Thiago Alcantara

[Barrington Womble]

1 hour ago, Code said:

Yes nandrolone, to be fair though, back in those days you could get that in your system from dietary supplements you thought were legal to use as they were not on the doping list. 

That wasn't what happened with him though. He was cheating and it took years to get away on a technicality. It's why he fits city so well. 

[Code]

1 hour ago, TheHowieLama said:

 

Is that what he did do you think?

Yes I abslutely think so, it was found in creatin as an example. 

[No2]

1 minute ago, Code said:

Yes I abslutely think so, it was found in creatin as an example. 

Mad that hundreds of players weren't testing positive. 

[TheHowieLama]

Deco had a similar "misunderstanding".

[Code]

1 hour ago, Barrington Womble said:

That wasn't what happened with him though. He was cheating and it took years to get away on a technicality. It's why he fits city so well. 

This is in line with what I wrote.

 

Why so many positives for nandrolone?

So what caused all the nandrolone positives? A phenomena as rare as “unstable” urine could surely not have accounted for so many failed tests.

In 1999, some 33 British athletes tested positive for nandrolone which was a 65 per cent increase on the previous year. Between 1999 and mid-2001 there were more than 600 positives worldwide.

Despite arguments, amongst others, that the spate of positive tests were because of the body’s natural production of nandrolone, the likely reason was predictably more sinister. Prohormones were banned by the International Olympic Committee in 1999, the year the wave of positives began. 

Sportingintelligence spoke to Professor Christiane Ayotte, President of the World Association of Anti‐Doping Scientists, who believed this to be “undoubtedly” the cause.

“The reason for all these cases were undoubtedly, the presence on the market of dietary supplements containing what the industry referred to as “prohormones”, precursors of nandrolone such as norandrostenedione, norandrostenediol and isomers between 1995 – 2005,” she says.

Prohormones were introduced into the fitness supplement market by the US chemist Patrick Arnold in 1996. Arnold developed the designer steroid THG, also known as “the clear”, that lay at the centre of the BALCO drug scandal that uncovered the extent of track queen Marion Jones’ drug use, amongst others.

Prohormones are referred to by athletes and bodybuilders as substances that are expected to convert to active hormones in the body. The intent is to provide the benefits of taking anabolic steroids without the associated legal risks, and to achieve the hoped-for benefits or advantages without use of the steroids themselves.

With prohormones, Patrick Arnold used a legal loophole that allowed the marketing of anabolic steroids as long as they were previously unknown compounds (not listed on the banned substances list). 

Arnold’s prohormone androstenedione was quickly followed by a number of other similar substances. They all had different effects, some being converted to testosterone in the body, but it was norandrostenedione and norandrostenediol that converted to the anabolic hormone nandrolone – the source of the positive tests?

These supplements were legally sold over the counter worldwide. While banned in professional sport, this was a contributing factor in their widespread use.

The sale of prohormones was banned as part of the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2004. From then on they were deemed anabolic steroids. The act states that “the term ‘anabolic steroid’ means any drug or hormonal substance, chemically and pharmacologically related to testosterone (other than estrogens, progestins, corticosteroids and dehydroepiandrosterone).” Apart from the definition, the document listed the presently known prohormones.

As prohormones could no longer be bought over the counter the number of positive nandrolone tests dwindled, almost immediately. Prohormones were manufactured solely for the fitness world – they never had a medical use.

http://www.sportingintelligence.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Nandrolone-graphic.jpg

.

The issue of responsibility

While this was surely the cause of the positive tests, the nandrolone epidemic was worsened by lax quality controls at the time surrounding dietary supplements. “Since the quality controls were absent, other products from the same manufacturers/distributors that were not labelled as such, were containing these steroids (prohormones),” Professor Ayotte says.

The issue of responsibility returns. Did some athletes unknowingly take supplements containing precursors to nandrolone? How many knew they did? Did Sharapova know meldonium was banned? Once again culpability is irrelevant when it comes to a level playing field. Prohormones, whether taken knowingly or not, provide an unfair athletic advantage. 

And herein lies the difficulty the anti-doping authorities face. The results of drugs tests do not “strictly” speak for the motivations or intentions of an athlete.  Drugs can be banned, the playing field can be levelled but when can intent be proven? So many nandrolone positives, so many meldonium positives, so many differing defences yet so few two-year bans – the punishment for a major drug offence.

At what point do excuses become irrelevant? EPO? Nandrolone? Meldonium?  When is a legal drug so potent that athletes are still aware of its unfair performance-enhancing properties? One answer lies in the words of Brigitte Berendonk, an athlete on the East German doping program, when recalling a teammate of hers.

“He talked about the feeling of well being when he was on [a cycle of] his steroids. He would say he felt invincible and that he could tear out a tree with his all its roots; that was his strength. And whenever he walked into the arena he would feel this strong and this powerful. You feel you can beat any competitor when you are doped”.

Anabolic steroids: “legal” once upon a time.

.

Edmund Willison is a journalist and researcher specialising on doping in sport. He works closely with Hajo Seppelt from the German television station, ARD. You can follow him @honestsport_ew

.

https://www.sportingintelligence.com/2017/04/25/sharapova-guardiola-doping-darkness-and-light-250401/

[Barrington Womble]

2 minutes ago, Code said:

This is in line with what I wrote.

 

Why so many positives for nandrolone?

So what caused all the nandrolone positives? A phenomena as rare as “unstable” urine could surely not have accounted for so many failed tests.

In 1999, some 33 British athletes tested positive for nandrolone which was a 65 per cent increase on the previous year. Between 1999 and mid-2001 there were more than 600 positives worldwide.

Despite arguments, amongst others, that the spate of positive tests were because of the body’s natural production of nandrolone, the likely reason was predictably more sinister. Prohormones were banned by the International Olympic Committee in 1999, the year the wave of positives began. 

Sportingintelligence spoke to Professor Christiane Ayotte, President of the World Association of Anti‐Doping Scientists, who believed this to be “undoubtedly” the cause.

“The reason for all these cases were undoubtedly, the presence on the market of dietary supplements containing what the industry referred to as “prohormones”, precursors of nandrolone such as norandrostenedione, norandrostenediol and isomers between 1995 – 2005,” she says.

Prohormones were introduced into the fitness supplement market by the US chemist Patrick Arnold in 1996. Arnold developed the designer steroid THG, also known as “the clear”, that lay at the centre of the BALCO drug scandal that uncovered the extent of track queen Marion Jones’ drug use, amongst others.

Prohormones are referred to by athletes and bodybuilders as substances that are expected to convert to active hormones in the body. The intent is to provide the benefits of taking anabolic steroids without the associated legal risks, and to achieve the hoped-for benefits or advantages without use of the steroids themselves.

With prohormones, Patrick Arnold used a legal loophole that allowed the marketing of anabolic steroids as long as they were previously unknown compounds (not listed on the banned substances list). 

Arnold’s prohormone androstenedione was quickly followed by a number of other similar substances. They all had different effects, some being converted to testosterone in the body, but it was norandrostenedione and norandrostenediol that converted to the anabolic hormone nandrolone – the source of the positive tests?

These supplements were legally sold over the counter worldwide. While banned in professional sport, this was a contributing factor in their widespread use.

The sale of prohormones was banned as part of the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2004. From then on they were deemed anabolic steroids. The act states that “the term ‘anabolic steroid’ means any drug or hormonal substance, chemically and pharmacologically related to testosterone (other than estrogens, progestins, corticosteroids and dehydroepiandrosterone).” Apart from the definition, the document listed the presently known prohormones.

As prohormones could no longer be bought over the counter the number of positive nandrolone tests dwindled, almost immediately. Prohormones were manufactured solely for the fitness world – they never had a medical use.

http://www.sportingintelligence.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Nandrolone-graphic.jpg

.

The issue of responsibility

While this was surely the cause of the positive tests, the nandrolone epidemic was worsened by lax quality controls at the time surrounding dietary supplements. “Since the quality controls were absent, other products from the same manufacturers/distributors that were not labelled as such, were containing these steroids (prohormones),” Professor Ayotte says.

The issue of responsibility returns. Did some athletes unknowingly take supplements containing precursors to nandrolone? How many knew they did? Did Sharapova know meldonium was banned? Once again culpability is irrelevant when it comes to a level playing field. Prohormones, whether taken knowingly or not, provide an unfair athletic advantage. 

And herein lies the difficulty the anti-doping authorities face. The results of drugs tests do not “strictly” speak for the motivations or intentions of an athlete.  Drugs can be banned, the playing field can be levelled but when can intent be proven? So many nandrolone positives, so many meldonium positives, so many differing defences yet so few two-year bans – the punishment for a major drug offence.

At what point do excuses become irrelevant? EPO? Nandrolone? Meldonium?  When is a legal drug so potent that athletes are still aware of its unfair performance-enhancing properties? One answer lies in the words of Brigitte Berendonk, an athlete on the East German doping program, when recalling a teammate of hers.

“He talked about the feeling of well being when he was on [a cycle of] his steroids. He would say he felt invincible and that he could tear out a tree with his all its roots; that was his strength. And whenever he walked into the arena he would feel this strong and this powerful. You feel you can beat any competitor when you are doped”.

Anabolic steroids: “legal” once upon a time.

.

Edmund Willison is a journalist and researcher specialising on doping in sport. He works closely with Hajo Seppelt from the German television station, ARD. You can follow him @honestsport_ew

.

https://www.sportingintelligence.com/2017/04/25/sharapova-guardiola-doping-darkness-and-light-250401/

 

To be honest, I don't really want to read about it. I read plenty of it over the years. There is absolutely nothing that will convince me he's not a cheat at this point. Next you'll be posting why those hacked emails shouldn't be admissable for the city case or even the questions that were later asked based on them. He's a cheat and continues to cheat with every passing day. 

[Code]

19 minutes ago, Barrington Womble said:

 

To be honest, I don't really want to read about it. I read plenty of it over the years. There is absolutely nothing that will convince me he's not a cheat at this point. Next you'll be posting why those hacked emails shouldn't be admissable for the city case or even the questions that were later asked based on them. He's a cheat and continues to cheat with every passing day. 

My point is that loads of athletes tested positive for nandrolone at that time, the fact it was found in supplements you could buy everywhere in shops at the time and it did not say it had nandrolone as one of its ingredients on the box makes it a valid reason for it to happen.

 

It can’t really be compared to City’s cheating. 

[TheHowieLama]

23 minutes ago, Code said:

My point is that loads of athletes tested positive for nandrolone at that time,

 

They actually didn't - the article you posted makes that pretty clear.

 

A few definitely did - including one whose personal doctor had been done for cheating in the exact same way less than a year earlier.

In fact - Guardiola's defense in court was that he had a rare genetic condition - he, of course, did not and the doctor who suggested that was then prosecuted.

He, like City, waited on a technicality.

 

Any medical doctor would have known of the illegality of a prohormone in sport.

 

Notice Sharapova never suggested she was innocent, she also had nothing to do with nandrolone.

[Barrington Womble]

1 hour ago, Code said:

My point is that loads of athletes tested positive for nandrolone at that time, the fact it was found in supplements you could buy everywhere in shops at the time and it did not say it had nandrolone as one of its ingredients on the box makes it a valid reason for it to happen.

 

It can’t really be compared to City’s cheating. 

See below. He's a fucking cheat. He will do anything to have the advantage and has no interest with sport on a level playing field. 

 

1 hour ago, TheHowieLama said:

 

They actually didn't - the article you posted makes that pretty clear.

 

A few definitely did - including one whose personal doctor had been done for cheating in the exact same way less than a year earlier.

In fact - Guardiola's defense in court was that he had a rare genetic condition - he, of course, did not and the doctor who suggested that was then prosecuted.

He, like City, waited on a technicality.

 

Any medical doctor would have known of the illegality of a prohormone in sport.

 

Notice Sharapova never suggested she was innocent, she also had nothing to do with nandrolone.

 

[aws]

I might, might, just about be prepared to give Guardiola the benefit of the doubt about that drug test if ,since that time,  he hadn’t constantly shown himself ready to cheat at every opportunity. 

[No2]

On 18/08/2024 at 14:54, Code said:

My point is that loads of athletes tested positive for nandrolone at that time, the fact it was found in supplements you could buy everywhere in shops at the time and it did not say it had nandrolone as one of its ingredients on the box makes it a valid reason for it to happen.

 

It can’t really be compared to City’s cheating. 

You should read it, it's remarkably like City's cheating. 

 

The whole idea was to build a new drug, that worked exactly as the old drug did but do it using substances not yet banned.

[Code]

Thiago moving back to the UK for tax reasons, maybe thats why he had to quit Barca. 

[an tha]

4 hours ago, Code said:

Thiago moving back to the UK for tax reasons, maybe thats why he had to quit Barca. 

The private healthcare sector are made up.

[Barrington Womble]

4 hours ago, Code said:

Thiago moving back to the UK for tax reasons, maybe thats why he had to quit Barca. 

What the fuck is that all about? To avoid double taxation? 

[Code]

55 minutes ago, Barrington Womble said:

What the fuck is that all about? To avoid double taxation? 

Ill see if I can remember where I read it. 

[dave u]

19 minutes ago, Code said:

Ill see if I can remember where I read it. 

 

Make sure to include screenshots as proof of your workings out.

[aws]

Some kind of reverse-Alonso.  

[Code]

3 minutes ago, dave u said:

 

Make sure to include screenshots as proof of your workings out.

What can a man do when Twitter links are impossible to understand?

[Torvald Utne]

https://www.tribalfootball.com/article/soccer-laliga-barcelona-coach-flick-explains-thiago-exit-as-replacement-named-4249c256-ba07-4db4-8b47-478d809ead72

 

Read this the other day so was an easy search in history. Doesn't say why why, probably exploiting a UK loophole that the Spanish have closed so moving back before he triggers the 6 month rule.

[Code]

Looks like Yahoo were first to report it.

 

https://sports.yahoo.com/thiago-alcantara-return-liverpool-finishing-124600183.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLm5vLw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAMF3q55RUq0N7rsaYcvXjgcpe-xRYPyosKc5iWGcVCr6wnzQi6eHXQB70eRxf4W7fsL0JfNmdGZ31Qgq0Rw6VnbqeIo9XEHechOk-EE9hzlSpY4aMV09NMqdR8VP7JTkwhARK03ppe43Tcxyxdyhgl5_fW4KQzsM-FPMXD_sw3oE
 

https://www.givemesport.com/why-thiago-has-returned-to-liverpool-after-one-month-at-barcelona/
 

https://www.sportbible.com/football/football-news/liverpool/thiago-alcantara-liverpool-return-barcelona-803635-20240819
 

 

[Torvald Utne]

 

Wouldn't be surprised if it's Spain's solidarity wealth tax, 3.5% of his worldwide wealth is probably quite a lot for the workshy man of biscuits