PEDs in International Rugby

Changed title as Dan Carter/Rokocoko/Imhoff were cleared of wrong doing.

------------------

So it's beginning? The exposure of widespread PED use across rugby... I'm a 'legalise all PEDs' sort of lad, but regardless this is not going to be good for the short term look of the game.

------- from the bbc --------

Dan Carter: Ex-All Black star's drug test 'showed anomalies
Former All Blacks Dan Carter and Joe Rokocoko gave drug tests which showed "anomalies" ahead of this year's Top 14 final, says French newspaper L'Equipe.

But the New Zealand pair's manager says both had therapeutic use exemptions (TUEs) - giving them permission to take prescribed medicines.

Simon Porter told the New Zealand Herald: "We have been aware of the issue for a few weeks. Our understanding and assurances we've had are all the documents around TUEs were in place."

ADVERTISEMENT

Carter and Rokocoko played for Racing Metro against Toulon in the June final.

L'Equipe says all players were tested by France's national anti-doping agency ahead of the final and urine samples from the two revealed traces of corticosteroids.

The newspaper also names a third player.

But Porter is quoted as saying the players were "relaxed" about the reports.

Only a bit of cortisone no big "deal".

People will wet their pants over this non-story

An anti-inflammatory medicine, taken under TUE.

Corticosteroids are useful medicines in dealing with inflammation and with allergies. Performance enhancing benefits are better suited to endurance sports, as they can lead to a loss of weight, including lean muscle mass.

I suspect this has only come to light because of the Fancy Bears hack and release of TUE information from Olympic athletes, pushing the whole issue of using drugs under TUE up the sports news agenda.

Don't get me wrong, I would be entirely unsurprised if there was to be a major PED scandal in rugby, but this isn't it.

dummy_half wrote:
Don't get me wrong, I would be entirely unsurprised if there was to be a major PED scandal in rugby, but this isn't it.

Gooseberry wrote:

dummy_half wrote:
Don't get me wrong, I would be entirely unsurprised if there was to be a major PED scandal in rugby, but this isn't it.

I agree. I'm still surprised there wasn't more made of Chilliboy failing his test a few years ago.
That was rather suspicious.

Further investigations will show that Ritchie McCaw regularly tested positive for "offside".

Irish Londoner wrote:Further investigations will show that Ritchie McCaw regularly tested positive for "offside".

I was always convinced he was using a masking agent. That's the only reason the refs never saw him.

If you look as fresh coming off a rugby field after 80minutes as you went on.............. it's probably a TUE.

Poor Ben Johnson - what he could'a achieved had the TUEs been out in his day. He could'a been a contender, that kid.

this specific treatment did not even really require a TUE according to the club (corticoid being injected locally as opposed to "ingested").

SecretFly wrote:If you look as fresh coming off a rugby field after 80minutes as you went on.............. it's probably

...Danny Cipriani when hes not had a lot of posession

SecretFly wrote:If you look as fresh coming off a rugby field after 80minutes as you went on..............

You're a back

dummy_half wrote:An anti-inflammatory medicine, taken under TUE.

Corticosteroids are useful medicines in dealing with inflammation and with allergies. Performance enhancing benefits are better suited to endurance sports, as they can lead to a loss of weight, including lean muscle mass.

I suspect this has only come to light because of the Fancy Bears hack and release of TUE information from Olympic athletes, pushing the whole issue of using drugs under TUE up the sports news agenda.

Don't get me wrong, I would be entirely unsurprised if there was to be a major PED scandal in rugby, but this isn't it.

Didn't Carter have a back injury towards the end of last season?

Would explain the need for the injections

marty2086 wrote:

Didn't Carter have a back injury towards the end of last season?

Would explain the need for the injections

..or more rest and recuperation?

I know your point, marty, but where have the days gone when an athlete who couldn't perform stayed away and waited until he could? It seems today, an athlete has an potential advantage if he has a 'condition', 'injury' or an 'illness'. Apply for the TUE and get a PED legally. Maybe just accept that you're not well and sit the game out?

SecretFly wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

Didn't Carter have a back injury towards the end of last season?

Would explain the need for the injections

..or more rest and recuperation?

I know your point, marty, but where have the days gone when an athlete who couldn't perform stayed away and waited until he could?  It seems today, an athlete has an potential advantage if he has a 'condition', 'injury' or an 'illness'.  Apply for the TUE and get a PED legally.  Maybe just accept that you're not well and sit the game out?

As dummy says its not a PED though in its true meaning. If its allowing him to merely do his job then why shouldn't he use it?

Why should he be paid handsomely sitting comfortably saying he has a sore back when a simple injection can allow him to do what hes paid to do?

There is a problem with the TUE system, at the same time theres a problem with the general public understanding not only it but the strains an athletes body goes and the pressure its put under and how prone they can be to not only injury but illness because of how hard they push themselves

marty2086 wrote:

There is a problem with the TUE system, at the same time theres a problem with the general public understanding not only it but the strains an athletes body goes and the pressure its put under and how prone they can be to not only injury but illness because of how hard they push themselves

I'd assume that many players have some kind of painkiller in their systems from time to time... hell even the magic spray can that they use on the field is a chemical aid.

That's not my point though.  The point is that two players this time were highlighted/isolated as having anomalies.... yet one of them at least had supposedly legitimate TUE forms filled.  So, we're back to square one - if the testers officially knew of the TUE, the presence of the anomaly wouldn't require an X 'for curious' to be put on the test form.  Are these TUEs (legal) disguising or attempting to disguise less legal aids?  That's a legitimate question.  Can some of these TUEs mask undeclared PEDs?

On the case of a TUE being misunderstood.  The TUE that Wiggins took was a substance that was specifically tested as a pure PED in lab conditions and was shown to offer quite substantial advantages in stamina and insulin metabolism... and the experiments were carried out on, of all people, two cyclists.  
But he only took this substance for asthma.  Quite a coincidence that a substance tested on cyclists should be the very product that's handy for asthmatic symptoms?  Does the general public really misunderstand or are they just less and less inclined to buy the 'legit reason' stories?

In Wiggins case he is well known to have asthma, there are differing medical opinions on the treatment used on him. Given that the TUEs were issued in the run up to the two longest races in the calendar isn't as dodgy as some would make out, you'd like to assume he would be training pretty hard for them and his body would suffer for that and his asthma would be exacerbated. I would question him claiming Sky had a no needle policy after he had used them.

The problem with the TUEs is there isn't a clearly defined system in place. Take Floyd Mayweather for example, he was given a TUE for IV fluids to rehydrate prior to the Pacquiao fight. Not in itself dodgy but it wasn't sought before the IV was given, it was only a tester showed up for a random drugs test that brought it to light and the TUE wasn't issued until a few weeks AFTER the fight by the USADA who were being paid to carry out the drug testing by MAYWEATHER Promotions and the NSAC wasn't notified until well after the fact. Throw in Pacquiao being refused a cortisoid for his shoulder that he subsequently had surgery on its an unchecked and unbalanced system that is wide open to abuse.

Christ Fly do you work for the FBS? It may also explain where you got your extensive knowledge of the SAS health and safety procedures from.

Gooseberry wrote:Christ Fly do you work for the FBS? It may also explain where you got your extensive knowledge of the SAS health and safety procedures from.

I could never of course say............................... cue Bond music as I ski off down the magnificent snowy slopes.

marty2086 wrote:Throw in Pacquiao being refused a cortisoid for his shoulder that he subsequently had surgery on its an unchecked and unbalanced system that is wide open to abuse.

This being my very suspicion. A system ready made to abuse.

SecretFly wrote: On the case of a TUE being misunderstood.  The TUE that Wiggins took was a substance that was specifically tested as a pure PED in lab conditions and was shown to offer quite substantial advantages in stamina and insulin metabolism... and the experiments were carried out on, of all people, two cyclists.  
But he only took this substance for asthma.  Quite a coincidence that a substance tested on cyclists should be the very product that's handy for asthmatic symptoms?  Does the general public really misunderstand or are they just less and less inclined to buy the 'legit reason' stories?

I think it's fair to question athletes that are on some TUE for a long period of time as opposed to a "one off". Specially if such product is a known PED. The rise of TUE athlete's in recent years is a real issue as I do not believe that there is simply more allergies and other specific conditions out there that require long term TUE...

whocares wrote:

I think it's fair to question athletes that are on some TUE for a long period of time as opposed to a "one off". Specially if such product is a known PED. The rise of TUE athlete's in recent years is a real issue as I do not believe that there is simply more allergies and other specific conditions out there that require long term TUE...

A fellow SAS man, I see.

whocares wrote:

SecretFly wrote: On the case of a TUE being misunderstood.  The TUE that Wiggins took was a substance that was specifically tested as a pure PED in lab conditions and was shown to offer quite substantial advantages in stamina and insulin metabolism... and the experiments were carried out on, of all people, two cyclists.  
But he only took this substance for asthma.  Quite a coincidence that a substance tested on cyclists should be the very product that's handy for asthmatic symptoms?  Does the general public really misunderstand or are they just less and less inclined to buy the 'legit reason' stories?

I think it's fair to question athletes that are on some TUE for a long period of time as opposed to a "one off". Specially if such product is a known PED. The rise of TUE athlete's in recent years is a real issue as I do not believe that there is simply more allergies and other specific conditions out there that require long term TUE...

The easiest thing to do would be to ban it. If someone genuinely needs it, they shouldn't get it because like everything else, the well meaning exception rule will be abused.

Some good points being made. Just to add on - pretty much every PED is for recovery. That is their point. Your muscles, blood oxygen etc will recover faster from whatever exertion you have engaged in with a PED.

On TUEs - Over 80% of olympic athletes have asthma. Is that realistic, all these high level athletes have asthma, or is it using TUEs to get a little edge in high competitive sport? I say the latter in nearly all cases. And I think that's fine! Just lets not use TUEs to hide the widespread use of PEDs. And EPOs. and CIAs. And all the other 3 letter words....

wolfball wrote:Some good points being made. Just to add on - pretty much every PED is for recovery. That is their point. Your muscles, blood oxygen etc will recover faster from whatever exertion you have engaged in with a PED.

On TUEs - Over 80% of olympic athletes have asthma. Is that realistic, all these high level athletes have asthma, or is it using TUEs to get a little edge in high competitive sport? I say the latter in nearly all cases. And I think that's fine! Just lets not use TUEs to hide the widespread use of PEDs. And EPOs. and CIAs. And all the other 3 letter words....

Pretty sure that is not correct, and indeed is not knowable (we don't have access to medical records, and the TUE system is not transparent). Could be that 80% of the TUEs that Fancy Bears have leaked are for asthma medication (although I thought it was lower, considering the numbers for general pain killers, anaesthetics and oddities like Ali Brownlee's altitude sickness medication and Biles Ritalin). or it could be a misreporting of the scandal in Norwegian cross country skiing, where most competitors were found to be taking asthma medication.

It's worth re-interating a couple of the 'first principles' points to all of this:
1 - TUEs are there to allow athletes access to drugs of medicinal need that would otherwise they would not have access to. Some sort of system like this has to be in place - how would you operate on a broken leg without anaesthetics and painkillers? OK, not saying the system can't be abused or at least bent quite a bit (Wiggins injectable strong corticosteroids being a case in point)

2 - The sample testing is carried out 'blind', in that all the lab will receive is a numbered sample for testing. They report the findings and then it is up to the relevant anti-doping authorities (rather than the lab) to investigate any adverse findings. If there is a TUE in place, then this is not a positive test.

Superfly does raise an interesting point of whether athletes should be excluded from competition for a period after taking medicine under a TUE - for example, in this case if DC's back was so bad as to require an anti-inflammatory drug, should he not be considered injured and in need of rest? It's certainly an argument I have some sympathy with, but as with most things you can find examples where it seems unfair. Swiss cyclist Faban Cancellara had two TUEs for weak corticoids, both times to treat allergic reaction to bee stings - should he be excluded from competition for a month or two just for that, when the treatment has an almost immediate effect?

wolfball wrote:So it's beginning? The exposure of widespread PED use across rugby... I'm a 'legalise all PEDs' sort of lad, but regardless this is not going to be good for the short term look of the game.

The moment they do that it becomes less about natural athletes and more about which union can afford to supply their players with the most PEDs. They have no place in rugby in spite of the fact that PED use is a lot more widespread than everyone thinks.

mikey_dragon wrote:

wolfball wrote:So it's beginning? The exposure of widespread PED use across rugby... I'm a 'legalise all PEDs' sort of lad, but regardless this is not going to be good for the short term look of the game.

The moment they do that it becomes less about natural athletes and more about which union can afford to supply their players with the most PEDs. They have no place in rugby in spite of the fact that PED use is a lot more widespread than everyone thinks.

The moment when it became less than about natural athletes was professionalism, in any sport. I literally cannot see the argument for why basic workout supplements like creatine, whey protein, BCAAs are grand (I take all three daily myself!), but steroids are not, except for the health argument. The health argument is important, ie protecting athletes from themselves, but I'd prefer no banned substances and independent doctors looking after athletes then the current regime across pro sports where athletes don't even know what they are putting into their bodies.

On your point Re wealthy unions - On the contrary, in a system where something is banned, the organisations with the most money/power are more likely to benefit then in a system where everything is in the open. PEDs are not expensive. PED ban avoidance is incredible expensive. Regulation nearly always benefits the rich incumbent who can afford to jump through hoops that smaller organisations cannot.

SecretFly wrote:If you look as fresh coming off a rugby field after 80minutes as you went on.............. it's probably a TUE you're probably a back .

There fixed it

Ok, what does PED stand for.....

Performance Enhancing Drug.

I answered my own question. Clever me.

I don't know much about this (thus my question), but if this story is about athletes using any form of substance under a TUE, my view is that this isn't a story about athletes at all, but rather a policy and medical discussion around proper grounds for issuing TUEs.

funnyExiledScot wrote:Performance Enhancing Drug.

I answered my own question. Clever me.

I don't know much about this (thus my question), but if this story is about athletes using any form of substance under a TUE, my view is that this isn't a story about athletes at all, but rather a policy and medical discussion around proper grounds for issuing TUEs.

I think you're right on all counts. This isn't really a scandal brewing as far as I can see.

The thing is, I think everyone who has said that we're due a big scandal is correct. Given how much of rugby is determined by size, speed and strength and how much pressure players are under to keep getting bigger, faster and stronger there is no chance that PEDs aren't being used in this sport- a lot. In my mind if you put super competitive athletes, pressure to keep winning, pressure to keep getting more and more out of your body and complacency over drugs testing together- you get PEDs.

I think that rugby has a culture of honesty and integrity, so I think that corruption is far less widespread in rugby than it is in other sports. But that only means that its probably just fairly widespread as opposed to being completely rampant. This is a professional sport now and sooner or later every professional sport has a big doping scandal. I don't know when it will happen, but its coming. I just hope that when it happens its not in Irish Rugby. That would break my heart, if I knew there were cheats in Irish Rugby*

*Cue PhilBB

mikey_dragon wrote:

wolfball wrote:So it's beginning? The exposure of widespread PED use across rugby... I'm a 'legalise all PEDs' sort of lad, but regardless this is not going to be good for the short term look of the game.

The moment they do that it becomes less about natural athletes and more about which union can afford to supply their players with the most PEDs. They have no place in rugby in spite of the fact that PED use is a lot more widespread than everyone thinks.

But right now its more and more about which Unions can supply their players with the best medical care, coaching and salaries. And thats down to who has the most money. If it was just about who had the best natural athletes, Fiji would be the World Champions and not New Zealand.

wolfball makes a good point in my opinion.

I think the comparison to BCAA's, whey protein, etc is a bit of an ill one - after all these are natural extracts from food that we use to 'supplement' a good diet, aid muscle growth and recovery. PED's aren't good at all. Arguably they're also natural substances, but ones that are produced in the human body - but they are created in underground labs by just about anyone and when used to enhance performance in sport it is usually 10 times that what a doctor would recommend (these type of steroids are made for cancer patients, AIDS patients, etc.). I can't see why private doctors would encourage its use in rugby, it just seems to be against the ethos of our sport. The only time private doctors are known to give it out is in pro wrestling. I can't see why anyone would want to encourage its use in rugby unless you want more players to commit suicide.

And to continue on from Mikey's point.  IF PEDs became Legal - then it would also be impossible to stop a company legally involved in a legal sport from gaining the usual advantages - ie sponsorship.  If a certain Lab was providing a certain Club with their legal stash of PEDs then I'm sure under industry and company laws you couldn't forbid them from using the link to advertise their wares to a greater public.  
So you'd have a known Rugby Club, followed by young and old, with a Drugs Company logo somewhere on their kit and advertisements telling casual weekender recreational gym guys or runners or cyclists or whatever - 'our stuff helps you do what our players do.  Buy it now and see the gains.'

Yes, see the gains in kidney and liver damage (slow and sly), see pancreas damage or insulin system breakdown, see kids want to be just like their heros; get the same haircuts and take the same juice.

PEDs are a huge issue in and out of sport. Every other person on the street seems to be taking them and I'm just wondering if people know the dangers of it when this substance abuse is so commonplace. A rugby player recently retired due to depression - this player has always been built like a bronze statue. So given PEDs cause hormone imbalance and affect a person's way of thinking can we possibly establish a link... I believe I've already alluded to pro wrestlers and how some of them end up.

mikey_dragon wrote:PEDs are a huge issue in and out of sport. Every other person on the street seems to be taking them and I'm just wondering if people know the dangers of it when this substance abuse is so commonplace. A rugby player recently retired due to depression - this player has always been built like a bronze statue. So given PEDs cause hormone imbalance and affect a person's way of thinking can we possibly establish a link... I believe I've already alluded to pro wrestlers and how some of them end up.

mikey you are missing a vital piece though, concussions also can lead to depression and repeated concussions can lead to serious brain damage so it could be PEDs, it could be concussions, it could be both or it could be neither

If you look at MMA fighters, with the improved testing in the UFC you are seeing a lot of older guys particularly those who fought in Japan needing TUEs for testosterone. Now as we get older it does drop and some need a boost but repeated use of it can cause the natural production to decrease excessively. You have someone like Chael Sonnen who apparently didn't hit puberty until his 20s and was diagnosed with hypogonadism but a UFC doctor disputes whether the previous diagnosis was right but the treatment caused his body's already poor hormone production to be even worse so requires testosterone.

Thanks marty, you're right there - a number of things lead to depression, etc. and as you say it could be that or neither.

That example there is a good one, sounds like it could possibly be cobblers as well. There was a huge legal dispute over a similar case in the early 90s - Vince McMahon and Hulk Hogan as well as several others were caught out. These guys were being prescribed it legally by private practitioners for some reason or another. Presumably in wrestling, concussion is lower down the list as a cause for depression and heart-attacks. If a TUE is handed out it's usually at the right dose.

Well like I said a while back; it would be interesting now to see what kind of percentages are involved in known asthmatics being encouraged down sporting avenues nowadays?
Yes, lovely for people with all kinds of medical issues to be given the opportunity to play sport etc.
But also I'd be curious if sporting organisations were actively streamlining the route through for such people to the top so that ready made 'excuses' were there for this new policy of letting people with conditions get onto a 'level playing field' with athletes unburdened by an illness. When does the 'level playing field' become a concealed advantage?

With wrestlers though there are other factors that play into it, in WWE they are on the road 300+ days with no off season, that takes a physical toll and back in the bad old days it wasn't just steroids, most were partying with what ever they could get their hands on be it booze or drugs.

Have you watched Bigger, Stronger, Faster. ? It was on Netlfix a while back but I'm no longer sure if it is. That was an interesting doc on the use of PEDs, mostly examining their use in wrestling, whilst also speaking to some former track and field runners.

Was still listed a few weeks back but keep meaning to watch it, theres a follow up called Prescription Thugs

I was unaware, maybe I'll watch it at some point this weekend .

So many high profile shows on PEDs - and yet whenever it gets a mention here there is usually a bit of a stampede for the hills by a good few people.

PEDs? What do you mean, PEDs? There ain't no PEDS in rugby. It's a mistake, it's an oversight, it's a misunderstanding; it's a poor lad that's injured, it's nothing to see here, folks; it's only an aspirin.

Heck even some pre and post workout supplements are banned. I think that's a bit on the ridiculous side seeing as I know some people who have been banned for two years for taking a bloody supplement.

I'd ban Ice.  Ice is the scourge.  Allows players to recover too quickly and unnaturally.  Not all the complex bodily repair mechanisms can keep up with the pace so players then go out and play again but heap repair issues on top of issues.

This post started as a joke and now I've talked myself into seriously considering the truth of my bull-schidt, and I might be on to something here....

Ban Ice!

SecretFly wrote:Well like I said a while back;  it would be interesting now to see what kind of percentages are involved in known asthmatics being encouraged down sporting avenues nowadays?  
Yes, lovely for people with all kinds of medical issues to be given the opportunity to play sport etc.  
But also I'd be curious if sporting organisations were actively streamlining the route through for such people to the top so that ready made 'excuses' were there for this new policy of letting people with conditions get onto a 'level playing field' with athletes unburdened by an illness.  When does the 'level playing field' become a concealed advantage?

Another consideration: is the sport itself making them ill? I read a very interesting article the other day (I'll try to find a link) that went some way to explaining why cyclists and swimmers had such a high incidence of asthma and subsequently TUEs. Yes, there are bound to be some cheating the system. But the article argued that in these sport the athletes moved vast volumes of air, and air containing many pollutants and allergens, for a number of hours at a time during training and competition. 4 or 5 hours a day of moving these vast volumes of air, maybe 4 or 5 (or more?) days per week. This can lead to inflammation of the airways and thus asthma. And this was suggested as a reason why we don't see so many asthma TUEs in sports like football, table tennis, etc. It's the sports that are high endurance, long duration events. The article was in some ways a defense of the apparent disparity between % asthmatics in the general population and % asthmatics in cycling. They were arguing that it's plausible.

So if the sport itself is giving them asthma, rather than asthmatics being channeled into the sport to allow them to take advantage of the TUEs, then we have to allow them to be protected/treated for the ailments that it might induce.

As an aside, I have 'atopic' asthma brought on by allergies to grass, dust, pollen, etc. Much like Bradley Wiggins by the sound of it. I get exercise induced asthma so use my pump before/during a run or bike ride if I feel a bit 'tight'. Weight training doesn't seem to affect my asthma at all. I use the same inhaler that Frankie Sheehan got banned for using when he forgot to declare it a number of years ago. Standard GP prescription stuff, but on the banned list. My understanding is that these bronchodilators just dilate the bronchioles to 'normal' size (that's person's normal size, I should say). They don't increase the size of our lungs or capillaries. So not sure there can be a performance enhancing benefit. Maybe performance enhancing to me in as much as I can now move as much air through my lungs as, say, this time last week when I wasn't feeling tight chested, but it hasn't enhanced me past what I'm already capable of. It just returns my lungs my normal size. It doesn't make my lung as big/strong/efficient as Chris Froomes or, more realistically, my mate who's a much fitter cyclist than me.

SecretFly wrote:I'd ban Ice.  Ice is the scourge.  Allows players to recover too quickly and unnaturally.  Not all the complex bodily repair mechanisms can keep up with the pace so players then go out and play again but heap repair issues on top of issues.

This post started as a joke and now I've talked myself into seriously considering the truth of my bull-schidt, and I might be on to something here....

Ban Ice!

A long cold shower can help around that though, maybe we shouldn't allow them to have baths and showers?

SecretFly wrote:I'd ban Ice.  Ice is the scourge.  Allows players to recover too quickly and unnaturally.  Not all the complex bodily repair mechanisms can keep up with the pace so players then go out and play again but heap repair issues on top of issues.

This post started as a joke and now I've talked myself into seriously considering the truth of my bull-schidt, and I might be on to something here....

Ban Ice!

Ban anas.

SecretFly wrote:And to continue on from Mikey's point.  IF PEDs became Legal - then it would also be impossible to stop a company legally involved in a legal sport from gaining the usual advantages - ie sponsorship.  If a certain Lab was providing a certain Club with their legal stash of PEDs then I'm sure under industry and company laws you couldn't forbid them from using the link to advertise their wares to a greater public.  
So you'd have a known Rugby Club, followed by young and old, with a Drugs Company logo somewhere on their kit and advertisements telling casual weekender recreational gym guys or runners or cyclists or whatever - 'our stuff helps you do what our players do.  Buy it now and see the gains.'

Yes, see the gains in kidney and liver damage (slow and sly), see pancreas damage or insulin system breakdown, see kids want to be just like their heros; get the same haircuts and take the same juice.

I think we need to separate a few things out here. A pharma company has strict limitations on what drugs they can advertise. NHS/FDA/EU rules prohibit the scenario you outline Fly though I can understand the slippery slope argument. Basically the law says certain compounds are illegal (cocaine/heroin) certain compounds are legal but have restricted use (what your doctor subscribes) and some compounds like aspirin are regulated lightly (pretty much any place can sell them to nearly everyone). Some PEDs fall in each category, but the point is, the sporting body has a list of what it bans, regardless of which legal category the individual substance falls under. So, if the sporting body lifts some or all the bans on PEDs there would still be restrictions on what pharma companies can advertise. (for the sake of argument, if coke is a PED, it not being banned by world rugby wouldn't mean Glaxo starts promoting coke).

The natural vs unnatural argument from mikey dragon I don't understand. Modern whey/creatine/BCAAs/zinc/calcium are also all made in a lab. Steroids are made in a lab. We are far from natural and drawing the line at natural when there are so many exceptions to that line doesn't make sense to me.

It was seen as "ungentlemanly" for athletes to train for the first modern olympics. That was the start of a performance enhancing debate that brings us to now. Once supplements started a rather arbitrary line was drawn in the sand. I think no line is much fairer. The strongest argument against my position is - an athlete who doesn't want to take risky substances in a fully legal regime, will be pressured to do so. I think that is very unfortunate, but in the end I think if you want to put a substance into your body, then who am I (or anyone) to stop you? Equally if you do NOT want to put a substance into your body you have that right.

Dan Carter the current World rugby Player of the Year, has been cleared of any wrongdoing.