Toni Nadal: There is a small chance that Nadal will play the Masters (YEC)

[Vari L. Cinicke]

http://www.marca.com/2012/10/03/tenis/1349279179.html

Go figure! Apparently, Nadal is also likely to play the DC Final.

[Patrick Kehoe]

On Oct 3, 9:40 am, "Vari L. Cinicke" <cini...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.marca.com/2012/10/03/tenis/1349279179.html
>
> Go figure! Apparently, Nadal is also likely to play the DC Final.

Rafa on indoor hardcourt... ouch!

P

[jdeluise]

On 3-Oct-2012, wrote:

> Rafa on indoor hardcourt... ouch!

At least he'll be rested for it, though it wouldn't be the first time Nadal
claims exhaustion after weeks and weeks off.

[felangey]

> At least he'll be rested for it, though it wouldn't be the first time
> Nadal
> claims exhaustion after weeks and weeks off.

If he plays I will be expectin him to win it - after all, TTinkywinky and
the rest of the Teletubbies round here insist he only ever loses it because
he is exhausted after a long hard season (not sure how that is an
excuse...but whatever!).....now he is as fresh as a daisy and everyone else
is goosed. Should be a walk in the park.

[Joe Ramirez]

Nadal's goal before retiring is to bring his W-L match record at the
YEC up to .500. :)

[Court_1]

Toni has been saying this same speech for every tournament the past
few months--i.e. "we may be ready for this tournament or that one." It
is all a bunch of horseshit. I doubt he will come back for the YEC
but I have no doubt he will be running around like a jackrabbit for
Doha and the AO.
Serious knee trouble? What serious knee trouble? (wink)

[jdeluise]

On 3-Oct-2012, Court_1 <Olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Toni has been saying this same speech for every tournament the past
> few months--i.e. "we may be ready for this tournament or that one." It
> is all a bunch of horseshit

What will you say about the supposed silent 6-month ban if he does?

[Court_1]

On Oct 3, 4:36 pm, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:

Nothing. I still think he is under a silent suspension, whether it is
3, 4 or 6 months is immaterial.

[Vari L. Cinicke]

Or 72 minutes or 12 seconds? ;)

[Court_1]

Ha, ha, very funny. Nope, it has already been over three months since
he has played.

[Ulysses]

Team Nadal has known since July they were on a 6 month ban. I called
this from the get-go----- no Nadal till January. It's hardly rocket
science.

[Vari L. Cinicke]

Just highlighting that your statements were more hot air than substance.

It has been more than 3 months? You don't say!

[Vari L. Cinicke]

Hope he shows up. Just so we can enjoy the curve balls you and Court_XXY
come up with.

[Ulysses]

There's no curve balls in anything Courty and I have said about Rafa's
silent ban since June. Nothing but fastballs down the middle of the
plate. The embarrasment should be written all over the dumbbells
naively proclaiming, "Rafa will be back in Toronto, Cincy, Winston-
Salem, the USO, Davis Cup, the Asian Swing... the YEC..."

BLAH BLAH BLAH.

It's much simpler just being right and calling it from the outset:
Nadal is out for the rest of the year. Simple and truthful and stated
long ago by both Courty and me.

[Court_1]

You can consider my statements on this issue hot air, but it is my
opinion that Nadal is serving a suspension. My initial reaction was
that the suspension was for six months and I still believe that to be
the case. Toni and the Nadal camp have been making statements about
how Nadal may play this tournament or that one all along and his
stupid obsessed fans mistakenly believe every word when it was clear
to Uly and myself that it was all just smokescreens put out by the
Nadal camp.

Now Toni is saying Nadal may play the YEC or DC so my instinct tells
me Toni is probably doing more of the same BS act. Toni is the biggest
BS artist there is and he is not even good at it. However, if it turns
out that Nadal does end up playing the YEC or DC, which seems unlikely
to me for many obvious reasons, it does not disprove my theory that
Nadal is serving a suspension. Whether it is six months (which again I
think is most likely) or three or four months, what difference does it
make? The time factor does not change my opinion.

You clearly don't believe Nadal is injured seriously or injured at all
as you have made that very clear with your plethora of disparaging
posts about Nadal. So you think Nadal is being less than truthful
about why he has not played for over three months, correct? I am just
taking it a step further with my belief about the laughable system
that is in place in the sport of tennis with respect to drug testing
and the protection of its biggest stars by all of the interested
parties. If you believe the sport is clean all I can say is, you are
not too bright, but you are entitled to believe whatever you wish as
am I.

[TT]

What happened to 3 month silent ban?

How long are you going to carry on this nonsense?

[TT]

4.10.2012 5:42, Court_1 kirjoitti:
> On Oct 3, 9:38 pm, "Vari L. Cinicke" <variesn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 10/3/2012 5:17 PM, Court_1 wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Oct 3, 4:44 pm, "Vari L. Cinicke" <variesn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 10/3/2012 4:41 PM, Court_1 wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Oct 3, 4:36 pm, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 3-Oct-2012, Court_1 <Olympia0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> Toni has been saying this same speech for every tournament the past
>>>>>>> few months--i.e. "we may be ready for this tournament or that one." It
>>>>>>> is all a bunch of horseshit
>>
>>>>>> What will you say about the supposed silent 6-month ban if he does?
>>
>>>>> Nothing. I still think he is under a silent suspension, whether it is
>>>>> 3, 4 or 6 months is immaterial.
>>
>>>> Or 72 minutes or 12 seconds? ;)
>>
>>> Ha, ha, very funny. Nope, it has already been over three months since
>>> he has played.
>>
>> Just highlighting that your statements were more hot air than substance.
>>
>> It has been more than 3 months? You don't say!
>
> You can consider my statements on this issue hot air, but it is my
> opinion that Nadal is serving a suspension. My initial reaction was
> that the suspension was for six months

Links?

No it wasn't. You've been parading constantly new conspiracy theories
about it.

That's what it is, a conspiracy theory.

[TT]

Says someone who claims Rafa is not playing because it was a really
really tough loss to Rosol.

Or was it that he didn't want to risk Olympic doping testing. Or maybe
that he doesn't care for Olympics and wants to get ready for USO.

Or was it moonlandings and 911...

[TT]

4.10.2012 5:15, Ulysses kirjoitti:
> It's much simpler just being right and calling it from the outset:
> Nadal is out for the rest of the year. Simple and truthful and stated
> long ago by both Courty and me.

You claimed he'll never play again. And before that you said he didn't
play Olympics because it's not important but will certainly play USO etc
etc ad infinitum.

But no use pointing that out, everyone knows already how full of it you are.

[TT]

And your statements when Rafa didn't play Olympics?

[Court_1]

I have always maintained he is under a silent ban. Go back and check
my posts since we found out he was not going to play the Olympics. I
have doubted the gravity of the knee injury story from the beginning.

[Court_1]

You may think it is a conspiracy theory but I think it is a reality.
And stop your BS, if this was Federer under the same situation, you
would be parading all kinds of theories about Federer's absence from
the game and you know it. Cut the crap. I like Nadal but I have always
thought his PED use has been an obvious case. I don't personally care
if he uses PED's, if I cared about that I would not be watching any
pro sport since I think no pro sport is clean. It is not my problem.

[Court_1]

He's a hypocrite. We are supposed to believe that Nadal is afraid of
Rosol and is hiding in shame, that is a more plausible theory to some
like Vari, lol.

[drew]

On Oct 3, 4:41 pm, Court_1 <Olympia0...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> Nothing. I still think he is under a silent suspension, whether it is
> 3, 4 or 6 months is immaterial.

He says he's not practising....wouldn't he still be working hard to
keep his game sharp
if he were serving out a suspension?

Of course I have no evidence that he isn't playing 5 hours a
day...just the word from the Nadal
camp....and I agree that this has always been an unreliable source of
information.

[TT]

It's a fact he's not practising. People know when he does practise, he
doesn't have a private court.

[jdeluise]

On 3-Oct-2012, wrote:

> If you believe the sport is clean all I can say is, you are
> not too bright, but you are entitled to believe whatever you wish as
> am I.

Who said the sport is clean in this thread? This isn't the first time
you've used that red herring to support your belief in silent bans for
Nadal.

[Court_1]

Who says I am using the argument that the sport is not clean as a red
herring to support my belief of silent bans for Nadal?
Let me say it again: I think Nadal is serving a suspension or his
absence is related to PED use in some way--i.e. perhaps he was advised
to cycle down for longer. The fact that I don't think tennis is clean
in general is a separate argument. Interpret is however you wish, I
don't care.

My comment was really more specific to Vari who goes on and on on RST
about his theories why Nadal has been absent from tennis for the past
few months--i.e. he thinks Nadal is afraid of players like Rosol. If
that is not a joke in itself I don't know what is. That "theory" is
supposed to be accepted by us on RST but Nadal using PEDS and serving
a suspension is supposed to be a way-out theory. Come on.

[Pelle Svanslös]

On 4.10.2012 13:23, Court_1 wrote:
> On Oct 3, 11:47 pm, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:
>> 3.10.2012 23:41, Court_1 kirjoitti:
>>
>>> On Oct 3, 4:36 pm, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 3-Oct-2012, Court_1 <Olympia0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Toni has been saying this same speech for every tournament the past
>>>>> few months--i.e. "we may be ready for this tournament or that one." It
>>>>> is all a bunch of horseshit
>>
>>>> What will you say about the supposed silent 6-month ban if he does?
>>
>>> Nothing. I still think he is under a silent suspension, whether it is
>>> 3, 4 or 6 months is immaterial.
>>
>> What happened to 3 month silent ban?
>>
>> How long are you going to carry on this nonsense?
>
> I have always maintained he is under a silent ban.

You can "maintain" anything you like, and indeed you do. Supporting what
you "maintain" is the problem. We all know what happened when you
decided to "support" the cocaine-is-a-PED thing. Not pretty. Not pretty
at all.

--
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/68/FEDERER_Roger-24x30-1998.jpg

[Court_1]

> --http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/68/FEDERER_Roger-24x3...

I never said cocaine is a PED in the strict sense. I said some
athletes may "think" mistakenly that cocaine has some PED benefits. I
also said there are some effects of cocaine that could be seen as very
short-term benefits and I quoted a doctor of WADA who backs this up.

Do you personally know yourself that every single pro athlete who has
taken cocaine before a sports performance has not thought that the
cocaine would be of some benefit? No, I don't think you do. Now, can
you for once in your life form a coherent post. I have not seen one
from you yet.

[jdeluise]

On 4-Oct-2012, Court_1 <Olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Who says I am using the argument that the sport is not clean as a red
> herring to support my belief of silent bans for Nadal?

You consistently do just that. For instance, if someone says they don't
believe some specific player is doping you'll ridicule them for "believing
the sport is clean".

> Let me say it again

That's OK, I'll pass.

[Pelle Svanslös]

On 4.10.2012 19:58, Court_1 wrote:

> On Oct 4, 1:52 pm, Pelle Svansl�s <pe...@svans.los> wrote:
>> On 4.10.2012 13:23, Court_1 wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Oct 3, 11:47 pm, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:
>>>> 3.10.2012 23:41, Court_1 kirjoitti:
>>
>>>>> On Oct 3, 4:36 pm, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 3-Oct-2012, Court_1 <Olympia0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> Toni has been saying this same speech for every tournament the past
>>>>>>> few months--i.e. "we may be ready for this tournament or that one." It
>>>>>>> is all a bunch of horseshit
>>
>>>>>> What will you say about the supposed silent 6-month ban if he does?
>>
>>>>> Nothing. I still think he is under a silent suspension, whether it is
>>>>> 3, 4 or 6 months is immaterial.
>>
>>>> What happened to 3 month silent ban?
>>
>>>> How long are you going to carry on this nonsense?
>>
>>> I have always maintained he is under a silent ban.
>>
>> You can "maintain" anything you like, and indeed you do. Supporting what
>> you "maintain" is the problem. We all know what happened when you
>> decided to "support" the cocaine-is-a-PED thing. Not pretty. Not pretty
>> at all.
>>
>> --http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/68/FEDERER_Roger-24x3...
>
> I never said cocaine is a PED in the strict sense.

The "senses" keep changing every time you're caught with your pants
down. Ifs turn into "ifs".

> I said some
> athletes may "think" mistakenly that cocaine has some PED benefits.

Okey dokey.

> I
> also said there are some effects of cocaine that could be seen as very
> short-term benefits and I quoted a doctor of WADA who backs this up.

For 15 minutes. Okey dokey.

> Do you personally know yourself that every single pro athlete who has
> taken cocaine before a sports performance has not thought that the
> cocaine would be of some benefit?

Are you sure you work in a courtsie house?

--
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/68/FEDERER_Roger-24x30-1998.jpg

[Court_1]

On Oct 4, 2:04 pm, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On  4-Oct-2012, Court_1 <Olympia0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Who says I am using the argument that the sport is not clean as a red
> > herring to support my belief of silent bans for Nadal?
>
> You consistently do just that.  For instance, if someone says they don't
> believe some specific player is doping you'll ridicule them for "believing
> the sport is clean".

Because it is true, I find it impossible to believe there are people
out there who could think any pro sport is clean and I do ridicule
them for thinking so, you are correct. Nadal is one of the most
obvious cases but imo all of the top players use or have used
something. I have said that again and again and I will continue to
assert that no matter how much it may bother you.

> > Let me say it again
>
> That's OK, I'll pass.

But you DON'T pass, you take every opportunity you can to respond to
my posts don't you? ;)

[drew]

On Oct 4, 2:15 pm, Court_1 <Olympia0...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> But you DON'T pass, you take every opportunity you can to respond to
> my posts don't you? ;)

An effective lawyer presents persuasive arguments....you're just
argumentative.

[Court_1]

No I am not argumentative. I will challenge you to a debate any day,
but I assure you, you will lose! ;) Unless of course the debate is
about something crude like the discussion about your private parts
which you seem to be terribly fond of discussing ad nauseam on here.
Does anybody ask for this type of discussion from you?

[jdeluise]

On 4-Oct-2012, wrote:

> Because it is true, I find it impossible to believe there are people
> out there who could think any pro sport is clean and I do ridicule
> them for thinking so, you are correct. Nadal is one of the most
> obvious cases but imo all of the top players use or have used
> something. I have said that again and again and I will continue to
> assert that no matter how much it may bother you.

The point is it's a non-sequitur. In summary:

Poster X: There's no evidence that Nadal is serving a silent ban.
Court_1: My god you're stupid if you think the sport is clean.

[Court_1]

Yawn! Can't you do better than that? ;)

[drew]

On Oct 4, 3:15 pm, Court_1 <Olympia0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 4, 2:51 pm, drew <d...@technologist.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 4, 2:15 pm, Court_1 <Olympia0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > But you DON'T pass, you take every opportunity you can to respond to
> > > my posts don't you? ;)
>
> > An effective lawyer presents persuasive arguments....you're just
> > argumentative.
>
> No I am not argumentative.

Reminds me of a Monty Python skit. Person paying for argument:
"That's not an argument, it's merely
contradiction. An argument is a connected series of statements
intended to establish a proposition."

Paid argumenter: "No it isn't."

[drew]

On Oct 4, 3:15 pm, Court_1 <Olympia0...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Unless of course the debate is
> about something crude like the discussion about your private parts
> which you seem to be terribly fond of discussing ad nauseam on here.

Well you lost your argument about your fake orgasms and your use of
cocaine
for performance enhancement.

And your Nadal suspension argument is on pretty thin ice right now.

So, yeah, I think you'd better bone up on your male genitalia
arguments...
I mean if you can't win an argument with men about your own
vagina...you're
not much of a debater.

[TT]

4.10.2012 23:06, drew kirjoitti:

> I mean if you can't win an argument with men about your own
> vagina...you're
> not much of a debater.
>

lol

[Court_1]

On Oct 4, 4:06 pm, drew <d...@technologist.com> wrote:
> On Oct 4, 3:15 pm, Court_1 <Olympia0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Unless of course the debate is
>
> > about something crude like the discussion about your private parts
> > which you seem to be terribly fond of discussing ad nauseam on here.
>
> Well you lost your argument about your fake orgasms and your use of
> cocaine
> for performance enhancement.

I did not lose either argument as I wasn't arguing about either. I
never said a word about fake orgasms other than to make the
generalization that men have no idea if women are faking or not. Re
the cocaine issue, I said that nobody knows whether an athlete has
taken cocaine prior to a sporting event in the belief that it will
help him or her in the short term. Nobody here can prove otherwise
least of all a crass know-it-all like yourself.

> And your Nadal suspension argument is on pretty thin ice right now.

Again, I am not arguing about it, I am merely stating it is my opinion
that he is serving a suspension. That fact that you disagree does not
make my opinion any less valid does it?

> So, yeah, I think you'd better bone up on your male genitalia
> arguments...
> I mean if you can't win an argument with men about your own
> vagina...you're
> not much of a debater.

LOL.

[felangey]

> I mean if you can't win an argument with men about your own
> vagina...you're not much of a debater.

...*schlppllrk*.... :))

[felangey]

"felangey" <onc...@nine.com> wrote in message
news:k4lcn6$oth$1...@dont-email.me...

>> I mean if you can't win an argument with men about your own
>> vagina...you're not much of a debater.
>
> ...*schlppllrk*.... :))

^^

...and I guess you can take that either to be my coffee hitting the
keyboard.....or the sound of Court1 winning an argument *with* her own
mangina....er sorry, I mean vagina. :)

[drew]

On Oct 4, 9:29 pm, "felangey" <oncl...@nine.com> wrote:
> "felangey" <oncl...@nine.com> wrote in message

The sound of yet another bicycle seat being swallowed. You'd think
they'd make
those things wider for female riders....just another example of male
engineers being insensitive to the needs of women.

I've heard that sound so many times it sickens me. The things we have
had
to extract from a lady's wazzuza in the emergency department.....well,
it would shock
you.

"Madam, I'm afraid it's neither boy nor girl.....but it IS black."

[felangey]

> I've heard that sound so many times it sickens me. The things we have had
> to extract from a lady's wazzuza in the emergency department.....well,
> it would shockyou.

Lol....

"Well Dr.....it was the strangest thing! I had just taken the vegetable rack
out for cleaning and had set it on the kitchen floor....when I spilled
piping hot tea down me. I had no choice but to rip off my dress to save
myself from getting burned. Of course...you can imagine the rest...in the
commotion I stumbled then slipped on the wet floor...pulled a tripple back
summersault with pike and ended up landing in the splits right over the
vegetable rack.....".

So you work in medicine, eh? Now that has ruined my image of you as a
trading floor rapscallion!! ;)

[drew]

On Oct 4, 11:11 pm, "felangey" <oncl...@nine.com> wrote:

.
>
> So you work in medicine, eh? Now that has ruined my image of you as a
> trading floor rapscallion!! ;)

The most unusual was a man who had the intestinal fortutude to remove
one
of his own testicles. He brought it in a specimen jar for histology
because he was
convinced that it was cancerous.

It wasn't.

[felangey]

> He brought it in a specimen jar for histology because he was
> convinced that it was cancerous.

> It wasn't.

Yikes...*clenches legs together*. :O|

[Court_1]

Working in medicine? Right. Is that what they call the janitorial
service who clean up the puke and blood left by patients these days?
That is a quite a broad definition of working in medicine, no?

[Pelle Svanslös]

On 5.10.2012 2:15, Court_1 wrote:
>
> Again, I am not arguing about it, I am merely stating it is my opinion
> that he is serving a suspension. That fact that you disagree does not
> make my opinion any less valid does it?

It's my opinion that planes bounce off buildings. Of course I've never
seen such an incident and nobody I've talked about it has either. But
that's what planes do.

The fact that somebody happens to disagree with my opinion doesn't make
it less valid, does it?

--
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/68/FEDERER_Roger-24x30-1998.jpg

[Patrick Kehoe]

Suddenly, my tummy hurts................................

:(


P

[Court_1]

On Oct 5, 12:11 pm, Pelle Svanslös <pe...@svans.los> wrote:


> It's my opinion that planes bounce off buildings.

Good for you!

> Of course I've never
> seen such an incident and nobody I've talked about it has either. But
> that's what planes do.
>
> The fact that somebody happens to disagree with my opinion doesn't make
> it less valid, does it?

Look, I believe that there is a lot of PED use in tennis and I believe
that top players must have failed drug tests and have been sanctioned
without the public knowing about it. It is impossible to believe that
no top player has failed a drug test or ever been sanctioned unless
you still believe in Cinderella and the Tooth Fairy, which in your
case judging by your posts, you probably do.

It is all something which nobody in the sport--i.e. present players,
past players, commentators, journalists, etc. want to talk about. It
is one of the best examples of the Omerta principle that I can think
of. If you listen carefully to some of the comments for example that
past players have made or that commentators sometimes blurt out, it is
obvious that PED use not only exists but is rampant in the sport. Past
players such as Courier, McEnroe and Becker have all alluded to PED
use in tennis by their comments over the years but obviously this has
all gone over your head, no big surprise there. ;)

[Pelle Svanslös]

On 5.10.2012 19:49, Court_1 wrote:
> On Oct 5, 12:11 pm, Pelle Svanslös <pe...@svans.los> wrote:
>
>
>> It's my opinion that planes bounce off buildings.
>
> Good for you!
>
>
>
>> Of course I've never
>> seen such an incident and nobody I've talked about it has either. But
>> that's what planes do.
>>
>> The fact that somebody happens to disagree with my opinion doesn't make
>> it less valid, does it?
>

> Look, I believe ... I believe ... It is impossible to believe that
> ... Cinderella ... Tooth Fairy ... Omerta principle ... alluded

Yeah! It's the same with planes and secret suspensions. You just gotta
believe, substance could be harmful. Amazing how we think alike.

--
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/68/FEDERER_Roger-24x30-1998.jpg