Don Catlin: Everyone's doping and WADA can't do anything about it

Discussion in 'Football Forum' started by Brwned, Aug 5, 2017.

?

Do you believe doping is widespread in football, as in all other major sports?

  1. Doping is widespread in all major sports, including football

    614 vote(s)
    69.3%
  2. Doping is widespread in some major sports, but football isn't one of them

    210 vote(s)
    23.7%
  3. Doping is not a significant issue in most major sports

    62 vote(s)
    7.0%
  1. Aug 7, 2017

    Snow Somewhere down the lane, a licky boom boom down

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2007
    Messages:
    27,303
    Location:
    Reykjavík
    Assuming there's dope that has that affect. I don't think there is. I think there are drugs that make a difference in a 100m race. The current world champion came ahead of the 2nd and 3rd placed players by 0.02 and 0.03 seconds. A very long Tour De France run winner might finish 5-10 seconds or less ahead of the next. That kind of edge is not prevalent in a 90 minute game of football where the tactical cohesion of 11 different players is more important than all of them being able to run for 90 minutes (which they will be able to anyway).
  2. Aug 12, 2017 at 18:02

    GimmeAKitKat Four Brown Fingers

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2014
    Messages:
    493
    Location:
    Old Trafford, Manchester
    Physical attributes play a part yes in why teams of today would likely run rampant over teams of yesteryear, but its not the only reason. Technique, skill etc have improved, and one massive aspect that people rarely seem to consider is also the way in which pitches, balls and boots for example have changed.

    Sounds like a "Messi in Stoke" cliche, but stick Messi on a bobbly as feck pitch with no underground heating, a rock hard old leather ball and some rock hard leather boots and he's an entirely different player.

    There are too many factors involved in a discussion like that.

    As far as physical attributes go, the changes in medicine, training and quite simply the lack of smoking and boozing now would trivialise any impact drugs would have.

    Drugs dont give that large an increase in performance physically too. It might be a 1-2% improvement that means a sprinter shaves a few miliseconds off his time etc. and that margin means much less in football.

    The difference from a pie n chips diet, drinker and smoker who trains almost like a Sunday league side, against a genuine Athlete, non smoker, non drinker, on a scientifically designed diet with personal trainer costing hundreds of thousands. spending everyday training on an individual regime, would be an astronomical difference.

    But even so, George best runs monumental rings around Fellaini any day of the week. Physicality and endurance out the window.
  3. Aug 12, 2017 at 18:03

    cyberman Full Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2010
    Messages:
    9,148
    Nate Diaz is indeed a prophet
  4. Aug 12, 2017 at 18:33

    Brwned Have you ever been in love before?

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2008
    Messages:
    45,758
    That's a convoluted answer to relatively simple questions. Let's try and simplify it. Would you say yes to all three of those questions? If not, can you elaborate on which you would answer no to?
  5. Aug 12, 2017 at 18:48

    GimmeAKitKat Four Brown Fingers

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2014
    Messages:
    493
    Location:
    Old Trafford, Manchester
    As are your questions. And the implication you seem to make is that because the answer to those questions might be yes for the most part, it means doping is massive.

    I dont think anyone has said Physical attributes being improved wouldn't have an impact, simply that its nowhere near as big an impact as in other sports, or as other factors.

    Generalities don't prove rules too. Speed may make players better, but it never stopped Berbatov, Totti, Pirlo etc being some of the classiest players of their generation. Height and lesser strength doesn't stop Kante being an immense defensive midfielder or Messi scoring a headed goal against Rio/Vidic/VdS in a champions league final.
  6. Aug 12, 2017 at 18:53

    Nucks Cuckoo

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2007
    Messages:
    3,387
    LOL.

    It's a quantifiable 10-20% for an elite athlete who has already pushed up against their maximum potential.

    For an everyday average joe, the increase can be insane, because the drugs allow them to get in shape faster, work harder, push through difficulty better, recover faster. In a year or so of consistent PED use by a average guy, you can see gains of in-excess of 100% for pure strength, and other substantial gains in things like speed and agility.
  7. Aug 12, 2017 at 19:03

    Wal2Fra New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2017
    Messages:
    52
    Location:
    Paris
    Maybe a few individuals in Football are using PED's but at a guess it would be those in lower leagues who are looking for a boost to help gain a move up the Footballing ladder.

    As mentioned a few times above, Football is not really a sport that would benefit too highly due to technical aspect of the game. Yes maybe it would help with recovery but outright performances it would have minimal effect.

    Due to the physical aspect of the likes of Athletics, Cycling (and I also believe fighting sports such as UFC) Where it all comes down to simply physicality, it does play a big part.

    Also the AFL (Aussie rules) has a big problem with it with PED's and I actually think they are trying to keep it out of public eye for a while after a scandal a few years back with Essendon Football club, where all but 2 players were banned due to PED's.
  8. Aug 12, 2017 at 19:06

    IWat New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2014
    Messages:
    59
    I posted this in another thread but will post it here since it seems to fit the topic:

    Drug testing is alarmingly easy to get around, there are three reasons athletes will get caught a) They suck at maths b) They've bought a substance that is mis-labelled either in strength or is simply a completely different substance, happens a lot with underground labs c) they get absurdly unlucky. UK Anti-Doping only took 799 samples from 550 players last year in the premier league, that's a little over a test a year. When you consider you can skip a test without consequence, that makes it an even bigger joke. There are substances that will clear your body within a few days, testosterone suspension for example will stay in the body for 1-3 days. Providing you then balance the testosterone/epitestosterone ratio in your blood after and keep it within the legal ratio, you are just fine even if they test you 4-5 days after you injected. If you get really unlucky and they come in that 1-3 day period, you simply avoid the tester and take the hit on your record.
  9. Aug 12, 2017 at 19:09

    Massive Spanner Thinks Geoff Shreeves has one

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2014
    Messages:
    4,688
    Location:
    Tool shed
    I'd love to know how they come back from injuries so bloody quickly, that's for sure. Took me nearly 3 months to recover from a hamstring injury last year and after doing both my ACL and Meniscus last month, the surgeon has told me it'll likely take a year to play any sports again, assuming it goes well.
  10. Aug 12, 2017 at 19:11

    Brwned Have you ever been in love before?

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2008
    Messages:
    45,758
    That's not what I'm implying. What I'm saying is, as in the post you quoted:

  11. Aug 12, 2017 at 19:15

    sullydnl Ross Kemp's caf ID

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2012
    Messages:
    14,112
    The argument that doping wouldn't provide a great benefit in football is nonsensical and anti-science.
  12. Aug 12, 2017 at 19:33

    KirkDuyt Full Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2015
    Messages:
    976
    Location:
    The Hague
    Supports:
    Feyenoord
    I remember in 92 I was so sure that Denmark goalie was doping. No one can possibly be that good.

    I was 8 though and that Denmark goalie really was that good..
  13. Aug 12, 2017 at 19:52

    ypsipeos New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2016
    Messages:
    206
    Nike, Adidas, Barclay etc. are able to protect their products, I belive, wether it is called Ronaldo or Premier League.
    Football betting, merchandising, heafty TV prices, tickets, traveling abroad to watch your team etc etc
    It is a huge market and grows bigger and bigger while average GDP in European countries falls.

    So,

    1. if the kids teens and adults all over the world learn to admire and want to watch super-fast players and
    2. if every team wants THE fastest player in their squad so as to win titles and --> these kids, teens and adults become fans ---> profit!

    Then somebody has to produce the products that makes footballers faster. And if one team does this , then the others follow. Still, the market grows. The dope is a product itself.

    And if you got such a huge global market you have to be sure somebody is protecting this market. Football has got its cops. They fix matches for profit. They need "cops". They dope superstars? They need "cops".
    This market is protecting itself like anyother big comany or like any other market.


    I think I have given a reasonable answer to each of your questions.
    People want to watch something spectacular. People need to know that what they watch is the best... better than it was 30 years before and the best around the world right now... and they want to bepart of this. Football gives them everything I described. It is the king of sports.

    Why there is no scandal?
    Well, because there will be no sports market, no spectacular sport to watcu, nothing better and bigger, nothing to be part of.
    Last edited: Aug 12, 2017 at 20:00
  14. Aug 12, 2017 at 19:54

    IWat New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2014
    Messages:
    59
    I am a firm believer in doping is fairly widespread. But let us be serious for a minute, footballers do not run a 'feckload.' Liverpool averaged 116.9km on average per game last season, even not considering subs, that averages out at 10.6km per player per game. To put that into perspective in a couple of ways:

    - That averages out at about a 7km/h average speed over 90 minutes, the average walking speed of a human is 5km/h. So they cover the distance at an average speed of an overweight mum doing her first 10k.
    - The distance equals about the combined distance of Mo Farah's warm up and cool down runs in a TRAINING session.

    This fatigue thing in football is a load of shit, knocks yes from contact, but tired from running? No. I, a fairly fit but not professional athlete covered 10km this morning far quicker this morning than a footballer does over a game and I could go and do it again tomorrow morning, and the day after and do the same time within a margin of error.
  15. Aug 12, 2017 at 21:22

    prarek Full Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2012
    Messages:
    8,631
    The doping control in football is still woefully inadequate. Modern cycling is 10 times more cleaner. To think that the biggest sport with the most money is not ripe with PEDs is naive.
  16. Aug 12, 2017 at 21:47

    VorZakone What would Kenny G do?

    Joined:
    May 9, 2013
    Messages:
    10,112
    I find it odd that some people think doping would not be helpful in football because all it does is increase stamina levels rather than actual skill or whatever. The point is that technique and decision-making is correlated with fatigue/stamina, when you're tired your technique goes to shit so higher stamina levels because of doping would definitely be an advantage. Adding to that, the advantage of just the higher stamina level itself means you can more easily push for goals in extra time.
  17. Aug 12, 2017 at 21:50

    Paul_Scholes18 Full Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2014
    Messages:
    225
    Jepp it is bad arguments.
  18. Aug 12, 2017 at 21:53

    TheSpaceman New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2013
    Messages:
    81
    I think the difference lies in the intensity of the running as opposed to the duration. You can't just throw out an "average" of 7 km/h without putting it into context. Almost a third of the game is spent waiting on throw ins/set pieces/keeper distribution etc.. so of course players are going to be walking at this time. Spend 15 minutes of a high intensity game in the center of midfield - walking, sprinting, jumping, what have you - and you'll expend considerable more effort than were you to run for the same amount of time at a normal pace.
  19. Aug 12, 2017 at 22:32

    Ish Lights on for Luke

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    18,647
    Location:
    Where fans' expectations are too high
    We should try and sign him up!
  20. Aug 12, 2017 at 22:34

    Ish Lights on for Luke

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    18,647
    Location:
    Where fans' expectations are too high
    Indeed. Lapses in concentration resulting in errors etc are all a consequence of fatigue a lot of the time as well.
  21. Aug 12, 2017 at 22:34

    IWat New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2014
    Messages:
    59
    A decent 1st 10k time for a beginner running 10k is anything under an hour. For a male in their 20's or 30's there is no reason they shouldn't be able to do it within 50 and get to under 45 minutes with a couple of years of training, by which I mean go for a run 3-4 times a week before/after work, not professional training. Sure, the jumping, changing direction, more interval type nature is going to make it a bit more strenuous. But it really is not some mammoth feat of physical ability that you can only perform 2-3 times a week. I honestly find the whole culture in football rather pathetic, I follow basketball who have 82 game seasons with players more often than not having 3 games a week which will typically include flights every week and timezone changes. No one complains, flying isn't seem as some catastrophic thing that takes days to recover from.

    If a male came to me in their 20's or 30's and said they are getting exhaused running a couple of 10k's a week, particularly knowing they have their nutrition sorted, I would suggest they go to a doctor and get a blood test to check they don't any deficiencies or some kind of health problem. That's how ludicrous I find it.
  22. Aug 12, 2017 at 23:26

    Red Stone Full Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2011
    Messages:
    5,822
    Location:
    Norway
    Football is totally incomparable with distance running. Distance running is mostly an aerobic exercise that requires setting a steady pace and keeping it until you've run as far as you have to. Football is an intense combinstion of aerobic and anaerobic efforts and involves kicking the ball, jumping, quick changes in direction, sprints of various distances and tackles and knocks that put immense strain on the muscles compared to pure running, as well as running back and forth while the lactic acid seeps through your muscles from the previously mentioned efforts. In addition to that, the actual play time after accounting for all the stoppages is more like 50-60 minutes, so at least 30 of those 90 minutes hardly count. Any world class long distance runner would get lapped multiple times during a 10K if he had to run while doing the explosive bursts a footballer has to do during a match while the other runners trip him up and push him around, and 10K runners are athletes who devote their entire lives to improving their endurance, while footballers have to also work just as hard on their technique, understanding of the game and team tactics, as well multiple other areas of the game.

    Any team that took a shortcut to improving their players' stamina would have a massive advantage, as it would give them more time and energy to work on the tactical and technical aspect of the game and/or players fitter than the majority of clean players. A huge advantage, no doubt. Just not as big as it is for athletes whose entire sport revolves around pure physiology.
  23. Aug 13, 2017 at 00:27

    IWat New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2014
    Messages:
    59
    I'm not on about them needing to be world class athletes, I can run 10km in 42 minutes and I don't live like or train as a professional sportsperson would, I've had a few beers tonight, I don't sleep the recommended amount etc etc. I acknowledged in my last post that yes, the more interval nature of football will make it more strenuous. But I simply find it hilarious that it is put across as some feat you can't consistently do a few times a week if you have your diet and other stuff in check. Plenty of athletes and simply people who want to keep fit incorporate stuff like hill sprints into their routine, it's not something that should be screwing you up 3 days later if you are actually in shape and are used to doing it. NBA players manage just fine playing 3 games a week in an 82 game season in a sport that is arguagbly more intense than football, although granted less ground is covered.

    Btw, you don't think endurance athletes don't spend quite a bit of time on technique and tactics?

    Pretty much every scientific study finds that protein synthesis and lactate metabolism is concluded 48 hours after exercise. Not that it means it is necessarily to actually do no activity in that time. One of the most common training methods used for weightlifters, the Bulgarian method, has them lifting in AM/PM sessions 6 or 6.5 days a week at various % of max output. Like I said in the other post I made, if you're a man in your 20s or 30s and are getting legitimately fatigued days later after doing strenious activity for 90 minutes 2-3 times a week then a) You're not fit enough b) You have a health issue c) You're a bit of a pussy. Actual injuries and smacks from contact are a completely different thing, I was specifically refering to 'fatigue' and 'tired.'
  24. Aug 13, 2017 at 03:37

    Hojoon Full Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2012
    Messages:
    7,246
    Agreed. I'd like to add the amount of screaming the players do to get others in position and mark their men throughout the game, something you can't do if you're out of breath.
  25. Aug 13, 2017 at 06:48

    Oooh_aaah_cantona New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2017
    Messages:
    37
    Would you do shady things at work, like spread rumors you heard about a colleague, if it meant a slightly higher possibility of you getting that promotion?

    Imagine your career has now been condensed to 10 years instead of 30-40 years, and the amount of glory and $ at stake are multiplied many times.

    I find it hard to believe footballers won't do anything they can to even gain a slight advantage, if the health risk came decades down, and the immediate risk of getting caught is small.

    As to whether the authorities are in it; we all know how inefficient bodies and governments generally are with such things, if there's no real incentive to catch offenders.