nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Doping Control

what's doping control like within professional rugby? are athletes tested often? at games and at home?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

AlphaMale 3OO

Fairly often at the pro level. But not as often as you'd think at AIL level, where anabolic usage exists but certainly does not approach epidemic levels. If you're thinking of taking while playing at any level, its definately not worth the risk. Even marijuana bags you a ban these days, or at least a slap on the wrists so everyones gotta be careful!

old boy

any chance al guy would contribute, after all he made michelle smith famous.

would you know how many have been caught in 2008? finally are WADA involved with any of the testing?

toomevara

Bath's Matt Steven's just been banned for two years for recreational drug abuse. Pretty stiff given the guys what, 28? Apparently this is the base line sentence for bodies signed up to WADA...In this case the system seems too have worked and been rigorously applied.

[Deleted User]

Absolutely disgraceful.

Recreational drugs as long as their not performance enhancing,have nothing to do with the IRB or whatever authority and they have no business testing for them.

ScholesyIsGod

Ya i think a 2 year ban is a bit harsh myself, something in the region of 6-8 months would have been enough imo.

eroo

Goose81 wrote: »

Absolutely disgraceful.

Recreational drugs as long as their not performance enhancing,have nothing to do with the IRB or whatever authority and they have no business testing for them.

Despite the fact they are illegal.:rolleyes:

themont85

Goose81 wrote: »

Absolutely disgraceful.

Recreational drugs as long as their not performance enhancing,have nothing to do with the IRB or whatever authority and they have no business testing for them.

Yes but where do you draw distinction between 'recreational' and 'performance enhancing'. Their are so many drugs and new ones all the time that it is hard for WADA to differentiate all the time. Lawyers will find loopholes for actual cheats if WADA aren't strict on drugs of all kinds. One of the few is for ashmatics, remember Frankie Sheenan

Plus their is the social aspect and image of the game that has to be protected.

Matt Stevens ****ed up and that kind of thing cannot be accepeted in rugby union. His profession involves his body. He abused it more than is acceptable. He is a professional and has higher expectations on him than others. Its his own fault, personally don't have an ounce of sympathy for him.

SomeFool

Goose81 wrote: »

Absolutely disgraceful.

Recreational drugs as long as their not performance enhancing,have nothing to do with the IRB or whatever authority and they have no business testing for them.

Wrong..
Admittedly I don't know too much about recreational drugs but if you begin to differenciate between the two you leave the system open to abuse. Rugby is looking to gain accredation as an olympic sport so I'd hardly think breaking from the WADA and the IRB picking and chosing what they would like to ban would be productive. Who would take such a sporting body seriously?

Crash

themont85 wrote: »

Yes but where do you draw distinction between 'recreational' and 'performance enhancing'. Their are so many drugs and new ones all the time that it is hard for WADA to differentiate all the time. Lawyers will find loopholes for actual cheats if WADA aren't strict on drugs of all kinds. One of the few is for ashmatics, remember Frankie Sheenan

Plus their is the social aspect and image of the game that has to be protected.

Matt Stevens ****ed up and that kind of thing cannot be accepeted in rugby union. His profession involves his body. He abused it more than is acceptable. He is a professional and has higher expectations on him than others. Its his own fault, personally don't have an ounce of sympathy for him.

The asthmatic thing bugs the ****e out of me. I remember reading somewhere that the number of "asthmatic's" in professional rugby is a ridiculuous amount higher than the standard percentage (will find reference later - late night :P) - and as such its used as a mild stimulant to enhance aerobic fitness. Frankies not the first one to be caught for not properly registering it, and won't be the last.

SomeFool

Crash wrote: »

The asthmatic thing bugs the ****e out of me. I remember reading somewhere that the number of "asthmatic's" in professional rugby is a ridiculuous amount higher than the standard percentage (will find reference later - late night :P) - and as such its used as a mild stimulant to enhance aerobic fitness. Frankies not the first one to be caught for not properly registering it, and won't be the last.

Asthma is more likely to show up in people who exercise than those who don't. A normal person could have a very mild asthma which would never show up the way it does in an athlete because of the extra strain put on their airways. Exercise induced asthma is quite common. A TUE form (Therapeutic Use Exemption) is required by any athlete on prescribed drugs like insulin or an inhaler. This is also signed by your doctor which I'd imagine curtails the opportunities to abuse the system. If anyone is interested you'll find the TUE form here and the information on if your medicine is on the WADA banned list here. Sorry if this has gone off topic but it might save someone a bit of hassle down the line!:)

[Deleted User]

eroo wrote: »

Despite the fact they are illegal.:rolleyes:

Are the IRB a legal court?
No.

Its up to the law of the land to punish people for using illegal drugs,it has nothing to do with the IRB or any other rugby authority once they are not performance enhancing.

SomeFool wrote: »

Wrong..

Admittedly I don't know too much about recreational drugs but if you begin to differenciate between the two you leave the system open to abuse.

Well I presume,Cannabis,Heroin,Cocaine etc are dfferent to steroids,HGH,Blood doping etc.Its pretty clear whats enhancing or not,smoking a joint or doing a line is not going to benefit you in a sporting environment.

I think drugs will become alot more widespread in rugby in the coming years.The way he game has gone with proffesionalism its still in its early years.
The physical strains will not be seen until Bod's generation retire and there is no other sport that really compares to rugby in terms of physical punishment.Players taking Painkillers,Cannabis,Cocaine is going to become alot more prevalant over the next few years imo.

eroo

Goose81 wrote: »

Are the IRB a legal court?
No.

Its up to the law of the land to punish people for using illegal drugs,it has nothing to do with the IRB or any other rugby authority once they are not performance enhancing.

Yes but the IRB can't be seen to do nothing. If they don't punish players for using illegal drugs, then what message is that sending to young fellas and girls out there? That it's ok to use drugs as long as they don't effect your performance in a positive manner? I disagree.

[Deleted User]

eroo wrote: »

Yes but the IRB can't be seen to do nothing. If they don't punish players for using illegal drugs, then what message is that sending to young fellas and girls out there? That it's ok to use drugs as long as they don't effect your performance in a positive manner? I disagree.

Then they should have got Matt Stevens help,instead of making it public.No kids would have known if they hadnt made it public.

Why punish our players,they should be helped.Who is some guy on a panel to judge what a player does in his personal time,he doesnt know the physical and mental strains players nowadays go through.

Diom

The IRB have every right to demand standards off their members. A player must operate within its rules to be allowed to play in its competitions. The fact that they are not a "legal" court does not have any bearing. It's not like they tried to send him to gaol.

[Deleted User]

Diom wrote: »

The IRB have every right to demand standards off their members. A player must operate within its rules to be allowed to play in its competitions. The fact that they are not a "legal" court does not have any bearing. It's not like they tried to send him to gaol.

Yeah I know,I was responding to the poster that said they were illegal.I was just making the point that the fact that they are illegal in the country,is not for the IRB to punish.

Quaver

I always thought the idea behind banning all drugs was that in reality, all drugs could be said to be performance enhancing e.g. if player X takes cocaine so he can stay energised longer so he can work out, that will impact his performance, or if player Y smokes a joint before the big game to calm his nerves, it will also enhance his performance.