Failed Drug Tests Are Being Kept Secret

Paully D

From the Daily Mail (I know, I know):

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2200417/Scandal-footballers-failed-drug-tests-kept-secret-fans.html#ixzz25v3983B2

Football fans are being kept in the dark about how many top players have been disciplined for taking recreational drugs such as cocaine, marijuana and ecstasy.

A Mail on Sunday investigation has discovered that since 2010 details of failed drug tests that were formerly made public by a Government-funded drugs watchdog have not been disclosed.

Until then, an average of six to seven failed tests for recreational drugs were reported every year, including high-profile cases such as that of former Chelsea striker Adrian Mutu who tested positive for cocaine in 2004.

The Football Association, whose chairman is David Bernstein, said there had been new, unreported cases during the past two-and-half-years, but would not give details.

However, a spokesman said that following the Mail on Sunday’s investigation it would now explore ways to make the information public.

The Mail on Sunday contacted all of the Premier League’s 20 clubs yesterday. Nine said they were unaware any of their players had been caught taking drugs, eight failed to respond and Reading, Sunderland and Manchester United refused to comment.

Until early 2010, UK Anti Doping (UKAD), the agency that leads the fight against drug-taking in sport, would routinely make public the details of every case in the UK when a footballer failed a test, both for performance-enhancing and recreational drugs.

Although the player and club were rarely identified, the substance involved, the date of the failed test and the length of any ban imposed would all be included in a database open to the public on UKAD’s website.

Even before UKAD dropped its policy of reporting recreational drug offences, critics claimed that the lack of transparency over identifying offenders allowed clubs to deceive fans by claiming that players banned over drugs were not playing because of injury.

The Channel 4 programme Dispatches revealed last year that in 2009 Birmingham City claimed its player Garry O’Connor had missed games because he needed an operation on a hip injury when in reality he had been suspended by the FA for two months after failing a drugs test for cocaine.

Dispatches claimed that UKAD, which was established in 2009, and its predecessor caught a total of 43 professional footballers using cocaine, ecstasy or cannabis.

Under current rules, footballers face two types of drugs tests. One is for the use of performance-enhancing substances during games, under which randomly selected players are required by UKAD to provide urine tests at full-time.

The other test is carried out on behalf of the FA specifically to unearth recreational drug use during the players’ leisure time, and often involve UKAD staff descending on clubs with little notice.

While the FA is not obliged to perform tests for recreational drugs, it says the practice is part of its wider responsibility to ensure the game is clean. Players who fail tests face an FA tribunal and punishments range from fines to bans.
After UKAD decided to stop reporting ‘recreational positives’ on its database, it also removed all past ‘social drugs findings’ as well.

A UKAD spokesman said: ‘It was considered inappropriate for UK Anti-Doping to continue to publish this information since it related to testing undertaken outside of the UK Anti-Doping Testing Programme, so it is not “our” information or data to publish or process.’

The FA, which claimed that it did not know that UKAD had stopped revealing the drug tests until approached by The Mail on Sunday, said it banned recreational drugs at all times because of the wider social implications.

Fight_Night

If it isn't performance enhancing then I don't care tbh. Don't agree with cocaine use and the like but it's their life not mine.

A Primal Nut

Maybe that's the real cause of Arsenal's "injury" woes over the last few seasons.:pac:

Seaneh

Angel "Momo" Heredia told a german paper a few years back that he had worked with top level footballers all over europe.

Doping is a massive problem in football.

Helix

A Primal Nut wrote: »

Maybe that's the real cause of Arsenal's "injury" woes over the last few seasons.:pac:

That's what persistent rumors have been saying for a while now

Owen_S

That C4 documentary about drugs in football was terrible, they basically went looking for something which they couldn't find. They built their findings up saying 'Premier League stars on drugs', we ended up with Garry O'Connor taking non performance-enhancing drugs.

wonderfullife

Fight_Night wrote: »

If it isn't performance enhancing then I don't care tbh. Don't agree with cocaine use and the like but it's their life not mine.

Do you not think we deserve better as fans?

It's 1 thing a player being injured for 6 months doing his cruciate and another him being out "injured" because he got caught doing coke/e/hash/whatever. At the end of the day without the fans the clubs are nothing and personally i'd like to be aware if a player on 40 grand a week is actually injured or just completely unprofessional failing a drugs test.

Yes it is their own lives and they can take whatever they want when they retire but i think the fans have a right to know if a player has let themselves, their club and its fans down by failing a drugs test.

GavRedKing

Marijuna I have no problem with really, Cocaine is more serious however, IMO.

event

let them at it tbh

id be more concerned about people in "ordinary" jobs doing the likes of cocaine etc

keith16

TL;DR

~Rebel~

I don't really think non-performance enhancing drugs should be something which is looked into by sporting bodies. It doesn't give an unfair advantage or anything.

It's something clubs themselves should be cracking down on of course though, because it's almost certainly detrimental to their investment.

Victor McDade

keith16 wrote: »

TL;DR

DM;DR

madma

a couple of years ago i remember reading off an english forum that a chap was in ibiza at one of those zoo partys and saw well known premier league players off their head... he wouldnt name though.. not sure if its true or not but if so they'd only get caught eventually if openly out of it

Father Damo

Out of curiousity how many players have admitted using drugs in their lifetime? Nearly every autobigraphy seems to include a standard flat drugs denial in the part dealing with their teenage years :pac:

RandolphEsq

Regarding performance-enhancing drugs; I bet there is a lot of red tape surrounding any sort of accusations and investigations, and given the high stakes in modern sport (and €sp€cially football), I can see the sport being rife with some type of E.E.D.

The recreational, have-a-go type drugs, who cares; he isn't improving his performance but if he can do that sh1t and pull in a title-winning goal then roll up those notes Sergio!

Guy:Incognito

RandolphEsq wrote: »

The recreational, have-a-go type drugs, who cares; he isn't improving his performance but if he can do that sh1t and pull in a title-winning goal then roll up those notes Sergio!

Can they be used to mask the use of performance enhancing drugs?
I don't know myself but what if it turns out they can?

Bodhisopha

Am i the only one who cares? If they are flaunting the rules then i want them named and shamed, recreational or performance enhancing. They're getting paid a lot of money, they should toe the line, not have their cake and eat it too.

Leiva

RandolphEsq wrote: »

Regarding performance-enhancing drugs; I bet there is a lot of red tape surrounding any sort of accusations and investigations, and given the high stakes in modern sport (and €sp€cially football), I can see the sport being rife with some type of E.E.D.

The recreational, have-a-go type drugs, who cares; he isn't improving his performance but if he can do that sh1t and pull in a title-winning goal then roll up those notes Sergio!

Ahh feck it let's go whole hog . Why ban recreational drugs at all ?

When those glarey eyed kids are looking up to their footballing heros then why not also let them know that they like a quarter of good Colombian cocaine off the tits of two Puerto Rican hookers, as a wind-down on a Satuarday night.

When little Tommys chance comes around to accept the peer pressure of a good oul blow of coke sure it won't be an issue " Sergio my hero does this in style -move aside and watch me go ! "

These over paid pricks have a responsibility. If they can't control themselves whilst collecting a massiv wage, whoring themselves out to the media, and massive payoff merchandise work then they should be banned.

After retirement if they wanna do a Gazza then go for it ... But as long as kids are putting jerseys on their backs with their names on then they have a huge responsibility to stay clean off drugs.

osarusan

I've never been a fan of the argument that the players have a responsibility as role models to young kids, but even if they should be, I'd say that when it comes to young kids, issues of diving, dangerous fouling, mouthing off at the referee among other on-field activities are more likely to influence the kids' behaviour than rumours of them taking recreational drugs.

Son Of A Vidic

How big of a problem drug use is we'll probably never know. FIFA never won any awards for transparency and with Blatter at the helm it will stay that way. But looking at the EPL alone, there is too much big money invested in that league for the real extent of drug use, performance enhancing or otherwise, to ever be revealed.

wonderfullife

Well if i was Adrian Mutu i would be on to my lawyers big time. Named, shamed, successfully sued for the value of his contract yet 8 years on the same clubs in England are potentially covering it up and pretending players are injured! Hardly equality and justice. All it would take is 1 Chelsea player caught up in this for Mutu to say 'well they committed the same offence with no punishment so i have been discriminated against.'

Bottom line, this is nothing to do with being a role model to anybody. They can live it up like Charlie Sheen for all i care but if they fail a test and incur a ban, the only people they are hurting are the club and their fans.

Hypothetically if RVP or Tevez or Hazard or any top flight performer pick up a recreational drugs ban, of course the clubs are going to hush it up to protect their investment. That type of thing wouldn't sit well with the sponsors or fans. But from a practical point of view, any top players getting a ban for it have cost their side an asset for the season and the damage goes far beyond "it's their lives, doing no harm". Pretty sure any top player banned for 6 months is doing plenty of harm.

Gbear

Leiva wrote: »

Ahh feck it let's go whole hog . Why ban recreational drugs at all ?

When those glarey eyed kids are looking up to their footballing heros then why not also let them know that they like a quarter of good Colombian cocaine off the tits of two Puerto Rican hookers, as a wind-down on a Satuarday night.

When little Tommys chance comes around to accept the peer pressure of a good oul blow of coke sure it won't be an issue " Sergio my hero does this in style -move aside and watch me go ! "

These over paid pricks have a responsibility. If they can't control themselves whilst collecting a massiv wage, whoring themselves out to the media, and massive payoff merchandise work then they should be banned.

After retirement if they wanna do a Gazza then go for it ... But as long as kids are putting jerseys on their backs with their names on then they have a huge responsibility to stay clean off drugs.

Whether they do or not is something that should be at the discretion of their clubs.
Blaming sportsman being bad role models as the cause of children taking drugs is just **** parenting.

Sportsmen have NO responsibility to be role models unless their clubs decide they do.

The Radiator

Oh, the Daily Mail. Backs away...

Vurnon San Benito

Apparantely Jack Wilshere wasn't injured before his latest one.
Some say he was serving a behind doors ban from the FA for drugs use.

Unlikely, but certainly wouldn't surprise me if it goes on in the Premier League.

Father Damo

Doocey wrote: »

Apparantely Jack Wilshere wasn't injured before his latest one.
Some say he was serving a behind doors ban from the FA for drugs use.

Unlikely, but certainly wouldn't surprise me if it goes on in the Premier League.

What I dont understand is, these players earning five figure sums per week, they are able to resist the temptation to go on the beer and out on the pull every night of the week. Generally they are able to resist a drink all weekend if their match is on Sunday. Most PL players likely only go drinking once a fortnight, after a Saturday match. Particularly those at bigger clubs.

With this level of self control for drink I cant fathom how they would not have an even bigger level of control for drugs. Like, even myself, I have never liked coke anyway, but while I have been known to turn up for work with a few beers in me there is not a hope in hell I would show up after a night on the pills, even though I like them and even if they were offered to me on a night before work. So how lads on five figures a week cannot resist, it just does not make sense.

Richard Hillman

I dont think they even do blood tests in football. Just a random 2 players have to take a urine test. You could probably go a whole season without being tested. It would be fairly easy for a high level footballer with plenty of financial and medical resources to go through your whole career doped up to your eyeballs and never fail a test.

If they did football type testing in Cycling or Athletics, nobody would get caught.

wonderfullife

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1231414/Birmingham-striker-Garry-OConnor-ruled-months-hip-injury.html

Birmingham manager Alex McLeish confirmed: 'We have received some disappointing news about Garry. He is likely to need an operation on his hip.
'It could keep him out for several months and leaves our striking options light.'

Channel 4 Dispatches football documentary revealed he had failed a drugs test for coke and received a ban. Birmingham paid £2.7 million for him and he misses a large chunk of the season for being unprofessional yet the fans are led to believe he had a bad hip.

"Those failing tests for recreational drugs out-of-competition are not named, however, because it is not an offence under the World Anti-Doping Agency code.

Under the WADA code recreational drugs, such as cocaine, are banned only when they are detected in-competition, on the day of a game or immediately afterwards"

It's really simple, avoid doing recreational drugs during the season, if they want to do them in the summer go nuts with the stuff.

TheDoc

wonderfullife wrote: »

At the end of the day without the fans the clubs are nothing

Interestingly enough, it now appears that gate receipts are accumulating only about 20% of the average wage for a PL footballer.

One of the biggest misconceptions going is that fans pay the wages

Personally only interested in hearing about the performance enhancing. What they do in their downtime is really no major concern unless having a detrimental effect on performance or fitness.

Chucky the tree

TheDoc wrote: »

Interestingly enough, it now appears that gate receipts are accumulating only about 20% of the average wage for a PL footballer.

One of the biggest misconceptions going is that fans pay the wages

Personally only interested in hearing about the performance enhancing. What they do in their downtime is really no major concern unless having a detrimental effect on performance or fitness.

Who do you think watches teams mostly on TV? Fans would account for a far higher % then neutrals. Fans still pay the wages, through gate receipts, merchandise and TV revenue.

RayCon

TheDoc wrote: »

One of the biggest misconceptions going is that fans pay the wages

One of the biggest misconceptions going is "fans" are only inside the ground on matchday :rolleyes:

daRobot

Couldn't really care less about what they get up to, providing it doesn't affect their performances.

Cocaine supposedly only stays in your system for 3 days, so it's a tough one to catch anyway.

Rio anyone?? :pac:

Fromthetrees

The point is that the cases are being kept secret. The recreational drug vrs. performance enhancing drug issue is a separate argument.
If recreational drugs are against the rules and players are being banned and fined because of it than we have every right to know, especially seeing as we are being told that these players are missing games through 'injury'.

It's like the story during the Euros where during the actual live broadcast of matches they cut away to pre recorded shots of fans acting a certain way, during a 'live' game FFS.

It's bad enough the politicians bullsh1t us, let me enjoy my football without bullsh1t please.

Super-Rush

Leiva wrote: »

Ahh feck it let's go whole hog . Why ban recreational drugs at all ?

When those glarey eyed kids are looking up to their footballing heros then why not also let them know that they like a quarter of good Colombian cocaine off the tits of two Puerto Rican hookers, as a wind-down on a Satuarday night.

When little Tommys chance comes around to accept the peer pressure of a good oul blow of coke sure it won't be an issue " Sergio my hero does this in style -move aside and watch me go ! "

These over paid pricks have a responsibility. If they can't control themselves whilst collecting a massiv wage, whoring themselves out to the media, and massive payoff merchandise work then they should be banned.

After retirement if they wanna do a Gazza then go for it ... But as long as kids are putting jerseys on their backs with their names on then they have a huge responsibility to stay clean off drugs.

If the entire Liverpool first team squad admitted in the morning that they smoke weed two or three times a week, would you stop supporting them?

Kirby

Super-Rush wrote: »

If the entire Liverpool first team squad admitted in the morning that they smoke weed two or three times a week, would you stop supporting them?

Ofcourse he wouldn't. It's at his club. That makes it different.

~Rebel~

There's a distinction between the club and the players representing that club.

If players at my club directly impaired their own performances with recreational drugs I'd want them fined, dropped, punished by the club etc for not having respect for the fans, the club and their contract.

I definitely think these people should be punished - but I think it should be by their employer rather than the sports governing body. The only way it should become a governing body area is if they cover it under "bringing the game into disrepute" but I don't think recreational drugs should be covered under the anti-doping remit. It's the players contract with his employer which he is breaking.

osarusan

~Rebel~ wrote: »

I definitely think these people should be punished - but I think it should be by their employer rather than the sports governing body. The only way it should become a governing body area is if they cover it under "bringing the game into disrepute" but I don't think recreational drugs should be covered under the anti-doping remit. It's the players contract with his employer which he is breaking.

As well as the law of the land in many countries, surely?

I wonder if the British police are keeping a close eye on rumours of clubs hiding positive results of illegal drugs.

~Rebel~

osarusan wrote: »

As well as the law of the land in many countries, surely?

I wonder if the British police are keeping a close eye on rumours of clubs hiding positive results of illegal drugs.

Oh yeah, of course, I'm only speaking in sporting terms.

TheDoc

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Who do you think watches teams mostly on TV? Fans would account for a far higher % then neutrals. Fans still pay the wages, through gate receipts, merchandise and TV revenue.

Well that is the statistics on it, most of the revenue for players wages comes from TV revenue and various licensing stuff.

I take your point obviously fans watch the games on telly etc etc. But the article also outlined the reason for the high TV rights is because of the global broadcasting

blahfckingblah

the only team i'v heard of taking performance enhancement drugs is the famous inter milan team from the 60's taking amphetamines.

(celtic still bet them in the european cup final in 1967)

Seaneh

blahfckingblah wrote: »

the only team i'v heard of taking performance enhancement drugs is the famous inter milan team from the 60's taking amphetamines.

(celtic still bet them in the european cup final in 1967)

It's hardly a spoiler if it happened 35 years ago...

And what benefit would a footballer gain from using amphetamines, in all honesty? You think they were drowsy during matches or something?

LiamoSail

Surely it's an issue for the players employer, not the fa if they're taking recreational drugs. It shouldn't be against fa rules if it's not performance enhancing IMO

blahfckingblah

Seaneh wrote: »

It's hardly a spoiler if it happened 35 years ago...

And what benefit would a footballer gain from using amphetamines, in all honesty? You think they were drowsy during matches or something?

it helps to fight fatigue which is an issue in games and increases alertness.

Daemonic

Super-Rush wrote: »

If the entire Liverpool first team squad admitted in the morning that they smoke weed two or three times a week, would you stop supporting them?

Nope, but it would explain a lot of performances over the last couple of years

Helix

osarusan wrote: »

As well as the law of the land in many countries, surely?

I wonder if the British police are keeping a close eye on rumours of clubs hiding positive results of illegal drugs.

i dont actually think taking drugs is illegal, it's the purchase and possession that's against the law