Footballers are missing out-of-competition drug tests

There ARE other teams(we'd have no-one to play otherwise) and here's where all-comers can discuss the wider world of football......

Moderator: Zulus Thousand of em

Post Reply
FaninOz
Dedicated
Dedicated
Posts: 1444
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 4:24 pm
Location: Perth, Western Australia

Footballers are missing out-of-competition drug tests

Post by FaninOz » Sun Mar 21, 2010 9:21 am

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”.
Depression is just a state of mind, supporting Bolton is also a state of mind hence supporting Bolton must be depressing QED

Tin Lizzy
Hopeful
Hopeful
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2009 11:41 am

Post by Tin Lizzy » Sun Mar 21, 2010 9:44 am

They need some heavier gear if so.

KeeeeeeeBaaaaaaab
Passionate
Passionate
Posts: 2479
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2008 8:23 pm
Location: Dr. Alban's

Post by KeeeeeeeBaaaaaaab » Sun Mar 21, 2010 1:20 pm

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.
www.mini-medallists.co.uk
RobbieSavagesLeg wrote:I'd rather support Bolton than be you

User avatar
Bruce Rioja
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 38742
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 9:19 pm
Location: Drifting into the arena of the unwell.

Post by Bruce Rioja » Sun Mar 21, 2010 1:28 pm

Bradford City? They're 16th in Division Four, FFS. Are we honestly expected to believe that they're on performance enhancing drugs? :shock:
May the bridges I burn light your way

rockthereebok
Hopeful
Hopeful
Posts: 164
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 4:58 pm

Post by rockthereebok » Thu Mar 25, 2010 2:50 pm

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?

Puskas
Passionate
Passionate
Posts: 2125
Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 9:49 pm
Location: Home. Home, again. I like to be here when I can.

Post by Puskas » Thu Mar 25, 2010 3:14 pm

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.
"People are crazy and times are strange
I’m locked in tight, I’m out of range
I used to care, but things have changed"

User avatar
Montreal Wanderer
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 12948
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 12:45 am
Location: Montreal, Canada

Post by Montreal Wanderer » Thu Mar 25, 2010 3:46 pm

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.
"If you cannot answer a man's argument, all it not lost; you can still call him vile names. " Elbert Hubbard.

Tombwfc
Passionate
Passionate
Posts: 2912
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 5:37 pm

Post by Tombwfc » Thu Mar 25, 2010 3:52 pm

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.

User avatar
Prufrock
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 24831
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 11:51 pm

Post by Prufrock » Thu Mar 25, 2010 6:45 pm

Just let anyone take whatever. It'd be way more fun.
In a world that has decided
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.

boltonboris
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 14515
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 4:27 pm

Post by boltonboris » Thu Mar 25, 2010 6:56 pm

Prufrock wrote:Just let anyone take whatever. It'd be way more fun.
Until somebody dies.....
"I've got the ball now. It's a bit worn, but I've got it"

User avatar
Prufrock
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 24831
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 11:51 pm

Post by Prufrock » Thu Mar 25, 2010 7:09 pm

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.
In a world that has decided
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.

User avatar
Bruce Rioja
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 38742
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 9:19 pm
Location: Drifting into the arena of the unwell.

Post by Bruce Rioja » Thu Mar 25, 2010 9:42 pm

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? :?
May the bridges I burn light your way

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests