Peter Bodo's thoughts on doping...accusing Nadal? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Peter Bodo's thoughts on doping...accusing Nadal?

nobama
01-13-2006, 06:05 PM
http://www.tennis.com/Tennis_World_Blog/entry.asp?ENTRY_ID=730

<snip>At the end of last year, when the WTA and ATP championships were plagued by no-shows and pullouts, everyone blamed the usual source—the calendar. But how do you explain the continuation of this trend at the Australian Open? Well, Reuters found a way to blame the lack of an off season and the Australian Open dates and organizers. That’s hooey.

I’ve made the case in detail before, so I’m just going with the short version here: The players are not forced to play insane schedules. Fulfilling their basic commitments leaves them plenty of room to rest, recuperate, and travel. The insanity kicks in when they are unable to resist huge appearance fees or offers to play exhibitions—or when other factors come into play. I’ve now officially joined the crowd that suspects there’s more going on here than scheduling troubles, and it ain’t good.

The most recent blow to the Australian Open was the withdrawal of Rafael Nadal. How about this, as the money quote from the ATP’s official news release:


Nadal has been undergoing several biomechanical studies in Barcelona. He has been working with a new shoe insole to release pressure on the area, which he suffered a left-foot fracture on over a year ago, and the inflammation provoked in the surrounding joints.

"We can fortunately say that we don't have an injured player but a player in a re-adaptation process. I have seen his foot today and it looks well," says Dr. Ruiz-Cotorro, who is in charge of the treatment." He had an injury on his foot that has heeled {sic} although the recovery process is very slow.

Great. Nadal’s foot is OK now, his doctor says, so he’s pulling out of the Australian Open!

I can understand Andre Agassi’s withdrawal and Marat Safin’s continuing hiatus a little more easily than Nadal’s decision. Safin had knee surgery and hasn't played at all in half a year. Agassi is 35, with a lot more going on in his life than when he was 19 or 20. For a player of his stature, a Grand Slam is, financially speaking, a loss leader. The million bucks he can make for winning the whole shooting match requires an investment of at least a month—and keep in mind that if he were “merely” the runner-up, earning just a little more than half what the champ gets, he takes a big financial hit.

But this isn’t really about money. This is about the integrity of the game, at various levels, and in various areas. Oh sure, the ongoing disarray—it borders on chaos, if you think about it; no result is without an asterisk anymore—could all be one big, unfortunate coincidence—just a patch of bad luck for the Australian Open and tennis fans worldwide.

My fear is that it’s something much, much worse than that.<snip>

Deboogle!.
01-13-2006, 06:06 PM
He's not the first to do so, and he probably won't be the last :shrug:

nobama
01-13-2006, 06:07 PM
http://www.tennis.com/Tennis_World_Blog/entry.asp?ENTRY_ID=732

It’s theoretically a day off for me as I gear up to cover the Australian Open (I’ll be blogging live from Melbourne during Week Two of the season’s first Grand Slam). But the strikingly thoughtful responses and comments to my last post, along with some of the critical, entirely legitimate questions they raise, call for some clarifications and further comments.

First of all, keep in mind that the doper's best friend is the benumbing complexity and unavoidable ambiguity of the anti-doping effort. A few months ago, I linked to this Outside magazine story that makes painfully clear how difficult it is for the dope police to keep up with the bent doctors and juicers; in fact, the effort to police the use of performance enhancing drugs is borderline futile.

But what are you going to do? Allow doping? Talk the talk, but look the other way as soon as there’s even a hint of a problem (as I believe the ATP and WTA have done for years)?

Some of you would like me to delve into the science of doping, and/or present more facts and concrete evidence instead of speculating and trafficking in innuendo. Here’s a question for you: When was the last time a newspaper or magazine broke a major doping story? The recent spate of exclusives from the French sports daily, L’Equipe, don’t count—all they did was jump the gun on announcing positive test results for some athletes thanks to a friendly leaker somewhere in the anti-doping establishment.

Many major, resource-rich newspapers and magazines in this country and abroad employ full-time, highly trained investigative reporters—something I am not. Yet even they have broken precious few primary-level doping stories— that is, I don’t know of any that actually discovered that someone was doping, and proved it. What stories we have all seem to be driven by either announced test results or individuals stepping forward to confess—or fire the first salvos of accusation. This tells you how tough it is to catch a doper red-handed, or to make specific, supportable accusations.

In fact—and this is a constant theme of mine—doping is such an ambiguous subject that the real danger lies in falling into a train of thought that runs something like this: We know doping exists. We haven’t caught anyone doping. Therefore, everyone must be doping. That’s the allure of conspiracy theories—the very lack of evidence becomes a form of evidence.

Why have I wandered into this morass, then? The answer has two related parts:

First of all, at this site I am a blogger—an opinion journalist and commentator. I have neither the mandate nor the responsibility to deal strictly and exclusively with facts and/or the thoughts or opinions of others about those facts. At the same time, though, my opinion cannot ignore or fly in the face of what facts exist. The moment that the facts and my opinion are in demonstrable conflict, my opinions is invalidated. Two plus two equals four, we’ve all agreed; if I insist it adds up to five, that’s my problem, not the number four’s.

Secondly, I am supposed to be a kind of interface between tennis fans and the pro game. Someone higher up in the food chain has decided that it’s worth paying me to comment on the pro game for the benefit of the folks who troll TENNIS.com and/or read TENNIS Magazine, which makes it incumbent on me to report what people in the game are thinking and saying. Trust me: Doping is a burning, omnipresent topic on the pro tour these days. I owe it to you to tackle it, and I am proud that as a blogger I can do that in a way that a newspaper reporter cannot.

Now, for some specific issues. I fear the worst about doping because it appears that the floodgates of bad news have been opened by the change in the anti-drug testing protocols. The player organizations (ATP and WTA) are no longer in charge of testing; when they were, all was quiet on the doping front. It's a different landscape now. You can read why and how this came about at this page of the ITF’s anti-doping website.

Is it mere coincidence that we’ve had a sudden explosion of positive tests? Why have the increasingly puzzling scheduling habits of so many players suddenly become front-burner issues? Draw back and look at this in perspective; it seems to me that we’re in the midst of an undeclared, unannounced shake-up.

The ITF anti-doping website will give you access to lots of valuable information on doping, if you’re interested in details on banned substances, penalties, procedures, etc. This just isn’t an area in which it makes much sense for me to play the expert. Read that article I linked to in Outside; it’s a great primer on the nature of the doping problem.

When it comes to the players, nobody, but nobody, is above suspicion; this doesn’t mean that I suspect everyone—or, for that matter, anyone. It just means that I don’t believe anyone is immune to the temptation of dabbling in performance-enhancing drugs. Top pro athletes, like fabulously wealthy venture capitalists, exist in a different world. They are playing for much higher stakes, with much deeper pockets, which opens up possibilities unimaginable to many of us. I’ll never forget Boris Becker, a close friend, telling me about the transfusions of calf blood he took as part of his drive to remain “fresh” for the game (it was not illegal) when he was making a big push for the No. 1 ranking. Boris was very matter-of-fact and blasé about it; he had to do what he had to do. But it struck me as pure science fiction.

So, as far as I’m concerned, everyone from Roger Federer on down to the most desperate journeyman is a potential doper. It just wouldn’t be fair to look at it any other way. In this regard, some readers accused me of “protecting” Andre Agassi while planting suspicions about Rafael Nadal when I analyzed their withdrawals from the Australian Open yesterday.

The fact is that up-and-coming champs and aging ones are vastly different, and driven by vastly different priorities. I’m not going to rehash the details, but I’ll say that in ways related strictly to his career and family life, it makes a lot of sense, in lots of different ways, for Agassi to skip the Australian Open and start his year a full two months after his younger rivals.

By contrast, the upcoming Grand Slam event offers Nadal his best shot at winning a major on a surface other than clay, and moving one step closer to challenging Federer’s ascendancy—something Agassi is unlikely to do in the foreseeable future.

Given the amount of time he’s had off and the fact that Nadal’s own doctor said in an official ATP press release that his foot is healed, I find his withdrawal from an event that will be without the defending champ, Safin, or Agassi, baffling.

Whether or not there's anything more to this story, I can't say. But I'm going to make a point in Australia to pin down some folks on some of the more compelling issues—like whether or not it's possible to duck out-of-competition testing by simply not answering the door when the testers come around.

nobama
01-13-2006, 06:13 PM
Just curious what evidence Peter has to presume that the likes of Roddick, Nadal and Federer are possible dopers? Just because he likes a good conspiracy theory, or if one gets busted surely many others are doing it too (but being protected by the ATP/ITF)? And why single out Nadal? It would be stupid of him to play (even a grand slam) when he's not 100% healthy and has had very little match practice. What good is it to fly all the way to Melbourne just to exit early or possibly make an injury worse? :shrug:

Deboogle!.
01-13-2006, 06:17 PM
There have been people who have suggested/accused/pondered out loud about Nadal before, hence my previous post. I'm not saying I personally subscribe to such beliefs, merely that I've seen/heard them. It's his blog, he's just speaking his mind. I, for one, like his blog because of that, because I know when I go there that he'll be saying what he's really thinking, not what might be the more popular or PC thing to say.

Jenrios
01-13-2006, 06:25 PM
I've heard this has been speculated on in the Argentine press - Nadal's absence. Now Bodo - hmmm, wonder what Nadal's response will be?

Deboogle!.
01-13-2006, 06:25 PM
I've heard this has been speculated on in the Argentine press - Nadal's absence. Now Bodo - hmmm, wonder what Nadal's response will be?The first time I remember reading about it was his long absence in 2004 when he missed RG and Wimby with his stress fracture

mallorn
01-13-2006, 06:26 PM
Just curious what evidence Peter has to presume that the likes of Roddick, Nadal and Federer are possible dopers? Just because he likes a good conspiracy theory, or if one gets busted surely many others are doing it too (but being protected by the ATP/ITF)? And why single out Nadal? It would be stupid of him to play (even a grand slam) when he's not 100% healthy and has had very little match practice. What good is it to fly all the way to Melbourne just to exit early or possibly make an injury worse? :shrug:
He has not come up with any evidence whatsoever so far. If you read his comments too, he basically laughs at the claim that it is Rafa's injury (effectively) that's keeping him out of the AO but hasn't responded to any of the facts provided by Susan (from vr.com/rn.com) or anyone else. And in his latest post he's trying to retreat and says he wasn't accusing Nadal. :rolleyes:
So Long, Insoles!
It's time to, as they say, "move on."

My final thoughts on firestorm my last two posts created are:

I never accused Nadal of anything except skipping one of the year's four pre-eminent tournaments for reasons that are somewhat baffling (Insoles. Insoles?).

At the same time, I absolutely, 100 per cent insist that nobody in tennis is above suspicion these day when it comes to doping. Not Federer, not Roddick, not Nadal. And reserving the right to harbor suspicions is very different from making an accusation. And this isn't my personal crusade; tennis has brought this upon itself.Check out Kamakshi's post in Court Coverage re. Sesil Karatancheva's "defense" (You have to scroll down to the "websites" header to find it, but stop and sample on the way!).

Here's another thing. I have both a desire and obligation to share with my readers the burning issues of the day in tennis - both in the public arena, and also in the trenches of the game. Trust me. Doping is a hot, hot topic. It is what people are talking about. And you have every right to know that.

On a more personal level, I feel that I owe it to the Doping Argies, on whom I've been relentlessly tough, to make sure that I - or anyone else - doesn't turn them into convenient scapegoats for a sport that may have a far larger and more comprehensive problem.

It's official. Our game is one in which a 16-year girl has been busted for taking PEDs. . . What do you want me to do, make it the Doping Argies and Bulgar and go my merry way?

But let's give it a rest for now, kick back and enjoy the Australian Open. You know I'm going to get some of your noses out of joint in the next few weeks (remember, I'll be blogging live from Melbourne for Week Two of the AO), but don't for a minute think I underestimate how difficult it is for the players - all the players - and how easy it is for the critics, myself included.

So I leave you for now with the quote I like to ponder before the onset of every major event.


It is not the critic who counts, not the one who points out how the strong man stumbled or how the doer of deeds might have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred with sweat and dust and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause; who, if he wins, knows the triumph of high achievement; and who, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.

- Teddy Rooosevelt
http://www.peterbodostennisworld.com/

prima donna
01-13-2006, 06:26 PM
Not to make accusations or anything, but it is a favorite hobby of mine to feature random photographs of sports figures before they became who and what they are and after they became that. The difference is almost startling, absolutely amazing, merely a coincidence. Move along.

http://im.rediff.com/sports/2003/jun/27nadal.jpg
http://onlineathens.com/images/060105/18523_512.jpg
http://images.auctionhelper.com/images/9680/bondserrorstarbest.jpg

http://www.isbl.com/isbl_2004/gazette/bondsleft1.gif

Socket
01-13-2006, 06:27 PM
His dark -- and completely unsubstantiated -- insinuations are creating free publicity for his blog, and you all are just snatching up the bait. :rolleyes:

Deboogle!.
01-13-2006, 06:31 PM
His dark -- and completely unsubstantiated -- insinuations are creating free publicity for his blog, and you all are just snatching up the bait. :rolleyes:As far as I know, they're no more - or less - unsubstantiated than the insinuations made on this forum about Agassi and other players. He's speaking his mind, that's his right.

mallorn
01-13-2006, 06:33 PM
It's his blog, he's just speaking his mind. I, for one, like his blog because of that, because I know when I go there that he'll be saying what he's really thinking, not what might be the more popular or PC thing to say.
Speaking his mind is fine as long as he doesn't make unfounded accusations that can ruin someone's reputation. How do you like this sentence from his second post "I have neither the mandate nor the responsibility to deal strictly and exclusively with facts and/or the thoughts or opinions of others about those facts."?

Deboogle!.
01-13-2006, 06:35 PM
Speaking his mind is fine as long as he doesn't make unfounded accusations that can ruin someone's reputation. How do you like this sentence from his second post "I have neither the mandate nor the responsibility to deal strictly and exclusively with facts and/or the thoughts or opinions of others about those facts."?I don't have to like it, I don't have to agree with him. He's saying he's allowed to say his opinion, which is all he did. It's not like he said "I know Nadal is a doper!!" He's merely thinking out loud about something that is arguably suspicious on its face. And it's nothing more than what many many people here have done, with Nadal, and several other players. Do I think Nadal has doped? I doubt it. Do I think that he has had some more bizarre injuries that have kept him out of the game for pretty long periods of time that could potentially look suspicious to some people? I do see how that line of thinking could potentially be plausible.

mallorn
01-13-2006, 06:37 PM
Not to make accusations or anything, but it is a favorite hobby of mine to feature random photographs of sports figures before they became who and what they are and after they became that. The difference is almost startling, absolutely amazing, merely a coincidence. Move along.

Just out of curiosity, have you seen pictures of Nadal's father and uncles?
They're all big, powerful men (one a very successful professional footballer). Oh yes, I guess that just proves they're all dopers. :rolleyes:

Merton
01-13-2006, 06:38 PM
So, to summarize Peter's argument,

1. Participating, and potentially winning, A.O. should be a huge incentive for Nadal.
2. Nadal's doctor claimed that his foot was healed.
3. Nadal decided to withdraw from the A.O., therefore,

Nadal avoids the A.O. because he is doping.

The problem of course, as Mirkaland also pointed out is that point #2 does not imply that Nadal is ready to participate, even though he might be (technically) healed.

tangerine_dream
01-13-2006, 06:40 PM
Nadal? I'm still waiting for the Agassi haters to come up with concrete proof that he doped as they so strongly believe.

Guess I'll be waiting another lifetime longer. :)

Socket
01-13-2006, 06:40 PM
I don't have to like it, I don't have to agree with him. He's saying he's allowed to say his opinion, which is all he did. It's not like he said "I know Nadal is a doper!!" He's merely thinking out loud about something that is arguably suspicious on its face. And it's nothing more than what many many people here have done, with Nadal, and several other players. Do I think Nadal has doped? I doubt it. Do I think that he has had some more bizarre injuries that have kept him out of the game for pretty long periods of time that could potentially look suspicious to some people? I do see how that line of thinking could potentially be plausible.
Boy, would you be singing a different song if he had gone after Roddick. :rolleyes:

Merton
01-13-2006, 06:44 PM
By the way, the argument of Peter does not defer in quality to the argument of primadona: Starting from a weak premise, one can "prove" whatever he likes. The scary thing is that Peter Bodo appears influential and "saying his opinion" may divert resources from the real issue of doping. It is much easier to provide conspiracy theories and offer unsubstantiated opinions than to tackle the real issues.

mallorn
01-13-2006, 06:46 PM
I don't have to like it, I don't have to agree with him. He's saying he's allowed to say his opinion, which is all he did. It's not like he said "I know Nadal is a doper!!" He's merely thinking out loud about something that is arguably suspicious on its face. And it's nothing more than what many many people here have done, with Nadal, and several other players. Do I think Nadal has doped? I doubt it. Do I think that he has had some more bizarre injuries that have kept him out of the game for pretty long periods of time that could potentially look suspicious to some people? I do see how that line of thinking could potentially be plausible.
I see a difference between anonymous posters accusing a player they don't like in a public forum, where they can get away with basically everything, and a (supposedly) respected writer doing effectively the same in a column sponsored by a professional tennis magazine. One would expect him to have some solid basis for implying something so serious.
You say he didn't say "I know Nadal is a doper!!" - but he insinuated this much when he singled him out like that and then kept laughing at the reason for Nadal's withdrawal (he found the fact that Nadal needs to get used to new insoles particularly amusing).

mangoes
01-13-2006, 06:47 PM
His assumptions are BULLSHIT............just someone trying to cause a little drama and get some attention for himself at the expense of a person's career. Furthermore, I know a lot of guys when I was in college that had Nadal's body build at 19. My favorite group of guys, that made me drool ;) , were on the swim team.

It is not nice that this guys is saying this nonsense.

mangoes
01-13-2006, 06:50 PM
I see a difference between anonymous posters accusing a player they don't like in a public forum, where they can get away with basically everything, and a (supposedly) respected writer doing effectively the same in a column sponsored by a professional tennis magazine. One would expect him to have some solid basis for implying something so serious.
You say he didn't say "I know Nadal is a doper!!" - but he insinuated this much when he singled him out like that and then kept laughing at the reason for Nadal's withdrawal (he found the fact that Nadal needs to get used to new insoles particularly amusing).


Totally Agree................

mer
01-13-2006, 06:50 PM
I see a difference between anonymous posters accusing a player they don't like in a public forum, where they can get away with basically everything, and a (supposedly) respected writer doing effectively the same in a column sponsored by a professional tennis magazine. One would expect him to have some solid basis for implying something so serious.


:yeah:

zimzim
01-13-2006, 06:50 PM
The problem is not Nadals build, but the short time in which it was achieved.

NicoFan
01-13-2006, 06:52 PM
His dark -- and completely unsubstantiated -- insinuations are creating free publicity for his blog, and you all are just snatching up the bait. :rolleyes:

Yes indeed. :rolleyes:

I saw Bodo on The Tennis Channel - he's all hot air. Everything he said was overturned by another guy on the panel (can't rememer the guys name) who actually did know something about the game.

And I have no respect for a man that would use a good kid like Rafa to promote himself.

I'm really tired of these doping issues.

Move on to another topic.

Other sports have REAL doping issues. These pretend ones in the tennis world border on the ridiculous. :lol:

sweetiepiedoll
01-13-2006, 06:52 PM
I find it kinda of funny that people are talking about Rafa and he isn't even playing the AO. I guess it is hard for folks to digest his reasons for withdrawal. But seriously, if Rafa withdraws from the RG (I know it is too soon to discuss the RG) then I will be worried.

NicoFan
01-13-2006, 06:54 PM
The problem is not Nadals build, but the short time in which it was achieved.

Its called hard work.

Deal.

mangoes
01-13-2006, 06:56 PM
I don't have to like it, I don't have to agree with him. He's saying he's allowed to say his opinion, which is all he did. It's not like he said "I know Nadal is a doper!!" He's merely thinking out loud about something that is arguably suspicious on its face. And it's nothing more than what many many people here have done, with Nadal, and several other players. Do I think Nadal has doped? I doubt it. Do I think that he has had some more bizarre injuries that have kept him out of the game for pretty long periods of time that could potentially look suspicious to some people? I do see how that line of thinking could potentially be plausible.


Deb, I'm actually shocked that you are defending this guy to this extent. We got into a heated "boardgument" some time back when I accused Blake of milking his "life's story :rolleyes: " for all the cheese in France. Others agreed with me and you were very annoyed. Imagine how you would feel if this same guy wrote an article implying those same things. Would you be saying:And it's nothing more than what many many people here have done, I doubt that................and this suggestion he is making about Nadal is a lot more serious than Blake's publicity stunt. What if this catches on and takes on a life of its own? Is that fair to Nadal? This type of accusation can follow a person. This man is a hateful individual............................. just my two cents :D

mangoes
01-13-2006, 06:58 PM
The problem is not Nadals build, but the short time in which it was achieved.

It's called hard work and discipline.

NicoFan
01-13-2006, 07:02 PM
This man is a hateful individual.

Deb has a right to her opinion, but I totally agree with your views on Bodo and what he wrote. And Bobo is a hateful individual. :mad: And as I said, after watching him, he's pure hot air. The only way he can make a living in writing is to bash people and tear them down. He does nothing to serve or promote the game.

mallorn
01-13-2006, 07:04 PM
Its called hard work.

Deal.
:yeah:

mangoes
01-13-2006, 07:05 PM
Deb has a right to her opinion, but I totally agree with your views on Bodo and what he wrote. And Bobo is a hateful individual. :mad: And as I said, after watching him, he's pure hot air. The only way he can make a living in writing is to bash people and tear them down. He does nothing to serve or promote the game.

I'm not saying Deb does not have a right to her opinion. Her opinion shocked me and I'm merely sharing my two cents in reaction to her opinion :) Otherwise, definitely, I also feel he is full of hot air. But these type of accusations can do damage.

DJ dropshot
01-13-2006, 07:13 PM
I've been a reader of Pete's Blog for a long time. He picks on everyone. He is often berated by his readers for singling a player out for one thing or another. These recent posts fall into that normal pattern to me and should be taken as just one of those posts to make you go hmmm.

In the end, I value the right to free speech, whether you're a poster, or a long-time tennis journalist in a blog format, over a player's reputation anyday. Take away that right, and it affects me. People looking at Nadal funny does not affect me. You won't see his thoughts on this on the newsstand - it's a blog.

Tangy, you 'spose he runs with scissors too? ;)

Deboogle!.
01-13-2006, 07:21 PM
Boy, would you be singing a different song if he had gone after Roddick. :rolleyes:Don't presume to tell me what I would or would not say.I see a difference between anonymous posters accusing a player they don't like in a public forum, where they can get away with basically everything, and a (supposedly) respected writer doing effectively the same in a column sponsored by a professional tennis magazine. One would expect him to have some solid basis for implying something so serious.I don't see much of a difference, so we will just agree to disagree on that since it's purely a matter of opinion :) Deb, I'm actually shocked that you are defending this guy to this extent. I'm not defending him at all, I'm merely defending his right to say his opinions. In fact I said outright earlier in this thread that I disagree with his substantive arguments, even though I do see how one could potentially come to the same line of thought that he presented. I've been a reader of Pete's Blog for a long time. He picks on everyone. He is often berated by his readers for singling a player out for one thing or another. These recent posts fall into that normal pattern to me and should be taken as just one of those posts to make you go hmmm.

In the end, I value the right to free speech, whether you're a poster, or a long-time tennis journalist in a blog format, over a player's reputation anyday. Take away that right, and it affects me. People looking at Nadal funny does not affect me. You won't see his thoughts on this on the newsstand - it's a blog.Exactly. Said it much better than I did :)

cobalt60
01-13-2006, 07:23 PM
Deb- I can see that legal mind at work here :lol:
Listen Bodo just likes to hear himself talk and spouts off without listening to himself or others. Let him and forget about it. :) Slander it is not as he is very careful.

mallorn
01-13-2006, 07:25 PM
In the end, I value the right to free speech, whether you're a poster, or a long-time tennis journalist in a blog format, over a player's reputation anyday. Take away that right, and it affects me.
What about a player's right to good reputation unless found guilty of doping by the official authorities?
To repeat, I don't deny his right to free speech. I just expect a widely-read journalist to be responsible for what they write and be prepared to come up with evidence for accusations like this.
People looking at Nadal funny does not affect me.
But it affects the player in question and his fans.
You won't see his thoughts on this on the newsstand - it's a blog.
Which makes it even worse - people all over the world can read it.

liptea
01-13-2006, 07:26 PM
Deb- I can see that legal mind at work here :lol:

haha, that's what I was thinking.

Deboogle!.
01-13-2006, 07:28 PM
I don't think anyone has a right to a good reputation. He has a right to be considered innocent in the eyes of the law, but not public opinion. Anyone who has half a brain will read what Bodo said and take it at face value, one man's interpretation of some events. No one should really care what the half-wits who actually believe what he says as fact think, and I bet my life Rafa doesn't care about those people either. If it ever got to a point where what this one person said on this one blog was affecting Rafa's reputation to the extent where it was harming his endorsements or whatever, then he would have a libel suit, but until then, it's just one guy spouting off his opinions, however unpopular they may be.

jtipson
01-13-2006, 07:28 PM
So, to summarize Peter's argument,

1. Participating, and potentially winning, A.O. should be a huge incentive for Nadal.
2. Nadal's doctor claimed that his foot was healed.
3. Nadal decided to withdraw from the A.O., therefore,

Nadal avoids the A.O. because he is doping.

The problem of course, as Mirkaland also pointed out is that point #2 does not imply that Nadal is ready to participate, even though he might be (technically) healed.

The other problem with that theory, which Bodo seems to have entirely ignored, is that skipping the AO does not exempt Nadal from drug testing - he may very well be subject to an out of competition test at any time.

If, on the other hand, Bodo is not suggesting that Nadal is skipping the AO to avoid a drug test, but instead has already been caught and is serving an unannounced ban kept quiet by the ATP/ITF, then he should say so. But I bet he dare not.


I find Bodo's blog interesting, and I'm very glad he brings up controversial subjects. However, more often than not when he gets on his horse about a controversial issue, he fails to notice point out one or more facts that are absolutely essential to a balanced understanding on the subject in question. He has lost a fair amount of credibility in my eyes in the last few months, and this lowers it further.

Castafiore
01-13-2006, 07:32 PM
That guy has a right to write this sort of stuff but others have the right to call him up on his opinion and to ask for some facts and a well thought out explanation before he mentions any names.

So, deb: you're right that he's free to do so but what's the problem with others giving their own opinion about this column? Why are you making such a point of this?

NicoFan
01-13-2006, 07:34 PM
What about a player's right to good reputation unless found guilty of doping by the official authorities?
To repeat, I don't deny his right to free speech. I just expect a widely-read journalist to be responsible for what they write and be prepared to come up with evidence for accusations like this.

But it affects the player in question and his fans.

Which makes it even worse - people all over the world can read it.

:yeah:

Freedom of speech is an awesome right - but it carries with it an awesome burden of responsibility.

This is irresponsible journalism written only to gain Bodo some notariety.

It affects the player, the fans, and ultimately, the game.

Rafa is a good kid, from a good family, and has brought back a lot of interest in the game last year. He doesn't deserve this type of shit. :mad:

Deboogle!.
01-13-2006, 07:35 PM
So, deb: you're right that he's free to do so but what's the problem with others giving their own opinion about this column? Why are you making such a point of this?I have no problem with that. People can say whatever they want about his column, I could care less... i haven't stopped anyone from saying whatever they want :shrug:

Castafiore
01-13-2006, 07:36 PM
I could care less
Great but I don't quite understand why you make such a point of telling others, who are merely giving their opinion, that this guy has a right to write down his opinion, facts or not. :confused:

mallorn
01-13-2006, 07:39 PM
I don't see much of a difference, so we will just agree to disagree on that since it's purely a matter of opinion :)
OK, let me try again. ;)

First, his opinion has much more sway with readers than anything posters like us write. He's supposed to be an expert with inside knowledge. That's what he suggested in his posts. The fact that he works for Tennis World also lends him credibility.

Second, he's not anonymous. He can be easily found and sued for libel if he posts unsubstantiated accusations. Therefore, one would expect him to know exactly what he's saying. Some readers may assume that his accusations are in fact true because otherwise he would not be posting them. However, at this point it seems he has no evidence whatsoever because he hasn't come up with any sensible answer to the many comments posted in his blog. That's why, I think, he only made insinuations in the first place, and now he denies ever accusing Rafa.

Deboogle!.
01-13-2006, 07:40 PM
Great but I don't quite understand why you make such a point of telling others, who are merely giving their opinion, that this guy has a right to write down his opinion, facts or not. :confused:Because he's being demonized and yes, some people WERE questioning his right to say such things. I happen to like the fact that, even though I disagree with him most of the time, he puts himself all the time and, however outlandish they may be, he keep putting his opinion out there and he accepts the fire he gets back in stride. So I will speak my opinion about that, even if it's different from most people here :)

nermo
01-13-2006, 07:40 PM
posted by jtipson
The other problem with that theory, which Bodo seems to have entirely ignored, is that skipping the AO does not exempt Nadal from drug testing - he may very well be subject to an out of competition test at any time.
Good point, i guess skipping the AO is not an evidence for anything like that.
That's exactly what i wanted to ask about in fact , can't players be tested randomly out of competition tourneys??

cobalt60
01-13-2006, 07:42 PM
Because he's being demonized and yes, some people WERE questioning his right to say such things. I happen to like the fact that, even though I disagree with him most of the time, he puts himself all the time and, however outlandish they may be, he keep putting his opinion out there and he accepts the fire he gets back in stride. So I will speak my opinion about that, even if it's different from most people here :)
And that is what freedom of speech is all about in all aspects.

Deboogle!.
01-13-2006, 07:43 PM
OK, let me try again. ;)

First, his opinion has much more sway with readers than anything posters like us write. He's supposed to be an expert with inside knowledge. That's what he suggested in his posts. The fact that he works for Tennis World also lends him credibility.

Second, he's not anonymous. He can be easily found and sued for libel if he posts unsubstantiated accusations. Therefore, one would expect him to know exactly what he's saying. Some readers may assume that his accusations are in fact true because otherwise he would not be posting them. However, at this point it seems he has no evidence whatsoever because he hasn't come up with any sensible answer to the many comments posted in his blog. That's why, I think, he only made insinuations in the first place, and now he denies ever accusing Rafa.Anyone can easily be found out for libel on the internet ;) I stand by what I said, that regardless of who he is and who he works for (which is Tennis Magazine, btw, of which players like Chris Evert and Pete Sampras are investors), anyone who could actually have the potential to seriously hurt Rafa's reputation is smart enough to know that when they read that, it's one man's opinion, regardless of who that man is. Anyone who's not smart enough and just believes it as fact.... who cares? What does it matter if some person in Oregon thinks it's true? I don't think Rafa will lose much sleep over it. I think he'll just go abut his business and keep passing doping tests and this will have no effect on the media or Rafa at all and will just pass over in a few days :)

mallorn
01-13-2006, 07:45 PM
I don't think anyone has a right to a good reputation. He has a right to be considered innocent in the eyes of the law, but not public opinion.
:eek: OMG, are you serious :confused:
P.S. I didn't mean "a right" in the legal sense.

Merton
01-13-2006, 07:45 PM
I'm not defending him at all, I'm merely defending his right to say his opinions. In fact I said outright earlier in this thread that I disagree with his substantive arguments, even though I do see how one could potentially come to the same line of thought that he presented.

You are extremely lenient saying that his arguments carry any substance at all. It is just a bunch of crap. Of course, he is entitled to his own crap, but we are entitled at calling it what it is.

Castafiore
01-13-2006, 07:48 PM
Because he's being demonized
oh come on, he wasn't demonized. :rolleyes: That word is a bit strong, isn't it?

People are questioning the content of his opinion, not the basic right to give it and they are annoyed to see this very public and well known blog without facts but just using the power of suggestion.

Freedom of speech works in two directions:
1. He gets to give his opinion.
2. I get to say that his opinion is :bs: if I don't agree with any of it and he can't back it up.


Again: people are NOT questioning his basic right to give his opinion but they were questioning the validity of the content of that opinion based on the speculation he offers.
That's a subtle difference perhaps but not unimportant to me. :)

DJ dropshot
01-13-2006, 07:49 PM
I guess I don't see his blog being written as a journalist. I picture him wearing his pajamas sipping coffee while he writes the blog, thinking out loud, happy to be free from the constraints of the "respectable journalist" that he wears 90% of the time.

Perhaps he can't carry this off as well as an unknown, and I often disagree with him, but I do enjoy a different perspective that spurs conversation moreso than the usual regurgitated AP stories.

I'm off to shake off the image of Bodo in his pajamas now, where's the shirtless thread again?

PamV
01-13-2006, 07:49 PM
Just curious what evidence Peter has to presume that the likes of Roddick, Nadal and Federer are possible dopers? Just because he likes a good conspiracy theory, or if one gets busted surely many others are doing it too (but being protected by the ATP/ITF)? And why single out Nadal? It would be stupid of him to play (even a grand slam) when he's not 100% healthy and has had very little match practice. What good is it to fly all the way to Melbourne just to exit early or possibly make an injury worse? :shrug:

He's saying that ANYONE could be a possible doper, so all should be scrutinized equally. What's wrong with that? The point is assumptions can't be made.

I didn't see where he said these guys are likely dopers. He said anyone from Federer on down could be. Isn't that true? Any one could be....but that doesn't mean he is.

mangoes
01-13-2006, 07:52 PM
Question................I'm in an out so I'm just catching up on this............. What is the difference between this guy writing this vs the Enquirer saying Tom Cruise is gay. Cruise sued and won. Apart from the volume of audience targeted, what is the difference in one being libel vs the other..................I'm not a lawyer, so I hope this makes sense..........plus I'm in a meeting keeping up with this conversation while I pretend to be writing a document on my labtop.... :lol: :lol: :lol: so try to read through my mistakes please :lol:

smucav
01-13-2006, 07:59 PM
The other problem with that theory, which Bodo seems to have entirely ignored, is that skipping the AO does not exempt Nadal from drug testing - he may very well be subject to an out of competition test at any time.I think this could be an allusion to one of the fallacies with the doping system: some substances that are considered performance-enhancing in-competition are not considered performance-enhancing out-of-competition. (e.g. the Kuznetsova doping non-issue of a year ago). One theory is that some dopers have been playing the system for years by sitting out for a few months with minor injuries allowing the prohibited substances to disappear entirely or decrease to a level that is acceptable for out-of-competition testing (& can be attributed to an OTC). With the increase in the number of prominent players being caught doping in the last year, anyone who was on this cycle would now be prompted to sit out longer than in the past to avoid the more stringent in-competition testing. I don't know enough about the exact science to know if this theory is entirely plausible, but it's been circulated enough (including by one of the commentors to Bodo's blog) that it's the first thing I thought of when I first read Bodo's somewhat cryptic statement. I don't know if that what he was alluding to, but it's not out of the realm of possibility.

sigmagirl91
01-13-2006, 08:00 PM
What is the difference between this guy writing this vs the Enquirer saying Tom Cruise is gay. Cruise sued and won.

It depends on how a player would view this opinion as it regards his overall self-concept. Maybe suing worked for Tom Cruise but may not for Rafa. :shrug:

Socket
01-13-2006, 08:07 PM
And that is what freedom of speech is all about in all aspects.
Not in the sense of a First Amendment right, which is much, much more narrow.

PamV
01-13-2006, 08:07 PM
I disagree when he says that the schedule isn't a problem and that players can simply not play that much. That might work for the lower ranked players but the guys in the top 5 or so are driven to play everything so they can maintain their ranks. Federer wouldn't have needed to play as much as he did if Nadal wasn't also winning just as much.

The schedule might have always been this full, but I don't think there were ever two players who each won 11 tournaments.

Merton
01-13-2006, 08:12 PM
I think this could be an allusion to one of the fallacies with the doping system: some substances that are considered performance-enhancing in-competition are not considered performance-enhancing out-of-competition. (e.g. the Kuznetsova doping non-issue of a year ago). One theory is that some dopers have been playing the system for years by sitting out for a few months with minor injuries allowing the prohibited substances to disappear entirely or decrease to a level that is acceptable for out-of-competition testing (& can be attributed to an OTC). With the increase in the number of prominent players being caught doping in the last year, anyone who was on this cycle would now be prompted to sit out longer than in the past to avoid the more stringent in-competition testing. I don't know enough about the exact science to know if this theory is entirely plausible, but it's been circulated enough (including by one of the commentors to Bodo's blog) that it's the first thing I thought of when I first read Bodo's somewhat cryptic statement. I don't know if that what he was alluding to, but it's not out of the realm of possibility.

I doubt that Bodo had the possibility you present in mind, he would mention it if that was the case. By the way, claiming that Nadal follows this policy of cleaning his organism by sitting out of competition, falls into a more subtle logical phallacy, which is Occam's Razor: "One should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything".

Nadal claims that he needs more time to prepare for competition. There is no reason to introduce additional variables without evidence. By the way, is Nadal the only doper that needs this cleaning procedure? Where are others that similarly need cleaning time?

madmanfool
01-13-2006, 08:14 PM
i just want to ask this: is it true the doctor gave him the green light to play? Sounds very strange. I don't know what that doctor said, but if he said something like, you can't make it worse by playing, i would be really disappointed in him for not playing.

Socket
01-13-2006, 08:17 PM
I doubt that Bodo had the possibility you present in mind, he would mention it if that was the case. By the way, claiming that Nadal follows this policy of cleaning his organism by sitting out of competition, falls into a more subtle logical phallacy, which is Occam's Razor: "One should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything".

Nadal claims that he needs more time to prepare for competition. There is no reason to introduce additional variables without evidence. By the way, is Nadal the only doper that needs this cleaning procedure? Where are others that similarly need cleaning time?
Perhaps we'll read more Bodo articles insinuating that so-and-so is cleansing his system of dope whenever a player does not play a tournament -- unless he's an old guy like Agassi (or somebody else that Bodo likes).

Merton
01-13-2006, 08:20 PM
Perhaps we'll read more Bodo articles insinuating that so-and-so is cleansing his system of dope whenever a player does not play a tournament -- unless he's an old guy like Agassi (or somebody else that Bodo likes).

This is spot on. By that "logic" one can always assume that injuries are fake and the truth is that the supposedly injured player just cleans his system from doping evidence.

mallorn
01-13-2006, 08:22 PM
i just want to ask this: is it true the doctor gave him the green light to play? Sounds very strange. I don't know what that doctor said, but if he said something like, you can't make it worse by playing, i would be really disappointed in him for not playing.
Here's a recent article explaining it (http://www.thinkspain.com/news-spain/10295)
World number two Rafael Nadal explained his reasons for pulling out of the first Grand Slam event of the year yesterday, "As a result of the new insoles, I've lost some mobility on court. I'm slower than normal, especially when I have to move to my right, and it's clear that if I travelled out to Australia, I would not be at my best physically and would be unable to produce my best tennis," he said.

Although the post traumatic arthritis sustained during the Madrid Masters at the end of last year in his right foot has now cleared up, the main problem now is the extra stress on the player's calves produced by the new shock absorber insoles, "although it's also true that my foot sometimes swells up, and I don't think that's normal," continued Nadal, "However, I must say that it does not hurt."

Although last year's Roland Garros champion came through a practice match against Gustavo Kuerten -who he beat easily- at the RCT installations in Barcelona on Monday, his uncle and manager, Toni Nadal, remains cautious, "I'm a pessimist. An hour and a half training session is not the same as a five set Grand Slam match. We're not going to achieve much by going all the way to Australia to get knocked out after a couple of rounds," he said.

Nadal started his season last year with two tournament wins (Costa do Saipe and Acapulco) on the South American clay court circuit, but will probably not be fit until February, when he is due to play in three hard court tournaments (Marseilles, Rotterdam and then Dubai), but may try to fit in a clay court tournament if fit to do so, he said.

madmanfool
01-13-2006, 08:24 PM
thx for the info

jtipson
01-13-2006, 08:28 PM
Isn't Nadal going to play Vina del Mar in the week after the AO?
I'll be interested to see Bodo's theories about that.

vincayou
01-13-2006, 08:52 PM
I fear that doping is a very generalized thing in any sport nowadays anyway. Sadly.

Freeze their sample and come back when you can test them even if it's 10 years later. That's the only way to know. Accuse someone with the risk of being wrong is not the way to do IMO.

soraya
01-13-2006, 08:54 PM
By the way, the argument of Peter does not defer in quality to the argument of primadona: Starting from a weak premise, one can "prove" whatever he likes. The scary thing is that Peter Bodo appears influential and "saying his opinion" may divert resources from the real issue of doping. It is much easier to provide conspiracy theories and offer unsubstantiated opinions than to tackle the real issues.

your argument has some merits regarding Peter influence in the tennis arena. One thing is MTF's posters assumptions about different players doping, another is a known tennis pundit's opinions available to all to read, which in my opinion has more weight.

Lopaka
01-13-2006, 09:17 PM
Inuendo and Speculation!

Reading Mr Bodo's blog I felt like I was standing in the suppermarket check out line.

All I missed was a headline announcing Roger is from Mars and Rafa is from another Galaxy.

The answer I have for Mr Bodo is

**VAMOS RAFAEL**

NicoFan
01-13-2006, 09:36 PM
Inuendo and Speculation!

Reading Mr Bodo's blog I felt like I was standing in the suppermarket check out line.

All I missed was a headline announcing Roger is from Mars and Rafa is from another Galaxy.

The answer I have for Mr Bodo is

**VAMOS RAFAEL**

:lol:

I was just coming on to post the same thing.

There's good investigative reporting...and there's tabloid journalism.

This is tabloid journalism.

And about first amendment rights of freedom of speech - there are limits, and newspapers and magazines are sued all the time for stepping over the line.

I don't think that Boda committed libel or slander - but this article is journalism at its lowest.

Its disrespectful to Rafa and the hard work he's put in over the years.

Sparko1030
01-13-2006, 09:44 PM
Not to make accusations or anything, but it is a favorite hobby of mine to feature random photographs of sports figures before they became who and what they are and after they became that. The difference is almost startling, absolutely amazing, merely a coincidence. Move along.

http://im.rediff.com/sports/2003/jun/27nadal.jpg
http://onlineathens.com/images/060105/18523_512.jpg
http://images.auctionhelper.com/images/9680/bondserrorstarbest.jpg

http://www.isbl.com/isbl_2004/gazette/bondsleft1.gif

Well, couldnt a little thing called puberty account for the differnce in Nadal's case....seems you really can't compare the body of a 10 yr old to a 15 yr old to an adult....show two pics of Nadal after puberty and that would be a better comparison. :) Or start comparing all player's teen age bodies vs their adult bodies. I think there would be a big difference in all cases....

alelysafina
01-13-2006, 09:51 PM
Well, couldnt a little thing called puberty account for the differnce in Nadal's case....seems you really can't compare the body of a 10 yr old to a 15 yr old to an adult....show two pics of Nadal after puberty and that would be a better comparison. :) Or start comparing all player's teen age bodies vs their adult bodies. I think there would be a big difference in all cases....

Also, the sleeves/ no sleeves factor, the fact that one is farther away and the other is closer, and they are at different angles.

Lopaka
01-13-2006, 10:24 PM
Rafa must have got the placebos. :lol:

Don't look like no super body builder here.

http://vamosrafael.smugmug.com/photos/50431694-M.jpg

http://vamosrafael.smugmug.com/photos/46998747-M.jpg

Rafa being measured for Madrid Wax Museum Statue (ca. 12/05)

nobama
01-13-2006, 11:11 PM
Nadal? I'm still waiting for the Agassi haters to come up with concrete proof that he doped as they so strongly believe.

Guess I'll be waiting another lifetime longer. :)Don't you know everybody dopes but the top players get away with it because the ATP/ITF protect them. ;)

nobama
01-13-2006, 11:21 PM
He's saying that ANYONE could be a possible doper, so all should be scrutinized equally. What's wrong with that? The point is assumptions can't be made.

I didn't see where he said these guys are likely dopers. He said anyone from Federer on down could be. Isn't that true? Any one could be....but that doesn't mean he is.Ok that is true, but what's the point of bringing it up? Has Rafa or Roger or Andy (the ones he mentioned by name) done anything that would cause people to wonder if they're doping? Of course not. But some player on the WTA gets caught, so now we're supposed to wonder out loud all players are doping? Of course he didn't outright accuse any one of these guys, but his comments give the impression he wouldn't be shocked in the least if they were, and I don't know on what basis he's coming to that conclusion. I don't agree with this guilt (or possibility of guilt) by association.

Socket
01-13-2006, 11:24 PM
Personally, I think that anybody who writes a tennis blog must be smoking crack. Otherwise, they'd be able to get a real job. What other logical explanation is there?

:angel:

mangoes
01-13-2006, 11:28 PM
Personally, I think that anybody who writes a tennis blog must be smoking crack. Otherwise, they'd be able to get a real job. What other logical explanation is there?

:angel:


:lol: :lol: Maybe it's his hobby :confused:

PamV
01-13-2006, 11:39 PM
Ok that is true, but what's the point of bringing it up? Has Rafa or Roger or Andy (the ones he mentioned by name) done anything that would cause people to wonder if they're doping? Of course not. But some player on the WTA gets caught, so now we're supposed to wonder out loud all players are doping? Of course he didn't outright accuse any one of these guys, but his comments give the impression he wouldn't be shocked in the least if they were, and I don't know on what basis he's coming to that conclusion. I don't agree with this guilt (or possibility of guilt) by association.

The article is rather long and convoluted, it's hard to tell what the point is. Could this be the point he is trying to make:

"My gut feeling is that the Argies, while not exactly scapegoats, are merely the dumb losers who got busted while a lot of other dopers are going free. The tip of the iceberg is still part of the iceberg, right?"

alfonsojose
01-13-2006, 11:53 PM
Nobody has proves, but those muscles, runing down everything :scratch:

tennisvideos
01-13-2006, 11:54 PM
It would not surprise me in the slightest if MOST of the tour - men AND women are on something. Same with Olympic (and many other various) athletes.

High powered corporations and various bodies have a history of cover ups - take a look at the East German doping system that took place in the 70s and 80s - and has only been uncovered some 20 years later. And I am sure there are many other countries that have done the same.

Nothing in this world would surprise me in the least. And sports heroes get paid an astronomical amount of money. The temptation must be great.

It doesn't matter in the long run if all are allowed to play on an equal field. But why the Argentinians get caught out and not the others is what surprises me.

Merton
01-13-2006, 11:57 PM
The incentives for doping are not as obvious as, say, in cycling or track and field. The monitoring is not transparent to say the least. It could be the case that the situation is as in the 100m race in the Seoul Olympics and everybody is doping. It could be that tennis is relatively dope-free. However, the Bodo article does not even start getting at the matter. On the contrary, posing unsubstantiated allegations diverts attention away from the true issues.

nobama
01-14-2006, 12:01 AM
It doesn't matter in the long run if all are allowed to play on an equal field. But why the Argentinians get caught out and not the others is what surprises me.Who exactly are you referring to?

nobama
01-14-2006, 12:07 AM
The article is rather long and convoluted, it's hard to tell what the point is. Could this be the point he is trying to make:

"My gut feeling is that the Argies, while not exactly scapegoats, are merely the dumb losers who got busted while a lot of other dopers are going free. The tip of the iceberg is still part of the iceberg, right?"Ok that's my point. Some Argies got busted so that means the tour is full of dopers? What evidence does he have to support the claim that "a lot of other dopers are going free"? Just his gut feeling? I'm sorry but journalists shouldn't be making acusations or insinuating things unless they have the facts to back it up. And there was nothing in the way of facts in his recent blog entires to support his suspicions about Nadal. Like I said, I don't agree with this guilt by association, or if one person is doing it surely everyone else is too. To cop one of Peter's phrases, that's a bunch of hooey.

tennisvideos
01-14-2006, 12:09 AM
Who exactly are you referring to?

I was wondering myself that if doping is rife on the tour, which it wouldn't surprise me, why are the Argentinians caught and not the others? Is it because they have been targetted - surely they aren't the only ones doing it?

I have no answers to any of this, all I am saying is that it wouldn't surprise me if doping is rife on the mens and womens tour, and rife in many other sports as well. Would not surprise me in the slightest. It would be niaive to think it doesn't happen and even more so to think that sporting bodies don't try to cover up things of this nature to protect the image of their sports.

Federerthebest
01-14-2006, 12:27 AM
I already suggested this ages ago. Nadal's spate of withdrawals is very suspicious; the ITF is more than likely covering up his doping, it would be disastarous for the game if they did not.

heya
01-14-2006, 12:37 AM
If that many Argentines doped, then we would have a lot of superman champions on the tour. Maybe Hewitt can sneak steroids in his drink. God knows, he had enough distractions... Baby, wife, Kim, most Federer matches, Americans (except fans), foot faults, umpires, bad line calls, spitting Argentines + violent Spanish players.

Socket
01-14-2006, 12:41 AM
If that many Argentines doped, then we would have a lot of superman champions on the tour. Maybe Hewitt can sneak steroids in his drink. God knows, he had enough distractions... Baby, wife, Kim, most Federer matches, Americans (except fans), foot faults, umpires, bad line calls, spitting Argentines + violent Spanish players.
You're truly obsessed with Lleyton, aren't you? Your rants are just hysterical! :rolls:

amierin
01-14-2006, 12:49 AM
Peter Bodo is trying to deflect attention from the persistent rumors about the American demi-god Saint Andre.

If anyone cares to look at pictures of Rafa from a youngster when he was way taller and heavier than his peers and look at his uncle Miguel Angel who was also nick named the Bull when he came on the football scene at about the same age Rafa has, his father and Uncle Toni he has come by that build IMO strictly through genetics.

If Rafa was suspected of doping that would be front page news. It's just like people saying Serena is fat. She is a big boned woman and while she has gained weight she's not doing Jenny Craig commercials. Rafa is built like a brick sh**-house pure and simple.

There is more visual evidence of St Andre being on the juice than Nadal who almost collapsed from exhaustion after playing DC and Madrid.

Bad Religion
01-14-2006, 12:54 AM
I accuse to Peter Bodo for smoke marijuana while he writes his columns . :D :D

Guilty

Federerthebest
01-14-2006, 12:56 AM
Rafa is built like a brick sh**-house pure and simple.

Lol, people don't come to Nadal's current build through 'genetics'. Get a clue you fool. Nadal has either got the body he has through spending a large amount of time in the gym, or through performance-enhancing drugs.

nobama
01-14-2006, 01:02 AM
I already suggested this ages ago. Nadal's spate of withdrawals is very suspicious; the ITF is more than likely covering up his doping, it would be disastarous for the game if they did not.You're full of shit.

Conita
01-14-2006, 01:04 AM
I accuse to Peter Bodo for smoke marijuana while he writes his columns . :D :D

Guilty

that is the best comment i've read in this thread!!
lol

:D:D:D


ps: I think bodo is just jellous of rafa's pecs... seriously dude get a real job and pleaseeeeeeeeee stop saying every 2 seconds u r a seriously journalist and all that crap that no one really cares about.

ps: if all players are drugies surelly it will make no difference since they r all on drugs they r all on that higher level and yet still nadal and federer got 11 titles when others didnt even get 1 so make us all a favour and SHUT UP!!!

Chloe le Bopper
01-14-2006, 01:45 AM
You're full of shit.
Federethebest is a dogfucker, in case you hadn't noticed ;)

Chloe le Bopper
01-14-2006, 01:52 AM
Not to make accusations or anything, but it is a favorite hobby of mine to feature random photographs of sports figures before they became who and what they are and after they became that. The difference is almost startling, absolutely amazing, merely a coincidence. Move along.

http://im.rediff.com/sports/2003/jun/27nadal.jpg
http://onlineathens.com/images/060105/18523_512.jpg
http://images.auctionhelper.com/images/9680/bondserrorstarbest.jpg

http://www.isbl.com/isbl_2004/gazette/bondsleft1.gif
If you're looking to compare photos of a younger Rafa to the current Rafa (even as a "joke"), you would be wise to use one where he's actually, oh, I don't know... bending his arm in such a way that the camera captures his bicep. Like, I don't know.... this one? Taken before the one that you actually used:

http://a2.cpimg.com/image/3E/A7/19845182-225b-0190014B-.jpg

Moving right along indeed.

Merton
01-14-2006, 02:03 AM
Just out of curiosity, where was the first photo of Nadal taken at? Is that Wimbledon 2003?

amierin
01-14-2006, 02:05 AM
If you're looking to compare photos of a younger Rafa to the current Rafa (even as a "joke"), you would be wise to use one where he's actually, oh, I don't know... bending his arm in such a way that the camera captures his bicep. Like, I don't know.... this one? Taken before the one that you actually used:

http://a2.cpimg.com/image/3E/A7/19845182-225b-0190014B-.jpg

Moving right along indeed.

Just for kicks and giggles someone should show Sampras serving arm as opposed to his non serving arm when he was at his peak.

Hurley
01-14-2006, 02:08 AM
Nobody has proves, but those muscles, runing down everything :scratch:

Um...if you're not planning on acquiring muscles or running a lot, I think there are millions of occupations more suited for you than "professional tennis player."

Liverpool4ever
01-14-2006, 02:33 AM
Though Nadal is far from my favourite player I don't believe he took has ever taken drugs. As said before he comes from very big family. His uncle was known as the 'Beast of Barcelona' and was regarded by many to be the strongest man in Spanish football. Thus Iam not surprised in the least that his nephew should be as impressive physically.

One thing I disagree with is people, who claim that Nadal's muscles are normal for someone his age. Maybe being English I have a different perspective of the size of a 18 year old sportsmen, but I have not even in rugby encountered many 18 year olds as big as Nadal . His fitness is also vastly superior to most sportsmen his age. Compare his fitness levels to the like of Berdych, Murray, Gasquet and even Monflis and this will become very apparent.

To conclude I would like to repeat I have no doubt that Nadal is clean. Nadal is just one of the physically best sportsmen in the world for his age or any age.

admiralpye
01-14-2006, 03:26 AM
Not to make accusations or anything, but it is a favorite hobby of mine to feature random photographs of sports figures before they became who and what they are and after they became that. The difference is almost startling, absolutely amazing, merely a coincidence. Move along.

http://im.rediff.com/sports/2003/jun/27nadal.jpg
http://onlineathens.com/images/060105/18523_512.jpg
http://images.auctionhelper.com/images/9680/bondserrorstarbest.jpg

http://www.isbl.com/isbl_2004/gazette/bondsleft1.gif

Nadal is indeed photogenic and looks really "big" in the videos and photos. Imagine my surprise when I saw him in Shanghai. His physique is actually SLIM and his muscles aren't THAT "unreal." He looks like a normal, good looking and fit 19 year old. Kind of different from the photos.

Just telling you what I saw.

Chloe le Bopper
01-14-2006, 03:35 AM
Just out of curiosity, where was the first photo of Nadal taken at? Is that Wimbledon 2003?


Prior to Wimbledon 2003, after he hurt his arm before RG.

mangoes
01-14-2006, 04:11 AM
Lol, people don't come to Nadal's current build through 'genetics'. Get a clue you fool. Nadal has either got the body he has through spending a large amount of time in the gym, or through performance-enhancing drugs.


Very wrong, genetics does play a very big role. If you are predispositioned to have an extremely slim body build, no matter how much you exercise, you won't look like Rafa.

World Beater
01-14-2006, 04:22 AM
Very wrong, maybe you weren't blessed with a great body, but people do get it..............and genetics does play a role. So, when I go to the gym tomorrow, I should assume that every guy in there with a great body is using performance enhancing drugs...........and it has nothing to do with the fact that they are in the gym almost every day..................friggin idiot.........well the men I know that have great bodies don't take enhancing drugs, they work hard even watching their diet closely.

genetics has more to do with bone structure and body frame rather than muscle mass.

people dont just grow with large muscles as some byproduct, you have to train them Lebron James is a great example of a kid who has such a frame, and through both gym work and sports his body has responded.

mangoes
01-14-2006, 04:25 AM
genetics has more to do with bone structure and body frame rather than muscle mass.

people dont just grow with large muscles as some byproduct, you have to train them Lebron James is a great example of a kid who has such a frame, and through both gym work and sports his body has responded.


I'm not saying that, but if you're predispositioned to have an extremely slim body mass, no amount of exercise will give you a well built body..........but, I do agree with what you are saying, it is something that has to be worked at............. Anyway, I pressed reply to the wrong message.......... :lol:

World Beater
01-14-2006, 04:30 AM
I'm not saying that, but if you're predispositioned to have an extremely slim body mass, no amount of exercise will give you a well built body..........but, I do agree with what you are saying, it is something that has to be worked at............. Anyway, I pressed reply to the wrong message.......... :lol:

but see you are saying it.

if you are predispositioned to have a small body frame, then yes, the body can only build so much muscle.

but i havent heard of anyone predispositioned to having slim body mass irrespective of the frame.

mangoes
01-14-2006, 04:32 AM
but see you are saying it.

if you are predispositioned to have a small body frame, then yes, the body can only build so much muscle.

but i havent heard of anyone predispositioned to having slim body mass irrespective of the frame.


No, no, I'm not saying that........ :lol: ............. frame has everything to do with it........Rafa has a great frame which comes from genetics. I'm saying you can't have that type of muscle build without genetics, meaning getting the frame.............being specific now........ :lol:

Federerthebest
01-14-2006, 04:35 AM
Very wrong, genetics does play a very big role. If you are predispositioned to have an extremely slim body build, no matter how much you exercise, you won't look like Rafa.

what are you talking about buddy? the person to whom i replied was saying that nadal's muscles are not abnormal because they may be explained by genetics. that is incorrect. if bodo were insinuating nada is doping because he has a broad frame, then he would have to similarly insinuate that almost every other tennis-player is a doper.

Federerthebest
01-14-2006, 04:36 AM
Federethebest is a dogfucker, in case you hadn't noticed

lol, 'dogfucker'. very clever. ;) good to see what you regard as your rapier-wit is still as razor-sharp as ever. :worship:

World Beater
01-14-2006, 04:38 AM
No, no, I'm not saying that........ :lol: ............. frame has everything to do with it........Rafa has a great frame.

ok. but you werent so clear. :)

rafa has a very stocky build, one that is conducive to muscle growth.

his ass is almost as large as serena's. thick calves.

taller players usually have a harder time building as much muscle.

safin is very powerful but doesnt have muscles that are as defined.

there are freaks though : basketball players.

mangoes
01-14-2006, 04:40 AM
ok. but you werent so clear. :)

rafa has a very stocky build, one that is conducive to muscle growth.

his ass is almost as large as serena's. thick calves.

taller players usually have a harder time building as much muscle.

safin is very powerful but doesnt have muscles that are as defined.

there are freaks though : basketball players.


He has a great, fantastic butt.......... :lol: .. anyway, goodnight and have a great weekend.

Clara Bow
01-14-2006, 06:00 AM
Peter Bodo's opinion piece is rather sloppy. He insinuates something, but never clearly says what it is. He questions why Nadal withdrew- but does not even bother to post the Nadal camp's explantion- which I thought was quite valid and made good sense.

And I've said it before and I'll say it again- Nadal has muscles, but he is not the freak of nature that some people try to imply that he is.
1) He has been growing in physique for the past 2 or 3 years, which ....gasp...can happen to a male between the ages of 16 - 19
2) He comes from a family that tends to have more muscular physiques - for example - his uncle
3) He is actually not that big! People who have seen him in person say this, and if you see pictures of him shirtless it shows it as well.
4) There are other 19 year old athletes and non-athletes out there with bigger physiques. (Except I guess in the UK. ;))

ExpectedWinner
01-14-2006, 07:11 AM
I'm too lazy to read the whole thread. So, what am I supposed to think when someone (not badly injured) withdraws from the tournament? :confused:

1. They are doped and afraid to be caught

2. They are not doped enough to compete at the moment but they'll be fully loaded by the next tournament, lol

3. They are "cooking" (searching/trying a new drug that can not be recognized in modern labaratories)

4. They were cought in the past. ATP covered them but forced to serve a "silent" ban.

MariaV
01-14-2006, 07:35 AM
OK, I'm not gonna read the whole thread now too, just I wanted to say - yeah, he has the right to say what's on his mind but he definitely has no right to make accusations of doping without any proof. I think it's called libel. I would sue if I were a top athlete and accused of doping without any proof.

And yeah, according to him an athlete should start competing again as soon as his injury's healed, completely unprepaired and risking sustaining another injury. :rolleyes: Great logic Peter! :rolleyes:

propi
01-14-2006, 08:31 AM
I've heard this has been speculated on in the Argentine press - Nadal's absence. Now Bodo - hmmm, wonder what Nadal's response will be?
Do you really believe Rafa will give importance and answer this pile of crap????
He has better things to do, like ironing his socks or playing to tea time with her little sister.

Phunkadelicious
01-14-2006, 09:05 AM
All this speculation about Nadal doping has me wondering abotu this hypothetical:

Say both Puerta and Rafa were caught for doping after the final was played. Obviously Rafa would be stripped of his crown, but since Puerta would also in turn be banned, who would the winner be?

Phunkadelicious
01-14-2006, 09:06 AM
Oh and for the record, this guy does have the RIGHT to say what he said. But that doesn't mean he should have, and its irresponsible to make such a claim, without at least a little evidence. And I highly doubt that Rafa is a doper.

Now Federer, there's a different story....


I KID I KID!

Dirk
01-14-2006, 10:29 AM
They test you at all times, Nadal knows he could be tested while resting at home. I don't think there is anything going on here.

Phunkadelicious
01-14-2006, 10:39 AM
I'm too lazy to read the whole thread. So, what am I supposed to think when someone (not badly injured) withdraws from the tournament? :confused:

1. They are doped and afraid to be caught

2. They are not doped enough to compete at the moment but they'll be fully loaded by the next tournament, lol

3. They are "cooking" (searching/trying a new drug that can not be recognized in modern labaratories)

4. They were cought in the past. ATP covered them but forced to serve a "silent" ban.
You forgot planning on being abducted by aliens, but returned safely in time for their next commitment.

nobama
01-14-2006, 01:22 PM
Oh and for the record, this guy does have the RIGHT to say what he said. But that doesn't mean he should have, and its irresponsible to make such a claim, without at least a little evidence. And I highly doubt that Rafa is a doper.

Now Federer, there's a different story....


I KID I KID!Well he didn't outright say he thinks Nadal is a doper. But the insinuation is there because he questions Rafa's injury and why he's not playing AO. Basically what he said is wrong/unfair not to think that any one could be a doper - Nadal, Roddick, Federer, whoever. I suppose he thinks your naive if you don't think everyone - even the top players could be dopers. But I don't know why a cloud of suspicion should hang over every player just because a few were caught? Does one rotten apple make the whole bag rotten?

mrpotatoman
01-14-2006, 03:26 PM
Oh boy I should have stayed away from this place. Did you all read the same blog/article I read? You are all reading into it more than it is. He has a right to write his article; take it just for that and go on. The fanatics here are at it again. Defending Rafa? Does he need it? Would he even want it? Could he care less? NO!
And not long ago I asked folks for their favorites so I could make decisions about who to follow. You know what? I will follow those players here who don't have teenyboppers, fanatics or nuts following them. End.

mallorn
01-14-2006, 04:58 PM
Oh boy I should have stayed away from this place. Did you all read the same blog/article I read? You are all reading into it more than it is. He has a right to write his article; take it just for that and go on. The fanatics here are at it again. Defending Rafa? Does he need it? Would he even want it? Could he care less? NO!
What's with the patronising tone? If you think he has the right to speak his mind, why are you attacking others for doing so? And how the hell do you know what Rafa would want? :rolleyes:

And not long ago I asked folks for their favorites so I could make decisions about who to follow. You know what? I will follow those players here who don't have teenyboppers, fanatics or nuts following them. End.
You'll decide who to follow based on other people's opinions? Don’t you know what kind of tennis/which players you like? You will not support a player with fanatic or nutty followers? I guess that excludes not only all the top guys but even Adam Chadaj. :p Good luck finding such a player though. :wavey:

Skyward
01-14-2006, 05:50 PM
Good luck finding such a player though.

Davydenko, Stepanek, Hanescu...

mallorn
01-14-2006, 06:07 PM
Davydenko, Stepanek, Hanescu...
Have you been to Davydenko's forum yet? ;)
There's a poster here called Radeklover. :p
And Hanescu has a thread called VICTOR HANESCU - born to be VICTORious :lol: (I admit it's not a very long or nutty one).
So I'm not sure they meet this guy's criteria.
I'm not saying that there are no such players, though. :wavey:

superpinkone37
01-14-2006, 07:03 PM
His foot may be technically "healed" but that doesn't mean it it ready for the professional tour. Isn't it better than he wait to be sure he is cofortable playing on his foot than coming back too soon?

I understand the question about doping, but I don't buy into. I respect Bodo not being afraid to say anything though lol.