Laurent Benezech - "Doping in Rugby as bad as cycling" [MOD WARNING POST #1]

LuckyLloyd

Swiwi wrote: »

I do care. Those drugs have long-term side-effects, and I want the ABs to play other teams on a level playing field from that point of view. I don't want to read Carter's or McCaw's premature obituary because of cardiac side-effects of performance enhancing drugs they felt compelled to take because it was rife & widely accepted in Europe.

A long rugby career at the highest level in the modern game will have negative long term side effects, PEDs or no PEDs. It's genuinely an unhealthy thing - really the pursuit of most professional sporting careers will tend to be. Remember that the professional game is only around 18 years now, and we've had maybe 10 - 13 years of the game at this intensity. I'd be highly surprised if we don't find out in a decade or so that guys like O' Driscoll are losing years off their life expectancy. Might take a lot longer even.

The NFL only started realising this in the recent past.

Swiwi

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

A long rugby career at the highest level in the modern game will have negative long term side effects, PEDs or no PEDs. It's genuinely an unhealthy thing - really the pursuit of most professional sporting careers will tend to be. Remember that the professional game is only around 18 years now, and we've had maybe 10 - 13 years of the game at this intensity. I'd be highly surprised if we don't find out in a decade or so that guys like O' Driscoll are losing years off their life expectancy. Might take a lot longer even.

The NFL only started realising this in the recent past.

Years off their joints, I'm not sure about years off their life expectancy. I guess it would make an interesting longitudinal study. I know post-career suicide apparently takes it's toll with American sports.

.ak

.ak wrote: »

Isn't there a lot of strict anti-doping regimes in the pro sport though? Lots of random drug testing etc., etc. Remember that Japanese player a while ago got banned for using a banned substance that was in this cream he was using to help grow a 'tache!

Mid-level I can understand players getting away with it, but at high club pro-level/international level I'd be very surprised if players were getting away with it.

The short answer to your first question is "yes".

The long answer is that those 'strict anti-doping regimes' are comparable to the ones that failed to catch Lance Armstrong despite him completing hundreds of tests in and out of competition.

Anyone who thinks there is no doping in rugby, football and whatever sport you're having yourself should read up on exactly how the process worked in cycling, and ask themselves why in any other professional sport the temptation wouldn't be the same and the techniques also available to them.

There's a lot of circumstantial evidence of EPO in soccer and tennis and I am sure similar stuff is being used in rugby.

Sinbad_NI

Swiwi wrote: »

I see your point. If he admits to drug use, that's fine. But in regards other players - not guilty in my book until positive blood test, or other irrefutable evidence. It was like the big furore in Aussie recently about their apparent systematic doping...with no specifics mentioned in the report as far as I'm aware. I take notice, but it's still a bit of a yawn until there's proof.

Recent interview with a top WADA guy did there are no blood tests in team sports. Urine test is useless in catching stuff in comparison.
Reason for this was the cost involved but he seemed a more than a little annoyed at that state of affairs.

Draw you own conclusions, however the lack of positive tests shouldn't be a proof of clean, as Lance case has clearly shown. He just knew the rules and tests and like his peers worked within them.

Fits Morris

There were only 16 blood tests in Irish rugby last year. They'd be as well off not bothering testing at all if that's all they did.

LuckyLloyd

Swiwi wrote: »

Years off their joints, I'm not sure about years off their life expectancy. I guess it would make an interesting longitudinal study. I know post-career suicide apparently takes it's toll with American sports.

Which research is linking to too many hits in the head.

Halloween Jack

Sinbad_NI wrote: »

Recent interview with a top WADA guy did there are no blood tests in team sports. Urine test is useless in catching stuff in comparison.
Reason for this was the cost involved but he seemed a more than a little annoyed at that state of affairs.

Draw you own conclusions, however the lack of positive tests shouldn't be a proof of clean, as Lance case has clearly shown. He just knew the rules and tests and like his peers worked within them.

Ben Johnson's coach wrote about doping in the 1980's. He said the 90's would usher in entirely beatable testing regimes, which allowed the governing bodies to say they were tough on drugs. While it would risk the occasional major scandal it would tacitly satisfy record driven fans. He claimed it would usher in an era where the elite who had cash and access to the best programs would exist on an altogether different plane from the rest, while having essentially carte blanch to dope away.

Liveforrugby

interesting and long article about HGH in the nfl etc

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1537041-hgh-in-the-nfl-what-it-is-why-the-nfl-isnt-testing-and-why-it-soon-will-be

iroced

The issue about doping is very complex I'd say.

First how do we / they (i.e.the competent authorities) define which products are allowed and which are banned ? Also what does the authorised limit on some "body rates" really mean (e.g. the 50% PCV) ? Why only focusing on the hematocrit? What about the hemoglobin for example ? Is it analysed the same way ? Is it just that the anti-doping authorities are not communicating about the latter?

Then we need an international consensus about it. Today, depending where you come from you can take some substances which are disallowed in other countries.


To me the only viable solution is the athlete biological passport started from a young age, e.g. entry date at the academy ? first professional contract signed ? I don't know but certainly early enough to have a detailed view of the athlete's "biological" evolution vs his performance evolution.
Cycling have started this system since 2008 with the "blood module". They reinforced it in 2011 with the "steroid module" and the "endocrine module". I guess it's still too early to see if efficient. But I think it's the only way. Though of course it all depends on the controlling method, What are they really searching for? Is it a complete blood test analysis carried over the athlete's career ? Or just a search for specific substances ?

Finally do the federations really wish to pay for implementing such a "restrictive" system? Since it can only work if done thoroughly which means "money needed"...

Oh and I was going to forget. And of course the fans... Are they prepared to watch slower games and/or performances? Because in the end doping is a global issue and it's probably everyone's mentality that needs to be changed.

LuckyLloyd

iroced wrote: »

And of course the fans... Are they prepared to watch slower games and/or performances?

I think I know the answer to that one.

Neoulous

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Supposedly rugby was the worst sport in France last year for doping abuses (according to the head of their anti-doping guys I think). Not sure if that's the same article that mentions that.

No not the same article. The big problem with the "bomb" thrown by the AFLD (French Anti-Doping Agency) is that they published a "raw" list of "abnormal results" (for example there were loads of "positive to cannabis" and it was not discussed whether it could be linked to careless personal use or will to reduce nerves before a competition. In addition the context and timing of these results was not mentioned at all, I mean being positive to cannabis during the "holidays" is not the same thing than before playing a final) and not "positive doping case" and of course everyone mixed up everything. Then they backed out trying to explain themselves but I guess it was already too late.

JRant

There's plenty of over the counter stuff available to boost anyone's workout, Jacked 3D and one more rep spring to mind (not sure if jacked isn't banned by now)
If it's a tailored PED regime then it's close on impossible to get caught out.
They're all taking something, just depends on it legality really.

.ak

Folks, speculation of specific players illegally juicing/doping is a BIG no no. Posts deleted.

desertcircus

I'm never sure what to think in cases like these. It seems naive to think there's no doping going on, but on the other hand it seems scarcely believable that it would be anywhere near as prevalent as in cycling. There simply isn't the same benefit in rugby; a cyclist riddled with EPO would absolutely destroy a clean field, but a juiced rugby player would have a marginal advantage in certain aspects of the game - rugby is immensely physical, but it's not simply a test of athletic ability. If it was, Pierre Spies would be far better than Richie McCaw. A clean cyclist in a juiced field would get absolutely nowhere, but a clean player in a juiced league could still do well if he's got a low centre of gravity, an accurate boot, or a mean step. And while difficult, it wouldn't be impossible to compete on a purely physical level with dopers, unlike cycling.

Dravokivich

I thought the appeal of doping/EPO was about recovery? Not strength gains.

Buer

EPO would improve stamina and allow the body supply more red blood cells and therefore muscles additional oxygen which in turn allow the muscles go for longer. It would be of great benefit to a rugby player in a lung bursting 80 minute match in the late stages when others are flagging.

Macy0161

desertcircus wrote: »

I'm never sure what to think in cases like these. It seems naive to think there's no doping going on, but on the other hand it seems scarcely believable that it would be anywhere near as prevalent as in cycling. There simply isn't the same benefit in rugby; a cyclist riddled with EPO would absolutely destroy a clean field, but a juiced rugby player would have a marginal advantage in certain aspects of the game - rugby is immensely physical, but it's not simply a test of athletic ability. If it was, Pierre Spies would be far better than Richie McCaw. A clean cyclist in a juiced field would get absolutely nowhere, but a clean player in a juiced league could still do well if he's got a low centre of gravity, an accurate boot, or a mean step. And while difficult, it wouldn't be impossible to compete on a purely physical level with dopers, unlike cycling.

It's all about marginal gains. How often do rugby games come down to the last few minutes? What's the benefits of faster recovery and faster return from injury over the course of a season? Just because the benefits may be less obvious, doesn't mean they're not there.

Whilst epo in cycling did/ does have the potential to turn a donkey into a racehorse, there's still very real benefits in field sports and other "games of skill". And there are doping products that enhance focus/ concentration.

Interestingly, if you went to a football forum, they would (and are) saying how they can see how it would benefit rugby players to dope due to the physicality and difference size can make, whereas there's too much skill in football for there to be the benefits.

I've no idea how prevalent it is, but without blood testing and profiling there is in effect no proper system. Even then, the general feeling is that tests are more an IQ test than a dope test, but everything that makes it harder is a good thing.

desertcircus

Not sure if I'm right, but I think I remember from reading David Millar's autobiography that EPO is catabolic in nature, so runs a high risk of reducing muscle mass. If that is the case, it would make EPO use in rugby a pretty bad idea, as you'd trade a marginal speed advantage in the last twenty minutes of four or five games a year for a significant problem with maintaining muscle mass. Steroid use would probably be more likely, as rugby isn't an endurance sport and the vast majority of EPO cases have come in endurance sports.

Sinbad_NI

What’s to say there's isn't another, as yet, undetectable drug out there that is more suited to Rugby.
PED's didn't start and won't end at EPO.

For me the farce surrounding cycling at the moment will dilute my enthusiasm for most sports for good while.
The old moto of “innocent until proved guilty” is now long gone from my head.

Slideshowbob

http://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/international-rugby/paul-kimmage-rugby-has-to-face-up-to-its-growing-pains-30766512.html

http://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/other-rugby/dangerous-obsession-with-size-creates-bigger-need-for-answers-30785080.html

..... and we are all still wondering why PK took a step back from BOD's book????

aimee1

given the sheer size of players and given the current injury percentage of 20-25% of any club squad being injured at any particular time, I would be stunned if there isnt some fairly high level of illegal drug use. If you go to elverys in town you will see supplements stands with leinster players images on the stand they are displayed on.

I know there are supplements which are not banned, but in professional sport there will always be cheats who go beyond what is legal

Bloodgate in 2009 showed the lengths people will go to in order to get an advantage, and that was done in a stadium with 15000 people present.

.ak

Slideshowbob wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/international-rugby/paul-kimmage-rugby-has-to-face-up-to-its-growing-pains-30766512.html

http://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/other-rugby/dangerous-obsession-with-size-creates-bigger-need-for-answers-30785080.html

..... and we are all still wondering why PK took a step back from BOD's book????

I don't want to come across wrong here, but... It reads just like this:

Amateur player comes across doping in early years of professional rugby.

Years later former amateur player sees how big the the players are now these days.

Former amateur player adds 2+2 and gets 5.

aimee1

.ak wrote: »

I don't want to come across wrong here, but... It reads just like this:

Amateur player comes across doping in early years of professional rugby.

Years later former amateur player sees how big the the players are now these days.

Former amateur player adds 2+2 and gets 5.

Maybe, but how stringent is the testing in rugby. Neil Francis wrote a few years ago after the last WC that not a single test came back positive. Out of 48 games, if 2 players were tested from each team thats nearly 200 tests.

If Franno is right about the number of tests, Given the size of players I find it hard to believe that there isnt a blind eye mentality at some level or else the testing isnt up to scratch

CatFromHue

The 20-25% injury rate of a pro rugby squad is not a new statistic, it's actually been around since the game went pro I think, it's just caught the media attention now.

I agree with .ak in the reasoning of the article and I'm kinda surprised Kimmage hasn't started to talk about the recent WADA numbers which indicated rugby may have a problem.

Frankie Lee

I was going to bump this thread earlier but chickened out. Kimmage is doing good work once again, hopefully it leads to something positive.

Ressiot had good news and bad; the good was that he knew a lot and was prepared to help; the bad was that the 'Omerta' in rugby was worse than anything he had experienced in cycling.

ThisRegard

.ak wrote: »

Former amateur player adds 2+2 and gets 5.

This has been a large problem with cycling. I'm not saying this is your attitude but people didn't want to see what was there in front of them, and many of the early whistle blowers in cycling were ones that didn't make it because they didn't get with the programme. People wrote them off as having sour grapes, Kimmage being one such person to experience this.

Rugby now has a remarkably similar reflection to this.

Zzippy

Now that there is big money in the game, the temptation, and the rewards, are too great for many players not to try something, even if it's an 8-week course of steroids, as mentioned in the article, and staying clean thereafter - much of the gain is maintained even after the drugs are eliminated. People are naive if they think this isn't happening in Ireland too. I'd like to see a lot more testing going on, with players introduced to it from an early age, and know that it's going to be an ongoing thing throughout their careers, and a lot more frequent than it is now.

.ak

aimee1 wrote: »

Maybe, but how stringent is the testing in rugby. Neil Francis wrote a few years ago after the last WC that not a single test came back positive. Out of 48 games, if 2 players were tested from each team thats nearly 200 tests.

If Franno is right about the number of tests, Given the size of players I find it hard to believe that there isnt a blind eye mentality at some level or else the testing isnt up to scratch

Or they were all clean?

Fireball07

Personally, I would be very surprised if there wasn't some amount of doping within the professional game, even here in Ireland. I don't know how widespread it may be, hopefully it's not prevalent (or hopefully it's completely absent) but I'd be surprised if there wasn't some element of it among some top professionals.

CatFromHue

Here is the Kenyan coach's view on the drugs issue they faced

http://www.planetrugby.com/story/0,,3551_9529875,00.html

There's been a few rumours, or more as Berbezier said it actually happened, on drug taking in France in the 70's and 80's though

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/france/2996309/Team-doctor-adds-to-French-rugby-drugs-controversy.html