Drugs in other sports and the media.

dinyull

bompington wrote:

Dinyull wrote:

Ah, cheers.

It's definitely not banned, usually reported by the commentators during the game that so-and-so has left the field to go and have an IV.

I could never quite understand why a sport that consists of about 10 seconds of action at a time followed by prolonged periods of standing around needs this kind of thing

Look at it live interval training. 10 second sprints (for the non fatties/qb) followed by 30 seconds rest.

Usually something to do with temps and altitude tho.....mile high in Denver is a usual place for IV's (and oxygen masks on the sidelines).

timoid.

bompington wrote:

Dinyull wrote:

Ah, cheers.

It's definitely not banned, usually reported by the commentators during the game that so-and-so has left the field to go and have an IV.

I could never quite understand why a sport that consists of about 10 seconds of action at a time followed by prolonged periods of standing around needs this kind of thing

You try sprinting at that pace at that weight. Multiple times. With other huge men smashing into you.

You need to be a physiological freak to play in the NFL

yorkshireraw

dish_dash wrote:

YorkshireRaw wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

Samir Nasri looking at a 6month suspension for hydration therapy, while playing at City: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/43189672

He only got caught because he's thick enough to pose for a photo.

to be honest I'd suspect that most footballers take anti-doping so lightly that they wouldn't even think there was anything wrong with this - or wouldn't care.

And there I was thinking that drip doctors was just a ridiculous idea in Billions...

It's big business for aging rock stars etc - Mick Jagger favours somewhere in Switzerland I think.

yorkshireraw

Timoid. wrote:

bompington wrote:

Dinyull wrote:

Ah, cheers.

It's definitely not banned, usually reported by the commentators during the game that so-and-so has left the field to go and have an IV.

I could never quite understand why a sport that consists of about 10 seconds of action at a time followed by prolonged periods of standing around needs this kind of thing

You try sprinting at that pace at that weight. Multiple times. With other huge men smashing into you.

You need to be a physiological freak to play in the NFL

And then you need to get 'roided as hell on top of that

bompington

Timoid. wrote:

bompington wrote:

Dinyull wrote:

Ah, cheers.

It's definitely not banned, usually reported by the commentators during the game that so-and-so has left the field to go and have an IV.

I could never quite understand why a sport that consists of about 10 seconds of action at a time followed by prolonged periods of standing around needs this kind of thing

You try sprinting at that pace at that weight. Multiple times. With other huge men smashing into you.

You need to be a pharmacological freak to play in the NFL

FTFY

m.r.m.

When you are currently without a club, is it good PR to have a doping suspension or bad PR? Serious question.

bobmcstuff

Drugs testing in football: No test for a quarter of EFL players - http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/43032571

And that's only a minimum - they took 1500 tests from 2000 players so it is probably even higher (although not clear there how many multiple tests there were).

salsiccia1

Did you see the numbers for other leagues in Europe, and other sports? I tell you, I know cycling's got its problems but I genuinely believe it's doing much more than most to deal with it, and is probably cleaner than many sports.

I've always maintained that the best way for a sport not to have a drug problem is to not bother testing properly.

Vino'sGhost

Salsiccia1 wrote:

Did you see the numbers for other leagues in Europe, and other sports? I tell you, I know cycling's got its problems but I genuinely believe it's doing much more than most to deal with it, and is probably cleaner than many sports.

I've always maintained that the best way for a sport not to have a drug problem is to not bother testing properly.

I think that was the approach of Tennis until very very recently

Ben6899

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Salsiccia1 wrote:

Did you see the numbers for other leagues in Europe, and other sports? I tell you, I know cycling's got its problems but I genuinely believe it's doing much more than most to deal with it, and is probably cleaner than many sports.

I've always maintained that the best way for a sport not to have a drug problem is to not bother testing properly.

I think that was the approach of Tennis until very very recently

Are they waiting until Nadal retires? He's like a Marvel character.

lostboysaint

Ben6899 wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Salsiccia1 wrote:

Did you see the numbers for other leagues in Europe, and other sports? I tell you, I know cycling's got its problems but I genuinely believe it's doing much more than most to deal with it, and is probably cleaner than many sports.

I've always maintained that the best way for a sport not to have a drug problem is to not bother testing properly.

I think that was the approach of Tennis until very very recently

Are they waiting until Nadal retires? He's like a Marvel character.

Quite.

Ben6899

lostboysaint wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Salsiccia1 wrote:

Did you see the numbers for other leagues in Europe, and other sports? I tell you, I know cycling's got its problems but I genuinely believe it's doing much more than most to deal with it, and is probably cleaner than many sports.

I've always maintained that the best way for a sport not to have a drug problem is to not bother testing properly.

I think that was the approach of Tennis until very very recently

Are they waiting until Nadal retires? He's like a Marvel character.

Quite.

You're not in agreement?

lostboysaint

On the contrary, I'm very much much in agreement!

I'm a little amused by VG's comment - especially as Murray has completely trashed tennis's anti-doping efforts and continues to do so - there's been little or no change visible.

Ben6899

lostboysaint wrote:

On the contrary, I'm very much much in agreement!

Ah! I was ready for a debate as well. :-D

1.85m, 85kg and he gets 'round the court like he's half the size. It's phenomenal, really.

lostboysaint

Ben6899 wrote:

lostboysaint wrote:

On the contrary, I'm very much much in agreement!

Ah! I was ready for a debate as well. :-D

1.85m, 85kg and he gets 'round the court like he's half the size. It's phenomenal, really.

It's the recovery from injuries as well as the timings of those injuries that tell a much murkier story. As well as the rumours about him being on the Fuentes list, obviously.

Ben6899

lostboysaint wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

lostboysaint wrote:

On the contrary, I'm very much much in agreement!

Ah! I was ready for a debate as well. :-D

1.85m, 85kg and he gets 'round the court like he's half the size. It's phenomenal, really.

It's the recovery from injuries as well as the timings of those injuries that tell a much murkier story. As well as the rumours about him being on the Fuentes list, obviously.

Well yes, Fuentes is the reddest of all the flags.

I forgot about the "injuries".

gweeds

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/ ... eeplechase

m.r.m.

Canelo Alvarez does the Alberto Contador

https://twitter.com/CanvasBoxing/status ... n-fight%2F

k1875

M.R.M. wrote:

Canelo Alvarez does the Alberto Contador

https://twitter.com/CanvasBoxing/status ... n-fight%2F

To be honest, I'd not be surprised if that's a legit case of contamination. I wouldn't be surprised if he's dirty as hell either right enough, but I don't doubt his story any more than I doubt Michael Rogers.

lostboysaint

M.R.M. wrote:

Canelo Alvarez does the Alberto Contador

https://twitter.com/CanvasBoxing/status ... n-fight%2F

Disappointed, but not surprised, to hear this one last night.

That release also deploys the Armstrong defence as well - "....never tested positive...."

Mad_Malx

Clenbuterol is well-established in the food chain in Mexico (and China).

Although my inner farmer wonders why I would want to slim my animals down prior to market.

timoid.

Mad_Malx wrote:

Clenbuterol is well-established in the food chain in Mexico (and China).

Although my inner farmer wonders why I would want to slim my animals down prior to market.

It makes meat more lean. Removes fat. And most importantly it means that the animal needs less feed to reach desired size.

Also means that a veal calf can gain muscle mass, despite doing no exercise (and not even going outside). So you get lean, tender veal. Horrible.

Mad_Malx

Timoid. wrote:

Mad_Malx wrote:

Clenbuterol is well-established in the food chain in Mexico (and China).

Although my inner farmer wonders why I would want to slim my animals down prior to market.

It makes meat more lean. Removes fat. And most importantly it means that the animal needs less feed to reach desired size.

Just idle thoughts and off topic (because I'm getting very bored with Jiffygate and Sallygate) - are mass market meat prices affected much by quality though? - 'special' steak perhaps , but I'm reading that it is common in pork and chicken.

Less feed for weight gain is a property of antibiotic dosing (because the bugs aren't eating the food), but I don't see how burning fat with clenbuterol (which isn't an antibiotic) reduces the amount of food required to bulk up muscle. It's also the opposite of the benefit being claimed for triamcinolone).

Edit - I am now reading some stuff about gene activation in skeletal muscle by beta agonists - I think the effects on fat burn and muscle build are independent. Still not convinced about the economics of skinny chickens though.

sherer

interesting that the IOC have allowed Russia back in but IAAF are now saying they may get a permanent ban. Not sure how that would effect IOC membership.

Although I think they are guilty, I do wonder if USA, UK or any other nation had as thorough an examination as the Russians had, what would be uncovered

timothyw

It basically stinks, given that so far as I know it's only the two Russians who had positives in the winter olympics - so they do seem particularly bad either for doping or getting caught.

I think other nations tend to stick to the simple capitalist profit motive.

IE if you don't get results we'll cut your funding and you'll be out of jobs.

If you get results, we'll put more money into your sport, and of course you'll be set for life writing a book about your fabulous achievements and doing the whole media circuit.

This obviously creates conditions that encourage doping - and I suspect most successful nations have a number of sympathetic medics who can advise how to sail close to the wind without testing positive - although some places (eg Jamaica, Kenya) seem to pretty much be a free for all for out of competition doping.

The Russians went for a less discrete approach of we must top the medal table, we've rigged the drug testing, you will be doped, and you must keep your mouths shut about it otherwise we'll have you killed.

People don't really respond so well to that kind of threat, and most people tend to think that sort of coercion just isn't Cricket.

In lots of sports there are ways to win without dope if you have more money than everyone else - better equipment can go a long way - I'm reasonably confident that most of British Cycling's track success isn't about TUE and dope, but about good talent identification (and retention - keeping talented riders on the track team instead of the pro ranks), better skinsuits & bikes.

surrey_commuter

TimothyW wrote:

It basically stinks, given that so far as I know it's only the two Russians who had positives in the winter olympics - so they do seem particularly bad either for doping or getting caught.

I think other nations tend to stick to the simple capitalist profit motive.

IE if you don't get results we'll cut your funding and you'll be out of jobs.

If you get results, we'll put more money into your sport, and of course you'll be set for life writing a book about your fabulous achievements and doing the whole media circuit.

This obviously creates conditions that encourage doping - and I suspect most successful nations have a number of sympathetic medics who can advise how to sail close to the wind without testing positive - although some places (eg Jamaica, Kenya) seem to pretty much be a free for all for out of competition doping.

The Russians went for a less discrete approach of we must top the medal table, we've rigged the drug testing, you will be doped, and you must keep your mouths shut about it otherwise we'll have you killed.

People don't really respond so well to that kind of threat, and most people tend to think that sort of coercion just isn't Cricket.

In lots of sports there are ways to win without dope if you have more money than everyone else - better equipment can go a long way - I'm reasonably confident that most of British Cycling's track success isn't about TUE and dope, but about good talent identification (and retention - keeping talented riders on the track team instead of the pro ranks), better skinsuits & bikes.

So who do you reckon was our last clean track cyclist?

tailwindhome

Some reports in the media over the weekend that some English runner ran a mile in under 4 minutes

#notnormal

timothyw

Surrey Commuter wrote:

So who do you reckon was our last clean track cyclist?

So far as I know, they all are - the point I was trying to make was that they are so well funded that they might not need dope to get their results.

rick_chasey

Never forget the context of Russians and sport. (decent thread; worth reading till the end).

https://twitter.com/SlavaMalamud/status ... 8315918336

surrey_commuter

TimothyW wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

So who do you reckon was our last clean track cyclist?

So far as I know, they all are - the point I was trying to make was that they are so well funded that they might not need dope to get their results.

ahh - with the double qualification it was hardly a ringing endorsement

I'm reasonably confident that most of British Cycling's track success isn't about TUE and dope