Doping in rugby

In the wake of the Lance Armstrong revelations currently hitting cycling, it made me wonder about the potential for the use of sophisticated doping in rugby. There are obviously testing procedures in place, and a list of cases since 2004, listed here:

http://www.keeprugbyclean.com/?page=cases&id=2012

While the benefits of some of the more well known drugs, such as anabolic steroids for increased muscle mass, are clear, there may be circumstances where some less obviously "rugby" techniques might be employed - I'm thinking of blood doping during an international window, or towards the end of an arduous season?

Obviously one hopes that there is adequate policing, and that the low number of cases is due to a general lack of doping in rugby. The only high profile drug ban I can think of was for Matt Stevens, and that wasn't for anything performance enhancing.

There is a long history of drug (ab)use in cycling, and not in rugby, but with teams looking for ever more sophisticated ways to bend the rules (bloodgate?) is it only a matter of time before rugby has it's Lance Armstrong moment?

In the link I looked and 17 of those bans were for Stoners! I bet if drug testing was in place in football there would be that many bans a week.

Cocaine is classed as a performance enhancing drug. You can search the internet for the official list and it's on there (quite long but can be sorted alphabetical).

It's really pleasing to see that there are so few on the list, and very, very few from Tier 1 countries. Of course, the number of people caught depends on the numbers tested and the sophistication of testing. I've got no idea as to what percentage of players are tested per season, but you'd hope that each international player would be tested at least once per season.

Leave Andy Powell and Gavin Henson alone - they've got every right to stay in rugby...

Lance Armstrong, Marion Jones, Dwayne Chambers were all tested many, many times without failing. In the end it was investigation and whistle blowing that found them out.

Perhaps I have turned into a cynic, but it seems that the drug producers tend to be ahead of the testers. I am actually a little worried that there have not been more failed tests as i cannot believe that rugby is as clean as that website suggests.

It think it is rife 1 or 2 steps below the top tier and probably there's not enough money or motivation to do anything about it.

The thing about cycling is that it was riddled with performance enhancing drugs, back in Armstrong's days of dominance. The TDF is such a mental and physical strain that it was common practice; Armstrong was just the best of the blood dopers. The sport has changed a lot since, and I'm 99.99% sure that Wiggins is clean.

But to the OP, I imagine, sadly, it's very common in all sport.

I think its slightly naive to think most top professional sports competitors haven't doped at some point, very competitive people with that mindset will do anything for an edge over their competition.

We may not want to admit it but I'm willing to bet a fair few top players have done a cycle or few.

Smirnoffpriest wrote:Leave Andy Powell and Gavin Henson alone - they've got every right to stay in rugby...

with Cipriani

Steroids must be rife. Other drugs, I'm not sure they are worth the risk in rugby

If there was strict testing I can guarantee the majority of pros would be seen to be using performance enhancing drugs.

But from a fans point of view, who cares? The bigger the more entertaining.

As I make a living actually producing these sorts of 'performance enhancing' drugs....and have a wee bit of an ear into the pro gae these days........I can honestly say that actual 'roid' 'epo' whatever abuse in rugby is amazingly low at a high level......Not 100% sure why??

ultra wrote:As I make a living actually producing these sorts of 'performance enhancing' drugs....and have a wee bit of an ear into the pro gae these days........I can honestly say that actual 'roid' 'epo' whatever abuse in rugby is amazingly low at a high level......Not 100% sure why??

It may depend on what they're taking, not surprisingly some gains you would get from steroids would actually have detrimental affects to your game in Rugby. I still wouldnt rule out that a lot have done a cycle or 2 just to get the edge from training in the off season.

Yeah......most likely. But immeasureably less than in most other sports. Maybe a mind set thing. Not sure.....But I reckon what suites a sprinter doesn't help a back rower and what 'peps' a marathon runner won't juice a center........Most chemicals really don't help this form of game. Maybe a 2nd rower might find some use at lower levels wher brute force is all that counts.....but those days at the top are long gone.

ultra wrote:Yeah......most likely. But immeasureably less than in most other sports. Maybe a mind set thing. Not sure.....But I reckon what suites a sprinter doesn't help a back rower and what 'peps' a marathon runner won't juice a center........Most chemicals really don't help this form of game. Maybe a 2nd rower might find some use at lower levels wher brute force is all that counts.....but those days at the top are long gone.

A mate of mine played a season at NL3 level while he was in London, and he said that a several of his teammates were 'roiding. Then again several were also on class As too


But that's not the very top level

At lower levels it is pretty common I think.

Having said that while I was at Uni I knew there were players in premiership academies taking them. A lot of young players do bulk up very quickly so having heard that it does make me wonder when I see players twice the size at the beginning of a new season.

Lance armstrong is the biggest cheat on the planet, he faked a marriage, then a marriage break up, even cancer to avoid differing tests/inquiries/procedures, and even managed to put off the fact that he'd been caught till after a book was published.

He managed to blackmail, threaten with lawsuit and even threaten peoples lives but he always knew he was being caught, his blood was to be kept frozen until they could prove he was a cheat.

Lance Armstrong the drugs cheat was the worst kept secret in sport, my Lecturer told me over years ago he was and would be caught one day!!!

Its not as quiet as you might think:

Welsh team in drugs ban
By Rob Wildman
12:01AM BST 30 Jul 2003
Comment
The Welsh Rugby Union yesterday acted against players and officials from a village team for refusing to take a drugs test after a cup final last season.

Some 19 players from Penygraig were banned for 18 months, while club secretary Peter Bowen was banned from the sport for three years after he admitted that he had "willfully obstructed or interfered" with the tests.

Two more players denied the offence, while a third has yet to plead. The suspended players and official are considering an appeal.

Drug-testing officers descended at a cup final between Penygraig and Pontypridd following a tip off that performance-enhancing drugs could be in use. Among the players to be banned was Andrew Thomas, the former Wales A and Neath hooker, while a charge against chairman Neil Roper, who later resigned, was dropped.

thebluesmancometh wrote:Lance armstrong is the biggest cheat on the planet, he faked a marriage, then a marriage break up, even cancer to avoid differing tests/inquiries/procedures, and even managed to put off the fact that he'd been caught till after a book was published.

He managed to blackmail, threaten with lawsuit and even threaten peoples lives but he always knew he was being caught, his blood was to be kept frozen until they could prove he was a cheat.

Lance Armstrong the drugs cheat was the worst kept secret in sport, my Lecturer told me over years ago he was and would be caught one day!!!

seriously i know we are outing paeds and cheats left right and centre at the moment and LA deserves to be the subject of contempt and dersiion, but is there any suggestion he 'faked' cancer...unless you can prove that i would suggest you are almost libeling the guy and being pretty offensive

Of course theres no proof, now he's been caught theres no need to take the risk in trying to prove it with his record with lawyers.

Although your right I should probably have said allegidly, although I got my info from former GB cyclists who worked with him, and a former team mate who despises the guy so my derision is probably a bit one eyed...

They say these things tend to go in cycles maybe they're on to something

HammerofThunor wrote:Cocaine is classed as a performance enhancing drug. You can search the internet for the official list and it's on there (quite long but can be sorted alphabetical).

[i]

Should "sorted" be "snorted"?

There was a second row forward at Pontypool banned for steroid use (over 30 years ago), I don't think he played again also Paul Jones at Llanelli got banned for 2 years, he was a Wales A international. I thought an England international admitted taking drugs and then said he did not, I can't remember what the outcome but he played on.

Reading a search on drugs within rugby it seems more common in RL.

LondonTiger wrote:Lance Armstrong, Marion Jones, Dwayne Chambers were all tested many, many times without failing. In the end it was investigation and whistle blowing that found them out.

Perhaps I have turned into a cynic, but it seems that the drug producers tend to be ahead of the testers. I am actually a little worried that there have not been more failed tests as i cannot believe that rugby is as clean as that website suggests.

To be honest it will always be that way, because until they discover the drug I have been pumping player X with, they would never have thought that it could be used in order to cheat! And sadly that is how it will keep going.

I will say this: Exceptional recovery rates, phenomenal game fitness and the visible lack of game stress (effort obvious, energy sapped expression, sweat etc) on the faces and bodies of some players has always made me suspicious that the Armstrong factor (methods used to evade capture/ high end performance enhancing procedures that haven't yet been uncovered) is present at some level in rugby.... and no, not just at the lower levels as someone suggested above - at the very highest levels.

Maybe now that Armstrong is finally and officially uncovered, the journalists that aided the progress of the investigations will now turn their investigations to other sports.

All sports need to be assured that their heros truly are heros.... working on what nature gave them rather than what an ambitious chemist might concoct for them

You're just trying to get Lord McCaw into trouble aren't you.

No names, no pack-drill. I'm also amazed by the condition of some players hardly breaking sweat in post-match interviews after a super-intense 80 mins. I also wonder about -

a) off-field incidents of aggression that some usually mild-mannered players have been involved in. In the US they call it 'roid rage.

b) the speed at which some young players manage to "bulk up".

c) some forwards with highly developed jaws and elongated facial features, said to be charactersitic of extensive EPO use

To me it's simply not credible that usage is "rife but only at lower levels of the game." At higher levels there's so much more at stake.

The lesson from Armstrong, Marion Jones etc. is that "no positive test ever" means absolutely NOTHING.

Eh, if your recovery times are any good, you should easily be able to do what the players do after 80 mins. The whole point of rugby is that it is stop start, this is similar to when someone said Ellis looked fresh for her 800m after tge rest of tge heptathlon and it was suspicious- they are just fit. They'll be tired but it's not that hard to mask your tiredness, school boy rowers do it and 3 mins rest after exercise is a very long time to recover enough to talk

ChequeredJersey wrote:Eh, if your recovery times are any good, you should easily be able to do what the players do after 80 mins. The whole point of rugby is that it is stop start, this is similar to when someone said Ellis looked fresh for her 800m after tge rest of tge heptathlon and it was suspicious- they are just fit. They'll be tired but it's not that hard to mask your tiredness, school boy rowers do it and 3 mins rest after exercise is a very long time to recover enough to talk

Okay.......... I'll believe you................. Chequered After all that's how the circle works. "Ain't them cyclists a rotter bunch of cheats all the same and were doing stuff and things that nobody could detect and all, and pretending to be super fit all the time ... but our sport is above all that stuff and is absolutely clean and I know that coz some of 'em are just super fit and nobody's ever been caught...... "

Oh I believe you, Chequered - nod, nod, wink, wink, say no more, say no more....

SecretFly wrote: All sports need to be assured that their heros truly are heros.... working on what nature gave them rather than what an ambitious chemist might concoct for them

Thats also an issue though, as long as competitive sports exist, performance enhancing drugs are going to exist. It should be considered part of the sport. The reality is, steroids on a whole, will NOT take you to an entirely new level, if you are genetically gifted enough or put in very hard work to get to the professional level then taking drugs to give you a little performance boost shouldn't really be seen as a big deal in my opinion.

If only someone would do some long term studies of controlled steroid use to see what detrimental affects it truly has on the body. The general consensus is that it can be lethal, but the majority of people who develop problems from it are those who either: A) Up their dosage unrecommendidly because they are starting to plateau with their gains - usually bodybuilders or powerlifters, B) take some really bad stuff or C) Already have pre-existing problems

I'm not watching rugby at all anymore. It's obvious they're fit so they must be dopped up. Cheaters...all of them. The fact there's no evidence must just mean they're good at hiding it.

I think that even if there was performance enahcing drugs being taken in rugby its effects would be diluted for 2 reasons:

- Rugby is a team sport. In the more sports more commonly associated with doping they tend to be solo activities. If your doped up with massive arms and full of energy and have got 14 Ronan O'Garas you don't have much hope!

- You still need a skill set to excel. Its not like weight lifting or atheltics where you have a one dimensional skill set. You need to have hand eye cordination too.

HammerofThunor wrote:I'm not watching rugby at all anymore. It's obvious they're fit so they must be dopped up. Cheaters...all of them. The fact there's no evidence must just mean they're good at hiding it.

Nope.... that's the Armstrong apologist stuff. "We all did it, innit - so if you want to say I did it then look at the others too". Nope - I wouldn't accuse all of them at all. That's the very problem - some do and some don't. Who do we decide to ban? The ones who don't because they provide less bang per buck? Let's erradicate 'clean' athletes from sport, they're holding back the heros.

All players are fit... they're all trained by profesional coaches who are ambitious and therefore stringent. All players playing at the highest level are fit. It's all about when they come up against players who seem to have put more than the usual seven days per week of effort into their fitness Until the calendar changes to officially incorporate those extra 3, 4 or 5 days in every week, I'll continue to be suspicious about some

Yeah but you know the tiredness level at the end of a rugby match- it's easily enough to recover from. It's not that some of ours are super fit, I'd call that normal, good levels of fitness

red_stag wrote:I think that even if there was performance enahcing drugs being taken in rugby its effects would be diluted for 2 reasons:

- Rugby is a team sport. In the more sports more commonly associated with doping they tend to be solo activities. If your doped up with massive arms and full of energy and have got 14 Ronan O'Garas you don't have much hope!

- You still need a skill set to excel. Its not like weight lifting or atheltics where you have a one dimensional skill set. You need to have hand eye cordination too.

Stag, we all acknowledge that as a game wears on, particularly if it's a bruising, high energy game (either of the forward pack meat grinder stuff or the ceaseless running stuff), we all acknowledge that as the game wears on, the skill sets of those players involves begins to creak under the strain. Not everything that's tried then gets pulled off - passes, penetration, the fast minds to get out of trouble with some creative thinking. All that begins to suffer the longer you're on the field - it's why we begin to see substitutes being used. Players begin to suffer not just from physical fatigue but from mental fatigue. Fatigue impacts on how skilled you are every bit as much as it impacts on your general physical ability to keep going.

Super fitness is the key to great rugby. Some players know how to manage their fitness levels throughout a game, some teams do it well. They choose periods to put energy into and choose other ways to conserve as much as they can. That's fine - I enjoy how all that works - it's interesting to see how teams fence each other on that energy conservation battle.

But - artificially induced fitness levels will allow your physical and mental state to remain at a high level for longer in a game - and not only your muscles benefit from that - your brain reaps the benefits too as the fitter you are as opposed to your opponent the better able you are to sustain the very skill set you talk about. Skill is the union of the mind and the body - as fatigue sets in they both suffer. If you've got an edge in that battle then you've got an edge.

Ah yes of course it will have some effect. Its all about having that extra 1% and that.

Just saying that if you are a cyclist or an athlete or a weightlifter etc you'll get more bang for your buck than a doped up rugby player.

I'm hmmming to that one Stag. Not so sure at all.

I think energy is a much bigger factor in winning rugby than perhaps it's believed to be. And I'd say that if an extra few percentage points can be gained from dubious assistance then that percentage can quite easily turn a losing side into a winning one. And that difference is much more than 1% - it's as meaningful as the cyclist whistling up the French Alps three times a day

Even 1% could be the difference between a two evenly matched players. Note I say players, not sides. In terms of individual ambition, if a player suspects he can get an edge on his rival for the international shirt he craves, then there is the temptation, I think.

A single player managing his fitness / weights / diet in the off-season could manage other enhancements....

Anyway, this is, of course, all speculation. There is no reason to suspect anyone!

SecretFly wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:I'm not watching rugby at all anymore. It's obvious they're fit so they must be dopped up. Cheaters...all of them. The fact there's no evidence must just mean they're good at hiding it.

Nope.... that's the Armstrong apologist stuff. "We all did it, innit - so if you want to say I did it then look at the others too". Nope - I wouldn't accuse all of them at all. That's the very problem - some do and some don't. Who do we decide to ban? The ones who don't because they provide less bang per buck? Let's erradicate 'clean' athletes from sport, they're holding back the heros.

All players are fit... they're all trained by profesional coaches who are ambitious and therefore stringent. All players playing at the highest level are fit. It's all about when they come up against players who seem to have put more than the usual seven days per week of effort into their fitness Until the calendar changes to officially incorporate those extra 3, 4 or 5 days in every week, I'll continue to be suspicious about some

How's that apologist? I'm saying ban everyone who's fit (if that's all we've got to go on). Not, well everyone's doing it so let's carry on. I'm saying you need more than "gee, that guy can run fast" to accuse someone. I expect the relevant agencies are investigation things as best as they can. Hopefully this has been a kick up the backside. However fan speculation on the merit someone not looking knackered is not productive or helpful in the slightest.

Did I name names of people I'd suspect, Hammer? Did I mention any of my personal "Gee" men?
No, I didn't.
So speculation on the generalities of the theme of the thread is perfectly acceptable - perfectly acceptable - and in no way anti productive or unhelpful to the agencies who may or may not be doing their best to keep our sport clean.

There is always such a defensive posture from some on this topic - the omerta debate - the "don't bring our sport into disrepute by speculating".

I'm clean as a human being, I don't take steroids or have oxygenated blood transfusions or saline rinses - I'm a 'clean' individual in terms of drug pep pills anyway!!! I have no shame or feel no guilt in talking about the possibility of illegal aids being used in the sport I follow. Why do so many people fear even the link in conversation? Why the cold-sweat reaction to a discussion on the topic?

I think it's because we honestly all have fundamentally different views. Even now Armstrong has his supporters who say "So he took 'em - so what? Everbody did and he was still the best on them. He's still a hero." If that's the debate this topic needs for clarity and so that some can feel less cold-sweaty about the whole thing then by all means speak up in public and in the media.

Let's have the real debate without the hoodwinked omerta convention. The debate is really that some of us don't see much wrong in enhancement and probably would argue that legalisation would 'clean up' all sport. Well, I'd say to those people, whoever they may be - journalists, athletes, administrators etc - to have the courage of your conviction and say it out loud and argue the case.

Secretfly you have no reason to accuse Pierre Spies. Seriously just leave him alone.

If said gentleman who shall legally remain unnamed by me (lawyer's advice!) now sues me, I'll be knocking on your door for the cheque, Stag!!!!

I hope your bank account can handle the stress levels