It was a weird idea. Netflix pays pretty much nothing to the 6N or the teams and makes a documentary which is supposed to increase interest in rugby?
I think that there hadn't been a huge amount of communications about the specifics of filming with the players and coaches themselves . The deal was done between the production company and the 6N's organisers.
So when the cameras arrived they assumed that they could go everywhere and be the "fly on the wall" for every little detail which some of the squads weren't happy with - Ireland definitely pushed back on access to team-talks etc.
Think there was a bit of "Who are you and where do you think you going with the camera!" going on.
It went quiet after a week or two , probably after the Production company sat down with Team Management and clarified the ground rules - Something that should have been done long before the thing started.
My recollection may be inaccurate but I recall there was a period of around 2 - 3 weeks where reports emerged in the media that some of the teams (including Ireland) were unhappy with the level of access or that the crews were too intrusive.
I always wondered was there a bit more to it - as it was abrupt and seemed to only be a few of the teams. I'm sure the journo's poked about a bit but nothing more came of it.
I think some of the teams gave the cameras complete access - Into the Changing rooms and team huddles etc. but others weren't so keen.
Think the Irish team didn't allow them completely unfiltered access as I recall.
I seem to recall there being a bit of friction right at the beginning between where the Camera crews thought they could/should have access and what the teams and players felt comfortable with etc.
Can you elaborate a bit?
Will be interesting to see how it turns out, seems something happened early on in the production that spooked the teams and access was restricted from there on.
I think it's due to come out next year, maybe around the time of the 2024 6 nations
2024 release apparently, just before next years 6 nations.
Did that Netflix six nations series get abandoned or what's the craic with it?
HGH has little benefit in Aerobic performance. Other PED’s are more beneficial there.
With or without HGH building muscle is based on tearing it and repairing it. If you want to get bigger and stronger HGH allows the muscle to recover quicker after tearing it. So you can train harder and more often because of that recovery time. If as you say an older player uses it. They are using it to recover quicker. By 34 your natural HGH levels have dropped significantly. Either way, HGH’s role is in the ability for cells to replicate and repair.
You seem to be utterly determined to try and put words in my mouth or else you are simply not reading my posts.
The articles were spread from 2013-2020, and there are plenty more recent on Google if you want to look.
I'll take that as an admission that you don't, infact, have enough claimed insider knowledge to know better than international newspapers like the Irish Times, The Mail, and Wales Online quoting professionals involved in the game so.
I'd suggest if you have an interest in rugby you go off and do some reading on the issue. Theres plenty to read that will educate you on it, and give you a better understanding of the game.
? Strength gains, aerobic performance, and injury recovery are all completely different (and well recognised) sports science concepts.
HGH is used primarily for injury recovery by athletes in their 30s. It massively increases the speed of recovery from injuries obtained playing contact sports like rugby. It does a large amount even taken entirely by itself, recovery periods are significantly shortened.
Thats my point, Venjur's trying to argue that HGH use isn't common because of strength standards and aerobic performance shows a complete ignorance of how the drug is commonly used by 34 year old professional athletes. They're not the metrics that are relevant.
You didn't read my post or you didn't understand it, or you didn't read what I was replying to. That's a you problem.
As for your articles - 10 and 15 year old articles and surveys done by clothes brands do not suggest there is widespread drug use anywhere but inside your head.
I'm out - as I said, believe what you like.
The Irish Times, that directly quoted an ex professional player, is an unbacked up statement from a rag? Thats a hot take.
You posted two very lengthy posts in response to posts on Webb taking HGH commenting exclusively about strength standards and aerobic gains as justification for its your belief in its use not being prevalent:
https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121031950/#Comment_121031950
https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121035496/#Comment_121035496
Which would suggest you were completely unaware of the fact that its actually used by players of his age for recovery.
Depends on your particular circumstances, especially your age. Give HGH to a teenager and even if they sit in their arse they will grow more than they would have without it. Its literally the purpose of the hormone, hence the name.
Out of interest, why do you think its banned if it does nothing?
It doesn’t increase mass by taking it. If you take it and sit on your arse it will do nothing.
I never said it doesn’t do anything unless you have an injury. The process of building muscle is one of tearing and repairing. That does not mean injury. Higher levels of HGH, influence the replication rate of white blood cells. Which means muscle and tissue gets repaired quicker.
So if you’re seeking that repair so you can bulk up or because you’re aging and producing less HGH, so are taking longer to recover. It doesn’t really matter.
Childrens growth is triggered by natural production/release of HGH from the pituitary gland.
To say that it doesnt do anything unless you have an injury is at best misleading.
Taking HGH will increase mass. It wont magically make you stronger, bit with more mass, especially muscle mass, it will enable you to train to be stronger.
It will also offset the natural reduction in HGH produced by your body, somewhat slowing the impact of aging.
The fact you didn't know what HGH is used for by high level athletes in their 30s, first posting about strength gains and then aerobic performance, would suggest you don't actually have the prerequisite level of knowledge to be commenting with any level of authority on this.
Both are the same thing. HGH reduces inflammation and aids recovery. That’s how you build muscle, tear and repair. HGH by itself doesn’t do anything, it doesn’t grow muscle or improve aerobic performance. It just aids recovery. Players may have different goals for using it at different times but essentially it’s always about recovery.
You posted hearsay from rags and un backed up statements from people that wouldn't stand over their words. You then cited a clothing brand for their opinion on drugs. Look - you believe whatever you want to believe, I can't tell you anything more than I have.
And I've no idea where you are getting that about HGH. Can you point to specifically what I said that has given you this impression?
I posted multiple articles, from multiple national level newspapers, that quoted both named and unnamed sources in the professional game. Who were all in agreement.
If your entire argument boils down to "we don't have a drug problem obviously because players aren't being caught by the national testing body in high numbers" then you know very little about doping in professional sports in general, and apparently drug use in rugby in particular.
Its not a requirement to list every single use for HGH, no, but to imply you have detailed insider knowledge of S&C matters when you apparently didn't even know about the primary purpose of use of HGH by rugby players of a certain age does rather undermine your credibility.
Again - what you are posting here isn't evidence, it's hearsay. My facts and figures are this - we have a national testing body and they scrutinise high performance athletes to a high degree. We don't have a high rate of positive tests in Ireland.
I went to the website of the company that did that survey of 4000 players. It's a clothes shop. And you expect to be taken seriously? https://rugbywarfare.com/ This is your compelling argument?
Honestly - if you had scratched one layer beneath the surface you would realise you were posting nonsense. If you have a very strong and informed opinion, your first port of call to defend that opinion isn't decades old articles from one of the lowest common denominator publications in the world nor the insights of Jean Paul Gaultier and 4000 thousand of his mates. Certainly not as your first supporting argument - if you have a strong and informed opinion.
And one disgruntled coach does not a conspiracy make nor is it a requirement to list every single use for HGH to satisfy the indignation of someone with strong and informed opinions on the internet.
Even if you are 100% just using it for recovery, the hormone doesnt know that, you still end up a bigger individual, in some cases we are talking about someone adding inches to their height, and corresponding muscle/body mass increase.
You were a middle distance runner, were you? What sort of times did you do?
Right, well as great as you claiming to have intimate knowledge of the pro scene is you're not providing any actual sourced facts, just your own opinion. Whereas I gave you a quote in an international newspaper from a professional coach and a study of 4000 players. And they're just the tip of the iceberg, there are literally hundreds of articles out there about this. Here are a few more:
"I asked a very senior official in Welsh sport how many rugby players he thought were using steroids. He put it simply: “How many aren’t?”"
Daniel Spencer-Tonks, who was interviewed as part of a documentary this week on Welsh rugby, is actually a former England under-16 rugby union international who was playing rugby league for the University of Gloucestershire All Golds when he failed a drug test in February. He says steroid use is "hugely widespread" at all levels because of a pressure on players to be "bigger, faster and stronger".
""It's inherent in the sport at the moment, it's almost condoned. It's not a case of it being frowned upon, it's very much a case of 'Yeah, he's on the gear' and it's quite clear who is on gear by the make-up of their bodies.
"https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/drugs-rugby-very-welsh-problem-15313345
etc
Feel free to Google it yourself, you'll find plenty of reading.
I take nothing in the dailymail at face value and that's a 10 year old article and I don't know who rugby Warfare are or what their methodology was. This is dated and weak evidence tbh. I'm sure you'll google some better ones now.
Yes Webb was using hgh for recovery, but it is used for recovery and I suspect that will turn out to be an admin error. If not, it's an example of the system working.
I know a lot of former and recent pro and international players and this isn't common knowledge at all. Ive heard comments about certain players but nothing institutional and nothing widespread. There is a strong belief that schoolboy rugby in South Africa is a hotbed of drug use but outside of that your anecdotal experience and mine are worlds apart.
GH isn't taken by players of Webb's age for strength gains, or for aerobic capacity. Its for the recovery benefits.
GH and steroids are by all accounts rife in high level rugby given their massive benefits and difficulty to test for for GH in particular. There are plenty of interviews with people in the game talking about it. ie
"with one former international coach claiming that there has been ‘institutionalised drug-taking’ " -- https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/article-2863758/Rugby-s-drug-problem-exposed-RFU-boss-admits-realise-s-issue-addressing-it.html
"From the 3925 players, a mix of Amateurs, semi-professionals and professionals, interviewed, Rugby Warfare found that 40 percent of professionals are contemplating using PEDS, while 12 percent admitted that they are currently taking steroids." - https://rugby365.com/tournaments/pro14/news-pro14/doping-rugbys-ever-growing-problem/
Anyone who knows any modern pro-players well socially will have plenty of (unrepeatable) anecdotal stories, too.
The commentators mentioned there were a few players from MLR in the Manawatu side. The coach was the NE Freejacks coach so I guess that's the connection.
Craziness. That's my team. I still remember going to watch a young Joe Schmidt tear up the wing for Manawatu at the Showgrounds when I was a kid. Long blonde locks flowing in the wind.
Interesting move. He had been playing MLR after not getting anywhere with Munster.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/6081e4655739e0887aaf16222f88b015.svg)
