Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

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

12357

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,290 ✭✭✭Oregano_State


    I dont think so either. I would guess strongly there s plenty of drugs beng taken in the sport. And I'm OK with that. Its great entertanment even if all is not quite what it seems behind the scenes. But as long as the facade is maintained, then the product looks good. I would hope this Kimmage phase passes without anything of substance being exposed. It is up to the authorities to both minimise the extent of it, and simultaneously, and more importantly, ensure that none of it reaches public knowledge. And so far, they seem to be doing a good job of it. The last thing we want is a cycling type scandal, exposure of past and present heroes, etc. But its a delicate balance.

    I agree that there's plenty of it going on, but that's where our views diverge.

    I couldn't disagree more with your attitude to be honest. You're going for the bury-the-head-in-the-sand approach and pretend everything's rosy. If some players are taking drugs, it creates and uneven playing field. The players taking drugs are gaining a physical and monetary advantage over those not doing so. It leads to bigger players, bigger collisions, greater damage and wear and tear.

    Taking drugs also introduces health risks. Anabolic steroids are important functional hormones in the body. Taking synthetic, exogenous, and clinically untested analogues of these compounds to increase muscle mass and sports performance can wreak havoc with the balance and production of natural hormones in the body. Testicular atrophy and gynecomastia are two examples of common side-effects in men. If taking these and other subtstances becomes the norm, we are introducing real health dangers to the young men who want to play this sport, also setting a bad example for teens and schoolboy players.

    In short, I think your view of the situation is short-sighted and dangerous, and I hope that there are not too many people with your opinion in positions of power in the sport.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 701 ✭✭✭Paco Rodriguez


    I think there is doping in alot of sports. Football and rugby included. But there is alot more money to be lost in these sports so it's not going to be chased as much as cycling was.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,218 ✭✭✭zetecescort


    I think there is doping in alot of sports. Football and rugby included. But there is alot more money to be lost in these sports so it's not going to be chased as much as cycling was.

    a lot of money to be chased too though, is that not why you'd do drugs?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,138 ✭✭✭SaveOurLyric


    You're going for the bury-the-head-in-the-sand approach and pretend everything's rosy.

    I am yes.I dont want to see it go the way of athletics or cycling which have been effectively ruined as spectator sports by their public efforts to beat drugs. It just doesnt seem to be possible to eradicate it. And the publicity does as much harm to the sport as the drugs themselves. I am fully in favour of minimising it as far as possible, and sure, ideally it would be drugs free. But best if it kept out of the public eye and the average follower of the game never really hears about it. Where would the sport be if there was a great purge and half of todays and recent players were dumped out of the game, records re written or blanked, heroes shattered. Nothing to gain from it. American team sports are rife with it, and get on OK as long as they dont catch anyone to big, too publicly. Golf's stated policy is not to make any such issues public. And it serves it well. I fear what would be found in rugby it is such a demanding physical sport, so, yes, prefer not to look. And do think its in the best interest of the game that it remain that way.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,101 ✭✭✭klairondavis


    I don't understand how it is in the best interests of any sport to turn a blind eye to PED use. Where PED use is rife those with the deepest pockets and the biggest risk tolerance will succeed while honest teams and players will lose out. There are also the potential health dangers relating to PED use.

    Rugby union has become obsessed with size and power since the advent of professionalism. Is the sport a greater spectacle because of it? Personally I don't think it is. Games are decided more and more on who wins the 'collisions' and 'gainline successes' are now one of the key performance indicators for players. Such buzzwords were unheard of twenty years ago. A lot of the subtleties of the game have been lost. The days of a smallish player being selected because he was a skillful footballer are almost gone. It seems backs these days must be at least 15 stone. Any three out of the Welsh backs could easily pass for a back row trio of ten years ago.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,138 ✭✭✭SaveOurLyric


    I don't understand how it is in the best interests of any sport to turn a blind eye to PED use.

    I dont mean the sport itself should turn a blind eye to it. The authorities must do what they can to minimise the problem. But keep it away from our eyes. With current methods it is an unwinnable war and the public flagelations in other sports have done more harm than good. Does anyone believe athletics or cycling are cleaner now than they were 10 or 20 years ago ? Dream on if you do. (Any Jamaican sprinters here that browse boards.ie/rugby will know what I am talking about....)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,101 ✭✭✭klairondavis


    I dont mean the sport itself should turn a blind eye to it. The authorities must do what they can to minimise the problem. But keep it away from our eyes. With current methods it is an unwinnable war and the public flagelations in other sports have done more harm than good. Does anyone believe athletics or cycling are cleaner now than they were 10 or 20 years ago ? Dream on if you do. (Any Jamaican sprinters here that browse boards.ie/rugby will know what I am talking about....)

    An unwinnable war? I'm not so sure about that. It is at the moment in most sports because the testing procedures are so poor. Implementing a biological passport would be a great starting point in helping to minimise PED use but it will never happen until there is more funding made available by the sporting bodies for the anti-doping agencies.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 18,266 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatFromHue


    you could argue that the testing levels in rugby are so low that they could be classed as non existent really.

    look at the side effects of taking hgh
    Risks
    Adverse effects related to human growth hormone range in severity and may include:

    Joint pain
    Muscle weakness
    Fluid retention
    Carpal tunnel syndrome
    Impaired glucose regulation
    Cardiomyopathy
    High cholesterol (hyperlipidemia)
    Diabetes
    High blood pressure (hypertension)

    http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-living/fitness/in-depth/performance-enhancing-drugs/art-20046134

    rugby is a tough enough sport without bringing any of those into the equation


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,784 ✭✭✭Superbus


    Not a point specific to rugby, but I've always wondered what would happen if all doping and peds were legal, but lying was illegal. So you can take whatever you want, but you have to declare it. Combined with this there's a testing regime that's as stringent as possible. If someone is found to be on something they didn't declare, they're banned for life. No questions asked.

    It would provide an incentive to be clean, because achievements would be totally discredited due to declared doping. And anyone who pushes it too far and lies is thrown out completely.

    Probably some gap in my logic there, and would probably be abused, but anyway. Would be interesting, to me at least.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,805 ✭✭✭Swan Curry


    The problem with allowing PEDs in any form is that you give a massive advantage to teams with a large budget. It's already difficult enough for smaller clubs to win against clubs with millions to spare like Toulon, imagine if Toulon could afford to juice their players to the gills and be allowed to do so?


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 18,266 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatFromHue


    how would you test if people were lying?

    i've heard lie detector tests can be beaten


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,784 ✭✭✭Superbus


    CatFromHue wrote: »
    how would you test if people were lying?

    i've heard lie detector tests can be beaten

    They declare what they're taking, and concurrently there's stringent drug testing.

    I mean, it's a silly idea, but it's my silly idea.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,454 ✭✭✭Clearlier


    I dont mean the sport itself should turn a blind eye to it. The authorities must do what they can to minimise the problem. But keep it away from our eyes. With current methods it is an unwinnable war and the public flagelations in other sports have done more harm than good. Does anyone believe athletics or cycling are cleaner now than they were 10 or 20 years ago ? Dream on if you do. (Any Jamaican sprinters here that browse boards.ie/rugby will know what I am talking about....)

    Yes, both Athletics and cycling are cleaner now than they were 10 and especially 20 years ago. The advances in testing for drugs like EPO have made a significant difference but the biggest difference has been the introduction of the biological passport. Also, testing has become more targeted and samples are stored for several years to be tested some time later when tests for 'new' drugs have been developed. Relationships have been developed with pharmaceutical companies so that tests for new drugs are being developed at a much much earlier stage. There are two big issues to successfully catching dopers and they are the attitude of the bureaucrats (sporting bodies, anti-doping associations and governments) and the cost which is very significant for most sports and in particular for less wealthy countries.
    Superbus wrote: »
    Not a point specific to rugby, but I've always wondered what would happen if all doping and peds were legal, but lying was illegal. So you can take whatever you want, but you have to declare it. Combined with this there's a testing regime that's as stringent as possible. If someone is found to be on something they didn't declare, they're banned for life. No questions asked.

    It would provide an incentive to be clean, because achievements would be totally discredited due to declared doping. And anyone who pushes it too far and lies is thrown out completely.

    Probably some gap in my logic there, and would probably be abused, but anyway. Would be interesting, to me at least.

    If you're allowing them to take anything then what does it matter if an athlete forgets to declare something?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,350 ✭✭✭hans aus dtschl


    Didn't DELETED fail a testosterone test in 2006?
    Can't beat good genetics.

    Mod: Speculation deleted. Warning for everyone else: DO NOT name players who have not been convicted of a doping offence

    With due respect mods, was the redacted player not found guilty and acquitted on appeal? Surely, if Charly Wegelius considers himself to have failed a test (a very analogous example) then redacted is no different?

    I'm not debating your decision, merely pointing out that what "Fwank wizzo" wrote wouldn't technically be speculation, but fact?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,166 ✭✭✭✭Zzippy


    With due respect mods, was the redacted player not found guilty and acquitted on appeal? Surely, if Charly Wegelius considers himself to have failed a test (a very analogous example) then redacted is no different?

    I'm not debating your decision, merely pointing out that what "Fwank wizzo" wrote wouldn't technically be speculation, but fact?

    Posting allegations about a player without any sort of link or evidence cannot be allowed on boards, as it leaves the website open to legal action. If you have a problem with moderation please PM the mods and do not debate a mod action on thread.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,350 ✭✭✭hans aus dtschl


    No, I absolutely didn't question or debate the decision.

    And here's the link:

    http://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/matt-oconnor-and-jamie-heaslip-insist-drugs-not-an-issue-in-rugby-30800554.html


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,350 ✭✭✭hans aus dtschl


    "Earlier this year the xxx revealed that he had failed a test in 2006, but was later cleared because he has unusually high, naturally occurring testosterone levels in his body to which he partly attributes his remarkable injury record. "

    Is this still considered speculation? Apologies if so.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,166 ✭✭✭✭Zzippy


    No, it's not speculation once it's in the public record. Posting speculation without a link will not be tolerated.

    Re the article, a naturally high testosterone level is something that would be evident if a biological passport was in operation, and wouldn't result in a failed test. I'd have a lot more faith in rugby taking doping seriously if they introduced a bio passport, or at least conducted a credible number of tests.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 225 ✭✭K3v


    Doping is ingrained every professional sport at all levels in some shape or form. Lets not be naive here.

    I managed to play AIL level rugby through my college years 8-10 years ago, and even at that level it was evident. The testing back then compromised of a urine sample taken from 3 random players from each team on the last day of the season. The one memory that sticks with me is of a teammate blessing himself and praying in the dressing room, after being picked, hoping that he would piss a clean sample to pass the test! The sheer ridiculousness of it.

    I know its not rugby but you only have to look at how the Soccer world is completely ignoring the doping that is occuring. Franz Beckenbauer admitted to blood doping in the 70's. Look at the Juventus team of Vialli, Ravanelli, Deschamps, Zidane in the mid 90's, the club doctor was found guilty of administering banned substances to the team. Have a look at the link below, it has a brief look at the history of doping in soccer.
    http://www.4dfoot.com/2013/02/09/doping-in-football-fifty-years-of-evidence/


    Where there is a financial gain to be made, people will cheat & dope.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,699 ✭✭✭Brian


    If some players are taking drugs, it creates and uneven playing field.

    I don't disagree with your distaste for doping, and hopefully I don't come across as a steroid apologist, but human genetics already cause significant inequality across player performances, for example in physical proportions or muscle development potential. So while drugs obviously can improve a player's objective performance, the "uneven playing field" already existed in the first place.

    Side effects on health are absolutely a great concern.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 83 ✭✭Eat My Point


    Brian wrote: »
    I don't disagree with your distaste for doping, and hopefully I don't come across as a steroid apologist, but human genetics already cause significant inequality across player performances, for example in physical proportions or muscle development potential. So while drugs obviously can improve a player's objective performance, the "uneven playing field" already existed in the first place.

    But the "uneven playing field" due to human genetics is surely crucial to making sports exciting? If guys who wouldn't be athletically the top players in the world are able to dope and make up the difference then it makes the likes of Folau, super athlete that he is, less of a special player as more guys will be close to his level (assuming that he's clean) than should be.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,344 ✭✭✭death1234567


    If guys who wouldn't be athletically the top players in the world are able to dope and make up the difference then it makes the likes of Folau, super athlete that he is, less of a special player.
    He could just dope too and then he'd be a super duper athlete.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,454 ✭✭✭Clearlier


    He could just dope too and then he'd be a super duper athlete.

    One of the issues with doping is that it's more effective for some than for others. The example often given is cycling and EPO. Very simplistically* it raises the number of red blood cells in your body increasing your ability to carry oxygen. However there is naturally quite a variation in the red blood cell count already in the population and there is a maximum level to which you can get before you die (suspected cause of death of several cyclists). If you imagine that one person has a natural level of 40% and another of 50% and the maximum they can get to is 60% then it's not too hard to imagine that the one with a natural level of 40% has a greater potential benefit than the one with a natural level of 50%.

    *Please don't take the time to critique my understanding of physiology, I'm aware that it's lacking but I'm confident that the general point is valid.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 18,266 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatFromHue


    Yeah that's the gist of the cycling EPO situation.

    Quinlan has an article this morning in the Times on doping.

    He's right and like most people on here comments on the real lack of evidence but he doesn't mention the WADA report that showed rugby has a higher rate of failed tests than cycling or athletics.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,648 ✭✭✭desertcircus


    As I said earlier in the thread, a higher rate of failed tests in rugby than in cycling or athletics could be down to a fistful of reasons. If you compared the figures for 2003, both David Millar and Lance Armstrong would be contributing to the lower positive testing rate in cycling.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,138 ✭✭✭SaveOurLyric


    Its all right lads. Quinny has been in the dressing room and checked it out for us. No drugs there. Move along. Nothing to see here.

    (Wada talking through their hats or 78 positive tests in rugby last year just a few rogues).

    http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/alan-quinlan-if-there-was-a-systematic-doping-culture-in-rugby-i-d-have-known-about-it-1.2031781


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,442 ✭✭✭its_phil


    Its all right lads. Quinny has been in the dressing room and checked it out for us. No drugs there. Move along. Nothing to see here.

    (Wada talking through their hats or 78 positive tests in rugby last year just a few rogues).

    http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/alan-quinlan-if-there-was-a-systematic-doping-culture-in-rugby-i-d-have-known-about-it-1.2031781

    Yeah it actually is just a few rogues at the top level of the game. He's only reporting what he saw in his long time as a professioanl and called for more evidence on Kimmage's part other than "they are bigger so they must be on drugs".


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 819 ✭✭✭Beaner1


    Its all right lads. Quinny has been in the dressing room and checked it out for us. No drugs there. Move along. Nothing to see here.

    (Wada talking through their hats or 78 positive tests in rugby last year just a few rogues).

    http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/alan-quinlan-if-there-was-a-systematic-doping-culture-in-rugby-i-d-have-known-about-it-1.2031781

    THey test a huge amount of amateur players, myself included. You'd get plenty of characters that would be half into he game half into weightlifting. How many pro players have been banned in the past few years?


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 18,266 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatFromHue


    As I said earlier in the thread, a higher rate of failed tests in rugby than in cycling or athletics could be down to a fistful of reasons. If you compared the figures for 2003, both David Millar and Lance Armstrong would be contributing to the lower positive testing rate in cycling.

    Yup that's true but equally you can't ignore them either.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,648 ✭✭✭desertcircus


    CatFromHue wrote: »
    Yup that's true but equally you can't ignore them either.

    True. But the bans in place almost exclusively involve players at lower levels, which seems to suggest that Kimmage is a little wide of the mark. It's a problem, yes, but not the one he claims.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,454 ✭✭✭Clearlier


    Its all right lads. Quinny has been in the dressing room and checked it out for us. No drugs there. Move along. Nothing to see here.

    (Wada talking through their hats or 78 positive tests in rugby last year just a few rogues).

    http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/alan-quinlan-if-there-was-a-systematic-doping-culture-in-rugby-i-d-have-known-about-it-1.2031781

    To be fair to him all that he's saying is that he never saw any evidence of systematic doping at a team level akin to Armstrong's team in cycling. He doesn't say that there isn't any drugs in the sport and he does mention hearing rumours about certain players in the past.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,076 ✭✭✭Yeah_Right


    Firstly, do I think there are rugby players using PEDs? Yes. Is it widespread at the elite level? No.

    I think it would be more of an issue at the lower levels of the game where players are trying to get an advantage to make the next step. This seems to be supported by that link showing rugby players that were banned over in the UK.

    There seem to have been very few high profile players caught. The 2 that spring to mind are Chilliboi and the English prop (Stevens?). Some people on here seem to take this to mean that there is a widespread conspiracy/cover up. Kind of like a city in the US saying there aren't many young, black men being killed by cops in our city so therefore the police must be covering it up.

    I do remember hearing of some Kiwi and Aussie players being caught over the years but no one very high profile. There were always rumours around the rugby scene in NZ about certain players (at all different levels) but they were just rumours.

    To the people that say the size of players is clear evidence that they are using PEDs - from the age of 20-22 while at university, I went from 95kg to 110kg (I'm 1.83cm) just by diet and training. No supplements and no doping. I was only playing amateur club rugby (U21s and Senior Reserves) so it is possible. If I had been in a professional environment I probably could have done it faster.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,442 ✭✭✭its_phil


    Yeah_Right wrote: »
    Firstly, do I think there are rugby players using PEDs? Yes. Is it widespread at the elite level? No.

    I think it would be more of an issue at the lower levels of the game where players are trying to get an advantage to make the next step. This seems to be supported by that link showing rugby players that were banned over in the UK.

    There seem to have been very few high profile players caught. The 2 that spring to mind are Chilliboi and the English prop (Stevens?). Some people on here seem to take this to mean that there is a widespread conspiracy/cover up. Kind of like a city in the US saying there aren't many young, black men being killed by cops in our city so therefore the police must be covering it up.

    I do remember hearing of some Kiwi and Aussie players being caught over the years but no one very high profile. There were always rumours around the rugby scene in NZ about certain players (at all different levels) but they were just rumours.

    To the people that say the size of players is clear evidence that they are using PEDs - from the age of 20-22 while at university, I went from 95kg to 110kg (I'm 1.83cm) just by diet and training. No supplements and no doping. I was only playing amateur club rugby (U21s and Senior Reserves) so it is possible. If I had been in a professional environment I probably could have done it faster.

    Stevens took cocaine IIRC


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 18,266 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatFromHue


    I don't think there's a conspiracy I just think the testing levels and techniques aren't of the standard required.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,076 ✭✭✭Yeah_Right


    its_phil wrote: »
    Stevens took cocaine IIRC

    I just looked it up. You are right. Have heard stories from a few Aussie mates about charlie being very prevalent in rugby/league/AFL circles in Australia.

    Mods : don't worry I'm not going to name any names.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,719 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    CatFromHue wrote: »
    I don't think there's a conspiracy I just think the testing levels and techniques aren't of the standard required.

    Jamie Heaslip would disagree with you. He has alluded that his girlfriend might get jealous of the amount of time he spends with doping testers.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 18,266 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatFromHue


    Larbre34 wrote: »
    Jamie Heaslip would disagree with you. He has alluded that his girlfriend might get jealous of the amount of time he spends with doping testers.

    I'd be comparing to what the cyclist and athletics are doing, not the footballers.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,166 ✭✭✭✭Zzippy


    Larbre34 wrote: »
    Jamie Heaslip would disagree with you. He has alluded that his girlfriend might get jealous of the amount of time he spends with doping testers.

    It's hard to reconcile that statement with the number of tests actually carried out on Irish rugby players (posted earlier in the thread). Unless Jamie really really finds it hard to pee in front of another man...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,719 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    Zzippy wrote: »
    It's hard to reconcile that statement with the number of tests actually carried out on Irish rugby players (posted earlier in the thread). Unless Jamie really really finds it hard to pee in front of another man...

    Maybe they target him because he has the injury profile of a Terminator T-2000.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,154 ✭✭✭✭Neil3030


    Larbre34 wrote: »
    Maybe they target him because he has the injury profile of a Terminator T-2000.

    Well then there's your problem. The IRFU really need to crack down on mimetic polyalloy usage.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 73 ✭✭specttator


    Wow, I bet this post caused a spike on Google search.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,328 ✭✭✭the baby bull elephant




  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,138 ✭✭✭SaveOurLyric



    Well.......he says he does see any abuse of supplements. Which could be just going heavy on the creatine or vitamin pills.
    Doesnt say he doesnt see any use of banned drugs.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,308 ✭✭✭✭.ak


    Well.......he says he does see any abuse of supplements. Which could be just going heavy on the creatine or vitamin pills.
    Doesnt say he doesnt see any use of banned drugs.

    No but he does mention the random drug tests and their frequency.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,166 ✭✭✭✭Zzippy


    .ak wrote: »
    No but he does mention the random drug tests and their frequency.

    But how does that (and Heaslip's quote) square with the number of drug tests on Irish rugby players as posted earlier in the thread? Think it was 19 tests on senior squad players. If true that's laughably low and a parody of a drug testing regime. I'm sure there's additional testing done by the IRB after matches, but 19 tests on what, 30 senior players... hard to reconcile the figures with the quotes from players/coaches.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,308 ✭✭✭✭.ak


    Zzippy wrote: »
    But how does that (and Heaslip's quote) square with the number of drug tests on Irish rugby players as posted earlier in the thread? Think it was 19 tests on senior squad players. If true that's laughably low and a parody of a drug testing regime. I'm sure there's additional testing done by the IRB after matches, but 19 tests on what, 30 senior players... hard to reconcile the figures with the quotes from players/coaches.

    Is that low? I'd think that's quite high. If over 50% of the squad is randomly tested surely it means the guys are mostly on a level playing field.

    TBH I really doubt there's drugs rife at the top level. I just can't see them getting through the tests, if everyone is at it.

    I could be very open to the fact it's used at J1 or AIL division level, with the fact it's not as stringently tested.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,166 ✭✭✭✭Zzippy


    .ak wrote: »
    Is that low? I'd think that's quite high. If over 50% of the squad is randomly tested surely it means the guys are mostly on a level playing field.

    TBH I really doubt there's drugs rife at the top level. I just can't see them getting through the tests, if everyone is at it.

    I could be very open to the fact it's used at J1 or AIL division level, with the fact it's not as stringently tested.

    Less than 1 test a year per player? The chances of getting caught if you do take PEDs are ridiculously low in that case. AFAIK most drugs have a short cycle time and are undetectable within a few days or weeks of being taken. If you know you're only going to be tested once a year, the risk-reward is much different than if you're being tested regularly. A proper testing regime is a deterrent if nothing else.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,556 ✭✭✭Macy0161


    When I've heard Benezech on this, he's been very careful not to make it just (or even) about doping, but about supplements too. I think even Kimmage is missing this point too in his rush to wade in.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,454 ✭✭✭Clearlier


    .ak wrote: »
    Is that low? I'd think that's quite high. If over 50% of the squad is randomly tested surely it means the guys are mostly on a level playing field.

    TBH I really doubt there's drugs rife at the top level. I just can't see them getting through the tests, if everyone is at it.

    I could be very open to the fact it's used at J1 or AIL division level, with the fact it's not as stringently tested.

    Laughably low in terms of being able to catch anybody. 19 tests per person per year would be more like what's required for confidence. The issue is cost. To do that level of testing would cost enormous amounts of money. I don't know for sure but I don't think that there is biological passport type testing in rugby - not least because the volume of testing is insufficient for it. The "in-between" option is to use intelligence for targeted testing (this for example was how Cathal Lombard was caught).

    FWIW I think that Ireland has a reasonably good record of catching dopers in athletics (it's only an opinion because there's no way of reliably identifying those who doped but weren't caught). The big concern that I've got in rugby is that the volume of tests conducted is very low. I find it hard to believe that there is any kind of an organised doping programme in Ireland however there could well be a few players who do and I haven't much confidence that these would be caught given the number of tests conducted.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,328 ✭✭✭the baby bull elephant


    Are there any additional tests carried out by competition bodies or WR rather than the IRFU?


  • Advertisement
Advertisement