5 Premiership players test positive for recreational drugs

This just came up on the BBC website:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/24626491

BBC website wrote:Five Premiership players tested positive for drugs - RFU

Five players at Premiership clubs tested positive for recreational drugs last season, the Rugby Football Union has announced.
More to follow

Not good news for rugby.  Anyone got any ideas who they are?

what are the penalties in rugby for recreational drugs? presumably not similar to performing enhancing drug penalties (given that recreational drugs are performance degrading!). and is it in fact up to the club to implement the penalties as i imagine it may be a breach of their club contract?

Matt Stevens got two years for cocaine

I think that they will still be penalised pretty heavily for bringing the game into disrepute.

Did Higgins and Lipman get the same ban? Their careers suffered a significant drop following the bans.

Would it be inapropriate to post the top 5 most likely candidates?

In any case Im sure more than half have tried a recreational drug at some stage.

Least likely:
Peter Stringer - teetotaler and clean cut.
Tom Williams - Doesnt need the attention
Matt Stevens - see above

Higgins, Lipman and one other (Crockett?) got 6 month bans for failing to attend a test I think. Lots of rumours about why they would have done that - especially with the various allegations levelled re behaviour at the club at the time.

In fact wasn't Justin Harrison also implicated - but retired so no action could be taken?

This does bug me a bit. Its the old hypocracy thing about getting peessed (in private) absolutely fine. Anything else and you have been a very naughty boy.

I do appreciate these things will get picked up as part of a regular drugs testing regime, but if it has no impact on a player's performance then surely its a private matter for that player. It may be a symptom of other issues and in which case its something for the player to work out with their club - but I don't get the hanging and flogging thing.

thomh wrote:Matt Stevens got two years for cocaine

cocaine is classed as a banned stimulant by WADA I think - hence the two year ban.

I think in japan it is a life ban.

But anyone guilty should be punished. I would rather see them have to work with grass roots maybe disadvantaged areas for their ban inside of just not being able to play.

Might help to lift the profile in some areas.

VietGwentRevisited wrote:Higgins, Lipman and one other (Crockett?) got 6 month bans for failing to attend a test I think. Lots of rumours about why they would have done that - especially with the various allegations levelled re behaviour at the club at the time.

In fact wasn't Justin Harrison also implicated - but retired so no action could be taken?

Yes - I guess Austin Healy was right about him after all.

Of course Stevens got the 2 year ban - and he seemed to have taken the time to sort himself out. The overall effect was I guess positive but I do wonder if there may have been better ways of fixing him.

[quotePost by lostinwales Today at 1:22 pm
.



This does bug me a bit. Its the old hypocracy thing about getting peessed (in private) absolutely fine. Anything else and you have been a very naughty boy.

I do appreciate these things will get picked up as part of a regular drugs testing regime, but if it has no impact on a player's performance then surely its a private matter for that player. It may be a symptom of other issues and in which case its something for the player to work out with their club - but I don't get the hanging and flogging thing.][/quote]I have to disagree I'm afraid, cocaine abuse can ruin relationships and families and whether they like it or not, being a professional rugby player comes with certain responsibilities. If they choose to ignore their position as a role model, then they need to be punished. If they don't like it, they are free to find another career.

seem to remember dallaglio got caught for cocaine. i know he lost the england captaincy, but dont remember him serving a lengthy ban.

vietG, you were right:

"ERC added that "cocaine is a stimulant and is a prohibited substance" under the competition's rules, Wada's world anti-doping code and International Rugby Board regulations."

quinsforever wrote:seem to remember dallaglio got caught for cocaine. i know he lost the england captaincy, but dont remember him serving a lengthy ban.

He didn't ever get caught taking it in the sense of a positive test did he? Just bragging to an undercover newspaper reporter.

VietG

Interesting - didn't know that. Cheers.

we are of course all assuming its cocaine they got caught for. there are other recreational drugs which are less stimulative than cocaine, and hence might not be on the WADA list.

lostinwales wrote:This does bug me a bit. Its the old hypocracy thing about getting peessed (in private) absolutely fine. Anything else and you have been a very naughty boy.

I do appreciate these things will get picked up as part of a regular drugs testing regime, but if it has no impact on a player's performance then surely its a private matter for that player. It may be a symptom of other issues and in which case its something for the player to work out with their club - but I don't get the hanging and flogging thing.

Problem is that any drug legal, semi legal or illegal are all referred to as recreational these days.  I may be out of touch with my peers on this but they should say illegal drug if it is and should be punished for breaking the law.

quinsforever wrote:seem to remember dallaglio got caught for cocaine. i know he lost the england captaincy, but dont remember him serving a lengthy ban.

Dallaglio shot his mouth off to an undercover reporter about how he used to deal coke, then immediatly thought better of it and told everyone he was trying to act like one of the big boys. That is why he lost the captaincy, he never tested positive.

The story has been changed from Premiership players. "RFU reveals five players at National League level or below tested positive for recreational drugs during 2012-13"

"In 617 tests for performance-enhancing drugs, none were failed by Premiership players."

quinsforever wrote:seem to remember dallaglio got caught for cocaine. i know he lost the england captaincy, but dont remember him serving a lengthy ban.

He wasnt caught for using. He was set up. The issue was if he knew someone who might be able to supply and as I believe he was a bit of a party animal in his youth before getting serious about the rugby that was always likely. Given the family history you couldnt really blame him for having a spell off the rails anyway.

He didnt come out of that story looking great but its not all his fault

Personally i think its sad they need to use that s""t in the first place...

Brendan wrote:Problem is that any drug legal, semi legal or illegal are all referred to as recreational these days.  I may be out of touch with my peers on this but they should say illegal drug if it is and should be punished for breaking the law.

Purely technically the laws against drug taking are for possession rather than use. Obviously to knowingly use a drug you will 99.9% of the time have been in possession before taking it, but people don't get prosecuted for just admitting to using drugs in the past.

I've also never heard to legal drugs referred to as 'recreational drugs'. Never heard alcohol called that for example.

Surely you can see that the distinction between illegal recreational drugs and illegal performance-enhancing drugs is relevant in a sporting context?

Prohibited list (from WADA) for 2013:

http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/World_Anti-Doping_Program/WADP-Prohibited-list/2013/WADA-Prohibited-List-2013-EN.pdf

GeordieFalcon wrote:Personally i think its sad they need to use that s""t in the first place...

Yep  - I am not blind to the problems of drug abuse but there is a world of difference between habitual and occasional use, like between having the odd drink and being an alcoholic. Depending on the drug any usage may leave a trace in the system so occasional or habitual users will get caught the same.

Better add - habitual users are probably going to need help more than punishment

lostinwales wrote:

quinsforever wrote:seem to remember dallaglio got caught for cocaine. i know he lost the england captaincy, but dont remember him serving a lengthy ban.

He wasnt caught for using. He was set up. The issue was if he knew someone who might be able to supply and as I believe he was a bit of a party animal in his youth before getting serious about the rugby that was always likely. Given the family history you couldnt really blame him for having a spell off the rails anyway.

He didnt come out of that story looking great but its not all his fault

had forgotten the exact details of how it came out.

i had an evening out with dallaglio and flintoff (one of those dinners they auction at testimonials) about 7 years ago. maybe drug free by then, but i would still say they were both very much party animals.

am still amazed that a taped confession doesnt get you into the same deep water as a failed test. what got lance armstrong banned in the end was not even his own confession, but the testimonies of his peers. dallaglio was a lucky boy.

http://www.rfu.com/news/2013/october/news-articles/221013_anti_doping_report

Full report.

Lost in wales...

i just find it crazy that people need this stuff to make them enjoy themselves or feel confident. Especially people in this position who are up on a pedestal with fans etc.

thomh wrote:Matt Stevens got two years for cocaine

I find this grossly hypocritical. Stevens was not taking it during matches, he did not test positive but confessed. he got two years. Never convicted of a crime. He wa also sacked by his club was he not? Recreational drugs should be treated as a healthcare matter.

Tindall twice was caught drunk driving. two criminal convictions. No sanction in the game.

Which wrongdoing had the most likelyhood of harming innocent bystanders? Stevens should have been suspended and made to undergo supervised treatment. Tindall should have been banned for the second offense -= both really blatant and stupid and he must have known he was drunk.

It a part of the ridiculous attitude in this country to drugs. Stevens harmed no one but himself and put no one in danger. Tindall endangered members of the public and not once but twice that he was caught for.

Adrien Mutu got fired by chelsea in 2004 for cocaine drug test failure. Chelsea sued him and, 6 years later after several appeals:

"On 7 May 2008, FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber ordered Mutu to pay €17,173,990 in compensation to his former club, Chelsea FC, for breach of contract.[12][13] It included €16,500,000 for unamortised portion of the transfer fee paid to Parma"

haven't ever said this before - but nice one Chelsea!

I actually believe Dallaglio. He made stuff up to try to get into some ladies knickers - who was actually a reporter running a sting operation. I do not believe he took drugs nor sold them. IIRC he also did not say he was a dealer - he said when asked that he knew somone who could get the young lady some coke. guilty of being gullible and guilty of being a big headed fool

TJ wrote:

thomh wrote:Matt Stevens got two years for cocaine

I find this grossly hypocritical.  Stevens was not taking it during matches, he did not test positive but confessed.  he got two years.  Never convicted of a crime.  He wa also sacked by his club was he not?  Recreational drugs should be treated as a healthcare matter.

Tindall twice was caught drunk driving.  two criminal convictions.  No sanction  in the game.

Which wrongdoing had the most likelyhood of harming innocent bystanders?  Stevens should have been suspended and made to undergo supervised treatment. Tindall should have been banned for the second offense -= both really blatant and stupid and he must have known he was drunk.

It a part of the ridiculous attitude in this country to drugs.  Stevens harmed no one but himself and put no one in danger.  Tindall endangered members of the public and not once but twice that he was caught for.

actually stevens got caught in a post-game test! dont know how long it takes for traces to pass through the system, but it must have been in the 2 or 3 days prior to the game, no? pls correct that detail if anyone actually knows.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/my_club/bath/7913467.stm

From the link

There were five positive results recorded and the cases concerned are treated confidentially with a ‘first strike’ fine and access to assessment, rehabilitation and counselling.

a sensible approach in my view

Oops - thanks for the correction Quins. Cocaine is detectable for a few days I think Longer depending on the test ( blood / saliva / hair). Its stimulant effects only last a couple of hours. taking it a day or two before a game would actually be a performance decrease as it uses up some of your bodies reserves

Hmmm... 617 tests and 4 fails. On the face of it decent enough, but realistically that doesn't sound like much to me.

If we have 12 premiership squads, each with say 40 in the main squad and 20 in their academy - that makes about 720 pro players at premiership teams. Plus another 12 teams with say 25 players each in the Championship so another say 300 there. So conservatively I'd say we have in the order of 1000+ pro players. So with only 617 tests most have had one or no tests this last year - i.e. very very little compared to many other sports. And if there's any kind of regularity to the testing (e.g. it's done on matchdays) or only during the season it would be really really easy to hide any PED use.

So, forgive me RFU but I am yet to be convinced.

Wasn't Tindall twice caught out the morning after a night out? In that he was hungover and had not allowed enough time for all the booze to leave his system.

formerly known as Sam wrote:Wasn't Tindall twice caught out the morning after a night out? In that he was hungover and had not allowed enough time for all the booze to leave his system.

More thasn that. Drinking until 4amthen driving at 7 am. NBot just a bit over the limit - peed as a fart. the second time he should have gone to jail

Big wrote:Hmmm...    617 tests and 4 fails.  On the face of it decent enough, but realistically that doesn't sound like much to me.  

If we have 12 premiership squads, each with say 40 in the main squad and 20 in their academy - that makes about 720 pro players at premiership teams.  Plus another 12 teams with say 25 players each in the Championship so another say 300 there.  So conservatively I'd say we have in the order of 1000+ pro players.  So with only 617 tests most have had one or no tests this last year - i.e. very very little compared to many other sports.  And if there's any kind of regularity to the testing (e.g. it's done on matchdays) or only during the season it would be really really easy to hide any PED use.

So, forgive me RFU but I am yet to be convinced.

962 tests actually, and no fails in the AP.

so your logic is that because no-one in the AP failed it must be due to the testing being easy to predict? that's a bit cynical no?

I have to say I am pleasantly surprised by that. Its a low ratio of fails

quinsforever wrote:

Big wrote:Hmmm...    617 tests and 4 fails.  On the face of it decent enough, but realistically that doesn't sound like much to me.  

If we have 12 premiership squads, each with say 40 in the main squad and 20 in their academy - that makes about 720 pro players at premiership teams.  Plus another 12 teams with say 25 players each in the Championship so another say 300 there.  So conservatively I'd say we have in the order of 1000+ pro players.  So with only 617 tests most have had one or no tests this last year - i.e. very very little compared to many other sports.  And if there's any kind of regularity to the testing (e.g. it's done on matchdays) or only during the season it would be really really easy to hide any PED use.

So, forgive me RFU but I am yet to be convinced.

962 tests actually, and no fails in the AP.

so your logic is that because no-one in the AP failed it must be due to the testing being easy to predict? that's a bit cynical no?

617 tests for performance enhancing drugs in the Premiership.

That really isn't enough to be honest. The sheer number of people involved in a rugby team, plus the turnover of them, means it would be a huge shock to me if any teams were running a doping program as it would be too hard to keep quiet, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are players desperately fighting for new contracts who are breaking the rules in their own time. Lance Armstrong should have taught people not to be too reassured by the lack of any failed tests.

Brendan wrote:I think in japan it is a life ban.

What ever for their little fly half that was done for taking 'roids, when it turned out he was rubbing steroid cream on his face to try and grow a 'tash (aroung the RWC time)?

quinsforever wrote:

Big wrote:Hmmm...    617 tests and 4 fails.  On the face of it decent enough, but realistically that doesn't sound like much to me.  

If we have 12 premiership squads, each with say 40 in the main squad and 20 in their academy - that makes about 720 pro players at premiership teams.  Plus another 12 teams with say 25 players each in the Championship so another say 300 there.  So conservatively I'd say we have in the order of 1000+ pro players.  So with only 617 tests most have had one or no tests this last year - i.e. very very little compared to many other sports.  And if there's any kind of regularity to the testing (e.g. it's done on matchdays) or only during the season it would be really really easy to hide any PED use.

So, forgive me RFU but I am yet to be convinced.

962 tests actually, and no fails in the AP.

so your logic is that because no-one in the AP failed it must be due to the testing being easy to predict? that's a bit cynical no?

I was really just considering the PED testing not the illicit, as I think they are seperate issues. There are 9 fails if you include the illicit and as they are anonymous we don't know whether the 5 fails for illicit are AP or not.

I've no problem admitting I'm a cynic! However, I'm not suggesting that no-one failed therefore the testing must be easy to predict, I'm saying that it's actually very little testing and IF it is easy to predict doping could well be common place despite the results looking good. IF those tests were all taken at completely random times of day and days of the year, I'd take a different view and say it's a good result (though still far less frequent than I think it should be) - there's not really enough info in there to say though. I appreciate it's easier to do frequent testing in sports like athletics and tennis where there are far fewer athletes to test, but even so - this still seems like a soft touch to me. Certainly I can think of other rugby unions (e.g. the Aussies) that take their testing more seriously.

thomh wrote:The story has been changed from Premiership players. "RFU reveals five players at National League level or below tested positive for recreational drugs during 2012-13"

"In 617 tests for performance-enhancing drugs, none were failed by Premiership players."

Thanks for the clarification Thomh.

Out of curiosity, do people have more faith in the tests if they identified a PED in 617 checks or in a test that identifies no PED in 617 checks.  Personally, I'd usually doubt if the test is doing what it is supposed to be doing if it doesn't identify a problem.  Maybe that he had picked up some NL level indicates it is a robust test.  But is the same test carried out, to the same rigour, at the same times of season/pre-season and in the same quantum at NL and PL levels

Did someone earlier say recreational drugs are performance degrading?

Some of them might be - certainly not all of them. What was the drugs first and then we'll ask was it all done for 'innocent' recreation.

SecretFly,
Which recreational drugs do not impact performance negatively?

Take cocaine before a game would help probably same as amphetamines.

yeah Sf that was me. cocaine is banned because it is part stimulant. the reality is the WADA list of substances is everything that could give any real or perceived advantage in any sport, and pretty much anything that can be used as a masking agent to cover up PEDs. i personally dont see how cocaine or methamphetamin or cannabis can be considered performance enhancing in short or long term, in fact the opposite. decision making abilities under the influence of all three are significantly altered, not something thats likely to improve an individuals performance within a team IMHO.

seems pretty clear to me that the only really beneficial drugs rugby players could be using are those that lead to increased power or power:weight. stimulants (such as a sprinter might take immediately before a race) or EPO type products (v effective on aerobic endurance type events eg cycling) just dont see likely to be particularly useful in rugby compared to muscle/power/explosive type drugs.

TJ wrote:Take cocaine before a game would help probably same as amphetamines.

as i mentioned, i think the decision-making effect, and behaviour-altering effect of cocaine and amphetamines would counteract (and outweigh) any very short term stimulant-type benefit of those drugs. especially in a 15 man team sport.

The talk here is of performance enhancing, but is performance effecting still not an issue.  In a world where there is plenty of money gambled on the results of games, should a key player knowingly deteriorating their performance by taking a recreational drug be equally questioned?

Weed helps with Xbox marathons...apparently

quinsforever wrote:yeah Sf that was me. cocaine is banned because it is part stimulant. the reality is the WADA list of substances is everything that could give any real or perceived advantage in any sport, and pretty much anything that can be used as a masking agent to cover up PEDs. i personally dont see how cocaine or methamphetamin or cannabis can be considered performance enhancing in short or long term, in fact the opposite. decision making abilities under the influence of all three are significantly altered, not something thats likely to improve an individuals performance within a team IMHO.

seems pretty clear to me that the only really beneficial drugs rugby players could be using are those that lead to increased power or power:weight. stimulants (such as a sprinter might take immediately before a race) or EPO type products (v effective on aerobic endurance type events eg cycling) just dont see likely to be particularly useful in rugby compared to muscle/power/explosive type drugs.

Any dose-dependent drug that increases confidence, increases stamina, increases pain threshold, increases alertness could very much be considered a performance enhancing drug.  So any nightclub amphetamine, or amphetamine mimicking concoction  - be it ecstasy, bath salts or any other related synthetic club drugs could very well be used (in the right doses) to give players an edge for 80 minutes or even 40 to 50 minutes if they are benchers.  You could certainly argue the supposition as the drugs are specifically designed to produce 'energy' effects.

Recreation drug use by weekend clubbers would be much less smart overall than a porfessionally trained athlete looking for an sufficient edge rather than wanting to be 'spaced'.