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

CatFromHue

Molester Stallone II wrote: »

To borrow a phrase from Kimmage's own autobiography, no Irish journo is going to "spit in the soup"
what would happen if Thornley followed up on this ? His access to the Irish camp and the provinces would be stripped away. I not saying there is anything to the claims Kimmage has made, but you can be sure a rugby journo isn't going to jump on board atbthis early stage

To me he's almost directly mentioning the Second Captains and Off the Ball guys.

Though Tuesday from a Sunday piece isn't that long really.

Zzippy

Deleted User wrote: »

Someone wake Conor George up from hibernation and tell him to get sniffing around Leinster.

He didn't exist. It was a fictitious pen name used to publish the early drafts of Franno's ramblings when he'd had too many whiskeys and thought he was a diehard Munster fan. They had to drop the charade when he went sober...

CatFromHue

It's very interesting the way Benezech uses the phrase medical assistance instead of doping.

It's a much better phrase I think as it's much more accurate. Doping is doing something illegal, medical assistance doesn't venture into legal/illegal. Which brings me back to the caffeine gum that Declan Fitzpatrick took that led to his heart problems. He took an external substance to assist in his game but he didn't dope.

Clearlier

CatFromHue wrote: »

It's very interesting the way Benezech uses the phrase medical assistance instead of doping.

It's a much better phrase I think as it's much more accurate. Doping is doing something illegal, medical assistance doesn't venture into legal/illegal. Which brings me back to the caffeine gum that Declan Fitzpatrick took that led to his heart problems. He took an external substance to assist in his game but he didn't dope.

I think that it's a confusing term and should be avoided as it merges something desirable (medical treatment where there is an illness/injury) and something we seek to avoid (performance enhancement through means or methods that have been banned).

If you want to have an argument about whether doping should be allowed then there's an argument to be had but I don't think that it's helpful to confuse what are two different things (even if there is a little bit of grey where one segues into the other).

Zzippy

CatFromHue wrote: »

It's very interesting the way Benezech uses the phrase medical assistance instead of doping.

It's a much better phrase I think as it's much more accurate. Doping is doing something illegal, medical assistance doesn't venture into legal/illegal. Which brings me back to the caffeine gum that Declan Fitzpatrick took that led to his heart problems. He took an external substance to assist in his game but he didn't dope.

I get the impression Benezech uses that term to avoid being successfully sued - medical assistance could include doping, but not necessarily, whereas using the term doping is pretty damning.

CatFromHue

I think from one of the articles Benezech made the point that you can take illegal substances under certain rules (injury etc) but that's not considered doping. That's why he used the term medical assistance as the confusion it may bring is correct and more real life as opposed to the black and white term doping.

"As soon as you mention doping they (the governing body) say: 'We have no positives. There's no doping. It's as simple as that,' so the term I used instead was 'l'accompagnement medicalise' (medical assistance)."

"But surely taking growth hormone to play rugby is doping?" I counter. "You can argue that it's what they need to do to play the game but it's still doping."

"Yes, for you," he replies, "but not for him (the player) because he's not positive after a test. That's the problem. I cannot use a word that has several definitions and for me, taking growth hormone is using a performance enhancing medical aid, the same as the useless stuff like creatine and the useful stuff like EPO.

hardCopy

Zzippy wrote: »

I get the impression Benezech uses that term to avoid being successfully sued - medical assistance could include doping, but not necessarily, whereas using the term doping is pretty damning.

CatFromHue wrote: »

I think from one of the articles Benezech made the point that you can take illegal substances under certain rules (injury etc) but that's not considered doping. That's why he used the term medical assistance as the confusion it may bring is correct and more real life as opposed to the black and white term doping.

I think it probably also reflects the terminology that would be used by players and staff in any hypothetical doping program.

Cycling used to refer to it using terms like 'preparation'.

Players or coaches looking to maintain plausible deniability may hire a dodgy doctor and deliberately not ask too much about the medicines they are prescribed.

"Take this one for your asthma, this one for you underactive thyroid and these ones for your male menopause"

"Thanks Doc!"

Clearlier

CatFromHue wrote: »

I think from one of the articles Benezech made the point that you can take illegal substances under certain rules (injury etc) but that's not considered doping. That's why he used the term medical assistance as the confusion it may bring is correct and more real life as opposed to the black and white term doping.

Depending on the substance a ban on competing may be imposed whilst a banned substance is being taken for medical reasons. This is not the same as a penalty for doping and it's not considered as an offence. This is an area where I would like more clarity with temporary bans on competing being the default setting.

nice_guy80

time for Irish rugby to take this seriously

Pudsy33

nice_guy80 wrote: »

time for Irish rugby to take this seriously

There's no suggestion they're not taking it seriously. There's no evidence of any wrongdoing.

Look I'd be surprised if we don't have a big drug scandal in both rugby and football over the coming years but we don't need a witch hunt.

dastardly00

Paul Kimmage was on The Last Word on Today FM this evening talking about this. Linky (last half-hour of the show).

Nermal

nice_guy80 wrote: »

time for Irish rugby to take this seriously

To take a self-interested view, why? No other country is bothering to do so. Why put our athletes at a disadvantage?

desertcircus

I'm still not convinced that there's much going on at the top level in rugby, especially not to the same extent as cycling or other athletic tests. If two new and completely undetectable drugs were invented tomorrow, one that increased lean muscle mass by 3% compared to working clean, and one that increased functional power output by 3% compared to working clean, then I could safely predict two things. One, that within three years we could more or less guarantee that the winner of the Tour's yellow jersey would be riddled with the second-generation EPO. Two, that the next team to win the RWC will almost certainly not have fifteen players on the second-generation steroids.

Rugby (and soccer as well) makes too many non-athletic demands on players for doping to turn an also-ran into a world-class operator. A little extra muscle mass and an extra fifth of a second over 100m will prove to be the difference between a score and a miss maybe once every four or five games for a given player; a little more VO2 capacity and an extra tenth of a watt per kilo of threshold output will prove to be the difference between being an anonymous mid-pack finisher and a mountain-shredding Tour legend. Likewise, if half the field are doping, a clean rugby player will still be able to compete to a pretty high level (if they're truly brilliant, they may still make it to the very top), but a clean cyclist in a half-doped field might as well just throw their bike off a cliff.

I don't think doping in rugby is nonexistent, but I doubt it's anywhere near as prevalent as in cycling/gridiron/baseball/sprinting, or indeed anything that makes relatively few non-athletic demands on its participants. A 110kg man at six-four with a 10.5-second hundred metres will have a decent career in rugby but may never make it as a top-tier player (see Pierre Spies as a ballpark example), but a 60kg cyclist who can sustain 6.5 watts per kilo will utterly destroy the competition. The benefits just aren't nearly as concrete or even visible in rugby competition as they are in other sports.

CatFromHue

Clearlier wrote: »

Depending on the substance a ban on competing may be imposed whilst a banned substance is being taken for medical reasons. This is not the same as a penalty for doping and it's not considered as an offence. This is an area where I would like more clarity with temporary bans on competing being the default setting.

That's why I like the term medical assistance. As you say the player is not doping but he/she is taking a banned substance.

Pudsy33 wrote: »

There's no suggestion they're not taking it seriously. There's no evidence of any wrongdoing.

Look I'd be surprised if we don't have a big drug scandal in both rugby and football over the coming years but we don't need a witch hunt.

RUGBY HAD A higher percentage of positive drugs tests in 2013 than athletics or cycling, according to figures released by the World Anti-Doping Agency [WADA].
While cycling and athletics had rates of 1.2 per cent of positive tests, rugby was at 1.3 per cent. That was despite the latter having a considerably lower amount of tests carried out over the course of the year.

http://www.thescore.ie/drugs-testing-positive-results-rugby-1574484-Jul2014/

That to me indicates it's not being taken seriously.

Nermal wrote: »

To take a self-interested view, why? No other country is bothering to do so. Why put our athletes at a disadvantage?

It should be an IRB led thing really and the IRFU fall back on saying they're compliant with all IRB rules anytime this comes up.

Pudsy33

I was replying to the poster who said Irish rugby in particular. I agree a World Rugby led initiative is the way forward.

Frankie Lee

If what is alleged from some former pros that doping was widespread in the 80's and 90's is true, then when did it become clean? When the financial rewards grew or when the physical toll of playing against much larger players more often during a season?

Frankie Lee

The IRB, like the UCI, like the ITF and like FIFA only have the interest of growing the games commercially and increasing revenue. Doping scandals don't help them.

Teferi

Frankie Lee wrote: »

The IRB, like the UCI, like the ITF and like FIFA only have the interest of growing the games commercially and increasing revenue. Doping scandals don't help them.

I'd strongly feel it is the opposite. Look at cycling, over the last decade and more it has taken a massive hit both in viewership and reputation due to drug scandals. I really think that sports bodies have wised up that professionals playing clean is far more lucrative than the alternative.

Minjor

Jamie Heaslip is criticising Kimmage on twitter saying he's trying to be controversial.

Frankie Lee

Minjor wrote: »

Jamie Heaslip is criticising Kimmage on twitter saying he's trying to be controversial.

That was yesterday or the day before, I think he deleted the tweet fairly quick.

CatFromHue

Minjor wrote: »

Jamie Heaslip is criticising Kimmage on twitter saying he's trying to be controversial.

Granted I don't understand the Twitter business (Eoin) but I just looked through his page and didn't see any mention of it.

Slideshowbob

Frankie Lee wrote: »

That was yesterday or the day before, I think he deleted the tweet fairly quick.

https://twitter.com/jamieheaslip/status/539082264542736384

duckysauce

Minjor wrote: »

Jamie Heaslip is criticising Kimmage on twitter saying he's trying to be controversial.

very dopey of him

Bridge93

Huge allegations on German TV tonight exposing the Russian Athletics Association as running the largest doping network in history. Lance will be devastated to lose that title too!
No doubt Russia arent the only ones involved either. Athletics is in as much trouble as cycling was. Would hate rugby to go the same way.

Pudsy33

Cycling has done it's best to come out the other side but any top cyclist will always be viewed with suspicion which is sad imo. I'd hate to see it happen to rugby. I reckon it's just a matter of time until someone gets dome though.

Clearlier

CatFromHue wrote: »

That's why I like the term medical assistance. As you say the player is not doping but he/she is taking a banned substance.




http://www.thescore.ie/drugs-testing-positive-results-rugby-1574484-Jul2014/

That to me indicates it's not being taken seriously.



It should be an IRB led thing really and the IRFU fall back on saying they're compliant with all IRB rules anytime this comes up.

I agree about the IRB needing to take the lead on this. Looking at how the other major global sporting bodies operates/operated gives a clue as to how difficult this will be. Any ideas on how pressure could be applied?

I'd sooner fix the issue with people being allowed to take a banned substance whilst competing than introduce a nebulous term like medical assistance. I just don't think that it adds any clarity to the discussion, quite the opposite in fact.

Teferi wrote: »

I'd strongly feel it is the opposite. Look at cycling, over the last decade and more it has taken a massive hit both in viewership and reputation due to drug scandals. I really think that sports bodies have wised up that professionals playing clean is far more lucrative than the alternative.

I disagree, if anything the cycling thing has just reinforced how important the perception of playing clean is important. It's important for a sport from a popularity/financial perspective that it appears to be a fair contest not that it actually is. I don't think that governing bodies are encouraging anybody to dope. I do suspect that there is a temptation to turn a blind eye towards it for fear that exposing it will damage the sport. Cycling certainly would have continued to hide if it hadn't been for the likes of Kimmage and Walsh. Look at the American sports for examples of what's important to revenues, did the baseball chiefs think it was better that Babe Ruth's home run record was overtaken or that an athlete should be banned for doping?

Bridge93 wrote: »

Huge allegations on German TV tonight exposing the Russian Athletics Association as running the largest doping network in history. Lance will be devastated to lose that title too!
No doubt Russia arent the only ones involved either. Athletics is in as much trouble as cycling was. Would hate rugby to go the same way.

Russia has been recognised within the athletics community as having a huge doping problem for a while now. When they introduced the biological passport a few years ago slew of Russians were caught. The most interesting question about Russian athletes is the extent to which it was organised by coaches/federations (East Germany) v individual athletes (Martin Fagan). The Fuentes affair also demonstrated that Spain has a significant problem. The decision by the courts to destroy evidence of doping is very concerning.

Sport has a real problem with doping. Rugby has a problem with doping. The article linked to earlier in this thread pointing out that rugby has a higher rate of positive tests than cycling cannot definitively say how big the problem is but it does point to something that needs to be more aggressively pursued. Things like the biological passport have revolutionised our ability to detect doping but they're expensive and a real commitment in the form of much more extensive and targeted testing needs to be made.

Buer

duckysauce wrote: »

very dopey of him

I see what you did there.

Teferi

Clearlier wrote: »

I disagree, if anything the cycling thing has just reinforced how important the perception of playing clean is important. It's important for a sport from a popularity/financial perspective that it appears to be a fair contest not that it actually is. I don't think that governing bodies are encouraging anybody to dope. I do suspect that there is a temptation to turn a blind eye towards it for fear that exposing it will damage the sport. Cycling certainly would have continued to hide if it hadn't been for the likes of Kimmage and Walsh. Look at the American sports for examples of what's important to revenues, did the baseball chiefs think it was better that Babe Ruth's home run record was overtaken or that an athlete should be banned for doping?

Therein lies the rub. There is little reason for sporting bodies to commit to cover ups in the long term because eventually somebody will whistle blow and if there is found to be a mass cover up it damages the sport further.

Neil3030

Teferi wrote: »

Therein lies the rub. There is little reason for sporting bodies to commit to cover ups in the long term because eventually somebody will whistle blow and if there is found to be a mass cover up it damages the sport further.

Bigger, stronger, faster athletes, breaking records, making bigger hits or ultimately creating a more exciting product.... I think there's plenty of reason for organisations to cover things up or at the very least turn a blind eye. Risk reward.

Teferi

Neil3030 wrote: »

Bigger, stronger, faster athletes, breaking records, making bigger hits or ultimately creating a more exciting product.... I think there's plenty of reason for organisations to cover things up or at the very least turn a blind eye. Risk reward.

And again, all it takes is for one whistleblower to damage the entire product. Risk reward.