Ashley Johnson Fails Drug Test

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/43843140

Wonder what the substance was? Either way, he's been very silly

After no failed tests in years in the pro game in England then two

Who else has been caught out in the English game? It's slipping my mind.

You don't see many stupid enough to get caught on steroids but worryingly when they are caught it's for recreational drugs. You'd have thought they'd be sharper than that. If not then Hardie should have been an ample warming.

I have a great deal of disbelief that a large number of football and rugby players do not have more failed tests considering how many there is in cycling (which has the best drug testing).

No 7&1/2 wrote:I have a great deal of disbelief that a large number of football and rugby players do not have more failed tests considering how many there is in cycling (which has the best drug testing).

Basically comes down to the fact that testing is minimal. Forget the stats, but a pro rugby player in England has a decent shot at going though a whole season without a test. Testing in cycling (obviously a reason for it) is a different world.

There was always the theory that age group rugby was under tested and hence ripe with steroid use. It being possible to get it out of the system before becoming high profile enough to warrant testing but benefit from the muscle development. Unsure how accurate that is.

Certainly cycling doping used to be rife but the introduction of biological passports and out of competition testing has meant that it's nigh on impossible to dope. There's more money in rugby but seemingly less appetite for such measures.

Margin_Walker wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I have a great deal of disbelief that a large number of football and rugby players do not have more failed tests considering how many there is in cycling (which has the best drug testing).

Basically comes down to the fact that testing is minimal. Forget the stats, but a pro rugby player in England has a decent shot at going though a whole season without a test. Testing in cycling (obviously a reason for it) is a different world.

I am not sure how they have a decent shot at going though a whole season without a test when on average they will be tested three times a year.

Exiledinborders wrote:

Margin_Walker wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I have a great deal of disbelief that a large number of football and rugby players do not have more failed tests considering how many there is in cycling (which has the best drug testing).

Basically comes down to the fact that testing is minimal. Forget the stats, but a pro rugby player in England has a decent shot at going though a whole season without a test. Testing in cycling (obviously a reason for it) is a different world.

I am not sure how they have a decent shot at going though a whole season without a test when on average they will be tested three times a year.

Seen that, but the figures don't add up really. 623 tests across 24 teams, 40 odd man squads, with England Internationals receiving extra tests etc. Not sure whether Senior academies are also included in the 623 figure as well

Don't see where the three times a year figure fits into that

Margin_Walker wrote:

Exiledinborders wrote:

Margin_Walker wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I have a great deal of disbelief that a large number of football and rugby players do not have more failed tests considering how many there is in cycling (which has the best drug testing).

Basically comes down to the fact that testing is minimal. Forget the stats, but a pro rugby player in England has a decent shot at going though a whole season without a test. Testing in cycling (obviously a reason for it) is a different world.

I am not sure how they have a decent shot at going though a whole season without a test when on average they will be tested three times a year.

Seen that, but the figures don't add up really. 623 tests across 24 teams, 40 odd man squads, with England Internationals receiving extra tests etc. Not sure whether Senior academies are also included in the 623 figure as well

Don't see where the three times a year figure fits into that

I suspect just as tests are weighted towards internationals they are also weighted towards the Premiership and those squad members who regularly play.

Looking at the table (pg 14) the article is based on, there were 229 samples taken at AP clubs and an additional 156 taken from Internationals (mostly by World Rugby). So a total of 385 that is heavily weighted towards those playing international rugby. At a minimum most squads are 40 players and with senior academy all will be more than this. We'll take the smaller number though for arguments sake at 480 players. All back of a fag packet, but I can't reconcile that with the 3 times a year average stated in that BBC piece.

Unless I'm missing something (happy to be corrected on the figures), a non international would have a decent shot at not undergoing an anti-doping test at all in a season

http://www.englandrugby.com/mm/Document/General/General/01/32/84/42/AntiDopingReport_Final2016_17LR_English.pdf