Drugs in Rugby

A recent report suggests it is a bigger problem than I personally imagined it was.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/article-2863758/Rugby-s-drug-problem-exposed-RFU-boss-admits-realise-s-issue-addressing-it.html

The Independent Report 1
http://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/international-rugby/paul-kimmage-rugby-has-to-face-up-to-its-growing-pains-30766512.html

http://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/other-rugby/paul-kimmage-dangerous-obsession-with-size-creates-bigger-need-for-answers-30785080.html

Craig Chalmers son banned.
http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/rugby-union/29764657

It has to be an issue doesn't it in a sport where the bigger men with outstanding stamina are highly prized. Doubt the people in charge seriously want to dig too deep unless we start to get a lot of premature deaths in about 15 to 20 years.

Especially at youth level. There's such pressure to stand out in order to succeed now that young players are being forced to push their bodies beyond what they're capable of or prepared for at a young age. 

Some of the young lads coming through academies now are truly huge. Look at the JRWC for examples. The likes of England, SA, and Pacific Nations have teenagers whose statures dwarf adult players. 

The harsh reality is that if only a minority of young players take PEDs or even legal supplements like protein, creatine, glutamine, etc., it raises the bar for everyone to be noticed.

Any sport where the governing body is in charge of the testing isn't likely to catch too many dopers ...... and lets face it, if you could extend your career by a couple of seasons with a little synthethic 'help' - or your pro (or even semi pro) contract depended on you finding an extra 5 kgs somewhere, what would you do?.......

It is a problem and anyone who says otherwise has their head in the sand as they did with cycling 10+ years ago. I doubt its quite the same at the top level as cycling was/is, but academy level/age players who are looking to bulk up quickly to compete are the likely offenders.

Having said that, there have been a few senior players since the game went pro who have changed beyond recognition and who's jawlines have altered quite a lot (a side effect of some doping).

From the article for those who can't be bothered to click:

I’m sure there was the odd player taking drugs before the sport went professional,’ said the former coach. ‘But what I found abhorrent was the institutionalised drug-taking that came in in the professional era.

‘Players are being told to bulk up, and it’s being spelled out to them in no uncertain terms that the way to bulk up is to take drugs.

‘You can’t become as big as the players are becoming without a serious amount of drug-taking. Once a core of players take drugs, get bigger and win places, the only way other players can compete is by taking drugs too. It’s a problem that has engulfed the sport and I wanted no part of it. Be assured, you don’t get a physique like a modern-day rugby player by eating grilled fish and doing press-ups.’

Its been a big problem in Wales for sometime.

Speaking to an Orthopedic consulant recently and he told me that the use of steroids in the 80's is now showing through.

Although, I do agree that drugs are a problem within rugby, we must also take into account the hard work these people are putting in, from a young age as well, the sacrifices they have to make at such a young age is borderline unfair, perhaps these pressures is what leads to the taking of drugs by some people, after all the sacrifices they make and hard work they put in, failure is not an option.

It is a worry. I have read that the England U18 team last year were 2lbs a man HEAVIER than the England team from the 1991 RWC.

That is lads who are still growing and maturing!! Is that really all down to good food and good S&C?

MrsP wrote:That is lads who are still growing and maturing!! Is that really all down to good food and good S&C?.

MrsP, I have witnessed first hand the sacrifices that not only the player has to make at a young age, but the parents as well, 14yrs old, and not allowed to eat McDonald's or drink fizzy pop, only allowed to eat organic food, no sauces ect, these kids lose out on a lot at such a young age, when their friends are all going out to Nando's they cannot go, shopping bills go up about £50 to £100 a week to supplement the dedication, no salt this no sugar that, these kids cannot go to the toilet without putting extra muscles on their bodies, it is that strict a regime, this is why the kids of today are bigger than they were over twenty years ago, and it is this kind of pressure that I think leads to the drug taking with some people.

MrsP wrote:It is a worry. I have read that the England U18 team last year were 2lbs a man HEAVIER than the England team from the 1991 RWC.

That is lads who are still growing and maturing!! Is that really all down to good food and good S&C?

How much have sizes changed in general since then? Average heights are generally increasing as people are generally bigger. My dad would have just about been old enough to play in the 91 world cup and they didn't have much grub back when he was growing up, certainly not good food. That little stat on its doesn't really mean anything.

Really Hammer?



Where were these great food shortages of the 70s???

MrsP wrote:Really Hammer?



Where were these great food shortages of the 70s???

I think he is talking about the quality of the food and the diets from now and back then. We hardly use lard to cook anything these days, and the additives in food are more healthy and less of an additive now days.

I would think the average diet of a kid was better in the 70s. Much less processed food. But I would not think things would have changed that much in one generation. Those figures were not comparing like with like either, they were comparing U18s now with adult rugby players although granted they were amateurs.

MrsP wrote:I would think the average diet of a kid was better in the 70s. Much less processed food. But I would not think things would have changed that much in one generation. Those figures were not comparing like with like either, they were comparing U18s now with adult rugby players although granted they were amateurs.

MrsP, see my post above, it explains a lot.

I thought it was all growth hormones these days rather than the roids?

MrsP wrote:Really Hammer?



Where were these great food shortages of the 70s???

Maybe it was only in Stoke but my dad says the quality and availability of food when I was growing up (80s/90s) was significantly better when he was a kid (60s/70s), when they had enough but that was it. Although I suppose the English rugby team from the 90s wasn't made up from the north of England mining community

The 90s team were amateurs. The U18 were all proffesionals (probably all with pro-club contracts) and been that way for years. I doubt their diets were the typical of other kids. Next add in gym work in general.

I'm not saying there isn't an issue. I'm not saying there's nothing going on. I'm not saying it's good for their health (even if it's all done cleanly). I'm just saying that one little piece of information doesn't mean anything on it's own.

Do many of the guys use creatine? Its legal and ive seen people use it...and the results have been staggering. Also a few of the lads mentioned its benefits in injury recovery...ie it speeds it up.

I would think most will be using this.

HammerofThunor wrote:I'm just saying that one little piece of information doesn't mean anything on it's own

Too true, and that is why we MUST consider the amount of hard work and sacrifices these young kids make and put in before we go finger waving and accusing the kids of taking drugs, I am not saying it does not happen, but the fear of failure after doing so much MUST hold a lot of pressure on a young mans shoulders, and the pressure to succeed may lead to taking illegal extra's to help them, but I have seen first hand how hard it is for a young teenager trying to make it in the professional rugby arena.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Do many of the guys use creatine? Its legal and ive seen people use it...and the results have been staggering. Also a few of the lads mentioned its benefits in injury recovery...ie it speeds it up.

I would think most will be using this.

If it's not illegal, then they would be silly not to.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Do many of the guys use creatine? Its legal and ive seen people use it...and the results have been staggering. Also a few of the lads mentioned its benefits in injury recovery...ie it speeds it up.

I would think most will be using this.

In the article it's described as useless.

EDIT: from your Independent Report 1

"Yes, for you," he replies, "but not for him (the player) because he's not positive after a test. That's the problem. I cannot use a word that has several definitions and for me, taking growth hormone is using a performance enhancing medical aid, the same as the useless stuff like creatine and the useful stuff like EPO.

I certainly agree that it isn't indicative of anything but I thought it was interesting. I would say there is also perhaps a greater propensity for rugby to seek out bigger lads now than before.

Well Hammer, from the results I have witnessed in my gym and they are only using Creatine (as opposed to steroids) I would say its far from useless.

HammerofThunor wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Do many of the guys use creatine? Its legal and ive seen people use it...and the results have been staggering. Also a few of the lads mentioned its benefits in injury recovery...ie it speeds it up.

I would think most will be using this.

In the article it's described as useless.

Of course its bloody useless. Does anyone seriously think anything you can buy from you high street store is going to be that effective?

Why would anyone risk their health and career injecting themselves with hormones,steroids or EPO if they can buy a couple of tubs of strawberry flavoured powder for a couple of quid that turns them into the incredible hulk? Silly old Lance - you should have just went to holland and barrett.....

Hammer, I used to take Creatine, for the normal every day person working out to improve their body shape its absolutely great for building muscle mass in addition to good food and working out.

As for modern day pro-athletes, well, their wee probably contains stronger stuff.

LordDowlais wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:I'm just saying that one little piece of information doesn't mean anything on it's own

Too true, and that is why we MUST consider the amount of hard work and sacrifices these young kids make and put in before we go finger waving and accusing the kids of taking drugs, I am not saying it does not happen, but the fear of failure after doing so much MUST hold a lot of pressure on a young mans shoulders, and the pressure to succeed may lead to taking illegal extra's to help them, but I have seen first hand how hard it is for a young teenager trying to make it in the professional rugby arena.

What must be considered is better drug tests and strong stances on failures no matter what.

The WADA code is changing as of 1 Jan 2015.

Strict liability for any Adverse finding and 2 year ban for inadvertent doping. 4 years for deliberate doping.

I think we'd all like to think Rugby is clean, but like most professional sports, anywhere where someone can get an advantage they will.

And its not necessarily for putting mass on, anything that will aid recovery, I'm sure a lot of players will take it.

The testing and adverse results is very hush hush in rugby. It needs to be more transparent and harsher on punishments. The reaction in France to top14 individuals being implicated is amazing for a country that has had to deal with the fallout in cycling. Maybe the more you love something the more you turn a blind eye.

Nutrition, getting kids on training regimes at young ages, more selective progression (identifying and developing bigger players earlier) can only account for so much.

thebandwagonsociety wrote:The testing and adverse results is very hush hush in rugby.  It needs to be more transparent and harsher on punishments.  The reaction in France to top14 individuals being implicated is amazing for a country that has had to deal with the fallout in cycling. Maybe the more you love something the more you turn a blind eye.

Nutrition, getting kids on training regimes at young ages, more selective progression (identifying and developing bigger players earlier) can only account for so much.

+1

Advantages are advantages. People won't admit to them readily or they lose their power as advantage tools. To get to the bottom is going to be as painful and intricate as the cycling saga was. The thing I found most striking about the recent events in France is the notable coaches and their opinions.

My rugby team had a nutritionist. Went from 70-88 kg in two years thanks to him. Can't overstate the detail he went to preparing our diets. Had my breakfast, Lunch, dinner, AM pre workout, post workout, PM (gym) pre workout, post workout, eating times, caloric load, break in between meals all down. Pre season camps and training ate six meals a day, two protein shakes, 3.5l of water.

Kids gaining crazy weight natural isn't exactly rocket science... although it isn't simple addition either. But it's not impossible, if they are disciplined enough. I'd fancy my high school team was probably as big as quite a few black and white era international teams, and we were, I'd wager on the whole clean. Regular drug testing (couldn't play 1st XV without which).

It's rampant in club rugby locally though. Guys I knew who swore to never take the stuff are now besties with some shady individuals... I suspect it becomes more rampant once you realise you have one last shot at the brass ring.

I was reading something recently about a school in SA which has become a rugby academy in all but name and one other local school has refused to play them because of the size difference and the "win at all cost" attitude of their underage teams.

Was it in Pretoria?

Just remembered!

I think it was in KZN.

kingraf wrote:My rugby team had a nutritionist. Went from 70-88 kg in two years thanks to him. Can't overstate the detail he went to preparing our diets. Had my breakfast, Lunch, dinner, AM pre workout, post workout, PM (gym) pre workout, post workout, eating times, caloric load, break in between meals all down. Pre season camps and training ate six meals a day, two protein shakes,  3.5l of water.

Kids gaining crazy weight natural isn't exactly rocket science... although it isn't simple addition either. But it's not impossible, if they are disciplined enough. I'd fancy my high school team was probably as big as quite a few black and white era international teams, and we were, I'd wager on the whole clean. Regular drug testing (couldn't play 1st XV without which).

It's rampant in club rugby locally though. Guys I knew who swore to never take the stuff are now besties with some shady individuals... I suspect it becomes more rampant once you realise you have one last shot at the brass ring.

Great post.

Can I just say though, the best players in the game will still be at the top regardless if they use PED's or not,

PED's generally don't take you to a whole new level, they only bring you up a little bit, some random player who wouldn't cut the mustard at pro level, might get there if they used PEDs but they wouldn't stay there for very long if they didn't have the talent to make it in the first place.

Rugby is no different from any other sport. PEDs are taken at all levels and until there is a high profile systemic conspiracy on a Lance Armstrong scale individuals will continue to take the rap and the sport as a whole will treat it as a problem of individuals not the sport itself

MrsP wrote:I was reading something recently about a school in SA which has become a rugby academy in all but name and one other local school has refused to play them because of the size difference and the "win at all cost" attitude of their underage teams.

Was it in Pretoria?

That was Affies who didn't want to play Garsfontein, but it was not because of drugs.  I think it was because Garsfontein bought to many players for its first team.

The schools where size was important was in KZN, where one school said that they just can't compete against the other school because of the size and general professionalism of the one school vs the other.  When I was in school in the 90s we had players that was over 100kgs in my school and I am sure they didn't use anything.  My school wasn't even that good. Some of those Afrikaner guys tend to get very big and I think that it is natural.

But I have also heard reports from a top school in Pta where there was a doping problem.

So is the answer just to legalize steroids in every sport? Then you have a level playing field....

Or is that just immoral and reckless with peoples health?

GeordieFalcon wrote:So is the answer just to legalize steroids in every sport? Then you have a level playing field....

Or is that just immoral and reckless with peoples health?

Yes and yes.

GeordieFalcon wrote:So is the answer just to legalize steroids in every sport? Then you have a level playing field....

Or is that just immoral and reckless with peoples health?

The thing is that you wouldn't have a level playing field. The richer nations would have more sophisticated doping programmes, and that would surely just make the contest less equal.

Unfortunately, I think doping is pretty widespread in most professional sports. I can't believe that athletics and cycling are uniquely affected - more likely corruption in other sports means that doping is less likely to be picked up. People like to think that rugby's clean, but I sincerely doubt it given the fact that it requires such a combination of power and stamina. I'd suspect that the more purely physical a sport is and the more money is associated with it, the more of a problem doping is.

To be honest the playing field has been level in some sports in that everyone has been doing it.

Armstrong said prior to going from also-ran to champion; 'we realised we were bringing knives to a gun fight'. A huge number of sprinters have been caught or are seriously suspicious, not to mention Spanish footballers and top tennis players.

Personally I think it suits rugby to just prosecute/ catch the small fry, rather than really getting to the bottom of the situation.

Yes...but just like it took more than the Cycling authorities (and often in spite of them) to unearth the truth about their drug taking, it won't be reliant on rugby authorities to assist in unearthing anything systematic going on in rugby.

Niggling journalists and players ready to come clean will be the way rugby is exposed.  It might take time but there have been a number of stories now both in France (the recent one) and in Australia.  The screw is tightening and some guy is going to go to a journalist some day and say "I'm ready to tell the truth not just about me but about what I know of others"

Bathman_in_London wrote:Personally I think it suits rugby to just prosecute/ catch the small fry, rather than really getting to the bottom of the situation.

No sport will ever throw out their top stars, in fact they will do everything they can to cover it up, even cycling and athletics - don't forget the likes of Lance Armstrong and Marion Jones were never caught via testing programs - they were ousted by whistleblowers through federal investigations.

Bathman_in_London wrote:To be honest the playing field has been level in some sports in that everyone has been doing it.

But that implies all doping programmes are the same. In fact, some countries/ teams apparently already have sophisticated doping programmes. If Samoa, for example, can barely afford their national team, how would they afford a drug regime? Similarly, how would smaller club teams be able to compete? Surely that would just exacerbate the disparity between wealthier and poorer teams/ countries.

rodders wrote:

Bathman_in_London wrote:Personally I think it suits rugby to just prosecute/ catch the small fry, rather than really getting to the bottom of the situation.

No sport will ever throw out their top stars, in fact they will do everything they can to cover it up, even cycling and athletics - don't forget the likes of Lance Armstrong and Marion Jones were never caught via testing programs - they were ousted by whistleblowers through federal investigations.

That is true, if they ever did catch a top level international, I would imagine they would just be 'injured' for a little while as some have alleged happens in other sports.

Bathman_in_London wrote:

rodders wrote:

Bathman_in_London wrote:Personally I think it suits rugby to just prosecute/ catch the small fry, rather than really getting to the bottom of the situation.

No sport will ever throw out their top stars, in fact they will do everything they can to cover it up, even cycling and athletics - don't forget the likes of Lance Armstrong and Marion Jones were never caught via testing programs - they were ousted by whistleblowers through federal investigations.

That is true, if  they ever did catch a top level international, I would imagine they would just be 'injured' for a little while as some have alleged happens in other sports.

Definitely not uncommon to see athletes pull out before the Olympics with an "injury"

IronMike wrote:

Bathman_in_London wrote:

rodders wrote:

Bathman_in_London wrote:Personally I think it suits rugby to just prosecute/ catch the small fry, rather than really getting to the bottom of the situation.

No sport will ever throw out their top stars, in fact they will do everything they can to cover it up, even cycling and athletics - don't forget the likes of Lance Armstrong and Marion Jones were never caught via testing programs - they were ousted by whistleblowers through federal investigations.

That is true, if  they ever did catch a top level international, I would imagine they would just be 'injured' for a little while as some have alleged happens in other sports.

Definitely not uncommon to see athletes pull out before the Olympics with an "injury"

A bladder injury that prevents them urinating?

Yeah, my heart goes out to the athletes who get the old ankle injury virus just when they were going to become Legends in their own lifetime.

Injuries before major Championships is really not surprising and it is very unfair to imply that it is a cover for drug taking. Certainly in countries which have extensive out of competition testing and the ADAMS protocols in place.

Interesting article from Alan Quinlan on it in today's Irish Times.

Fairplay to the IRFU/Provinces:

alan quinlan wrote:Within the last 18 months, one of the Irish provinces made contact with the Irish Sports Council regarding one of their players. The player had made huge improvements and his body size had grown massively in a short space of time. The province got onto the Sports Council and suggested that they target this player for drug testing. I know this for a fact and I can back it up if anyone wants me to.

The player passed all his tests. There’s no point naming him here and in fact it would be unfair to do so because the stain of doping is so great and so hard to shift even if you’re innocent.

http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/alan-quinlan-if-there-was-a-systematic-doping-culture-in-rugby-i-d-have-known-about-it-1.2031781

MrsP wrote:Injuries before major Championships is really not surprising and it is very unfair to imply that it is a cover for drug taking. Certainly in countries which have extensive out of competition testing and the ADAMS protocols in place.

It's unfair to imply an innocent athlete with a genuine injury is a cover-up for drug taking.

These debates never do that.  The issue is guilt.  The issue is the hidden guys who Do take drugs - and those people DO exist.  

An innocent is an innocent.  A drug taker is a drug taker.  One has nothing to do with the other.  But both are at present undetectable.  An innocent athlete is as undetectable as some of the ones currently using techniques and products that the Drug Testing authorities themselves say they can't yet test for.  Tests are pointless in a sense, because the authorities themselves say there are new products more than likely on the market and that they cannot be tested for yet.

So guilt exists - even with testing - and to suggest some of the guilty often find reasons to be injured at appropriate times has absolutely nothing to do with an innocent athlete being unlucky enough to get an injury at a bad time.  It's merely acknowledging the facts of how drugs and their habits informed how athletes behaved in the past.  It's history not speculation.

I'm a little tired of this argument that comes up in these drugs debates time and time again:  Just because some do, that doesn't give people the right to question those that don't.  

Well yes it does.  We're questioning an unknown quantity. We're asking how prevalent. Nobody knows innocence any more than they can pinpoint guilt.

And if we can't know who does take drugs, we have a right to be suspicious of everything.... and unfortunately, that's the very point the Cycling jounalists made - cheaters tarnish everyone, not just themselves.... cheater makes everyone cautious about believing anything in their sport is above board.

And that's all the more reason why drugs in rugby should be a topic that isn't seen as taboo, or as something to be pushed to the side, or having this constant retort that by suggesting drugs exist is in somehow implicating totally innocent athletes.  It doesn't.  Innocence is innocence.  Guilt is guilt.  For now, only the athletes themselves know which is which.

Totally agree with pretty much all of that Secret. Maybe I should have said that it was unfair to imply that pulling out of a championship was always because of trying to avoid being tested.

But we must be free to question and expose.