Drugs in Rugby

First topic message reminder :

A recent report suggests it is a bigger problem than I personally imagined it was.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/article-2863758/Rugby-s-drug-problem-exposed-RFU-boss-admits-realise-s-issue-addressing-it.html

The Independent Report 1
http://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/international-rugby/paul-kimmage-rugby-has-to-face-up-to-its-growing-pains-30766512.html

http://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/other-rugby/paul-kimmage-dangerous-obsession-with-size-creates-bigger-need-for-answers-30785080.html

Craig Chalmers son banned.
http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/rugby-union/29764657

Sin é wrote:Interesting article from Alan Quinlan on it in today's Irish Times.

Fairplay to the IRFU/Provinces:

alan quinlan wrote:Within the last 18 months, one of the Irish provinces made contact with the Irish Sports Council regarding one of their players. The player had made huge improvements and his body size had grown massively in a short space of time. The province got onto the Sports Council and suggested that they target this player for drug testing. I know this for a fact and I can back it up if anyone wants me to.

The player passed all his tests. There’s no point naming him here and in fact it would be unfair to do so because the stain of doping is so great and so hard to shift even if you’re innocent.

http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/alan-quinlan-if-there-was-a-systematic-doping-culture-in-rugby-i-d-have-known-about-it-1.2031781

Well that proves it then - rapid physical gains followed by a passed drug test are the two biggest tell tale signs of a drugs cheat - denial being the third.

the title of that link is interesting.

Realistically... Sports can't win. No positive test - The sport is protecting it's stars = dirty. A few positive tests - the sport is obviously filthy = dirty.

kingraf wrote:Realistically... Sports can't win. No positive test - The sport is protecting it's stars = dirty. A few positive tests - the sport is obviously filthy = dirty.

Science is always ahead of the game. IMO there is no doubt there are some test players somewhere on something and getting away with it. Be it state sanctioned or private.

and I think we're probably the worst (as in SA).

Take the 10 most competitive people you know.... how many of them are willing to cut corners to win? Then apply that to professional rugby where competiveness is an abundant trait amongst individuals (bit of an assumption but still).

Sport wins all the time though by virtue of that fact that people are on a tightrope not knowing which way to look down, to the left or to the right.

On the one hand you can't accuse athletes directly without proof or evidence - on the other hand you know, and drugs testing authorities confrim (and occasional positive tests prove!) that you're right to be suspicious.

Sport is still winning because of the ever present doubts and the inability of testing regimes to keep up with the drugs and the masking processes. And therefore this means that people still play the game and cheer on athletes they're still not altogether certain about by simply ignoring the topic for 11 months out of every 12.

Like I say, because guilt can't be proven (although guilt has often been confirmed) neither can innocence be believed.

Sport wins - people pretend it isn't an issue and still cheer on their stars.  Sport never suffers - it makes money regardless of guilt or innocence.

People are born optimists IMO.

You have your childhood heroes/idols and you think they are as pure as a Canadian forest river in springtime. You defend them to the hilt regardless yet over time, 1 or 2 of them fall by the wayside.

How many people cut off their livestrong wristbands only a few years ago? Even 5 years ago I would defend that guy to the death, oh apparently its because of xyz (pseudo-science fact).
In many ways his argument still resonates... if everyone is doing it, its not really an advantage at all, its not really cheating.

For years his line was that he was the most tested athlete in the world, that he never failed a test and in fact they never got him on a test either (even though I think one in 2000 or something was very suspect). Only by the whole of his team plea-bargaining to testify against him did he finally acknowledge his guilt... and its not like he took an athletics "the clear" steroid.... he took all the conventional ones, all the ones we have viable tests for.... and he still beat them... hundreds of times.

Honestly have no idea Fa. Like I said, my school wouldn't let anyone play without their parents consenting to drug tests, and I'd say most (confidently peg 90+%) kids, like me, simply couldn't afford the high end cycle steroids which don't show up on tests, nor would they know the shady people necessary. I know this because I've got a mate who dabbled in dealing. No kid, and I'd wager young professional buys the good stuff which beats tests without their parents assisting. That's why the club game is overrun at the moment. The top club players get paid but not tested.

As for higher levels, what board tests them? I rate the South African Institute for drug free sport quite highly. They caught a positice sample in Darryl Impey which even WADA missed. If the professional levels get tested by them, then that's good enough for me. If they beat testing, then we head into another conversation about what constitutes doping. Which, IMO, is a long overdue conversation

Lance Armstrong failed like six tests mate. He was hardly two steps ahead of the system at any moment. For whatever reason, the system just didn't care. More than the fails, a few of his tests also should have raised alarms, and led to further tests, but I guess at the time, the myth was greater than the truth.

fa0019 wrote:People are born optimists IMO.

You have your childhood heroes/idols and you think they are as pure as a Canadian forest river in springtime. You defend them to the hilt regardless yet over time, 1 or 2 of them fall by the wayside.

How many people cut off their livestrong wristbands only a few years ago? Even 5 years ago I would defend that guy to the death, oh apparently its because of xyz (pseudo-science fact).
In many ways his argument still resonates... if everyone is doing it, its not really an advantage at all, its not really cheating.

For years his line was that he was the most tested athlete in the world, that he never failed a test and in fact they never got him on a test either (even though I think one in 2000 or something was very suspect). Only by the whole of his team plea-bargaining to testify against him did he finally acknowledge his guilt... and its not like he took an athletics "the clear" steroid.... he took all the conventional ones, all the ones we have viable tests for.... and he still beat them... hundreds of times.

He beat them because let's face it.............. he wasn't alone.  It was systematic.  I mean systemic to the team he was in.  The team had the program, not simply their wonder boy star.  

That's the major issue.  People can wonder whether this guy is on something or maybe that other guy is on something...but that's only the sideshow.  Rugby needs to find out if there is a systemic role here - are these loners part of a bigger network of protection that might involve an entire club team or bigger. That's when it becomes really serious because that's when money goes to people who don't deserve it, when glory goes to teams that didn't deserve it - that's fraudulent behavior on a big scale and would have implications for sponsors and TV rights deals etc, etc.  That's big business feeling the big financial strains that come with being exposed as crooked on a team level.

So the risks are great and that's why rugby people tend to be nervous around the topic.  It's never just single players doing their own thing that is going to bring about the seismic shocks but if something much more controlled and fraudulent was going down - then the schit would hit the fan.

I honestly never liked Armstrong.  It was his character.  Some people maybe like their athletes and heros cocky and icy as characters - the winner instincts and personality.  But no, I never warmed to his sense of overblown importance and high value opinion of himself.  And who knows, maybe those character traits were the warning signs all along in themselves.  Maybe his habits at the drug store created this extra confident strutting angel/devil character.

Anyway.................. the important point is he was never alone - people around him clouded the truth because he generated profit.

It is a weird situation, there probably is a problem of drug use in rugby however I doubt that it is a widely used as the cycling incident.
I think the times when it would be used the most is in the youth set ups when these players are trying to make it, however In my time as a player in one of the welsh region youth squads there was never any evidence of drug use, and the amount of effort the coaches go to get these players in condition was impressive, they used to have members of the coaching staff at the local mcdonalds making sure none of the players used it after training, we had nutritionists come in to give talks on dieting, good fats, bad fats etc. Bearing in mind this was at the age of 15/16. At this time in life your body is still developing/growing and the "gains" a person could make if they stuck to the right diet/ training programme is incredible.
Another thing is that rugby at the top tier is full of very intelligent people such as doctors, lawyers etc who I would like to think would question what they are putting in their bodies, and especially the doctors, the consequences these drugs can have in later life!
Finally, while rugby is increasingly becoming a more and more physical sport you look at the top players in the world, the McCaws, Conrad smiths etc, they don't look like they are absolutely huge gym monkey steroid users and I just find it hard to imagine those players taking those substances

Armstrong was no gym monkey  A skeleton on a bike.  That suited his sport and nobody would deny that the man worked his socks off physically in training to get his profile.
Nobody suggests drug taking doesn't also require an athlete's total committment to real training, real effort, real sweat and real sacrifices.  But drugs makes that life much easier for them to accomplish their goals than for those who don't use.
Rugby players do not need to be gym monkey muscle builders to hint that they might be on something illegal.  What they need for an illegal edge is the ability to work harder, longer, have more stamina and repair and recover quicker.  That's the gains that can give the edge.  Training regimes and legal methods can assist all that of course; but so-too-can-illegal means.  Blood related - oxygen related - stamina improvements more than muscle growth.  Ability to recover quickly and go again - recover quicker and go again.

Fair point fly, I guess I was just straying to the stereotypical:
drug taking= steroids= increase in muscle mass

Obviously there are a lot of other supplements out there, it is just difficult to know where to draw the line. If they aren't testing positive is it illegal, is the use of protein shakes/ creatine/ pre workouts ok even though it is assisting the person in making improvements?

Yes hence my point earlier on that there needs to be a frank, very frank discussion on what constitutes "Doping". Even now, I'm your average gym bunny, go five times a week, basketball in the winter, cricket in the summer. Drink a pre workout, post workout and calorie shake everyday (now 4l of water a day... nitrogen overload!!!). I have to be honest, I'm not sure I'd say I ever thought it could be said I had an unfair advantage/was doping until I stumbled onto 606v2. Seems most posters here, in most forums, think protein shakes constitute unfair advantage.

kingraf wrote:Yes hence my point earlier on that there needs to be a frank, very frank discussion on what constitutes "Doping". Even now, I'm your average gym bunny, go five times a week, basketball in the winter, cricket in the summer. Drink a pre workout, post workout and calorie shake everyday (now 4l of water a day...  nitrogen overload!!!). I have to be honest, I'm not sure I'd say I ever thought it could be said I had an unfair advantage/was doping until I stumbled onto 606v2. Seems most posters here, in most forums, think protein shakes constitute unfair advantage.

???  No kingraf.  Most people here are talking about complex chemicals that would be considered 'illegal' - protein shakes would not be considered illegal, indeed they'd be considered pretty strict diet rules laid down by most rugby clubs.  Illegal means what it means.  Methods that aren't on the diet/supplement/medical list of normal teams abiding by legal constraints.
Just like you'd be getting an unfair advantage if you put 16 men onto a team when the opposition stuck to the legal 15, it would be considered an unfair advantage if one team had a bunch of players who had more than protein in their shakes.  If you're a player and you keep to a legal list of assistant substances - eggs, protein, beef, zinc, creatine certain painkillers etc etc - then there is nothing illegal about the 'advantage'. But an illegal advantage is an illegal advantage.

That's the thing though, a lot of people have opinions on what should be legal and what shouldn't. To be clear, I wasn't talking about this specific thread, I was talking about the general vibe given off from previous discussions I've had on doping in the tennis, cycling and boxing forums

Actual one of the original articles in the thread wasn't talkmg about illegal supplements. It was talking about 'medical support' in all it's forms. Many legal things are damaging in combined with other things or over done. Crikey, even drinking too much water can kill you. So many different things are added, none may be considered performance enhancing, but can be 'bad'.

Percentages say some must be at it but you can't say all are at it that's just unfair the majority train dam hard to get bigger and stronger.
When i was 18 i was bigger than most men i need a 48R suit jacket and i was lean body fat i never used any "help" but always got labelled as a user by any little man, but now 17 years later im only slightly bigger but a lot stronger with muscle maturity and i don't stand out as huge now im a man in his mid 30's.

Guess what im saying is some gain early and when a kid is big it gets noticed.

Also i know a lot of people don't like talking about race but no denying that some races have massive men before they even enter a gym,
Watching a program on the south sea Islands it showed the fishing villages with very little to do not a gym in sight but the guys were huge, they followed one down to the beach to check his nets and he caught a shark he hooked it under it jaw picked it up with one arm and slung it over his shoulder and walked it back they weighed it,it was 80kg!!!
Was that nature or nurture? who knows but it is not uncommon to see some cultures produce massive teenagers.

Indeed, Plenty Nigerians in my neck of the woods who would put quite a few gym rats (myself included) to shame who's workout program entails dancing and cutting some hair.

On testing.  large number od athletes in track and feild now known to have doped never failed tests despite being tested often.   Why - they are one step ahead of the testing authorities.  Armstrong for example - stored urine tested positive for EPO but when he took the EPO no test was avaialable
I don't think its as big in rugby as it was in cycling - but if you don't think a significant % of professional players don't use performance enhancing drugs you have your head in the sand.

In these days of the internet its very easy to find out how to do it http://jaymeds.com/shop.php/beginners-guide/i_46.html and how to avoid the amateurish testing in rugby.  Only the hopelessly stupid / nieve / ameturish / unlucky get caught.  thereason we see so few positive tests is few tests are done and its not difficult to evade them. http://www.steroid.com/steroid_detection_times.php track and field guys and cyclists will be tested several times a year at random times in and out of conmpetition.  a pro rugby player will be tested very occasionally and not in the off season.

Its a huge issue.

sorry - out of competition testing is done.  the RFU did under 600 tests last year.  there are how many pro players - 8000?  so less than a 1:10 chance of even being tested and the chances are lower of being tested when you have detectable levels of something detectable in your blood stream.  the rfu should be doing thousands of tests.  all pro players at least once a year

these are the people who can be tested - must be will more than 8000
England Senior
England Saxons
England Sevens
England U20
England U18
England Women’s Senior
England Women’s U20
Aviva Premiership
Championship
National League 1

I am not picking on england in particular - it will be all over - just I could get to their stats easily

TJ wrote:sorry - out of competition testing is done.  the RFU did under 600 tests last year.  there are how many pro players - 8000?  so less than a 1:10 chance of even being tested and the chances are lower of being tested when you have detectable levels of something detectable in your blood stream.  the rfu should be doing thousands of tests.  all pro players at least once a year

these are the people who can be tested - must be will more than 8000
   England Senior
   England Saxons
   England Sevens
   England U20
   England U18
   England Women’s Senior
   England Women’s U20
   Aviva Premiership
   Championship
   National League 1

I am not picking on england in particular - it will be all over - just I could get to their stats easily

I think you're numbers are a bit off their. There are 40 teams in the AP, Championship and NL1. These will cover all the full, Saxons and most of the 7s. Women and u20 would be around 60? If you assume 40 players per squad for the teams and add an extra 200 you're at 1800. So it would be 1 in 3 would have been tested?

Not saying anything else is wrong, just that 8000 is a completely ridiculous guess

Not a guess - just innumerate.

I would have thought that anyone registered with the RFU as a player could be tested. There would be other players on the testing panel but I think they can actually test anyone who is registered I think.

One of the most worrying cases this year was of a guy who was the team manager for a county's U15-U18 sides who was banned for trafficing in Anabolic steriods.

That is very scary.

MrsP wrote:Totally agree with pretty much all of that Secret. Maybe I should have said that it was unfair to imply that pulling out of a championship was always because of trying to avoid being tested.

But we must be free to question and expose.

Ditto. My understanding is the drug screening in rugby isn't as rigorous as many other sports. If that's true, and we know how easy has been for other athletes to get around tests, then we have to believe their is a potential issue. Especially with the high profile cases that have come out of cycling, athletics and swimming. There's a reasonably big issue come to light in league in Australia, we know that a significant portion of South African juniors tested positive in there own tests. Given the interconnectedness of the world it's hard to imagine it's not a potential issue in lots of places. Lack of positive test means little as we know from recent experience. The size and muscularity of young players is concern enough. I would think NZ is at risk like everyone else.

All countries will be at risk but the rugby culture in some countries SA. Eng, Arg???? is for huge muscular men and in some its more about athletisim and ball playing skills - NZ / Aus???

Performance enhancing drugs can be used in different ways - to bulk up. to recover faster, to allow you to train harder and to give you a bit of a boost before a game. Its not just as simple as putting on muscle bulk.

DeludedOptimistorjustDave wrote:Also i know a lot of people don't like talking about race but no denying that some races have massive men before they even enter a gym,
Watching a program on the south sea Islands it showed the fishing villages with very little to do not a gym in sight but the guys were huge, they followed one down to the beach to check his nets and he caught a shark he hooked it under it jaw picked it up with one arm and slung it over his shoulder and walked it back they weighed it,it was 80kg!!!
Was that nature or nurture? who knows but it is not uncommon to see some cultures produce massive teenagers.

This reminds when I went on holiday in Fiji. There was an incoming storm so the locals were re-enforcing the sea defences. This basically consisted of cutting down trees and piling them on the beach. The guys would just toss a tree trunk over their shoulder like it was nothing! Some of them had the physique of your stereotypical Fijian rugby player, but some of the guys were tiny and still had freakish strength.

Cheers regarding the manager traffic steroids MrsP.

Sometimes people have to use sense. The average rugby playing big school tests for Steroids now. Kids simply lack the finances or the nous to be buying illegal supplements which could beat even the most basic of tests. If kids are passing Tests (and not the mathematic kind) they're getting help from higher up, and when that's the case... I think we've basically lost the war on doping.

pledgeX wrote:

DeludedOptimistorjustDave wrote:Also i know a lot of people don't like talking about race but no denying that some races have massive men before they even enter a gym,
Watching a program on the south sea Islands it showed the fishing villages with very little to do not a gym in sight but the guys were huge, they followed one down to the beach to check his nets and he caught a shark he hooked it under it jaw picked it up with one arm and slung it over his shoulder and walked it back they weighed it,it was 80kg!!!
Was that nature or nurture? who knows but it is not uncommon to see some cultures produce massive teenagers.

This reminds when I went on holiday in Fiji. There was an incoming storm so the locals were re-enforcing the sea defences. This basically consisted of cutting down trees and piling them on the beach. The guys would just toss a tree trunk over their shoulder like it was nothing! Some of them had the physique of your stereotypical Fijian rugby player, but some of the guys were tiny and still had freakish strength.

My boys play with a lot of islanders. My eldest is 10, 5 ft 5 and about 9 or 10 stone. I.e. He's large for his age for a pakeha boy. He's average size in his team, some of the kids are massive, additionally these kids are athletic, powerful and skilful. They're all playing up grades.

You have to consider the incentive to take performance enhancing substances on a number of levels;
- the player
- the coaching staff
- the club
- the league
- the country
- the union

Then you also have to consider;
- what are the benefits of it being taken
- what are the implications of being caught (or it becoming public, not necessarily the same)


The most dangerous thing is that rugby becomes a brand, and if the people in charge are subconsciously aware or frightened that there might be something untoward going on, they might feel an incentive to protect that brand, limiting drug testing and the complexity of drug testing in order to minimise the chance of having to deal with adverse results. Most sports are ultimately corrupted when this step is taken (be it roids in baseball, EPO in cycling), on the sporting bodies starting feeling that an adverse result is an indictment on them drug taking becomes rife and is much harder to stamp out.

I suspect what we will see is a ramping up of testing both methods and frequency as has happened in cycling. Its now much harder to dope in cycling and impossible to do to the same extent as ten years ago. Blood tests, blood passports, multiple testing every player every year

.............who knows................ ............... more harsh testing might EVEN finally re-open some of that lovely SPACE that most rugby followers complain about not being there in recent years.

So, no more rule changes to open up things, no more growling at the plodding ref but simply - perhaps - more players feeling the effects of 80 minutes quicker on their legs and lungs and leaving some space like nice gentlemen should and did in the days of yore

Every cloud has a silver lining........

My other sport is weightlifting, and according to a recent report (which I can't find now) rugby has a bigger drug problem, which is quite an achievement.
http://www.allthingsgym.com/2014wwc/

If you can't trust North Korean weightlifters, who can you trust?

thebandwagonsociety wrote:You have to consider the incentive to take performance enhancing substances on a number of levels;
- the player
- the coaching staff
- the club
- the league
- the country
- the union

Then you also have to consider;
- what are the benefits of it being taken
- what are the implications of being caught (or it becoming public, not necessarily the same)

Well I'd imagine in a sport like rugby - where all things being equal in terms of skill - size and physical capabilities can be the difference between having a career and not, getting selected and not, the risk vs reward ratio is stacked in favour of taking something.

cakeordeath wrote:My other sport is weightlifting, and according to a recent report (which I can't find now) rugby has a bigger drug problem, which is quite an achievement.
http://www.allthingsgym.com/2014wwc/

Just starting out my hand at weightlifting alone just for myself no coaching or comp aspirations, i have years of standard gym rat lifting and the last 6 years of powerlifing all to a respectful strength but the snatch made me feel mortal for the first time ever,
do you have any useful websites? etc which can perfect the art. Always happy to learn.

blackcanelion wrote:

pledgeX wrote:

DeludedOptimistorjustDave wrote:Also i know a lot of people don't like talking about race but no denying that some races have massive men before they even enter a gym,
Watching a program on the south sea Islands it showed the fishing villages with very little to do not a gym in sight but the guys were huge, they followed one down to the beach to check his nets and he caught a shark he hooked it under it jaw picked it up with one arm and slung it over his shoulder and walked it back they weighed it,it was 80kg!!!
Was that nature or nurture? who knows but it is not uncommon to see some cultures produce massive teenagers.

This reminds when I went on holiday in Fiji. There was an incoming storm so the locals were re-enforcing the sea defences. This basically consisted of cutting down trees and piling them on the beach. The guys would just toss a tree trunk over their shoulder like it was nothing! Some of them had the physique of your stereotypical Fijian rugby player, but some of the guys were tiny and still had freakish strength.

My boys play with a lot of islanders. My eldest is 10, 5 ft 5 and about 9 or 10 stone. I.e. He's large for his age for a pakeha boy. He's average size in his team, some of the kids are massive, additionally these kids are athletic, powerful and skilful. They're all playing up grades.

 That would be a separate thread "Taro in Rugby".

DeludedOptimistorjustDave wrote:

cakeordeath wrote:My other sport is weightlifting, and according to a recent report (which I can't find now) rugby has a bigger drug problem, which is quite an achievement.
http://www.allthingsgym.com/2014wwc/

Just starting out my hand at weightlifting alone just for myself no coaching or comp aspirations, i have years of standard gym rat lifting and the last 6 years of powerlifing all to a respectful strength but the snatch made me feel mortal for the first time ever,
do you have any useful websites? etc which can perfect the art. Always happy to learn.

Yeah, snatch and clean and jerk are humbling when you move from a powerlifting background.

Some of my favourite sites.
http://www.catalystathletics.com/
http://www.pendlayforum.com/
http://www.pendlay.com/A-Training-System-for-Beginning-Olympic-Weightlifters_df_90.html
http://danjohn.net/beginners/
http://lifthard.com/
http://firstpull.net/

cakeordeath wrote:

DeludedOptimistorjustDave wrote:

cakeordeath wrote:My other sport is weightlifting, and according to a recent report (which I can't find now) rugby has a bigger drug problem, which is quite an achievement.
http://www.allthingsgym.com/2014wwc/

Just starting out my hand at weightlifting alone just for myself no coaching or comp aspirations, i have years of standard gym rat lifting and the last 6 years of powerlifing all to a respectful strength but the snatch made me feel mortal for the first time ever,
do you have any useful websites? etc which can perfect the art. Always happy to learn.

Yeah, snatch and clean and jerk are humbling when you move from a powerlifting background.

Some of my favourite sites.
http://www.catalystathletics.com/
http://www.pendlayforum.com/
http://www.pendlay.com/A-Training-System-for-Beginning-Olympic-Weightlifters_df_90.html
http://danjohn.net/beginners/
http://lifthard.com/
http://firstpull.net/

Thanks for the reply mate really appreciate that

kingraf wrote:Honestly have no idea Fa. Like I said, my school wouldn't let anyone play without their parents consenting to drug tests, and I'd say most (confidently peg 90+%) kids, like me, simply couldn't afford the high end cycle steroids which don't show up on tests, nor would they know the shady people necessary. I know this because I've got a mate who dabbled in dealing. No kid, and I'd wager young professional buys the good stuff which beats tests without their parents assisting. That's why the club game is overrun at the moment. The top club players get paid but not tested.

As for higher levels, what board tests them? I rate the South African Institute for drug free sport quite highly. They caught a positice sample in Darryl Impey which even WADA missed. If the professional levels get tested by them, then that's good enough for me. If they beat testing, then we head into another conversation about what constitutes doping. Which, IMO, is a long overdue conversation

Am I being a little naive? but dont you South African guys think 12 positive steroid returns out of 52 schoolboy rugby players tested, is a little high?

Depends. Naive about what exactly. 12/52 sounds high off the bat, but there needs to be context. Is it 12 random tests out of fifty-two? If it's 52 kids who had suspicious clouds over them, then no, not so much. The number itself is high, but does speak about said earlier, they're all testing positive because they are buying cheap stuff.

I haven't said SA doesn't have a youth steroid problem, although, I really don't think so - what I did say though, was that they are hardly on Power pellets which can't be screened, which I think is shown there.

If theres 12 positive tests it definitely does have a problem random sample or not. As you suggest though i think it runs through all nations.

Yes it is a large percentage, but context is key. If we had the same study say 0/52 tested positive, one would be rightly admonished for using it to suggest SA rugby has a steroid problem, given the fact that we have 600, 000+ rugby players. I was tested five times during my two years as a first team player... I'd expect the rest of the team had similar numbers. No study released claiming "St. so and so had zero positive tests out of nearly 100". In 2011 51% of the u/18 national week participants were tested. One positive test. That's what? 1/170+? Which looks a lot different than 12/52.

TJ wrote:On testing.  large number od athletes in track and feild now known to have doped never failed tests despite being tested often.   Why - they are one step ahead of the testing authorities.  Armstrong for example - stored urine tested positive for EPO but when he took the EPO no test was avaialable
I don't think its as big in rugby as it was in cycling - but if you don't think a significant % of professional players don't use performance enhancing drugs you have your head in the sand.

Just taking a portion of TJ's post but I couldn't agree more with everything he has said.  I believe that in Rugby drug abuse is not as prevalent as in some other sports, but it is there without question.  If there is a competition of any sort which requires power, speed, endurance, agility, quick recovery, etc. and you will find abuse.  And the labs making this stuff will always be one step ahead of the testing capability.    

To me we are dealing with criminal behaviour.   Anyone who manufacturers or traffics in illegal substances should be dealt with.  The problem is how intrusive we want the police to be.  And that takes us back to more frequent testing.  And in American sport we do see some positive results from more testing.  Problem is, I think, no perfect solution exists at the moment.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Well Hammer, from the results I have witnessed in my gym and they are only using Creatine (as opposed to steroids) I would say its far from useless.

Presumably the protein powder culture now is incomparable to what it was then? 1991 was amateur for frick sake, now kids are in rugby academies from their early teens...

The elephant in the room is that behind dressing room doors taking PEDs isn't deemed wrong, just par for the course. That applies to most sports, not just rugby.

In US culture taking PEDs is glamorized rather than demonized - look at Barry Bonds and MacGuire in baseball, in pro Boxing its ignored ....its just a cultural norm over there.

When you hear from ex players saying they've never seen anyone take anything then that to me highlights the code of silence that exists amongst players, coaches etc.

Yes... I'm always suspicious, I have to say it, of the chorus of "I ain't never saw nothing in all my time" comments coming from ex-players when these topics come up - and mostly those comments come automatically.  Nobody really asks these guys to comment but the subconscious lunge is to get those comments out there.  Like a reflex reaction.  Remember auld Max Clifford bullschitting wherever he could get a camera on him about the Savile scandal?  Now there was a guy needlessly getting involved in an issue that allegedly had little to do with him at the time.  And we all know how that one turned out!

If a rugby player knows he's in a climate where drug chat and advice isn't the norm, then he realises pretty damn quick that he's on his own.  Therefore it's not likely that his team mates (the 'ain't seen nothing' guys) would see him with needles dangling from his thigh veins, is it?  
But if those guys who saw nothing were more honest, they'd have been able to distinguish the results of hard work in their camps over guys who seemed to gain much more than they did from the same hard work.  They ain't dumb, players.  If a cat swims like an otter and all the other cats on the team still cant swim even though they do the same training, then the cat is probably a rat  

And the other scenario; if a player was in a climate where a bunch of players did it, then he is pretty likely to either have indulged himself (therefore the denials) or is keeping omerta to protect some old friends (therefore the denials).

I'd prefer to hear ex-players just acknowledge a truth and move on:  "Yeah, it probably happened in my day with some players but they weren't exactly telegraphing it to me openly so I can't name names.  But yep, it probably happens a percentage of the time in our sport".  That kind of comment to me would mean much more than the instinctive denials.

DeludedOptimistorjustDave wrote:

cakeordeath wrote:

DeludedOptimistorjustDave wrote:

cakeordeath wrote:My other sport is weightlifting, and according to a recent report (which I can't find now) rugby has a bigger drug problem, which is quite an achievement.
http://www.allthingsgym.com/2014wwc/

Just starting out my hand at weightlifting alone just for myself no coaching or comp aspirations, i have years of standard gym rat lifting and the last 6 years of powerlifing all to a respectful strength but the snatch made me feel mortal for the first time ever,
do you have any useful websites? etc which can perfect the art. Always happy to learn.

Yeah, snatch and clean and jerk are humbling when you move from a powerlifting background.

Some of my favourite sites.
http://www.catalystathletics.com/
http://www.pendlayforum.com/
http://www.pendlay.com/A-Training-System-for-Beginning-Olympic-Weightlifters_df_90.html
http://danjohn.net/beginners/
http://lifthard.com/
http://firstpull.net/

Thanks for the reply mate really appreciate that

Those are all good resources but if you're interested in weightlifting I highly recommend finding a weightlifting gym/coach, theres a lot more technique than can be explained through videos, and since everyones body proportions are different, your lifts will probably not look anything like other lifters. Someone who knows what they're doing watching your lifts and critiquing is always going to be better for you than just reading a book/watching videos.

Also, you'll quickly figure out that flexibility demands are quite high, so its good to have someone who can point them out to you.

I'm not criticising fly, for one thing I'm sure there are legal implications here so I'd expect nothing but silence or denials.

The old classic line is "I've never failed a test", rather than "I've never taken anything."

In sports its usually only the people who are caught that break rank, but paradoxically they are the people that are least trustworthy, similar to a criminal who cuts a deal for a lesser sentence by giving evidence.

Other than that, what goes on in the dressing room stays in the dressing room.