5 Premiership players test positive for recreational drugs

by Solid8 Tue 22 Oct 2013, 1:11 pm

First topic message reminder :

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?

by quinsforever Tue 22 Oct 2013, 5:25 pm

thebandwagonsociety wrote: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?

i agree. but not because of the gambling...and lets hope rugby never gets into any match fixing cricket or football scandals...

i agree because if a player participates for his team which under the influence of recreational drugs (with or without a positive doping test), i think the other players should crush them. ostracise them. make them fully aware what a disappointment to the team they have been. and then if the club wants to keep them, administer their own testing.

by doctor_grey Tue 22 Oct 2013, 5:27 pm

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.

Quins, I agree, none of those drugs are performance enhancing. Cocaine is a stimulant, mind altering, highly addictive, and illegal.

PEDs such as HGH can assist with quicker recovery - and this links directly back to other discussions players we have about players who rush back from injury quicker than predicted.

by quinsforever Tue 22 Oct 2013, 5:31 pm

for anyone who is interested, check out web chatter about Nadal and doping. i'm all for innocent until proven guilty, but the smoke and circumstancial evidence about this, combined with Operation Puerto Rico and the spanish doctor involved with "spanish athletes from several sports including football and tennis" stinks.

makes for compelling reading though.

by TJ Tue 22 Oct 2013, 5:34 pm

Stimulants would be performance enhancing. They were the first performance enhancing drugs. Cocaine, amphetamines and so on. Cocaine is not addictive either ( in the way heroin is). Cocaine and amphetamines were mainstays of the tour de france pre and post war. Tommy Simpson died because he tried so hard his heart blew up under the influence of amphetamines. "pot Belge" included cocaine or amphetamines I think. clarifies the thought processes under pressure ( until you become paranoid and delusional of course), gives you more energy and more endurance. Maradonna was full of cocaine in his last world cup.

stimulants like these stimulate your adrenal system - basically set your fight or flight status to full on at all times.

by quinsforever Tue 22 Oct 2013, 5:44 pm

TJ wrote:Stimulants would be performance enhancing. They were the first performance enhancing drugs. Cocaine, amphetamines and so on. Cocaine is not addictive either ( in the way heroin is). Cocaine and amphetamines were mainstays of the tour de france pre and post war. Tommy Simpson died because he tried so hard his heart blew up under the influence of amphetamines. "pot Belge" included cocaine or amphetamines I think. clarifies the thought processes under pressure ( until you become paranoid and delusional of course), gives you more energy and more endurance. Maradonna was full of cocaine in his last world cup.

stimulants like these stimulate your adrenal system - basically set your fight or flight status to full on at all times.

Tommy Simpson was actually full of a cocktail of amphetamines and cognac! alcohol was also believed to be performance enhancing back then. and he died going up Mont Ventoux, a 20km climb with an average gradient of over 8%!

by doctor_grey Tue 22 Oct 2013, 5:57 pm

TJ,
Not sure I understand your comment that cocaine is not addictive in the way of heroin. Chemically different,and their impact on the system is clearly different. But there is no net difference whether a substance is physically addictive or psychologically addictive. To the user addictive is addictive. The end is the same and both are equally dangerous. Both are banned for quite good reasons.

If I misunderstood what you wrote, I apologise. I don't want false impressions out there.

by TJ Tue 22 Oct 2013, 6:00 pm

Dr Gray - not a debate that is useful on here. Do it by PM if you are interested. All I was meaning was cocaine users are not addicts in having to use every day or more often. weekend binges would be a more likely useage pattern. this is very different to heroin.

by doctor_grey Tue 22 Oct 2013, 6:05 pm

No, I am not debating the addictive qualities of cocaine with you. Or anyone else. It is there.
That statement you made is not about Rugby, and I agree should not be debated in a Rugby forum.

by MrsP Tue 22 Oct 2013, 10:22 pm

Matt Stevens.

Ask him if Cocaine is addictive or not.

And then ask him if getting caught was the best thing that could have happened to him.

Drug testing is not just about finding out who is cheating by deliberately using drugs to improve performance. It is also about detecting unhealthy patterns of behaviour. Professional sportsmen who abuse their bodies are damaging the propects of their employers.

by ScarletSpiderman Wed 23 Oct 2013, 9:10 am

Guys, please avoid posting players names until it has been made official!

by thebandwagonsociety Wed 23 Oct 2013, 11:27 am

ScarletSpiderman wrote:Guys, please avoid posting players names until it has been made official!

Scarlet, if you have a chance, you could also change the title of this thread as it has already been clarified that no premiership players tested positive.

by VietGwentRevisited Wed 23 Oct 2013, 11:32 am

thebandwagonsociety wrote:
ScarletSpiderman wrote:Guys, please avoid posting players names until it has been made official!
Scarlet, if you have a chance, you could also change the title of this thread as it has already been clarified that no premiership players tested positive.

Actually that was wrong. 5 players registered to premiership clubs failed tests for recreational drugs that are not on the WADA prohibitted list. (so coudl not be cocaine for instance, but mild traces of cannabis are allowed under WADA rules). These 5 received fines of up to £10k and received "1 strike". no premiership player failed a test for prohibited substances though - according to the RFU report.

5 pplayers from below the Premiership have been found guilty of taking prohibited substances and banned for periods of 6 months to two years.

by SecretFly Wed 23 Oct 2013, 12:22 pm

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

No Premiership player tested positive for recreational drugs?

by ScarletSpiderman Wed 23 Oct 2013, 12:31 pm

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

No Premiership player tested positive for recreational drugs?

The first line of that article says

"Five players at Premiership clubs tested positive for recreational drugs last season."

by SecretFly Wed 23 Oct 2013, 12:34 pm

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

No Premiership player tested positive for recreational drugs?
The first line of that article says

"Five players at Premiership clubs tested positive for recreational drugs last season."

I know. I'm just wondering what bandwagon is saying. Has that headline now been proven to be wrong? If so, why is it still up there?

by VietGwentRevisited Wed 23 Oct 2013, 12:55 pm

The BBC changed the story several times yesterday. At one point it did indicate there were no failed tests at Premiership clubs.

However there were 5 players who failed for recreational drugs (but I assume not prohibited). These recreational tests were only carried out in the Premiership, and is part of the player welfare program.

There were then 5 other players, who played at below premiership level, who failed for prohibited PEDs. Two were for cocaine.

No premiership player failed a PED test (630+ tests from memory). This information was on a standard report published by the RFU yesterday referring to testing for the 2012/13 season.

by Big Thu 24 Oct 2013, 11:46 am

quinsforever wrote:
TJ wrote:Stimulants would be performance enhancing. They were the first performance enhancing drugs. Cocaine, amphetamines and so on. Cocaine is not addictive either ( in the way heroin is). Cocaine and amphetamines were mainstays of the tour de france pre and post war. Tommy Simpson died because he tried so hard his heart blew up under the influence of amphetamines. "pot Belge" included cocaine or amphetamines I think. clarifies the thought processes under pressure ( until you become paranoid and delusional of course), gives you more energy and more endurance. Maradonna was full of cocaine in his last world cup.

stimulants like these stimulate your adrenal system - basically set your fight or flight status to full on at all times.
Tommy Simpson was actually full of a cocktail of amphetamines and cognac! alcohol was also believed to be performance enhancing back then. and he died going up Mont Ventoux, a 20km climb with an average gradient of over 8%!

They also thought that dehydration was good back in those days as it reduced your body weight... it's verging on miraculous that any of them managed to finish a stage - let alone a whole tour.

by Sponsored content

5 Premiership players test positive for recreational drugs

5 Premiership players test positive for recreational drugs

Re: 5 Premiership players test positive for recreational drugs

Re: 5 Premiership players test positive for recreational drugs

Re: 5 Premiership players test positive for recreational drugs

Re: 5 Premiership players test positive for recreational drugs

Re: 5 Premiership players test positive for recreational drugs

Re: 5 Premiership players test positive for recreational drugs

Re: 5 Premiership players test positive for recreational drugs

Re: 5 Premiership players test positive for recreational drugs

Re: 5 Premiership players test positive for recreational drugs

Re: 5 Premiership players test positive for recreational drugs

Re: 5 Premiership players test positive for recreational drugs

Re: 5 Premiership players test positive for recreational drugs

Re: 5 Premiership players test positive for recreational drugs

Re: 5 Premiership players test positive for recreational drugs

Re: 5 Premiership players test positive for recreational drugs

Re: 5 Premiership players test positive for recreational drugs

Re: 5 Premiership players test positive for recreational drugs

Re: 5 Premiership players test positive for recreational drugs