Sakho suspended by Liverpool
- Thread starter Hansern
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
Sooooooooo, we relocate to Boston ?!
See all them there drugs that you talk about, well do they pass through the system unchanged? Surely some of them are metabolised in some way? What makes some drugs harder to detect than others? Is it a simple case of they haven't developed the test for drug X yet, or are there other factors at play?
I've so many questions.
Some drugs are metabolized in the liver or the kidney to different molecules. Other drugs are excreted unchanged. The metabolites that different drugs may change into are all known - and therefore presence of metabolites in blood or urine is what would be used to prove use.
What typically would make a drug difficult to detect is a short half-life, which means it is rapidly eliminated in the body. This reduces the window in which detection can occur. For example, cocaine is only detectable in urine for 3 or 4 days typically whereas marijuana may be detectable for weeks.
Drugs that are perfect for doping are those that are eliminated rapidly from the body and have effects that persist after cessation - so that the athlete can use, reap the benefits and then cease using in advance of anticipated testing while maintaining the benefits.
In some cases testing doesn't exist yet or is costly or otherwise impractical. New compounds are created all the time and it is tough to keep up. Those who use substances will know how long it is detectable and should then be able to quit in time to avoid being caught. Those who get caught are either fucking morons, miscalculated, or were genuinely caught off guard by the test. As testing is governed in collective bargaining agreements in many professional sports, often athletes will either have sufficient notice of a test or will know how many tests per year they will receive, thereby giving them a free pass to use after they've hit their limit.
So the gold standard of PEDs would be one that is metabolised into urea and farts after five minutes but still works its magic for months.
If @dantes was such a genius, he would have created one by now.
If that was in the contract then the club would seriously be considering signing you as a replacement for Sturridge.
Its called water. Performance related waterboarding sessions. Especially for Lucas it should work a dream.
Would the waterboarding stop Lucas from making dodgy tackles near the penalty box?
Yes, almost immediately I would say.
Would hate if my employer had that policy.
Yup, how hard can it be? Surely there's a list of permitted drugs that every player should be made aware of by his club, and there should be a contractual obligation from every player to communicate with the club over any medication that's being taken. Above all it's a health & safety issue, if a player collapses on a pitch, it's in their own best interests for the medical staff to be completely aware of any medical intake.
In addition - occasionally older drugs that never got approval were used. So there was one instance of a steroid that was too toxic for the liver to get approved for general use. Because it was never approved for use, nobody tested for it. But a whole host of athletes were caught later down the line when someone blabbed.
Chelsea did that with Mutu
This is way too simplistic
I also find the notion that he failed a drugs test for taking something that isn't on the banned list to be a bit fanciful.
If its not banned they wouldn't test for it.
Best case scenario is he was taking something that he could/ should have gotten a TUE for.
And i'm pretty sure we banned him ourselves so that when UEFA do ban him they can use our ban date as the start of their ban too
If its not banned they wouldn't test for it.
Best case scenario is he was taking something that he could/ should have gotten a TUE for.
And i'm pretty sure we banned him ourselves so that when UEFA do ban him they can use our ban date as the start of their ban too
How long are we looking at before UEFA give their verdict though? All we know is that they require second sample by Tuesday. If a 2 year ban awaits, then surely opting to play him in the meantime won't make much difference?
It would make a pretty big difference to our sponsors if we continued to play him.
Alex wasnt better than him. It was written a fair bit about how the manager selected central defenders from the same country. Langguage barriers etc. They had 4 Brazilians in defence. Sakho did throw his toys out of the pram mind.
The fans certainly wasnt happy when they sold him.
18 mill was a bit of a mystery though.
That's obviously, hopefully, Jesus Christ please, a JOKE?
They will probably make an example out of this case so they can show the world that they are 100% against doping. Media wrote a month or so that many players use banned substances and if a player like Sakho get anything else than a long ban then the media will bury the FA and UEFA and acuse them of allowing a player that play for a big club get away with it.
Is it normal that it take over a month for the result of a test to be announced?
- Status
