Drugs in Sport

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crosby87

But wouldn't players in the WTF for example who clearly based on body type like say Sharapova are clean looking try to rat out the ones who dope to the press? I mean if there were concrete evidence here in the states that a certain someone was doping reporters like Filip Bondy for example would be all over wanting to print it...After Lance it all changed. Everyone knows Clemens is lying for example.
With MLB they aren't even voting in guys like Mike Piazza who is getting so screwed if he never did steroids.

---

You are talking like a logical person! But...these are not logical people. Like our TDs. Years ago I sat in the galery of the Dail just after Bertie's finances were plastered all over the place. But the debate never went near it. I had it explained to me that it's just not the done thing.

The people who are most likely to speak out are the ones who refuse to take drugs and complain, or the ones who get caught and tell the truth. Floyd Landis started telling tales and was labelled a cheat and liar, Odesnik (in tennis) the same. The tennis media are terrible and lapdogs, coaches get away with all sorts and nothing is said. It's just a sad fact.

When you really see what sociopaths they are is when they go crazy denying it and then years later admit it....Armstrongs denials in retrospect are insane. I mean, literally. The man was insane.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crosby87

When you really see what sociopaths they are is when they go crazy denying it and then years later admit it....Armstrongs denials in retrospect are insane. I mean, literally. The man was insane.

---

Sociopaths is the best word. Fine, money, fortune etc is important, but at least keep it quiet.

I have great admiration for Paul Kimmage, but the guy is cantankerous. Not hard to see why someone would find him hard to work with.

At the same time I think rugby has major, major issues.

Rugby is also probably small enough for him to take on, whereas soccer would be a much more complex minefield, both scientifically and politically.

So for a complete novice like me about rugby.....you would suspect steriods similar to the nfl or WWE?
Or A Rod? Rugby players seem leaner to me tho.

Would be fairly similar, yeah. There'd be muscle gain drugs and then, probably worse, drugs that aid in the superhuman recovery from injury. Soccer would have the latter too but probably more of the cycling-type EPOs that enable your body to peak twice or more every week.

See...the thing is going to be how they all are in 30 years. Or 20, whatever. Like, if they are all fine its going to be kind of mad.
On the other hand for pure chinese made steroids we already see what has happened Vis a Vis WWE. Those guys have dropped dead one way or the other (often taking others along for the ride) like crazy for going on 4 decades now. I never really watched wrestling but I laugh when people say it is "fake". The story lines are fake. Those people are the best athletes in the world. You cant fake lifting a 400 pound piece of muscle up over your head and then having him crash onto you via a ladder onto a table etc....

When we talk about drugs or doping, we should use the more appropriate PED, this can cover pain killers, caffeine etc. Pain killers have a far more deadly and longer term damaging effect for athletes. Having read the Roy Keane book there are questions to be asked, Alan Quinlan had his "I never saw nuttin'" IT article, which was tosh. Who of us playing sports hasn't taken a painkiller before a match, or after, just because we want to be involved - it's part of our human stupidity (I rank top in this).

However with rugby, there are a range of drugs taken. Drugs to do the training, drugs to build the stamina, drugs to get you buzzing, it's been around for years (in football too). And all that matters is taking part, having a chance of glory, getting paid etc - so the long term effects are not considered.

Crosby, an example from a former client who we had move to Ireland to try improve her game. She had been sent to France by her parents as a kid, over trained and hurt her shoulder. Then with terrible training techniques she injured her ankle (tore ligaments). She didn't train properly as a result and one coach had her change her service technique to a point where she was going to end up with serious injuries. We got her to Dublin, put her working with Garry Cahill and suddenly she bounced. But apart from tennis and mentality, we worked on her diet and fitness. She complained always about a stiff ankle after a work out, but our plan was to build up the muscles and stabilise the joint. She was refused massages in Glasnevin and we made sure she didn't get them right before or after training/matches.

We chose not to renew our contract with her as she was proving real trouble, and lo and behold, she went back to massages. She went over on her ankle in 2011 and destroyed it. I agreed to help her recover, but when I saw who was around her (doctors and coaches), I walked away. She gets injections to get on court, she does training that will lead to long term damage, she has changed her body shape/muscle in a very short space of time while working with coaches we know are dirty. She is winning. Last week I met her brother in Moscow (he plays hockey), he made a joke about now having an older brother! Nothing will happen as the WTA and ITF are scared of losing money. THe long term health and well being of those they are supposed to care for is not important. Ditto for NHL, NBA, MLB, NFL, EPL, IRB etc.

http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/othe...ests-1.2038746

On the Kimmage / BOD issue- and argument over an interview apparently. http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/1217/667475-uk-airports/

Saw that one alright, it seems strange. Something smells with it and I wonder what will come down the line. I hope the god the man, BOD, was clean, but I hoped the same with Lance Armstrong.

Ian McGeechan thinks rugby hasn't got a drug problem

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rug...s-problem.html

RFU's Ian Richie thinks there is a drug problem

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rug...essing-it.html

A rake of Russian athletes provisionally suspended/banned with hopes of new medals for Irish athletes. It is not in the least bit surprising (to anyone with half a brain) but it's being spun in Russia that it's part of an ongoing campaign against the country. There was one decent comment I heard from a credible sports journo last evening - "Russia has fallen behind and out of favour, fix that and we reduce our doping cases by 50%". That it is Russian distance athletes getting caught is not a surprise, just surprising that there are not more athletes in distance events faling under the axe.

Former Sky Cycling doctor Geert Leinders banned for life by the USADA.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lein...oping-offences

Real Ale, was Sky the team who claimed to be totally drug free? Who were so clean that you could see your face in them, despite their beating other teams who were caught doping? This goes back to something I thought was really odd at the time when there was the election for the UCI. Pat McQuaid was done over by a man who oversaw a build up in cycling leading up to London 2012, with a number of cyclists from his federation being done, the leading team (Sky) being done, and a complete breakthrough in track and road cycling in the country, with some real big changes in cyclists.......

Tennis is getting worrying, very worrying.

Sky, as you'd expect, claim to have a zero-tolerance, but if a team was running a clandestine doping programme, is it likely they'd have all their riders adhering to it? My cousin rides for Sky, but I've not spoken to him in person for a few years and, I have to admit, I follow the sport and his fortunes fairly loosely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

Sky, as you'd expect, claim to have a zero-tolerance, but if a team was running a clandestine doping programme, is it likely they'd have all their riders adhering to it? My cousin rides for Sky, but I've not spoken to him in person for a few years and, I have to admit, I follow the sport and his fortunes fairly loosely.

---

It's very difficult to figure out what is happening in cycling. I feel bad for the sport (and athletics) that they are getting picked on. It is simply down to media interest. The same "research" is not done with soccer, GAA, tennis and rugby. There is enough going on, enough gossip, scandals, but they do not investigate in any way shape or form. Tennis is terrible, there is a complete omerta among journalists on certain subjects and one major one is doping.

You know, if you were to ask you cousin - are you taking PEDs, he'd say no, we're taking vitamins (if he answered and if you asked). There is a divide in the brain of elite athletes to justify what they do. I don't remember exactly where I read it (I think it was Keane's book on sport), that top level athletes are borderline or actual sociopaths.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spudulika

It's very difficult to figure out what is happening in cycling. I feel bad for the sport (and athletics) that they are getting picked on. It is simply down to media interest. The same "research" is not done with soccer, GAA, tennis and rugby. There is enough going on, enough gossip, scandals, but they do not investigate in any way shape or form. Tennis is terrible, there is a complete omerta among journalists on certain subjects and one major one is doping.

You know, if you were to ask you cousin - are you taking PEDs, he'd say no, we're taking vitamins (if he answered and if you asked). There is a divide in the brain of elite athletes to justify what they do. I don't remember exactly where I read it (I think it was Keane's book on sport), that top level athletes are borderline or actual sociopaths.

---

There may be closer examination of cycling, but is it fair to frame it as the sport getting picked on? Could it be argued that the intense scrutiny ensures there's a greater demand for teams and their cyclists to stay clean or for the authorities to enhance their investigative procedures, which would benefit the sport overall, assuming we all want it to be drugs-free? Or do you think it's possible that many cyclists, who may well be clean, are victims now of an unreasonable suspicion that tarnishes their reputation almost by default simply by virtue of being professional cyclists?

I suppose it's human (rather than necessarily sociopathic) to attempt to rationalise one's position or actions. It's a matter of perspective and one's personal values and standards are derived from their circumstances and context. Within cycling, there may be a collective moral conformity to a type of group-think (that is, if doping is as widespread as is often suspected). When one gradually finds themselves in a position where perceived abuse or exploitation of some nature is the natural order of things, they'll likely try and deceive/justify it until continuing to deceive/justify it is no longer viable or until it actually becomes self-damaging. I suppose Lance Armstrong is a good example of that. He was convinced that he was right all along - he was also protected by others within the sport and in the know encouraging him and telling him he was right - whilst others, especially those outside of cycling, might view him now as a total sociopath. Personally, I have very little time for him and would be sympathetic to the latter view, but that's no more than my opinion. I'm sure plenty of others have simply never been caught out, whilst whistle-blowers are exceptionally rare, lest they be seen to be diverging from the orthodoxy and shunned by their colleagues and profession. Would most pro cyclists openly or publicly admit to taking "vitamins" even? Wouldn't that needlessly arouse suspicion?

I was watching a BBC programme, 'The Super-Rich and Us', the other day and it was interesting to listen in interview to how those who were benefiting materially from the way British society is presently organised (the extraordinarily-rich upper percentiles getting exponentially richer and the poor - or everyone else even - getting relatively poorer, with huge variations in economic equality, prospects and opportunity) rationalised the accumulation of vast and astronomical (obscene to some) levels of wealth at the expense of the remainder of society; "wealth benefits all and filters down", "wealth is not finite and spurs further economic growth"... They were absolutely convinced of the righteousness of their privileged lifestyle, even with an explicit awareness of the impoverished, probably because people have an innate desire to do what they personally think is right, reasonable or just or to at least convince themselves and others that what they're doing is right. I'm not really convinced that people do "bad" simply for the sake of doing "bad".

You may well be aware of Oxford bio-ethicist Julian Savulescu? My brother mentioned him to me after having encountered him on the BBC's 'Hardtalk' (where he also made a case for genetic engineering). He's very compelling in argument and has long been trying to make the case for the permitting of performance-enhancing drugs in sport. As he says, the rules in place are completely arbitrary and ultimately derived from a whichever sporting fraternity favouring one particular set of values over another set; neither set being necessarily, inherently or objectively more right or wrong than the other.

Head of Russian Athletics jumped as he was being push. Maslakov (a real piece of work) was under pressure to go, but hung on until this week. Mutko wanted to clean house, thisis a start. Russian football will be soon.