Drugs in other sports and the media.

stu-bim

redvision wrote:

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.

I would not state that because one sport has issues then all must have but I think you are taking the effects of PED's as only something that aids in the final minutes of a game.

PED's in the various forms have been identified in numerous sports for gaining numerous different advantages. Banging on that EPO is not going to benefit a footballer as much as a cyclist is too narrow of a view point on PED's.

PED's in the cycling grand tours were as much about recovery as they were about exceptional single day solo performances.

The recovery benefits of certain drugs would greatly assist footballers in both terms of tight schedules and preventing injuries due to overwork.

Look at the analysis that is starting to be done by clubs with both rugby and football players in identifying overreaching / overtraining situations and injury prevention. Players wearing HRM and GPS in all training and games and the correlation of the above.

It's not about running past a bunch of tired players in the 89th minute to score a winner but being fresh all match long all season long and/or playing three days later at the same intensity after a long season.

No_Ta_Doctor

I can't quite believe we're actually having this discussion again, though I'll hold my hands up and admit that only a few years ago I believed something similar to redvision.

The key point that seems to have been overlooked by redvision - though DDRaver raised it - is what are the benefits to the individual footballer. And that's clear - he gets picked, he makes the cut. The box to box midfielder that can only last 75 minutes has to be bloody good to justify picking him if you know you're going to have to sub him off.

I don't think there's a football player in the world that would refuse an effortless 5% increase in stamina if you offered it to them. Not unless they had ethical/legal reasons for doing so.

redvision

No tA Doctor wrote:

I don't think there's a football player in the world that would refuse an effortless 5% increase in stamina if you offered it to them.

But this can be applied to every single sport worldwide. Are you saying doping is likely to exist wherever there is competition??

Fellas I am not disputing the performance gains such drugs produce, my argument is simply that there would be no point in a single football player taking such risks & drastic measures if his team mates are not. No matter what anyone says, one player cannot win a game on his own, not even Messi of Ronaldo.

If an entire team was doping then that is another matter altogether, but I cannot see a whole team doing that and remaining undetected.

sherer

redvision wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

I don't think there's a football player in the world that would refuse an effortless 5% increase in stamina if you offered it to them.

But this can be applied to every single sport worldwide. Are you saying doping is likely to exist wherever there is competition??

Fellas I am not disputing the performance gains such drugs produce, my argument is simply that there would be no point in a single football player taking such risks & drastic measures if his team mates are not. No matter what anyone says, one player cannot win a game on his own, not even Messi of Ronaldo.

If an entire team was doping then that is another matter altogether, but I cannot see a whole team doing that and remaining undetected.

The thing is it isn't lone players. Barca and real were linked to operation Puerto .. Juve did it team wide as did west Germany, Marseille when they won the European Cup and more recently Spain

slim_boy_fat

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.

But running faster and longer when playing against players of a similar skill level to you does

redvision

sherer wrote:

redvision wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

I don't think there's a football player in the world that would refuse an effortless 5% increase in stamina if you offered it to them.

But this can be applied to every single sport worldwide. Are you saying doping is likely to exist wherever there is competition??

Fellas I am not disputing the performance gains such drugs produce, my argument is simply that there would be no point in a single football player taking such risks & drastic measures if his team mates are not. No matter what anyone says, one player cannot win a game on his own, not even Messi of Ronaldo.

If an entire team was doping then that is another matter altogether, but I cannot see a whole team doing that and remaining undetected.

The thing is it isn't lone players. Barca and real were linked to operation Puerto .. Juve did it team wide as did west Germany, Marseille when they won the European Cup and more recently Spain

True, but that was 10 years ago and a whole different era.

As I said, i believe that whilst some players may dope I do not think there is a significant number of individuals which do (Although I do know that substances like creatine are widely used).

I stand to be corrected, but until I see widespread positive tests/conclusive proof, I will maintain my believe that most players are clean.

Anonymous

Your naivety is almost childlike.

Even in cycling where testing is obscenely stringent (relatively here) there are still a handful of doping positives.

As you ask above "are you saying that where there is competition, there is doping?" the answer is surely yes, to a degree, depending on risks/rewards.

Naturally, there is cheating at all levels of competition, the degree of cheating is proportionate to the benefit of getting away with it vs the risk of being caught. A cheeky dive in the penalty area, March fixing, doping. As everyone here is trying to reiterate to you, when the gains are to be selected for the first team vs benched, playing 90 mins vs subbed, making Premiership club selection vs championship, making CL vs mid-league obscurity, making FA cup final vs being knocked out.

All these things have a massive impact on a player and a team and if you can't see that the main difference between making it or bust is mainly down to fitness (not withstanding a few exceptions who are standout talents) then you are utterly deluded.

blazing_saddles

Anyhow, it's good that someone has taken up the slack after Frenchie's flounce off.

No_Ta_Doctor

redvision wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

I don't think there's a football player in the world that would refuse an effortless 5% increase in stamina if you offered it to them.

But this can be applied to every single sport worldwide. Are you saying doping is likely to exist wherever there is competition??

Fellas I am not disputing the performance gains such drugs produce, my argument is simply that there would be no point in a single football player taking such risks & drastic measures if his team mates are not. No matter what anyone says, one player cannot win a game on his own, not even Messi of Ronaldo.

If an entire team was doping then that is another matter altogether, but I cannot see a whole team doing that and remaining undetected.

You conveniently forgot to quote the bit of my post where I pointed out that you're missing the obvious reason why a player would dope - which is because regardless of how his team does, his own individual performance is always in competition with other players in his position within his own team.

And yes, an effortless 5% increase in stamina would be desirable in pretty much any place there is phsyical competition. And yes, that does mean doping is likely to exist wherever there is competition.

Did you know that some wheelchair athletes dope by breaking their toes or electrocuting their testicles? It's called boosting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boosting_%28doping%29

"The IPC conducted a survey during the 2008 Games with 99 responses.[1][3] 16.7 percent of the participants indicated that they had tried boosting in training or during a competition, with more than half of them being competitors in wheelchair rugby."

Now we're not talking about bulk or strength here, not about raw physical power. Boosting is purely about delivering more oxygen through raised blood pressure. And wheelchair rugby is a game of skill.

So tell me, if an impoverished sport like wheelchair rugby (don't think there are any pro teams, are there?) sees athletes going to such extreme measures, in a team game, where they don't improve their strength or skill, why would anyone think that footballers who can become multi-millionaires wouldn't be averse to a quick shot of EPO?

redvision

coriordan wrote:

Your naivety is almost childlike.

Even in cycling where testing is obscenely stringent (relatively here) there are still a handful of doping positives.

As you ask above "are you saying that where there is competition, there is doping?" the answer is surely yes, to a degree, depending on risks/rewards.

Naturally, there is cheating at all levels of competition, the degree of cheating is proportionate to the benefit of getting away with it vs the risk of being caught. A cheeky dive in the penalty area, March fixing, doping. As everyone here is trying to reiterate to you, when the gains are to be selected for the first team vs benched, playing 90 mins vs subbed, making Premiership club selection vs championship, making CL vs mid-league obscurity, making FA cup final vs being knocked out.

All these things have a massive impact on a player and a team and if you can't see that the main difference between making it or bust is mainly down to fitness (not withstanding a few exceptions who are standout talents) then you are utterly deluded.

OK, prepare for a can of worms to be opened... Tell me, how can you be so sure football players dope? Where is the evidence? If you are so convinced that football players dope I assume you believe that the many cyclists still dope? I mean how can Chris froome perform like he does without doping??

I'm sorry but it is a sad state of affairs that past events /eras have tainted today's sports with the same brush.
I respect people's opinions, everyone is entitled to their own, but whatever happened until innocent until proven guilty?

No_Ta_Doctor

Or perhaps instead you could tell us why football is any different from:

Cycling
Athetics
Golf
Tennis
Swimming
American Football
Rugby
Aussie rules football
Baseball
Basketball
Ice Hockey
etc. etc. etc.

The_Boy

Remember the Head of Tennis* claiming they didn't test for EPO because Tennis didn't have en EPO problem?

*not his real job title, but it would have been under my benign dictatorship/

adr82

redvision wrote:

OK, prepare for a can of worms to be opened... Tell me, how can you be so sure football players dope? Where is the evidence? If you are so convinced that football players dope I assume you believe that the many cyclists still dope? I mean how can Chris froome perform like he does without doping??

I'm sorry but it is a sad state of affairs that past events /eras have tainted today's sports with the same brush.
I respect people's opinions, everyone is entitled to their own, but whatever happened until innocent until proven guilty?

I honestly don't know how you can cling to this viewpoint... hasn't it been amply proven over and over and over again throughout history that if an opportunity exists to exploit some system (and I am emphatically not just talking about doping here) then a significant percentage of people will always be willing to try their luck at it? Even if the rewards appear insignificant and the penalties severe? Athletes in sports that don't do nearly as much testing as cycling now does have plenty of motivation to take the minuscule risk of being caught in order to boost their careers.

redvision wrote:

No matter what anyone says, one player cannot win a game on his own, not even Messi of Ronaldo.

Really. Is it always some sort of collective team effort when a striker scores a wonderful solo goal in the last minute then? Or when a goalkeeper makes a crucial save? You don't have to outplay an entire team yourself to win a game, you just have to be the difference between the two sides. If top class players couldn't win games on their own then teams wouldn't be paying tens of millions of pounds to buy them. You've been banging on about how much skill is involved in football, and now you're trying to deny that it has any impact on the outcome of a match. Can't have it both ways...

redvision

adr82 wrote:

Really. Is it always some sort of collective team effort when a striker scores a wonderful solo goal in the last minute then? Or when a goalkeeper makes a crucial save? You don't have to outplay an entire team yourself to win a game, you just have to be the difference between the two sides. If top class players couldn't win games on their own then teams wouldn't be paying tens of millions of pounds to buy them. You've been banging on about how much skill is involved in football, and now you're trying to deny that it has any impact on the outcome of a match. Can't have it both ways...

A single player can have a moment of inspiration and score a wonder goal winning the match, or produce a stunning save, but for that to be decisive or match winning the team has to have performed to get them in such a position.

ozzzyosborn206

i hope revision is a troll because surely nobody is that stupid to think that in a sport that pays hundreds of thousands a week players would seek to make every possible gain they can which would then lead to doping

ozzzyosborn206

football is a skill game as well as a physical game, if you can take something that enables you to train 20% more then your skill set will improve whether that be taking free kicks, corners, shooting etc all will benefit you

RichN95.

ozzzyosborn206 wrote:

i hope revision is a troll because surely nobody is that stupid to think that in a sport that pays hundreds of thousands a week players would seek to make every possible gain they can which would then lead to doping

You'd think Arsenal would stop their central midfielders from smoking too





I've never really bought into this 'every possible gain' idea when it comes to footballers. (I'm sceptical of it in any sport)

redvision

ozzzyosborn206 wrote:

i hope revision is a troll because surely nobody is that stupid to think that in a sport that pays hundreds of thousands a week players would seek to make every possible gain they can which would then lead to doping

Enough. You provide some clear proof that footballers dope & I will accept it. But until that happens then you nor anyone else have the right to accuse players simply because other sports have experienced doping issues.

Braithwaite hit four sixes in 4 balls in the twenty twenty world cup final on Sunday. Moment of individual brilliance? I like to think so but I'm sure you will be along shortly to claim he must have doped.
:roll:

Anyway, I see no point in wasting more time on this topic when I am basically being slated for having a contrary opinion to others. IF proof arises then I will retract my defence of the beautiful game but until then I stand by my belief.

itboffin

i recon darts and snooker are at the hub of all this, seeping their evil into real sports.

stagehopper

redvision wrote:

ozzzyosborn206 wrote:

i hope revision is a troll because surely nobody is that stupid to think that in a sport that pays hundreds of thousands a week players would seek to make every possible gain they can which would then lead to doping

Enough. You provide some clear proof that footballers dope & I will accept it. But until that happens then you nor anyone else have the right to accuse players simply because other sports have experienced doping issues.

Braithwaite hit four sixes in 4 balls in the twenty twenty world cup final on Sunday. Moment of individual brilliance? I like to think so but I'm sure you will be along shortly to claim he must have doped.
:roll:

Anyway, I see no point in wasting more time on this topic when I am basically being slated for having a contrary opinion to others. IF proof arises then I will retract my defence of the beautiful game but until then I stand by my belief.

Start at West Germany 1954, take a cursory glance at Juventus in 1996, touch on Operation Puerto - take that route via the likes of Schalke, Leipzig, Marseille, Maradona's cocktail. I've even been to a game, a European Championship second leg play-off, where a player on the winning team failed a drug test at the first leg for a designer drug called bromantane.

I come from a "football background" and drugs have existed for decades in the sport. Given how slight the margins are - a single breakaway in the last minute can win the game - the ability to improve your stamina (such as through EPO or other blood boosters) can make a huge difference to a game.

rick_chasey

RichN95 wrote:

ozzzyosborn206 wrote:

i hope revision is a troll because surely nobody is that stupid to think that in a sport that pays hundreds of thousands a week players would seek to make every possible gain they can which would then lead to doping

You'd think Arsenal would stop their central midfielders from smoking too





I've never really bought into this 'every possible gain' idea when it comes to footballers. (I'm sceptical of it in any sport)

Yeah,but then again, dopers never smoke right?

adr82

redvision wrote:

A single player can have a moment of inspiration and score a wonder goal winning the match, or produce a stunning save, but for that to be decisive or match winning the team has to have performed to get them in such a position.

Might want to go back and read my post again, because I said exactly that - you want your best players to be the difference between the teams. How many times has a team played poorly but managed to win 1-0 because a star striker took the only chance he had in the game?

redvision wrote:

ozzzyosborn206 wrote:

i hope revision is a troll because surely nobody is that stupid to think that in a sport that pays hundreds of thousands a week players would seek to make every possible gain they can which would then lead to doping

Enough. You provide some clear proof that footballers dope & I will accept it. But until that happens then you nor anyone else have the right to accuse players simply because other sports have experienced doping issues.

Braithwaite hit four sixes in 4 balls in the twenty twenty world cup final on Sunday. Moment of individual brilliance? I like to think so but I'm sure you will be along shortly to claim he must have doped.
:roll:

Anyway, I see no point in wasting more time on this topic when I am basically being slated for having a contrary opinion to others. IF proof arises then I will retract my defence of the beautiful game but until then I stand by my belief.

You're not being slated for having a contrary opinion, you're being slated for burying your head in the sand and refusing to acknowledge there's even a tiny possibility that your precious football might conceivably have a doping problem like so many other sports have already been shown to have. You've yet to articulate exactly what it is that makes footballers such paragons of ethical behaviour that they would collectively refuse to get involved in something that as far as anyone can tell goes on in dozens of other sports, most of which offer far less in the way of financial rewards for their top athletes! In other words, there is huge motivation to improve your performances any way you can and little chance of getting caught, partly because of people like you refusing to confront the issue.

No_Ta_Doctor

redvision wrote:

Enough. You provide some clear proof that footballers dope & I will accept it. But until that happens then you nor anyone else have the right to accuse players simply because other sports have experienced doping issues.

Braithwaite hit four sixes in 4 balls in the twenty twenty world cup final on Sunday. Moment of individual brilliance? I like to think so but I'm sure you will be along shortly to claim he must have doped.
:roll:

Nobody on this thread has accused any particular footballer of doping, and nobody has made accusations against any sports player based on their performance.

That's your strawman hit for six. Your arguments have been smashed out of the park all over this thread, are you Stokes in disguise?

redvision

I said I'm sure some players do dope, but I don't believe there is the culture and volume we have seen in other sports.

Show me some proof that today's players are doping. Until then you are speculating.

adr82

redvision wrote:

I said I'm sure some players do dope, but I don't believe there is the culture and volume we have seen in other sports.

Show me some proof that today's players are doping. Until then you are speculating.

Speculation it may be, but at least it's informed speculation... do you have any reason for believing footballers are in some way psychologically different from athletes in many other sports who we know have regularly succumbed to the temptation to take PEDs??

RoadPainter

redvision wrote:

I said I'm sure some players do dope, but I don't believe there is the culture and volume we have seen in other sports.

Show me some proof that today's players are doping. Until then you are speculating.

Well, there are a set of laws that rule the game. The players and clubs have shown they are more than willing to breach these with cynical fouls & diving. They also learn how to pressure each ref in different ways to try & get decisions in their favour. Players appeal for penalties, free kicks and even throw-ins that they know they're not entitled to. Many clubs and players have been clearly in breach of contract terms and transfer regulations, plus players in Spain are on trial for their tax affairs. Many players have shown they ignore the vows they made at their weddings.

In light of all this cheating, you think footballers obey the drug rules? LOL!


I say all this as a big football fan, although unlike most I remember stories like Paul Merson talking of mystery injections.

Oh, and footballers are hardly ever tested, so the risk of getting caught is very low (unlike cycling)

Pross

This is starting to sound like the discussions with Lance supporters when I first started using this forum!

redvision

Pross wrote:

This is starting to sound like the discussions with Lance supporters when I first started using this forum!

I'm glad you have mentioned him Pross because it is sad how his antics and the legacy of that era have clearly caused many people to suspect all sports of having a doping culture/problem today.

I do not (and have never said) football is perfect and has no issues. Football has numerous issues. Diving on the pitch, harassing the referee, racism, feigning injury, to mention a few. BUT i think there is more likelihood of match fixing or betting scams than there is doping, because it would be far more effective than one person doping.

There do need to be more drug tests in football, but i do not believe the number of positive tests would rise significantly.
That is my belief. Again until i see otherwise i will maintain this belief.

One more thing, again i come back to team Sky, if you are all so certain that football players dope, then you must also assume team Sky dope?? I mean they look for the marginal gains, their riders perform like no others, the history of the sport is rife with doping. So why are they or other cycling teams now clean?? :roll:

markwb79

redvision wrote:

I do not (and have never said) football is perfect and has no issues. Football has numerous issues. Diving on the pitch, harassing the referee, racism, feigning injury, to mention a few. BUT i think there is more likelihood of match fixing or betting scams than there is doping, because it would be far more effective than one person doping.

You keep mentioned match fixing. I would think to be good at match fixing you would need more than 1 player.
Yes a goal keeper could let a goal in to fix a match. But then you would need to rely on your striker not scoring, so they would need to be in on it as well.
For the goal keeper to let a goal in, their striker would first need to be shooting at the goal, so you could need a defender to 'let' the striker have a shot.

If footballers didnt change matches on their own, why did Madrid pay €100m for Bale when they could have bought Walcott for €10m?

redvision

Markwb79 wrote:

redvision wrote:

I do not (and have never said) football is perfect and has no issues. Football has numerous issues. Diving on the pitch, harassing the referee, racism, feigning injury, to mention a few. BUT i think there is more likelihood of match fixing or betting scams than there is doping, because it would be far more effective than one person doping.

You keep mentioned match fixing. I would think to be good at match fixing you would need more than 1 player.
Yes a goal keeper could let a goal in to fix a match. But then you would need to rely on your striker not scoring, so they would need to be in on it as well.
For the goal keeper to let a goal in, their striker would first need to be shooting at the goal, so you could need a defender to 'let' the striker have a shot.

If footballers didnt change matches on their own, why did Madrid pay €100m for Bale when they could have bought Walcott for €10m?

Because Bale is more consistent, has a better eye for goal and can produce moments of individual brilliance.
But the team have to have kept them in the match for his moment of brilliance, his wonder goal, to bring the victory.

Oh, and match fixing doesn't always mean fixing the result.
One player can quite easily fix when the ball is kicked into touch for a corner or a throw, when he is booked, or sent off etc etc. There is far more chance of a player doing that than doping imo.