Phew! No Drugs in Football

calvjones

"We feel that to invade the privacy of a player's home would be a step too far," said Taylor. "If we complain about anything to do with drug-testing people think we might have something to hide, but football's record is extremely good and there has been a virtual absence of any performance-enhancing drugs over decades."

By that nice Mr Taylor, of the PFA in the Guardian today. Clearly, he's never heard of Juve. :roll:

timoid.

Or 1970s Fiorentina. Check out the catalogue of mysterious ailments from that squad:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2005 ... ball.sport

andyp

Gordon Taylor wrote:

"We do appreciate that football is a major spectator sport and we wish to co-operate, but football should not be treated in the same way as individual sports that do have a problem with drugs, such as athletics, cycling and weightlifting."

One question Mr Taylor, why shouldn't football be treated the same as other sports?

How many sudden and unexplained deaths have there been in professional football in the last few years? Of course, that has nothing to do with drugs.

blazing_saddles

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/7721593.stm

I'm surprised they haven't been able to work cycling (road of course, not track) into the story. :roll:

squired

I like the bit about a pool of 30 players. When you consider there are more pros in England than there probably are racing in the Pro and Continental cycling tours I think its pathetic, especially for a sport with so much money. How exactly do you go about picking just 30 players from so many?

andy_wrx

Blazing Saddles wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/7721593.stm

I'm surprised they haven't been able to work cycling (road of course, not track) into the story. :roll:

I'm amused they refer to footballers as 'athletes'.

They have more in common with actors, surely ?

LangerDan

Blazing Saddles wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/7721593.stm

I'm surprised they haven't been able to work cycling (road of course, not track) into the story. :roll:

They have in other versions of the story:

"The moves are part of efforts by sporting chiefs to bring football's anti-drugs controls and procedures more in line with other sports, like athletics and cycling.

UK Sport and Football Association (FA) officials will meet in the next couple of months to draw up the players' register, according to the report.

Andy Parkinson, UK Sport's head of operations for a drug-free sport, said he was not setting out to make life difficult for footballers but trying to 'protect their sport'.

He told the paper that athletics and cycling have both been badly tainted by doping scandals.

'The last thing we want is for football to be in that position where it doesn't focus enough - doesn't put controls in place - and suddenly finds itself a sport with a fantastic profile in a crisis,' he added."

RichN95.

The exact quote mentioned by LangerDan above is

“Athletics and cycling have been tainted in a big way by anti-doping. The last thing we want is for football to be in that position where it doesn’t focus enough, doesn’t put the controls in place – and suddenly finds itself a sport with a fantastic profile in a crisis.”


To paraphrase - two sports have actually tried to catch dopers and have got in a right mess. To ensure this doesn't happen were going to use a system that's a decade out of date.

eh

Odd one of the best placed people in football thinks there is:

We have had some players come to us at Arsenal from other clubs abroad and their red blood cell count has been abnormally high," Wenger told the Independent. "That kind of thing makes you wonder.

Also Gary Imlach suggests that West Germany may have taken something for the final in the 1st World cup they won. Although I guess at the time it wouldn't have been illegal.

GeorgeShaw

As a close follower of football for many years, considering the pace of the game today, I'd be shocked if the major clubs don't have some kind of "programme". Testing in football is a joke.

calvjones

GeorgeShaw wrote:

As a close follower of football for many years, considering the pace of the game today, I'd be shocked if the major clubs don't have some kind of "programme". Testing in football is a joke.

I particularly recall eyebrows aloft in 2005(?) Champs League final - the one 'pool won against AC Milan - In extra time almost every Liverpool player was down with cramp, whilst Meeelaan looked fresh as daisies.

NJK

GeorgeShaw wrote:

As a close follower of football for many years, considering the pace of the game today, I'd be shocked if the major clubs don't have some kind of "programme". Testing in football is a joke.

Wenger virtually admitted that he thought some of his players doped when he first came to the club. I'm sure Juventus were a bit dodgy a few years ago and then you have OP which surely had a few spanish top flight footballers on the list. Where there is money there is cheating or doping end of story.

dennisn

calvjones wrote:

"We feel that to invade the privacy of a player's home would be a step too far," said Taylor. "If we complain about anything to do with drug-testing people think we might have something to hide, but football's record is extremely good and there has been a virtual absence of any performance-enhancing drugs over decades."

By that nice Mr Taylor, of the PFA in the Guardian today. Clearly, he's never heard of Juve. :roll:

"....absence.... over decades" is quite a statement. Yes? What is he talking about when he says "invade the privacy of a players home"?

Dennis Noward

cougie

Hmmm - so they're happy to take home the big pay packets - but dont want to do the drugs testing that other lesser rewarded sportspeople have to ?

Doesnt seem very fair ?

GeorgeShaw

Doping in Italy - Juve amongst others - is pretty much an accepted fact - it's just not talked about. The usual Omerta.

i wouldn't exclude UK clubs, either - those with any memory will remember Rio Ferdinand disappearing out of the back door rather suddenly. Our game is played at a higher pace than other countries, so is ripe for a little "assistance".

But I suspect that Taylor, being a man of the world, is actually as much concerned about the number of recreational positives that they would undoubtedly get.

slojo

Wasn't Fuentes club doctor to a couple of Spanish football teams in the 1990's?

Kléber

Taylor is always concerned about his players' bank balances and not their health, so I'd not listen to him to much. We're talking about the WADA code, so Taylor has no say.

I suspect this is just the introduction of the scheme, soon all professional players will be tested properly. When I see some of the players and they way their physical appearance has changed during their adult career, I'm pretty certain some growth hormones have been used by some big players in the Premiership.

After all, when you combine money and prestige, some people will cut corners to achieve them, it happens in every other sport, football is not going to be exempt from this.

Monty Dog

Surely if the IOC enforced the fact that FIFA has to endorse and adopt the WADA code to guarantee Olympic participation might force a change in attitude? I'm led to believe that the reason that OP was shelved was because a member of the Spanish judiciary had strong links with the president of a football club. That said, I'm not holding out that the FA will do anything that would be seen to jeapordise the earnings and priviledges of prima-donnas.

skavanagh.bikeradar

I should imagine that one or two in football will be worried by proper drug testing. As Kleber says Taylor isn't a reliable witness, he's fortunate to be head of a union which has many millionaires in it's membership and is himself doing alright out of it.

Football has come a long way since 1989, nobody wants to treat supporters like animals and electricute them on the fences anymore.

fast as fupp

theyre all on the toot anyway- no wonder they dont want drug tests

remember rio?

meagain

Whether or not PROFESSIONAL soccer or football players taking illegal substances (performance enhancing or recreational) is of any moment depends on whether or not one considers those activities as "sport".
If one views them as "entertainment" (as I do) then it is of no more concern nor interest than whether or not rock stars so indulge. Do we care that Keith R may have dabbled? Has it affected his ability to entertain? I think not.

leguape

Monty Dog wrote:

Surely if the IOC enforced the fact that FIFA has to endorse and adopt the WADA code to guarantee Olympic participation might force a change in attitude? I'm led to believe that the reason that OP was shelved was because a member of the Spanish judiciary had strong links with the president of a football club. That said, I'm not holding out that the FA will do anything that would be seen to jeapordise the earnings and priviledges of prima-donnas.

From what I've heard, that's where the pressure is coming from IOC and WADA with Olympic ban threats. They only made any pretence of being interested in playing by WADA rules when the IOC pushed around the idea that they might drop them from the Olympics for it (the Olympics is pretty much the U23 World Cup these days).

As for Juve, the name you're all failing to find is Dr Agricola, convicted in 2004 of doping offences in the 90s - http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/footbal ... 045525.stm - although I think he got off on appeal on the basis of the usual esoteric nonsense that the Italians seem to think sufficient to undermine a conviction.

fast as fupp

meagain wrote:

Whether or not PROFESSIONAL soccer or football players taking illegal substances (performance enhancing or recreational) is of any moment depends on whether or not one considers those activities as "sport".
If one views them as "entertainment" (as I do) then it is of no more concern nor interest than whether or not rock stars so indulge. Do we care that Keith R may have dabbled? Has it affected his ability to entertain? I think not.

whos keith r?

Schmidthouse

meagain wrote:

Whether or not PROFESSIONAL soccer or football players taking illegal substances (performance enhancing or recreational) is of any moment depends on whether or not one considers those activities as "sport".
If one views them as "entertainment" (as I do) then it is of no more concern nor interest than whether or not rock stars so indulge. Do we care that Keith R may have dabbled? Has it affected his ability to entertain? I think not.

Interesting arguement isn't it. Here in Australia the AFL tests all listed players for drugs, including recreational and tests all year round. If the player tests positive for a drug on the WADA list then the WADA penalties apply. For recreational drugs the AFL has a "three strike" policy - if the player tests positive for recreational drugs then the AFL will inform the team doctor and only that person for the first and second positives, after that they will inform the club, etc. This policy has caused much debate from both the medical and players associations.

finchy

meagain wrote:

Whether or not PROFESSIONAL soccer or football players taking illegal substances (performance enhancing or recreational) is of any moment depends on whether or not one considers those activities as "sport".
If one views them as "entertainment" (as I do) then it is of no more concern nor interest than whether or not rock stars so indulge. Do we care that Keith R may have dabbled? Has it affected his ability to entertain? I think not.

Yes, it is a concern if footballers dope, because doping kills. Keith Richards took drugs because he wanted to do that, whereas sports stars may come under pressure from their employers to risk their lives.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

DaveyL

Rubbish. So a 16 year old kid playing for Walsall has been on the epo according to you? And I would hardly think Motherwell (or any Scottish club except the old Firm) would have the financial wherewithal to put an organised doping programme in place.

I think the key phrase in your blog is "I'm no doctor"...

squired

I love the bit where they suggest that football doesn't have a problem like sports such as cycling, as it is a team sport. Of course they miss the fact that cycling is a team sport too. Having said that, if it is a sport where different members of the team are on different wages, then doping is just as much of a risk. Take the right drugs, improve your speed and stamina, earn a move to a Premiership club and a big contract. Don't take anything and end up a lower league player. The temptations are there, and even in the lower leagues they earn more than the majority of normal people in the country.

I've always thought one of the major doping risks for footballers relates to injuries. Players get an injury before a major tournament and miraculously heal in time and are a machine when they get there. I always think of the Wayne Rooney broken foot a few years back that meant he would be out of the tournament as an example that seemed very dodgy to me. Somehow he came back faster than absolutely everyone suggested would be possible.

afx237vi

squired wrote:

I've always thought one of the major doping risks for footballers relates to injuries. Players get an injury before a major tournament and miraculously heal in time and are a machine when they get there. I always think of the Wayne Rooney broken foot a few years back that meant he would be out of the tournament as an example that seemed very dodgy to me. Somehow he came back faster than absolutely everyone suggested would be possible.

There's a good read here:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_a ... 670679.ece

I would guess most footballers have no idea what treatment they're receiving or whether it's illegal or not.

PS, isn't actovegin banned in cycling?

jp1985

Just to put an alternative point of view across after Tom Boonen tested positive for cocaine he missed the tour but was not banned or fined, when Mutu and Bosnich got caught they were sacked and faced bans. Bosnich never returned from his and Mutu faced court case and now has to pay 8 million in compensation. Further Mutu was actually court by a club control after he was targetted by chelsea for testing after suspicious behaviour. With the exception of CSC, Garmin and Columbia do cycling teams implement their own controls and do they implement targeted testing when they have suspicions e.g. schumi, bernie, piepoli, rat boy and sella?(Im assuming they had suspicions like the rest of us).

Rio ferdinand missed one test and got an 8 month ban and a £50,000 fine whereas athletes get a have a three strikes and your out policy.

In terms of PED's you have to consider the nature of the sport. Cycling, Athletics, Weightlifting etc are all primarily determined by physical attributes whereas football is largely dependant on skill. Its no good being able to sprint around a pitch for 90 mins if you've got two left feet and cant time a tackle. If you look at the physical attrbutes of top footballers they are pretty unremarkable (60ish ml.kg.min VO2max) if it was necessary to have greater values that could be achieved through training.

Im not saying that football is free from doping but you cannot treat it in the same manner as cycling.

cougie

Fair point - but what would you rather have - a skilful player whos shagged after 45 mins, or one that can go the whole game at full pelt ?

And compare the salaries to cyclists - who has more money to spend on PEDs and it must be far easier to do that in the privacy of your own home - rather than in a different hotel each night like in the Tours ?