Sunday Times To Reveal Doping Scandal

[Webbo]

There's obviously something in it. Let's be honest, we all know some sportsmen cheat, if they're doping then there has to be doctors helping them. That doesn't mean this chap isn't exaggerating, he could be talking about something that happened 5 years ago.

 

It's pointless panicking about it, inventing paranoid conspiracy theories. The truth will come out in the long run.

[shawy2510]

Hope it doesn't affect any of the players in the last few games. Carry on as normal until anything is concrete

[cc_star]

This story will have been picked over by a team of top lawyers. It's very unlikely that there's anything suable about it.

Yep, no names. Just clubs mentioned and they state there's no suggestion the clubs mentioned were involved in any way.

People naming names on Twitter etc is a whole different matter though, although much of that muddied by usual international nature of the internet.

[Tuna]

[Itsthejoeker]

Like i said earlier, this is a guy who could potentially lose his licence to practice medicine at a tribunal this week for hiding terminal cancer from a patient just so he could rinse her for expensive nutritional treatment. He is clearly at the point of losing his career and was desperate to win a client. This article has as much merit as your drunk mate telling you how many birds he railed in Magaluf. If the Times had more on this story they wouldn't have protected their back so much when he named the clubs involved.

[Alf Bentley]

This seems to suggest that the allegations were first made 2 years ago (when we were still in the Championship) - and that the government has ordered an inquiry into why the anti-doping body didn't respond back then:

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/apr/03/top-footballers-doped-british-doctor-inquiry

 

I'm sure there will always be the odd player doing something dodgy. I just really hope there's nothing more to it than that - both for our club's sake, and for the sake of football in general.

[Richmondfox]

Like i said earlier, this is a guy who could potentially lose his licence to practice medicine at a tribunal this week for hiding terminal cancer from a patient just so he could rinse her for expensive nutritional treatment. He is clearly at the point of losing his career and was desperate to win a client. This article has as much merit as your drunk mate telling you how many birds he railed in Magaluf. If the Times had more on this story they wouldn't have protected their back so much when he named the clubs involved.

He hasn't got a license to lose.  http://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/apr/03/top-footballers-doped-british-doctor-inquiry 

[Strokes]

Indeed. As I understand it, they have said that this bloke treated unnamed players and have implied that they were treated individually, not sent for treatment by the clubs.

If the players were named, they could sue. If the article said they'd been sent by the clubs, the clubs could sue.....but that doesn't seem to be the case.

 

They could just as easily find a known heroin dealer, video him saying that he's supplied heroin to unnamed people at Buckingham Palace and run the story: "I supplied heroin to Buckingham Palace".

 

If the press have some genuine evidence, implicating particular people, they need to produce it - and presumably will. If this is all they have, the Sunday Times might sell a few more papers today, but it will damage its reputation.

 

Mainly, I just hope that our management are ensuring that no playing or coaching staff are distracted by this (unless there's some genuine substance, of course). Hopefully, that's the case.

Could the clubs in question not sue the doctor and force him to prove his story? The clubs should be able to defend their position, from a legal point of view surely?

[ithuriel]

If it was a major player, with evidence, I doubt they would tip toe around this since it would be major headline news and the other tabloid vultures would be all over it.

Sounds more like a flavour of the moment smear story, with very little substance, (abuse).  

[TheUltimateWinner]

Considering there's already brainless fools commenting on everything related to Leicester about doping, surely the club will be thinking about taking legal actions as their reputation is now tarnished.

[4everfox]

The fact this story isn't even on the sky sports news app tells me there is nothing in this as it would be top of the page if it was worth worrying about.

[Cadno'r Cymoedd]

I think the club's legal team should/could look at sites whose content - I have removed the name of the one I highlighted in light of Webbo's request -  is totally defamatory and a disgrace and if they use a hosting service in the UK as may be the case in light of the domain, then that should be possible. It's a difficult balancing act to know whether to ignore or act - I am sure there will be specialist advisers who will know the lie of the land, not legally necessarily but tactically.

[Webbo]

For legal reasons can we please not mention any specific names.

[richardsfoxes]

"No evidence to backup these claims" - close thread

[The Doctor]

I think the club's legal team should/could look at sites like [redacted] Their site content is totally defamatory and a disgrace and if they use a hosting service in the UK as may be the case in light of the domain, then that should be possible. It's a difficult balancing act to know whether to ignore or act - I am sure there will be specialist advisers who will know the lie of the land, not legally necessarily but tactically.

Christ that site is the pits - clear and obvious allegations of match fixing by referees with no evidence at all to back it up. That'd be a cut and dry defamation case with whoever runs it being absolutely crucified

[Carl the Llama]

This was my first reaction. If it was a major player in the title race there'd be no subtly. It'll turn out to be [redacted in case some legal guy can't take a joke] or [ditto] or something. They're just drumming up hype.

I'm not sure that even matters though.  With the exception of us with our conspiracy paranoia and a few delusional fans of our title rivals (how great is it that that's become a common phrase around here? ) I don't think the general public is all that fussed who did it, but rather that it's something that appears to have been taking place in football and other professional sports in the UK at all.

 

Remove all mention of Leicester from the piece and surely we'd be seeing a lot more posters on here expressing concern that Ukad have let doping offences (albeit relatively minor ones by the sound of it) slip through the net.  I know I don't want professional sportsmen gaining an unfair advantage over their peers through illegal performance enhancing methods even if they are/were some our own players.

 

I can't be the only one concerned at the confirmation that this sort of thing is going on at any scale in our favourite sport, especially in a country that until yesterday prided itself on being entirely fair and above board unlike those nasty cheating Russkies etc.

[Alf Bentley]

Could the clubs in question not sue the doctor and force him to prove his story? The clubs should be able to defend their position, from a legal point of view surely?

 

 

Only if the claim was that the clubs knew a player was doping or that they were breaching doping regulations in some way, I assume.

 

As I understand it, the accusation is that he "treated" individual players and didn't deal with any clubs.

 

If someone falsely accused you, as an individual, of some misdeed, I don't suppose your employer could sue - unless you were representing them at the time, or they were accused of complicity in some way.

The article/video refers to individuals - and not even named individuals, at that.

[sphericalfox]

I'm not sure that even matters though.  With the exception of us with our conspiracy paranoia and a few delusional fans of our title rivals (how great is it that that's become a common phrase around here? ) I don't think the general public is all that fussed who did it, but rather that it's something that appears to have been taking place in football and other professional sports in the UK at all.

 

Remove all mention of Leicester from the piece and surely we'd be seeing a lot more posters on here expressing concern that Ukad have let doping offences (albeit relatively minor ones by the sound of it) slip through the net.  I know I don't want professional sportsmen gaining an unfair advantage over their peers through illegal performance enhancing methods even if they are/were some our own players.

 

I can't be the only one concerned at the confirmation that this sort of thing is going on at any scale in our favourite sport, especially in a country that until yesterday prided itself on being entirely fair and above board unlike those nasty cheating Russkies etc.

 

There's always a minority in any sport, and in any commercial enterprise looking to seek the advantage over colleagues/rivals. It's not a stretch of the imagination that it exists in the Premiership or in the leagues below it. However, the suggestion that it's widespread or it's been overlooked by authorities or the clubs themselves is the tarnishing factor.

 

What clubs or the authorities need to do is ensure that the assurances that they are doing everything they can within reason to stamp it out and punish those caught, to provide the public a clear promise with the facts that it isn't endemic.

[Guest ttfn]

You'd have to be mental to be a top class footballer and dope.

If you got banned for 2 years and cost your club millions of pounds in potential transfer revenue there's a good chance you'd be on the hook for it yourself. Look at Mutu, whose once promising career descended into him desperately trawling around the world looking for short term pay days to pay off his obligations to Chelsea.

[Webbo]

You'd have to be mental to be a top class footballer and dope.

If you got banned for 2 years and cost your club millions of pounds in potential transfer revenue there's a good chance you'd be on the hook for it yourself. Look at Mutu, whose once promising career descended into him desperately trawling around the world looking for short term pay days to pay off his obligations to Chelsea.

What if you needed to dope to become a top class footballer? If you were just a bit short of making it wouldn't you be tempted with all the money and prestige you could earn? 

[Carl the Llama]

There's always a minority in any sport, and in any commercial enterprise looking to seek the advantage over colleagues/rivals. It's not a stretch of the imagination that it exists in the Premiership or in the leagues below it. However, the suggestion that it's widespread or it's been overlooked by authorities or the clubs themselves is the tarnishing factor.

 

What clubs or the authorities need to do is ensure that the assurances that they are doing everything they can within reason to stamp it out and punish those caught, to provide the public a clear promise with the facts that it isn't endemic.

How often do you hear about people caught and convicted for it though?  The only British footballer currently banned by Ukad is for cocaine use, not performance enhancers, so if it's as inevitable that a small number of people do it as you say (and I don't recall many people having that opinion about top level football before yesterday) then that can only mean we need to be a bit more concerned about the efficiency of the agency that's supposedly in charge of stopping it and ensuring fair competition.

[Benji]

Absolutely baffling that a newspaper can name drop a few clubs with no evidence whatsoever.  I hope the club react strongly to this.  Without a doubt the ST's lawyers will have been all over this but it's quite clear the purpose of naming four clubs is to add weight to the story.  Fortunately defamation includes implication, which is quite clearly the tactic here.  What else could they possibly be hoping to achieve by name dropping the club other than by implying our players dope?  Look at the BBC website and you'll see no mention of the clubs.  They're sensible; report the story not the rumour.

[Guest ttfn]

What if you needed to dope to become a top class footballer? If you were just a bit short of making it wouldn't you be tempted with all the money and prestige you could earn?

Yeah you could be tempted, if you were mental.

Mutu's fine was about 4-5 years' salary.

Also football is not a sport that lends itself particularly well to doping in that:

A) It's a team sport

B) it's a highly technical sport

That's not to say it doesn't go on (I'm pretty sure it does) but I do think you would have to be pretty stupid to go after marginal gains like that of your own accord given the extraordinary financial exposure you could face.

[Alf Bentley]

Interesting bit in this Indy article: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/premier-league-footballers-drugs-ukad-150-sportsmen-cycling-england-cricket-international-a6965761.html

 

Suggests that, back in 2014, an athlete under investigation told the doping agency that Dr. Bonar was doping (the reason for the government inquiry into UKAD inaction, I presume).

The athlete gave them 100 names of people involved in doping, including 69 sports professionals (doesn't specify which sports).

 

UKAD (anti-doping agency) claim that they could do nothing more as the athlete didn't provide any evidence and it had no other intelligence about this. Does sound a bit complacent not to have investigated further, if they were given names (even if they turned out to be false accusations).

[gdl9050]

Mutu got banned for taking cocaine. Not performance enhancing