How clean is football?

Billy86

Arghus wrote: »

I think Vickery is half right and half wrong: raw physicality or speed mightn't have the decisive effect in football as it does in other sports, but it sure doesn't hurt to have more of it in your locker than mother nature would have endowed you with otherwise.

A player or a team that can run harder, jump higher or posesses unnatural powers of stamina and recovery is surely going to have an advantage, at least some of the time. They mightn't be able to beat the best of the best for skill, but they may be able to best them by running them into the ground. Sometimes that can be decisive.

That's the real key, I reckon... just look at Barca (though I would be more surprised by clubs NOT doping, than clubs that are at this point to be honest). A team with far more than their fair share of midgets and extremely slight players, a team lacking in the athletic aspect of the game, a team with a history of injury problems for many of their key players... gets fixed up overnight. Not only that, but they gain huge amounts of stamina to the point that they can sprint all over the pitch, all game - and more importantly, all season on what were typically tiny squads with very little rotation.

The Fuentes stuff kicks off, things have to get in order while the eyes are on, Barca suddenly become a slower, more lethargic team and get infamously steamrolled by the ultra-fit Bayern (who's players from the 70s have come out and said they were doping, if I recall?). Fast forward a brief while and the eyes have gone back off them - then guys like Messi who had grown so much physically (height, weight, stamina, etc) only to mysteriously begin picking up injuries again and looking somewhat spent, are completely rejuvenated.




Doping is almost everywhere in the sport. Now I might be wrong on that, but I would be very surprised if I was.

Andersonisgod

Billy86 wrote: »

That's the real key, I reckon... just look at Barca (though I would be more surprised by clubs NOT doping, than clubs that are at this point to be honest). A team with far more than their fair share of midgets and extremely slight players, a team lacking in the athletic aspect of the game, a team with a history of injury problems for many of their key players... gets fixed up overnight. Not only that, but they gain huge amounts of stamina to the point that they can sprint all over the pitch, all game - and more importantly, all season on what were typically tiny squads with very little rotation.

The Fuentes stuff kicks off, things have to get in order while the eyes are on, Barca suddenly become a slower, more lethargic team and get infamously steamrolled by the ultra-fit Bayern (who's players from the 70s have come out and said they were doping, if I recall?). Fast forward a brief while and the eyes have gone back off them - then guys like Messi who had grown so much physically (height, weight, stamina, etc) only to mysteriously begin picking up injuries again and looking somewhat spent, are completely rejuvenated.




Doping is almost everywhere in the sport. Now I might be wrong on that, but I would be very surprised if I was.

:rolleyes: I didn't realise I'm now on the conspiracy forum, wait a moment and I'll get my tinfoil hat.

Ulysses Gaze

Billy86 wrote: »

That's the real key, I reckon... just look at Barca (though I would be more surprised by clubs NOT doping, than clubs that are at this point to be honest). A team with far more than their fair share of midgets and extremely slight players, a team lacking in the athletic aspect of the game, a team with a history of injury problems for many of their key players... gets fixed up overnight. Not only that, but they gain huge amounts of stamina to the point that they can sprint all over the pitch, all game - and more importantly, all season on what were typically tiny squads with very little rotation.

The Fuentes stuff kicks off, things have to get in order while the eyes are on, Barca suddenly become a slower, more lethargic team and get infamously steamrolled by the ultra-fit Bayern (who's players from the 70s have come out and said they were doping, if I recall?). Fast forward a brief while and the eyes have gone back off them - then guys like Messi who had grown so much physically (height, weight, stamina, etc) only to mysteriously begin picking up injuries again and looking somewhat spent, are completely rejuvenated.




Doping is almost everywhere in the sport. Now I might be wrong on that, but I would be very surprised if I was.

Juventus back in the 1990's were also under suspicion. Think their team doctor from that time Agricola was found guilty of providing PEDs? Not 100% sure on that.

Article here:

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2004/nov/26/newsstory.sport4

Billy86

Andersonisgod wrote: »

:rolleyes: I didn't realise I'm now on the conspiracy forum, wait a moment and I'll get my tinfoil hat.

Well that settles that lads, no drugs exist in football so!

racso1975

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Every sport, every time has the staunch defenders of cleanliness until the scandal breaks. I was part of the chorus that believed in Armstrong through 2005 and had all the arguments as to why he wasn't doping, no sir. He didn't need to after all blah, blah.

It will come out eventually.

This is the way I feel and in essence it is up there with me finding out bolt is a doper.


So given it is inevitable why carry on supporting something under the bedrock of cheats

Turtwig

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

You're comparing swimming and cycling and I'm comparing running and running, so I think my comparison is better!
I understand they are different forms of running but I still think its serves the purpose of clarifying that 10K in 90 minutes is just not very remarkable for a 20yo/30yo in peak fitness.

Where Juve players really covering 16K, was that the norm, the average or a once off outlier? I would actually start to be on your side if it was an average.

5 km in fencing is different to 5 km in boxing to 5km in soccer etc etc

Running in soccer is totally different to general running. Stride length is much much shorter. Knee height is smaller. Changes in directions are more frequent with far more exertion on lateral muscles. Standards are 30 yards sprints with higher speed jogs and lots of lateral running and physical interference (if they do go down like they're shot). Make no mistake fitness for the elite levels of soccer today is remarkable.

I do most certainly accept the spirit of your point that some feats are unremarkable. It's the ones though that stay hyper competitive all the way that are little odd. To use the cycling analogy they're just so bloody consistent.

Arturo's Vidal average is quoted by UEFA at over 11 km. That's the fcking problem we don't want averages we want all the data incl training or the medium. Or at the very least the average of "key" games. Not saying Vidal is doing anything suspect here. The problem is we only get a small pool of data. Juve were doing almost 16k in their most competitive matches. Which by itself isn't suspicious. Natural variance and excellent conditioning is a more than plausible explanation. It's just the association bodies provide so little relevant data either way to ascertain whether heynkces Bayern, Pep's Barca were doing anything untoward. Which is itself a little suspicious.

Andersonisgod

Billy86 wrote: »

Well that settles that lads, no drugs exist in football so!

Unless you have evidence, real concrete evidence (and no, your imagination doesn't count) to prove beyond all doubt that this:

"That's the real key, I reckon... just look at Barca (though I would be more surprised by clubs NOT doping, than clubs that are at this point to be honest). A team with far more than their fair share of midgets and extremely slight players, a team lacking in the athletic aspect of the game, a team with a history of injury problems for many of their key players... gets fixed up overnight. Not only that, but they gain huge amounts of stamina to the point that they can sprint all over the pitch, all game - and more importantly, all season on what were typically tiny squads with very little rotation.

The Fuentes stuff kicks off, things have to get in order while the eyes are on, Barca suddenly become a slower, more lethargic team and get infamously steamrolled by the ultra-fit Bayern (who's players from the 70s have come out and said they were doping, if I recall?). Fast forward a brief while and the eyes have gone back off them - then guys like Messi who had grown so much physically (height, weight, stamina, etc) only to mysteriously begin picking up injuries again and looking somewhat spent, are completely rejuvenated."

is the work of illegal substances then you are spouting nothing more than a conspiracy, a figment of your imagination, a narrative that you have spun in your mind and spouted on here with nothing to back it up. So, where do I get my tinfoil hat?

Billy86

Andersonisgod wrote: »

Unless you have evidence, real concrete evidence (and no, your imagination doesn't count) to prove beyond all doubt that this:

is the work of illegal substances then you are spouting nothing more than a conspiracy, a figment of your imagination, a narrative that you have spun in your mind and spouted on here with nothing to back it up. So, where do I get my tinfoil hat?

So before I go any further, let me just clarify... are you trying to claim there is no evidence for doping in football? Is that your position on the matter?

Turtwig

Billy86 wrote: »

The Fuentes stuff kicks off, things have to get in order while the eyes are on, Barca suddenly become a slower, more lethargic team and get infamously steamrolled by the ultra-fit Bayern

The devil's advocate here would be that Barcelona never actually got slower. Other teams just got more intensive and Barca never upped their pace. Bayern were freaks that season athletics wise. Barca's "lull" could be accounted for by dwindling motivation, poorer standards of coaching and a close colleague facing a demise from cancer.
It took a strict ultra disciplinarian with a fetish for extreme endurance events to whip them back into shape. To put it crudely this April Barcelona players were the slimmest they've been in years.

Andersonisgod

Billy86 wrote: »

So before I go any further, let me just clarify... are you trying to claim there is no evidence for doping in football? Is that your position on the matter?

I am saying that there is no evidence of doping from the Barcelona teams of Guardiola or Enrique, something which you quite heavily insinuated did occur.

Turtwig

Andersonisgod wrote: »

I am saying that there is no evidence of doping from the Barcelona teams of Guardiola or Enrique, something which you quite heavily insinuated did occur.

There's not enough evidence to prove their performances couldn't have natural explanations. However there are facts and tidbits that suggest we don't have the full picture and that full picture was never thoroughly investigated (as with all things soccer). Innocent until proven guilty but it's disappointing they weren't proven conclusively one way or the other.

#15

Andersonisgod wrote: »

I am saying that there is no evidence of doping from the Barcelona teams of Guardiola or Enrique, something which you quite heavily insinuated did occur.

What about the Fuentes stuff? Is that not slightly suspicious?

The_Kew_Tour

Andersonisgod wrote: »

I am saying that there is no evidence of doping from the Barcelona teams of Guardiola or Enrique, something which you quite heavily insinuated did occur.

Do you accept Pep failed 2 drugs tests as a Player?

And how comfortable does that make you feel that he was a cheat, as a footballer?

Turtwig

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Do you accept Pep failed 2 drugs tests as a Player?

And how comfortable does that make you feel that he was a cheat, as a footballer?

Were these not recreational drugs?

The_Kew_Tour

Turtwig wrote: »

Were these not recreational drugs?

Nandrolone is banned substance.

Edit: its a steroid

Billy86

Turtwig wrote: »

Were these not recreational drugs?

Not unless he was taking nandrolone for the craic.

I agree on your earlier point to an extent though about other teams getting fitter, but I would reason it far more likely that other teams were catching up in regards to doping - Bayern being a good potential example.

Turtwig

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Nandrolone is banned substance.

Edit: its a steroid

He was cleared -twice- of that though. Maybe he did do it intentionally but I think given the nature of the two investigations it's quite probable it was accidental.

The_Kew_Tour

Turtwig wrote: »

He was cleared -twice- of that though. Maybe he did do it intentionally but I think given the nature of the two investigations it's quite probable it was accidental.

Hmmm Ya, twice though.

And before anyone thinks im biased, as a United fan Stam got caught at Lazio at same time and who is to say he was not taking it at OT.

I have question mark over him too at United

Andersonisgod

#15 wrote: »

What about the Fuentes stuff? Is that not slightly suspicious?

No, he's a doctor with a track record of success and who had previously worked with Guardiola, it doesn't mean any player engaged in anything illegal.

Andersonisgod

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Do you accept Pep failed 2 drugs tests as a Player?

And how comfortable does that make you feel that he was a cheat, as a footballer?

Allow me to quote The Telegraph

"Several leading players tested positive for the drug, which can appear in dietary supplements, at that time. Most served short bans and got on with their careers.
Guardiola, unhappy at the tarnishing of his reputation, campaigned against the verdict long after he had served his ban, left Serie A, and completed spells in Doha and Mexico.
In 2007 he was exonerated by the Italian FA but had to prove his innocence again when Italy’s anti-doping authorities reopened the case. Then Barcelona coach, he was finally cleared of all charges in 2009."

Note the words "exonerated" "innocence" "cleared of all charges" so could you please not show up here with your incorrect slanderous comments. Guardiola is no cheat.

The_Kew_Tour

Andersonisgod wrote: »

Allow me to quote The Telegraph

"Several leading players tested positive for the drug, which can appear in dietary supplements, at that time. Most served short bans and got on with their careers.
Guardiola, unhappy at the tarnishing of his reputation, campaigned against the verdict long after he had served his ban, left Serie A, and completed spells in Doha and Mexico.
In 2007 he was exonerated by the Italian FA but had to prove his innocence again when Italy’s anti-doping authorities reopened the case. Then Barcelona coach, he was finally cleared of all charges in 2009."

Note the words "exonerated" "innocence" "cleared of all charges" so could you please not show up here with your incorrect slanderous comments. Guardiola is no cheat.

Ya what 8 years later..

Fool you

Andersonisgod

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Ya what 8 years later..

Fool you

Quote from sportsmole

"Even after his retirement, Guardiola, along with his close friend and former water polo player Manuel Estiarte, continued to fight the verdict.

It was in 2007 that Estiarte discovered changes in the World Anti-Doping Agency's guidelines, which stated that some athletes naturally generated a certain amount of nandrolone - something that Guardiola's legal team had insisted was the case ever since the failed tests.

So, it was in the October of that year when in charge of Barcelona B that the Brescia Court of Appeal exonerated Guardiola of all charges."

So there you go. 1 week, 2 months, 8 years, a century, it doesn't matter. "exonerated" "innocence" "cleared of all charges" are the only things you need worry about.

NIMAN

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

You're comparing swimming and cycling and I'm comparing running and running, so I think my comparison is better!
I understand they are different forms of running but I still think its serves the purpose of clarifying that 10K in 90 minutes is just not very remarkable for a 20yo/30yo in peak fitness.

You get conditioned for whatever your sport needs your body to do. So running in a soccer match is comletely different to running cross country athletics I'm afraid.

In a football match, you have 90mins of constant running and stopping, darting, turning, jumping, sliding, getting up, sliding again, pushing against strong opponents, heading, diving!! etc etc etc. That is completely different to running the same distance in a straight line at a constant speed with no physical contact with any other person. Bodies become trained for their particular sport.

I'll give you a real world example. I have played football for the guts of 40yrs, since I was a junior infant. In my 20s and 30s (long since gone unfortunately) I would have been a very fit person. Very fit. I played football constantly, maybe 4 or 5 days per week. Now I'm only a small, slight kinda person, and I used to work with a guy who did judo (and boxing) to a very high level, nearly competing in a major championship. He asked me how long I thought I could punch a punchbag for before I couldn;t go on any more. I guessed at about 3mins. He told me he would bet me £100 I wouldn't last 30sec. And he wasn't far wrong when I tried it a while later. But the same guy also played football with us every week in work, and although maybe close to 10yrs my junior, couldn't get anywhere near me on a football field, or last half the game before he was blowing bubbles.

Difference is, my body was conditioned to play soccer, and little else. I can still run a lot for a guy in his mid-40s, but only on a soccer pitch. I tried road running a few kms recently and was out of puff after maybe 400m, my lungs simply wouldn't work. Not conditioned for long distance you see.

And its the same with pro footballers 'only' running 13km in 90mins.

#15

Andersonisgod wrote: »

No, he's a doctor with a track record of success and who had previously worked with Guardiola, it doesn't mean any player engaged in anything illegal.

What do you think of this?

'in December 2010, he is quoted saying "If I would talk, the Spanish football team would be stripped of the 2010 World Cup"'

and

"There are sports against which you cannot go against, because they have access to very powerful legal means to defend themselves"

The_Kew_Tour

Andersonisgod wrote: »

Quote from sportsmole

"Even after his retirement, Guardiola, along with his close friend and former water polo player Manuel Estiarte, continued to fight the verdict.

It was in 2007 that Estiarte discovered changes in the World Anti-Doping Agency's guidelines, which stated that some athletes naturally generated a certain amount of nandrolone - something that Guardiola's legal team had insisted was the case ever since the failed tests.

So, it was in the October of that year when in charge of Barcelona B that the Brescia Court of Appeal exonerated Guardiola of all charges."

So there you go. 1 week, 2 months, 8 years, a century, it doesn't matter. "exonerated" "innocence" "cleared of all charges" are the only things you need worry about.

If he was innocent he would have fought the case straight away as would his club(none of his teammates were banned for same) to get rid of the 4 month ban imposed on him at time.

But, instead he be brave when he retired knew he would not have provided a B Sample and 99.99% of cases like this get overturned.

We will leave it there. You think he just a misfortunate player who twice somehow had steroids in him from some food he ate.

I think different. We leave it at that.

efb

Some people still think our Michelle was innocent...

The_Kew_Tour

efb wrote: »

Some people still think our Michelle was innocent...

Thankfully only "some"

efb

Like the Loophole lawyer that got countless footballers off driving offences... they are all innocent (In the eyes of the law)

Turtwig

Andersonisgod wrote: »

No, he's a doctor with a track record of success and who had previously worked with Guardiola, it doesn't mean any player engaged in anything illegal.

He's a doctor with a track record of ugliness. Jesus! you could at least admit that!?

NIMAN

Some folk even think we won the TdF clean too.

Billy86

Turtwig wrote: »

He's a doctor with a track record of ugliness. Jesus! you could at least admit that!?

You clearly are not familiar with this poster. :pac:

Andersonisgod

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

If he was innocent he would have fought the case straight away as would his club(none of his teammates were banned for same) to get rid of the 4 month ban imposed on him at time.

But, instead he be brave when he retired knew he would not have provided a B Sample and 99.99% of cases like this get overturned.

We will leave it there. You think he just a misfortunate player who twice somehow had steroids in him from some food he ate.

I think different. We leave it at that.

Stam and Davids were banned for this substance at around the same time too. The common perception seems to be that it's something found in dietary supplements and that certain athletes generate an amount of nandrolone.

I dont see what the club not fighting it proves. That's a testament to nothing. Guardiola isn't claiming that the substance wasn't in his system, rather his argument was that it was naturally produced. The court accepted this, he was cleared of all charges, he is innocent, so yes, lets move on.

efb

Like the Paedo scandals in the Catholic Church/BBC/UK parliament, protecting establishment was far more important than justice

Cycling was the same UCI doing everything it could to protect Lance and the drug problem that was endemic in its sport

efb

Andersonisgod wrote: »

Stam and Davids were banned for this substance at around the same time too. The common perception seems to be that it's something found in dietary supplements and that certain athletes generate an amount of nandrolone.

I dont see what the club not fighting it proves. That's a testament to nothing. Guardiola isn't claiming that the substance wasn't in his system, rather his argument was that it was naturally produced. The court accepted this, he was cleared of all charges, he is innocent, so yes, lets move on.

If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit. OJ is innocent then yeah?

The_Kew_Tour

Andersonisgod wrote: »

Stam and Davids were banned for this substance at around the same time too. The common perception seems to be that it's something found in dietary supplements and that certain athletes generate an amount of nandrolone.

I dont see what the club not fighting it proves. That's a testament to nothing. Guardiola isn't claiming that the substance wasn't in his system, rather his argument was that it was naturally produced. The court accepted this, he was cleared of all charges, he is innocent, so yes, lets move on.

It's proves they had no case to stand on. B sample would have to have been provided to prove it was out of his system. Very simple procedure. Any innocent person would do this.

Andersonisgod

efb wrote: »

If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit. OJ is innocent then yeah?

I've given you the case that Guardiola put forward. It's a case that is medically possible, that fits in with every character description you will find of Guardiola and one that the Brescia Court of Appeal accepted, and later accepted by Italy's anti-doping authorities. So yes, I do put more stock in what Guardiola says than what you and some other posters on this forum say, and yes I do put more stock into the official decision of the court than what you say too and the court says "innocent!"

Andersonisgod

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

It's proves they had no case to stand on. B sample would have to have been provided to prove it was out of his system. Very simple procedure. Any innocent person would do this.

You're missing the point here. Guardiola didn't claim that the substance was never in his system, rather he says that it was naturally produced and not taken in an effort to enhance his performance.

efb

Andersonisgod wrote: »

I've given you the case that Guardiola put forward. It's a case that is medically possible, that fits in with every character description you will find of Guardiola and one that the Brescia Court of Appeal accepted, and later accepted by Italy's anti-doping authorities. So yes, I do put more stock in what Guardiola says than what you and some other posters on this forum say, and yes I do put more stock into the official decision of the court than what you say too and the court says "innocent!"

It's "not guilty" you try to prove guilt not innocence

Andersonisgod

efb wrote: »

It's "not guilty" you try to prove guilt not innocence

"not guilty" is a hell of a lot closer to "innocent" than it is "guilty" though isn't it?

#15

Bill Simmons had an excellent article a few years ago on the use of PEDs in pro sports. He came up with a list of reasons that might put athletes on any 'list of doping suspects'

• Skip the Olympics (which has much stricter drug testing) in your prime for any dubious reason and you’re on the list.

• Enjoy your best season in years in your late 30s, four or five years after your last “best season,” and you’re on the list.

• If you’re a skinny dude who miraculously managed to add 20 pounds of muscle to your scarecrow frame, you’re on the list.

• If you chopped down the recovery time of a debilitating injury to something that just didn’t seem possible a year ago, you’re on the list.

• If you were really good and really ripped at a really young age, and now your body is breaking down much sooner than it should be breaking down, you’re on the list.

• If you’re exhibiting a level of superhuman endurance that has little correlation to the endurance of any of your competitors, you’re on the list.

http://grantland.com/features/daring-ask-ped-question/

Tbh, I think a lot of the elite level players are somewhat suspect, particularly the ones who have machine-like performance and seemingly break some new record every month.

Also, I wouldn't be at all surprised if some clubs around Europe have a culture of doping in place for years.

I'm not at all confident of football being clean with regards to doping. It is dirty in almost every other aspect on the admin and playing side.

efb

Andersonisgod wrote: »

"not guilty" is a hell of a lot closer to "innocent" than it is "guilty" though isn't it?

Depends on how good your lawyer is

efb

I'm thinking of a player who just had a very good season, just passed in the twilight of his career...

Andersonisgod

efb wrote: »

Depends on how good your lawyer is

Or if the case the Guardiola put forward is actually true. It's also worth noting that he is not the only athlete that was cleared of a failed nandrolone test.

efb

Andersonisgod wrote: »

Or if the case the Guardiola put forward is actually true. It's also worth noting that he is not the only athlete that was cleared of a failed nandrolone test.

No, are they all innocent too in your eyes???

Andersonisgod

efb wrote: »

No, are they all innocent too in your eyes???

Their argument checks out. http://www.chm.bris.ac.uk/motm/nandrolone/nandh.htm
Take a read of that, it might change your mind and open your eyes a bit.

efb

Andersonisgod wrote: »

Their argument checks out. http://www.chm.bris.ac.uk/motm/nandrolone/nandh.htm
Take a read of that, it might change your mind and open your eyes a bit.

My eyes are open, using a defensce that eating beef where the animal may have been fed the steroid is there only to bring in the element of doubt, and cause an acquittal.

I don't believe Linford Chridtie was innocent or Chritune Urugho

#15

Andersonisgod wrote: »

Their argument checks out. http://www.chm.bris.ac.uk/motm/nandrolone/nandh.htm
Take a read of that, it might change your mind and open your eyes a bit.

AIG, not sure if you missed my previous post. What do you think of the quote?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=96478205&postcount=75

efb

There is a lot of interested parties with very deep pockets who can challenge cases and make it very difficult for a guilty charge to be brought. Like drink driving challenges in Ireland, it pays to go along way to prove the testing was flawed, regardless of whether you had been drinking and driving or not.

Andersonisgod

efb wrote: »

My eyes are open, using a defensce that eating beef where the animal may have been fed the steroid is there only to bring in the element of doubt, and cause an acquittal.

I don't believe Linford Chridtie was innocent or Chritune Urugho

Well that's your choice. Guardiola didn't claim anything like eating bad beef, he claims that the test picking up on the substance that was naturally produced in his body, this is absolutely medically possible, of that there is no doubt.

Andersonisgod

#15 wrote: »

AIG, not sure if you missed my previous post. What do you think of the quote?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=96478205&postcount=75

I believe that first quote comes from a cellmate of Nunez, your going to have to excuse me if I don't believe that to be the most reliable source, especially if you are claiming that it is this source that is the central reason why we should doubt these Spanish players.