Are footballers doping?

jpboard1

death1234567 wrote: »

So let every athlete dope right up to the point where they are risking their health? This would inevitably lead to athlete's misjudging the edge and ending up endangering their health. Terrible idea. Give an inch, they'll take a mile.

I don't know. I think thereby be some merit to the idea. It is well known that the dopers are always 2 steps ahead of the testers. Testing for illegal substances is fighting a losing battle. If you are only testing that the footballers are in 'safe state' then things become a little more even.
People are 'taking the mile' as it is. At least this way there is a better chance of protecting the players and at the same time keeping up with innovations.
That said, I still stand by my view that all doping is cheating.

Clearlier

jpboard1 wrote: »

I don't know. I think thereby be some merit to the idea. It is well known that the dopers are always 2 steps ahead of the testers. Testing for illegal substances is fighting a losing battle. If you are only testing that the footballers are in 'safe state' then things become a little more even.
People are 'taking the mile' as it is. At least this way there is a better chance of protecting the players and at the same time keeping up with innovations.
That said, I still stand by my view that all doping is cheating.

That's questionable, the effect of doping is not uniform with some people benefiting more than others. An example of this is epo in cycling. A grossly simplistic analysis of what epo does is to raise you haematocrit level - some riders have naturally higher levels than others but you can only go up so high.

A version of the health limit was imposed in cycling for a while (may still be there now but I'm not sure) where any rider with a haematocrit level above 50% was/is not permitted to start - anecdotally this did help reduce the number of deaths among professional cyclists. Unsurprisingly the 50% was viewed as a target rather than a limit with Armstrong's team reportedly being noted experts at getting to 50.4% (numbers were rounded down).

I'm all for health limits in sport but I don't see it as an either/or - I think that they should be used in conjunction with drug testing. That said we then head into the difficult arena currently occupied by Dutee Chand where you attempt to define normal which could become particularly troublesome if genetic doping techniques become available. It could redefine sport.

jpboard1

Clearlier wrote: »

That's questionable, the effect of doping is not uniform with some people benefiting more than others. An example of this is epo in cycling. A grossly simplistic analysis of what epo does is to raise you haematocrit level - some riders have naturally higher levels than others but you can only go up so high.

A version of the health limit was imposed in cycling for a while (may still be there now but I'm not sure) where any rider with a haematocrit level above 50% was/is not permitted to start - anecdotally this did help reduce the number of deaths among professional cyclists. Unsurprisingly the 50% was viewed as a target rather than a limit with Armstrong's team reportedly being noted experts at getting to 50.4% (numbers were rounded down).

I'm all for health limits in sport but I don't see it as an either/or - I think that they should be used in conjunction with drug testing. That said we then head into the difficult arena currently occupied by Dutee Chand where you attempt to define normal which could become particularly troublesome if genetic doping techniques become available. It could redefine sport.

And those techniques are coming. Have no doubt about it. Innovations are accelerating all the time.

RedemptionZ

jpboard1 wrote: »

And those techniques are coming. Have no doubt about it. Innovations are accelerating all the time.

Not trying to have a go at you here, but he's just given a very well written and informative reply and all you've replied with is essentially 'they'll invent a better way because science'.

Chardee MacDennis

my argument for the lack of drug testing in football and most other sports is; do you really think a high percentage of highly paid, 20 somethings, who have nothing better to do most days of the week aren't taking recreational drugs?

coz i'm sure lots of them are.

if the recreational drugs are getting through, the sophisticated (and run of the mill) PEDs are definitely not being detected...

jpboard1

RedemptionZ wrote: »

Not trying to have a go at you here, but he's just given a very well written and informative reply and all you've replied with is essentially 'they'll invent a better way because science'.

I have already laid out a perfectly reasoned argument with links to back up my view. The current system does not work. I am of the opinion that all doping is cheating. Unfortunately there is currently no effective way of stopping it. I've put forward one alternative that may help.

bucketybuck

Chardee MacDennis wrote: »

my argument for the lack of drug testing in football and most other sports is; do you really think a high percentage of highly paid, 20 somethings, who have nothing better to do most days of the week aren't taking recreational drugs?

coz i'm sure lots of them are.

if the recreational drugs are getting through, the sophisticated (and run of the mill) PEDs are definitely not being detected...

Thats a gross over simplification though. I just think of my own college days and my own social circle, even though I had disposable income and all the free time in the world I never touched drugs and neither did most of my friends.

Why is it a given that footballers will become drug takers simply because of their profession, does character not come into it at all?

Lukker-

Chardee MacDennis wrote: »

my argument for the lack of drug testing in football and most other sports is; do you really think a high percentage of highly paid, 20 somethings, who have nothing better to do most days of the week aren't taking recreational drugs?

coz i'm sure lots of them are.

if the recreational drugs are getting through, the sophisticated (and run of the mill) PEDs are definitely not being detected...

It's not a very good point though, most drugs such such as cocaine, ecstasy, speed leave your system in 48 hours. Players are mostly tested after games. I doubt many players are simple enough to go on coke binges the night before a game.

Subcomandante Marcos

If people genuinely think PED's aren't in wide spread usage in football at the highest level, they are extremely naive.

The complete shambles of a testing system in association football leaves it absolutely rife for things like EPO, TRT and more.