C4 Dispatches to name dozens of footballers to fail drugs tests tonight?
- Thread starter Rotty
- Start date
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 41,280
- Location
- Cornwall
Unless they actually reveal a big name there's honestly no point, it's a non event hyped by social media sites and Chinese whispers.
quite likely to be the case IMO
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 41,280
- Location
- Cornwall
We've now got a segment on legal methods of helping injured players 
Can you tell us how many DM (and whoever else posted in the thread) got right/wrong after they're all revealed?
No
no one significant so far
Before you deleted the other thread I was going to say can we ban the guy who was giving hints as to who it was if he's lying. So can we ban him? And his actual account as that was clearly a 2nd account 
Anyway, unsurprisingly it's been a massive let down. We've learned the names of a couple of nobody players that have been banned for taking recreational drugs and been told that 240 tests were cancelled because the testers turned up and the players weren't present (no fault of the player)
Anyway, unsurprisingly it's been a massive let down. We've learned the names of a couple of nobody players that have been banned for taking recreational drugs and been told that 240 tests were cancelled because the testers turned up and the players weren't present (no fault of the player)
Before you deleted the other thread I was going to say can we ban the guy who was giving hints as to who it was if he's lying. So can we ban him? And his actual account as that was clearly a 2nd account
will look into it , was only soft deleted
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,804
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
Does he wear glasses, or have a moustache?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 41,280
- Location
- Cornwall
I want my 55 minutes back 
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Was a bit lame, especially as they said "top" premiership footballer, unless renaming Kolo Toure counted
Not quite sure why its not interesting unless its a big name at a big club, its still pretty useful information to smaller clubs as no one wants to pay for a guy who has been banned before, or should I say, no one wants to pay as much
It was far less legitimate than I had hoped, though player A and B would have been interesting to know.
We've suggested before that some injuries or dissappearing acts seem a tad more circumspec than others. The 15 tests abandoned at Swansea raise an eyebrow, but without more detail its useless, is it in a season they had bad weather, 5 games canceled and most of it was in a long spell of loads of reschedualled games, because that will screw up training scheduals. There does need to be a far stronger link to going and testing the player outside of the training ground/stadiums as most other sports do that. In which case a training session being canceled wouldn't change much at all.
Its not even that big a deal, we've talked about it before, being a great athlete HELPS but isn't the be all and end all of football. 100metre runners have technique, but its not creative or complicated, and once they have their technique its ALL about their physical ability, cheating to get stronger will lead to better times. In football getting stronger doesn't mean you'll pass better, become more creative, improve your timing of runs, or your shooting, it has a vastly smaller effect on overall footballing ability.
Recreational drugs, meh, I kind of agree with being caught taking drugs outside of games, and inside should be different personally, each to his own and all. Though anyone found guilty outside of games should I think automatically be tested post game for a couple weeks then randomly on game days for a couple months.
Not quite sure why its not interesting unless its a big name at a big club, its still pretty useful information to smaller clubs as no one wants to pay for a guy who has been banned before, or should I say, no one wants to pay as much
It was far less legitimate than I had hoped, though player A and B would have been interesting to know.
We've suggested before that some injuries or dissappearing acts seem a tad more circumspec than others. The 15 tests abandoned at Swansea raise an eyebrow, but without more detail its useless, is it in a season they had bad weather, 5 games canceled and most of it was in a long spell of loads of reschedualled games, because that will screw up training scheduals. There does need to be a far stronger link to going and testing the player outside of the training ground/stadiums as most other sports do that. In which case a training session being canceled wouldn't change much at all.
Its not even that big a deal, we've talked about it before, being a great athlete HELPS but isn't the be all and end all of football. 100metre runners have technique, but its not creative or complicated, and once they have their technique its ALL about their physical ability, cheating to get stronger will lead to better times. In football getting stronger doesn't mean you'll pass better, become more creative, improve your timing of runs, or your shooting, it has a vastly smaller effect on overall footballing ability.
Recreational drugs, meh, I kind of agree with being caught taking drugs outside of games, and inside should be different personally, each to his own and all. Though anyone found guilty outside of games should I think automatically be tested post game for a couple weeks then randomly on game days for a couple months.
Before you deleted the other thread I was going to say can we ban the guy who was giving hints as to who it was if he's lying. So can we ban him? And his actual account as that was clearly a 2nd account
Anyway, unsurprisingly it's been a massive let down. We've learned the names of a couple of nobody players that have been banned for taking recreational drugs and been told that 240 tests were cancelled because the testers turned up and the players weren't present (no fault of the player)
I also thought they tried to insinuate at one point or another Liverpool, Utd and Chelsea as clubs (although mainly concerntrating on Chelsea), even though none actually did anything wrong (morally it sounds from one dr's point of view as though they did but didnt really give a balanced view either.
I do agree with the program that a lot more testing needs to be done though - and that the 30% deviation of the 2nd test should be stuck to more rigidly (ie requiring further investigation)
Would be interesting to know who the ex-England striker is, but I can also see the legal pitfalls if it was accidentally taken (and he was shamed publicly).
Last edited:
Aww, I only wanted to know how utterly wide of the mark everyone was.No