Mirth wrote:

In fairness - who would you pick?

Basically anyone but Kane. Not the best idea to pick a dickhead who cares more about individual awards than his team's success. If you offered him a quarter final exit with a Golden Ball right now he'd tear your arm off for it

Why was Icardi not taken? Is he an unruly character?

I think they have two world class strikers and a world class #10/striker/winger/whatever you want him to be and thought that's enough.

Icardi definitely should have gone over Aguero who's been shocking for Argentina in the last decade or so.

The reason why Icardi was left out is because Messi dislikes him. Good call from Sampaoli. You don't want to mess with your best player's emotions and disrupt the team's chemistry.

And the reason why he's disliked is because of the whole Maxi Lopez affair. Can't have that weighing on the team during the WC

Just read up on the tension.

Wow.

When you weigh it up it's not worth taking him if he causes that much aggro.

It's weird how Messi doesn't like certain players/managers. He comes across as almost characterless at times but then you hear rumours of not enjoying playing with particular people.

Why is that 'weird'? Do you like everyone you've ever worked with?

Peru's captain and striker and national hero Guerrero was banned due to cocaine use, which he says was accidental. His ban was then reduced to six months meaning he could play. CAS appealed and his ban was increased again to 14 months, meaning he misses the tournament.

A few days ago Mile Jedinak, Hugo Lloris and Simon Kjaer - captains of the countries in Peru's group C - wrote to Fifa asking that he be allowed to play. Guerrero even met with Gianni Infantino, but at the moment it seems like he won't be playing. That appears to be a very sporting gesture on behalf of the other captains.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2018/may/22/rival-captains-make-case-to-fifa-for-paolo-guerreros-world-cup-inclusion

Its still on the list of banned substances and its unlikely he took it accidentally.

Oh I'm quite sure he didn't 😆

Just let him play, it makes no difference which is why the other captain ain't afraid.

If they acknowledged it was an accident he should be allowed to play. It's not exactly like you'd expect to find cocaine or any banned substance in your cup of tea. Problem is though as far as drugs are concerned you need to make an example of everyone.

New World Cup sub-forum when?

How do you accidentally take coke?

Cocaine is so cheap nowadays. Someone probably put a fist of it in his teamug as a practical joke.

Clrnc wrote:

Just let him play, it makes no difference which is why the other captain ain't afraid.

You really think that should be taken into consideration when deciding if a player should get to play? Whether or not the player is likely to make a difference and whether or not other players want him to play? I think that sounds ridiculous.

I have no idea what I am talking about, but Peruvians and Bolivians do consume coca leaf as a mild coffee-like stimulant (in tea and in other forms) and I don't know whether consumption of that would lead to a positive result in a drug test.

I once scored positive for heroin in a drug test because I had consumed bread with poppy seeds.

Edit: Just checked and consuming coca leaf tea could result in a positive drug test.

They are ending this guy's career for drinking contaminated “coca tea”, but Messi and Cristiano Ronaldo are 100% clean. 😆

You have anywhere you want to go with that? Have they failed drug tests?

And even if they have done that, why would it be relevant? I really don't see why you insist on making exceptions because just because he's from a little country. One of Norway's best skiers were banned from the Olympics because she used the wrong lip cream on her sunburned lips - that's how it must be. If they didn't ban her, then other people who took the drug could've used the same excuse and you would have to let them go. You have to be incredibly careful.

When Lance Armstrong failed a drug test he said he used a cream to help with sores from the saddle and got away with it.

Most athletes love some juice.

Yeah, I definitely don't think Johaug was innocent. The package for the lip balm was bought by her doctor and was very clearly marked with a red warning label and everything. I reckon it was just a story to explain the trace amounts of steroids they knew the test would show. It made me sad because she's one of my favourite skiers.

Agree with the principle though Quincy - you can't discriminate. Everyone knows what the rules are. Hard lines exist for a reason. Recreative drugs can sometimes be used to mask performance-enhancing stuff too.

Yup - the onus lies with the athlete to be super careful with what they ingest considering it could hamper or ruin their careers.

Livermore escaped a drug ban though when he tested positive for coke. Its not like the rule is absolute since exceptions can be made

speedy wrote:

Most athletes love some juice.

That's exactly my point. The bigger picture. All top athletes, from any sport, are using performance enhancing drugs and we should never put these thieves on a pedestal.

All top athletes are pushing the limits but I think it's obvious that some go further than the rest:

No. of Drug tests undertaken by football anti-doping authorities for 2016. Italy≈2500, UK≈2500, Germany≈2100, France≈600, Spain≈200

Quincy Abeyie wrote:

And even if they have done that, why would it be relevant? I really don't see why you insist on making exceptions because just because he's from a little country. One of Norway's best skiers were banned from the Olympics because she used the wrong lip cream on her sunburned lips - that's how it must be. If they didn't ban her, then other people who took the drug could've used the same excuse and you would have to let them go. You have to be incredibly careful.

I dunno, I think it's all incredibly stupid. I think the whole charade is the way it is in part to cover up performance enhancement, making token examples every now and then.

I mean, coca tea? Lip balm? Who cares? I'm not so certain myself of where the line is. There are so many "medicines" you're allowed to take for whatever reason. When runners get exercise-induced asthma, why isn't that just part of the deal? Why should you be allowed to treat it? It's a failure of the body, some bodies fail quicker than others, isn't that how sport is eventually decided anyway?

I've got no good solution, I just don't know precisely what we're trying to accomplish. Doping isn't so much a question of ethics in the current setup, it's a question of rules and how closely they are followed. That's a problem, I think. The real question should be, what kind of ethical framework are we trying to hold athletes to, how much do we expect them to be able to live normal lives? If we expect them to be extra squeaky clean and be servants to their sport, then we can't make exceptions for comfort or even for safety. The risk has to be part of it, you might keel over. The sores on Lance's ass are part of what has to be endured in an endurance sport.

If it's just about watching people do amazing things, then fuck it. Make 'em as comfortable as possible, and have relatively loose rules that only ban anything that legitimately ruins the spectacle.

Mirth wrote:

All top athletes are pushing the limits but I think it's obvious that some go further than the rest:

No. of Drug tests undertaken by football anti-doping authorities for 2016. Italy≈2500, UK≈2500, Germany≈2100, France≈600, Spain≈200

Problem with this is all of these countries do doping. You can (and probably should) have ten times the amount of drug tests but if you're consistently not looking one certain way it won't make a change to the results of your search. Müller-Wohlfahrt who's the house doctor for the German NT, Bayern Munich, Usain Bolt and hundreds more has come out on record and categorically (and comically) denied there were any PEDs in football because some utter garbage like "the muscles are too heavy and lose elasticity then" and "the batteries become empty after using" 😆 And that's coming from probably the biggest sports doctor in the world, a man who publicly admits that he's prescribing Actovegin to all his athletes a drug that's originally synthesised for ischaemic stroke patients and one which is banned in many countries around the world.

Any and every NADA is first and foremost that, national. In the billion dollar business that is sports there's nobody able to tear a hole in the facade of doping because all national agencies are to an extent in on it and keep their hands over their most prized assets be it charlatans like Müller-Wohlfahrt or Fuentes or their best athletes. Russia was thoroughly exposed because of the current political climate but it's not like any other country is doing it any differently; remember the two page list of "medicine" Serena Williams has to take currently because of her many illnesses apparently or that American teenage gymnastics girl who won like half a dozen gold medals in 2016. Doping has found its way even into niche sports like Curling ffs, of course it's rife in football too and it's going to stay that way. We can condemn it all we want but it's never going to change as long as that sponsorship money keeps flowing in.

Giroud now level with Zidane for France goals at 31, 3 away from Trézéguet and being in their top 3.

Good for him. He won't catch Henry but should beat Trezeguet and hopefully surpass Platini too.

Coombs wrote:

If it's just about watching people do amazing things, then fuck it. Make 'em as comfortable as possible, and have relatively loose rules that only ban anything that legitimately ruins the spectacle.

I disagree with this, under a PEDs free for all, the question would quickly prove to be more about athlete's physical and psychological health than their ethics.

I don't want football or other sports to relentlessly damage professional athletes even more than they already do. The thought of all these men, who we watch ply their trade every week, ravaging their endocrinal systems with steroids and other drugs is disturbing.

jones wrote:

We can condemn it all we want but it's never going to change as long as that sponsorship money keeps flowing in.

True. When you really think about it, sports is one of the biggest lies in the history of humankind. The amount of unwarranted attention these athletes (who can barely articulate their words) get from the media and the fans is absolutely ridiculous, but people don't have anything better to do with their free time and they choose to invest their money and emotions on watching this so called ''spectacle''. Why should I care if Team X/Player X beats Team Y/Player Y or vice versa ?
I remember a post-match interview with Jo-Wilfried Tsonga when he was asked what did he think about the atmosphere to which he replied that he doesn't care because he is playing only for himself. That sums it up. It's fun to watch sports, but it's also beneficial to know what are you actually watching and sometimes look at it from a distance with an ironic approach.

Burnwinter wrote:
Coombs wrote:

If it's just about watching people do amazing things, then fuck it. Make 'em as comfortable as possible, and have relatively loose rules that only ban anything that legitimately ruins the spectacle.

I disagree with this, under a PEDs free for all, the question would quickly prove to be more about athlete's physical and psychological health than their ethics.

I don't want football or other sports to relentlessly damage professional athletes even more than they already do. The thought of all these men, who we watch ply their trade every week, ravaging their endocrinal systems with steroids and other drugs is disturbing.

I probably disagree with it as well. The point is that either way it's going to be extremely damaging and the middle ground is rife with corruption. Isn't health, physical and psychological, the baseline for sport? Isn't that, on some level, what makes one athlete "better" than another?