special cases you can get away with a warning. Second offenses of both fixing and doping should be permanent ban

Sapeod
05-31-2011, 07:56 PM
Korda, a doper, won the Australian Open because of it.

Doping is worse, but can be done by accident. Fixing is just as disgusting and can never be done by accident. Both are disgraceful.

philosophicalarf
05-31-2011, 07:59 PM
Always helps with speed endurance. Funny no one in tennis has been done for EPO.

Only the slams test for it iirc. I guess it must disappear from the body pretty quickly too, given the cyclists get away with it.

Roadmap
05-31-2011, 08:01 PM
A player cannot conceivably win a tournament as a consequence of fixing unless all 7 of his opponents are losing on purpose. However players can and have won tournaments with the major (illegal) aid of PEDs. I'm not going to mention any names but we all know who I'm talking about.

JamieBlake
05-31-2011, 08:11 PM
Fixing, doping also includes drugs for 'fun'

AndyNonomous
05-31-2011, 08:12 PM
Fixing steals money from "innocent" gamblers.

Doping steals money and prestige from truly innocent competitors. It also results in more money from sponsors than the doper deserves.

Of course people say "I don't think doping helps anyway". They are called PERFORMANCE ENHANCING drugs for a reason. Players take the risk of getting caught for a reason. They ENHANCE PERFORMANCE (speed, strength, endurance).

Most of the people who say PEDs don't help, or that gambling is worse are fans of players THEY suspect are doping.


I wonder if we could get the results of this poll broken down by who the respondent is a fan of ? :devil:

Roddickominator
05-31-2011, 08:18 PM
Great post Andy.

I was just going to say that on a per-case basis, a fixer is worse than a doper....but that overall there are a lot more dopers than fixers so doping is more of a problem for tennis. But it's hard to argue the point about only gamblers losing money vs. actual competitors.

Action Jackson
05-31-2011, 08:25 PM
Only the slams test for it iirc. I guess it must disappear from the body pretty quickly too, given the cyclists get away with it.

Pot and cocaine don't count as doping, but the other shit does. The testing is a joke.

rocketassist
05-31-2011, 08:27 PM
Pashanski isn't banned for racism either

Elena.
05-31-2011, 08:33 PM
Fixers are so much worse it doesn't even come close ,they are plain losers who have nothing to give to the sport,dopers at least give a show and experimenting with drugs is nothing tragic ,it has to be seen whether it is only a placebo effect after all or not ...

Deivid23
05-31-2011, 08:38 PM
Pointless thread. We all know doping and fixing do exist in tennis, yet we keep on following the sport regardless

Chase Visa
05-31-2011, 09:18 PM
Doping, because one's gaining an unfair advantage and the other is getting a disadvantage. :p

Mjau!
06-01-2011, 01:46 AM
Only the slams test for it iirc. I guess it must disappear from the body pretty quickly too, given the cyclists get away with it.

Hb mass is stable for 2 weeks after treatment is ceased and then declines to normal in 1-3 weeks. A "micro-dose" of 5-7 iu/kg IV clears in ~8 hours. A normal dose is ~24h IV and a few days SC.

abraxas21
06-01-2011, 01:59 AM
I wonder if we could get the results of this poll broken down by who the respondent is a fan of ? :devil:

probly around 90% of the users who picked 'fixing' are nadal and/or djokovic fans

AndyNonomous
06-01-2011, 03:38 AM
probly around 90% of the users who picked 'fixing' are nadal and/or djokovic fans


I am not going to name him, but the fans of one particular player have a very high percentage that say that fixing is worse.

I wonder why (Rhetorical question. I know the answer, and so do they) ?;)

Snowwy
06-01-2011, 03:39 AM
Fixing and its not even close.

careergrandslam
06-01-2011, 03:40 AM
neither, for me murray making RG semis through chokes from opponents is worse than anyone doping or match fixing.

careergrandslam
06-01-2011, 03:42 AM
seriously, fixing is far worse. atleast with dopers u get to see good tennis. but with fixing u know the match ur watching has been manipulated.

Roadmap
06-01-2011, 04:23 AM
seriously, fixing is far worse. atleast with dopers u get to see good tennis. but with fixing u know the match ur watching has been manipulated.

Both are a disgrace but what is also a disgrace is people on this forum talking about doping as if it is not serious. IT IS SERIOUS. PLAYERS WHO WIN WHILE DOPED HAVE NOT 'ACHIEVED' ANYTHING. THEY HAVE CHEATED. I REPEAT. THEY HAVE CHEATED. I think I know who your favourite player is:devil:

careergrandslam
06-01-2011, 04:40 AM
Both are a disgrace but what is also a disgrace is people on this forum talking about doping as if it is not serious. IT IS SERIOUS. PLAYERS WHO WIN WHILE DOPED HAVE NOT 'ACHIEVED' ANYTHING. THEY HAVE CHEATED. I REPEAT. THEY HAVE CHEATED. I think I know who your favourite player is:devil:

ur an idiot.

the question was which is WORSE. ofcourse both are cheating but fixing is worse than doping.

and no nadal does not dope.

jmf07
06-01-2011, 05:37 AM
Fixers are so much worse it doesn't even come close ,they are plain losers who have nothing to give to the sport,dopers at least give a show and experimenting with drugs is nothing tragic ,it has to be seen whether it is only a placebo effect after all or not ...

Ricardo Ricco is a recent example of the dangers of doping.

Garson007
06-01-2011, 05:40 AM
I'm really mystified how doping is winning this thread. Am I by any chance on MTF? NID.

oranges
06-01-2011, 08:27 AM
I'm really mystified how doping is winning this thread. Am I by any chance on MTF? NID.

:spit: Genius

MariaV
06-01-2011, 08:50 AM
Which is worse; pest or cholera? What's with all these either/or binarisms? Is it off-season already?

It's just that Djokovic's winning streak and RG, Queens, Wimbledon all in the bag already (and no need for fixing here ;)) so some people are really bored. :zzz: :zzz:
Edit: Or maybe it's the Serbian mafia fixing and all? :eek: :eek:

Forehander
06-01-2011, 09:59 AM
doping

hotdog
06-01-2011, 10:44 AM
They are both equally as bad but forced for a vote I'd go for fixing.

Elena.
06-01-2011, 10:46 AM
Doping winning ? What a forum of bigots ! :lol:

Roadmap
06-01-2011, 12:03 PM
ur an idiot.

the question was which is WORSE. ofcourse both are cheating but fixing is worse than doping.

and no nadal does not dope.

You can be no more certain that your favouirite player doesn't dope than I can be that he does.

Henry Chinaski
06-01-2011, 12:54 PM
Only the slams test for it iirc. I guess it must disappear from the body pretty quickly too, given the cyclists get away with it.

it's hard to say since there is no separate column for EPO tests in the 2010 statistics, as there was in previous years.

The 2010 stats are pretty fucking rubbish all round since they don't have the dates of the out-of-competition tests nor the names of the players that were tested.

We also don't know if players are still routinely skipping tests with absolutely no consequence as the document leaked in 2009 revealed. I'd assume so. Why wouldn't they?

Branimir
06-01-2011, 01:34 PM
Both are so messed up. Really hard to decide.

Dmitry Verdasco
06-01-2011, 01:37 PM
I'd rather see a doper play insanely good tennis, than a fixer play insanely bad tennis.. if that answers the question.

Getta
06-01-2011, 02:38 PM
doping.

Getta
06-01-2011, 02:40 PM
Both are so messed up.

yes,

Really hard to decide.

no.

Mistaflava
06-01-2011, 02:49 PM
both the exact same and any player caught doing either should be banned for life and thrown off the eiffel tower.

Mjau!
06-01-2011, 05:12 PM
I'm really mystified how doping is winning this thread. Am I by any chance on MTF? NID.

Fixing - undeserved $

Doping - undeserved $, success, fame and accolades. Cheating honest players.

How is the former worse? :shrug:

I'd be way more outraged to find out that a star player had cheated his way to GS titles, a place in the history books, thousands of fans, millions of dollars and kept fair players from winning in the process, than to find out that some journeyman took a dive for money.

Nabster
06-01-2011, 05:15 PM
The substance Wayne Odesnik was caught with was, HGH. Human growth hormone.

And there is NO test for this. It's the new drug that is used by majority of doping athletes. It's a lot like steroids, but not as bad for you. It's a naturally occuring substance that wildy spikes in ones body, therefore it's impossible to know if someone has illegal levels in his body.

This is why Wayne Odesnik was never caught doping, he was arrested at some airport for illegaly bringing it in to the country.

You can be pretty sure lots of ATP players are doping.

philosophicalarf
06-01-2011, 05:16 PM
We also don't know if players are still routinely skipping tests with absolutely no consequence as the document leaked in 2009 revealed. I'd assume so. Why wouldn't they?

Of course they are.

I note with amusment that a certain player who skipped 2 OOC tests in 2009 was garbage for 18 months afterwards, and is now returning to the upper rankings.

For those who don't know, if you skip 3 OOC tests in 18 months, you get banned. Thus the cheats give false locations when doping until they get 2 misses, then have to go clean for a while. Of course, there are such a tiny number of tests that someone getting 2 missed in 18 months is rare.

philosophicalarf
06-01-2011, 05:17 PM
The substance Wayne Odesnik was caught with was, HGH. Human growth hormone.

And there is NO test for this.


There is now.

Even the gigantic festival of doping that is the NFL is introducing it, but tennis isn't......

The problem will be that HGH testing seems to require bloodtesting, and almost all tennis tests are urine (another of many areas where urine tests are useless).

Nabster
06-01-2011, 05:44 PM
There is now.

Even the gigantic festival of doping that is the NFL is introducing it, but tennis isn't......

The problem will be that HGH testing seems to require bloodtesting, and almost all tennis tests are urine (another of many areas where urine tests are useless).

Yes, there is a test. But it doesn't work. Remember, no one has ever tested positive for HGH at the olympics, not once. Because the test isn't practical. And considering the fact so many people are caught for steroids in each iteration of the Olympics, there were many Olympians on hgh. Unless, you're talking about some brand new innovation in testing, in which case I haven't heard of this.

But as far as I know, I think in the history of sport only once has a person tested for HGH. That's not enough to prove testing for HGH works.

The NFL and boxing have some of the most obvious dopers.

And the drug that tennis players would want is EPO, to increase the oxygen count of their blood, and one can cycle of this drug in a few days if I'm not mistaken. But there are many easy ways to get it out of your blood quickly. That's how Lance and most cyclists cheated and got away with it.

Corey Feldman
06-01-2011, 05:52 PM
i dont know but i find both things far less annoying to listen too and watch Rafael Nadal thesedays

philosophicalarf
06-01-2011, 06:09 PM
Yes, there is a test. But it doesn't work. Remember, no one has ever tested positive for HGH at the olympics, not once.


I thought there was a breakthrough in about 2008? Not in time for the Olympics.

They caught a rugby guy last year with it, and he confessed so at least it was correct. Prolly missing a lot though, as you say.

Even if the test is a bit ineffective, it's still a risk for players to use. If you don't even test for it at all, where's the deterrent?

AndyNonomous
06-01-2011, 06:56 PM
The growth hormone test was accepted in 2010 I believe (right around the time it was announced that Odesnik got caught).

I have heard that it only works if you test the athlete within a few hours of administration. Since growth hormone is normally taken weeks, or months before competition, it is HIGHLY unlikely you will catch the CHEATS by testing them for it in competition.

However, HGH is usually used with a steroid, or testosterone "booster", administered immediately before competition. The "booster" is usually a fast acting substance that clears the system within a few hours.

I am certain that there are some players using boosters on their off days at the Grand slams (they normally only get tested on game days).

If the ITF was serious about catching the CHEATS, they would be targeting suspicious players for booster agents, the night before, and the morning before matches.

bright
06-01-2011, 07:00 PM
Doping.

Fixing ain't taking you nowhere near #1:o

GugaF1
06-01-2011, 08:11 PM
Fixing, of course. From a spectator point of view obviously, I rather watch someone who has doped but there is still a competition involved than someone who is fixing and I might as well be watching theather tennis.

Of course, both are bad and offensive to a similar degree, but with doping there is some peronal sacrifice involved, you are kind of putting your body and health on the line for more perfomance. With fixing is all about just getting paid and being a mercenary.