Corruption in rugby

Harlequins was probably the last big scandal prior to LW....though in that case it was organised and this appears ot be tha actions of a rogue individual, is corruption in rugby inevitable after professionalism and what does this say about the game? Do you think substance abuse and match fixing will follow and is the game we all love for being a gentleman's sport bound to follow football and cricket?

Match fixing is always tricky to manage in a team sport as the more people you have to influence the harder it is - hence why cricket manipulators moved to spot fixing.

My concern is drug use. Testing in rugby is slapdash, with very few Unions fully signed up to WADA principles - including making players have to be available daily for random testing. People, wrongly, concentrate on steroids and state that there is little use in rugby players taking drugs as it is a skill sport. Well fitness is a key element to the game. The fitter you are the longer into a match you can execute your skills. There are loads of things out there that can help - just look at cycling and the different things they have used.

There is insufficient testing in Rugby for anyone to be allowed to believe the sport is clean. We need to start taking the issue seriously and stary testing rigourously - and we should do what they are doing in athletics and freezing samples for testing when the testing process has caught up with the pharm labs.

Tiger

Wouldn;t be hard to nobble a 10 to change a game though...most kickers probably slot 10-12 points per game.

As for substance abuse I was thinking steroids probably were the issue an dalso thought that the RFU were all over testing, very alarming to hear that is not the case. I wonder if they will take the issue seriously only after they dicover a signficant problem.

Does anyoen knwo what the rules are about Perf enhancing drugs and rugby? What body regulates it on the international stage?

Rugby does indeed drugs test regularly but only in competition, after games etc. Lance Armstrong showed how to get round this.

We only have to remember the Stevens incident to see how drug users can exist in the sport with little effort. Stevens was even glad to be caught.

LondonTiger wrote:Match fixing is always tricky to manage in a team sport as the more people you have to influence the harder it is - hence why cricket manipulators moved to spot fixing.

My concern is drug use. Testing in rugby is slapdash, with very few Unions fully signed up to WADA principles - including making players have to be available daily for random testing. People, wrongly, concentrate on steroids and state that there is little use in rugby players taking drugs as it is a skill sport. Well fitness is a key element to the game. The fitter you are the longer into a match you can execute your skills. There are loads of things out there that can help - just look at cycling and the different things they have used.

There is insufficient testing in Rugby for anyone to be allowed to believe the sport is clean. We need to start taking the issue seriously and stary testing rigourously - and we should do what they are doing in athletics and freezing samples for testing when the testing process has caught up with the pharm labs.

I hate the term...but well said, Tiger.

There is much too much hunkersliding (avoiding the issue with a shrug of the shoulders) when rugby and drugs are mentioned in the same breath. "Don't say it", "Don't make accusations you can't prove", "Not going to talk about it, it's not an issue", "You're just jealous your team lost and are making excuses" etc, etc.
I believe there are substances available and being used by some players to do exactly what Tiger alludes to..to keep the engine going longer, as the longer the engine goes, the more clear the brain works, the longer your skills and instincts hold out in an 80 minute game.

Plus...some of the recoveries from a tough week before are getting into the unbelievable category. I just don't believe the game, played at the toughest level it is played at today affords a whole team of bruised and battered men to be chirpy and up-for-it-again by Wednesday of the followling week. Yes, new methods of fitness and nutrition and general scientific advances do help in the recovery deal but I firmly believe somewhere in our sport other methods are being used to assist all this superman stuff that went on in cycling too.

The argument from journalists in the Armstrong issues was that it wasn't real because of evidence to the contrary yes...but also because it couldn't be done. The times and ecessively exedient recovery rates just weren't natural.... something had to be amiss. Greg LeMond just couldn't believe the kind of people who began to pass him, and show no strain in the effort of the much improved performances. He just didn't believe the journeymen suddenly trained harder than him and were simply now better. And his instincts proved true.

The same is true for rugby. People will say go away, nothing to see here, you're just stirring and bringing the game into disrepute. In time, with proper probing by authorities (and interested journalists) people will know tricks were played - not by all but by some.

The one that I never hear mentioned is how easy (compared to other sports) that it would be for a referee to get away with cheating.

Hypothetically lets say Toulon phone up Nigel Owens and say "Nige, theres a million quid in it for you if you look after us in the next game".

Nige whistles the opposition off the park whenever Toulon get within kicking range. Very very difficult to prove as by and large he would be correct in law - there is probably a penalty offence at every second ruck.

True Stag. But then, that's another 'idea'/'theory' you can mention in passing in a generalised thread about the topics of cheating. Like this one.

But try mentioning that theory after an actual game that looked suspect.................!

You get your head handed to you on a platter and therefore nobody ever does. Oh yeah, that was just a fair game that looked to have some pretty bizarre against-the-grain judgements by the ref.

I'm not actually saying I've ever considered a rugby ref might be indulging...in truth I never have suspected a ref. But sometimes players might be suspect in that department. I remember a very recent game (International) when someone simply suggested things looked very suspicious from a player's point of view. And in truth the actions on the day did look very problematic. But, the guy was lambasted here for even asking the question... the line was again "Don't bring our game into disrepute by suggesting that stuff"

My point exactly. It makes it very easy to get away with that.

Tell you what though, we should be well able to learn from the pitfalls that other sports have experienced.

I mean in top level soccer you have have from a family sport to an investors sport. Crowd control, respect for referees and racism are big issues.

We have seen a well documented way on how not to do drug control in cycling.

Yep...you want to be beaten by the best (at all levels in rugby). If you are, you don't have a problem. But to be beaten by science - and illegal science at that - no. That's sour. That's a very sour taste and I have to state I believe some present day results (last 5 to 10 years) have been achieved that way (by some team members engaging with that 'devil') It's frustrating because you want to be beaten by your betters not by tricky science.

I look at corruption has having three main facets:
Match fixing, whether players, officials, or other staff
Performance enhancing drugs
Cheating league rules, such as salary cap cheating, illegal player registration, and so on.

I think match fixing is probably the least of our worries. Not to say it can't or doesn't happen (in my opinion). But with so many players involved and such close visibility to everything, it would not be so easy. The comment about the referees is a good one. Referees are under a microscope so they would have to be careful and could not do it regularly. But the possibility certainly exists. Even medical staff - any doc with access could keep anyone out of a match if so inclined.

Performance enhancing drugs will be with us in every sport as long as there will be sport. Ironically, the development of these drugs came from legitimate research into recovery. Now, medical research into helping people cheat will always be ahead of preventative research. it would naive to think it doesn't happen in Rugby. Testing, monitoring and punishment needs to be improved in Rugby. Being around athletes for a long time makes it possible to look at an athlete and have a good notion if the person is using or not.

Organisational cheating has always been present in Rugby, going back to the amateur days. I remember one year when I was playing regularly I would write a cheque monthly to pay for my flat. They were never cashed. I am sure it was payed by someone. But in the bigger picture, without transparency in the process, we cannot know if teams are exceeding the salary cap. This would include non-Rugby payments by supporters and affiliated organisations and companies. We have seen registration violations of which London Welsh is only the latest and most clumsy and bizarre.

Corruption is such a big subject, we could go on forever on each of these three aspects. My gut feeling is we are better in Rugby than in other sports, although we care certainly not clean. But, certainly, pretty good. We should, though, continue to work on all fronts to ensure we keep our sport the cleanest major sport in the world. It is an uphill battle.

formerly known as Sam wrote:Rugby does indeed drugs test regularly but only in competition, after games etc. Lance Armstrong showed how to get round this.

We only have to remember the Stevens incident to see how drug users can exist in the sport with little effort. Stevens was even glad to be caught.

The RFU signed up to the WADA scheme whereby the top players have to make their whereabouts known so they can be randomly tested any day.
http://www.rfu.com/thegame/antidoping/playerwhereabouts

Not sure how many players are covered by this - probably the EPS and maybe Saxons. They have to ensure that a database is updated with where they will be for an hour every day. While this scheme doesn't eliminate usage of things for which tets have yet to be found, it does make doping harder.

People may have seen that IAAF have recently re-tested damples taken from the 2005 World Athletics Championship using the latest technology. 5 medal winners who had passed "clean" at the time who found to have used illegal substances. I feel something similar has to happen in all sports.

As someone said earlier we are in a great position to learn from other sports problems. Whilst through history people have been poor at learning from the mistakes of others - we have to learn from this chance. The 2016 Olympic Games will see rugby tested more than ever before. I hope we can be a sport that passes the test.

red_stag wrote:The one that I never hear mentioned is how easy (compared to other sports) that it would be for a referee to get away with cheating.

Hypothetically lets say Toulon phone up Nigel Owens and say "Nige, theres a million quid in it for you if you look after us in the next game".

Nige whistles the opposition off the park whenever Toulon get within kicking range. Very very difficult to prove as by and large he would be correct in law - there is probably a penalty offence at every second ruck.

Could explain quite a bit about George Clancy tbh - although I think he is just a total incompetent.

I think any professional sport is going to have drug use, its impossible to get around this, someone who is competitive and a professional is going to want to have that extra advantage over their competition.

Thats not to say all the players are on stuff, but I bet at some point in their career they will. When they get older and lose that bit of pace or need a bit of help to bulk up so they can keep the youngsters off their toes.

Could explain a lot about Joubert's performance at Murrayfield yesterday !

I have meat a couple of semi pro players that confirm the use of drugs in the leagues below the Prem, so if it happens in these leagues and there's a lot of movement between players from Prem to Championship and beyond then I see no reason for drugs to not be in the Prem.

Oh and corruption wouldn't just be drug use but breaking the salary cap would fall under that as well right?

yappysnap wrote:I have meat a couple of semi pro players that confirm the use of drugs in the leagues below the Prem, so if it happens in these leagues and there's a lot of movement between players from Prem to Championship and beyond then I see no reason for drugs to not be in the Prem.

Too true. Same in Wales. The things is, drugs test aren't randomly forced upon players like they are in the armed forces. They come around with a pee pot every now and then and one player volunteers. I acutally know a Pontypool player who got banned for two years, but in this case he had no idea the supplement (creatine, protein, I don't specifically remember what it was) contained traces of a banned substance. He volunteers to take the test when the WRU came around and no idea it was in his system.

yappysnap wrote:I have meat a couple of semi pro players that confirm the use of drugs in the leagues below the Prem, so if it happens in these leagues and there's a lot of movement between players from Prem to Championship and beyond then I see no reason for drugs to not be in the Prem.

In a similar way I have heard from ex academy players who didn't make it that loads of the youngsters use drugs and never get tested. Seeing as they will train at the same gyms as the pros, it wouldnt be a huge jump to assume some household names have used them in the past.


I've said this before on a similar thread, but I do wonder if there is a real desire to have a clean sport from the rfu's. As an example, surely if a big name player was caught by an internal test, would they want to tarnish the brand of NZ, England, wales etc? I think its more likely that they might be 'injured' for a little while. Then at the same time, throw the book at national league 3 type players to show that you are tough on drugs.

So there seems to be a bit of a consensus here - could I make that assertion?

There are people here from more than one Nation, and we all think the likelihood is that some dabbling in illegal means of energy production is probably going on in our sport. And we're not sensationalists, and few of us talk about it non-stop, and we can appreciate our sport still and still enjoy the battles however unequal we feel some of them might be from time to time in the legality department.

But there you have it, people who watch and engage with rugby on a continuous basis have a hunch or even an educated feeling that things might be cooking in the drugs department at some levels and amongst certain players....and yet omerta on the idea from the people who probably matter most in checking out the truth - officials and organisation from Nations and clubs.

If a journalist mouthed a suspicion during a press conference with officials???? What would be said?

I think it would take an investigative journalist to bring a bit of light onto things, as it is, rugby is still a closed network in many ways so I don't feel an ex-player would be likely to really want to dig into things.

The current situation in Oz may lead to a little more focus on rugby but frankly the chances of 20 year olds being regularly tested in that period when they go from normal kids to hercules seems slim.

I think people are just happy with their heads in the sand. I mean look at this thread, I can't believe more people don't have a view. If it was an 'Engerland iz cr@p' thread it would be on is 20th page.

TBH I'm not 100% sure there is that big a problem, not on a large scale anyway.

There will probably always be the rogues who demand that little extra that theyre not entitled to get out of their performance, but from the pro's Ive seen and worked with everything seems ok.

I can tell you that the likes of Jack Dixon, and Ieuian Jones at the Dragons were strong kids, conditioned to a really high standard and are now considered extremely strong adults (despite being teenagers), they have been balloning and lifting to gain now for a few years each and have come from very small kids to very large adults and will only get bigger and stronger into monsters, there is nothing illegal going on (that is known within the Dragons academy) and all gains are aided with the best technology/supplementation on the market.

Also when the junior World cup was in the UK a few seasons ago testing was pretty strict.

Not about biggness though, bluesman (although in my opinion it has a 'large' part to play) it's about stamina

....as in cyclists aren't big men but the problem is they went all day like Duracel batteries It's the go-all-dayability that assists teams do what they plan to do...and then the get-up-again-and-do-it-all-overabilty that adds spice to it.

But a rugby game is only 80 mins. Maybe players have 2 games in a week, max? Tour de France is a completely different monster, with the cyclists doing 20 odd days in a row with little or no rest days. Dont get me wrong, I understand rugby requires high fitness levels and that it is a contact sport , but I dont see that the required level cant be achieved through legit means. I myself do roughly 20 hours a week in the gym and do a physical job, yes I am a bit stiff a tired but really im fine. And I go to bed quite late, eat rubbish, dont have sports massages, take supplements........etc. And most importantly I am not a genetic freak(like all pro sportsmen).
Im sure there is substance abuse in all sports, but personally believe that on present evidence things dont strike me as strange.
Maybe for your lot in the Prem, in the Rabo we can rest our guys anyway

My lot (if it's me you're talking to, kingjohn?) are the Rabo lot. And the Rabo lot - at least my section of them - are falling away like flies having been zapped with the bluelight thingie! I'm not sure rest is the answer for our boys!...maybe a shot up the ar....................................................

*communication has been terminated*

I wasnt talking to you specifically, I was just making a joke.

..that makes two of us...the joke I mean

SecretFly wrote:Not about biggness though, bluesman (although in my opinion it has a 'large' part to play) it's about stamina

....as in cyclists aren't big men but the problem is they went all day like Duracel batteries It's the go-all-dayability that assists teams do what they plan to do...and then the get-up-again-and-do-it-all-overabilty that adds spice to it.

Ye stamina in reality isn't a huge thing, it's the concentrated energy usage over 80 minutes or so thats important (and the players don't have to perform for 80 minutes as ball in play time is much lower. So I don't see how drugs would give you an advantage over teams. If we were seeing certain winning teams dramatically outlast or outmuscle everyone I could see how there would be cause for concern, but from the Rabo up (basically any pro team) stamina levels arent that different across the board, most pro teams can match each other fitness wise, with the odd exceptions.

Cycling is a whole different ball game as cyclist don't get 5/6/7 days downtime between races, and they cycle for hours at a time, then the use of illegal ergonomic aids would make sense, also with sprinting it makes sense, when the burst of energy is around the minute mark. #

But in reality drugs are important in 3 key areas, training advantages, energy system advantages and recovery advantages.

As rugby players tend to get enough recovery (aided or unaided) this wouldn't be a huge issue...

As rugby players have to use both main energy systems this would be very difficult to judge drug dosage etc..

As players train (at the top end) more technical and tactical then drug use might even effect concentration etc...


I just see too many negatives than positives for drug use in rugby, other sports are very different, but rugby I just don't see it.

thebluesmancometh wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Not about biggness though, bluesman (although in my opinion it has a 'large' part to play) it's about stamina

....as in cyclists aren't big men but the problem is they went all day like Duracel batteries It's the go-all-dayability that assists teams do what they plan to do...and then the get-up-again-and-do-it-all-overabilty that adds spice to it.

Ye stamina in reality isn't a huge thing, it's the concentrated energy usage over 80 minutes or so thats important (and the players don't have to perform for 80 minutes as ball in play time is much lower. So I don't see how drugs would give you an advantage over teams. If we were seeing certain winning teams dramatically outlast or outmuscle everyone I could see how there would be cause for concern, but from the Rabo up (basically any pro team) stamina levels arent that different across the board, most pro teams can match each other fitness wise, with the odd exceptions.

Cycling is a whole different ball game as cyclist don't get 5/6/7 days downtime between races, and they cycle for hours at a time, then the use of illegal ergonomic aids would make sense, also with sprinting it makes sense, when the burst of energy is around the minute mark. #

But in reality drugs are important in 3 key areas, training advantages, energy system advantages and recovery advantages.

As rugby players tend to get enough recovery (aided or unaided) this wouldn't be a huge issue...

As rugby players have to use both main energy systems this would be very difficult to judge drug dosage etc..

As players train (at the top end) more technical and tactical then drug use might even effect concentration etc...


I just see too many negatives than positives for drug use in rugby, other sports are very different, but rugby I just don't see it.

I think disagreeing with each other is what we do best bluesman.

SecretFly wrote:

thebluesmancometh wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Not about biggness though, bluesman (although in my opinion it has a 'large' part to play) it's about stamina

....as in cyclists aren't big men but the problem is they went all day like Duracel batteries It's the go-all-dayability that assists teams do what they plan to do...and then the get-up-again-and-do-it-all-overabilty that adds spice to it.

Ye stamina in reality isn't a huge thing, it's the concentrated energy usage over 80 minutes or so thats important (and the players don't have to perform for 80 minutes as ball in play time is much lower. So I don't see how drugs would give you an advantage over teams. If we were seeing certain winning teams dramatically outlast or outmuscle everyone I could see how there would be cause for concern, but from the Rabo up (basically any pro team) stamina levels arent that different across the board, most pro teams can match each other fitness wise, with the odd exceptions.

Cycling is a whole different ball game as cyclist don't get 5/6/7 days downtime between races, and they cycle for hours at a time, then the use of illegal ergonomic aids would make sense, also with sprinting it makes sense, when the burst of energy is around the minute mark. #

But in reality drugs are important in 3 key areas, training advantages, energy system advantages and recovery advantages.

As rugby players tend to get enough recovery (aided or unaided) this wouldn't be a huge issue...

As rugby players have to use both main energy systems this would be very difficult to judge drug dosage etc..

As players train (at the top end) more technical and tactical then drug use might even effect concentration etc...


I just see too many negatives than positives for drug use in rugby, other sports are very different, but rugby I just don't see it.

I think disagreeing with each other is what we do best bluesman.

I disagree, I think we agree most of the time

Just out of interest though are we talking drugging as a flat out supplement, or are we talking performance enhancement as an issue?
Because Ive seen some athletes do some very ropy things in the belief it will improve performance!!!

I assumed we were talking about something like this:

http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/asia/339276/australian-rugby-club-rocked-by-doping-probe

which of course follows on from the earlier declaration that Australian Sport seems to have a serious issue with drugs in sport...and not intensive cycling, but team sports, where players get the rests you've spoken about bluesman.

"When the federal justice minister and the sports minister front a press conference flanked by the heads of the five major sporting organisations in the country - Australian football, rugby league, rugby union, cricket and football - the alarm bells ring. "

I'd guess investigations in rugby League would be and probably will be pretty similar to findings in certain rugby union spheres, in that if League players use substances that are illegal to gain an advantage then it wouldn't be so far fetched to think the same advantages might be chased after by certain Union players.

If it's proven to be there in Australian team sports, then it's there all over the world at a small or big level because I refuse to believe we're all pure hearted here in Europe when we know what goes down in the underground performance enhancing world elsewhere. Players know what's going down if they want to know what's going down.

SecretFly wrote:I assumed we were talking about something like this:

http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/asia/339276/australian-rugby-club-rocked-by-doping-probe

which of course follows on from the earlier declaration that Australian Sport seems to have a serious issue with drugs in sport...and not intensive cycling, but team sports, where players get the rests you've spoken about bluesman.

"When the federal justice minister and the sports minister front a press conference flanked by the heads of the five major sporting organisations in the country - Australian football, rugby league, rugby union, cricket and football - the alarm bells ring. "

I'd guess investigations in rugby League would be and probably will be pretty similar to findings in certain rugby union spheres, in that if League players use substances that are illegal to gain an advantage then it wouldn't be so far fetched to think the same advantages might be chased after by certain Union players.

If it's proven to be there in Australian team sports, then it's there all over the world at a small or big level because I refuse to believe we're all pure hearted here in Europe when we know what goes down in the underground performance enhancing world elsewhere. Players know what's going down if they want to know what's going down.

You do make a sound point, but I'd say the biggest influence on that particular issue is the Australian sports culture, they are sport mad and very competitive from an early age.

I'm not saying doping and drugging aren't there, there is always a temptation struggling players face, but I wouldn't tar everyone with the Aussies brush. It's like saying every Saffa is a big dirty, cheap shot thug because of Bothas antics over the last few seasons!

But Rugby has no leg to stand on when it comes to cheating,
Cheating is encouraged in rugby.
We had Dallagio bragging about how he used to cheat whilst he was commentating on Sunday.

Not all players in all teams, bluesman...of course not, as to believe so would mean there isn't a blessed thing wrong with enhancement (if everyone is doing it, it isn't an advantage)

But two, three, four players in one team gaining assistance, in strategic positions, playing against a team that is completely clean? That can be the difference between winning and losing. That can be the subtle difference needed to become a winning side and slide up a table. Not necessarily to win a competiton simply because two or three takers are on the side...but to take a leap past a team full of clean players. And that's a serious advantage, and that's business, and that's money and that's that word again - reputation.

So in a world where not every player indulges, in a world where the majority of players most probably don't, it's important that those who do are rooted out. You want to lose against better players/sides than yours, not to anything else.

I was under the Impression that after a team won an International game that a drug tester could turn up to their home unannounced with in six days for a urine and blood sample.
Seen this mentioned by a few players and most seem to complain that they turn up at half six in the morning.
Anyone clarify?

I also think it wouldn't be daft to suggest a quality team get the blunt end of the stick for a few Internationals to push them into the third tear rankings,
to only low and behold be drawn against the Hosts whom happen to big..... huge rivals since time began!
You telling me money isn't be made if such an event occurred?
Then said hosts look pretty average until they beat the world champs in style!

Patterns occur, events seem to drop in place to help build to even better occasions,
occasions like the World cup hosts having a grand slam show down with new pool rivals.

Maybe all just coincidence? but hey im the type to argue over anything put before me.

viewtothegym wrote:

Maybe all just coincidence? but hey im the type to argue over anything put before me.

Join the queue, view - it's a long one in these parts.

SecretFly wrote:

viewtothegym wrote:

Maybe all just coincidence? but hey im the type to argue over anything put before me.

Join the queue, view - it's a long one in these parts.

Incidental but Cory Jane tweeted about being visited by the drugs testers on Saturday 18th January early in the morning. So clearly NZ have got some kind of preseason/year-round testing going on. I'm sure all the policies of all the unions are available online.