Rugby Scandals - Drugs

Glass Prison 1214

Glass Prison 1214 wrote: »

Chiliboy Ralepelle tests positive for steroids. http://www.thescore.ie/chiliboy-ralepelle-anabolic-steroids-1506983-Jun2014/

Awful news, I have feared for a while that rugby has a drug problem. Hopefully it's an isolated case.

The IRB’s anti-doping rules carry a minimum ban of two years for a player’s first offence, with lifetime bans for second violations.

Won't be the only one imo...

Pudsy33

I reckon over the next few years we will see some major stories breaking about drugs in both rugby and soccer. Bound to happen eventually.

Neil3030

I'll preface this by saying that I don't know the IRB's precise testing procedure, but if it mirrors that of the IOC, I doubt we'll see any high profile players getting pinged. Not that I think the players are clean, but it's just too difficult to get caught.

Zzippy

Mod: Before this gets out of hand - absolutely no speculation about named players possibly taking drugs until positive tests are confirmed. Speculating about players who have not been found guilty of taking PEDs can get boards.ie into serious trouble, and such posts will be deleted and bans issued. DO NOT name players unless they have been banned, and you can provide a link. First and final warning

Emperor1989

Chiliboy may be a isolated case. He was a quota player IMO and was never good enough hence why he had to go to bridge the gap.

There is no doubt plenty on stuff, sure look at the size of modern players but is testing rigorous enough to catch them? I have my doubts.

Hagz

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zhuFF_M1iI

15Pete

The punishments for blatant eye gouging should be the same as those for testing positive to banned substances. For example a blatant gouge such as Burger on Fitzgerald is equally deserving of a two year ban as Ralaphelle.

Kirk Van Houten

Emperor1989 wrote: »

Chiliboy may be a isolated case. He was a quota player IMO and was never good enough hence why he had to go to bridge the gap.

There is no doubt plenty on stuff, sure look at the size of modern players but is testing rigorous enough to catch them? I have my doubts.

isolated cases in sports that puts a premium on physical size, speed and even recovery between games is probably more of a hope than a reality.

Soccer looks to be the next sport that will be exposed especially if the role of Fuentes in a supposedly systematic role for pre season with football clubs as hinted at in Operation Peurto is ever proven.

SaveOurLyric

Kirk Van Houten wrote: »

isolated cases in sports that puts a premium on physical size, speed and even recovery between games is probably more of a hope than a reality.

Indeed. I dont even bother with the hope, but just accept that at least a serious proportion of them are on illegal stuff.
And I have no problem with it as long as they dont get caught or create a stink about it for the sport. Rugby is running fine as it is - the last thing the authorities should (would!) do is look too closely into that issue.

Emperor1989

Kirk Van Houten wrote: »

isolated cases in sports that puts a premium on physical size, speed and even recovery between games is probably more of a hope than a reality.

Soccer looks to be the next sport that will be exposed especially if the role of Fuentes in a supposedly systematic role for pre season with football clubs as hinted at in Operation Peurto is ever proven.

I believe plenty are on it at the lower levels, I hope the top guys aren't but it is certainly worrying.

Zzippy

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Indeed. I dont even bother with the hope, but just accept that at least a serious proportion of them are on illegal stuff.
And I have no problem with it as long as they dont get caught or create a stink about it for the sport. Rugby is running fine as it is - the last thing the authorities should (would!) do is look too closely into that issue.

So, it's ok as long as it doesn't create any bad PR??? It's not that far from there to the "sure they're all on it, he's still great to stand out" Lance Armstrong argument.

twinytwo

When it comes to sports and drugs, it should be an instant lifetime ban, no if,buts or ands... The should defo be no second chances.

Emperor1989

If your coming back from a major injury, ligament damage and you are being pumped full of steroids by the Docs? is that the same as steroid abuse?

A lot of players these days are coming back from massive injuries and return to the top level, something has to helping there rehabiliation.

thomond2006

twinytwo wrote: »

When it comes to sports and drugs, it should be an instant lifetime ban, no if,buts or ands... The should defo be no second chances.

Should Matt Stevens have been banned for life for his cocaine problem?

P_1

So Chiliboy has been a naughty boy then?

Now that the cheap pun is out of the way, what is the typical punishment for the use of PED's in rugby?

Zzippy

Emperor1989 wrote: »

If your coming back from a major injury, ligament damage and you are being pumped full of steroids by the Docs? is that the same as steroid abuse?

A lot of players these days are coming back from massive injuries and return to the top level, something has to helping there rehabiliation.

Are you confusing corticosteroids with anabolic steroids? One is used for treatment of inflammation, the other is used to build muscle. AFAIK some corticosteroids are permitted for athletes under medical supervision, all anabolic steroids are banned for athletes

Fireball07

It would be very surprising if this was an isolated case. And I wouldn't be surprised if it happened amongst Irish players too. I imagine that it would be quite hard to resist if there was that kind of culture within a team/group of players.


Maybe I'm wrong, I hope I am, but it would be surprising.

Glass Prison 1214

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Indeed. I dont even bother with the hope, but just accept that at least a serious proportion of them are on illegal stuff.
And I have no problem with it as long as they dont get caught or create a stink about it for the sport. Rugby is running fine as it is - the last thing the authorities should (would!) do is look too closely into that issue.

This is the worst attitude possible and I sincerely hope it doesn't reflect that of the authorities. This is precisely the attitude Hein Verbruggen and cycling took in the 1990s. It leads to endless problems, firstly it completely accommodates the use of PEDs, which is both unethical and dangerous.

It is totally unfair to allow their use because all people react differently to them, some will gain more of an advantage than others which creates an unlevel playing field. And what about all the honourable rugby players who choose not to use them? They will suffer as a result of not being up to the physical standards of the doper, worse yet some underage players could, and in all likelihood have, had careers in professional rugby stolen from them because they were unwilling to dope while others did. This situation cannot be allowed.

And lets not forget how dangerous they are. Take a look at cycling for example, in a 13 month period between 2003 and 2004, seven cyclists died from the use of PEDs,http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/39997062/#!WHntq this is utter proof that they are dangerous and their use should be met with long long bans. The rugby authorities, like in all sports have a duty of care to protect athletes from the dangers of them by doing everything in their power to stop them being used.

Swiwi.

Zzippy wrote: »

Are you confusing corticosteroids with anabolic steroids? One is used for treatment of inflammation, the other is used to build muscle. AFAIK some corticosteroids are permitted for athletes under medical supervision, all anabolic steroids are banned for athletes

Corticosteroids cause muscle weakness (proximal myopathy to be exact) with long-term use, and they certainly aren't performance enhancing. I suspect they are allowed for certain medical conditions, whereas anabolic steroids are of course banned.

Emperor1989

Zzippy wrote: »

Are you confusing corticosteroids with anabolic steroids? One is used for treatment of inflammation, the other is used to build muscle. AFAIK some corticosteroids are permitted for athletes under medical supervision, all anabolic steroids are banned for athletes

I admit I don't have a clue about the various steroids etc. But would it be possible that some of the ingredients in some steroids use to treat injuries medically be some of the same stuff that could also be preformance enhancing?

Basically just wanting to know is there a chance of a cross over between the 2.

Zzippy

Emperor1989 wrote: »

I admit I don't have a clue about the various steroids etc. But would it be possible that some of the ingredients in some steroids use to treat injuries medically be some of the same stuff that could also be preformance enhancing?

Basically just wanting to know is there a chance of a cross over between the 2.

I'm pretty sure there isn't, I think all they have in common is they both contain the word steroids. Steroids covers a vast number of different drugs, only some of which are the anabolic steroids that promote muscle growth.

chippers

twinytwo wrote: »

When it comes to sports and drugs, it should be an instant lifetime ban, no if,buts or ands... The should defo be no second chances.

Have a watch of the video posted at the start of the thread about Sam Chalmers. Do you think he should have receive a lifetime ban?

Swan Curry

The problem with lifetime bans is that they often just cause people to go to further lengths to try and cover up their use rather than prevent them doing it in the first place.

Teams should be encouraged to test their players at least semi-regularly,if a player is caught fine the team as part of the punishment.Make it so that it's not all about the user,show them their actions can have consequences for other members of the team.

Swiwi.

It's slightly off-topic, but I see there is also growing concern about match-fixing for RWC 2015. Apparently 50% of players in the next RWC will be amateurs, semi-pros at best, so temptations exist. The IRB apparently has measures in place to look for dodgy results. Pretty hard to match-fix rugby though.

digzy

Lads, you'd wanna be pretty nieve to think there isn't a lot of this going on. The players ain't tested anything like in athletics. I can't see how players in the front row can achieve that level just from diet and training alone.

The secret race is a bit of an eye opener and a good read. There's a certain football side associated with a certain doctor. You can draw your own conclusions......

Buer

Swiwi. wrote: »

It's slightly off-topic, but I see there is also growing concern about match-fixing for RWC 2015. Apparently 50% of players in the next RWC will be amateurs, semi-pros at best, so temptations exist. The IRB apparently has measures in place to look for dodgy results. Pretty hard to match-fix rugby though.

Not so much match fixing but it would be handy to fix certain things. A player could get himself a yellow card ensuring a card happens in a certain period of a match. A kicker could miss a handy shot to ensure the opposition score first.

When John Higgins got done for his fixing it wasn't for matches but individual frames, high breaks etc.

Stev_o

Wonder how many are using Testosterone replacement therapy.

student15

My two pennys on this is that steroid users for rugby should be banned from all engagement of any form with rugby.
There is no place for it.
I personally have worked very hard to get to the level at which I play at and I know there is steroid use with others.
Not naming my league or team or players.
Just confirming that the want and the desire for those wanting to play professionally exists from senior players and I'm sure junior league teams too.
It is an unfair advantage and far too heavily available.

irishbucsfan

Buer wrote: »

When John Higgins got done for his fixing it wasn't for matches but individual frames, high breaks etc.

To be pedantic he was never actually done for match fixing, just discussing it! (Just in case someone complains)

Stev_o

Stev_o wrote: »

Wonder how many are using Testosterone replacement therapy.

There's an amazing proportion who have asthma.

BazPM

Stev_o wrote: »

Wonder how many are using Testosterone replacement therapy.

Testosterone replacement therapy is legit and should still only bring the test to normal levels. Anything more and the player will be considered to be doping irrespective of whether he's been ok'ed for TRT. Gone are the days of using the asthma inhaler excuse that was commonly used in football however there are probably still lots of loopholes. Ever notice how players that have long lay offs tend to have their injuries become infected? Suddenly they need a course of steroids and come back leaner and bigger than before, as the season progresses they return to normal size. Steroids are of course legit to treat aggressive infections but the problem is these infections happen a disproportionate amount of times when players get long injuries. Something's amiss. I could give examples of these infections but that would be indirectly accusing players in Ireland, Wales, England and France of doping and as per mod instructions I won't.

twinytwo

chippers wrote: »

Have a watch of the video posted at the start of the thread about Sam Chalmers. Do you think he should have receive a lifetime ban?

Yes, at the end of the day he made a choice. Ignorance isn't a defence. Too many quality athletes lose out because of doppers.

Just look at athletics there are records that were set in the 80's by the soviets that will never be broken because they were all doped up to their eye balls.

Sport is supposed to be about the best man/team/animal wins...most of the time.. In my book there is nothing worse than cheating and using performance enhancers etc is the worst form of cheating.

Would you be happy to know that you missed out on playing for your country or winning that Olympic medal because the person who just beat you had to juice to get there?

chippers

twinytwo wrote: »

Yes, at the end of the day he made a choice. Ignorance isn't a defence. Too many quality athletes lose out because of doppers.

Just look at athletics there are records that were set in the 80's by the soviets that will never be broken because they were all doped up to their eye balls.

Sport is supposed to be about the best man/team/animal wins...most of the time.. In my book there is nothing worse than cheating and using performance enhancers etc is the worst form of cheating.

Would you be happy to know that you missed out on playing for your country or winning that Olympic medal because the person who just beat you had to juice to get there?

Of course I wouldn't be happy and I hope i'm not coming across as supporting drugs in sport. I do however, believe that not all cases are black and white an d merit a life time ban. Take for example this Blackrock player that was found guilty 2/3 years ago. He was taking a pre-workout drink that at the time was freely available to purchase over the counter in supplement stores (not sure if it still is now). The guy made a mistake. Sure he should be punished but I don't think he should receive a life time ban.

http://www.rte.ie/sport/rugby/ail/2011/1220/288909-carrollm/

Podge_irl

Basically impossible to fix a rugby match but obviously a lot more markets you can take advantage of.

As regards drugs, I assume they're quite common. I'd be keen for the IRB to have stringent rules in place but honestly I don't overly care. It's a different sport to cycling or athletics and still requires skills drugs won't give you.

My biggest issue would be he health concerns around younger players really.

Kirk Van Houten

Podge_irl wrote: »

Basically impossible to fix a rugby match but obviously a lot more markets you can take advantage of.

As regards drugs, I assume they're quite common. I'd be keen for the IRB to have stringent rules in place but honestly I don't overly care. It's a different sport to cycling or athletics and still requires skills drugs won't give you.

My biggest issue would be he health concerns around younger players really.

with regards to young players my concern would be around the long term effects of the suppliments such as creatine that so little research into their long term effects.

I have no idea if Jonah Lomu took creatine suppliments but his creatine levels were 30 times higher than the normal person and are related to his kidney problems.

Kirk Van Houten

Kirk Van Houten wrote: »

with regards to young players my concern would be around the long term effects of the suppliments such as creatine that so little research into their long term effects.

I have no idea if Jonah Lomu took creatine suppliments but his creatine levels were 30 times higher than the normal person and are related to his kidney problems.

Possibly the most researched supplement on the planet.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=creatine

Long term effects have been studied too.

http://www.jissn.com/content/10/1/26

blackdog1

Lot of boys on something during the off season as there is no testing. 10 years ago there was nothing but now with the Internet, everything is available. Guys who usually are on the stuff are young. 20-25. Who need the weight to compete. You just dont put on 10 KG in a few months. These players from what ive seen usually retire from some sort of ligament damage later and injuries dont heal as quick. Really pisses me off because I stayed clean all my career and you find out later that the guy ahead of you was on something. Big problem in every country I recon.

Kirk Van Houten

Deleted User wrote: »

Possibly the most researched supplement on the planet.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=creatine

Long term effects have been studied too.

http://www.jissn.com/content/10/1/26

long term effects?

The conclusion of that study was that 3 months use of creatine did not impact healthy people.

I literally picked the very first one, there are thousands of studies. Ask in the Nutrition & Diet or Health & Fitness forum for specific links. They are very helpful there.

This thread might be a good start - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054989471

Kirk Van Houten

Deleted User wrote: »

I literally picked the very first one, there are thousands of studies. Ask in the Nutrition & Diet or Health & Fitness forum for specific links. They are very helpful there.

This thread might be a good start - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054989471

even a quick google search will pull up the studies with the following

Although creatine is a natural substance, it hasn't been well-studied over the long-term

http://www.webmd.com/men/creatine

Taking creatine supplements may stop the body from making its own natural stores, although researchers don’t know what the long-term effects are

http://umm.edu/health/medical/altmed/supplement/creatine

However, studies on the effects of prolonged creatine supplementation are lacking

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12546637

Although creatine supplementation offers short-term limited benefits, whether or not it is harmful long term has yet to be fully determined.

There have been no long term studies done to evaluate the safety of prolonged administration.

http://www.rice.edu/~jenky/sports/creatine.html

Palinpropism

Looking at the most recent lions squad photo, the number of lads who have jaws that wouldn't be out of place on Mr. Incredible does make me wonder...The biggest worrying sign though has to be the lack of people who we hear get caught though. But id imagine its only really a problem like an earlier poster said in the younger/acadamies group...

duckysauce

Podge_irl wrote: »

Basically impossible to fix a rugby match but obviously a lot more markets you can take advantage of.

As regards drugs, I assume they're quite common. I'd be keen for the IRB to have stringent rules in place but honestly I don't overly care. It's a different sport to cycling or athletics and still requires skills drugs won't give you.

My biggest issue would be he health concerns around younger players really.

Not impossible to fix a match if there are more than one player from the team in on it .

Palinpropism

Kirk Van Houten wrote: »

with regards to young players my concern would be around the long term effects of the suppliments such as creatine that so little research into their long term effects.

I have no idea if Jonah Lomu took creatine suppliments but his creatine levels were 30 times higher than the normal person and are related to his kidney problems.

Aaand this is scare mongering...Creatine is the supp, creatinine is the measurement of kidney function. Taking the supp probably isn't advisable in someone with chronic kidney problems but it doesn't cause kidney injury or at least there has never been a reported case. 50% of kids are obese. Worry about the affect of diabetes on your kidneys. That link exists.

Questions asked by Paul Kimmage of "other sports" than cycling. He's dead right to ask them.

http://www.independent.ie/sport/inherent-decency-may-be-the-most-effective-masking-agent-of-them-all-30409273.html

Is it impressive, or is it naive of us to believe, when not a single player in either Wimbledon nor the World Cup test positive for any banned substances?

Are other sports "more honest" than cycling?

justsomebloke

Deleted User wrote: »

Are other sports "more honest" than cycling?

God no. I'd say there drugs are a lot more wide spread in Rugby and other sports then people would like to believe. There is just too much money in sport to believe that people are honest.

If anything the lack of drugs scandals in Rugby is more a worrying sign then anything else

former legend

Deleted User wrote: »

Are other sports "more honest" than cycling?

Yes and no I'd say.

I don't think any sport is more reliant on the ability of the rider to endure massively draining levels of effort, day after day, than cycling, so I think the appeal of doping for cyclists must be massive. There is no real "skill" involved, for want of a better word, so a mid-level guy like Armstrong in his early days can realistically hope to reach the top of the game with doping, as he proved. Maybe the same applies to athletics.

Compare it to soccer, being able to run 10% faster or for 20% longer might give you an incremental benefit, but doping won't turn a bad player into a good one because it won't improve your skill levels, so the imperative to dope isn't the same.

Rugby probably falls somewhere in the middle; again, it won't improve your passing or your side-step, but if your forwards coach is in your ear telling you to put on 10 kg of muscle, maybe 'roids suddenly look like a solution. So I'd say rugby is dirtier than it would appear from the very low number of cheats who are detected, but still nowhere near as bad as cycling.

Zzippy

former legend wrote: »

Yes and no I'd say.

I don't think any sport is more reliant on the ability of the rider to endure massively draining levels of effort, day after day, than cycling, so I think the appeal of doping for cyclists must be massive. There is no real "skill" involved, for want of a better word, so a mid-level guy like Armstrong in his early days can realistically hope to reach the top of the game with doping, as he proved. Maybe the same applies to athletics.

Compare it to soccer, being able to run 10% faster or for 20% longer might give you an incremental benefit, but doping won't turn a bad player into a good one because it won't improve your skill levels, so the imperative to dope isn't the same.

Rugby probably falls somewhere in the middle; again, it won't improve your passing or your side-step, but if your forwards coach is in your ear telling you to put on 10 kg of muscle, maybe 'roids suddenly look like a solution. So I'd say rugby is dirtier than it would appear from the very low number of cheats who are detected, but still nowhere near as bad as cycling.

Armstrong was never a mid-level guy, fropm the very start of his career he was recognised as a serious talent. Read David Walsh's book and he recounts being starstruck by his potential very early on. Armstrong was able to dominate the sport, even when everyone else wqas doping, by doping better - usingh the best doctors and scientific training techniques, bullying anyone who got in his way, destoying the careers of riders who spoke out.
Whether he would have been as good with a totally clean field, including himself, is debatable, but he definitely had the potential as a young rider to make it to the top.

It's my belief that drugs are far more widespread in football, rugby, tennis and golf than we're led to believe. That article mentioned that Tiger Woods hadn't been tested so far this year! How often are rugby/soccer/tennis playters tested? Compared to cycling I believe the number of tests are ridiculously low and players know they have a low risk of being caught.

CatFromHue

I don't know about drugs in rugby. I've never seen or heard it but that's not to say it isn't there, I also dont know any pros either!

What we do know though is that some players/clubs are doing stuff in the dressing room before the game to get hyped up. Sheehan with his inhaler, that story about DOC of the Lions, and Deccie Fitzpatrick and the coffee that spring to mind.

We also know in Ireland that there's been a reduction in the number of Senior Ireland players being tested, if that's even what you can call being tested as it's so uncommon!

12/13 19 tests for Senior Irish XV players
11/12 73 tests for Senior Irish XV players

Overall the testing in rugby in Ireland is quite low for the amount of players we have.
http://www.thescore.ie/irfu-anti-doping-1001146-Jul2013/

its_phil

Zzippy wrote: »

Armstrong was never a mid-level guy, fropm the very start of his career he was recognised as a serious talent. Read David Walsh's book and he recounts being starstruck by his potential very early on. Armstrong was able to dominate the sport, even when everyone else wqas doping, by doping better - usingh the best doctors and scientific training techniques, bullying anyone who got in his way, destoying the careers of riders who spoke out.
Whether he would have been as good with a totally clean field, including himself, is debatable, but he definitely had the potential as a young rider to make it to the top.

It's my belief that drugs are far more widespread in football, rugby, tennis and golf than we're led to believe. That article mentioned that Tiger Woods hadn't been tested so far this year! How often are rugby/soccer/tennis playters tested? Compared to cycling I believe the number of tests are ridiculously low and players know they have a low risk of being caught.

Tiger Woods has been injured most this year.

CatFromHue

I'd have to agree with Zzippy as the number of tests on total for Irish players overall is very low, 166 test in total for all Senior and academy players is nothing really.

corny

Zzippy wrote: »

Armstrong was never a mid-level guy, fropm the very start of his career he was recognised as a serious talent. Read David Walsh's book and he recounts being starstruck by his potential very early on. Armstrong was able to dominate the sport, even when everyone else wqas doping, by doping better - usingh the best doctors and scientific training techniques, bullying anyone who got in his way, destoying the careers of riders who spoke out.
Whether he would have been as good with a totally clean field, including himself, is debatable, but he definitely had the potential as a young rider to make it to the top.

This is not the cycling forum but Armstrong was never noted as a natural climber. A talented Rouleur or maybe sprinter yes but never a climber. Ferrari and his excellent understanding of doping practices made him the all rounder.

I don't believe any field sport (at least the ones played outside the US) has a doping problem that can rival cycling. Its engrained in the culture of that sport. The same culture doesn't exist in rugby but thats not to say its not a problem. Probably not endemic but still a problem is how i'd see it.

The level of testing is shocking.