PDA

View Full Version : Is Football Clean?



IBK
15-10-2012, 07:58 PM
Lance Armstrong is surely showing that if you are powerful enough you can make a mockery of the doping system. Armstrong is a cyclist. A multimillionaire who is the pinnacle of his sport. Premier league stars earn multi millions a year. Would clubs not be tempted to use an advantage when it costs a lot less than a transfer fee.

Why are there so few questions asked about doped footballers? Or is it an oasis of fairness in an otherwise corrupt sporting world?

GP
15-10-2012, 07:59 PM
It would be naive to think that it was.

IBK
15-10-2012, 08:01 PM
It would be naive to think that it was.

Interesting. I expected the first reply to be defensive.

Syn
15-10-2012, 08:03 PM
It's less beneficial for footballers. The advantages aren't as transparent as for a complete endurance exercise like cycling. Power, endurance etc. plays only half the role in football - if that - whereas it's everything (or nearly everything) in cycling.

It's a fair question but the frequency of drugs-testing in football isn't well publicised. We only hear when something goes wrong, not the thousands of thousands of tests that go right; and tbf they have made an example out of a few that have been caught in recent years.

McNamara That Ghost...
15-10-2012, 08:08 PM
No Cripps, not this time.

IBK
15-10-2012, 08:11 PM
It's less beneficial for footballers. The advantages aren't as transparent as for a complete endurance exercise like cycling. Power, endurance etc. plays only half the role in football - if that - whereas it's everything (or nearly everything) in cycling.

It's a fair question but the frequency of drugs-testing in football isn't well publicised. We only hear when something goes wrong, not the thousands of thousands of tests that go right; and tbf they have made an example out of a few that have been caught in recent years.

Yes - that's the accepted view, but is football really still a sport when a limited improvement ain't worth it?

McNamara That Ghost...
15-10-2012, 08:15 PM
Like anything there are probably stories that are yet to be uncovered but like Syn mentions, I'm not sure how it would have the other benefit like other sports - perhaps in terms of strength might be improved but that's not neccesarily going to improve your performance like in speed timed sports.

However, there has been the suggestion since the Barcelona 92 Olympics - rather than that just inspiring a generation, Spain's massive improvement in most sports has been down to the use of steroids. I can't even remember where I read that the rumour due to it being sporadic at best but the Armstrong thing has shown you never quite know for sure.

Shaqiri Is Boss
15-10-2012, 08:20 PM
It really wouldn't surprise me if they were all on something. But then that goes for all sports. And for betting and match fixing etc too.

But I'd prefer to stay blissfully ignorant and pretend in my own mind it's all fine.

Marc Overmars
15-10-2012, 08:22 PM
You never know and the Lance Armstrong case is shocking, but with the amount of scrutiny on doping these days, I wouldn't have thought Footballers, particuarly top level ones in the spotlight could be so stupid. As mentioned already, I'm not sure what there is to gain anyway in Football, technique prevails most of the time and that's not something you can take a pill for.

Syn
15-10-2012, 08:22 PM
Yes - that's the accepted view, but is football really still a sport when a limited improvement ain't worth it?

You're right. The reward is very high and the margins of success are very small. There could be an incentive for trying to cheat the system. Drugs isn't the only way to do that - maybe other measures are less risky (though none come to mind).

But again, without wishing to go back to a rant about Arsenal, the success of the club on the pitch is not necessarily the club's major goal. Making money is. It matters that the club and players want to win at any cost for this to work. If the players are happy on their silly money they might not want to risk it. And the club can't really force them into it for fear of being heavily sued/destroyed.

I'd say the risks of getting caught for either player or club would be pretty severe now. I guess your initial point was that it could be easy not to get caught but, as I say, I don't know how rigorous the testing is - it's not something that's publicised too well but that doesn't mean it's not competitive.

Kano
15-10-2012, 08:23 PM
Juve and their doctors were caught up in doping through the mid 90s - around the same sort of time they were appearing in the CL every season. it happens in every sport and always will - the important thing is that in the main it is kept out of the top tier where the world can see everything.

Marc Overmars
15-10-2012, 08:28 PM
I reckon there are more Footballers who use recreational drugs than performance enhancing ones.

Xhaka Canít
15-10-2012, 08:28 PM
I think if there is likely to be any drug problem in top flight football, it is more likely to involve the use of Class A drugs - it has to be a problem when you've got a bunch of overpaid moronic twentysomethings with ridiculous amounts of time, money and temptation on their hands.

Marc Overmars
15-10-2012, 08:30 PM
That's just weird.

Xhaka Canít
15-10-2012, 08:32 PM
Great minds eh?

GP
15-10-2012, 08:55 PM
Simple minds eh?

:gp:

IBK
16-10-2012, 09:29 AM
You're right. The reward is very high and the margins of success are very small. There could be an incentive for trying to cheat the system. Drugs isn't the only way to do that - maybe other measures are less risky (though none come to mind).

But again, without wishing to go back to a rant about Arsenal, the success of the club on the pitch is not necessarily the club's major goal. Making money is. It matters that the club and players want to win at any cost for this to work. If the players are happy on their silly money they might not want to risk it. And the club can't really force them into it for fear of being heavily sued/destroyed.

I'd say the risks of getting caught for either player or club would be pretty severe now. I guess your initial point was that it could be easy not to get caught but, as I say, I don't know how rigorous the testing is - it's not something that's publicised too well but that doesn't mean it's not competitive.

If the Armstrong scandal has shown us anything, it is that given enough money and influence, the dopers are so far ahead of the testers that without whistleblowers, you can basically be confident of never getting caught.

Because of the risk of covers being blow, I'm not sure that clubs are likely systematically to be involved in doping. But with the sheer amount of money on hand for top footballers, it would not surprise me at all if individual players and their agents were involved in doping. People ask why would it be needed in football. Well, football is no different from any other sport - drugs will help athletes train harder, for longer, and therefore improve on pitch performance.

Also, players are often so thick, and greedy, that you can imagine them taking 'supplements' without ever really knowing or caring what they are.

She Wore A Yellow Ribbon
16-10-2012, 12:39 PM
doping? maybe

drugs? definetly

they earn so much money they have nothing better to do with their dollar. wasnt JT's dad done for cocaine possession? if fathers doing it theres a good chance son is doing it too. runs in the family culture and that.

they get tested something like once every 7 years if the bbc panorama docu was anything near truthful. if true, then it provides plenty of opportunity for drugs.

V-Pig
16-10-2012, 07:33 PM
wasnt JT's dad done for cocaine possession? if fathers doing it theres a good chance son is doing it too. runs in the family culture and that.

Sometimes police officers just arrest the whole family. I think it's called "guilt by association". Maximum sentence 3 years.

Kano
17-10-2012, 09:42 PM
If the Armstrong scandal has shown us anything, it is that given enough money and influence, the dopers are so far ahead of the testers that without whistleblowers, you can basically be confident of never getting caught.

Because of the risk of covers being blow, I'm not sure that clubs are likely systematically to be involved in doping. But with the sheer amount of money on hand for top footballers, it would not surprise me at all if individual players and their agents were involved in doping. People ask why would it be needed in football. Well, football is no different from any other sport - drugs will help athletes train harder, for longer, and therefore improve on pitch performance.

Also, players are often so thick, and greedy, that you can imagine them taking 'supplements' without ever really knowing or caring what they are.
juventus and i think one or two spanish clubs had employees accused of doping players in in the 90s.

i think what the armstrong case shows is that even if technology is far ahead of the game, when the authorities catch up, you will be caught. that is definitely something to chew over for those thinking of doing the same - we've seen numerous cases in athletics of course. basically any athlete has a simple choice of trying to dope for short term gain in the knowledge that their whole career is going to be destroyed in the likelihood that they will be caught.

Cripps_orig
17-10-2012, 09:48 PM
My post got deleted. Fair enough.

I'll go in to more depth

Whats the difference between sportsmen taking performance enhancing drugs and Barca giving Messi drugs to help him grow or whatever as he was a little shit back in the day?

Surely thats enhancing his performance.

Genuine question

Olivier's xmas twist
17-10-2012, 10:27 PM
My post got deleted. Fair enough.

I'll go in to more depth

Whats the difference between sportsmen taking performance enhancing drugs and Barca giving Messi drugs to help him grow or whatever as he was a little shit back in the day?

Surely thats enhancing his performance.

Genuine question

No it is not.

Cripps_orig
17-10-2012, 10:39 PM
Well yes it is if it makes him strong enough

Kano
18-10-2012, 08:57 AM
My post got deleted. Fair enough.

I'll go in to more depth

Whats the difference between sportsmen taking performance enhancing drugs and Barca giving Messi drugs to help him grow or whatever as he was a little shit back in the day?

Surely thats enhancing his performance.

Genuine question

you'd need to ask a scientist.

good luck with that on here.

dazthegooner
18-10-2012, 09:38 AM
I think that most of the top players are clean as they are more likely to be tested for banned substances but I do believe the officials at the top positions are as currupt as fuck!

Olivier's xmas twist
18-10-2012, 12:14 PM
Well yes it is if it makes him strong enough

No it does not. He had a medical condition which was treated by Barca because his family couldn't afford it.

Its not the same as pumping drugs into him.

Marc Overmars
18-10-2012, 12:22 PM
Its not the same as pumping drugs into him.

That's exactly what they did...

Olivier's xmas twist
18-10-2012, 02:04 PM
That's exactly what they did...

He was eleven years old when he had the treatments. I don't see the problem with helping treat a medical condition.

GP
18-10-2012, 02:35 PM
He was eleven years old when he had the treatments. I don't see the problem with helping treat a medical condition.

Exactly. Ronaldo's cuntitis went untreated and look what happened to him.

Olivier's xmas twist
18-10-2012, 02:46 PM
Exactly. Ronaldo's cuntitis went untreated and look what happened to him.

:haha:

Cripps_orig
18-10-2012, 02:50 PM
That's exactly what they did...

Pretty much

Charlie :lol:

Olivier's xmas twist
18-10-2012, 04:02 PM
Pretty much

Charlie :lol:

Well no.

If it was not legal do you think he'd really be allow to play. what they did to him no way affected what he has been able to do.

Maestro
18-10-2012, 08:05 PM
on the other hand if they did not pump drugs into him, he may never have been able to achieve what he has

Syn
18-10-2012, 10:54 PM
on the other hand if they did not pump drugs into him, he may never have been able to achieve what he has

If he was 'normal' and didn't require drugs he may never have been able to achieve what he has. That's the issue for me. You can't discriminate against those who have been disadvantaged, and so he should be allowed to play. But the extent to which he has benefited - above the 'normal' - cannot be clear.

McNamara That Ghost...
19-10-2012, 08:00 AM
It allowed him the opporunity to play football. I still find this whole thing absurd, Barcelona probably made an exception in this case because of the talent they saw in him, doing exactly what he does now (well less so this season actually). How much was it the treatment and how much was it because of working hard at becoming better or how much was it merely Guardiola playing him more centrally? Like you say, this cannot be clear (well for you anyway) so you'll never be satisifed.

LDG
19-10-2012, 08:30 AM
Isn't it more a question of giving him the same opportunity as everyone else to play the game? He hasn't been given some superhuman drug which enables him to fly over tall buildings and not kneel before Zod.

It's the same as giving a kid glasses to be able to read like the rest of the kids.

Performance enhancing drugs are drugs which are used constantly in order to better ones performance over and above what they would normally be able to achieve week in week out. Not a drug which assists the development or a child, in line with the rest of the kids out there.

IBK
19-10-2012, 09:39 AM
Its an interesting philosophical debate. Is there a lower age limit on performance enhancing drugs? Are drugs only performance enhancing when they enhance a 'normal' person's performance as opposed to a weaker person's one. If so, what is the dividing line? If the relative improvement is the same, is this not sim[ply penalising the better physical specemin?

Its a debate that could be widened. A footballer taking cocaine will be punished. Another taking anti-depressants - that arguably will enhance his mental state, and therefore his performance, will not be. A footbally taking EPO will be banned, yet another taking protein supplements to boost muscle mass won't be.

In fact most questions of drugs inviolve a wholly artificial line being drawn by human beings, that itself depends largely on culture, timing and technology. So speed is illegal here, Khat is legal in Yemen. Cocaine and Laudinum (heroin) were legal 100 years ago. Not now. Yet Ritalin and Valium aren't. And synthetic drugs are being manufactured all the time that aren't illegal because lagislation hasn't caught up with them yet.

If you were an alien - the whole thing would look like a load of bollocks.

LDG
19-10-2012, 10:23 AM
Just leagalise the lot, then it's a level playing field.

Shaqiri Is Boss
19-10-2012, 11:59 AM
If Messi's treatment was medical treatment (and there is no real way of telling if it made him superhuman or if he was already going to be ridiculous so it's moo) could you not then say that any form of medical treatment that solves a natural problem is wrong?

Like any player who has ever had an organ transplant, or solving dodgy cartilage or even asthma inhalers that contain steroids. Anything that without the treatment c/would have curtailed or hampered a football career. It would probably go for every single player out there, so you can't just draw the line at one player.

Xhaka Canít
19-10-2012, 12:26 PM
Just leagalise the lot, then it's a level playing field.

Unless it's Underhill.

Olivier's xmas twist
19-10-2012, 02:09 PM
Isn't it more a question of giving him the same opportunity as everyone else to play the game? He hasn't been given some superhuman drug which enables him to fly over tall buildings and not kneel before Zod.

It's the same as giving a kid glasses to be able to read like the rest of the kids.

Performance enhancing drugs are drugs which are used constantly in order to better ones performance over and above what they would normally be able to achieve week in week out. Not a drug which assists the development or a child, in line with the rest of the kids out there.

Spot on.