Sakho Suspended For Failing Doping Test.

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Even if people did use performance enhancing drugs in football, how much difference would it actually make? Even if you got big and fast as **** the likes of Barcelona would still pass triangles around you for 90 minutes. Football is one of the only sports where physical limitations like height, strength and pace don't hold you back a great deal.

I just don't see it myself.

Utter, utter nonsense. Sorry, but I just don't know where to begin on this. Footballers are now on par with cyclists, tennis players and middle-distance runners in terms of endurance.
 
It's not grey at all. Performance enhancing is anything that can provide an unnatural increase in performance as a direct result of the drug being used. Cortisone injections don't increase the performance of the muscle itself, it's just a mask for an injury

Is that not unnatural? Masking the pain is unnatural and allows someone to compete to a higher standard than if they were running around with a bad foot?
 
Pain killers and anti inflammatories aren't performance enhancing, they're just masking the symptoms of muscle injuries.
But a lot of injury is a bodies response to being pushed too far. That athlete has gone beyond its limits. Masking it is an unnatural chemical fix to allow the athlete to go beyond their physical limitations.
 
Is that not unnatural? Masking the pain is unnatural and allows someone to compete to a higher standard than if they were running around with a bad foot?
You're being obtuse.

If the player didn't have an injury the muscle would work at its peak rate, a painkiller doesn't increase the performance of that muscle beyond that natural peak.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Diego
It's simple - anything that improves performance and is a drug....

I.e. Performance enhancing.......

So fat burners are not performance enhancing

At worst they're taking away something that is bad for you
 
Utter, utter nonsense. Sorry, but I just don't know where to begin on this. Footballers are now on par with cyclists, tennis players and middle-distance runners in terms of endurance.

I see where Lucas is coming from though. So much of football is in the head. It's not like a weightlifter who is just pure strength and tiny bit technique. If muscle power was the measuring factor then you'd have teams of 6ft 4 players built like brick house.

Of of course they help though, strength, speed, stamina are all important parts of a players attributes, but it's maybe not as effective as in other sports like sprinting or cycling where it's more about physical attributes
 
You're being obtuse.

If the player didn't have an injury the muscle would work at its peak rate, a painkiller doesn't increase the performance of that muscle beyond that natural peak.

Not obtuse, just playing devils advocate.

It doesn't increase performance of that muscle past its peak, but it allows the player to push that muscle to a higher performance than he would naturally be able to if it was damaged by taking an unnatural aubstence no?
 
Why are people arguing about this? If he's taken something he shouldn't then he's a cheat. End of argument!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Peter Saxton
It's all a bit arbitrary though.

Pain killers ok despite being a foreign drug.

Creatine ok because it's seen in same category as food and to quote the IOC "natural"

But training at high altitude and withdrawing highly oxygenated blood only to replace it pre event is not seen as introducing a natural substance despite actually being produced by the athletes body....
 
No, they're arguing that a paracetamol (exaggeration) could be considered performance enhancing instead <doh>

What is the definition of performance enhancing?

Do you perform better with a painkiller than in pain? Yes

Does it enhance your performance level above that you would have without pain? No

So does a fat burner just remove fat in the same way as a painkiller removes pain? Or does it itself increase performance?
 
Why are people arguing about this? If he's taken something he shouldn't then he's a cheat. End of argument!
It's not arguing whether he has or has not broke the rules G. If he's taken a banned substance he gets punished...simple. like any other rule he's signed up to in order to play sport.

I just think it's all a bit arbitrary.

By all means if it's based on risk of harm short or long term to the athletes health I see the logic of banning a substance. It's when it's talked of in terms of "performance enhancing" or "cheating" it becomes silly.

Talk in terms of "harmful substances" and it makes more sense.
 
So strictly to that definition...player carrying injury without pain killers -performance poor. Same player given pain killers pre match - performance improved.

All substances entering the body are a chemical...oxygenated blood transfusions aren't unnatural being the players own blood not a drug but considered cheating.

When is it about gaining advantage and being a risky or harmful practice?

Which is why some are allowed and some not. It's the argument that Shaparova (sp) is trying to use now, but it's not an argument at all. The 'medication' that she was on that slows the heartbeat down (who'd have thought, as Andy Murray dryly put it, that there were be so many top level athletes in tennis with 'heart conditions'?) was allowed, then it wasn't - but all were told of this a long time ago. Any ****wit knows fat-burners are not allowed, or at least take advice on them. Not sure? Don't ****ing take them. Unsure how long cannibis, which isn't performance-enhancing per se, but is a banned recreational drug in most occupations, stays in the blood stream? Just don't smoke it then, or find an occupation where it doesn't matter.

A child could navigate themselves around this system. Why on earth do we continually indulge footballers simply because they have the potential to make our 90 minute dreams true, or have I answered my own question there? Sanctimonious and self-righteous, perhaps, but this is multi-million pound industry with fantastic rewards. No tolerance. He's not a ****ing £10k a year cleaner who's turned up for an early shift with a hangover.

Bah.
 
What is the definition of performance enhancing?

Do you perform better with a painkiller than in pain? Yes

Does it enhance your performance level above that you would have without pain? No

So does a fat burner just remove fat in the same way as a painkiller removes pain? Or does it itself increase performance?

I think everyone knows performance enhancing is referring to a drug that enhances your abilities rather than masking a (injury) problem [HASHTAG]#logical[/HASHTAG]

This discussion is typical Liverpool fan logic. Any player bar a Liverpool one and they get lambasted. Because it's a Liverpool player every possible angle is explored.
 
It's not arguing whether he has or has not broke the rules G. If he's taken a banned substance he gets punished...simple. like any other rule he's signed up to in order to play sport.

I just think it's all a bit arbitrary.

By all means if it's based on risk of harm short or long term to the athletes health I see the logic of banning a substance. It's when it's talked of in terms of "performance enhancing" or "cheating" it becomes silly.

Talk in terms of "harmful substances" and it makes more sense.

It's a banned substance. He's possibly taken it (subject to tampering etc). You don't get much simpler than that.
 
It's a banned substance. He's possibly taken it (subject to tampering etc). You don't get much simpler than that.

Which is why no one is discussing that. We solved that question pages ago. Keep up.
 
Which is why some are allowed and some not. It's the argument that Shaparova (sp) is trying to use now, but it's not an argument at all. The 'medication' that she was on that slows the heartbeat down (who'd have thought, as Andy Murray dryly put it, that there were be so many top level athletes in tennis with 'heart conditions'?) was allowed, then it wasn't - but all were told of this a long time ago. Any ****wit knows fat-burners are not allowed, or at least take advice on them. Not sure? Don't ****ing take them. Unsure how long cannibis, which isn't performance-enhancing per se, but is a banned recreational drug in most occupations, stays in the blood stream? Just don't smoke it then, or find an occupation where it doesn't matter.

A child could navigate themselves around this system. Why on earth do we continually indulge footballers simply because they have the potential to make our 90 minute dreams true, or have I answered my own question there? Sanctimonious and self-righteous, perhaps, but this is multi-million pound industry with fantastic rewards. No tolerance. He's not a ****ing £10k a year cleaner who's turned up for an early shift with a hangover.

Bah.
See above. I'm not arguing that he has an excuse...there's a list..take something on it...get caught get banned. No indulgence at all.

What I'm saying is the governing bodies tie themselves in knots justifying why something is or is not on a list. Get rid of the performance enhancing label and just say unsafe practice.
 
Last edited:
No one's saying it doesn't help. I'm just saying Fabio Borini can run as far and as much as he wants per game, he'll still never be Zlatan Ibrahimovic, who probably only runs half as much as Borini does.

With respect


Why talk forwards when we are talking cb taking drugs.

As I said that to play 2 a week and recover....

I think just to say talent makes all the difference ignores the henderson, fletchers and make your others of this world who do run miles and make useful contributions.

If a guy takes something just to keep up he's cheating