Doping in rugby

http://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/its-played-by-guys-with-no-moral-courage-theyre-cowards-paul-kimmage-hits-out-at-rugbys-silence-on-painkillers-35120535.html

An interesting article by Paul Kimmage. Rugby seems to be becoming his next bit of focus.

Does anyone believe these guys have got so big naturally over the last 20 years. Gym/steroid Monkeys the lot of them.

Bring back the days of honest fat boys who like their food and drink.

http://www.skysports.com/rugby-union/news/12060/10611437/stuart-barnes-talking-points-more-plaudits-for-new-zealand

Stuart Barnes wrote:

....... in Paris (as am I) to face the French champions, Racing 92.

The champions are embroiled in their own off field controversies at the moment as we make a headline off the fact that Dan Carter was playing with an injury most of last season. Throw in the word 'steroid' and hey presto, a headline. Must we slur blokes who are pressured to play and do what we've all done through the ages, doing what you have to do for the sake of your team and mates. Carter's a star in this quarter, full stop.

That quote is basically a green light to dope. It's amazing.

If a player is injured to the point where they need drugs to take to the field then they are not fit to play. And if you start taking drugs in advance of future pain then is that not the very essence of performance-enhancing?

If "playing with PEDs" were to be replaced by "playing with concussion" it would completely unacceptable.

Have a look through David Flatman s Twitter. Think it was Friday he was talking about it and linked to some good articles.

It's been a loosely hidden secret for a long time.

Is it a case that the majority of players are abusing the rules all throughout the season - no I don't think so. Will the majority have doped at some point in their career, whether that be emerging from an academy and needing to bulk up, during pre-season, etc - yes I'd wager they have.

Steroids, either corticosteroid or anabolic, are both basically used by sportsmen for recovery. Corticos reduce inflammation and therefore muscle soreness. Anabolic steroids help the muscles repair themselves faster and therefore grow faster. This together will allow players to train harder and more regularly with much better results.

The biggest dilemma for contact sportsmen training is how to recover from a battering on match day to then be back training 2 days later, then go again week after week. Given that steroids have a very obvious and effective application in solving this it wouldn't be a surprise at all if many are utilising them.

TightHEAD wrote:Does anyone believe these guys have got so big naturally over the last 20 years. Gym/steroid Monkeys the lot of them.

I think you are doing these athletes a massive disservice. As usual, you are being brash and offensive. I have seen first hand the difference between now, and how it was years ago. I am not saying drug abuse does not happen, but these players have become fitter, bigger and more athletic due to the professionalism of the game today.

I have seen kids of 14 years old being told that they cannot eat McDonalds and the what not if they want to make it. I have seen the shopping lists and the shopping bills that parents have as soon as their child is in one of the regional academies, no salt this, no sugar this, organic that. The commitment that not only the child has to make, but the parents as well is staggering.

I have seen academy representatives at the clubs where these players have been and bollocking them for loitering around retail parks and the what not at unsociable hours. These athletes are on strict diets, from a young age they have to make life changing choices, imagine being 14 years old and get told that you cannot drink fizzy pop anymore, McDonalds/KFC are now just a treat for once in a blue moon, and being told, you cannot play rugby with your mates anymore as you are now in the academy. It's these things why all of a sudden players have got naturally bigger over the last 20 years, hard work and determination. These athletes cannot go to the toilet without putting muscle mass on, because of their strict diets.

So before we go tarring all these people with the same brush, just take a moment to appreciate the hard work and sacrifices made from a VERY young age to get where they are now, before we cry PED abuse from the rooftops.

thebandwagonsociety wrote:

If a player is injured to the point where they need drugs to take to the field then they are not fit to play.  And if you start taking drugs in advance of future pain then is that not the very essence of performance-enhancing?

If "playing with PEDs" were to be replaced by "playing with concussion" it would completely unacceptable.

If it was replaced with playing with your leg hanging off it would be too

You are showing a complete lack of understanding of the whole situation

LordDowlais wrote:imagine being 14 years old and get told that you cannot drink fizzy pop anymore, McDonalds/KFC are now just a treat for once in a blue moon,

That should be the case for ALL kids, not just ones seriously involved in sport!

Cyril wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:imagine being 14 years old and get told that you cannot drink fizzy pop anymore, McDonalds/KFC are now just a treat for once in a blue moon,

That should be the case for ALL kids, not just ones seriously involved in sport!

Cyril wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:imagine being 14 years old and get told that you cannot drink fizzy pop anymore, McDonalds/KFC are now just a treat for once in a blue moon,

That should be the case for ALL kids, not just ones seriously involved in sport!

Yes, but in the real world, where these athletes are being accused with drug taking, the main reason why they are like Greek gods is because of the work they put in, and from a young age. They show commitment from a very young age, and so do the parents.

It is not just the fizzy pop and McDonalds, they are just a few examples, there are numerous other things that are big NO NO's. Not only do they have their parents policing it, they have their academy doing it as well, it takes a lot of commitment.

Also, do you have kids ?

It's good when questions get asked otherwise we just continue blindly next to a blatent Armstrong or a dodgy Wiggins. Best get it all in the open.

No 7&1/2 wrote:It's good when questions get asked otherwise we just continue blindly next to a blatent Armstrong or a dodgy Wiggins. Best get it all in the open.

Yes, I agree.

But I will praise these kids for their hard work and commitment before I accuse them of drug abuse.

No, and it's harsh to tar them all with the same brush just for their appearance. The lack of sports stars caught, more in football to be honest where financial rewards are huge is odd to me. Makes me doubt their processes.

It's society itself as well. The amount of kids you see today that at 14/15 years of age are towering over you is getting more and more common, and these are just your normal kids who are not even in rugby academies.

My nephew, he is 14 years old, he plays for Abercynon youth, he is on the Blues radar, and at 14 he is about 12 stone, five foot eight, and built like a brick shoite house. I was holding tackle bags for him in the garden and he was smashing me.

I know for a fact that he is not on any PED's.

No 7&1/2 wrote:The lack of sports stars caught, more in football to be honest where financial rewards are huge is odd to me. Makes me doubt their processes.

Or it could be just a matter of fact, that it is not going on. FFS, why must there be doubt about the process ?

First up no need to get upset and swear. Secondly human nature being what it is combined with money for success and pressure both personal and from outside.

LordDowlais wrote:

Cyril wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:imagine being 14 years old and get told that you cannot drink fizzy pop anymore, McDonalds/KFC are now just a treat for once in a blue moon,

That should be the case for ALL kids, not just ones seriously involved in sport!

Yes, but in the real world, where these athletes are being accused with drug taking, the main reason why they are like Greek gods is because of the work they put in, and from a young age. They show commitment from a very young age, and so do the parents.

It is not just the fizzy pop and McDonalds, they are just a few examples, there are numerous other things that are big NO NO's. Not only do they have their parents policing it, they have their academy doing it as well, it takes a lot of commitment.

Also, do you have kids ?

I suppose the question is whether after all of those sacrifices, someone might be told they need more power and having come so far decide they need a little extra help to get there. This is presumably what happened to Chalmers junior and it's hard to believe he can be the only kid who found himself in that position.

Does anybody really think Chilboy moved to France and then decided for the first time in his life to buy a banned substance ( which is found in a treatment for breast cancer) without having any external help at all? Even if he did act alone it's hard to believe nobody else has ever tried the same thing while they have been injured.

marty2086 wrote:

thebandwagonsociety wrote:

If a player is injured to the point where they need drugs to take to the field then they are not fit to play.  And if you start taking drugs in advance of future pain then is that not the very essence of performance-enhancing?

If "playing with PEDs" were to be replaced by "playing with concussion" it would completely unacceptable.

If it was replaced with playing with your leg hanging off it would be too

You are showing a complete lack of understanding of the whole situation

If someones leg is hanging off they shouldn't be medically cleared to play a match. I agree with you there.
Marty, are you saying so that taking steroids is okay? Or okay once there is an injury? Or okay once there is an 'injury'? Where's the line for you?

thebandwagonsociety wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

thebandwagonsociety wrote:

If a player is injured to the point where they need drugs to take to the field then they are not fit to play.  And if you start taking drugs in advance of future pain then is that not the very essence of performance-enhancing?

If "playing with PEDs" were to be replaced by "playing with concussion" it would completely unacceptable.

If it was replaced with playing with your leg hanging off it would be too

You are showing a complete lack of understanding of the whole situation

If someones leg is hanging off they shouldn't be medically cleared to play a match.  I agree with you there.
Marty, are you saying so that taking steroids is okay? Or okay once there is an injury? Or okay once there is an 'injury'? Where's the line for you?

Its not up to you or I to draw the line, its the job of medical experts.

Wheres the line for you? If somebody needs an inhaler to play as many competitors do and are unable to compete without it your reasoning would seem to disqualify them as they contain steroids?

The matter is not clear cut, black and white as there are many reasons to legitimately use steroids

Bathman_in_London wrote:Does anybody really think Chilboy moved to France and then decided for the first time in his life to buy a banned substance ( which is found in a treatment for breast cancer) without having any external help at all? Even if he did act alone it's hard to believe nobody else has ever tried the same thing while they have been injured.

It's easily possible to purchase an off the shelf supplement from a health food shop and fail a test on the back of it. There was a professional boxer earlier in the year that fell foul and openly talked about his error (he thought that because it was sold on the high street he'd be fine).

There's also a lot made of the TUE's. Steroids can help recovery but they aren't a wonder drug, you really wouldn't want to take them unless you needed to as the side effects are not pleasant. My wife requires steroids to control her hayfever and asthma during particularly heavy pollen periods of the summer (Galen Rupp and Wiggins took similar) and it does not help her sprint training at the athletics club. I won't go into detail but they aren't fun.

marty2086 wrote:

thebandwagonsociety wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

thebandwagonsociety wrote:

If a player is injured to the point where they need drugs to take to the field then they are not fit to play.  And if you start taking drugs in advance of future pain then is that not the very essence of performance-enhancing?

If "playing with PEDs" were to be replaced by "playing with concussion" it would completely unacceptable.

If it was replaced with playing with your leg hanging off it would be too

You are showing a complete lack of understanding of the whole situation

If someones leg is hanging off they shouldn't be medically cleared to play a match.  I agree with you there.
Marty, are you saying so that taking steroids is okay? Or okay once there is an injury? Or okay once there is an 'injury'? Where's the line for you?

Its not up to you or I to draw the line, its the job of medical experts.

Wheres the line for you? If somebody needs an inhaler to play as many competitors do and are unable to compete without it your reasoning would seem to disqualify them as they contain steroids?

The matter is not clear cut, black and white as there are many reasons to legitimately use steroids

Life is grey and it's a depressing thought.

I've seen plenty using inhalers. Every one of them have had a doctor doing their thing. A good few of them you would only ever see them with an inhaler before the start of a game or just before the restart for the second half. Would never have used it any other point before during or after a game. And these would be people that would never have their inhaler on them during any other day on campus or on a night out or on weekends away or trips abroad. For those, I've always thought they used it as an enhancer.

I guess the piece is 'unable to compete'. Are they unable to compete at all or are they unable to compete at the level they wish to compete at. We can all only play to our physical limit. If asthma limits that, then that is your limit. I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed to play, but should play without the enhancer. Everyone can push themselves further with an enhancer, if that is deemed to be acceptable in the future, then let everyone do it and accept doping in sport.

An enhancer? Being able to breath is not an enhancement

For doping in modern sport, there trend out there that is also unsettling is that the athlete dopes completely by themselves.

Doping might be in a minority of cases in any particular sport. I don't mean this to be a widespread slur across entire sports.

When a player can't pee without a daily schedule, when their minutes are monitored, when they are continually testing and monitoring food intact, manage players salt, sugars, etc yet can go and dopes themselves with strangely bespoke and uncommon substances.


Also, most punishments stay restricted to players as the above argument is always put in place. But the doping benefits the players performance and the performance benefits the club. Can anti-doping ever be properly enforced until clubs become liable to punishment? They monitor everything happening to a player that is detrimental to performance. But somehow don't appear to come down hard on doping (in some cases yeah, but in most cases just silence). Interesting that when a club benefits from players doping but don't get punished with the players when caught, that means there is little downside to this happening within a club.

marty2086 wrote:An enhancer? Being able to breath is not an enhancement

If a person isn't able to breathe then they probably shouldn't be playing the sport?

And if a person doesn't need an inhaler but uses it to enhance their performance in a sport, that doesn't seem right. If the only time a person ever needs to use an inhaler is in that specific sport and they never need for any other strenuous games or activities that they do, that also doesn't seem quite right to me.

Maybe I'm alone in that view.

LordDowlais wrote:Yes, but in the real world, where these athletes are being accused with drug taking, the main reason why they are like Greek gods is because of the work they put in, and from a young age. They show commitment from a very young age, and so do the parents.

Just to state, guys who juice and get massive also put in a huge amount of work in. You don't get strong by taking steroids and sitting in front of the TV. You get it with a huge amount of work. I knew a couple of (non-rugby playing) guys who juiced. They were serious athletes, one was a brilliant non-competitive gymnast. Their work ethic was unreal and they were juicing to speed up their gains or because they were running up against their biological limits. They lost their hair and had backne and so I decided it wasn;t a direction i thought worth it for myself, but they were impressive guys.

So on the rugby side, PEDs do not equal lazy athletes...

And to repeat a point I made on the international thread about doping. Nearly all PEDs are used for their recovery purposes - ie your body/muscle/blood oxygen recovers quicker so you can add more stress to it in training (thereby get stronger/fitter) or in a match (play through pain/injury). Using steroids in inhalers for asthma has been shown to mask steroids used for other purposes in other sports. Is that happening in rugby? I think its likely its happening with at least a few players, and I think its not a single union problem though more money splashing about makes it more likely.

A damn lot of kudos has been gained around the rugby world in the last ten years or so - teams, both International and at Club level, taking the plaudits, soaking up the adulation, and dishing out the banterish sneers at the also rans. It's all part of the game and you suck up defeat when you feel it's legit.

But I don't give a damn who gets unearthed here - I want to know the truth.. even if it landed right on my own doorstep.  I want to know who did all that winning for real and who did it by bluntly cheating.  
The players and/or teams themselves will know in their own hearts which was legitimate 'medication' and which was outright cheating.  And I have always suspected that some super-fit performances of the last decade came with a hefty load of doubt.  I don't like it because, as I say, there are a number of individual players or teams that eat-out for a good many years after, based on their team records and individual heroics during their playing career.

So people here are entitled to argue the issue and ask when is a PED a TUE or when is an injury or illness genuine - but cheating is cheating.  These topics are never about the genuine illness or genuine TUEs - they are about those players that KNOW they are cheating.  
"But not all players are cheating" is usually a line you get in these threads.  And I always say that the thread is not about players that don't cheat so they are irrelevant to the debate.  
If cheating went on/is going on, and if teams gloated on victories and records assisted by cheating, then I don't care who suffers if truth eventually comes out.

Every time this subject comes up I hope that we are getting closer to enough pressure being applied to start a process of honest disclosure.

SecretFly wrote:So people here are entitled to argue the issue and ask when is a PED a TUE or when is an injury or illness genuine - but cheating is cheating. These topics are never about the genuine illness or genuine TUEs - they are about those players that KNOW they are cheating.
"But not all players are cheating" is usually a line you get in these threads. And I always say that the thread is not about players that don't cheat so they are irrelevant to the debate.

OK, that's fine. But there is a law in the UK, and that is innocent until proven guilty. I do not know if that stands in Ireland, but I would rather us go down that route before we all start saying they are ALL steroid monkeys like tighthead has said.

It's intresting to note that Davis Flatman stated that having cortisone Injections did him more damage then the injuries itself. (He didnt expand on what exactly)
And in his experience players were told more often than not he was not fit to play and the team wouldn't allow them the Injection even if tbey asked for it.
As I said thats his public utterance on the Dan carter situation

Hmmm...  when I started training seriously a couple of decades back I put on about 4 stone in my first year of serious training, and had an incredibly low body fat percentage.  And I know for a fact that all I was doing was a lot of excercise, a lot of carbohydrate and a lot protein.  Had I not been unbelievably clumsy (I am dyspraxic and can't pass or catch well and no amount of practice could get me sorted on that front!) I may have had aspirations to play professionally, and I may have carried on that kind of training for more than a year.  I wasn't far off the size pro forwards are now, so I'm pretty sure I'd have got there with another year or two.  So with that in mind there is no way I'm going to go accusing people of doping just because they are built the way they are.

I'm sure there are many players that do use PEDs, and I wouldn't be surprised if there are teams where it is institutionalised.  But I don't think what we see is impossible naturally, and as an outsider I don't think you can know who the guilty parties are.  All we can do is press for the right level of testing, and potentially even other investigation methods to try and catch the cheats out.

LordDowlais wrote:

SecretFly wrote:So people here are entitled to argue the issue and ask when is a PED a TUE or when is an injury or illness genuine - but cheating is cheating.  These topics are never about the genuine illness or genuine TUEs - they are about those players that KNOW they are cheating.  
"But not all players are cheating" is usually a line you get in these threads.  And I always say that the thread is not about players that don't cheat so they are irrelevant to the debate.  

OK, that's fine. But there is a law in the UK, and that is innocent until proven guilty. I do not know if that stands in Ireland, but I would rather us go down that route before we all start saying they are ALL steroid monkeys like tighthead has said.

In Ireland, we eat the accused before finding them always guilty.  The accused is always guilty - don't you know that?  Jesus, Lord, you live right next to us and know so little about our laws and regulations.  

Innocence until proven guilty is defined by specific named individuals or teams.  However, accusations of wrongdoing are made all the time, in all walks of life.  First accusations, then court, then proof of innocence or guilt.  But first, the accusations.  The topic of cheating and PED taking in rugby is not off-limits simply because we acknowledge the concept of 'innocence until proven guilty'.

SecretFly wrote:The topic of cheating and PED taking in rugby is not off-limits simply because we acknowledge the concept of 'innocence until proven guilty'.

Yes, I agree.

But, it is not right to call ALL rugby players cheats, or steroid monkeys, just because they look like a chiselled Adonis.

Doping is a huge topic.  There are so many different kinds at this point the medical teams investigating different methods for detection/prevention will always be one-half step behind the medical teams investigating new ways to circumvent detection.  It had started in a large scale institutional manner with anabolic steroids which are simply either testoserone enhancers or functionally similar compounds.  But now we know it has spread to HGH, heart medications, stimulants, lung function drugs, blood platelet drugs, and much more.  Most of the medications were originally developed for sound medical reasons so taking an anabolic steroid under proper medical direction for specific medical needs is perfectly fine.  There are real medical needs - many of these medications really help people and enhance life for people who otherwise would have difficulties.   So we shouldn't necessarily tar anyone for that.  It is the abusers, their enablers, and the institutions whom we have to go after.  

The problems are that athletes are highly competitive people and some are looking for an edge.  Almost all top athletes work very hard at their craft.  The differences between top athletes are so small, even a 1% improvement in speed, strength, agility, endurance can be the difference between a long term contract or not playing.  Or being a winner versus middle of the pack.  And for athletes nearer to the end of their careers, these can help prolong a career.  This is a huge incentive, plus the money which comes from the career or success.  

I think we don't have much choice for top level athletes.  More testing, to me, is simply part of the price of being a top athlete today.  For people in the schools or lower levels, the problem is how to fund testing because the number of athletes increases dramatically and the money is less and less.  Education is usually not sufficient on its own.  Highly visible, public, and strong punishments are the only ways to reduce the number of cheaters.  But they will never be eliminated.  

One of the problems is that many of the labs testing and developing the new supplements are in other countries where oversight is either lax, non-existent, or the governments are quiet supporters.  So enforcement at that level is difficult to impossible.  

A quick point about cortisone or cortico-steroids.  These are not related in a functional way to the muscle building/testosterone enhancing anabolic steroids.  These are basically anti-inflammatory ingredients which are usually injected directly into the sore area or joint and provide reasonable medium term relief.  These are common when oral anti-inflammatory medications don't work or require daily consumption which is bad.  Usually people are limited to three injections in a site per year because they can cause bones and other fibers to weaken, but only with with overuse.  If people are receiving more than the three per year in a joint, they likely have other problems and more involved medical procedure are needed (and their docs have some explaining to do).

But who is saying that, Lord?  Maybe one or two guys above?  Most people in these debates never remotely say Everyone is at it.  

I'd assume that if ALL rugby players were cheating on juice, then there wouldn't be an issue because we'd all be whistling innocence lest 'our guys' be exposed.  A feeling of knowing 'guilt' would exist in all fan bases and everyone would be motivated to stay quiet and just let it all happen.

The point that there are cheats out there gaining an unfair advantage leads one to the equal supposition that some clean players/teams are suffering because of it.

SecretFly wrote:But who is saying that, Lord? Maybe one or two guys above?

And that is the point. The fact that there are people saying it is wrong.

I agree with you though, let's find the cheats, lets punish them. But lets not get dragged into a place where people assume they are taking drugs, just because they are bigger and faster now, than what they used to be.

SecretFly wrote:In Ireland, we eat the accused before finding them always guilty.  

This is excellent!
Ireland saves money by avoiding the court costs associated with investigations and trials, and also saves money buying food when providing free lunches in the schools.

We are hoping the world catches up on our progressive approach to law and school lunches, doc. It's a budgetary winner and right popular with the voters.

doctor_grey wrote:

SecretFly wrote:In Ireland, we eat the accused before finding them always guilty.  

This is excellent!  
Ireland saves money by avoiding the court costs associated with investigations and trials, and also saves money buying food when providing free lunches in the schools.

Unfortunately the free lunches are contaminated, causing further positive test results and the process self-perpetuates from there.

LordDowlais wrote:

SecretFly wrote:But who is saying that, Lord?  Maybe one or two guys above?

And that is the point. The fact that there are people saying it is wrong.

I agree with you though, let's find the cheats, lets punish them. But lets not get dragged into a place where people assume they are taking drugs, just because they are bigger and faster now, than what they used to be.

A agree with both you guys. Not all rugby players are taking drugs.

But doping can't be ignored. And I don't think doping should be acceptable either.

The same way all players shouldn't be tarred with the same brush because some might dope, we shouldn't let dopers hide amongst people who put in a ridiculous amount of hard work and effort cleanly. That isn't fair to the honest athletes either.