Doping in sport

Am I being thick here. I don't get that stat at the botttom FB

Screen Shot 2015-08-10 at 13.19.50.png


Is that 32 tests in total between 107 drivers or 32 tests in a year on each of the 107 drivers?

So either the FIA over all 27 championships, 300 odd races? carried out just 32 tests on what? 600 odd drivers.
or
they are testing 107 individual drivers 32 times in a season. Which must be at least twice per race weekend?

Either way I'm confused.
 
Am I being thick here. I don't get that stat at the botttom FB

View attachment 9947

Is that 32 tests in total between 107 drivers or 32 tests in a year on each of the 107 drivers?

So either the FIA over all 27 championships, 300 odd races? carried out just 32 tests on what? 600 odd drivers.
or
they are testing 107 individual drivers 32 times in a season. Which must be at least twice per race weekend?

Either way I'm confused.

That is confusing.

Twice per race weekend would make sense, post-quali and post-race. But I would think that would be really irritating too.

On the other hand, their 107 drivers may be the number of drivers since they've instituted drug tests, and in those 107 drivers, only 32 tests have been performed. It doesn't sound as bad as 32 tests on 600 odd drivers, and makes sense when you consider that drug testing is a relatively recent thing.
 
I'm not sure when they started drug-testing in motorsport but it can't be that recent because I distinctly remember reading something about N Mansell at a French GP in 1989 or 1990 being unable to provide a sample because he was so dehydrated after the race he just couldn't do it, even after downing a litre of water to try and do the deed.

EDIT Actually now that I think of it I also remember something that's been somewhat forgotten about now. There was some kind of running controversy propagated by the tabloid press in Britain around the mid-1987 period with all sorts of stupid rumours floating around at the time around the time of the British GP which centred around Mansell.

Someone had started a rumour that Nigel's transformation at the end of 1985 from journeyman with the occasional flash of speed into world-beater might have been due to something a bit more consequential than sheer progress. Some in the trash press considered Nigel's sudden improvement in 1985, combined it with his instances of occasional erratic behaviour (Spa 1987) and put two and two together and next thing you know there were allegations of stimulant abuse flying around all over the place. It didn't help that the Williams garage at the British GP had prominent "No Flash photography Please" banners, something that was picked up upon by those who were spreading those rumours (amphetime-based drug users are particularly sensitive to flashing lights).

The whole thing was probably a load of old tabloid cobblers but it did create a lot of publicity at the time. Maybe the publicity generated by that episode was in some responsible for the increase in doping awareness in motorsport and more stringent drug tests?
 
Last edited:
While I wouldn't like to believe they'd condone it either, the important thing with regards to whether people do get drug-tested is whether someone, for a credible reason, believes a competitor has cheated in some way. Personally, I suspect the rule about no flash photography in their garage had more to do with hiding technical secrets than driver secrets - they may well have been skirting the technical rules a bit, because there's no such thing as a competitive racing team that doesn't. However, an accusation like Incubus described is more than sufficient for a ruling body to look into it, I suspect.
 
And you think all the sudden improvements in British cycling, swimming and gymnastics are all down to bloody hard work?
 
And you think all the sudden improvements in British cycling, swimming and gymnastics are all down to bloody hard work?

Interesting FB, do you think these British sports are illegally dope-fuelled too? I think every sports association will take advantage of performance enhancing drugs – until they're illegal – which is fine in my view. Just wondering if you think 'we' have suppressed adverse findings or not.
 
You only have to looked at the chequered past of many of the coaches involved in these sports to realise that they only know one way to win.
 
I think it's all rubbish. I tried doping once and I can tell you, covering yourself in a waterproofing varnish did not make me run faster.
 
But it wold have made you swim like a fish cider_and_toast!

FB - still interested, I'll dig into this and come back to you. I know there was widespread dopng in athletics and cycling some while ago, but thought it had died down to a large degree...
 
I won't post any more than this as I don't want to offend anyone but simply to say I do not believe professional cycling is a clean sport and for the Team Sky riders to beat those who are doping they either must be super men or doping as well. I believe the same to be true of swimming, gymnastics and a whole host of other sports.

As to my post, these guys recently stepped down from the coaching staff at Team Sky:

The move comes as Sky continue to shuffle their team management after directeur sportif Steven de Jongh and race coach Bobby Julich resigned their positions as the team re-examined its zero-tolerance anti-doping policy. Both De Jongh and Julich confessed to having used drugs in their racing careers.
 
"Recently"?
Julich and De Jongh left Team Sky in 2012.
Feel free to make a final comment and flounce away while looking down from your high horse if you wish, FB but it's best done when playing the best cards.
 
Back
Top Bottom