France's Primal Scream

France 'loaded' with amphetamines in famous All Blacks win

Each of the players was given 'a little pill' before the 'Battle of Nantes' against New Zealand, France team doctor of the time claims in a new book

France's national rugby union team was a vast consumer of amphetamines in the 1980s including in a famous win over the All Blacks, according to a new book.

"They each had their little pill in front of their plates for the meal before the match," the French team doctor of the time, Jacques Mombet, is quoted as saying.

Mombet said the drug-taking was most obvious when France played New Zealand at Nantes in 1986, in a match called 'the battle of Nantes' for its ferocity which resulted in All Black legend Wayne Shelford being knocked out and losing several teeth in the process, and beat the All Blacks 16-3.

"The Blacks realised that their opponents, unrecognisable from the previous week, were loaded," Mombet said in the book by investigative journalist Pierre Ballester.

France's rugby establishment did not immediately react to the allegations.

Ballester wrote a 2004 book on disgraced cycling champion Lance Armstrong in which he was among the first to publicly make drug allegations against the seven-time Tour de France champion.

His rugby book, "Rugby a Charges, l'enquete choc" (The case against rugby) is released in France on March 5.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/france/11432915/France-loaded-with-amphetamines-in-famous-All-Blacks-win.html

Don't think teeth were all Buck Shelford lost in Nantes, as I recall.

Vicious, just like a lot of matches of the era. The French were at the centre of a few of the spiciest, often against England, so the news about alleged amphetamine use wouldn't be the biggest surprise of all time.

...............................the ticking continues.

I don't think anyone would be surprised to find out that this kind of thing was fairly widespread. Not just in France and not just amphetamines. Instinct tells me that Rugby has a problem which is going to blow up in the next few years. I hope it does as well. Can't stand cheats.

I will look forward to hearing more unconvincing ex pros telling us they never had an inkling of anyone ever taking anything.

The South African team where c.50% were on prescriptions isn't suspicious at all and is totally consistent with the population.

I really do not think it is widespread in Irish rugby or ever has been.

mckay1402 wrote:I don't think anyone would be surprised to find out that this kind of thing was fairly widespread.  Not just in France and not just amphetamines.  Instinct tells me that Rugby has a problem which is going to blow up in the next few years. I hope it does as well.   Can't stand cheats.

I would be surprised. Never came across anyone on anything when I played rugby nor heard of anyone taking anything.

I meat an ex Prem academy player who'd used a few things and talked about others using too.

If it's happening in the Prem (or just below that) and it's widely known to be happening in the lower level games in Wales, I don't believe for a second it isn't also happening in Ireland. And it's just silly and ignorant, or burying your head in the sand to think otherwise.

I think it's pretty widespread in all sports. I'm constantly surprised it's only cycling, and to a lesser extent athletics, that consistently catches people. I guess when cycling is referred to as a sport full of cheats and you get all the Armstrong publicity you start to understand why some people don't want to turn over too many stones.

yappysnap wrote:I meat an ex Prem academy player who'd used a few things and talked about others using too.

If it's happening in the Prem (or just below that) and it's widely known to be happening in the lower level games in Wales, I don't believe for a second it isn't also happening in Ireland. And it's just silly and ignorant, or burying your head in the sand to think otherwise.

Silly to be ignorant? It cant be ignorant when there is no hard evidence out there. It is more ignorant to pretend you are an authority on something when really you are not.

A little surprised at the surprise at this:  One thing I can say with 100% accuracy is that stimulant drug use in Rugby is a fraction of where it used to be.  In the 80s and 90s it was everywhere.  Stimulants and pain killers.  Anyone who played then knows this is accurate.  This was not unique to Rugby at all, and absolutely mirrored drug use in other major sports globally.  So, unfortunately, no surprise.  Any statement from one team being surprised about another one is disingenuous, to say the least.

However, I believe this has been reduced to very low levels.  The same factors which drives this in other sports works for Rugby, too.  Greater transparency, WADA standards, professional level medical staff, fast information flow from and through the internet, and government investigations into distribution networks, just to name a few.  Plus the obvious understanding that stimulants really don't help besides giving a short term kick in the bum.  In fact, handling and logic skills go down.  It doesn't take a medical professional to see someone who is taking stimulants.  We can all do it.  

The problem today, as we know, are the PEDs.  There are new ones on the market all the time which either skirt the Standards or mask detection.   These will end up killing people, and already are in some cases.

doctor_grey wrote:  It doesn't take a medical professional to see someone who is taking stimulants.  We can all do it.  

Im sure there are plenty of people out there that people assume are on stimulants but arent at all. Should we therefore assume that George North given he for is age is way bigger and stronger than most and has already earned 49 caps is a doper?

Or that Cian Healy or Marler because they are physical outliers amongst props who tend to have much more flab are definitely cheats?

Im not sure what you mean doc but not sure I agree with you.

GunsGerms wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:  It doesn't take a medical professional to see someone who is taking stimulants.  We can all do it.  

Im sure there are plenty of people out there that people assume are on stimulants but arent at all. Should we therefore assume that George North given he for is age is way bigger and stronger than most and has already earned 49 caps is a doper?

Or that Cian Healy or Marler because they are physical outliers amongst props who tend to have much more flab are definitely cheats?

Im not sure what you mean doc but not sure I agree with you.

Mate, it seems you might be confusing stimulant use with PEDs.  The stimulants don't make you bigger or stronger.  They are energy kicks which make Red Bull seem like Sominex.  George, who I have met and examined in the past in no way appears a stimulant abuser.  And frankly, I doubt he takes PEDs, though this is only opinion and from clinical evaluation.  He is just a big lad in my opinion.  I do think it is easy to spot stimulant users.

doctor_grey wrote:A little surprised at the surprise at this:  One thing I can say with 100% accuracy is that stimulant drug use in Rugby is a fraction of where it used to be.  In the 80s and 90s it was everywhere.  Stimulants and pain killers.  Anyone who played then knows this is accurate.  This was not unique to Rugby at all, and absolutely mirrored drug use in other major sports globally.  So, unfortunately, no surprise.  Any statement from one team being surprised about another one is disingenuous, to say the least.

However, I believe this has been reduced to very low levels.  The same factors which drives this in other sports works for Rugby, too.  Greater transparency, WADA standards, professional level medical staff, fast information flow from and through the internet, and government investigations into distribution networks, just to name a few.  Plus the obvious understanding that stimulants really don't help besides giving a short term kick in the bum.  In fact, handling and logic skills go down.  It doesn't take a medical professional to see someone who is taking stimulants.  We can all do it.  

The problem today, as we know, are the PEDs.  There are new ones on the market all the time which either skirt the Standards or mask detection.   These will end up killing people, and already are in some cases.  

I find this interesting. In a popular science program recently they did a study which shows that people who habitually use coffee tend to perform worse than people who do not when not drinking coffee. The 'boost' they (and I) feel when they have a coffee basically brings them back up to the same level. On the other hand the US military were known to have made extensive use of stimulants to keep guys (e.g. pilots) working longer.

doctor_grey wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:  It doesn't take a medical professional to see someone who is taking stimulants.  We can all do it.  

Im sure there are plenty of people out there that people assume are on stimulants but arent at all. Should we therefore assume that George North given he for is age is way bigger and stronger than most and has already earned 49 caps is a doper?

Or that Cian Healy or Marler because they are physical outliers amongst props who tend to have much more flab are definitely cheats?

Im not sure what you mean doc but not sure I agree with you.

Mate, it seems you might be confusing stimulant use with PEDs.  The stimulants don't make you bigger or stronger.  They are energy kicks which make Red Bull seem like Sominex.  George, who I have met and examined in the past in no way appears a stimulant abuser.  And frankly, I doubt he takes PEDs, though this is only opinion and from clinical evaluation.  He is just a big lad in my opinion.  I do think it is easy to spot stimulant users.

I dont think he is either at all. Just looking for clarification on your comments. How do you spot someone on stimulants? What are the tell tale signs?

lostinwales wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:A little surprised at the surprise at this:  One thing I can say with 100% accuracy is that stimulant drug use in Rugby is a fraction of where it used to be.  In the 80s and 90s it was everywhere.  Stimulants and pain killers.  Anyone who played then knows this is accurate.  This was not unique to Rugby at all, and absolutely mirrored drug use in other major sports globally.  So, unfortunately, no surprise.  Any statement from one team being surprised about another one is disingenuous, to say the least.

However, I believe this has been reduced to very low levels.  The same factors which drives this in other sports works for Rugby, too.  Greater transparency, WADA standards, professional level medical staff, fast information flow from and through the internet, and government investigations into distribution networks, just to name a few.  Plus the obvious understanding that stimulants really don't help besides giving a short term kick in the bum.  In fact, handling and logic skills go down.  It doesn't take a medical professional to see someone who is taking stimulants.  We can all do it.  

The problem today, as we know, are the PEDs.  There are new ones on the market all the time which either skirt the Standards or mask detection.   These will end up killing people, and already are in some cases.  

I find this interesting. In a popular science program recently they did a study which shows that people who habitually use coffee tend to perform worse than people who do not when not drinking coffee. The 'boost' they (and I) feel when they have a coffee basically brings them back up to the same level. On the other hand the US military were known to have made extensive use of stimulants to keep guys (e.g. pilots) working longer.

Not just the US military and not just the pilots. In battlefield and high stress situations, it used to be frequent. As a coffee drinker, I absolutely agree that frequent use knocks one down a peg and the coffee brings back to neutral. Funny, I am having my morning coffee now!

doctor_grey wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:A little surprised at the surprise at this:  One thing I can say with 100% accuracy is that stimulant drug use in Rugby is a fraction of where it used to be.  In the 80s and 90s it was everywhere.  Stimulants and pain killers.  Anyone who played then knows this is accurate.  This was not unique to Rugby at all, and absolutely mirrored drug use in other major sports globally.  So, unfortunately, no surprise.  Any statement from one team being surprised about another one is disingenuous, to say the least.

However, I believe this has been reduced to very low levels.  The same factors which drives this in other sports works for Rugby, too.  Greater transparency, WADA standards, professional level medical staff, fast information flow from and through the internet, and government investigations into distribution networks, just to name a few.  Plus the obvious understanding that stimulants really don't help besides giving a short term kick in the bum.  In fact, handling and logic skills go down.  It doesn't take a medical professional to see someone who is taking stimulants.  We can all do it.  

The problem today, as we know, are the PEDs.  There are new ones on the market all the time which either skirt the Standards or mask detection.   These will end up killing people, and already are in some cases.  

I find this interesting. In a popular science program recently they did a study which shows that people who habitually use coffee tend to perform worse than people who do not when not drinking coffee. The 'boost' they (and I) feel when they have a coffee basically brings them back up to the same level. On the other hand the US military were known to have made extensive use of stimulants to keep guys (e.g. pilots) working longer.

Not just the US military and not just the pilots.  In battlefield and high stress situations, it used to be frequent.  As a coffee drinker, I absolutely agree that frequent use knocks one down a peg and the coffee brings back to neutral.  Funny, I am having my morning coffee now!

Same. Sod the effects of coffee it just tastes too damn good.

I believe stimulant use/state of the pilot was implicated in at least one instance of friendly fire in one of the gulf wars.

I've always believed that PED abuse was rife, and more so in some countries than others. Specifically steroid abuse at an early career stage leads to seriously bulked up specimens - gym work leads to specific muscle groups being strongly developed  - steroids work on most of them.
Secondly, I think there's quite a bit of abuse of drugs which enhance stamina. These drugs are so easily masked (as seen in cycling) that to use them is not a massive risk.
Let me finish by asking a rhetorical question: Are drug testing regimes in all RU nations equal?

Every time this pops up, there are people who Instinctively - rapidly - throw up the retort that there is no hard evidence.

Perhaps.  

Time will tell where the evidence is and where it might eventually come from.

But suspicion doesn't require evidence.  All it requires is for those who have been involved at the highest/deepest levels of the game - from all vantage points; medical, players, coaches, background staff etc - to start talking.

The talking has started.  The evidence, if any, will follow.  But so far, the talking has been compelling.  And the ex-French player that a selection of current players tried to silence in court, won his court case.  

So it's not sufficient to try to dampen down speculation by somehow saying people shouldn't throw accusations around unless there is hard evidence. And even more annoying is the growing list of ex-players or even present rugby people who respond to the media interest with a real sense of fury and dismissive grunts.

I could appreciate such responses if the specific players themselves were challenged on their own personal history.  But this is never the case and still the contempt for the very subject shows.  And I think that reaction talks much louder now than anything else.

If the proverbial player that is still playing, or has retired, if he is of the opinion that he never saw anything that ever remotely hinted at PED abuse then fine.  That's all he needs to say.

The topic though is not about their confirmation of the negative as it applies to their experiences but about the confirmation of the positive as it applies to other rugby people who are increasingly beginning to talk.

Those people who are talking shouldn't think they don't require evidence to stamp authority onto their stories.  But I for one am more than prepared to listen to them because, like some guy above suggests, titles and cups have prospectively been won using illegal means - and I detest the 'cheat' aspect of that if true.

GunsGerms wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:  It doesn't take a medical professional to see someone who is taking stimulants.  We can all do it.  

Im sure there are plenty of people out there that people assume are on stimulants but arent at all. Should we therefore assume that George North given he for is age is way bigger and stronger than most and has already earned 49 caps is a doper?

Or that Cian Healy or Marler because they are physical outliers amongst props who tend to have much more flab are definitely cheats?

Im not sure what you mean doc but not sure I agree with you.

Mate, it seems you might be confusing stimulant use with PEDs.  The stimulants don't make you bigger or stronger.  They are energy kicks which make Red Bull seem like Sominex.  George, who I have met and examined in the past in no way appears a stimulant abuser.  And frankly, I doubt he takes PEDs, though this is only opinion and from clinical evaluation.  He is just a big lad in my opinion.  I do think it is easy to spot stimulant users.

I dont think he is either at all. Just looking for clarification on your comments. How do you spot someone on stimulants? What are the tell tale signs?

Here is a which describes the effects and behaviours which are common with Amphetamine abuse.  NOt endorsing the organisation, but the information os good. It is the second grouping on the page which describes many of the outward signs of abuse.  These include passive/aggressive, nervous motions, bursts of energy counter balanced by lethargy, and so on.  When it was common, it was easy to see because the comparison to people not abusing was very stark.  Hope this helps.
http://www.narconon.org/drug-abuse/amphetamine-signs-symptoms.html

I think some people just want the "rumours" to be true so they can take their tinfoil hats off and exclaim with a big smug grin that they and their conspiracy theories based on nothing substantive really have finally been proven true.

I think a lot of people just want a story.

doctor_grey wrote:
Here is a very good web site which describes the effects and behaviours which are common with Amphetamine abuse.  It is the second grouping on the page which describes many of the outward signs of abuse.  These include passive/aggressive, nervous motions, bursts of energy counter balanced by lethargy, and so on.  When it was common, it was easy to see because the comparison to people not abusing was very stark.  Hope this helps.
http://www.narconon.org/drug-abuse/amphetamine-signs-symptoms.html

Thanks for that. In your opinion is it possible that other factors such as stress, high emotion, excitement etc. associated with the intensity of test rugby for example to reproduce similar reactions in certain people or are the symptoms that cut and dry?

GunsGerms wrote:I think some people just want the "rumours" to be true so they can take their tinfoil hats off and exclaim with a big smug grin that they and their conspiracy theories based on nothing substantive really have finally been proven true.

Well the French court didn't believe you about the lack of 'substantiveness' in the topic, guns.  And look at some of the player names who tried to kill that one. And we'll see where this latest accusation goes.

It's out there, guns.  Just like cycling.  Nothing fully blown out of the water yet.  But the hounds are picking up a scent.  Everyone who wants their side to be beaten fairly and squarely by legal methods shouldn't wince when the subject comes up.

But some seem to value 'omerta' values much more than honesty ones.

Just human nature though Guns isn't it. People will try and push everything to the letter of the law then beyond. When you consider blood capsules have been used it would just surprise me that drugs haven't.

GunsGerms wrote:I think some people just want the "rumours" to be true so they can take their tinfoil hats off and exclaim with a big smug grin that they and their conspiracy theories based on nothing substantive really have finally been proven true.

I agree.  As I said, I think amphetaimie use is a fraction of what it was.  They are easy to detect and very dangerous.  PED use is a societal issue and not a Rugby specific issue.  Obviously, they are used by some Rugby players, but I strongly believe not at a higher frequency than any other sport.  In fact, my guess is they are probably used somewhat less.  I think you said it very well, people are looking for things and conspiricies.  The way to reduce PED use, inlcuding the aerobic/endurance builders, strength builders, and so on, is more frequent random testing and criminal investigation into manufacturing and distribution.  Another unfortunate challenge for society.

doctor_grey wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:I think some people just want the "rumours" to be true so they can take their tinfoil hats off and exclaim with a big smug grin that they and their conspiracy theories based on nothing substantive really have finally been proven true.

I agree.  As I said, I think amphetaimie use is a fraction of what it was.  They are easy to detect and very dangerous.  PED use is a societal issue and not a Rugby specific issue.  Obviously, they are used by some Rugby players, but I strongly believe not at a higher frequency than any other sport.  In fact, my guess is they are probably used somewhat less.  I think you said it very well, people are looking for things and conspiricies.  The way to reduce PED use, inlcuding the aerobic/endurance builders, strength builders, and so on, is more frequent random testing and criminal investigation into manufacturing and distribution.  Another unfortunate challenge for society.

I think you're claiming it's all a tin-foil conspiracy and yet saying it's also a very real issue, doc.

What would the purpose of a conspiracy be?

SecretFly wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:I think some people just want the "rumours" to be true so they can take their tinfoil hats off and exclaim with a big smug grin that they and their conspiracy theories based on nothing substantive really have finally been proven true.

Well the French court didn't believe you about the lack of 'substantiveness' in the topic, guns.  And look at some of the player names who tried to kill that one.  And we'll see where this latest accusation goes.

It's out there, guns.  Just like cycling.  Nothing fully blown out of the water yet.  But the hounds are picking up a scent.  Everyone who wants their side to be beaten fairly and squarely by legal methods shouldn't wince when the subject comes up.

But some seem to value 'omerta' values much  more than honesty ones.

You have a great imagination fly.

GunsGerms wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:
Here is a very good web site which describes the effects and behaviours which are common with Amphetamine abuse.  It is the second grouping on the page which describes many of the outward signs of abuse.  These include passive/aggressive, nervous motions, bursts of energy counter balanced by lethargy, and so on.  When it was common, it was easy to see because the comparison to people not abusing was very stark.  Hope this helps.
http://www.narconon.org/drug-abuse/amphetamine-signs-symptoms.html

Thanks for that. In your opinion is it possible that other factors such as stress, high emotion, excitement etc. associated with the intensity of test rugby for example to reproduce similar reactions in certain people or are the symptoms that cut and dry?

This is a great question. I just showed your question to another doc here in the office. We agree that sport, especially at the highest levels generate significant levels of euphoria but also nervous behaviour, depending on the individual. We have all seen players get so worked up before a match they vomit, cry, even sometimes spasm. Some simply get hyperactive (or simply hyper). Others get very mellow. Our opinion is the behavious can appear somewhat similar for a short period of time, but eventually smooth out as the match unfolds. The abuser will keep these behaviour longer and the crash will be steeper. Does that help at all?

GunsGerms wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:I think some people just want the "rumours" to be true so they can take their tinfoil hats off and exclaim with a big smug grin that they and their conspiracy theories based on nothing substantive really have finally been proven true.

Well the French court didn't believe you about the lack of 'substantiveness' in the topic, guns.  And look at some of the player names who tried to kill that one.  And we'll see where this latest accusation goes.

It's out there, guns.  Just like cycling.  Nothing fully blown out of the water yet.  But the hounds are picking up a scent.  Everyone who wants their side to be beaten fairly and squarely by legal methods shouldn't wince when the subject comes up.

But some seem to value 'omerta' values much  more than honesty ones.

You have a great imagination fly.

Counter my points.

Did you read in detail about that French case?

You think all is pure in the rugby world. Grand.

I don't.

Have we heard from the French players yet who are accused of allegedly taking the pills before the AB game?

No? We'll wait and hear from some of them. And then we'll wait and hear what the accuser says in response. And then we'll wait and see what the players say a second time.

We all know how long Armstrong played the 'innocent' card. There could be a good few years of waiting on the rugby one.

SecretFly wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:I think some people just want the "rumours" to be true so they can take their tinfoil hats off and exclaim with a big smug grin that they and their conspiracy theories based on nothing substantive really have finally been proven true.

I agree.  As I said, I think amphetaimie use is a fraction of what it was.  They are easy to detect and very dangerous.  PED use is a societal issue and not a Rugby specific issue.  Obviously, they are used by some Rugby players, but I strongly believe not at a higher frequency than any other sport.  In fact, my guess is they are probably used somewhat less.  I think you said it very well, people are looking for things and conspiricies.  The way to reduce PED use, inlcuding the aerobic/endurance builders, strength builders, and so on, is more frequent random testing and criminal investigation into manufacturing and distribution.  Another unfortunate challenge for society.

I think you're claiming it's all a tin-foil conspiracy and yet saying it's also a very real issue, doc.

What would the purpose of a conspiracy be?  

OK, since I have now satisfied my morning coffee addiction, I can now answer you.  Regardiong the conspiracy theorists about PEDs, it used to be a lot worse, and, in my opinion fairly wide spread.  Now, probably not as bad.  I think people want to see big time, high level conspiricies in Rugby and in other sports and organisations to cover up use/abuse, comspiricies to protect distributors, protect the teams, etc.  I don't believe these are quite so prevalent now, nor high level, as these people want to believe.  

I believe the use is much more local and frequently user-specific.  No major protection conspiracies.  But that makes it harder to identify and stamp out  Clearly, there are distribution networks and users.  But, as I said previously, I do not belive this is a Rugby issue.  It is an issue in Rugby. And an issue in society. Is that more clear?  Or should I have another cup?  This is a good conversation.

I hope that there is not a cycling style crisis just round the corner.

What nags at me though is not how much fitter players are now - but that they recover from their exertions so quickly. PEDs improving recovery times between beastings are my real fear. Unions are starting to improve their testing, including OOC testing. However some of the most famous alleged drug cheats (Armstrong, Marion Jones, Michelle Smith, FloJo) never failed a drugs test - while EPO cheats were able to continue for over a decade until the testing science caught up with the cheating science.

But society takes care of its own business doc - in either parliament, education, medical systems involvement.

We're not talking about PEDs in society, we're talking about them specifically in rugby - whether used by lone players acting in secret from their colleagues or whether it is more invasive and 'condoned' at a squad or organisational level.

The only truth is that talking seems to have started - evidence will be required to bed down the gossip as fact or fiction.

But that's a process.  You don't get to the end without the beginning.  I say again, some people seem to prefer to sneer that beginning to evade the uneasiness of the topic.

SecretFly wrote:

Counter my points.

Did you read in detail about that French case?

You think all is pure in the rugby world.  Grand.  

I don't.  

Have we heard from the French players yet who are accused of allegedly taking the pills before the AB game?

No?  We'll wait and hear from some of them.  And then we'll wait and hear what the accuser says in response.  And then we'll wait and see what the players say a second time.

We all know how long Armstrong played the 'innocent' card.  There could be a good few years of waiting on the rugby one.

So far Craig Chalmers son has received a ban and Frankie Sheehan failed a test about 10 years ago which was proven to be as a result of an inhaler he used. There is also anicdotal evidence from a match 30 years ago and a very vague account from a French player also from years back about legal supplements. Heaslip also registered high testosterone levels that were deemed legitimate and natural. Im not aware of any other "stories" other than Kimmage sniffing around fishing for stories.

Yet you seem to be suggesting that there is widespread systemic drug abusing going on? Based on what?

It seems fairly unlikely to me that there is any systemic issues whatsoever.

I have discussed this with ex players, the former ARU team doctor, my father who is a doctor and a current board member of the ARU and I have never heard anything to suggest there is a widespread issue with doping. It is fairly unlikely IMO.

Why is it unlikely?

doctor_grey wrote:.
OK, since I have now satisfied my morning coffee addiction, I can now answer you.  Regardiong the conspiracy theorists about PEDs, it used to be a lot worse, and, in my opinion fairly wide spread.  Now, probably not as bad.  I think people want to see big time, high level conspiricies in Rugby and in other sports and organisations to cover up use/abuse, comspiricies to protect distributors, protect the teams, etc.  I don't believe these are quite so prevalent now, nor high level, as these people want to believe.  

I believe the use is much more local and frequently user-specific.  No major protection conspiracies.  But that makes it harder to identify and stamp out  Clearly, there are distribution networks and users.  But, as I said previously, I do not belive this is a Rugby issue.  It is an issue in Rugby. And an issue in society.  Is that more clear?  Or should I have another cup?  This is a good conversation.

I agree with you Doc. on pretty much all that.

GunsGerms wrote:

It seems fairly unlikely to me that there is any systemic issues whatsoever.

Systematic or lone wolves - or a bunch of lone wolves on the one team who keep themselves to themselves and don't realise the shared past-time.

But it's not exactly theory either.  Only a few short years ago we had big waves in Australia about 'team' dalliances.  

It's not exactly theory.  It's a lot of speculation - yes.  But it's not exactly all imagination.  The stories are out there and so are the accusations that require now direct denials from those accused.

doctor_grey wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:
Here is a very good web site which describes the effects and behaviours which are common with Amphetamine abuse.  It is the second grouping on the page which describes many of the outward signs of abuse.  These include passive/aggressive, nervous motions, bursts of energy counter balanced by lethargy, and so on.  When it was common, it was easy to see because the comparison to people not abusing was very stark.  Hope this helps.
http://www.narconon.org/drug-abuse/amphetamine-signs-symptoms.html

Thanks for that. In your opinion is it possible that other factors such as stress, high emotion, excitement etc. associated with the intensity of test rugby for example to reproduce similar reactions in certain people or are the symptoms that cut and dry?

This is a great question.  I just showed your question to another doc here in the office.  We agree that sport, especially at the highest levels generate significant levels of euphoria but also nervous behaviour, depending on the individual.  We have all seen players get so worked up before a match they vomit, cry, even sometimes spasm.  Some simply get hyperactive (or simply hyper).  Others get very mellow.  Our opinion is the behavious can appear somewhat similar for a short period of time, but eventually smooth out as the match unfolds.  The abuser will keep these behaviour longer and the crash will be steeper.  Does that help at all?  

Thanks Doc. and thanks for the response.

doctor_grey wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:I think some people just want the "rumours" to be true so they can take their tinfoil hats off and exclaim with a big smug grin that they and their conspiracy theories based on nothing substantive really have finally been proven true.

I agree.  As I said, I think amphetaimie use is a fraction of what it was.  They are easy to detect and very dangerous.  PED use is a societal issue and not a Rugby specific issue.  Obviously, they are used by some Rugby players, but I strongly believe not at a higher frequency than any other sport.  In fact, my guess is they are probably used somewhat less.  I think you said it very well, people are looking for things and conspiricies.  The way to reduce PED use, inlcuding the aerobic/endurance builders, strength builders, and so on, is more frequent random testing and criminal investigation into manufacturing and distribution.  Another unfortunate challenge for society.

I think you're claiming it's all a tin-foil conspiracy and yet saying it's also a very real issue, doc.

What would the purpose of a conspiracy be?  

OK, since I have now satisfied my morning coffee addiction, I can now answer you.  Regardiong the conspiracy theorists about PEDs, it used to be a lot worse, and, in my opinion fairly wide spread.  Now, probably not as bad.  I think people want to see big time, high level conspiricies in Rugby and in other sports and organisations to cover up use/abuse, comspiricies to protect distributors, protect the teams, etc.  I don't believe these are quite so prevalent now, nor high level, as these people want to believe.  

I believe the use is much more local and frequently user-specific.  No major protection conspiracies.  But that makes it harder to identify and stamp out  Clearly, there are distribution networks and users.  But, as I said previously, I do not belive this is a Rugby issue.  It is an issue in Rugby. And an issue in society.  Is that more clear?  Or should I have another cup?  This is a good conversation.

An interesting point there Doc. I tend to agree with you, I doubt that before a big game now the coaches go around handing out pills as allegedly occurred in France.
That said I know for a fact that there are pro players today who took things when they were of an academy age c.10 years ago. It seems unlikely that I have met the only bad apples in the world and it also seems unlikely that the senior squad members would have had no idea at all that it was occurring.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Why is it unlikely?

because in the professional era players are tested regularly and despite over a decade of professional rugby there have been no high profile doping related bans.

GunsGerms wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Why is it unlikely?

because in the professional era players are tested regularly and despite over a decade of professional rugby there have been no high profile doping related bans.

But you only have to look at athletics and cycling with much more robust testing to see people who did consistently get away with it. Is that the only reason you feel it's unlikely?

SecretFly wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

It seems fairly unlikely to me that there is any systemic issues whatsoever.

Systematic or lone wolves - or a bunch of lone wolves on the one team who keep themselves to themselves and don't realise the shared past-time.

But it's not exactly theory either.  Only a few short years ago we had big waves in Australia about 'team' dalliances.  

It's not exactly theory.  It's a lot of speculation - yes.  But it's not exactly all imagination.  The stories are out there and so are the accusations that require now direct denials from those accused.

Yes well I think Ill wait until players start getting bans before I get all excited about it.

GunsGerms wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Why is it unlikely?

because in the professional era players are tested regularly and despite over a decade of professional rugby there have been no high profile doping related bans.

And what do drug testing organisations say or hint at in the meantime?

They keep fighting to develop the tests required to catch the constantly evolving methods and the masking advances.

PEDs are a technology - a medical technology.  Smart chemists with PHDs are involved in formulating them.  They know the drills of testing and they too are in a constant game of developing methods to bypass the current testing limits.

It's a technological war carried out on the bodies of athletes the world over.

The drugs enforcement people would be the very first people out of the blocks to say they have won no war.  In fact they'd probably say the war is unwinnable but perhaps containable for brief periods.

SecretFly wrote:But society takes care of its own business doc - in either parliament, education, medical systems involvement.

We're not talking about PEDs in society, we're talking about them specifically in rugby - whether used by lone players acting in secret from their colleagues or whether it is more invasive and 'condoned' at a squad or organisational level.

The only truth is that talking seems to have started - evidence will be required to bed down the gossip as fact or fiction.

But that's a process.  You don't get to the end without the beginning.  I say again, some people seem to prefer to sneer that beginning to evade the uneasiness of the topic.

On that point we agree. To ignore is to put one's head in the sand. And then we all know which piece of the anatomy sticks stright up?

I think PED use had been widely prevalent in all sports, but is less so now. The reasons are that enforcement and testing have significantly improved, and penalties are more severe. Unfortunately, no one knows the actual use levels, which does justify investigations. The results will be the results and the end conclusions will make a better sport.

Look, I don't like these drugs at all. And are not minimising their use, nor certainly their danger. However, I do think it is harder for a Lance Armstrong to survive in the enforcement world of today. Fundamentally, I believe distribution and use is a criminal offense and should be dealt with in that manner.

Should Rugby investigate aggressively? Yes. Can we completely win? No, because there is always a better cheat.

GunsGerms wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

It seems fairly unlikely to me that there is any systemic issues whatsoever.

Systematic or lone wolves - or a bunch of lone wolves on the one team who keep themselves to themselves and don't realise the shared past-time.

But it's not exactly theory either.  Only a few short years ago we had big waves in Australia about 'team' dalliances.  

It's not exactly theory.  It's a lot of speculation - yes.  But it's not exactly all imagination.  The stories are out there and so are the accusations that require now direct denials from those accused.

Yes well I think Ill wait until players start getting bans before I get all excited about it.

Who is getting excited about it?  

All the topic seeks is an acknowledgment that it's a topic with a real hold in a real world.  It ain't fantasy.  I could name a player who recently responded to the topic as though it was - and what he was unknowingly responding to was real research carried out by a real journalist into a real case story.

It isn't fantasy, guns.  That's all this topic requires as acknowledgement.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Why is it unlikely?

because in the professional era players are tested regularly and despite over a decade of professional rugby there have been no high profile doping related bans.

But you only have to look at athletics and cycling with much more robust testing to see people who did consistently get away with it. Is that the only reason you feel it's unlikely?

both are endurance sports where your career revolves around knocking seconds off your personal best times. The difference between the top sprinter Usain Bolt and whoever comes second all the time is fractions of a second but yet millions of dollars. The incentives to dope are far greater in cycling and athletics and they are very different sports with different governing bodies to rugby.

I dont think it makes much sense comparing very different scenarios.

SecretFly wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

It seems fairly unlikely to me that there is any systemic issues whatsoever.

Systematic or lone wolves - or a bunch of lone wolves on the one team who keep themselves to themselves and don't realise the shared past-time.

But it's not exactly theory either.  Only a few short years ago we had big waves in Australia about 'team' dalliances.  

It's not exactly theory.  It's a lot of speculation - yes.  But it's not exactly all imagination.  The stories are out there and so are the accusations that require now direct denials from those accused.

Yes well I think Ill wait until players start getting bans before I get all excited about it.

Who is getting excited about it?  

All the topic seeks is an acknowledgment that it's a topic with a real hold in a real world.  It ain't fantasy.  I could name a player who recently responded to the topic as though it was - and what he was unknowingly responding to was real research carried out by a real journalist into a real case story.

It isn't fantasy, guns.  That's all this topic requires as acknowledgement.

I think it is getting caught in a landslide with no escape from reality though.

GunsGerms wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Why is it unlikely?

because in the professional era players are tested regularly and despite over a decade of professional rugby there have been no high profile doping related bans.

But you only have to look at athletics and cycling with much more robust testing to see people who did consistently get away with it. Is that the only reason you feel it's unlikely?

both are endurance sports where your career revolves around knocking seconds off your personal best times. The difference between the top sprinter Usain Bolt and whoever comes second all the time is fractions of a second but yet millions of dollars. The incentives to dope are far greater in cycling and athletics and they are very different sports with different governing bodies to rugby.

I dont think it makes much sense comparing very different scenarios.

I think there are obvious advantages that players can get from using a wide range of drugs. I would say endurance would be a huge benefit to rugby players. Like you said there's been no high profile cheats, given the rugby world is likely to mirror the every day world that is the very thing which surprises me.

Open your eyes
Look up to the sky
And See

I can see where this is going

Open your eyes and see?

Ha!

bet ya