Drugs in other sports and the media.
Comments
-
read this the other day
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/42062974
No doubt FIFA will look into this as well as they looked into Operation Puerto. Maybe ban a no name footballer and then ignore any links to top clubs0 -
sherer wrote:Dinyull wrote:These injections are widely accepted in football, rugby, nfl etc.
They have been open about these injections for years, there is no trying to hide simply because it is such an accepted practice and has been for at least 10 years.
but at one point amphetamines and others were accepted in cycling. Maybe not fully legal but everyone turned a blind eye to it
I wasn't defending it. But I'm assuming there is a belief with FIFA/FA etc it doesn't boost performance/fitness. They are a localised injection to numb the pain*.
However, bare in mind this is the same sport where Brendan Rodgers or Andre Villas-Boas openly talking about blood spinning.
EDIT *I have no idea if it can boost performance or not.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:If it means they can play on, punters don't care.
That's a good point.
I wonder how different it would be if they didn't have to rely on getting thousands upon thousands of paying punters through the gates each week.0 -
-
Rick Chasey wrote:If anything they’ll end up on the highlights reel as “real men” who play through pain.
Certainly the case in the NFL.0 -
Yes, and arguably, the continuing popularity of sports like boxing, MMA, rugby, american football, all mean that punters largely don't care about the broader health issues of the sport.
When presented with individual cases sure, but as a whole...0 -
It's the same with cycling and the fetishisation of 'suffering'. Just as long as the injuries are visual (the bloodier the better) and hard to treat (riding on with broken bones is a favourite)Rick Chasey wrote:If anything they’ll end up on the highlights reel as “real men” who play through pain.
However, if there's a non-visual medical condition that can easily be fixed with a couple of pills and the same viewers suddenly get extremely concerned for rider welfare.
It's all cowpooTwitter: @RichN950 -
Yes.
Some on here have been more consistent about this than others.
But worth remembering.
If I was the governor of football I’d say “look guys, this injection crap isn’t so healthy for the players. We’re gonna our measures in to stop it.”0 -
I'm sure your only allowed a certain amount of these injections before they start doing damage to the body. Although, that could be a certain amount in the same area.
Having said that, after playing on numerous times with ankle ligament injuries I'd hate to think how much further damage you could cause by playing relatively pain free.0 -
Dinyull wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:If it means they can play on, punters don't care.
That's a good point.
I wonder how different it would be if they didn't have to rely on getting thousands upon thousands of paying punters through the gates each week.
They don't have to rely on getting punters through the door. It's TV revenue that drives the elite level football world, gate receipts are pretty much an irrelevance.0 -
Not sure £3-£5 million per home game is an irrelevance, not to mention shirt and merchandise sales.
Without the injections the player probably couldn't play - that's pretty performance enhancing.0 -
Dorset Boy wrote:Without the injections the player probably couldn't play - that's pretty performance enhancing.
The injections are not performance enhancing though. They inject a small amount of anti-inflammatory to provide pain relief in a specific localised area.0 -
Dorset Boy wrote:Not sure £3-£5 million per home game is an irrelevance, not to mention shirt and merchandise sales.
Without the injections the player probably couldn't play - that's pretty performance enhancing.
It's not though, is it.
A dodgy ankle is still a dodgy ankle, pain relief only numbs the pain - doesn't give full range and movement back.0 -
Dinyull wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:If it means they can play on, punters don't care.
That's a good point.
I wonder how different it would be if they didn't have to rely on getting thousands upon thousands of paying punters through the gates each week.
They don't - vast majority of income in Premier League is from TV deals. 'The Secret Footballer' wrote about this - he was sick of getting shoot from people in the stands abusing him on the grounds 'we pay your wages' so he went and asked his then club FD about how the income broke down. Obv a lot of those fans also have Sky etc. but the point was gate receipts are increasingly less relevant - and this was a few years back before the latest round of record TV deals. You can see the difference when a team with a 11K capacity like Bournemouth can come into the top flight and not necessarily be hamstrung by the size of their home gate.
Generally though, I don't know a single football fan (subscriber or season ticket holder) who gives a toss about doping in the game.0 -
If in next year's World Cup England are doing well and get the semi-finals (I know, just go with it) and Harry Kane who has been their star player has a stinker as does his substitute. England lose. The manager then says Kane turned down a TUE on 'moral grounds' for allergies which have flared up. Does anyone think that anyone would applaud him? Or do you think the likes of the Mail would brand him a cowardly traitor.YorkshireRaw wrote:
Generally though, I don't know a single football fan (subscriber or season ticket holder) who gives a toss about doping in the game.Twitter: @RichN950 -
Was referring to NFL, rugby and football....but I'm sure TV money plays a big role in all 3 (especially nfl and football) so bad analogy.
Still, if the best players weren't out on the field week in week out I'm sure the viewing figures would drop. I bet ITV were sh*tting themselves before Phil Jones was injexted up to his eyeballs and able to play....0 -
RichN95 wrote:
If in next year's World Cup England are doing well and get the semi-finals (I know, just go with it) and Harry Kane who has been their star player has a stinker as does his substitute. England lose. The manager then says Kane turned down a TUE on 'moral grounds' for allergies which have flared up. Does anyone think that anyone would applaud him? Or do you think the likes of the Mail would brand him a cowardly traitor.YorkshireRaw wrote:
Generally though, I don't know a single football fan (subscriber or season ticket holder) who gives a toss about doping in the game.
If the star player is unwell then there are other players to fill his role. That's the purpose of having a squad.0 -
redvision wrote:RichN95 wrote:
If in next year's World Cup England are doing well and get the semi-finals (I know, just go with it) and Harry Kane who has been their star player has a stinker as does his substitute. England lose. The manager then says Kane turned down a TUE on 'moral grounds' for allergies which have flared up. Does anyone think that anyone would applaud him? Or do you think the likes of the Mail would brand him a cowardly traitor.YorkshireRaw wrote:
Generally though, I don't know a single football fan (subscriber or season ticket holder) who gives a toss about doping in the game.
If the star player is unwell then there are other players to fill his role. That's the purpose of having a squad.
3, 2, 1 and your back in the room...0 -
Yes, I know. Here in Wales when Gareth Bale is injured he gets replaced by Sam Vokes and it's exactly the same.redvision wrote:RichN95 wrote:
If in next year's World Cup England are doing well and get the semi-finals (I know, just go with it) and Harry Kane who has been their star player has a stinker as does his substitute. England lose. The manager then says Kane turned down a TUE on 'moral grounds' for allergies which have flared up. Does anyone think that anyone would applaud him? Or do you think the likes of the Mail would brand him a cowardly traitor.YorkshireRaw wrote:
Generally though, I don't know a single football fan (subscriber or season ticket holder) who gives a toss about doping in the game.
If the star player is unwell then there are other players to fill his role. That's the purpose of having a squad.Twitter: @RichN950 -
With problem, without medication, say 75% of peak performance.redvision wrote:Dorset Boy wrote:Without the injections the player probably couldn't play - that's pretty performance enhancing.
The injections are not performance enhancing though. They inject a small amount of anti-inflammatory to provide pain relief in a specific localised area.
With medication, maybe not reach peak but say 90%.
So why is that not performance enhancing?
If there was no benefit, why would these substances be administered?
Refer to the Friebe / Moore / Birnie blether about Wiggins on recent Cycling Podcast. Same arguments.0 -
orraloon wrote:With problem, without medication, say 75% of peak performance.
With medication, maybe not reach peak but say 90%.
So why is that not performance enhancing?
If there was no benefit, why would these substances be administered?
That is a completely ridiculous claim. Where are your facts to support this??
Painkilling injections are legal in football, and many other sports. They are generally administered for relatively minor injuries to reduce inflammation and local pain symptoms. They do not in any way enhance performance, other than helping to relieve the pain a player may be experiencing. These injections are not like tramadol which has an effect on the whole body, these injections are very localised which is why they do not enhance performance.0 -
Oh dear. He's back. One mention of football and he's up on that moral high ground.Trail fun - Transition Bandit
Road - Wilier Izoard Centaur/Cube Agree C62 Disc
Allround - Cotic Solaris0 -
lostboysaint wrote:Oh dear. He's back. One mention of football and he's up on that moral high ground.
Not at all. Football has huge issues but doping just isn't as big an issue or as widespread as people on here suggest.
As i said previously, match fixing is a much more likely issue. Just look at the investigation going on in the Welsh Premier League.0 -
redvision wrote:orraloon wrote:With problem, without medication, say 75% of peak performance.
With medication, maybe not reach peak but say 90%.
So why is that not performance enhancing?
If there was no benefit, why would these substances be administered?
That is a completely ridiculous claim. Where are your facts to support this??
Painkilling injections are legal in football, and many other sports. They are generally administered for relatively minor injuries to reduce inflammation and local pain symptoms. They do not in any way enhance performance, other than helping to relieve the pain a player may be experiencing. These injections are not like tramadol which has an effect on the whole body, these injections are very localised which is why they do not enhance performance.Rick Chasey wrote:BigBean mentions it about 150 pages back.Gary Neville.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/20 ... enn-hoddle"He also believed in alternative methods, including Eileen Drewery, the faith healer, who'd visited the camp a few times before the World Cup. As a bit of a sceptic, I'd never gone to see her. When the 1998 World Cup started, some of the players started taking injections from Glenn's favourite medic, a Frenchman called Dr Rougier. It was different from anything we'd done at United, but all above board, I'm sure.
"After some of the lads said they'd felt a real burst of energy, I decided to seize any help on offer. So many of the players decided to go for it before that Argentina match that there was a queue to see the doctor.
What else happened during the same week as the '98 world cup?
0 -
I've worked with Spanish football teams from the first and second divisions that have improved their performance," Fuentes said in an interview with a Spanish radio station. "If I talk Spain would be stripped of the World Cup and European Championship."
https://sports.vice.com/en_ca/article/x ... ugly-truth0 -
Yeah i appreciate that. But Fuentes was a decade+ ago.
As i have said before, doping in football today just wouldn't have the same impact as in other (more individual sports) unless there was a systematic doping program - and if that were so there would be significant evidence, including leaks from within the game.
Football does have huge issues, and the match fixing scandal is going to get bigger and bigger. I just don't think doping will.0 -
-
That was a hypothesis not a factual example.redvision wrote:orraloon wrote:With problem, without medication, say 75% of peak performance.
With medication, maybe not reach peak but say 90%.
So why is that not performance enhancing?
If there was no benefit, why would these substances be administered?
That is a completely ridiculous claim. Where are your facts to support this??
Painkilling injections are legal in football, and many other sports. They are generally administered for relatively minor injuries to reduce inflammation and local pain symptoms. They do not in any way enhance performance, other than helping to relieve the pain a player may be experiencing. These injections are not like tramadol which has an effect on the whole body, these injections are very localised which is why they do not enhance performance.
Ok. By what logic does alleviating the symptoms of a medical issue, "relatively minor" or not by administering a medication not affect positively an individual's performance? No improvement, no benefit, why bother?
I was out on my bike this morning; I have been prescribed by my GP a nasal spray steroid to combat continuing nasal congestion and sinusitis. Past couple of days I'd forgotten to take it, this morning remembered, felt much better. An improvement, n'est-ce pas? For a relatively minor issue.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:redvision wrote:Yeah i appreciate that. But Fuentes was a decade+ ago.
.
So what makes you think it has cleaned up in the meantime?
Well because, contrary to what some people on here claim, drug tests are being done on a regular basis in football and world wide there are very few positive tests. Plus, the positive tests are usually for non performance enhancing drugs, mainly cocaine.
When there was widespread doping in cycling there were always rumours coming out of the peloton. When riders left teams and old relationships started breaking down information began leaking regarding doping practices etc.
That has never happened in football and you have to ask, if there was this huge doping issue, why not??
Today there is more scrutiny than ever, and there just aren't high numbers of positive tests for performance enhancing drugs by football players. With todays media, if there was a sniff they would be all over it - as they have been (unfairly) with Wiggins and team sky, but the simple fact is they aren't because there is very little or no evidence.0 -
So they were taking stuff with Fuentes, but now there have been no positives they've all stopped?0
