I'm the most non cynical person in the world but even I find the evidence highly suspicious.
Pep - Doping (?) | Are PEDs being used by footballers
- Thread starter JoaquinJoaquin
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik @Rood and Imran @Annihilate Now! start with the good news by celebrating Manchester United Women's emphatic FA Cup win over Spurs at Wembley and the future of manager Marc Skinner.
Then it's the bad news and the ever worsening form of our Men with losses to Arsenal and Palace.
Finally the main debate - ETH Out now or keep him until the end of the season - if not longer. Are you Team Nik or Team Imran?
City have won nothing yet. Imagine the threads on here if/when they win big trophies. "Pep and pedophilia (?)" "Pep and islamic terrorism (?)" Rawk will look like a sane place in comparison.
The topic of doping in football is very important and worth of discussion. The problem is that it requires advanced, expert knowledge and a solid factual basis.
The first question that has to be factually addressed is whether City players make much more sprints than other PL players. Their stats about distance covered are average, so they are not relevant.
Take a look at the data from November (http://www.skysports.com/football/n...r-league-distance-covered-rankings-for-201718). In the first 10 games City made about 20-30 more sprints per game than Watford, Huddersfield, Bournemouth, Arsenal etc. That is, on average any outfiled City player makes between 1 and 2 more sprints per 45 min than the players of these teams. Is this a significant difference suggesting use of doping substances? Notably, the difference in sprints per game between City and Huddersfield is negligible compared to the difference between Huddersfield and United. Maybe we have to hire Huddersfield doctors? Or Watford doctors? Or Bournemouth doctors? Or the doctors of any of the 14 teams in the PL who make more sprints than United? Hey, any team that works harder than United must be using doping. Let us sue all of them or at least the FA for allowing it to happen. They aren't better at football, they are better at cheating..... Collective psychotherapy for embittered fans.
The topic of doping in football is very important and worth of discussion. The problem is that it requires advanced, expert knowledge and a solid factual basis.
The first question that has to be factually addressed is whether City players make much more sprints than other PL players. Their stats about distance covered are average, so they are not relevant.
Take a look at the data from November (http://www.skysports.com/football/n...r-league-distance-covered-rankings-for-201718). In the first 10 games City made about 20-30 more sprints per game than Watford, Huddersfield, Bournemouth, Arsenal etc. That is, on average any outfiled City player makes between 1 and 2 more sprints per 45 min than the players of these teams. Is this a significant difference suggesting use of doping substances? Notably, the difference in sprints per game between City and Huddersfield is negligible compared to the difference between Huddersfield and United. Maybe we have to hire Huddersfield doctors? Or Watford doctors? Or Bournemouth doctors? Or the doctors of any of the 14 teams in the PL who make more sprints than United? Hey, any team that works harder than United must be using doping. Let us sue all of them or at least the FA for allowing it to happen. They aren't better at football, they are better at cheating..... Collective psychotherapy for embittered fans.
If there is enough money involved in a sport, then there is doping involved.
A very balanced post mate. It definitely is worthy of discussion and there have been some decent posts in this thread but it’s also been a bit of a car crash as well. It’s weird but even despite those posts, the thread doesn’t bother me too much compared to some of the other topics having a dig at City.
What would bother me though is if it turned out that City were doping, even if it turned out every other team was as well. I know some have said that if they’re all at it then what’s the problem but it would make it all a sham to me. Maybe that’s because I remember back in 1988 that I stayed up all night to watch the 100 metres final at the Seoul Olympics and thought I was witnessing an amazing piece of history with Ben Johnson smashing the world record. A few days later he tested positive for stanozolol and was stripped of the gold medal. I felt cheated and even Britain’s Linford Christie, whose 4th place was upgraded to 3rd and a bronze, was pulled up for taking some substance (think it was ginseng) but escaped any sanction as it wasn’t deemed serious enough.
You forgot to add: All City fans are utter c*nts because we haven’t renounced our support for the club due to who owns it (only a few posters think that to be fair)
So you start a post about doping by comparing it to threads about pedophilia and Islamic terrorism but then say that it actually merits serious discussion?!
Secondly you take a very linear view as to the merits of doping, in that the only use is to make you run further - it isn't. Doping helps minimise mental and physical fatigue. Doping helps recovery from injuries big and small by increasing oxygen flow around the body.
Doping wouldn't need to be utilised by every player in every game to give an advantage, it would best be used strategically when players were experiencing fatigue or injuries and needed a boost.
The great enemy of participants of skill based sports is fatigue, mental or physical, as it causes a decline in technical capabilities. Raw CV capacity is only a fraction of the benefits of doping.
Last edited:
This is embarrassing.
Do you think someone like Mourinho would keep quiet about this if he suspected something was going on? The same goes for Ibra who played under Pep.
Do you think someone like Mourinho would keep quiet about this if he suspected something was going on? The same goes for Ibra who played under Pep.
Agreed. He either doesn't or is in it himself.
The only solution is clearly that City are relegated to league 2 with a yearly 40 point deduction to ensure they stay there.
Football doesn't want to know if it has a doping problem. It doesn't test on a scale or in a way that would identify it. Only the truly naive or the desperately unlucky would get caught under the current testing system.
Things like blood doping (taking a players blood in the off-season, to top him up at key moments in the season) can't be detected with the current football testing schedule. Tests for blood spinning are made impossible because it's use (as a localised injection to help a recovering joint) is legal.
Well timed EPO microdosing would still go undetected, and that's even before we get into whatever the current state of the art doping method is.
So, testing negative with football's current approach says nothing much other than "not stupid" and not dreadfully unlucky. Things like "whereabouts" errors aren't just paperwork - they mean the testers showed up and the players weren't there, and testers don't come every day.
Presumably, if you commit a paperwork error, the authorities respond by showing up more often from that point on. I say presumably because, I hope that's standard. But given how few other things in football admin seem to be open, efficient, logical - I don't even know if that happens. As I said, I don't think football wants to know if it has a problem or not.
Things like blood doping (taking a players blood in the off-season, to top him up at key moments in the season) can't be detected with the current football testing schedule. Tests for blood spinning are made impossible because it's use (as a localised injection to help a recovering joint) is legal.
Well timed EPO microdosing would still go undetected, and that's even before we get into whatever the current state of the art doping method is.
So, testing negative with football's current approach says nothing much other than "not stupid" and not dreadfully unlucky. Things like "whereabouts" errors aren't just paperwork - they mean the testers showed up and the players weren't there, and testers don't come every day.
Presumably, if you commit a paperwork error, the authorities respond by showing up more often from that point on. I say presumably because, I hope that's standard. But given how few other things in football admin seem to be open, efficient, logical - I don't even know if that happens. As I said, I don't think football wants to know if it has a problem or not.
I completely agree with most of what you say. No team should be allowed to cheat, be it United, Real, Bayern, City or Leicester. If even one City player is tested positive, this will ruin much of Guardiola's legacy. And if he/they cheat, I very much hope that they will be caught eventually.
That said, let us take a look at the facts. The stats about sprints do not suggest that the City playes do something exceptional. And these are the only stats about them that can provide a factual basis for accusations of cheating. No City player makes the top 10 for most sprints. And they have athletes like Walker, Sane and Sterling who are top athletes and are expected to make more sprints than your average PL player.
It is not normal that a team wins 17 from 18 league games. They must be cheating! OK, Chelsea won 61 pts from the first 22 games in 05/06. Did Chelsea cheat back then? Did Arsenal cheat when they went unbeaten for 49 league games?
The difference in sprints per game between City and Watford, Huddersfield, Bournemouth is not as big as the one between the latter teams and United. Do these teams use peds as well?
We lack enough stats to have a well-informed discussion. The number of sprints per game is important but no less important is the average distance covered by sprints. 10 short sprints can be easier to do than 6 long sprints. Given that City have a lot of possession and crowd the opposition half, their pressing involves mostly short sprints whereas the likes of Watford and Huddersfield are more likely to make long sprints. We need more data to say whether there is something exceptional about their work-rate, i.e. something that might suggest cheating.
I've never been able to relate to this argument, as something about it sits uneasy with me. It's just too simplistic. To go back to myleastfavourite athlete of all time, they said the same about Armstrong, as if being the most corrupt in a sport blighted by it is some kind of badge of honour. It's an argument that works if you're willing to stay in the bubble of "doping is wrong because it's against the rules, so why is it even a rule?" and plug your fingers in your ears.
Like on all issues, it's good to go outside of what you assume and at least ask other questions about the implications of cheating e.g. the potential long-term health effects of new substances; the psychological impact of athletes engaging in self-destructive behaviour in sports that already push them to their limits; or even how it poses innumerable variables that, while in theory do no more than seek to provide a benefit like other methods, could irrevocably change sports/athletes' performances to an extent we're not currently capable of comprehending, and potentially something we don't recognise that doesn't appeal to us. All ideas worth some consideration.
Yeah, I remember Ben Johnson. Cheating is disgusting. Unfortunatrly, authorities in football do not seem to care much about it. I think that most professional (big) clubs use peds.
Doping in football. I think it's about time that there is a bigger spotlight on this topic. I'm just not sure anyone top club or manager will survive this really. I'm almost certain that doping in football is as wide spread as in cycling or any other professional sport really. But yeah maybe it would have a cleansing effect on the sport in general that is needed and we will be back to only games on the weekend so players have actually got a chance to recover from games without drugs.
I must confess to ignorance on this topic, at least as far as football is concerned. But the lapse procedures you've described here certainly supports the "everyone is doping" hypothesis, or at least suggests that everyone could be doping, if they wanted to. Rather depressing.
I'm not really accusing City of doping anyway. Pep's history around doping and Barcelona's in particular is something that people need to be aware of, however.
My suspicions about City were only really aroused by De Bruyne's performance last week. He played like a man possessed one of the most difficult times of the season fatigue wise and that was reflected in his stats, high distance covered and most high intensity sprints. It raised my eyebrow somewhat. This period of the season and the final run in are exactly the times when I would expect any side that would dope to be doing it.
I agree. As I've said before when similar comments were made about Spain and Barcelona, just watching the 90 minutes doesn't really tell the story and nor do the basic stats.
You can drill your players well in how many seconds they can sprint before taking a break. You can structure the team so that they can always take that recovery break. Details, that may take a while to learn, but can be taught. Certainly details that can help a player like Dr Bruyne move from great talent to great delivery across the full match.
Ibra has been linked with doping himself and gained an awful lot of muscles in short time in Italy - not saying pep is doping his team but the incentives for Ibra to not speak up is there.
Also there are no incentives for Mou or anyone accusing - without hard evidence you'll surely have to answer in a court like the swedish journo that accused Zlatan of doping did without no hard evidence.
That is only one aspect of doping. PEDS also minimise mental and physical fatigue, improve recovery time between games and recovery time from injuries. They make players feel mentally sharp and confident. Some PED users even use the term 'invincible'.
Not sure Zlatan, someone who put on 10 kilos with in 6 months of going to Juventus of all clubs, would be smart to start talking about others potentially doping. I would be surprised if doping wasn't absolutely rife in football and it's fair enough for Guardiola to be a prime suspect of it given his own career then him employing the doctor under whom he failed a test and then working with (albeit falling out with) Muller Wohlfart as well as the abnormal levels of pressing and fitness his sides (particularly Barcelona) have always shown.
That being said, he's not the only one who should be under suspicion. The current Premier League winning manager doped himself so that shows his attitude, one of Wenger's key revolutions when he came to England was giving his players unknown "vitamins" which made them fitter, Klopp and Pochettino's teams have been notorious for manic levels of intensity while Mourinho has always been a cheat and a gobshite so if there's a way of cheating to be successful I'm sure he wouldn't be missing out
Absolutely. But we also ascribe similar things to team spirit, great captains, legendary managers and even to noisy crowds. All the things have brought us a lot of success in the premiership era.
If City can keep that intensity all season long and couple with deep run in cups competition i will be seriously impress with Pep's method in training. It take such high amount of energy to keep up high pressing nd shorts burst of sprint for 90 mins and to do it in PL with such a hectic schedule that would be fantastic. Pep made it worked at Barca but we know they have winter break with no 2nd domestic cup. Last season he failed to maintain such a form from December onwards but this season he looks like on course to do it with ease.
I'm no expert in doping and i dont know if there a routine check for players after or before every games but i'm very highly doubt if Pep use doping to his team. He will rise suspicious of course if next season he still keep this same intensity from his team with a WC in summer. Keeping that performance for a season is unbelieveble but for 2 seasons in a row i cant help but think thats almost surreal.
I'm no expert in doping and i dont know if there a routine check for players after or before every games but i'm very highly doubt if Pep use doping to his team. He will rise suspicious of course if next season he still keep this same intensity from his team with a WC in summer. Keeping that performance for a season is unbelieveble but for 2 seasons in a row i cant help but think thats almost surreal.
Spot on. Whats you just describe can be adrenaline boost for players. So many moments in games affected by tiny little things like that. If not for such mentality, United will never win that night in Camp Nou '99.
Indeed, but doping is endemic across all sports despite that.
They are taking the finest halal performance-enhancing drugs sold by human rights-abusing sheikhs and they'll all be bald as coots by the time they've won anything, case closed.
Are they better than Abramovic russian stuff or german lab stuff? Maybe they started last season using the Sheikh drugs, but Pep changed to his more high tech stuff and that is why they have improved? Pep is not really good at football, but a genious in chemistry
which is his big secret.Does drug use of the type discussed really lead to hair loss or is this just a joke?
Thanks.
Give us the title, then .
City are flying atm and it isn't a case this story come out now. Just accept they are good.
.City are flying atm and it isn't a case this story come out now. Just accept they are good.
It must be said that football is very public as a sport and stardom, there is little space to hide if you do something new or beyond the agreed legal framework, just too many peoples have their eyes on you 24/7. If anything, some worried girlfriend or mom, or the worst outcome from players becoming fatally ill 15-20-25 years after retirement. We have had our share in Italy with Borgonovo, Signorini, etc., upper level Serie A professionals, I feel scared thinking of the lower leagues with their more relaxed, desperate, malevolent, lazy, starved organizations banking their shot at glory on some innovative protocols?
What relevance does operation puerto have to them?
I tend to assume that everyone in every sport is doping, from Anthony Joshua to Fred the Red. I wish they would just accept it and regulate it safely, have natural leagues and PED leagues much like weight classes in boxing because at the minute you essentially end up with Middleweights unknowingly going against heavyweights.
Can’t be allowed because if people were allowed to dope, ALL professionals would -have- to dope in order to compete, and anyone that ‘chose’ not to dope would likely not be signed by the bigger clubs demanding success.
It creates an ‘arms race’ of Who has the better doping doctor and drug access. Look at Juventus success under Ricardo Agricola. Every club would have their players using intravenous drips (Antonio conte lol) etc etc. Nobody would be asking if they ‘should’ anymore.
Honestly would not be surprised if a number of footballers from the 2000’s start having early heart attacks and such, everything we do to our bodies has consequences. Enlarged hearts and hypertrophic cardiomyopathy aren’t things you want to be dealing with in your 40’s, but these footballers think they’re going to live forever.
What do you think large majorities of certain sports are currently?
So Doping made De bruyne world class passer?
It makes zero ethical sense to legalise doping. It would legalise gambling on the future health of athletes for sporting gain. I'm not sure how you can justify that?
In the same way I personally think most narcotics should be legalized, regulation and education are key when the intake of these substances can barely be slowed let alone stopped.
Rumor has it Darmian is on oestrogen!
Explains the 'beard'.
Explains the 'beard'.
He certainly plays like he is reverse doping.
I’m not sure that legalising doping would result in harm reduction though as it would with narcotics. Most of the harm from illegal drugs comes from unregulated manufacturing and the inability for end users to regulate dose.
The PEDS that athletes use are already pharmaceutical grade, prescribed by dosed by real doctors.