Performance Enhancing Drugs and the GAA?

robbiezero

hinault wrote: »

All codes.

All codes appear to show that players are bigger, stronger and faster than players from 10 years.

In Gaelic Games, you're crediting this improvement to better nutrition, S&C etc. And that is your prerogative.

I'm slightly more sceptical as to the basis for the change in size, strength and speed for players in Gaelic Games, and for participants across all codes of sport.

I know at "masters" levels in other codes, that participants are imbibing "supplements". There is little or not material reward for participants winning in these codes. Testing for what these people are imbibing is non-existent.

If folk are doing this in codes where there is little or no material reward, what is happening in codes where the rewards are material?

I'd prefer to think that what we see on our pitches, tracks, roads, swimming pools is the down to ability, hard work etc.

I'd say hurlers in general are probably smaller and maybe even lighter, they are probably stronger alright.

PressRun

Given how advanced coaching and S&C has become in recent years, especially at county level, I think it's probable that some players are taking things that are enhancing their performance. Whether they fully realise the things they are taking are illegal is another story, imo. I don't imagine PEDs are really advertised as such, rather it'll be sold to the athlete as something that will aid recovery, help with bulking up, or whatever it is. If they are taking PEDs, I would imagine it could be unwittingly a lot of the time, on the advice of a coach or a nutritionist or suchlike. I highly doubt it's as endemic as it is in cycling or athletics either.

bruschi

hinault wrote: »

All codes.

All codes appear to show that players are bigger, stronger and faster than players from 10 years.

In Gaelic Games, you're crediting this improvement to better nutrition, S&C etc. And that is your prerogative.

I'm slightly more sceptical as to the basis for the change in size, strength and speed for players in Gaelic Games, and for participants across all codes of sport.

I know at "masters" levels in other codes, that participants are imbibing "supplements". There is little or not material reward for participants winning in these codes. Testing for what these people are imbibing is non-existent.

If folk are doing this in codes where there is little or no material reward, what is happening in codes where the rewards are material?

I'd prefer to think that what we see on our pitches, tracks, roads, swimming pools is the down to ability, hard work etc.

So you dont want to directly address the point I made when you specifically related the AI teams of 2007? And instead you are sceptical that the changes in 10 years have to do with hard work but you think that drugs have played a part across county and club players over the past 10 years.

as I said, it would be naive to think that no player out there hasnt taken something, but you are talking about a systematic program over 32 counties including clubs in all counties too. one or 2 dopers dont make a team, you are saying it is the teams that have changed.

Testosterscone

keane2097 wrote: »

This post is factually incorrect as well as misleading - an interesting combination for someone who apparently opened an account to pontificate on the matter.

Firstly, Connolly was informed of his failed test back in March 2015.



As we all know, blood testing was introduced in 2016.



So, as for factually incorrect we have one failed test since the introduction of blood testing 17ish months ago, and three failed tests since testing was started 16 years ago. We do not have two failed tests since blood testing started 18 months ago.

As for misleading, the implication you seem to be trying for here is that we have two cases which blood testing turned up and that the urine testing we have been doing all along hasn't scratched the surface.

Obviously, Connolly's failed test was a urine test, and it seems to be a fairly well accepted fact that O'Sullivan's failed test was a urine test also.



So to summarise:

Zero failed blood tests in the GAA since inception January 2016
Three failed urine tests in the GAA since inception in 2001

Honestly, there are serious and genuine concerns to be thrashed out here but it would be better if we all took a breath before slinging mud all over the place.

EDIT:

By the way I note you also failed to respond to a request for clarification on you were talking about when you referred to the GAA 'nailing all the cheats'.

Thanks for clarification apologies happy to put my hands up and say I was wrong.

I am not out for a witch hunt here against GAA here despite coming across that way. Doping is a huge issue across all sports and as such people need to be asking the questions both of the traditionally perceived dirty sports as well as the popular one. Gone are the days of naivety being an excuse.

Likewise NGBs have a duty to be transparent in their dealings (one I feel the likes of Soccer and Tennis have been particularly guilty of in the past)

Also regarding my comments on nailing cheats it was in reference to anyone who might be breaking rules to get unfair advantage (and banned stimulants, PEDs come under that by definition as they have health implications deemed an unfair advantage by anti doping authorities) whether knowingly or unknowingly there is still an unfair advantage (like in a game of golf if you mistakenly play off wrong tee boxes you face disqualification - it's still cheating whether intentional or not)

hinault

bruschi wrote: »

So you dont want to directly address the point I made when you specifically related the AI teams of 2007? And instead you are sceptical that the changes in 10 years have to do with hard work but you think that drugs have played a part across county and club players over the past 10 years.

as I said, it would be naive to think that no player out there hasnt taken something, but you are talking about a systematic program over 32 counties including clubs in all counties too. one or 2 dopers dont make a team, you are saying it is the teams that have changed.

You're correct to say that I am saying that the strength, speed and physiques of players have all greatly changed comparing 2016 to 2006 (or comparing 2017 to 2007).

Is this change down to better training, S&C? I don't know that.
Is this change down to systematic doping? Again, I don't know that.

I hope that these changes are down to hardwork, smarter training, better S&C, etc.

bruschi

hinault wrote: »

You're correct to say that I am saying that the strength, speed and physiques of players have all greatly changed comparing 2016 to 2006 (or comparing 2017 to 2007).

Is this change down to better training, S&C? I don't know that.
Is this change down to systematic doping? Again, I don't know that.

I hope that these changes are down to hardwork, smarter training, better S&C, etc.

but you are sceptical. I'm not sure how you think a systematic doping system in this country would be able to work and get by. There is a huge difference between one or 2 players here and there doping and every team and player in the country. Nevermind how it would be financed.

I genuinely do not know how you could think that every team going is physically bigger or stronger because of doping. And again, do you think that club players do this too? because the comparative change in county players is the same for club players.

I would gather from your username that you are a cycling enthusiast. Do you think your experiences in that is clouding your viewpoint on other sports and the doping that may be involved in them?

Testosterscone

hinault wrote: »

Is this change down to better training, S&C? I don't know that.
Is this change down to systematic doping? Again, I don't know that.

I hope that these changes are down to hardwork, smarter training, better S&C, etc.

With change in focus on physicality and the emphasis on S and C/ smarter training not lend itself open to looking to better recovery methods so I would so that neither is independent of each other.

Very much doubt systematic doping of any sport in Ireland (the amateur approach to running most sports bar maybe boxing under Billy Walsh guidance) would have me believing that corruption more likely to elaborate plans for success. At the same time I do believe that many athletes are looking to get "smarter" about there training which can lead down rabbit holds whether out of ignorance or more sinister intent

Bonniedog

The change in things like pace, body strength, skills etc have to do with better training.

I played for more years than I care to remember and would honestly say I was fitter and better conditioned in my late 30s than I was in my early 20s.

When I started to play hurling training consisted of pucking the ball around and maybe a few laps of the pitch which had lads throwing up!

When I finished we were in the gym, running sprints, being given nutrition sheets and doing speeded up drills. And that was just club.

Nothing to do with drugs at all.

Testosterscone

Bonniedog wrote: »

The change in things like pace, body strength, skills etc have to do with better training.

I played for more years than I care to remember and would honestly say I was fitter and better conditioned in my late 30s than I was in my early 20s.

When I started to play hurling training consisted of pucking the ball around and maybe a few laps of the pitch which had lads throwing up!

When I finished we were in the gym, running sprints, being given nutrition sheets and doing speeded up drills. And that was just club.

Nothing to do with drugs at all.

You do realise that biggest benefits to drug use is recovery the change in physical traits is jut a byproduct.

With such a change to intensity and focus of training recovery would be paramount as so as such some would feel that drug use would be hugely advantageous

blue note

I'm always annoyed at how dismissive GAA people are of doping in the organisation. To be honest, I'd be shocked if there is any systematic doping. It just requires too much collusion and the risks would be too high that someone would talk.

However, the chances of individuals doping is far higher. Starting with people unintentionally doping such as the recent Kerry player (I'll give him the benefit of the doubt), this must happen quite regularly. Someone taking a nurofen plus, a berocca boost or a lemsip max strength. If someone is taking supplements they should be researching them, but by all accounts it's a minefield taking anything at all. I'm sure there are players accidentally breaking the rules.

But people intentionally doping - of course this is happening. It's acknowledged as a problem of school kids taking supplements to bulk up and increase performance, a lot of the weight lifters, body builders, even normal gym goers will use substances to boost their performance. If it's happening at this level, we'd be incredibly naive to think it's not happening at various levels throughout the GAA.

There were 97 tests in 2016. If that's only senior intercounty tested that's about 1.5 tests per team in a year. The chances of getting tested are low. And on top of that you mightn't be doping all the time, so the chances of getting tested while you are are lower again. And the incentives to dope are certainly there - keeping your place on a team or panel, to speed up getting back to fitness after an injury, or just to allow you to train as much as is required of you. GAA is an obsession for many of these people, and to think that practically no-one would resort to getting help from banned substances just sounds delusional to me.

Now as regards how often it actually happens - who knows? But no-one has made a convincing case to me to say that it doesn't or that it couldn't be a problem. It very much seems to be a bury your head in the sand reaction in the GAA which worries me.

hinault

bruschi wrote: »

but you are sceptical. I'm not sure how you think a systematic doping system in this country would be able to work and get by. There is a huge difference between one or 2 players here and there doping and every team and player in the country. Nevermind how it would be financed.

I genuinely do not know how you could think that every team going is physically bigger or stronger because of doping. And again, do you think that club players do this too? because the comparative change in county players is the same for club players.

I would gather from your username that you are a cycling enthusiast. Do you think your experiences in that is clouding your viewpoint on other sports and the doping that may be involved in them?

I'm highly sceptical about the improvements across all sports.

And you're right that I followed professional cycling very very closely for many years. It was very noticeable in cycling that men who were phenomenal athletes finished stages in major tours looking knackered, suddenly their successors racing the exact same routes were finishing barely breaking a sweat. That is when I started to doubt.

I remember in 1993 a great cyclist named Robert Millar saying that he could not understand how on very steep Alpine ascents he was being "out climbed" by riders who appeared to be barely breathing. The climb that they were ascending had not changed. So what else had changed in the meantime?

The explanations for the improvement at the time included "the bikes have greatly improved" "cyclists are training smarter than before" "more money in the sport means that cyclists are better looked after and can prepare better".

Sure these explanations were true, but it is also true to say that better doping was going on too. And the governing body of the sport was complicit in that doping (and arguably still is).

I don't mean to be down on GAA games/players, or any other participants in other codes.

What happens in one sport doesn't explain or justify what is happening in another sport for sure.

But yes, I am highly sceptical.

highbury1913

Testosterscone wrote: »

Why can't they be tested? You do realise this is common practice in other sports who receive less government funding ( GPA grants, grass roots funding and sports capital grants)

I am not for one minute accusing GAA of systematic doping nore am I saying that it is at rampant levels of the likes of the MLB it's more the point of being on a level playing field with other sports so that we can be confident that majority of players on the pitch have passed highest levels of roping control in this country and those taking substances have a genuine fear of being caught as a result (as should all athletes competition get across all sports in the country)

Other sports isn't the point.

The testing period is 6-11 and a significant amount of that would be work related. If we're talking about a whereabouts system, players have to give up an hour of their day outside of work hours for available testing. That is too much. Players have enough on their plate then to fill up whereabouts forms to give up another hour of their lives for this.

Those demands require the sport go down the pay route and have players solely focused on their sport without daily work.

bruschi

hinault wrote: »

I'm highly sceptical about the improvements across all sports.

And you're right that I followed professional cycling very very closely for many years. It was very noticeable in cycling that men who were phenomenal athletes finished stages in major tours looking knackered, suddenly their successors racing the exact same routes were finishing barely breaking a sweat. That is when I started to doubt.

I remember in 1993 a great cyclist named Robert Millar saying that he could not understand how on very steep Alpine ascents he was being "out climbed" by riders who appeared to be barely breathing. The climb that they were ascending had not changed. So what else had changed in the meantime?

The explanations for the improvement at the time included "the bikes have greatly improved" "cyclists are training smarter than before" "more money in the sport means that cyclists are better looked after and can prepare better".

Sure these explanations were true, but it is also true to say that better doping was going on too. And the governing body of the sport was complicit in that doping (and arguably still is).

I don't mean to be down on GAA games/players, or any other participants in other codes.

What happens in one sport doesn't explain or justify what is happening in another sport for sure.

But yes, I am highly sceptical.

But what you are talking about in cycling and the way GAA is set up are chalk and cheese. you had cyclists earning thousands, teams earning millions. cyclists who had blood taken out and re administered. It was serious business and highly advanced. The set up of the GAA in terms of players playing for clubs and then at county level just couldnt handle a systematic controlled set up in any shape, no matter how small it would be.

Players may go off on their own and do stuff, which I'm sure has and does happen, but not to the level that you think every team for the last ten years could attribute their improvements on taking drugs.

Bonniedog

To be devil's advocate, is there then a case for allowing the use of recovery related substances?

Your average Joe thinks drugs means athletes taking stuff immediately before an event to "give them wings" as it were. In reality as Testosterone chap says it is mainly stuff that allows people to play and train and retain benefits of conditioning after a tough session.

Drug use was formerly literally people taking was were to all intents and purposes amphetamines to give them a boost before an event. The infamous one in baseball was "greenies." There are also accounts of English soccer players taking similar stuff, and the pre race cycling injections were nothing to do with recovery! It was equivalent of taking ecstasy at a rave.

Even the great Le Bron James is now in trouble with speculation that NBA will ban whatever supplement he is on, legally for the time being.

Perhaps it is time to revisit all of this?

Testosterscone

highbury1913 wrote: »

Other sports isn't the point.

The testing period is 6-11 and a significant amount of that would be work related. If we're talking about a whereabouts system, players have to give up an hour of their day outside of work hours for available testing. That is too much. Players have enough on their plate then to fill up whereabouts forms to give up another hour of their live for this.

Those demands require the sport go down the pay route and have players solely focused on their sport without daily work.

Why is it too much?

I have been with sports people when testers showed up at the door. They were receive exactly 0 money in funding.

Other sports are the point. All these sports are signed up under the same anti doping policy which there national governing bodies agreed to.

With dramatic changes to training approaches and performance improvements then it is only understandable that questions are asked and hopefully the right answers are given and not just sweep it under the carpet.

If there is a set time then chances of getting caught can be slim with chance of getting tested coupled with timing and cycling if micro doping it could be relatively doable to evade testing positive as has been proved in many historical cases (look how often lance armstrongs tests came back negative)

Testosterscone

Bonniedog wrote: »

To be devil's advocate, is there then a case for allowing the use of recovery related substances?

Your average Joe thinks drugs means athletes taking stuff immediately before an event to "give them wings" as it were. In reality as Testosterone chap says it is mainly stuff that allows people to play and train and retain benefits of conditioning after a tough session.

Drug use was formerly literally people taking was were to all intents and purposes amphetamines to give them a boost before an event. The infamous one in baseball was "greenies." There are also accounts of English soccer players taking similar stuff, and the pre race cycling injections were nothing to do with recovery! It was equivalent of taking ecstasy at a rave.

Even the great Le Bron James is now in trouble with speculation that NBA will ban whatever supplement he is on, legally for the time being.

Perhaps it is time to revisit all of this?

It can't be revisited due to health implications

Say for example you allow something like EPO or melodinium (what sharapova got banned for). Top sports people have team doctors who can monitor administration of drugs, then you have Jimmy Bloggs a 19yr old who can't afford the doctors but can get a 6 week cycle online. He googles dosages etc and ends up with major health complications

Might seem far fetched but there is plenty of links teport connection between fatality and Jack 3D to be found online (which is relevant given the recent ban)

Most of these bans are for health reasons.

highbury1913

Testosterscone wrote: »

Why is it too much?

I have been with sports people when testers showed up at the door. They were receive exactly 0 money in funding.

Other sports are the point. All these sports are signed up under the same anti doping policy which there national governing bodies agreed to.

With dramatic changes to training approaches and performance improvements then it is only understandable that questions are asked and hopefully the right answers are given and not just sweep it under the carpet.

If there is a set time then chances of getting caught can be slim with chance of getting tested coupled with timing and cycling if micro doping it could be relatively doable to evade testing positive as has been proved in many historical cases (look how often lance armstrongs tests came back negative)

Explain how someone teaching can subject themselves to testing during those working hours?

You still haven't addressed the players' rights outside of working hours by subjecting them to this level of testing.

I'm not against out of competition(at home, elsewhere) or the whereabouts system, I'm against it taking into the account their different circumstances away from training and the matches themselves.

highbury1913

This happens quite a bit every time a doping case happens.

No different I must say to other sports including cycling where we had the CIRC report. Afterwards calls for testing during 11pm-6am window when no testing was done and wake up athletes in their sleep when they're supposed to be recovering.

Players/Athletes have rights.

Testosterscone

highbury1913 wrote: »

Explain how someone teaching can subject themselves to testing during those working hours?

You still haven't addressed the players' rights outside of working hours by subjecting them to this level of testing.

I'm not against out of competition(at home, elsewhere) or the whereabouts system, I'm against it taking into the account their different circumstances away from training and the matches themselves.

Why should GAA players be exempt compared to other tested athletes?

highbury1913

Testosterscone wrote: »

Why should GAA players be exempt compared to other tested athletes?

I have explained why you can't put the same testing demands on GAA.

Testosterscone

highbury1913 wrote: »

I have explained why you can't put the same testing demands on GAA.

And I gave you an example of an athlete receiving no funding whatsoever and does not get anything in the way of expenses either so an amateur in a professional sport like majority of sports people in Ireland who are subjected to testing.

Still not seeing how this exempts them from the same standard of anti doping policy

hinault

bruschi wrote: »

But what you are talking about in cycling and the way GAA is set up are chalk and cheese. you had cyclists earning thousands, teams earning millions. cyclists who had blood taken out and re administered. It was serious business and highly advanced. The set up of the GAA in terms of players playing for clubs and then at county level just couldnt handle a systematic controlled set up in any shape, no matter how small it would be.

Players may go off on their own and do stuff, which I'm sure has and does happen, but not to the level that you think every team for the last ten years could attribute their improvements on taking drugs.

Relative to other professional sports, professional cycling was (and still is) poorly paid.

I take the point that it is chalk and cheese when it comes to trying to compare sports.

But what isn't chalk and cheese are the explanations that are used to try to explain sports improvements, unfortunately.

The performance improvements across all sports might indicate something else might be going on.

We have Usain Bolt running faster times than known dopers such as Carl Lewis and Ben Johnson and Linford Christie.

As I said I am very very sceptical. I'll leave it at that, with the final word being that I really do hope that GAA is not tainted. I mean that.

Bonniedog

Unfortunately being Irish we often use some fault in others to attack them for things that have nothing to do with the issue at hand!

There is major competition for funding and there is no doubt people from other sports resent the GAA's apparent dominance in that respect. I say apparent because in relative terms of participants GAA does not have any great advantage in terms of public funding. What it does have is massive advantage in terms of paying audience and sponsorship, but that's life.

Of course a certain chap in athletics, who I've met and admire, will no doubt be using this to again attack the "gah."

Strangely, even though he is from Kerry he had no problem with Shamrock rovers who he supports being given a free stadium where hardly anyone goes :-)

That's my whataboutery ...

bruschi

Testosterscone wrote: »

And I gave you an example of an athlete receiving no funding whatsoever and does not get anything in the way of expenses either so an amateur in a professional sport like majority of sports people in Ireland who are subjected to testing.

Still not seeing how this exempts them from the same standard of anti doping policy

I think the players should have out of competition testing, however, the big caveat on that is that it should not impact on their work or private lives intrusively.

The reason for that? not because of wages or professionalism, but because of the sport. Athletics is tested often and throughout due to the nature of the sport and the history of doping within it. GAA has no such history of either doping or has the same level of gains athletics has by doping. Therefore it is not a "high risk" sport in terms of doping. It doesnt mean it should be ignored, nor should there be no cooperation, but it doesnt need to be at the same level as the others until there is a reason showing why it should be

elefant

Bonniedog wrote: »

Unfortunately being Irish we often use some fault in others to attack them for things that have nothing to do with the issue at hand!

That's an interesting perspective, because I'd consider you to be doing just that yourself in your post. Attacking cycling/athletics/any other sports' fans has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

I'm a huge GAA fan. Have been a supporter, player and manager of teams my whole life. I'm not going to put my head in the sand, though, about what could well be a serious issue at an individual level in the games.

I've never known a club or county gaelic football player that I've been directly involved with to be tested for PEDs; the temptation is there, and the risk of being caught is not.

Bonniedog

I admitted to my whataboutery!

We shared public facilities and players with local soccer clubs for off season training so I don't have any particular prejudice against them, but it would be na?ve not to accept that there is pretty fierce competition for resources and that is reflected in peoples attitudes.

elefant

Bonniedog wrote: »

I admitted to my whataboutery!

We shared public facilities and players with local soccer clubs for off season training so I don't have any particular prejudice against them, but it would be na?ve not to accept that there is pretty fierce competition for resources and that is reflected in peoples attitudes.

Fair enough, and you could be right that a dislike of the GAA colours some opinions. I think there is a quite a large swathe of GAA fans who do see this as a serious issue though; both the potential prevalence of it, and the weirdly clandestine way this specific case was dealt with.

PARlance

elefant wrote: »

That's an interesting perspective, because I'd consider you to be doing just that yourself in your post. Attacking cycling/athletics/any other sports' fans has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

I'm a huge GAA fan. Have been a supporter, player and manager of teams my whole life. I'm not going to put my head in the sand, though, about what could well be a serious issue at an individual level in the games.

I've never known a club or county gaelic football player that I've been directly involved with to be tested for PEDs; the temptation is there, and the risk of being caught is not.

The sticking the head in the sand comment has been used a fair bit. It's one thing sticking your head in the sand when you know there's a problem. It's another story if your doing it because there MAY be a problem.

I think most GAA people would want the problem addressed if it ever turns out there is one. Testing is happening. GAA is classed as low risk, I can see the reasoning behind that, others might not. If a few more cases come to light that may suggest a big problem then definitely change things around. But there's no need to put the cart before the horse at present.

If it gets to that stage I think it's time to start talking real money for the players... they'll look for it. And that would probably make it a higher risk in itself.

elefant

PARlance wrote: »

The sticking the head in the sand comment has been used a fair bit. It's one thing sticking your head in the sand when you know there's a problem. It's another story if your doing it because there MAY be a problem.

I think most GAA people would want the problem addressed if it ever turns out there is one. Testing is happening. GAA is classed as low risk, I can see the reasoning behind that, others might not.

Maybe that's where the divergence in opinion comes from. I've long thought it is very likely be happening on an individual level all around the country (though not systemic by any means), so this isn't knee-jerk hysteria from me.

If taking some sort of PED could help you take your club to that final 'marginal gain' and win a county championship, I think very many young club players would be sorely tempted. There's no risk of being caught, and it's a reward many spend their sporting careers, and some clubmen spend their entire lives, striving for.

Maybe I'm overly cynical, but I think we're relying too much on people's innate honesty to keep the game clean at the moment. I'm not sure what can be done to ensure there isn't a problem, or to combat the problem if there is, as I don't like the idea of being overly intrusive on amateurs either. But a lot of the commentary I'm hearing in the media would appear to be writing off the very suggestion that there could be issues at any level of the games.

Testosterscone

bruschi wrote: »

I think the players should have out of competition testing, however, the big caveat on that is that it should not impact on their work or private lives intrusively.

The reason for that? not because of wages or professionalism, but because of the sport. Athletics is tested often and throughout due to the nature of the sport and the history of doping within it. GAA has no such history of either doping or has the same level of gains athletics has by doping. Therefore it is not a "high risk" sport in terms of doping. It doesnt mean it should be ignored, nor should there be no cooperation, but it doesnt need to be at the same level as the others until there is a reason showing why it should be

So other are deemed high risk because they have a history of doping and GAA does not (because there was no testing prior to 2001) therefore shouldn't be subject to as strict doping practices?

Was athletics deemed high risk back in the 50s-70s prior to sufficient testing?

Sadly all highly physical sports these days are high risk, some just are targeted more which perpetuating idea that some sports are less likely to dope (the skill based fallacy often quoted)

If a sport doesn't test as much then if course they are going to have less violations doesn't mean that the benefits are any less in that sport (in fact could be a higher propensity towards it for to lower testing rates and less fear of getting caught)

Surely GAA should be trying to learn from the sports where testing has evolved and the doping practices have gotten so sophisticated in order to try and stay on top of the problem before it becomes as bad as the likes of cycling and athletics in the 80s/90s where testers seemed to be one step behind at all times (and are still to an extent)

shockframe

My own view is performance enhancement use is not common in GAA but that doesnt mean its not happening.

Looking at the 2 high profile cases it would strike me that if 2 players who are really bit part players for their county have positive tests then established players could be onto something.

I know someone at work who told me of the testing that goes on for olympic sports and how the testers can arrive do a test out of the blue. GAA players are lucky it hasn't gone to that extent. When you hear stories like that and how the case at the weekend unfolded you can understand if cycling or athletics are taking the moral high ground.

The GAA has come across badly in all of this. Sort it out early instead of this being dragged out now a year later. I'd say it was kept quiet due to the 2016 league final and the celebrations that went with it.

FWIW I know nothing about the olympic sports but I would suggest that the authorities in Ireland only act on them because of he damage that would happen if Ireland had many positive tests. The GAA lacking an international element is an afterhought. Would be different if it affected Ireland's reputation.

Dots1982

Is it just me or is there a lot imponderable and idle speculation on this thread? It seems doping in sport brings about a situation where "burden of evidence" is bypassed and we go straight to hysteria.

elefant

Dots1982 wrote: »

Is it just me or is there a lot imponderable and idle speculation on this thread? It seems doping in sport brings about a situation where "burden of evidence" is bypassed and we go straight to hysteria.

Where is the proof going to come from when there are less than 100 tests done a year, and all during the inter-county playing season? I don't think it's wildly speculative to think that gaelic footballers are subject to the same temptations as others sportspeople.

Dots1982

elefant wrote: »

Where is the proof going to come from when there are less than 100 tests done a year, and all during the inter-county playing season? I don't think it's wildly speculative to think that gaelic footballers are subject to the same temptations as others sportspeople.

I still think we need some kind of a smoking gun before people give this a second thought. Right now it's the issue of the week. Next week it will be forgotten.

highbury1913

Dots1982 wrote: »

Is it just me or is there a lot imponderable and idle speculation on this thread? It seems doping in sport brings about a situation where "burden of evidence" is bypassed and we go straight to hysteria.

It's nothing different. Innuendo and media frenzy always comes about with doping.

Fair enough asking questions about why it didn't go public but go on twitter, see journalists in response to this playing to the gallery with no regards for O'Sullivan where it's imply things without first asking questions.

He may/or may not have done this intentionally but I'm not going to smear him in the absence of any certainty of intentional doping.

I think there are people hoping for this to be the case with the problem existing.

Testosterscone

Dots1982 wrote: »

I still think we need some kind of a smoking gun before people give this a second thought. Right now it's the issue of the week. Next week it will be forgotten.

Hopefully not, transparency and not addressing of issues before they spiral out of control has been what has tainted the view of other sports in many eyes.

Testosterscone

highbury1913 wrote: »

It's nothing different. Innuendo and media frenzy always comes about with doping.

Fair enough asking questions about why it didn't go public but go on twitter, see journalists in response to this playing to the gallery with no regards for O'Sullivan where it's imply things without first asking questions.

He may/or may not have done this intentionally but I'm not going to smear him in the absence of any certainty of intentional doping.

I think there are people hoping for this to be the case with problem existing.

Not specific to GAA though.

Don't think it should be ignored the more information and discussion the better even if it is just to make potential inadvertent use cases coming down the line by making players aware of checking what they are taking and taking account of what they are putting into their body.

Dots1982

Testosterscone wrote: »

Hopefully not, transparency and not addressing of issues before they spiral out of control has been what has tainted the view of other sports in many eyes.

That's kind of vague. I would say collusion with wrong-doers by authorities both state and sports governing bodies is at fault for the cynicism that global sports is viewed in.

Testosterscone

Dots1982 wrote: »

That's kind of vague. I would say collusion with wrong-doers by authorities both state and sports governing bodies is at fault for the cynicism that global sports is viewed in.

And why would GAA be immune to such cynicism?

Not insinuating that GAA are colluding here before I am accused of it but the on running joke about ridiculous additional time in tight games and prospect of replays is it such a stretch that GAA could be capable of actions which could save public embarrassment and harming sponsorship potential ala players facing bans in secret.

Dots1982

Testosterscone wrote: »

And why would GAA be immune to such cynicism.

Not insinuating that GAA are colluding here before I am accused of it but the on running joke about ridiculous additional time in tight games and prospect of replays is it such a stretch that GAA could be capable of actions which could save public embarrassment and harming sponsorship potential ala players facing bans in secret.

All games are subject to a fixed predetermined period of minimum injury time. A change that was brought into the GAA about 8 years ago when there was actually no demand for it. Not sure where the running joke is that you've come up with.

And yes that is quite a massive stretch in my opinion, as well as being impossible given its Sports Ireland who do the testing not the GAA.

bruschi

Testosterscone wrote: »

So other are deemed high risk because they have a history of doping and GAA does not (because there was no testing prior to 2001) therefore shouldn't be subject to as strict doping practices?

Was athletics deemed high risk back in the 50s-70s prior to sufficient testing?

Sadly all highly physical sports these days are high risk, some just are targeted more which perpetuating idea that some sports are less likely to dope (the skill based fallacy often quoted)

If a sport doesn't test as much then if course they are going to have less violations doesn't mean that the benefits are any less in that sport (in fact could be a higher propensity towards it for to lower testing rates and less fear of getting caught)

Surely GAA should be trying to learn from the sports where testing has evolved and the doping practices have gotten so sophisticated in order to try and stay on top of the problem before it becomes as bad as the likes of cycling and athletics in the 80s/90s where testers seemed to be one step behind at all times (and are still to an extent)

you completely missed my first point about the nature of the sport. which I put in first as that is more prevalent. Athletics and cycling are predominantly individual sports, therefore doping helps them first of all. They will see a result from the doping in their performances. GAA, and other field sports of a similar vein, would not have as much of a boost by doping as an individual would due to the fact that it is a team game where you are as dependant on 14 others performances as much as your own.

Put another way, who is likely to see better results, an athlete who dopes or a GAA player who dopes, if you had to pick one.

The GAA player could be doped up to the gills, but could end up losing every game of the season. Therefore the result of doping in Athletics is more beneficial than doping in a team environment, hence the less risk attached to it, as a direct comparison.

You say the skill based fallacey, but yet it is still another reason for it. You could be hopping off steroids every day, but if you cant hit the sliothar you wont be picked, no matter how much drugs you take. And the historical aspect of the sports as a comparison is a factor, whether you want to go on about other stats or not.

Athletes and cyclists get tested more often for a reason. GAA players, at this moment in time, do not need the same level of testing. They do need testing, as I have previously said, but there is a reason they are not being treated in the same regards.

velo.2010

bruschi wrote: »

I note all these cycling and athletics people getting involved and having pops, as if to somehow validate their own following of their sports or to show that other sports are dirty. GAA and team sports like it are low level for a big reason. If you cant hurl or kick a ball, no amount of doping will help. By and large, the games are a skill based one where taking drugs will have minimal effect. Cycling and Athletics are vastly different in a number of ways as to why doping would be more prevalent there.

.

Sorry, but that is another naive argument. To say that it is a skill only event - tell that to Joe Brolly! GAA football is all about the physicality, the first to the ball, holding off your marker, running for longer periods, increased concentration needed because of the faster pace of the game today. Traits that would all be enhanced by the use of steroids, doping etc. Most of all, the physical recovery would be greatly enhanced. Essentially that's what steroids do - they allow greater recovery so you can keep performing at a high level. Don't paint the GAA as some skill only backwater game. Its now very a professional and very physically high level sport bar official player contracts and payments.

You mention elsewhere that GAA has no history of doping. That's because it has no history of testing! Its only recently that the powers that be have realised that there is a potential issue here. Again, you mention that GAA won't benefit to the level of athletics if drugs are taken - that it is 'low risk'. I say the opposite. the game has everything to gain by introducing a new way of improving the players performance.

I'm surprised that the mod of AFL - a game riddled with the use of steroids - would be so apologetic of the GAA. Like I said, as have many, there is no widespread doping programme in any county board, but guys do take gear. Its not some dark, murky world where hundreds/thousands of euro are spent on needles full of steroids. No, its guys going online and spending a little over a hundred euro for a bottle of pills that they pop in their mouths like Smarties and think nothing of it.

Testosterscone

Dots1982 wrote: »

All games are subject to a fixed predetermined period of minimum injury time. A change that was brought into the GAA about 8 years ago when there was actually no demand for it. Not sure where the running joke is that you've come up with.

And yes that is quite a massive stretch in my opinion, as well as being impossible given its Sports Ireland who do the testing not the GAA.

So there have been no convenient draws over the last 8 years that have made GAA a substantial amount of money once a team drew level in additional time that went beyond the allocated amount at discretion of a referee?

This is the first case I can think of in recent memory where the announcement took place after the ban. Delays usually are based on waiting for b sample confirmation. This for me is a huge transparency issue either it is by GAA, sports Ireland or both.

Testosterscone

bruschi wrote: »

You say the skill based fallacey, but yet it is still another reason for it. You could be hopping off steroids every day, but if you cant hit the sliothar you wont be picked, no matter how much drugs you take
.

In the last 10 minutes of a game with a defender/midfield out on his feet yet your "endurance" is telling and you are able to run rings around him and exhibit those skills to there fullest extent could this be seen as a significant advantage in a close game that could be difference between winning and losing?

Bonniedog

So we've gone from doping to the old canard about the "gah" fixing matches to end in draws :-)

Normally you hear this from followers of a sport where a 0 - 0 draw is believed to be some sort of excitement!

Dots1982

Testosterscone wrote: »

So there have been no convenient draws over the last 8 years that have made GAA a substantial amount of money once a team drew level in additional time that went beyond the allocated amount at discretion of a referee?

This is the first case I can think of in recent memory where the announcement took place after the ban. Delays usually are based on waiting for b sample confirmation. This for me is a huge transparency issue either it is by GAA, sports Ireland or both.

Where's the issue though? As far as I am aware it is impossible for these bans to be kept secret if Sports Ireland are doing the tests. They have to release it. Why do you see it as a major issue of transparency if there is a delay of a period of time. Its going to come out in a Sports Ireland annual report eventually anyway so I don't see a major issue.

Handy replays?, yeah fair point in isolation but really see that as a massive leap to the GAA suppressing test results that is a moot point anyway because they cant suppress them

shockframe

velo.2010 wrote: »

Sorry, but that is another naive argument. To say that it is a skill only event - tell that to Joe Brolly! GAA football is all about the physicality, the first to the ball, holding off your marker, running for longer periods, increased concentration needed because of the faster pace of the game today. Traits that would all be enhanced by the use of steroids, doping etc. Most of all, the physical recovery would be greatly enhanced. Essentially that's what steroids do - they allow greater recovery so you can keep performing at a high level. Don't paint the GAA as some skill only backwater game. Its now very a professional and very physically high level sport bar official player contracts and payments.

You mention elsewhere that GAA has no history of doping. That's because it has no history of testing! Its only recently that the powers that be have realised that there is a potential issue here. Again, you mention that GAA won't benefit to the level of athletics if drugs are taken - that it is 'low risk'. I say the opposite. the game has everything to gain by introducing a new way of improving the players performance.

I'm surprised that the mod of AFL - a game riddled with the use of steroids - would be so apologetic of the GAA. Like I said, as have many, there is no widespread doping programme in any county board, but guys do take gear. Its not some dark, murky world where hundreds/thousands of euro are spent on needles full of steroids. No, its guys going online and spending a little over a hundred euro for a bottle of pills that they pop in their mouths like Smarties and think nothing of it.

Gaelic football isn't all about skill but equally so it is not all about physicality.

Testosterscone

Bonniedog wrote: »

So we've gone from doping to the old canard about the "gah" fixing matches to end in draws :-)

Normally you hear this from followers of a sport where a 0 - 0 draw is believed to be some sort of excitement!

The point that I was trying to make was to prove that when money and public image is in the line no NGB is immune from a healthy skepticism.

Testosterscone

Dots1982 wrote: »

Where's the issue though? As far as I am aware it is impossible for these bans to be kept secret if Sports Ireland are doing the tests. They have to release it. Why do you see it as a major issue of transparency if there is a delay of a period of time. Its going to come out in a Sports Ireland annual report eventually anyway so I don't see a major issue.

Handy replays?, yeah fair point in isolation but really see that as a massive leap to the GAA suppressing test results that is a moot point anyway because they cant suppress them

My point on transparency is that Kerry only announced it after a journalist was tipped off, to get ahead of it there looks to be more of a concern about how to manage this rather than deal with the concern of doping.

GAA can't suppress results that's for sure but with low testing and possibility managing situations (missed testing like the 5 team tests which were reported) to avoid sanctions given, the three strike rule of missed tests means that number of sanctions can be kept to give the image of a clean sport and massage the stats

It's how situation was handled that is the big news around this case, not the sportsperson who failed

Jayop

Velo I would say that the gaa authorities would much prefer the players to be less fit, less strong, less bulky. Most of the complaints arising around the modern game surround physicality and the tactics that this physicality allow. If players aren't able to run up and down the pitch for 70 minutes then you can't play the counter attacking game that a lot of counties are now using.

Yes gaa players can benefit from drugs, and yes teams can benefit, but for the gaa as a whole its generally detrimental as people prefer the skills based game.

There's also an assumption here that people from the gaa background saying there's no problem with drugs mean that no one is using them. That's incorrect. I assume that people are using them, probably more so at Club level where there's no risk in using. That said I don't think the problem is widespread, nor do I think it's institutional which is when it becomes the big problem other sports suffer from.