With cycling usually at the forefront of drugs testing recent controversy has embroiled the sport of cricket following an inquest into the death of Surrey batsman Tom Maynard last summer, after it was claimed that the club he had played for had a reputation for partying and not enough cricketers are being subjected to out of competition testing (approximately 35 % each year). http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cricket/21598982 In football relatively few cases of failed drugs tests have hit the news, despite the controversy surrounding Rio Ferdinand missing a test in 2003, whereas alcohol and gambling have predominated as the bane of money-rich young footballers. Does this mean that football is relatively clean of in-competition drug abuse due to regular blood testing or does it mean that authorities are simply testing for performance enhancing substances? Secondly, while it is clear that the use and abuse of substances during competition should be strictly monitored, to what extent should athletes be subjected to these tests outside and where does the intrusion become too great? After all alcohol is a drug that is abused by many and many people are known to dabble in recreational drugs, so should sport stars be subjected to such strict regulations, when very few of us are tested for drugs and alike by our work organisations? Finally, we all know that in sport people take dietary supplements, anti-inflammatory pills (which has been linked with the rise in the number of footballers having heart attacks) and such like to get ahead of their opponents, so where do we draw the line between allowed and banned substances (defining what a drug is, is no easy matter) when coaches and players will be looking to push the boundaries further and further?
I don't think it is just cricket....it appears to me that the use of drugs on a night out is getting more and more common place with wealthy youngsters (and perhaps in the not so wealthy too) I think random testing should be brought in to all professional sports. Any drug found in their system that is prohibited under law including performance enhancing drugs that may not be, the person should be prosecuted either by the law or by the relevant authorities and a severe sentence handed out. The use of drugs in professional sport is more widespread than is realised.
On the other hand, should recreational drugs be punished by sporting authorities at all? The only player in England that I remember getting in trouble over drugs was Adrian Mutu, who received a 7 month ban, had his contract cancelled by Chelsea and was forced to pay them compensation of €17m, which all seems pretty harsh considering cocaine is in no way performance-enhancing.
I have never taken it,so maybe I'm in no position to pick up on this... but I thought taking a drug like this sends you on "a buzz". Surely if this is the case then that can increase adrenaline rates, heart rates and increase oxygen levels going through the blood that in turn COULD lead to enhanced performance? I don't know, it just seems that it could work that way. I do remember that one of my best performances in my mid 20s was after a night out drinking all night and into the early hours. I rocked up at the game and had an absolute blinder with a very energetic performance in a decent standard of football. There is an argument that suggests any substance can "enhance" performance.
If there was evidence he had taken it before a game with the intention of enhancing his performance, I could understand this argument. I kinda doubt it though, considering there are drugs which are actually meant to be performance-enhancing which, for some reason, carry the same punishment. I'd suggest your experience of playing on alcohol might be what scientists refer to as a coincidence!
... or an accident!! I wasn't really offering an argument, more of a "side bar" comment. As I said, I have no real knowledge in this area.
Cocaine and alcohol are both anaesthetics, and all anaesthetics in small quantities act on the nervous system as stimulants. It is possible in the very short term to get a lift in performance from either. The point is moot though, because Tom Maynard was an habitual user from the inquest findings, and the stimulant effect would be reduced the more he used the drug.
Yes, and as I said, only an idiot would use recreational drugs to enhance performance considering their use is punished just as severely as actual performance-enhancing drugs which would be many times more effective.
If a player did a line of coke before the game he'd end up spending the first half trying to chat to the referee about ****
I'm sure I read somewhere that few drugs would enhance the performance of footballers and that is why it is not a huge problem. Overuse of painkillers to help them play when unfit is unlikely these days because of long term damage. No advantage with steroids...unlike rugby when bulk can be an advantage. Amphetamines can adversely affect judgment. The sad thing about Maynard is that he would be alive if the police had caught him or if he'd be drug tested recently.
The ones you mention, perhaps not (thought footballers have been caught taking steroids, Abel Xavier is one you might remember), but something like EPO which would improve stamina would be very valuable to a footballer I imagine. I guess it might not be as prevalent because there is less focus on individual performance levels, one or two players doping would probably not influence the outcome of a match in the same way it would in cycling for example, so the benefits might be seen to be outweighed by the costs. Then again, anti-doping regulations in football are so lax compared to cycling that everyone might be on it and we wouldn't know! An interesting case is this one in Spain, where evidence was found that footballers had been doping, but it was inadmissible in the case because the scope of it was restricted to cycling: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Puerto
There have (allegedly) been a few examples of recreational drug punishments in English football... for example Garry O'Connor which was hushed up until some documentary revealed it. Roman Bednar was suspended for being caught purchasing drugs, whether he failed a drugs test I don't know... it's been alleged that it's normally hushed up and hidden by clubs as injuries. Who knows how true that is? Heard recently that Jason Brown (former Blackburn keeper, has had a 12 year career to date) said on radio that he's tested less than once a year.
I guess what I was wondering was whether people thought that they should be routinely tested for recreational drugs compared with the general public where there are a significant number of people who take drugs at least once in their life but are not screened unless under suspicion. And should substances such as alcohol be tested for?
Recreational drugs and overuse of alcohol would probably be picked up in the fitness monitoring they are all subjected in top level football. Reason would not necessarily be determined, but changes in fitness would be spotted. They can tell how long you've been on drugs by hair analysis...so Chaplow should be okay
I had heard (no names or clubs mentioned) that some top clubs are using some "aids" to improve time for injury repair and recovery. It was also suggested this could be widespread and people are being hushed up!
