IRB: Unnamed Player Failed RWC Drugs Test

Otacon

Source

An unnamed player failed a drugs test during the Rugby World Cup, the International Rugby Board has revealed.

The player's identity has been withheld but the IRB confirmed he plays for a nation that failed to qualify for the quarter-finals of the competition.

The positive test was returned following a match in the final round of the pool phase.

A statement from the IRB said: "The player is provisionally suspended until the outcome of a hearing."

The IRB collected 76 blood samples and 216 urine samples during the World Cup.

IRB anti-doping manager Tim Ricketts said: "The player and his union (who exited the tournament after the pool phase) have been informed of the finding.

"Due to confidentiality provisions no further information can be released until the case is heard and a decision made."

All 20 teams were subjected to "an extensive programme" of testing before the tournament began that included urine and blood controls to screen for banned substances including EPO and Human Growth Hormone (hGH).

Japan's Ryohei Yamanaka tested positive for methyltestosterone, which was contained in cream he used to assist the growth of his moustache, and he was banned for two years.

Russian player Evgeny Pronenko was banned for six months after testing positive for Furosemide, a diuretic.

Ricketts continued: "The IRB and its member unions operate a zero-tolerance policy towards doping in rugby and this comprehensive testing programme administered across the 20 teams both before and during the tournament underscores our collaborative commitment in this pivotal area of the game.

"The one adverse finding also demonstrates that education is key, even for painkillers, and we will continue to work in partnership with our member unions to ensure that players, coaches and medical staff have access to the best possible educational resources and take greater responsibility for what they consume and administer."

Haven't seen this posted. I wonder who it was.

You don't hear these stories very often in rugby. I hope it stays that way!

vinny chase

Otacon wrote: »

Source



Haven't seen this posted. I wonder who it was.

You don't hear these stories very often in rugby. I hope it stays that way!

I find it unlikely it'll be a big name player.

You can already significantly narrow down where he's from because of the fact that he's from a nation who didn't get out of his group. Unless he's an Italian or a Scot, I'd say it's likely most people won't know an awful lot about him.

pickarooney

Japan's Ryohei Yamanaka tested positive for methyltestosterone, which was contained in cream he used to assist the growth of his moustache, and he was banned for two years.

That's the most hilarious reason for getting yourself banned I ever heard
Hmm, Canada didn't make it to the quarters; maybe there was some serious beard doping going on there.

Robbo

pickarooney wrote: »

That's the most hilarious reason for getting yourself banned I ever heard
Hmm, Canada didn't make it to the quarters; maybe there was some serious beard doping going on there.

I think it tops Shane Warne's excuse for not wanting to look puffy on TV.

tolosenc

vinny chase wrote: »

Unless he's an Italian or a Scot, I'd say it's likely most people won't know an awful lot about him.

I dunno, there are some pretty high profile Samoans and Tongans.

If I had to, I'd guess it was a Russian/Georgian.

vinny chase

tolosenc wrote: »

I dunno, there are some pretty high profile Samoans and Tongans.

If I had to, I'd guess it was a Russian/Georgian.

Yeah, but I'd doubt it's going to a player who's playing in one of the SANZAR countries or Europe.

Could of course be wrong on this; but I would have thought the level of testing in those leagues would make it unlikely.

EKClarke

I'd say it's a Georgian. They're all huge, it's all they seem to value as a requirement for professional rugby.

justsomebloke

Ok this goes without warning but there is to be no guessing of who it is without proof

marco_polo

justsomebloke wrote: »

Ok this goes without warning but there is to be no guessing of who it is without proof

So no chance of a poll then?

durkadurka

Let's all name one player and whoever doesn't get boards.ie landed with an injunction is the winner!

Burgo

justsomebloke wrote: »

Ok this goes without warning but there is to be no guessing of who it is without proof

Surely if we have proof of who it is then we wouldn't be guessing

Pisco Sour

Otacon wrote: »

You don't hear these stories very often in rugby. I hope it stays that way!

The reason you don't see this often in rugby is because the testing is awful. This for example"

The IRB collected 76 blood samples and 216 urine samples during the World Cup.

Out of about 600 rugby players in the RWC, there were just 292 tests. Assuming that many players in the later stages were tested more than once, that means the vast majority of players in the RWC didnt get tested at all! :eek: And over the course of a 6 week competition!!

The World Athletics Championships in Daegu, a 9 day competition, this year had the most rigourous drug testing ever conducted. Every single one of the 1100 athletes were subjected to a mandatory blood test, and a mandatory urine test. Then any athlete, of any level could be asked back randomly to give a 2nd blood test. This is all of course, on top of the usual drug testing that happen after a finaal, where the top 5-6 athletes plus a few randoms will get tested.

I was over in Daegu for the championships, and got talking to a New Zealander who was competing in the 50k Walk. He told me that within the previous 3 days he had given 2 blood tests, and a urine test. It's the way it should be.

I guarantee you if this level of testing was conducted in the rugby world cup, then we'd be seeing a lot more failed drug tests.

irishbucsfan

Drug abuse is a problem in athletics, it's not a problem in rugby.

Saying that rugby aren't rigorous enough because they don't follow the example of a sport plagued by drug cheats in recent years doesn't make sense.

Truthfully, one positive test from a lesser nation (that is a guess!) is a non-story. Drug use really doesn't seem to be a problem in professional rugby at all.

Pisco Sour

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Drug abuse is a problem in athletics, it's not a problem in rugby.

Saying that rugby aren't rigorous enough because they don't follow the example of a sport plagued by drug cheats in recent years doesn't make sense.

Truthfully, one positive test from a lesser nation (that is a guess!) is a non-story. Drug use really doesn't seem to be a problem in professional rugby at all.

That's pure utter bu11sh1t and pure ignorance. If you knew anything about the sport of athletics you would know that the sport has cleaned up in "recent years" not been "plagued". How do you explain the fact that people cant get within an asses roar of world records that were set in the 1980's, if drug taking has got worse in recent years!!??

Look at the size of the rugby guys now, compared to 10 years ago. If some of those guys were shot putters or discus throwers, they would be like lambs to the slaughter, but when it is rugby they are automatically clean?? :eek: Don't be so naieve. Rugby is a different sport now. There's lots of money in it. The incentive to cheat is as high as it is in any sport that has a financial reward for success.

Fireball07

EDIT: Oops

irishbucsfan

04072511 wrote: »

That's pure utter bu11sh1t and pure ignorance. If you knew anything about the sport of athletics you would know that the sport has cleaned up in "recent years" not been "plagued". How do you explain the fact that people cant get within an asses roar of world records that were set in the 1980's, if drug taking has got worse in recent years!!??

Look at the size of the rugby guys now, compared to 10 years ago. If some of those guys were shot putters or discus throwers, they would be like lambs to the slaughter, but when it is rugby they are automatically clean?? :eek: Don't be so naieve. Rugby is a different sport now. There's lots of money in it. The incentive to cheat is as high as it is in any sport that has a financial reward for success.

They have to clean up because of how bad things were! Things were never that bad in rugby, and aren't.

Almost half the players at the rugby world cup were tested and you can be very sure that the big teams were targeted. One player from an unnamed non quarter final team tested negative. So obviously it is not that common.

The only player I can think of off the top of my head to have received a lengthy ban for drug abuse in NH rugby in recent years is Matt Stevens and he was positive for cocaine. These players are tested regularly and pass regularly.

I play rugby, I've had to put on a lot of mass to keep up, I don't take drugs I just go to the gym a few nights a week. Just because players are bigger now doesn't mean they're on drugs, it means they're in the gym more and being managed better.

There are certain sports where drugs are a massive problem and in some of them the issue is kept very quiet. Cycling, baseball, NFL and athletics all have a far higher rate of infringment or regularly see big names caught. Rugby sees neither of those things.

Pisco Sour

irishbucsfan wrote: »

They have to clean up because of how bad things were! Things were never that bad in rugby, and aren't.

Almost half the players at the rugby world cup were tested and you can be very sure that the big teams were targeted. One player from an unnamed non quarter final team tested negative. So obviously it is not that common.

The only player I can think of off the top of my head to have received a lengthy ban for drug abuse in NH rugby in recent years is Matt Stevens and he was positive for cocaine. These players are tested regularly and pass regularly.

I play rugby, I've had to put on a lot of mass to keep up, I don't take drugs I just go to the gym a few nights a week. Just because players are bigger now doesn't mean they're on drugs, it means they're in the gym more and being managed better.

There are certain sports where drugs are a massive problem and in some of them the issue is kept very quiet. Cycling, baseball, NFL and athletics all have a far higher rate of infringment or regularly see big names caught. Rugby sees neither of those things.

It's a vicious circle. Increase the drug testing, and you see more failed tests, which means bad press coverage, which means lessened popularity. Sports like athletics would be better off financially to cover up tests, as the ignorant general public would think that things are ok. The sport was much more popular back in the 1980's, when there was p1ss all drug testing, and the sport was riddled. Ironically now, with the sport being as clean as it has been for 50 years IMO, the sport is at a low point popularity wise (notwithstanding the Usain Bolt media circus). That doesn't seem right, or fair, but it's the way it is. I applaud the IAAF for putting fair play over their bottom line.

The NFL, MLB etc in america for years covered up tests, and had extremely ineffective anti-doping measures. For a big name to fail a test would result in huge bad press for the organisation. Things have got better in those sports but the bans handed out for failed tests are still very lenient.

IMO, drugs are a big problem in ALL professional sports. Rugby of course has a huge amateur history, so the problem may not be as bad YET, but the sport has come a long way. You see a lot of cheating, disgustingly dangerous play on the pitch these days. If these people are immoral on the pitch, then surely you can open your mind to the fact that they could be immoral with regards taking performance enhancing drugs. In the end of the day, there is a huge financial incentive to making a top club/ international team, and if taking drugs is what it will take for a player to get to that level, then there no doubt will be SOME people willing to go down that route. There are dishonest people in all aspects of life, they dont all congregate in the sport of athletics and cycling :rolleyes:

Rugby obviously has a greater skill element than a sport like athletics which is about physical excellence, but the physical element in rugby is absolutely massive, and drugs would certainly have a massive effect in the sport.

Pisco Sour

irishbucsfan wrote: »

These players are tested regularly and pass regularly.

This alone can't be used to state that rugby is definetely a clean sport. We don't know how stringent the drug testing is, what they test for, do they freeze samples and keep them for 8 years etc. I don't think (open to correction) that Rugby Union complies with WADA to the same degree that Olympic sports like Athletics, Swimming etc do. This will change over the coming few years of course with Seven's being admitted into the Olympics.

Rugby has a lot of similarities to American football, with regards the physical aspect of the two sports. NFL is riddled with drugs, certainly with regards the blockers and other beefed up guys, so it is not inconceivable that rugby players playing in the front row could be doing the same, to gain that extra advantage over his competitor.

I'm not saying that drugs are rampant in rugby, but as I said, if the drug testing was as stringent as it was at the Daegu World Championships this year, then it is only common sense that more people would be caught. There are most definetely players in rugby union who are taking performance enhancing drugs and are getting away with it. No sport 100% consists of honest, hard working people. There are cheaters all over society. Give 100 students the answers to a leaving certificate exam beforehand, and how many would cheat? Some would, some wouldn't, depending on that person's morals and ethics. If a smoking hot woman walked up to 100 happily married man, how many would cheat? Some would. Some people are just not honest, and I have no doubt that some of these people would be playing rugby. What makes you think that rugby is filled with nothing but honest people.

And besides, Lance Armstrong has been regularly tested, and has passed regularly. What does that prove to be honest?

MrPain

Passing a drug test and being clean are 2 different things.

Nermal

04072511 wrote: »

I guarantee you if this level of testing was conducted in the rugby world cup, then we'd be seeing a lot more failed drug tests.

Not to mention testing outside of competition.

twinytwo

04072511 wrote: »

That's pure utter bu11sh1t and pure ignorance. If you knew anything about the sport of athletics you would know that the sport has cleaned up in "recent years" not been "plagued". How do you explain the fact that people cant get within an asses roar of world records that were set in the 1980's, if drug taking has got worse in recent years!!??

Look at the size of the rugby guys now, compared to 10 years ago. If some of those guys were shot putters or discus throwers, they would be like lambs to the slaughter, but when it is rugby they are automatically clean?? :eek: Don't be so naieve. Rugby is a different sport now. There's lots of money in it. The incentive to cheat is as high as it is in any sport that has a financial reward for success.

10 years ago you didnt have guys training from an early age to be professional players... plus it does help to be payed to train all day. Back in the day most rugby players wouldnt have been able to spend so much time in the gym/on the training field.

Also taking into account that most internatioal backrows are naturally big guys anyway... it not really that shocking.

The Aussie

twinytwo wrote: »

10 years ago you didnt have guys training from an early age to be professional players... plus it does help to be payed to train all day. Back in the day most rugby players wouldnt have been able to spend so much time in the gym/on the training field.

Agree 100%, if you compare the WRC winning Wallaby (pseudo amateurs) team of 91 to any of the Australian Rugby League teams of the same era who were full time professionals and it is like men against boys for example in the Centers you had Jason Little in Union against Mal Maninga in League.
If you also take into account the better understanding of Training/Recovery/Diet and "legal supplements" that we have available now that coupled with the change of defensive requirements of the game that would explain any supposed size differences in different generations of the game.

desertcircus

Agree with the above - the increase in size over the past ten years has most likely been a result of a switch from an amateur to a professional setup. Not to mention the fact that in a team sport with huge numbers of physical collisions, the increase in physical size of players from 1995 onwards thanks to increased gym time probably introduced a bias in the selection of promising young players, in favour of powerful builds and increased height. A player who might have been hugely skilled but a little smaller than average in 1995 would now lose part of his skills advantage (because increased training time means better ball skills for everyone across the board) and be at a massive disadvantage size-wise, so would be a lot less likely to ever grace the field nowadays.

On whether rugby players are likely to be doping: I think it's unlikely that everyone's "clean". In a sport where so much can depend on physical strength and raw speed, and where injuries are so commonplace, it'd be astonishing if nobody did it. Rugby's not as subsceptible as athletics or cycling would be - a 10% increase in power output would guarantee a midrange athlete in either of the latter two a new world record, while in rugby it'd simply mean they steal a bit more ball in the ruck or are slightly less likely to get hauled into touch when sprinting down the wing with ball in hand - but it's certainly not the same as soccer. Those small advantages add up, and a player with a slight edge can do extremely well. Combine that with a fairly lax testing regime, and the temptation is such that you're virtually guaranteed that some will have decided to do it.

To throw the cat among the pigeons for a moment, though: is doping automatically a bad thing? Stephen Ferris appears to have a gigantic genetic advantage to playing as a professional rugby player, in that he seems to be built out of fast-twitch muscle fibers rather than slow-twitch ones - which enables him to hit successive tackles faster than almost anyone I've ever seen, and he's able to do so while losing almost zero forward momentum. Pacific Islanders are even more spectacular examples - Rupeni Caucaunibuca played as a winger while being heavier than about half the props in professional rugby, and Manu Tuilagi is freakishly huge for almost any position on the pitch, much less centre. I'm not certain that an advantage gained by using growth-enhancing substances is less fair than an advantage gained by genetic inheritance.

CatFromHue

desertcircus wrote: »

To throw the cat among the pigeons for a moment, though: is doping automatically a bad thing? Stephen Ferris appears to have a gigantic genetic advantage to playing as a professional rugby player, in that he seems to be built out of fast-twitch muscle fibers rather than slow-twitch ones - which enables him to hit successive tackles faster than almost anyone I've ever seen, and he's able to do so while losing almost zero forward momentum. Pacific Islanders are even more spectacular examples - Rupeni Caucaunibuca played as a winger while being heavier than about half the props in professional rugby, and Manu Tuilagi is freakishly huge for almost any position on the pitch, much less centre. I'm not certain that an advantage gained by using growth-enhancing substances is less fair than an advantage gained by genetic inheritance.

If I dope but then Ferris dopes too we're back to square one.....or I'm off to get better dope. He's faster than me though so he might get to the new better dope first which would make him even faster than me!



Mmm'kay!

Higher

It was a narcotic, not a performance enhancer.

Steroids are very present. Testosterone cypionate is out of the system in 2 days. Very easy to do cycles during breaks in the season

desertcircus

CatFromHue wrote: »

If I dope but then Ferris dopes too we're back to square one.....or I'm off to get better dope. He's faster than me though so he might get to the new better dope first which would make him even faster than me!

True, that is a problem. That said, the law of diminishing returns would indicate that if you and Ferris both decide to dope, the benefits he derives will be that much less as his body's already working extremely close to peak efficiency. Your body, however (assuming you're not in equivalent shape to Ferris, of course) will derive much more benefit as there's far more room for improvement, and Ferris' genetic advantage is blunted. In the same way, if a steroid is developed that builds knee joints to near-indestructible levels, Ferris and Sam Warburton might both decide to use it, but Ferris' treatment of his genetic weakness - his glass knees - would mean that Warburton's genetic advantage over him is dramatically reduced in terms of the number of games each can play.

I'm aware that a fair and safe methodology for allowing doping would be extremely difficult to set up (if not impossible), but I don't think doping is automatically the sin it's regarded as. Lionel Messi was treated with growth hormones as a teenager - and had the bill met by Barcelona football club - because he was otherwise going to be too short to play football to a high level. What's the fundamental moral difference that means that's not doping?

Pisco Sour

desertcircus wrote: »

True, that is a problem. That said, the law of diminishing returns would indicate that if you and Ferris both decide to dope, the benefits he derives will be that much less as his body's already working extremely close to peak efficiency. Your body, however (assuming you're not in equivalent shape to Ferris, of course) will derive much more benefit as there's far more room for improvement, and Ferris' genetic advantage is blunted. In the same way, if a steroid is developed that builds knee joints to near-indestructible levels, Ferris and Sam Warburton might both decide to use it, but Ferris' treatment of his genetic weakness - his glass knees - would mean that Warburton's genetic advantage over him is dramatically reduced in terms of the number of games each can play.

I'm aware that a fair and safe methodology for allowing doping would be extremely difficult to set up (if not impossible), but I don't think doping is automatically the sin it's regarded as. Lionel Messi was treated with growth hormones as a teenager - and had the bill met by Barcelona football club - because he was otherwise going to be too short to play football to a high level. What's the fundamental moral difference that means that's not doping?

Doping is dangerous to one's health. By legalising it, you basically cut out all those from sport that are not willing to take a chance with their life.

Look what happened to Flojo. Look what happened to the East Germans. One of them was fed so much crap from an early age that she turned into a man. Heidi Krieger is now Andreas Krieger.

Even if they were to legalise "safe doping", you'd still have those who would cheat and taking the more dangerous performance enhancing substances anyway.

As an above poster said, drugs are bad.

daveharnett

pickarooney wrote: »

That's the most hilarious reason for getting yourself banned I ever heard

Almost every doping ban I have heard of in rugby seems to have been explained away by innocent use of over-the-counter medication(or similar). At this stage, for a professional player to be taking any kind of medication/supplement without consulting the team doctor/nutritionist seems pretty suspect.

Given the potential gains, and the low probability of getting caught, it's hard to imagine that doping isn't widespread.

desertcircus wrote: »

To throw the cat among the pigeons for a moment, though: is doping automatically a bad thing? Stephen Ferris appears to have a gigantic genetic advantage to playing as a professional rugby player... I'm not certain that an advantage gained by using growth-enhancing substances is less fair than an advantage gained by genetic inheritance.

I take your point - elite sports are only available to a lucky few. Even if doping could provide equality of opportunity, the cost of that opportunity would be the sacrifice of all the participants' long term health. The sport would become a bloodsport, a spectacle where nobody really wins, and something I couldn't watch in good conscience.

More importantly for me, the primary purpose of professional sport is to encourage amateur participation. Given the choice, I'd rather that youth players participated in sports that don't have a culture of drug abuse at any level.

Pisco Sour

daveharnett wrote: »

Almost every doping ban I have heard of in rugby seems to have been explained away by innocent use of over-the-counter medication(or similar). At this stage, for a professional player to be taking any kind of medication/supplement without consulting the team doctor/nutritionist seems pretty suspect.

Given the potential gains, and the low probability of getting caught, it's hard to imagine that doping isn't widespread.


I take your point - elite sports are only available to a lucky few. Even if doping could provide equality of opportunity, the cost of that opportunity would be the sacrifice of all the participants' long term health. The sport would become a bloodsport, a spectacle where nobody really wins, and something I couldn't watch in good conscience.

More importantly for me, the primary purpose of professional sport is to encourage amateur participation. Given the choice, I'd rather that youth players participated in sports that don't have a culture of drug abuse at any level.

Another thing that people are quite naieve to is the cost of doping. Only a small percentage of elite sportspeople can afford to dope. It is extremely expensive. I always find it funny when idiots say that everybody in athletics is on drugs. Most athletes that compete in the Olympic Games are either amateur, with no funding, and with full or part time jobs, or are on a small amount of funding. Derval O'Rourke gets 40k a year in funding, the amount of money a premiership footballer would tip at a lap dancing club. In general the vast majority of athletes cannot afford to dope, even if they actually wanted to 1) put their health in danger, and 2) achieve hollow meaningless success by artificial means.

desertcircus

Is doping really a bigger health risk than playing rugby in the first place? Richard Hill will have a limp for the rest of his life, Ian McKinley lost sight in one eye, Jonny Wilkinson has been in surgery a ridiculous number of times. That's before you even look at the front row and the impact of the engage.

The point about encouraging players at an amateur level is fair, though.

daveharnett

desertcircus wrote: »

Is doping really a bigger health risk than playing rugby in the first place? Richard Hill will have a limp for the rest of his life, Ian McKinley lost sight in one eye, Jonny Wilkinson has been in surgery a ridiculous number of times. That's before you even look at the front row and the impact of the engage.

The point about encouraging players at an amateur level is fair, though.

I was thinking about that while writing the last post too. As you say, there are are already serious occupational hazards in the job. The first round of rugby professionals (I'm thinking Keith Wood's generation) are lucky if they can walk a mile comfortably these days.

I think (or at least I hope) that with the development of all the modern supports (physiotherapists, team doctors, sports surgeons, conditioning trainers, welfare policies), that the long term future will be better for today's players.

My point (eventually) is, these dangers suggest to me that players should have more protection, not less. Taking O'Driscoll as a particularly ridiculous example - I can think of at least half a dozen occasions where he should not have been allowed to play on, either through concussion of tissue injury. While it's sort of heroic on a personal level, it's monstrous that he is allowed to damage himself like this. Clubs (and lawmakers) need to think about their players' long term welfare, and that means protecting them from themselves if need be.

Macy0161

10% increase in oxygen capacity in the last 10 minutes could be the difference between winning and losing. How about a transfusion to aid recovery during a 6 day turn around? There's doping that could be advantageous.

Field sports like Rugby and Football don't take testing seriously hiding behind the skills. If you don't test you won't find. That number of tests in a world cup is pretty pathetic imo.

Personally, I'm always amazed how many professional athletes, across a huge range of sports, are asthmatic...

Noffles

"Losers don't do Drugs"

djk1000

daveharnett wrote: »

I think (or at least I hope) that with the development of all the modern supports (physiotherapists, team doctors, sports surgeons, conditioning trainers, welfare policies), that the long term future will be better for today's players.

Along with those modern supports, the players are getting bigger, stronger and faster. You can't have a policy or support that gets around physics, modern players take huge impacts on a weekly basis and I think the latest generation of pro's are in for serious problems when they retire.

justsomebloke

**Some posts have been removed from thread