Football: Toure positive gets six month ban, backdated.

MrTapir

BigMat wrote:

MrTapir wrote:

BigMat wrote:

You'd need some kind of scandal, like:


- a completely random team from a country with high profile dopers in other sports suddenly running the legs off all the other teams and walking off with a major international trophy; or

.... Hang on a minute....

WHo is this team to which you are referring? Is it Spain? But i thought they were generally good and not a particularly 'random' team. Or do you mean Turkey in Euro 2008?

Its a country where top athletes are prone to falling off motorbikes. Spain would do though, although they don't tick the "random" box.

is it also a country that isnt in the best position financially at the moment?

edit: yes it is.

RichN95.

orangepip wrote:

I thought this topic would come up today...

i recall someone on twitter suggesting fairly clearly that there was a reason why Ryan Giggs had managed to successfully play top level football until nearly 40 - obviously referring to PED's... No-one seemed to spot it and react to it but I suspect that is blissful ignorance on the part of football fans.

Sadly as a fan of cycling I have no such innocence.

FFS, Giggs is 37, not 60. That tweeter needs to brush up on his football history:

Tom Finney played for England until he was 36 and Preston until he was 38
Bobby Charlton played for Man Utd until he was 36
Ferenc Puskas played for Real Madrid until he was 39 (and he was a fat lump)
Alfredo Di Stefano played in the Spanish top flight until he was 40

And the granddaddy of them all....

Stanley Matthews. England international at 42, European Player of the Year aged 41 and played in Division 1 until he was 50.

None of these players took EPO or HGH.

wicked

RichN95 wrote:

orangepip wrote:

I thought this topic would come up today...

i recall someone on twitter suggesting fairly clearly that there was a reason why Ryan Giggs had managed to successfully play top level football until nearly 40 - obviously referring to PED's... No-one seemed to spot it and react to it but I suspect that is blissful ignorance on the part of football fans.

Sadly as a fan of cycling I have no such innocence.

FFS, Giggs is 37, not 60. That tweeter needs to brush up on his football history:

Tom Finney played for England until he was 36 and Preston until he was 38
Bobby Charlton played for Man Utd until he was 36
Ferenc Puskas played for Real Madrid until he was 39 (and he was a fat lump)
Alfredo Di Stefano played in the Spanish top flight until he was 40

And the granddaddy of them all....

Stanley Matthews. England international at 42, European Player of the Year aged 41 and played in Division 1 until he was 50.

None of these players took EPO or HGH.

Not really that relevant a comparison. The game today is MUCH faster than BITD so players are now required to be athletes as much as ball players.

Cumulonimbus

Giggs doesnt play every game for Man U. Also he doesnt have to play any tournaments in the summer (hey i dont know why england bother sometimes) so is able to have a proper rest. Must make a difference over the years.

RichN95.

wicked wrote:

Not really that relevant a comparison. The game today is MUCH faster than BITD so players are now required to be athletes as much as ball players.

It is faster, but you watch Giggs tomorrow. He doesn't run that much any more (that's what the likes of Fletcher and Park are for). Great players are generally great players because they have excellent technique and a good footballing brain, not because of their physical attributes.

Plus you have to remember that back in the olden days the game was much more physical, the ball was twice the weight, the pitches were often mud baths and the treatment of injuries was primitive (back then a ACL could end your career). So it's swings and roundabouts. (Also back in the day Best, Worthington et al would brag about their sex life, not get superinjunctions)

Basically, I was trying to say that 37 really isn't that old. Now more than ever. To some people (students) it seems like middle age, but it's really not.

To put it in a cycling context, some gape at amazement at Chris Horner being good at 39. But Zoetemelk was World Champion at 39, Poulidor came third in the Tour at 40. These sort of things are nothing new. Deteriation in the 30s is more mental than anything.

finchy

B3rnieMac wrote:

maybe its just me being silly for thinking such a thing.......but PEDs in cycling / endurance sports have a definite positive effect and almost guarantee an improvement. in football / rugby etc.........not as much.

using myself as an example, taking EPO will definitely make me a better cyclist than if i wasn't taking EPO. i'm absolutely terrible at football. is there a drug which will make me more accurate with passes and shooting? i might be able to run for longer, but i'll still not be able to hit a barn door with a shot.

maybe this is why they seem to not bother which such stringent tests?

80 minutes gone, you're a winger, you take on the full-back in a quick break. You're doped, he isn't. You get a few yards on him, have a clear run to the box and then pass the ball to your centre forward (also doped up), who has managed to get clear of his marker (not doped). He scores, you go 2-1 up.

The next day, you can be back in full training, working on your skills, seeing as you've recovered so quickly thanks to the EPO, whereas rival teams can only do light recovery work. Any injuries will be treated more quickly.

Same goes for rugby, tennis, etc.

Doping is advantageous in any sport.

RichN95.

johnfinch wrote:

80 minutes gone, you're a winger, you take on the full-back in a quick break. You're doped, he isn't. You get a few yards on him, have a clear run to the box and then pass the ball to your centre forward (also doped up), who has managed to get clear of his marker (not doped). He scores, you go 2-1 up.

The next day, you can be back in full training, working on your skills, seeing as you've recovered so quickly thanks to the EPO, whereas rival teams can only do light recovery work. Any injuries will be treated more quickly.

Same goes for rugby, tennis, etc.

Doping is advantageous in any sport.

The same is true in hockey. On a Saturday night you've all had six or seven pints, but it's the guys on EPO who then say 'anyone for a round of shots'

(A friend of mine got over 200 caps for hockey - played in the Olympics, got a Commonwealth silver. His idea of doping was to quit smoking before a tournament and drink vodka coke instead of beer - it's a different world)

Tom Butcher

RichN95 wrote:

[
Basically, I was trying to say that 37 really isn't that old. Now more than ever. To some people (students) it seems like middle age, but it's really not.

To put it in a cycling context, some gape at amazement at Chris Horner being good at 39. But Zoetemelk was World Champion at 39, Poulidor came third in the Tour at 40. These sort of things are nothing new. Deteriation in the 30s is more mental than anything.

I think you do lose sharpness - the ability to do short quick sprints - accelerate, stop, accelerate that kind of thing - hence why tennis players tend not to last into their 30s. Having said that I doubt Giggs' longevity is due to anything more than hard work and good genes.

RichN95.

Tom Butcher wrote:

I think you do lose sharpness - the ability to do short quick sprints - accelerate, stop, accelerate that kind of thing - hence why tennis players tend not to last into their 30s. Having said that I doubt Giggs' longevity is due to anything more than hard work and good genes.

You'll lose sharpness a bit, but I think a lot of that is down to the mental wear and tear - just not having the same enthusiasm (I know from my moderate hockey career, I lost proper interest about aged 34). Giggs's longevity has been helped by changing roles in the team (and a long standing manager). In 1999 he scored one of the great goals. There's no way in hell he could do that now.

orangepip

I believe there are a number of studies that prove that aerobic ability can actually improve towards your 40's what suffers is your ability for extreme acceleration ergo a 37 year old cyclist can deal better with a 6 hour day with a constantish effort but the same 37 year old can deal less well with 90 mins of extreme full out efforts...

there are always exceptions to the rule and I'm just reporting what I heard... Petacchi and Giggs could indeed be those exceptions.

Sorry I need my inhaler now

RichN95.

orangepip wrote:

I believe there are a number of studies that prove that aerobic ability can actually improve towards your 40's what suffers is your ability for extreme acceleration ergo a 37 year old cyclist can deal better with a 6 hour day with a constantish effort but the same 37 year old can deal less well with 90 mins of extreme full out efforts...

there are always exceptions to the rule and I'm just reporting what I heard... Petacchi and Giggs could indeed be those exceptions.

Sorry I need my inhaler now

It's interesting that you would put Petacchi alongside Giggs, because I would agree with you. The basis being that they are both experienced, intelligent sportsmen.

Petacchi is the only man who has beaten Cavendish in a GT sprint more than once (since Cav's first GT win). It's three times. And every time it has been the first stage where they have sprinted together. That's because Petacchi can work out a tactic to surprise Cav, where the likes of Farrar can't. Cav, being similarly a smart rider, then stops it happening again.

Similarly Giggs has been a top class player for 20 years. His extensive knowledge of the game makes up for any biological weaknesses.

In sport, people (fans) focus too much on the physical side and too little on the mental side.

Alumin-Liam

Anyone else think Manchester United need a new doctor?

rickyrider

you know what, I gotta admit that watching Barcelona just outplay Manchester U like that, I'm with you

top_bhoy

BigMat wrote:

You'd need some kind of scandal, like:

- fit young players suddenly collapsing and dying from heart failure; or

- a list of names being found as part of a police bust of a doping ring; or

- a completely random team from a country with high profile dopers in other sports suddenly running the legs off all the other teams and walking off with a major international trophy; or
- a top international evading a dope test in a ridiculously blatant way

before there might be any whiff of suspicion around football. Hang on a minute....

I've just watched the 2010-2011 Champions League final.....

Do I think Barca doped....no, they allowed their passing ability to impose themselves on their opponents. Passing skills and managerial team tactics can't be replaced by doping.

(Note: I do believe doping occurs in football - it won't be immune)

RichN95.

Alumin-Liam wrote:

Anyone else think Manchester United need a new doctor?

No. What Barca did tonight had little to with doping. Stoke City (a really hard working team) could probably outrun them,but it's not much use if you never get the ball.

Jez mon

RichN95 wrote:

Alumin-Liam wrote:

Anyone else think Manchester United need a new doctor?

No. What Barca did tonight had little to with doping. Stoke City (a really hard working team) could probably outrun them,but it's not much use if you never get the ball.

I'm not sure, tbh, I was tired and drifted off, half way thru the first half and woke up at half time. But it seemed to me that whilst Man U were able to keep up the pace in the first few minutes, Barca were able to keep up a relentlessly high pace for 90 minutes, now part of this is due to the fact that it's a lot more tiring when you're chasing, but I think part of it is down to Barca being fitter, and perhaps that's due to illicit going ons...

McBoom

^Indeed.(@rich)

Barca didn't have the ball for 32% of the match, meaning they can afford to chase the opposition like mad-men during this time, whereas for Man Utd there is no way they can do the same for 68% of the match. Man Utd players end up looking less fit than Barca yet have expended greater energy.

This is only achievable by being able to keep possession like Barca do, which I guess requires your team to be made up of players who've spent 10 years in your youth teams learning that style of play.

RichN95.

Jez mon wrote:

I'm not sure, tbh, I was tired and drifted off, half way thru the first half and woke up at half time. But it seemed to me that whilst Man U were able to keep up the pace in the first few minutes, Barca were able to keep up a relentlessly high pace for 90 minutes, now part of this is due to the fact that it's a lot more tiring when you're chasing, but I think part of it is down to Barca being fitter, and perhaps that's due to illicit going ons...

No, what they were doing had nothing got do with doping. The central triangle of Messi-Iniesta-Xavi are all exceptional footballers. Their technique and vision is extraordinary. No amount of drugs do that. Barca had 67% of the ball.

Most of these guys have come through the Barca youth system, which trains them well, and it shows. They may well be doping, but no amount of doping is going to turn Carrick into Xavi. If they are doping they really don't need to - they're a stunningly talented team.

tailwindhome

I'm not sure I believe that Barca *only* had 67% of the possession

If you were to tell me that a player on that pitch last night was doped up it wouldn't be a Barca player that I'd suspect.....

No_Ta_Doctor

Thing is, though it's a cliche that you should "let the ball do the work" and that the team without it has to run harder the amount of movement in the Barca team when they have possession is phenomenal. It's not just that they press madly when they don't have the ball, the running off the ball when they're in possession is what makes the passing work. They're never, ever static.

There's no doubt that they have several of the most gifted players on the planet, and they've grown up together playing the same style and being on the same wavelength, but behind the beautiful style lies an incredible amount of physical work.

I have my doubts.

luckao

Amongst other thoughts, this did cross my mind whilst getting increasingly frustrated during the game. It was only in the last 10 or so minutes that they began to cede possession regularly.

A lot can be said of their performance. For a start, I'm sceptical that they get through nearly as much work as that during a normal La Liga game. They average quality of the opposition means they don't have to. Besides, they were well rested prior to the game.

On their frantic closing down, I'd dare say they went about it more sensibly than United did. Whilst Hernandez, Park and Rooney were content to harry them, there was absolutely no consistency. A couple of quick, intricate passes and they'd make headway into a midfield inviting them on. Not only do they commit more players, Barca do it together, maintaining an unusually advanced presence in the opposition's half. They're certainly accustomed to that tactic by now.

Movement in possession of the ball is intriguing. I'm no youth development coach, but I'd guess can be taught as an invaluable tool. Some players appear clumsy and have zero foresight, whereas you look at somebody like Scholes who made a career out of being one step ahead of everybody else. It helps when you have two of the best playmakers sat in the middle dictating all aspects of play.

All of that said, and although it might not have made a difference to the final result, United made it easy for them in some respects. I suppose I'm trying too hard to be humble to avoid even considering such accusations, hence the justification. I hope I'm right.

moray_gub

RichN95 wrote:

Alumin-Liam wrote:

Anyone else think Manchester United need a new doctor?

No. What Barca did tonight had little to with doping. Stoke City (a really hard working team) could probably outrun them,but it's not much use if you never get the ball.

Barca press the ball like no other team i have seen, their work off the ball is unsurpassed in the modern game maybe only the Milan team of the early 90s came close,to do that with such intensity requires immense stamina and fitness levels which i am sure you will agree doping would hugely assist. That said i don't think it is the case they are doping just talented physically fit footballers who know how to keep the ball and make the right pass but the possibilty is there.

verylonglegs

They won against a team that have had 5 away wins all season and who had a midfield of Giggs, Park, Carrick and Valencia. Hardly conclusive evidence of doping.

P_Tucker

TBH, the fact that they're a top level sporting team from Spain (deal with it Catalans) is pretty much conclusive evidence of doping. Probably not to the "reasonable doubt" standard, but on balance of probabilities you'd have to say its more likely than not.

No_Ta_Doctor

Moray Gub wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Alumin-Liam wrote:

Anyone else think Manchester United need a new doctor?

No. What Barca did tonight had little to with doping. Stoke City (a really hard working team) could probably outrun them,but it's not much use if you never get the ball.

Barca press the ball like no other team i have seen, their work off the ball is unsurpassed in the modern game maybe only the Milan team of the early 90s came close,to do that with such intensity requires immense stamina and fitness levels which i am sure you will agree doping would hugely assist. That said i don't think it is the case they are doping just talented physically fit footballers who know how to keep the ball and make the right pass but the possibilty is there.

Football doesn't have the equivalent of working out a power output for a big climb, unfortunately, so we'll never be able to conclude anything just from watching them play. But as you say, if you work that hard then it's definitely going to be an advantage. I think people underestimate how much work they're doing when they've got the ball though.

moray_gub

verylonglegs wrote:

They won against a team that have had 5 away wins all season and who had a midfield of Giggs, Park, Carrick and Valencia. Hardly conclusive evidence of doping.

I am presuming you are not including the 5 away wins in the competition they were playing in .

shinyhelmut

I don't follow football hence I didn't watch the match, I have my suspicions but no real idea of how prevalent doping is in top level football but for anyone to claim that doping, which makes you faster, stronger and with more endurance, will not help a football player is naive in the extreme.

verylonglegs

Moray Gub wrote:

verylonglegs wrote:

They won against a team that have had 5 away wins all season and who had a midfield of Giggs, Park, Carrick and Valencia. Hardly conclusive evidence of doping.

I am presuming you are not including the 5 away wins in the competition they were playing in .

yeah, was just a lazy look at the league table for me admittedly. I just think that midfield is one of the poorest I can remember them fielding in a big game.

finchy

Looks like the Spanish beef export market is booming.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/13719472.stm

top_bhoy

De Maria added: "The cause is believed to be because of [eating] beef or chicken between 17 and 20 May so an investigation will be made with the food suppliers. For the time being we don't see any negligence by anyone, not even theirs.

The Contador case has set the precedent if allowed to stand and it potentially opens the floodgates for every athlete to abuse Clenbuterol and for the National Association to clear their athlete.