Tennis
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Show More
Sanctions wont be that hard, only been on the banned list for 3 weeks and she's been taking it 10 years, if anything she's hugely underachieved the last decade. 3 months ban at most.
The experts are all saying it will be a minimum of 1 year ban and that's on appeal, I doubt that their biggest poster girl will even miss Wimbledon this year, Sharapova's team will come up with some bullshit defence and the authorities will more than happy to accept it as it's damaging for the sport go 1-2 years without her and then there will be the comeback with more talk about drugs in Tennis. She is literally the biggest pull on tour in the Women's game not far behind Federer in the men's.
Money talks people.
Money talks people.
No way will she back for Wimbledon imo if the ban date is starting from 12th March. I reckon she will get around 6 months on appeal.
The authorities will be under pressure to do something from the general media. Fixing, doping, these aren't the sort of scandals your sport wants, there will be pressure to give a sanction that doesn't look a slap on the wrist. The initial sanction will probably be around 2 years, but there will of course be an appeal.
The authorities will be under pressure to do something from the general media. Fixing, doping, these aren't the sort of scandals your sport wants, there will be pressure to give a sanction that doesn't look a slap on the wrist. The initial sanction will probably be around 2 years, but there will of course be an appeal.
she should have cut her foot in a restaurant and retired to her panic room.
bring back the good old days: everything - including the performance enhancing substances - was simple, open, and more fun as well
Stimulants have long been popular on the tour. The celebrated diva Suzanne Lenglen braced herself between sets with sips of cognac. Eventually, alcohol in industrial quantities became the drug of choice on the circuit, and hangovers, not overdoses, were the greatest danger. As described in The Romance of Wimbledon, a book by John Olliff, The Daily Telegraph’s tennis correspondent, the ‘21 quarterfinal between Zenzo Shimidzu of Japan and Randolf Lycett of Australia was a drunken fiasco. Played on a blisteringly hot day, the match was deadlocked at a set apiece and 3-3 in the third, when Lycett seemed to suffer sunstroke and had to be revived with gin. Though wobbly, Lycett won the third set, but couldn’t continue without another stimulant — champagne. Apparently, he drank a whole bottle and by the fifth set was staggering and stumbling, falling and crawling around on his hands and knees, searching for his racket. While it’s not surprising that Lycett lost, it may shock some fans to learn that the Aussie wasn’t the last player to quaff champagne on Centre Court. That dubious honor belongs to Jimmy Connors and Ilie Nastase, who split a bottle during a doubles match in the mid-’70s and were seen as jolly good fellows for doing so.
Stimulants have long been popular on the tour. The celebrated diva Suzanne Lenglen braced herself between sets with sips of cognac. Eventually, alcohol in industrial quantities became the drug of choice on the circuit, and hangovers, not overdoses, were the greatest danger. As described in The Romance of Wimbledon, a book by John Olliff, The Daily Telegraph’s tennis correspondent, the ‘21 quarterfinal between Zenzo Shimidzu of Japan and Randolf Lycett of Australia was a drunken fiasco. Played on a blisteringly hot day, the match was deadlocked at a set apiece and 3-3 in the third, when Lycett seemed to suffer sunstroke and had to be revived with gin. Though wobbly, Lycett won the third set, but couldn’t continue without another stimulant — champagne. Apparently, he drank a whole bottle and by the fifth set was staggering and stumbling, falling and crawling around on his hands and knees, searching for his racket. While it’s not surprising that Lycett lost, it may shock some fans to learn that the Aussie wasn’t the last player to quaff champagne on Centre Court. That dubious honor belongs to Jimmy Connors and Ilie Nastase, who split a bottle during a doubles match in the mid-’70s and were seen as jolly good fellows for doing so.
Total BS - she is surrounded by a huge team including doctors, physios, people from her management company etc and you are telling me that nobody bothered to check that this prescription drug shes been taking for 10 years wasn't on the banned list - even if it was only recently added.
Any clean top class athlete is unbelievably careful what they eat and drink - so a prescribed drug would be double checked.
Even 15 years ago when I was involved in cricket - far from the most stringent sport - there were teams of people around to advise on what you could and couldn't take, and plenty of notice is given as to what amendments are to be made to the regulations.
Dodgy as.
Any clean top class athlete is unbelievably careful what they eat and drink - so a prescribed drug would be double checked.
Even 15 years ago when I was involved in cricket - far from the most stringent sport - there were teams of people around to advise on what you could and couldn't take, and plenty of notice is given as to what amendments are to be made to the regulations.
Dodgy as.
i reckon she did stop taking it.
so how on earth might it have got into her system.......
not really one to trouble sherlock holmes......
so how on earth might it have got into her system.......
not really one to trouble sherlock holmes......
No, surely if she stopped taking it she would just say that and fight the case somewhat.
She even said she still has been taking it up until now.
She even said she still has been taking it up until now.
you're not thinking what i'm thinking.
she used to take it, and then she stopped taking it.
it used to be in her blood, and then she stopped taking it, and then somehow, without her taking it since the ban came about, it appeared in her blood again.
seriously, it is far and away more feasible to believe the rather simple explanation for how this happened, rather than her version of events.
she used to take it, and then she stopped taking it.
it used to be in her blood, and then she stopped taking it, and then somehow, without her taking it since the ban came about, it appeared in her blood again.
seriously, it is far and away more feasible to believe the rather simple explanation for how this happened, rather than her version of events.
i'm not going to type it out here.
just a little bit of thinking.
just a little bit of thinking.
Perhaps Maria should have let Serena win that particular battle then...
"I failed the test and take full responsibility for that," she said. "I received an email on [December 22] from WADA about the changes happening to the banned list, and you can see prohibited items, and I didn't click on that link."
Hmmm... Why wouldn't you click on that link, Maria??
Hmmm... Why wouldn't you click on that link, Maria??
She had a blood transfusion and the drug happened to be in it?
and who, in your imagined scenario, might the donor have been?
I'd like to know how Djokovic went from a guy who could barely play 3 sets to bionic superman.....and gluten free diet is not the answer
Mar 8, 2016 -- 12:09PM, DStyle wrote:
and who, in your imagined scenario, might the donor have been?
Dracula?
again, the answer is obvious.
particularly when you consider that WADA can only reliably test for one of the two types of blood transfusions.
now, this may seem far fetched to some, but you have to consider how far fetched it is in relation to maria's explanation, rather than in isolation.
particularly when you consider that WADA can only reliably test for one of the two types of blood transfusions.
now, this may seem far fetched to some, but you have to consider how far fetched it is in relation to maria's explanation, rather than in isolation.
If you look at Sharapova's physique then it's obvious that if she has been cheating, then it's as much as it about building muscle mass as it is about stamina.
When she first burst on to the scene in the early 2000's she was quite skinny. But now you look at her and she's got shoulders like a linebacker.
Serena is similar in many ways as when she played Steffi in 1999 she was pretty skinny, but she just looks like this giant hulk.
Bringing this power to their game gives them the ability to power these scorching groundstrokes past bewildered opposition.
Add all the screeching that Sharapova has got up to over the years, it all adds to a pretty awful picture of her.
In fact I'm amazed she's so popular. Looks wise she's not even that great. And yet she's made hundreds of millions of dollars off the back of a career which is now just looking like one big fraud.
When she first burst on to the scene in the early 2000's she was quite skinny. But now you look at her and she's got shoulders like a linebacker.
Serena is similar in many ways as when she played Steffi in 1999 she was pretty skinny, but she just looks like this giant hulk.
Bringing this power to their game gives them the ability to power these scorching groundstrokes past bewildered opposition.
Add all the screeching that Sharapova has got up to over the years, it all adds to a pretty awful picture of her.
In fact I'm amazed she's so popular. Looks wise she's not even that great. And yet she's made hundreds of millions of dollars off the back of a career which is now just looking like one big fraud.
she was always very broad shouldered even when she won in 2004. she's built like a swimmer
endurance and stamina, well that's another thing entirely.
endurance and stamina, well that's another thing entirely.
DStyle, don't understand what you're getting at tbh. she stopped taking it, but it got in her system again? care to explain this farfetched theory?
doubt you'll get sued, PM me if it's so scandalous. or are you being cryptic on purpose?
next Grand Slam we'll see Masha is a wildcard into Aussie Open 2018 i'd imagine
two cups of distilled water, one sachet of salt.
i tell you that i've put salt from the sachet in one of the first cup of water, but not put any salt from the sachet in the second.
yet the water in the second cup contains salt.
i tell you that i've put salt from the sachet in one of the first cup of water, but not put any salt from the sachet in the second.
yet the water in the second cup contains salt.
If you cut too close to the bone without back up you could be in trouble, leave it at that.
If you watch her press conference again however given what's been said on here, you do see it in a different way.
If you watch her press conference again however given what's been said on here, you do see it in a different way.
not really subtle a clue, like you could have said trailmix or something, but okay
I think I get it DStyle, but that would have huge implications on what is going on in tennis full stop...
sorry to hear #Sharapova's ten year heart condition requiring Meldonium. Fab she accomplished so much with chronic illness
Fun fact: did you know that Secretariat was the first racehorse to receive a complete blood transfusion?
winningthought 08 Mar 16 20:57 Joined: 25 Oct 01 | Topic/replies: 759 | Blogger: winningthought's blog
Fun fact: did you know that Secretariat was the first racehorse to receive a complete blood transfusion?
it's performance when going wire to wire reminded me of marita koch breaking the 400 meter record when drugged up the eyeballs
I know it's heart was much bigger than a normal horse but with recent revelations you can't trust anything anymore
Fun fact: did you know that Secretariat was the first racehorse to receive a complete blood transfusion?
it's performance when going wire to wire reminded me of marita koch breaking the 400 meter record when drugged up the eyeballs
I know it's heart was much bigger than a normal horse but with recent revelations you can't trust anything anymore
she withdrew blood last year with the drug in her blood as it was legal at the time. stored the blood for a transfusion during the AO to give her a boost for the second week and none of her doctors copped it. Agree that seems more plausible, if that's what you meant, DStyle. Grand slams are the endurance events of tennis, like stage races in cycling
Maybe in the men's side. In the women's side they aren't really endurance events at all. The first week of a grand slam tends to be much easier for the top women than regular tour events that can be relentless in terms of recovery. In general in the first 3 rounds you are playing 3 players you are comfortably better than spaced out over 6 days. Even in the men's side this is true (though I would say their events come more about endurance at the end than the women's side).
agree n88 but if you are going to dope you would do it for a slam and i've no doubt some top players are at it. it just makes far more sense to me than her doctors knowing she was on it for years, it being on a watch-list for a year and well documented in advance that it was to be banned and neither she nor her doctors were aware.
Also the fact that it isn't approved in the US, it is only approved in Latvia, Georgia and Russia, doesn't sit right. She is based in the US, so no US doctor could legitimately prescribe it and the manufacturer says it is taken for 4-6 weeks only, not 10 years. Maria is lying that she legitimately needed this product for 10 years imo. It may well have been prescribed for her, more than likely was, but only by a dodgy doc imo and purely to boost performance.
Also the fact that it isn't approved in the US, it is only approved in Latvia, Georgia and Russia, doesn't sit right. She is based in the US, so no US doctor could legitimately prescribe it and the manufacturer says it is taken for 4-6 weeks only, not 10 years. Maria is lying that she legitimately needed this product for 10 years imo. It may well have been prescribed for her, more than likely was, but only by a dodgy doc imo and purely to boost performance.
if she had applied for a therapeutic use exemption, she may well have got it if her doctors had satisfied the TUE panel that it was legitimately needed. The rules do not provide that a TUE can be obtained retrospectively but if she makes the argument that it was simply a procedural oversight and that she would likely have been allowed to use this product legitimately with a TUE, I think the tennis community will accept this and she will not get a full ban. There is a 4 year ban for first offence under the new WADA rules. I can't see her getting that. The most surprising thing for me is that we've heard about this.
anyone who thinks she wasn't taking the drug to purely enhance performance is delusional,she is a money making machine and if the
machine needs oiling you oil it
the press conference was just a stage managed damage control exercise that was quite puke inducing
machine needs oiling you oil it
the press conference was just a stage managed damage control exercise that was quite puke inducing
she doesnt have a leg to stand on. statement from former head of world anti-doping agency (wada):
"Anytime there is a change to the list, notice is given on 30 September prior to the change," he said. "You have October, November, December to get off what you are doing. All the tennis players were given notification of it and she has a medical team somewhere. That is reckless beyond description."
"Anytime there is a change to the list, notice is given on 30 September prior to the change," he said. "You have October, November, December to get off what you are doing. All the tennis players were given notification of it and she has a medical team somewhere. That is reckless beyond description."
the point here as thommo and lurka are saying, is that for this to be attributed to some sort of careless oversight, akin to losing ones keys or burning a cake, is absolutely ridiculous.
A better analogy would be a kid with a fatal peanut allergy being told the school trip is to a peanut factory and they'll be tasting the peanuts.
and the kid employs 5 people full time to check he doesn't get near any peanuts. (there are going to be a army of doctors called upon for her appeal; yet none of them were around between September and January?)
but nobody got the memo, so the kid went and thought it was time to try and eat peanuts.
A better analogy would be a kid with a fatal peanut allergy being told the school trip is to a peanut factory and they'll be tasting the peanuts.
and the kid employs 5 people full time to check he doesn't get near any peanuts. (there are going to be a army of doctors called upon for her appeal; yet none of them were around between September and January?)
but nobody got the memo, so the kid went and thought it was time to try and eat peanuts.
Everything is sadly stacked for her to get as lenient a suspension as possible.
Top ranked player, newly added banned substance, media "darling" - whatever that means - admittance of guilt (even though I agree that the press conference was cringeworthy).
Personally I would have more sympathy if it was a lowly ranked player struggling to sort out their playing schedule, with a team of maybe one other person to assist with everything that goes with being a travelling sportsperson.
She has taken great pride in the financial empire she has built around her tennis game and should be treated in the same manner as the world number 500 would be - as a drug cheat.
Incidentally, wtf is Serena Williams going on about when she says she was "brave" in making the announcement?
No - it was coming out anyway and by doing what she's done she has attempted to take control of the situation. No problem with that, but don't portray it as bravery.
Top ranked player, newly added banned substance, media "darling" - whatever that means - admittance of guilt (even though I agree that the press conference was cringeworthy).
Personally I would have more sympathy if it was a lowly ranked player struggling to sort out their playing schedule, with a team of maybe one other person to assist with everything that goes with being a travelling sportsperson.
She has taken great pride in the financial empire she has built around her tennis game and should be treated in the same manner as the world number 500 would be - as a drug cheat.
Incidentally, wtf is Serena Williams going on about when she says she was "brave" in making the announcement?
No - it was coming out anyway and by doing what she's done she has attempted to take control of the situation. No problem with that, but don't portray it as bravery.
Serena's got her own reputation to think about. she doesn't want everyone asking questions about the panic room
I highly doubt she gets less than a year now. It depends whether you think that is lenient or not I guess. I really can't see any favourable treatment here.
Even if you read in between her lawyer's words of angling for a ban between no ban and 1 year. That to me says if we get a 1 year ban we're happy.
I expect initially she will get a 2 year ban handed down, but it will be reduced upon appeal to CAS to 1 year.
Even if you read in between her lawyer's words of angling for a ban between no ban and 1 year. That to me says if we get a 1 year ban we're happy.
I expect initially she will get a 2 year ban handed down, but it will be reduced upon appeal to CAS to 1 year.
Serena is just doing what every player will do.
Expect every player in Indian Wells to say how they feel sorry for Maria, it was good for her to come out herself, but it's up to athletes to know what they are taking into their bodies and keep up to date with the ban list.
Why would you not give a PR answer, anything else draws press to you, slamming her isn't in most players interests. And every player knows this question is coming, so their own PR teams will be preparing them on what to say.
It's why if you notice whenever Serena was asked a question about other related issues, her answer was effectively no comment. The thing about her opinion on Nike's reaction, effectively no comment. Her opinion on facing someone who is now known to use performance enhancing drugs against her, I'm not the best person to ask, ie. no comment. Her initial answer was probably all pre-prepared, and it was a good answer, that has gone down very well with most people.
Expect every player in Indian Wells to say how they feel sorry for Maria, it was good for her to come out herself, but it's up to athletes to know what they are taking into their bodies and keep up to date with the ban list.
Why would you not give a PR answer, anything else draws press to you, slamming her isn't in most players interests. And every player knows this question is coming, so their own PR teams will be preparing them on what to say.
It's why if you notice whenever Serena was asked a question about other related issues, her answer was effectively no comment. The thing about her opinion on Nike's reaction, effectively no comment. Her opinion on facing someone who is now known to use performance enhancing drugs against her, I'm not the best person to ask, ie. no comment. Her initial answer was probably all pre-prepared, and it was a good answer, that has gone down very well with most people.
yeah right.Serena locks herself in her "panic room" when the testers show up.
would love to know who else in tennis has been taking it
These headlines have been read in the 'Metro' by all the traffic wardens, greggs bakers cakefluffers, job centre security guards and blue haired old ladies that will be watching tennis for their traditional 2 weeks of the year in the summer.
Outside the bubble of the tennis world (and the even smaller bubble of a tennis forum that abandoned matchthreads and now consists only of photographs of cats licking their own bottoms) there's a very low appetite for athletes failing tests in the wider world that is still smarting and feeling fooled and betrayed by Armstrong.
Outside the bubble of the tennis world (and the even smaller bubble of a tennis forum that abandoned matchthreads and now consists only of photographs of cats licking their own bottoms) there's a very low appetite for athletes failing tests in the wider world that is still smarting and feeling fooled and betrayed by Armstrong.
You are well over estimating the popularity of Cycling, which given it has zero skill level, isn't even a sport. Most people would not have heard his name until he was outed.
Drugs in sports in so commonplace and widely/frequently reported particularity in Athletics, that it goes in one ear straight out of the other. Nothing to do with a man on a bike.
Drugs in sports in so commonplace and widely/frequently reported particularity in Athletics, that it goes in one ear straight out of the other. Nothing to do with a man on a bike.
At last they've caught a tennis player. Operation Puerto uncovered the names of cyclists,tennis players, footballers and athletes but only the cyclists were officially caught. The blood bags are still in Dr fuentes fridge so one day perhaps........
bollóck Mes most people knew who armstrong was because of his 'cancer Jesus' backtory after the festina affair and Livestrong
Mesmerised
You are well over estimating the popularity of Cycling, which given it has zero skill level, isn't even a sport. Most people would not have heard his name until he was outed.
Of course most people had heard of Armstrong. This was a man who recovered from cancer to win the worlds biggest annual sporting event 7 times. Each year the race is watched by about 3.5 billion people around the world and you say no-one would have heard of him.
Also when did an activity have to have a skill level before it could be a sport. On that basis running is not a sport.
You are well over estimating the popularity of Cycling, which given it has zero skill level, isn't even a sport. Most people would not have heard his name until he was outed.
Of course most people had heard of Armstrong. This was a man who recovered from cancer to win the worlds biggest annual sporting event 7 times. Each year the race is watched by about 3.5 billion people around the world and you say no-one would have heard of him.
Also when did an activity have to have a skill level before it could be a sport. On that basis running is not a sport.
Mention the name Lance Armstrong to most people who are not sports mad and ask them to name the sport he;s linked with, they wouldn't have known. I'd love to see where 3.5 billion figure has come from
SPORT
an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment.
And you are correct, running is not a sport either, Cycling and Running are both endurance events, please don't confuse them with the real thing. There is nothing more embarrassing them Bradly Wiggans being called Sir for riding a bike.
SPORT
an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment.
And you are correct, running is not a sport either, Cycling and Running are both endurance events, please don't confuse them with the real thing. There is nothing more embarrassing them Bradly Wiggans being called Sir for riding a bike.
i don't think sport requires physical exertion
physical execution yes, but not necessarily exertion.
snooker and darts are far more sports than rowing or the 100m hurdles.
the latter two are about athletic excellence, but are severely limited in how they ask the competitors to respond to different degrees of pressure.
there's nothing in either of those two pursuits that can come close to a 170 check out to save a set when your opponent needs tops, or higgins' 69 break in the penultimate frame in his semi final against jimmy white in 1982.
physical execution yes, but not necessarily exertion.
snooker and darts are far more sports than rowing or the 100m hurdles.
the latter two are about athletic excellence, but are severely limited in how they ask the competitors to respond to different degrees of pressure.
there's nothing in either of those two pursuits that can come close to a 170 check out to save a set when your opponent needs tops, or higgins' 69 break in the penultimate frame in his semi final against jimmy white in 1982.
On skill, The dictionary definition of sport is specific to it, any so called sport which only requires physical and mental strength and excludes technique/skill is not a sport, a boat race is definitely on the endurance event list. I've had many debates with Cycling enthusiast who get upset when Cycling is not called a sport, avoiding the drug testers for years however does require a certain level of deception/skill.
100m, 200m and hurdles require you to master certain phases of the race as well as running technique, to do this at high speed and break records makes it more impressive, 1500m, 5000m and 10,000m events are not sports. Mo Farah and Mark Cavandish are not sportsmen, they are athletes.
100m, 200m and hurdles require you to master certain phases of the race as well as running technique, to do this at high speed and break records makes it more impressive, 1500m, 5000m and 10,000m events are not sports. Mo Farah and Mark Cavandish are not sportsmen, they are athletes.
With respect it depends from which dictionary you take the definition of sport. The Oxford Dictionary certainly includes skill in it's definition while Collins and others do not.
it's a spectrum really. you have games at one end (i.e. no physical execution/exertion, like chess and poker), sport in the middle, and pure athleticism at the other end.
mesmerised 10 Mar 16 19:53 Joined: 10 Nov 10 | Topic/replies: 15,451 | Blogger: mesmerised's blog
On skill, The dictionary definition of sport is specific to it, any so called sport which only requires physical and mental strength and excludes technique/skill is not a sport, a boat race is definitely on the endurance event list. I've had many debates with Cycling enthusiast who get upset when Cycling is not called a sport, avoiding the drug testers for years however does require a certain level of deception/skill.
100m, 200m and hurdles require you to master certain phases of the race as well as running technique, to do this at high speed and break records makes it more impressive, 1500m, 5000m and 10,000m events are not sports. Mo Farah and Mark Cavandish are not sportsmen, they are athletes.
But if that's true then there must be some point where a running event becomes a non-sport (so you claim)
At which moment? 379 meters or 380? So say it's a sport at 379 meters but not at 380? Sounds like a crock of dodoo to me.
On skill, The dictionary definition of sport is specific to it, any so called sport which only requires physical and mental strength and excludes technique/skill is not a sport, a boat race is definitely on the endurance event list. I've had many debates with Cycling enthusiast who get upset when Cycling is not called a sport, avoiding the drug testers for years however does require a certain level of deception/skill.
100m, 200m and hurdles require you to master certain phases of the race as well as running technique, to do this at high speed and break records makes it more impressive, 1500m, 5000m and 10,000m events are not sports. Mo Farah and Mark Cavandish are not sportsmen, they are athletes.
But if that's true then there must be some point where a running event becomes a non-sport (so you claim)
At which moment? 379 meters or 380? So say it's a sport at 379 meters but not at 380? Sounds like a crock of dodoo to me.
there is skill in cycling, there is a technique to riding a bike the right way, although looking at froome he looks like he's pushing a shopping trolley around a supermarket and stares at his power meter 75% of the time. But that's because he's a lab rat and technique isn't necessary when you're doped to the gills and possibly have a motor in your bike. Drugs have certainly rendered a lot of the skill and technique largely irrelevant in running and cycling but that doesn't mean the sports in their purest form don't involve skill and technique.
There are a lot of tactics in cycling, it is a team sport and there is definitely technique and skill involved in climbing, descending (particularly) and time trials.
You don't think cyclists or runners work on improving their technique for years while learning the sport and coming up through the ranks? Do you think F1 is a sport?
There are a lot of tactics in cycling, it is a team sport and there is definitely technique and skill involved in climbing, descending (particularly) and time trials.
You don't think cyclists or runners work on improving their technique for years while learning the sport and coming up through the ranks? Do you think F1 is a sport?
Mo Farah and Mark Cavandish are not sportsmen, they are athletes.
So no skill involved in Mark Cavendish contesting a bunch sprint at 40 mph with 100 blokes within touching distance.
Mesmerised.
You say 100,200 metre hurdles is a sport but is the 3000 metre steeplechase?
Are track cycling and criterium cycling events sports? Without a high level of skill participants would soon be on their ear.
So no skill involved in Mark Cavendish contesting a bunch sprint at 40 mph with 100 blokes within touching distance.
Mesmerised.
You say 100,200 metre hurdles is a sport but is the 3000 metre steeplechase?
Are track cycling and criterium cycling events sports? Without a high level of skill participants would soon be on their ear.
Darts and Snooker are no sport, they are skill games, Chess and Go are mind games, but a sport is primarily a physical exercise. Without any doubt endurance disciplines are sport, for me endurance disciplines in any sport are the crown events, Marathon is worth more than a 100 m run, 10000m more than 500 in speed skating, etc.
Don't be ridiculous.
Cycling and running are hugely stamina based events, when Cyclists and Marathon runners are in training they're training regime purely consists of fitness work.
You can't compare them to technical sports such as Tennis or even the Pole Vault, where competitors are required to harness and master certain techniques to improve, in other words, they are required to think.
Cycling is a simple a task as walking. Elite Cycling requires training that many, many people could succeed in if they tried, whereas very very few people could be an elite Tennis or Football player, because you need skill to succeed.
There are tactics in bike riding, but that is not a skill, you're simply following orders.
Cycling and running are hugely stamina based events, when Cyclists and Marathon runners are in training they're training regime purely consists of fitness work.
You can't compare them to technical sports such as Tennis or even the Pole Vault, where competitors are required to harness and master certain techniques to improve, in other words, they are required to think.
Cycling is a simple a task as walking. Elite Cycling requires training that many, many people could succeed in if they tried, whereas very very few people could be an elite Tennis or Football player, because you need skill to succeed.
There are tactics in bike riding, but that is not a skill, you're simply following orders.
Match sprinting where each race is completey different and its a combination of speed and tactics and where the fastest rider doesn't necessarily win.
La tete et les jambes is also a well known cycling expression meaning basically that if you dont use your head no matter how strong you are you wont win.
Stick to commenting on what you know Mesmerised otherwise you are just making a fool of yourself.
La tete et les jambes is also a well known cycling expression meaning basically that if you dont use your head no matter how strong you are you wont win.
Stick to commenting on what you know Mesmerised otherwise you are just making a fool of yourself.
Stick to commenting on what you know Mesmerised otherwise you are just making a fool of yourself.
I could say the same to you.
You are just repeating what I have already rebuffed so you're not saying anything new.
Speed is a not a skill, tactics are not a skill, I am talking about technique, that is what skill is, that is what sports is, serving a ball in tennis correct is skill, curling the ball with your foot in football is a skill, learning to swing a Golf club is a skill, riding a bike and running are not skills, this is a fact.
Also, tactics in Cycling is a nonsense, Froome could have won the Tour De France when Wiggans won but he wasn't allowed to because of tactics.
If you don't want my opinion, maybe that of a Professional sportsman, a real one, may be of interest.
Andy Murray
“I think there's very little skill involved in the Tour de France, it's pretty much just physical," said Murray, quoted in the Herald. "A lot of the way the teams work now is just science whereas with tennis, you can't teach the skill by taking a drug.
I could say the same to you.
You are just repeating what I have already rebuffed so you're not saying anything new.
Speed is a not a skill, tactics are not a skill, I am talking about technique, that is what skill is, that is what sports is, serving a ball in tennis correct is skill, curling the ball with your foot in football is a skill, learning to swing a Golf club is a skill, riding a bike and running are not skills, this is a fact.
Also, tactics in Cycling is a nonsense, Froome could have won the Tour De France when Wiggans won but he wasn't allowed to because of tactics.
If you don't want my opinion, maybe that of a Professional sportsman, a real one, may be of interest.
Andy Murray
“I think there's very little skill involved in the Tour de France, it's pretty much just physical," said Murray, quoted in the Herald. "A lot of the way the teams work now is just science whereas with tennis, you can't teach the skill by taking a drug.
The problem seems to be with this thread that Mesmerised seems to have found one dictionary definition of sport and conveniently chooses to ignore all the others which do not fit into his blinkered and rigid view of the world. He probably knows quite a lot about tennis but seems prejudiced when it comes to cycling. Noticeably he doesn't answer the inconvenient questions as to whether some activities are sport or not.
The precise definition of what separates a sport from other leisure activities varies between sources. The closest to an international agreement on a definition is provided by SportAccord, which is the association for all the largest international sports federations (including association football, athletics, cycling, tennis, equestrian sports and more), and is therefore the de facto representative of international sport.
SportAccord uses the following criteria, determining that a sport should:[1]
have an element of competition
be in no way harmful to any living creature
not rely on equipment provided by a single supplier (excluding proprietary games such as arena football)
not rely on any "luck" element specifically designed into the sport
They also recognise that sport can be primarily physical (such as rugby or athletics), primarily mind (such as chess or go), predominantly motorised (such as Formula 1 or powerboating), primarily co-ordination (such as billiard sports), or primarily animal-supported (such as equestrian sport).[1]
Never argue with an idiot. They only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.
After that I'm out of here.
The precise definition of what separates a sport from other leisure activities varies between sources. The closest to an international agreement on a definition is provided by SportAccord, which is the association for all the largest international sports federations (including association football, athletics, cycling, tennis, equestrian sports and more), and is therefore the de facto representative of international sport.
SportAccord uses the following criteria, determining that a sport should:[1]
have an element of competition
be in no way harmful to any living creature
not rely on equipment provided by a single supplier (excluding proprietary games such as arena football)
not rely on any "luck" element specifically designed into the sport
They also recognise that sport can be primarily physical (such as rugby or athletics), primarily mind (such as chess or go), predominantly motorised (such as Formula 1 or powerboating), primarily co-ordination (such as billiard sports), or primarily animal-supported (such as equestrian sport).[1]
Never argue with an idiot. They only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.
After that I'm out of here.
This is very typical of avid Cyclists/Cycling fans. Throwing a strop when their beloved hobby is questioned as a real sport.
You simply cannot compare riding a bike to very technical sports such previously mentioned, learning to ride a bike is very simple, adhering to, understand and implementing tactics as well as making good judgement calls are all attributes associated with Cycling, but you have to admit that lack of skill and technique required to be an elite Cyclist undermines it's position as a sport.
You can lose you temper, I'm used to that with nutjob Cycling fanatics with blinkered vision, but it doesn't change the fact that anyone could be a a Froome or Contador if they put the hard work in becausethe foundation to their success is based on brute hard work, physical hard work, in other words larry, they have very limited natural talent.
You could not however say the same thing about Tennis for example, you could be the fittest man on the planet using the training methods tailored to that of a Pro in this sport, but you would never get a flurry of Federer's of Nadal coming through, they have God given talent, Cyclists are ten a penny.
By all means enjoy your activity, but don't call it a sport.
You simply cannot compare riding a bike to very technical sports such previously mentioned, learning to ride a bike is very simple, adhering to, understand and implementing tactics as well as making good judgement calls are all attributes associated with Cycling, but you have to admit that lack of skill and technique required to be an elite Cyclist undermines it's position as a sport.
You can lose you temper, I'm used to that with nutjob Cycling fanatics with blinkered vision, but it doesn't change the fact that anyone could be a a Froome or Contador if they put the hard work in becausethe foundation to their success is based on brute hard work, physical hard work, in other words larry, they have very limited natural talent.
You could not however say the same thing about Tennis for example, you could be the fittest man on the planet using the training methods tailored to that of a Pro in this sport, but you would never get a flurry of Federer's of Nadal coming through, they have God given talent, Cyclists are ten a penny.
By all means enjoy your activity, but don't call it a sport.
Well looks like SportAccord are wrong and mesmerised is right.
The next thing mesmerised will be telling us is that any horse could be a Nijinsky or an Arkle if they put the hard work in.
All it takes is brutal hard physical work and all those Class 6 nags could soon be running in Group 1 races.
The next thing mesmerised will be telling us is that any horse could be a Nijinsky or an Arkle if they put the hard work in.
All it takes is brutal hard physical work and all those Class 6 nags could soon be running in Group 1 races.
well, you can call it what you want really, it's a matter of opinion.
there are a group of pursuits where success is largely about pacing yourself and planning when to expend a finite amount of effort. this is a mental skill in its own right. granted, these pursuits often have some element of repetitive technique required to be as efficient as possible.
and it takes time and effort and training to become elite. and those people who love the sport understand these variables and it gives an appreciation of their sport the casual observer probably doesn't have.
but truth be told, these events are pretty limited and that's the problem.
there's no scope imagination, for risk and flair, a staggering low limit of what can be achieved and turned around, no violent swings in momentum or pressure: no hat-trick in cricket or 30 off the final over to win, no 99 champions league final, no bartoli beating henin in a wimbledon semi final, no eagle on the 18th with an outrageous chip or a ridiculous recovery shot when all seems hopeless.
just a little bit more stamina than the rest and using it better.
i do think there's a kneejerk reaction from people who play and like extremely physically demanding pursuits to not want to see their status downgraded or denigrated, but the truth is that it's not a critical part of a sport. but honestly, you shouldn't have to defend what you like and enjoy to anyone. it's not important or relevant.
snooker is a sport, and so is darts. and so is golf which is probably about as physically demanding as snooker. and cricket is just as much of a sport when michael holding was bowling in his prime to when eddie hemmings or peter such were bowling. you don't need to bust a gut for something to be a sport.
imo, it's far more about being able to do something physical when you need to and complex and precise execution are, again imo, far harder to summon under pressure and adversity than finding just a bit more effort.
and it makes for much better drama.
there are a group of pursuits where success is largely about pacing yourself and planning when to expend a finite amount of effort. this is a mental skill in its own right. granted, these pursuits often have some element of repetitive technique required to be as efficient as possible.
and it takes time and effort and training to become elite. and those people who love the sport understand these variables and it gives an appreciation of their sport the casual observer probably doesn't have.
but truth be told, these events are pretty limited and that's the problem.
there's no scope imagination, for risk and flair, a staggering low limit of what can be achieved and turned around, no violent swings in momentum or pressure: no hat-trick in cricket or 30 off the final over to win, no 99 champions league final, no bartoli beating henin in a wimbledon semi final, no eagle on the 18th with an outrageous chip or a ridiculous recovery shot when all seems hopeless.
just a little bit more stamina than the rest and using it better.
i do think there's a kneejerk reaction from people who play and like extremely physically demanding pursuits to not want to see their status downgraded or denigrated, but the truth is that it's not a critical part of a sport. but honestly, you shouldn't have to defend what you like and enjoy to anyone. it's not important or relevant.
snooker is a sport, and so is darts. and so is golf which is probably about as physically demanding as snooker. and cricket is just as much of a sport when michael holding was bowling in his prime to when eddie hemmings or peter such were bowling. you don't need to bust a gut for something to be a sport.
imo, it's far more about being able to do something physical when you need to and complex and precise execution are, again imo, far harder to summon under pressure and adversity than finding just a bit more effort.
and it makes for much better drama.
Yes I will concede that Dictionaries and people both differ on the concise description or definition of what a sport is, an official body may make their view legal, or official, but it doesn't make their word gospel as what makes a sport a sport is still subjective, however, the definition I used was based on my own view which is based on Common Sense. Even if I thought that Cycling was a sport, it would very low down on the talent spectrum as for me talent is what makes a sport, without talent in sport, what you are looking at is purely just a physical and/or mental contest, which is precisely what Cycling is, a test of physical endurance and mental fortitude, it's no more a 'sport' than bodybuilding competitions.
All of the qualities ascribed to Cyclist points towards that of an athlete, competitiveness, aggression, high tolerance of pain, emotionally mature etc, give the best athlete in the world a racquet and with sufficient training he would struggle to eve play Tennis at county level, give a Tennis player a bike and he could become a very successful Cyclist with the correct training / team / science behind him, and drugs.
Talented sportspeople have a technical aptitude that separates them from endurance athletes, executing physical actions and making constant split second decisions with it makes them different from bike riders.
There is no such thing as a talented Cyclist.
All of the qualities ascribed to Cyclist points towards that of an athlete, competitiveness, aggression, high tolerance of pain, emotionally mature etc, give the best athlete in the world a racquet and with sufficient training he would struggle to eve play Tennis at county level, give a Tennis player a bike and he could become a very successful Cyclist with the correct training / team / science behind him, and drugs.
Talented sportspeople have a technical aptitude that separates them from endurance athletes, executing physical actions and making constant split second decisions with it makes them different from bike riders.
There is no such thing as a talented Cyclist.
Mes not all cycing races are endurance events. there are one day races too which are not primarily about endurance. If you think almost anyone can train and become a pro cyclist you need your head read. they are some of the toughest sportsmen around, most of them are headcases cos you have to be to put your boy through what they do to get to the top. very few can do it and you need a certain physiology to succeed and serious mental strength and pain threshold.
Interesting comment from Maria about not telling people she was injured to cover for her test failure. She must be referring to someone, some say Cilic but who knows? Looks to me like she is saying to the ITF 'I know you have covered silent bans before and I will let the cat out of the bag if i don't get looked after on the ban' quite clever and cunning manipulation of the media.
Interesting comment from Maria about not telling people she was injured to cover for her test failure. She must be referring to someone, some say Cilic but who knows? Looks to me like she is saying to the ITF 'I know you have covered silent bans before and I will let the cat out of the bag if i don't get looked after on the ban' quite clever and cunning manipulation of the media.
Mesmerised.
You would have more credibilty if you preceeded some of your more extreme views with the words "in my opinion".
You would have more credibilty if you preceeded some of your more extreme views with the words "in my opinion".
bix
My opinion is extreme in your opinion, in my opinion it's simple stuff, there is a clear distinction between physical and mental challenges, Rowing, Swimming, Cycling, Running, and technical, skill based sports, how they can be all lumped together under the same umbrella and be called sports, I don't know. I sense you are a Cycling enthusiast which may explain your viewpoint/biasm, I am neutral, I watch the Tour De France but I take it for what it is, beautiful scenery.
My opinion is extreme in your opinion, in my opinion it's simple stuff, there is a clear distinction between physical and mental challenges, Rowing, Swimming, Cycling, Running, and technical, skill based sports, how they can be all lumped together under the same umbrella and be called sports, I don't know. I sense you are a Cycling enthusiast which may explain your viewpoint/biasm, I am neutral, I watch the Tour De France but I take it for what it is, beautiful scenery.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539