A mad Sergi Bruguera says he deserves 1996 Olympic gold medal [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

A mad Sergi Bruguera says he deserves 1996 Olympic gold medal

tennis elbow
11-06-2009, 04:00 PM
http://www.google.com/hostednews/epa/article/ALeqM5gr5is7EXDB_yQVzf4vY8MZYxvbrw

Bruguera basically says that he feels cheated and if it's proven that Agassi was already doping in Atlanta 1996, like the IOF seems to think, Agassi should forfeit his gold medal to him... He then proceeds to slam the ATP attitude then...

octatennis
11-06-2009, 04:04 PM
this is going to be a big problem. lots of titles for agassi in that time.

GlennMirnyi
11-06-2009, 04:04 PM
He's full of reason.

juliehardwick
11-06-2009, 04:06 PM
LOL. There's no reason at all to think Agassi was doing drugs before 1997. Brughera's full of irrational wishful thinking...

Stgobaiano
11-06-2009, 04:06 PM
Sergi:worship:

:worship: All who are kicking on the floor at this baldie cheater.

Tommy_Vercetti
11-06-2009, 04:22 PM
What a loser. Agassi wasn't doing performance enhancers. And what kind of competitor would ever want to win a title this way? It reminds me of another Spanish LOSER, Óscar Pereiro.

Everko
11-06-2009, 04:24 PM
What a loser. Agassi wasn't doing performance enhancers. And what kind of competitor wants to win a title by default? It reminds me of another Spanish LOSER, Óscar Pereiro.

Are tehre any Spanish winners?

aside Nadal

Har-Tru
11-06-2009, 04:25 PM
What a loser. Agassi wasn't doing performance enhancers. And what kind of competitor wants to win a title by default? It reminds me of another Spanish LOSER, Óscar Pereiro.

So Pereiro was a loser, but Flandis deserved to win that Tour despite being more drugged than Amy Winehouse on a Saturday night? Makes sense.

Brugera might be right but he isn't going anywhere with this.

Har-Tru
11-06-2009, 04:27 PM
Are tehre any Spanish winners?

aside Nadal

Absolutely none.

Burrow
11-06-2009, 04:30 PM
LOL. There's no reason at all to think Agassi was doing drugs before 1997. Brughera's full of irrational wishful thinking...

Yes and I don't see how Meth is cheating, anyway.

GlennMirnyi
11-06-2009, 04:47 PM
Agassi was doing drugs and using illegal substances IS CHEATING.

Burrow
11-06-2009, 04:49 PM
How the fuck is Meth going to give him an upper hand on the competition?

scoobs
11-06-2009, 04:51 PM
No evidence has yet emerged that Agassi failed drug tests in 1996.

Until such time as this evidence does emerge, Bruguera doesn't have a leg to stand on.

r2473
11-06-2009, 05:03 PM
I'm sure Borg would give him a dozen trophies.

He just uses them as "sugar" bowls.

GlennMirnyi
11-06-2009, 05:05 PM
How the fuck is Meth going to give him an upper hand on the competition?

It's illegal, it's banned, it's doping.

How hard is it to understand this?

tangerine_dream
11-06-2009, 05:07 PM
Sergi sounds mentally ill.

Everko
11-06-2009, 05:08 PM
Sergi sounds mentally ill.

and yet compared to Agassi he still looks like a genius.

octatennis
11-06-2009, 05:08 PM
yeah give him the 3 months ban and leave him alone.

tangerine_dream
11-06-2009, 05:10 PM
and yet compared to Agassi he still looks like a genius.
How so? Agassi's the legend making millions, not Sergi. :)

Burrow
11-06-2009, 05:12 PM
He was only harming himself and he definitely never had tennis on his mind while he was on the Meth, so it makes no difference to his tennis, so it's not as big a deal as some people are trying to make out. Sure, he went against the rules of the ATP, he would've been banned but he never had any motive to cheat the opposition so I couldn't give a damn.

Explain to me what advantages he has taking Meth, you seem to have some sort of knowledge on this that is oblivious to me.

Sapeod
11-06-2009, 05:13 PM
It's illegal, it's banned, it's doping.

How hard is it to understand this?
That wasn't his question.

He asked "how will meth give him the upper hand"? Maybe you can actually answer it this time?

rocketassist
11-06-2009, 05:17 PM
Bruguera has quite a mouth on him, I remember him slating Man Utd for ugly football against Barcelona, not forgetting tennis-wise his game was about as beautiful as Pauline Quirke.

Burrow
11-06-2009, 05:23 PM
Bruguera has quite a mouth on him, I remember him slating Man Utd for ugly football against Barcelona, not forgetting tennis-wise his game was about as beautiful as Pauline Quirke.

:haha:

LoveFifteen
11-06-2009, 05:25 PM
Smoking marijuana and using acid are also considered "doping", but it doesn't mean they are performance enhancing. Meth is absolutely, positively not performance enhancing. It is a recreational drug that damages your mind and body. Yes, Agassi should have been given the 3 month ban when he tested positive for meth, but it's silly to act like taking crystal meth is cheating in tennis to give yourself a leg up on the competition.

Meth is actually performance-destroying, as shown by Agassi's abysmal tennis in 1997 and early 1998. It's hard to play tennis well when you stay up all night cleaning your tile floors with a toothbrush, obsessively cataloging your CD collection, and looking out your windows to make sure the CIA and aliens aren't out there trying to get you.

Foxy
11-06-2009, 05:32 PM
That wasn't his question.

He asked "how will meth give him the upper hand"? Maybe you can actually answer it this time?

I think many posters here quoted wiki and others sources and proved meth can be used as performance enhancer in short term before a match. Agassi himself sited he felt more alert and more awake.
Also did you miss his quote from the book describing in detail how he had so much energy after meth that he cleaned everything in his house, ironed every cloth few times, folded every cloth and the list goes on and on.

Har-Tru
11-06-2009, 05:37 PM
EPO = doping and performance enhancing

Meth = doping, not performance enhancing

First is worse than the second, but both are illegal.

sawan66278
11-06-2009, 05:37 PM
There's the letter of the law...and then there's the spirit of the law. Sergi is pathetic...wanting an Olympic Gold so badly that he would HOPE that Agassi was cheating the year before. Yes, its against the rules, but it is in no way performance enhancing. If anything, Bruguera should HOPE that Agassi wasn't taking meth at that time...because its an even greater shame to lose to someone who was blunting his own skills via drugs.

stebs
11-06-2009, 05:37 PM
Bruguera thinks using a drug which does not enhance performance in 1997 is the reason Agassi won a title in 1996. :confused:

Bascule
11-06-2009, 05:45 PM
There's the letter of the law...and then there's the spirit of the law. Sergi is pathetic...wanting an Olympic Gold so badly that he would HOPE that Agassi was cheating the year before. Yes, its against the rules, but it is in no way performance enhancing. If anything, Bruguera should HOPE that Agassi wasn't taking meth at that time...because its an even greater shame to lose to someone who was blunting his own skills via drugs.

Honey, you should use one of those "avi mpeg wmv mp3 joiner" programs on your site and in that way, you would immensely improve the quality of its reception instead making it look ridiculous, before thinking about some tennis player if he is pathetic or not.

nanoman
11-06-2009, 05:49 PM
Shame for Bruguera, he has no legs to stand on.

But I somehow understand him. It's harmless for Agassi to admit taking a non-performance enhancing drug in a year when he was playing the worst tennis of his life.
Agassi basically lived his life on a lie. To think he was using performance enhancing drug during his whole career wouldn't be that much of a stretch. But unfortunately there is no proof of that and that's something Agassi will never admit to, because that would certainly destroy his legacy.

goatian
11-06-2009, 05:59 PM
EPO = doping and performance enhancing

Meth = doping, not performance enhancing

First is worse than the second, but both are illegal.

LOL, of course it is performance enhancing, it creates euphoria ie more energy, this is a stimulant.

Saying it doesn't change anything in performance is just retard.

GlennMirnyi
11-06-2009, 06:01 PM
How so? Agassi's the legend making millions, not Sergi. :)

You mean the millions he lost in a real estate scheme?

What a genius this Agassi.

I doubt his IQ is over 70.

That wasn't his question.

He asked "how will meth give him the upper hand"? Maybe you can actually answer it this time?

I ask you: "how many brain cells do you have? Two or three?"

The answer to his question was clearly given - DOESN'T MATTER. It's doping just the same.

Corey Feldman
11-06-2009, 06:09 PM
:lol: funny one Sergi

fmolinari2005
11-06-2009, 07:01 PM
Is Sergi Bruguera also trying to sell a book?! Or does he just want the attention?! The doping happened one year later, right?!

And even if Agassi was doped during that tournament, all the guys that faced Agassi during that tournament should have a say ...because it is possible, also, that someone that lost to Agassi on an early round could'd defeated Bruguera on the finals.

If Agassi's IQ is low, Bruguera's isnt that great either ...

Tommy_Vercetti
11-06-2009, 07:05 PM
Who even talks about Bruguera anymore? Talk about a forgotten slam champion. Losing to Gustavo in the 1997 final was pathetic.

CooCooCachoo
11-06-2009, 07:06 PM
Yes, if it's proven he used drugs during the Olympics, he should be stripped off his medal.

Tommy_Vercetti
11-06-2009, 07:14 PM
At least Agassi admitted to being on meth. Even if he shouldn't have. I'd hate to think how many of those other Slam winners were doping for real. Moya for example.

It would be funny to see them start looking back at tapes and trying to see if Agassi was high during a match.

andylovesaustin
11-06-2009, 07:15 PM
There should definitely be an investigation.

fmolinari2005
11-06-2009, 07:20 PM
Yes, if it's proven he used drugs during the Olympics, he should be stripped off his medal.

No doubt. But the question remains: should Bruguera get the golden medal?! How about the guys who lost to Agassi during the tournament?! And how on earth will they prove Agassi was on doping?! Do they still have his blood samples?! And, as important, is it still possible to perform a reliable test on those samples?!

IF Agassi was doped during the OG, the only reasonable thing would be stripping him off his medal ... but giving the medal to Sergi would not be the best solution, in regards to all the other players who could'd a shot at winning the golden medal but lost to Agassi.

Sapeod
11-06-2009, 07:23 PM
I ask you: "how many brain cells do you have? Two or three?"

The answer to his question was clearly given - DOESN'T MATTER. It's doping just the same.
And I will answer "billions"

You just don't get it, do you?

Your IQ is probably 60 at the most.

andylovesaustin
11-06-2009, 07:23 PM
No doubt. But the question remains: should Bruguera get the golden medal?! How about the guys who lost to Agassi during the tournament?! And how on earth will they prove Agassi was on doping?! Do they still have his blood samples?! And, as important, is it still possible to perform a reliable test on those samples?!

IF Agassi was doped during the OG, the only reasonable thing would be stripping him off his medal ... but giving the medal to Sergi would not be the best solution, in regards to all the other players who could'd a shot at winning the golden medal but lost to Agassi.

Yeah, they probably would just strip Andre of the gold, and not award any gold at all.

I think they've done that before in other sports.

LoveFifteen
11-06-2009, 07:56 PM
LOL, of course it is performance enhancing, it creates euphoria ie more energy, this is a stimulant.

Saying it doesn't change anything in performance is just retard.

I'm not trying to be rude, but crystal meth is not performance enhancing. The feeling of euphoria wouldn't make you a better tennis player. When you are tweaked out, you are frantic. Also, the post-high crash is really bad. If you got high right before a match, you would be crashing in the middle of the match. Crystal meth really messes people up. If you start taking it, you don't start winning tennis matches, you start falling off the face of the earth, which is what happened to Agassi in 1997.

serveandvolley80
11-06-2009, 08:00 PM
I'm not trying to be rude, but crystal meth is not performance enhancing. The feeling of euphoria wouldn't make you a better tennis player. When you are tweaked out, you are frantic. Also, the post-high crash is really bad. If you got high right before a match, you would be crashing in the middle of the match. Crystal meth really messes people up. If you start taking it, you don't start winning tennis matches, you start falling off the face of the earth, which is what happened to Agassi in 1997.

Meth has a certain reaction like Cocaine does as far as the rush of energy you get temporarily, just because its not used a performance enhancer does not mean it can't benefit you for an hour or two.

You can take cocaine and run for hours without getting tired, it may be a rec drug but it has some enhancement benefits. While meth is damaging when it comes to long term usage, short term benefits would probably exist, granted not for very long.

irma
11-06-2009, 08:03 PM
Yeah and Steffi wants the gold in 1992 afterall Cappy went on drugs in 1993 :rolleyes:

goatian
11-06-2009, 08:12 PM
I'm not trying to be rude, but crystal meth is not performance enhancing. The feeling of euphoria wouldn't make you a better tennis player. When you are tweaked out, you are frantic. Also, the post-high crash is really bad. If you got high right before a match, you would be crashing in the middle of the match. Crystal meth really messes people up. If you start taking it, you don't start winning tennis matches, you start falling off the face of the earth, which is what happened to Agassi in 1997.

Surely.

But there obviously is an effect. Otherwise they wouldn't have bothered to take methylamphetamine during the WW2.

Saying it's neutral in regard to the performance is plainly stupid.

DrJules
11-06-2009, 08:13 PM
If Agassi did not fail any drug test at the Olympics I think it is probably unreasonable to remove his gold medal.

However, whether it is performance enhancing or not is irrelevant. A ban is normally based on the substance being banned rather than its enhancement properties.

Agassi obviously over this book has demonstrated either stupidity or mental retardation to have released all this information into the public domain. He certainly should take brain enhancement drugs.

Echoes
11-06-2009, 09:02 PM
What a loser. Agassi wasn't doing performance enhancers.

Amen. How d'you know?

And what kind of competitor would ever want to win a title this way?

Every clean competitor

Yes and I don't see how Meth is cheating, anyway.

Put your glasses on.


The answer to his question was clearly given - DOESN'T MATTER. It's doping just the same.

It DOES matter. Why don't you just answer them that meth gives an advantage when used just before a match.

At least Agassi admitted to being on meth. Even if he shouldn't have. I'd hate to think how many of those other Slam winners were doping for real. Moya for example.


Exactly. Agassi could also admit using other things. As I said on other threads, admitting using crystal meth, that's just like Al Capone being caught for tax fraud.


You can take cocaine and run for hours without getting tired, it may be a rec drug but it has some enhancement benefits. While meth is damaging when it comes to long term usage, short term benefits would probably exist, granted not for very long.

Exactly. Cocaine and amphetamines may not be really performance enhancing but at least give an advantage to the players using it. It lessens the sensation of fatigue. You can't say it impairs performances. Amphetamines were widespread doping substances in the 50's,60's and 70's in sports. Why shouldn't crystal meth act like other amphetamines?

LoveFifteen
11-06-2009, 10:31 PM
If crystal meth has performance enhancing capabilities, then why didn't Agassi play better in 1997? :shrug:

Meth does not enhance your performance in tennis. It would enhance your performance if you took it right before you ran out into combat in World War II because it would help you to avoid being terrified of death. Tennis is about timing and stroke production. It's also about strategy. If you took meth, you might feel euphoric, powerful, and fearless as you struck the ball with your racket, but you're not going to be hitting the ball well. You going to be wailing away at the ball like a crazed person. You won't be playing with a coherent strategy. You'll be thinking about how dirty the court is, how you wish you could start scrubbing it with bleach, how that weird guy in the stands with sunglasses is probably out to get you, and how much your skin is starting to itch.

I'm not saying Agassi shouldn't have received a ban -- he should have -- and what he did was totally wrong. But sports ban recreational drugs because they are illegal, not because they are performance enhancers.

If you guys have been around people on cocaine or meth, you will know that it is not performance enhancing. There is a reason that people call taking drugs "getting f*cked up"! :haha:

Nathaliia
11-06-2009, 10:38 PM
If there is something listed as "illegal" it got there for a reason, people are taking drugs to achieve something with them either get calmer, relaxed or excited. If drugs couldn't affect you anyhow they wouldn't be forbidden. If they only instantly make you feel crap, then why just not slaughter your arm with a knife - nice and no need to spend money.

Actually I find it depressing it needs to be reminded to literate people. Any of you might have a different reasoning why people all over the world are taking drugs.

I understand Bruguera's frustration, but he won't get it.

Sunset of Age
11-06-2009, 10:47 PM
If there is something listed as "illegal" it got there for a reason, people are taking drugs to achieve something with them either get calmer, relaxed or excited. If drugs couldn't affect you anyhow they wouldn't be forbidden. If they only instantly make you feel crap, then why just not slaughter your arm with a knife - nice and no need to spend money.

Exactly.
And like Echoes already pointed out above, amphetamines & cocaine might not directly 'enhance' your performance, it DOES 'help' to fire oneself up, feel less fatique and keeps one going. There's a good reason why amphetamines were used to stimulate soldiers at WWII, and if I'm not totally wrongly informed, at many wars thereafter as well (Vietnam is notorious for this). It was very common to use amphetamines in cycling for a couple of decades as well. I don't think either these soldiers nor the cyclists used them to initially damage themselves (which eventually they DID, of course).

I understand Bruguera's frustration, but he won't get it.

True. No chance in hell.

Pea
11-06-2009, 10:52 PM
Does sergie know something we don't? Can someone translate? I mean to accuse him of doping after 1998 is valid, but I didn't really have any suspicion in 1996.

tennis elbow
11-06-2009, 11:04 PM
Shame for Bruguera, he has no legs to stand on.

But I somehow understand him. It's harmless for Agassi to admit taking a non-performance enhancing drug in a year when he was playing the worst tennis of his life.
Agassi basically lived his life on a lie. To think he was using performance enhancing drug during his whole career wouldn't be that much of a stretch. But unfortunately there is no proof of that and that's something Agassi will never admit to, because that would certainly destroy his legacy.

Absolutely, great post! That's why I still believe Agassi's revelation was a very calculated and partial one, he's not admitting to drug usage while he was winning and beating the crap out of players who were a generation younger... The whole posse attitude, Gil Reyes and his special drinks, the mood swings and people's whispers were all very suspicious at the time... Players were talking about performance enhancing drugs, not meth or cocaine. I expect to hear about recreational drugs during a Safin's or Becker's especially hard night party out, for example, but Gil Reyes name reeks and evokes other kind of substances...

superslam77
11-06-2009, 11:06 PM
oh man this is getting ugly, Agassi should have kept his mouth shut.

fast_clay
11-06-2009, 11:08 PM
Bruguera has quite a mouth on him, I remember him slating Man Utd for ugly football against Barcelona, not forgetting tennis-wise his game was about as beautiful as Pauline Quirke.

heh heh... good one...

except for the wide open stance slide forehand squash shot, that wa.... oh... nah, wait.. ugly too... bloody effective tho...

FedFan_2007
11-06-2009, 11:09 PM
When is the insanity going to end? Yeah let's strip Agassi of his 1992 Wimbledon title because he smoked meth in 1997. Typical MTF-logic! :worship: :retard: :mad:

FedFan_2007
11-06-2009, 11:10 PM
oh man this is getting ugly, Agassi should have kept his mouth shut.

It is getting ugly, but Brugera is showing everyone what an ASS he is. Good going dumbfuck. :rolleyes:

Roddickominator
11-06-2009, 11:17 PM
Hard to believe that some of the morons here truly believe that meth would improve one's performance on a tennis court. Seriously, do some research on the side effects of meth use, short and long term.

Bruguera is a whiny clown and a coward for trying to "win" the Olympic medal this way....couldn't do it on the court so try to get it on some technicality. Unfortunately for him, there's no evidence of Agassi using at that time....too bad so sad.

Sunset of Age
11-06-2009, 11:24 PM
Hard to believe that some of the morons here truly believe that meth would improve one's performance on a tennis court. Seriously, do some research on the side effects of meth use, short and long term.

Some of us 'morons' might actually know quite a bit on the subject.
Read the posts before starting to throw off insults.

Bilbo
11-06-2009, 11:31 PM
Bruguera always was a clown

Kolya
11-06-2009, 11:35 PM
Bruguera > Agassi.

Kolya
11-06-2009, 11:38 PM
There is like a time limit to overturning Olympic results.

It is like Frank Shorter wanting the IOC to overturn the 1972 marathon result because there is evidence that Waldemar Cierpinski doping under the East German drug program.

GlennMirnyi
11-06-2009, 11:38 PM
And I will answer "billions"

You just don't get it, do you?

Your IQ is probably 70 at the most.

Billions... you can't even speak your own native language, kid.

I get it, you don't get it, and your IQ is on the threshold of retardation.

It DOES matter. Why don't you just answer them that meth gives an advantage when used just before a match.

DOESN'T MATTER.

Do you have some eschewed sense of what the word "illegal" means? Doesn't matter if it enhances your performance or not.

Burrow
11-06-2009, 11:41 PM
Amen. How d'you know?



Every clean competitor



Put your glasses on.



It DOES matter. Why don't you just answer them that meth gives an advantage when used just before a match.



Exactly. Agassi could also admit using other things. As I said on other threads, admitting using crystal meth, that's just like Al Capone being caught for tax fraud.



Exactly. Cocaine and amphetamines may not be really performance enhancing but at least give an advantage to the players using it. It lessens the sensation of fatigue. You can't say it impairs performances. Amphetamines were widespread doping substances in the 50's,60's and 70's in sports. Why shouldn't crystal meth act like other amphetamines?

You are so fucking stupid, if you think he was taking meth before matches then you're off your rocker, it would be more than visible and no way would he risk that.

If you think he was taking meth to enhance his performance then you know nothing about sport. Why would he use such an addictive, self-deteriorative drug?

Roddickominator
11-06-2009, 11:42 PM
Some of us 'morons' might actually know quite a bit on the subject.
Read the posts before starting to throw off insults.

I've read the thread....talking about German and Japanese soldiers in WWII, and American soldiers in Vietnam(all losers, BTW...meth really worked huh?). The Nordic vikings also got drunk off of mead before going into battle, that doesn't mean it "improved their performance". And even if it did, there's no proof that it would help one on a tennis court.

LoveFifteen
11-06-2009, 11:55 PM
I can't wait for the next tennis player to get banned for smoking weed. We'll have people in here saying that they read on Wikipedia that weed makes you calmer and more relaxed, which could help players who have issues with choking, and therefore it is, in fact, performance enhancing. Alcohol is also a drug ... does that mean it's inherently performance enhancing? Do tennis players crack themselves out on caffeine before playing because it makes you more alert? :unsure:

If Agassi wanted to do a drug that was performance enhancing, there are dozens of better drugs that are actually very performance enhancing that are not detectable because they are more advanced than the latest technology, especially back in 1997, a virtual stone age when it came to drug testing.

Agassi did meth for the same reason that people get shit-face drunk or high on weed. Recreation. To escape. To feel a rush of happiness when he felt depressed, miserable, and low. To harm himself.

It was wrong. It was illegal. It could've ended in a much worse tragedy. Thank God he got sober; otherwise, he would have killed himself.

goatian
11-07-2009, 12:12 AM
I can't wait for the next tennis player to get banned for smoking weed. We'll have people in here saying that they read on Wikipedia that weed makes you calmer and more relaxed, which could help players who have issues with choking, and therefore it is, in fact, performance enhancing. Alcohol is also a drug ... does that mean it's inherently performance enhancing? Do tennis players crack themselves out on caffeine before playing because it makes you more alert? :unsure:

If Agassi wanted to do a drug that was performance enhancing, there are dozens of better drugs that are actually very performance enhancing that are not detectable because they are more advanced than the latest technology, especially back in 1997, a virtual stone age when it came to drug testing.

Agassi did meth for the same reason that people get shit-face drunk or high on weed. Recreation. To escape. To feel a rush of happiness when he felt depressed, miserable, and low. To harm himself.

It was wrong. It was illegal. It could've ended in a much worse tragedy. Thank God he got sober; otherwise, he would have killed himself.

It's not because he didnt take the amphets on a performance enhancement aim that those aren't performance enhancement drugs.

Saying they are not performance enhancing drugs is like saying proteins are not performance enhancing organic compounds.

ArgieFan
11-07-2009, 12:14 AM
He's full of reason.

No, he's not until he proves Agassi was doing drugs during that tournament...

GlennMirnyi
11-07-2009, 12:18 AM
No, he's not until he proves Agassi was doing drugs during that tournament...

Agassi has done drugs his whole career.

Sunset of Age
11-07-2009, 12:34 AM
Whatever you think of these drugs, whether performance-enhancing or not, they are ILLEGAL. And as such, they are banned. And that's all that matters.

Not going into the question as to why weed, coke and such are, and alcohol is not - besides the matter here.

Echoes
11-07-2009, 12:55 AM
DOESN'T MATTER.

Do you have some eschewed sense of what the word "illegal" means? Doesn't matter if it enhances your performance or not.

DOES MATTER.

We are here on a tennis forum (I guess?). So it's fairly logical to discuss whether performances are credible or not. And for sport authorities, that's all that matters. Criminal law, that's another issue.

And I ask my question again. When somebody here tells you it's no performance-enhancer, you always respond that "Doesn't matter". This implies that you agree with them while it's wrong. Why don't you just say "It's wrong"?


You are so fucking stupid

;)

GlennMirnyi
11-07-2009, 01:37 AM
DOES MATTER.

We are here on a tennis forum (I guess?). So it's fairly logical to discuss whether performances are credible or not. And for sport authorities, that's all that matters. Criminal law, that's another issue.

And I ask my question again. When somebody here tells you it's no performance-enhancer, you always respond that "Doesn't matter". This implies that you agree with them while it's wrong. Why don't you just say "It's wrong"?

Whatever you think of these drugs, whether performance-enhancing or not, they are ILLEGAL. And as such, they are banned. And that's all that matters.

Not going into the question as to why weed, coke and such are, and alcohol is not - besides the matter here.

Nothing to add.

fmolinari2005
11-07-2009, 02:04 AM
I am with Glenn on this one. It doesn't matter.

And for those advocating the positive effects of crystal meth on a player: despite the physical excitement, how one would describe the mental status of someone high on crystal meth?! Lucid and coherent?! That should settle this question.

Tommy_Vercetti
11-07-2009, 02:36 AM
Even so, Agassi said he wasn't doping then and it's not like they would know or be able to do anything about it.

If they were to strip any of his titles, then where would it end? You can take Korda's titles next, that's for sure. And then on down the line. How many people have tested for real performance enhancers and have any titles been stripped?

Bruguera is a dumb ass.

fmolinari2005
11-07-2009, 02:43 AM
Bruguera is a dumb ass.

And he is attention whoring... at least Agassi wrote a book! :lol:

prima donna
11-07-2009, 03:26 AM
Bruguera's alleged grievance is a frivolous one. I understand the extent to which our universe is encircled by diversity, but there is something strikingly deficient in Bruguera's mentality. This is, in short, pathetic.

H2H:
Agassi - 7 (1 on clay, 4 on hard, 2 on carpet)
Bruguera - 2 (both on clay)

brent-o
11-07-2009, 03:51 AM
Man, those grapes are sour from Sergi.

Arkulari
11-07-2009, 03:52 AM
Sergi, querido, callado te ves más guapo :o

kyleskywalker007
11-07-2009, 04:37 AM
Smoking marijuana and using acid are also considered "doping", but it doesn't mean they are performance enhancing. Meth is absolutely, positively not performance enhancing. It is a recreational drug that damages your mind and body. Yes, Agassi should have been given the 3 month ban when he tested positive for meth, but it's silly to act like taking crystal meth is cheating in tennis to give yourself a leg up on the competition.

Meth is actually performance-destroying, as shown by Agassi's abysmal tennis in 1997 and early 1998. It's hard to play tennis well when you stay up all night cleaning your tile floors with a toothbrush, obsessively cataloging your CD collection, and looking out your windows to make sure the CIA and aliens aren't out there trying to get you.

:haha:

Benny_Maths
11-07-2009, 04:59 AM
Entitled perhaps, not deserved though. Not beating a player whose performance was weakened by his off court activities certainly doesn't make you 'deserving' of the prize.

Mechlan
11-07-2009, 05:36 AM
Looks like the discussion has shifted to whether it is okay to use non-performance enhancing drugs. Seems pretty simple really: based on today's rules, no it's not. As for Bruguera, is there any evidence that Agassi took drugs (performing enhancing or otherwise) before the Olympic games?

BaselineSmash
11-07-2009, 07:29 AM
Maybe Bruguera should've saved these recriminations for his own autobiography.

"Losing to Andre Before His Crystal Meth Phase: My Side of the Story".

kiwi10is
11-07-2009, 10:55 AM
All Olympic medalists do a doping test after competition, don't they? And the IOC would not accept an apology letter for sure. So I don't think he took anything back then. And this chrytal meth is a drug that destroys your body in a quick and dangerous way, isn't it? So I don't think Agassi took it for a long period anyway. You cannot win Olympic Gold and Grand Slams when your body suffers from such hard drugs. I hate to see that people judge him before reading the whole book and trying to understand why he came up with this after all this time

jonathancrane
11-07-2009, 11:01 AM
Sergi :o

Clydey
11-07-2009, 11:45 AM
Whatever you think of these drugs, whether performance-enhancing or not, they are ILLEGAL. And as such, they are banned. And that's all that matters.

Not going into the question as to why weed, coke and such are, and alcohol is not - besides the matter here.

Of course it matters. It's about personal opinion. Some laws/rules simply do not make sense. You can't tell me that you agree with every law or have never broken the law in your entire life.

The real questions is whether he intended to gain an upper hand. He obviously didn't, nor would he have taken meth if he had wanted to. I couldn't give a toss whether or not it's illegal. There are many, many things that are illegal and I don't agree with a lot of them.

Echoes
11-07-2009, 12:15 PM
I am with Glenn on this one. It doesn't matter.

So for you, cheating doesn't matter?


And for those advocating the positive effects of crystal meth on a player: despite the physical excitement, how one would describe the mental status of someone high on crystal meth?! Lucid and coherent?! That should settle this question.

You may not be "high" on crystal meth. Just like coke. Cocaine is a widespread dope in sports (performance-enhancing) and a recreative drug you can be high on as well. I'm repeating myself but crystal meth is an amphetamine. Amphetamines were widespread in cycling in the 60's and many Italian football/soccer players admitted having taken amphetamines in the 70's (they are in very poor health conditions now:sad:).

By the way I've read some really old arguments on this thread. Tennis is a strategy sport, you need technical skills, etc. In my opinion it's first and foremost a physical sport. You've gotta run all over the court, be quick and you may have to remain fit for 5 hours. Football players took amphetamines. Did they think it might impair their lucidity when shooting a penalty? Nah.


The negative effects - for the mind, for example - is something for the long term (several hours or months): depression, sad and melancholic feeling, decalcification, anguish,etc . Players generally think of the short term and not the long term. In the first hour you've got a feeling of invulnerability and you don't feel fatigue. So yeah it's a performance-enhancing drug or let's just say it has positive effects for a player and if you like tennis you've gotta say it DOES matter.

GlennMirnyi
11-07-2009, 03:27 PM
Of course it matters. It's about personal opinion. Some laws/rules simply do not make sense. You can't tell me that you agree with every law or have never broken the law in your entire life.

The real questions is whether he intended to gain an upper hand. He obviously didn't, nor would he have taken meth if he had wanted to. I couldn't give a toss whether or not it's illegal. There are many, many things that are illegal and I don't agree with a lot of them.

Doesn't matter what he intended. Intention is clearly not the point in discussion.

So for you, cheating doesn't matter?

What he meant is: it doesn't matter if the drug enhances or not your performance - it's illegal - ergo, it's cheating

nobama
11-07-2009, 03:33 PM
Since crystal meth is on the banned substance list, then wouldn't that equal cheating? :confused: Doesn't matter what someone's personal opinion is on whether these substances should be banned or not. The fact is they are and Agassi knowingly used a banned substance and lied about it. That's cheating.

gulzhan
11-07-2009, 03:37 PM
Can the author of the thread change the title please? I keep reading a "mug Bruguera" and that just upsets me each time :o :lol:

nobama
11-07-2009, 03:39 PM
So for you, cheating doesn't matter?



You may not be "high" on crystal meth. Just like coke. Cocaine is a widespread dope in sports (performance-enhancing) and a recreative drug you can be high on as well. I'm repeating myself but crystal meth is an amphetamine. Amphetamines were widespread in cycling in the 60's and many Italian football/soccer players admitted having taken amphetamines in the 70's (they are in very poor health conditions now:sad:).

By the way I've read some really old arguments on this thread. Tennis is a strategy sport, you need technical skills, etc. In my opinion it's first and foremost a physical sport. You've gotta run all over the court, be quick and you may have to remain fit for 5 hours. Football players took amphetamines. Did they think it might impair their lucidity when shooting a penalty? Nah.


The negative effects - for the mind, for example - is something for the long term (several hours or months): depression, sad and melancholic feeling, decalcification, anguish,etc . Players generally think of the short term and not the long term. In the first hour you've got a feeling of invulnerability and you don't feel fatigue. So yeah it's a performance-enhancing drug or let's just say it has positive effects for a player and if you like tennis you've gotta say it DOES matter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methamphetamine
Physical effects
Physical effects can include anorexia,[26] hyperactivity,[26] dilated pupils,[27] flushing,[28] restlessness,[29] dry mouth,[28] headache,[29] tachycardia,[28] bradycardia,[30] tachypnea,[28] hypertension,[28] hypotension,[30] hyperthermia,[31] diaphoresis,[26] diarrhea,[26] constipation,[29] blurred vision,[29] dizziness,[29] muscle twitches,[29] insomnia,[29] numbness,[29] palpitations,[27] arrhythmias,[32] tremors,[29] dry and/or itchy skin,[26] acne,[31] pallor,[28] and with chronic and/or high dosages, convulsions,[33] heart attack,[34] stroke,[26] and death can occur.[31]

Psychological effects
Psychological effects can include euphoria, anxiety, increased libido, alertness, concentration, energy, self-esteem, self-confidence, excitation, increased sociability, increased irritability, increased aggression, psychosomatic disorders, psychomotor agitation, hubris, excessive feelings of power and/or superiority, repetitive and/or obsessive behaviors, paranoia, and with chronic and/or high doses, amphetamine psychosis can occur.[26]

Withdrawal effects
Withdrawal is characterized by excessive sleeping, overeating, and depression, often accompanied by anxiety and drug-craving. [26]

GlennMirnyi
11-07-2009, 03:39 PM
Since crystal meth is on the banned substance list, then wouldn't that equal cheating? :confused: Doesn't matter what someone's personal opinion is on whether these substances should be banned or not. The fact is they are and Agassi knowingly used a banned substance and lied about it. That's cheating.

That's what I've been trying to put across for a looong while.

Ilovetheblues_86
11-07-2009, 03:44 PM
Burguera :cuckoo:

Sapeod
11-07-2009, 03:45 PM
Billions... you can't even speak your own native language, kid.

I get it, you don't get it, and your IQ is on the threshold of retardation.
I can't speak in my native language??? Um, yes I can. BTW You've spelled a lots of words wrong as well, so I guess that means you can't speak in English, going with your logic.

No, your IQ is 50, that's that.

Same old GlennMirnyi. I'm surprised everyone doesn't hate you on here.

GlennMirnyi
11-07-2009, 03:49 PM
I can't speak in my native language??? Um, yes I can. BTW You've spelled a lots of words wrong as well, so I guess that means you can't speak in English, going with your logic.

No, your IQ is 50, that's that.

Same old GlennMirnyi. I'm surprised everyone doesn't hate you on here.

I've misspelt way less often than you.

Alright, yeah. :lol: Grow up, kiddo.

Sapeod
11-07-2009, 03:57 PM
I've misspelt way less often than you.

Alright, yeah. :lol: Grow up, kiddo.
Now that I've told you that, you've found another excuse as to why I can't speak in my language and you can. That excuse is that you've misspelt less than me.

What a pathetic specimen you are.

Echoes
11-07-2009, 04:28 PM
What he meant is: it doesn't matter if the drug enhances or not your performance - it's illegal - ergo, it's cheating

Since crystal meth is on the banned substance list, then wouldn't that equal cheating?

That's what I've been trying to put across for a looong while.

Seems odd to have such a long discussion with someone you agree with.

There's just one reason for it to be on the list by the ITF: performance-enhancing drug. So why do you say it doesn't matter? The guys didn't put it on it to bother the players. And it's not because the ITF tells me it's cheating that I will accept it on face value (Castafiore, if you read me:wavey:). I'd rather believe physicians and biologists. And, fact is, actually it IS performance-enhancing or let's say it has positive effects on performances.

GhostUnholy
11-07-2009, 04:29 PM
Of course it matters. It's about personal opinion. Some laws/rules simply do not make sense. You can't tell me that you agree with every law or have never broken the law in your entire life.

The real questions is whether he intended to gain an upper hand. He obviously didn't, nor would he have taken meth if he had wanted to. I couldn't give a toss whether or not it's illegal. There are many, many things that are illegal and I don't agree with a lot of them.

Agreed.


I'm laughing at the idea of using crystal meth to improve your performance in sports. Amphetamines are a large group of compound. I'm not familiar with the cycling/football uses of it in the past, but were they actually using crystal meth? Or some other compound? I know a few people from high school who started doing meth and got completely fucked up, VERY quickly. Meth DESTROYS your body, and it'd be VERY obvious if someone were on meth during a match due to its mental effects, especially as the match went on. Yeah ok, maybe not as obvious as acid or something, but crystal meth will have you tripping the fuck out. Cocaine, etc. are banned not because they allow you to cheat during your matches, but because they are illegal substances and it is a crime to possess them in most places.

GhostUnholy
11-07-2009, 04:33 PM
Seems odd to have such a long discussion with someone you agree with.

There's just one reason for it to be on the list by the ITF: performance-enhancing drug. So why do you say it doesn't matter? The guys didn't put it on it to bother the players. And it's not because the ITF tells me it's cheating that I will accept it on face value (Castafiore, if you read me:wavey:). I'd rather believe physicians and biologists. And, fact is, actually it IS performance-enhancing or let's say it has positive effects on performances.

Just quickly looked at the ITF site, one of the 5 categories of banned drugs are:
"Stimulants - these raise the heart rate and may improve performance."

Yeah ok, something like caffeine could boost your heart rate and make you more alert. But a stimulant like crystal meth will have so many adverse effects that the idea of using it to raise your heart rate and get more blood to your muscles as a method for improving your performance in a 2-5 hour match is insane.

Clydey
11-07-2009, 05:22 PM
Doesn't matter what he intended. Intention is clearly not the point in discussion.



Do you respect every law equally or do you think there are certain things that shouldn't be illegal?

Dirk
11-07-2009, 05:22 PM
I can agree that meth is a massive drug to take that will damage the body and mind but it is illegal and against the rules of the sport. He didn't cheat per say but he broke a rule and was not punished for it. This was not the first time this kind of thing was covered up and it sadly won't be the last time either.

Clydey
11-07-2009, 05:24 PM
Since crystal meth is on the banned substance list, then wouldn't that equal cheating? :confused: Doesn't matter what someone's personal opinion is on whether these substances should be banned or not. The fact is they are and Agassi knowingly used a banned substance and lied about it. That's cheating.

We have quite a few model citizens in here. I guess you guys have never broken the law and are in total agreement as to what should and should not be illegal.

Echoes
11-07-2009, 05:27 PM
I'm laughing at the idea of using crystal meth to improve your performance in sports. Amphetamines are a large group of compound. I'm not familiar with the cycling/football uses of it in the past, but were they actually using crystal meth? Or some other compound?


A German athlete used crystal meth to win Gold medal on the Olympics in 1952. That's the only case I know. I've asked on other thread how different crystal meth was from other kinds of amphetamine. I didn't have an answer here.

Cocaine, etc. are banned not because they allow you to cheat during your matches, but because they are illegal substances and it is a crime to possess them in most places.

No, you're wrong. Cocaine is very widespread in cycling as a performance-enhancing drug. It's part of a cocktail actually. Criminal law does not regard sport authorities. On the list of banned substances by any sport authorities there should only be performance-enhancers. Let's remember here that cyclist Tom Boonen former World Champion tested 3X positive for cocaine in out-of-competition tests. He did not risk anything from cycling authorities because the use of cocaine is not banned if out of competition. He however should have been arrested. It's shameful he was not.

Clydey
11-07-2009, 05:28 PM
Seems odd to have such a long discussion with someone you agree with.

There's just one reason for it to be on the list by the ITF: performance-enhancing drug. So why do you say it doesn't matter? The guys didn't put it on it to bother the players. And it's not because the ITF tells me it's cheating that I will accept it on face value (Castafiore, if you read me:wavey:). I'd rather believe physicians and biologists. And, fact is, actually it IS performance-enhancing or let's say it has positive effects on performances.

It's not performance-enhancing. I've rarely heard so much nonsense in all my life. I suppose it gives you an edge to down a bottle of Jack D before a match, too?

Echoes
11-07-2009, 05:29 PM
Yeah ok, something like caffeine could boost your heart rate and make you more alert. But a stimulant like crystal meth will have so many adverse effects that the idea of using it to raise your heart rate and get more blood to your muscles as a method for improving your performance in a 2-5 hour match is insane.

The question is whether these side effects occur directly or not. If it's rather long term effects then the players generally don't think about it.

Echoes
11-07-2009, 05:31 PM
It's not performance-enhancing.

Don't take anything for granted, please. With a bit of doubt you can do it. :cool:

Clydey
11-07-2009, 05:32 PM
The question is whether these side effects occur directly or not. If it's rather long term effects then the players generally don't think about it.

Do you know what the best part about taking crystal meth is? It's the blurred vision. Really gives you an edge.

Clydey
11-07-2009, 05:34 PM
Don't take anything for granted, please. With a bit of doubt you can do it. :cool:

I'm not the idiot who's suggesting that crystal meth is a viable option for an athlete looking to boost their performance.

Echoes
11-07-2009, 05:40 PM
Do you know what the best part about taking crystal meth is? It's the blurred vision. Really gives you an edge.

Best part, not the only part.

Are you also suggesting coke is no performance-enhancer just because it's recreational? :D

GhostUnholy
11-07-2009, 05:44 PM
The question is whether these side effects occur directly or not. If it's rather long term effects then the players generally don't think about it.

If you'd ever seen someone on meth, you wouldn't ask this question. I've seen people do it at house parties and its not pretty.

Clydey
11-07-2009, 05:49 PM
Best part, not the only part.

Are you also suggesting coke is no performance-enhancer just because it's recreational? :D

Because it's recreational? No. I'm suggesting it's not performance-enhancing because of its effects on the body. Even if you're not addicted, the effects of taking the drug do not enhance one's performance.

What you are suggesting makes more sense, though. Agassi was pretty domimant during his crystal meth period... on the Challenger Circuit.

nobama
11-07-2009, 06:13 PM
We have quite a few model citizens in here. I guess you guys have never broken the law and are in total agreement as to what should and should not be illegal.Doesn't matter what I think or what you think as far as what substances should/should not be illegal.

nobama
11-07-2009, 06:14 PM
Because it's recreational? No. I'm suggesting it's not performance-enhancing because of its effects on the body. Even if you're not addicted, the effects of taking the drug do not enhance one's performance.

What you are suggesting makes more sense, though. Agassi was pretty domimant during his crystal meth period... on the Challenger Circuit.Well then he cheated all his fans by f*cking up a whole year of his career doing meth off and on.

Clydey
11-07-2009, 06:21 PM
Doesn't matter what I think or what you think as far as what substances should/should not be illegal.

I didn't say that it mattered. So do you blindly support every law in your country just because you can't overturn them? If a law doesn't make sense, you should say so.

Echoes
11-07-2009, 06:22 PM
Well if some doubt about coke's doping usefulness and efficiency, I don't know what I am still doing here. Every cycling fans knows it's VERY widespread in the cycling world as a performance-enhancer.

Just come back from Disneyland, mates. This is the real world.

Clydey
11-07-2009, 06:24 PM
Well then he cheated all his fans by f*cking up a whole year of his career doing meth off and on.

Agassi didn't cheat anyone except himself. It's his career and he should be allowed to do what he likes with it. If he wants to take to the court while under the influence of crack and crystal meth, he should be allowed to. So long as the substances he takes do not give him an advantage over the competition, the ATP should mind their own business.

Clydey
11-07-2009, 06:28 PM
Well if some doubt about coke's doping usefulness and efficiency, I don't know what I am still doing here. Every cycling fans knows it's VERY widespread in the cycling world as a performance-enhancer.

Just come back from Disneyland, mates. This is the real world.

You'd think the relevant authorities would clamp down on its use, wouldn't you? Everyone knows it's widespread, yet they still get away with it? It's almost as if you're just making shit up.

abraxas21
11-07-2009, 06:30 PM
It's illegal, it's banned, it's doping.

How hard is it to understand this?

your dislike of agassi is turning you into an irrational mug, glenn, or perhaps you always were one... anyhow, it's not doping. doping is defined as the use of perfonmance enhacing drugs and agassi didn't take any of that. more over, the act of cheating, while it's certain that it involves breaking the rules, it's usually associated with the purpose of gaining some type of advantage vis-á-vis the opponents of the competition. now, taking some meth , far from giving you an advantage, is actually going to give you a disadvantage. for this reason i wouldn't say agassi cheated in a real sense.

as for the act of doing something illegal like taking drugs, i couldn't care less. anybody should be free to do whatever they want with their own body.

abraxas21
11-07-2009, 06:36 PM
Bruguera thinks using a drug which does not enhance performance in 1997 is the reason Agassi won a title in 1996. :confused:

brugera is just acting like a sore and pathetic loser. with so many years passed you'd think he should have some self-respect.

abraxas21
11-07-2009, 06:40 PM
Agassi basically lived his life on a lie.

lol. he did some meth and initially (and the ATP too) lied about it and suddenly he lived his whole life on a lie? seriously, get a grip, dude.

abraxas21
11-07-2009, 06:47 PM
If Agassi did not fail any drug test at the Olympics I think it is probably unreasonable to remove his gold medal.

However, whether it is performance enhancing or not is irrelevant. A ban is normally based on the substance being banned rather than its enhancement properties.

nice circular "argument". a ban is based on the ban? yes, and a computer is based on being a computer, lol

Agassi obviously over this book has demonstrated either stupidity or mental retardation to have released all this information into the public domain. He certainly should take brain enhancement drugs.

now in the mind of drJules coming clean with honesty about past things is something stupid. is that how all brits think? that being said, judging solely based on the way in which you construct your arguments, i'd recommend the brain enhancement drugs to you only.

nobama
11-07-2009, 06:52 PM
Agassi didn't cheat anyone except himself. It's his career and he should be allowed to do what he likes with it. If he wants to take to the court while under the influence of crack and crystal meth, have should be allowed to. So long as the substances he takes do not give him an advantage over the competition, ATP should mind their own business.Good god will you get a clue! These are banned substances. If Agassi or anyone else wants to use them, fine - thats their choice, but they they should suffer the consequences, which would be suspension.

abraxas21
11-07-2009, 06:57 PM
Agassi has done drugs his whole career.


and the proof is? oh yeah, you heard a rumour from the brazilian dc couch...

Clydey
11-07-2009, 06:59 PM
Good god will you get a clue! These are banned substances. If Agassi or anyone else wants to use them, fine - thats their choice, but they they should suffer the consequences, which would be suspension.

There's no good reason why they are banned. What is it that you are not getting here? Crystal meth does not improve an athlete's performance; therefore, it should not be on the banned substances list.

Do you agree with every law or are there some that you disagree with? Do you know that putting salt on rail road tracks in Alabama is punishable by the death?

The point is that not all laws make sense. Just because something is illegal, it doesn't mean that it is wrong or that it should be illegal.

jonathancrane
11-07-2009, 07:04 PM
There's no good reason why they are banned. What is it that you are not getting here? Crystal meth does not improve an athlete's performance; therefore, it should not be on the banned substances list.

Do you agree with every law or are there some that you disagree with? Do you know that putting salt on rail road tracks in Alabama is punishable by the death?

The point is that not all laws make sense. Just because something is illegal, it doesn't mean that it is wrong or that it should be illegal.

No Clydey, the point is that meth is a banned substance and Agassi took it. You can post whatever you want, it'll not change those facts

abraxas21
11-07-2009, 07:07 PM
Good god will you get a clue! These are banned substances. If Agassi or anyone else wants to use them, fine -thats their choice, but they they should suffer the consequences, which would be suspension.

imo, the ATP shouldn't even try to regulate or put sanctions on whether players take non-perfomance-enhancing drugs like weed, coke or meth. it's simply none of their business; if anything, it's the state's business. that being said, i certainly don't agree with the state laws that prohibit the comsumption of many drugs and i think they're unfair and if the laws are unfair, then the best course of action is to break them. abiding the laws -without thinking- just because they're the laws is the typical conservative military consensus that makes little sense, tbh.

Clydey
11-07-2009, 07:07 PM
No Clydey, the point is that meth is a banned substance and Agassi took it. You can post whatever you want, it'll not change these facts

And people in Alabama who put salt on railroad tracks should be put to death, right? A law is a law, after all.

andylovesaustin
11-07-2009, 07:07 PM
Those of you all who'd be fine with these athletes doing drugs on their own time!:eek: I can't even believe you'd say such a thing.

Outside of the legal issue, it's more about the integrity of the sport and really the protection of the athletes.

So you all would be fine with Andre staying up all night on a meth binge, then going out to play tennis. That would be OK with you as long as he doesn't benefit from the drug. You'd pay good money to see Andre play as meth addict, thinking he was clean. You'd pay good money until he became an addict, I guess, declining before your very eyes.

I don't want to see players doped-up or drugged-up. I don't want to pay money to see any athlete or performer for that matter high on recreational drugs. Not only is it unprofessional, it's also dangerous to the athlete and/or entertainer.

Besides, it's not only the drugs themselves: it's the element involved. You all would be OK with people hanging around Andre like a bunch of groupies, offering him drugs because it's his off time, and why not--as long as they don't enhance his performance. Look at what happened anyway! Andre lied about it, but at least having the prospect of losing everything including his health was a wake-up call.

For the athletes own protection and the integrity of the sport, I'm glad tennis does not tolerate any recreational drug use.

It's dangerous on many levels.

Clydey
11-07-2009, 07:08 PM
imo, the ATP shouldn't even try to regulate or put sanctions on whether players take non-perfomance-enhancing drugs like weed, coke or meth. it's simply none of their business; if anything, it's the state's business. that being said, i certainly don't agree with the laws that prohibit the comsumption of many drugs and i think they're unfair and if the laws are unfair, then the best course of action is to break them. abiding the laws -without thinking- just because they're the laws is the typical conservative consensus that makes little sense, tbh.

You're talking far too much sense. This is MTF. I'm not used to people talking sense.

Clydey
11-07-2009, 07:14 PM
Those of you all who'd be fine with these athletes doing drugs on their own time!:eek: I can't even believe you'd say such a thing.

Outside of the legal issue, it's more about the integrity of the sport and really the protection of the athletes.

So you all would be fine with Andre staying up all night on a meth binge, then going out to play tennis. That would be OK with you as long as he doesn't benefit from the drug. You'd pay good money to see Andre play as meth addict, thinking he was clean. You'd pay good money until he became an addict, I guess, declining before your very eyes.

I don't want to see players doped-up or drugged-up. I don't want to pay money to see any athlete or performer for that matter high on recreational drugs. Not only is it unprofessional, it's also dangerous to the athlete and/or entertainer.

Besides, it's not only the drugs themselves: it's the element involved. You all would be OK with people hanging around Andre like a bunch of groupies, offering him drugs because it's his off time, and why not--as long as they don't enhance his performance. Look at what happened anyway! Andre lied about it, but at least having the prospect of losing everything including his health was a wake-up call.

For the athletes own protection and the integrity of the sport, I'm glad tennis does not tolerate any recreational drug use.

It's dangerous on many levels.

So would you be fine if a player downed a bottle of Jack D before a match and came out to play while shitfaced? Your argument is inconsistent. Alcohol, which is legal, probably damages a player's performance more than many of the substances that are banned.

andylovesaustin
11-07-2009, 07:25 PM
So would you be fine if a player downed a bottle of Jack D before a match and came out to play while shitfaced? Your argument is inconsistent. Alcohol, which is legal, probably damages a player's performance more than many of the substances that are banned.

No. It's not fine at all. But I don't think a drunk player is going to get very far in a match. I guess it would all depend upon how much tolerance they have of alcohol. I would imagine, some of them get drunk before matches right now. I don't think it's very good practice, and it's definitely unprofessional, but what's stopping them? I doubt very seriously if the top players partake all that much. Alcohol is a depressant. It makes your reactions slower. So I don't think getting drunk before a match would be that appealing.

With some of these drugs like cocaine and meth... they are more insidious on many levels.

And alcohol is legal. With illegal drugs, there's a whole other element--a criminal element.

It's NOT good at all, and I cannot even believe you all would be advocating such a thing.

rocketassist
11-07-2009, 07:32 PM
Doesn't matter what I think or what you think as far as what substances should/should not be illegal.

It doesn't matter what you or I think regarding Barack Obama either.

Clydey
11-07-2009, 07:35 PM
No. It's not fine at all. But I don't think a drunk player is going to get very far in a match. I guess it would all depend upon how much tolerance they have of alcohol. I would imagine, some of them get drunk before matches right now. I don't think it's very good practice, and it's definitely unprofessional, but what's stopping them? I doubt very seriously if the top players partake all that much. Alcohol is a depressant. It makes your reactions slower. So I don't think getting drunk before a match would be that appealing.

With some of these drugs like cocaine and meth... they are more insidious on many levels.

And alcohol is legal. With illegal drugs, there's a whole other element--a criminal element.

It's NOT good at all, and I cannot even believe you all would be advocating such a thing.

So you don't think a drunk player would get very far, but a player who's high on crystal meth will go far? Makes no sense.

Let's say a player who is high does go far. What would be your objection? He would have to be playing at a high enough level to progress in the tournament; therefore, you wouldn't be getting robbed of your money. Your argument hits an obstacle no matter which way you turn.

And in what ways are cocaine and meth more insidious? You say that, but you aren't basing it on anything other than the fact that they are illegal. Cigarettes are far more addictive than cocaine and more likely to eventually kill you, albeit indirectly.

What anyone does in their own free time is absolutely none of your business, so long as it does not cause harm to other people. If Agassi wants to shoot up before a match, that's fine. It's his body and his life.

andylovesaustin
11-07-2009, 07:39 PM
So you don't think a drunk player would get very far, but a player who's high on crystal meth will go far? Makes no sense.

Let's say a player who is high does go far. What would be your objection? He would have to be playing at a high enough level to progress in the tournament; therefore, you wouldn't be getting robbed of your money. Your argument hits an obstacle no matter which way you turn.

And in what ways are cocaine and meth more insidious? You say that, but you aren't basing it on anything other than the fact that they are illegal. Cigarettes are far more addictive than cocaine and more likely to eventually kill you, albeit indirectly.

What anyone does in their own free time is absolutely none of your business, so long as it does not cause harm to other people. If Agassi wants to shoot up before a match, that's fine. It's his body and his life.

I already made a statement about drunk players: I don't support it.

About meth? Let's just say I have some personal experience and knowledge. I don't use drugs, but I've been around people who do and did.

You believe what you want, but I'm telling you, it's dangerous--just like alcohol is dangerous. I don't advocate getting drunk, high, or doped-up. It's not good for athletes, and it's not good for the sport.

It's not good for anybody or any profession.

tennisfox
11-07-2009, 07:43 PM
So would you be fine if a player downed a bottle of Jack D before a match and came out to play while shitfaced? Your argument is inconsistent. Alcohol, which is legal, probably damages a player's performance more than many of the substances that are banned.

This is a strange argument. Alcohol may be legal but there are controls on it. It is illegal for people under a certain age to buy alcohol. It is illegal to drive if you have consumed more than the legal limit. It is illegal to fly planes, drive trains, buses etc if you consumed alcohol (more than the legal limit) or certain drugs. I think most employers would take a very dim view of an employee turning up to work shitfaced. If you didn't get fired on the spot, you would certainly get seriously disciplined.

Clydey
11-07-2009, 07:44 PM
I already made a statement about drunk players: I don't support it.

About meth? Let's just say I have some personal experience and knowledge. I don't use drugs, but I've been around people who do and did.

You believe what you want, but I'm telling you, it's dangerous--just like alcohol is dangerous. I don't advocate getting drunk, high, or doped-up. It's not good for athletes, and it's not good for the sport.

It's not good for anybody or any profession.

It doesn't matter whether or not it's dangerous. It is not your decision. You are in charge of your own body, no one else's.

So you think professional athletes should be banned from using alcohol?

Clydey
11-07-2009, 07:46 PM
This is a strange argument. Alcohol may be legal but there are controls on it. It is illegal for people under a certain age to buy alcohol. It is illegal to drive if you have consumed more than the legal limit. It is illegal to fly planes, drive trains, buses etc if you consumed alcohol (more than the legal limit) or certain drugs. I think most employers would take a very dim view of an employee turning up to work shitfaced. If you didn't get fired on the spot, you would certainly get seriously disciplined.

And these controls couldn't apply to other drugs, too?

It's irrelevant so far as tennis is concerned anyway. You are your own employer. You are only harming yourself.

andylovesaustin
11-07-2009, 07:57 PM
It doesn't matter whether or not it's dangerous. It is not your decision. You are in charge of your own body, no one else's.

So you think professional athletes should be banned from using alcohol?

It's like you're treating all these drugs equally, and they're not.

Some of these drugs--like meth are highly addictive. Heroin is very addictive. Cocaine is very addictive. They're dangerous because the "high" a person experiences is like no other. Andre described it in an excerpt I read.

Alcohol.. well it all depends upon who's drinking it. For some people, alcohol is not addictive; for others, it is. I'm not at all saying alcohol CAN'T be dangerous. It's probably the most abused drug in the world at one time or another. But it's not necessarily as addictive for everybody.

As far as supporting a ban on alcohol--it's a moot point because it's NOT illegal. If I were coaching an athlete, I'd probably ban alcohol use! LOL It's not good for you. You gain weight. Your reaction time is lowered. It makes retain water. I'd ban smoking, too!

Clydey
11-07-2009, 08:03 PM
It's like you're treating all these drugs equally, and they're not.

Some of these drugs--like meth are highly addictive. Heroin is very addictive. Cocaine is very addictive. They're dangerous because the "high" a person experiences is like no other. Andre described it in an excerpt I read.

Alcohol.. well it all depends upon who's drinking it. For some people, alcohol is not addictive; for others, it is. I'm not at all saying alcohol CAN'T be dangerous. It's probably the most abused drug in the world at one time or another. But it's not necessarily as addictive for everybody.

As far as supporting a ban on alcohol--it's a moot point because it's NOT illegal. If I were coaching an athlete, I'd probably ban alcohol use! LOL It's not good for you. You gain weight. Your reaction time is lowered. It makes retain water. I'd ban smoking, too!

Smoking is as addictive as any drug you can think of. Not that it matters. It doesn't matter how similar or how different the drugs are. It is none of your business what anyone else puts in their body. What makes you think you should have any say over what I put into my body, so long as it doesn't cause me to harm anyone?

andylovesaustin
11-07-2009, 08:15 PM
Smoking is as addictive as any drug you can think of. Not that it matters. It doesn't matter how similar or how different the drugs are. It is none of your business what anyone else puts in their body. What makes you think you should have any say over what I put into my body, so long as it doesn't cause me to harm anyone?

If some athlete was paying me good money to be coach, then it would be my damn business what that athlete put in his body. I wouldn't coach an athlete with a drug/alcohol problem. An athlete with a drug problem needs more help than I could offer. As far as smoking, I wouldn't coach an athlete who smoked either. What would be the point? Smoking interferes with conditionning among other health risks. So no, I wouldn't coach a smoker either. Most of the athletes I know don't smoke. A lot of dancers I knew smoked though to keep thin. I thought it was stupid on many levels.

And as a consumer, I already said it's my business, too. I, personally, don't want to pay to see drunk, doped-up, or drugged-up athletes. Now, if you want to pay good money to see it, the you go on ahead.

Personally, I'm glad tennis makes it its business to keep the sport clean as possible. I just wish it were more consistent.

And I do agree with Andre, I think tennis could offer a little more support to athletes failing drug tests. I do agree with Andre, they need help. So if they are going to get suspended anyway, I just wish tennis could offer some counseling to help them get back on track.

I don't think they should just be thrown-out like trash.

Clydey
11-07-2009, 08:19 PM
If some athlete was paying me good money to be coach, then it would be my damn business what that athlete put in his body. I wouldn't coach an athlete with a drug/alcohol problem. An athlete with a drug problem needs more help than I could offer. As far as smoking, I wouldn't coach an athlete who smoked either. What would be the point? Smoking interferes with conditionning among other health risks. So no, I wouldn't coach a smoker either. Most of the athletes I know don't smoke. A lot of dancers I knew smoked though to keep thin. I thought it was stupid on many levels.

And as a consumer, I already said it's my business, too. I, personally, don't want to pay to see drunk, doped-up, or drugged-up athletes. Now, if you want to pay good money to see it, the you go on ahead.

Personally, I'm glad tennis makes it its business to keep the sport clean as possible. I just wish it were more consistent.

And I do agree with Andre, I think tennis could offer a little more support to athletes failing drug tests. I do agree with Andre, they need help. So if they are going to get suspended anyway, I just wish tennis could offer some counseling to help them get back on track.

I don't think they should just be thrown-out like trash.

It's none of your business. If an athlete has a coke problem or an alcohol problem, you don't have to coach them. It is not your business what they put into their body. No one is forcing you to associate yourself with them.

And the athlete's addiction will take care of the problem you seem to have as a consumer. They will lose early. Not that anyone is forcing you to watch anyway.

andylovesaustin
11-07-2009, 08:22 PM
It's none of your business. If an athlete has a coke problem or an alcohol problem, you don't have to coach them. It is not your business what they put into their body. No one is forcing you to associate yourself with them.

And the athlete's addiction will take care of the problem you seem to have as a consumer. They will lose early. Not that anyone is forcing you to watch anyway.

I don't think you read my post. I said I wouldn't coach an athlete with a drug or alcohol problem. I said an athlete with a drug or alcohol problem would need more help than I could offer.

And they'd be a real pain in the ass, too! :lol: Being a pain in the ass just comes with the territory of being an alcoholic and/or drug addict.

Lee
11-07-2009, 08:23 PM
And I do agree with Andre, I think tennis could offer a little more support to athletes failing drug tests. I do agree with Andre, they need help. So if they are going to get suspended anyway, I just wish tennis could offer some counseling to help them get back on track.

I don't think they should just be thrown-out like trash.

Most of the sports organisations offer help to athletes who failed addictive drugs test. Or admitted being alcoholic or addicted to prescription drugs.

Lee
11-07-2009, 08:26 PM
And these controls couldn't apply to other drugs, too?

It's irrelevant so far as tennis is concerned anyway. You are your own employer. You are only harming yourself.

Have you seen any pictures of abused spouse or children being badly beaten by their addictive spouse or parent? I am not going to discuss about how mentally they are affected.

Clydey
11-07-2009, 08:30 PM
Have you seen any pictures of abused spouse or children being badly beaten by their addictive spouse or parent? I am not going to discuss about how mentally they are affected.

Abuse while under the influence of alcohol is more common than abuse under the influence of any other drug. Should alcohol be illegal?

andylovesaustin
11-07-2009, 08:31 PM
Most of the sports organisations offer help to athletes who failed addictive drugs test. Or admitted being alcoholic or addicted to prescription drugs.

Well, I just wish there were more made of the "help" being offered rather than just the focus on suspensions.

Offering help is the most important thing--even more so than disciplinary action.

Lee
11-07-2009, 08:38 PM
Abuse while under the influence of alcohol is more common than abuse under the influence of any other drug. Should alcohol be illegal?

First, I was referring to the point that you said addicts only harm themselves which is totally WRONG.

Second, alcoholism takes time to develop and usually, only people closed to the addicts are affected. Just like being a 2nd hand smoker.

But drugs like cocaine, meth, etc had caused some users, while high on the drug, hurt or killed people who are not related to them.

andylovesaustin
11-07-2009, 08:39 PM
Abuse while under the influence of alcohol is more common than abuse under the influence of any other drug. Should alcohol be illegal?

In some counties in the U.S. it's is illegal! :lol:

But as I said, as bad as alcohol can be, it's not as addictive. And it's a different type of drug... not as powerful necessarily after one glass. Where as a hit of heroin is a hit of heroin.

You're comparing apples and oranges.

I don't think Andre was as impressed with drinking alcohol as he was with taking meth--or didn't seem to be, for example. I haven't read any quotes about his experiences being drunk. But he was quite impressed with his experience with using meth.

Lee
11-07-2009, 08:41 PM
Moreover, alcohol is not as addictive as the other drugs mentioned here. Anyone who drinks a glass or two a day will not become alcoholic but if one snorts coke/cocaine/etc once or twice a day, what do you think?

Tommy_Vercetti
11-07-2009, 08:44 PM
Moreover, alcohol is not as addictive as the other drugs mentioned here. Anyone who drinks a glass or two a day will not become alcoholic but if one snorts coke/cocaine/etc once or twice a day, what do you think?

You certainly won't become a cocaine addict unless you are Kelly Taylor.

Clydey
11-07-2009, 08:46 PM
First, I was referring to the point that you said addicts only harm themselves which is totally WRONG.

Second, alcoholism takes time to develop and usually, only people closed to the addicts are affected. Just like being a 2nd hand smoker.

But drugs like cocaine, meth, etc had caused some users, while high on the drug, hurt or killed people who are not related to them.

What a load of bollocks. So you would outlaw anything that could cause harm to anyone else? Completely impractical and, put simply, not feasible.

Drug addiction takes time to develop, too. Cocaine is no more addictive than alcohol. It's a bit of a misconception that cocaine is highly addictive. It isn't. Crack, meth, etc. are highly addictive. I love how naive you are in thinking that alcohol only leads people to hurt those who are close to them. Get a grip.

Lee
11-07-2009, 08:49 PM
What a load of bollocks. So you would outlaw anything that could cause harm to anyone else? Completely impractical and, put simply, not feasible.

Drug addiction takes time to develop, too. Cocaine is no more addictive than alcohol. It's a bit of a misconception that cocaine is highly addictive. It isn't. Crack, meth, etc. are highly addictive. I love how naive you are in thinking that alcohol only leads people to hurt those who are close to them. Get a grip.

You love to twist everything anyone says who don't agree with you!!!!

So alcohol will not only hurt those who are close to them but everybody but other drugs will only hurt the person who takes them.

I am totally wasting my time showing how wrong you are.

tennis2tennis
11-07-2009, 08:50 PM
"We do not know whether they'd covered up for someone else," asked Bruguera.

OK sore loser accusations aside, he asks a valid question!

The issue here's not if recreational drugs should be treated as harshley as preformance enhancing...

the question is did Andre agassi cheat?
the answer is YES TECHNICALLY ANDRE CHEATED REPERCUSSIONS

He took myth in 1997 so had he had the ban (regardless of whether or not that punishments harsh) he wouldn't have been allowed to play any tournaments including those Challenger Series tournaments that helped his rankings in 1998 nor would he have been match fit to so much as make the second round of Roland Garros let alone win it, the following year!

RafitoGoat
11-07-2009, 08:53 PM
Sergi is a funny guy, glad that he can see the funny side of this Agassi admission and decided to do a spoof :D

GlennMirnyi
11-07-2009, 08:54 PM
Seems odd to have such a long discussion with someone you agree with.

There's just one reason for it to be on the list by the ITF: performance-enhancing drug. So why do you say it doesn't matter? The guys didn't put it on it to bother the players. And it's not because the ITF tells me it's cheating that I will accept it on face value (Castafiore, if you read me:wavey:). I'd rather believe physicians and biologists. And, fact is, actually it IS performance-enhancing or let's say it has positive effects on performances.

The point is the following one, mon ami: the discussion isn't if meth is performance-enhancing or not. It's in the banned substances list and that makes using it cheating. If it's there for reason A or B, it doesn't matter. Doesn't matter at all.

Do you respect every law equally or do you think there are certain things that shouldn't be illegal?

Laws are laws and should be followed. Simple. Do you happen to have a problem with authority? That's so puerile.

your dislike of agassi is turning you into an irrational mug, glenn, or perhaps you always were one... anyhow, it's not doping. doping is defined as the use of perfonmance enhacing drugs and agassi didn't take any of that. more over, the act of cheating, while it's certain that it involves breaking the rules, it's usually associated with the purpose of gaining some type of advantage vis-á-vis the opponents of the competition. now, taking some meth , far from giving you an advantage, is actually going to give you a disadvantage. for this reason i wouldn't say agassi cheated in a real sense.

as for the act of doing something illegal like taking drugs, i couldn't care less. anybody should be free to do whatever they want with their own body.

I dislike phony clowns who built a career on doping and lies.

Doping is using a banned substance. If you're not smart enough to get something that simple, I couldn't care less. I'm glad I'm not as dumb as you are.

and the proof is? oh yeah, you heard a rumour from the brazilian dc couch...

Someone closely involved with the tour. You're only closely involved with jerking off to Fakegassi posters.

By the way, most pros have always said Drugassi had doped throughout his whole career. Everybody knew that and everybody knew Drugassi was protected. Now he just admitted it.

It doesn't matter whether or not it's dangerous. It is not your decision. You are in charge of your own body, no one else's.

So you think professional athletes should be banned from using alcohol?

The second you become a professional athlete, you're subjected to a code of conduct and yes, you MUST follow it.

Alcohol isn't in the banned substances list.

Again, this is NOT about performance. It's about following the rules.

Clydey
11-07-2009, 08:55 PM
You love to twist everything anyone says who don't agree with you!!!!

So alcohol will not only hurt those who are close to them but everybody but other drugs will only hurt the person who takes them.

I am totally wasting my time showing how wrong you are.

I didn't say that. Both have the potential to cause the user to harm someone else. However, on the whole it is only going to harm the user. It is impossible to legislate for everything that can potentially harm another person. The whole point is that alcohol is no different to the drugs that are illegal. It is at least as damaging in most cases and more damaging in others.

People like you want to have it both ways. You think because something is illegal that it, therefore, should be illegal. When you're presented with an argument that shows you absurd that position is, you are incapable of being persuaded.

Clydey
11-07-2009, 08:58 PM
Laws are laws and should be followed. Simple. Do you happen to have a problem with authority? That's so puerile.


No, I have no problem with authority. I have a problem with rules that don't make any sense.

Am I expected to believe that you have never broken the law? Some laws do not make sense. I have no respect for people who blindly follow rules without questioning them.

RafitoGoat
11-07-2009, 08:58 PM
Anyway, pretty clear that Agassi decided to be 1000% honest in this book, so makes no sense for him to cover up 1996 use, the man is above everyone when it comes to honesty now. He's making people question his sanity for writing this stuff, makes you wonder how dishonest everyone is when they react like this to a guy being honest.

Lee
11-07-2009, 09:01 PM
When you're presented with an argument that shows you absurd that position is, you are incapable of being persuaded.

:rolls: :rolls: :rolls:

Following the advice of another wise poster. :p

Clydey
11-07-2009, 09:03 PM
:rolls: :rolls: :rolls:

Following the advice of another wise poster. :p

Yes, it would be wise to cut your losses.

nobama
11-07-2009, 09:04 PM
No, I have no problem with authority. I have a problem with rules that don't make any sense.

Am I expected to believe that you have never broken the law? Some laws do not make sense. I have no respect for people who blindly follow rules without questioning them.Ok so just break the law because you don't agree with it? That's :retard:

Clydey
11-07-2009, 09:07 PM
Ok so just break the law because you don't agree with it? That's :retard:

Break them? No. Regardless of whether it's just, you're going to get punished for breaking the law. That doesn't mean you have to agree with them.

andylovesaustin
11-07-2009, 09:11 PM
No, I have no problem with authority. I have a problem with rules that don't make any sense.

Am I expected to believe that you have never broken the law? Some laws do not make sense. I have no respect for people who blindly follow rules without questioning them.

I argued with a police officer once. I was nearly carted off to jail! :lol:

I got a ticket for not pulling over soon enough when an ambulance was coming the other direction. Nevermind the fact I was smack-dab in the middle of an intersection and really couldn't pull-over until I was under the light. Never mind the fact, I was the ONLY car to pull over!

So here I am driving down the road.. after the ambulance had passed. I'm watching this police officer pulling over cars that hadn't stopped AT ALL---and I'm thinking "so long suckers!" LOL :wavey:

Anyway... then the cop pulls me over! :eek: I'm thinking what the hell? Is a light out? :confused: Then he gives me a ticket for not pulling over soon enough. I argued with him... pretty fiercely. I refused to sign the ticket! :lol: And accused him of trying to make a quota. :shrug: Then he says he's gonna haul me off to jail! :eek: I said, "Fine, take me jail, then, cos I'm not signing that ticket." He said "Well, the judge'll just have to see you refused to sign the ticket," and stormed off!:angel:

I was going to fight it, but I just took defensive driving instead. :shrug:

So the moral of this story is that...the law is the law whether you agree with it or not!:armed:

thrust
11-07-2009, 09:15 PM
Are tehre any Spanish winners?

aside Nadal

Spanish Slam winners: Nadal, Orantes, Santana, Gimeno, Costa, Ferraro, Brugera, Moya

RafitoGoat
11-07-2009, 09:17 PM
I argued with a police officer once. I was nearly carted off to jail! :lol:

I got a ticket for not pulling over soon enough when an ambulance was coming the other direction. Nevermind the fact I was smack-dab in the middle of an intersection and really couldn't pull-over until I was under the light. Never mind the fact, I was the ONLY car to pull over!

So here I am driving down the road.. after the ambulance had passed. I'm watching this police officer pulling over cars that hadn't stopped AT ALL---and I'm thinking "so long suckers!" LOL :wavey:

Anyway... then the cop pulls me over! :eek: I'm thinking what the hell? Is a light out? :confused: Then he gives me a ticket for not pulling over soon enough. I argued with him... pretty fiercely. I refused to sign the ticket! :lol: And accused him of trying to make a quota. :shrug: Then he says he's gonna haul me off to jail! :eek: I said, "Fine, take me jail, then, cos I'm not signing that ticket." He said "Well, the judge'll just have to see you refused to sign the ticket," and stormed off!:angel:

I was going to fight it, but I just took defensive driving instead. :shrug:

So the moral of this story is that...the law is the law whether you agree with it or not!:armed:

Sergi has no right to cart Agassi off to jail without proof of drug use in 1996. Sergi should be stripped of his fake police badge :D

Echoes
11-07-2009, 09:19 PM
The point is the following one, mon ami: the discussion isn't if meth is performance-enhancing or not. It's in the banned substances list and that makes using it cheating. If it's there for reason A or B, it doesn't matter. Doesn't matter at all.


Goodness ! He's more stubborn than me. I can't belief this. :haha:

Asking oneself why a substance is on the list of banned substances is a question of open-mindedness. There are 3 criteria for it: performance-enhancing character, noxiousness and ethics (i.e.whether it's affordable or not). These criteria must be respected.

Doesn't that interest you? Well it's a shame.

andylovesaustin
11-07-2009, 09:19 PM
Sergi has no right to cart Agassi off to jail without proof of drug use in 1996. Sergi should be stripped of his fake police badge :D

:lol:

tennis2tennis
11-07-2009, 09:21 PM
the man is above everyone when it comes to honesty now

they key word in your statment being now..time delayed honesty based on minimizing reprecussions isn't a virtue, and it's certainly a bar most people can surpass!

andylovesaustin
11-07-2009, 09:40 PM
A final thought...

I forgot to mention this. I heard there was a time trainers would drug-up boxers just to get them in the ring? I'm not sure if this is correct or not, but I think it is.

So.. you know this banned substance thing.. it not only protects the athletes from their own vices, but also protect them from being taken advantage of by trainers,ASSISTANTS, "friends/dealers" all those sycophant-type hangers-on, looking to ride-off some sport star's coattails.

I mean... getting an athlete hooked at a weak moment, then becoming a supplier/friend(?!)... these things happen.

So these rules may seem unfair, but it's they're needed because people are fragile and sometimes easily manipulated.

LoveFifteen
11-07-2009, 09:50 PM
So, do all the people excoriating Agassi also agree that, for example, Borg was an even greater cheater because he won some Slams during years that he was snorting cocaine? Do you think McEnroe and Wilander are cheaters, too? :shrug:

andylovesaustin
11-07-2009, 10:09 PM
So, do all the people excoriating Agassi also agree that, for example, Borg was an even greater cheater because he won some Slams during years that he was snorting cocaine? Do you think McEnroe and Wilander are cheaters, too? :shrug:

I always wondered about this.

We're they ever busted while they were playing?

I know John McEnroe wrote about his escapades in his book. BTW, I never read his book either. I heard about it, and just didn't want to contribute to his wealth either!

I guess the difference is Andre was busted and lied about it. It's always the deliberately lie, adding salt to the wound. But still what the rest of these guys did was horrible. I just don't think it's particularly anything to be proud of...

I just don't agree with it. Just say NO!

I would imagine a lot of players use drugs recreationally, but somehow avoid getting caught.

But allowing players to use illegal drugs.. no. I mean a lot professions test their employees for drugs. I know bank employees have to pass drug tests. So it's not only in tennis or other pro sports. These drugs are illegal--even pot. So..it's this ripple affect.

GlennMirnyi
11-07-2009, 11:18 PM
No, I have no problem with authority. I have a problem with rules that don't make any sense.

Am I expected to believe that you have never broken the law? Some laws do not make sense. I have no respect for people who blindly follow rules without questioning them.

Some rules may not make sense to you, but they make sense to someone.

The point is - there's a place to question rules and it's not in my scope of action. Therefore, I don't feel I must question it.

The response to a meaningless law is to change it, not to just simply disobey it.

Being able to cope with laws and regulations is part of growing up.

Goodness ! He's more stubborn than me. I can't belief this. :haha:

Asking oneself why a substance is on the list of banned substances is a question of open-mindedness. There are 3 criteria for it: performance-enhancing character, noxiousness and ethics (i.e.whether it's affordable or not). These criteria must be respected.

Doesn't that interest you? Well it's a shame.

Believe*. ;) I'm correcting you in good spirits, since you said you're practicing your English here. :)

Well, I'm not a pharmacology expert. Therefore, I'm not in a position to question if meth or any other substance is performance-enhancing or not. I'll leave that for the doping agencies, who must have their experts. One day, if I have time, I might study it and come to my own conclusions.

Clydey
11-07-2009, 11:23 PM
Some rules may not make sense to you, but they make sense to someone.

The point is - there's a place to question rules and it's not in my scope of action. Therefore, I don't feel I must question it.

The response to a meaningless law is to change it, not to just simply disobey it.

Being able to cope with laws and regulations is part of growing up.



I didn't say that you should just disobey laws for the sake of it. It's all very well saying that the response to a meaningless law is to change it, but how exactly do you got about doing that? There are many laws that simply do not make sense. I don't believe for a second that you agree with and obey every law. I may have to follow laws, but I don't have to agree with them. And I'm not going to cry if someone breaks a law/rule that serves absolutely no purpose.

Echoes
11-08-2009, 01:04 AM
Believe*. ;) I'm correcting you in good spirits, since you said you're practicing your English here. :)

Oh thank you.;) It's unforgivable. I feel ill at ease when I see my mistakes. I'm often editing my posts. :(


Well, I'm not a pharmacology expert. Therefore, I'm not in a position to question if meth or any other substance is performance-enhancing or not. I'll leave that for the doping agencies, who must have their experts. One day, if I have time, I might study it and come to my own conclusions.

Ah finally !! :D
Well I don't claim to be an expert either but I just inform myself. As a cycling fan I can't get out of it. But if you leave the question for experts I'd say you can guess that if they decided to put it on the list, that's just because they considered it is a PED. Or else you might think there's another reason for listing it? I don't think so.

By the way I've just read on the Cyclingnews' forum that methamphetamine is definitely a PED but not in its crystal form (because too addictive). This may answer my questionIs crystal meth different from a common amphetamine?

So, do all the people excoriating Agassi also agree that, for example, Borg was an even greater cheater because he won some Slams during years that he was snorting cocaine? Do you think McEnroe and Wilander are cheaters, too?

I don't know for Borg. Yes for Mac and Wilander. I believe Mac when he says it was unintentional and that he used the substance only as a painkiller http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/news/story?id=1708773. He should however have been sanctioned for that.

And I would add that if we are talking about stimulants, of course it should be banned but it's different from blood or hormone doping which are available today and can transform the body/make a fake out of the player. I would still say Borg, Mac and Wilander are champions despite those facts (unless someone convinces me they were using other stuff, but I don't have reliable sources for that :confused:).

LoveFifteen
11-08-2009, 01:19 AM
I believe Borg's accomplishments are amazing, and his recreational drug use is immaterial. I don't believe it is cheating to use cocaine recreationally, just as I don't believe it's cheating (in the sense of trying to gain an unfair advantage to win tennis matches) to smoke weed or take Ecstasy pills. It's illegal. It's wrong. It's against the rules. I understand why it's banned, and why they test for it, but for me, it doesn't take away from their tennis accomplishments. I couldn't care less about whatever drugs Borg experimented with. If anything, props to them for still managing to win! All these fools in here who are talking about how meth, coke, etc. can improve performance ... go do a night of partying with drugs and see how you feel the next day and if you'd like to go play a tennis match. :lol:

GlennMirnyi
11-08-2009, 02:51 AM
I didn't say that you should just disobey laws for the sake of it. It's all very well saying that the response to a meaningless law is to change it, but how exactly do you got about doing that? There are many laws that simply do not make sense. I don't believe for a second that you agree with and obey every law. I may have to follow laws, but I don't have to agree with them. And I'm not going to cry if someone breaks a law/rule that serves absolutely no purpose.

Funny that an European is saying that, really. Have you ever heard of something like - to have your own freedom you need to follow rules? That's what most European countries are all about - all very lawful, very organized. That's why you have so much personal freedom. I guess you Europeans take that for granted. ;) Rules exist to be obeyed, otherwise they're not rules.

Well, politics define laws. If you wanna change it, you gotta get involved. Many laws have been changed. Once, slavery was legal - it's clearly an abomination. Insensitive, irrational rules are very quickly picked upon. ;)

Ah finally !! :D
Well I don't claim to be an expert either but I just inform myself. As a cycling fan I can't get out of it. But if you leave the question for experts I'd say you can guess that if they decided to put it on the list, that's just because they considered it is a PED. Or else you might think there's another reason for listing it? I don't think so.

By the way I've just read on the Cyclingnews' forum that methamphetamine is definitely a PED but not in its crystal form (because too addictive). This may answer my questionIs crystal meth different from a common amphetamine?

I don't know for Borg. Yes for Mac and Wilander. I believe Mac when he says it was unintentional and that he used the substance only as a painkiller http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/news/story?id=1708773. He should however have been sanctioned for that.

And I would add that if we are talking about stimulants, of course it should be banned but it's different from blood or hormone doping which are available today and can transform the body/make a fake out of the player. I would still say Borg, Mac and Wilander are champions despite those facts (unless someone convinces me they were using other stuff, but I don't have reliable sources for that :confused:).

It might be or it might not be. That's not important. If water makes it into the banned list, using it will cheating, doesn't matter if it's PE or not. ;)

The difference about Borg, Mac and Wilander is that they haven't admitted to being caught doping and getting away with it.

MrChopin
11-08-2009, 02:56 AM
It's been 13 years Bruguera. Time to get over the loss.

Still doesn't mean Agassi is not an ass.

fmolinari2005
11-08-2009, 03:13 AM
Just quickly looked at the ITF site, one of the 5 categories of banned drugs are:
"Stimulants - these raise the heart rate and may improve performance."

Yeah ok, something like caffeine could boost your heart rate and make you more alert. But a stimulant like crystal meth will have so many adverse effects that the idea of using it to raise your heart rate and get more blood to your muscles as a method for improving your performance in a 2-5 hour match is insane.

That is the entire point behind our arguments. Yes, you can have positive effects that might enhance your performance using crystal meth. But that is only one side of the history. If you weight the positive and negative effects, the drug will do you more harm than good.

In other words, even if some of the pharmacological effects of methamphetamines can enhance your performance, the continuous use of the drug will NOT help you. So, I suspect the primary reason WADA banned the drug is because it is noxious/ unethical. A guy that starts using crystal meth to "improve" his performance will find himself in a short period of time addicted to the drug ... and then it is when the "fun" part of the drug starts and your life goes to deep shit.

abraxas21
11-08-2009, 09:30 AM
Ok so just break the law because you don't agree with it? That's :retard:

it's a good, fair and intelligent decision, imo. if the law is obsiously unfair and it's not likely to be changed, then break it. in fact, breaking an unfair law is the morally just thing to do.

"If the law is itself clearly unjust, and the lawmaking process is not designed to quickly obliterate such unjust laws, then the law deserves no respect — break the law." - Thoreau

FairWeatherFan
11-08-2009, 09:33 AM
Bruguera is and always has been a clown.

abraxas21
11-08-2009, 09:35 AM
The difference about Borg, Mac and Wilander is that they haven't admitted to being caught doping and getting away with it.

but they did get away with it. they never got punished and they never told the ATP about it. Not saying something that you're supposed to say is simply an indirect way of lying. And besides, since you insist so much on calling Agassi a cheater because he "broke the rules", then I'd guess you feel the same way about Borg, Mac and Wilander. After all, they broke the rules and got away with it too.

Still, I couldn't care less. players should be free to consume non perfomance enhancing drugs. their lives, their choices, their actions don't concern me at all.

RafitoGoat
11-08-2009, 09:48 AM
but they did get away with it. they never got punished and they never told the ATP about it. Not saying something that you're supposed to say is simply an indirect way of lying. And besides, since you insist so much on calling Agassi a cheater because he "broke the rules", then I'd guess you feel the same way about Borg, Mac and Wilander. After all, they broke the rules and got away with it too.

Still, I couldn't care less. players should be free to consume non perfomance enhancing drugs. their lives, their choices, their actions don't concern me at all.

Bra is correct on all fronts. This thread is over.

Echoes
11-08-2009, 12:22 PM
It might be or it might not be. That's not important. If water makes it into the banned list, using it will cheating, doesn't matter if it's PE or not. ;)


Oh no, you won't start again ! :lol:

but they did get away with it.

What? Wilander got punished. Mac got away with it because controls didn't exist at that time.

andylovesaustin
11-08-2009, 12:54 PM
With Agassi he directly cheated by lying after he was caught. He cheated "the system." But whether or not he was caught, he and the rest also committed a type of "fraud," too.

I mean, athletes have an "image" of being fit and healthy, doing everything they can to get their bodies in condition to compete. In addition, the public wants to think of athletes as upstanding citizens, whether it's realistic or not. Athletes make a lot of money off of endorsements, marketing that image.

When an athlete takes ILLEGAL drugs, their image is tarnished on many levels. First, NARCOTICS diminish their athleticism, so they can't compete at the top level. As I said, we the public are paying to see them play "drug-free." We assume they are "drug-free," living a clean life because that's the image they project. Then to find-out they've been getting high on illegal drugs, the whole "image" of themselves and the sport has been tarnished, not to mention it being dangerous, even life-threatening to themselves personally.

Then, when you factor in these drugs are illegal NARCOTICS, these athletes have broken the law as well as jeopardize their health and athleticism. In order to get these drugs, they have to "deal" with a criminal element, directly or indirectly. So it's like if an athlete is going to get involved with that--knowing the impact and implications, what else might he/she get involved with?

The public doesn't condone athletes getting arrested for DUI either. I remember Bodie Miller getting arrested for DUI. I also remember Michael Phelps being arrested for DUI BEFORE the pot scandal. The bottom line is that athletes represent the "ideal," whether it's realistic or not and whether they want to or not. They are making A LOT of money off that image, and we the public TRUST when they are playing they haven't been on a meth binge or liquor binge the night before.

So is recreational drug use "cheating," per se? It's more cheating in the sense as in FRAUD, particularly in the midst of a tournament.

Hey..it's not only in sports. I have a colleague whose daughter WAS FIRED from her first job as an attorney because she was out partying every night at a bar. The firm felt like the woman wasn't the type of image they wanted to project, so they let her go. Texas is a right-to-work state, so her partying was reason enough to fire her.

Do you all think a school board would be lenient to a teacher, admitting to meth use? Do you all think a school board would be lenient to a teacher for getting drunk every night, even if he/she didn't show up to work drunk?

Those of you who work, do your bosses tolerate illegal drug use? A lot of professions might not "test," but if an employee is "busted," he/she has trouble on many levels. He/she could potentially lost their profession--just like Andre stood to lose his.

Oh, and even though alcohol is "legal," many professions don't condone their employees getting drunk every night either. Ultimately, it will impact the "image" of the profession as well as the quality of work.

So it's not just in sports.

Start da Game
11-08-2009, 01:13 PM
even kafelnikov might start to think a little about his AO 2000 final loss to agassi.......it was hot as hell that day and kafelnikov tired out by 2nd set itself where as agassi at no point in the match looked uncomfortable........could be his high fitness level but doubts can rise.......if he said he took drugs in 97, who knows which other times he was on drugs?

i am unable to decide my stance on agassi, he was one player who i had a separate respect for.......

Echoes
11-08-2009, 01:15 PM
Do you all think a school board would be lenient to a teacher, admitting to meth use? Do you all think a school board would be lenient to a teacher for getting drunk every night, even if he/she didn't show up to work drunk?

Those of you who work, do your bosses tolerate illegal drug use? A lot of professions might not "test," but if an employee is "busted," he/she has trouble on many levels. He/she could potentially lost their profession--just like Andre stood to lose his.

Oh, and even though alcohol is "legal," many professions don't condone their employees getting drunk every night either. Ultimately, it will impact the "image" of the profession as well as the quality of work.

That's absolutely right too.

abraxas21
11-08-2009, 02:22 PM
What? Wilander got punished. Mac got away with it because controls didn't exist at that time.

As far as I know, wilander received a 3 months ban from the circuit. borg and mac fully got away with it. the existence or non-existence of the controls isn't relevant; it was still against the rules to do coke back then just as it is now.

not that i care, though.

andylovesaustin
11-08-2009, 02:22 PM
One other thing, I didn't read Mac's book. I was turned-off by his alleged drug use, plus I heard he really dissed Tatum O'Neal--who was a full-fledged heroin addict. Now, she's a full-fledged recovering heroin addict... allegedly. I just don't see the point of kicking somebody when they're down, making money off their misery. So I didn't agree with Mac's choices, and still don't. I gotta say, I don't respect his choices either.

So Mac said he used cocaine as a "pain-killer"?? Hmmm.. Well, considering the crowd he ran in.. I'm not so sure about that.
But I'll stop short of saying he's lying because I really don't know.

And just so ya know, I'm not as hard-ass as I sound. I felt badly for Michael Phelps being busted for pot the way he was. Here, he wasn't training, went to a party.. supposedly surrounded by friends, then some pic of him shows-up in a tabloid. Talk about being sold-out. He was sold-out big-time. But he was very naive in many ways. He's a target now, and people are going to be looking for ways to make money off him, both good and bad.

Should he have lost his endorsements? Yes. I mean, that's the risk he took. Should he have lost his medals? Well.. it certainly tarnishes the image of the sport to know that this great champion enjoys pot now and again! :lol: But I guess since he didn't test positive while he was competing, there's nothing that can really be done about it.

I just think athletes as well as other professionals are held to a standard of behavior. They are paid millions to adhere to that standard. As I said, the public believes in the ideal--whether it's realistic or not. When athletes or other professionals are busted for pot, meth, etc., or even DUI, then their credibility as well as their professionalism are tarnished.

abraxas21
11-08-2009, 02:32 PM
With Agassi he directly cheated by lying after he was caught. He cheated "the system." But whether or not he was caught, he and the rest also committed a type of "fraud," too.

I mean, athletes have an "image" of being fit and healthy, doing everything they can to get their bodies in condition to compete. In addition, the public wants to think of athletes as upstanding citizens, whether it's realistic or not. Athletes make a lot of money off of endorsements, marketing that image.

When an athlete takes ILLEGAL drugs, their image is tarnished on many levels. First, NARCOTICS diminish their athleticism, so they can't compete at the top level. As I said, we the public are paying to see them play "drug-free." We assume they are "drug-free," living a clean life because that's the image they project. Then to find-out they've been getting high on illegal drugs, the whole "image" of themselves and the sport has been tarnished, not to mention it being dangerous, even life-threatening to themselves personally.

Then, when you factor in these drugs are illegal NARCOTICS, these athletes have broken the law as well as jeopardize their health and athleticism. In order to get these drugs, they have to "deal" with a criminal element, directly or indirectly. So it's like if an athlete is going to get involved with that--knowing the impact and implications, what else might he/she get involved with?

The public doesn't condone athletes getting arrested for DUI either. I remember Bodie Miller getting arrested for DUI. I also remember Michael Phelps being arrested for DUI BEFORE the pot scandal. The bottom line is that athletes represent the "ideal," whether it's realistic or not and whether they want to or not. They are making A LOT of money off that image, and we the public TRUST when they are playing they haven't been on a meth binge or liquor binge the night before.

So is recreational drug use "cheating," per se? It's more cheating in the sense as in FRAUD, particularly in the midst of a tournament.

Hey..it's not only in sports. I have a colleague whose daughter WAS FIRED from her first job as an attorney because she was out partying every night at a bar. The firm felt like the woman wasn't the type of image they wanted to project, so they let her go. Texas is a right-to-work state, so her partying was reason enough to fire her.

Do you all think a school board would be lenient to a teacher, admitting to meth use? Do you all think a school board would be lenient to a teacher for getting drunk every night, even if he/she didn't show up to work drunk?

Those of you who work, do your bosses tolerate illegal drug use? A lot of professions might not "test," but if an employee is "busted," he/she has trouble on many levels. He/she could potentially lost their profession--just like Andre stood to lose his.

Oh, and even though alcohol is "legal," many professions don't condone their employees getting drunk every night either. Ultimately, it will impact the "image" of the profession as well as the quality of work.

So it's not just in sports.

not all of us look at sportsmen as heroes, I'm certainly not one of them. Tennis players are just normal people who happen to be talented to play tennis and as such I don't consider them to represent the "ideal" or that they're "upstanding citizens" in any way and quite frankly, if you or the general public do that, then I'd recommend you and them to avoid doing it. Most often than not, there's no reason to assume that tennis players, or sportsmen in general, are morally better or worse than the average joe on the street.

that being said, i certainly object employeers doing drug tests on their employees. it's an invasion on your privacy, imo. if you're able to get the job done and have good relationships with your co-workers and bosses then it should all be fine. of course, managing to do this could be incompatible with a long term addiction to a hard drug like meth or cocaine but it doesn't negate the chance of a little bit of experimentation here and there, which is fine in my book.

andylovesaustin
11-08-2009, 02:40 PM
not all of us look at sportsmen as heroes, I'm certainly not one of them. Tennis players are just normal people who happen to be talented to play tennis and as such I don't consider them to represent the "ideal" or that they're "upstanding citizens" in any way and quite frankly, if you do that, then I'd recommend you to avoid keep doing it. Most often than not, there's no reason to assume that tennis players, or sportsmen in general, are morally better or worse than the average joe on the street.

that being said, i certainly object employeers doing drug tests on their employees. it's an invasion on your privacy, imo. if you're able to get the job done and have good relationships with your co-workers and bosses then it should all be fine. of course, managing to do this could be incompatible with a long term addiction to a hard drug like meth or cocaine but it doesn't negate the chance of a little bit of experimentation here and there, which is fine in my book.

Well, I understand your opinion. And definitely you have your points.

But these athlete forfeit their right to privacy by participating in the sport--just like a bank employee or others where random drug-testing is implemented forfeit their right to privacy in order to be employed. Tennis players don't have to be PROFESSIONAL athletes. They can find another line of work if they object to the drug-testing. They know what they're getting into. And you aren't considering other factors... like liability issues or insurance. They're all kinds of factors into play..

Besides, in other professions there isn't random drug-testing, per se; however, if a professional like a teacher, doctor, lawyer, police officer... among other is busted taking illegal drugs or even arrested for DUI, there are direct or indirect professional ramifications. That's just the way it is.

RafitoGoat
11-08-2009, 03:01 PM
even kafelnikov might start to think a little about his AO 2000 final loss to agassi.......it was hot as hell that day and kafelnikov tired out by 2nd set itself where as agassi at no point in the match looked uncomfortable........could be his high fitness level but doubts can rise.......if he said he took drugs in 97, who knows which other times he was on drugs?

i am unable to decide my stance on agassi, he was one player who i had a separate respect for.......

Agassi taking meth only makes his achievements more impressive. The fact he didn't become an addict and the fact he was able to take a set off Rafter despite taking meth (or maybe he had stopped by the US Open) is impressive. Especially impressive for a guy who relied on reflexes more than anything else, and meth dulls your reflexes heavily. This is a 'tell all book' titled "Open", so if Agassi says he only took meth during his slide to 140 in the rankings then that should be taken as fact (since complete and utter honesty is the reason for fearlessly throwing his image under a bus). Plus if he did take meth after 1997 then I highly doubt he would have been able to win the slams in 1999 or regain the number one ranking. This is meth we are talking about, its about as far away from performance-enhancing (especially in a focus sport like tennis) as any drug on the street, and Agassi's 1997 results are major proof of that!

Bobby
11-08-2009, 03:21 PM
Agassi taking meth only makes his achievements more impressive. The fact he didn't become an addict and the fact he was able to take a set off Rafter despite taking meth (or maybe he had stopped by the US Open) is impressive. Especially impressive for a guy who relied on reflexes more than anything else, and meth dulls your reflexes heavily. This is a 'tell all book' titled "Open", so if Agassi says he only took meth during his slide to 140 in the rankings then that should be taken as fact (since complete and utter honesty is the reason for fearlessly throwing his image under a bus). Plus if he did take meth after 1997 then I highly doubt he would have been able to win the slams in 1999 or regain the number one ranking. This is meth we are talking about, its about as far away from performance-enhancing (especially in a focus sport like tennis) as any drug on the street, and Agassi's 1997 results are major proof of that!

Isn't that a slightly naive approach you have there, old boy! I'm not saying Agassi used performance enhancing drugs after 1997. But if he did, he certainly wouldn't declare it to the world in his book, even if it's titled "Open".

There's absolutely nothing impressive in using meth. It's stupid from Agassi to tell about it know. When he was able to lie and get away with it in 1997, he chose a road with no going back. What was wrong then, is wrong now. 12 years don't make it all right.

GlennMirnyi
11-08-2009, 03:56 PM
Agassi taking meth only makes his achievements more impressive. The fact he didn't become an addict and the fact he was able to take a set off Rafter despite taking meth (or maybe he had stopped by the US Open) is impressive. Especially impressive for a guy who relied on reflexes more than anything else, and meth dulls your reflexes heavily. This is a 'tell all book' titled "Open", so if Agassi says he only took meth during his slide to 140 in the rankings then that should be taken as fact (since complete and utter honesty is the reason for fearlessly throwing his image under a bus). Plus if he did take meth after 1997 then I highly doubt he would have been able to win the slams in 1999 or regain the number one ranking. This is meth we are talking about, its about as far away from performance-enhancing (especially in a focus sport like tennis) as any drug on the street, and Agassi's 1997 results are major proof of that!

:haha:

You're more naďve than a 7 year-old. :haha: :haha:

Echoes
11-08-2009, 04:56 PM
I believe Borg's accomplishments are amazing, and his recreational drug use is immaterial. I don't believe it is cheating to use cocaine recreationally, just as I don't believe it's cheating (in the sense of trying to gain an unfair advantage to win tennis matches) to smoke weed or take Ecstasy pills. It's illegal. It's wrong. It's against the rules.

Again. Here you have to distinguish between out-of-competition tests and in-competition tests.

Outside competition coke is not banned (I'm talking about sport authorities here). I mean coke is considered recreational by authorities if players test for it in out-of-competition tests. Hence they don't punish them for that. Inside competition it is a PED. And several sportsmen use it as a PED, that's for sure.

I can remind here the Tom Boonen case. He's a former cycling World champion, winner of Paris-Roubaix, countryman of mine. He tested 3X time positive for coke in out-of-competition tests. He's never risked any sanction from cycling authorities because they aren't banned in outside competition. He should however have been arrested. It's not normal he was not.

Pea
11-08-2009, 05:32 PM
Agassi taking meth only makes his achievements more impressive. The fact he didn't become an addict and the fact he was able to take a set off Rafter despite taking meth (or maybe he had stopped by the US Open) is impressive. Especially impressive for a guy who relied on reflexes more than anything else, and meth dulls your reflexes heavily. This is a 'tell all book' titled "Open", so if Agassi says he only took meth during his slide to 140 in the rankings then that should be taken as fact (since complete and utter honesty is the reason for fearlessly throwing his image under a bus). Plus if he did take meth after 1997 then I highly doubt he would have been able to win the slams in 1999 or regain the number one ranking. This is meth we are talking about, its about as far away from performance-enhancing (especially in a focus sport like tennis) as any drug on the street, and Agassi's 1997 results are major proof of that!

Is that you brad gilbert?

Start da Game
11-08-2009, 05:38 PM
Agassi taking meth only makes his achievements more impressive. The fact he didn't become an addict and the fact he was able to take a set off Rafter despite taking meth (or maybe he had stopped by the US Open) is impressive. Especially impressive for a guy who relied on reflexes more than anything else, and meth dulls your reflexes heavily. This is a 'tell all book' titled "Open", so if Agassi says he only took meth during his slide to 140 in the rankings then that should be taken as fact (since complete and utter honesty is the reason for fearlessly throwing his image under a bus). Plus if he did take meth after 1997 then I highly doubt he would have been able to win the slams in 1999 or regain the number one ranking. This is meth we are talking about, its about as far away from performance-enhancing (especially in a focus sport like tennis) as any drug on the street, and Agassi's 1997 results are major proof of that!

well, we don't know if he is trying to cover up his darker secrets by revealing one that has lesser influence on his legacy.......you cannot be sure that he took only meth, actually it's a natural tendency of anyone to doubt even more.......

River
11-08-2009, 05:47 PM
This is getting absolutely stupid. He wants a gold medal? Buy a gold-plated one at Wal-Mart. I understand his frustration, but if he thinks he'll get any respect for getting a gold medal this way, then he's dead wrong.

And incredible how people are saying crystal meth is performance-enhancing. Meth does increase your energy and calms you down, but people don't realize that after a month, addiction develops and the body /CANNOT FUNCTION PROPERLY/ without having meth in their body. In other words, a person's body will deteriorate after just a month a use and crystal meth will do nothing but return the user's body to either its /NORMAL/ state or at least better than he currently is, and the user is already shitty at that time.

The reason it is banned is because, if a player did not get addicted to meth, he would be able to use it to his advantage as much as he wished. The problem with Agassi is that he /was/ getting addicted and eventually would most likely not function right without a dose of it. Crystal Meth, along with coke and whatnot, is banned justifiably on certain conditions, and that is its /temporary/ use.

Agassi getting banned for 3 months would be justified. To actually call foul on the late end of his career because of his addiction is an absolute crock and unfortunately for Agassi, it allows a lot of people who hated him before to accuse him of more stuff now.

Action Jackson
11-08-2009, 10:21 PM
Love how people are trying to deflect attention from Agassi. Wilander and Novacek didn't have the ATP cover up their positive results for coke.

star
11-08-2009, 10:38 PM
And incredible how people are saying crystal meth is performance-enhancing. Meth does increase your energy and calms you down, but people don't realize that after a month, addiction develops and the body /CANNOT FUNCTION PROPERLY/ without having meth in their body. In other words, a person's body will deteriorate after just a month a use and crystal meth will do nothing but return the user's body to either its /NORMAL/ state or at least better than he currently is, and the user is already shitty at that time.



First -- Calms you down???? Maybe if you have ADHD. Otherwise it increases your heart rate, jangles your nervous system, and makes sitting still a challenge.

Also, whether you can't function properly after a month of using meth is highly debatable. I suppose if you were using heavily, that might be the case, but meth addiciton is not like heroin addiction. If all you know about meth is from reading about it, you can be misled. I know people who have used meth for 20 years and you can't tell it from their bodies. I grant you that none of them is playing elite tennis. Meth is different than cocaine too because the cocaine high wears off so fast it leaves the body drained and looking for another hit right away. There's a lot of chasing the high with cocaine. I think meth is pernicious and I hate it with a passion, but there's so much crap written about it.

nanoman
11-08-2009, 11:14 PM
Agassi taking meth only makes his achievements more impressive. The fact he didn't become an addict and the fact he was able to take a set off Rafter despite taking meth (or maybe he had stopped by the US Open) is impressive. Especially impressive for a guy who relied on reflexes more than anything else, and meth dulls your reflexes heavily. Plus if he did take meth after 1997 then I highly doubt he would have been able to win the slams in 1999 or regain the number one ranking. This is meth we are talking about, its about as far away from performance-enhancing This is a 'tell all book' titled "Open", so if Agassi says he only took meth during his slide to 140 in the rankings then that should be taken as fact (since complete and utter honesty is the reason for fearlessly throwing his image under a bus). (especially in a focus sport like tennis) as any drug on the street, and Agassi's 1997 results are major proof of that!

:haha: :haha: :haha: :haha:

RafitoGoat
11-09-2009, 12:21 AM
Yeah so we should believe bitter posters who can't fathom why Agassi is revealing this information (familiar with 'coming clean' and 'honesty'?), rather than believing Agassi. Plus it defies logic, how could Agassi reach world number one and win titles while practicing meth? Do any of you know what meth is? You wouldn't be making these outlandish statements about Agassi using it after 1997 if you did. Plus his spiked drink story wouldn't have held up if he kept being caught with meth in his system. What I'm reading in this thread reaks of desperation, both from Bruguera and several posters.

Action Jackson
11-09-2009, 12:25 AM
As for Sergi, he is dreaming.

andylovesaustin
11-09-2009, 03:13 AM
Ok.. I swore I was gonna let this drop, but here I am yet again.

I watched Andre's 60 minute thingy. It broke my heart to see him almost break down in tears.

Andre... I always supported him over Pete..

But... as I was watching this, I ask my husband what would happen if he tested positive for meth. He replied, he'd be fired. :sad:

I mean.. I'm just trying to say it's not only about tennis. What Andre did testing positive meth much less lying about it would be a deal-breaker in any profession. It is a big deal.

I do agree with Andre. I think we need to have more compassion. I think we need to focus on helping people more so than their "punishment." But that does not negate the fact Andre did NOT suffer any consequences until now. As far as I know, he hasn't received any treatment or counseling? I guess if he's come to the other side, it's commendable. But most people can't make that journey without professional help.

I'm so sorry to see Andre hurt by the criticism of others. But really, what on earth did he expect?

Action Jackson
11-09-2009, 03:15 AM
Poor baby.

andylovesaustin
11-09-2009, 03:17 AM
Poor baby.

:lol:

I think I have a love/hate relationship with you!:wavey:

juliehardwick
11-09-2009, 04:42 AM
I think he's clearly said to Couric and in interviews published today that he did expect a highly critical reaction. And he got it. I can't see the public flogging that has been going on for the past two weeks as "no consequence" to a person of his global visibility. I think from a number of pieces today we're getting into a phase where people are more considered in what they make of it (see articles by tennis journalist Charles Bricker and the Real Clear sports blog apology from the journalist who scolded Agassi last week), but much of the first round of consideration has been very harsh. That's a real price.

But still hardly anyone has read the book - but the people who have are generally very sympathetic. I'm still a little bemused by the reluctance to acknowledge people make mistakes, bad ones sometimes, and that shouldn't lead us to write them off forever.

nanoman
11-09-2009, 08:23 AM
Yeah so we should believe bitter posters who can't fathom why Agassi is revealing this information (familiar with 'coming clean' and 'honesty'?), rather than believing Agassi. Plus it defies logic, how could Agassi reach world number one and win titles while practicing meth? Do any of you know what meth is? You wouldn't be making these outlandish statements about Agassi using it after 1997 if you did. Plus his spiked drink story wouldn't have held up if he kept being caught with meth in his system. What I'm reading in this thread reaks of desperation, both from Bruguera and several posters.

Who said we think he was using just meth in his titles winning years ?

Action Jackson
11-09-2009, 08:29 AM
Who said we think he was using just meth in his titles winning years ?

No, he just wants to be employed as the man who wipes Agassi's arse, you know times are tough in the credit crunch.

JolánGagó
11-09-2009, 10:04 AM
Sergi, he was a fine player but never the brightest kid around :shrug:

About GAgassi, new revelations coming up guys:

http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/5111/spaceballsmall.th.jpg (http://img214.imageshack.us/i/spaceballsmall.jpg/)

FlavorNuts
11-09-2009, 10:16 AM
Why is Andre being persecuted? He didn't take performance enhancers.

He should be applauded for making it out alive and going on to win majors. Legend.

RafitoGoat
11-09-2009, 10:25 AM
Agassi continues to outsmart the establishment.

Action Jackson
11-09-2009, 10:31 AM
Why is Andre being persecuted? He didn't take performance enhancers.

He should be applauded for making it out alive and going on to win majors. Legend.

If he was so honest, then he would have taken the ban and not had the test results thrown out, and no this does not mean I support them testing for recreational drugs.

One rule for the powerful and others for the lumpen, but hey that might be hard to comprehend.

RafitoGoat
11-09-2009, 10:33 AM
Why expect Agassi to be honest in 1997? He was on meth and depressed, hardly likely to lead to wisdom. That is if throwing away your career at age 27 all in the name of 'being honest' is meant to be wise :lol:

andylovesaustin
11-09-2009, 01:31 PM
If he was so honest, then he would have taken the ban and not had the test results thrown out, and no this does not mean I support them testing for recreational drugs.

One rule for the powerful and others for the lumpen, but hey that might be hard to comprehend.

Exactly but I do support drug testing for recreational drugs if only to protect the players from themselves and from those sycophants out there. I also think it's a matter of the integrity of the sport for all the reasons I mentioned earlier. Most of their careers are so short anyway. I don't think it's too much to ask to keep clean during that time.

Now when the retire, if the want to explore illegal, recreational drugs, well what's stopping them? I still don't anything "good" can come from it. I don't agree with it. But if that's what they want to do, they have all the time, money and freedom after they left.

And I think he should be suffering consequences for lying. I think Andre can handle the heat because he knows this, too, shall pass. He has his millions. He has his titles. He has his good works. He has his apologists and defenders. Andre is gonna be just fine. Was there ever any doubt?

Action Jackson
11-09-2009, 01:38 PM
And I think he should be suffering consequences for lying. I think Andre can handle the heat because he knows this, too, shall pass. He has his millions. He has his titles. He has his good works. He has his apologists and defenders. Andre is gonna be just fine. Was there ever any doubt?

Like anything there are always going to be consequences for any decision that is make, whether positive or negative. Of course Agassi will come through this, the book has created a lot of hype and publicity, it will bring people in and he is a big name anyway.

Yes, of course there are numerous apologists, that happens with any well known figure.

RafitoGoat
11-09-2009, 03:38 PM
Like anything there are always going to be consequences for any decision that is make, whether positive or negative. Of course Agassi will come through this, the book has created a lot of hype and publicity, it will bring people in and he is a big name anyway.

Yes, of course there are numerous apologists, that happens with any well known figure.

Truer words have never been spoken. I think we all wouldn't mind trading places with Agassi.

FiBeR
11-09-2009, 03:57 PM
:baby: