Drugs in other sports and the media.

RichN95.

I see a lot of people on social media saying that the doctor is being discredited by the fanboys. Well here's three direct quotes from the Sunday Times:

"Bonar began reeling off the combinations of drugs and supplements he used on his cyclists, He said he gave the them steroids for "bulk" " - Cyclists do not want to and have no reason to 'bulk"

"So like if somebody came in to me and said 'why are you giving ..... testosterone?' Well I can say... he has symptoms of androgen testosterone deficiency syndrome so his levels where suboptimal and I just topped him up" You wonder why Landis didn't try this. A doctor vouching for you doesn't cut it. TUEs have a procedure - I doubt you'd get one for testo without ball cancer.

"But it's how you do it... maybe micro-dose, off-cycle, off-season and things like that" Yep. Off-season. No testing there.

These are three fundamental mistakes. He's a charlatan salesman selling to rich amateurs.

stagehopper

RichN95 wrote:

dennisn wrote:

stagehopper wrote:

That and a journalist having the temerity to call out another paper for shouting from the rooftops over something which looks very slight.

Aren't you being a bit naive about journalists and newspapers? It's not like they are above exaggeration, half truths, outright lies, or anything, for that matter, that will sell print.

Blimey, I assumed you were dead. Nice to hear from you.

I think stagehopper is actually saying the same thing you are.

I am indeed. Nice to see you back dennis.

Point I was trying to make is journalists are often extremely reluctant to criticise other journalistic work. And here despite there being a total lack of collaboratory evidence and some severe credibility questions marks against the source of the allegations, almost no journalist has been prepared to say "hang on a sec".

RichN95.

Just as a general point, I see lots of people all over social media saying that sportsmen are utterly driven and will stop at nothing to win. I think this fundamentally wrong.

In my experience (and I've known several people involved in top line sport) winning has to be on its own merits. It needs to be proper winning. And generally they are more obsessed with their own performance than the result (the 'process' as they call it).

The most competitive hockey player I've ever known was a horror on the pitch, really laying into others. Proper white line fever. He was top class though -played in Olympics and World Cups.

But off the pitch he was a really nice guy, but drank plenty, shagged anyone and wasn't averse to Mr Charles. He said the closest his team came to doping was stopping smoking and boozing a month before the tournament.

Athletes may be very competitive, but that doesn't mean they are sociopaths

Richmond Racer 2

^Rich, you have a helluva bunch of friends/acquaintances :-)

Saw you trying to talk sense on Twatters last night to the perennial cast member of the Press Gang, Cutler. There's no point, as a paid up member of the Karol fan club he combines confirmation bias with total ignorance about cycling

Richmond Racer 2

As for the usual suspects decrying fanboys, I'm pretty certain the likes of @sportingintelligence - the same journo who wrote about Servais Knaven and his career last year - who was one of the first to say outright 'this ST story smells'...he ain't no fanboy

rick_chasey

Rich - I'd hazard a guess that the more "professional" and we'll paid the sport is, the higher the likelihood of the "driven-stops-at-nothing" types.

Richmond Racer 2

redvision wrote:

I took this report with a pinch of salt. The fact that the The Times have had the claims for months but failed to deliver any significant proof is telling in my opinion.

With regards to football, I have said for a long time that there are not enough tests. I played to a reasonable standard and was only tested twice in 8 years. Since then the tests have increased in number but are still too low.

I guess the reason cyclists are tested far more than football or rugby etc is because it is very much an individual sport where doping really can make a significant difference. In a football team if a player was doping his fitness and perhaps speed would improve but that may not improve his actual performance with the ball.
Rugby is a different kettle of fish and I for one am predicting a huge story/doping scandal to break soon. I hope not, but I suspect it may.

I do think cycling suffers from past events but at the same time it's great to see the sport taking the lead with the battle with doping whilst other sports seemingly turn a blind eye to the issue.

Please, not the 'xx sport isn't helped by drugs much because it's skills-based' argument

That's been taken apart over and over again

redvision

Richmond Racer 2 wrote:

Please, not the 'xx sport isn't helped by drugs much because it's skills-based' argument

That's been taken apart over and over again

But its true.
A cyclist on performance enhancing drugs can win a race.
A single football player on a performance enhancing drug cannot win a match on his own.
There is no debate to be had, it is fact.

A whole football team on performance enhancing drugs would be a different argument though.

ddraver

redvision wrote:

Richmond Racer 2 wrote:

Please, not the 'xx sport isn't helped by drugs much because it's skills-based' argument

That's been taken apart over and over again

But its true.
A cyclist on performance enhancing drugs can win a race.
A single football player on a performance enhancing drug cannot win a match on his own.
There is no debate to be had, it is fact.

A whole football team on performance enhancing drugs would be a different argument though.

No but if his performance in the last 20 mins was as good as the first 20 mins then other benefits could be gained, even if they were just personal.

You re point is equally true of rugby yet you think that sport is rife with drugs.

redvision

ddraver wrote:

redvision wrote:

No but if his performance in the last 20 mins was as good as the first 20 mins then other benefits could be gained, even if they were just personal.

You re point is equally true of rugby yet you think that sport is rife with drugs.

But the difference with Rugby is that its a sport which physical strength is absolutely essential and performance enhancing drugs would be far more effective, imo, than they would to a football player.

Paulie Walnuts

redvision wrote:

But its true.
A cyclist on performance enhancing drugs can win a race.
A single football player on a performance enhancing drug cannot win a match on his own.
There is no debate to be had, it is fact.

A whole football team on performance enhancing drugs would be a different argument though.

But matches are often won with moments of individual brilliance. A drug that could allow a player to develop an extra yard of pace, be stronger in the tackle, or simply delay fatigue in the closing stages of a game could surely allow a player to influence (win/ prevent loss) a game more than if that specific player was clean.

ddraver

redvision wrote:

ddraver wrote:

redvision wrote:

No but if his performance in the last 20 mins was as good as the first 20 mins then other benefits could be gained, even if they were just personal.

You re point is equally true of rugby yet you think that sport is rife with drugs.

But the difference with Rugby is that its a sport which physical strength is absolutely essential and performance enhancing drugs would be far more effective, imo, than they would to a football player.

I really don't see the difference...I just don't think you want to think that a footballer might dope.

rick_chasey

redvision wrote:

ddraver wrote:

redvision wrote:

No but if his performance in the last 20 mins was as good as the first 20 mins then other benefits could be gained, even if they were just personal.

You re point is equally true of rugby yet you think that sport is rife with drugs.

But the difference with Rugby is that its a sport which physical strength is absolutely essential and performance enhancing drugs would be far more effective, imo, than they would to a football player.

You don't watch enough football.

stu-bim

redvision wrote:

Richmond Racer 2 wrote:

Please, not the 'xx sport isn't helped by drugs much because it's skills-based' argument

That's been taken apart over and over again

But its true.
A cyclist on performance enhancing drugs can win a race.
A single football player on a performance enhancing drug cannot win a match on his own.
There is no debate to be had, it is fact.

A whole football team on performance enhancing drugs would be a different argument though.

This skills thing is nonsense. Before your next long ride try a skills test, eg keeping a ball up, skipping, a balance test or throwing a tennis ball at a small target. Now when your finished a few hours in the saddle try it again. See if fatigue influences skill performance.

redvision

I'm sorry fellas but it's a fact. Look back through the history of football players who have been banned for doping, did their elevated performance push a team to victory on their own?? No.

Football is not about one player, cycling, like athletics, can be.

There is no argument to be had there.

This isn't too say football doesn't have a doping problem, I know that many clubs do use performance enhancing substances (creatine for example), but the banned substances would not have the effect they do on athletes from other more individual sports.

disgruntledgoat

redvision wrote:

I'm sorry fellas but it's a fact. Look back through the history of football players who have been banned for doping, did their elevated performance push a team to victory on their own?? No.

Football is not about one player, cycling, like athletics, can be.

There is no argument to be had there.

This isn't too say football doesn't have a doping problem, I know that many clubs do use performance enhancing substances (creatine for example), but the banned substances would not have the effect they do on athletes from other more individual sports.

Aren't you making a rather bold assumption that every doped footballer gets caught and banned?

rick_chasey

salsiccia1

redvision wrote:

I'm sorry fellas but it's a fact. Look back through the history of football players who have been banned for doping, did their elevated performance push a team to victory on their own?? No.

Football is not about one player, cycling, like athletics, can be.

There is no argument to be had there.

This isn't too say football doesn't have a doping problem, I know that many clubs do use performance enhancing substances (creatine for example), but the banned substances would not have the effect they do on athletes from other more individual sports.

How many players have actually been banned for doping?

An individual player can certainly help a team to victory with a piece of skill or a pass or a run that everyone else is too tired to make or execute properly. And if he's not being tested properly, and can get himself millions in contracts, image rights, etc then why wouldn't he do it, if other sportsmen/women will, given the incredible rewards versus the negligible risk?

And if a few players on one team are doping, then that is definitely going to influence the team's performance.

ddraver

disgruntledgoat wrote:

redvision wrote:

I'm sorry fellas but it's a fact. Look back through the history of football players who have been banned for doping, did their elevated performance push a team to victory on their own?? No.

Football is not about one player, cycling, like athletics, can be.

There is no argument to be had there.

This isn't too say football doesn't have a doping problem, I know that many clubs do use performance enhancing substances (creatine for example), but the banned substances would not have the effect they do on athletes from other more individual sports.

Aren't you making a rather bold assumption that every doped footballer gets caught and banned?

and isnt your (RV's) point kind of rather irrelevant anyway..? It has zero to do with why a footballer might dope. A footballer just has to beat the next best player into his position to gain from doping.

redvision

I'm not going to get drawn into a lengthy debate here. All I will say is more tests are definitely needed but I think there is more chance of a football player trying to fix a match or a bet than there is doping.

For those saying the gains would be when fatigue sets in, well maybe. But would they still be on the pitch?? A cyclist taking a drug doesn't risk being subbed at any time, a football player does.

Football definitely needs more drug tests and I'm sure some players will be caught. I just can't see the volume being as high as individual sports.

disgruntledgoat

redvision wrote:

I'm not going to get drawn into a lengthy debate here. All I will say is more tests are definitely needed but I think there is more chance of a football player trying to fix a match or a bet than there is doping.

For those saying the gains would be when fatigue sets in, well maybe. But would they still be on the pitch?? A cyclist taking a drug doesn't risk being subbed at any time, a football player does.

Football definitely needs more drug tests and I'm sure some players will be caught. I just can't see the volume being as high as individual sports.

Footballers love being subbed, of course.

Juve's doctor was given a suspended prison sentence for doping players with EPO and growth hormone about 10 years ago. Is he the only one? If there was no benefit to it, would the club spend 10s of thousands of euros on drugs?

rick_chasey

Sub 10 seconds for 96m...

The_Boy

redvision wrote:

I'm sorry fellas but it's a fact.

The last refuge of the wo/man who has lost the argument. Apart from anything else, your line of reasoning doesn't even make sense.

Doping isn't a problem in soccer, but for some reason more testing needs to be done; there's no gain in a sport of skill like soccer, but a huge gain in a sport of skill like rugby etc.

Mad_Malx

http://www.theguardian.com/football/picture/2016/apr/05/david-squires-on-doping-allegations-in-english-football

redvision

Rick really?? Come on, that clip tells us nothing.
Wow, A player can run the 100m fast towards the end of a match. Who knows how long he has been on the pitch for.

Mo Farah can run 26miles in 2 hours and finish with a sprint of 18mph.Does that mean he is doping??

As I keep saying, I imagine some football players are using performance enhancing drugs, the Italians in the 90s were renowned for it, but unless the whole football team is doped then the result of the match is unlikely to be affected and thus the player has less to gain than in other sports.

Richmond Racer 2

Oh aye?

rick_chasey

redvision wrote:

Rick really?? Come on, that clip tells us nothing.
Wow, A player can run the 100m fast towards the end of a match. Who knows how long he has been on the pitch for.

.

I watched that match live on tv - he scores and the whole place, fans, commentators were absolutely gobsmacked. IIRC it was second half and Ronaldo started.

DL1987

Rick Chasey wrote:

Sub 10 seconds for 96m...

Penalty spot to Penalty spot on a 105m long pitch should be more like 83m. So maybe not quite as impressive.

disgruntledgoat

redvision wrote:

Rick really?? Come on, that clip tells us nothing.
Wow, A player can run the 100m fast towards the end of a match. Who knows how long he has been on the pitch for.

Mo Farah can run 26miles in 2 hours and finish with a sprint of 18mph.Does that mean he is doping??

As I keep saying, I imagine some football players are using performance enhancing drugs, the Italians in the 90s were renowned for it, but unless the whole football team is doped then the result of the match is unlikely to be affected and thus the player has less to gain than in other sports.

So what if you are toiling in anonymity as a youth teamer, not going to make the cut because you aren't strong or fast enough? Nothing to gain there, then?

Or you want to move to a bigger club with all the attendant wealth and status?

Or you want to recover faster from an injury or just to get on the field in a week with a short turnaround?

There is just as much incentive for footballers to dope as any other sport. The only difference is the incentives and rewards are much greater.

rick_chasey

DL1987 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Sub 10 seconds for 96m...

Penalty spot to Penalty spot on a 105m long pitch should be more like 83m.

https://www.quora.com/Did-Cristiano-Ron ... 10-seconds