Follow the latest football odds, betting news, tips and previews at William Hill.

Saturday, June 25, 2011

Doping in Football



This article is based on a talk I had with my girlfriend the other day about the routine of her job. Being a pharmacist, she always feels the need to inform me on the lastest medical products that appear on the pharmaceutical market, although my lack of interest regarding this subject is more than obvious. But this time she actually made me think about the use of performance enhancers among the football players. She asked me if I knew some cases in which the players used drugs in order to improve their physical condition and whether I could tell her some exemples of these doping substances.

Surely, the first player that popped in my mind was Diego Maradona. It is well known that during the 1994 World Cup, after Argentina’s second match against Nigeria, Diego had tested positive for the banned substance: ephedrine. Ephedrine is a sympathomimetic amine commonly used as a stimulant, appetite suppressant, recommended to treat hypotension associated with anaesthesia. No wonder Maradona shoked the world with his fantastic shape at the begging of the World Cup. As a result, he was banned for 18 months and never played international football again.

Jaap Stam is another football player involved in a doping scandal while he was playing for Lazio in Serie A (2001). Apparently, he had been taking nandrolone, a steroid also known as Deca-Durabolin, although he never admitted it was a self-concious act. Nandrolone decanoate is indicated for the management of the anemia of renal insufficiency and has been shown to increase hemoglobin and red cell mass.

Abel Xavier was the first Premiership player to test positive for dianabol, a steroid known for building muscle mass (Middlesbrough, 2005). He was banned for 18 months, which later reduced to 12 months. Xavier claims he was innocent and has never taken this performance enhancer.

Rio Ferdinand (Manchester United, 2003) forgot to go to a drug test, although most institutions refer to this as a failed test. Apparently, the player was too busy moving out and offered to take the test later in the day. Well, his excuse turned out to be totally useless, knowing the fact that these tests are taken by surprise in order to prevent players from ingesting antidotes or other substances that might alter the results. He was banned for 8 months and fined 50.000 £, but made a huge comeback.

Now, after reading all these facts about doping among players, I’ve come across some more interesting facts. Apparently, English football players are tested mostly after matches. But while athletics, weightlifting, swimming, rugby allow out-of-competition testing, football does not. This implies the fact that football players aren’t tested when they’re away from their clubs. So a player might just as well take some cocaine during the weekend and be tested on Monday morning without a trace of his action (it is known that cocaine leaves the body within 24 hours). Now I wonder how Romanian Adrian Mutu was caught using cocaine while he was playing for Chelsea. Maybe he had the feeling time was dilating.

Moreover, some Sport's Independent Sampling Officers sustain that the clubs know in advance when they are coming and thus keep the suspect players off training so their names don’t appear on the list they are given. I can't help but wonder if this is the reason why football is considered one of the cleanest sport and whether it has something to do with this anti-doping policy.

Picture by epsos.

3 comments:

  1. There is little doubt in my mind that doping is endemic in world football, especially at the highest level where the money, incentives, and infrastructure exist to support it.

    I followed professional cycling for years where the problems of endemic doping are well-known and the lessons were, for me, very instructive. Before dismissing the sports as different consider that the number of publicized failed drug tests in a sports is a poor indicator of the level of doping that exists in that sport. Modern doping techniques are very sophisticated and the protocols for avoiding positive doping tests are quite creative and effective. Couple that with fabulous wealth available to top performers and teams and a corrupt, self-serving bureaucracy with enormous incentive to preserve the image of the sport and the power to punish dissenters and you have ideal conditions for rampant use of performance enhancing drugs in a sport with few, if any, publicized failed drug tests and even fewer punishments.

    There are real and perceived benefits for those football players taking performance enhancing drugs. The range of modern pharmaceutical products and medical staff to administer them can take a skilled player and make him or her faster, stronger, run longer with less effort, and recover more quickly from injury, games and training. These benefits cannot be ignored when the slightest differences between top teams can mean the difference between success and failure. With a Champions League spot on the line could your team afford to not have a doping program in place? Wouldn't it make good financial sense even for a team facing promotion or relegation?

    The testing protocol followed by football bureaucracy that you mention is a clear sign that it wants to avoid positive doping test results and give the teams a free reign to implement doping protocols to enhance their success and the entertainment value and revenues of the sport. I expect that the recent positive Mexican team doping tests will be explained away, blamed on some tainted food server at a team dinner and disappear quickly. Why wouldn't they?

    I love the sport but am under no illusions about the hidden games being played with doping products by teams, medical staff, athletes, and sporting bureaucracy to ensure sporting success and lack of damaging publicity.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Do you think the periodical deaths that happen on the football ground, apparently for no reason, are related to the use of dangerous substances?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Interesting thought but I doubt this is the case. Performance enhancing drugs can have ill-effects on the heart. However I expect that the medical staff who administer performance enhancing protocols to professional athletes work carefully to avoid that extreme negative outcome which is a bad result for all interested parties to say the least. Such deaths may have other reasonable explanations too such as an undetected heart defect.

    ReplyDelete