Doping in football

adox

It's astonishing that there have been so few high profile charges against players and clubs for use of PEDs. You would have to think(well I would at least) that they are being used and that there is common knowledge of their use in the game and a culture of it being unspoken.

The football fan in me would love to think the game is clean and the likes of Toure are the exception rather than the rule but rationally thinking, as distasteful as I find the idea I do think they are most likely common place in the upper ends of the game.

Andersonisgod

M!Ck^ wrote: »

Origis progression more likely has been simply due to Klopp showing faith in picking him in the side unlike Rodgers

I can give credit where it's due but I'm sure you were being smart

Lovren has been consistantly **** since he signed so that's why I responded to the poster who brought him up stating his boast in form is also questionable

I absolutely was.

Rayne Wooney

Dortmund is one of those cases where you wouldn't be too surprised to find out if it was happening, like Barca. Just in the way they seemed tireless when they played, it was really stand out too you'd imagine there wouldn't be that much variation in the fitness of top footballers. No proof at all though. But when will there ever be proof in football, in 20 years time when the money is made and players have retired? There may as well be no testing at all, doping is ahead of the testing by far.

Klopp seems like a nice guy though, but then didn't Lance Armstong come across that way too before the pact of silence broke. If it ever comes out it will be a bitter pill to swallow, finding out these football enthusiasts were serial cheaters

K-9

M!Ck^ wrote: »

His sudden burst in form was questionable to begin with.

Dortmund fans must feel pissed, if he managed to have an impact in the final minute of the Europa league tie because of performance enhancers

Anyway won't mean snot unless it happens to be two or more players

How often are players tested by the clubs? Is it at the clubs discretion or Uefa rule?

I assume they test 3 or 4 players at matches so they can try and catch teams at it.

NIMAN

I do think it will all come out some day, alhtough it will be a long time in the future.

Bit like how we heard matches in the earlier WCs were rigged.

Of course as you say, it will be too late and probably won't affect the legacy certain players or clubs leave behind. Unless of course they write their achivements out of the history books a la Juve in Serie A.

Rayne Wooney

I think I read somewhere that if you know 10 hours in advance that you will be tested it's easy to pass it

wasn't the reason the premier league didn't fully conform to WADA rules because they wanted every player to give exact whereabouts twice a week or something along those lines?

K-9

~Rebel~ wrote: »

His improvements of late haven't been physical though, it's all been his decision making. He's always been a physical beast. And he's had similar bouts of form for us over the past few years.

I wouldn't attribute much of his recent form to doping to be honest. Given his consistent physical dominance, I wouldn't be surprised if he's been taking whatever it is for quite a while. (If he is indeed taking a PED).

The common denominator is no Skrtel and both Sakho and Lovren have had no injuries so have built up a partnership.

He could have took this stuff when he was playing badly for all we know.

astrofool

They should take blood samples after every top game, and test a random sample of them, if any from a club get found, they test everyone from that match.

Any matches that a doping player played in since testing positive should be forfeit, putting the pain of failing on the clubs would stamp it out very quickly.

MD1990

Rayne Wooney wrote: »

Dortmund is one of those cases where you wouldn't be too surprised to find out if it was happening, like Barca. Just in the way they seemed tireless when they played, it was really stand out too you'd imagine there wouldn't be that much variation in the fitness of top footballers. No proof at all though. But when will there ever be proof in football, in 20 years time when the money is made and players have retired? There may as well be no testing at all, doping is ahead of the testing by far.

Klopp seems like a nice guy though, but then didn't Lance Armstong come across that way too before the pact of silence broke. If it ever comes out it will be a bitter pill to swallow, finding out these football enthusiasts were serial cheaters

No he didn't. He was bullying journolists for years before coming clean.

titan18

K-9 wrote: »

I assume they test 3 or 4 players at matches so they can try and catch teams at it.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/apr/14/premier-league-satisfied-drug-tests-ukad

About a third of players not tested, and works out that they'll face at least one test a year for players. Considering the money in the sport, that's just a farcical amount of testing. It's pure luck that you'd catch someone.

Of course, considering the same people are in charge of promoting the sport and catching drug cheats, it's ridiculous that people think they're looking to catch anyone.

If Barcelona's team got popped for doping, millions would be lost in the game. Just look at cycling ten years ago, where you had sponsors pulling out all over the place. UEFA,FIFA, FAs etc don't want that to happen, so it's beneficial for them to do the bare minimum to satisfy people.

Rayne Wooney

MD1990 wrote: »

No he didn't. He was bullying journolists for years before coming clean.

Are you using the power of captain hindsight to come to that conclusion?

Korat

If there were serious independent testing and heavy sanctions against clubs then the clubs themselves would monitor their own players to make sure they weren't doping. When you think about how closely modern player performances are monitored it's hard to believe that coaches aren't suspicious of some of their own players if their levels improve or drop unexpectedly. It's not in their interest to ask too many qusetions though.

MD1990

Rayne Wooney wrote: »

Are you using the power of captain hindsight to come to that conclusion?

No he sued them years ago. Then had to apologise years later. Before being caught he never came across as a nice guy despite his charity work.

Andre 3000

This is going to be controversial but f*ck it.

Is anyone else somewhat sceptical of Leicester? I mean people seem to be focusing on proven teams with some of the best talent in the history of sport but what about a team who're gonna pull off one of the biggest achievements in the sport? I mean the frequent stories about Vardy and Mahrez going from zero to hero is alarming I think. Let's be honest who actually rated some of that team as top players? Again in a sport like football things like blood boosters, fat burners and testosterone can only take you so far in comparison to a sport like Cycling where you can go from a turtle to shattering every record in the book given the right stack and reacting well to it, but it makes me wonder. I think it's naive to think the sport is completely clean as a relatively modest sport in terms of money like Cycling is rife with it and many seem to get through their careers avoiding getting caught (numerous high profile guys have admitted to doping rather proudly after they retired). What's stopping a sport infinitely richer having more advanced scientists and powerful people to prevent it's cash cows from getting caught...again this would hint to top teams but what's stopping the little guys getting involved too?

Anyone suspicious of Utds dominance of the 90s? Something fishy about that...

Liverpool in the 80s, and Forest 2 back to back European trophies. All stinks

Spurs this year too..

The_Kew_Tour

RoboKlopp wrote: »

Anyone suspicious of Utds dominance of the 90s? Something fishy about that...

Liverpool in the 80s, and Forest 2 back to back European trophies. All stinks

Spurs this year too..

Man your taking things very bad in here

Are you ok?

Will we change subject?

The_Kew_Tour

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Man your taking things very bad in here

Are you ok?

Will we change subject?

I'm grand xx

Cantona's Collars

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Man your taking things very bad in here

Are you ok?

Will we change subject?

Maybe an intervention is needed.

zerks

zerks wrote: »

Maybe an intervention is needed.

Or a gif

Cantona's Collars

RoboKlopp wrote: »

Or a gif

I won't even go there,some things never change with you,even if other things do;)

Flint Fredstone

RoboKlopp wrote: »

Anyone suspicious of Utds dominance of the 90s? Something fishy about that...

Liverpool in the 80s, and Forest 2 back to back European trophies. All stinks

Spurs this year too..

Yeah because the Leicester situation is like the exact same and stuff...

Rayne Wooney

MD1990 wrote: »

No he sued them years ago. Then had to apologise years later. Before being caught he never came across as a nice guy despite his charity work.

Yeah you knew, of course you knew. You knew before he even knew

Despite all the sportsperson, sports ethics, BBC sports personality of the year awards, you knew

Flint Fredstone

Flint Fredstone wrote: »

Yeah because the Leicester situation is like the exact same and stuff...

It's the same in the sense of speculation on a message board.

K-9

If we start picking on Leicester, what about Spurs? They must run and sprint the most. And Leicester were crap until a year ago so are we saying it started then?

Leicester took a few years to get from League One, Southampton came up quicker, should we look at them?

We just don't know, the best we can probably hope for is no team is facilitating it and that the FA ups the checking systems.

Just on testing, IIRC no testing was done on the Scottish league at all this season, which shows how seriously it is taken.

Andre 3000

Rayne Wooney wrote: »

Yeah you knew, of course you knew. You knew before he even knew

Despite all the sportsperson, sports ethics, BBC sports personality of the year awards, you knew

What are you on about? Lance was always a pure narcissist...it's in his nature. Check his interviews from his early career, he was always cold to the media. Klopp on the other hand is an extremely pleasant man and a joker to the media.

Also, lol @ mentioning the BBC personality award

MD1990

Rayne Wooney wrote: »

Yeah you knew, of course you knew. You knew before he even knew

Despite all the sportsperson, sports ethics, BBC sports personality of the year awards, you knew

Andre 3000 wrote: »

What are you on about? Lance was always a pure narcissist...it's in his nature. Check his interviews from his early career, he was always cold to the media. Klopp on the other hand is an extremely pleasant man and a joker to the media.

Also, lol @ mentioning the BBC personality award

Thank you Andre

K-9

K-9 wrote: »

If we start picking on Leicester, what about Spurs? They must run and sprint the most. And Leicester were crap until a year ago so are we saying it started then?

Leicester took a few years to get from League One, Southampton came up quicker, should we look at them?

It doesn't fit the agenda though!

Insert team you dislike/who were successful and go with it!

Rayne Wooney

Andre 3000 wrote: »

What are you on about? Lance was always a pure narcissist...it's in his nature. Check his interviews from his early career, he was always cold to the media. Klopp on the other hand is an extremely pleasant man and a joker to the media.

Also, lol @ mentioning the BBC personality award

I do wonder if you thought the same before the revelations obviously tainted your view. He came across fine to me in the late 90s early 00s. The bullying scumbaggy stuff came out about the same time it all started to unravel closer to 2010-2013. At least that's how it looked to someone who would only pay attention to the world of cycling now and again.

Anyway I'm not getting into a cycling debate, the idea that Armstrong came across as he does now in the last 90s early 00s is wrong for me at least.

My point is how people portray themselves in the public could be different to how they really are.

dfx-

RoboKlopp wrote: »

It doesn't fit the agenda though!

Insert team you dislike/who were successful and go with it!

It doesn't work for Villa, a lot of stake for them, but no suspicions...

I find the "there must be doping because of the money involved" line very hard to believe. It's based on nothing at all. It's incredibly weak.

I can't believe the hundreds of thousands of employees, fans, headline-chasing media, disgruntled players, sacked ex-youth players and managers that are part and parcel of any medium-sized European club are all keeping quiet on the rife performance enhancements in football.

Rayne Wooney

When you think of the characteristics a doped up team would have Dortmund in Klopp's days, Barca under Pep, Atletico under Simeone are the type of teams that would stand out most though. Marathon runners with tireless pressing, small enough squads. Like Leicester this season, a 5000/1 shot to win the league.

ArmaniJeanss

RoboKlopp wrote: »

Anyone suspicious of Utds dominance of the 90s? Something fishy about that...

Ferguson definitely stands out as the dodgiest of the lot.
His 2 clubs hadn't won a league in the cumulative 52 years before he joined, and haven't won a league in the cumulative 34 seasons since he left.
His time in charge was notable for the amount of crucial goals his teams scored in the final 5 minutes of games, being unfathomably fresh and able at a time the opposition were naturally exhausted. It's almost a perfect fit for what you'd expect from a doping regime.

Like if you are going to build a paper thin case against people (which seems the purpose of this thread) then this fits in well.

StringerBell

Don't think anybody is building any cases are they?

Furthering the thread by posting in it is hardly the brightest thing to do if you don't want to talk about it, or see anybody else talk about it.

Anyway, with regard to case building, I don't see that, I'll check again but from the first reading it seems people are just being polite and giving reasons for why they would possibly be suspicious of certain teams which is better then just throwing names out surely?

Ultimately, I think fans and football need to decide what they want, a clean game or a very entertaining game given the amount of matches players are expected to perform in these days. If we want a clean game then yes, look at everybody, very closely. If not then keep the status quo of having a few sacrificial lambs now and then while continuing the guise of being tough on doping.

Its not like the PED's give someone more talent, and at the top level with the level of money involved it is natural for people to look for any edge they can get, legally of course, and then you will have people who try to blur the lines, and those who outright cheat. You could be taking a substance that had the benefit of aiding recovery legally for 10 years, then it hits the ban list, some will keep taking it anyway, others will change to something else, the question really is of course how could it be ok last year and not this year?

Does it taint any results gained when you were taking a substance that is now banned?

Look at Sharapova in the tennis, there is no medical reason she was taking the heart tablets she was for 10 years, plenty of reason for her to take them competitively though given the benefits of increased blood flow etc, she didn't change off it when it got added to the banned list, she got caught out. Any edge you can get competitively will be used at the highest level a lot of the time.

I don't see how football would be any different to any other sport in that regard. Teams had doping regimes in the past, why not now? The money involved trumps any moral conundrum I would wager. There is plenty of information out there for those who do want to research the topic.

I think LuckyLoyd has done some looking into it? I know I have with sports like the NFL anyway and am currently reading plenty about soccer.

MD1990

In regards to my Atletico suspicions. I posted a Marca article showing they have 6/10 players who have covered the most distance in the Champions League. Also against Barcelona they were at least 8km ahead in distance covered that's nearly an extra player.

The weekend when they threw a ball on the pitch against Malaga on the counter attack was also a perfect example of there cynical side.

K-9

dfx- wrote: »

It doesn't work for Villa, a lot of stake for them, but no suspicions...

I find the "there must be doping because of the money involved" line very hard to believe. It's based on nothing at all. It's incredibly weak.

I can't believe the hundreds of thousands of employees, fans, headline-chasing media, disgruntled players, sacked ex-youth players and managers that are part and parcel of any medium-sized European club are all keeping quiet on the rife performance enhancements in football.

It went on in cycling for decades though. If it's in everybody's interests to cover up something, or often just say nothing, it can definitely go on. Isn't there supposed to be a case in front of the Spanish courts from about 10 years were blood samples were ordered to be destroyed, it was rumoured high profile footballers were involved. AFAIK that is still ongoing, the samples weren't destroyed and they are trying to get them tested. Problem seems to be, nobody is that bothered about it!

I think there's a case of "it's too big to fail" with the top European clubs and the bigger leagues.

TitianGerm

I think if clubs tested all their players three times a year, August/December/May and had to submit the results then.

If you couple this with random testing by outside agents, say one or two players after every game/every second game you would quickly stamp it out.

Also it's very harsh to punish a club for what one player does. Yes I would agree if the club provided/recommended the tablets etc then punish the club along with the player, but if the player does this themselves then the punishment should fall on them.

Pudsy33

dfx- wrote: »

I find the "there must be doping because of the money involved" line very hard to believe. It's based on nothing at all. It's incredibly weak.

Amateur athletes, rugby players, and cyclists have been caught doping, all for nothing more than personal glory or satisfaction. Surely it naive to think that professional football, where there are huge financial incentives involved, would be immune to this?

Rayne Wooney

If there was even a hint of wrongdoing at United with the amount of bitterness and hatred they attract from half the clubs in English football you'd imagine there would be a collective effort to fling shít at the wall to see what sticks

I'd imagine United are safe enough out of the equation from a systematic doping point of view

Maximus Alexander

Rayne Wooney wrote: »

If there was even a hint of wrongdoing at United with the amount of bitterness and hatred they attract from half the clubs in English football you'd imagine there would be a collective effort to fling shít at the wall to see what sticks

I'd imagine United are safe enough out of the equation from a systematic doping point of view

If United were doing it, but so was everybody else, surely nobody would risk flinging any sh*t.

Rayne Wooney

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

If United were doing it, but so was everybody else, surely nobody would risk flinging any sh*t.

The hatred would grow even more so if you were cheating but still being out cheated by United for so many years :pac:

Haven't heard of any abnormal running stats from United though and that sort of stuff would come out, Barca with Pep and Atletico's current incarnation are real outliers apparently and Bayern and Dortmund were supposedly worse than Barca in their peak but it's hard to find a collection of all this it's bits and pieces

Pro. F

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Ferguson definitely stands out as the dodgiest of the lot.
His 2 clubs hadn't won a league in the cumulative 52 years before he joined, and haven't won a league in the cumulative 34 seasons since he left.
His time in charge was notable for the amount of crucial goals his teams scored in the final 5 minutes of games, being unfathomably fresh and able at a time the opposition were naturally exhausted. It's almost a perfect fit for what you'd expect from a doping regime.

Like if you are going to build a paper thin case against people (which seems the purpose of this thread) then this fits in well.

But Ferguson's teams showed a logical use of limited energy. In the vast majority of games they only pressed high towards the end of each half, more so the second half*. It's not like they came out playing at their highest intensity and then kept it up throughout the game. They started slower (still working hard enough, but only pressing deeper which uses less energy) and so could finish stronger. Where so many other teams pick up their energy whenever they concede a goal, Fergie's teams did it on a schedule, regardless of the score. This was often mistaken for United playing badly and then just turning it around or whatever, but there was clearly a plan behind it. According to Ferguson and a few ex-players (Gary Neville and Giggs) this was a conscious tactical approach.

*In the odd European game towards the end of Fergie's career, against superior opposition, they would do the opposite. Blitz for the first 10 minutes and then sit back.

The_Kew_Tour

Would not 100% rule out United or any club in Drug matter but never been any suspicions in background unlike in Spain or Italy.

I have major suspicions about 2 or 3 former United players in past but as a Managment Doping environment nothing has ever even remotely come out.

Does not mean noting will of course.

Nesta99

In my experience rumblings of dodgy goings are in the background if PEDs are in use for a long time before it is eventually confirmed. Cycling, Tennis, NFL, Athletics there have always been a cloud hanging over participants, some more than others. If doping was endemic in the British game I'm pretty sure journalists would have inferred suspicion over the years. That is not to say that some individuals do but as a culture in the EPL etc I just dont think so!

dfx-

K-9 wrote: »

It went on in cycling for decades though. If it's in everybody's interests to cover up something, or often just say nothing, it can definitely go on. Isn't there supposed to be a case in front of the Spanish courts from about 10 years were blood samples were ordered to be destroyed, it was rumoured high profile footballers were involved. AFAIK that is still ongoing, the samples weren't destroyed and they are trying to get them tested. Problem seems to be, nobody is that bothered about it!

I think there's a case of "it's too big to fail" with the top European clubs and the bigger leagues.

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

If United were doing it, but so was everybody else, surely nobody would risk flinging any sh*t.

There are so many people who are independent or former employees who have left the clubs who have no vested interest in keeping it secret. Across Europe. It would be a staggering feat to keep it secret en masse.

There are top quality independent journalists out there who can tell you the top 50 Macedonian left backs. The scrutiny that European football and European footballers are under from people outside of clubs is like never before, those who know every detail of the daily routines of players.

titan18

dfx- wrote: »

I find the "there must be doping because of the money involved" line very hard to believe. It's based on nothing at all. It's incredibly weak.

If someone offered you something that would turn you from a guy struggling to get a contract at PL sides to getting 40/50k a week, would you take it? Let's say this guy was your club doctor and you knew other players were on it, and it was safe. I sure as hell would, and I'd imagine the vast majority of people would.

In a sport where you've got diving, feigning injuries, shouting for yellow cards, all to get an advantage, you think no one would go that extra step to doping.

dfx- wrote: »

There are so many people who are independent or former employees who have left the clubs who have no vested interest in keeping it secret. Across Europe. It would be a staggering feat to keep it secret en masse.

Some have come out and said things about it though. They get shouted down and say doping doesn't make footballers better players. If 95% of people keep it secret, the other 5% unless they can provide evidence and proof of others doing it, they'll always be shouted down.

Most people will do what's of most benefit to them. Now, unless they're being threatened with jail time, they're not going to give out that information as it would pretty much never give them a job in football again. No media, no coaching careers.

A lot of players wouldn't be the sharpest tools in the box either. I'd reckon a lot are given stuff by club doctors and take it without questioning it. Most people trust doctors and if a doctor is saying you should take this, they will. At that point, the numbers who actually know what's going on are very small.

ERG89

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Would not 100% rule out United or any club in Drug matter but never been any suspicions in background unlike in Spain or Italy.

I wouldn't trust it to come out in England tbh too much to lose for them. During the league's succesful period in the CL the teams used to almost run opposition into the ground with pressing and harrying without getting tired. I doubt that was all diet & fitness regimes.
I'd say it's quite common in football like every other sport, it's just never going to be properly looked into or studied by any governing body for some reason.

Drumpot

Very interesting thread.

The boys on off the ball have been talking about Leicester bottom to top story. I think it's a fair question to ask. Most people in football are so glad that they have broken the monotony of the "sky 4" that they don't want to ask the reasonable question of how a club can have such a remarkable turnaround over such a quick period of time! Given hoe important the product the EPL is, it would not surprise me if he English FA does everything it can to keep doping under wraps. A good crusade against FIFA would be a good start.

It was inevitable that some fans would want to drag Sir Alex's record into this. As a united fan , given the hatred people have for him , this is not surprising. I can't say if he was or wasn't involved in it but don't believe there is much to suggest he was. He nearly lost his job with United and only hung on with one result giving him a stay of execution.

The teams upward trajectory between 1986 and 1992 was in no way that remarkable. The conveyor belt of squads that were successful was a mixture of youth , money and stability within the club. It's no coincidence that the club form collapsed when he announced his retirement in early 2000s and when he actually retired. If players were doped up, his retirement or pending retirement shouldn't of made such a huge difference to their performance. I think people need a little bit more then innuendo to be taken seriously on this kind of accusation.

K-9

dfx- wrote: »

There are so many people who are independent or former employees who have left the clubs who have no vested interest in keeping it secret. Across Europe. It would be a staggering feat to keep it secret en masse.

There are top quality independent journalists out there who can tell you the top 50 Macedonian left backs. The scrutiny that European football and European footballers are under from people outside of clubs is like never before, those who know every detail of the daily routines of players.

Unless they want to get employment somewhere else. Seriously, if you had knowingly doped you aren't going to say it, you'll want to play/coach somewhere else, a doctor would ruin his reputation. Even somebody like Edgar Davids who was caught says little about it.

I'm trying to think of the footballer who Second Captains or Off the Ball was on about, he just took whatever magic bottle was given to him.

Look at cycling, people wanted to believe Lance was real, he ruined people keeping that lie going.

SantryRed

I don't think the press even want to discuss the issue any more.

I'm not having a go at Liverpool tonight, have absolutely nothing against them, but how can't one even slightly question that performance, especially one week after a player of theirs has been suspended due to being caught with 'fat burners' in his system.

I've no doubt that many teams are at it (and I'm not even accusing Liverpool), but the fact that there is no questioning about it at all in the main stream press shows that the media doesn't really have that much of a care in uncovering the truth.

K-9

No, you are definitely not having a go.

Win or lose they should give their medals to Utd. It's morally the right thing to do