Doping in football

Rayne Wooney

A professional footballer needing fat burners

Don't be naive, he's a lucky lad. Best get on with his career now

Flint Fredstone

MD1990 wrote: »

Not an opinion a story reported by Tony Barrett a very reliably LFC journalist
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/sakho-was-dropped-over-weight-zrnkvxqnh

It's your opinion that he was using fat burners to lose the weight.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Flint Fredstone wrote: »

That's your opinion.

Flint Fredstone wrote: »

It's your opinion that he was using fat burners to lose the weight.

Well - why else would he be using fat-burners..?

You don't know what he specifically took, you don't know what it does (or doesn't do), you don't know if what he took was banned (there seems to be a bit of uncertainty even to that - some sources say it is, some say it isn't, some say it is but shouldn't be) so you can't possibly even know if what he took is performing-enhancing!

And you certainly don't know why UEFA decided to drop the case (strangely, no one's pulled you up on this).

So the question is not what do you know or what is your opinion; the question is: what exactly is it that you are basing this on?

Flint Fredstone

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Well - why else would he be using fat-burners..?

You don't know what he specifically took, you don't know what it does (or doesn't do), you don't know if what he took was banned (there seems to be a bit of uncertainty even to that - some sources say it is, some say it isn't, some say it is but shouldn't be) so you can't possibly even know if what he took is performing-enhancing!

And you certainly don't know why UEFA decided to drop the case (strangely, no one's pulled you up on this).

So the question is not what do you know or what is your opinion; the question is: what exactly is it that you are basing this on?

I'm basing it on a professional athlete who isn't even close to being fat using fat burners, a well known method of masking.
He might not be but whereas you might give him the benefit of the doubt, I won't.
No big deal. I'm not asking anyone to side with me, it's just what I think.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Flint Fredstone wrote: »

I'm basing it on a professional athlete who isn't even close to being fat using fat burners, a well known method of masking.
He might not be but whereas you might give him the benefit of the doubt, I won't.
No big deal. I'm not asking anyone to side with me, it's just what I think.

It's been factually displayed that he was by Liverpool standards overweight, but you chose to ignore that.

I've no problem with opinion, but when someone displays a clear agenda ("Liverpool lost - it's all good") and then basically accepts that their opinion is based on nothing more than vague assumption and ignorance (you don't know what he took, or if what he took was a masking agent: not all fat burners are) it appears that even the owner doesn't believe it holds much water.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

It's been factually displayed that he was by Liverpool standards overweight, but you chose to ignore that.

I've no problem with opinion, but when someone displays a clear agenda ("Liverpool lost - it's all good") and then basically accepts that their opinion is based on nothing more than vague assumption and ignorance (you don't know what he took, or if what he took was a masking agent: not all fat burners are) it appears that even the owner doesn't believe it holds much water.

Too much logic there for this argument

Flint Fredstone

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

It's been factually displayed that he was by Liverpool standards overweight, but you chose to ignore that.

I've no problem with opinion, but when someone displays a clear agenda ("Liverpool lost - it's all good") and then basically accepts that their opinion is based on nothing more than vague assumption and ignorance (you don't know what he took, or if what he took was a masking agent: not all fat burners are) it appears that even the owner doesn't believe it holds much water.

My opinion is biased, I won't deny that but any professional athlete using fat burners would sound alarm bells for me. That's all I have to say really.

The_Kew_Tour

The fact he used Fat Burners he deserved a ban, they don't even work unless it's illegal ones banned in Athletics.

He and Liverpool will no doubt sue arse of Uefa now

The_Kew_Tour

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

The fact he used Fat Burners he deserved a ban, they don't even work unless it's illegal ones banned in Athletics.

He and Liverpool will no doubt sue arse of Uefa now

Are all fat burners illegal in football?

The_Kew_Tour

RoboKlopp wrote: »

Are all fat burners illegal in football?

Well seems like Sakho got off

Answer is No.

Some would do nothing anyway, he probably took one of those

The_Kew_Tour

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Well seems like Sakho got off

Answer is No.

Some would do nothing anyway, he probably took one of those

Why would he deserve a ban then for something that isn't bannable?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Flint Fredstone wrote: »

My opinion is biased, I won't deny that but any professional athlete using fat burners would sound alarm bells for me. That's all I have to say really.

Your opinion is based on bias - there's a difference. This is why I said I'd hate to see you sitting on a jury.

RoboKlopp wrote: »

Are all fat burners illegal in football?

No. Fat burners don't cause positive tests, it's some of the ingredients that flag. So again, without knowing what he took, it's impossible to say whether he was lucky or innocent. More likely the later, consider that whatever he took doesn't appear to be actually banned or contain anything banned, that UEFA wouldn't have handled the case so casually, Sakho would have at least gotten a very public warning and the issue with the substance would be publicised in or order to prevent other athletes repeating the incident.

The_Kew_Tour

RoboKlopp wrote: »

Why would he deserve a ban then for something that isn't bannable?

If you're referring to my previous post, then I was being just bit sarcastic.

We should know truth 100% if player or club sue UEFA, otherwise it's just guessing

SantryRed

And there goes another thread ruined by the United-Liverpool crap in this forum....

smileyj1987

SantryRed wrote: »

And there goes another thread ruined by the United-Liverpool crap in this forum....

It did make 56 pages before it happened !

Im actually curious to see what happens now does sakho and LFC sue uefa or do they leave it and walk away. This could get very interesting now

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

SantryRed wrote: »

And there goes another thread ruined by the United-Liverpool crap in this forum....

In all fairness it was perfectly fine until Fred showed up spouting bull**** and then openly admitting his viewpoint was biased.

Flint Fredstone

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

In all fairness it was perfectly fine until Fred showed up spouting bull**** and then openly admitting his viewpoint was biased.

It was perfectly fine until Kerrigooney showed up fabricating nonsense about there being plenty of disappointed people in the thread...

This has nothing got to do with the usual United/Liverpool bitchfest. I've got an opinion on a situation involving a Liverpool player. If I supported Chelsea or Arsenal I'm sure I'd have got the same kind of responses.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Flint Fredstone wrote: »

It was perfectly fine until Kerrigooney showed up fabricating nonsense about there being plenty of disappointed people in the thread...

Fair point, but you did get a few digs in first, saying it was a "technicality".

This has nothing got to do with the usual United/Liverpool bitchfest. I've got an opinion on a situation involving a Liverpool player. If I supported Chelsea or Arsenal I'm sure I'd have got the same kind of responses.

... but, considering you said your opinion was biased, how sure are you that would you have had the same opinion in the first place? If you are sure, then why the bias? Why not do some research before forming an opinion?

Flint Fredstone

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Fair point, but you did get a few digs in first, saying it was a "technicality".



... but, considering you said your opinion was biased, how sure are you that would you have had the same opinion in the first place? If you are sure, then why the bias? Why not do some research before forming an opinion?

That wasn't a dig. I clearly said IF he got off on a technicality he wouldn't be suing.
From what I've read, his lawyer is an expert in these cases, the prosecuting side weren't even turning up.
It's not beyond the realms of possibility that he got off on a technicality. That's what the murmurings were some time back when it first emerged that he might be getting off.

My opinion on anything Liverpool is going to be biased, I'm straight up about that, unlike a lot of people. You can obviously take that into consideration but I still have my right to get involved in discussion.

dfx-

A selection of bickering and sniping posts from last night have been deleted and thread cleaned up to keep as many discussion posts on the Sakho case as possible.

Civility is a minimum expectation. If the posters involved continue it from now on, they will be carded/banned.

monkey9

Good to see Sahko being proved innocent. Very dignified throughout as well.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Flint Fredstone wrote: »

That wasn't a dig. I clearly said IF he got off on a technicality he wouldn't be suing.
From what I've read, his lawyer is an expert in these cases, the prosecuting side weren't even turning up.
It's not beyond the realms of possibility that he got off on a technicality. That's what the murmurings were some time back when it first emerged that he might be getting off.

You did, but you admitted bias and also said the following earlier.

(Also, the prosecuting side in this case would have been WADA and they DID have represntatives at the meeting).

You keep hiding behind this "technicality" excuse - but, for reasons I've outlined in previous posts, it's very unlikely. Indeed, there's absolutely no evidence to suggest it - it appears to be purely in your imagination. Could you even give an informed example of a plausible technicality specific to the case?

Flint Fredstone wrote: »

One would be naive to think that he was taking fat burners for any other reason than to cover up whatever else he was taking.

My opinion on anything Liverpool is going to be biased, I'm straight up about that, unlike a lot of people. You can obviously take that into consideration but I still have my right to get involved in discussion.

... which is why you should be even more aware of doing research. Being biased against your rivals isn't really an acceptable excuse or explanation when trying to convince people your opinioin is worthwhile If anything, it does exactly the opposite. Nor is it a default status for football fans.

Flint Fredstone

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

You did, but you admitted bias and also said the following earlier.

(Also, the prosecuting side in this case would have been WADA and they DID have represntatives at the meeting).

You keep hiding behind this "technicality" excuse - but, for reasons I've outlined in previous posts, it's very unlikely. Indeed, there's absolutely no evidence to suggest it - it appears to be purely in your imagination. Could you even give an informed example of a plausible technicality specific to the case?





... which is why you should be even more aware of doing research. Being biased against your rivals isn't really an acceptable excuse or explanation when trying to convince people your opinioin is worthwhile If anything, it does exactly the opposite. Nor is it a default status for football fans.

Meh. I believe the vast majority of people I've interacted with on this thread are biased towards Liverpool, they just won't come out and say it.

You're getting too hung up on me mentioning bias. If this was a Spurs/Everton/City player I would have the same opinion but wouldn't have to explain or defend it over the course of 2 days and I wouldn't have the will to, that's where the bias comes in.

I'm done now. We just keep bringing up the same points at this stage.

Nesta99

My tuppence worth - it is an odd case. Serious allegations considered or made about a player doping! If not said explicitly it was implied and in some way made more credible by the way Liverpool benched Sahko. They may have erred on the side of caution but if the case was flimsy as has subsequently been suggested I doubt Liverpool would have weakened their side possibly giving up the bounty of CL football unless they were genuinely concerned. The fact that Sahko has subsequently been cleared of ANY wrongdoing has opened WADA/UEFA to potential litigation, very strange to do so especially for WADA where credibility is the keystone to everything they do. So it will be interesting to see how it pans out - Player or Club sue well then it is a major error like cross contamination of multiple athletes' samples. If it all goes away quietly it looks like might just suit player/club and WADA/UEFA then an error by anti-doping agencies in terms of messed up paperwork, incorrectly labeled sample eg date, spelling of name - Sakho instead of Sahko is sufficient to derail a case (does and has happened even in hospital labs leaving patients undiagnosed or with a belated diagnosis etc. the samples have to be binned and redone ...mostly just inconveniencing people in this scenario eh... 99.9% of the time...).

I still would have to question the reasons for why anything considered a 'fat-burning substance*' was needed by a player in season, playing and had no apparent weight issues, he was no Agbonlahor like!! If he was overweight and spotted by the club pack him off to the club nutritionists and conditioning people. At that level with close attention it doesnt take long to drop body fat percentage and 'fat-burners' would do little to quicken the process. If he was 6-10 kilos over his preseason target weight and 26% body fat well then maybe but that causes questions about the clubs attention to detail, and player conditioning is a pretty big deal! Rooney v Ronaldo...one has picked up the European Championship and one couldnt hit a pass a ball a few meters at times, both talented ball players in different ways but it is obvious the lifestyle choices these 2 players have made so we dont even have to see private club notes for public or press asking questions. I dont recall Sahko been bundled in to a fattiatric footballer column??

*Hate the term!! Call a spade a spade performance enhancement allowing greater exercise load that subsequently allows greater loss of weight, or more accurately body fat % as increased muscle mass increases weight. Obviously this involves training and effort so not such a quick fix that the term 'fat-burner' implies. There is some anecdotal evidence that certain aminos if taken can increase metabolism and 'burn fat' but is it the amino or the increase in muscle tissue that creates a more..erm efficient, higher metabolism that allows intake of proper calories without piling on the pounds. I said earlier in this thread if there were such a thing as a 'fat-burning' substance that is proven to work, without question, while sedentary then why are we facing obesity epidemics and the nasties that come with it like diabetes. Think of the savings in treating obesity and related disease if we could whack people on a 'fat-burner' and their 'weight' dropped nicely while we all sit on our collective asses?!? The term 'fat-burner', hence, imo is a graying of the lines, a fudge, terminology that says hey this is all ok no PEDs to see here.....

Flint Fredstone

Nesta99 wrote: »

My tuppence worth - it is an odd case. Serious allegations considered or made about a player doping! If not said explicitly it was implied and in some way made more credible by the way Liverpool benched Sahko. They may have erred on the side of caution but if the case was flimsy as has subsequently been suggested I doubt Liverpool would have weakened their side possibly giving up the bounty of CL football unless they were genuinely concerned. The fact that Sahko has subsequently been cleared of ANY wrongdoing has opened WADA/UEFA to potential litigation, very strange to do so especially for WADA where credibility is the keystone to everything they do. So it will be interesting to see how it pans out - Player or Club sue well then it is a major error like cross contamination of multiple athletes' samples. If it all goes away quietly it looks like might just suit player/club and WADA/UEFA then an error by anti-doping agencies in terms of messed up paperwork, incorrectly labeled sample eg date, spelling of name - Sakho instead of Sahko is sufficient to derail a case (does and has happened even in hospital labs leaving patients undiagnosed or with a belated diagnosis etc. the samples have to be binned and redone ...mostly just inconveniencing people in this scenario eh... 99.9% of the time...).

I still would have to question the reasons for why anything considered a 'fat-burning substance*' was needed by a player in season, playing and had no apparent weight issues, he was no Agbonlahor like!! If he was overweight and spotted by the club pack him off to the club nutritionists and conditioning people. At that level with close attention it doesnt take long to drop body fat percentage and 'fat-burners' would do little to quicken the process. If he was 6-10 kilos over his preseason target weight and 26% body fat well then maybe but that causes questions about the clubs attention to detail, and player conditioning is a pretty big deal! Rooney v Ronaldo...one has picked up the European Championship and one couldnt hit a pass a ball a few meters at times, both talented ball players in different ways but it is obvious the lifestyle choices these 2 players have made so we dont even have to see private club notes for public or press asking questions. I dont recall Sahko been bundled in to a fattiatric footballer column??

*Hate the term!! Call a spade a spade performance enhancement allowing greater exercise load that subsequently allows greater loss of weight, or more accurately body fat % as increased muscle mass increases weight. Obviously this involves training and effort so not such a quick fix that the term 'fat-burner' implies. There is some anecdotal evidence that certain aminos if taken can increase metabolism and 'burn fat' but is it the amino or the increase in muscle tissue that creates a more..erm efficient, higher metabolism that allows intake of proper calories without piling on the pounds. I said earlier in this thread if there were such a thing as a 'fat-burning' substance that is proven to work, without question, while sedentary then why are we facing obesity epidemics and the nasties that come with it like diabetes. Think of the savings in treating obesity and related disease if we could whack people on a 'fat-burner' and their 'weight' dropped nicely while we all sit on our collective asses?!? The term 'fat-burner', hence, imo is a graying of the lines, a fudge, terminology that says hey this is all ok no PEDs to see here.....

Pretty much all the same points I made wrapped up in a much more eloquent presentation.
Interesting the lack of attention your post has gotten though.

smileyj1987

Flint Fredstone wrote: »

Nesta99 wrote: »

My tuppence worth - it is an odd case. Serious allegations considered or made about a player doping! If not said explicitly it was implied and in some way made more credible by the way Liverpool benched Sahko. They may have erred on the side of caution but if the case was flimsy as has subsequently been suggested I doubt Liverpool would have weakened their side possibly giving up the bounty of CL football unless they were genuinely concerned. The fact that Sahko has subsequently been cleared of ANY wrongdoing has opened WADA/UEFA to potential litigation, very strange to do so especially for WADA where credibility is the keystone to everything they do. So it will be interesting to see how it pans out - Player or Club sue well then it is a major error like cross contamination of multiple athletes' samples. If it all goes away quietly it looks like might just suit player/club and WADA/UEFA then an error by anti-doping agencies in terms of messed up paperwork, incorrectly labeled sample eg date, spelling of name - Sakho instead of Sahko is sufficient to derail a case (does and has happened even in hospital labs leaving patients undiagnosed or with a belated diagnosis etc. the samples have to be binned and redone ...mostly just inconveniencing people in this scenario eh... 99.9% of the time...).

I still would have to question the reasons for why anything considered a 'fat-burning substance*' was needed by a player in season, playing and had no apparent weight issues, he was no Agbonlahor like!! If he was overweight and spotted by the club pack him off to the club nutritionists and conditioning people. At that level with close attention it doesnt take long to drop body fat percentage and 'fat-burners' would do little to quicken the process. If he was 6-10 kilos over his preseason target weight and 26% body fat well then maybe but that causes questions about the clubs attention to detail, and player conditioning is a pretty big deal! Rooney v Ronaldo...one has picked up the European Championship and one couldnt hit a pass a ball a few meters at times, both talented ball players in different ways but it is obvious the lifestyle choices these 2 players have made so we dont even have to see private club notes for public or press asking questions. I dont recall Sahko been bundled in to a fattiatric footballer column??

*Hate the term!! Call a spade a spade performance enhancement allowing greater exercise load that subsequently allows greater loss of weight, or more accurately body fat % as increased muscle mass increases weight. Obviously this involves training and effort so not such a quick fix that the term 'fat-burner' implies. There is some anecdotal evidence that certain aminos if taken can increase metabolism and 'burn fat' but is it the amino or the increase in muscle tissue that creates a more..erm efficient, higher metabolism that allows intake of proper calories without piling on the pounds. I said earlier in this thread if there were such a thing as a 'fat-burning' substance that is proven to work, without question, while sedentary then why are we facing obesity epidemics and the nasties that come with it like diabetes. Think of the savings in treating obesity and related disease if we could whack people on a 'fat-burner' and their 'weight' dropped nicely while we all sit on our collective asses?!? The term 'fat-burner', hence, imo is a graying of the lines, a fudge, terminology that says hey this is all ok no PEDs to see here.....

Pretty much all the same points I made wrapped up in a much more eloquent presentation.
Interesting the lack of attention your post has gotten though.

Not all your posts have had the same as what this poster has said , you accused sakho of using fat burners to hide other performance enhancing drugs so I can see why no one took your posts at all serious.

Flint Fredstone

smileyj1987 wrote: »

Not all your posts have had the same as what this poster has said , you accused sakho of using fat burners to hide other performance enhancing drugs so I can see why no one took your posts at all serious.

Did you read the second paragraph of Nesta's post?

Wasn't Sakho dropped for weight issues?

If that's true and I can almost certainly recall it then he had a reason right?

Everyone is guessing, let's face it

SantryRed

Can fat burners be used as a masking agent? If so, it's disgraceful that it is not on the banned list. No surprise from FIFA though. Head firmly in the sand.

SantryRed

SantryRed wrote: »

Can fat burners be used as a masking agent? If so, it's disgraceful that it is not on the banned list. No surprise from FIFA though. Head firmly in the sand.

Yeah, apparently they can

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

SantryRed wrote: »

Can fat burners be used as a masking agent? If so, it's disgraceful that it is not on the banned list. No surprise from FIFA though. Head firmly in the sand.

Depends on the fat burner. In this case, Higenamine which - as far as I can establish - does not mask. It can have anabolic effects if ingested, but not if inhaled, which is why Sakho's test was flagged. However, it's most certainly NOT on the list of banned substances.

http://list.wada-ama.org/by-substance/#H-group

Shoudl it be? Maybe. But if an athlete checks the validity of a substance and is assured of it's legality, it's hardly fair to turn around and ban him when you game him false information in the first place.

StringerBell

Very good post Nesta

Nesta99

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Depends on the fat burner. In this case, Higenamine which - as far as I can establish - does not mask. It can have anabolic effects if ingested, but not if inhaled, which is why Sakho's test was flagged. However, it's most certainly NOT on the list of banned substances.

http://list.wada-ama.org/by-substance/#H-group

Shoudl it be? Maybe. But if an athlete checks the validity of a substance and is assured of it's legality, it's hardly fair to turn around and ban him when you game him false information in the first place.

Fair point! The one thing athletes should do at all times is to only use a clubs medical officer for every substance, medication etc. Then at least if there are any samples flagged then a players credibility or reputation cannot be questioned. Of course any sporting entity eg Cycling team could have a CMO there to get round the WADA banned substances somehow. I myself years back had to get dispensation certificate as I was put on EPO for therapeutic purposes to treat a blood condition. In therapeutic doses there was little performance enhancement but i'd have tested positive for a banned substance. A lot of paperwork had to be sent to the sports NGO.

Just did a quick look about there and this caught the eye ' The regulatory boundaries for higenamine are unclear as modern formulations have not been clinically evaluated' so surprise surprise a substance labeled as a 'fat-burner' has not been clinically tested for this purpose. Its is a beta-2 agonist that isn't on the banned list but other substances with beta-2 agonists are banned. So I think I have found my answer - beta-2 agonist substance showed up in a sample, flags went up. It then turned out that the particular drug taken containing the banned marker wasn't actually on the banned list itself. So an omission by WADA that will no doubt be dealt with by being officially added as a banned substance. So clever and good awareness by whomever gave or recommended higenamine without risk of punishment. It took time to prove it was ingested via a legal supplement/drug probably, so hence the temporary ban until the necessary paperwork was submitted and assessed. higenamine is a vasodilator - one of its uses is to help deal with Erectile Dysfunction, In all seriousness this would be a more plausible reason for being on this stuff than 'fat-burning' Understandably Sahko may not have wanted this rolled out to the press as the reason so 'fat-burning' substance (which has never been tested clinically to do so) was said instead. Case closed, lessons learnt all round then.

Nesta99

SantryRed wrote: »

Can fat burners be used as a masking agent? If so, it's disgraceful that it is not on the banned list. No surprise from FIFA though. Head firmly in the sand.

It's be more to do with WADA and as I mentioned they cannot afford to lose credibility by sloppy practice. That's my main interest in this case really as this could be a possibility and not good at all if there subsequently turns out to be issues with paperwork etc.

Nesta99

RoboKlopp wrote: »

Wasn't Sakho dropped for weight issues?

If that's true and I can almost certainly recall it then he had a reason right?

Everyone is guessing, let's face it

I'd love to know this for sure as I don't recall myself and would at least help tie up a few bits of the case. But again as I mentioned previously at the sort of level of 'weight issues' that would be involved the substances mentioned would have very limited benefit if any at all. Unlike sprinters who may be trying to eek out an extra few tenths of seconds I see little purpose for a football again and certainly at the relatively low levels of the substance in this case. Again hence the amount of questions all round.

Nesta99

Nesta99 wrote: »

I'd love to know this for sure as I don't recall myself and would at least help tie up a few bits of the case. But again as I mentioned previously at the sort of level of 'weight issues' that would be involved the substances mentioned would have very limited benefit if any at all. Unlike sprinters who may be trying to eek out an extra few tenths of seconds I see little purpose for a football again and certainly at the relatively low levels of the substance in this case. Again hence the amount of questions all round.

Reported in a few places

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/sakho-was-dropped-over-weight-zrnkvxqnh


Rodgers at the time was questioning his" peak fitness "

Lovely Bloke

So to move on from that story, the WADA report into Russian doping has said that

the vast majority of sports

are affected.

This cannot exclude football, imo.

NIMAN

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

So to move on from that story, the WADA report into Russian doping has said that



are affected.

This cannot exclude football, imo.

If the Russian footballers were on performance enhancing drugs in the Euros, they should ask for their money back.

764dak

Sakho's suspension likely cost Liverpool the Europa League and France the Euro title.

Lovely Bloke

764dak wrote: »

Sakho's suspension likely cost Liverpool the Europa League and France the Euro title.

lol

Flint Fredstone

764dak wrote: »

Sakho's suspension likely cost Liverpool the Europa League and France the Euro title.

Ah go way out of that.

764dak

"La Liga lack of drug tests worries anti-doping agency Wada"
http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/38928615

lassykk

I see Cheryshev's father of all people may have outed him!

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2018/sep/13/spanish-anti-doping-agency-investigates-russias-denis-cheryshev

RasTa

Well this article will cause a stir.

http://backpagefootball.com/why-liverpool-wont-win-the-premier-league-this-season/126313/

Bayern Munich and their Healing Hans, Juventus and their “system”, Paris Saint-Germain, Red Bull Leipzig, Barcelona, Real Madrid and on and on. Yes, they’re also as clean as Peppa Pig’s boots after a day of muddy puddle jumping. Red Bull have an East German doping criminal in charge of their sports medicine, but don’t worry, he’s also worked with US athletes who never tested positive.

With so many sickly players in the Liverpool ranks, where of 35 players 22 are asthmatic – 63% of the squad, over five times higher than the 12% UK average. With COVID-19 threatening these at risk souls, it’s already dangerous. To keep the players at the max for an entire season, on numerous fronts, substances to enhance and support performance are needed.

The players have been flat out for two seasons and their bodies cannot take more. When the joke shop of US Anti-Doping can explain how dangerous overuse of PEDs (legal) can be for the meatiest of heads, Jurgen, Pep and the wiseguys in Anfield know when to lift their foot off the pedal.

~Rebel~

RasTa wrote: »

Well this article will cause a stir.

http://backpagefootball.com/why-liverpool-wont-win-the-premier-league-this-season/126313/

Christ, it's a real struggle to read, horribly written! And says a lot and yet absolutely nothing at the same time. An article like that needs to actually go into at least some detail on what it's talking about....

It reads like a chap trying to recite something he'd half-read a few days prior to his buddy, after he's had a few pints.

RasTa

You really think there is no doping in football?

~Rebel~

RasTa wrote: »

You really think there is no doping in football?

Oh no I’m not saying that at all, I’d be surprised if there isn’t, just saying that specific article isn’t good.

Fromvert

Just assume all of your favourite athletes are juiced to the gills with whatever is needed to get them playing every week. Most sports administrators don't care and their testing shows it. Football still just go with a urine test, only idiots fail a urine test, the ones that do likely go outside of what the club doctors are 'prescribing'.

How many stories from older players are there of players lining up for an injection before a game? It'll likely be a lot more sophisticated now. Nobody asks what they are and nobody cares. 

Guy above is likely taking a very good guess. How many teams can put in one season of relentlessness that Liverpool did in the last two? Saying a third can't be done is not a big jump. As a Liverpool fan I'd assume a noticeable drop of this season and would be more shocked if they did put in another 96/97 point season than I would if we finished on 80.

I'm all for doping by the way. We expect them to put in 50/60 high level performances a season with more and more games getting added every season so give them what is required to do that or reduce the games.

RasTa

~Rebel~ wrote: »

Oh no I’m not saying that at all, I’d be surprised if there isn’t, just saying that specific article isn’t good.

It's hard to give examples with no proof. Didn't know Mo Farah's drug man was working with the English FA until he got caught.

Now working with Wolves who had a decent season....

eh i dunno

RasTa wrote: »

It's hard to give examples with no proof. Didn't know Mo Farah's drug man was working with the English FA until he got caught.

Now working with Wolves who had a decent season....

Wolves who played a huge amount of games with a small squad? Interesting