Brits don't dope?

[The Hitch]

To be fair, the people saying Premiere Leauge players don't dope have a good point.

Weightlifters dope for a few hundred bob and a plane ticket home. Masters cyclists dope because they want to beat their friends. Amateur rugby players dope to try and get a contract for a small level team

But why on earth would a football player in the worlds richest league with millions and millions as well as eternal fame on the line, dope? Epsecially considering how weak the testing system is?

Makes no sense, does it.

Nobody is saying PL players do not dope. The issue is whether players are prepared to dope incessantly? One wonders if the original tension with Capello was program related? With senior players being told that they would be smashed if they didn't. My hunch is that Gerrard rebelled against this as did Rooney. Both later reaching an agreement with Hodgson who complied with or even encouraged this sober approach.

The reality is that Iceland (and Costa Rica in 2014) looked doped to the max when England encountered them. In contrast, England looked totally sober even hungover during that game in Marseilles.

Are you saying Iceland only doped against England, because they drew two of their group games against a struggling Portugal and Hungary and scored a late breakaway goal to win against Austria and got hammered against France. Is the only reason England have been crap for 30 years a lack of doping?? I really dont think so.

I've yet to be convinced that doping actually works in football, if it did we'd have seen a far better showing from Eastern European teams in The World Cup or Champions League. Only 2 Eastern European teams have ever reached a European Cup final and only one has won it. The thing is that football is a game of skill, teamwork and tactics, yes endurance and speed help but no amount of doping will produce a Pele, Cruyff, Best, Di Stefano or Puskas. Also, footballers are quite often heavy drinkers and smokers like for example Rooney and Cruyff, they are nowhere near as fit as most pro sportsmen, probably just above darts players really

Pete

question.

If you don't know anything about doping, why are you commenting on a doping forum?

 

[Gung Ho Gun]

I've yet to be convinced that doping actually works in football, if it did we'd have seen a far better showing from Eastern European teams in The World Cup or Champions League. Only 2 Eastern European teams have ever reached a European Cup final and only one has won it. The thing is that football is a game of skill, teamwork and tactics, yes endurance and speed help but no amount of doping will produce a Pele, Cruyff, Best, Di Stefano or Puskas. Also, footballers are quite often heavy drinkers and smokers like for example Rooney and Cruyff, they are nowhere near as fit as most pro sportsmen, probably just above darts players really

Pete

Quite a bit above darts players I think

 

[Lyon]

What differentiates modern football from what the likes of Cruyff (or even a young Rooney) did is the amount of short sprints done. No 'skills' needed there.

As a consequence of this the kind of 'skills' needed have also changed. The Valderamas of the world is now found indoors or in the sunday leagues.

In effect the balance have been skewed towards the purely physical, like in any other sport.

 

[buckle]

...
I am saying that neither Costa Rica nor Iceland could get to the quarters of a major without dope.

this is beyond reasonable doubt. For Iceland, we know the coach was a Swedish doctor. Nuff said.

Indeed and CR were even under suspicion after the Uruguay game in 2014 as 8 of their players were targeted by FIFA for doping.

I am suggesting that senior players wanted a break from the doping when on England duty during the summer and Hodgson agreed to this.

Why would they do this? I can think of no reason.

You surely don't need this hypothesis to explain England's poor game against Iceland. Other factors can explain that satisfactorily. I would agree that there is a (good) chance that Iceland had a *more effective* dope program than England.

This I do not accept i.e. If England had wanted to they could have matched it.

But to go from there to suggesting English senior players wanted a break from doping is weird.

True - it was weird!

You have to realize how much there is at stake during these tournaments, both for the coach and for the players. We're talking sponsor interests, individual and team bonuses. Additionally, for many players it's an opportunity to increase their market value. A player like James Rodriguez basically earned his big-buck Madrid contract by excelling during the Worlds in Brazil.

The English players are the best paid in the World already - less incentive

Generally, I think each player will have his own preferences in terms of doping and recovery.
It's a complex thing, and programs will be adjusted to individual needs. Also have to bear in mind that at the big tournaments, there are different interests (club interests vs. national team interests) playing in the background.

Totally agreed! I think Gerrard then latterly Rooney said no.

Look at Robben when the Dutch squad prepared him for the Worlds in 2010. Robben had his own doctor, then there was the involvement of Bayern's doctors and there was the involvement of Dutch national team doctor. Ribery 2015 is another case in point: Bayern's doctors accused the French national team doctors of having him recover too quickly with the help of injections, which meant his long-term recovery suffered and he wasn't fit for the League season. Complex.

Agreed - it is complex.

But I see no reasons there to suggest some portmanteau 'cease-dope' among English players at Euro2016.

I think there had been trouble in SA 2010 between the likes of Terry and Gerrard over the issue. The latter seeing the former journeyman as having his career totally transformed by doping and nothing else. Who was this Terry to dictate terms on the issue? I suspect the Catholics Rooney and Gerrard found Terry an obnoxious c**t.

 

[simoni]

...
I am saying that neither Costa Rica nor Iceland could get to the quarters of a major without dope.

this is beyond reasonable doubt. For Iceland, we know the coach was a Swedish doctor. Nuff said.

Indeed and CR were even under suspicion after the Uruguay game in 2014 as 8 of their players were targeted by FIFA for doping.

I am suggesting that senior players wanted a break from the doping when on England duty during the summer and Hodgson agreed to this.

Why would they do this? I can think of no reason.

You surely don't need this hypothesis to explain England's poor game against Iceland. Other factors can explain that satisfactorily. I would agree that there is a (good) chance that Iceland had a *more effective* dope program than England.

This I do not accept i.e. If England had wanted to they could have matched it.

But to go from there to suggesting English senior players wanted a break from doping is weird.

True - it was weird!

You have to realize how much there is at stake during these tournaments, both for the coach and for the players. We're talking sponsor interests, individual and team bonuses. Additionally, for many players it's an opportunity to increase their market value. A player like James Rodriguez basically earned his big-buck Madrid contract by excelling during the Worlds in Brazil.

The English players are the best paid in the World already - less incentive

Generally, I think each player will have his own preferences in terms of doping and recovery.
It's a complex thing, and programs will be adjusted to individual needs. Also have to bear in mind that at the big tournaments, there are different interests (club interests vs. national team interests) playing in the background.

Totally agreed! I think Gerrard then latterly Rooney said no.

Look at Robben when the Dutch squad prepared him for the Worlds in 2010. Robben had his own doctor, then there was the involvement of Bayern's doctors and there was the involvement of Dutch national team doctor. Ribery 2015 is another case in point: Bayern's doctors accused the French national team doctors of having him recover too quickly with the help of injections, which meant his long-term recovery suffered and he wasn't fit for the League season. Complex.

Agreed - it is complex.

But I see no reasons there to suggest some portmanteau 'cease-dope' among English players at Euro2016.

I think there had been trouble in SA 2010 between the likes of Terry and Gerrard over the issue. The latter seeing the former journeyman as having his career totally transformed by doping and nothing else. Who was this Terry to dictate terms on the issue? I suspect the Catholics Rooney and Gerrard found Terry an obnoxious c**t.

Where ARE you getting this stuff from? And what on earth does religion have to do with it?

 

[Winnats]

To be fair, the people saying Premiere Leauge players don't dope have a good point.

Weightlifters dope for a few hundred bob and a plane ticket home. Masters cyclists dope because they want to beat their friends. Amateur rugby players dope to try and get a contract for a small level team

But why on earth would a football player in the worlds richest league with millions and millions as well as eternal fame on the line, dope? Epsecially considering how weak the testing system is?

Makes no sense, does it.

Nobody is saying PL players do not dope. The issue is whether players are prepared to dope incessantly? One wonders if the original tension with Capello was program related? With senior players being told that they would be smashed if they didn't. My hunch is that Gerrard rebelled against this as did Rooney. Both later reaching an agreement with Hodgson who complied with or even encouraged this sober approach.

The reality is that Iceland (and Costa Rica in 2014) looked doped to the max when England encountered them. In contrast, England looked totally sober even hungover during that game in Marseilles.

Are you saying Iceland only doped against England, because they drew two of their group games against a struggling Portugal and Hungary and scored a late breakaway goal to win against Austria and got hammered against France. Is the only reason England have been crap for 30 years a lack of doping?? I really dont think so.

I've yet to be convinced that doping actually works in football, if it did we'd have seen a far better showing from Eastern European teams in The World Cup or Champions League. Only 2 Eastern European teams have ever reached a European Cup final and only one has won it. The thing is that football is a game of skill, teamwork and tactics, yes endurance and speed help but no amount of doping will produce a Pele, Cruyff, Best, Di Stefano or Puskas. Also, footballers are quite often heavy drinkers and smokers like for example Rooney and Cruyff, they are nowhere near as fit as most pro sportsmen, probably just above darts players really

Pete

The soccer history of Spain tells you all you need to know.

As.for your eastern European argument, did an eastern European ever win the tour de France?

Also, it's quite well known that whenever Germany won a major tournament, their outstanding characteristic used to be their fitness level, not their.skills.
Even Brazil, there's not a tournament they won where they weren't also extremely fit, in addition to being skilled.

Bayer Munichs rise to the european top in 2012 happened with some of fhe same players who had underperformed in previous years. It was all about their fitness level being ramped up impressively.
Robben for instance was suddenly running up and down the pitch like I'd never seen him do before.

Ah, the year the convicted doper Guardiola took over? The same Guardiola that had Barcelona '08 - '12 dominating football by a very high press game (sure it's nice to have Messi to finish off moves but their ability to press to win the ball back was a key part of their success).

It will be interesting to watch Manchester City's style and success this year - and to see if all the blood bags from Operation Puerto are viable and traceable.

 

[wansteadimp]

To be fair, the people saying Premiere Leauge players don't dope have a good point.

Weightlifters dope for a few hundred bob and a plane ticket home. Masters cyclists dope because they want to beat their friends. Amateur rugby players dope to try and get a contract for a small level team

But why on earth would a football player in the worlds richest league with millions and millions as well as eternal fame on the line, dope? Epsecially considering how weak the testing system is?

Makes no sense, does it.

Nobody is saying PL players do not dope. The issue is whether players are prepared to dope incessantly? One wonders if the original tension with Capello was program related? With senior players being told that they would be smashed if they didn't. My hunch is that Gerrard rebelled against this as did Rooney. Both later reaching an agreement with Hodgson who complied with or even encouraged this sober approach.

The reality is that Iceland (and Costa Rica in 2014) looked doped to the max when England encountered them. In contrast, England looked totally sober even hungover during that game in Marseilles.

Are you saying Iceland only doped against England, because they drew two of their group games against a struggling Portugal and Hungary and scored a late breakaway goal to win against Austria and got hammered against France. Is the only reason England have been crap for 30 years a lack of doping?? I really dont think so.

I am saying that neither Costa Rica nor Iceland could get to the quarters of a major without dope.
I am saying Hodgson used club doped players during the qualifications.
I am suggesting that senior players wanted a break from the doping when on England duty during the summer and Hodgson agreed to this.
Everybody is saying here that doping in soccer is far from being an exact science i.e. it's not like swimming where the best responder will always crush opponents.

I don' accept that England would be seeded in every tournament they enter if "crap". They are a top 16 team at least.

Unlikely, the clubs telling the players to take it easy I could believe.

Certainly Hodgson doesn't strike me as the guy who would win a pi$$ing contest with the Premier League clubs, especially with all the new managers at some of the bigger clubs.

 

[del1962]

I think there had been trouble in SA 2010 between the likes of Terry and Gerrard over the issue. The latter seeing the former journeyman as having his career totally transformed by doping and nothing else. Who was this Terry to dictate terms on the issue? I suspect the Catholics Rooney and Gerrard found Terry an obnoxious c**t.

So your opinions are purely based on which footballers you do and don't like.

I don't like Terry either, nor Gerrard since he got away with hitting someone in a bar, but I am not going to use these to insinuate there attitudes towards doping.

 

[buckle]

...
I am saying that neither Costa Rica nor Iceland could get to the quarters of a major without dope.

this is beyond reasonable doubt. For Iceland, we know the coach was a Swedish doctor. Nuff said.

Indeed and CR were even under suspicion after the Uruguay game in 2014 as 8 of their players were targeted by FIFA for doping.

I am suggesting that senior players wanted a break from the doping when on England duty during the summer and Hodgson agreed to this.

Why would they do this? I can think of no reason.

You surely don't need this hypothesis to explain England's poor game against Iceland. Other factors can explain that satisfactorily. I would agree that there is a (good) chance that Iceland had a *more effective* dope program than England.

This I do not accept i.e. If England had wanted to they could have matched it.

But to go from there to suggesting English senior players wanted a break from doping is weird.

True - it was weird!

You have to realize how much there is at stake during these tournaments, both for the coach and for the players. We're talking sponsor interests, individual and team bonuses. Additionally, for many players it's an opportunity to increase their market value. A player like James Rodriguez basically earned his big-buck Madrid contract by excelling during the Worlds in Brazil.

The English players are the best paid in the World already - less incentive

Generally, I think each player will have his own preferences in terms of doping and recovery.
It's a complex thing, and programs will be adjusted to individual needs. Also have to bear in mind that at the big tournaments, there are different interests (club interests vs. national team interests) playing in the background.

Totally agreed! I think Gerrard then latterly Rooney said no.

Look at Robben when the Dutch squad prepared him for the Worlds in 2010. Robben had his own doctor, then there was the involvement of Bayern's doctors and there was the involvement of Dutch national team doctor. Ribery 2015 is another case in point: Bayern's doctors accused the French national team doctors of having him recover too quickly with the help of injections, which meant his long-term recovery suffered and he wasn't fit for the League season. Complex.

Agreed - it is complex.

But I see no reasons there to suggest some portmanteau 'cease-dope' among English players at Euro2016.

I think there had been trouble in SA 2010 between the likes of Terry and Gerrard over the issue. The latter seeing the former journeyman as having his career totally transformed by doping and nothing else. Who was this Terry to dictate terms on the issue? I suspect the Catholics Rooney and Gerrard found Terry an obnoxious c**t.

Where ARE you getting this stuff from? And what on earth does religion have to do with it?

Even Marx said that religion is the opium of the people! I am in agreement that it is weird by modern standards but what we saw in the summer from England was NOT modern! That is my entire point. They were NOT doped!

 

[sniper]

http://en.as.com/en/2016/06/27/football/1467025851_848006.html

Of 24 teams, England was a very decent tenth in terms of average distance covered in group stage, well above countries such as France, Spain, Belgium and, yes, above Portugal.

Against Iceland they were outsmarted and outlucked and perhaps even outdoped, but really there is very little to suggest they were not doped or on some sort of cease-dope.

 

[buckle]

Re:

http://en.as.com/en/2016/06/27/football/1467025851_848006.html

Of 24 teams, England was a very decent tenth in terms of average distance covered in group stage, well above countries such as France, Spain, Belgium and, yes, above Portugal.

Against Iceland they were outsmarted and outlucked and perhaps even outdoped, but really there is very little to suggest they were not doped or on some sort of cease-dope.

They all cover the same distance in the Tour but that doesn't tell you much.

 

[lllludo]

Re: Re:

They all cover the same distance in the Tour but that doesn't tell you much.

Why ? Did they play Euro 2016 with bikes ? No, in fact England ran as much as Russia. No evidence of clean football or whatsoever. Don't forget that some of the english football players are doped by Dr Bonar during PL season.
If you love analogies with cycling : stopping dope with national team is as funny as Hincapie, Danielson and co stopping dope when transferring from USPS to Garmin

 

[Gung Ho Gun]

Re: Re:

http://en.as.com/en/2016/06/27/football/1467025851_848006.html

Of 24 teams, England was a very decent tenth in terms of average distance covered in group stage, well above countries such as France, Spain, Belgium and, yes, above Portugal.

Against Iceland they were outsmarted and outlucked and perhaps even outdoped, but really there is very little to suggest they were not doped or on some sort of cease-dope.

They all cover the same distance in the Tour but that doesn't tell you much.

They don't cover it in the same time though
In football, they cover different distances but all in the same time
More distance means in the same time means, on average, more exertion

 

[buckle]

Re: Re:

They all cover the same distance in the Tour but that doesn't tell you much.

Why ? Did they play Euro 2016 with bikes ? No, in fact England ran as much as Russia. No evidence of clean football or whatsoever. Don't forget that some of the english football players are doped by Dr Bonar during PL season.
If you love analogies with cycling : stopping dope with national team is as funny as Hincapie, Danielson and co stopping dope when transferring from USPS to Garmin

I don't regard distance covered as definitive proof. Clean athletes cover the same distances as Mo.

 

[buckle]

Re: Re:

http://en.as.com/en/2016/06/27/football/1467025851_848006.html

Of 24 teams, England was a very decent tenth in terms of average distance covered in group stage, well above countries such as France, Spain, Belgium and, yes, above Portugal.

Against Iceland they were outsmarted and outlucked and perhaps even outdoped, but really there is very little to suggest they were not doped or on some sort of cease-dope.

They all cover the same distance in the Tour but that doesn't tell you much.

They don't cover it in the same time though

In football, they cover different distances but all in the same time

More distance means in the same time means, on average, more exertion

How can you deduce from those stats the rate at which players ran?

My claim is that a clean(ish) England were beaten by a 100% doped Iceland at 2016. Simple.

 

[blackcat]

game theory would suggest that no one will bring knives to gun fights.

everyone searches in their arsenal for the guns. and they bring the guns.

then, with 12 on the pitch, more or less that androgen complement can be neutralised, and the games are decided by factors other than the medical programs.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

...
I don't regard distance covered as definitive proof. Clean athletes cover the same distances as Mo.

Nobody says it's definitive proof.
I do think it makes the evidential basis for your claim even thinner than it already was.
England was above average in terms of distance covered during the group stages.
Maybe they just stopped doping for the knock-out phase

...
My claim is that a clean(ish) England were beaten by a 100% doped Iceland at 2016. Simple.

Yep we know that that's your claim, and in honesty it makes little sense.
The only 'evidence' you have is that hot favorite England lost to midget Iceland.
So which other sensational upsets in the history of (world/europa cup) soccer do you plan to put down to the losing team being clean(ish)?
What about 2002 Senegal-France 1-0, France was clean and Senegal doped to the gills?
Etc.

Bottomline: big upsets happen in soccer, and whilst we agree that such upsets can point towards the winning team being extremely doped (see e.g. Algeria-West Germany 1982; or now Iceland-England), reversely that doesn't mean the losing team was clean(ish).

 

[buckle]

Re: Re:

...
I don't regard distance covered as definitive proof. Clean athletes cover the same distances as Mo.

Nobody says it's definitive proof.
I do think it makes the evidential basis for your claim even thinner than it already was.
England was above average in terms of distance covered during the group stages.
Maybe they just stopped doping for the knock-out phase

...
My claim is that a clean(ish) England were beaten by a 100% doped Iceland at 2016. Simple.

Yep we know that that's your claim, and in honesty it makes remarkably little sense.
Which other sensational upsets in the history of (world/europa cup) soccer do you plan to put down to the losing team being clean(ish)?
2002: Senegal-France 1-0, let me guess, France was clean and Senegal doped to the gills?
2014: Brazil-Germany 1-7, Brazil went clean for the semis?

2002: France were down to 10 men in that game. You offer that as evidence?

 

[sniper]

fair point, so scrap that one, and take any of the other dozens of big cup upsets.
bottomline: big upsets happen in soccer, and whilst we agree that such upsets can point towards the winning team being extremely doped (see e.g. Algeria-West Germany 1982; or now Iceland-England), reversely that doesn't mean the losing team was clean(ish).
but don't let me keep you from sticking your head in the sand.

 

[sniper]

btw, with Joe Hart in goal, England were effectively down to 10 men, too.

 

[buckle]

Re:

fair point, so scrap that one, and take any of the other dozens of big cup upsets.
bottomline: big upsets happen in soccer, and whilst we agree that such upsets can point towards the winning team being extremely doped (see e.g. Algeria-West Germany 1982; or now Iceland-England), reversely that doesn't mean the losing team was clean(ish).
but don't let me keep you from sticking your head in the sand.

There are very few World Cup upsets. The tournament has been won by very few countries. Only two one time winners:

England 1966 - bought* the tournament plus 1960's doping technology.
France 1998 - bought the tournament plus heavily doped.
*absolutely blatant

 

[The Hitch]

Doping in football isn't based on one game but a collection of games. Players playing 70 games a year at full pelt is what's suspicious. If everything falls right sometimes the weaker team can win but that doesn't mean one team isn't doping. Statistically you are bound to get upsets once in a while.

 

[sniper]

buckle, you're now all over the place.
Who said there are many upsets?
If there were many upsets, they wouldn't be upsets, would they.
Fact is they happen, and you cannot build a claim of cleanliness around it.
Next you're gonna claim all big spending PL teams were clean(ish) last year and lost to a '100% doped' Leicester City?

Maybe it was just a hunch you have? Well i guess that's fair enough.

 

[sniper]

Doping in football isn't based on one game but a collection of games. Players playing 70 games a year at full pelt is what's suspicious. If everything falls right sometimes the weaker team can win but that doesn't mean one team isn't doping. Statistically you are bound to get upsets once in a while.

agreed.

Present-day pro-soccer is designed to reduce the number of upsets.
The champions league and for instance the Bundesliga are precious examples.
Leicester really was a huge upset and is probably best explained by assuming Leicester were on a darn good program (see the Mapei thread). But you don't go from there to claiming ManU, City, and Chelsea were all clean last season.

 

[buckle]

Re:

buckle, you're now all over the place.
Who said there are many upsets?
If there were many upsets, they wouldn't be upsets, would they.
Fact is they happen, and you cannot build a claim of cleanliness around it.
Next you're gonna claim all big spending PL teams were clean(ish) last year and lost to a '100% doped' Leicester City?

Maybe it was just a hunch you have? Well i guess that's fair enough.

I have one agenda only namely to demonstrate to the clinic the power of drugs in football. Iceland went full *** whilst England (for a series of complex reasons) chose not to dope.

As was commented during James Richardson's brilliant Guardian podcast, at times, Iceland even outplayed England in that game.