Born to runner up.
Printable View
Born to runner up.
Is Djokovic the most boring great player ever?
He bores me to death. I was pretty young when Nadal was at his peak though so I'm sure my memories will be rose-tinted (the 2008 Wimbledon final :drool:).
Nadal I'm more certain was doping than Djokovic.
Spanish, with fairly regular injuries throughout the mid 2000's. Holds more wieght than the 'He's really good' argument against Djokovic.
Murray is close to him in stamina, so why isn't he doping?
I don't know why we can't just enjoy and admire a great sportsman.
The thing with Nadal is that at 17 he looked boosted.
With Nadal you can definitely put it in the no smoke without fire drawer, a much visited one over the years as far as doping in sport is concerned. Shame nobody will go back and strike off Miguel Indurain's Tours.
That year he faced Mariano Puerta might've been it if Mariano wasn't doping as well.
Maria Sharapova has confirmed that she failed a drugs test at the Australian Open....
Awesomes. 2 year ban.
Not even TTH can save her this time.
That's an interesting point, actually. Both the subjects of the Save Maria(no) threads have wound up to be drug cheats.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/35750285
I believe her. Silly mistake and irresponsible, but not as bad as 'failing drug test' sounds.
The reason she's gone early on this is to dupe mugs like you.
We'll see as I imagine there will be records of her taking it before the ban.
Russian on the gear. Well I never.
Fair play to her taking full responsibility for this - however, it's such an avoidable issue.
If you're taking a drug that isn't even approved for sale in the US, and you get it imported for "magnesium deficiency" use from overseas - you really need to be on top of it's legaility by WADA.
It's obviously total horseshit. Like a professional athlete earning millions per year (or any of her support/management team of maybe 20-odd people) doesn't bother to get a substance checked which is prescribed by her "family doctor" :D
She's been properly rumbled and my guess is the authorities have given her this excuse as an out.
Yeah, I wouldn't be taking drugs for that kind of shit. I'd be thinking about early retirement.Quote:
"Several health issues" Sharapova was suffering from in 2006 had prompted her to begin taking the drug - including magnesium deficiency, regular bouts of influenza, early indications of diabetes, and "irregular" heart test results
It's such reverse excusing. She just happens to suffer from that particular combination that this medication covers.
"Oh shit, we've been rumbled... er... what is this medication normally used for.. let's just say she suffers from all of them"
Also, her "famly doctor" in the US (she has lived in the US for 22yrs) would not be able to prescribe this drug, given it's not licensed in the US.
I googled it briefly earlier and it didn't seem to be used for any of those things.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meldonium
If I was an elite athlete with a heart defect, I'd call it quits.Quote:
Meldonium is clinically used to treat angina and myocardial infarction.
Much like if I was an asthmatic cyclist.Quote:
Meldonium was added to the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) list of banned substances effective 1 January 2016.[33] It was previously on WADA's list of drugs to be monitored.[34][35] WADA considers the drug to be a “metabolic modulator”, similar to insulin
Not to trivialise the point, but she hasn't aged very well.
Russian skin doesn't age well.
Shit, this sounds pretty serious, do go on.Quote:
Sportspeople will die in action as a result of being denied meldonium...
Riiight, ok. As you were.Quote:
... according to the heart drug's inventor.
All Russians should be banned from all professional sports.
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/201...e-money-tennis
You've got to admire the Serbs in a way. They just can't help themselves.
Well, he is right.
He definitely isn't. Jonathan Liew destroyed this bollocks in the Telegraph last week.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2...example-of-mo/
What a quote that is by Moore.
I don't agree with that article at all, Jim.
What a ludicrous comparison this is:
Can you put in your own words why you think women tennis players should get equal prize money to men?Quote:
Given that a millionaire contributes more to the economy than the guy who serves your latte in the morning, should their vote count for more?
What Djokovic said was very well expressed and definitely not some sexist soundbite. It makes total sense that men should get more prize money - or at least, there is a valid reason for them to pursue that. Should the Winbledon wheelchair tennis winner get the same amount of money as the Men's singles champion? Obviously not.
If the men are more popular (and they are), then that will get reflected in sponsorship money (and it does).
Build the competitive structures equally, and let the externalities reflect things like interest.
Djokovic has said some uncomfortable things in the past. I remember when he was staunchly against Kosovan independence, and said a bunch of really Serb-nationalist stuff. I mean, I can understand intellectually why he feels that way, but it's hard not to be put off by it.
As a Serb, it's understandable why he'd be opposed to Kosovan independence, despite what we, the better people on the outside, think on the matter.
Because not to do so is a tacit statement on behalf of the tennis authorities that having a penis alone makes you worth more money. As others have said, if they are more popular then the outside market will reflect that, but the sporting federations should hold the game up amongst everyone.
Whilst I generally agree with this - I struggle to make it hold up when looking at other competitors at Wimbledon. The wheelchair doubles winners receive a lot less than the doubles winners - is this not a tacit statement that being disabled means that you are worth less? Even the mixed doubles receive a lot less (20% of) the mens/womens doubles...
They also give the under 12s less prize money, the ageist bastards.
I think it's reasonable that the able bodied singles get a larger piece of the pot because these are bigger competitions with many more entrants and no restrictions other than genitalia/having legs, but within that you cannot as a sport declare that men get more prize money just because they are supposedly more popular. Tennis is actually a long way ahead of most sports in this regard.
Yeah, I was being slightly facetious.
That said, I find it very disingenuous when some people of accused of being sexist for holding these opposing views - you can disagree with "equal" prize money without being a sexist - especially when there are very pertinent arguments to be made. I thought Djokovic made some very good points (assuming his facts are correct), whereas, someone like Moore is clearly just a moronic dinosaur.