France 2 journalists with serious allegations over 95 Bok squad

I haven't seen this reported in the English-speaking press so am just curious as to whether it has appeared anywhere. I was reading El Mundo online and was taken aback to see on the cover page a story about rugby: http://www.elmundo.es/cronica/2014/03/30/53369c6bca474174308b456e.html

I will try to find the story in L'Équipe to see if it goes into more detail but essentially what a documentary on France 2 alleged is that it seems suspicious that in their World Cup team that eliminated France in the semi finals, the Bok players have 4 players succumbing to something statistically improbable of occurring in their age group. Ruben Kruger died of a brain tumour at 39. Joost van der Westhuizen and Tinus Linee have the same rare condition that affects between 4 and 8 out of every 100 000 people. André Venter has a spinal condition that afflicts one in every 1 million people.

The team denied taking illegal substances of any kind. They did admit they took legal doses of Vitamin B12. Galthie, the former French scrum half, puts forward the idea that the players had no idea what they were taking and the medical staff were poisoning them.

Other possibilities are that there was pesticide on the grass of their training grounds, which had harmful effects or the collision of bodies in a contact sport.

These are serious allegations the French programme are making. They did a similar report with the Lance Armstrong drug scandal. At the bottom of the comments page there are a few Spanish posters saying this is typical envy on the part of the French - the French media have accused the likes of Contador, Nadal, the football and basketball team of doping - but on the other hand, if the players are paying for the mistakes of an overly zealous medical staff, it would be abhorrent.

I don't wish this thread to be turned into a witch hunt against SA. In modern professional sport, we shouldn't be so naive as to think drugs aren't a possibility in any country in any sport. The fact that a few players have rare medical conditions could be coincidence but if there is something more sinister behind this, these people are owed the truth as to whether anything might have contributed towards their conditions. Sport is big money but nothing is worth risking a human life over it. Has anyone heard of this story in the English speaking press and do you think this is sour grapes from the French media or do you think the claims warrant further investigation?

Apparently the documentary aired last Sunday on Stade 2 according to L'Equipe: http://www.lequipe.fr/Medias/Actualites/Stade-2-ebranle-les-springboks-95/450374

If this terrible story has any truth it could, whilst sad, provide useful information for the currently unknown (though there are theories) aetiology of Motor Neuron Disease

Hi Kia, you should know better but I guess you are turning a bit Spanish now with a chip on the shoulder with regards of France I watched this documentary and its a non event. It doesnt accuse SA rugby to be promoting doping nor it asks for "further investigation". Just a snapshot and tribute of some SAlegends and obviously question marks about the diseases.
Those days were the days of the end of amateurism which means that performance enhancing pills were widely available everywhere and most of the time were legal and their effects not properly assessed. And by everywhere I also include France where in the 80s players were known to take amphetamines on some occasions. Obviously I exclude NZ where players are just fitter and better

They would've been the only ones being poisoned in '95. Perhaps it leads credence to the stories to consider them together.

Invictus.

Merci whocares. Any way of seeing that documentary online?

Stade 2 is on france television website (francetv.pluzz.fr) but will probably not work with your proxy...

Ok thanks. There are ways of getting round that...

Found it on youtube...
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nh7lFQRZTVs
Let me know if it works

Did the political importance of a SA victory outweigh sporting sensibilities? I've long thought so. Interesting if it were confirmed.

Ça marche nickel. Cheers whocares.

I look at that squad and given it included Brendan Venter (at the time a qualifed Doctor) I doubt they wouldn't have known exactly what they were being given... if it was unsafe, they wouldn't have taken it.

You may be able to fool the odd player, but a whole squad including medical professionals.... unlikely.

What I would suggest is that drug use tends to have dramatic impacts in performance.... can we say the springboks at the time were playing above themselves? Not really.
Yes they had done better than we had expected but they were at home and they were getting better every test from re-introduction.

Putting professional rugby players up against stats for the general population when talking about motor neurone disease is a little weak. These guys played combative sport week in week out, in the day when concussions were simply something you played through, where medical expertise were far less than they are now. Look at the average man and he'll probably do exercise maybe twice a month.... none of it contact.

Its a bit weak to say... oh they must have been on drugs because 2 out of 25 is too much of a coincidence.

GloriousEmpire wrote:They would've been the only ones being poisoned in '95. Perhaps it leads credence to the stories to consider them together.

As bitter as the Kiwi's are for that final I think France were the team that was really robbed by the miserable weather anyway. In fairly dangerous conditions SA scraped past France the the semis in a game that France dominated for large spells yet the torrential rain never really allowed France let rip in their customary fashion. Furthermore, I reckon SA got a little lucky in that one particularly given that referee Derek Bevan disallowed a perfectly legitimate Abdel Banazzi try to deny France a deserved win.

GunsGerms wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:They would've been the only ones being poisoned in '95. Perhaps it leads credence to the stories to consider them together.

As bitter as the Kiwi's are for that final I think France were the team that was really robbed by the miserable weather anyway. In fairly dangerous conditions SA scraped past France the the semis in a game that France dominated for large spells yet the torrential rain never really allowed France let rip in their customary fashion. Furthermore, I reckon SA got a little lucky in that one particularly given that referee Derek Bevan disallowed a perfectly legitimate Abdel Banazzi try to deny France a deserved win.

Just one of those things.... perhaps it was just written that way??? It was pretty fairytale.

In terms of perfectly legitimate... a little less certain IMO... could have gone either way.

It was a clear cut try as far as I remember. Must youtube it but France were robbed from memory. Real hometown decision. Its funny you never hear the conspiracy theories about this game but in reality the game should been called off too. The problem was they couldnt call it off because that meant France would have gone through on a better try scoring record.

What a lot of basely conjecture

Lets see a Brain Tumor and a Spinal injury + a disease which
has 'Potential causes for which there is inconclusive evidence includes head trauma, military service, and participation in contact sports.'

Maybe, just maybe, playing Rugby is the problem

Here is a clip of it:

Hard to see from this clip but on the balance of probability it seems unlikely it was anything but a try. I reckon if SA were chasing the game and they did the exact same they would have been awarded a try.

There seems to be a minute left on the match clock too. Should it have been a 5 meter scrum to France?

Also this particular Reuters article includes it as one of the most notable refereeing blunders:

http://blogs.reuters.com/sport/2011/03/14/when-rugby-officials-get-it-wrong/

In those days, with no TMO it was a different scenario. I just looked at it again and I never saw a conclusive touchdown. Bevan was right there and he didn't give it.

Did Morris commit a penalty in 93??? Injustice perhaps, but that was the way it was and in part, these things are probably debated more today then they were back then.

fa0019 wrote:In those days, with no TMO it was a different scenario. I just looked at it again and I never saw a conclusive touchdown. Bevan was right there and he didn't give it.

Did Morris commit a penalty in 93??? Injustice perhaps, but that was the way it was and in part, these things are probably debated more today then they were back then.

With no TMO in those days they usually gave the attacking team the benefit especially when they crossed the line which appeared to be the case.

Statistically speaking it is unusal to have such a cluster of neural abnormalities in such a small group but that is a long way short of saying there was a common cause.

The other thing which struck me was the mention of B12. That was exactly what Ben Johnston claimed he had been given after he tested positive. Once again, not prving any link.

It is tragic that so many from that team which acheived so much in more than sporting terms, have been so badly affected by illness.

I haven't read much literature on Steroids to brain injury... but I have read quite a few studies on Combat sports to brain injuries.

That is more likely the cause... if there is one at all.

MrsP wrote:Statistically speaking it is unusal to have such a cluster of neural abnormalities in such a small group but that is a long way short of saying there was a common cause.

The common cause is they all played rugby at the highest level.
Uncomfortable but the sport itself could be the explanation - far more likely than taking a common drug

There is a lot of steroid abuse in athletics for instance which is not a contact discipline.

Any signficant numbers of brain injuries there?

Not that I have heard of?

But I have heard of a lot in the following sports

American Football
Ice Hockey
Rugby

The article simply seems rather weak and an excuse rather than a genuine concern for those involved.

Indeed Geoff, it could be that rugby is a link although that does not really explain why this particular group of players were affected as opposed to rugby players in general.

It could also be that there is no link whatsoever and coincidence is to blame!

Whether it's statistically significant surely depends on how it was found. Did they go through the medical history of all the players completely, looking for any link or this one specific thing? What's the statistically chances of there being a cluster of some form of medical problem in these players?

If you take a random sample of people you will find some link between if you look at enough things.

Stuff like this is how superstitions start (possibly)

Ruben Kruger was denied what appeared to be a certain try by referee Ed Morrison in the Ellis Park final. No one ever mentions that...

MMaaxx wrote:Ruben Kruger was denied what appeared to be a certain try by referee Ed Morrison in the Ellis Park final. No one ever mentions that...

Probably because SA won.

Obviously but that try was far more clear than France's possible try in the semi.... so I cannot agree with anyconspiracy theories long the line of political ressure for SA to win and how it influenced the umpiring.

Is there ever a competition where luck was not on the winners side as some point on their journey?

HammerofThunor wrote:Whether it's statistically significant surely depends on how it was found. Did they go through the medical history of all the players completely, looking for any link or this one specific thing? What's the statistically chances of there being a cluster of some form of medical problem in these players?

If you take a random sample of people you will find some link between if you look at enough things.

Stuff like this is how superstitions start (possibly)

Absolutely so much bad science spouted as fact.

Classic example was a program recently on DNA recently which looked at why Elvis Presley got so fat.
Leaving aside the strands of hair were never verified against a second independant sample - say from a relative.
They then proceeded to show that a single band of DNA showed that he had a weakness regarding eating fatty foods.
Basically we have the results - lets find the evidence to prove it.
If they looked hard enough I am sure they would have found DNA evidence to show he was a latent homosexual, inwardly shy, a possible serial killer and god knows what else.

This type of scientific mumbo jumbo goes on all the time and is used to support wild sensationalist theories that gulliable individuals swallow whole to bring excitment to their lives. Its drivel.
This theory is not quite as bad but it also belongs in the bad science section

Yeah, all this phoney using science to prove things makes my blood boil.

Not sure if I misread the original post but Thinus Linee and Andre Venter weren't part of the '95 squad which skews the stats quite massively.

Have just watched the documentary. Not quite sure what the purpose of it was. Left a few questions hanging in the air like a man solo in the department store who walks over to the ladies department to drop one, waft it out of his trousers and then walk away smartly.

You could go to any rugby country and find similar tales of what was described in the documentary - pressure for young people to put on weight and bulk. There were B12 pills that have been since banned in the professional era but likewise which country wasn't involved in something similar.

The three affected players were putting on a brave face and their attitude is admirable. Injuries can happen on the field but to play the game and retire and have to endure that is tough. But then there are players who have retired and get cancer or other debilitating diseases and we don't start making assumptions about drug taking.

So guess I got sucked into the headlines and thought there was a story behind this. It's not often rugby makes the headlines in Spain let alone the front page! Kia kaha to Venter, Lee and Westhuizen.

Galted wrote:Not sure if I misread the original post but Thinus Linee and Andre Venter weren't part of the '95 squad which skews the stats quite massively.

Thanks for that so even more to reject this as complete and utter garbage