Laurent Benezech - "Doping in Rugby as bad as cycling" [MOD WARNING POST #1]

aimee1

given the sheer size of players and given the current injury percentage of 20-25% of any club squad being injured at any particular time, I would be stunned if there isnt some fairly high level of illegal drug use. If you go to elverys in town you will see supplements stands with leinster players images on the stand they are displayed on.

I know there are supplements which are not banned, but in professional sport there will always be cheats who go beyond what is legal

Bloodgate in 2009 showed the lengths people will go to in order to get an advantage, and that was done in a stadium with 15000 people present.

.ak

Slideshowbob wrote: »

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/dangerous-obsession-with-size-creates-bigger-need-for-answers-30785080.html

..... and we are all still wondering why PK took a step back from BOD's book????

I don't want to come across wrong here, but... It reads just like this:

Amateur player comes across doping in early years of professional rugby.

Years later former amateur player sees how big the the players are now these days.

Former amateur player adds 2+2 and gets 5.

aimee1

.ak wrote: »

I don't want to come across wrong here, but... It reads just like this:

Amateur player comes across doping in early years of professional rugby.

Years later former amateur player sees how big the the players are now these days.

Former amateur player adds 2+2 and gets 5.

Maybe, but how stringent is the testing in rugby. Neil Francis wrote a few years ago after the last WC that not a single test came back positive. Out of 48 games, if 2 players were tested from each team thats nearly 200 tests.

If Franno is right about the number of tests, Given the size of players I find it hard to believe that there isnt a blind eye mentality at some level or else the testing isnt up to scratch

CatFromHue

The 20-25% injury rate of a pro rugby squad is not a new statistic, it's actually been around since the game went pro I think, it's just caught the media attention now.

I agree with .ak in the reasoning of the article and I'm kinda surprised Kimmage hasn't started to talk about the recent WADA numbers which indicated rugby may have a problem.

Frankie Lee

I was going to bump this thread earlier but chickened out. Kimmage is doing good work once again, hopefully it leads to something positive.

Ressiot had good news and bad; the good was that he knew a lot and was prepared to help; the bad was that the 'Omerta' in rugby was worse than anything he had experienced in cycling.

ThisRegard

.ak wrote: »

Former amateur player adds 2+2 and gets 5.

This has been a large problem with cycling. I'm not saying this is your attitude but people didn't want to see what was there in front of them, and many of the early whistle blowers in cycling were ones that didn't make it because they didn't get with the programme. People wrote them off as having sour grapes, Kimmage being one such person to experience this.

Rugby now has a remarkably similar reflection to this.

Zzippy

Now that there is big money in the game, the temptation, and the rewards, are too great for many players not to try something, even if it's an 8-week course of steroids, as mentioned in the article, and staying clean thereafter - much of the gain is maintained even after the drugs are eliminated. People are naive if they think this isn't happening in Ireland too. I'd like to see a lot more testing going on, with players introduced to it from an early age, and know that it's going to be an ongoing thing throughout their careers, and a lot more frequent than it is now.

.ak

aimee1 wrote: »

Maybe, but how stringent is the testing in rugby. Neil Francis wrote a few years ago after the last WC that not a single test came back positive. Out of 48 games, if 2 players were tested from each team thats nearly 200 tests.

If Franno is right about the number of tests, Given the size of players I find it hard to believe that there isnt a blind eye mentality at some level or else the testing isnt up to scratch

Or they were all clean?

Fireball07

Personally, I would be very surprised if there wasn't some amount of doping within the professional game, even here in Ireland. I don't know how widespread it may be, hopefully it's not prevalent (or hopefully it's completely absent) but I'd be surprised if there wasn't some element of it among some top professionals.

CatFromHue

Here is the Kenyan coach's view on the drugs issue they faced

http://www.planetrugby.com/story/0,,3551_9529875,00.html

There's been a few rumours, or more as Berbezier said it actually happened, on drug taking in France in the 70's and 80's though

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/france/2996309/Team-doctor-adds-to-French-rugby-drugs-controversy.html

aimee1

.ak wrote: »

Or they were all clean?

I find that hard to believe to be honest. The players are getting too big and I dont believe it is all down to hard work in the gym. 200 tests out of about 600 players to not get one positive test to me looks suspicious. Much smaller fields in olympics athletics and they get much higher positive results. In my mind it doesnt stack up.

Befor the 2007 WC I watched a warm up game. It was when all kit suppliers went for the much tighter fit jersies and it was noticeable how bulky certain players had gotten even since the end of the previous season, even allowing for the jersey fit.

aimee1

.ak wrote: »

Or they were all clean?

I find that hard to believe to be honest. The players are getting too big and I dont believe it is all down to hard work in the gym. 200 tests out of about 600 players to not get one positive test to me looks suspicious. Much smaller fields in olympics athletics and they get much higher positive results. In my mind it doesnt stack up.

Befor the 2007 WC I watched a warm up game. It was when all kit suppliers went for the much tighter fit jersies and it was noticeable how bulky certain players had gotten even since the end of the previous season, even allowing for the jersey fit.

durkadurka

Well ROG has decided to wade in

@RonanOGara10: Can't sleep after reading @PaulKimmage article ... V interesting .. Maybe there's another reason why RWC2007 went the way it did...

Frankie Lee

There is "le dossier de presse" that Kimmage referred to in relation to the disgraced Alain Camborde. There is an obvious question mark over the players and teams mentioned although nothing is proven.

CatFromHue

durkadurka wrote: »

Well ROG has decided to wade in

@RonanOGara10: Can't sleep after reading @PaulKimmage article ... V interesting .. Maybe there's another reason why RWC2007 went the way it did...

What does that mean?

Is he talking about Ireland or the other teams?

Frankie Lee

Camborde was involved with Argentina and numerous French players.

barneystinson

CatFromHue wrote: »

What does that mean?

Is he talking about Ireland or the other teams?

Well if he's talking about Ireland, the drugs didnt exactly ENHANCE the performance much, did they :rolleyes:

durkadurka

Perhaps he's pointing the finger at the French or Argentina.

From an Irish pov both his form and Ireland's form stank before we played those teams .

I think he wouldn't have tweeted s comment worded like that if he was suggesting that it was related to Irish players

CatFromHue

It's almost as if ROG had some sort of dislike of the Argies.....:D

Fireball07

Unlesss he means that it disimproved Ireland's performance, I don't think you could blame that on Ireland's results... even if all the other teams were doping like crazy, we were really bad in the things we did.

ionadnapokot

Chiliboy Ralepelle anybody?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/article-1351317/Chiliboy-Ralepelle-Bjorn-Basson-exonerated-drugs-charges.html

And again!
http://www.espn.co.uk/scrum/rugby/story/229185.html

there is of course banned PED's drugs been taken. I just hope its not as widespread as the cycling.

durkadurka

durkadurka wrote: »

Well ROG has decided to wade in

@RonanOGara10: Can't sleep after reading @PaulKimmage article ... V interesting .. Maybe there's another reason why RWC2007 went the way it did...

to be fair i do remember (and i believe it was widely commented on) that players got wayyyyyy bigger in a relatively short space of time before that world cup but it was pretty much across the board as a matter of fact i think old hooky was saying the irish player where after getting to big

Sangre

The fact that there have been so few players caught suggests to me that this is actually a widespread problem (rather than the reverse) and the authorities aren't massively pushed to clamp down on it.

Giruilla

Wonder why rugby is in Kimmages crosshairs now..

Everyone knows the sport is riddled with roid abuse and has been for years.. but then again so is tennis, golf, swimming and athletics.
You don't dope you won't cope.

Slideshowbob

Giruilla wrote: »

Wonder why rugby is in Kimmages crosshairs now..

Everyone knows the sport is riddled with roid abuse and has been for years.. but then again so is tennis, golf, swimming and athletics.
You don't dope you won't cope.

Sure that's a great reason not to question things .....:rolleyes:

Seriously though, wouldn't it be great if all sports were cleaned up to the point that kids coming through won't have to make unethical and potentially unhealthy choices.

Apart from that, taking PEDs is very unfair on those who decide not to cheat

Giruilla

Slideshowbob wrote: »

Sure that's a great reason not to question things .....:rolleyes:

Of course it's a reason to question things, where did I say it wasn't.

The thing is it's an endemic problem among any sports with significant money involved, and Kimmage should know this.. so I don't get why he's pussyfooting around the issue in rugby which everyone already know's is there.

I'm beginning to feel any sportspeople in a sport currently suffering from lax testing should feel entitled to juice.

Cyber Ghost

Doesn't surprise me at all.

The size of the ****ers.

aimee1

Giruilla wrote: »

The thing is it's an endemic problem among any sports with significant money involved, and Kimmage should know this.. so I don't get why he's pussyfooting around the issue in rugby which everyone already know's is there.

Given his history and legal battles, I think he is going to thread carefully.

its_phil

First off, I think Kimmage is a brilliant writer. In any sport there are drugs, that is beyond a shadow of a doubt and I know players at schools level from years ago who have done it. But I take issue with Kimmage's article in that he is basing everything off of the word of one player who has not played the game for a long time with no connections to the modern professional game. It's off the hunch of what he considers to be abnormal sizes. There just isn't enough there to say this is a widespread problem in the game. I don't believe it is a widespread problem of the game but I do believe there are a few idiots at the top level.

What I also don't like is that while the article is relevant, I think the timing is oppurtunistic considering the Autumn Internationals have just closed. It can leave a shadow over the game when it is a brilliant time for the promotion of rugby in this country and none of the information in the article relating to drugs in the game is from Ireland. It is from France, Argentina and Scotland. If he had heard an Irish player at one of the provinces was doing it, hands up it is a great article and time to publish. I'm more concerned with drugs being taken at professional level than amateur level seen as there are so many medical experts in clubs.

The other thing I didn't like was when he brought up the young Scottish player and the pressure on him to get bigger. Kimmage made it sound like the SRU were telling the lad to take illegal supplements. I have no doubt there was pressure on him to get bigger but does anyone really think that coaches are to blame rather than the young player? The player is an adult and if he is stupid enough to take supplements he alone should take responsibility.

Once again I'm a big fan of Kimmage but I think he should have waited a bit longer and digged a bit deeper before publishing.

Slideshowbob

Anyone got any theories on why Heaslip would have a hostility towards Kimmage?

https://twitter.com/jamieheaslip/status/539082264542736384

Cyber Ghost

Irish guys don't have the genetics to get to the size of the lads lining out for the national rugby team naturally imo.

They're not South Sea Islanders.

Teferi

Slideshowbob wrote: »

Anyone got any theories on why Heaslip would have a hostility towards Kimmage?

https://twitter.com/jamieheaslip/status/539082264542736384

Are you posting this in this specific thread because you think Heaslip has something to hide?

specttator

Too many snide implications in this thread. Any mention of any player prompts suspicions, not something which should be facilitated.

Bridge93

specttator wrote: »

Too many snide implications in this thread. Any mention of any player prompts suspicions, not something which should be facilitated.

Agreed some of the stuff is just being said for the sake of making a controversial, big statement. You go onto a thread like this and suddenly all of them are on drugs. Fairly disrespectful.

For what it is worth I feel the original title is complete hyperbole. Yes there is drugs in rugby, more so than your average sport I'm sure (just look st some of them) but I woild be dumbstruck if it is anywhere close to what cycling had.

Frankie Lee

Bridge93 wrote: »

For what it is worth I feel the original title is complete hyperbole. Yes there is drugs in rugby, more so than your average sport I'm sure (just look st some of them) but I woild be dumbstruck if it is anywhere close to what cycling had.

It was rugby's obsession with size - big is beautiful - that had landed Benezech in court. Fifteen months earlier, on the evening of March 2, 2013, he had driven home one night after a game in Paris, shaken by what he had seen.

"C'est pas normal."

This was not the sport he loved.

"C'est pas normal."

This was not the game he'd played.

"C'est pas normal."

How were these guys so big?

Two weeks later, when he had formed an opinion and expressed it to a newspaper, the writ hit the fan. In the months that followed, he spent hundreds of hours and thousands of euros compiling evidence for the case. His first call was to Damien Ressiot of L'équipe, whose brilliant work had exposed Lance Armstrong in 2005.

Ressiot had good news and bad; the good was that he knew a lot and was prepared to help; the bad was that the 'Omerta' in rugby was worse than anything he had experienced in cycling.

Their starting point was a crossover between the two sports and a doctor called Herve Stoicheff, a student of the late Francois Bellocq, whose theories on "hormonal rebalancing" had fuelled successive French cycling teams and champions since the 1970s.

The "Omerta" is worse at least.

Another article from Kimmage from earlier in the year which is focused on other sports too but in relation to rugby:

And what of rugby? In his autobiography, Joking Apart, Donncha O'Callaghan tells an interesting story about the preparation for the second Lions Test in New Zealand in 2005.

"In the build-up to the match they gave us a dietary supplement called Focus. For consumption you added a bit of water. It had the texture of paste and it tasted horrible but I never got such a buzz from anything in my life. There were no labels on the pot and they wouldn't tell us what was in it. I've no doubt it was full of caffeine and taurine, a key ingredient in Red Bull . . . In the first Test Paulie pole-vaulted over one ruck early in the match in a crazy manoeuvre and I've no doubt he was acting under the influence of Focus."

If O'Callaghan was a cyclist, there would be an inquisition . . .

What exactly is Focus?

Are these 'stimulants' the norm?

What about the ritual abuse of painkillers? Is that not doping?

In rugby, they seem happy to carry on.

http://www.independent.ie/sport/inherent-decency-may-be-the-most-effective-masking-agent-of-them-all-30409273.html

Bridge93

Maybe it's the Law education in me speaking but, as I do with cycling and athletics etc, I prefer to work off innocent until proven guilty. I find sport more enjoyable that way. If people are found guilty then by all means bring the harshest punishment down on them. Until then I rather believe in what I am seeing.

Cyber Ghost

Cyber Ghost wrote: »

Irish guys don't have the genetics to get to the size of the lads lining out for the national rugby team naturally imo.

They're not South Sea Islanders.

thats nonsense to be honest a lot of the team do have the frame to pack on the muscle paul o connells 6 foot 6 now some people this height will have issues putting on weight due to an overactive metabolism but clearly he does not have that issue and if thats not an issue his 112kgs fit comfortably on his frame. also most of the team would be athletic freaks from a young age so genetics really is a lazy comment.

galwaylad14

I'd be very sceptical on this subject to be honest. Given that it's a sport that where strengtg and physicality is among the most important traits it just seems outrageous that absolutley no one has been caught for trying to cheat the system, that to me is the most damning indictment of all, if people were caught semi regularily I'd be a lot less cynical. I reckon it's a bit of a cover up and there'll be a huge controversy in the next few years.

Also, from people I know who are serious gym rats they reckon it's literally impossible to get to the size some of these guys are without "enhancing", and what makes it even more unlikely is that obviously their whole training regime couldn't be built around the entire focus of building size, they have to prepare for a game every weekend.

Of course I can't point any fingers but there's a few on the Irish team I'd be very suspicious of but that's not to say they're not all at it. It's possible the guys that look "obvious" might just be naturally bigger than the "less obvious" looking guys when in fact they're all guilty of it. I'm really not sure.
And it could easily be the case that they might not even know themselves they're taking anything, they might be just given certain supplements to take and not be told what it is, like ocallaghans lions story. If we heard if a cyclist in the TdF that took some supplement from a packet with no label on it and no one would tell him what was in it and then he failed a drugs test we'd all either brand him a lying cheat or an absolute idiot.

But it just shows that the testing in rugby isn't very stringent if players don't think twice about taking a risk like that.

Giruilla

There's arguably not a team sport in the world more conducive to the benefits of doping from a cocktail of drugs than rugby.

A similar sport - NFL - used to not even test for HGH they knew it was so rife.

.ak

Slideshowbob wrote: »

Anyone got any theories on why Heaslip would have a hostility towards Kimmage?

https://twitter.com/jamieheaslip/status/539082264542736384

This is walking a thin line, and will result in having this thread closed.

No speculation on players juicing/doping/whatever.

.ak

Frankie Lee wrote: »

Another article from Kimmage from earlier in the year which is focused on other sports too but in relation to rugby:

http://www.independent.ie/sport/inherent-decency-may-be-the-most-effective-masking-agent-of-them-all-30409273.html

Again I think that's making noise for the sake of it. What we're talking about being a dangerous thing in the sport is actual steroids, not caffeine pre-workout pumps or using pain killers. I'm a big fan of taking pain killers before a game and I reckon most of the players I play with and against do to. Is that doping? No, ofcourse it's not. Don't be ridiculous. Despite us getting some sick from of satisfaction from running into each other for 80 minutes it actually hurts. It hurts when you do it 3 times a week. No player is ever 100% fit or pain free. It's important to dull that pain before a game or simply you won't relax and you'll be rigid and probably ship an injury.

It's only doping if it actually allows you to get bigger and stronger outside of natural means imo. Dulling pain or taking caffeine sups does not do that.

Actually, the bottom line is, it's only doping if it's a banned substance, and speaking of which have you seen the banned substances? It's VERY long. The guys can't even take a lemsip if they get a cold.

.ak

.ak wrote: »

Actually, the bottom line is, it's only doping if it's a banned substance, and speaking of which have you seen the banned substances? It's VERY long. The guys can't even take a lemsip if they get a cold.

Come off it.

If a biologist in a lab creates a 'muscle building pill' tomorrow and feeds it to a group of players that subsequently get huge benefits before the secondary level of (test drug, find impact, ban drug) that's somehow not doping?

That argument can only hold face if somehow the secondary level (test/impact/ban) happens before the primary. Which could only happen if the WADA etc were actively trying to develop performance enhancing drugs.

.ak

Deleted User wrote: »

Come off it.

If a biologist in a lab creates a 'muscle building pill' tomorrow and feeds it to a group of players that subsequently get huge benefits before the secondary level of (test drug, find impact, ban drug) that's somehow not doping?

That argument can only hold face if somehow the secondary level (test/impact/ban) happens before the primary. Which could only happen if the WADA etc were actively trying to develop performance enhancing drugs.

True - however I was speaking in a technical sense. But where do you draw the line? As pointed out above, there's plenty of supps out there that have benefits that aren't banned. Why not?

There's probably a deeper question. Should the sport (or any sport for that matter) but 100% pure? Because there's no black and white for me. Certain foods will give people an edge on things. Imagine if they banned caffeine (I know in certain quantities it is banned, but lets forget that for now)? Or imagine if they banned ingestion of simple carbs like glycerine or dextrose?

When I say if it's not banned then it's not doping what I really mean is if it's unlikely to ever be banned. That should exclude what you're getting at - the idea of players taking new substances knowing that said substances will more than likely end up on the banned list isn't the point I was trying to make.

For me I have no problem with using nutritional science to further your development as a player and as an athlete - things like what Kimmage was talking about in that article was a far cry from 'muscle building substances'. He was talking about what's common place on shelves now adays like pre-workout pumps or a feckin' nurofen.

Clearlier

.ak wrote: »

True - however I was speaking in a technical sense. But where do you draw the line? As pointed out above, there's plenty of supps out there that have benefits that aren't banned. Why not?

There's probably a deeper question. Should the sport (or any sport for that matter) but 100% pure? Because there's no black and white for me. Certain foods will give people an edge on things. Imagine if they banned caffeine (I know in certain quantities it is banned, but lets forget that for now)? Or imagine if they banned ingestion of simple carbs like glycerine or dextrose?

When I say if it's not banned then it's not doping what I really mean is if it's unlikely to ever be banned. That should exclude what you're getting at - the idea of players taking new substances knowing that said substances will more than likely end up on the banned list isn't the point I was trying to make.

It is difficult to know where to draw the line which is why something like caffeine has fallen either side of the line in the past however new substances not available to the general public are covered under the following heading in the WADA list:

• S0. Non-Approved Substances
• Any pharmacological substance which is not addressed by any of the subsequent sections of the List and with no current approval by any governmental regulatory health authority for human therapeutic use (e.g drugs under pre-clinical or clinical development or discontinued, designer drugs, substances approved only for veterinary use) is prohibited.

CatFromHue

What is legal and what isn't is one of the things in the first Kimmage article.

Is taking pain killers or a not on the doping list stimulant before a game performance enhancing through ingesting chemicals legal? Yes, but you are still taking performance enhancing drugs.

Declan Fitzpatrick took caffeine gum and ended up with some heart problems last season

to top it all, came last season's heart issue which saw Fitzpatrick hospitalised for tests after the game in Glasgow back in April.

That turned out to be due to the hit he took due to a caffeine gum intake prior to that game in Glasgow - the gums are a regular issue to players before games to deal with nerves and get them buzzing - after he had stayed clear of the stuff for some time due to the headaches he had been suffering as he made his way back to being fit to play again.

"Because I was suffering from migraines I had kept the caffeine totally out of my diet.

"We get caffeine gums (before games) and we all take them. Obviously I was a bit sensitive to it because I hadn't taken it. Then I got thrown on after half an hour because Ricky (Lutton) got injured."

The nerves from playing for the first time in a while meant that he just took the gums on board without realising the effect that they would have.

"I was feeling really tired and I didn't realise that at half-time it was because my heart was racing so fast, but I thought 'I'll take another caffeine' and took two more gums."

After playing on and feeling more and more weary he came off around the hour mark, "luckily enough the doctor who was there took me off," is how he describes it which resulted in him spending the weekend being closely monitored in Glasgow

.
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sport/rugby/guinness-pro12/cap-still-fitz-for-ulster-after-declans-ups-and-downs-30709049.html

daUbiq

Swiwi wrote: »

I do care. Those drugs have long-term side-effects, and I want the ABs to play other teams on a level playing field from that point of view. I don't want to read Carter's or McCaw's premature obituary because of cardiac side-effects of performance enhancing drugs they felt compelled to take because it was rife & widely accepted in Europe.

LOL - you're taking the piss!

I couldn't give a damn about McCaw or Carter.. :eek:

.ak

CatFromHue wrote: »

What is legal and what isn't is one of the things in the first Kimmage article.

Is taking pain killers or a not on the doping list stimulant before a game performance enhancing through ingesting chemicals legal? Yes, but you are still taking performance enhancing drugs.

I just think that sort of thing is a crazy analogy. Like, that sort of statement should be reserved for people taking asthma drugs like clen to burn bodyfat and build muscle. Players need to be able to dull the pain and if the opposition are allowed to take it then what's the issue? It's like saying if I have a cough which is bothering me and will upset my preparation in a game and I take cough medicine to help it ease then I'm taking a performance enhancing drug.

It's just far too pedantic imo. This sort of discussion should be kept to what's on the banned list. Kimmage is looking for something that I'm not sure is really there.

Are players doping? I'm sure there are some. Are they doing it at a high level, like international test player level? I doubt it. The culture is there at mid-level. I've heard about AIL and Championship players doing it. But what's the budget like for testing at that level? It's non-exitstant compared to tier 1 rugby imo. What Kimmage found in cycling was people actually injecting steroids into their arms days before a race. Do people really think international rugby players are doing that, or the equivalent? Do people really think the IRB who run these tests are covering it up, despite actually paying a lot of money to have the tests and to have a board in there in the first place?

No sport is clean, but I struggle to believe the likelihood that 'doping in rugby is as bad as cycling', guys being massive is not a catalyst to believing this imo.

.ak

daUbiq wrote: »

LOL - you're taking the piss!

I couldn't give a damn about McCaw or Carter.. :eek:

The poster is a NZ fan.

Giruilla

There's been arguments from specialists on the subject of doping that its in fact painkillers themselves that should be banned, and use of HGH that should be legal.

Thought process being that painkillers are more likely to encourage a player to play though an injury and incur a worse one, whilst drugs like HGH can vastly help the recovery process from injury.

There's a couple of very important factors to consider when we talk about doping and the idea of doping.

One important point is that our awareness and understanding of nutrition in 2014 is so far advanced compared to only 50 years ago that you could almost call a 100% whole food, naturally occurring diet that a competitor in any sport eats 'doping' compared to that of what was eaten 50 years ago.

Step one in 'fuel' is diet, competitors today know exactly what macronutrient breakdown they need to assist their task. They can tailor their carbohydrate intake depending on training types etc. This can mean muscle built quicker, fat lost quicker, mass built "cleaner", simply through understanding what your body uses what for. This advantage has always existed, but increased information is worth more. However, banning whole foods? Mental idea imo.

The next step from whole foods is into 'natural' supplementation. If a player needs macro nutrients such as protein or carbohydrate, it might be more practical to isolate and deliver these instead of having them eat a chicken breast and a cup of brown rice straight after a training session. Having a whey protein shake (which is a natural byproduct in cheese production) with two scoops of maltodextrin (extracted naturally from wheat) is more convenient and can happen faster, meaning that the recovery/absorption time is reduced, which is a benefit.

Next step again, 'lab' supplements. Consider that we have the chemical makeup of maltodextrin available to us. And a lab simply creates maltodextrin without any extraction from wheat. The difference between the compound created naturally, and that created in a lab is almost negligible. Given that the 'product' is almost the same, we cannot really ban one vs the other. We don't have tests for if someone got naturally occurring creatine (from meat) vs synthetically created creatine . It's also far, far, far easier to isolate and produce creatine from lab sources than from natural sources.

Then it starts to get really, really murky. How can I differentiate between creatine (above) and anabolic steroids given that they're both made in the body as well as being able to be produced with benefit in labs? At the moment, I differentiate because I'm told to by the WADA, I personally have no terms of reference in order to create these differences. That's not to say there aren't very clear ones, I just don't know them.

I personally, in all my training try to stop at step one, whole foods. That's me though. Are we eventually going to try to have 4 different types of sports? Depending on the level of "lab work", "natural substances" etc? How would we test and ban? If we had differing levels of 'allowed advantage' would any of them be seen as "more worthwhile" than another?