Wiggo

Loughton_Monkey

chewmylegoff wrote: »

what's the point of it? if you have illicitly taken drugs (and/or are currently doing so), then what possible effect could something like this have? you would just sign it anyway and hope you didn't get caught. it's not as if you'd go to prison for perjury if you were found out, it doesn't have any force...

... bit like a self-cert mortgage, really.

chewmylegoff

Kennyboy66 wrote: »

The advantage for Sky is that they would be able to sack a rider immediately who signed this and was subsequently discovered to have doped.

They could also sue for any payments they had made to that rider.

they could do that anyway. i don't see how not having the signed statement in place would make it any harder to fire someone who tested positive. i suppose it might make it a marginal difference if you sued them, but clearly you wouldn't have to have such a statement in place to make that possible.

Kennyboy66

Generali wrote: »

It's what will force change onto the sport. To be fair a huge amount is now being done, especially with the blood passports. The idea, AIUI at least, is to track changes to riders' blood chemistry. A big spike in a hormone or other part of blood chemistry would be picked up.

This Armstrong thing saddens me. It's not enough to say, "They were all doing it." He and his like have come very close to destroying professional cycling.

I found it very interesting that there was not much comment on the fact that many of the England players routinely take caffeine tablets before a match.
This meant that they then had to take sleeping tablets when the Poland match was postponed.

Generali

chewmylegoff wrote: »

they could do that anyway. i don't see how not having the signed statement in place would make it any harder to fire someone who tested positive. i suppose it might make it a marginal difference if you sued them, but clearly you wouldn't have to have such a statement in place to make that possible.

Partly it's marketing. Sky are sponsoring the team to market their brand and they don't want it tarnished by association with the likes of Armstrong and Pantani: who wants a druggie selling kids channels?

The implication is that the Sky riders have sworn to be clean so they're less likely to cheat I guess.

Cycling has a lot to do to rehabilitate itself. Things like this probably help I guess.

It's turning into a bloodbath in Aus. Both the President and vice-President of Cycling Australia have resigned because they were doping during their riding careers.

Interesting that virtually no soccer players, who could potentially make millions from doping, have been caught. It must be a very clean sport. I couldn't imagine a soccer player cheating to gain an advantage over an opponent by say diving or appealing for offside when they know it isn't or shouting at the ref.

Generali

Kennyboy66 wrote: »

I found it very interesting that there was not much comment on the fact that many of the England players routinely take caffeine tablets before a match.
This meant that they then had to take sleeping tablets when the Poland match was postponed.

I think there are maximum permitted levels of caffeine in sports. I'm sure I heard an athletics commentator say that once.

It is an interesting argument about what is cheating and what isn't. I went to the Australian Institute of Sport a couple of years ago and they have facilities that most countries could only dream about. Why isn't it cheating for the Aussie to have that advantage over a Polish athlete while it is cheating to take some drugs?

Apparently most sports have an above average number of asthmatics in them. Let's see what Lance has to say about Ventolin/albuterol:

http://www.livestrong.com/article/377289-the-effects-of-ventolin-on-weight-lifting/

chewmylegoff

Generali wrote: »

Interesting that virtually no soccer players, who could potentially make millions from doping, have been caught. It must be a very clean sport. I couldn't imagine a soccer player cheating to gain an advantage over an opponent by say diving or appealing for offside when they know it isn't or shouting at the ref.

i wouldn't say that hardly any footballers have been caught by drugs testing. e.g. there was a significant spate of positive tests for nandrolone about 10 years ago - several very high profile international players tested positive and received lengthy bans.

there haven't been a lot of footballers banned for performance enhancing drugs in the UK but there is a steady stream on the continent, which suggests that the UK's testing regime might be flawed or corrupt. however, players do test positive for recreational drugs relatively frequently, which suggests that the testing works.

i would have thought the main incentive for doping in football is to assist with recovery from injury, and i think that footballers can actually get a "licence" to take anabolic steroids to help them recover from certain injuries.

also, taking drugs isn't going to improve your skill levels, which play a massive part in whether you're a good footballer or not - if you are crap at football, purely boosting your physical performance is only going to make you better than someone who is as crap as you in skill terms. so i'm not sure you would expect as much doping in football as in e.g. cycling where it is pretty much all about your physical attributes.

wotsthat

chewmylegoff wrote: »

also, taking drugs isn't going to improve your skill levels, which play a massive part in whether you're a good footballer or not - if you are crap at football, purely boosting your physical performance is only going to make you better than someone who is as crap as you in skill terms. so i'm not sure you would expect as much doping in football as in e.g. cycling where it is pretty much all about your physical attributes.

Doping doesn't have to be about drugs. Receiving a blood transfusion will boost red blood cells and therefore oxygen carrying capacity dramatically and it's pretty much undetectable.

Football is a more skills based sport but a mediocre midfielder is likely to see enhanced financial rewards if he can run 10K further at pace during a game. No point for a goalkeeper where recovery from training is more important that aerobic fitness during a game - that's where drugs would be beneficial (testosterone patches).

wotsthat

The Lance Armstrong saga rumbles on. Amid rumours that he's going to confess all he's going to appear on Oprah next week.

http://www.oprah.com/pressroom/Lance-Armstrong-on-Oprahs-Next-Chapter

The special 90-minute episode of Oprah's Next Chapter will air Thursday, January 17, from 9 to 10:30 p.m. ET/PT on OWN: The Oprah Winfrey Network. In addition, the interview will be simultaneously streamed LIVE worldwide on Oprah.com.

Full confession? What with multi million dollar lawsuits lined up and a potential perjury case in the offing?

dori2o

There were some rumours that he's decided to confess all now after learning he has Cancer again.

If this is the case, and should it be terminal, he may not face any court cases or charges anyway.

wotsthat

dori2o wrote: »

There were some rumours that he's decided to confess all now after learning he has Cancer again.

If this is the case, and should it be terminal, he may not face any court cases or charges anyway.

I hope he hasn't got cancer again

I think he still wants to compete and so we'll hear slightly toned down rehashed rebuttals but with the word 'regret' used occasionally.