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

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

Pisco Sour

http://www.sportlive.co.za/rugby/morerugby/2013/04/06/doping-in-rugby-as-bad-as-cycling-says-ex-hooker

Serious claims.

MOD WARNING:
No speculation on specific players doping/juicing/etc.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Clearlier

desertcircus wrote: »

I've taken a brief look through the rugby union names on that list; there's not much of a pattern to it, but one thing that jumps out is just how low a level a lot of the violations occur at. A 28-year-old flanker for the second team of a club whose first play in the sixth tier of English rugby, a seventeen-year-old trying to recover from injury, a player in the third tier of Welsh rugby, an under-18s coach...a Harlequins backup hooker seems to be the most high-profile recipient of a ban. Reading between the lines of the ones that are high-profile enough to get some coverage beyond simply stating the imposition of the ban, a number of cases seem to involve attempts to recover from injury as fast as possible.

I expect that the concern that Kimmage would have (and I would too) with that is that for a long time in cycling the cyclists testing positive were at a low level i.e. they were expendable. The arguments put forward were that only poor athletes took drugs so that they could get to the level of the top athletes. It was difficult to believe at the time and was subsequently shown to be utterly false.

You cannot draw the conclusion that because there are lots of positives at a low level therefore there will be at a high level. However it also does not follow that just because most of the positive tests to date have been of low profile/level players that they are the only ones taking it. The volume of tests conducted don't allow for confidence that we would always or even often catch players who are doping.

desertcircus

Deleted User wrote: »

Obviously there's a certain amount of truth in this but I think you are missing the key point: any chemical assistance that makes you fitter is going to improve your execution of the skills you have - particularly towards the end of the game.

Everyone knows that mistakes happen when players get tired. If there was some magical drug that stopped people getting so tired... EPO for example... wouldn't it make sense for rugby and soccer players to take it? It would make them much less error prone in addition to being fitter and faster.

I wouldn't expect to see EPO used in any serious quantities in rugby; it's catabolic in nature, so you'd have serious trouble maintaining your muscle mass while on it. Everything you gained in stamina, you'd more than lose in power.

Going by the near-total lack of positive tests at the top level, we can conclude that either virtually nobody at that level dopes, or that knowledge of how to game doping tests is effectively universal among professional rugby players and teams - if it wasn't universal, you'd see one or two teams with well-developed doping programs smashing everyone and recovering from injuries incredibly quickly, and you'd see a trickle of top-tier pros getting caught each year thanks to their lack of knowledge.

There is a third possibility, which is that doping occurs on a sporadic basis but doesn't give a big enough advantage to be noticeable in open play, which would allow for a significant minority doping and a majority of players deciding it's not worth it. Without further data, though, we have no way of knowing which is the correct reality.

[Deleted User]

desertcircus wrote: »

I wouldn't expect to see EPO used in any serious quantities in rugby; it's catabolic in nature, so you'd have serious trouble maintaining your muscle mass while on it. Everything you gained in stamina, you'd more than lose in power.

Going by the near-total lack of positive tests at the top level, we can conclude that either virtually nobody at that level dopes, or that knowledge of how to game doping tests is effectively universal among professional rugby players and teams - if it wasn't universal, you'd see one or two teams with well-developed doping programs smashing everyone and recovering from injuries incredibly quickly, and you'd see a trickle of top-tier pros getting caught each year thanks to their lack of knowledge.

There is a third possibility, which is that doping occurs on a sporadic basis but doesn't give a big enough advantage to be noticeable in open play, which would allow for a significant minority doping and a majority of players deciding it's not worth it. Without further data, though, we have no way of knowing which is the correct reality.

You are right about EPO - bad example.

There are still plenty of stimulants out there though that can help keep players alert (and less fatigued) as the game goes on. The general point is that the argument 'rugby is about skill, therefore drugs won't have much effect in rugby' is not particularly strong. I realise you are not saying that but you hear it elsewhere.

Eat My Point

iroced wrote: »

Oh and I was going to forget. And of course the fans... Are they prepared to watch slower games and/or performances? Because in the end doping is a global issue and it's probably everyone's mentality that needs to be changed.

I don't think it would make that big a difference for the fans compared to other sports. If for example the men's 100 m at the next Olympics everyone in the field was doping and the record was brought down to 9 seconds then the following Olympics they had cleaned up the sport enough that everyone was clean and the winner only managed to run 10 seconds the fans would still be comparing the time to the dopers. In rugby in the next RWC final say everyone on the field was doping and the following RWC everyone was clean how much difference would it make for the fans? The fastest clean winger is still going to be able to skin his opposite man just like the fastest doped winger. So the clean blindside makes a few less tackles or hits a few less rucks than the doped one....as long as everyone is clean and it's a level playing field I don't think it would lessen the spectacle for the fans.

Gregospearos

Chiliboy Ralepelle has tested positive twice for steroid use. Is he a lone wolf?

Tell me how

desertcircus wrote: »

Going by the near-total lack of positive tests at the top level, we can conclude that either virtually nobody at that level dopes, or that knowledge of how to game doping tests is effectively universal among professional rugby players and teams - if it wasn't universal, you'd see one or two teams with well-developed doping programs smashing everyone and recovering from injuries incredibly quickly, and you'd see a trickle of top-tier pros getting caught each year thanks to their lack of knowledge.

There is a third possibility, which is that doping occurs on a sporadic basis but doesn't give a big enough advantage to be noticeable in open play, which would allow for a significant minority doping and a majority of players deciding it's not worth it. Without further data, though, we have no way of knowing which is the correct reality.

Or the scarier thought that the doping tests aren't sufficient to catch what the dopers are using....

Look at LA, he was the most tested athlete world wide and yet never was proven to have doped categorically (everyone knew it) until he admitted it himself.

evil_seed

Gregospearos wrote: »

Chiliboy Ralepelle has tested positive twice for steroid use. Is he a lone wolf?

No just a dope :pac:

Utopia Parkway

I see Kimmage has been chasing Heaslip around on Twitter the past few days.

hardCopy

Tell me how wrote: »

Or the scarier thought that the doping tests aren't sufficient to catch what the dopers are using....

Look at LA, he was the most tested athlete world wide and yet never was proven to have doped categorically (everyone knew it) until he admitted it himself.

He also grossly exaggerated the amount of tests he took. He claimed over 500 but he couldn't possibly have been tested more than 236 times, and even that was a generous estimate. http://www.cyclismas.com/biscuits/the-legend-of-the-500/

dastardly00

hardCopy wrote: »

He also grossly exaggerated the amount of tests he took. He claimed over 500 but he couldn't possibly have been tested more than 236 times, and even that was a generous estimate. http://www.cyclismas.com/biscuits/the-legend-of-the-500/

The point still stands though. He was tested a hell of a lot of times, and never "failed" a test.

LuckyLloyd

Utopia Parkway wrote: »

I see Kimmage has been chasing Heaslip around on Twitter the past few days.

I'd say pissing off Kimmage on this would be a bad idea. The man is looking for a new project after all.

Fwank wizzo

Didn't DELETED fail a testosterone test in 2006?
Can't beat good genetics.

Mod: Speculation deleted. Warning for everyone else: DO NOT name players who have not been convicted of a doping offence

Boom__Boom

An article with comments from ROG and Jackman

Jackman's comment is one that really hits home when you look at the fact that the number of tests seems incredibly tiny and the even when tests are conducted there is a fair bit of difficulty even in catching those who dope, given the fact that the number of times Lance Armstrong passed tests was apparently in the hundreds, overall it's very very hard to believe the sport is clean.

There is testing but cycling has shown that the dopers always seem to be one step ahead so I don’t know if the testing means the sport is clean.

The tiny number of tests seems to me to be a major red flag in terms of how seriously the IRFU are taking this issue.

http://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/other-rugby/ronan-ogara-we-must-sit-up-and-take-note-if-there-is-talk-of-drugs-cheats-in-rugby-30802846.html

Boom__Boom

Decent article here.

http://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/beating-the-drum-on-drugs-in-rugby-that-noone-wants-to-hear-30803283.html

O'Connor's says he doesn't think there is a doping culture in rugby

http://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/rugby/oconnor-insists-rugby-has-no-doping-culture-301062.html

Odd that the Irish Times doesn't seem to have any mention whatsoever of the whole issue.

Molester Stallone II

Didn't see this posted as yet

http://www.rugbyworld.com/countries/france-countries/doping-rugby/

Oregano_State

Designer steroids can be in and out of your system in 48-72hrs. An athlete could be in the middle of an 8 week course of juicing and still pass a test. The biological passport is one way to catch people, but is there the willingness to fund and implement it in rugby?

I don't think so.

CatFromHue

Molester Stallone II wrote: »

Didn't see this posted as yet

http://www.rugbyworld.com/countries/france-countries/doping-rugby/

That's the first time I've read what Benezech wrote that kicked off all the fuss in France........

SaveOurLyric

Oregano_State wrote: »

The biological passport is one way to catch people, but is there the willingness to fund and implement it in rugby?

I don't think so.

I dont think so either. I would guess strongly there s plenty of drugs beng taken in the sport. And I'm OK with that. Its great entertanment even if all is not quite what it seems behind the scenes. But as long as the facade is maintained, then the product looks good. I would hope this Kimmage phase passes without anything of substance being exposed. It is up to the authorities to both minimise the extent of it, and simultaneously, and more importantly, ensure that none of it reaches public knowledge. And so far, they seem to be doing a good job of it. The last thing we want is a cycling type scandal, exposure of past and present heroes, etc. But its a delicate balance.

CatFromHue

I've no problems what so ever with Kimmage's articles but I don't know how much further he can go with this unless there's a whistleblower or something.

I disagree with what you're saying too. Drugs in sport are not good for the players welfare and as a spectacle I'd much prefer rugby players as opposed to big strong men are playing the game.

Frankie Lee

Head of the RFU has admitted there is a problem in English Rugby. (Apologies for linking a Daily Mail article)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/article-2863758/Rugby-s-drug-problem-exposed-RFU-boss-admits-realise-s-issue-addressing-it.html

Rugby's drug problem exposed as RFU boss admits: We realise it's an issue. We're addressing it

Bonymaen’s Nick Clancy became the 10th rugby union player in the UK this year to be suspended for doping offence
Former coach says he walked away from the professional game in disgust at the scale of drug-taking
Study of South African schoolboy players returned 12 positive tests for anabolic steroids out of just 52 undertaken

Last year’s England Under 18s who took on Wales weighed more than 2lb per man more than the England side who lost to Australia in the 1991 World Cup final.

As Kimmage said thankfully we are surrounded by water.

Oregano_State

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

I dont think so either. I would guess strongly there s plenty of drugs beng taken in the sport. And I'm OK with that. Its great entertanment even if all is not quite what it seems behind the scenes. But as long as the facade is maintained, then the product looks good. I would hope this Kimmage phase passes without anything of substance being exposed. It is up to the authorities to both minimise the extent of it, and simultaneously, and more importantly, ensure that none of it reaches public knowledge. And so far, they seem to be doing a good job of it. The last thing we want is a cycling type scandal, exposure of past and present heroes, etc. But its a delicate balance.

I agree that there's plenty of it going on, but that's where our views diverge.

I couldn't disagree more with your attitude to be honest. You're going for the bury-the-head-in-the-sand approach and pretend everything's rosy. If some players are taking drugs, it creates and uneven playing field. The players taking drugs are gaining a physical and monetary advantage over those not doing so. It leads to bigger players, bigger collisions, greater damage and wear and tear.

Taking drugs also introduces health risks. Anabolic steroids are important functional hormones in the body. Taking synthetic, exogenous, and clinically untested analogues of these compounds to increase muscle mass and sports performance can wreak havoc with the balance and production of natural hormones in the body. Testicular atrophy and gynecomastia are two examples of common side-effects in men. If taking these and other subtstances becomes the norm, we are introducing real health dangers to the young men who want to play this sport, also setting a bad example for teens and schoolboy players.

In short, I think your view of the situation is short-sighted and dangerous, and I hope that there are not too many people with your opinion in positions of power in the sport.

Paco Rodriguez

I think there is doping in alot of sports. Football and rugby included. But there is alot more money to be lost in these sports so it's not going to be chased as much as cycling was.

zetecescort

Paco Rodriguez wrote: »

I think there is doping in alot of sports. Football and rugby included. But there is alot more money to be lost in these sports so it's not going to be chased as much as cycling was.

a lot of money to be chased too though, is that not why you'd do drugs?

SaveOurLyric

Oregano_State wrote: »

You're going for the bury-the-head-in-the-sand approach and pretend everything's rosy.

I am yes.I dont want to see it go the way of athletics or cycling which have been effectively ruined as spectator sports by their public efforts to beat drugs. It just doesnt seem to be possible to eradicate it. And the publicity does as much harm to the sport as the drugs themselves. I am fully in favour of minimising it as far as possible, and sure, ideally it would be drugs free. But best if it kept out of the public eye and the average follower of the game never really hears about it. Where would the sport be if there was a great purge and half of todays and recent players were dumped out of the game, records re written or blanked, heroes shattered. Nothing to gain from it. American team sports are rife with it, and get on OK as long as they dont catch anyone to big, too publicly. Golf's stated policy is not to make any such issues public. And it serves it well. I fear what would be found in rugby it is such a demanding physical sport, so, yes, prefer not to look. And do think its in the best interest of the game that it remain that way.

klairondavis

I don't understand how it is in the best interests of any sport to turn a blind eye to PED use. Where PED use is rife those with the deepest pockets and the biggest risk tolerance will succeed while honest teams and players will lose out. There are also the potential health dangers relating to PED use.

Rugby union has become obsessed with size and power since the advent of professionalism. Is the sport a greater spectacle because of it? Personally I don't think it is. Games are decided more and more on who wins the 'collisions' and 'gainline successes' are now one of the key performance indicators for players. Such buzzwords were unheard of twenty years ago. A lot of the subtleties of the game have been lost. The days of a smallish player being selected because he was a skillful footballer are almost gone. It seems backs these days must be at least 15 stone. Any three out of the Welsh backs could easily pass for a back row trio of ten years ago.

SaveOurLyric

klairondavis wrote: »

I don't understand how it is in the best interests of any sport to turn a blind eye to PED use.

I dont mean the sport itself should turn a blind eye to it. The authorities must do what they can to minimise the problem. But keep it away from our eyes. With current methods it is an unwinnable war and the public flagelations in other sports have done more harm than good. Does anyone believe athletics or cycling are cleaner now than they were 10 or 20 years ago ? Dream on if you do. (Any Jamaican sprinters here that browse boards.ie/rugby will know what I am talking about....)

klairondavis

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

I dont mean the sport itself should turn a blind eye to it. The authorities must do what they can to minimise the problem. But keep it away from our eyes. With current methods it is an unwinnable war and the public flagelations in other sports have done more harm than good. Does anyone believe athletics or cycling are cleaner now than they were 10 or 20 years ago ? Dream on if you do. (Any Jamaican sprinters here that browse boards.ie/rugby will know what I am talking about....)

An unwinnable war? I'm not so sure about that. It is at the moment in most sports because the testing procedures are so poor. Implementing a biological passport would be a great starting point in helping to minimise PED use but it will never happen until there is more funding made available by the sporting bodies for the anti-doping agencies.

CatFromHue

you could argue that the testing levels in rugby are so low that they could be classed as non existent really.

look at the side effects of taking hgh

Risks
Adverse effects related to human growth hormone range in severity and may include:

Joint pain
Muscle weakness
Fluid retention
Carpal tunnel syndrome
Impaired glucose regulation
Cardiomyopathy
High cholesterol (hyperlipidemia)
Diabetes
High blood pressure (hypertension)

http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-living/fitness/in-depth/performance-enhancing-drugs/art-20046134

rugby is a tough enough sport without bringing any of those into the equation

Superbus

Not a point specific to rugby, but I've always wondered what would happen if all doping and peds were legal, but lying was illegal. So you can take whatever you want, but you have to declare it. Combined with this there's a testing regime that's as stringent as possible. If someone is found to be on something they didn't declare, they're banned for life. No questions asked.

It would provide an incentive to be clean, because achievements would be totally discredited due to declared doping. And anyone who pushes it too far and lies is thrown out completely.

Probably some gap in my logic there, and would probably be abused, but anyway. Would be interesting, to me at least.

Swan Curry

The problem with allowing PEDs in any form is that you give a massive advantage to teams with a large budget. It's already difficult enough for smaller clubs to win against clubs with millions to spare like Toulon, imagine if Toulon could afford to juice their players to the gills and be allowed to do so?