What did you make of last night's Dispatches programme? Photograph: Jonathan Wood/Getty Images Monday night's Dispatches â The Truth About Drugs in Football followed the same cycle as several recent sport documentaries. Hype whipped up by the programme makers â teasing viewers that they would reveal the identity of a "multi-million pound footballer" who had secretly failed a test for cocaine â was followed by a collective shrugging of the shoulders when the player in question turned out not to be a current Premier League player but a wayward Scottish striker who had been released on a free transfer by Birmingham City. If the Football Association is to be taken at its word Garry O'Connor, who is now back in the Scottish Premier League with his first club Hibernian, is an exception in that he was an established international when he tested positive and served his ban in secret. Those close to the player say he has been clean and sober for months and he has played his way back into contention for the national side, although he still has a court case hanging over him. It remains to be seen how his public shaming affects him. But while it may have been short on killer revelations, the programme did provoke an interesting debate. Is the Football Association right to defend its policy of keeping the names of those who have failed tests for recreational substances confidential? It argues that most of them are young players who deserve the opportunity to face down their demons in private after serving their ban (usually between two and six months for a first offence). It claims that support and rehabilitation are more effective than public shame â especially as most of the players are unknowns. It is a persuasive argument. But there are many others who believe that only "naming and shaming" will act as enough of a deterrent to prevent players â who may go on to become role models â from dabbling in recreational drugs and potentially developing a serious addiction. It may also be argued that they should be named in the interests of transparency. As it is, they are listed on the UK anti-doping database but are not generally named. A glance at the list of offences between 2004 and 2010, compiled by the Sporting Intelligence website, would suggest there is not an endemic problem in English football. But that does not mean it is not right to ask the questions. There is a nagging feeling that football will name transgressors when it suits: if a club has a high-earning player who has become a problem to get off the books for example. The programme left the impression that not enough energy was devoted to the other side of the equation: the issue of performance-enhancing drugs and their prevalence (or lack of) in football. With all the advances in sports science and the sophistication of top clubs over the past 20 years, a sober analysis of where that may lead might have proved more enlightening. Nor is it correct to assume that all is completely well between drug testing authorities and the world's richest sport. A long-running standoff over Wada's proposed "whereabouts" rules remains unresolved with both sides locked in an uneasy truce and there remains an undercurrent of dissatisfaction with the fact that Wada believes football does not think it has a problem. "They're saying they haven't got a doping problem because there are not many positives tests. I think the answer to that is: don't we need to conduct better research to see what the prevalence of doping is? We know full well that science is not going to find all the cheaters," the Wada director-general David Howman told the programme. And there is a wider question about whether sports should be testing for recreational drug use at all. Some of the most experienced and persuasive voices in the anti-doping community believe that going after those who may have used cocaine or cannabis socially is a sideshow to the war on systematic cheating by doping. The FA points out that it is not obliged to test for what it calls "social drugs" under the Wada code but does so because it recognises its responsibilities â it was the first governing body to ban them in and out of competition. The question of whether bans should be shorter for track and field athletes found with recreational drugs in their system recently raised its head again after UK Anti-Doping proposed they should be classified as "specified substances". That would allow those found to have taken them to argue for a reduced penalty. Some, including Sebastian Coe and the government, are vociferously against. They maintain that zero tolerance of any drugs is the only way forward, with Lord Coe claiming that lesser penalties for recreational drugs represented the "morality of the knackers yard". Others argue that ruining the prospects of a young athlete or academy footballer for the sake of a youthful indiscretion, which may occur during the close season or out of training, is very different from deliberate cheating and is no justice at all. ...................................................................................................................... Why were the legends Mathews, Pele, Bobby Moore, etc not on drugs, answer money, too much money, after training they are morons with dosh, used to be in the Arsenal days booze and horse racing, now its drugs, next step, we wont have players only robots, these guys get too much too soon, BOSMAN,,,,,,,YOUR FAULT YOU TALENTLESS BELGIQUE TWAT.
We don't know they weren't, maybe they were just more savvy about it, unlike Maradonna etc. Don't agree wth all tne name and shame stuff, not our business, if it doesn't affect anyone else. They are human and deserve a life.
We don't know about these older players because the press reported news in those days instead of simple muck-raking like now. In Matthews' case, these things weren't considered 'drugs' until the 1951 Act anyway (Mrs. Beaton's Cookbook recommends sprinkling cannabis resin on the top of cakes and trifles, like we would sprinkle chocolate chips). I don't think naming and shaming would benefit anybody except the press, who just want more easy scandal stories. Any drugs in sport is difficult. The Maradona case in the 1994 World Cup highlighted that. Argentina had lacked a bit of zip and bite that year and two months before the tournament, they asked Maradona to come out of retirement to help. He was well over-weight and the doctors recommended metabolism-raising medication to burn it off. He took it, lost the weight, and got sent home because they were still in his blood-stream! You have to believe Maradona - when did his performance need enhancing for gawd's sake? But if the authorities had accepted his case, it would have opened the door to less talented players taking them purely to enhance performance. They were probably right to send him home, even though he had a genuine case that time. (I know he'd had a cocaine problem in Italy, but that wasn't the case in 1994).
The FA drug policing policy is an absolute joke. In the forces we had compulsory drug testing. They would turn up unannounced on any day they like and effectively shut the camp. No one can leave till tested. They would then produce a hit list of who they wanted. In the Falklands this was 100% of personnel. They would take two samples. Fail the first they would then check the back up. Fail them both, your out. No exceptions.
I agree they are human and deserve a life - but if I was charged with and guilty of taking cocaine I would be tried in a magistrates court - the information of which is available to the public domain (as I am over the age of 18) - Rio Ferdinand got an 8 month ban for turning up LATE to a drugs test - why aren't these people who fail drugs tests banned for at least this length of time?
I would just like to add that it really was the worst documentary I have ever seen. The way that presenter went on made it look like a spoof! On the issue of whether it should be made public or not I am not so sure. They have not been convicted criminally of any offences so there is no obligation to name them, however the clubs who named their players who had failed tests (Wolves/West Brom) seem to come out of the whole thing with a lot more credibility. Very difficult one and I can see arguments for both naming them and maintaining their anonymity.
Players who take banned substances to artificially build up their bodies or to play better deserve a ban, no question. Same goes for cocaine users as it can be performance enhancing. But is it just me that thinks the FA is going OTT and sticking its nose into players' private lives with ridiculous bans (part of the Big Brother mentality). I've seen cases of players at small clubs getting banned for having cannabis in their bloodstream. Cannabis isn't performance enhancing, smoking a joint isn't cheating, so WTF has it got to do with the FA and why should a player be banned? It's as logical as banning a player for boozing or smoking a tab.
I think the comparison between the forces and professional sportsmen is a valid one, however it does differ across various job types. I dont really have an opinion but think the below should be considered. Within my office based role colleagues have tested positive for various substances. Generally they are not dismissed from their position as it is seen that the employer has a duty of care to support such individuals and offer counselling and help in cases where it appears addiction has set in. Obviously this is in place with a plan to be re-tested to ensure they manage to stop taking the substance with dismissal always a possibility depending upon the circumstances and commitment of the individual. I appreciate within the forces discipline is huge so can see why such a failure is not tolerated and they are dismissed immediately. I suppose football is another story. Yes these blokes make a lot of money but we are all aware of what money can do to people. Late teens/early 20s with money to burn is a very dangerous combination, and despite the general public often condemning them saying how lucky they are, surely clubs have a responsibility to help players through such problems and try to get them off the substances, hence the confidential bans and internal support they receive. Now I fully appreciate performance enhancing drugs are another story. This is plain and simple cheating and should carry more severe consequences, but for "social" drugs maybe we need to approach things slightly differently.
