Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Ongoing British Tennis…
Comments
-
A very important hold there by sinner.0
-
Yeah aged well!North Lower Neil said:
Not for long!EugenesAxe said:Getting interesting…0 -
Probably the drugsNorth Lower Neil said:Sinner has been quality tbf.3 -
Was that seale in the box!1
-
Great player but not sure how anyone can want a drug cheat to win.
That's both Wimbledon champions recently done for drugs and both served pathetic bans after highly dubious excuses.7 -
Bit easier getting to the players box now. Remember would have to climb up there via getting on the roof of the commentators box. Murray went up there twice. Took an eternity for him to do it.0
-
I tell you one thing that blows my mind about social media, is how upset people get at facts?
In the comments you've got people saying "cheater wins tournament" etc and people are losing their minds over it 😂
"Scumbag" "pathetic loser" etc towards anyone saying he is a cheat. Does make me laugh.
It's the same as when Jon Jones got done doping and people would defend that.
A cheats a cheat.
1 -
Mine is how so many people get things, that aren't opinions so very wrong - don't they know how to do any research? Search engine anyone?Braziliance said:I tell you one thing that blows my mind about social media, is how upset people get at facts?
In the comments you've got people saying "cheater wins tournament" etc and people are losing their minds over it 😂
"Scumbag" "pathetic loser" etc towards anyone saying he is a cheat. Does make me laugh.
It's the same as when Jon Jones got done doping and people would defend that.
A cheats a cheat.0 -
Such a boring and tedious argument - social media and forums like this have no room for nuanced debate. Treating all cases as if they're the same is eminently ridiculous.Braziliance said:I tell you one thing that blows my mind about social media, is how upset people get at facts?
In the comments you've got people saying "cheater wins tournament" etc and people are losing their minds over it 😂
"Scumbag" "pathetic loser" etc towards anyone saying he is a cheat. Does make me laugh.
It's the same as when Jon Jones got done doping and people would defend that.
A cheats a cheat.
3 -
A deserved winner - played really well.0
- Sponsored links:
-
Trump built his presidential empire on this. But that’s not for here.PrincessFiona said:
Mine is how so many people get things, that aren't opinions so very wrong - don't they know how to do any research? Search engine anyone?Braziliance said:I tell you one thing that blows my mind about social media, is how upset people get at facts?
In the comments you've got people saying "cheater wins tournament" etc and people are losing their minds over it 😂
"Scumbag" "pathetic loser" etc towards anyone saying he is a cheat. Does make me laugh.
It's the same as when Jon Jones got done doping and people would defend that.
A cheats a cheat.0 -
I think some people can have nuanced debates, but sadly not everyone, especially misrepresenting what you have saidhoof_it_up_to_benty said:
Such a boring and tedious argument - social media and forums like this have no room for nuanced debate. Treating all cases as if they're the same is eminently ridiculous.Braziliance said:I tell you one thing that blows my mind about social media, is how upset people get at facts?
In the comments you've got people saying "cheater wins tournament" etc and people are losing their minds over it 😂
"Scumbag" "pathetic loser" etc towards anyone saying he is a cheat. Does make me laugh.
It's the same as when Jon Jones got done doping and people would defend that.
A cheats a cheat.0 -
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/articles/cy5ny6lx5dqo
The bit I don't understand is why your physio would be using a banned anabolic steroid?0 -
It is pretty simple though.hoof_it_up_to_benty said:
Such a boring and tedious argument - social media and forums like this have no room for nuanced debate. Treating all cases as if they're the same is eminently ridiculous.Braziliance said:I tell you one thing that blows my mind about social media, is how upset people get at facts?
In the comments you've got people saying "cheater wins tournament" etc and people are losing their minds over it 😂
"Scumbag" "pathetic loser" etc towards anyone saying he is a cheat. Does make me laugh.
It's the same as when Jon Jones got done doping and people would defend that.
A cheats a cheat.
If you cheat in a sport by using a performance enhancing drug, your rep is tarnished.
It really is as black and white as that. You can still be good, but you will always be someone who had to use a performance enhancer.
I can't understand how anyone can root for someone who has been found cheating, you can accept they're good, but in a controlled environment with rules, they failed.1 -
Nuances again - how much, how much advantage it is and how long/when the ban is.Braziliance said:
It is pretty simple though.hoof_it_up_to_benty said:
Such a boring and tedious argument - social media and forums like this have no room for nuanced debate. Treating all cases as if they're the same is eminently ridiculous.Braziliance said:I tell you one thing that blows my mind about social media, is how upset people get at facts?
In the comments you've got people saying "cheater wins tournament" etc and people are losing their minds over it 😂
"Scumbag" "pathetic loser" etc towards anyone saying he is a cheat. Does make me laugh.
It's the same as when Jon Jones got done doping and people would defend that.
A cheats a cheat.
If you cheat in a sport by using a performance enhancing drug, your rep is tarnished.
It really is as black and white as that. You can still be good, but you will always be someone who had to use a performance enhancer.
I can't understand how anyone can root for someone who has been found cheating, you can accept they're good, but in a controlled environment with rules, they failed.
Didn't they initially try to pass Swiatek's short ban as a break for personal reasons? And then Sinner's was a short ban rather conveniently timed0 -
It's explained in the BBC link I provided.0
-
Well it is a massive advantage, that's why it isn't allowed.PrincessFiona said:
Nuances again - how much, how much advantage it is and how long/when the ban is.Braziliance said:
It is pretty simple though.hoof_it_up_to_benty said:
Such a boring and tedious argument - social media and forums like this have no room for nuanced debate. Treating all cases as if they're the same is eminently ridiculous.Braziliance said:I tell you one thing that blows my mind about social media, is how upset people get at facts?
In the comments you've got people saying "cheater wins tournament" etc and people are losing their minds over it 😂
"Scumbag" "pathetic loser" etc towards anyone saying he is a cheat. Does make me laugh.
It's the same as when Jon Jones got done doping and people would defend that.
A cheats a cheat.
If you cheat in a sport by using a performance enhancing drug, your rep is tarnished.
It really is as black and white as that. You can still be good, but you will always be someone who had to use a performance enhancer.
I can't understand how anyone can root for someone who has been found cheating, you can accept they're good, but in a controlled environment with rules, they failed.
Didn't they initially try to pass Swiatek's short ban as a break for personal reasons? And then Sinner's was a short ban rather conveniently timed
Same as when someone will say it's "only a little amount" it's still more than the clean athlete is taking.
I am of the view drugs should be allowed, let people juice and then there can be no complaints, same as in MMA, let's see some real nutters, or at least have a separate sport for it.
Rules are rules for a reason, and I am glad people don't let cheaters forget what they are.0 -
Exactly, ignorant know alls yapping on when not done the research.Covered End said:It's explained in the BBC link I provided.
A billionth of a gram. It would not have enhanced his performance at all. Previously found not guilty, etcetc1 -
Not read anything regarding Sinner's case to suggest he gained any advantage - nobody has suggested that he did. The main contention seems to be over how the case was handled.
2 -
Think the (lack of) interest in the enhanced games shows that most people still want clean sport.Braziliance said:
Well it is a massive advantage, that's why it isn't allowed.PrincessFiona said:
Nuances again - how much, how much advantage it is and how long/when the ban is.Braziliance said:
It is pretty simple though.hoof_it_up_to_benty said:
Such a boring and tedious argument - social media and forums like this have no room for nuanced debate. Treating all cases as if they're the same is eminently ridiculous.Braziliance said:I tell you one thing that blows my mind about social media, is how upset people get at facts?
In the comments you've got people saying "cheater wins tournament" etc and people are losing their minds over it 😂
"Scumbag" "pathetic loser" etc towards anyone saying he is a cheat. Does make me laugh.
It's the same as when Jon Jones got done doping and people would defend that.
A cheats a cheat.
If you cheat in a sport by using a performance enhancing drug, your rep is tarnished.
It really is as black and white as that. You can still be good, but you will always be someone who had to use a performance enhancer.
I can't understand how anyone can root for someone who has been found cheating, you can accept they're good, but in a controlled environment with rules, they failed.
Didn't they initially try to pass Swiatek's short ban as a break for personal reasons? And then Sinner's was a short ban rather conveniently timed
Same as when someone will say it's "only a little amount" it's still more than the clean athlete is taking.
I am of the view drugs should be allowed, let people juice and then there can be no complaints, same as in MMA, let's see some real nutters, or at least have a separate sport for it.
Rules are rules for a reason, and I am glad people don't let cheaters forget what they are.
If anyone wants to know why some athletes might cheat I highly recommend David Millar’s book Racing Through The Dark. It’s incredibly stark and honest, I found it fascinating0 - Sponsored links:
-
Cause the low dose is what was found, same as when a top fighter gets done doping, they got sloppy.
These athletes pay a lot of money to speak to the right people to figure out how to exploit cycling systems, the chances are if you get caught even doing a grain, you're taking way more than that, so much so you can't cover it all up.
I don't know why it causes so much uproar when people highlight cheating in sport. If the athlete never tried to get an advantage, there would be no debates.
The athletes still get away with it as they get to compete and be paid for it, the fans still get to watch and enjoy their favourite athlete(s), so overrall it doesn't matter.
It's just when it's all said and done, someone had to cheat to gain an advantage in a competitive environment, so their record is tainted.2 -
The solution is either let everyone dope, and then we can watch some freak athletes, or, no one dopes and even a slight failure permanently bans the individual from their sport, that way people will stop risking it.
The sporting authorities don't like the idea of option 2 as when a superstar is caught out, they lose a cash cow.0 -
You have that first solution, it's called the enhanced gamesBraziliance said:The solution is either let everyone dope, and then we can watch some freak athletes, or, no one dopes and even a slight failure permanently bans the individual from their sport, that way people will stop risking it.
The sporting authorities don't like the idea of option 2 as when a superstar is caught out, they lose a cash cow.0 -
it isn't necessarily a massive advantage - it depends on the amount.Braziliance said:
Well it is a massive advantage, that's why it isn't allowed.PrincessFiona said:
Nuances again - how much, how much advantage it is and how long/when the ban is.Braziliance said:
It is pretty simple though.hoof_it_up_to_benty said:
Such a boring and tedious argument - social media and forums like this have no room for nuanced debate. Treating all cases as if they're the same is eminently ridiculous.Braziliance said:I tell you one thing that blows my mind about social media, is how upset people get at facts?
In the comments you've got people saying "cheater wins tournament" etc and people are losing their minds over it 😂
"Scumbag" "pathetic loser" etc towards anyone saying he is a cheat. Does make me laugh.
It's the same as when Jon Jones got done doping and people would defend that.
A cheats a cheat.
If you cheat in a sport by using a performance enhancing drug, your rep is tarnished.
It really is as black and white as that. You can still be good, but you will always be someone who had to use a performance enhancer.
I can't understand how anyone can root for someone who has been found cheating, you can accept they're good, but in a controlled environment with rules, they failed.
Didn't they initially try to pass Swiatek's short ban as a break for personal reasons? And then Sinner's was a short ban rather conveniently timed
Same as when someone will say it's "only a little amount" it's still more than the clean athlete is taking.
I am of the view drugs should be allowed, let people juice and then there can be no complaints, same as in MMA, let's see some real nutters, or at least have a separate sport for it.
Rules are rules for a reason, and I am glad people don't let cheaters forget what they are.
If the CSA are saying it wasn't enough to make a difference then I am inclined to believe them not randoms on social media2 -
That's not a real thing tbf, hasn't happened yet, and it won't have the same kind of money and eyes that main sports promotions havefenaddick said:
You have that first solution, it's called the enhanced gamesBraziliance said:The solution is either let everyone dope, and then we can watch some freak athletes, or, no one dopes and even a slight failure permanently bans the individual from their sport, that way people will stop risking it.
The sporting authorities don't like the idea of option 2 as when a superstar is caught out, they lose a cash cow.0 -
It's ALWAYS a 'tiny' amount though. That’s exactly how these things work. Those who use banned substances often take other things to hide it in their system therefore only small traces are found.bolloxbolder said:
Exactly, ignorant know alls yapping on when not done the research.Covered End said:It's explained in the BBC link I provided.
A billionth of a gram. It would not have enhanced his performance at all. Previously found not guilty, etcetc
So the question is whether you believe his excuse, or whether you think he was actually taking more of it, but due to the reason mentioned above, only a small amount was detected.
Some people will believe him, WADA believed him, but many people out there don't and for me i still think it's highly questionable.1 -
sadly that's true for many elected politicians. It certainly has been for the SNP, but didn't quite do it in the (first) referendum.EugenesAxe said:
Trump built his presidential empire on this. But that’s not for here.PrincessFiona said:
Mine is how so many people get things, that aren't opinions so very wrong - don't they know how to do any research? Search engine anyone?Braziliance said:I tell you one thing that blows my mind about social media, is how upset people get at facts?
In the comments you've got people saying "cheater wins tournament" etc and people are losing their minds over it 😂
"Scumbag" "pathetic loser" etc towards anyone saying he is a cheat. Does make me laugh.
It's the same as when Jon Jones got done doping and people would defend that.
A cheats a cheat.
If voters had to pass a knowledge test to vote (am not suggesting they should or opening up a new discussion!), there would be a lot less voting!0 -
So why was he banned then ?PrincessFiona said:
it isn't necessarily a massive advantage - it depends on the amount.Braziliance said:
Well it is a massive advantage, that's why it isn't allowed.PrincessFiona said:
Nuances again - how much, how much advantage it is and how long/when the ban is.Braziliance said:
It is pretty simple though.hoof_it_up_to_benty said:
Such a boring and tedious argument - social media and forums like this have no room for nuanced debate. Treating all cases as if they're the same is eminently ridiculous.Braziliance said:I tell you one thing that blows my mind about social media, is how upset people get at facts?
In the comments you've got people saying "cheater wins tournament" etc and people are losing their minds over it 😂
"Scumbag" "pathetic loser" etc towards anyone saying he is a cheat. Does make me laugh.
It's the same as when Jon Jones got done doping and people would defend that.
A cheats a cheat.
If you cheat in a sport by using a performance enhancing drug, your rep is tarnished.
It really is as black and white as that. You can still be good, but you will always be someone who had to use a performance enhancer.
I can't understand how anyone can root for someone who has been found cheating, you can accept they're good, but in a controlled environment with rules, they failed.
Didn't they initially try to pass Swiatek's short ban as a break for personal reasons? And then Sinner's was a short ban rather conveniently timed
Same as when someone will say it's "only a little amount" it's still more than the clean athlete is taking.
I am of the view drugs should be allowed, let people juice and then there can be no complaints, same as in MMA, let's see some real nutters, or at least have a separate sport for it.
Rules are rules for a reason, and I am glad people don't let cheaters forget what they are.
If the CSA are saying it wasn't enough to make a difference then I am inclined to believe them not randoms on social media0 -
READ THE LINK I POSTED AT 7.56PM?0
-
Drug cheat wins Wimbledon. Another day.
Will always be people willing to stick their heads in the sand whilst every major sport is infected by artificial athletes at the top level.
An honest conversation needs to be had. Either you're allowing it and take the consequences that comes with it, or you ban it and actually ban it rather than allowing these cheats to prosper.2
