How Clean is Triathlon overall

peter kern

at the same time if you find 2 % you can be sure their if many more that get away with it ........
or do you think only 2 people that usually get a drafting penalty in a race draft ;-)

RayCun wrote: »

According to this, there were over 30,000 samples taken in football from 2008-2010, and fewer than 2% positive findings.

In the Irish Peloton article linked above, the claim is made that Xavi is on growth hormone and the doctor giving it is the same as Eufemiano Fuentes... but the claim is walked back in the comments.

You get the same arguments on Athletics/Running, "I bet football is just as dirty too, why are we picked on!?", but the fact is cycling had/has a massive problem with doping, which was found, evidence published, completely undeniable, athletics is just the same, the failed tests at the highest level are there to be seen, but there is no smoking gun in football. Just people saying "oh, they must be..."

BennyMul

is drafting the same as taking PED's?

pgibbo

BennyMul wrote: »

is drafting the same as taking PED's?

I think the point Peter is making is that if you're will to cheat by drafting then what's to say you won't take a performance enhancing drug to get even more free speed?

RacoonQueen

I think he's pointing out how many people draft compared to how many people get caught and suggesting it could be the same with drug use.

RayCun

peter kern wrote: »

at the same time if you find 2 % you can be sure their if many more that get away with it ........
or do you think only 2 people that usually get a drafting penalty in a race draft ;-)

Sure, there probably are more. But whole teams on planned doping programmes? The evidence just isn't there. (And at the top level, I don't think it would happen without the knowledge of the team)

hf4z6sqo7vjngi

Where can i get my hands on some of these growth hormones? i could do with some.

peter kern

RayCun wrote: »

Sure, there probably are more. But whole teams on planned doping programmes? The evidence just isn't there. (And at the top level, I don't think it would happen without the knowledge of the team)

in italy that evidence is pretty much there it was in soccer.

peter kern

BennyMul wrote: »

is drafting the same as taking PED's?

both can be very effective .
both are iligal.

and saving up to 30 % of energy is most likely more effective than epo.....

RayCun

peter kern wrote: »

in italy that evidence is pretty much there it was in soccer.

In Italy, you had calciopoli. Massive investigation, big teams dropped through divisions, referees debarred, members of the national team under investigation still, 'everybody did it'... an enormous scandal, and match-fixing is still a live issue.
So, why wasn't there the same thing about doping? It can't be because the authorities are afraid of going after the big names.

BTH

RayCun wrote: »

According to this, there were over 30,000 samples taken in football from 2008-2010, and fewer than 2% positive findings.

In the Irish Peloton article linked above, the claim is made that Xavi is on growth hormone and the doctor giving it is the same as Eufemiano Fuentes... but the claim is walked back in the comments.

You get the same arguments on Athletics/Running, "I bet football is just as dirty too, why are we picked on!?", but the fact is cycling had/has a massive problem with doping, which was found, evidence published, completely undeniable, athletics is just the same, the failed tests at the highest level are there to be seen, but there is no smoking gun in football. Just people saying "oh, they must be..."

RayCun wrote: »

Sure, there probably are more. But whole teams on planned doping programmes? The evidence just isn't there. (And at the top level, I don't think it would happen without the knowledge of the team)

But the Juventus doctor got sacked for administering EPO and god knows what else. Is that not evidence? And do you really believe he carried out this program off his own bat? This was in the late 90s when EPO abuse was becoming obvious in cycling as well. So you believe that while cycling failed to stamp out PEDs, football was 100% successful, and everything you see on a football pitch is 100% genuine?

Was Festina the only team carting round cars full of drugs in 1998? By the same token, were Juventus the only team giving their players drugs at the same time? As easy as it is to keep a cyclist quiet with the promise of a €100,000 a year contract, how much easier is it to keep a footballer player quiet with a €2,000,000 a year contract. Hence the lack of smoke you refer to.

BTH

RayCun wrote: »

In Italy, you had calciopoli. Massive investigation, big teams dropped through divisions, referees debarred, members of the national team under investigation still, 'everybody did it'... an enormous scandal, and match-fixing is still a live issue.
So, why wasn't there the same thing about doping? It can't be because the authorities are afraid of going after the big names.

Calciopoli was match fixing. There is also evidence of team wide doping in Italy as well as this. Same way as the UCI were afraid of going after the big name, due to the damage it would cause to the sport as a whole, failing to see the damage that was being done by not going after the big names. Same kind of short-shortsightedness that happened in this country as a whole.

BennyMul

peter kern wrote: »

both can be very effective .
both are iligal.

and saving up to 30 % of energy is most likely more effective than epo.....

Peter I fully agree with you in principle, but risking your health taking drugs or sitting on a wheel are not the same.

but maybe I am looking as a whole as opposed to local and international levels.
in local races cheating via drafting is the same as PED's in international.

but in your opinion as a coach, how many of your athletes would take stuff is they were guarenteed to win thier A race and not get caught?

RayCun

There's plenty of smoke, what's missing is the fire. Or the gun - choose your favourite metaphor:)

There's an excluded middle in your argument. I don't have to think that football was 100% successful and is 100% clean to think that - on the evidence available so far - it has been much more successful than cycling or athletics in stamping out doping.

RayCun

BTH wrote: »

Calciopoli was match fixing. There is also evidence of team wide doping in Italy as well as this.

But my question was, if the Italian FA are trying to cover up doping because they don't want to upset big names or damage the sport, why didn't they cover up Calciopoli? (Equally, if the amount of money in football means you can bribe people to be quiet about doping, why didn't it work for match-fixing?)

pgibbo

Personally I think it's because of the stigma associated with drugs is much worse than match fixing

BTH

RayCun wrote: »

There's plenty of smoke, what's missing is the fire. Or the gun - choose your favourite metaphor:)

There's an excluded middle in your argument. I don't have to think that football was 100% successful and is 100% clean to think that - on the evidence available so far - it has been much more successful than cycling or athletics in stamping out doping.

I'm tempted to leave the word "Money" as my only answer to this.

If you look back at cycling in the last 15 years, there are very very few journalists world-wide who have spoken out about doping. And they, generally, lost their jobs because of it. Lance et al ignored them and threatened to ignore any other journalists who had anything to do with them.

Is it difficult to see the same happening in football. Anyone who has a passing interest in football will know about "Sir" Alexs relationship with the BBC, after they dare to question one of his team selections. Are journalist really going to start digging for the real dirt, lose all their contacts, and their job, with thousands more ready to jump into their shoes?

RayCun

BTH wrote: »

Is it difficult to see the same happening in football. Anyone who has a passing interest in football will know about "Sir" Alexs relationship with the BBC, after they dare to question one of his team selections. Are journalist really going to start digging for the real dirt, lose all their contacts, and their job, with thousands more ready to jump into their shoes?

The list of journalists who have been banned from United press conferences is pretty long all right.:pac:
And yet they continue to criticise his team selection, suggest the Bebe purchase had some illegal element (but they don't know what), reveal that his players are sleeping around... because while there's an appetite for player interviews (which is what you lose if you get on the wrong side of a club) there's also an appetite for dirt. How famous would you get, how much money would you make, if you could be the one who revealed that Wayne Rooney was taking PEDs?

BTH

RayCun wrote: »

The list of journalists who have been banned from United press conferences is pretty long all right.:pac:
And yet they continue to criticise his team selection, suggest the Bebe purchase had some illegal element (but they don't know what), reveal that his players are sleeping around... because while there's an appetite for player interviews (which is what you lose if you get on the wrong side of a club) there's also an appetite for dirt. How famous would you get, how much money would you make, if you could be the one who revealed that Wayne Rooney was taking PEDs?

Sleaze sells. Proper investigative journalism is dead. Your tabloid reader is only concerned about Rooney shagging grannies and which of his team-mates wifes John Terry and Ryan Giggs are carrying on with.

The problem is obviously getting evidence, and getting people to speak on the record. Anyone who works in football journalism knows a hell of a lot more than they can actually publish. You only have to look at the recent "Duncan Jenkins" and Liverpool issue to see how far a club will go to keep their secrets out of the public knowledge. And then you see Liverpool "fan" forums publishing the address and photos of the man anonymously behind Duncan Jenkins and his family and sending him hate-mail and no doubt worse. Does a journalist really want that for themselves?

RayCun

But that's an argument that proves too much. No journalist would then say anything bad, because it is impossible to get evidence and the backlash from fans isn't worth it. And yet bad things continue to be said, just not about doping.

BennyMul

considering they dont do anything in relation to diving, why would they open can of worms to drugs.

BTH

RayCun wrote: »

But that's an argument that proves too much. No journalist would then say anything bad, because it is impossible to get evidence and the backlash from fans isn't worth it. And yet bad things continue to be said, just not about doping.

I'd love to copy and paste this thread into the soccer forum.
I'd be watching my back on the walk home!!

I agree, one would expect a little more to be written in mainstream media about PEDs in football. The only way cycling can get into the papers in this country (and most other places) is when theres drugs involved. But while nobody fails a test then its easy to turn a blind eye. Cycling has been doing it for years. Spanish riders seem to still think Lance is innocent because he never failed a test and theres no evidence. I remember reading an article once, but I've found it impossible to find since, where Zidane talked about going to a Swiss (I think) clinic for a "pick me up" before Euro 2000 (maybe is was 04?). If you trawl the internet theres plenty of speculation about drugs in football (most of it seems to be cocaine though :pac:). And of course everything on the internet is 100% true.

No 100% clean or anything close to it. We've seen from Lance that doping, and beating the controls, is a matter of money. The more money involved, the greater the rewards, and we've seen in recent years that money is a much bigger motivator for most footballers (Man City or Anzhi Makhachkala anyone??). No doubt there is a problem in Triathlon too. The same PEDs that have been abused in Cycling and long distance running are going to have obvious benefits to a triathlete. I hope its not widespread here, and I know that there was doping controls at Beast of the East this year, and hopefully other races too.

peter kern

BennyMul wrote: »

Peter I fully agree with you in principle, but risking your health taking drugs or sitting on a wheel are not the same.

of course for the person thats taking it there is a difference.
the person that gets cheated dosnt really care how they get cheated.






but in your opinion as a coach, how many of your athletes would take stuff is they were guarenteed to win thier A race and not get caught?

i am agnostic, but maybe this question was answered many thousand years ago by adam and eva that we are not perfect .....
and i dodnt think much has changed....

but in all seriousness, I would see midlife crisis athletes at much higher risk than my good athletes that are working hard.
People that work honestly hard and understand that it is about consistency, tend to have more patience than the guys that think they can buy quick success. and every 2 weeks buy something new.


and since i make way too much fun of those guys that buy the gear without wanting to do the training - I tend to deter those from coming to me.....

Brick Session

Ok lads I give in, I will admit it

I put wheat grass powder on my porridge :eek:

RayCun

peter kern wrote: »

but in all seriousness, I would see midlife crisis athletes at much higher risk than my good athletes that are working hard.

I think that's a good point, and an interesting phenomenon. It used to be that PEDs were confined to the top level of the sport (any sport). But now there's more testing at the top level, but also the PEDs are more easily available. That article by Ulrich Fluhne linked earlier was interesting. What would be the result if there was random testing through the first 5% of finishers in every race? Are the Kona qualifying spots in IM triathlons tested?

tunney

RayCun wrote: »

I think that's a good point, and an interesting phenomenon. It used to be that PEDs were confined to the top level of the sport (any sport). But now there's more testing at the top level, but also the PEDs are more easily available. That article by Ulrich Fluhne linked earlier was interesting. What would be the result if there was random testing through the first 5% of finishers in every race? Are the Kona qualifying spots in IM triathlons tested?

Are people really as simple as this thread suggests? Not picking on you Ray but seriously?

Cop on. Doping in tri is happening, and at an AG level.

in competition testing is useless, they are more of an IQ year than a dope test.

RacoonQueen

tunney wrote: »

Are people really as simple as this thread suggests? Not picking on you Ray but seriously?

Cop on. Doping in tri is happening, and at an AG level.

in competition testing is useless, they are more of an IQ year than a dope test.

I assume you're talking about Irish races here as well?

peter kern

RacoonQueen wrote: »

I assume you're talking about Irish races here as well?

of course its happening the thing is rather than putting it on the level of an athlete its more a certain character type that dope
people with low self esteem people, that are very ruthless and people that think they can do whatever they want and on top of this people that have no character. ( at pro level the ones that worked very hard and then feel they cant make a living out of it )
and you find those people from very slow to very very fast
and the thing is tummey I am sure you are not on drugs, but you are the character (ie extremly compulsive and living in your 9.46 world ) that i see at high risk to take drugs ( but again in your case you are somebody that i know that dosnt draft, but still its people like you and not you that are most likely the ones that do it .
<<snip >>

shotgunmcos

peter kern wrote: »

.......still its people like you and not you that are most likely the ones that do it .

eh? brett sutton esque...!

pgibbo

shotgunmcos wrote: »

eh? brett sutton esque...!

nevermind that.....I think it's the last line that's a bit concerning and one that could cause people to jump to conclusions about certain people

looks like I wasn't the only one concerned by it

tunney

I love the way that private conversations always become public.
I love the way that the actual detail of what is said in private morphs before it becomes public.

As for me doping, and me being the type that dopes. People on boards.ie would say I am many things - a pr1ck, a condescending cvnt, a total whinger, a c0ck, whatever. However the phrases "lacking in confidence", "low self-esteem", "morally ambiguous", "overly concerned with other peoples opinions" and "easily led" are not synonymous with me I'd imagine. I am the exact type of person who would never dope - nor be friends with dopers.