Drugs in other sports and the media.
Comments
-
Rick Chasey wrote: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
He makes quite a few large assumptions there.0 -
Sure. Even if it's 90m it's still chuffing fast on a football pitch and illustrates that football is a lot more than a skill game.0
-
Rick Chasey wrote: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.
So did I - watch most Real games.
Ronaldo is special and unique. He also scored an identical goal for Utd in the class demolition of Arsenal at the Emirates a few years ago.
But this actually supports the argument. He is one of the most tested athletes in the world. From what I read he was drug tested over 15 times last year, which for a football player is a significant amount (if the figure is accurate). If he was doping then he would have been caught.
Anyway, I'm signing off this debate here because it's going round in circles. Just want to reiterate, I am not saying footballers do not use performance enhancing drugs, I am saying that there would be less likelihood of a single player using them though than say a cyclist.
The reason I want more tests in football is so that if any are, as this Dr has claimed, doping then they are caught and punished. More tests would also act as a deterrent.
Anyway, time will tell.0 -
"I passed all the tests", where have I heard that before?"In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
-
Rick Chasey wrote:Me at school during detention for talking too much.
ZING!"In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
redvision wrote:He is one of the most tested athletes in the world. From what I read he was drug tested over 15 times last year, which for a football player is a significant amount (if the figure is accurate). If he was doping then he would have been caught.
We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
Dear Redvision,
It is highly likely that doping helped West Germany, France and Spain win their World Cups. And they are only the ones we know about.
Regards,
Joel0 -
I give up guys. You are all right, every single sportsman in the world is clearly doping because you said so.
I'm off to find a brick wall to bang my head against0 -
redvision wrote:I give up guys. You are all right, every single sportsman in the world is clearly doping because you said so.
I'm off to find a brick wall to bang my head against
No one is saying that, but to say doping won't increase performance in football is clearly wrong. A midfielder for example with 10% more endurance from taking EPO is going to be able to run further, faster and with less fatigue-related mistakes.
One only has to look at Zidane's transfusions, or the EPO of the Old Lady, or the Puerto allegations to see that it is happening, whether you like it or not.0 -
So, Ronaldo is fast. You heard it here first0
-
redvision wrote:I give up guys. You are all right, every single sportsman in the world is clearly doping because you said so.
I'm off to find a brick wall to bang my head against
To be fair no one has said that, and it's only you that has claimed anything as fact, and that there is no debate to be had.0 -
Paulie Walnuts wrote:redvision wrote:I give up guys. You are all right, every single sportsman in the world is clearly doping because you said so.
I'm off to find a brick wall to bang my head against
To be fair no one has said that, and it's only you that has claimed anything as fact, and that there is no debate to be had.
Well i don't think there is much of debate to be had simply because i still can't see how performance enhancing drugs would be that beneficial in a sport like football, at least in comparison to other sports, unless an entire team were doping. Although I still maintain more drugs tests need to be done to ensure the sport is clean (as clean as it can be).
This is only my opinion though. If i do see genuine, proven, scientific facts to suggest otherwise i will hold my hands up, but so far i am yet to see any such evidence, including the reports in the Times last weekend.0 -
redvision wrote:I give up guys. You are all right, every single sportsman in the world is clearly doping because you said so.
I'm off to find a brick wall to bang my head against
Maybe instead of banging your head against the wall, you ought to go and take a look at the early Operacion Puerto reports and read about what they have to say about Dr Fuentes's client list.
Why wouldn't footballer's see any benefit from doping practices that enabled them to run faster for longer?"Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
redvision wrote:I give up guys. You are all right, every single sportsman in the world is clearly doping because you said so.
I'm off to find a brick wall to bang my head against
If you think they're bad here, try here...
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=306690 -
redvision wrote:
Well i don't think there is much of debate to be had simply because i still can't see how performance enhancing drugs would be that beneficial in a sport like football, at least in comparison to other sports, unless an entire team were doping. Although I still maintain more drugs tests need to be done to ensure the sport is clean (as clean as it can be).
This is only my opinion though. If i do see genuine, proven, scientific facts to suggest otherwise i will hold my hands up, but so far i am yet to see any such evidence, including the reports in the Times last weekend.
Fair enough if you can't see it, I'm not deriding your opinion, just have a different one. For me, potential gains in endurance, strength and recovery, coupled with enormous financial rewards for both individual players and clubs, and a lack of testing make it an
obvious area for doping to happen.
Football history is littered with doping stories from zidane to zico, beckenbauer to guardiola. It's never stopped me from going every weekend though0 -
The part RV seems be missing out on is that the football doping tests don't test for as many performance enhancing drugs as other sports.
Add in that EPO only has a glow time of about 4-8 hours and it's easy to take it and avoid getting caught.
If drugs don't help in football why on earth do the same doping doctors also work with footballers ?0 -
Still can't understand why anyone would think there's no benefit in a single footballer doping. Imagine a scenario in the 89th minute of a title decider, all equal and someone hoofs a long ball up field where a doped striker is still as fresh as he should have been on 60 minutes is up against a knackered defender. That's just an obvious scenario, as others have said being fresh physically can make you more alert mentally therefore keeping skill levels high but doping could also assist in other ways like a player jumping a couple of inches higher and getting that all important goal scoring / clearing header. If it doesn't help in football then you could argue the same about tennis! Golf has had doping cases and even darts and snooker have seen people use performance enhancing drugs. OK the benefits may be more obvious and straightforward in a simple endurance or speed based sport but that doesn't stop them being beneficial elsewhere.0
-
On a similar note I can remember raising an eyebrow* when I saw a stat showing the number of goals Arsenal were conceding in the final 10 minutes some seasons ago.
*and this is what growing up watching cycling in the 90s does to a man.Team My Man 2018: David gaudu, Pierre Latour, Romain Bardet, Thibaut pinot, Alexandre Geniez, Florian Senechal, Warren Barguil, Benoit Cosnefroy0 -
Pross wrote:Still can't understand why anyone would think there's no benefit in a single footballer doping. Imagine a scenario in the 89th minute of a title decider, all equal and someone hoofs a long ball up field where a doped striker is still as fresh as he should have been on 60 minutes is up against a knackered defender. That's just an obvious scenario, as others have said being fresh physically can make you more alert mentally therefore keeping skill levels high but doping could also assist in other ways like a player jumping a couple of inches higher and getting that all important goal scoring / clearing header. If it doesn't help in football then you could argue the same about tennis! Golf has had doping cases and even darts and snooker have seen people use performance enhancing drugs. OK the benefits may be more obvious and straightforward in a simple endurance or speed based sport but that doesn't stop them being beneficial elsewhere.
Because football is more than just speed and fitness. Otherwise every 100m sprinter would be playing football.
I know the point you are trying to make, but even if a player was doping and was less fatigued in the final few minutes, that doesn't mean he would score the winning goal, or save a goal bound strike.
Football is about ability and skill as well as fitness.
Besides, what's to say he would still be on the pitch??
Again, you show me clear evidence that doping would enhance a football player as much as it does a cyclist and I will revise my opinion. But until I see this, and coming from a football background, I refuse to accept that just because some sports have had massive issues with performance enhancing doping that means football (and by logic) all sports have an issue.0 -
-
Rick Chasey wrote:
Didn't he backtrack when asked to explain his comments??
Plus, he suggested teams (not individuals) which is exactly what I've said here.0 -
I've just skimmed the last few pages of this thread, and I don't know why you're having such trouble with this idea. Nobody is arguing that a doped football player is guaranteed to do anything, whether it's to score a winning goal or make a crucial interception or play a perfect pass or put in a great cross or never get subbed or whatever else. The point is that being less tired as a game progresses will inevitably give you some advantage over others who are more tired. It might well be hard to quantify that advantage and it might be a small one, but it's clear that it would exist. Individual skill has a role to play, but it's not possible to focus on skill alone and discard the impact of fatigue. If you're so tired you can barely move it doesn't matter if you're the world's best defender, someone still feeling good can just run right past you.redvision wrote:Because football is more than just speed and fitness. Otherwise every 100m sprinter would be playing football.
I know the point you are trying to make, but even if a player was doping and was less fatigued in the final few minutes, that doesn't mean he would score the winning goal, or save a goal bound strike.
Football is about ability and skill as well as fitness.
Besides, what's to say he would still be on the pitch??
Again, you show me clear evidence that doping would enhance a football player as much as it does a cyclist and I will revise my opinion. But until I see this, and coming from a football background, I refuse to accept that just because some sports have had massive issues with performance enhancing doping that means football (and by logic) all sports have an issue.
You can't really compare football directly to cycling because of the difference in the way the physical effort is expended, but even if you do, it's not like being a doped cyclist guarantees you success, right? Lots of doped riders have lost races in the past, because they got their tactics wrong, or they had a mechanical, or they crashed, or the weather completely changed the race or because they simply weren't good enough to win even after doping! Similar things would apply to football. Just because a striker is doped up and can outrun a defender in injury time doesn't mean they're going to go on and score the winning goal (which is where your whole "Football is about skill" thing comes in), but it may give them the chance to score a goal which a non-doped player could not. In cycling you might have a doped sprinter who manages to get over a hill that would normally have dropped them, but that doesn't then mean that sprinter is going to go on and win the race, does it? It just means they're in with a chance of doing something that they would otherwise have been unable to do, and that is what it's all about.
I think it's more than a little naive to believe that widespread (ab)use of PEDs has been entirely confined to cycling purely because it seems to be such a good showcase for the effects of EPO and the like...0 -
There was/is a big problem in African football with certain countries playing players over the age of 18/21 etc in the under 18's/21's etc tounrnaments/olympics. Many of the players who come out of these teams usually have a much shorter career, or younger "prime" than you'd usually suspect.
This is because the players are bigger, faster, stronger etc.
Skill is a massive part of the game, but as someone who's played from a very early age it'd be silly to forget all of those beating's from the bigger, faster, stronger, fitter teams that couldn't hold a candle to your skill.0 -
Blazing Saddles wrote:redvision wrote:I give up guys. You are all right, every single sportsman in the world is clearly doping because you said so.
I'm off to find a brick wall to bang my head against
Maybe instead of banging your head against the wall, you ought to go and take a look at the early Operacion Puerto reports and read about what they have to say about Dr Fuentes's client list.
Why wouldn't footballer's see any benefit from doping practices that enabled them to run faster for longer?
Because running faster and longer doesnt win games.Scott Addict 2011
Giant TCR 20120 -
Markwb79 wrote:Blazing Saddles wrote:redvision wrote:I give up guys. You are all right, every single sportsman in the world is clearly doping because you said so.
I'm off to find a brick wall to bang my head against
Maybe instead of banging your head against the wall, you ought to go and take a look at the early Operacion Puerto reports and read about what they have to say about Dr Fuentes's client list.
Why wouldn't footballer's see any benefit from doping practices that enabled them to run faster for longer?
Because running faster and longer doesnt win games.
Yes it does.Team My Man 2018: David gaudu, Pierre Latour, Romain Bardet, Thibaut pinot, Alexandre Geniez, Florian Senechal, Warren Barguil, Benoit Cosnefroy0 -
And so does being physically stronger.Team My Man 2018: David gaudu, Pierre Latour, Romain Bardet, Thibaut pinot, Alexandre Geniez, Florian Senechal, Warren Barguil, Benoit Cosnefroy0
-
Assuming footballers train to improve strength, speed and endurance as a means to improve their performance on the pitch then I can't see there being any argument that a PED which improves strength, speed and or endurance will improve a footballers performance.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0
