General Rugby Discussion 3

Here’s a crazy idea, what if the subs had to run laps during the match, as slow as they want, but have to keep moving. Then when required for replacing a tired or injured player they should also be a bit tired. It would take away the massive difference between starters and hugely oversized bench options.

Alternatively have them spinning on a stationary bike by the side of the pitch.

Irishman John Poland started at halfback for Manawatu against Auckland this morning. Manawatu recorded their first victory on Eden Park since 1980. It was a pretty entertaining match.

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.

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/

etc

Anyone who knows any modern pro-players well socially will have plenty of (unrepeatable) anecdotal stories, too.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

? 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 seem to be utterly determined to try and put words in my mouth or else you are simply not reading my posts.

I think it's due to come out next year, maybe around the time of the 2024 6 nations