Are footballers doping?

jpboard1

For years we have heard about the widespread doping in cycling and athletics. There have been many scandals in this time. Figures such as Ben Johnson & Lance Armstrong are now names we associate with cheating, shame & maybe even ridicule.

In all this time, football seems to have avoided the limelight in this area. There is now another report after coming out which casts shadows on the sport in the area on drug taking.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/soccer-uefa-commissioned-doping-study-reveals-many-conspicuous-223419871--sector.html

Of course, UEFA are playing down the significance of this report. That is to be expected. What governing body of any sport would voluntarily admit to problems with drug taking. Look how long it took cycling to admit the issues they had.

http://www.sportinglife.com/football/news/article/165/9998667/uefa-say-that-doping-in-football-is-extremely-rare

A recent interview I read about the crossfit, a very new sport with only very meagre funding & prize money, discussed suspicions that doping may be starting to rear its head in that sport. The point was made that once money becomes involved there is always a temptation to dope. Now considering the tiny rewards in crossfit compared to football, why would there not be even more temptation in the sport that now sees billions of dollars associated with it.
There have been suspicions raised previously that would normally result in major investigations. The likes of the 'Marseille question' and the Feuntes association. Also, looking at the increased performance levels of players in a few short years, it must beg the question:

Are footballers doping?

Lovely Bloke

Yes, some of them are.

GLaDOS

It's a question of how widespread it is rather than does it happen tbh.

jpboard1

ScienceNerd wrote: »

It's a question of how widespread it is rather than does it happen tbh.

It could be. I would assume that the responsibility of the OP lies in asking the question as opposed to making a judgement. Especially from a legal point of view in relation to the site.

If there is an assumption out there that there is doping going on, it begs other questions. Such as the one you have posed, how prevalent is it? But also, why does noone seem to care?

LuckyLloyd

Yep - the extent of it is the question.

GLaDOS

jpboard1 wrote: »

But also, why does noone seem to care?

FIFA, UEFA and individual FAs don't want to know because if they uncover a shítload of doping going on, it's their brand that's going to be damaged. Drug testing isn't nearly as rigorous as it could be so there's never any high profile 'busts' to make a story out of. If it isn't in the media, people aren't going to care.

Pudsy33

Almost certainly, many high profile clubs and players have been linked to doctors known to suplly atheltes.

jpboard1

Pudsy33 wrote: »

Almost certainly, many high profile clubs and players have been linked to doctors known to suplly atheltes.

http://www.dw.com/en/the-fuentes-doping-scandal/a-16550737

Almost certainly widespread. Some will say there's not as close a link as in other sports due to more variables unlike baseball or cycling where it's a single action. At the same time football at the top levels is often decided by fractions of distance and time. A clearer head because of less fatigue, being able to start a run and get ball-side of a defender, little things that at the very top decide games.

Turtwig

Doping happens in everything competitive from video games to acting. It's naive to believe that one of the world's biggest industries doesn't have it. What's most pertinent though is what the footballers themselves regard as being "clean". Most will say they are clean. Few will explain what exactly that means.

bucketybuck

Anybody who looks at the released details of the Fuentes case and still doesn't think the big Spanish clubs were systematically doping is being very very naive.

Mr_A

The bigger question is whether the authorities have any will to tackle it. So far I have seen no evidence of such a will- after all catching people would damage the sports image, and UEFA/FIFA Fas in general have a vested interest in not doing so.

Winston Payne

Joke testing regimen, huge physical demands and financial incentive to juice. It's pretty much beyond question.

brevity

I'd say there is a "don't ask, don't tell" attitude to what goes on in the treatment centers.

It's not unreasonable to think that it goes on and when it all eventually comes out, it will take the shine off a number of clubs and players achievements.

paulbok

Avg senior squad size is 25 players x 92 clubs in Englands top 4 divisions.
Thats a minimum of 2,300 players just in England so if there aren't 10-20+ (and I'm being extremely generous with my low assumptions) players at it it's a miracle.
Then take account of the players in leagues with alledged doping and borderline treatments, it's only a matter of time before stories come out.

People will dope and cheat at amateur levels (recent case in Ireland in cycling, not even top class) let alone in the pros.

death1234567

jpboard1 wrote: »

Are footballers doping?

Yes. It's not just footballers though, it's every sport. Dealing with the issue is bad for business though so don't expect anything to happen.

Maximus Alexander

Of course it's happening, and there doesn't appear to be a will to expose it or do anything about it and, to be honest, I'm okay with that.

The_Kew_Tour

Yes of course there is doping.

Few players and clubs are obvious. Few won't be.

It's in all leagues etc.

Strumms

it would be naïve to expect it wouldn't be. In any scenario where mega amounts of money, ego, competitiveness meet at the crossroads you will also find meeting there also will be people who will go to any length to succeed and people who are willing to make that happen for them at a price but by any means necessary.

jpboard1

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Of course it's happening, and there doesn't appear to be a will to expose it or do anything about it and, to be honest, I'm okay with that.

Why?

shamrock55

Not the liverpool players obviously

bur

It's all starting to trickle out.
But no one is accountable to anybody and the doping agencies are in on the scam themselves.
It would take something like the FBI getting involved?

I honestly haven't heard a good reason why they don't just regulate PEDs, what is so inherently awful about them?

shamrock55

bur wrote: »

It's all starting to trickle out.
But no one is accountable to anybody and the doping agencies are in on the scam themselves.
It would take something like the FBI getting involved?

I honestly haven't heard a good reason why they don't just regulate PEDs, what is so inherently awful about them?

Because sport is all about putting the human body to the test and getting the best out of yourself not about putting god nows what and god knows how much **** into your body to falsely show what you as a person is capable of

Strumms

bur wrote: »

I honestly haven't heard a good reason why they don't just regulate PEDs, what is so inherently awful about them?

Because.. It's fundamentally at odds with the very definition and ideals of sport and fairness. If we had a situation as you suggest it would be all down to who could afford the best doctor(s) and the best drugs. From amateur up to professional. It would make a mockery of sport and fairness. It's already too much about $£ as it is....

Maximus Alexander

jpboard1 wrote: »

Why?

Why to which part?

jpboard1

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Why to which part?

Why are you okay with it?

Also, curious as to know would you have a similar view in relation to cycling and athletics?

Paully D

If Sunderland would like to start it, any day now would be very much appreciated.

jpboard1

Paully D wrote: »

If Sunderland would like to start it, any day now would be very much appreciated.

Sunderland always seem to turn things around at the strangest times...

GLaDOS

Paully D wrote: »

If Sunderland would like to start it, any day now would be very much appreciated.

Knowing Sunderland's luck they'll be the ones to get caught and get fúcked out of the league or something :pac:

jpboard1

Listening to Off the Ball the other night they had a French journalist(his name escapes me) on who was discussing the topic of this thread. He suggested that the screening of players may be slightly better in England than in it is Europe. If this is true, would it explain the poor performance of English in Europe in the last few years?

Richard Hillman

Put it this way. At the end of last season in England, 3 people tested positive in the space of just over a week right at the end of the season. It has been established that the English FA (and most likely others) have recieved failed tests and did not disclose them to the public. They have suspended players in private and the clubs just said that they are injured. If they managed to get 3 in the space of a week, they must have hidden near 3 figures worth of failed tests over the last couple of decades.

It is absolutely no coincidence that those 3 failed tests were disclosed over the same week. I reckon it was their message to the players that they are not going to hide failed tests anymore.

That is just England. We could start a new Boards forum on Doping in Spanish and Italian football.

jpboard1

ScienceNerd wrote: »

Knowing Sunderland's luck they'll be the ones to get caught and get fúcked out of the league or something :pac:

I wonder. It seems to me that they wouldn't want to start catching anyone for fear the whole house of cards would come tumbling down. Normally the only way this kind of thing is exposed is if a whistle-blower comes forward. They don't want to give anyone a reason to become that whistle-blower.

I'd be shocked if it's not rampant.

jpboard1

rarnes1 wrote: »

I'd be shocked if it's not rampant.

Can't find a link for this statistic but remember hearing that midfield players have increased distance covered in a match from 8km to 12km per game in the last few years. Can't imagine diet and training methods have improved that much.

Hank Scorpio

First word that comes to my mind when I see threads like this is Barcelona.

Maximus Alexander

jpboard1 wrote: »

Why are you okay with it?

Also, curious as to know would you have a similar view in relation to cycling and athletics?

I guess I've just never understood the moral panic that surrounds the notion of doping. To my mind, the more pertinent question is why not? I mean, obviously it's against the rules, so that's bad - but should it be?

Professional sports outfits already try to squeeze every advantage in terms of having the best coaches, the best facilities, the best doctors, physios, dieticians, sports scientists, etc. What is the intrinsic thing about doping that makes it so different from any of those?

Some people will say health - but if research came out tomorrow showing that a high protein diet led to increased risk of heart disease, I don't think people would be crying out for the diets of professional athletes to be regulated, so I don't really buy that.

The way I look at it is, you're never going to stamp it out, you just drive it underground and hand a hidden advantage to those willing to shirk the rules and take the risk. You can't make it legal because of the moral outrage that would be raised - so I'm sort of fine with the footballing bodies just turning a blind eye and allowing it to be de facto legal, with the facade that it's not.

Matt_Trakker

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-CW4UeOdDc

That doctor what was at Munich, Dr. Hans-Wilhelm Müller-Wohlfahrt last season, he's infamous. Has treated shedloads of English & Spanish-based footballers too, the odd cyclist and Usain Bolt too.

From what I know it's like this, if footballer were subjected to the strict testing of cycling then not many of the top professionals would pass tests.
For example, blood doping....taking blood from a person, freezing it and then reinjecting it to stimulate the growth of red blood cells isn't against FIFA rules. It's only against the riles if the frozen blood has been given some additives....which of course it has, but not easy to prove.

I would like though if an American or French publication would publish articles accusing footballers of doping, as they said on OFB the other night, they don't have libel laws as strict as in Ireland/UK.

Here's a good article on it from a few years ago.
Mourinho 's Porto is even involved:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/luke-john/dopin-under-the-needle-but-above-suspicion_b_2662165.html

And another good one from The Guardian from 2 years ago:
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2013/feb/15/drug-testing-football

jpboard1

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

I guess I've just never understood the moral panic that surrounds the notion of doping. To my mind, the more pertinent question is why not? I mean, obviously it's against the rules, so that's bad - but should it be?

Professional sports outfits already try to squeeze every advantage in terms of having the best coaches, the best facilities, the best doctors, physios, dieticians, sports scientists, etc. What is the intrinsic thing about doping that makes it so different from any of those?

Some people will say health - but if research came out tomorrow showing that a high protein diet led to increased risk of heart disease, I don't think people would be crying out for the diets of professional athletes to be regulated, so I don't really buy that.

The way I look at it is, you're never going to stamp it out, you just drive it underground and hand a hidden advantage to those willing to shirk the rules and take the risk. You can't make it legal because of the moral outrage that would be raised - so I'm sort of fine with the footballing bodies just turning a blind eye and allowing it to be de facto legal, with the facade that it's not.

I do think that health is an issue. I would also think that such acts or making a mockery of 'fair play'. But most importantly, it would mean that sport is no longer sport. Personally I am very uncomfortable with that.

Dirty Dingus McGee

Strumms wrote: »

Because.. It's fundamentally at odds with the very definition and ideals of sport and fairness. If we had a situation as you suggest it would be all down to who could afford the best doctor(s) and the best drugs. From amateur up to professional. It would make a mockery of sport and fairness. It's already too much about $£ as it is....

All sports are unfair for a variety of reasons.

It's unfair that the big clubs in Europe have way more money to spend than the teams they compete with but nobody gives a toss about that.

Where should you draw the line between what is considered doping and what is considered to be something to aid your performance but not be considered doping.

Maximus Alexander

jpboard1 wrote: »

I do think that health is an issue. I would also think that such acts or making a mockery of 'fair play'. But most importantly, it would mean that sport is no longer sport. Personally I am very uncomfortable with that.

Why would it mean that though? I mean, it's not like you or I could start doping and suddenly compete with the professionals. You still have have to work just as hard to get to that level, you still have to be a professional athlete at the absolute peak fitness. It means you recover more quickly, and so can actually train even harder than you otherwise would.

NIMAN

Celta beat Barca 4-1, test those guys I say!

Cienciano

With the money involved in the top one or 2 leagues in about 10 countries is so much, there just has to be doping.
The fact that pretty much no one has been caught tells me more about testing than anything else. There's no incentive for anyone to test, FIFA and UEFA don't want players failing, clubs don't and players don't. So don't expect to see anything change

The_Kew_Tour

Matt_Trakker wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-CW4UeOdDc

Growth Hormone is as good as doping as it gets.

It might have been taken out of context or whatever but it raised a eyebrow when I heard it.

jpboard1

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Why would it mean that though? I mean, it's not like you or I could start doping and suddenly compete with the professionals. You still have have to work just as hard to get to that level, you still have to be a professional athlete at the absolute peak fitness. It means you recover more quickly, and so can actually train even harder than you otherwise would.

It becomes a science rather than a sport. It also sets a dangerous example to young people out there.

Dirty Dingus McGee

jpboard1 wrote: »

It becomes a science rather than a sport. It also sets a dangerous example to young people out there.

No it doesn't. If you haven't got the skill you'll go nowhere in a sport like soccer.

jpboard1

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

No it doesn't. If you haven't got the skill you'll go nowhere in a sport like soccer.

It still becomes a science.

Either everyone should have access to the same drugs or no one should.

NIMAN

Its common knowledge in the story of Lionel Messi that he had to get HGH as he wasn't growing when he was about 13 or 14.

Pro. F

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Some people will say health - but if research came out tomorrow showing that a high protein diet led to increased risk of heart disease, I don't think people would be crying out for the diets of professional athletes to be regulated, so I don't really buy that.

I'd say there's a big difference between regulating normal behaviour - eating food - and prohibiting unusual and inherently dangerous behaviour - taking drugs.

Pro. F

NIMAN wrote: »

Its common knowledge in the story of Lionel Messi that he had to get HGH as he wasn't growing when he was about 13 or 14.

That type of HGH use would be expected to qualify for a medical exemption.

Ulysses Gaze

None of this is new.

Inter Milan back in the 1960's were doping - Brian Glanville has written about doping in Italian football going back 50-60 years or more.

Stanley Matthews was taking "pep" pills that kept him up all night - and also had him going jogging at 2 in the morning and raking the leaves up in his driveway at 3 in the morning because he couldn't sleep (his autobiography mentions this - it's most likely amphetamines that he was being given)