General Rugby Discussion II

blue note

Squidgy Black wrote: »

The problem with Kimmage and rugby isn't just the doping element of it, he's written hit pieces about CJ Stander and other project players too. He seems to just pop up any time there's a chance to cause controversy which in fairness to him it's exactly what he thrives off and is paid to do, but it's always going to rile up fans of the sport.

And with GAA he wrote articles on questionable Dublin GAA football tactics and about a case of bullying in some galway club. He writes pieces that people take personally. And every sport he writes about feels that he has something against them. I don't think he does. I think he considers his job important to sport and takes it seriously and writes about things that others wouldn't because he feels they matter.

I wouldn't agree with him on a lot of what he writes and definitely not on how he says it. But I'd ignore the people saying to disregard what he's saying because he took drugs himself or because he doesn't like this sport or that or because he doesn't like a particular player. If someone disputes what he actually says I'll read what they say, but that's not usually how people tackle kimmage.

fullstop

irishbucsfan wrote: »

So the problem isn’t the test. The problem isn’t the explanation of the result. The problem isn’t any subsequent or prior drugs test. The problem is Heaslips memory of who conducted the test?

Strange thing to forget really. I think if I failed a drugs test, everything about it would be etched in my memory forever, given it’s such a big thing. I certainly wouldn’t have forgotten who tested me or who sent me a letter less than 10 years later. Surely this letter could clear the whole thing up anyway...

sydthebeat

My problem with kimmage and his hatred for rugby actually stems from his necessity to change the language around what he is trying to find.

He searched for long and hard to find evidence of doping and PEDs in Irish rugby, but when he couldn't find it, he decided to go after the "medicalisation" of rugby (a phrase he coined).....where players were, and are, taking legal pain killing medicines before they played, in order to help play through a pain barrier. While of course this isn't advisable or proper, it's not illegal....

He is a dog searching for a bone

irishbucsfan

fullstop wrote: »

Strange thing to forget really. I think if I failed a drugs test, everything about it would be etched in my memory forever, given it’s such a big thing. I certainly wouldn’t have forgotten who tested me or who sent me a letter less than 10 years later. Surely this letter could clear the whole thing up anyway...

It wasn’t less than 10 years right? It was 2006. He was still playing for Naas at the time. (Maybe I have the timeline wrong)

What are you thinking here. What would he achieved if it turns out it was actually some private contracted group who tested him on behalf of the Churchill cup? He still did everything he was supposed to and never had a failed test recorded because it all checked out. What’s the story? Are people just so desperate for a juicy story that they’re going to invent something based on no evidence of any actual wrongdoing?

CatFromHue

sydthebeat wrote: »

My problem with kimmage and his hatred for rugby actually stems from his necessity to change the language around what he is trying to find.

He searched for long and hard to find evidence of doing and PEDs in Irish rugby, but when he couldn't find it, he decided to go after the "medicalisation" of rugby (a phrase he coined).....where players were, and are, taking legal pain killing medicines before they played, in order to help play through a pain barrier. While of course this isn't advisable or proper, it's not illegal....

He is a dog searching for a bone

He doesn't hate rugby. He's been critical of it but I've never picked up any hatred. As far as I know he seems to go to a few games.

He never said the pain killers were illegal but he is right in that there is an ethical issue here.

irishbucsfan

CatFromHue wrote: »

He doesn't hate rugby. He's been critical of it but I've never picked up any hatred. As far as I know he seems to go to a few games.

He never said the pain killers were illegal but he is right in that there is an ethical issue here.

Hmm...

Interesting that he’s objectively right about this medical issue despite no medical qualifications or any access to any of the medical records of any professional rugby player who has ever played the sport whatsoever. Paul Kimmage not only possesses incredible judgement and some form of telepathy, but also clearly an incredible natural talent for medical science (must be from back when he was taking the illegal drugs that these professional rugby players aren’t!)

fullstop

irishbucsfan wrote: »

It wasn’t less than 10 years right? It was 2006. He was still playing for Naas at the time. (Maybe I have the timeline wrong)

What are you thinking here. What would he achieved if it turns out it was actually some private contracted group who tested him on behalf of the Churchill cup? He still did everything he was supposed to and never had a failed test recorded because it all checked out. What’s the story? Are people just so desperate for a juicy story that they’re going to invent something based on no evidence of any actual wrongdoing?

He gave the interview in February 2014, so it was less than 10 years, less than 8 in fact.

And he was had been playing for Leinster for over a year at that stage. Seems like some people are very desperate for it not to be a story.

CatFromHue

I'm not sure your point here is IBF.

You don't need a medical qualification when you player's testimony's about the issue of pain killers in the game.

irishbucsfan

fullstop wrote: »

He gave the interview in February 2014, so it was less than 10 years, less than 8 in fact.

And he was had been playing for Leinster for over a year at that stage. Seems like some people are very desperate for it not to be a story.

Did he get the story wrong in the interview or was it not his recent book? Why is Kimmage only having a problem with it now so?

And according to Kimmage himself Heaslip was still playing for Naas at the time. I’m taking this from his article

irishbucsfan

CatFromHue wrote: »

I'm not sure your point here is IBF.

You don't need a medical qualification when you player's testimony's about the issue of pain killers in the game.

You absolutely do if you’re questioning the actions of the doctors who are providing them to players. Which he has done.

CatFromHue

A year ago, in an interview with Rugby World, former England international Lewis Moody wondered whether he had gone too far.

"It wasn't until 2005 that I got diagnosed with colitis," he said. "I had horrific stomach cramp. There was blood left there in the toilet.

"I was taking drugs so I could play, like ibuprofen and diclofenac. It was like I was a walking medicine cabinet. I don't think I'd change much about my life, but I would probably change my lax approach to this. I remember one story. We were on a bus. It was almost like a kind of challenge to see how many 'smarties' we could take.

"I don't think you'll ever change the single-minded sportsman, but I think they could be better informed (about the risk of taking such pills). You want to play, no bother, but what about when you're 40? Make guys aware now that they have a choice but they must also take advice. Not everyone will struggle, but why take a risk?"

Donncha O'Callaghan has recently retired. In October 2016, he gave a memorable interview to Ger Gilroy on Off the Ball. "I think we have to be very careful within the professional bubble that we still stick to the values and the core principles of rugby and what's right," he said. "We have young Jamie Shillcock (at Worcester) - a 19-year-old incredible talent at full-back - and I see him looking around our dressing room at guys guzzling down painkillers or taking anti-inflammatories . . . I don't like a young player seeing that and thinking it's normal.

Doesn't sound like the players seem to think much of the doctors orders

irishbucsfan

CatFromHue wrote: »

Doesn't sound like the players seem to think much of the doctors orders

And what would their qualifications be? And how much of that happened in Ireland?

To be fair I think there are clear cases of abuse of over the counter meds. But the suggestion that this is something being encouraged by teams or their medical staff, which he has done fairly heavily at times without perhaps ever saying it, is where he strays into that usual recent place of conspirational lunacy. Chip on shoulder stuff.

swiwi_

This would end up being a pretty cool exchange trip...

Given the ABs insipid forward display against England, a German Panzer tank could be a handy option, just "don't mention the war".

Exclamation Marc

https://www.gamespew.com/2019/10/preview-rugby-20s-tactical-focus-is-great-but-its-currently-lacking-match-atmosphere/

Preview up of Rugby 20 based on playing the beta. It doesn't sound like it's awful but has some bugs and issues to iron out.

Whilst I've little hope based on past output, it not the worst sounding start so fingers crossed!

New game out in January. Doesn't look bad.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iePdpfmdJM

molloyjh

irishbucsfan wrote: »

It wasn’t less than 10 years right? It was 2006. He was still playing for Naas at the time. (Maybe I have the timeline wrong)

What are you thinking here. What would he achieved if it turns out it was actually some private contracted group who tested him on behalf of the Churchill cup? He still did everything he was supposed to and never had a failed test recorded because it all checked out. What’s the story? Are people just so desperate for a juicy story that they’re going to invent something based on no evidence of any actual wrongdoing?

It was summer 2006, after his first season at Leinster. It was a harmless anecdote he recounted where his memory of it was less than perfect. Something which is perfectly normal, even for major life events. People rarely remember things 100% even if they think they do.

Kimmage, for his part, has looked to pick at any inaccuracy to see if theres a story there for him. Even when describing his conversation with the Sports Council there is nothing there. They said that if there was a case to answer for it would be public record. There wasn't and therefore they arent entitled to discuss it due to data privacy laws (they didnt quote that, but that's what they were trying to say). They did say that Heaslips recounting of the incident was inaccurate, but that there was no case to answer. It couldnt be any more a non-story.

But it isnt the first time Kimmage has taken a shot in Heaslips direction. Heaslip made a comment a few years back about a Kimmage article on PEDs and this is the 3rd time that's hes gone after Heaslip since IIRC. It's great to be a dog with a bone when theres something to chase down. If thats your default setting for everything though you're in trouble. It seems Kimmage is just that guy. And it worked great for him when it was required, but he cant seem to reign it in when it's not.

blue note

Well this is embarrassing for heaslip. Turns out he was mistaken about when the test took place, where it took place and it's result.

I don't think anyone could argue against the fact that he exaggerated a story (to the point that it was basically made up) to include in his book. I wonder how well he remembered the rest of it...

irishbucsfan

He didn't make anything up at all. The only difference is that the test where they found the problem wasn't a test at the Churchill Cup in June, it was a test done by Sports Ireland in April. Its a minor difference. The only people who care about something like this are people who already had a problem with Heaslip or Kimmage sycophants.

None of it matters in any way whatsoever. The original point of the story and his reason for telling it is still the exact same.

blue note

irishbucsfan wrote: »

He didn't make anything up at all. The only difference is that the test where they found the problem wasn't a test at the Churchill Cup in June, it was a test done by Sports Ireland in April. Its a minor difference. The only people who care about something like this are people who already had a problem with Heaslip or Kimmage sycophants.

None of it matters in any way whatsoever. The original point of the story and his reason for telling it is still the exact same.

The other difference is that he said he failed a test which he has now corrected to say that he didn't fail it.

irishbucsfan

blue note wrote: »

The other difference is that he said he failed a test which he has now corrected to say that he didn't fail it.

That's just a difference in terminology. He said he failed a test and then was later told he didn't. That means he never failed a test. Dr. Una May explained that to Kimmage. He (or his writer) just didn't know the correct terminology. It doesn't mean there was any difference in the actual test.

hahashake

Stephen Jones will be pissed he couldn't hit submit on his article about the end of Southern Hemisphere rugby dominance.

blue note

Sure all the info is out now and we can each decide how truthful we feel Jamie heaslip was being. It didn't actually dawn on me that someone might find his explanation of it as an honest mistake credible to be honest, but you genuinely seem to we can just agree to see it differently.

molloyjh

blue note wrote: »

Well this is embarrassing for heaslip. Turns out he was mistaken about when the test took place, where it took place and it's result.

I don't think anyone could argue against the fact that he exaggerated a story (to the point that it was basically made up) to include in his book. I wonder how well he remembered the rest of it...

It's not embarrassing at all. It was a small and simple mistake, the kind that people make all the time. The general jist of the story remains the same. Some of the detail around it is just different to how he recalled it. As I said, a complete non-story.

molloyjh

blue note wrote: »

Sure all the info is out now and we can each decide how truthful we feel Jamie heaslip was being. It didn't actually dawn on me that someone might find his explanation of it as an honest mistake credible to be honest, but you genuinely seem to we can just agree to see it differently.

Truthful? Hahaha, you're looking for an issue now as much as Kimmage was.

What were the actual differences in the end? The timing of the test was earlier than he remembered and the result of the A sample required further investigation as opposed to it being explicitly labelled a failed test. Otherwise the rest of the story remains the same. High levels of testosterone that needed further investigation before being confirmed as being natural, albeit high. In other words the jist of story remains fully truthful, with some minor details being inaccurate.

irishbucsfan

blue note wrote: »

Sure all the info is out now and we can each decide how truthful we feel Jamie heaslip was being. It didn't actually dawn on me that someone might find his explanation of it as an honest mistake credible to be honest, but you genuinely seem to we can just agree to see it differently.

I think its very interesting that you think it was an intentional lie. I asked this before but not sure if it was you:

If he was lying, what on earth would he achieve about telling a story that was largely true, but changing the dates from June to April? Why on earth would he do that? What would his motive be?

And if he is trying to cover something up, why on earth tell David Walsh anything at all?

blue note

When and where it took place doesn't matter.

Calling it a failed test makes it a headline grabbing story - good for book promotion. Calling it what it was makes it a non story. I certainly don't believe that he accidentally changed the terminology making it good for business.

irishbucsfan

blue note wrote: »

When and where it took place doesn't matter.

Calling it a failed test makes it a headline grabbing story - good for book promotion. Calling it what it was makes it a non story. I certainly don't believe that he accidentally changed the terminology making it good for business.

Ah right. So the theory is here that he intentionally lied and set Paul Kimmage off on yet another mad one all for nothing. Then he knew Kimmage would go on one of his rampages making a fool of himself, thus making headlines and selling his book?

If that's true, it's very smart to use Kimmage like that.

Although, given he said it to David Walsh in an interview years before the book ever existed it seems very unlikely.

blue note

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Ah right. So the theory is here that he intentionally lied and set Paul Kimmage off on yet another mad one all for nothing. Then he knew Kimmage would go on one of his rampages making a fool of himself, thus making headlines and selling his book?

If that's true, it's very smart to use Kimmage like that.

Although, given he said it to David Walsh in an interview years before the book ever existed it seems very unlikely.

Having kimmage involved was the last thing he wanted, now he's had to correct a story in his book.

He wanted the dramatic story of failing a drugs test but it turned out he just had loads of testosterone (sounds manly) and that all was then fine. That was the story he wanted in the papers. The actual story, while similar, wasn't a story anyone would care about though.

David Walsh hasn't really written about drugs since lance Armstrong. I don't think he has the appetite for it after the toll it took on him. He even says now that he believes team sky were clean.

is_that_so

Don't know if this has been posted already. Interesting comments on the future of NZ rugby, which it seems is not in good shape.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/nov/03/new-zealand-rugby-new-era-challenges

connemara man

https://twitter.com/Murray_Kinsella/status/1190960556817043457?s=19