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

Macy0161

desertcircus wrote: »

The benefits just aren't nearly as concrete or even visible in rugby competition as they are in other sports.

How many times are we told it's important to be able to go "the full 80"? It's the small percentage that makes the difference in a lot of games. I've no idea whether it's prevalent or not, and I believe most of the size gains we've seen can be made naturally and/or with legal supplements. However, I think it's dangerous to rule out potential benefits because of a perception of the amount of "non-athletic" demands tbh. There's been plenty of rumours (and in some cases evidence) around (again, in some cases very successful) football teams, linked to the same doctors that have been proven to have doped cyclists.

Clearlier

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.

In order for sports bodies to behave like that you have to assume openness, long term thinking, rationality and a certain level of disinterested thinking at a personal level. I don't think that we can make these assumptions which is one of the reasons that the emergence of relatively independent bodies such as WADA and national equivalents such as the ISC has been such a welcome development. It doesn't overcome the issue where doping is state sanctioned but it's more independent than when sporting bodies have sole control over testing.

There are powerful reasons for sporting bodies to cover up doping. We've seen it happen too often to think otherwise.

Neil3030

Teferi wrote: »

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

Unless they cover it up in a way that keeps them looking clean.

Suppose an organisation knows certain PEDs can be taken in dosages that metabolise and become untraceable within 4-5 hours. They consequently impose a policy of random testing where athletes are chosen randomly, 7 days a week, day or night, and must provide a urine test within 12 hours (an enormously expensive procedure by the way). To joe public this seems like a tough protocol, but all they are doing is setting the groundrules for people who want to dope.

They then cite costs and precedence if ever quizzed on the 12 hour window, i.e., "other organisations give 24 hours notice, we are actually the most stringent federation, we spend millions trying to keep the sport clean etc etc."

No whistelblower could ever really harm them in this context. Unless perhaps it came from an administrative position.

justsomebloke

OK can we please be careful with the insinuations that are being levelled here.

Can we please refrain from saying that this is wide spread issue within the game as currently there is no evidence to support this.

Can we also refrain from suggesting that because players are big that they must be on 'something'. With hard work the physiques most players have is attainable (If it's attainable for a particular player is different though but is not to be discussed here.

Also there is to be no implying that any organisations are currently knowingly turning a blind eye to this.

Unfortunately from a legal point of view threads like this can be in a very grey are that boards doesn't particularly want to stray into, so this may have to be closed and posts deleted if felt necessary.

evil_seed

If it's your opinion that saying you think it's rampant but not naming names or teams then surely that shouldn't be a problem

I also don't think there should be an issue with your third point jsb, given that that's almost a verbatim quote from Benzech?

desertcircus

CatFromHue wrote: »

Is there evidence of widespread use, no.

Is there evidence that there's more use than in Athletics and Cycling, yes.

Even that's unclear; it could be (and I suspect is) evidence that dopers in cycling and athletics are more practised dopers and better able to conceal what they're using while still passing the tests. Hell, if steroids are detectable for longer than EPO, it's not even evidence of that.

.ak

Guys if you have an issue with a mod warning that's fine, but please debate it with the mods via PM, don't drag the thread into a another off-topic debate. Also, please keep in mind what JSB is saying on his last line, that this subject has a lot of taboos attached to it, maybe even legal issues, so our hands are tied in certain regards.

CatFromHue

Ok so, I'll edit my post

transylman

Current list of British athletes with doping sanctions:

http://www.ukad.org.uk/anti-doping-rule-violations/current-violations/search

This is sanctions for all sports but one in particular stands out on this list. If you can't conclude from this that steroid use is widespread in Rugby at all levels then nothing will convince you.

CatFromHue

transylman wrote: »

Current list of British athletes with doping sanctions:

http://www.ukad.org.uk/anti-doping-rule-violations/current-violations/search

This is sanctions for all sports but one in particular stands out on this list. If you can't conclude from this that steroid use is widespread in Rugby at all levels then nothing will convince you.

15/43 by my count.

Zzippy

2 cyclists and 15 rugby players. And people are saying rugby doesn't have a doping problem?

Heaslip comments (audio)

http://balls.ie/rugby/163507-jamie-heaslip-defends-rugby-paul-kimmage-drugs/

hardCopy

I don't think Jamie's tweets help anyone, least of all himself. He's turned a situation where Kimmage was calling for a broad debate without naming names into a situation where he's being questioned on how many times he's been tested. Kimmage is probably hoping a few retired players will come out with more concrete evidence.

The reason I think rugby needs to be pro-active in this regard is because the rewards for doping are pretty clear. Size is extremely important in rugby. Intelligence and skill are obviously important but there's not much you can do to quickly make any significant gains in these areas. A player who's too small could make or break or break his career by adding enough kilos to compete, even a big player with brutal hands can be made more useful as ball carrier if he adds a few kilos.

Any player who is already doing everything right on the pitch, in the gym and in the kitchen can still improve through the use of PEDs without any major additional effort. As long as this is the case PEDs will always draw people in unless there is total fear of the testing regime.

Even if there is no problem at the moment, why not talk about it and make sure we avoid it ever becoming a problem?

wadacrack

rugby has gone to sh*t now tbh..all about size etc..it will become like the NFL in that PED's may become acceptable in further years

Frankie Lee

Teferi wrote: »

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

As an example 34 Essendon players in the AFL were implicated in their peptide scandal(still under investigation). None blew the whistle.

That was only uncovered as part of a criminal investigation into match fixing.

Boom__Boom

Had a look for the number of drug tests conducted in Ireland and found the following in the IRFU annual report for the 2013/2014 season.

Senior XV	23
Emerging Ire 	2
National U20	18
UnderAge	19
Pro12	        81
AIL Club	15
Women	        19
	
Total 	        177

Seems a fairly small enough number of tests, especially when you consider the well-established issues with drug testing (masking agents & tests not picking up the latest developments in doping)

The figures in the previous year were pretty similar - there was one more test than in 2012/2013, despite the fact that there were no tests in the Emerging Ireland and Underage category in 2012/2013

http://www.irishrugby.ie/irfu/annual_reports.php

hardCopy

Boom__Boom wrote: »

Had a look for the number of drug tests conducted in Ireland and found the following in the IRFU annual report for the 2013/2014 season.

Senior XV	23
Emerging Ire 	2
National U20	18
UnderAge	19
Pro12	        81
AIL Club	15
Women	        19
	
Total 	        177

Seems a fairly small enough number of tests, especially when you consider the well-established issues with drug testing (masking agents & tests not picking up the latest developments in doping)

The figures in the previous year were pretty similar - there was one more test than in 2012/2013, despite the fact that there were no tests in the Emerging Ireland and Underage category in 2012/2013

http://www.irishrugby.ie/irfu/annual_reports.php

The Senior XV tests are broken into 8 in-competition tests and 15 out-of-competition. Seems quite low really, I'd like to see guys getting tested multiple times per season.

Dave_The_Sheep

Is that 23 tests across the whole team, or per player per year?

Clearlier

Dave_The_Sheep wrote: »

Is that 23 tests across the whole team, or per player per year?

The whole team. Does that inspire confidence that we would catch anybody if they were taking drugs?

My name is URL

How many people play rugby in Ireland? It's got to be 100,000 at least right?

177 tests in total over the course of an entire season seems insanely low!

Bridge93

My name is URL wrote: »

How many people play rugby in Ireland? It's got to be 100,000 at least right?

177 tests in total over the course of an entire season seems insanely low!

Well about 99,000 would be ruled out by playing at a low/average level or being too young. Theyre not going to test 13 year olds or a team in Division 8.

A very small percentage play at a level that would be worth their time and resources testing. Still too low though.

Swiwi.

transylman wrote: »

Current list of British athletes with doping sanctions:

http://www.ukad.org.uk/anti-doping-rule-violations/current-violations/search

This is sanctions for all sports but one in particular stands out on this list. If you can't conclude from this that steroid use is widespread in Rugby at all levels then nothing will convince you.

There are so many statistical holes in making that assumption that it's hard to know where to start. And I'm not going to. But I'm not convinced, no.

Aidric

Live on newstalk right now.

Dave_The_Sheep

Clearlier wrote: »

The whole team. Does that inspire confidence that we would catch anybody if they were taking drugs?

No. No, it does not.

If true, it would also make me question how Jamie Heaslip would say he's lost track of the times he's been tested. Which, given he's a fairly straightforward bloke with a good record of straight talking means I'd also question the stats. I'm not saying he's talking Gospel, but it makes me think both ways.

Clearlier

Dave_The_Sheep wrote: »

No. No, it does not.

If true, it would also make me question how Jamie Heaslip would say he's lost track of the times he's been tested. Which, given he's a fairly straightforward bloke with a good record of straight talking means I'd also question the stats. I'm not saying he's talking Gospel, but it makes me think both ways.

The only thought I have on that is that I think the tests referred to are the ones conducted by the ISC on behalf of the IRFU. I don't know but I wonder if they are also tested by other bodies when playing away. I would have thought that the cost would have been sent the IRFU's way but perhaps not if there's some kind of reciprocal arrangement. I would possibly have expected to see those numbers called out as well though.

Putinovsky

Dave_The_Sheep wrote: »

No. No, it does not.

If true, it would also make me question how Jamie Heaslip would say he's lost track of the times he's been tested. Which, given he's a fairly straightforward bloke with a good record of straight talking means I'd also question the stats. I'm not saying he's talking Gospel, but it makes me think both ways.

The vast, vast majority of those tests are taken by Leinster players because the testers all live in Dublin. Munster, Ulster and Connacht players rarely get tested. This was told to me by a player who is currently playing for Leinster.

Clearlier

Putinovsky wrote: »

The vast, vast majority of those tests are taken by Leinster players because the testers all live in Dublin. Munster, Ulster and Connacht players rarely get tested. This was told to me by a player who is currently playing for Leinster.

Obviously it's possible but I'd be disappointed if it's the case. It's a fairly obvious miss that should be flagged up at any kind of performance review. The ISC includes all county GAA teams so it has a body of athletes to test that are spread throughout the country.

desertcircus

I've taken a brief look through the rugby union names on that list; there's not much of a pattern to it, but one thing that jumps out is just how low a level a lot of the violations occur at. A 28-year-old flanker for the second team of a club whose first play in the sixth tier of English rugby, a seventeen-year-old trying to recover from injury, a player in the third tier of Welsh rugby, an under-18s coach...a Harlequins backup hooker seems to be the most high-profile recipient of a ban. Reading between the lines of the ones that are high-profile enough to get some coverage beyond simply stating the imposition of the ban, a number of cases seem to involve attempts to recover from injury as fast as possible.

desertcircus

desertcircus wrote: »

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.

Obviously there's a certain amount of truth in this but I think you are missing the key point: any chemical assistance that makes you fitter is going to improve your execution of the skills you have - particularly towards the end of the game.

Everyone knows that mistakes happen when players get tired. If there was some magical drug that stopped people getting so tired... EPO for example... wouldn't it make sense for rugby and soccer players to take it? It would make them much less error prone in addition to being fitter and faster.