The Best Case for Doping in Football

[Lyon]

The best case for doping in football is that football is a human endeavour. Let's not get lost in a labyrinth of petty details.

 

[Bwlch y Groes]

Re:

Hi guys, long time lurker making my first post.

How believable is Wenger's anti-doping stance? He has complained about incoming players having abnormally high red blood cell count during their medicals and his teams are plagued with injuries, as well as Arsenal dropping off towards the end of every season. So is Arsene the exception in using a team wide doping programme? A number of his standout players have known doping connections, so they could have outsourced. To name a few - Henry from Monaco and Juve, Sanchez from barca/guardiola and Ozil with Germany.

Anyway, the reason I'm making this post is because injury riddled Wilshere could be off to Juve and I wouldn't be surprised if he has a massive resurgence there with the help of their "doctors". I won't even get into Pirlo and Evra's longevity. If so, what would this say about Arsene, as it would show that he doesn't really dope his players, or needs a new doctor lol.

I don't think it's believable at all - he was one of the first managers to encourage his players to take Creatine, so we know he's happy to push the boundaries by giving his players supplements. I don't think it'd be surprising if it went further than that. His players' injury record could just as well be due to bad doping than not doping at all (in fact there was a long standing rumour that one of Wilshere's long injury lay-offs was due to him being caught taking/testing positive for cocaine) - it's hard to say for sure, though

It's possible he may dope his players less than other managers, which might explain why Arsenal have fallen behind and are unable to match the season-long consistency of other teams (starting well/poor mid-season/ending well). But I find it hard to believe that the reason for Arsenal's struggles in recent times and the regression of players like Ozil and Sanchez (who both still play well for their national teams) is because they're not doping at all. If there's a cut-off point dividing the teams who dope and don't dope, it's much lower - possibly Championship or even League 1. I have my suspicions about certain lower league managers (speaking as a fan of a lower league club)

 

[sniper]

Re:

The best case for doping in football is that football is a human endeavour. Let's not get lost in a labyrinth of petty details.

i am.puzzled by the thread title too. Maybe he means something like "The best case showing that doping in soccer works". But tbh that is not up for reasonable debate either. Of course it works. And of course it's wide effing spread.
And no, Arsene is not a clean crusader, nor is hodgson or Gerrard. Morals play no role of significance in their decision to gear up.
All this doesn't mean that differences or changes in ped programs can't be used to explain certain drops or peaks in form or sensational results, such as Iceland, or Leicester and Chelsea last season.
Especially peak performances such as Leicester abnd Iceland, imo, point towards rampant and sophisticated doping. I'm less convinced about Chelsea dip being due to problems with their program, but it could certainly have played a role.

Edit: agree with bwitchgrows post

 

[buckle]

Re: Re:

Hi guys, long time lurker making my first post.

How believable is Wenger's anti-doping stance? He has complained about incoming players having abnormally high red blood cell count during their medicals and his teams are plagued with injuries, as well as Arsenal dropping off towards the end of every season. So is Arsene the exception in using a team wide doping programme? A number of his standout players have known doping connections, so they could have outsourced. To name a few - Henry from Monaco and Juve, Sanchez from barca/guardiola and Ozil with Germany.

Anyway, the reason I'm making this post is because injury riddled Wilshere could be off to Juve and I wouldn't be surprised if he has a massive resurgence there with the help of their "doctors". I won't even get into Pirlo and Evra's longevity. If so, what would this say about Arsene, as it would show that he doesn't really dope his players, or needs a new doctor lol.

I don't think it's believable at all - he was one of the first managers to encourage his players to take Creatine, so we know he's happy to push the boundaries by giving his players supplements. I don't think it'd be surprising if it went further than that. His players' injury record could just as well be due to bad doping than not doping at all (in fact there was a long standing rumour that one of Wilshere's long injury lay-offs was due to him being caught taking/testing positive for cocaine) - it's hard to say for sure, though

It's possible he may dope his players less than other managers, which might explain why Arsenal have fallen behind and are unable to match the season-long consistency of other teams (starting well/poor mid-season/ending well). But I find it hard to believe that the reason for Arsenal's struggles in recent times and the regression of players like Ozil and Sanchez (who both still play well for their national teams) is because they're not doping at all. If there's a cut-off point dividing the teams who dope and don't dope, it's much lower - possibly Championship or even League 1. I have my suspicions about certain lower league managers (speaking as a fan of a lower league club)

The Daily Telegraph make reference to creatine abuse but bizarrely claim that upset stomachs resulted. The real fear with long term usage is kidney damage. Certain ethnic groups as in South Sea islanders seem prone. A big point was made that usage was ceased at Arsenal. He is very vocal on the whole subject but that is no indication of cleanliness.

 

[Gung Ho Gun]

Re:

The best case for doping in football is that football is a human endeavour. Let's not get lost in a labyrinth of petty details.

Yup
Too many other variables to reliably judge physical performances in football imo, even harder to attribute them to changes in doping programme
Also, with the amount of money in football and the lack of testing, I'd be surprised if individuals, even if they are manager or doctor, can have a severe impact on the doping
Abramovich isn't gonna sit back thinking "well damn our doctor is gone ... well, then it's a season without doping I suppose!"

 

[AlbineVespuzzio]

The thread title is not important, not to be taken literally - read it as clickbait if you will.

the intention of the thread is to adopt a doping perspective to explain recent events and sporting results. In opposition as to what is proposed by the mainstream media, things like:

"a manager having lost his mojo": makes no sense, mojo is not a rational concept. that's not how the world works
"a manager stops being able to build relations of trust with his players": a person's personality doesn't change. that's an explanation for people that imagine the world is like a soap opera: now I run for you, not I don't run for you, something you said/did made me upset. No, people serve first and foremost their self interest: a player won't put his career on hold just to "get even" with a manager. A collective of players doing that is just absurd.

The facts are that Chelsea did not improve after Mourinho leaving with a caretaker from the club. They seem to be improving this season that a new technical staff, successful, has arrived straight from Italy. Still not running enough, though.

What also seems clear is that Mourinho has been overtaken in doping knowledge by his competitors. Is it new knowledge being applied he hasn't been unable to access, or he has just lost his contacts from the past? Maybe he just adjusted his ethics after learning something new? (he always struck me as a man of consequence, that would act on principles). But just looking at the data, in his new team:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/row-zed/lazy-man-united-jose-mourinhos-8867582

Nº20 in the Premier League, TOTAL DISTANCE COVERED (KM): Manchester United.

As expected, Liverpool and Manchester City "lead the way"

Not even a *** person would claim he already "lost the locker room" two months in. We're looking for a serious discussion here, with proper thinking, not conspiracies theories to explain the world.
From an earlier link, in another thread, I've also noticed Man City is the team (amongst 32) that run the most in the Champions League midweek clashes. That's impressive, considering they played with pratically the same players.


Looking at smaller clubs (not european giants) that performed well in the CL: Sporting Lisbon had an impressive game against Real Madrid, even though, in the end, they were unable to get the victory (suffered 2 goals in the last 5 minutes, to lose). They were unable to get a result in the weekend against a mid table team. They were 3-0 down after 45 minutes. I watched the highlights closely: quite clearly, the full-back that repeated the game was unable to recover back, when defending, and they were crushed with quick counters from that side. The full-back would run, but was unable to sprint.

http://videos.sapo.pt/U35O0c1zmmHDWTNYuzEe

(nº11, in the left side)

My suggestion is that clubs not at the top in doping technologies are able to buy themselves a boost for a midweek CL match, but will pay the price in the weekend, even if in a lower league. Guardiola/Man City, or Bayern, Dortmund, Barça, RM, AM, have the doping technology to recover the players, inclusively playing the same 11 (or practically) 2 or 3 days later. Mourinho seems to have stopped doing any of it: the players don't even looked charged in the initial 1 game per week period.


(P.S. the full-back is the position that requires more stamina as they are constantly sprinting up and down the field: they both attack and defend close to the goal line.)