Laurent Benezech - "Doping in Rugby as bad as cycling" [MOD WARNING POST #1]

Frankie Lee wrote: »

Another article from Kimmage from earlier in the year which is focused on other sports too but in relation to rugby:

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

Again I think that's making noise for the sake of it. What we're talking about being a dangerous thing in the sport is actual steroids, not caffeine pre-workout pumps or using pain killers. I'm a big fan of taking pain killers before a game and I reckon most of the players I play with and against do to. Is that doping? No, ofcourse it's not. Don't be ridiculous. Despite us getting some sick from of satisfaction from running into each other for 80 minutes it actually hurts. It hurts when you do it 3 times a week. No player is ever 100% fit or pain free. It's important to dull that pain before a game or simply you won't relax and you'll be rigid and probably ship an injury.

It's only doping if it actually allows you to get bigger and stronger outside of natural means imo. Dulling pain or taking caffeine sups does not do that.

Actually, the bottom line is, it's only doping if it's a banned substance, and speaking of which have you seen the banned substances? It's VERY long. The guys can't even take a lemsip if they get a cold.

.ak wrote: »

Actually, the bottom line is, it's only doping if it's a banned substance, and speaking of which have you seen the banned substances? It's VERY long. The guys can't even take a lemsip if they get a cold.

Come off it.

If a biologist in a lab creates a 'muscle building pill' tomorrow and feeds it to a group of players that subsequently get huge benefits before the secondary level of (test drug, find impact, ban drug) that's somehow not doping?

That argument can only hold face if somehow the secondary level (test/impact/ban) happens before the primary. Which could only happen if the WADA etc were actively trying to develop performance enhancing drugs.

Deleted User wrote: »

Come off it.

If a biologist in a lab creates a 'muscle building pill' tomorrow and feeds it to a group of players that subsequently get huge benefits before the secondary level of (test drug, find impact, ban drug) that's somehow not doping?

That argument can only hold face if somehow the secondary level (test/impact/ban) happens before the primary. Which could only happen if the WADA etc were actively trying to develop performance enhancing drugs.

True - however I was speaking in a technical sense. But where do you draw the line? As pointed out above, there's plenty of supps out there that have benefits that aren't banned. Why not?

There's probably a deeper question. Should the sport (or any sport for that matter) but 100% pure? Because there's no black and white for me. Certain foods will give people an edge on things. Imagine if they banned caffeine (I know in certain quantities it is banned, but lets forget that for now)? Or imagine if they banned ingestion of simple carbs like glycerine or dextrose?

When I say if it's not banned then it's not doping what I really mean is if it's unlikely to ever be banned. That should exclude what you're getting at - the idea of players taking new substances knowing that said substances will more than likely end up on the banned list isn't the point I was trying to make.

For me I have no problem with using nutritional science to further your development as a player and as an athlete - things like what Kimmage was talking about in that article was a far cry from 'muscle building substances'. He was talking about what's common place on shelves now adays like pre-workout pumps or a feckin' nurofen.

.
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sport/rugby/guinness-pro12/cap-still-fitz-for-ulster-after-declans-ups-and-downs-30709049.html

.ak wrote: »

True - however I was speaking in a technical sense. But where do you draw the line? As pointed out above, there's plenty of supps out there that have benefits that aren't banned. Why not?

There's probably a deeper question. Should the sport (or any sport for that matter) but 100% pure? Because there's no black and white for me. Certain foods will give people an edge on things. Imagine if they banned caffeine (I know in certain quantities it is banned, but lets forget that for now)? Or imagine if they banned ingestion of simple carbs like glycerine or dextrose?

When I say if it's not banned then it's not doping what I really mean is if it's unlikely to ever be banned. That should exclude what you're getting at - the idea of players taking new substances knowing that said substances will more than likely end up on the banned list isn't the point I was trying to make.

It is difficult to know where to draw the line which is why something like caffeine has fallen either side of the line in the past however new substances not available to the general public are covered under the following heading in the WADA list:

S0. Non-Approved Substances
Any pharmacological substance which is not addressed by any of the subsequent sections of the List and with no current approval by any governmental regulatory health authority for human therapeutic use (e.g drugs under pre-clinical or clinical development or discontinued, designer drugs, substances approved only for veterinary use) is prohibited.

CatFromHue

What is legal and what isn't is one of the things in the first Kimmage article.

Is taking pain killers or a not on the doping list stimulant before a game performance enhancing through ingesting chemicals legal? Yes, but you are still taking performance enhancing drugs.

Declan Fitzpatrick took caffeine gum and ended up with some heart problems last season

to top it all, came last season's heart issue which saw Fitzpatrick hospitalised for tests after the game in Glasgow back in April.

That turned out to be due to the hit he took due to a caffeine gum intake prior to that game in Glasgow - the gums are a regular issue to players before games to deal with nerves and get them buzzing - after he had stayed clear of the stuff for some time due to the headaches he had been suffering as he made his way back to being fit to play again.

"Because I was suffering from migraines I had kept the caffeine totally out of my diet.

"We get caffeine gums (before games) and we all take them. Obviously I was a bit sensitive to it because I hadn't taken it. Then I got thrown on after half an hour because Ricky (Lutton) got injured."

The nerves from playing for the first time in a while meant that he just took the gums on board without realising the effect that they would have.

"I was feeling really tired and I didn't realise that at half-time it was because my heart was racing so fast, but I thought 'I'll take another caffeine' and took two more gums."

After playing on and feeling more and more weary he came off around the hour mark, "luckily enough the doctor who was there took me off," is how he describes it which resulted in him spending the weekend being closely monitored in Glasgow

daUbiq

Swiwi wrote: »

I do care. Those drugs have long-term side-effects, and I want the ABs to play other teams on a level playing field from that point of view. I don't want to read Carter's or McCaw's premature obituary because of cardiac side-effects of performance enhancing drugs they felt compelled to take because it was rife & widely accepted in Europe.

LOL - you're taking the piss!

I couldn't give a damn about McCaw or Carter.. :eek:

CatFromHue wrote: »

What is legal and what isn't is one of the things in the first Kimmage article.

Is taking pain killers or a not on the doping list stimulant before a game performance enhancing through ingesting chemicals legal? Yes, but you are still taking performance enhancing drugs.

I just think that sort of thing is a crazy analogy. Like, that sort of statement should be reserved for people taking asthma drugs like clen to burn bodyfat and build muscle. Players need to be able to dull the pain and if the opposition are allowed to take it then what's the issue? It's like saying if I have a cough which is bothering me and will upset my preparation in a game and I take cough medicine to help it ease then I'm taking a performance enhancing drug.

It's just far too pedantic imo. This sort of discussion should be kept to what's on the banned list. Kimmage is looking for something that I'm not sure is really there.

Are players doping? I'm sure there are some. Are they doing it at a high level, like international test player level? I doubt it. The culture is there at mid-level. I've heard about AIL and Championship players doing it. But what's the budget like for testing at that level? It's non-exitstant compared to tier 1 rugby imo. What Kimmage found in cycling was people actually injecting steroids into their arms days before a race. Do people really think international rugby players are doing that, or the equivalent? Do people really think the IRB who run these tests are covering it up, despite actually paying a lot of money to have the tests and to have a board in there in the first place?

No sport is clean, but I struggle to believe the likelihood that 'doping in rugby is as bad as cycling', guys being massive is not a catalyst to believing this imo.

daUbiq wrote: »

LOL - you're taking the piss!

I couldn't give a damn about McCaw or Carter.. :eek:

The poster is a NZ fan.

Giruilla

There's been arguments from specialists on the subject of doping that its in fact painkillers themselves that should be banned, and use of HGH that should be legal.

Thought process being that painkillers are more likely to encourage a player to play though an injury and incur a worse one, whilst drugs like HGH can vastly help the recovery process from injury.

There's a couple of very important factors to consider when we talk about doping and the idea of doping.

One important point is that our awareness and understanding of nutrition in 2014 is so far advanced compared to only 50 years ago that you could almost call a 100% whole food, naturally occurring diet that a competitor in any sport eats 'doping' compared to that of what was eaten 50 years ago.

Step one in 'fuel' is diet, competitors today know exactly what macronutrient breakdown they need to assist their task. They can tailor their carbohydrate intake depending on training types etc. This can mean muscle built quicker, fat lost quicker, mass built "cleaner", simply through understanding what your body uses what for. This advantage has always existed, but increased information is worth more. However, banning whole foods? Mental idea imo.

The next step from whole foods is into 'natural' supplementation. If a player needs macro nutrients such as protein or carbohydrate, it might be more practical to isolate and deliver these instead of having them eat a chicken breast and a cup of brown rice straight after a training session. Having a whey protein shake (which is a natural byproduct in cheese production) with two scoops of maltodextrin (extracted naturally from wheat) is more convenient and can happen faster, meaning that the recovery/absorption time is reduced, which is a benefit.

Next step again, 'lab' supplements. Consider that we have the chemical makeup of maltodextrin available to us. And a lab simply creates maltodextrin without any extraction from wheat. The difference between the compound created naturally, and that created in a lab is almost negligible. Given that the 'product' is almost the same, we cannot really ban one vs the other. We don't have tests for if someone got naturally occurring creatine (from meat) vs synthetically created creatine . It's also far, far, far easier to isolate and produce creatine from lab sources than from natural sources.

Then it starts to get really, really murky. How can I differentiate between creatine (above) and anabolic steroids given that they're both made in the body as well as being able to be produced with benefit in labs? At the moment, I differentiate because I'm told to by the WADA, I personally have no terms of reference in order to create these differences. That's not to say there aren't very clear ones, I just don't know them.

I personally, in all my training try to stop at step one, whole foods. That's me though. Are we eventually going to try to have 4 different types of sports? Depending on the level of "lab work", "natural substances" etc? How would we test and ban? If we had differing levels of 'allowed advantage' would any of them be seen as "more worthwhile" than another?

.ak wrote: »

For me I have no problem with using nutritional science to further your development as a player and as an athlete - things like what Kimmage was talking about in that article was a far cry from 'muscle building substances'. He was talking about what's common place on shelves now adays like pre-workout pumps or a feckin' nurofen.

I'm sure that I'm looking at the wrong article and that there is another article where Kimmage does focus on this but in the article linked a few posts ago for me the big thing that he's doing is to raise doubts, to call for more testing and to stop automatically assuming that our sport (be that football, tennis, golf or rugby) is somehow different to other sports.

In general I think that you're more likely to find doping in a sport where physical prowess plays a greater role in results than ones where skill has a large role to play. That said, anyone who has a cursory understanding of the Fuentes affair will have serious doubts about how little doping is found in football - add in the bans that have been handed out when someone has been caught and you've got a sport that simply doesn't take doping seriously. It's particularly egregious in football because the big issue in dope testing in most sports is the cost of that testing - that simply isn't an issue for elite level football.

If I then move on to rugby much though I hate the thought of it it's difficult to assemble a logical argument for doping being less prevalent than in football,

Less money maybe but there's probably more in it for most than in cycling or athletics.

Less organised perhaps but rugby has come on in leaps and bounds in that regard. I laughed when I read Brian Kerr saying that he had always thought of rugby as being nowhere near as tactically complex as football (inference being that it was no longer the case) and then I remember when I played the game and frankly rugby was very simple tactically then. As a sport I think that we're better organised than most - not on the scale of the US sports yet obviously but heading that way.

No culture of doping - nonsense. Read Francois Pienaar's book and you'll read that stimulants were handed out like smarties before games when SA were isolated.

I don't know what the levels of testing is at right now but this report says where it was 2 years ago. 166 tests for all of the rugby players in Ireland just isn't good enough. What I'd like to see is very high levels of testing of rugby players (and other sports). 7 or 8 tests a year per player (including academy players) costs a lot of money but what price the message that we send to our kids?

Giruilla

.ak wrote: »

Are players doping? I'm sure there are some. Are they doing it at a high level, like international test player level? I doubt it.

Why would you think the probability of players doping decreases when there is more money to made?
And if you're thinking - because testing increases at higher levels.. bear in mind there is essentially no risk if you do it right.

.ak wrote: »

What Kimmage found in cycling was people actually injecting steroids into their arms days before a race. Do people really think international rugby players are doing that, or the equivalent?

They'd be insane to do that! What Kimmage is talking about is players doing steroid cycles in off seasons and out of competition when they know there is no testing.. and keeping the massive gains they make during that time.

.ak wrote: »

.. Do people really think the IRB who run these tests are covering it up, despite actually paying a lot of money to have the tests and to have a board in there in the first place?

No sport is clean, but I struggle to believe the likelihood that 'doping in rugby is as bad as cycling', guys being massive is not a catalyst to believing this imo.

Isn't rugby union the sport with the highest percentage chance of a positive test in recent years? Even though it's had a staggeringly low number of tests compared to other sports? - particular post is here & ink to Irish Times article here

The figures show rugby’s figure of 1.3 per cent is a higher Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF) than both athletics and cycling, which both come in at 1. 2 per cent. An AAF means the presence of a prohibited substance or its metabolite was found in the sample.

In all, 6,126 samples were taken in rugby across the 33 laboratories, which appears comparatively low compared to 22,252 taken in cycling and 11,585 in athletics. Cycling’s very high testing rate is because Wada targets sports that have proven to be drug user-friendly.

Isn't it also a prime example of a sport where out-of-competition testing is 100 times more important than in-competition testing? The benefits of drugs are more stacked towards being able to train harder, recover and gain muscle faster etc, allowing yourself be a "better athlete" for weeks and months after you've taken the drugs. There's very little benefit to an International rugby player 'shooting up' the week of a WC game vs doing it 9-36 months previously.

Giruilla

Deleted User wrote: »

There's very little benefit to an International rugby player 'shooting up' the week of a WC game vs doing it 9-36 months previously.

If anything it would be detrimental to performance... you have to come off the juice to reap the benefits in performance. Goes well with the fact they're out of your system by then.. hence why in-competition testing is referred to as an 'idiot test'.

Chucky the tree

Bridge93 wrote: »

Maybe it's the Law education in me speaking but, as I do with cycling and athletics etc, I prefer to work off innocent until proven guilty. I find sport more enjoyable that way. If people are found guilty then by all means bring the harshest punishment down on them. Until then I rather believe in what I am seeing.

I think it's more the fact you don't want to think of your favourite sport/athletes as cheats. If it was discovered a large number of the Irish team were using illegal drugs it would be a crushing blow to most people so I think people would rather bury their heads in the sand at bit.

Putinovsky

Leinster players are the most heavily tested players in the country owing to the fact that the testers live in Dublin! I was told this by a friend who plays for Leinster. The lads outside of Leinster get tested once every blue moon but Leinster players are always getting tested.

Doping is extraordinarily rare at the Irish elite level, at AIL it happens. I know of a huge name player of another province who juiced during a lay off (he travelled all the way to west Dublin to meet a steroid dealer who trains in my gym)

Neil3030

Wouldn't bother me in the slightest if irish players were caught. I'm of the opinion that the size standards in top tiers of rugby are practically impossible to achieve naturally so we would be actively harming our competitiveness if we didn't take PEDs. Especially in the forwards. Anyone with a size to height ratio greater than jonnny sexton is suspect imo. (Just using him as an example of the natural limit - 6" 2, 90kg, ffmi of around 25)

Is testing handled by the Sports Counsel or by the IRB?

I can tell you first hand that the Sports Counsel are fairly on the ball when it comes to testing, I actually felt confident at least domestically that the Sports Counsel did a decent job of keeping sport clean. My last season I was tested 5 times and only once after a competition.

Deleted User wrote: »

Isn't rugby union the sport with the highest percentage change of a positive test in recent years? Even though it's had a staggeringly low number of tests compared to other sports? - particular post is here & ink to Irish Times article here

Isn't it also a prime example of a sport where out-of-competition testing is 100 times more important than in-competition testing? The benefits of drugs are more stacked towards being able to train harder, recover and gain muscle faster etc, allowing yourself be a "better athlete" for weeks and months after you've taken the drugs. There's very little benefit to an International rugby player 'shooting up' the week of a WC game vs doing it 9-36 months previously.

True enough, and I thought about that when writing. I still think the culture isn't there though, considering the risks. If a player gets caught, it's a lifetime ban. Didn't a Japanese international cop a ban for using steroids that were found in his moustache growing cream? No appeal, just a life time ban. So obviously they're willing to ban people without exception. Why would someone risk that? I suppose you could weigh it up when considering the potential wage top players get.

.ak wrote: »

True enough, and I thought about that when writing. I still think the culture isn't there though, considering the risks. If a player gets caught, it's a lifetime ban. Didn't a Japanese international cop a ban for using steroids that were found in his moustache growing cream? No appeal, just a life time ban. So obviously they're willing to ban people without exception. Why would someone risk that? I suppose you could weigh it up when considering the potential wage top players get.

You could ask the same questions of dopers in any sport. People dope so that they can perform at a higher level, some so that they can be a good amateur (triathlon has a problem with this), some so that they can be a professional, others so that they can be a top rank professional and still others to be the very best in the world. You see it other sports all the time. There is a documented history of drug taking in rugby so I don't see how it can be argued that the culture isn't there. Of course I hope it isn't true but the current testing regime is incapable of giving me any reassurance.

Deleted User wrote: »

Is testing handled by the Sports Counsel or by the IRB?

I can tell you first hand that the Sports Counsel are fairly on the ball when it comes to testing, I actually felt confident at least domestically that the Sports Counsel did a decent job of keeping sport clean. My last season I was tested 5 times and only once after a competition.

In Ireland? What level do you play at, do you mind me asking?

irishbucsfan

I remember we were tested a schools' level. Haven't been tested since, in England or Ireland.

.ak wrote: »

In Ireland? What level do you play at, do you mind me asking?

International level but different sport which fell under the Irish Sports Counsel in terms of testing.

Boom__Boom

Some more relevant articles

http://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/neil-francis-ambivalence-towards-ped-abuse-in-sport-is-truly-galling-30602799.html

http://irishecho.com/2011/02/drugs-bombshell-rocks-irish-rugby-2/

Neil3030

Just in case anyone is interested - look up a chap on YouTube who runs a fitness channel called JuggernautFitness. He is exercise scientist and an admitted former steroid dealer, who used to get collegiate level athletes past their drug tests. The key points from his videos on the matter seem to be that any federation that only tests within certain windows, or who give any notice prior to testing, can be quite easily cheated. PEDs can be taken in frequent, diluted dosages, to metabolise within a few hours. So for example, if you know you'll only ever be tested between 9 and 5 on a weekday, or on gamedays, you can juice yourself off the charts but still beat the tests.

Robert McGrath

[Deleted User] wrote: »

There's a couple of very important factors to consider when we talk about doping and the idea of doping.

One important point is that our awareness and understanding of nutrition in 2014 is so far advanced compared to only 50 years ago that you could almost call a 100% whole food, naturally occurring diet that a competitor in any sport eats 'doping' compared to that of what was eaten 50 years ago.

Step one in 'fuel' is diet, competitors today know exactly what macronutrient breakdown they need to assist their task. They can tailor their carbohydrate intake depending on training types etc. This can mean muscle built quicker, fat lost quicker, mass built "cleaner", simply through understanding what your body uses what for. This advantage has always existed, but increased information is worth more. However, banning whole foods? Mental idea imo.

The next step from whole foods is into 'natural' supplementation. If a player needs macro nutrients such as protein or carbohydrate, it might be more practical to isolate and deliver these instead of having them eat a chicken breast and a cup of brown rice straight after a training session. Having a whey protein shake (which is a natural byproduct in cheese production) with two scoops of maltodextrin (extracted naturally from wheat) is more convenient and can happen faster, meaning that the recovery/absorption time is reduced, which is a benefit.

Next step again, 'lab' supplements. Consider that we have the chemical makeup of maltodextrin available to us. And a lab simply creates maltodextrin without any extraction from wheat. The difference between the compound created naturally, and that created in a lab is almost negligible. Given that the 'product' is almost the same, we cannot really ban one vs the other. We don't have tests for if someone got naturally occurring creatine (from meat) vs synthetically created creatine . It's also far, far, far easier to isolate and produce creatine from lab sources than from natural sources.

Then it starts to get really, really murky. How can I differentiate between creatine (above) and anabolic steroids given that they're both made in the body as well as being able to be produced with benefit in labs? At the moment, I differentiate because I'm told to by the WADA, I personally have no terms of reference in order to create these differences. That's not to say there aren't very clear ones, I just don't know them.

I personally, in all my training try to stop at step one, whole foods. That's me though. Are we eventually going to try to have 4 different types of sports? Depending on the level of "lab work", "natural substances" etc? How would we test and ban? If we had differing levels of 'allowed advantage' would any of them be seen as "more worthwhile" than another?

This is a really superb post that I think perfectly encapsulates the difficulty in where to draw the line.

On these boards I have often read about the "dark arts" and players that people admire for pushing the rules to their limit and getting away with it at ruck time. Rob Kearney's try against England was lauded partly because of POC's role in pulling back an England player and getting away with it.

How do you decide what is acceptable rule-stretching and what is cheating?

Boom__Boom

Interesting follow-up interview today on the lack of interest by others in the Irish sports media.

http://thecity.ie/2014/12/02/kimmage-chasing-expose-on-drugs-in-rugby/

Molester Stallone II

Boom__Boom wrote: »

Interesting follow-up interview today on the lack of interest by others in the Irish sports media.

http://thecity.ie/2014/12/02/kimmage-chasing-expose-on-drugs-in-rugby/

To borrow a phrase from Kimmage's own autobiography, no Irish journo is going to "spit in the soup"
what would happen if Thornley followed up on this ? His access to the Irish camp and the provinces would be stripped away. I not saying there is anything to the claims Kimmage has made, but you can be sure a rugby journo isn't going to jump on board at this early stage

Someone wake Conor George up from hibernation and tell him to get sniffing around Leinster.