Heroes & Villains, the Aston Villa fanzine
Heroes & Villains => Heroes Discussion => Topic started by: dave.woodhall on September 12, 2011, 08:17:01 PM
-
Let's start this one again, and this time without the stories from mates of mates about footballers with expensive lawyers. You know you can do it.
-
C4 are reporting that the player is Garry O'Connor whilst at Blues- if he is the "top player" then I'm disappointed. The programme also showed Eck talking about him being off due to having an operation. To me this reflected badly on Eck. It could be argued he was a bare faced liar.
-
Can we name everyone on the Dispatches programme?
-
What happened to the other thread? To be fair if blues told mcleish to lie what can he do?
-
It's been pubic knowledge about O'Connor for months? He was arrested wasn't he?
You only had to watch the useless bugger play to work out he was hepped up on goofballs.
-
These people ain't top players what a let down
-
That Player A is always in trouble, nearly as badly as Mr X.
-
It's been pubic knowledge about O'Connor for months? He was arrested wasn't he?
Twice.
-
What is the point in an investigation designed to expose the cheats in our game when it refers to the cheaters as "player A"? An absolute waste of an hour of the life of everyone who watched that programme imo. The players get away with it once again it seems. When will we have a programme that names and shames these players?
-
C4 are reporting that the player is Garry O'Connor whilst at Blues- if he is the "top player" then I'm disappointed. The programme also showed Eck talking about him being off due to having an operation. To me this reflected badly on Eck. It could be argued he was a bare faced liar.
It's also possible that the club used the imposed drug ban to have the described operation.
Either way, who really cares. I'm surprised that all these interviewed fans think that the players should be named and shamed. My personal view is that these "secret" bans are a pretty effective way of punishing the player whilst allowing him the opportunity to kick any addictions. I also think that this way does not glamorise drugs in anyway whereas I fear that releasing names and the follow up interview with shamed premier league player would just raise cocaine's profile even further.
-
It was public knowledge about O'Conner. I hope he kept the receipt for whatever he brought.
-
Much hype, little of real groundbreaking news, much ado.....................
-
so it is not worth watching then.
-
Total waste of time. Zero revelations of interest.
-
Dispatches is a very poor man's Panarama.
-
Total waste of time. Zero revelations of interest.
And the host came across as a bit of an arse as well.
-
Media - all image, no content. What a shabby programme.
-
Love it!
-
Watched it when I knew it was one of Small Heath players being done for taking the Colombian marching powder I just thought I would have to take drugs to play for that lot.
-
I was struck by the difference in the interpretation of the term, 'inconclusive'. It was used in the letters to the FA from the professor in charge of the labs which processed the tests.
He said that his expectation after he wrote this in a report was that more tests would be carried out on the player concerned for him to come to a definite conclusion. However, it seems that the FA read 'inconclusive' as 'That's all right then, nothing happening here, move on,' and didn't follow up at all.
It couldn't really be that daft, could it? Players getting away with it because of a misinterpretation of a word?
-
Young men loads of cash time on hands and party lifestyles ......... Are we really suprised
-
I'll give anyone £100 if they can prove that the England team has been taking performance enhancing drugs.
-
C4 are reporting that the player is Garry O'Connor whilst at Blues- if he is the "top player" then I'm disappointed. The programme also showed Eck talking about him being off due to having an operation. To me this reflected badly on Eck. It could be argued he was a bare faced liar.
I agree
I thought it reflected badly on Mcleish but surprisingly those wearing the ginger specs on here fail to see it because daring to critisize a manager who lied about one of his players being injured because of a drugs ban means that you are not a real supporter.
-
Was Graham Taylor equally wrong then for lying about Paul MGrath when he was absent for being pissed or receiving treatment for his addiction?
I reckon 99% of managers would do all they could to protect their player in similar circumstances.
-
Total waste of time. Zero revelations of interest.
And the host came across as a bit of an arse as well.
You guys watch the Buck house thing too?
-
I agree
I thought it reflected badly on Mcleish but surprisingly those wearing the ginger specs on here fail to see it because daring to critisize a manager who lied about one of his players being injured because of a drugs ban means that you are not a real supporter.
It would be easier to take some people's opinions at face value if it wasn't clear that they have agendas of their own.
As Chris said, I don't think you'd have many people on here criticising Taylor for how he handled McGrath, so why all of a sudden is McLeish in the wrong for (presumably, nobody really knows) trying to protect a troubled player?
-
I'll give anyone £100 if they can prove that the England team has been taking performance enhancing drugs.
OR Emile Heskey?
-
C4 are reporting that the player is Garry O'Connor whilst at Blues- if he is the "top player" then I'm disappointed. The programme also showed Eck talking about him being off due to having an operation. To me this reflected badly on Eck. It could be argued he was a bare faced liar.
That turn of phrase always makes me smile too. Very Fox News-esque. "Well I'm not calling him a liar, but it could be argued that he is".
-
Turned off halfway through having found nothing of any interest up to that point. Comments about the presenter spot on, it was very Brass Eye at times.
-
Total waste of time. Zero revelations of interest.
YESTERDAY:
Should be worth watching.
I bet you it isn't. It'll be "isn't it shocking" but fail to deliver names. Which surely is the point of this.
Another thing that's corrupt in our game.
-
C4 are reporting that the player is Garry O'Connor whilst at Blues- if he is the "top player" then I'm disappointed. The programme also showed Eck talking about him being off due to having an operation. To me this reflected badly on Eck. It could be argued he was a bare faced liar.
That turn of phrase always makes me smile too. Very Fox News-esque. "Well I'm not calling him a liar, but it could be argued that he is".
Besides which, as mentioned in The Grauniad this morning, it is FA policy not to name players caught using recreational drugs, so McLeish was doing what the FA would have wanted him to do.
-
I just think this idea of not going public is dodging the issue and basically a PR stunt to avoid tarnishing the "image of the game". if you take the example of Matt Stevens in rugby he has been made an example of but now (hopefully) successfully rehabilitated. frnakly I think football is in denial about a problem which exists.
-
It is an affront to other sportsmen that footballers can get away with failing or avoiding drug tests. Cycling gets hauled over the coals for every minor misdemeanour
-
The thing about cycling is there are so many misdemeanours to choose from, unfortunately.
-
Not compared to football, over the last couple of years, it would appear.
-
It is an affront to other sportsmen that footballers can get away with failing or avoiding drug tests. Cycling gets hauled over the coals for every minor misdemeanour
I think there is a big difference between "recreational drugs" and performance enhancing drugs. The more I think about it the more I think the FA are doing the right thing by not naming those who fail drugs tests for "recreational drugs". They are punished by receiving a ban, and it allows them and the club to organise some help for them, rather then kick them out of the sport.
-
Dispatches is a very poor man's Panarama.
And is Panarama a very poor man's Panorama?
-
the documentary tried its best to make you feel outraged that players who get caught using recreational drugs usually aren't 'named and shamed' by their clubs and the media. I found myself not giving a toss. I mean, who would that benefit other than tabloids and their voyeuristic readership?
Its hard to argue with the anti doping people saying the testing system for performance enhancing drugs should be better, however.
-
It's utter crap, the whole argument about how the fans, being the customer, have a right to know if a player fails a drugs test. If it happened to me in my job, I'm pretty sure the company wouldn't tell my clients, so what's the difference? And the whole "role model" thing is a load of nonsense too.
-
Exactly right, Ger. Any parents who's kid sees Gary O'connor as a role model need to have a look at their own parenting!
-
It's utter crap, the whole argument about how the fans, being the customer, have a right to know if a player fails a drugs test. If it happened to me in my job, I'm pretty sure the company wouldn't tell my clients, so what's the difference? And the whole "role model" thing is a load of nonsense too.
Not sure I agree. When a player takes advertising money for endorsements he's putting himself in the shop window. I suspect a number of top players have significant income streams for endorsements and image rights as its part of Brand Premiership.
That turn of phrase always makes me smile too. Very Fox News-esque. "Well I'm not calling him a liar, but it could be argued that he is".
My feeble attempt to keep the thread 100% libel free. i am not sure if Eck is a bare faced liar but the way he was shown in the programme might suggest to some that he is.
-
Don't really agree with the sponsorship argument. Rooney is hardly the most clean cut of characters and his face is everywhere, so I don't think this sort or personal issue would really affect most players appeal to sponsors.
-
Big Ron claims there was two players using recreational drugs during his time as villa boss. He kept schtum, only mentioning after he left, and as far as I know, he's never named them
-
Big Ron claims there was two players using recreational drugs during his time as villa boss. He kept schtum, only mentioning after he left, and as far as I know, he's never named them
Hmmmm.
-
Not compared to football, over the last couple of years, it would appear.
Not if that documentary is anything to go by.
-
Big Ron claims there was two players using recreational drugs during his time as villa boss. He kept schtum, only mentioning after he left, and as far as I know, he's never named them
Hmmmm.
I assumed one of these was a Scottish center forward that we had on loan for a short spell, who was found out later to be very fond of the old devils dandruff.
-
Big Ron claims there was two players using recreational drugs during his time as villa boss. He kept schtum, only mentioning after he left, and as far as I know, he's never named them
Hmmmm.
I assumed one of these was a Scottish center forward that we had on loan for a short spell, who was found out later to be very fond of the old devils dandruff.
No, and please don't ask anymore.
-
Big Ron claims there was two players using recreational drugs during his time as villa boss. He kept schtum, only mentioning after he left, and as far as I know, he's never named them
Hmmmm.
I assumed one of these was a Scottish center forward that we had on loan for a short spell, who was found out later to be very fond of the old devils dandruff.
No, and please don't ask anymore.
I didn't ask, I said "I assumed.." as in, since I heard that years ago I have always assumed he was one of the two.
-
Dispatches is a very poor man's Panarama.
And is Panarama a very poor man's Panorama?
Either that or a Panamanian Bananarama tribute act.
-
Following the re examination of George Osborne's social life twenty years ago the very valid point was made yesterday that the consensus of medical research into the most dangerous drugs in Britain on a percentage basis rated smoking 48 alcohol 32 heroin 10 cocaine 6 marijuana 3 and ecstasy 1.
The only real difference between Berbatov smoking tobacco and "player A" using cocaine is the the government makes a lot of money out of tobacco so it is not regarded as a drug at all while cocaine (which was a standard dental treatment anaesthetic when I was a lad) makes them nothing. The sooner we get politicians with the foresight and guts to legalize drug use the better but it is going to be a long long wait.
-
The "Drugs in football" argument is frequently misrepresented.
I am aware of no study which suggests that marijuana or cocaine, the two leading recreational drugs, have any performance enhancing effect on footballers.I believe that both drugs are used by some footballers, but with no positive performance effect.
The largely disappointing "Dispatches" highlighted the area of performance enhancing drugs both in terms of individual use, but more worryingly, the complicity of clubs in their use.
The Rio Ferdinand ban (for missing a drugs test, not for drugs use) flagged up concern in this area some years ago.How Rio forgot AND his club could not find him has never been satisfactorally explained.Although I wholly accept that the Authorities were satisfied that there was no wrong doing on the part of Rio or Man u - it did raise the hypothetical scnario of how clubs and players might collude to thwart drugs tests.