Drugs in other sports and the media.

gpreeves

Five positive tests in the English Rugby Premiership last year, all for recreational drugs.

There were 617 tests for PEDs throughout the whole of last season. I'm assuming international/A-standard players will also be subject to further testing - even still this doesn't seem like a lot given there 12 teams and squad sizes of ~40 players.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/24626491

Mikey23

And kept anonymous, fined and offered counselling...

seanoconn

Captain Slackbladder wrote:

Jamaican athletes' drug-testing practices to be audited

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/athletics/24517780

Jamaican athletes face Olympic ban

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2013/o ... ssion-wada

rayjay

Athletes dope. I am shocked

BelgianBeerGeek

It's everywhere:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24658278

ddraver

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/tennis ... Sport.html

:roll:

salsiccia1

ddraver wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/tennis/10404579/Marin-Cilic-has-doping-ban-reduced-to-four-months-by-Court-of-Arbitration-for-Sport.html

:roll:

It's the CAS that have reduced the ban. The mind boggles.

RichN95.

ddraver wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/tennis/10404579/Marin-Cilic-has-doping-ban-reduced-to-four-months-by-Court-of-Arbitration-for-Sport.html

:roll:

I'm just amused at the name of the drug - nikethamide. Is there adidasterone and reebokanol as well? I hear the most expensive drug on the market on raphamine.

joelsim

It's a problem in every sport, but Cycling & Athletics (and maybe Tennis these days too) are where it's the rule rather than the exception.

And the tests are so flawed it's untrue. Less than 2% annual capture rates even in the years when it is pretty obvious practically everyone was doping from what has happened since.

Unfortunately that will always be the case until testing is allowed to impinge on civil liberties. It's no coincidence that the Jamaicans were caught when they weren't expecting it. As Hamilton said, it's like failing an IQ test.

RichN95.

Joelsim wrote:

As Hamilton said, it's like failing an IQ test.

That's the same Hamilton who failed tests on three separate occasions, is it? He must a moron then. (Plus he hasn't been a top level cyclist for many years now)

Macaloon

RichN95 wrote:

I'm just amused at the name of the drug - nikethamide. Is there adidasterone and reebokanol as well? I hear the most expensive drug on the market on raphamine.

Heed the warnings about Cake:

" Noel Edmonds: What is Cake? Well, it has an active ingredient which is a dangerous psychoactive compound known as dimesmeric andersonphosphate. It stimulates the part of the brain called Shatner's Bassoon. And that's the bit of the brain that deals with time perception. So, a second feels like a month. Well, it almost sounds like fun...unless you're the Prague schoolboy who walked out into the street straight in front of a tram. He thought he'd got a month to cross the street.

Christopher Morris: If time's a drug, then Big Ben is a huge needle injecting it into ... sky."

Transcript

salsiccia1

Joelsim wrote:

It's a problem in every sport, but Cycling & Athletics (and maybe Tennis these days too) are where it's the rule rather than the exception.

I doubt Cycling is much worse than other sports.

Look at football - Spanish teams running round like blue-arsed flies for 90 minutes and winning with late goals when their opponents are knackered. And the rewards for being a bit better than everyone else in football are astronomical, so the incentive for someone to get an edge, however they get it, is immense. The equation is easy - earn a couple of grand a week in League 1, or take something to give you increased fitness and stamina and earn 50 grand a week in the Premier. I don't believe for one minute football hasn't got a major PED problem.

Like I've said previously, the best way for a sport not to have a drug problem is not to look.

RichN95.

Salsiccia1 wrote:

The equation is easy - earn a couple of grand a week in League 1, or take something to give you increased fitness and stamina and earn 50 grand a week in the Premier.

No drugs will make a League 1 player into a Premiership player. They will just make the League 1 player play like a League 1 player for longer and more often.
Doping will raise the results of a team for the stamina reasons you mention, but they won't raise the abilities of an individual

salsiccia1

RichN95 wrote:

Salsiccia1 wrote:

The equation is easy - earn a couple of grand a week in League 1, or take something to give you increased fitness and stamina and earn 50 grand a week in the Premier.

No drugs will make a League 1 player into a Premiership player. They will just make the League 1 player play like a League 1 player for longer and more often.
Doping will raise the results of a team for the stamina reasons you mention, but they won't raise the abilities of an individual

OK, possibly some hyperbole on my part... but in principle, the temptation must be massive - and it's not like football players are known for their ethical stance towards rules and societal norms.

r0bh

Joelsim wrote:

And the tests are so flawed it's untrue. Less than 2% annual capture rates even in the years when it is pretty obvious practically everyone was doping from what has happened since.

Have you a reference for this?

bigmat

RichN95 wrote:

Salsiccia1 wrote:

The equation is easy - earn a couple of grand a week in League 1, or take something to give you increased fitness and stamina and earn 50 grand a week in the Premier.

No drugs will make a League 1 player into a Premiership player. They will just make the League 1 player play like a League 1 player for longer and more often.
Doping will raise the results of a team for the stamina reasons you mention, but they won't raise the abilities of an individual

It might be the difference between being a successful premier league player, or being someone who is acknowledged as being skilful but a bit lazy / slow / not wanting it badly enough etc. Don't fall into the trap of thinking that because a game involves skill the impact of PEDs is any less significant - a certain level of athletic performance has become a pre-requisite for playing football at the highest level and a large part in the "skill" gap between the best teams and those not quite making the grade is often actually a result of being half a yard off the pace, being closed down so quickly you don't have time on the ball etc. I'm thinking Spain here obviously.

rayjay

When you are talking about other sports then you are talking about all sorts of PEDs being used. More strength and speed can be achieved using various drugs and in terms of financial gain is well worth the risk.

RichN95.

BigMat wrote:

Don't fall into the trap of thinking that because a game involves skill the impact of PEDs is any less significant

I'm not falling into that trap because it's not actually true. Athleticism is required but, unlike cycling, it is not the defining factor for success - otherwise Darren Campbell and Adam Gemili would have played at a higher level than a handful of games for Cwmbran and Dagenham & Redbridge and Sheringham, Le Tissier and Scholes would be working in Tesco.

The physical gains are actually fairly marginal. For example in the 100m they can turn a 10.1 runner into a 10.0 runner, not a 9.8 runner - that 0.1 is a big deal in athletics but not that much in football - it represents 10cm over 10m. Drugs can be used to increase speed and strength but not actually by much. Certainly not enough to make a player anything more than he can do naturally.
No amount of doping will turn even someone like Danny Welbeck into someone of Van Persie's ability (who is slless athletic), let alone someone from League 1 into a Premiership player.

joelsim

RichN95 wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

As Hamilton said, it's like failing an IQ test.

That's the same Hamilton who failed tests on three separate occasions, is it? He must a moron then. (Plus he hasn't been a top level cyclist for many years now)

You can't legislate for having a twin die in the womb...

This illustrates why cycling gets more of a rap than any other sport.

http://sportazdrowie.files.wordpress.co ... strong.jpg

Out of those not in red, there aren't many who haven't been implicated in some way, shape or form. Only Athletics is similar and not quite to the same level.

joelsim

r0bh wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

And the tests are so flawed it's untrue. Less than 2% annual capture rates even in the years when it is pretty obvious practically everyone was doping from what has happened since.

Have you a reference for this?

Only that graph that someone posted a few pages back.

joelsim

RichN95 wrote:

BigMat wrote:

Don't fall into the trap of thinking that because a game involves skill the impact of PEDs is any less significant

I'm not falling into that trap because it's not actually true. Athleticism is required but, unlike cycling, it is not the defining factor for success - otherwise Darren Campbell and Adam Gemili would have played at a higher level than a handful of games for Cwmbran and Dagenham & Redbridge and Sheringham, Le Tissier and Scholes would be working in Tesco.

The physical gains are actually fairly marginal. For example in the 100m they can turn a 10.1 runner into a 10.0 runner, not a 9.8 runner - that 0.1 is a big deal in athletics but not that much in football - it represents 10cm over 10m. Drugs can be used to increase speed and strength but not actually by much. Certainly not enough to make a player anything more than he can do naturally.
No amount of doping will turn even someone like Danny Welbeck into someone of Van Persie's ability (who is slless athletic), let alone someone from League 1 into a Premiership player.

Couldn't agree more.

Anyway the typical Premier League player would be more interested in drinking a skinful of Cristal and puking all over a page 3 girl whilst in the act.

rayjay

RichN95 wrote:

BigMat wrote:

Don't fall into the trap of thinking that because a game involves skill the impact of PEDs is any less significant

I'm not falling into that trap because it's not actually true. Athleticism is required but, unlike cycling, it is not the defining factor for success - otherwise Darren Campbell and Adam Gemili would have played at a higher level than a handful of games for Cwmbran and Dagenham & Redbridge and Sheringham, Le Tissier and Scholes would be working in Tesco.

The physical gains are actually fairly marginal. For example in the 100m they can turn a 10.1 runner into a 10.0 runner, not a 9.8 runner - that 0.1 is a big deal in athletics but not that much in football - it represents 10cm over 10m. Drugs can be used to increase speed and strength but not actually by much. Certainly not enough to make a player anything more than he can do naturally.
No amount of doping will turn even someone like Danny Welbeck into someone of Van Persie's ability (who is slless athletic), let alone someone from League 1 into a Premiership player.

Actually you can increase your strength dramatically using PEDs. I have seen guys go from benching 180lbs to 300lbs
after taking a course of PEDS. Some people have massive gains, some less. Just that extra bit of speed from a standing start can make a huge difference to a footballer. If you look at the gains Flo Jo made they were very significant. It could make the difference for some footballers IMO. But your right, It wont make you a Van Persie.

nic_77

RichN95 wrote:

...0.1 is a big deal in athletics but not that much in football - it represents 10cm over 10m.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anlX9QIpT14

How the world could have been different? Not least for Gazza.

salsiccia1

RichN95 wrote:

That 0.1 is a big deal in athletics but not that much in football - it represents 10cm over 10m. Drugs can be used to increase speed and strength but not actually by much. Certainly not enough to make a player anything more than he can do naturally.

But if a player can:
- consistently expend less energy and get to the ball quicker, or
- expend less energy throughout a game so that he has the energy to make a run at the right time to be where the ball will be, or
- have the lucidity to make the right pass at the right time while others around him are knackered and making mistakes
all of these things could make a big difference to a player's ability to beat his opponent and hence his value to a team.

RichN95.

nic_77 wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

...0.1 is a big deal in athletics but not that much in football - it represents 10cm over 10m.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anlX9QIpT14

How the world could have been different? Not least for Gazza.

Also no doping will help you if you take nutrional advice from someone nicknamed 'Five Bellies'

RichN95.

Salsiccia1 wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

That 0.1 is a big deal in athletics but not that much in football - it represents 10cm over 10m. Drugs can be used to increase speed and strength but not actually by much. Certainly not enough to make a player anything more than he can do naturally.

But if a player can:
- consistently expend less energy and get to the ball quicker, or
- expend less energy throughout a game so that he has the energy to make a run at the right time to be where the ball will be, or
- have the lucidity to make the right pass at the right time while others around him are knackered and making mistakes
all of these things could make a big difference to a player's ability to beat his opponent and hence his value to a team.

Like I said - it can make a League 1 player play like a League 1 player longer and more often

TheBigBean

Salsiccia1 wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

That 0.1 is a big deal in athletics but not that much in football - it represents 10cm over 10m. Drugs can be used to increase speed and strength but not actually by much. Certainly not enough to make a player anything more than he can do naturally.

But if a player can:
- consistently expend less energy and get to the ball quicker, or
- expend less energy throughout a game so that he has the energy to make a run at the right time to be where the ball will be, or
- have the lucidity to make the right pass at the right time while others around him are knackered and making mistakes
all of these things could make a big difference to a player's ability to beat his opponent and hence his value to a team.

This, plus:
- recover from injuries more quickly
- get injured less often
- bulk up, so stronger on the ball
- be rested less often i.e. play two games a week for a whole season

bigmat

RichN95 wrote:

Salsiccia1 wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

That 0.1 is a big deal in athletics but not that much in football - it represents 10cm over 10m. Drugs can be used to increase speed and strength but not actually by much. Certainly not enough to make a player anything more than he can do naturally.

But if a player can:
- consistently expend less energy and get to the ball quicker, or
- expend less energy throughout a game so that he has the energy to make a run at the right time to be where the ball will be, or
- have the lucidity to make the right pass at the right time while others around him are knackered and making mistakes
all of these things could make a big difference to a player's ability to beat his opponent and hence his value to a team.

Like I said - it can make a League 1 player play like a League 1 player longer and more often

You need to look at it the other way round. Let's agree that you need skill to make it at the top level. Taking a group of skilful players, will the use of PED's make a significant difference to the performance of those players? Of course it will. The best modern teams have huge levels of stamina allowing them to chase down opponents when they don't have the ball and constantly find space when they do. That is an advantage that PEDs can provide. And if you want an example of a team of "lesser" players having great success due to having huge levels of stamina and the ability to close down opponents and stifle play, how about when Greece won the Euros. Maybe that was just down to hard work and playing as a team, but then Greek sport wasn't exactly squeaky clean around that time.

RichN95.

BigMat wrote:

You need to look at it the other way round. Let's agree that you need skill to make it at the top level. Taking a group of skilful players, will the use of PED's make a significant difference to the performance of those players? Of course it will. The best modern teams have huge levels of stamina allowing them to chase down opponents when they don't have the ball and constantly find space when they do. That is an advantage that PEDs can provide. And if you want an example of a team of "lesser" players having great success due to having huge levels of stamina and the ability to close down opponents and stifle play, how about when Greece won the Euros. Maybe that was just down to hard work and playing as a team, but then Greek sport wasn't exactly squeaky clean around that time.

But any player can do that. It's just a matter of how long they can do it for. There's plenty of club athletes who can do the running of a Premier League footballer in a game.

A player with a 'talent level' of 100 may decline to 80 by the end of the game. With doping he may only decline to 90.

But doping isn't going to make a player with a level of 80 rise to 90. It will just be that he plays at 80 for longer.


(And with Greece - once people were aware of how they played, they got beaten pretty easily).

joelsim

Don't bring that Gazza moment up, it's too painful for words.