Phew! No Drugs in Football
Comments
-
Easy way to settle the argument and that's all the measures we currently see in cycling applied to the Premier League, UEFA competitions and FIFA World Cups. Cycling may have more to do, but football is by comparison still stuck in about 1963.
The examples of Mutu and Ferdinand show that if football did do proper testing then sponsors wouldn't be backward in coming forward and hoofing people out of the sport - they've an image to protect and it's worth billions. Of course this also suits the head-in-the-sand approach too. Golf is in a similar boat, and I guess Cricket is heading that way with the explosion in Twenty20 and the riches suddenly on offer and 365 day a year cricket.
Cycling is perhaps unique in that it has traditionaly had parochial and slightly obscure sponsorship so the employers haven't been risking much by having the odd bad apple pop up - Italian cement manufacturer in bicycle rider takes some drugs scandal! Not shocking. But with a greater profile and a different set of media and sponsors involved this dynamic has changed a bit. Look at the Tour - it's global brand is so important that recently it has decided to protect it by getting very aggressive toward doping in its race.
I'm rambling. Ending now.0 -
The point isn't which sport is doping more, it's simply that both are sports under the code of WADA and so out of competition testing is a prerequisite. There's no ifs or buts, this has to be done.0
-
Chelsea were of course spinning blood and injecting platelets into injured players... This was perfectly legal according to the FA. Huzzah!"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 -
Wow!!! 30 Players made available for testing - they're really taking it seriously then.
92 Pro clubs , at least 20-25 players per club - work that out. Mmm,..All Road/ Gravel: tbcWinter: tbcMTB: tbcRoad: tbc"Look at the time...." "he's fallen like an old lady on a cruise ship..."0 -
The Italians do seem to be getting some odd diseases - see link below.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 ... sease.html
Perhaps its partly down to their hypochindria and resulting drug consumption. Italy as a nation is even more hypochondriac and pill obsessed than France with both having the highest consumption of pharma products in Europe:
http://www.talogdata.dk/sw241.asp0 -
The Rio Ferdinand situation isn't a good comparison with the three strikes and you are out rule. Rio was told he had a drug test after a game, but "forgot" and left the building. Very very different.
As for footballers not needing to be fit, just look at the number of goals scored in the first 45 minutes versus the second. Conditioning plays a massive part, as tired players make mistakes. Lets not forget how many kilometers some of them supposedly run during the course of a game, with multiple explosive efforts required.
I know from an international footballer who used to live next door to me until a year or so ago that some Premiership players are incredibly fit and others are nowhere near that level. He joined a new club and was saying that the fitness levels required there compared to his previous club were vastly superior.0 -
A nice, balanced blog from "cycling's friend", Matt Slater :roll: :-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/mattslater/2 ... eveal.html
Some choice comments below......."Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
Different players play differently, some need fitness a lot, some don't. Depends on their style. But there were reports of an Italian goalkeeper during the 1990s with a haematocrit in the high 50s.
Fitness is one thing, you only need to see how the Russian teams run around like crazy until the 90th minute. But strength is important, some players are bulking up and using more than shredded wheat and steak.0 -
Interesting to see that Gordon Taylor has revised his opinion on the problem of drugs in football from his stance in 2002:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/mar/31/football.sport
'I worry that some of it could be going on. Players at the top level are playing more games than ever before, too many, and you wonder how they cope and survive and keep a competitive edge. Given the prevalence of drug abuse in other sports and society in general, it would be naive to think it wasn't going to be present in football. Football isn't an oasis.'
to yesterday's position:
"If we complain about anything to do with drug-testing people think we might have something to hide, but football's record is extremely good and there has been a virtual absence of any performance-enhancing drugs over decades.
"We do appreciate that football is a major spectator sport and we wish to co-operate, but football should not be treated in the same way as individual sports that do have a problem with drugs, such as athletics, cycling and weightlifting."0 -
jp1985 wrote:Just to put an alternative point of view across after Tom Boonen tested positive for cocaine he missed the tour but was not banned or fined, when Mutu and Bosnich got caught they were sacked and faced bans. Bosnich never returned from his and Mutu faced court case and now has to pay 8 million in compensation. Further Mutu was actually court by a club control after he was targetted by chelsea for testing after suspicious behaviour. With the exception of CSC, Garmin and Columbia do cycling teams implement their own controls and do they implement targeted testing when they have suspicions e.g. schumi, bernie, piepoli, rat boy and sella?(Im assuming they had suspicions like the rest of us).
Rio ferdinand missed one test and got an 8 month ban and a £50,000 fine whereas athletes get a have a three strikes and your out policy.
In terms of PED's you have to consider the nature of the sport. Cycling, Athletics, Weightlifting etc are all primarily determined by physical attributes whereas football is largely dependant on skill. Its no good being able to sprint around a pitch for 90 mins if you've got two left feet and cant time a tackle. If you look at the physical attrbutes of top footballers they are pretty unremarkable (60ish ml.kg.min VO2max) if it was necessary to have greater values that could be achieved through training.
Im not saying that football is free from doping but you cannot treat it in the same manner as cycling.
The Rio comparison on missed tests is very different, he was told he was going to be tested and went AWOL. Athletes with missed tests, have simply not been in the place they said they would be at a particular time, they would have had no prior knowledge of the test.
Ferdinand defintely deserved his punishment.
Sure skill is big part of football, but fitness defintely comes into it majorly in the modern game.0 -
"...sports stars may come under pressure from their employers to risk their lives."
Aw diddums - they are grown ups, the decision is theirs. Might as well say the same about pretty much any occupation - that's what employers DO.d.j.
"Cancel my subscription to the resurrection."0 -
Here's a very good article about doping in football (it's in English):
http://www.german-times.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1834&Itemid=12Twitter: @RichN950 -
jp1985 wrote:Just to put an alternative point of view across ... Mutu was actually court by a club control after he was targetted by chelsea for testing.
I'm suspicious of club/team organised testing (esp in football), what is to stop them hushing up failed tests? Taking it to its logical conclusion, a team could have a systematic doping policy in place, conduct private tests to ensure the players are below thresholds and operate without fear when the official testers show up.
IMHO the only people doing the testing should be independent officials, WADA etc.jp1985 wrote:In terms of PED's you have to consider the nature of the sport ...whereas football is largely dependant on skill. Its no good being able to sprint around a pitch for 90 mins if you've got two left feet and cant time a tackle. If you look at the physical attrbutes of top footballers they are pretty unremarkable (60ish ml.kg.min VO2max) if it was necessary to have greater values that could be achieved through training.
At the same time, it is no good being able to play well for 80 minutes and then have nothing left for the last 10 minutes. Plus you have to be able to perform at that level again every 3-7 days for 9 months of the year.
I play football (at a poor standard
) but even at my level, skill may put you in a winning position but it's fitness that gets you over the line.
The financial rewards for success are there for all to see, footballers demonstrate on a weekly basis a willingness to 'bend the rules' to gain an advantage; it isn't a great leap of the imagination to have clubs looking for a systematic scientific advantage through PHD.0 -
dennisn wrote:"....absence.... over decades" is quite a statement. Yes? What is he talking about when he says "invade the privacy of a players home"?
Dennis Noward
Random testing is just that - when selected you provide a specimen and this may be at home. The person is responsible for letting the testing agencies know where they are (in and out of training) so tests can bet taken without prior arrangement thus preventing masking or a programme that allows you to be clean before testing.
On reported case was a cyclist who was asked to provide a specimen whilst organising his child's funeral.
Having said that there were a number of athletes who were infamous for avoiding these types of test ....<b><i>He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.</b></i>
(Unattributed Trad.)0 -
The almost comical lack of drug testing in british football has been an open secret for years - the 'testers' used to come in to the clubs (after tipping them off) on mondays when the first-teamers aren't usually there anyway. The English FA weren't even testing for EPO up to 2004 (don't know if they do now).
I notice from the articles cited that even French rocker Johnny Halliday gets blood doping!! I suspect (incidentally) most footballers wouldn't even regard EPO / blood doping as wrong, the clubs would tell them it was just boosting their body's natural mechanisms.0 -
disquieting_museeuws wrote:The almost comical lack of drug testing in british football has been an open secret for years - the 'testers' used to come in to the clubs (after tipping them off) on mondays when the first-teamers aren't usually there anyway. The English FA weren't even testing for EPO up to 2004 (don't know if they do now).
I notice from the articles cited that even French rocker Johnny Halliday gets blood doping!! I suspect (incidentally) most footballers wouldn't even regard EPO / blood doping as wrong, the clubs would tell them it was just boosting their body's natural mechanisms.
Johnny Halliday was the one who let the cat out of the bag on French telly a few years ago when he let on that Zidane went to the same place he used in Switzerland to get his blood "cleaned". Never found the clip but it was I think France 3 during the World Cup.0 -
This is brilliant, it's like "Have I Got News For You"
Who's the odd one out out of these four...
Zinidine Zidane
Johnny Halliday
Lemmy
Alexandre Vinokourov
Vino is of course the answer, as whilst he did engage in illicit blood transfusions, he did it in France."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 -
squired wrote:The Rio Ferdinand situation isn't a good comparison with the three strikes and you are out rule. Rio was told he had a drug test after a game, but "forgot" and left the building. Very very different.
Not OK at all...... What happens if he "forgets" again, and again when do we stop?
Bring in a simple rule - don't attend - don't play!
Avoid 3 and a twelve month ban!<b><i>He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.</b></i>
(Unattributed Trad.)0 -
Cunobelin wrote:squired wrote:The Rio Ferdinand situation isn't a good comparison with the three strikes and you are out rule. Rio was told he had a drug test after a game, but "forgot" and left the building. Very very different.
Not OK at all...... What happens if he "forgets" again, and again when do we stop?
Bring in a simple rule - don't attend - don't play!
Avoid 3 and a twelve month ban!
Ferdinand wasn't let off scott free - he was banned for 8 months and only just escaped 12 months.Twitter: @RichN950 -
The bit that gets me, is that the FA don't test for Cocaine in out of competition (Which roughly goes from Midnight before the match to 7pm afterwards), as it's deemed "performance enhancing", so is only of benefit during a match.
Applying that criteria. a good shot of CERA on a Sunday evening, wouldn't count until Saturday's match?Remember that you are an Englishman and thus have won first prize in the lottery of life.0
