Drugs in other sports and the media.

rick_chasey

redvision wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2013/ ... eal-madrid

The doctor at the centre of the Operación Puerto blood-doping trial says Real Madrid owe him money.

Eufemiano Fuentes told Spanish radio that he was "interested in collecting on a debt from Real Madrid".

Oow... im sorry, the word of a discredited doctor clearly proves widespread doping in football :roll:

Show me numerous positive tests and then, and only then, can you claim there is a problem. Until you do this you are simply creating fake news.

Mamadou Sakh
Maradona
Juve Dr Riccardo Agricola jailed for doping the team between '94-98
Edgar Davids
Jaap Stam
Rio Ferdinand
Abel Xavier
Kolo Toure

Because riders like Museeuw, Armstrong, Hincape, Riis etc a tested positive right?


That enough?

redvision

Rick Chasey wrote:

redvision wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2013/ ... eal-madrid

The doctor at the centre of the Operación Puerto blood-doping trial says Real Madrid owe him money.

Eufemiano Fuentes told Spanish radio that he was "interested in collecting on a debt from Real Madrid".

Oow... im sorry, the word of a discredited doctor clearly proves widespread doping in football :roll:

Show me numerous positive tests and then, and only then, can you claim there is a problem. Until you do this you are simply creating fake news.

Mamadou Sakh
Maradona
Juve Dr Riccardo Agricola jailed for doping the team between '94-98
Edgar Davids
Jaap Stam
Rio Ferdinand
Abel Xavier
Kolo Toure

Because riders like Museeuw, Armstrong, Hincape, Riis etc a tested positive right?


That enough?

No. Simply no.
People on here are arguing that doping is rife in football. You have named a few individual players, not all of which tested positive I might add, which in no way provides proof of widespread doping.

Every sport will have 1 or 2 idiots who decide to dope but this does not mean all sports are riddled with doping.

Dorset_Boy

If you don't look you will not see.
Football, like rugby, pays lip service to testing, and tests don't appear to be completely random as testers only seem 'welcome' at the training grounds and their arrival is notified so players can suddenly be absent.
Players don't even appear to be responsible for their own whereabouts compliance which also seems rather convenient, with miniscule fines to the clubs for failings in this area.

I'm pretty sure that post 1998 cycling claimed it had cleaned up its act.....
Football hasn't even started the process of looking properly even inspite of clearly being implicated in the Fuentes bank.

m.r.m.

redvision wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

redvision wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2013/ ... eal-madrid

The doctor at the centre of the Operación Puerto blood-doping trial says Real Madrid owe him money.

Eufemiano Fuentes told Spanish radio that he was "interested in collecting on a debt from Real Madrid".

Oow... im sorry, the word of a discredited doctor clearly proves widespread doping in football :roll:

Show me numerous positive tests and then, and only then, can you claim there is a problem. Until you do this you are simply creating fake news.

Mamadou Sakh
Maradona
Juve Dr Riccardo Agricola jailed for doping the team between '94-98
Edgar Davids
Jaap Stam
Rio Ferdinand
Abel Xavier
Kolo Toure

Because riders like Museeuw, Armstrong, Hincape, Riis etc a tested positive right?


That enough?

No. Simply no.
People on here are arguing that doping is rife in football. You have named a few individual players, not all of which tested positive I might add, which in no way provides proof of widespread doping.

Every sport will have 1 or 2 idiots who decide to dope but this does not mean all sports are riddled with doping.

pinno

redvision wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

While not wanting...some stuff...tactics like gegenpress....

Nonsense...some other stuff... evidence.

Well, what hasn't been mentioned is the rule change in the early nineties with passing back to the goal keeper (1992). That 'opened up' the pitch and stretched the game out.
I recall Gary Mabutt who retired prematurely at the age of 27. This was partly due to when he broke his leg in ;96 but he said that the change of pace of the game was such that despite having diabetes, before the rule change he could keep up but after the rule change, it was always a struggle and he had to be far more careful with his diet and have extra training.

RichN95.

Pinno wrote:

redvision wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

While not wanting...some stuff...tactics like gegenpress....

Nonsense...some other stuff... evidence.

Well, what hasn't been mentioned is the rule change in the early nineties with passing back to the goal keeper (1992). That 'opened up' the pitch and stretched the game out.
I recall Gary Mabutt who retired prematurely at the age of 27. This was partly due to when he broke his leg in ;96 but he said that the change of pace of the game was such that despite having diabetes, before the rule change he could keep up but after the rule change, it was always a struggle and he had to be far more careful with his diet and have extra training.

While the point about the back pass has merit, I feel I have to point out that Mabbutt was 37 when he retired. He was at Spurs for ages.

There are a lot of top footballers from his era who would struggle in the second tier these days.

pinno

Yes, your quite right. Born in 61.

Lanterne_Rogue

La Liga has apparently had no drugs testing worthy of the name for virtually a whole year:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/38928615

Don't look, don't find.

Dorset_Boy

799 tests in the Premier League in a season, with around 650 players, so barely one test per season per player in England's top flight.
No looky, no seey.....

dinyull

M.R.M. wrote:

Dinyull wrote:

What if you boost Messi with growth hormone?

They did. That is one of the reasons he transferred to Barcelona as a kid. He had a growth deficiency and was treated for it in Spain (has nothing to do with PED's)

Well that was a coincidence......

salsiccia1

Nice to see US sports taking things seriously:

https://www.si.com/nfl/2017/08/06/atlanta-falcons-jalen-collins-suspension-ped-violation

DeVlaeminck

Re. football disn't Johhny Hallyday accidentally out Zidane as a doper when he said he visited the same clinic for some kind of blood doping treatment? Also Wenger has made comments about some signings apparently having been blood doping prior to arriving at Arsenal.

weezyswiss

Well athletics is at it again. Double doper wins the blue ribband event and nobody seems to give a carp other than lip service to the media.

gweeds

Salsiccia1 wrote:

Nice to see US sports taking things seriously:

https://www.si.com/nfl/2017/08/06/atlanta-falcons-jalen-collins-suspension-ped-violation

FFS

dinyull

Can someone explain Michael Johnson's complaint/argument against Cram? Is it because he thinks Cram/the media blackball some and not others?

Cram came out of the talk quite well I think, although I agree with the point Johnson was making. Seeing as Johan Blake's ban seemed to get no mention in the "introductions".

Was slightly uncomfortable viewing, seeing them discuss the tougher testing protocol's and how times are getting slower - Johnson seemed genuinely pi$$ed off.

kingstongraham

I was at the athletics last night, and if they didn't want people to boo, then bringing Gatlin out immediately after making a big show of giving retrospective medals to athletes who had been cheated out of them by dopers was probably not the way to do it.

I know it's complicated, and his first ban was for a Sharapova level offence, but it's difficult as a crowd to express "I know he has the right to be there, but I disagree with the decision to reduce his ban from 8 to 4 years, Nike's decision to sponsor him and his decision to carry on turning up" - a boo is the best there is.

gweeds

Lifetime bans. Until that happens this will all carry on.

dinyull

KingstonGraham wrote:

I was at the athletics last night, and if they didn't want people to boo, then bringing Gatlin out immediately after making a big show of giving retrospective medals to athletes who had been cheated out of them by dopers was probably not the way to do it.

I know it's complicated, and his first ban was for a Sharapova level offence, but it's difficult as a crowd to express "I know he has the right to be there, but I disagree with the decision to reduce his ban from 8 to 4 years, Nike's decision to sponsor him and his decision to carry on turning up" - a boo is the best there is.

The 100M mens ceremony was changed last minute to 6.50pm from 8pm - less primetime spot to try and dampen the booing was suggested on twitter.

dinyull

Also, someone who was picked up on in the Olympics.

With an astonishing performance which raised eyebrows across social media, Ethiopia's Almaz Ayana crushed the field in the women's 10,000m here at London Stadium at the 16th IAAF World Championships in Athletics. Ayana, the 2016 Rio Olympic 10,000m champion who hadn't run a race since last September, nearly lapped the field, winning by 46.37 seconds, doubling the largest previous winning margin at these championships. She ran the second half of the race in 14:24.96, faster than her own World Championships 5000m record of 14:26.83 set in Beijing in 2015.

Was pretty astonishing watching just how dominant she was, whilst barely breathing. With the bits in the media (Guardian) recently about the lack of testing in Ethiopia I'm amazed this performance has slipped under the carpet.

kingstongraham

Dinyull wrote:

Also, someone who was picked up on in the Olympics.

With an astonishing performance which raised eyebrows across social media, Ethiopia's Almaz Ayana crushed the field in the women's 10,000m here at London Stadium at the 16th IAAF World Championships in Athletics. Ayana, the 2016 Rio Olympic 10,000m champion who hadn't run a race since last September, nearly lapped the field, winning by 46.37 seconds, doubling the largest previous winning margin at these championships. She ran the second half of the race in 14:24.96, faster than her own World Championships 5000m record of 14:26.83 set in Beijing in 2015.

Was pretty astonishing watching just how dominant she was, whilst barely breathing. With the bits in the media (Guardian) recently about the lack of testing in Ethiopia I'm amazed this performance has slipped under the carpet.

I think whilst barely breathing is crazy talk. She was really working hard, and looked absolutely on the limit to me.

Ridiculous dominance though, and be interesting to know how often she has been tested in the last year.

dinyull

From what I saw, and it was interrupted by other events on TV, she didn't look like she was seriously blowing.

She hasn't raced since last Sept.

I know Gatlin is the easy story, just interesting to see no mention of it in the media I usually read. It's being picked apart - from trainers and former athlete's too - on some athletics websites. And the BBC commentators didn't seem too dismissive of it either, reminding people they were watching history...although I could have missed the irony.

kingstongraham

Dinyull wrote:

And the BBC commentators didn't seem too dismissive of it either, reminding people they were watching history...although I could have missed the irony.

It depends on what you take from "unbelievable" and "something we have never seen before".

If someone hasn't failed a test, the commentators are in a difficult position. Especially when they can't cast any doubt on Sir Mo.
And unless you think that everyone else in the race is clean as a whistle, it was still a ridiculous performance, even if it is doped.

kingstongraham

Dinyull wrote:

Can someone explain Michael Johnson's complaint/argument against Cram? Is it because he thinks Cram/the media blackball some and not others?

Cram came out of the talk quite well I think, although I agree with the point Johnson was making. Seeing as Johan Blake's ban seemed to get no mention in the "introductions".

Was slightly uncomfortable viewing, seeing them discuss the tougher testing protocol's and how times are getting slower - Johnson seemed genuinely pi$$ed off.

Just watched the Johnson/Cram stuff - I don't understand what Johnson was saying. He seemed to be equating us booing with people voting for Trump - it feels good at the time, but it isn't necessarily for the best in the long term. He also seems to think that the people who were there at the athletics don't know much about athletics.

RichN95.

I don't see what the fuss is with Gatlin being booed at the London Stadium. West Ham get booed there every other weekend.

TheStone

Dinyull wrote:

Seeing as Johan Blake's ban seemed to get no mention in the "introductions".

Why is this never mentioned?

dinyull

What I took from Johnson was.....why boo Gatlin and not Blake or others convicted. I do understand that, but then Gatlin has been popped twice - does that play into it?

I know there have been rumours floating about MJ, but he really didn't look comfortable and actually unhappy/angry and Cram really seemed quite pleased with himself. Big smile, smirking.

Was a strange, uncomfortable few mins of telly.

RichN95.

TheStone wrote:

Dinyull wrote:

Seeing as Johan Blake's ban seemed to get no mention in the "introductions".

Why is this never mentioned?

He only got banned for three months for taking something that wasn't actually banned (it had a similar chemical structure to something that is). It's not quite the same as taking testosterone, like Gatlin. Similar to Simon Yates's infringement never getting mentioned.

rick_chasey

KingstonGraham wrote:

Dinyull wrote:

Can someone explain Michael Johnson's complaint/argument against Cram? Is it because he thinks Cram/the media blackball some and not others?

Cram came out of the talk quite well I think, although I agree with the point Johnson was making. Seeing as Johan Blake's ban seemed to get no mention in the "introductions".

Was slightly uncomfortable viewing, seeing them discuss the tougher testing protocol's and how times are getting slower - Johnson seemed genuinely pi$$ed off.

Just watched the Johnson/Cram stuff - I don't understand what Johnson was saying. He seemed to be equating us booing with people voting for Trump - it feels good at the time, but it isn't necessarily for the best in the long term. He also seems to think that the people who were there at the athletics don't know much about athletics.

Are you both joking?

All Johnson says is be consistent. If you're gonna make out Gatlin to be the bad guy, which the BBC do, get on and do it with every other athlete who is walking around with a ban.

Johnson feels it's unfair to put it all on Gatlin when there are dozens of athletes who have been caught on the juice. I mean, FWIW, do we all think Bolt is super clean?

That there is a lot of finger pointing at Mo Farah which barely gets a nod from the BBC doesn't help either. Now you can argue Mo's never tested positive, but then we all know what that means; SFA.

dinyull

Rick Chasey wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Dinyull wrote:

Can someone explain Michael Johnson's complaint/argument against Cram? Is it because he thinks Cram/the media blackball some and not others?

Cram came out of the talk quite well I think, although I agree with the point Johnson was making. Seeing as Johan Blake's ban seemed to get no mention in the "introductions".

Was slightly uncomfortable viewing, seeing them discuss the tougher testing protocol's and how times are getting slower - Johnson seemed genuinely pi$$ed off.

Just watched the Johnson/Cram stuff - I don't understand what Johnson was saying. He seemed to be equating us booing with people voting for Trump - it feels good at the time, but it isn't necessarily for the best in the long term. He also seems to think that the people who were there at the athletics don't know much about athletics.

Are you both joking?

All Johnson says is be consistent. If you're gonna make out Gatlin to be the bad guy, which the BBC do, get on and do it with every other athlete who is walking around with a ban.

Johnson feels it's unfair to put it all on Gatlin when there are dozens of athletes who have been caught on the juice. I mean, FWIW, do we all think Bolt is super clean?

That there is a lot of finger pointing at Mo Farah which barely gets a nod from the BBC doesn't help either. Now you can argue Mo's never tested positive, but then we all know what that means; SFA.

ICYMI

kingstongraham

Rick Chasey wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Dinyull wrote:

Can someone explain Michael Johnson's complaint/argument against Cram? Is it because he thinks Cram/the media blackball some and not others?

Cram came out of the talk quite well I think, although I agree with the point Johnson was making. Seeing as Johan Blake's ban seemed to get no mention in the "introductions".

Was slightly uncomfortable viewing, seeing them discuss the tougher testing protocol's and how times are getting slower - Johnson seemed genuinely pi$$ed off.

Just watched the Johnson/Cram stuff - I don't understand what Johnson was saying. He seemed to be equating us booing with people voting for Trump - it feels good at the time, but it isn't necessarily for the best in the long term. He also seems to think that the people who were there at the athletics don't know much about athletics.

Are you both joking?

All Johnson says is be consistent. If you're gonna make out Gatlin to be the bad guy, which the BBC do, get on and do it with every other athlete who is walking around with a ban.

Johnson feels it's unfair to put it all on Gatlin when there are dozens of athletes who have been caught on the juice. I mean, FWIW, do we all think Bolt is super clean?

That there is a lot of finger pointing at Mo Farah which barely gets a nod from the BBC doesn't help either. Now you can argue Mo's never tested positive, but then we all know what that means; SFA.

I just listened to what Johnson said, and he compared the reaction to the political situation in the US. I didn't understand. Do you?

Johnson must surely understand that someone who is contending in the most high profile event in the whole meet and has served two drugs bans will get more attention for his offending than anyone else. Like Cram said, if he was coming 12th in the discus, he wouldn't have the attention.