Alberto Salazar in Doping Scandal

Chivito550 wrote: »

Just for comparison purposes compare this thread to the below thread to how athletics fans treat doping revelations to the way football fans do. Shocking revelations about no valid testing in La Liga all season and UEFA and FIFA refusing to step in.

http://touch.boards.ie/thread/2056873288/71



At least in our sport, we, the fans, do not tolerate drug cheating, and the federation for the most part tries to stamp it out. Football is the biggest fraudulent sport there is. No responses on this football thread. The fans don't care. The same people who then go slate athletics as a filthy sport. It is nauseating hearing the praise for Barcelona.

By and large you are correct. Soccer fans, of which I would be one, really don't care about PED's in general. Generally don't believe it occurs, or are in denial more like. For my part, I firmly believe it occurs. There is too much money involved in it for it not to be there. I've raised this several times in soccer Discussions and it generally gets no traction. For example, could you imagine an athlete coming from nowhere, win a big title (like the English premier league,) drop the following year back into relative obscurity ( to the relegation zone for example) and nobody to question anything about PED's.

Of course it happens, and the big clubs have the resources to stay ahead of the testers. FIFA/UEFA don't care about it, there is no money in positive tests.

walshb wrote: »

Btw, these days pro soccer players have no real issue running and running. Something to do with professionalism and money and hard training, oh and as well as just good old human nature. Now when one of them runs non stop for 90 minutes at a footballer pace with no break I may become curious.

See, there's the big difference right there. You say it is professionalism, money and hard training that ensures footballers dont feel the need to dope in order to seek an edge. Whereas some of us would hold that they are precisely the reasons why they would - and often do - choose to dope. As for human nature, well isn't it simple human nature to seek an advantage when the risk of repercussions or getting caught is at a minimum? And even sometimes when it isn't.

Doping is not just for running fast around a pitch for 90 minutes. In an era when there's obscene levels of money floating around and big clubs face ever more hectic schedules, it's about training, recovery times, niggling injuries, the ability to keep going through intense periods of activity. I think you must understand that. It's just naive to think there aren't all sorts going on in most of the big football clubs from EPO and other types of blood boosting, HGH and god knows how many inhalers and TUES and unreported missed tests.

Okay, I'm guessing you are suggesting that footballers have no need to dope, or limited need, because it is in their nature to be professional and train hard and thus are more than capable of running around a lot for 90 minutes when required. You believe the physical demands are so relatively modest that the helping hand of illicit substances is simply not needed. Otherwise, your post is ambiguous, at least to me anyway.

Needless to say, i fundamentally disagree with that position anyway.

Imagine the following scenario. You toss a ball to a professional footballer and count how many keepie uppies he can perform. Then you make him run 2 laps of the field, toss the ball to him again and see how many he can do this time. I think the results of that experiment would tell a story.

Post 83 is reasonable enough alright, though I'm not easily convinced doping is any less attractive to an over-worked and over-stressed professional footballer. That's just me guessing cos I dont have any great or special insight into it.

But what I do know is that all top football clubs, and national federations, employ specialist doctors, and fund modern and innovate labs more sophisticated than anything the NOP would ever come up with (cf the famous AC Milan lab), where they are constantly pushing the boundaries seeking whatever edge they can find. It certainly stretches my credulity anyway to believe they would never cross the line into illegality, especially when the testing regimes in football have been proven to be so lax and, in some cases, practically non-existent. I would be amazed and astonished if nearly all the top clubs, and several of the lesser ones too, weren't all hard at it quite frankly.

Have we gone full conspiracy theory now

runnerholic wrote: »

And then when they sacked their manager they went back on the PED's hence their upturn in form.

If you need PED's to beat Liverpool, things must be bad:)

Messi's HGH treatments are well documented. He broke no rules.

Btw, I realise that you didn't make that claim.

Joe_ Public wrote: »

No I didn't. That Messi business is a funny one for me, though. Did he really need that treatment as a young boy with growth problems or was it necessitated by the fact that he was simply a hugely talented footballer whose career required a helping hand? Interesting moral question there I think. Most people are willing to dismiss it on the simple basis that the guy is a rare footballing genius.

It is much more logical and believable that he took the HGH as a youngster for a medical condition as opposed to a PED reason, that's the real issue.

All pertinent questions, but really, who cares when you take it from the starting point. Youngster takes HGH for a medical condition. It helps him become taller and bigger. He also happens to be naturally a very gifted soccer player. HGH helps him on the road to becoming a legend.

No rules shown to be broken. Forgetting the strict definitions of the rules, is it really an issue that he may have used HGH without going through the proper channels and checks as a bit older than a youngster? Does anyone really believe that as an adult he was trying to deceive and cheat his way on the pitch by taking illegal substances? A player who practically never resorts to on the pitch cheating (diving).