Players out drinking

[Ser Barristan Selmy 222]

Alcohol reduces hand tremors... That's why it's used for darts and sometimes for shooting. It can also reduce performance anxiety.

And who is prescribing this exactly?

Edited July 28, 2015 by Ser Barristan Selmy

[pete 2,494]

Just thought I'd mention this thread was about Rangers beating Hibs 6-2. Seems to have turned into a medical tutorial about the demon drink.

[Zappa 0]

Warburton has gone on record after being asked about the photo , stating that people should do their research as " its a few months old " .

 

Well that's that then.

[calscot 0]

OK, my sincere apologies. Perhaps I should have qualified it with alcohol is one of the most neurotoxic and destructive substances that gets ingested by humans on a regular basis.

 

As has been pointed it, that's just meaningless, sensationalist rhetoric. I would contend that food is more destructive than alcohol and it's overuse is killing or adversely affecting the lives of far more people. Doesn't mean we shouldn't eat.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/mar/07/safe-level-alcohol-consumption

 

You want to quote the Guardian? I have read so many articles in that tabloid rag where I know something about the subject, and it is always biased, twisted rubbish. It's not a newspaper, it's a propaganda vehicle. For instance, they often wheel out their anti-British, anti-armed forces, anti-Rangers Sinn Fien, "political expert".

 

You just have to read that article and recognise how it's worded to see it has an agenda and is pulling the wool over your eyes.

 

He says

 

"...one of the other experts, a public health doctor, asserted that alcohol should be treated differently from tobacco (and by inference other drugs) because there is no safe dose of tobacco whereas alcohol is safe until a person's drinking gets to 'unsafe' levels"

 

Which he then influences his audience by rubbishing it with:

 

"The myth of a safe level of drinking is a powerful claim." Yes let's just completely ignore the "expert" he just quoted.

 

So he goes on:

 

"There is no safe dose of alcohol for these reasons:"

 

1.

 

The first is that it kills germs... (hmm seems to be trying to align alcohol with domestos and/or implying, if it kills germs it kills people, while conveniently ignoring the killing of germs part saves people all the time in surgery etc.)

 

Then that 4 times the legal limit *CAN* kill a human. (Here they give a link which actually goes to an erroneous, nothing page.) What is the likelihood? Well it doesn't matter does it. If something CAN kill, it must be bad. It's kind of like saying there is no safe driving speed as driving kills flies and an impact at 40mph CAN kill a person.

 

He then goes on about how the body removing alcohol from the blood turns it into an even more toxic substance. However, he shows no evidence that it actually harms us so much we should drink nothing. Without qualification it's a nothing argument.

 

2.

 

A small proportion of people (he doesn't say how small) get addicted on the first drink and become alcoholics and we can't predict who that would be. So there is no safe limit for nuts either? It's like saying cars aren't safe as a small proportion of people never learn to drive well enough to pass the test.

 

3.

 

He doesn't believe there is enough evidence to support that it reduces heart disease. He thinks there has not been rigorous enough tests. So as there he sees no proof that it is beneficial (although fails to point out that by his logic there is no proof it isn't either) there is no safe limit. I don't know of much evidence that sugar gives you health benefits, so is it unsafe?

 

He then obfuscates things by going on about the fact we though HRT would be a benefit and has since been shown to cause more harm than good. That's and old trick to make you think alcohol MUST be the same when it equally applies (or not) to just about everything...

 

4.

 

"For all other diseases associated with alcohol there is no evidence of any benefit of low alcohol intake" Now that's just a weird statement. Again it's like saying that there is no evidence of any benefit of car crashes to people injured in them.

 

Then this one is a cracker:

"Hopefully these observations will help bring some honesty to the debate"

 

But as a Rangers fan you'll recognise the signs of propaganda when you read, "We must not allow apologists for this toxic industry to pull the wool over our eyes".

 

As I've been saying for a while, "newspapers" like these are more about dressing issues up in a biased way that plays on and panders to the prejudices of their readership, thereby making them feel justified for their ill informed opinions. That's what keeps them buying the paper.

 

Ironically, the same newspaper do actually have a guy who tries to point out this kind of stuff - Ben Goldacre, so they aren't completely bad.

 

To repeat my original point, British footballers clearly lag behind their continental counterparts. This is displayed both at club level and internationally. The poor nutrition/conditioning and booze culture are, in my opinion, key factors which contribute towards this. Poor coaching techniques, outdated ideology, insufficient kids regularly competing in footballer being other important factors.

 

So Italians don't drink you say - not even a glass of wine? I always found it weird the number of Italian players that smoked, when I've never seen that in Scotland in the modern day. The studies I've read show that drinking is pretty high among elite footballers of many countries. Something around 75%. Don't think it's a UK only thing.

 

However, I think your beliefs are clouding you to issue, where you will only listen to stuff that supports your beliefs - like that terrible article.

 

BTW I take it you are teetotal, have a really clean diet and perform a top class conditioning regime?

[calscot 0]

Just thought I'd mention this thread was about Rangers beating Hibs 6-2. Seems to have turned into a medical tutorial about the demon drink.

 

Ah sometimes threads morph - the drinking picture should probably have been in a new thread as it wasn't relevant... However, I think the issue is pretty topical and worth discussing. Can mods split the thread?

[Zappa 0]

Ah sometimes threads morph - the drinking picture should probably have been in a new thread as it wasn't relevant... However, I think the issue is pretty topical and worth discussing. Can mods split the thread?

 

Yeah, I'll split it, no problem.

[Zappa 0]

There you go.... 76 posts moved into their own thread.

[compo 6,043]

All things are acceptable in moderation