Dan Carter in potential doping storm

Chivito550

Breaking news. More to follow I'm sure.

https://www.balls.ie/rugby/breaking-lequipe-report-dan-carter-rokocoko-tested-positive-steroids/348300?

Pudsy33

It's being covered in the general thread, but it's probably worth its own one. Imhoff and Rockokoko implicated too. If Carter, the shining light of brains over brawn rugby, is on juice then I fear for the future of the game.

Chivito550

Pudsy33 wrote: »

It's being covered in the general thread, but it's probably worth its own one. Imhoff and Rockokoko implicated too. If Carter, the shining light of brains over brawn rugby, is on juice then I fear for the future of the game.

I've always found it crazy that so many assume rugby is clean. Silly when you consider how much emphasis there is on power, strength and size in the professional game. I wouldn't be surprised if it was rampant.

Carter testing positive would be a disaster though.

blackdog1

Bit strange they'd all be juicing before a final. Probably only 3 tested too and for all them to show up positive implies to me it must be some team supplement they were on.

NIMAN

It would be sad for the game of rugby if their golden boy was on steroids, but to be honest I am not surprised by any 'drugs in sport' revelation these days.

No doubt we will discover he has asthma, like every other top athlete in the world, or had a flu and took the wrong medicine.......unlikely he will come out and admit he's guilty.

Deleted User

Posted this in the general thread just to give some context to the type of steroids they are accused of having taken:

Deleted User wrote: »

This is interesting. The drug family they are accused of taking is something I wouldn't have associated with Rugby players. It's more something you would hear of cyclists or runners taking as it can give a short term increase to athletic aerobic performance by allowing greater absorption of oxygen through the lungs. They can also be used to reduce swelling and treat joint problems and arthritis.

It's not my area of expertise but this drug bracket isn't for building muscle or anything like that, but it is something that people would use to boost performance before an event or potentially to reduce the impact / pain of ongoing injury or muscle / joint damage.

If the three players can't prove that they have a condition requiring this drug then they are probably in real trouble. Even if they can prove that they have a condition they haven't declared it so a ban will apply if the samples are upheld.

The greater question here though is that if they have gotten their hands on these steroids then I would find it amazing if they aren't using other out of competition steroids where the risks of detection are lower and the benefits far greater.

This could get quite big and very ugly. Carter in particular is a media train and this would derail things substantially. Could even see Racing get retrospectively disqualified.

My guess though - this gets blamed on some team Doctor who wasn't aware of which drugs are banned for being performance enhancing and was providing treatment within a sphere of misunderstanding. Statement from Racing by early next week stating the above.

joshrogan

Long exhaustive season, maybe they needed a little something to get through the last game and thought they could get away with it in Spain who's sports stars have a history of accusations of steriod abuse/cover up.

Pudsy33

NZ Herald suggesting the players in question had a TUE. Parallels to be drawn with Wiggins.

NIMAN

Pudsy33 wrote: »

NZ Herald suggesting the players in question had a TUE. Parallels to be drawn with Wiggins.

.... and there's their get-out clause....I had asthma..

Come on, you're fooling no-one.

swiwi_

And hop. Like moths to a light a whole lot of posters never seen before appear magically in the rugby forum.

I'll eat my hat if Carter took PEDs.

There are many types of steroids and many indications.

Corticosteroids cause you to LOSE muscle bulk for example.

former total

swiwi_ wrote: »

And hop. Like moths to a light a whole lot of posters never seen before appear magically in the rugby forum.

I'll eat my hat if Carter took PEDs.

There are many types of steroids and many indications.

Corticosteroids cause you to LOSE muscle bulk for example.

Corticosteroids only cause you to lose muscle mass if taken repeatedly over long periods.

On the other hand, a single corticosteroid injection could allow you to play a match you would otherwise miss through injury and is very much performance-enhancing.

But I'm sure they all had TUEs in place and nothing major will come of this.

irishbucsfan

Gavin Mortimer on twitter explaining the morning papers says:

According to @lequipe on the evening of the T14 final, the French doping agency took urine samples. Paper says it was a "surprise" as it was in Barcelona but possible because of a bilateral agreement between France & Spain. The first results have shown an 'anomaly' in the samples of 3 Racing players: Dan Carter, Joe Rokocoko & Juan Imhoff revealed traces of corticosteroids. But I see it's being reported in English-language sites so that will save me the bother of translating the Lequipe report. Simon Porter, Carter's manager, quoted as saying: "We have been aware of the issue for a few weeks. Our understanding and assurances we've had are all the documents around TUEs were in place." L'equipe says from Jan 2015 to Sep 2016, the French doping agency have received 12 therapeutic use exemptions (TUEs) requests in rugby seven have been accepted, three refused and two cases are still being studied. The FFR has received the French doping agency's report on the Racing trio & has 40 days to determine if the use of TUEs "was justified". Interview in @lequipe with Xavier Bigard, member of the AFLD (French doping agency). Asked about the use of corticosteroid, he says: "For a sport as physical as rugby, we're talking more about maintaining the health of the athlete rather than looking to enhance performance. When an analysis result comes back unusual, the player should not necessarily be sanctioned ." Quoting straight from @lequipe: "The 3 players didn't have the famous TUEs which could have justified, from medical pt of view, the use of these prohibited substances." Lequipe says FFR, when weighing up what action to take, will study "players' medical files, dosage of product & mode of administration".

So Carter's manager claims they had a TUE, L'Equipe claim they don't. It'll all come down to that I'm sure.

irishgeo

The Tue system is being abused. It's needs to be clamped down on.

Oddly the only sportspeople with asthma seem to be winners of something which then have a positive test.

irishbucsfan

irishgeo wrote: »

The Tue system is being abused. It's needs to be clamped down on.

Oddly the only sportspeople with asthma seem to be winners of something which then have a positive test.

If there's only 7 TUEs granted across a league as big as the Top 14 then I don't think that's a sign of it being abused tbh, that's one player for every two teams.

former total

irishbucsfan wrote: »

So Carter's manager claims they had a TUE, L'Equipe claim they don't. It'll all come down to that I'm sure.

The end of all this will be the discovery that actually, they had TUEs but they weren't filed properly with the correct authority. Racing will be given a fine and case closed.

In the meantime, the following will happen:

- A plethora of players, ex-players and coaches will tell us that the players involved are "not that sort of bloke".
- Loads of pundits will use this as evidence that rugby has its head in the sand on doping, can't ignore this etc. First up; Neil Francis.
- The NZ media will a) question the motivation of the people breaking the story and b) dig up as many stories as they can of French athletes with doping histories.
- Stories to emerge of how much this could cost Carter in lost endorsements.

Fun times ahead but ultimately it will all be grand.

.ak

This doesn't sound likely to me. Those who juice do it in the off season, when you're less likely to be tested and when you're training harder.

If Carter etc were all stupid enough to be taking PEDs in business end of the season then I'll eat my hat.

EDIT: just read the TUEs part above. Well that changes my opinion a bit, because all 3 have the same health issues? Hmm

golfer555

This is a NON story.

All players had a TUE - therefore they didn't fail tests. If they fail tests they would be banned immediately (when the results were initially announced) and they aren't.

Anomalies occur in every test in which an athlete has a TUE. They are taking a substance which is allowed to be taken only after getting medical sign off. They got medical sign off.

This shouldn't come to light or get media attention as people will wrongly assume their taking performance enhancing substances but that isn't the case. I think the French Anti-Doping body (or lab) are in the wrong here as this shouldn't come into the public domain. None of the three players will receive any type of ban but unfortunately it's great click bait.

Abuse of the TUE system is a wider sport issue, not just rugby's, case closed.

molloyjh

golfer555 wrote: »

This is a NON story.

All players had a TUE - therefore they didn't fail tests. If they fail tests they would be banned immediately (when the results were initially announced) and they aren't.

Anomalies occur in every test in which an athlete has a TUE. They are taking a substance which is allowed to be taken only after getting medical sign off. They got medical sign off.

This shouldn't come to light or get media attention as people will wrongly assume their taking performance enhancing substances but that isn't the case. I think the French Anti-Doping body (or lab) are in the wrong here as this shouldn't come into the public domain. None of the three players will receive any type of ban but unfortunately it's great click bait.

Abuse of the TUE system is a wider sport issue, not just rugby's, case closed.

That may be true, but if only 7 players had TUEs it would seem a bit odd that at least 3 of those were all on the same team, no? That would suggest that most teams don't have players with TUEs.

Adbrowne

molloyjh wrote: »

That may be true, but if only 7 players had TUEs it would seem a bit odd that at least 3 of those were all on the same team, no? That would suggest that most teams don't have players with TUEs.

Three players on the same team a few days before a major final. I wonder what the outcome would be if every player in the final was tested.

Adbrowne

Murray Kinsella on twitter saying Racing have issued a statement saying TUEs were not required.

irishbucsfan

Adbrowne wrote: »

Three players on the same team a few days before a major final. I wonder what the outcome would be if every player in the final was tested.

The severe lack of testing that is done is possibly part of the problem. A friend of mine is a professional in another field sport and they recently had a European game where the doping officials arrived, took up a couple of offices in the ground, sat there for the game and then tested nobody and left. I'd really like to know more about how they decide to test athletes and the processes that are in place to make sure everyone is getting adequately tested.

Adbrowne

irishbucsfan wrote: »

The severe lack of testing that is done is possibly part of the problem. A friend of mine is a professional in another field sport and they recently had a European game where the doping officials arrived, took up a couple of offices in the ground, sat there for the game and then tested nobody and left. I'd really like to know more about how they decide to test athletes and the processes that are in place to make sure everyone is getting adequately tested.

Ive a cousin who competed for Ireland in athletics, european league level. She was tested 14 -15 times every summer (well april to september). She saw others from other countries who she suspected were juiced to the gills never get tested even though they were regular event winners. They were former eastern bloc countries too. My cousin quit when she finished college because she was regularly finishing 4th or 5th behind at least two competitors who were doped up all year round.

IMO any TUE use should be declared publicly at the time of use. If Bradley Wiggins had nothing to hide in 2012 before the TDF then why not declare it.

Adbrowne

- So Carter/Rokocoko agent says its all TUE compliant

- Racing are saying there was no need for TUE as it was for an illness so have they messed up


- Mourad wants to know if all three would have missed the final without the treatment

yawhat?

Oh it's a story all right.

Just ignore whether or not what happened was within the rules.

Should it be within the rules that you are allowed to take a corticosteroid with a TUE to enable you to play?

In my view, no. If you require pain killers/anti inflammatories to play, you shouldn't be playing. The TUE should only be to enable recovery not to enable participation.

former total

The Racing statement:
http://www.racing92.fr/fr/Equipe_Pro/Communique_de_Presse___Racing_92-Actualite-49-4691.html

Very clearly states that the use of these drugs DID NOT require a TUE:

Il s’agit de traitements administrés par voie autorisée, prodigués en réponse à des pathologies avérées, plusieurs jours avant la finale du Top 14 et ne nécessitant pas d’AUT (autorisation à usage thérapeutique).

"This related to treatments administered by approved routes, in response to confirmed medical conditions several days before the Top 14 final, and not requiring a TUE"

This doesn't stack up though. How can you give restricted substances to three players without a TUE??

beertons

Pudsy33 wrote: »

NZ Herald suggesting the players in question had a TUE. Parallels to be drawn with Wiggins.

What's a TUE?

irishbucsfan

former total wrote: »

This doesn't stack up though. How can you give restricted substances to three players without a TUE??

I think it may turn out that you can't and Racing will play dumb. I think Mourad may be right here in that it was just "casualness" from the Racing staff. Maybe they were getting away with this sort of lax application of the rules in France and the Spanish authorities took a different view.

Clegg

beertons wrote: »

What's a TUE?

Theraputic Use Exemption. Basically allows you to use a substance on the banned list if you've a genuine medical reason to do so. The massive furore over this is that it's a system open for abuse so athletes can exaggerate their symptoms, compliant doctors give them the nod, apply for the TUE and hey presto, legalised doping.

Yeah_Right

I read that the testing was done on all the players in the final, the night before the match. The drug was an anti-inflammatory, most likely cortisone. The three players were all getting over injuries so were taking it to get through the week. If that's the case then it sounds to me like L'Equipe are stirring **** to sell papers and get clicks.

sReq | uTeK

Where is Paul Kimmage with his "I told you so" ?

A_Sober_Paddy

Chivito550 wrote: »

I've always found it crazy that so many assume rugby is clean. Silly when you consider how much emphasis there is on power, strength and size in the professional game. I wouldn't be surprised if it was rampant.

Carter testing positive would be a disaster though.

Lads in junor 2 are in gear why wouldn't the top stars be

groovyg

sReq | uTeK wrote: »

Where is Paul Kimmage with his "I told you so" ?

https://twitter.com/PaulKimmage/status/784163035808161796

awec

Sounds like corticosteroids rather than steroids, which aren't actually performance enhancing.

former total

awec wrote: »

Sounds like corticosteroids rather than steroids, which aren't actually performance enhancing.

Well, corticosteroids are (obviously) steroids, but they are not anabolic steroids which people classically associate with "steroids" in the sense of bulging eyes and popping veins.

So while corticosteroids won't help you build muscle mass, they will help you get over injuries (particularly joint injuries) a lot more quickly. Or rather, they reduce the swelling and pain associated with such injuries.

Is that performance-enhancing? Well, if it's the difference between being able to run on your dodgy ankle and not being able to run...

Swan Curry

carter has come out with a statement regarding these accusations

the people who don't believe in rugby, the cynics, the sceptics; I feel sorry for you. You need to believe in these players. I'm sorry you can't dream big and I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles

ThisRegard

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Gavin Mortimer on twitter explaining the morning papers says:



So Carter's manager claims they had a TUE, L'Equipe claim they don't. It'll all come down to that I'm sure.

Racing themselves say they didn't actually need a TUE, so the players management and the team are issuing conflicting statements.

velo.2010

awec wrote: »

Sounds like corticosteroids rather than steroids, which aren't actually performance enhancing.

awec

awec wrote: »

Sounds like corticosteroids rather than steroids, which aren't actually performance enhancing.

The intention of the drug can be theraputic, but can have performance enhancing side effects.

People associate swelling with injury, but swelling also occurs with fatigue and reducing that swelling reduces the negative impact of fatigue.

There are a lot of reasons why these things are banned. I mean, with the cyclists they are taking a much stronger form of steroid for "asthma" than is needed or generally recommended and are allowed to compete because it's medically sanctioned. The reality is they shouldn't be banned for taking them, but while the benefit persists they shouldn't compete.

I can imagine in the Racing case this is why there will be an issue. They would have gotten a TUE most likely but may not have been allowed to compete for a period of time as often occurs.

Anyway, loads of misinformation floating around and various contradictory sources so will just have to wait and see.

But just because the intention of a medication is not performance enhancing doesn't mean that a side effect of said medication won't be.

Storm in a teacup. Still good value reading the comments online.

brocbrocach

Basil3 wrote: »

Storm in a teacup. Still good value reading the comments online.

No, it's a proper genuine "drugs in rugby" media storm, with the biggest name in the most successful league caught up in it.
It doesn't matter if the IRB or FFR or whoever leaves them off, it will get coverage - which for example didn't happen when that entire Bok team was given a pass. This is when the average watcher in the stands starts to look at what's going on and doubting. Even the wilfully blind will be troubled by the ethics of this. I can't imagine this is the end of it.

brocbrocach

brocbrocach wrote: »

No, it's a proper genuine "drugs in rugby" media storm, with the biggest name in the most successful league caught up in it.
It doesn't matter if the IRB or FFR or whoever leaves them off, it will get coverage - which for example didn't happen when that entire Bok team was given a pass. This is when the average watcher in the stands starts to look at what's going on and doubting. Even the wilfully blind will be troubled by the ethics of this. I can't imagine this is the end of it.

I guess. Whereas I am seeing proper genuine 'anti-inflammatory cream in rugby', others are seeing 'anabolic steroids in rugby'.

I used to talk to an IRB drug tester, and she said that underage is where all the drug taking takes place. Very little, if any, at top level.

Basil3

Basil3 wrote: »

I guess. Whereas I am seeing proper genuine 'anti-inflammatory cream in rugby', others are seeing 'anabolic steroids in rugby'.

I used to talk to an IRB drug tester, and she said that underage is where all the drug taking takes place. Very little, if any, at top level.

As if an IRB drug tester would say anything else. The IRB has a vested interest in the sport growing, not getting bogged down in a drug scandal.

Sure a FIFA integrity consultant told me once that all the corruption was within the local bodies, not FIFA itself.

You can take neurofen and not declare it, you can rub deep heat on your arse and nothing will show up in a test. Steroids are medically prescribed because they have strong effects on the body, let's not go over trivialising things either.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

As if an IRB drug tester would say anything else. The IRB has a vested interest in the sport growing, not getting bogged down in a drug scandal.

Sure a FIFA integrity consultant told me once that all the corruption was within the local bodies, not FIFA itself.

You can take neurofen and not declare it, you can rub deep heat on your arse and nothing will show up in a test. Steroids are medically prescribed because they have strong effects on the body, let's not go over trivialising things either.

I really don't think she has any concerns with the growth of the game, nor is she a spokesperson for the IRB. She just tests people for drugs.

I understand it shouldn't be trivialised, but I'd rather that than having things blown out of proportion. Doesn't seem to be making much impact on the news back in NZ, in any case.

Chivito550

Basil3 wrote: »

I guess. Whereas I am seeing proper genuine 'anti-inflammatory cream in rugby', others are seeing 'anabolic steroids in rugby'.

I used to talk to an IRB drug tester, and she said that underage is where all the drug taking takes place. Very little, if any, at top level.

LOL. Yeh no doping exists in the professional game where there are huge financial incentives to perform well. Nah, all the doping exists among the kids and amateurs. Riiiiight!

Chivito550

Chivito550 wrote: »

LOL. Yeh no doping exists in the professional game where there are huge financial incentives to perform well. Nah, all the doping exists among the kids and amateurs. Riiiiight!

Don't shoot the messenger. It's completely logical why this is the case.

I'm not talking about your average amateur playing social rugby, btw.

Chivito550

Basil3 wrote: »

Don't shoot the messenger. It's completely logical why this is the case.

I'm not talking about your average amateur playing social rugby, btw.

No it is not logical. It is like saying that the only doping in athletics is at junior level, and there is no doping among those at Olympic standard. It's absurd.

sydthebeat

Basil3 wrote: »

Very little, if any, at top level.

there are confirmed cases, so it obviously goes on, google Monde Hadebe, chilliboy and Carlo Del Fava

sydthebeat

sydthebeat wrote: »

there are confirmed cases, so it obviously goes on, google Monde Hadebe, chilliboy and Carlo Del Fava

Ah yes, she also named one particular country....so not surprising.

I'm not saying it doesn't happen at top level, but there are reasons why it would be prevalent in underage

- Less risk of being caught
- Even if caught, you could still be young enough to carve out a career
- Physical gains made can be maintained, even after you stop

I'm referring to anabolics here, not anti-inflammatories.

irishbucsfan

Basil3 wrote: »

Ah yes, she also named one particular country....so not surprising.

I'm not saying it doesn't happen at top level, but there are reasons why it would be prevalent in underage

- Less risk of being caught
- Even if caught, you could still be young enough to carve out a career
- Physical gains made can be maintained, even after you stop

I'm referring to anabolics here, not anti-inflammatories.

When there are elite international players going seasons without being tested at all then I simply reject the notion that whoever you were talking to is in any place to make a claim like that based on anything but anecdotal evidence.

Basil3

Basil3 wrote: »

Ah yes, she also named one particular country....so not surprising.

I'm not saying it doesn't happen at top level, but there are reasons why it would be prevalent in underage

- Less risk of being caught
- Even if caught, you could still be young enough to carve out a career
- Physical gains made can be maintained, even after you stop

I'm referring to anabolics here, not anti-inflammatories.

They are far more than "anti-inflammatories" and again that rhetoric really does seem to indicate that you do want to "trivialise" the issue.

Like I pointed out, steroids are strong medicine with a wide variety of effects which can in many cases be performance enhancing. Even a few % can be massive.

It's also genuinely questionable that there are 3 players with the same drug being caught in what would appear to be an unusual scenario with foreign testers.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

They are far more than "anti-inflammatories" and again that rhetoric really does seem to indicate that you do want to "trivialise" the issue.

Like I pointed out, steroids are strong medicine with a wide variety of effects which can in many cases be performance enhancing. Even a few % can be massive.

It's also genuinely questionable that there are 3 players with the same drug being caught in what would appear to be an unusual scenario with foreign testers.

I understand what you're saying. I may be trivialising, but using the term 'steroids' in the sense you are is doing the opposite.

People hear 'steroids' and think anabolics. After all, we're in a country where gripe water is banned and protein powder is viewed as a performance enhancer.