Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Digger on Twitter
Options
Comments
-
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
Really you have beaten convicted dopers playing GAA? What level?
Not physically great but doping?0 -
Two great players on opposing teams, one is technically more "naturally gifted" but does not dope, the other does, he can train longer, recover quicker, appear in more matches and still give near 100% in the 90th minute and into over time or extra time. It can make a huge difference. Some one with better stamina and more hours training can make up a huge gap in skill. Obviously the gap has to be a cover-able one. I am not sure how you would give a percentage to a skillset like soccer so it is hard to say how much ground specific doping could cover, but being faster to the ball, and still on your game to a higher level after 90 minutes are huge benefits that could overcome noticeable gaps all other things being equal.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.
I wouldn't want to accuse anyone but, looking at a hypothetical, looking at a team that went from nowhere to the top of a very high league, using the same good but not as good as other teams players without changing all season long (even though other teams did need to rest and rotate players, looking incredibly fresh from start to finish. Looking at who their coach was working with in the past, one could make assumptions but without proof. Trying to look at that countries anti doping test, all I can find is that 25 to 35% of players at the top end were not tested at all, and those that were tested, 68% of tests were out of season, in a random year I picked out (2016 in this case).
It is shameful but I find it more telling that you think there are less catches in other sports because it is not as rampant rather than the more likely, it is not looked for or not tested for as much as in cycling.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.
Not convicted because GAA was not part of AD when I was a player, in fact, even now, tests are only carried out at specified times (at matches and training) so can easily be avoided. At Minor and Junior level. Admitted doping to me and several others publicly. Funnily did not call it doping but gave us a list of what they took and what we should be taking. This was 20+years ago. I had no idea what doping was other than it was mentioned on the news in regards cycling. Only later did I realise what he was actually doing. He wasn't training right though so it had little use for him other than psychologically and he was better able to keep going at the end of games.Really you have beaten convicted dopers playing GAA? What level?
Not physically great but doping?0 -
Whataboutery about the media coverage is more the point. Media queue up to have a go at cycling over doping, but don't go near other sports. And will actually go further and celebrate players willing to take injections to be able to play!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.
Wenger was mentioned earlier, as being "concerned" about doping, but iirc some former player made mention of being handed liquids to take to improve performance/ recovery a few years ago. Also if you read the doping books, recovery is the main thing epo/ transfusions give - clearly no benefit to football teams playing twice a week, every week, all season...0 -
Two great players on opposing teams, one is technically more "naturally gifted" but does not dope, the other does, he can train longer, recover quicker, appear in more matches and still give near 100% in the 90th minute and into over time or extra time. It can make a huge difference. Some one with better stamina and more hours training can make up a huge gap in skill. Obviously the gap has to be a cover-able one. I am not sure how you would give a percentage to a skillset like soccer so it is hard to say how much ground specific doping could cover, but being faster to the ball, and still on your game to a higher level after 90 minutes are huge benefits that could overcome noticeable gaps all other things being equal.
I wouldn't want to accuse anyone but, looking at a hypothetical, looking at a team that went from nowhere to the top of a very high league, using the same good but not as good as other teams players without changing all season long (even though other teams did need to rest and rotate players, looking incredibly fresh from start to finish. Looking at who their coach was working with in the past, one could make assumptions but without proof. Trying to look at that countries anti doping test, all I can find is that 25 to 35% of players at the top end were not tested at all, and those that were tested, 68% of tests were out of season, in a random year I picked out (2016 in this case).
It is shameful but I find it more telling that you think there are less catches in other sports because it is not as rampant rather than the more likely, it is not looked for or not tested for as much as in cycling.
Not convicted because GAA was not part of AD when I was a player, in fact, even now, tests are only carried out at specified times (at matches and training) so can easily be avoided. At Minor and Junior level. Admitted doping to me and several others publicly. Funnily did not call it doping but gave us a list of what they took and what we should be taking. This was 20+years ago. I had no idea what doping was other than it was mentioned on the news in regards cycling. Only later did I realise what he was actually doing. He wasn't training right though so it had little use for him other than psychologically and he was better able to keep going at the end of games.
So you are saying that taking drugs in skill based sports such as soccer is equally likely to impact the result as they are in sports that are more solely an athletic pursuit, such as cycling and soccer?
You seem to be trying to advance a notion that cycling is some sort of high skill endeavour which it simply is not in the context of sport in general. As sports go, it is low down the ranking in terms of skill level required (actual motor skills rather than notional ideas of skill).
Purely athletic sports will always see more effective results from drug use than those where the athletic element is a less component. Or do you think thats wrong?0 -
Wenger was mentioned earlier, as being "concerned" about doping, but iirc some former player made mention of being handed liquids to take to improve performance/ recovery a few years ago. Also if you read the doping books, recovery is the main thing epo/ transfusions give - clearly no benefit to football teams playing twice a week, every week, all season...
Massive difference in recovery required from doing 200 kms up and down mountains, to a mix of walking, jogging and sprinting for 60-90mins over a distance of 9-12 km. The ball is also not in play for something like 40% of a typical football match so there are respites, recovery times built in to matches.
Squads are bigger now than previously too, so there is generally a bit of rotation. If you're a good team, you might get 60 games. If you play every single one of them and some internationals, you might play for 100 hours. That's only marginally more than a Grand Tour.
I'd also take anything Wenger has said in the last 10 years with some scepticism as if it's done to deflect from his teams own shortcomings.
There is plenty of media outrage when there is football related controversy, not necessarily around drugs, but it's there because it sells.0 -
Advertisement
-
It is also a culture thing, doping is attached to cycling and athletics in the public eye, therefore most cyclist and athletics types know what doping is, with greater and more in depth knowledge. Whereas other sports, including the fans, don't even seem to recognise doping when described to them. Chelsea doctors in the past talking about blood infusions to aid recovery, and looking confused at sports science conferences when called out. One even saying to my then bosses face and a room of 100 others that it wasn't unethical/doping as it was the players own blood that they were using. he even used to use it as a question after that conference to his students,was it unethical, a large numebr came back with answers that you or I would call unethical because that is the line cycling has drawn but other sports have not.
I didn't say equally, to be honest, the metrics are so different that it would be hard to say what difference it makes other than being able to say it definitely will make a difference.So you are saying that taking drugs in skill based sports such as soccer is equally likely to impact the result as they are in sports that are more solely an athletic pursuit, such as cycling and soccer?
there are probably highly skilled cyclists who are up there but not quite, who do not dope but then there are probably many highly talented soccer and GAA players who don't get picked because even though they are better players, they can't go at the same constant level as other players who may have more opportunity's to improve their performances through other means (not technically doping means but morally questionable means).
I don't think it's wrong, in fact it is correct, although there is more skill to cycling than you imply, although this skill maybe more from a tactical point of view, rather than one you can visibly appreciate.. You seem to be doing the art of doping a disservice though in implying that highly skillful sports won't see a huge benefit from doping.Purely athletic sports will always see more effective results from drug use than those where the athletic element is a less component. Or do you think thats wrong?
Are you telling me that a team of naturally gifted players will not see a huge benefit to the correct form of doping. In many of these sports, they really don't seem to think what we call doping in cycling as doping at all.
As Fuentes asked himself, how would I prepare a team to play in the Champions league?0 -
So you are saying that taking drugs in skill based sports such as soccer is equally likely to impact the result as they are in sports that are more solely an athletic pursuit, such as cycling and soccer?
Are you saying it's not as big of an issue if it only improves the football players performance by 1% rather than 10% in a cyclist?0 -
The big difference in the sports though, ignoring all the skill, no skill etc... nonsense is the fan base. Terrydel you're absolutely correct, cycling has gone beyond a joke. But the question is why is that the case? The authorities didn't and still largely don't want to know. The reason we know what we do and why it's gone beyond a joke is because the cycling public (journalists and fans) hated the fact that we had/have dopers. They hounded and hounded and hounded until it broke and all came out. Still to this day we are seeing the drip of revelations coming out about Sky.
Translate that to soccer or rugby and what do you get? A body who is not looking for doping supported by federations who don't want to acknowledge it all supported by a fan base who have no interest in the debate and don't wish to acknowledge it. Pile all that together and you have mass acceptance/ignorance.
That's the big and key difference. Leaving aside all the skill nonsense if soccer and rugby had a press pack and fan base similar to cycling you'd know so much more about what goes on.
Lastly you mentioned that no other sport comes close to cycling in regards to doping? Have you never watched any athletics? They reset all the world records recently! What other sport has done that?0 -
Are you telling me that a team of naturally gifted players will not see a huge benefit to the correct form of doping. In many of these sports, they really don't seem to think what we call doping in cycling as doping at all.Are you saying it's not as big of an issue if it only improves the football players performance by 1% rather than 10% in a cyclist?
No is the answer to both. As I've said a number of times in this thread alone, and in others previously, I dont doubt for a second that soccer has a problem, but based on the actual facts and evidence of what we actually know, the problem in soccer pales in comparison to cycling. But the usual soccer haters always come out with the whataboutery stuff regardless of the argument, be it drugs, referees, cheating of a different nature, wages etc etc.
Show me actual evidence that puts soccer in the same book, never mind the same page as cycling and I'll condemn it just as much.
Based on evidence and fact, the problem in cycling is multiples worse. No getting round that.0 -
The big difference in the sports though, ignoring all the skill, no skill etc... nonsense is the fan base. Terrydel you're absolutely correct, cycling has gone beyond a joke. But the question is why is that the case? The authorities didn't and still largely don't want to know. The reason we know what we do and why it's gone beyond a joke is because the cycling public (journalists and fans) hated the fact that we had/have dopers. They hounded and hounded and hounded until it broke and all came out. Still to this day we are seeing the drip of revelations coming out about Sky.
Translate that to soccer or rugby and what do you get? A body who is not looking for doping supported by federations who don't want to acknowledge it all supported by a fan base who have no interest in the debate and don't wish to acknowledge it. Pile all that together and you have mass acceptance/ignorance.
That's the big and key difference. Leaving aside all the skill nonsense if soccer and rugby had a press pack and fan base similar to cycling you'd know so much more about what goes on.
Lastly you mentioned that no other sport comes close to cycling in regards to doping? Have you never watched any athletics? They reset all the world records recently! What other sport has done that?
Agree with a lot of what you say.
I never said no other sport comes close to cycling, I said its up there as one of the worst offenders. Fully aware athletics is as bad.
I think cycling has been lucky in a sense because I dont believe its media in general chased the cheats, more so it had a small minority of mavericks like Kimmage, Walsh etc who went after them.
And are you really saying that investigative journos simply havent gone after sports like soccer, given the glory theyd get if they found something?
All pro sports have huge problems but the facts we have right now show that it is a virtual disease in cycling. We dont have that evidence to point at most other sports.0 -
Advertisement
-
No is the answer to both. As I've said a number of times in this thread alone, and in others previously, I dont doubt for a second that soccer has a problem, but based on the actual facts and evidence of what we actually know, the problem in soccer pales in comparison to cycling. But the usual soccer haters always come out with the whataboutery stuff regardless of the argument, be it drugs, referees, cheating of a different nature, wages etc etc.
Show me actual evidence that puts soccer in the same book, never mind the same page as cycling and I'll condemn it just as much.
Based on evidence and fact, the problem in cycling is multiples worse. No getting round that.
There's no testing in soccer so there is no evidence. The fig leaf of testing they do is a token box ticking exercise much like the "respect" ads they run and logos on the jerseys. Plenty of info out there about the dubious practices in Italy, Spain etc. As Lance said, I've never tested positive, just like all those untested football players.
My main sport of choice is Rugby. Now there is very little evidence of drug use in that sport either, largely because there's feck all testing. Now anyone who believes that there isn't wide spread use of drugs in a sport which relies heavily on physical power and skill is dreaming, but wheres the evidence?
As Cram said the performance benefit in soccer from just being fitter than the opposition is massive, let alone the benefits of being able to train longer, harder and more often. In those last ten minutes when your skillful opponent is cramping and you are still fresh is what wins silverware. Lots of less skillful teams have won lots of medals by parking the bus and just being fitter.0 -
It seems like the soccer defence is that it's never failed a drugs test...0
-
There's no testing in soccer so there is no evidence. The fig leaf of testing they do is a token box ticking exercise much like the "respect" ads they run and logos on the jerseys. Plenty of info out there about the dubious practices in Italy, Spain etc. As Lance said, I've never tested positive, just like all those untested football players.
My main sport of choice is Rugby. Now there is very little evidence of drug use in that sport either, largely because there's feck all testing. Now anyone who believes that there isn't wide spread use of drugs in a sport which relies heavily on physical power and skill is dreaming, but wheres the evidence?
As Cram said the performance benefit in soccer from just being fitter than the opposition is massive, let alone the benefits of being able to train longer, harder and more often. In those last ten minutes when your skillful opponent is cramping and you are still fresh is what wins silverware. Lots of less skillful teams have won lots of medals by parking the bus and just being fitter.
Rugby topped the list of failed tests in the UK recently, so clearly they are doing something.
Im not disputing the benefits of cheating via drugs in soccer or any other sport.
But using ped's is far more likely to reap rewards in a purely athletic discipline such as cycling or athletics where the criteria for winning/success is more black and white. Surely you dont dispute that? I think that fact plays a role in the incentive to cheat and thus the number thats do in cycling, athletics etc.
The best example takes that to its logical conclusion, its the 100m sprint, an almost solely athletic endeavour, with a very small skill element, and practically everyone cheats. And thats been proven.
I dont think its fair to class other sports in the same boat of cycling just because people 'think' they are as bad as cycling, a little bit of benefit of doubt is surely allowed, or else we are going down the guilty til proven innocent road. And then why bother with any sport?0 -
Rugby topped the list of failed tests in the UK recently, so clearly they are doing something.
Im not disputing the benefits of cheating via drugs in soccer or any other sport.
But using ped's is far more likely to reap rewards in a purely athletic discipline such as cycling or athletics where the criteria for winning/success is more black and white. Surely you dont dispute that? I think that fact plays a role in the incentive to cheat and thus the number thats do in cycling, athletics etc.
The best example takes that to its logical conclusion, its the 100m sprint, an almost solely athletic endeavour, with a very small skill element, and practically everyone cheats. And thats been proven.
I dont think its fair to class other sports in the same boat of cycling just because people 'think' they are as bad as cycling, a little bit of benefit of doubt is surely allowed, or else we are going down the guilty til proven innocent road. And then why bother with any sport?
Rugby did top that list but it included rugby league and was lower level players not the top level were the incentive to cheat will be higher. They get a few low level guys to show how they are tackling the issue but without upsetting the applecart and those big sponsors.
Football is largely an athletic discipline though, with skills then to top it off like most sports. It's the ability to perform those skills when fatigued/under pressure that matters. So whether it's something to take the edge off those nerves or have you fresher for longer it matters a lot more than you credit it for. I seem to recall some doping in golf not too long ago and the same arguments being made about skill v athletic performance. If cycling was all about athletic performance then the strongest rider would always win, but we all know that isn't the case.
Doping isn't always about getting stronger or faster, a lot of it comes down to just keeping yourself available to play. This is especially important in team sports were you play every week or a number of times a week. If you aren't playing you aren't getting the match fee/win bonus and you might not get your place back from the lad who is playing in your place.
People need to rethink doping as just people trying to get bigger, stronger, faster. Mainly it's getting you back from injury faster0 -
I dont think its fair to class other sports in the same boat of cycling just because people 'think' they are as bad as cycling, a little bit of benefit of doubt is surely allowed, or else we are going down the guilty til proven innocent road. And then why bother with any sport?
Just to add, cycling has a problem and has always had a problem. The fact it goes back so long affects people perceptions. Do other sports have the same problems to a higher or lower level? I don't know because most other sports don't care about it and won't until there's a big scandal and their cashflow looks like it might take a hit.
If all sports were tested to the same levels as each other I reckon most professional big sports would have a similar % of their athletes found to be doping in some way or other.0 -
Agree with a lot of what you say.
I never said no other sport comes close to cycling, I said its up there as one of the worst offenders. Fully aware athletics is as bad.
I think cycling has been lucky in a sense because I dont believe its media in general chased the cheats, more so it had a small minority of mavericks like Kimmage, Walsh etc who went after them.
And are you really saying that investigative journos simply havent gone after sports like soccer, given the glory theyd get if they found something?
All pro sports have huge problems but the facts we have right now show that it is a virtual disease in cycling. We dont have that evidence to point at most other sports.
I would argues that journalists do not go after certain sports the way they do cycling. The prime example is one which outed a lot of cyclists, Operation Puerto. In that whole debacle, there were sportspeople from various backgrounds including football, yet the only people named were cyclists. Why was that? Remember that is how Ullrich had his name sullied and how Valverde was eventually busted, plus plenty others. Only cyclists, yet Fuentes the guy at the centre of that affair said there were other top sportspeople involved. It was said that because some of Spains top sports names were involved, it was buried.0 -
-
he's back tweeting this morning anyway0
-
No, it wasn't. It was Xavi in this case to recover from an injury quicker https://youtu.be/b-CW4UeOdDc
no i am sure it was messi http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1492546-lionel-messi-and-hgh-the-truth-about-the-best-footballer-in-the-world
https://www.balls.ie/football/after-yesterdays-revelations-its-worth-asking-again-would-messi-be-messi-without-hgh-3295580 -
Graham Hunter claimed they were treating Xavi with HGH to expedite his injury recovery. Messi was treated with them also as you say.0 -
Advertisement
-
Rugby did top that list but it included rugby league and was lower level players not the top level were the incentive to cheat will be higher. They get a few low level guys to show how they are tackling the issue but without upsetting the applecart and those big sponsors.
Football is largely an athletic discipline though, with skills then to top it off like most sports. It's the ability to perform those skills when fatigued/under pressure that matters. So whether it's something to take the edge off those nerves or have you fresher for longer it matters a lot more than you credit it for. I seem to recall some doping in golf not too long ago and the same arguments being made about skill v athletic performance. If cycling was all about athletic performance then the strongest rider would always win, but we all know that isn't the case.
Doping isn't always about getting stronger or faster, a lot of it comes down to just keeping yourself available to play. This is especially important in team sports were you play every week or a number of times a week. If you aren't playing you aren't getting the match fee/win bonus and you might not get your place back from the lad who is playing in your place.
People need to rethink doping as just people trying to get bigger, stronger, faster. Mainly it's getting you back from injury faster
The skill element of soccer is a fair bigger part of the sport than it is in cycling. Thats just a fact. Im not disputing that drugs dont massively help you perform those skills to their optimum, but equally you cannot deny that taking drugs as a cyclist has a higher possibility of delivering success, given the very nature of the sport. On the sporting ladder, cycling is low skill, simple as that.0 -
-
-
-
The skill element of soccer is a fair bigger part of the sport than it is in cycling. Thats just a fact. Im not disputing that drugs dont massively help you perform those skills to their optimum, but equally you cannot deny that taking drugs as a cyclist has a higher possibility of delivering success, given the very nature of the sport. On the sporting ladder, cycling is low skill, simple as that.
Whether or not one sport is deemed more or less skillfull is a moot point, it only matters that doping improves performance in the given sport.
At elite level small differences in performance are even more important. There is as much, if not more incentive for a football player to dope than a cyclist. Therefore it'd be mad to think there isn't widespread doping going on it that sport. The "fact" it's more skillfull doesn't matter, the aim in doping isn't to be more skillfull. It's aim is to be able to train and deliver those skills under fatigue and pressure and recover faster for the next event.
In cycling that maybe as simple as being able to sprint at the end of long stage and maintaining control in a tight group, as in football it maybe as simple as a winger making one more break down the wing and crossing the ball into the box late in the game0 -
How did this go from Digger to soccer?
Hes alrite in my book but if hes not for you dont follow him. simple.0 -
-
Or, because pro cycling fans get fed up of it being suggested that only cycling (and athletics) has an issue. Even digger isn't that bad, and will point at other sports like boxing, football, rugby et al.0
-
-
Advertisement
-
On the sporting ladder, cycling is low skill, simple as that.
I love when I see this said by various people. My response? Ride in a tight group at 40km and tell me how nervous you feel. When you get over that chuck yourself down a mountain side at 90kph and tell me how much skill is involved.
I'm not getting drawn into an argument over the percentage of soccer skill/fitness ratio v cycling/athletics/motor racing etc... What sets Peter Sagan apart from me is not just his fitness and cycling strength. It's the fact that he's a world class bike handler. I'm not. He has unbelievable bike handling skills that I just don't possess and I'd be a very good bike handler. He has mental skills that are far better than mine. Race tactical and awareness skills.
Often when people say there is no or low skill in cycling it's because they don't cycle and have no understanding or appreciation for the sport. Or worse, they do cycle and think they are world class because they can go down the wicklow gap.0
Advertisement