Drug testing gap in Scottish football

[KingBeastie]

6 hours ago, Skyline Drifter said:

If it is indeed true that the drug testing in England continues to be funded by UKADA whilst in Scotland it isn't then that's something that should be addressed at government level.

Why should the government pay for this?
The sport should be able to finance itself.
Plenty people pay tax who couldn't give a f*** about football.
I'm sure there's plenty of other industries who have some form of drug testing and those industries finances themselves.
Why on earth should the government be responsible for this?  Responsibility lies solely with the governing body, the SFA, in my opinion.

[Skyline Drifter]

9 minutes ago, KingBeastie said:

Why should the government pay for this?
The sport should be able to finance itself.
Plenty people pay tax who couldn't give a f*** about football.
I'm sure there's plenty of other industries who have some form of drug testing and those industries finances themselves.
Why on earth should the government be responsible for this?  Responsibility lies solely with the governing body, the SFA, in my opinion.

Uh huh, if you would like to climb off your high horse for a second and read it properly, I never said the Government SHOULD pay for it. Although as an aside I certainly don't think it's unreasonabl that if lottery funding is going to be used to fund professional athletes, it should also be used to help check they are clean and not cheats.

What I said was that IF the suggestion that UKADA carries out checking of English footballers without requiring FA funding but does not do the same in Scotland the the Government should be addressing it as the body ultimately responsible for UKADA and it's policies.

[mrcat1990]

With the news of the SFA's lackadaisical testing regime becoming public, expect to see your favourite player out this Saturday night in the local deep house establishment chewing his face off.

[Elixir]

Should test the crowd at an Old Firm game instead.

[KingBeastie]

2 hours ago, Skyline Drifter said:

Uh huh, if you would like to climb off your high horse for a second and read it properly, I never said the Government SHOULD pay for it. Although as an aside I certainly don't think it's unreasonabl that if lottery funding is going to be used to fund professional athletes, it should also be used to help check they are clean and not cheats.

What I said was that IF the suggestion that UKADA carries out checking of English footballers without requiring FA funding but does not do the same in Scotland the the Government should be addressing it as the body ultimately responsible for UKADA and it's policies.

I'm not having a go at you.
If you're offended, think I am having a go at you or have taken my post personally then please accept my apologies, not my intention to upset anyone.

My point is simply that regardless of what happens in england or under any other Football Association, the responsibility for this lies ultimately with the SFA.
If they want to approach the government (or any other body) about funding for this that's a different discussion.
The buck stops with them though.  They are in charge of the game in Scotland. (and they're not very good at it!)

[whiskychimp]

Acht. I've got no problems with recreational drugs. 

Plus I have seen absolutely NO evidence of performance enhancing drugs. None. Nowt. Zero. Nada. Not even a performance stabilizing drug. I'm sure some are even on performance debilitating drugs. 

[D.A.F.C]

3 hours ago, KingBeastie said:

Gavin. Gunning.

What he thought he was doing, LSD not even once!

[WFAANW]

Players and supporters should be fucked on disco biscuits at every game, would make the £20 you pay worth it.

[Lambie's Pigeon Feed]

There's enough players that are fast but shite at football already.

[craigkillie]

8 hours ago, KingBeastie said:

I'm not having a go at you.
If you're offended, think I am having a go at you or have taken my post personally then please accept my apologies, not my intention to upset anyone.

My point is simply that regardless of what happens in england or under any other Football Association, the responsibility for this lies ultimately with the SFA.
If they want to approach the government (or any other body) about funding for this that's a different discussion.
The buck stops with them though.  They are in charge of the game in Scotland. (and they're not very good at it!)

The UKADA is a government funded body which is tasked with carrying out drug testing in UK sport.  If they are not giving any money to Scottish football then the SFA absolutely should be approaching the government about this.  Scottish taxpayers are paying for them to go and test players in the wealthy English Premier League, but they expect our own relatively impoverished game to pay for it ourselves?  That's not on.

[scottxs]

Should test the crowd at an Old Firm game instead.

For what. ? To see if they can read. They'd all fail

[williemillersmoustache]

1 hour ago, scottxs said:

For what. ? To see if they can read. They'd all fail

To see if they can piss in a cup without throwing it at the away end?

[Skyline Drifter]

7 hours ago, craigkillie said:

The UKADA is a government funded body which is tasked with carrying out drug testing in UK sport.  If they are not giving any money to Scottish football then the SFA absolutely should be approaching the government about this.  Scottish taxpayers are paying for them to go and test players in the wealthy English Premier League, but they expect our own relatively impoverished game to pay for it ourselves?  That's not on.

Are they though? I dont know and other than someone saying so in a post above I dont see any source confirming that. The article says they no longer fund Scottish tests. It doesnt say they do fund English ones. 

It may be this is a devolved funding issue and a side effect of chunks of Scottish Income Tax now falling to the Scottish govt budget rather than Westminster? 

[craigkillie]

1 hour ago, Skyline Drifter said:

Are they though? I dont know and other than someone saying so in a post above I dont see any source confirming that. The article says they no longer fund Scottish tests. It doesnt say they do fund English ones. 

It may be this is a devolved funding issue and a side effect of chunks of Scottish Income Tax now falling to the Scottish govt budget rather than Westminster? 

This BBC article suggests that UKAD carry out drug tests on behalf of the English FA.  It's not clear to me whether this should be a devolved matter - sports are devolved in Scotland, but the World Anti-Doping Agency is associated with the IOC, and obviously Scotland doesn't have our own Olympic association.

The fact that they are called the UKAD suggests that they are responsible for the whole of the UK, and the fact that they have deemed Scottish football "low priority" seems to imply that they are responsible for monitoring our game.

[Skyline Drifter]

7 hours ago, craigkillie said:

This BBC article suggests that UKAD carry out drug tests on behalf of the English FA.  It's not clear to me whether this should be a devolved matter - sports are devolved in Scotland, but the World Anti-Doping Agency is associated with the IOC, and obviously Scotland doesn't have our own Olympic association.

The fact that they are called the UKAD suggests that they are responsible for the whole of the UK, and the fact that they have deemed Scottish football "low priority" seems to imply that they are responsible for monitoring our game.

Yes, it says they carry out drug tests on behalf of the English FA. It doesn't however say that the English FA don't pay for them. That's my point. It may well be the case that they are carrying out tests for the FA without charge and not doing the same up here. In which case it's absolutely something that should be addressed. However, people are just assuming that without any actual source saying so.

I'm aware UKADA are responsible for monitoring our game and I've dealt with them during drug test visits. I've not suggested they aren't the appropriate agency for it.

[Carl Cort's Hamstring]

On 14/02/2017 at 09:30, thisGRAEME said:

It's less this side of it that bothers me, tbh. If you're thick enough to get popped for taking recreational drugs as a footballer, then you probably deserve it.

In terms of taking performance enhancing drugs...the opportunities, and potential rewards, are absolutely massive for both clubs and individual players. 

Did Simon Mensing not get done a couple of years ago for a nasal spray or something?

Mensing got done for a dietary supplement. IIRC he was quite unfortunate, in that he checked with the club doctor and the retailer before buying it, and the substance he tested positive for wasn't listed as an ingredient.

It's about 10 years old now, but I had football investigative journalism book by the BBC, and it had a big section on drugs testing in British football. The conclusions were that (at that time at least) you either had to be astonishingly unlucky or very stupid to be caught doping in football, as there was so little testing and procedures were so lax.

I just don't believe that football takes doping seriously. The money involved at the top level is enormous, and yet hardly anyone ever gets caught. Players will dive and feign injury on the pitch. Off the pitch, clubs will flout financial rules, avoid tax and make illegal payments during transfers. It's just improbable that, with the rewards involved, everyone draws the line at PEDs. Even if we assume the clubs are innocent, does that mean that there are no players looking for that extra help to recover from an injury? No squad players trying to find an extra 5% to get into the team?

Since 1992, 47 teams have played in the Premier League, and over 3,000 different players. Only Abel Xevier has been found guilty of using performance enhancing drugs (and he was caught by UEFA).

[Skyline Drifter]

1 hour ago, Carl Cort's Hamstring said:

Mensing got done for a dietary supplement. IIRC he was quite unfortunate, in that he checked with the club doctor and the retailer before buying it, and the substance he tested positive for wasn't listed as an ingredient.

It's about 10 years old now, but I had football investigative journalism book by the BBC, and it had a big section on drugs testing in British football. The conclusions were that (at that time at least) you either had to be astonishingly unlucky or very stupid to be caught doping in football, as there was so little testing and procedures were so lax.

I just don't believe that football takes doping seriously. The money involved at the top level is enormous, and yet hardly anyone ever gets caught. Players will dive and feign injury on the pitch. Off the pitch, clubs will flout financial rules, avoid tax and make illegal payments during transfers. It's just improbable that, with the rewards involved, everyone draws the line at PEDs. Even if we assume the clubs are innocent, does that mean that there are no players looking for that extra help to recover from an injury? No squad players trying to find an extra 5% to get into the team?

Since 1992, 47 teams have played in the Premier League, and over 3,000 different players. Only Abel Xevier has been found guilty of using performance enhancing drugs (and he was caught by UEFA).

Mamadou Sakho? He successfully appealed it after the event on the grounds of dodgy science but he was initially caught and served a ban.

[Carl Cort's Hamstring]

6 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said:

Mamadou Sakho? He successfully appealed it after the event on the grounds of dodgy science but he was initially caught and served a ban.

My mistake. Two players. Still suspiciously low.

[thisGRAEME]

1 hour ago, Carl Cort's Hamstring said:

I just don't believe that football takes doping seriously. The money involved at the top level is enormous, and yet hardly anyone ever gets caught. Players will dive and feign injury on the pitch. Off the pitch, clubs will flout financial rules, avoid tax and make illegal payments during transfers. It's just improbable that, with the rewards involved, everyone draws the line at PEDs. Even if we assume the clubs are innocent, does that mean that there are no players looking for that extra help to recover from an injury? No squad players trying to find an extra 5% to get into the team?

Since 1992, 47 teams have played in the Premier League, and over 3,000 different players. Only Abel Xevier has been found guilty of using performance enhancing drugs (and he was caught by UEFA).

Aye, I was sure the mensing one wasn't some great conspiracy.

I'm in full agreement though, when you start looking at the sheer numbers, as you've pointed out, and we're meant to believe that across Europe as a whole, there's a handful of guys getting done while competing in probably the richest leagues in sport? 

Given the prevalence of it in other sports which offer nothing like the reward, footballers are just more virtuous humans? 

Reading things about the Milan Lab, and watching Messi play sixty games a year? Barcelona, Munich and Dortmund, among others, running full pace for 90 minutes? Nah, not for me.

[Monkey Tennis]

19 minutes ago, thisGRAEME said:

Aye, I was sure the mensing one wasn't some great conspiracy.

I'm in full agreement though, when you start looking at the sheer numbers, as you've pointed out, and we're meant to believe that across Europe as a whole, there's a handful of guys getting done while competing in probably the richest leagues in sport? 

Given the prevalence of it in other sports which offer nothing like the reward, footballers are just more virtuous humans? 

Reading things about the Milan Lab, and watching Messi play sixty games a year? Barcelona, Munich and Dortmund, among others, running full pace for 90 minutes? Nah, not for me.

The incentives for individuals must be greater now too, not just in terms of the financial rewards, but in terms of the ways in which a player's athleticism is measured, analysed and recorded in training and in matches.