Performance Enchancing Drugs in Rugby Union

Slideshowbob

Any opinions on how common it is in the professional sport?

muboop1

Very few bannings for it compared to the likes of Athletics etc. So gonna assume its not common at all? Rare?

Slideshowbob

My sport is cycling. Testing seems to be quite stringent in that sport (although there is alot more to it than that! for more info, specific no holds barred forum here).

Could administrators be taking a view on how stringent things are with the increasing commercial aspects of rugby?

I'm no rugby expert but I do know the players of today are different animals to say the Ollie Campbell era etc.

Of course there are now sports science advances, food supplements etc

I'd appreciate some opinion from those that know on this forum.

Another consideration with increased bulk of players is the effect on the body in 10, 20, 30 years.

I think we are in an unprecedented era in terms of hits and players' bulk. American footballers have their pads and rugby league seems to have less impact from what I know.

Tefral

Its rampant!! Im sure HGH is banned isnt it? If it is then this is used alot..

justsomebloke

cronin_j wrote: »

Its rampant!! Im sure HGH is banned isnt it? If it is then this is used alot..

please explain the baisis for your accusations or don't post them

Tefral

justsomebloke wrote: »

please explain the baisis for your accusations or don't post them

Ha like im gonna post that... its a discussion forum isnt it? The OP asked a question no-one is gonna be able to answer it to your standard so you might as well close it??

Slideshowbob

cronin_j wrote: »

Ha like im gonna post that... its a discussion forum isnt it? The OP asked a question no-one is gonna be able to answer it to your standard so you might as well close it??

Yes it is a discussion forum, so don't just make accusations without backing them up to some extent. I've given my opinion above.

Is there nothing more you can add to the discussion?

Let's keep it real and relevant eg any links to evidence for/against? Let's try and remain civil and avoid this thread being closed eh??

Tefral

Slideshowbob wrote: »

Yes it is a discussion forum, so don't just make accusations without backing them up to some extent. I've given my opinion above.

Is there nothing more you can add to the discussion?

Let's keep it real and relevant eg any links to evidence for/against? Let's try and remain civil and avoid this thread being closed eh??

Ok, theres no way i can post how i know but sure we'll use some links from the net.

http://www.sportinglife.com/rugbyleague/news/story_get.cgi?STORY_NAME=rleague/10/06/19/RUGBYL_Newton.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2010/may/30/terry-newton-hgh-league-drugs
http://bikepure.org/2010/07/rugby-player-newton-reveals-growth-hormone-use/

**mod edit to remove player accusation

Slideshowbob

cronin_j wrote: »

Ok, theres no way i can post how i know but sure we'll use some links from the net.

http://www.sportinglife.com/rugbyleague/news/story_get.cgi?STORY_NAME=rleague/10/06/19/RUGBYL_Newton.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2010/may/30/terry-newton-hgh-league-drugs
http://bikepure.org/2010/07/rugby-player-newton-reveals-growth-hormone-use/

Dude, be careful, you're actually accusing players of being on HGH????

Tefral

Well i have retracted my statement... no point saying anymore on this subject.

Nermal

LOL at saying because no-one's getting banned that it's rare. The fact is the testing regime is pathetic outside of athletics and cycling.

Slideshowbob

cronin_j wrote: »

Well i have retracted my statement... no point saying anymore on this subject.

So the extent of your contribution is a reference to another sport??

Tefral

There are ways to cycle it, I know plenty of fellas that use it in the gym. Normally though what shows up is the Testosterone and increase insulin.

Tefral

Slideshowbob wrote: »

So the extent of your contribution is a reference to another sport??

I referenced a Rugby Sport? this is a rugby forum?

Diabhal Beag

Performance enhancement taking can always be masked for periods of time until the drug testing improves. Unfortunately the takers may always be one step ahead of the testers.

Slideshowbob

cronin_j wrote: »

I referenced a Rugby Sport? this is a rugby forum?

Edited thread title there just now for clarification.

It may not have been clear, generally rugby in Ireland is rugby union. League is a lot lesser sport in Eire.

Sorry for the confusion.

They are two different sports wouldn't you agree? Apart from the fact RL in the UK has been professional for decades hence may have different / more advanced standards etc that goes with professionalism n all that.

Tefral

Slideshowbob wrote: »

Edited thread title there just now for clarification.

It may not have been clear, generally rugby in Ireland is rugby union. League is a lot lesser sport in Eire.

Sorry for the confusion.

They are two different sports wouldn't you agree????

Of course, but alot of the same training applies etc.. it would appear you want to move the goal posts, but how and ever.. ill just have to dig out some links from the world of rugby union

Tefral

Positive drug tests for banned substances by UK Sport in last five years:

Rugby Union
Positive Tests 62
Disciplined 48

Over the last five years, 14 of Rugby Union's 62 positive tests, or failure to comply, have been cleared, but of the remaining 48 players, 44 received bans and the remaining four formal reprimands and warnings about future conduct.

Twenty of those disciplinary sentences related directly to performance enhancing drugs.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/4315020/Rugby-union-must-address-drug-problems-after-Matt-Stevens-admission.html

Tefral

MHA

“The banned stimulant was in a supplement given to the players in the warm-up before the Test against Ireland and is a product that has been used by the Springboks before – without any adverse analytical findings – and is used by other professional and national teams in both hemispheres.

“It was manufactured in the UK and was tested at SARU’s request by one of only two laboratories in the world equipped to perform the necessary protocols in order to ensure that it complied with the requirements of the World Anti-Doping Authority (WADA).

“That the players subsequently tested positive for a banned stimulant was an enormous shock to the Springbok team, management and to SARU and I am most sorry that the players have had to endure the stress and stigma attached to a failed dope test. Hopefully this verdict will have laid to rest any idea of any wrong doing on their part.”

“Finally the facts are out there and people can see that we were not guilty and are not doping cheats. We were only doing what the large majority of professional rugby players around the world do by using a supplement,” said Ralepelle

Slideshowbob

cronin_j wrote: »

Of course, but alot of the same training applies etc.. it would appear you want to move the goal posts, but how and ever.. ill just have to dig out some links from the world of rugby union

Not moving goal posts at all. I posted under rugby. Every other thread on the 1st page of the rugby forum just so happens to be referring to Union. As I said in Ireland (this is an Irish forum) rugby union is colloquially referred to as rugby, surely you know that?

Thanks for the link below.

Slideshowbob

cronin_j wrote: »

MHA

Supplements don't necessarily mean PEDs.

Tefral

Slideshowbob wrote: »

Supplements don't necessarily mean PEDs.

True, I mean taking things like zinc, protein, creatine etc i wouldnt class as PED however MHA is a banned substance..

justsomebloke

Slideshowbob wrote: »

They are two different sports wouldn't you agree?

*mod hat off

truthfully in respect to the topic no not really, Given the similarites in the physical nature of the game, I'd say what goes on in one transfers over to the other.

*next is personal opinion with no back up*

Drugs are cheats are in every sport, human nature doesn't change, people like winning and small % of people will do what ever it takes to be a better athelete.

Generally the % is inversely proportional to how stringent drug testing is and due to the LACK of big story drug users in union I would be worried about just how good the testing actually is.

justsomebloke

Slideshowbob wrote: »

Supplements don't necessarily mean PEDs.

but some come damn close

Slideshowbob

justsomebloke wrote: »

*mod hat off

truthfully in respect to the topic no not really, Given the similarites in the physical nature of the game, I'd say what goes on in one transfers over to the other.

OK, I take your point, but the only way the taking of banned substances can be measured really is through the administration of the sport. As they are 2 different codes with 2 totally different sets of governing bodies, you may say goings on can transfer but they will then be subject to the relevant rules in each code which are presume are not related and very much independent of each other?

Slideshowbob

justsomebloke wrote: »

but some come damn close

Not necessarily. Some would class a multivitamin as a supplement yet in now way is it within a country mile of a PED IMHO.

Depends on definitions.

Tefral

justsomebloke wrote: »

due to the LACK of big story drug users in union I would be worried about just how good the testing actually is.

This was a big enough story at the time: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/article-1190116/Trio-hot-water-Bath-Lipman-Crockett-Higgins-quit-club.html

justsomebloke

Slideshowbob wrote: »

Not necessarily. Some would class a multivitamin as a supplement yet in now way is it within a country mile of a PED IMHO.

Seriously you are going to use that argument? I'm using the term supplement to be ANYTHING not on the banned substance list. So anything that doesn't give a failed drug test is a fair supplement to use and some of these come very close to copying the effects of banned substances.

justsomebloke

cronin_j wrote: »

This was a big enough story at the time: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/article-1190116/Trio-hot-water-Bath-Lipman-Crockett-Higgins-quit-club.html

Actually I thought that story was more proof of how bad drug screening in Union was. The fact that these tests weren't coming from the RFU itself and that it only started looking into it as an after thought was damning indictment on how they really treat these issues

Tefral

justsomebloke wrote: »

Actually I thought that story was more proof of how bad drug screening in Union was. The fact that these tests weren't coming from the RFU itself and that it only started looking into it as an after thought was damning indictment on how they really treat these issues

True the fall out from that was massive, actually i have no evidence of this but would you say its up there with soccer? my own opinion on that is that it wouldnt be.

Which feeds back into your statement that use would be inversely proportional to testing.

Slideshowbob

justsomebloke wrote: »

Seriously you are going to use that argument? I'm using the term supplement to be ANYTHING not on the banned substance list. So anything that doesn't give a failed drug test is a fair supplement to use and some of these come very close to copying the effects of banned substances.

Argument? Is it not reasonable to say a multivitamin falls within the supplement set?

Also, btw couldn't a supplement be on the banned list too!?

"So anything that doesn't give a failed drug test is a fair supplement to use" yes unless it's new stuff, hence side effects and all would not yet be known and taking it is real risky!!

IMO, athletes should know what they are putting in their body (and take responsibility and ownership for it) and if the product is "very close" to banned substances!

Tefral

Slideshowbob wrote: »

Argument? Is it not reasonable to say a multivitamin falls within the supplement set?

Also, btw couldn't a supplement be on the banned list too!?

"So anything that doesn't give a failed drug test is a fair supplement to use" yes unless it's new stuff, hence side effects and all would not yet be known and taking it is real risky!!

IMO, athletes should know what they are putting in their body (and take responsibility and ownership for it) and if the product is "very close" to banned substances!

Your kinda going off your own topic, you asked people for their opinion and now your going into the semantics of whats a drug and whats not. If its banned its for a reason, mostly because its a performance enhancer.

Most of the items athletes use are produced/synth'd in your body naturally, such as HGH, Creatine, Protein, Testosterone etc. HGH and Testosterone are banned.

At the end of the day they are manufacturered and they are perfomance enhancing...

uberwolf

something which was true a few years back, not sure how it holds these days.

Britains professional cyclists had more tests performed in total than Britains population of professional soccer players.

Slideshowbob

cronin_j wrote: »

Your kinda going off your own topic, you asked people for their opinion and now your going into the semantics of whats a drug and whats not. If its banned its for a reason, mostly because its a performance enhancer.

Most of the items athletes use are produced/synth'd in your body naturally, such as HGH, Creatine, Protein, Testosterone etc. HGH and Testosterone are banned.

At the end of the day they are manufacturered and they are perfomance enhancing...

But the topic is performance enhancing drugs so as part of the thread itn't is ok to clarify this definition?

Tefral

Slideshowbob wrote: »

But the topic is performance enhancing drugs so as part of the thread itn't is ok to clarify this definition?

Well a quick google reveals:

1.A substance that has a physiological effect when ingested or otherwise introduced into the body, in particular
2.A medicine, esp. a pharmaceutical preparation
3.A substance taken for its narcotic or stimulant effects, often illegally


So even "suppliments" fall under this category.

gavkm27

People should watch ''Bigger Faster Stonger'' documentary

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1151309/

Really informative doco about the use of preformace enhancing drugs in sport and life.

Slideshowbob

cronin_j wrote: »

Well a quick google reveals:

1.A substance that has a physiological effect when ingested or otherwise introduced into the body, in particular
2.A medicine, esp. a pharmaceutical preparation
3.A substance taken for its narcotic or stimulant effects, often illegally


So even "suppliments" fall under this category.

But supplements are also outside that category: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supplement

Tefral

Slideshowbob wrote: »

But supplements are also outside that category: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supplement

They dont actually...

For example: The hormones DHEA (a steroid), pregnenolone (also a steroid) and the pineal hormone melatonin are marketed as dietary supplements in the US however these are in fact drugs.

EDIT: actually is it better just to say banned substances? otherwise we'd be back and forth all evening?

yammycat

Theres a regular on /fit/ who was a premier league player, think he was capped for england and he is now in coaching over there and he is the forum expert on steroids, pretty much knows everything, he is very open that he used them greatly while playing and it's a major part of the game.

There's big money in the game now, it's just naive to think rugby players are nice and honest sportsmen just because it's the sport you happen to follow.

Slideshowbob

cronin_j wrote: »

They dont actually...

For example: The hormones DHEA (a steroid), pregnenolone (also a steroid) and the pineal hormone melatonin are marketed as dietary supplements in the US however these are in fact drugs.

EDIT: actually is it better just to say banned substances? otherwise we'd be back and forth all evening?

But a dietary supplement is a sub set of supplements. Some of these are not banned. :rolleyes:

justsomebloke

Ok SSB at this point I don't actually know what you are trying to ask any more

Slideshowbob

Discussion of opinion / evidence of PEDs in rugby union! Simples!

Tefral

Slideshowbob wrote: »

Discussion of opinion / evidence of PEDs in rugby union! Simples!

But your watering it d

Cpt_Blackbeard

From what I've heard, an unusually high percentage of rugby players have asthma and the medicine (puffers) used to treat asthma have performance enhancing effects of some sort.

Tefral

Slideshowbob wrote: »

Discussion of opinion / evidence of PEDs in rugby union! Simples!

But your watering it down by arguing what constitutes a drug or supplement. If it's a Performance enhancing substance that is chemically made in a lab then to be that's a perfromance enhancing drug. Some are not banned some are. Both are widely used in rugby union. I have provided evidence of this fact in my seamier replies. Other posters including myself have offered their opinions to this also based on anecdotal evidence.

Is there anything else?

padser

Cpt_Blackbeard wrote: »

From what I've heard, an unusually high percentage of rugby players have asthma and the medicine (puffers) used to treat asthma have performance enhancing effects of some sort.

That's a complete distrortion of the facts.

Some asthma medicines do have banned substances (steroids) in them, but they don't have any performance enhancing qualities (except obviously controlling your asthma).

All steroids are banned, but not all steroids enhance performance.

Tefral

Cpt_Blackbeard wrote: »

From what I've heard, an unusually high percentage of rugby players have asthma and the medicine (puffers) used to treat asthma have performance enhancing effects of some sort.

One of these medicines actually inhibit oestrogen production in the body it's also given to female breast cancer patients and is also used to ensure the losses from when your not cycling testosterone and HGH are kept to a min. I can't find the proper link now as I'm on the phone but when I get home I'll post it. Alot of body builders I know use it.

Cpt_Blackbeard

padser wrote: »

That's a complete distrortion of the facts.

Some asthma medicines do have banned substances (steroids) in them, but they don't have any performance enhancing qualities (except obviously controlling your asthma).

All steroids are banned, but not all steroids enhance performance.

I thought that was the way but, would the blue puffers not help athletes train too? Afaik they open your airwaves which would allow players to train harder without going out of breath and it would help in a match enviroment too.

Tefral

cronin_j wrote: »

One of these medicines actually inhibit oestrogen production in the body it's also given to female breast cancer patients and is also used to ensure the losses from when your not cycling testosterone and HGH are kept to a min. I can't find the proper link now as I'm on the phone but when I get home I'll post it. Alot of body builders I know use it.

Tamoxifen is the name of it.. god bless google ha ha.

You know, it would be no harm to maybe ask some of the lads on the fitness forum to comment in here. They would know far more and might test some theories etc. My knowledge on this subject is extremely limited..

d'Oracle

gavkm27 wrote: »

People should watch ''Bigger Faster Stonger'' documentary

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1151309/

Really informative doco about the use of preformace enhancing drugs in sport and life.

While it is of limited direct relevance, in that it is very specific in scope and I think its essential viewing if you are going to discuss the state of drugs in sport at the moment.
If only because it takes an even handed view instead of the usual hyperbole associated with drug use.

Tefral

Cpt_Blackbeard wrote: »

I thought that was the way but, would the blue puffers not help athletes train too? Afaik they open your airwaves which would allow players to train harder without going out of breath and it would help in a match enviroment too.

Your referring to "Ventolin" I think thats the Blue inhaler isnt it? Salbutamol is the main drug in that, it opens up your airways and Bronchii