Drugs in other sports and the media.

1…127128130132133…217

Comments

  • takethehighroad
    takethehighroad Posts: 6,822
    Jose Baxter was named twice for failing test for recreational drugs. The latest was last season (about this time last year)
  • my_grandadʹs_bike
    my_grandadʹs_bike Posts: 1,300
    TakeTheHighRoad wrote:
    Jose Baxter was named twice for failing test for recreational drugs. The latest was last season (about this time last year)

    And has just been rewarded with a 12 month contract with his boyhood club Everton though apparently with the u23 side. Backs up the rehabilitation angle mentioned earlier. Club stating they look after there own and that it was his last chance. And TBF both drugs charges relate to his time at other clubs
  • takethehighroad
    takethehighroad Posts: 6,822
    my grandad's bike wrote:
    TakeTheHighRoad wrote:
    Jose Baxter was named twice for failing test for recreational drugs. The latest was last season (about this time last year)

    And has just been rewarded with a 12 month contract with his boyhood club Everton though apparently with the u23 side. Backs up the rehabilitation angle mentioned earlier. Club stating they look after there own and that it was his last chance. And TBF both drugs charges relate to his time at other clubs

    One other club. Sheffield United.

    Everton have given him a chance, yeah, but the point was that footballers don't get named to help with their rehabilitation which is plainly not the case, as demonstrated by the several examples given above
  • dish_dash
    dish_dash Posts: 5,647
    So if he'd been a footballer then Paolini would never have been named and probably would have a contract for this season.
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,168
    dish_dash wrote:
    So if he'd been a footballer then Paolini would never have been named and probably would have a contract for this season.

    No, he tested positive in competition. It is only regarded as not performance enhancing out of competition.
  • sherer
    sherer Posts: 2,460
    KingstonGraham wrote:
    dish_dash wrote:
    So if he'd been a footballer then Paolini would never have been named and probably would have a contract for this season.

    No, he tested positive in competition. It is only regarded as not performance enhancing out of competition.

    Im more shocked football is doing OOC testing.
  • Bo Duke
    Bo Duke Posts: 1,058
    'Wada 'deeply disappointed' that Uefa and Fifa didn't step in to prevent Spanish football's drug-testing crisis'

    http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/foot ... 73016.html
    'Performance analysis and Froome not being clean was a media driven story. I haven’t heard one guy in the peloton say a negative thing about Froome, and I haven’t heard a single person in the peloton suggest Froome isn’t clean.' TSP
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    Anyone done this one yet, on Spanish football?

    C4Pon8AWMAAOhRa.jpg:large
    _
  • takethehighroad
    takethehighroad Posts: 6,822
    I shared that with my football supporting mates and was "the doped up cyclist ironically talking about drugs in football"

    They were only being slightly tongue in cheek
  • spam02
    spam02 Posts: 178
    Following on from the media pointing the figure at Spanish Football:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/38744912

    Probably because there's no need for drugs in football as it's a game of skill etc. etc. etc. - yawn.
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,253
    SPaM02 wrote:
    Following on from the media pointing the figure at Spanish Football:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/38744912

    Probably because there's no need for drugs in football as it's a game of skill etc. etc. etc. - yawn.
    It's not so much the lack of testing at lower levels - UKAD only have so much money - but the lack of testing in the Premier League where they claim to concentrate their efforts that's the story there.

    In the Premier League 550 players were tested a total of 799 times in the season (1.45 tests per player)

    In cycling the CADF tested the 1200 riders in their elite testing pool 13,400 times (11.17 tests per rider)

    At the Tour de France alone they tested 198 riders a total of 656 times (3.31 tests per rider at a single event)

    Yet it's cycling that has to answer the questions.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • spam02
    spam02 Posts: 178
    RichN95 wrote:
    SPaM02 wrote:
    Following on from the media pointing the figure at Spanish Football:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/38744912

    Probably because there's no need for drugs in football as it's a game of skill etc. etc. etc. - yawn.

    It's not so much the lack of testing at lower levels - UKAD only have so much money - but the lack of testing in the Premier League where they claim to concentrate their efforts that's the story there.

    In the Premier League 550 players were tested a total of 799 times in the season (1.45 tests per player)

    In cycling the CADF tested the 1200 riders in their elite testing pool 13,400 times (11.17 tests per rider)

    At the Tour de France alone they tested 198 riders a total of 656 times (3.31 tests per rider at a single event)

    Yet it's cycling that has to answer the questions.

    I know there are limited resources, but promotion from the Championship to the Premier League is the biggest (most lucrative) prize in English Football. Supposedly winning the Play-off Final is worth £170m. The temptation to gain that extra advantage at key points in the season knowing you're likely to not get tested must be even higher than in the EPL.
    Yet, once again football seems to be above criticism. Expect this article to have disappeared from the front page of the BBC Sports pages by tomorrow morning. I suppose if you don't test, you can't have a doping problem.
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,253
    SPaM02 wrote:
    I know there are limited resources, but promotion from the Championship to the Premier League is the biggest (most lucrative) prize in English Football. Supposedly winning the Play-off Final is worth £170m. The temptation to gain that extra advantage at key points in the season knowing you're likely to not get tested must be even higher than in the EPL.
    Yet, once again football seems to be above criticism. Expect this article to have disappeared from the front page of the BBC Sports pages by tomorrow morning. I suppose if you don't test, you can't have a doping problem.
    Yes, of course. But their excuse for there being little testing lower down was that they were focussing on the 'elite level'. But testing there is just as inadequate.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • Dorset_Boy
    Dorset_Boy Posts: 7,579
    I think I'm right in saying there are 380 premier league matches in a season so it's one player per team per match if the stats only relate to Premier League matches with nothing away from match day.
    Still, so long as the journos are kept fed and watered......
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 21,927
    The reason to dope in football would surely be to get a lucrative contract in the premier league. I'm not saying it doesn't happen on a team wide basis, but it must be tempting on an individual basis.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    TheBigBean wrote:
    The reason to dope in football would surely be to get a lucrative contract in the premier league. I'm not saying it doesn't happen on a team wide basis, but it must be tempting on an individual basis.

    You'd dope to improve performance regardless.
    _
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,253
    TheBigBean wrote:
    The reason to dope in football would surely be to get a lucrative contract in the premier league. I'm not saying it doesn't happen on a team wide basis, but it must be tempting on an individual basis.
    I think it's more likely done on a team basis (possibly without the players full knowledge - 'vitamin injections'). I remain unconvinced as to how much doping can improve a player's ability, I see it more as an aide to performing at their peak undoped level for longer and for more matches.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • Bo Duke
    Bo Duke Posts: 1,058
    Look at the intensity of Liverpool's performances these days, week after week. If any performance enhancement substances are used its to enable quick recovery and build strength/stamina and to avoid injury. Just like cycling. If Sakho was caught taking his wife's slimming tablets (if you believe that) then I'm pretty sure its the tip of the iceberg. There's too much money at stake.
    'Performance analysis and Froome not being clean was a media driven story. I haven’t heard one guy in the peloton say a negative thing about Froome, and I haven’t heard a single person in the peloton suggest Froome isn’t clean.' TSP
  • jimmythecuckoo
    jimmythecuckoo Posts: 4,719
    Rugby League getting strong...

    2 year ban for a negative test but the player was inappropriate to the tester...

    http://www.skysports.com/rugby-league/n ... g-official
    http://fendrieneu.home.blog
    My blog and pod...
    Beers of Belgium Cycling Club UK
  • yorkshireraw
    yorkshireraw Posts: 1,632
    Massive incentive to dope in football - the money as already mentioned, plus the fact if a player is caught & sanctioned they get a ban, but don't think the club forfeits any results?
  • Bo Duke
    Bo Duke Posts: 1,058
    YorkshireRaw wrote:
    Massive incentive to dope in football - the money as already mentioned, plus the fact if a player is caught & sanctioned they get a ban, but don't think the club forfeits any results?
    Excellent point - forfeiting 10 points would drop a leading club out of Europe or cause a team to be relegated, but sure would create overnight player/club accountability!
    'Performance analysis and Froome not being clean was a media driven story. I haven’t heard one guy in the peloton say a negative thing about Froome, and I haven’t heard a single person in the peloton suggest Froome isn’t clean.' TSP
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,168
    jimmythecuckoo wrote:
    Rugby League getting strong...

    2 year ban for a negative test but the player was inappropriate to the tester...

    http://www.skysports.com/rugby-league/n ... g-official

    Seems a bit harsh
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    Bo Duke wrote:
    YorkshireRaw wrote:
    Massive incentive to dope in football - the money as already mentioned, plus the fact if a player is caught & sanctioned they get a ban, but don't think the club forfeits any results?
    Excellent point - forfeiting 10 points would drop a leading club out of Europe or cause a team to be relegated, but sure would create overnight player/club accountability!

    If memory serves me right Arsenal had a case like this (their opponent) in the Champions League and under UEFA rules two players have to fail a drugs test and you forfeit the game 3-0. As they only test one player this would seem to be unlikely to happen.
  • yorkshireraw
    yorkshireraw Posts: 1,632
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    Bo Duke wrote:
    YorkshireRaw wrote:
    Massive incentive to dope in football - the money as already mentioned, plus the fact if a player is caught & sanctioned they get a ban, but don't think the club forfeits any results?
    Excellent point - forfeiting 10 points would drop a leading club out of Europe or cause a team to be relegated, but sure would create overnight player/club accountability!

    If memory serves me right Arsenal had a case like this (their opponent) in the Champions League and under UEFA rules two players have to fail a drugs test and you forfeit the game 3-0. As they only test one player this would seem to be unlikely to happen.

    Handy that, almost seems contrived to not let that situation arise.....

    In cup comps it would be a total farce - the next round could have been played by the time the drug testing results would be announced - so what happens then?
  • awavey
    awavey Posts: 2,368
    Bo Duke wrote:
    YorkshireRaw wrote:
    Massive incentive to dope in football - the money as already mentioned, plus the fact if a player is caught & sanctioned they get a ban, but don't think the club forfeits any results?
    Excellent point - forfeiting 10 points would drop a leading club out of Europe or cause a team to be relegated, but sure would create overnight player/club accountability!

    and no doubt a lucrative sideline in nixing teams through it, remember Tottenhams lasagne food poisoning cost them Champions League football one year. Unless a club is organising it on a mass scale I cant see how they can be held responsible given footballers are pretty much never under their complete control or even influence at times.
  • sherer
    sherer Posts: 2,460
    awavey wrote:
    Bo Duke wrote:
    YorkshireRaw wrote:
    Massive incentive to dope in football - the money as already mentioned, plus the fact if a player is caught & sanctioned they get a ban, but don't think the club forfeits any results?
    Excellent point - forfeiting 10 points would drop a leading club out of Europe or cause a team to be relegated, but sure would create overnight player/club accountability!

    and no doubt a lucrative sideline in nixing teams through it, remember Tottenhams lasagne food poisoning cost them Champions League football one year. Unless a club is organising it on a mass scale I cant see how they can be held responsible given footballers are pretty much never under their complete control or even influence at times.
    Well seeing as Barca and Real were allegedly linked to Operation Puerto, plus the Juventus and Marseille scandals, makes me think it's a team wide issue not individual players doing it on their own.

    Do any of those footballers really need all the supplements and injections they are given
  • Bo Duke
    Bo Duke Posts: 1,058
    awavey wrote:
    Bo Duke wrote:
    YorkshireRaw wrote:
    Massive incentive to dope in football - the money as already mentioned, plus the fact if a player is caught & sanctioned they get a ban, but don't think the club forfeits any results?
    Excellent point - forfeiting 10 points would drop a leading club out of Europe or cause a team to be relegated, but sure would create overnight player/club accountability!

    and no doubt a lucrative sideline in nixing teams through it, remember Tottenhams lasagne food poisoning cost them Champions League football one year. Unless a club is organising it on a mass scale I cant see how they can be held responsible given footballers are pretty much never under their complete control or even influence at times.

    Same with cycling, the teams aren't become legally responsible for the actions of their cyclists but they do bear the consequences of their actions. Sport needs to create responsibility and accountability and the best way is to via income... Both Rangers and Juventus were relegated for offences, doping could easily be added to that list.
    'Performance analysis and Froome not being clean was a media driven story. I haven’t heard one guy in the peloton say a negative thing about Froome, and I haven’t heard a single person in the peloton suggest Froome isn’t clean.' TSP
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    awavey wrote:
    Unless a club is organising it on a mass scale I cant see how they can be held responsible given footballers are pretty much never under their complete control or even influence at times.

    They're employees of the club.

    You'd be up in arms if a whole load of dodgy bankers used that as an excuse to get off charges of manipulating markets.
    _
  • ocdupalais
    ocdupalais Posts: 4,317
    A team doctor was was chatting to my mate who was working at the FIFA Women's U20 World Cup in Papua New Guinea in November: only bar room gossip, I know - and quite posssibly sour grapes - but he said he'd never seen such relentless stamina as displayed by the winning team - North Korea. Rumours were already flying about that they were on EPO or similar when they were seen working out in the gym on the morning of matches. A cursory look at the drug testing guidelines for the competition doesn't actually publish what exactly the players would be tested for, but states "FIFA will inform the Participating Member Associations of the doping control procedures and the list of prohibited substances by means of a circular letter."
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    awavey wrote:
    Bo Duke wrote:
    YorkshireRaw wrote:
    Massive incentive to dope in football - the money as already mentioned, plus the fact if a player is caught & sanctioned they get a ban, but don't think the club forfeits any results?
    Excellent point - forfeiting 10 points would drop a leading club out of Europe or cause a team to be relegated, but sure would create overnight player/club accountability!

    and no doubt a lucrative sideline in nixing teams through it, remember Tottenhams lasagne food poisoning cost them Champions League football one year. Unless a club is organising it on a mass scale I cant see how they can be held responsible given footballers are pretty much never under their complete control or even influence at times.

    a few players got food poisoning and the rest developed the symptons without eating the lasagne. Maybe just tell them they have been doped and see if it works.

Categories