PEDs in International Rugby

by wolfball Fri 07 Oct 2016, 3:59 am

First topic message reminder :

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.

by wolfball Tue 18 Oct 2016, 6:14 pm

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

Changed title to reflect the update, to be fair to the three players, but also to retain a valuable conversation on the use of PEDs in international rugby.

by doctor_grey Wed 19 Oct 2016, 9:40 pm

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

As he should be if taking only cortisone (cortico-steroid) injections. They are very common for reducing pain and inflammation, and are not the muscle or endurance building type of steroids. It is kind of surprising a drug test would confuse cortisone with anabolic steroids. They are part of a loose chemical family of ingredients (steroids), but with very different functions and impacts on the body. I really don't know of many professional athletes in any sport who have not received cortisone injections at one point in time or another. I get three per year in my left knee. No biggie.

Carter is absolutely right with this:
http://www.espn.co.uk/rugby/story/_/id/17831167/dan-carter-see-problem-using-corticoids-treat-injury

by Gooseberry Thu 20 Oct 2016, 10:30 am

doctor_grey wrote:
aucklandlaurie wrote: Dan Carter the current World rugby Player of the Year, has been cleared of any wrongdoing.
As he should be if taking only cortisone (cortico-steroid) injections. They are very common for reducing pain and inflammation, and are not the muscle or endurance building type of steroids. It is kind of surprising a drug test would confuse cortisone with anabolic steroids. They are part of a loose chemical family of ingredients (steroids), but with very different functions and impacts on the body. I really don't know of many professional athletes in any sport who have not received cortisone injections at one point in time or another. I get three per year in my left knee. No biggie.

Carter is absolutely right with this:
http://www.espn.co.uk/rugby/story/_/id/17831167/dan-carter-see-problem-using-corticoids-treat-injury

they are only on the "in competition" banned list. The tests do distinguish them.
I can only think they are listed (subject to TUEs) to stop people self prescribing or using them as a pre-emptive treatment, which I assume has inherent dangers if overdone. You need a physician who professional standing (and liability) to sign off use of them for a legit injury. I guess you know more about the potential issues with overuse of cortisone?

by Golden Thu 20 Oct 2016, 12:03 pm

wolfball wrote:
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.

Its one thing when your talking about a sport like cycling or running where its an individual endurance sport and your actions have limited effects on others. But in a sport like MMA or even rugby giving someone the ability to hit someone at unnatural forces or even to take punishment you wouldn't normally be able to, can have serious repercussions on the opposition.

It might be hard to distinguish what should be banned and what should be allowed but there has to be a line drawn somewhere. Lance Armstrong was on Joe Rogans podcast a few months back and he was of the same opinion. Only bring this up as it was an interesting interview if anyone wants to check it out.

by fa0019 Thu 20 Oct 2016, 12:43 pm

The difference between protein powder/creatine and banned drugs is that protein powder is just easier for athletes to source from one product. Everything in it is freely available in natural products, its just convenient.
Yet there is no food that can up your testosterone, no food which can seemingly reduce your pain sensors, no food which can increase blood production and efficiency.

There lies the difference.

So its grown in a lab... well so are half the products you eat from cereals (the seeds are mainly hybrid GM manufactured), animals will be chemically enhanced for food production and even drinks are generated to optimise nutrients. Its not as simple as lab bad, natural good.. as natural today hardly exists.

by Sponsored content

PEDs in International Rugby

PEDs in International Rugby

Re: PEDs in International Rugby

Re: PEDs in International Rugby

Re: PEDs in International Rugby

Re: PEDs in International Rugby

Re: PEDs in International Rugby

Re: PEDs in International Rugby