Digger on Twitter

gmacww

coco0981 wrote: »

Unfollowed him a while back, he's probably not too far off with a lot of the stuff he says but just found the incessant negativity too much.

This. While I think accounts like Digger do and can serve a purpose they really should be controlled. Parallel him with Ross Tucker for example. When fancy bears came out or a statement from Mo Farrah they both are great sources for highlighting the inconsistencies and particular points of interest. The difference is that Tucker puts his identity on it and actively engages. I've had some great discussions with him specifically around dehydration myths etc...

With digger it's different. If you engage in any of his posts he calls you an idiot unless you're telling him how amazing his post was. No engagement, no discussion. I know more than you = you're an idiot. His tweets are a trump esque stream of consciousness where I find his complete unwavering negativity just draining. I had to stop following him.

When I watch top level sport of course I know the undercurrent to it all but I have to put that aside. Cycling holds so much drama. 4 guys going head to head up a mountain wondering who cracks first. You have to put the reality of it all to one side otherwise you just couldn't watch it.

Weepsie

Digger also accuses anyone and everyone across a range of sports.

Stopped clock being right sometimes and all that

Welshkev

ANXIOUS wrote: »

Is it fine to name him here?

Give us a clue!

Macy0161

Didn't unfollow or block, but pretty much ignore him the last while after him and Vayer took a line from a Dan Martin interview totally out of context and didn't like being pulled up on it.

gmacww wrote: »

When I watch top level sport of course I know the undercurrent to it all but I have to put that aside. Cycling holds so much drama. 4 guys going head to head up a mountain wondering who cracks first. You have to put the reality of it all to one side otherwise you just couldn't watch it.

Yeah, that's it for all sport for me. Just drives me nuts that so little focus on other sports, particularly football. Too many media companies making too much money from it I guess. Not just in this state, but they're happy to (only) cover cycling and athletics for doping, passing mention in US sports and the great euphemism of medicalisation of rugby, but won't go near football (or gaa)...

CramCycle

I have disagreed with him before and he hasn't had the reaction described here. To be fair, many of his posts are probably close to the truth, if a little poetic in the license they take.

I can ignore most of it though because most of the stuff he gives out about I don't really care. I understand that doping is rife in rugby, soccer and has definitely infiltrated GAA to a point. It doesn't bother me because I treat rugby like wresting and enjoy it for the show that it is. Soccer bores the hell out of me, and the likes of Sky channels have made it worse, by over analysing a simple game to make it seem more interesting than it really is. Soccer can only be watched by me in a MOTD format where someone has taken the interesting parts and condensed them into one show. GAA, I really only watch the club matches and those matches without Dublin in them because there is a chance they will be interesting. It is not Dublins fault, but they have made it a business, and it is no longer amateur when you play against them and similar teams.

I think the funny thing is how many higher level people he seems to bug, it is like they have no idea how social media works. If they just ignored him, or laughed him off, that would be that. Instead they make the most amateur of mistakes and get involved. Surely they have PR people who can help them.

LCD

"Yeah, that's it for all sport for me. Just drives me nuts that so little focus on other sports, particularly football. Too many media companies making too much money from it I guess. Not just in this state, but they're happy to (only) cover cycling and athletics for doping, passing mention in US sports and the great euphemism of medicalisation of rugby, but won't go near football (or gaa)...[/QUOTE]

I do believe that cycling is essentially the scapegoat for doping in all sports. Head of FIFA asked "Is there a doping problem in football?", they can reply "No, we are members of WADA & they caught a guy in cycling last week, therefore WADA is doing it's job, we are members of WADA, then we are clean"

Change football for any other sport

terrydel

LCD wrote: »

"Yeah, that's it for all sport for me. Just drives me nuts that so little focus on other sports, particularly football. Too many media companies making too much money from it I guess. Not just in this state, but they're happy to (only) cover cycling and athletics for doping, passing mention in US sports and the great euphemism of medicalisation of rugby, but won't go near football (or gaa)...

I do believe that cycling is essentially the scapegoat for doping in all sports. Head of FIFA asked "Is there a doping problem in football?", they can reply "No, we are members of WADA & they caught a guy in cycling last week, therefore WADA is doing it's job, we are members of WADA, then we are clean"

Change football for any other sport[/QUOTE]

Maybe cycling is the scapegoat but I dont think it can have any complaints.
Its made its own bed in that regard. There is a simply astonishing level of incontrovertible proof against the vast majority of its blue ribbon winners over the last few decades, and thats long before it started actively trying to deal with the problem.
Its premier event, the tdf, has hardly a single winner in the last 20 years that isnt bangs to rights or as good as. Thats incredible, and the argument that other sports dont try to find the cheats doesnt hold water in my view, because cycling wasnt trying to find a lot of those cheats either.
When the champions league has half a dozen confirmed cheats in the winning team every year for a decade, I'll treat it as I do pro cycling, with zero credibility and disdain. Until then I'll give it benefit of the doubt.

DonegalBay

terrydel wrote: »

I do believe that cycling is essentially the scapegoat for doping in all sports. Head of FIFA asked "Is there a doping problem in football?", they can reply "No, we are members of WADA & they caught a guy in cycling last week, therefore WADA is doing it's job, we are members of WADA, then we are clean"

Change football for any other sport

Maybe cycling is the scapegoat but I dont think it can have any complaints.
Its made its own bed in that regard. There is a simply astonishing level of incontrovertible proof against the vast majority of its blue ribbon winners over the last few decades, and thats long before it started actively trying to deal with the problem.
Its premier event, the tdf, has hardly a single winner in the last 20 years that isnt bangs to rights or as good as. Thats incredible, and the argument that other sports dont try to find the cheats doesnt hold water in my view, because cycling wasnt trying to find a lot of those cheats either.
When the champions league has half a dozen confirmed cheats in the winning team every year for a decade, I'll treat it as I do pro cycling, with zero credibility and disdain. Until then I'll give it benefit of the doubt.[/quote]

Macy0161

That'd be a fair comparison if football did the same level of in and out of competition testing. How many champions league finalists teams are tested, after every match? Meanwhile, the style of football has evolved to be massively about aerobic capacity, and so many matches won by big teams in the dying minutes/ injury time...

I draw my own conclusions and have more faith in cycling when it comes to doping to be honest! Stuff that'd be a two year ban doesn't even warrant comment in football, except for players being committed for taking injections to play through injury.

Hurrache

DonegalBay wrote: »

When the champions league has half a dozen confirmed cheats in the winning team every year for a decade, I'll treat it as I do pro cycling, with zero credibility and disdain. Until then I'll give it benefit of the doubt.

If certain documents, ordered to remain sealed by a judge for some reason, ever get made public you may get your wish, covering a few years anyway, granted. Wenger has publicly stated it happens too.

xxyyzz

I read somewhere that around 2015 about 1500 drug tests were carried out across the top 3 soccer divisions in the UK over one season. When you factor in the size of the squads, there is close to zero chance of being caught.

Barcelona have openly said they have treated players with HGH. To be honest when you compare the financial benefits of soccer vs cycling you would be very naive to think soccer is a clean sport.

morana

xxyyzz wrote: »

I read somewhere that around 2015 about 1500 drug tests were carried out across the top 3 soccer divisions in the UK over one season. When you factor in the size of the squads, there is close to zero chance of being caught.

Barcelona have openly said they have treated players with HGH. To be honest when you compare the financial benefits of soccer vs cycling you would be very naive to think soccer is a clean sport.

that was messi when he was very young. i assume it was to make him grow. I am sure there are tests after every game from both sides but i would think there is drug use. sure wasnt conte and guardiola implicated in drug trials/match fixing as well as all the puerto stuff.

Taxuser1

ANXIOUS wrote: »

Yeah, you're right. Just thought people on this forum might be able to explain what makes him such a guru on all things gambling cycling. Like he doesn't appear to have had an incredible under age career.

Did you confuse 2 different Twitter accounts ? Were you thinking of someone else?

xxyyzz

morana wrote: »

xxyyzz wrote: »

I read somewhere that around 2015 about 1500 drug tests were carried out across the top 3 soccer divisions in the UK over one season. When you factor in the size of the squads, there is close to zero chance of being caught.

Barcelona have openly said they have treated players with HGH. To be honest when you compare the financial benefits of soccer vs cycling you would be very naive to think soccer is a clean sport.

that was messi when he was very young. i assume it was to make him grow. I am sure there are tests after every game from both sides but i would think there is drug use. sure wasnt conte and guardiola implicated in drug trials/match fixing as well as all the puerto stuff.

No, it wasn't. It was Xavi in this case to recover from an injury quicker https://youtu.be/b-CW4UeOdDc

1bryan

ANXIOUS wrote: »

Is it fine to name him here?

why does it matter? His name isn't going to mean anything to anyone.

It was Michelle Froome that outed him afaik, and in fairness to him, it didn't phase him one bit.

I don't get what motivates him. I hate the idea that many of the top names in sport have cheated to get there, but I wouldn't invite the kind of crap he gets, on myself.

To suggest he represents the worst of what twitter is, is a ridiculous comment, given the free reign right-wing hate merchants have on there. You can take or leave Digger. If you take him, you'll get the odd nugget that will interest, if not directly from him, then from some of those that interact with him.

Completely agree with whoever made the comment that people he comments on should just ignore him. But it's quite telling that some don't. Case in point, Jonathan Vaughters. When JV engaged him, he was relentless. Now JV doesn't engage him, he barely gets a mention.

I am impressed by just how many feathers he's managed to ruffle, and the extent to which he's ruffled them. And I'd have little enough sympathy for those whose skin he gets under.

As someone else mentioned before, you always have the option to unfollow. The last time his account disappeared someone threatened him with legal action. Not a stretch to imagine something similar may have happened again.

Weepsie

xxyyzz wrote: »

No, it wasn't. It was Xavi in this case to recover from an injury quicker https://youtu.be/b-CW4UeOdDc

It wasn't Human Growth Hormone, but "Growth Factors" . Graham Hunter I believe was very nearly in a lot of trouble for basically not reading the information given to him properly.

Now it's not entirely clean, but it was not banned afaik. I miss the horse placenta days personally.

Now the mid 90s to mids 2000s, there were a few high profile names banned, not a huge amount, but a few. Guardiola was banned too, but that was later overturned.

I can think of several cases of players being sacked too for failing tests for non performing enhancing drugs.

gmacww

morana wrote: »

that was messi when he was very young.

They also kept up Messi's HGH treatment for a full 2 years after they were supposed to stop.

xxyyzz

Pep has sent some injured city players back to Barcelona for some miracle cures also, Jesus was supposed to be out for 7 weeks in January - he was back playing in 2 after a trip to Spain.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/jul/31/drug-testing-fa-premier-league-players
According to this there were 3250 tests in 2016, you would want to be very very unlucky to be caught if you were being smart about it.

Macy0161

The real elephant in the room regarding spanish football is the Fuentes/ Puerto stuff that was buried. Then we have the 90's Juve team. Football has become a lot more about aerobic capacity in the meantime, with a lax (compared to cycling) testing regime and massively disproportionate potential money gains... Like I say, I draw my own conclusions, and prefer the place cycling is in terms of anti-doping, if not the publicity side.

Djoucer

Started off as an interesting account to follow. Then it just became a scatter gun approach to everything where it arrived at point of "prove they're clean" and unrelenting negativity. It became a backslapping exercise.

ford2600

Macy0161 wrote: »

Meanwhile, the style of football has evolved to be massively about aerobic capacity, and so many matches won by big teams in the dying minutes/ injury time...
.

What data set are you using to correlate injury time winners with a increase in drug taking in association football? Your memory?

Macy0161

ford2600 wrote: »

What data set are you using to correlate injury time winners with a increase in drug taking in association football? Your memory?

Not linking it to doping, more the increase in fitness that the top teams display. The standard rebuttal to doping in football v cycling is "football is a game of skill", which is bs on two counts. One that cycling isn't skillful, and two that football isn't a game where fitness counts.

terrydel

Macy0161 wrote: »

Not linking it to doping, more the increase in fitness that the top teams display. The standard rebuttal to doping in football v cycling is "football is a game of skill", which is bs on two counts. One that cycling isn't skillful, and two that football isn't a game where fitness counts.

The skill required at the top of both sports is simply incomparable.
Im not saying that soccer gets a pass because its a skill game, far from it, but theres no comparison in terms of the skill element.

xxyyzz

You are comparing apples and potatoes. The skills excuse in soccer is a red herring, if you have 2 evenly matched teams they will mostly be at a comparable skill level. If you can take something that gives you slight edge in the last 10 minutes when your opponent is flagging, then it is giving you an advantage, nothing to do with skill.

it's similar to cyclists, the grand tour elite are all exceptional climbers, taking something to give you even a 1% edge over your opponent will win you the tour over the course of 3 weeks.

terrydel

Macy0161 wrote: »

That'd be a fair comparison if football did the same level of in and out of competition testing. How many champions league finalists teams are tested, after every match? Meanwhile, the style of football has evolved to be massively about aerobic capacity, and so many matches won by big teams in the dying minutes/ injury time...

I draw my own conclusions and have more faith in cycling when it comes to doping to be honest! Stuff that'd be a two year ban doesn't even warrant comment in football, except for players being committed for taking injections to play through injury.

You have more faith in a sport where pretty much every grand tour winner for the last two decades has been proven to be a cheat or has massive questions hanging over them/is in the process of being caught etc etc?
Whatever people say about soccer and Ive no doubt its got plenty of problems, the proven, undeniable evidence simply isnt there.
If and when it is I'll look at it as I do pro cycling.
And in any case, how other sports conduct themselves doesnt give pro cycling a hall pass.

terrydel

xxyyzz wrote: »

You are comparing apples and potatoes. The skills excuse in soccer is a red herring, if you have 2 evenly matched teams they will mostly be at a comparable skill level. If you can take something that gives you slight edge in the last 10 minutes when your opponent is flagging, then it is giving you an advantage, nothing to do with skill.

it's similar to cyclists, the grand tour elite are all exceptional climbers, taking something to give you even a 1% edge over your opponent will win you the tour over the course of 3 weeks.

Not sure if you aiming that reply at me, but Im not suggesting that the skills excuse is any kind of way of suggesting doping doesnt occur in soccer.
What Im saying is that skill is a far, far bigger factor in soccer than it is in cycling, so the impact of any drug taking will not be as black and white as it is in cycling.
Of course drugs allow skillful players to be more athletic and thus their skills can be more effective. But taking drugs in cycling is more likely to improve results given the very nature of the pursuit itself. As a sport, relatively speaking cycling is low skill compared to most.
In any case, premier league teams compete against each other week in week out and you will see big differences in the skill levels from the top of the league to the bottom. This might encourage teams lower down to improve thru cheating to try be athletically superior as thats easier done.
Im not defending soccer but i hate the whataboutery of the debate. Professional cycling is beyond a joke, we are soon to see the winner of another 4 tdf's exposed. You cannot trust a single result anymore. And it cant blame any other sport whether that be football, rugby, athletics or whatever.

CramCycle

terrydel wrote: »

Not sure if you aiming that reply at me, but Im not suggesting that the skills excuse is any kind of way of suggesting doping doesnt occur in soccer.
What Im saying is that skill is a far, far bigger factor in soccer than it is in cycling, so the impact of any drug taking will not be as black and white as it is in cycling.

I would disagree, it just appears that way. If a soccer player falls apart in the last 15 minutes compared to a slightly less technically skilled player who can still run rings around him, and there is a team who showed this in the past few years in the premier league, then it makes a huge difference. It also means that naturally skilled players can practice for longer with less risk of causing damage. The same issue occurs in cycling, a skilled rider can read the signs, knows when to go, who to close, who to ignore and so on, the better shape they are in physically, the better able to respond with these skill at the right time mentally. They are very different skills but to take that doping is more likely to affect cycling than soccer is missing the point. I have beaten dopers on the GAA pitch because they were not training and were not great physiaclly but on the same note, at an amateur level, I have seen far less physically fit cyclists take fitter cyclists at the line and before it because they were more skilful.

Of course drugs allow skillful players to be more athletic and thus their skills can be more effective. But taking drugs in cycling is more likely to improve results given the very nature of the pursuit itself. As a sport, relatively speaking cycling is low skill compared to most.

IS your point that you think doping is less likely in soccer or that it has less of an effect on the end result?

In any case, premier league teams compete against each other week in week out and you will see big differences in the skill levels from the top of the league to the bottom. This might encourage teams lower down to improve thru cheating to try be athletically superior as thats easier done.

You make it sound like you are convinced the top teams don't cheat when many have admitted it without realising it. Chelsea used blood bags to aid recovery for Didier Drogba, there are other stories confirmed but they are nice and vague about what they used but if it was cycling, they would have been hauled over the coals.

Im not defending soccer but i hate the whataboutery of the debate. Professional cycling is beyond a joke, we are soon to see the winner of another 4 tdf's exposed. You cannot trust a single result anymore. And it cant blame any other sport whether that be football, rugby, athletics or whatever.

I don't think its whataboutery, I don't defend cycling with "what about this other sport", all I am doing is pointing out the clear bias the media and fans have against cycling and athletics, when other more popular sports are just as guilty on paper, if not more so.

Random doping controls in rugby, in the UK are a prime example. If they didn't say random, you would have to assume they were targeted to get such a high number of positives.

This said, I'll still haul cyclists over the coals quicker than other sports because I don't care as much about them.

xxyyzz

Also, while I think pro cycling is probably beyond redemption at this point, with sports like soccer I don't think doping is a mat that FIFA is willing to look under at the moment due to the financial implications of a scandal and FIFA are hardly a bastion of integrity in the first place. What I'm saying is that just because people aren't getting caught doesn't necessarily mean the sport does not have a problem. It is probably better that cycling is catching the cheats although unfortunately like sprinting it doesn't look like it is possible to win clean.

terrydel

CramCycle wrote: »

I would disagree, it just appears that way. If a soccer player falls apart in the last 15 minutes compared to a slightly less technically skilled player who can still run rings around him, and there is a team who showed this in the past few years in the premier league, then it makes a huge difference. It also means that naturally skilled players can practice for longer with less risk of causing damage. The same issue occurs in cycling, a skilled rider can read the signs, knows when to go, who to close, who to ignore and so on, the better shape they are in physically, the better able to respond with these skill at the right time mentally. They are very different skills but to take that doping is more likely to affect cycling than soccer is missing the point. I have beaten dopers on the GAA pitch because they were not training and were not great physiaclly but on the same note, at an amateur level, I have seen far less physically fit cyclists take fitter cyclists at the line and before it because they were more skilful.

IS your point that you think doping is less likely in soccer or that it has less of an effect on the end result?
You make it sound like you are convinced the top teams don't cheat when many have admitted it without realising it. Chelsea used blood bags to aid recovery for Didier Drogba, there are other stories confirmed but they are nice and vague about what they used but if it was cycling, they would have been hauled over the coals.
I don't think its whataboutery, I don't defend cycling with "what about this other sport", all I am doing is pointing out the clear bias the media and fans have against cycling and athletics, when other more popular sports are just as guilty on paper, if not more so.

Random doping controls in rugby, in the UK are a prime example. If they didn't say random, you would have to assume they were targeted to get such a high number of positives.

This said, I'll still haul cyclists over the coals quicker than other sports because I don't care as much about them.

To answer your qs, my point is that in my opinion doping in soccer is less likely to have a guaranteed impact on the end result.
Cycling is far more of a purely athletic pursuit than soccer is, I am shocked that or anyone seemingly refuse to acknowledge this. Drugs have more of a black and white impact on those sports.

terrydel

CramCycle wrote: »

I would disagree, it just appears that way. If a soccer player falls apart in the last 15 minutes compared to a slightly less technically skilled player who can still run rings around him, and there is a team who showed this in the past few years in the premier league, then it makes a huge difference. It also means that naturally skilled players can practice for longer with less risk of causing damage. The same issue occurs in cycling, a skilled rider can read the signs, knows when to go, who to close, who to ignore and so on, the better shape they are in physically, the better able to respond with these skill at the right time mentally. They are very different skills but to take that doping is more likely to affect cycling than soccer is missing the point. I have beaten dopers on the GAA pitch because they were not training and were not great physiaclly but on the same note, at an amateur level, I have seen far less physically fit cyclists take fitter cyclists at the line and before it because they were more skilful.

IS your point that you think doping is less likely in soccer or that it has less of an effect on the end result?
You make it sound like you are convinced the top teams don't cheat when many have admitted it without realising it. Chelsea used blood bags to aid recovery for Didier Drogba, there are other stories confirmed but they are nice and vague about what they used but if it was cycling, they would have been hauled over the coals.
I don't think its whataboutery, I don't defend cycling with "what about this other sport", all I am doing is pointing out the clear bias the media and fans have against cycling and athletics, when other more popular sports are just as guilty on paper, if not more so.

Random doping controls in rugby, in the UK are a prime example. If they didn't say random, you would have to assume they were targeted to get such a high number of positives.

This said, I'll still haul cyclists over the coals quicker than other sports because I don't care as much about them.

The words you use 'on paper' are telling.
Regardless of how it was arrived at, cycling's history he is f**king shameful, its premier events basically count for nothing anymore, haven't done so for a long time. No other sport comes close. And a lot of those behind that shameful were not caught because the sport itself decided to, quite the opposite in fact.