Well if all of this, probably not, they both could have been used as a decoy
, I men you got Aguero and it's not like you where lacking a BP CB to run your system.. xDPep - Doping (?) | Are PEDs being used by footballers
- Thread starter JoaquinJoaquin
- Start date
, I men you got Aguero and it's not like you where lacking a BP CB to run your system.. xDBecause if Kompany recovers fast then there's definitely something dodgy
De Bruyne said to be out for over 2 months, he'll be back within a week.
He's back.
Anyone else suspicious of David Silva’s wrist bandage?
Remember Vardy had the same when they won the league.
Remember Vardy had the same when they won the league.
Lot of footballplayers have those wristbands these days. Are they supposed to hide needlepoints?
I hope everyone here is safely stocked on tinfoil. It would be needed this season.
Stamina is built on the aerobic system. It never stops developing. Of course his stamina will improve as he ages.
You'd have to compare number (and speed) of sprints per match and show a huge uptick, to base anything on Silva.
For me, he plays in a different position. Looks busier, probably covers ground more effectively.
The main thing that could be suggestive of doping for me at city is the number of late goals they score. Elevated performance levels late in games when regular players are tiring would be a primary reason to dope.
Hello darkness my old friend....
Forgot about Fergie time?
I'm actually embarrassed by this whole thread. It feels like I'm reading the RAWK a couple of years ago.
Just FYI guys it's Testosterone that causes hair loss (it automatises into DHT and will gradually destroy the DHT sensitive follicles in the scalp). It's unlikely pep is doping with pure test (although it's harder to test for). I seem to recall pep himself was caught using clenbuterol, which is an asthma medication, it causes massively increased stamina, muscle gain and fat loss, but it doesn't cause DHT to be produced so wouldn't cause hair loss, but would be the most likely drug of choice if doping in football.
With a huge budgets in football, do you not think that clubs can afford to ask a pharmacy to develop a drug which is undetectable and hither to, unknown to us?
During the big state sponsored steroid development (especially for women), by the East Germans in the 70s, substances were developed which most of us had never heard of. Now imagine, if those pharmacists were given even more money (which is what a football club can do) to produce the very best drugs.
Steroids will often do this.
For example, if you have a full head of thick hair, taking steroids won't make you bald, which is why you see so many steroid taking bodybuilders will full hair.
But, if you are beginning to recede, consuming steroids, will send that person who is already pre-disposed to being bald, completely bald.
No offence mate but you've no idea what you're talking about. There aren't any magically undetectable drugs.
You don't just test for a drug, you test for the elevation of other biological markers. You can't create drugs that have huge physiological benefits without side effects because they put the human body in an unnatural state. I worked for big pharma and am now a competitive body-builder. Pharma companies have to go through a rigorous process to even begin development of a drug, let alone auditing and moral ethics codes. Yes there were government sponsored doping programs in Russia as well, and the Russians were banned because of it. The UK government is not conducting state sponsored doping programs for premiership clubs, they barely have enough money to run the NHS.
Man city can't just rock up and go 'Can you make us a new steroid on the down low guys? Btw it needs to be undetectable and not raise any of the 20 or so markers that are usually tested for. Oh and can you do it all off the books? You know, don't write anything down, and we need it be next weds. What do you mean it'd take 5-10 years to develop? Pfft'.
Are there peptides that they can't detect, or do they all cause too much of a spike in GH for it to remain hidden even after the immediate peak period they give the user?
In anything resembling a worth while dose yes. The latest thing are SARMs which supposedly offer the benefits of steroids with fewer of the negative side effects. Bare in mind these haven't even passed human trials and are already tested for. Testing isn't perfect by any means but it's come on a long way since the 70's.
Nasty stuff. I had a client in my office yesterday with avascular necrosis in both hips thanks to long-term steroid use, and that was prescribed for chronic inflammation.
Serious question, but isn't HGH (Human Growth Hormone) difficult to detect and has a performance enhancing qualities? Heard this was the choice of footballers as it's not normally checked for.
Yep, you're spot on. It will predominantly be used during a lay off.
It can't be detected through a urine test but will show up on a blood test. I would wager that the majority of footballers - especially those that go abroad for treatment will be given HGH by their specialist. Its main benefit in sports would be in speeding up the injury recovery process (sometimes massively). Ever wonder how KDB etc get a serious injury and are forecast to be out for 6 months, then, miraculously are back in half the time? It's HGH for sure. The club will come out with stuff like "it's not as bad as we first thought". But, honestly, with so much money at stake and no chance of being blood tested then the player would be crazy not to go in for it.
The reason I say that it would only mainly be used during injuries is that prolonged exposure can cause metobolic dysfunction, glucose intolerance. Basically down regulating your metabolism and ruining your insulin sensitivity. Which no athlete would want.
It has other minor benefits for muscle / fat loss, but honestly there are better drugs out there for that stuff. Where it really shines is rebuilding muscle tissue at an enhanced rate.
You sound like you know your stuff pal.
I just wonder how the likes of lance Armstrong managed never to fail a test, in a much more monitored sport yet was one of the biggest dopers in history.
Must be plenty of undetectable stuff.
See? They even named it after Guardiola. Check mate, PEDiola.
There is even a steroid named Boldenone. Should be obvious to everyone by now.
He failed plenty of tests
Plenty?
I just read around the subject and the only "failed" tests were for cortisone that his medical team fiddled through as being due to some cream, and some heresay / conjecture about an EPO failure that was paid off.
The rest was an incredible mix of devious, insider tips, and lack of efficiency for testing.
No idea what year the article is from and whether his claims still hold in 2019, but I've read various interviews with this guy, who of course also served as a federal witness in various very high profile cases, and his claims always made sense to me...
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/09...-athletes-but-pretty-much-everyone-else-does/
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/09...-athletes-but-pretty-much-everyone-else-does/
Last edited:
This alone was 4 failed tests. Yes then there was the alleged EPO failure too.
it will always be heresay and conjecture because his team we're colluding with the governing bodies at the time
The point is nothing stuck throughout his whole career. So who is to say similar isn't going on elsewhere in football?
The testers are always behind the drug cheats. They can't test for everything.
That's why it's an interesting development keeping samples on file for future testing. That must sht a few up who think they've got away with it.
Such a shame those Spanish team samples were destroyed a few years ago. There will always be that cloak of suspicion about the Spanish national team in their domination period.
Not undetectable, but it seems that it's more stuff that were not specifically tested yet. Also, didn't Armstrong use some kind of blood transfusion after having hyper oxygenated his blood in high altitude or something?
Doping is obviously rampant in every sport. Scrubs get busted all the time. It's incredibly naïve to think they're getting caught the first time they cross the line or that athletes with access to more funds and better doctors aren't doing the same thing in a more controlled manner that ensures clean samples on testing day. I also think a lot of governing bodies cover up positives if possible. We know for a fact that Armstrong and the UCI were covering stuff up and there has been a lot of smoke regarding Carl Lewis as well. When an athlete becomes big enough in the public eye, there's an incentive to protect the sport at all costs. I personally think Usain Bolt has been massively juiced up his entire career, but him testing positive would pretty much have been the end of not only sprinting, but athletics in general. It wouldn't be surprising if he's had positive tests covered up.
I'm not that clued in on the big American sports, but I seem to recall doping scandals in most of them were it went on for years before the lid was blown off. Especially baseball had a ridiculously obvious steroid problem for years and years with little to nothing being done about it despite players coming out and pretty much admitting that almost all of them used illegal substances. I'd imagine the problem is just as big in the NFL.
Financially football can only be compared with the American sports. Football teams have the money to fund state of the art doping and the governing bodies have the money to protect the sport's reputation by silencing any dirty deeds that may surface. There's also an extremely lax attitude to testing in football, compared to pure endurance or power sports like cycling, cross-country skiing or athletics. One only needs to look as far as Operación Puerto to see how the different sports handle doping accusations. Only cyclists were even named in the press, let alone banned, despite there being reports that Dr. Fuentes had been working with numerous tennis players and footballers as well. But a guy like Nadal was probably too big to fall back in 2006. Let alone football superstars from the likes of Barca or Real.
EDIT: As an aside, testers managed to get ahead once. At the Tour in 2008 there were reports of a new type of EPO that was supposedly undetectable. It wasn't. In the end entire teams pulled out of the race as their riders got popped one by one, because everyone at that level of cycling is doping.
I'm not that clued in on the big American sports, but I seem to recall doping scandals in most of them were it went on for years before the lid was blown off. Especially baseball had a ridiculously obvious steroid problem for years and years with little to nothing being done about it despite players coming out and pretty much admitting that almost all of them used illegal substances. I'd imagine the problem is just as big in the NFL.
Financially football can only be compared with the American sports. Football teams have the money to fund state of the art doping and the governing bodies have the money to protect the sport's reputation by silencing any dirty deeds that may surface. There's also an extremely lax attitude to testing in football, compared to pure endurance or power sports like cycling, cross-country skiing or athletics. One only needs to look as far as Operación Puerto to see how the different sports handle doping accusations. Only cyclists were even named in the press, let alone banned, despite there being reports that Dr. Fuentes had been working with numerous tennis players and footballers as well. But a guy like Nadal was probably too big to fall back in 2006. Let alone football superstars from the likes of Barca or Real.
EDIT: As an aside, testers managed to get ahead once. At the Tour in 2008 there were reports of a new type of EPO that was supposedly undetectable. It wasn't. In the end entire teams pulled out of the race as their riders got popped one by one, because everyone at that level of cycling is doping.
Last edited:
Correct.
In the early days there was no test for EPO, when «they» had come up with a test for EPO most cyclists went old school doing blood transfusions, instead of EPO, which were basically undetectable (especially if you managed your hematocrit (volume of red blood cells in your blood) level, not going over 50%) until the fairly recent introduction of «blood passports».
Usain Bolt or Farah being caught would be a disaster for certain.
There's a fine line between banned and non though. Farah himself admitted he's used some leaf extract that is now on the banned list.
The worrying thing in sprinting, is that most of the world record holders have subsequently tested positive. There seems some well known strategy that they juice it up in the off season when they don't get tested, and keep the results, but not the traces for a test later. Now that's my very basic version at least!
Another one I'm always wary of is Paula. A world record so amazing that over a decade on, that even drug cheats couldn't get near it.
If she was another nationality we'd have long since sneered at it.
Stam is another one you'd wonder about. A top player for us, then we suddenly bin him off a few games into a season, talking about his "Book" being the reason, and a sheepish "he'd lost a bit" in Fergie's book later.
Then suddenly he's serving time for some doping offence!
Johan Olav Koss' account confirmed.
I’m not following - I’ve never paid attention to speed skating!
Thats different from saying something is undetectable.
Either they are not testing for the right things. Or even worse there is collusion to let people know when tests are so they can adjust accordingly (which happened with Armstrong)
Me neither, but the EPO rumours were massive about Koss'. Wasn't helped by him calling it quits about three minutes after they developed EPO tests.
Ahh, I see!
Let's be honest the level of testing in football is a joke compared to say cycling, there's just enough to keep utter rampant doping at bay but not nearly enough to prevent sophisticated blood doping programs from being used I'd suggest.
Farah has been connected to some extremely shady characters as well, like that Salazar fellow. Tons of smoke there.
The best ever times for the 100 metre sprint is basically a list of proven dopers. If you take out the times set by proven dopers there's not much left, and even then there's a fair few of the names that are highly suspected to have doped. Nothing on Bolt, though. Squeaky clean despite being so much better than everyone. He's a whole tenth of a second better than even the best of the dopers, which is a massive margin in sprinting.
Some of the doping was undetectable in his early years, before science eventually caught up.
There will be the same situation now with other elements.