Doping in other sports?

[Krzysztof_O]

Being a ~55-60 V02 max guy off the back of 25+ hours of training a week (albeit mostly skill training) at ~70-75kg and "only" capable of running ~18-19 minutes for 5km and say a ~12 second 100m? In your athletic prime. Sheesh... get some better doping protocols if you are doped ahaha.

And yet, doping will take you there easier. Footballers have to train a lot of technical aspects (not just physical fitness) so a few additional ml/kg/min of VO2max (gained by EPO consumption) would definitely be welcome and make high-intensity matches easier to handle.

 

[Penninepeddler]

And yet, doping will take you there easier. Footballers have to train a lot of technical aspects (not just physical fitness) so a few additional ml/kg/min of VO2max (gained by EPO consumption) would definitely be welcome and make high-intensity matches easier to handle.

Yeh, but about 5-6 hours of cardio a week will get you to 55-60 V02 as a decent athlete who is in 20s and 30s.

EPO would help Grandma go up the stairs but I do think generally in football... if you are going to take "risks" on doping then EPO is probably pretty far down list in terms of overall benefits.

 

[ColonelKidneyBeans]

Nandroline was 100% systematically used across Italy and Spain especially in the early 2000s. Often - from what I understand - without always even the knowledge of the players. Mainly for recovery.

Sure some teams are still doing similar just with different, more advanced methods. Recovery and keeping muscles fresh is for sure the biggest benefit in the sport. Of course being able to run all day could help... but at same time the distances covered for time etc, even with stop start and a lot being sprint then slow etc... the engine required is not "special".

However, I do think the overall "benefit" of doping in football is far less than in other sports (power/endurance)... you dont exactly have to be an athletic freak to play high level unlike a LOT of pro sports. (even other "skill" sports have far more benefit...)

How did they manage to systematically use nandrolone and not have at least some guys test positive? It's really quite easy to detect, has been for a long time. Even if testing is seldom occurring and not thorough you're bound to have a few unlucky draw...
If you know you won't test positive, it's a no brainer though, probably the best anabolic steroid as far as muscle recovery and the safety/side effects profile is quite desirable compared to regular testosterone.

 

[Penninepeddler]

How did they manage to systematically use nandrolone and not have at least some guys test positive? It's really quite easy to detect, has been for a long time. Even if testing is seldom occurring and not thorough you're bound to have a few unlucky draw...
If you know you won't test positive, it's a no brainer though, probably the best anabolic steroid as far as muscle recovery and the safety/side effects profile is quite desirable compared to regular testosterone.

They had quite a few test positive. And mostly high profile guys too... (probably as tested more, several got popped on international duty/right after moving club to different country)

Stam, Guardiola, Davids, de Boer, Couto, Kallon, Blasi, Bucchi, Monaco, Da Rold, Gaddafi... (I followed Italian football at time way more than Spanish and was reading 4-4-2, all the other magazines every week back then)... heck Frank de Boer tested positive for the stuff TWICE.

Basically ~10 Serie A and ~5 La Liga teams minimum were 100% systematically doing it and the test results indicate it too.

Serie A had 10+ positives come back in ONE YEAR... and ~50 borderline cases.

But bans were only for ~2-6 months.

Juventus were basically found 100% to have taken part in systematic doping. Their premises were raided and their doctor banned (and sent to prison).

Then from what I remember in Italy a couple of the senior Italian international guys, I believe Vieri, Nesta, Maldini being amongst them... went at the Italian FA super hard, said they would strike etc because they believed that clubs were systematically doping players and after that... no positive tests anymore.

My guess is that the clubs were masking it... it is possible from the little I have read but not fool-proof. And WADA/other testing orgs updated testing protocols in early 2000s... making it more detectable.

 

[awavey]

How did they manage to systematically use nandrolone and not have at least some guys test positive? It's really quite easy to detect, has been for a long time. Even if testing is seldom occurring and not thorough you're bound to have a few unlucky draw...
If you know you won't test positive, it's a no brainer though, probably the best anabolic steroid as far as muscle recovery and the safety/side effects profile is quite desirable compared to regular testosterone.

they dont test in football enough for one thing ,but I dont think a whole team or even a squad are systematically exposed to a doping system by a club, I think much like in cycling now its only really a select few individuals who are boosted to a degree, whilst the rest are given the micro boost regime to follow.

 

[awavey]

Yeh, but about 5-6 hours of cardio a week will get you to 55-60 V02 as a decent athlete who is in 20s and 30s.

EPO would help Grandma go up the stairs but I do think generally in football... if you are going to take "risks" on doping then EPO is probably pretty far down list in terms of overall benefits.

they probably arent doing EPO...anymore...its more likely in the recovery part or prior hgh abuse. I noted for probably the first time in a major tournament there wasnt any mention of footballers tiring after a long season of football in the last world cup, maybe the hydration breaks really did work...

but there are footballers in their early 30s, who are built like the proverbial brick sh**house and they can run 100m in times that a decade or so ago would have been good enough for an Olympic 100m final, and do it across a season of football. the capacity of some players to play in the top leagues at high intensity/speed week in week out across a season, and never look tired

and you are telling me they arent on something ? other than a good diet and lots of sleep ? even though the athletic performance of the people in the leagues below the top divisions, suggest where ever these super fit players are coming from, its not the lower leagues.

 

[Penninepeddler]

they probably arent doing EPO...anymore...its more likely in the recovery part or prior hgh abuse. I noted for probably the first time in a major tournament there wasnt any mention of footballers tiring after a long season of football in the last world cup, maybe the hydration breaks really did work...

but there are footballers in their early 30s, who are built like the proverbial brick sh**house and they can run 100m in times that a decade or so ago would have been good enough for an Olympic 100m final, and do it across a season of football. the capacity of some players to play in the top leagues at high intensity/speed week in week out across a season, and never look tired

and you are telling me they arent on something ? other than a good diet and lots of sleep ? even though the athletic performance of the people in the leagues below the top divisions, suggest where ever these super fit players are coming from, its not the lower leagues.

Which current players are making an Olympic 100m final even 60 years ago?

Where you had to run a ~10.4 to make it.

And you were running in heavy as hell flat shoes with no foam or carbon

None. None are even making the semi-finals 60 years ago even if you transported them back today with their equipment, nutrition etc.

Because no top flight footballer right now is running a 10.6 ahaha.

Guys like Mbappe run maybe an 11.

Guys like Walcott, Onuoha, Odonkor were track guys growing up and solid... national youth level guys. They were all 10.6-11 second runners when focused on track... but were very likely slower in primes while playing.

The average Prem player is over 12 second for a 100m. Which is very fast still. "Fast" widemen are often around 11.5 guys.

I have had two pro players in my family. My Great Uncle worked for a Prem club until last year and now works for a lower tier club. I played against multiple Prem guys growing up.

If top pros were running sub 10.5? They would be doing it in these social media days on tape for the reach/ads/brand etc. Because it would get views and create hype. But they are not and never do because the fastest players on earth running an 11 second 100 would be disappointing to the masses.

For sure some guys are doping. But you are attributing super human performance here when the actual performance is a level below that.

Bale was rapid. One of fastest players on earth. He ran growing up. But his PB was an 11.4 at 14. That is very fast for a 14 year old... but it won't win you your towns school 100m race at 14. You won't be within even half a second of competing at nationals.

 

[Penninepeddler]

The whole "Football players running at Olympic speed" stuff comes from people online with a limited understanding of running.

They quote "Mbappe/van der Ven/Tchatchoua/Hakimi" going at 37km and hour in game... and they extrapolate that to a 100m time.

When that is not how sprinting works. That is a top speed over their run.

A 12 second 100m runner will hit 37km per hour usually over their 100m effort. Because you hit your absolute top speed after 50-60m and then deceleration kicks in at 70m tops. And while you average 30km per hour for a 12 second 100m? Peak speed will likely be up at 37km per hour.

Bolt on his world record hit almost 45km an hour... he averaged 37.6.

Now, they are on grass. It slows you down. But not by more than a second over 100m usually on well manicured grass. And a lot of people only lose 0.5 over 100m on grass... we know this as when growing up you often run on grass tracks!

Rant over ahaha. And yes, many players in every sport are doping regardless.

 

[Rob5091]

Football players are to my eyes like 10,000m runners who can sprint like crazy over the last 200m. No good being only quick for 80 minutes when the game is still in the balance.

 

[Red Rick]

The whole "Football players running at Olympic speed" stuff comes from people online with a limited understanding of running.

They quote "Mbappe/van der Ven/Tchatchoua/Hakimi" going at 37km and hour in game... and they extrapolate that to a 100m time.

When that is not how sprinting works. That is a top speed over their run.

A 12 second 100m runner will hit 37km per hour usually over their 100m effort. Because you hit your absolute top speed after 50-60m and then deceleration kicks in at 70m tops. And while you average 30km per hour for a 12 second 100m? Peak speed will likely be up at 37km per hour.

Bolt on his world record hit almost 45km an hour... he averaged 37.6.

Now, they are on grass. It slows you down. But not by more than a second over 100m usually on well manicured grass. And a lot of people only lose 0.5 over 100m on grass... we know this as when growing up you often run on grass tracks!

Rant over ahaha. And yes, many players in every sport are doping regardless.

Lol yes. Bolt's actual top speed was like 45 kph.

But it does go both ways in that footballers should not be sprinting specialists and they don't run on spikes on a hard surface etc, but at the same time, as you slow down the # of talents that can hit a certain pace is going to increase exponentially.

It reminds me of some really bad tennis stats of top speed and people thought it was a great, interesting measurement when it was just crap data.

 

[Penninepeddler]

Football players are to my eyes like 10,000m runners who can sprint like crazy over the last 200m. No good being only quick for 80 minutes when the game is still in the balance.

Yeh... from what I know I would say the average top flight footballer is something like a:

12.2 second 100m guy
18.30 5km guy
39.00 10km guy

Impressive but nothing that special. But it makes sense since the most played sport on earth with low entry barriers... and it being so skill led... there are guys who are probably 30th centile "natural" athletes playing high level.

But usually you are only ever sprinting for 30m max in an average game.

Recovery/muscle fatigue over days/weeks is where the real big gains are to be made. Especially with more and more congested fixture list driven by greed. Used to be that top guys at big clubs who played most games and who were international players 20 years ago averaged around 45 games a year. Now that is around 60 games for equivalent players over a season... with a shorter summer too.

 

[Kopfsteinpflaster]

The problem with football is not that some names are too big to fail. The entire sport is too big to fail. Eufemiano Fuentes worked for UD Las Palmas and Real Sociedad. Nobody cared. And surely those two clubs were the epicenter of blood doping in football...

I guess we will never know who his clients were, outside of the cyclists and a few long-distance runners. Too big to fail.

 

[awavey]

The whole "Football players running at Olympic speed" stuff comes from people online with a limited understanding of running.

They quote "Mbappe/van der Ven/Tchatchoua/Hakimi" going at 37km and hour in game... and they extrapolate that to a 100m time.

When that is not how sprinting works. That is a top speed over their run.

A 12 second 100m runner will hit 37km per hour usually over their 100m effort. Because you hit your absolute top speed after 50-60m and then deceleration kicks in at 70m tops. And while you average 30km per hour for a 12 second 100m? Peak speed will likely be up at 37km per hour.

Bolt on his world record hit almost 45km an hour... he averaged 37.6.

Now, they are on grass. It slows you down. But not by more than a second over 100m usually on well manicured grass. And a lot of people only lose 0.5 over 100m on grass... we know this as when growing up you often run on grass tracks!

Rant over ahaha. And yes, many players in every sport are doping regardless.

no its not because Id quote you the premier league faster players if that were the case

The FASTEST players in Premier League history

We take a look at all the stars who have clocked record speeds, including Walker, Van de Ven, Salah and Traore

www.premierleague.com

where they show speeds that are on par with your own quoted Usain Bolt average speed...

Mbappe is claimed to have done a 10.6, which is a) not validated at all, but b) likely an underestimate anyway because if Mbappe could run faster, on a track and not grass, people would ask alot more questions wouldnt they ? but they cant pretend he isnt quick or can run quite a distance on the pitch, so they invent a time that sounds credible, but keeps it outside of raising red flags.

but this is the classic football fan debate whenever doping is brought up, its always attack the person for their "limited understanding",and daring to suggest the footballing giants (literal as well as metaphorical) are cheating.

"football isnt a game that needs doping its about skill and technique",and "honest they arent really running that fast its just an illusion because your not smart enough with your "limited understanding" of running, go back to your cycling corner full of real dopers".

Im surprised no-ones used the but no-one in a top tier league football has failed a test for years so they cant be doping defence.

Id say open your eyes and watch a game properly for once, ask yourself where do all these players come from with near perfect attributes of physiology with levels of top fitness, speed, strength & recovery because they arent wandering around the lower leagues, and amazingly all seem to lose the majority of those attributes when they do start moving down the leagues at points in their career.

but ime most football fans bury their heads in the sand on the topic, as long as their team wins they dont care, and if they lose well it must be the managers fault.

 

[Penninepeddler]

no its not because Id quote you the premier league faster players if that were the case

The FASTEST players in Premier League history

We take a look at all the stars who have clocked record speeds, including Walker, Van de Ven, Salah and Traore

www.premierleague.com

where they show speeds that are on par with your own quoted Usain Bolt average speed...

Mbappe is claimed to have done a 10.6, which is a) not validated at all, but b) likely an underestimate anyway because if Mbappe could run faster, on a track and not grass, people would ask alot more questions wouldnt they ? but they cant pretend he isnt quick or can run quite a distance on the pitch, so they invent a time that sounds credible, but keeps it outside of raising red flags.

but this is the classic football fan debate whenever doping is brought up, its always attack the person for their "limited understanding",and daring to suggest the footballing giants (literal as well as metaphorical) are cheating.

"football isnt a game that needs doping its about skill and technique",and "honest they arent really running that fast its just an illusion because your not smart enough with your "limited understanding" of running, go back to your cycling corner full of real dopers".

Im surprised no-ones used the but no-one in a top tier league football has failed a test for years so they cant be doping defence.

Id say open your eyes and watch a game properly for once, ask yourself where do all these players come from with near perfect attributes of physiology with levels of top fitness, speed, strength & recovery because they arent wandering around the lower leagues, and amazingly all seem to lose the majority of those attributes when they do start moving down the leagues at points in their career.

but ime most football fans bury their heads in the sand on the topic, as long as their team wins they dont care, and if they lose well it must be the managers fault.

The data you just posted says within it exactly that it is "top speed"... NOT their average speed over their sprint. Bolt averaged 37.58. But his TOP speed was 44.72. A massive difference.

If your TOP speed is 37.38 it generally extrapolates to a ~30-30.5km/h average speed. Right around a 12 second 100m.

37.38 top speed from van der Ven was over a ~45m run. So basically the top speed will have been right at the end of that run before he slid to try and block the cross. That is close to a perfect proxy (maybe could have got 1km faster maybe if was a 50-55m run.

Lets give him benefit of doubt and say he was not already decelerating. So in turn maybe he could have hit 38km/h with another 5m of road.

38km/h is roughly between a 11.5-12 second 100m runner at best. (depending on physiology etc)

And that is the fastest ever recorded Premier League time.

You can run faster on a real track with proper shoes, of course... but we know that usually this is around a 0.5 second difference. Because most people who grow up running will at some point run on a grass track and have directly comparable times.

I dont think people understand frankly just how specialized you have to be even as an incredible athlete to run close to a 10.5. A 10.5 is not always a 100% given for Olympic final level sprinters if they are outside of a proper training block.

Mbappe cannot run a 10.6. I have watched him live when he played for Monaco and he is FAST... but no data we have gives any evidence of being better than maybe an ~11 second guy. 11 seconds is rapid. Anything under 11 is insanely fast.

The average adult would line up next to an 11.5 100m runner and think they were an Olympian.

And there are a handful of footballers who for sure have been able to run sub 11. Odonkor, Onouha, Wynn, Walcott for sure did. We pretty much know this as fact. BUT they ran those times when they were specifically training for 100m. When you stop specifically training you lose some time even if crazy fit.

There are lots of excellent athletes who are faster and stronger than Prem players in lower league.

I have said guys are doping... in both my posts. However, in "skill" sports it is true that the overall benefit of doping is less than in endurance and strength sports. The real money is in recovery. And for sure some teams/players have bypassed testing because they are very rich. And at some point the next nandrolone scandal will hit... that scandal was massive and swept under rug and everyone has forgotten about it.

But it is just not accurate to say that any of these guys could even qualify for an Olympics, let alone get to the final... even 60 years ago.

 

[Penninepeddler]

Back in 1992 actually there was the "Rumbelows Sprint Challenge".

All 93 league clubs nominated their very fastest player. They all went head to head over 100 yards. On grass.

91.44 metres.

The fastest man was John Williams. 11.49.

Albeit Kevin Bartlett ran a 11.40 in qualifying.

So in studs and full kit on grass the fastest were basically doing ~12.3 second 100m sprints. And yeh... on a track with proper spikes? You are talking ~11.4-11.8 for guys who made the final.

Yeh, if the very fastest 2-3 of those guys trained exclusively for 100m for a few months? They could maybe get to 11. Maybe.

And interestingly the guys who made the final were (with team and tier):

John Williams: Swansea, 3rd tier
Michael Gilkes: Reading, 3rd tier
Tony Witter: QPR, 1st tier
Leigh Jenkinson: Hull, 3rd tier
Adrian Littlejohn: Sheffield United, 1st tier
Efan Ekoku: Bournmouth, 3rd tier
Paul Fleming: Mansfield, 4th tier
Kevin Bartlett: Notts County - 1st tier
Des Walker, Notts Forest, (didnt run as he was playing that day) - 1st tier

So more than half of the final was guys in the 3rd and 4th tier. (League 1 and 2 today)

Now, things have changed since 1992. But the data from that 100 yard race and heats matches up pretty well with the on field top speed data that we have today...

 

[TheKidsCallMeBoss]

Running is the least impressive aspect of football. Although the number of high-intensity sprints has increased significantly in recent years, this is still nothing out of the ordinary. England were one of the most physical teams at the World Cup, though. I wouldn't be surprised if they'd been on some sort of juice, as they lag far behind the other three teams in terms of talent and have a history of cheating. Here are the running performance figures for the four best teams in the World Cup semi-finals. 80% of runs are Z1 and Z2 only.

 

[Penninepeddler]

Running is the least impressive aspect of football. Although the number of high-intensity sprints has increased significantly in recent years, this is still nothing out of the ordinary. England were one of the most physical teams at the World Cup, though. I wouldn't be surprised if they'd been on some sort of juice, as they lag far behind the other three teams in terms of talent and have a history of cheating. Here are the running performance figures for the four best teams in the World Cup semi-finals. 80% of runs are Z1 and Z2 only.

Yeh, it is actually a sport where you can excel as a below average "athlete"... partially because of access, partially because it is so technical.

However, I do think man for man England have a more "technically talented" team than Argentina right now.

Not ruling it out but I would also say it might partially be a result of "how" kids are brought up in the English system historically vs the other three nations. There is a far bigger emphasis put on physical tools and it is trained more (only insight is because of family involved in sport, one who is involved in development and worked for Prem teams and for 30 years was arguing that we should move more towards how Spain, South America coach kids with smaller balls, smaller pitches etc)... which I do think results in youth teams in England favouring better "athletes" than in other nations and means more good "athletes" progress even if their technical skills might be mediocre vs peers.

We probably lost a lot of talent over the years to this in their teenage years... good luck being a 170cm guy who is not a winger growing up in England. If Messi had been English he certainly wouldnt have reached heights he did and would have never been allowed to play through the middle.

This is reflected in the general "size" of Englands team too. Might not be biggest on average, usually above average... but at the world cup not one player had a listed height below 177cm and 70kg. (albeit a couple are actually ~5'8-5'9 and overlisted) England almost never have any small players because of the development here.

 

[TheKidsCallMeBoss]

Yeh, it is actually a sport where you can excel as a below average "athlete"... partially because of access, partially because it is so technical.

However, I do think man for man England have a more "technically talented" team than Argentina right now.

Not ruling it out but I would also say it might partially be a result of "how" kids are brought up in the English system historically vs the other three nations. There is a far bigger emphasis put on physical tools and it is trained more (only insight is because of family involved in sport, one who is involved in development and worked for Prem teams and for 30 years was arguing that we should move more towards how Spain, South America coach kids with smaller balls, smaller pitches etc)... which I do think results in youth teams in England favouring better "athletes" than in other nations and means more good "athletes" progress even if their technical skills might be mediocre vs peers.

We probably lost a lot of talent over the years to this in their teenage years... good luck being a 170cm guy who is not a winger growing up in England. If Messi had been English he certainly wouldnt have reached heights he did and would have never been allowed to play through the middle.

This is reflected in the general "size" of Englands team too. Might not be biggest on average, usually above average... but at the world cup not one player had a listed height below 177cm and 70kg. (albeit a couple are actually ~5'8-5'9 and overlisted) England almost never have any small players because of the development here.

Yes, it could also be a cultural difference. The English youth system tends to favour more athletic players. However, there are counter-examples: Owen was quite short, yet he excelled in the Premier League, whereas he failed to make the same impact at Real Madrid.

 

[Red Rick]

The data you just posted says within it exactly that it is "top speed"... NOT their average speed over their sprint. Bolt averaged 37.58. But his TOP speed was 44.72. A massive difference.

If your TOP speed is 37.38 it generally extrapolates to a ~30-30.5km/h average speed. Right around a 12 second 100m.

37.38 top speed from van der Ven was over a ~45m run. So basically the top speed will have been right at the end of that run before he slid to try and block the cross. That is close to a perfect proxy (maybe could have got 1km faster maybe if was a 50-55m run.

Lets give him benefit of doubt and say he was not already decelerating. So in turn maybe he could have hit 38km/h with another 5m of road.

38km/h is roughly between a 11.5-12 second 100m runner at best. (depending on physiology etc)

And that is the fastest ever recorded Premier League time.

You can run faster on a real track with proper shoes, of course... but we know that usually this is around a 0.5 second difference. Because most people who grow up running will at some point run on a grass track and have directly comparable times.

I dont think people understand frankly just how specialized you have to be even as an incredible athlete to run close to a 10.5. A 10.5 is not always a 100% given for Olympic final level sprinters if they are outside of a proper training block.

Mbappe cannot run a 10.6. I have watched him live when he played for Monaco and he is FAST... but no data we have gives any evidence of being better than maybe an ~11 second guy. 11 seconds is rapid. Anything under 11 is insanely fast.

The average adult would line up next to an 11.5 100m runner and think they were an Olympian.

And there are a handful of footballers who for sure have been able to run sub 11. Odonkor, Onouha, Wynn, Walcott for sure did. We pretty much know this as fact. BUT they ran those times when they were specifically training for 100m. When you stop specifically training you lose some time even if crazy fit.

There are lots of excellent athletes who are faster and stronger than Prem players in lower league.

I have said guys are doping... in both my posts. However, in "skill" sports it is true that the overall benefit of doping is less than in endurance and strength sports. The real money is in recovery. And for sure some teams/players have bypassed testing because they are very rich. And at some point the next nandrolone scandal will hit... that scandal was massive and swept under rug and everyone has forgotten about it.

But it is just not accurate to say that any of these guys could even qualify for an Olympics, let alone get to the final... even 60 years ago.

There's also just how much these sports are more focused to shorter sprints, like Mbappe would probably look less slow compared to Usain Bolt on the first 10m than the last 90m.

Gael Monfils was 100m track champion in the junior levels but compared to tennis players he didn't stand out insanely hard on the regular width of a tennis court

 

[Penninepeddler]

There's also just how much these sports are more focused to shorter sprints, like Mbappe would probably look less slow compared to Usain Bolt on the first 10m than the last 90m.

Gael Monfils was 100m track champion in the junior levels but compared to tennis players he didn't stand out insanely hard on the regular width of a tennis court

Believe Doku spoke about it at some point (as a City fan) and basically laughed and said he is slower at 100m than you would think... but over ~30m is his wheelhouse.

 

[Penninepeddler]

Yes, it could also be a cultural difference. The English youth system tends to favour more athletic players. However, there are counter-examples: Owen was quite short, yet he excelled in the Premier League, whereas he failed to make the same impact at Real Madrid.

That was just injuries though with Owen. And he was an incredible athlete as footballers go when young. Just rapid. And he matured early. He made his Prem debut basically as soon as he turned at 17 at 5'8... and quite frankly from what I know he was "ready" to play Prem even before that. I doubt he grew past the age of 15.

He was playing u-19s at 15 years old and was the best player in the country basically at u19 as a 15 year old.

The rules at the time were different than now from what I remember... you couldnt sign a pro contract until your 17th birthday so in effect you couldnt play until age 17 aside from in rare circumstances where could play as a "trainee"... but that was maybe 2 players in the first 10 years of Prem with teams struggling with injuries.

In his first full season... that he started at age 17 for Liverpool he was arguably already the best striker in the league. Unreal. Top scorer that year when played first 3 months at 17 before 18th birthday.

He relied incredibly on being one of the fastest players on earth and once that went he went from being one of the best ~10 strikers on earth to just a great finisher.

2003-04 was beginning of the end of him as truly "World Class" due to injuries.

He did better at Real at age 25 (when usually football prime for fwds is ~27-28 when get best of still being fast twitch while also being stromger and smarter) than he did when went back to Prem...