"Dick Pound talked about the Russian situation being the tip of the iceberg -- this is the submerged part of the iceberg," Tucker told CNN via a Skype call. "For me, the driving factor for doping consistently is when you're in a team environment of high reward for getting to the first team." He compared soccer's situation with that of cycling -- a sport that has a history of endemic doping, brought to global attention by the downfall of seven-time Tour de France champion Lance Armstrong. "If there's the incentive to dope and limited risk to doping, you do the maths," Tucker said. "The incentive is much higher than cycling to dope in football, with the competition for places and the money involved. "As for the argument that football is more about skill and tactical nous than other sports, that's true but doping can still be a contributing factor to being in the optimal physical condition. "But it's definitely a complex issue in football as there are so many players and so many exposures, it's difficult to cover the bases. That's why there are no positive doping results." http://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/08/football/doping-in-soccer-euro-2016/
So what happened to the epic Chelsea doping program last year? Somebody doped better than them? Leicester? Leicester has a more sophisticated doping program than Chelsea? What happened to Leicester's doping program this year?
As we have discussed before, one big advantage is if you are not playing in Europe, as then you don't have to submit to any UEFA testing = full muppet potential Also take a look at UKADs role in the Team SKY scandal. They bent over backwards not to find out anything. @cr7torossi even IDed the specific doping medics that arrived at Leicester - guys with a strong track record of doping in cycling. But they have some great dietary ideas! Anyway - i am leaving it at that.
As chance would have it, Ross Tucker was profiled on newstalk today He's a very good follow on Twitter if you are on there: 840152595243048960 is not a valid tweet id Tucker is big on the idea that we have to forget about "testing" which is more interested in providing cover to cheats (see Armstrong, UKAD, WADA etc). Instead we should focus on tracking performance - as it gives a good indication of whether we should believe in what we are seeing.
Jitty, your dismissal of 'marginal gains' hurts your argument. There is no doubt that training and nutrition have made huge strides over the last 30 years. The money involved in sports is a big part of fueling that. In the 80s there were guys who played that didn't even bother to lift weights. Now that's unheard of. The more important thing is that populations were better fed as children. All over the world the average height of populations grew as childhood nutrition got better. There's a big difference in the childhood of somebody born in 1965 and 1995, and there's a big difference in the way that they work out and train when they pursuit life as an athlete.
Chelsea didn't have many injuries last year either, did they? They just went full muppet after quitting on Jose.
One might or might not believe it, either way, it's inconclusive. I gave the podcast a listen, it's interesting but also sounds somewhat dogmatic. I don't find it hard to believe athletes and players dope, but I don't know if it's true. Read up on fuentes too, but again, difficult to project football-wise.
I am a benefit of sport science,I've played college sports, there are people who I call uncle who played in the NBA and I have good friends who play in MLS and some smaller European countries. Believe me when I say Doping is 100% real, and it has been for at least 30-40 years. People need to draw a distinction between their local U20 team and these major leagues, the first is sports the second is sports entertainment. If you have ever played a sport at near or at top level, you know playing 3 games in 11 days is impossible. I mean come on the same sport that produced Messi, is saying there is no doping? They are on the record as saying they gave him HGH, its common knowledge.
yeah, I dont really care about doping because at the end of the day its entertainment. This is not life or death for me as a fan. Someone setting a record while on some PED doesn't mean that record isnt real. Barry Bonds stats from 2001-2004 makes him the greatest baseball player of all time, so what if he used a Cream or Clear? I enjoyed watching him be the GOAT. A lot of these athletes are taking years off their lives playing these sports, so I have no issue with trying to get an extra boost. It dont bother me at all. How can I watch and expect excellence from Lebron James every game even tho he playing 4 games in 6 nights?
Agreed! Sure thing. I was a little luke on signing Danny, but to my surprise, I've really liked his instant contributions, when he's played. PROBLEM is that our history is littered with good players with fitness problems: Wilshere, Rosicky, Diaby, etc. Leading up to our last game Wenger said he was still cautious and a bit concerned for his knee. So when he was yanked at last-minute from our XI against Bayern I groaned. But then I learned that it was only illness. Relief? Or roller-coaster ride?
On the whole doping-in-footy thing, I have 2 simultaneous reactions: 1) I assume there is doping, and Sanchez could be one of them I figure. 2) Football campaigns are complex multi-variable situations. Boiling it down to Leicester/Chelsea-won-because-of-full-on-doping-and-limited-testing seems a bit myopic and naive. Furthermore, if doping is so rampant and widespread in football, and sponsored by clubs, shouldn't we be hearing more about whistleblowers or stings that catch people in the act (blood bags, pharmaceutical deliveries, etc)? I'm no doping denier, nor am I a conspiracy theorist. As with most things in life, I figure the truth lies somewhere in between, in the gray area.
How many whistleblowers did you from wall street pre-2008? And, yes there are whistleblowers, Jitty just gave you an example, most whistleblowers are usually dismissed until the evidence is overwhelming.
Interesting, you mean to tell me there could be other factors in a team's year over year performance variance besides that they are all doping?
I remember people telling me that Lance Armstrong was clean and there was no reason to believe those Europeans just jealous that an American was killing em at their own sport People also believe that Carl Lewis was clean and FloJo but only Ben Johnson was dirty Mark McGwire was clean, only Bonds was doping and of course A Rod No way Mike Piazza was doping, And so on, and on, and on. There was a story on ESPN's website a while back where European doctors just marvelled at his ability to play 2 games in 3 nights. I'm sure it was due to him taking some more protein scoops in his smoothie, getting enough rest in the off season and just getting that personal chef.
Sure. No one denies that. But excessive injuries will usually derail a title challenge, and I can't remember Chelsea ever having 3 players out at the same position. Leicester last season seem like the crazy case: championship-level players like Vardy, Huth, and Morgan practically became world beaters overnight. All while pushing 30. It's so unusual that the most plausible explanation is doping.
The players that I don't think are doping are the ones that fall off an age cliff at the right time and are string bean skinny. I'd be surprised if KD is juicing, for example. I'd be shocked if someone like a Shaq didn't.
disagree completely. Lacne Armstrong wasnt ripped. Same with Team Sky. They didnt do PEDs to get ripped. They did PEDs for recovery and endurance. Why wouldnt KD be doping since he has to do 4 games in 5 or 6 nights in 4 different cities? Thats a grind and they may need some help.
What @DaPrince84 said. We have to stop thinking of PED's as this steroid monster "gym bro" caricature thing. You can use PED's for a number of things. For instance EPO in the NBA would be MONEY, it increases endurance so you don't get tired in the 4th quarter. If I was an NBA player I'd be doing EPO all day every day.
What's interesting is the fact that the Bay Area Laboratories Co-Operative was busted nearly 15 years ago. That's when "the Cream" and "the Clear" became household names, and Barry Bonds became the poster boy for PEDs. So undetectable performance enhancing drugs capable of beating drug tests have been around for more at least that long. I wonder who's winning this game of cat and mouse: The PED developers or the PED testers?? Which side has more incentive to succeed? Hmmm . . . .
I dunno bout legalizing the whole peds thing ... I see all these brogrammer kiddos that are all into this taking tiny hits of acid to boost their "performance". I finished that chapter in my life when I was teenager. If I had to take that shit to get a job it would just turn me off completely. Slippery slope. Where is the line drawn? Gene splicing? Some dudes just want to play. Some dudes need to win at everything no matter the cost. The latter is literally mental.
the thing is PED's are not a panacea, it just works at the margins. So if you're Bonds or Bron you're already the winner of the genetic lottery you add PED's and voila you are not just all time great you're all time legend status. I personally don't mind. For instance A Rod was such a beast of a player that it wouldn't matter if he took em or not. People just hated him cause he wasn't Jeter which is just hilarious