Heaslip failed drugs test in 2006

Aparently due to abnormally high naturally produced testosterone. Aparently his high testosterone levels explain his incredible recovery rates any why in all his years of professional rugby he has remarkably had almost no significant injuries.

He also sleeps in an oxygen tent, avoids dairy and gluten.

Yeah Lance Armstrong had abnormally high naturally occurring testosterone too....

David Walsh (the bloke that exposed Armstrong) wrote a 3/4 page piece in yesterday's Sunday Times about Heaslip noting his abnormally high testosterone levels and extraordinary recovery times. Apparently his regime includes sleeping in an oxygen tent off and pre-season. He (Heaslip) also speaks lovingly of his gf who no doubt is the grateful recipient of his manliness.

Something about the tests focusing on ratios of testosterone to some other item in the blood.  In 2006 the ratio in the test was changed from 6-1 to 4-1 and Heaslip measures somewhere in the 5s.  Was on Newtalk about it this morning.  They went back through all of his previous test results and noted that it was consistently at that ratio.  Had to do quite a few hospital checks to make sure that this wasn't an indication of some severe underlying medical illness.

GunsGerms wrote:...........He also sleeps in an oxygen tent, avoids dairy and gluten.

I hear he also is a scorpio, likes nice people, loves the colour pink, and wants to have a per kitten.

small index finger to long ring finger arrangement and...yep... I got bucket loads of testosterone too.

doctor_grey wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:...........He also sleeps in an oxygen tent, avoids dairy and gluten.

I hear he also is a scorpio, likes nice people, loves the colour pink, and wants to have a per kitten.

He's a Scorpio who likes eating people, wearing pink headphones and would love a pet Healy to take for walks in the park.

Is the title of this article correct?

Did he actually fail a drugs test or did a result require further investigation?

Funnily enough there were rumours about an Irish player or a couple of them failing tests around this time and it being covered up by the IRFU - Heaslip wasn't one of the names I'd heard though.

MrsP wrote:Is the title of this article correct?

Did he actually fail a drugs test or did a result require further investigation?

Yes. But the further review showed it to be natural.

You can't penalise a player for what his body naturally produces... Hell, even some people produce their own alcohol!!  "It's me bacteria that's makin' me drunk, sir" - to the traffic cop.
Hmmmm wonder how that works.

"Well, I won't arrest you then but the few billion bacteria in your gut - they're nicked!"

Too much peroxide in his hair....

He used to have a tongue piercing too. He is a bit of a space cadet in fairness.

That'll be the oestrogen.

Yes, it must have been before he had all the testosterone anyway.

His body fat levels ,lack of large muscle mass and voice depth do not suggest naturally high testosterone,not to mention he actually looks older than his real age which would not be the case if he had such a condition.
And what is that saying? If your told something but your eyes tell you something else, believe your eyes.

I'm intrigued to see how long that comment last DOD.

DeludedOptimistorjustDave wrote:His body fat levels ,lack of large muscle mass and voice depth do not suggest naturally high testosterone,not to mention he actually looks older than his real age which would not be the case if he had such a condition.
And what is that saying? If your told something but your eyes tell you something else, believe your eyes.

Some interesting comments Dave. What are his body fat levels? How old does he look and how is that in any way related to testosterone levels?

What Dave is saying I think is that Heaslip doesn't look like he has high testosterone - i.e. he doesn't have the unnaturally muscled physique, large forehead/jaw, hair loss, deep voice - that you associate with high testosterone and steroid use, in fact the opposite.

rodders wrote:What Dave is saying I think is that Heaslip doesn't look like he has high testosterone - i.e. he doesn't have the unnaturally muscled physique, large forehead/jaw, hair loss, deep voice - that you associate with high testosterone and steroid use, in fact the opposite.

Considering he made a point of using the term 'naturally' means you got it wrong with the last bit (at least in what Dave was insinuating).

DeludedOptimistorjustDave wrote:His body fat levels ,lack of large muscle mass and voice depth do not suggest naturally high testosterone,not to mention he actually looks older than his real age which would not be the case if he had such a condition.
And what is that saying? If your told something but your eyes tell you something else, believe your eyes.

Voice depth changes come with testosterone drug dabbling not the other way round.  Testosterone too drains off puppy fat and give a more gristle look so I'm not sure about the idea that testosterone keeps you young looking - it doesn't, it matures you.

I wouldn't say he looks juiced from an initial look but we've all be burned before no doubt defending athlete's etc we looked up to... especially in the 80s & 90s.

Back then we heard all the stories of why some players were "naturally" bigger or saw rapid growth, improvements etc... usually we were all unfortunately proved wrong.

Not say he is, not saying he isn't but its in the game for sure... probably more in youth age grade rugby then pro first class rugby.. as thats when its needed most... to get those academy slots, to get into those pro teams, age grade setups etc.

When Cian Healy was in school to catch up with the other big guys he did the following:

put a sand bag at the bottom of his stairs at home and lifted it up and down the stairs everytime he went up or down.

He also got his dad to take him to the beach where he got his dad to put the car in neutral while he pulled it up the beach.

fa0019 wrote:

Not say he is, not saying he isn't but its in the game for sure...

+1

This is going downhill fast.

I don't doubt a lot of players train very hard even when juiced.... but they're still on it.

Dont forget Oz. They probably top the league given their connection with rugby league and its murky past.

fa0019 wrote:I don't doubt a lot of players train very hard even when juiced.... but they're still on it.

Who is on it? on what?

What a few of you fail to realise, is that some stuff stays in your system for less than a week, and the majority of drugs tests are voluntary.

GunsGerms wrote:

fa0019 wrote:I don't doubt a lot of players train very hard even when juiced.... but they're still on it.

Who is on it? Pierre Spies? on what?

Spies is the most obvious one, though I expect there are a lot more, especially in age grade rugby.

GunsGerms wrote:

fa0019 wrote:I don't doubt a lot of players train very hard even when juiced.... but they're still on it.

Who is on it? Pierre Spies? on what?

Not a direct accusation on players but people on drugs still have to train hard as nails to get results. The gains are due to them being able to recover quicker, heal injuries sooner etc etc. Their gym work will almost certainly increase because they will be less fatigued, less injured etc.

The Saint wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

fa0019 wrote:I don't doubt a lot of players train very hard even when juiced.... but they're still on it.

Who is on it? Pierre Spies? on what?

Spies is the most obvious one, though I expect there are a lot more, especially in age grade rugby.

I wouldn't mention names but there were a number of juiced players on show this weekend. Most of them on Saturday mind you....

The Saint wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

fa0019 wrote:I don't doubt a lot of players train very hard even when juiced.... but they're still on it.

Who is on it? Pierre Spies? on what?

Spies is the most obvious one, though I expect there are a lot more, especially in age grade rugby.

Percy had a huge cloud over him years back.. he said in his autobiography that it was all steak and egg whites.... but he put on something like 2.5st in a season. Crazy when you think its 40C during the summer in the cape and if you train out in the open you will shed calories quicker then you can pile them on.

Percy said he is taking lots of creatine if I remember right?

Big changes are a coming anyway for the silent drug takers/performance enhancers.

One Paul Kimmage has just fallen out of love with the sport of rugby after Brian O'Driscoll failed to give him an exclusive for the 6N.  Do we all know who Paul Kimmage is?  Well, he's the journalist who speaks bluntly to drug takers and he was one of the central figures in the Lance Armstrong capers

He'll be p-issed now and he'll go a hunting for the bad boys in rugby.  Be very careful folks - he's an absolute bloodhound when he feels wronged.

I repeat again it was widely known that there was a number of failed drugs tests in Irish rugby under EOS - they occurred just after EOS introduced the preseason condition program which saw a lot of the team bulk up significantly after loosing the SA on tour. This is old news.

EOS is always old news in these here parts - reduced to chatting about the under20s and gameshows.

GunsGerms wrote:Percy said he is taking lots of creatine if I remember right?

Ha some creatine to put on 2.5 stone in muscle Guns!

rodders wrote:I repeat again it was widely known that there was a number of failed drugs tests in Irish rugby under EOS - they occurred just after EOS introduced the preseason condition program which saw a lot of the team bulk up significantly after loosing the SA on tour. This is old news.

Any links?

GunsGerms wrote:Percy said he is taking lots of creatine if I remember right?

For a few years I myself took creatine and trained every day, sometimes twice a day. I got stronger sure, a lot stronger but 2.5st is a lot especially for someone already an elite athlete in an aerobic sport in a short period of time. Not saying because I didn't do it that its not possible but the gain was significant, significant to raise questions... people will be innocent sure but with age and time we do tend to see a lot of the same gains and excuses coming from athletes who eventually get pinged... especially in athletics itself.

A man from wolverhamptom who doesn't bother with the gym and never has, is in his early 50's who suffer from this condidtion i have met around two years ago we have a mutual friend.
My friend often told me about him i would roll my eyes a little but when i met him he barely looked 30 ,he made Barry White sound squeaky and his physique was unreal, he had a white Tshirt on his abs where visible through it and he had arms like a bodybuilder.
He also commented how eats huge but cant put any fat on.

So my comment was from personal experience.

Percy putting on 2.5st on creatine is genuinely LOL!

Pro Body Builder Lee Lambrada once said an established athlete could only put on 7lb of lean muscle a year and that is only if he religiously did his food and training right.

2.5st in one year isn't even close to being natural.

DOD is correct, high testosterone levels and low estrogen levels generally result in low-body fat and a youthful appearance.

Remember Percy's weight gain came after 3-4 years of pro rugby. When joe public put on weight after trying things such as these not all of it will be good weight. Some of it will be because our diets increase significantly etc. Percy went from lean to lean and if anything his fitness improved.

I hate to use him as a standard bearer as in public record he never failed a test. Its just an example in our sport of a well known player.

SA have definately covered up players failure in the past. In the 09 AI tour when 2 boks failed drugs tests they sent back 3 players within days of the news breaking with "injuries"... one of which was habana.

That was apparently a genuine mistake but still the number of failures would have triggered a special assessment on the entire team due to IRB laws and it looks like SARU simply sent back players who they knew were exposed to the drugs and prevented a team wide assessment which could have been very costly in terms of bans, sponsorship and even match forfeitings.

RDW_Scotland wrote:Removed a post that cannot be said on a public forum, and all posts quoting it.

Please consider the fact that this is a public forum - I will lock it and archive it if it strays into ground that might get us in trouble (which does happen btw)

I like 606v2 for this very reason,still allowing a rational debate to continue and not locking it because of the minority.  

RDW_Scotland wrote:Removed a post that cannot be said on a public forum, and all posts quoting it.

Please consider the fact that this is a public forum - I will lock it and archive it if it strays into ground that might get us in trouble (which does happen btw)

RDW... I expected as much. Not complaining dude btw.... what are the rules? Are we unable to say player x was suspected etc???

On the old site I recall the mention of such was a complete no no... I mentioned Spies once with a breakdown why and the post was removed and the OP was locked. Understand why legal wise.

but knowing what can and can not be suggested would be helpful. thanks.

If a player was capped at 19 years old and came in at X weight then four - five years down the line was three stone heavier i wouldn't bat an eye lid,it would seem legit.
But in a season or two eye brows will be raised.

Basically don't saying you can't back up. Even on the BBC website they were forced to hand over the details of a poster so he could be sued. I suppose if the forum doesn't do anything to stop unsubstantiated allegations they may be done (know idea of actual legality).

My recommendation is to not say anything about any particular player that isn't publically acknowledge (so Heaslip failed a test). But don't say "He proabably...", or "I know a guy who says...". Basically just apply comment sense.

RDW_Scotland wrote:Removed a post that cannot be said on a public forum, and all posts quoting it.

Please consider the fact that this is a public forum - I will lock it and archive it if it strays into ground that might get us in trouble (which does happen btw)

From what I see, you deleted posts that didn't mention any names and I still see posts up with names being mentioned liberally around the idea of 'cheating'.... Surely, there are more posts than you dropped that are in risky territory?