Page 1 of 1
Footballers are missing out-of-competition drug tests
Posted: Sun Mar 21, 2010 9:21 am
by FaninOz
An interesting article in The Times today, "Dozens of footballers are missing out-of-competition drug tests"
I wonder if any Bolton players are on the list???
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/ ... 069717.ece
Two Football League clubs have been fined for failing to abide by the FA’s doping control regulations, but that is just the tip of the iceberg, with dozens of players missing out-of-competition tests in England. QPR and Bradford City have been fined £6,000 and £1,000 respectively for repeated failure to provide accurate information to sampling officers trying to locate players they want to test.
It is prohibited for a player to miss three tests in an 18-month period — anybody who does so faces a lengthy ban. The failure of a club to give the FA accurate information concerning the whereabouts of players is also prohibited. The Sunday Times has seen figures that suggest players and clubs are failing in their responsibilities under the regulations at an alarming rate as the national game struggles to come to terms with requirements that are commonplace in other Olympic sports.
The minutes of a meeting of the FA’s Professional Game Board, held last August, refer to a report by Terry Robinson, who chaired the meeting. It said that in a 20-month period from January 2008, 96 players had missed one test, while two players were on two strikes, just one missed test away from a one-year suspension, although one of these is no longer in the game.
No fewer than 22 clubs, almost a quarter of those in the top flight of English football, were on one strike, and 13 on two strikes for “failing to provide necessary details of squad schedules”.
Posted: Sun Mar 21, 2010 9:44 am
by Tin Lizzy
They need some heavier gear if so.
Posted: Sun Mar 21, 2010 1:20 pm
by KeeeeeeeBaaaaaaab
The FA's anti-doping system has been atrociously run for years. The clubs originally wouldn't agree to testing until they had prior arrangements for the testing first. The FA bent over and agreed. Then they realised that the system was so flawed that they introduced random testing, only to give information on who was going to be tested days in advance. Then Rio did his best "Last Days Of Ronald Reagan" impression, and they had to act. Which is why, rather than getting the game cleaned up through association with WADA, they had this ridiculous and over-lenient system in place.
Posted: Sun Mar 21, 2010 1:28 pm
by Bruce Rioja
Bradford City? They're 16th in Division Four, FFS. Are we honestly expected to believe that they're on performance enhancing drugs?
Posted: Thu Mar 25, 2010 2:50 pm
by rockthereebok
To be honest, I think it would be a little pointless to introduce an athletics-style drug testing regime in football. Athletics is all about strength, power and endurance and although these clearly have a role in football, they're not the be all and end all like they are in athletics. A sprinter can take drugs to build their muscles and hence become a better sprinter. If a rubbish footballer takes the same drugs he'll be better at running, but he'll still be a rubbish footballer.
Also, the phrase "out-of-competition" is slightly misleading when it comes to football. Atheletes can go months without competing meaning that it's possible for them to use something while they're training and have it out of their system by the time the event they're preparing for rolls around. "Out-of-competition" in football seems to mean between games, which can be as little as three days apart. Hardly time to cane something and get it out of your system. Testing after matches should be enough, surely?
Posted: Thu Mar 25, 2010 3:14 pm
by Puskas
rockthereebok wrote:To be honest, I think it would be a little pointless to introduce an athletics-style drug testing regime in football. Athletics is all about strength, power and endurance and although these clearly have a role in football, they're not the be all and end all like they are in athletics. A sprinter can take drugs to build their muscles and hence become a better sprinter. If a rubbish footballer takes the same drugs he'll be better at running, but he'll still be a rubbish footballer.
It can still make a big difference, though.
Compare, for example, Gary Henshaw and Stuart Storer.
Posted: Thu Mar 25, 2010 3:46 pm
by Montreal Wanderer
rockthereebok wrote:To be honest, I think it would be a little pointless to introduce an athletics-style drug testing regime in football. Athletics is all about strength, power and endurance and although these clearly have a role in football, they're not the be all and end all like they are in athletics. A sprinter can take drugs to build their muscles and hence become a better sprinter. If a rubbish footballer takes the same drugs he'll be better at running, but he'll still be a rubbish footballer.
Also, the phrase "out-of-competition" is slightly misleading when it comes to football. Atheletes can go months without competing meaning that it's possible for them to use something while they're training and have it out of their system by the time the event they're preparing for rolls around. "Out-of-competition" in football seems to mean between games, which can be as little as three days apart. Hardly time to cane something and get it out of your system. Testing after matches should be enough, surely?
If Kevin Davies could run faster, jump higher, kick with more power and go flat out for ninety minutes, I think he would be a better footballer. While drugs do not augment skills, they clearly can enhance overall performance.
Posted: Thu Mar 25, 2010 3:52 pm
by Tombwfc
rockthereebok wrote:To be honest, I think it would be a little pointless to introduce an athletics-style drug testing regime in football. Athletics is all about strength, power and endurance and although these clearly have a role in football, they're not the be all and end all like they are in athletics. A sprinter can take drugs to build their muscles and hence become a better sprinter. If a rubbish footballer takes the same drugs he'll be better at running, but he'll still be a rubbish footballer.
He'll have a notable advantage over other rubbish footballers though, which is the point.
Posted: Thu Mar 25, 2010 6:45 pm
by Prufrock
Just let anyone take whatever. It'd be way more fun.
Posted: Thu Mar 25, 2010 6:56 pm
by boltonboris
Prufrock wrote:Just let anyone take whatever. It'd be way more fun.
Until somebody dies.....
Posted: Thu Mar 25, 2010 7:09 pm
by Prufrock
boltonboris wrote:Prufrock wrote:Just let anyone take whatever. It'd be way more fun.
Until somebody dies.....
Have you seen what people watch? It's pretty much the only thing Big Brother have never shown (still time). The final taboo, crack that and we're sorted. Fook civilisation, s'overrated. We need 8 foot tall pink people with six arms getting beat in the air by SKD. Everyone would watch that.
Posted: Thu Mar 25, 2010 9:42 pm
by Bruce Rioja
Prufrock wrote:Just let anyone take whatever. It'd be way more fun.
Hmm, see, I'm now wondering what colour Fergie's face would go after a formidable blast on the poppers bottle?
