Check out the ignorance of this Irish Times article

Pisco Sour

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sport/2012/0723/1224320622161.html

I'm shocked that the Irish Times have published such drivel from somebody who doesn't even follow the sport. Gutter journalism of the finest order. 50-70 percent of track and field athletes on the dope he says. Any idea how expensive doping is? Any idea how little money there is in athletics? I'd like to see where somebody who is on 12k funding a year and who has to pay their own way to races around Europe is getting the money to buy performance enhancing drugs. Doping is big big business and is not affordable to 95% of track and field athletes. Most athletes are just scraping to get by. Derval O'Rourke is on the very maximum funding available in this country, which is 40k a year, about the same amount Wayne Rooney would leave behind as a tip in a brothel!! Most athletes are on significantly less than this.

He should do himself a favour and google "Operation Puerto", "Dr Fuentes" and see the disturbing link to footballers in Spain!

RayCun

He's a horse racing correspondent, not a football reporter.

And he doesn't say between 50 and 70% of athletes dope. He says it's good that the level of doping is declining, but decline is relative. "If the level has dropped from 70 per cent to 50 per cent, it can be said to be slowly retreating but hardly on the run."

Athletics (and cycling, and baseball) has a bigger problem with PEDs than other sports like because athletes train their body to do one specific thing, to be faster, or stronger, in a particular range of movements. Drugs that boost your performance in those movements, by making you stronger or able to train harder without injury, have a much greater effect on an athlete's overall performance than a footballer's. Sure, a footballer (or basketball player, or hockey player) would benefit from being stronger, but it's a smaller part of their game.

The fact that so many athletes and cyclists - and it is a huge amount, compared to other sports - get caught doping is not just because of the level of scrutiny they receive.

myflipflops

Pisco Sour wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sport/2012/0723/1224320622161.html

I'm shocked that the Irish Times have published such drivel from somebody who doesn't even follow the sport. Gutter journalism of the finest order. 50-70 percent of track and field athletes on the dope he says. Any idea how expensive doping is? Any idea how little money there is in athletics? I'd like to see where somebody who is on 12k funding a year and who has to pay their own way to races around Europe is getting the money to buy performance enhancing drugs. Doping is big big business and is not affordable to 95% of track and field athletes. Most athletes are just scraping to get by. Derval O'Rourke is on the very maximum funding available in this country, which is 40k a year, about the same amount Wayne Rooney would leave behind as a tip in a brothel!! Most athletes are on significantly less than this.

He should do himself a favour and google "Operation Puerto", "Dr Fuentes" and see the disturbing link to footballers in Spain!

The guy is a joker. A racing 'tipster' who got given the job of half replacing Tom Humphries 'Locker Room' column after the allegations against Humphries. He seems to knock up articles on a whim, possibly based on what he discussed in the pub with his mates the night before.

You cannot argue doping is restricted to those at the top of the sport who are making all the money though. Look at our own athletes who were found guilty. Martin Fagan was pretty much on the poverty line but he managed to buy EPO and Cathal Lombard funded his PEDs himself through his salary as a lawyer. Athletes are not limited to the money they receive as grants. Guys are not literally living on 12k a year. Doping is pretty much affordable to most athletes from 1st world countries.

BobMac104

Still its upsetting when someone who admits to having no interest in the Olympics just spurts out an article because they can, saying " ah sure they're all on drugs anyway". It would be very easy i am sure to find another "expert" to give their opinion to suit an opposing argument. I have to agree with pisco. It’s the worst kind of journalism. Someone with no interest in something, just being controversial for the sake of it so his twitter box account might get a few more likes.

Thud

he's not the greatest horse racing correspondant either, he used to have a blog section with comments on the Times racing section (irish-racing.com) but they had to stop the commets after a while because people were abusing him for writing drivel

nerraw1111

Hook line and sinker.

His columns are generally poor, celebrating his ignorance and baiting people. These sort of columns, when done well, can be very entertaining. See “triathlon is a stupid sport” rant.

Expect to see more of these columns over the next two weeks. “Why I’m happy to be a couch potato.” “Do we really want ours kids to grow up to be dopers.” “Is “insert female athlete” too ‘skinny/fat.””

As I said, they can be entertaining and a good read and there is a place for them, exposing a few home truths etc. But this was a fairly dull article.

BobMac104

nerraw1111 wrote: »

Hook line and sinker.

you know what, you're spot on. Acknowlegment for these pieces are what justifies their publication it seems.

plodder

That kind of cynicism is ten a penny in this country. You'll find the same opinion emanating from bar stools up and down the country when the "show" gets under way this evening. Certainly nothing worth getting worked up over.

Clearlier

I don't see an awful lot to disagree with in his article. Sure, it's not an in depth analysis but the broad brush strokes of his article aren't that far away from the mark. Athletics is behind cycling in terms of fighting doping. The biological passport that has been recently introduced to athletics and tripped up a large number of athletes is the most positive (pun intended!) development in the fight against drugs in a very long time. I don't know that we ever lost credibility in the same way as cycling did but we can't have been too far away. For my money cycling has finally with the introduction of the passport made a significant dent in the advantage that cheaters gain by doping. I'm not saying that it's gone, I am saying that the advantage gained by it is very much smaller than it has been in the past.

It's also my impression that there has been slightly less of the 'head in sand' approach to identifying doping within athletics but you only have to look at most of the womens world records to understand how prevalent doping has been in the past.

Pisco Sour

RayCun wrote: »

The fact that so many athletes and cyclists - and it is a huge amount, compared to other sports - get caught doping is not just because of the level of scrutiny they receive.

Eh, what a load of tosh! It's a bit hard to test positive for drugs when La Liga don't do out of competition testing! Only 2 matches are picked for testing every Saturday in Spain, and from each match only 2 players are picked. NO testing in Sunday matches. Compare that to how cyclists and athletes are hounded. If they cared about cleaning up football then they would have released the footballers names who were involved in Operation Puerto, rather than just the cyclists.

Zidane has openly admitted to blood doping. That is illegal in athletics and cycling. If there was no benefit to it then why would they do it? You don't think being able to get to the ball quicker can be the result of doping? You don't think staying fitter in extra time while your opponents are dead on their feet can be the result of doping? You can have all the skill in the world but if you can't get to the ball quick enough then it's nullified. You can have all the skill in the world but if you are running around like a drunk penguin in the 80th minute of a match then what use is it to you.

nerraw1111

Here's an example of when these sort of columns work. Extremely biased, makes no attempt to see the other side etc. But there is a bit of truth in it.

http://charliebroadway.blogspot.co.uk/2011/01/triathlon-is-stupid-sport.html

RayCun

Pisco Sour wrote: »

Eh, what a load of tosh! It's a bit hard to test positive for drugs when La Liga don't do out of competition testing!

The English football leagues do. And how many people have been caught using PEDs, out of thousands of footballers tested? (I think Hard Worker explained to you the level of testing that goes on in Irish football)

Pisco Sour wrote: »

You can have all the skill in the world but if you can't get to the ball quick enough then it's nullified. You can have all the skill in the world but if you are running around like a drunk penguin in the 80th minute of a match then what use is it to you.

I didn't say no advantage, I said less of an advantage.
In a football match, if you have more skill, better tactics, are a better trained team but are more tired after 85 minutes then the other team - you might still have the upper hand.
If you're a 10000 metre runner with 2 laps to go and you are more tired than the runner beside you....

There are other ways to improve fitness than doping, and you can see that football players are much better trained now than they were, and have much better diets. But take something like altitude training. It's de rigeur for distance runners, but footballers don't do it - even though, in principle, they would benefit from increased fitness when they return to sea level. It's just not important enough for them.

CoachDudie

It's really hard to convince the ordinary punter that the Olympics are clean when numerous athletes that have previously tested positive will be lining up to compete.
There have been plenty of cheats at previous Olympics that have won medals but never failed a drugs test, there will be more in the next few weeks. If athletes are cheating just to get to the Olympics think how many will cheat to win a medal.
If there's some unbelievable time or a shock winner of a race then people will be sceptical, judging by past Olympics they'd have every right to be.

the_real_lamp

Dunphy's article in the Star on Thurs was worse. Decrying the use of drugs... oh the ****ing irony.

RayCun

nerraw1111 wrote: »

Here's an example of when these sort of columns work. Extremely biased, makes no attempt to see the other side etc. But there is a bit of truth in it.

http://charliebroadway.blogspot.co.uk/2011/01/triathlon-is-stupid-sport.html

I get my recommended daily dose of tri-slagging from BikeSnobNYC, who had a post the other day about doping...
(doping stuff is a few paras in)

Pisco Sour

CoachDudie wrote: »

It's really hard to convince the ordinary punter that the Olympics are clean when numerous athletes that have previously tested positive will be lining up to compete.
There have been plenty of cheats at previous Olympics that have won medals but never failed a drugs test, there will be more in the next few weeks. If athletes are cheating just to get to the Olympics think how many will cheat to win a medal.
If there's some unbelievable time or a shock winner of a race then people will be sceptical, judging by past Olympics they'd have every right to be.

It's funny how nobody here will bat an eyelid to the sudden rise to prominence of a national football team who for years were also-rans, never made it past the quarter finals, then suddenly, during the dirtiest period in Spanish sport (and there is no denying that Spain is a dirty country for doping), win 3 major tournaments in a row and are virtually untouchable, who have strong links to Dr Fuentes and Operation Puerto, but were protected by the Spanish government during said investigation. Dr Fuentes has come out and said that if he was to say all he knows then goodbye to World Cup and European Championships!

Here's a quote from Oscar Pereiro Sio:

http://www.4dfoot.com/2011/11/21/yannick-noah-ties-spanish-football-triumphs-to-doping/

“Zidane has admitted that he had a blood transfusion in Switzerland to regenerate his body. In cycling that is a doping positive. Hopefully one day Fuentes will have the courage to tell everything he knows. In Operación Puerto there were a lot of blood bags labelled European Championships. There are no European Championships in cycling.”

I'll quote fiddy3's excellent post from a few months ago:

fiddy3 wrote: »

Yes, and who paid for his treatment....... BINGO, FC Barcelona! I guess they just wanted a tiny Argie to have a better life for himself, right? Anyone who doesn't think Barca and Real Madrid dope players has their head in the sand. Interesting last week how Pep Guardiola was lauded as a hero in the media as he stepped down. This is a man who was positive for nandrolone during his own career in Italy. This is a man in charge of a club, who, in 2005, tried to hire Eufemiano Feuntes as their team doctor. Who's Dr Fuentes.... just the godfather of doping in Spain who was nabbed in Operation Puerto in 2007, and had hundreds of elite sportspeople on his books. Funny how only the cyclists on his books got caught, mainly because as bad as cycling is, they at least aggressively pursue the cheats. One of the cyclists who was doped by Fuentes and got caught, Jesus Manzano, reported that he saw several high-profile Real Madrid players at Dr Fuentes' clinic in Madrid when he was there. The French newspaper Le Monde also reported at the time that it got access to Fuentes's doping programmes when police raided his house in the canaries, and saw doping plans made out for players from Real Madrid, Barcelona, Real Betis, and Atletico Madrid. Due to the police case being conducted, they couldn't report any specifics.

Zinedine Zidane was reported to have had blood transfusions in Switzerland during his career. Didier Deschamps was reported to have a haematocrit in the mid fifties during one test, over 50 usually means EPO unless you have a rare genetic condition. Arsene Wenger has stated in the past that he has seen disturbing blood values in several of the players who transferred to Arsenal from Spain and Italy which almost certainly suggested doping, which then normalised after a period there. What's more disturbing is the lack of effort to catch anyone in Spain, more than in England or France, for example. In La Liga, two matches are selected for post-match testing every Saturday, and from those team, just two players are picked. NO testing is done on Sunday matches. You do the maths on how likely a Messi or Ronaldo is to get tested on any given week. I make it about a 1 in 50 chance each week.

No one is pretending athletics or cycling is any cleaner than soccer. It isn't. What pisses people off is the double standards applied. For example, you have an <Snip> Irish Times writer Brian O'Connor writing about Barca during the week, asslicking of the highest order, while in the same article writing off athletics as not even worthy of mention due to how dirty it is. http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sport/2012/0423/1224315049414.html
People as painfully ignorant as him perpetuate the idea among the public that athletics is rotten to the core... that the olympics aren't worthing watching because, as joe schmoe thinks...'they're all at it'. All the while never wondering if maybe, just maybe, there are some immoral people in their beloved sport, who, ya know, might just stumble on the idea to juice up if it means being able to run the legs off a team in their own league one Sunday, do it again Wednesday night in Europe, then do it again three days later in El Classico. Nah, sure drugs don't help soccer players.

Ask yourself this, if an athlete or a cyclist dropped dead in the middle of a competition, how would the reaction have differed from the way fans and media reacted to Muamba and Morosini's over the last few weeks?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=78425156

RayCun

Pisco Sour wrote: »

Zidane has openly admitted to blood doping.

Cite for this, by the way?

Pisco Sour wrote: »

It's funny how nobody here will bat an eyelid to the sudden rise to prominence of a national football team who for years were also-rans, never made it past the quarter finals, then suddenly, during the dirtiest period in Spanish sport (and there is no denying that Spain is a dirty country for doping), win 3 major tournaments in a row and are virtually untouchable,

The Spanish team are not noticeably stronger, faster, or fitter than other football teams. If anything they are renowned for their lack of physical prowess - they're a bunch of shortarses. And most of the Spanish team play for Real Madrid and Barcelona. La Liga may not have good drug testing, but those two clubs play in the Champions League every year and are subject to UEFA's testing programme (which includes out of competition testing)

You're just throwing mud.

Pisco Sour

RayCun wrote: »

Cite for this, by the way?



The Spanish team are not noticeably stronger, faster, or fitter than other football teams. If anything they are renowned for their lack of physical prowess - they're a bunch of shortarses. And most of the Spanish team play for Real Madrid and Barcelona. La Liga may not have good drug testing, but those two clubs play in the Champions League every year and are subject to UEFA's testing programme (which includes out of competition testing)

You're just throwing mud.

Throwing mud?

http://velonews.competitor.com/2011/11/news/oscar-pereiro-rips-press-on-spanish-talk-show-for-favoring-footballers-over-cyclists-in-doping-cases_198209

“Zidane has admitted that he had a blood transfusion in Switzerland to regenerate his body. In cycling that is a doping positive. Hopefully one day Fuentes will have the courage to tell everything he knows. In Operación Puerto there were a lot of blood bags labelled European Championships. There are no European Championships in cycling.”

Check out the Spain V Portugal game in Extra time. Spanish lads running around as if it is the 2nd minute of the game.

How am I throwing mud when it is known fact that Dr Fuentes had footballers on his books?

average_runner

Pisco Sour wrote: »

It's funny how nobody here will bat an eyelid to the sudden rise to prominence of a national football team who for years were also-rans, never made it past the quarter finals, then suddenly, during the dirtiest period in Spanish sport (and there is no denying that Spain is a dirty country for doping), win 3 major tournaments in a row and are virtually untouchable, who have strong links to Dr Fuentes and Operation Puerto, but were protected by the Spanish government during said investigation. Dr Fuentes has come out and said that if he was to say all he knows then goodbye to World Cup and European Championships!

Here's a quote from Oscar Pereiro Sio, one of the cyclists busted in Operation Puerto:

http://www.4dfoot.com/2011/11/21/yannick-noah-ties-spanish-football-triumphs-to-doping/

“Zidane has admitted that he had a blood transfusion in Switzerland to regenerate his body. In cycling that is a doping positive. Hopefully one day Fuentes will have the courage to tell everything he knows. In Operación Puerto there were a lot of blood bags labelled European Championships. There are no European Championships in cycling.”

I'll quote fiddy3's excellent post from a few months ago:




http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=78425156

If the national spanish team are so build on drugs why havent any of the englsih based players tested positive? English football does alot of testing.

Years ago their might of been a problem in Spanish football and players coming here, but Mr Wenger doesnt obey that policy anymore and all players from Spanish/French league he has signed in over last 5 years, have started straight away for Arsenal. And that coming from Arsenal is a good thing considering they banned anyone on Creatine even!!


There are also European Championships in more than just football!! Just to let you know!

RayCun

Pereiro Sio says that Johnny Halliday says that Zidane told him that he had blood transfusions in Switzerland
/=
"Zidane has openly admitted to blood doping"

The first is hearsay.

Saying that Spanish footballers looked fresh, to you, in one game, is not evidence either. Especially since pretty much everyone on that team is subject to UEFA testing.

Your argument is basically, "It's not fair that athletics has a bad reputation for doping! :mad: Just because so many high-profile athletes have been caught doping! I bet other people dope too!"

Pisco Sour

average_runner wrote: »

If the national spanish team are so build on drugs why havent any of the englsih based players tested positive? English football does alot of testing.

Years ago their might of been a problem in Spanish football and players coming here, but Mr Wenger doesnt obey that policy anymore and all players from Spanish/French league he has signed in over last 5 years, have started straight away for Arsenal. And that coming from Arsenal is a good thing considering they banned anyone on Creatine even!!


There are also European Championships in more than just football!! Just to let you know!

I never said all the Spanish team are doped. I never said that those who are based in England are doped. What I have said is that several players from big La Liga clubs were on Dr Fuentes' books.

What's your excuse for footballers being on the books of the Godfather of Spanish doping?

What's your excuse for Barcelona trying to hire Dr Fuentes back in 2005?

What's your excuse for Jesus Manzano seeing with his own eyes high profile Real Madrid players coming out of Dr Fuentes' clinic in Madrid?

What's your excuse for the doping programmes being found for several high profile footballers during a raid of Fuentes' home in the Canaries?

What's your excuse for Zidane engaging in an activity that is illegal in athletics?

I'm all ears. This should be interesting!

spurscormac

RayCun wrote: »

There are other ways to improve fitness than doping, and you can see that football players are much better trained now than they were, and have much better diets. But take something like altitude training. It's de rigeur for distance runners, but footballers don't do it - even though, in principle, they would benefit from increased fitness when they return to sea level. It's just not important enough for them.

On the contrary, I think football clubs are certainly doing this. While it may not be widely known, they are utilising climate control facilities.
Take for instance Spurs brand spanking new training ground, complete with its very own "Altitude Room". If that's being built now, then we can be fairly sure that football clubs are utilising 3rd party facilities elsewhere when they might not have their own purpose built one.

The football fan in me certainly admires the ability of the Spanish team & players over the past few tournaments, however, the skeptic in me would doubt that it's been done fully legit.

RayCun

Pisco Sour wrote: »

I never said all the Spanish team are doped. I never said that those who are based in England are doped. What I have said is that several players from big La Liga clubs were on Dr Fuentes' books.

If footballers from top Spanish clubs are doping, why are they not being caught by UEFA?

Pisco Sour wrote: »

What's your excuse for Barcelona trying to hire Dr Fuentes back in 2005?

A year before he was charged with anything, right?

Pisco Sour wrote: »

What's your excuse for Jesus Manzano seeing with his own eyes high profile Real Madrid players coming out of Dr Fuentes' clinic in Madrid?

You're assuming that (1) he's a reliable witness, and (2) the only reason for anyone to go to that clinic is to dope. 100% of people visiting that clinic are dopers, but they haven't been caught yet. Big assumption.

Pisco Sour wrote: »

What's your excuse for Zidane engaging in an activity that is illegal in athletics?

Again, this is hearsay. If Zizou wanted, he could talk to his lawyers...

In athletics, people from all over the world have been caught doping. All your allegations centre on one guy.

Pisco Sour

RayCun wrote: »

If footballers from top Spanish clubs are doping, why are they not being caught by UEFA?



A year before he was charged with anything, right?



You're assuming that (1) he's a reliable witness, and (2) the only reason for anyone to go to that clinic is to dope. 100% of people visiting that clinic are dopers, but they haven't been caught yet. Big assumption.



Again, this is hearsay. If Zizou wanted, he could talk to his lawyers...

In athletics, people from all over the world have been caught doping. All your allegations centre on one guy.

Christ almighty! Where do I start? Why are they not caught by UEFA? Perhaps because their testing still lags a long way behind the rigour that athletes and cyclists are subjected to? You seem to think that football has a good anti-doping system. It lags far behind athletics and cycling in this regard. Would you ever see FIFA going back and retesting samples from previous major championships upon the discovery of a test for a new drug like you would in athletics?

And your defence of the Real Madrid players attending Dr Fuentes' clinic is laughable.

Do yourself a favour, and educate yourself about drugs in football:

http://www.german-times.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1834&Itemid=74

Clearlier

What's argument is being made here? That athletics is ok because football players do it too?

CoachDudie

This is strange. The person who started this thread about an article slating athletics for drug use has turned it into a threat about drug use in soccer.
There may be track and field people cheating but there's also soccer players cheating so it's ok? Is that what this is?
Or maybe it's that athletics has a history of doping but it wont seem so bad if another sport has has a history of it also, even if it is only a few cases.
Drug use is athletics is known Worldwide, you'd struggle to find a Nation who doesn't have someone who doped. You can't say that for soccer or many other sports.

average_runner

Pisco Sour wrote: »

I never said all the Spanish team are doped. I never said that those who are based in England are doped. What I have said is that several players from big La Liga clubs were on Dr Fuentes' books.

What's your excuse for footballers being on the books of the Godfather of Spanish doping?

What's your excuse for Barcelona trying to hire Dr Fuentes back in 2005?

What's your excuse for Jesus Manzano seeing with his own eyes high profile Real Madrid players coming out of Dr Fuentes' clinic in Madrid?

What's your excuse for the doping programmes being found for several high profile footballers during a raid of Fuentes' home in the Canaries?

What's your excuse for Zidane engaging in an activity that is illegal in athletics?

I'm all ears. This should be interesting!

1) Never raided his house in the Canaries, only raided his places on the main land.
2)Barca didnt try to hire him in 2005, it was 1996 and 2002, when spanish national team was brutal!!!!!!
3) Dr Fuentes admitted he never had any direct contact with any Real Madrid players or Barca, yes he had conversations with their team doctor back in 2001, this is a worry!!.
4) he also admitted none of the top team players were ever in his clinic as he had no direct contact with them!

And the paper that exposed this info, Le Mondeo got the info this way:

"Le Monde interviewed Dr Fuentes at his home in Las Palmas in the Canary Islands. It based another story on two A4 sheets it obtained that were not seized in Operación Puerto. "

Thats what this is all based on, just media news, as they know it sells!

The French are pissed with the Spanish and have no love for them.

RayCun

Pisco Sour wrote: »

Christ almighty! Where do I start? Why are they not caught by UEFA? Perhaps because their testing still lags a long way behind the rigour that athletes and cyclists are subjected to?

And do you know this to be true, or is it a guess? How much do you know about UEFA's anti-doping programme?

Pisco Sour wrote: »

And your defence of the Real Madrid players attending Dr Fuentes' clinic is laughable.

How can I defend unnamed footballers against an unstated allegation, beyond pointing out that you have nothing that even looks like evidence?

Pisco Sour wrote: »

Do yourself a favour, and educate yourself about drugs in football:
http://www.german-times.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1834&Itemid=74

The German Times? Really?

average_runner

The sad fact is that noone in the euro's tested positive, but you be nearly certain one medal winner will test positive in the olympics

Pisco Sour

Clearlier wrote: »

What's argument is being made here? That athletics is ok because football players do it too?

No, the point is the ignorance of certain members of the media with regards doping. Slating one sport for doping issues while not applying the same skepticism to another sport which has strong links to the same problem.

titan18

Pisco Sour wrote: »

Christ almighty! Where do I start? Why are they not caught by UEFA? Perhaps because their testing still lags a long way behind the rigour that athletes and cyclists are subjected to? You seem to think that football has a good anti-doping system. It lags far behind athletics and cycling in this regard. Would you ever see FIFA going back and retesting samples from previous major championships upon the discovery of a test for a new drug like you would in athletics?

And your defence of the Real Madrid players attending Dr Fuentes' clinic is laughable.

Do yourself a favour, and educate yourself about drugs in football:

http://www.german-times.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1834&Itemid=74

Whilst I'd imagine there's footballers who dope, aspiring to be like cycling for anti-doping would be stupid. There's a large amount of riders who've never tested positive who have doped. Past Tour winners like Bjarne Riis never tested positive but admitted it later on. You could probably cross top 10s of the Tour off.

Even the bio-passport is a sham, very few cyclists have had anything happen to them for suspicious values. There was even a leak of the UCI suspicious list from the Tour in 2010 and nothing was done to the cyclists with very suspicious values.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/ucis-suspicious-list-leaked-from-2010-tour-de-france

I mean it mightn't be evidence that those guys are doping but there are guys with high values there who are still winning races.

I can't speak much for athletics and how they're targeting guys, but in cycling, I'd be very surprised if any big name cyclist who brings a lot to the sport will be caught when they're racing, unless they do something really stupid.

Even in athletics, imagine the fallout if Bolt was caught doping. It'd probably destroy the sport for a few years, and sponsors would go running.

Pherekydes

Athletics and cycling, two sports that subscribe to the most stringent testing, are viewed by the general public as being the dirtiest.

The NFL is viewed by the [American] sporting public as having little or no drug problem.

Why? Because fans, journalists and administrators alike spend so much time ranting and raving about every little doping story. If an athlete tests positive on foot of a contaminated supplement they are condemned as a dirty rotten cheat and calls for lifetime bans are heard.

No wonder the sport of athletics is dying in certain countries around the world.

No wonder we have to suffer the type of ignorance displayed in this article. This guy hasn't a clue what's possible without PEDs because he's probably never run for a bus.

plodder

CoachDudie wrote: »

It's really hard to convince the ordinary punter that the Olympics are clean when numerous athletes that have previously tested positive will be lining up to compete.

Ironically, that would have been one solid observation he could have made in the article, but he didn't - maybe because all the material for the article came from Ian O'Riordan's TV program and I don't recall that being mentioned in it.

Pisco Sour

titan18 wrote: »

I can't speak much for athletics and how they're targeting guys, but in cycling, I'd be very surprised if any big name cyclist who brings a lot to the sport will be caught when they're racing, unless they do something really stupid.

Alberto Contedor? Frank Schlek?

RayCun

Pherekydes wrote: »

Athletics and cycling, two sports that subscribe to the most stringent testing, are viewed by the general public as being the dirtiest.

The NFL is viewed by the [American] sporting public as having little or no drug problem.

Athletics and cycling have the most stringent testing now because they were the dirtiest.
In the NFL, 16 players have been suspended for PEDs in the last 6 years. The problem is more that the penalties are too soft.

average_runner

Pisco Sour wrote: »

No, the point is the ignorance of certain members of the media with regards doping. Slating one sport for doping issues while not applying the same skepticism to another sport which has strong links to the same problem.

But why do you expect them to applied that when no one has been caught. You can only slate the sport because of its reputation and the facts behind people getting caught.

Athletics and Cycling quiet rightly are associated with drugs, I mean Ireland had its fair share of it over the last few years even.

You cant expect something to slated just for the sake of it.

Media came down hard on Ferdinand missed a drug test, they slated him then!!

Pisco Sour

average_runner wrote: »

But why do you expect them to applied that when no one has been caught. You can only slate the sport because of its reputation and the facts behind people getting caught.

Athletics and Cycling quiet rightly are associated with drugs, I mean Ireland had its fair share of it over the last few years even.

You cant expect something to slated just for the sake of it.

Media came down hard on Ferdinand missed a drug test, they slated him then!!

As I have said before, you can only get caught if you are tested for the damn stuff. It's no shocking revelation that drug testing in soccer is nowhere near being in the same ballpark as athletics and cycling. The same can be said for baseball and American football. Drugs were/are rife in those sports but they didn't even have a proper drug testing system until relatively recently.

The funny thing is that I know some people who refer to the 80s as the heydey of athletics, who had an interest back then, but not anymore because it is 'full of drugs', despite the fact that the 80s was riddled with drugs. It's gas how people see failed drugs tests as a bad thing. Drug testing is there for a reason, to rid the sport of filthy cheats. Back in the 80s there were bugger all failed drugs tests so the public didn't have the same suspicion towards the sport as they do now, even though the sport is about 100 times cleaner now. Just look at the women's top lists from the 80s and from now and see the difference.

fiddy3

The main reason pisco brought up the soccer reference was because the writer of the article was hypocritical, writing a couple months back the most glowing piece about barcelona, and his undying admiration for messi and guardiola, one player who was filled with growth hormone to make him tall enough to be a footballer, the other someone who tested positive for nandrolone during his career. Meanwhile, he puts the knife into athletics, throwing the 70pc and 50pc figure out there as if it's based on something he's privy to, when in fact he's a beer-belly racing journalist who has probably never been to a diamond league, and you can bet he wasn't at, say, the morton games during the week where loads of olympians competed. His views seem to be based on a few articles and bbc documentaries that support his hunch. If ian o'riordan wrote the same article, at least we could accept that it's based on something concrete as he's been to multiple championships and is well connected with the elite end. What's most annoying about it is that joe soap will read this and go 'ah sure they're all at it', when many, in fact the vast majority, are not. Even for hession or o'rourke, who have spent their careers competing at a world class level, will be indirectly tarred in many people's mind because of crap like this, written by someone who spends his days in kilbeggan or the curragh and not for national xc champs. We all know athletics has plenty cheats. There's certain athletes, at say, womens 100m, 1500m, shot, discus etc who u could say with near certainty are riddled with drugs and havent/won't be caught, but idiocy such as this when talking about london, from someone who is clueless,.is like me looking at his sport, racing, and saying every race is fixed and every trainer and jockey at it too, because of all the scandals in recent years. Hypocrisy in a paper like the irish times isn't acceptable.

average_runner

Pisco Sour wrote: »

As I have said before, you can only get caught if you are tested for the damn stuff. It's no shocking revelation that drug testing in soccer is nowhere near being in the same ballpark as athletics and cycling. The same can be said for baseball and American football. Drugs were/are rife in those sports but they didn't even have a proper drug testing system until relatively recently.

The funny thing is that I know some people who refer to the 80s as the heydey of athletics, who had an interest back then, but not anymore because it is 'full of drugs', despite the fact that the 80s was riddled with drugs. It's gas how people see failed drugs tests as a bad thing. Drug testing is there for a reason, to rid the sport of filthy cheats. Back in the 80s there were bugger all failed drugs tests so the public didn't have the same suspicion towards the sport as they do now, even though the sport is about 100 times cleaner now. Just look at the women's top lists from the 80s and from now and see the difference.

Only reason why cycling and athletics is in a different ball park is because drugs is major problem for it.

If soccer comes a drug problem then it will go for the same testing and rightly so. But no reason to that at the moment as there is no evidence of it in soccer.

titan18

Pisco Sour wrote: »

Alberto Contedor? Frank Schlek?

Frank Schleck was caught for a diuretic that could possibly have killed him on the tour. Even as a masking agent, it's stupid to take, as it's very easy to detect in a test.

Contador tested positive for the tiniest trace of Clenbuterol. What he was caught for isn't performance enhancing at the level in his system, and if he was using it as a PED, more would have been caught in his tests. I doubt both are clean anyway, but what they were caught for is incredibly marginal.

ThisRegard

Back to the article, while there is a lot of winding up in it, I think there's a good point behind it, and not just to bar stoolers who only get interested at times like the events.

A lot if it rings true for me anyway, I can't help but be utterly cynical in track and field events that have a history of doping etc, I honestly couldn't be arsed in watching the mens 100 metres because at this stage I just find it hard to believe that it's a clean event.

Same goes for cycling, this years Tour was utterly boring (as picked up in another thread) but I'm still very dubious at some of the performances within it.

I'd like to believe that all competitors are clean, but historical data and advances in science just don't support that, imo.

titan18 wrote: »

Frank Schleck was caught for a diuretic that could possibly have killed him on the tour. Even as a masking agent, it's stupid to take, as it's very easy to detect in a test.

Contador tested positive for the tiniest trace of Clenbuterol. What he was caught for isn't performance enhancing at the level in his system, and if he was using it as a PED, more would have been caught in his tests. I doubt both are clean anyway, but what they were caught for is incredibly marginal.

Yeah why wouldn't we believe Contador ate a dodgy steak and Shleck was a victim of cloaks and daggers by being poisoned. And Michelle De Bruin actually pees whisky.

titan18

ThisRegard wrote: »

Back to the article, while there is a lot of winding up in it, I think there's a good point behind it, and not just to bar stoolers who only get interested at times like the events.

A lot if it rings true for me anyway, I can't help but be utterly cynical in track and field events that have a history of doping etc, I honestly couldn't be arsed in watching the mens 100 metres because at this stage I just find it hard to believe that it's a clean event.

Same goes for cycling, this years Tour was utterly boring (as picked up in another thread) but I'm still very dubious at some of the performances within it.

I'd like to believe that all competitors are clean, but historical data and advances in science just don't support that, imo.




Yeah why wouldn't we believe Contador ate a dodgy steak and Shleck was a victim of cloaks and daggers by being poisoned. And Michelle De Bruin actually pees whisky.

The steak excuse was hilarious, but Schleck being poisoned could be true. What they were both caught for was neglible, it's not like they were caught for EPO or CERA or something.

On the article, I doubt everyone is doping, but they are definitely athletes who are. They're competing for prize money, sponsorships etc and if they want to be able to make a good living out of athletics, some will go the whole way in order to get an advantage.

I mean there are people who are highly competitive and want to win. If you're racing against guys like Bolt or Rudisha, who are dominant, some people will dope in the hope that they can get to that level.

ThisRegard

I'm sitting here wondering if my radio is now using a form of targeted advertising, just heard an ad for the Marion Finucane show with the interview with Martin Fagan discussing when he was caught for EPO, anyone hear it, available here. http://www.rte.ie/radio1/marianfinucane/ show is from the 21st of July.

chinguetti

The writer of the piece is quite a poor filler-in for this piece on the IT and he has written some dire stuff in the last while, articles that make no sense in my mind. He's some bit better on horse racing but not by much.

Maybe i'm a bit old fashioned on this but all the drugs in the world in my mind won't make someone pass the ball better in a game of team game such as soccer or gaelic football, compared to drugs making you faster/stronger/tougher for other sports such as running/cycling/rugby/weightlifting etc.

ThisRegard

The thing is, it's not a comparison of soccer ball. Although surrounded by some flowery language I think he does make a point that a lot of people would agree with. I do think the reaction to it is interesting though. It's almost as if there's still a bit of bury your head in the sand with people immediately saying hey, don't look here, go over and check what's happening in the world of soccer, anyway, who cares what you say, sure you're only a horse racing hack.

Clearlier

Pisco Sour wrote: »

No, the point is the ignorance of certain members of the media with regards doping. Slating one sport for doping issues while not applying the same skepticism to another sport which has strong links to the same problem.

Ah, I misunderstood the title (as I suspect many other have too). I thought you were saying that the article displayed ignorance but actually you're saying that the author is ignorant of doping in other sports?

ThisRegard wrote: »

Same goes for cycling, this years Tour was utterly boring (as picked up in another thread) but I'm still very dubious at some of the performances within it.

The Science of sport guys are worth a read on doping in general and in cycling in particular. It's largely based on their analysis that I believe that the impact of doping in this years tour was much smaller than in previous years.

ecoli

chinguetti wrote: »

The writer of the piece is quite a poor filler-in for this piece on the IT and he has written some dire stuff in the last while, articles that make no sense in my mind. He's some bit better on horse racing but not by much.

On the contrary, we are just after the two biggest athletics events to be held in Ireland in god knows how many years on the day of the opening ceremony to our sports center piece event and the busiest thread on this countries busiest athletics forum is one about his article.

Seems to me like this article did exactly what it was to supposed to - boost viewership

LacticAthlete

http://www.german-times.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1834&Itemid=74

Article from 2007, look up Dr Fuentes, Operation Puerto and realise that if athletes will dope just to get to an Olympic games then Clubs willing to pay 41m for Andy Carroll will be willing to juice their players.

The level of ignorance in this thread is astonishing.

RayCun

The German Times, people

ciaran76

Can somneone tell me when they do the test does the test only look for banned substances or does it look for other abnormal substances that are in your body too ?

Clearlier

ciaran76 wrote: »

Can somneone tell me when they do the test does the test only look for banned substances or does it look for other abnormal substances that are in your body too ?

I can't begin to do this question justice. These guys do an excellent job of explaining it. In summary though my understanding is that traditional testing searches for specific banned substances and markers such as plasticisers. The biological passport examines fluctuations in the readings of various hormone levels, haematocrit levels and a host of other things*.

*I'm talking out of my proverbial when it comes to describing testing so I could easily be misleading in that summary, the science of sport guys are really good though and well worth the time if you want to understand the methodology used to identify dopers