More trouble for Team SKY.

redvision

Dorset Boy wrote:

And the notification to the squad as soon as a tester arrives at the training ground, so glowing players 'disappear'.....

So let me get this right, you are claiming that clubs send players awol to avoid testers because they dope?

So where is your evidence for that???
Because I would love to see it as I am sure UKAD would.

awavey

you could argue based on the conviction rate for mobile phone usage whilst driving that nobody uses a mobile phone whilst driving anymore, yet when the police actually bother to go looking for people driving with mobile phones they usually report they are shocked at the number they still find.

there are plenty of sports who claim a zero drug test failure is proof there is no doping, but they usually back it up with a pitifully small amount of tests. Cycling for its faults no one can argue they dont do enough testing anymore. When football, tennis, rugby even motorsport like F1 test as much then we can debate which sport has the bigger problem.

dolan_driver

EPO in soccer. The quote below is from this webpage.
http://www.punditarena.com/football/dod ... nio-conte/

"2 years after the Champions League success, an investigation into illegal doping was launched in Turin. During a raid on Juventus’ training ground, some 281 different types of drugs were found. Of these 281 types, few were on the banned list. Yet the sheer wealth of pharmaceuticals at the club hinted at something more clandestine. Independent expert, Eugenio Muller alleged that the club was prescribing drugs to its players with no therapeutic grounds. The principal aim of the prescriptions was boosting energy levels and abetting recovery.

In 2002, Agricola was sentenced to 22 months in prison for supplying Juventus players with performance enhancing drugs. Among the drugs he was found guilty of supplying was EPO. Among the players who admitted to taking a series of drugs was current Real Madrid manager, Zinedine Zidane. Conte has never admitted to taking drugs whilst at Juventus."

DD.

RichN95.

I mentioned on twitter recently that Juventus should have been football's Festina, but in reality hardly anyone outside Italy knows about it.

redvision

Dolan Driver wrote:

Among the players who admitted to taking a series of drugs was current Real Madrid manager, Zinedine Zidane. Conte has never admitted to taking drugs whilst at Juventus."

DD.

You are wrong. Zidane admitted to using creatine. And other players also admitted that was the substance the club gave players.

Creatine is not on WADA banned list.

bobmcstuff

Despite the fact the doctor was found guilty of supplying players with EPO???

RichN95.

redvision wrote:

Dolan Driver wrote:

Among the players who admitted to taking a series of drugs was current Real Madrid manager, Zinedine Zidane. Conte has never admitted to taking drugs whilst at Juventus."

DD.

You are wrong. Zidane admitted to using creatine. And other players also admitted that was the substance the club gave players.

Creatine is not on WADA banned list.

Have a read: https://www.theguardian.com/football/20 ... ory.sport4

redvision

bobmcstuff wrote:

Despite the fact the doctor was found guilty of supplying players with EPO???

Lets get this straight, the doctor was found guilty of supplying performance enhancing drugs to the club which were 'likely' to have been given to 8 players. The majority of the drugs were not banned at the time and no EPO was found.

Oh, and some of the comments from the hearing were interesting...
ugenio Muller, a pharmacologist, reported that the club had systematically supplied some players with prescription-only drugs, with no therapeutic justification but with the aim of boosting energy levels or speeding recovery after injury
hmmm, that sounds familiar....what did the report on team sky say again??

When investigators raided the club they found 281 different types of drug.
Sounds just like British Cycling/Sky headquarters....

bobmcstuff

redvision wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

Despite the fact the doctor was found guilty of supplying players with EPO???

Lets get this straight, the doctor was found guilty of supplying performance enhancing drugs to the club which were 'likely' to have been given to 8 players. The majority of the drugs were not banned at the time and no EPO was found.

Oh, and some of the comments from the hearing were interesting...
ugenio Muller, a pharmacologist, reported that the club had systematically supplied some players with prescription-only drugs, with no therapeutic justification but with the aim of boosting energy levels or speeding recovery after injury
hmmm, that sounds familiar....what did the report on team sky say again??

When investigators raided the club they found 281 different types of drug.
Sounds just like British Cycling/Sky headquarters....

You know you're doing exactly what you're criticising people on here for doing re: Sky/cycling in general, right? You sound exactly like one of the people defending Sky.

redvision

bobmcstuff wrote:

redvision wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

Despite the fact the doctor was found guilty of supplying players with EPO???

Lets get this straight, the doctor was found guilty of supplying performance enhancing drugs to the club which were 'likely' to have been given to 8 players. The majority of the drugs were not banned at the time and no EPO was found.

Oh, and some of the comments from the hearing were interesting...
ugenio Muller, a pharmacologist, reported that the club had systematically supplied some players with prescription-only drugs, with no therapeutic justification but with the aim of boosting energy levels or speeding recovery after injury
hmmm, that sounds familiar....what did the report on team sky say again??

When investigators raided the club they found 281 different types of drug.
Sounds just like British Cycling/Sky headquarters....

You know you're doing exactly what you're criticising people on here for doing re: Sky/cycling in general, right? You sound exactly like one of the people defending Sky.

All I am saying is there is no evidence of widespread doping in football.

larkim

Dolan Driver wrote:

During a raid on Juventus’ training ground, some 281 different types of drugs were found. Of these 281 types, few were on the banned list. Yet the sheer wealth of pharmaceuticals at the club hinted at something more clandestine.

I'm not going to defend the overpaid primadonnas that kick pigs intenstines around, but I bet if you came round to my house you'd get up to over 20 different types of drug in the cupboard, of which some might be on the banned list and most of which are over the counter items.

Expecting a pro team with employed doctors *not* to have a well stocked drugs cabinet would seem odd to me.

It's that age old "hinting" too. Throw out an accusation, let it linger, despite lack of evidence.

blazing_saddles

redvision wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

redvision wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

Despite the fact the doctor was found guilty of supplying players with EPO???

Lets get this straight, the doctor was found guilty of supplying performance enhancing drugs to the club which were 'likely' to have been given to 8 players. The majority of the drugs were not banned at the time and no EPO was found.

Oh, and some of the comments from the hearing were interesting...
ugenio Muller, a pharmacologist, reported that the club had systematically supplied some players with prescription-only drugs, with no therapeutic justification but with the aim of boosting energy levels or speeding recovery after injury
hmmm, that sounds familiar....what did the report on team sky say again??

When investigators raided the club they found 281 different types of drug.
Sounds just like British Cycling/Sky headquarters....

You know you're doing exactly what you're criticising people on here for doing re: Sky/cycling in general, right? You sound exactly like one of the people defending Sky.

All I am saying is there is no evidence of widespread doping in football.

By attempting to defend Juventus, even given the evidence presented.
Yet you are saying that there is evidence of widespread doping at Team Sky, using circular reasoning in both cases.

redvision

Blazing Saddles wrote:

redvision wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

redvision wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

Despite the fact the doctor was found guilty of supplying players with EPO???

Lets get this straight, the doctor was found guilty of supplying performance enhancing drugs to the club which were 'likely' to have been given to 8 players. The majority of the drugs were not banned at the time and no EPO was found.

Oh, and some of the comments from the hearing were interesting...
ugenio Muller, a pharmacologist, reported that the club had systematically supplied some players with prescription-only drugs, with no therapeutic justification but with the aim of boosting energy levels or speeding recovery after injury
hmmm, that sounds familiar....what did the report on team sky say again??

When investigators raided the club they found 281 different types of drug.
Sounds just like British Cycling/Sky headquarters....

You know you're doing exactly what you're criticising people on here for doing re: Sky/cycling in general, right? You sound exactly like one of the people defending Sky.

All I am saying is there is no evidence of widespread doping in football.

By attempting to defend Juventus, even given the evidence presented.
Yet you are saying that there is evidence of widespread doping at Team Sky, using circular reasoning in both cases.

I'm not trying to defend Juve. I'm saying it was the actions of one club and even today there seems no categorical proof that banned substances were used.
If they were Juve should have been punished.
However, my point is this does not constitute widespread doping in the game which many people on here allege.

Plus, compare the Juve investigation in to the team sky one and you will find it very similar. Yet you continue to defend team sky.

bompington

redvision wrote:

Plus, compare the Juve investigation in to the team sky one and you will find it very similar

:roll:
No, it's not very similar.

Dorset_Boy

Fuentes was willing to spill beans on football, but the spanish authorities were too scared to hear the story:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/12092102/Blood-samples-in-a-Barcelona-freezer-could-spark-biggest-ever-doping-scandal-as-Operation-Puerto-resurfaces.html

WADA concerned about no testing in Spanish football:
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/feb/10/wada-describes-lack-of-drug-testing-in-spanish-football-as-alarming

Real Sociedad admit
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/competitions/la-liga/9847272/Spanish-football-shaken-by-drug-claims-made-by-former-Real-Sociedad-president.html

Ferdinand scarpers
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2003/dec/19/newsstory.sport8

No, no problem in football.

redvision

Dorset Boy wrote:

Fuentes was willing to spill beans on football, but the spanish authorities were too scared to hear the story:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/12092102/Blood-samples-in-a-Barcelona-freezer-could-spark-biggest-ever-doping-scandal-as-Operation-Puerto-resurfaces.html

WADA concerned about no testing in Spanish football:
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/feb/10/wada-describes-lack-of-drug-testing-in-spanish-football-as-alarming

Real Sociedad admit
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/competitions/la-liga/9847272/Spanish-football-shaken-by-drug-claims-made-by-former-Real-Sociedad-president.html

Ferdinand scarpers
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2003/dec/19/newsstory.sport8

No, no problem in football.

Ferdinand was a missed test. And he was made an example of, the ban he received was widely regarded as very harsh.

You cannot assume a missed test is proof of doping.

Wada might have expressed concern at the number of testing in Spain, but the top players are still being tested in european competitions and national teams.

It's very easy for you to claim the spanish authorities were too scared of what damage could be done by Fuentes.

I'm not getting drawn in to this any more. All i will say is if there is widespread doping in football, as you claim, then show me the evidence and i will accept it. BUT until then, it is wrong of you to make assumptions regarding doping in football. Especially whilst defending team sky despite the very recent report which concluded, from evidence collected, they were using performance enhancing drugs, albeit via tues

redvision

double post

RichN95.

redvision wrote:

Especially whilst defending team sky despite the very recent report which concluded, from evidence collected, they were using performance enhancing drugs, albeit via tues

One rider was taking a corticosteroid injection. Costisone jabs in football are widely used.

rick_chasey

So Pep Guardiola failed two tests and was banned as a player.

[puts cycling journo hat on] Is he fit to coach Man City? [/hat off]

kingstongraham

redvision wrote:

Ferdinand was a missed test. And he was made an example of, the ban he received was widely regarded as very harsh.

The fact that he walked away after being told to present himself for testing, and an 8 month ban was seen as very harsh tells you what you need to know about how seriously football took doping tests.

redvision

KingstonGraham wrote:

redvision wrote:

Ferdinand was a missed test. And he was made an example of, the ban he received was widely regarded as very harsh.

The fact that he walked away after being told to present himself for testing, and an 8 month ban was seen as very harsh tells you what you need to know about how seriously football took doping tests.

No, it was considered harsh by many athletes and sports.

Don't forget, Lizzie missed three tests in a year and ended up having no punishment.

Missed tests do not mean the athlete is trying to avoid the test because they are glowing.

kingstongraham

redvision wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

redvision wrote:

Ferdinand was a missed test. And he was made an example of, the ban he received was widely regarded as very harsh.

The fact that he walked away after being told to present himself for testing, and an 8 month ban was seen as very harsh tells you what you need to know about how seriously football took doping tests.

No, it was considered harsh by many athletes and sports.

Don't forget, Lizzie missed three tests in a year and ended up having no punishment.

Missed tests do not mean the athlete is trying to avoid the test because they are glowing.

Ferdinand was not a missed test in the same way as Armitstead (or Farah). He was there, was told he was to be tested, and didn't attend the test, but went shopping instead. That's refusing to provide a sample, rather than a whereabouts failure.

If Armitstead had been found guilty of 3 whereabouts failures, she would have got more than 8 months.

redvision

KingstonGraham wrote:

Ferdinand was not a missed test in the same way as Armitstead (or Farah). He was there, was told he was to be tested, and didn't attend the test, but went shopping instead. That's refusing to provide a sample, rather than a whereabouts failure.

I know the details. But the 9 month ban was widely criticised from people in all sports. In the interest of fairness to Rio, he contacted the club and anti doping authorities within 2 hours of the missed test but was denied the chance to take it then.

And Lizzie was aware of at least one of her missed tests, but left before providing a sample, according to reports.

But like I say, a missed test does not mean the athlete is covering up doping.

kingstongraham

redvision wrote:

But like I say, a missed test does not mean the athlete is covering up doping.

Of course not, but refusing a test does need to carry a severe punishment. Because otherwise, etc.

I don't think any of Armitstead's whereabouts failures involved her knowing the testers were there and failing to provide a sample. One involved the testers not being allowed to contact her by hotel staff, two where the ADAMS system was not updated.

bobmcstuff

RichN95 wrote:

redvision wrote:

Especially whilst defending team sky despite the very recent report which concluded, from evidence collected, they were using performance enhancing drugs, albeit via tues

One rider was taking a corticosteroid injection. Costisone jabs in football are widely used.

And in other sports, Flintoff said it extended his career by several years!

That and footballers (and rugby players etc) widely using injected painkillers like tramadol to play through pain, which is something else Sky have, quite rightly, been heavily criticised for.

inseine

Lets not get so obsessed with all this that we loose the plot. There's been a brilliant bike race on for the last few hours you know

salsiccia1

inseine wrote:

Lets not get so obsessed with all this that we loose the plot. There's been a brilliant bike race on for the last few hours you know

Amen, brother

Pross

The injections used in football is basically the same thing as Wiggins is getting grief for, within the rules but ethically questionable for some. The difference is the likes of Lawton don’t bat an eyelid when footballers get corticosteroids injected.

twotoebenny

Ethically acceptable in football not in certain cycling areas... this is the problem with the ethical argument.

ademort

It looks very much that Chris Froomes doping case is likely to go beyond the tour de france. It emerged on Friday evening that cyclings governing body,the UCI has paved the way for disciplinary proceedings against Froome by sending his adverse doping test to a tribunal. This means a verdict will almost certainly not be reached before the Tour reports The Guardian.
the chances of Froome being allowed to compete in the TDF by the organisers ASO look very slim.It,s also understood that Froomes lawyer Mike Morgan requested and was refused access to anti-doping samples that had been provided by Froome in the days before his adverse drug test.Nicolas Portal, SKY,s sports director said he would like the UCI to give a decision right away because it,s not ideal to prepare for a race in this manner.So it looks like Froome will be incourt in order to get a start in the tour if he wants to pursue that line or he would have to sit it out.