Wenger is reported to be asking UEFA to introduce blood tests for footballers. http://www.arsenal.com/news/news-archive/-i-d-like-blood-testing-in-english-game- Personally Im shocked they dont do it already, but with the doctor in the article and Lance Armstrong in the news recently I think that if they dont introduce blood tests they are leaving the door wide open for cheaters to carry on getting away with it. As for the arguement that some players may not want it on ethical grounds, this doesnt seem to stop participation in other sports so I would force them. Why should football stand alone in top level sports (Im not aware of any other sports that dont test). In some sports they store the blood for 20 years. So the question is, do you think blood tests should be introduced?
Er, the title of the post is "Blood tests". Ferdinand missed a urine test which is all they have at the moment and the point of Wengers comment. Urine tests arent as good at finding all drugs, hence blood tests.
It's almost unbelievable that they're not already used, isn't it? What's the argument against using them?
The Spanish sportsmen are definitely on something or are doping. No way did they just go from being the nearly men and big game bottlers to dominating football, basketball and tennis.
Just out of interest, where would this doping business sit with the medical treatement for stunted growth that Messi had to endure? Without the drugs he wouldn't have been able to grow, but could it be argued that his medical treatment has had a performance enhancing effect? Someone is going to get a major headache trying to come up with truly fair and just rules. Some forms of doping, like for example the special ingredient added to teh pasta had by SPurs the night before they lost and gave us teh 4th spot all those years ago, how can I put it ..... adds a little spice to the proceedings.
Blood tests are, at the moment, the best way to test for drugs in the system, but they are not infallible. How many times was Armstrong tested for drugs over the years, and why was nothing ever found? The Americans can't have covered up everything so this proves that blood tests don't always work, though they might make some players think twice about doping. Blood tests should be introduced in conjunction with stronger penalty's. If you're caught doping you should be banned for life. A two year ban is not enough. Once a cheater always a cheater.
Youre right, blood tests are not infallible, but they are better than urine tests for both performance enhancing and recreational drugs. But as the tests get better so do the dopers, and vice versa. I really cant see why football is staying a step behind.
The thing is with drugs testing for football is that FIFA like things to be rolled out across the professional game. It would be good if it was added though, the money involved in the game means that it shouldn't be an issue. The detterent factor of it I'm sure would be more than worth it too, drugs can only help with your physical side but it won't help you kick a ball better or help the mental side of the game. It's not like cycling inwhich everyone adopts similar tactics, making the extra physical boost far more attractive when you consider the risks. Football players don't have that same level of reward for taking drugs, although if there's not a good testing system then a big potential for cheating.
The physical aspect of football is hugely important. If you can run faster and be stronger than your opponents for 90 full mins then your chances of winning are hugely improved. How many goals are scored in the last 15 mins of games? Fatigue is a huge issue.
You're right. It has a massive bearing on the outcome of games. I think there would be a clear advantage for anybody using performance enhancing drugs.
I think you're overestimating the effect these drugs have. When Chambers was cheating he knocked off like a tenth of a second, maybe 2 tenths. That's a lot in sprint racing but on a football pitch, 2 tenths of a second isn't going to turn you into a World beater and that was my point, doping in football would have a less direct effect on their performance than it would in athletics where it's more rigorously tested.
That's speed. We're talking endurance - the reason that EPO and other "blood boosters" are banned is because they increase oxygen to the muscles and aid recovery, so you can go harder for longer. These types of chemical could potentially have a massive impact - as I'm sure someone like TheBear will be able to tell you far better than I can.
Again, you're talking about aiding recovery over a cycling tour. Footballers would, of course, benefit from any kind of doping but the point throughout this has been that these would not have the same level of impact on a football players' performances. Speed is only a part of a player's game, as is stamina, strength, technical skill, reading the game, passing, shooting and any number of other factors, tweak any of those and you improve the player but not to anywhere near the same extent that a sprinter or Swimmer or cyclist would benefit.
