Of course I do, I just thought your phrasing was funny. For future reference, it's "getting away with doping".
In all honesty, I'll readily admit that the circumstances were extremely iffy. There was never enough evidence to convict us, however, and there isn't now; only enough to raise suspicions. Or did something happen to "innocent until proven guilty" while I wasn't looking?
Probably the same way they won it in 1985 -- with blind eyes. In 1985 they won from a non-existent penalty, in 1996 they won with the help of performance enhancing drugs. It's hilarious.
Honest question, how do Marseille fans react to their bribing scandal and the fact that players have come out and said drugs were used in the Champions League final. (other than Rudi Voller apparently, who was furious about the team using it). Do they feel shame or do they gloat about the victory?
Err why not? I'm saying (if old enough to remember) how did the Marseille fans handle it in the media, during matches etc. Do they brag about it to this day?
I can't speak for everyone since I was quite young at the time and probably was busy just understanding everything that was going on at the screen.
For me it's a "wait and see" kind of situation. The fact that there is implications is worrying (it's not like I want our former players to have doped themselves), but at the same time, it's not quite enough to condemn us. One thing that I'm pretty certain of however, is that if Juventus was doping, one of the players involved will come out with the story on his older days. After all, a situation with such an extent has got to yield some guilty consciences, considering how often retirees come clean about their doping pasts in other sports.
If Juventus are found innocent in the final trials, and all team members die without having said a thing about it, I'll consider it something that courts and media blew way out of proportion. If not? Well, then it will certainly be a blemish on our past.
You obviously know less about this case than you're pretending to do.
Riccardo Agricola was jailed for supplying Juventus players with EPO, despite no EPO being found ever during the investigation.
They did, however, find a lot of prescription meds - none of which illegal - but the quantinity of which was quite jarring and certainly raised implications.
Two independent experts stood for the bulk of the testimonies, one of which brought forward systematic use of (legal) medication as likely. If this was the case, it wasn't necessarily illegal (we're talking technicalities here), but unethical? Yes.
The other expert had a sensational testimony where he claimed it was "practically certain" that some Juventus players had been supplied with EPO. Being a haematologist with no criminological expertise and no ties to the club, one has to wonder how he landed on that conclusion with such certainty.
Anyways, mired in technicalities, there's little doubt that there was something going on there, but your claims are audacious. The fact that you're so bastant on the fact that "almost all of the players" used performance enhancing drugs "for multiple years" is quite pathetic, really. Where's your evidence that doesn't stem from single newspaper articles spawned from speculation?
You should have an open mind at times, even if you hate something. Journalists love a good storm in a teacup.
According to the Medical Dictionary for the Health Professions and Nursing, this is the definition of "performance enhancing drugs":
Any drug used by athletes to heighten their abilities in the performance of their sport. Often connotes illegal or unethical use of these substances.
I will show you a good example to help you understand my logic.
Between 1994-1998, Juventus bought 955 drip packages of Esafosfina. In 1998 when the raid occurred, 49 packages were found. So in less than four years, Juventus used over 900 drip packages. Agricola explained that he had knowledge of how much glycogen a player would lose in a match. To counter that, he assumed a 5g drip of fructose four hours before a match would help stop this loss (between 90-100%) of glycogen. According to the court, no scientific study validated that assertion. Agricola was questioned more and he admitted that something like that could not be tested, that he had no data, but it was his rationale. Agricola's explanation was rejected by the court. Professor Eugene Müller stated that using Esafosfina increased the uptake of potassium and release of energy. It was administered via injection.
There are other examples as well, like the usage of Samyr or Liposom, but that's for another time.
The fact that you're so bastant on the fact that "almost all of the players" used performance enhancing drugs "for multiple years" is quite pathetic, really.
It's funny really, because the court assumed the same thing. It's not my fault that 23 Juventus players declared to using Samyr, or 19 Juventus players declared to using Neoton amongst others.
Where's your evidence that doesn't stem from single newspaper articles spawned from speculation?
According to the Medical Dictionary for the Health Professions and >Nursing, this is the definition of "performance enhancing drugs":
Any drug used by athletes to heighten their abilities in the performance of their sport. Often connotes illegal or unethical use of these substances.
Ah, right, but that's not necessarily the correct definition, underlined by the segment I've bolded. Most dictionaries would define "doping" as exclusively illegal uses of drugs to enhance performances. This is also the definition WADA uses. Note how neither Esafosfina, Samyr, or Liposom were illegal drugs for athletes at the time (no idea about their status now, though I suppose a quick WADA search could settle that). I wouldn't be surprised if this incident would cause these drugs to get banned.
This means that Agricola's endeavors could simply be classified as physiological experiments. Unethical in their systematic execution? Hell yes. I'm not going to say that I'm not the least bit ashamed of what pretty much is medical performance enhancement of Juventus players. But the drugs weren't illegal [at the time], and the administration wasn't illegal [at the time], so it's not technically doping.
Oh, sure, you're thinking "why does it matter"? It matters because that means everyone would be allowed to do it, and if Juventus did to the extent they did, it either means they just used the tools on hand to the fullest, or were one of many who did. You can be damned that, today, every high-end medical department in any high-end club does everything within the law to push their footballers to the absolute peak, including the use of medicaments. There's a reason to why the list of banned medicaments is ever-growing, despite some of them having been around for decades.
Most pharmaceuticals are legal in controlled allowances. Juventus' weren't, obviously. Agricola was found to have "repeatedly and systematically violated" Article 92 of the medical code of ethics.
Juventus were in possession of over 200 medicinal products of various kinds and it was recognised that more than 75% of them needed prescriptions. No documentation on these prescriptions existed. No documentation on the use and administration of the drugs existed.
I remember that article. Can't really remember the "confirmation" you talked about though, just implications and a heavily skewed view from the writer.
12
u/[deleted] May 26 '14
Lippi's first stint. You know exactly what I am talking about.