Drugs in other sports and the media.
Comments
-
Reminds me of this classic. While the Tour was being shaken by EPO....
http://www.theguardian.com/football/201 ... enn-hoddleWhen the 1998 World Cup started, some of the players started taking injections from Glenn's favourite medic, a Frenchman called Dr Rougier. It was different from anything we'd done at United, but all above board, I'm sure.
"After some of the lads said they'd felt a real burst of energy, I decided to seize any help on offer. So many of the players decided to go for it before that Argentina match that there was a queue to see the doctor.0 -
Dorset Boy wrote:A certain Man Utd defender chose to stay shopping rather than return to his club for a test.
Take EPO at 10 pm and it won't be glowing at training the next day.
Redvision - keep on burying your head in the sand - it's quite funny to the rest of us!
In the case you are referring to though, it was evidene of charles rather than epo that was feared by player0 -
My view for what it's worth is that it's all a case of perception.
When a player pings one in to the top corner from 30 yards the automatic reaction of the public is to be impressed by a great piece of skill. They don't automatically think "that was great so he must be on something". The running that goes into creating the space to allow the shot from 30 yards is just assumed to be part of the game.
In cycling it's the reverse. The payoff is watching rivals crack as the champion turns the screw. It's pure athleticism that is the spectacle so the assumption that something extraordinary is drug assisted is easier to make. The bike handling and teamwork to get your leader in the position to do the damage is just taken for granted somewhat.
The drug history is there in both sports. I watch both and it doesn't really bother me too much either way.0 -
can we just ignore RedVision now. He reminds me of a quote from Jan Ullrich which was something like "Who ever can't put one and one together and work out what was going on is beyond me help"0
-
sherer wrote:can we just ignore RedVision now. He reminds me of a quote from Jan Ullrich which was something like "Who ever can't put one and one together and work out what was going on is beyond me help"
And people on here remind me of the witch hunts in the middle ages. You know, when women were burned at the stake because they were said to be witches...
I'm still waiting for some proof that doping is widespread in football.
Have to add that if any of you get called up to jury service please get out of it. Ok, the state would save a fortune in court costs because you would have found the defendant guilty before they had issued a plea, but the prisons are already full enough!
0 -
redvision wrote:I'm still waiting for some proof that doping is widespread in football.
Who made that claim?“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
TailWindHome wrote:redvision wrote:I'm still waiting for some proof that doping is widespread in football.
Who made that claim?
And why the need for "proof"? Can't you let your recalcitrant stance slip a bit and accept that there is a "very strong likelihood" that professional footballers have historically sought to enhance performance? You mention jury service: many a sentence has been handed out and judgements made on the basis of the sort of evidence you've been furnished with in this thread (obviously, were it a court of law, quotes would have to be verified and stories corroborated). If you wanted to, you could stubbornly maintain that even a positive doping test isn't "proof" of doping.0 -
I don't particularly read this thread, but it dawned on me today that Athletics is going through the period Cycling went through in 2005-2010, with big events being awarded retrospectively and ceremonies years later to give out medals0
-
EPC06 wrote:Dorset Boy wrote:A certain Man Utd defender chose to stay shopping rather than return to his club for a test.
Take EPO at 10 pm and it won't be glowing at training the next day.
Redvision - keep on burying your head in the sand - it's quite funny to the rest of us!
In the case you are referring to though, it was evidene of charles rather than epo that was feared by player
Nope, he thought he had the clap and didn't want it to be known that way! He actually dodged the test, rather than staying shopping too. IMO should have had a minimum 2 year ban.0 -
OCDuPalais wrote:
And why the need for "proof"? Can't you let your recalcitrant stance slip a bit and accept that there is a "very strong likelihood" that professional footballers have historically sought to enhance performance?
Because without proof you have nothing.
I am talking about today, not historically.
I keep saying I am sure a few individual players do try to get away with banned performance enhancing drugs in football, just as in other sports, but i do not believe there is a widespread issue.
For those of you seemingly so certain that football players try to find the extra 5% by using PED's despite no evidence, well again I come back to cycling. I believe that the efforts the sport has gone to to clean up cycling is admirable & was obviously needed. Today you have the likes of team sky using marginal gains to dominate the sport, they are subjected to regular doping tests and are clean. BUT they are able to ride faster than those in the epo era (according to froome & richie porte data in 2015).
Tim Kerrison & Dave Brailsford put this down to training techniques & diet (to mention a few things).
So I ask you, if cycling, a sport financially a minnow compared to football, can push the human body to these incredible performances through using diet & science, then why are you so convinced that football clubs & players choose doping rather than the same techniques?? Football players & clubs have significantly larger budgets than team sky or pretty much any other sport team, so why would they risk the punishments from doping rather than choose the team sky like way??0 -
Or you could ask
"If cycling, a financial minnow would bother to dope SO extensively during the doping era, why would football not do the same, where doping controls are SO lax"0 -
Yes, you do keep saying this. And I keep asking you what you're basing that belief on, and you have yet to explain it. Do you just have "a feeling" that football is the cleanest sport on the planet despite the massive amounts of money involved providing obvious motivation to try and dope your way to a higher level?redvision wrote:I keep saying I am sure a few individual players do try to get away with banned performance enhancing drugs in football, just as in other sports, but i do not believe there is a widespread issue.
Why? Because it's vastly easier and cheaper to take some drugs than to force yourself to conform to a very strict training regimen, or to bring in sports scientists who can advise you on the correct diet and training plans, that's f*cking why. If you want evidence, look at the popularity of "easy" diet plans and "diet pills" vs just eating fewer calories. People are lazy! If they can get a 5% boost in performance either by taking some pills or by working their arses off for a few days a week and denying themselves things they enjoy, what do you think the majority would choose?!redvision wrote:So I ask you, if cycling, a sport financially a minnow compared to football, can push the human body to these incredible performances through using diet & science, then why are you so convinced that football clubs & players choose doping rather than the same techniques?? Football players & clubs have significantly larger budgets than team sky or pretty much any other sport team, so why would they risk the punishments from doping rather than choose the team sky like way??
As for the "risk", as everyone else has been pointing out the level of testing in football is not exactly comparable to where cycling is now, giving even greater attractiveness to the doping option.0 -
coriordan wrote:Or you could ask
"If cycling, a financial minnow would bother to dope SO extensively during the doping era, why would football not do the same, where doping controls are SO lax"
:roll:
Because football had and has the finances to invest in scientific fitness & nutrition research and can simply afford to throw money at it.
Have you considered that team sky took their marginal gains lead from the football model??
Oh, and whilst there might be fewer annual drug tests than cycling, don't forget that football adheres to ukad and is subjected to the same tests.
I still think more tests should be conducted but perhaps the reason they currently are not its because there is not a significant doping issue in football.0 -
I think Revision's rational is the same as the governing body's.
i.e. No proof of widespread doping, or indeed of any doping, therefore it doesn't exist.
Of course, the FA and FIFA recognise that perfect way to keep the status quo and promote this view, is to maintain the current, unsatisfactory level of dope testing.
A token testing regime fulfilling minimum requirements, at worst will only result in the rare positive.
It is only the sports that attempt to address the problem, that have the problem.
Those that don't, no proof, so no problem.
Strategy on their part, naivety on the fans."Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
redvision wrote:OCDuPalais wrote:
And why the need for "proof"? Can't you let your recalcitrant stance slip a bit and accept that there is a "very strong likelihood" that professional footballers have historically sought to enhance performance?
Because without proof you have nothing.
I am talking about today, not historically.
I keep saying I am sure a few individual players do try to get away with banned performance enhancing drugs in football, just as in other sports, but i do not believe there is a widespread issue.
can you define widespread though ? is widespread to you the whole league, 90% of teams, 50% of teams, a team or what ?
for me the issue with football and a number of other sports where the governing bodys response to doping is "no failed tests so no problem" is theres not enough testing, and theres no doubting cyclists are tested alot now, you dont see many footballers on social media complaining they were woken up at 8am by a knock on the door from the testing team, the day after theyd played a game where theyd be tested, and if they were the top of the league/cup winning team getting tested every week.
if footballers were subjected to the same levels of testing as cycling (and you can debate how effective that is as a separate issue) if it were introduced without warning, I think there would be a significant number of positive tests, not individual players, but tens of players in the top leagues, maybe even whole teams.
so Id reverse your question wheres the evidence football is actually clean ?
as to the other point why would footballers not be able to physically better themselves like modern era clean cyclists
well PEDS have always been the shortcut to those things, if marginal gains can deliver you improved physical performance, but the downside is you have to live like a monk for 9months of the year, be borderline emaciated and when you arent riding a bike in a race,training,sitting up a mountain, your in the gym, versus take this pill and you can carry on drinking, getting tattoos, partying, eating pies, smoking, doing whatever the other exciting things footballers get up to :roll:
what do you think most normal peoples reaction to that would be ? is there a single footballer in the world who trains and devotes all their energy to it, in the same way a Team Sky cyclist has to.0 -
One thing I was talking about today was, with some many athletes getting caught and losing Olympic medals from say 2012, how can people not think they were doping then? Do people really believe that they won a gold medal and then thought, oh I'm going to start doping now.0
-
redvision:
I'm more inclined to take the word of a top level manager and a countries anti doping agency:
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/j ... n-football0 -
Shadowrider wrote:redvision:
I'm more inclined to take the word of a top level manager and a countries anti doping agency:
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/j ... n-football
Your words on a page and convenient link are meaningless, Shadowrider - only "proof" counts...0 -
this is good:
"Refusing to accept we have a drugs problem: Football has a long history of doping, and there is clear evidence it's an ongoing issue"
http://www.independent.ie/sport/soccer/ ... 13817.html0 -
Dr Fuentes reckons the OP blood bags are not long for this world.
He is "suggesting" it's because they belong to tennis players, others (probably athletes) and a group of sportsmen who don't dope, but earn huge amounts of money from a billion pound industry:-
https://twitter.com/SkyOrla/status/720216047064903681"Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
awavey wrote:is there a single footballer in the world who trains and devotes all their energy to it, in the same way a Team Sky cyclist has to.
Yes. I''m sure there are hundreds if not thousands. Cyclists are not some elitist group of Athletes with higher work ethics. I'm sure all sports are the same in terms of the collective mentalities of the Athletes. If there is strict drug testing then they have to accept that they have to work hard at it like most cyclists do now. If there aren't and there is an option to dope without any come back, it's likely that a similar percentage (what that percentage would be is another argument) would do it that did in the cycling doping era.0 -
The price of success for WADA.
Sharapova and her many mates about to get off.
At the speed CAS clear cases, no wonder.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/36034369"Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
didn't Sharapova already admit she was still taking it though ?0
-
-
No decision on Puerto imminent. 1-3 months.
Given the statute of limitations ends in June.
Wow.
Money, lawyers, money, cover up, lawyers, money, reputation.
FFS.0 -
1 in 3 PL players not tested at all last season under the FA's 'rigorous' AD programme
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/sport ... -bc563jl900 -
Richmond Racer 2 wrote:1 in 3 PL players not tested at all last season under the FA's 'rigorous' AD programme
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/sport ... -bc563jl90
But that's OK because they don't benefit... blah blah blah etc etc etc.0 -
Or you could say 66% of players were tested.
Bit of a gamble to assume you are going to be one of the 1 in 3........if there was any chance the tests would actually catch you.0 -
^so let's imagine this was procycling. And the report said that 6 WT teams had no riders tested at all last year0
. 
