Rugby for wimps in armour....

carlowboy

jdivision wrote:

Several South Africans have been banned for drug use including Os Du Randt and Cobus Visagie. There was also a lot of questions regarding EPO surrounding their players a few years ago, although none were caught. One Ulster player was given a drugs ban and retired so wasn't named.

Actually, neither have. Visagie won his appeal and never got a ban and I don't know where you're getting the idea Du Randt did. Do a little research first, eh mate?

tallaghtoutlaws

carlowboy wrote:

Sheehan? Are you for real? He forgot to tick the box when asked about asthma medication and was cleared of wrongdoing. Same for Tierney.
http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/1998/11/20/shead.htm



I don't think the amateur game is relevant here because there is no comparison with American Football. Its either go pro or don't play so there's no point in bringing it up.

Do your homework at least. For guys outside college whcih is amateur as they do not get paid. There is the NFL, Arena FL, CFL(Canada), Then you have Semi Pro leagues who pay also NIFL (Indoor like Arena), The 100 or so Semi Pro Leagues scattered across the US, They also have EFAF Leagues in Europe where Americans can earn cash also still semi pro which is in Europe Germany, Sweden, Austria etc etc our IAFL is in the EFAF federation but we do not have the resources to pay plays but EFAF class themselves as Amateur/Semi Pro.

There is no such thing as Amateur in the US they class everything as Semi Pro as they allow the payment of players on part time contracts.

carlowboy wrote:

Actually, neither have. Visagie won his appeal and never got a ban and I don't know where you're getting the idea Du Randt did. Do a little research first, eh mate?

So to this post Pot Kettle Black

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

carlowboy

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

They're tested during the off season too. And its 10 weeks of extreme training where just as many players lose weight as those who gain weight.

As for Sheahan, he was cleared because he is asthmatic and its essential medication for him, by an independent body.....or do you know more than that body?



Re the Romanians they got two year bans, had they been amateur American Footie players, they'd have gotten a warning.

And as for Ruggiebear's assertion that testing is rare, the NFL is hardly like cycling in that regards is it?

RuggieBear

carlowboy wrote:

And as for Ruggiebear's assertion that testing is rare, the NFL is hardly like cycling in that regards is it?

Drug testing/punishment in the NFL is a joke. But that's not to say that rugby is squeeky clean...it isn't.

And you are being very naive about all our asthmatic players.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

carlowboy

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

I do really as steroids are renowned for causing heart problems early in life.


Are you fishing now? One player in 30 having asthma is somehow disproportianate? A lot of players lost weight, like Piri Weepu. Its 10 weeks of intense training they've never had before and being watched 24/7. Do you think they're going to come out weighing the exact same?


I think you're just cynical rather than me being naive.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

BizzyC

Carlowboy, I never made the claim that you had to grow up around football to make it to the NFL.

I was talking about athleticism, not talent. My point was that American football in the US breeds better athletes on average.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

slemons

defranco only posts his "after" results.
He never posts what his athletes were doing before they came to him

carlowboy

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Sport should be realistic. There's nothing realistic about using steroids, where's the challenge in that?

Nobody said it was one in 30, that's the whole point, in the general Irish populace you're looking at 6%-7% of the population being asthmatic but at the time of Sheehan's failed test there were numerous journalists who pointed out that far more than 7% of Irish players were claiming to be asthmatic. Off the top of my head O'Gara and Wallace also claim to be asthmatic. That would make 20% of the Munster team from that semi-final alone. There were more also. It's odd that's all I'm saying.

Out of 7 people in my honours maths class, 3 were left handed, that's 43%, when its 10% for the general populace. Is that odd too?

No, I'm simply pointing out the gains are incredible for highly trained athletes. Absolutely incredible. And the Irish players who do have this intense training year after year are still making incredible gains. It's not impossible but it's certainly unlikely.

They were drug tested during it too.

dulpit

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

In my class in school tons of people were asthmatic, myself included... Far more than 6 or 7% definately... Easily quarter... It's a fairly prevalent condition, I think that if someone like Sheehan says he's asthmatic then he more than likely is...

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

carlowboy

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

What I mean is what's fair about using steroids, even if everyone does it? It all seems hollow to me.

Yes it is odd obviously it is. Like the Asthma thing it doesn't necessarily mean anything but it is odd and in the case of the asthma thing it should raise suspicions slightly. Like I said it doesn't mean anything in itself but it's clearly odd. I fail to see how you can say it isn't odd. Any statistical anomaly is in itself odd by definition.

Indeed but I don't think 3 people in a team of 15 being asthmatic should raise suspicion!

carlowboy

I'll look for a link but it is common knowledge that players are tested all year long, not just during the season.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

carlowboy

I agree there, never claimed they were that strict but my point was it was stricter than American Footie and the disciplinery measures back up this assertion too.

onionhead1112

My point was that American football in the US breeds better athletes on average.

As an american, I dont find that piont valid at all. they are no more superiour than any other athlete from anyplace in the world. the better average player in the NFL is due to the fact there is a larger pool to draw from than any other place in the world. there are minor leagues now and a euro version of the game but basically theres only one NFL and all the best players go there. if Soccer were only played in one big league all the best players would go there and it would seem that the makebelieve soccer super league would produce the best or better athletes. . I myself prefer Rugby league over US football anyday. football is ok but its all stop start . 3 min can take 15 or more in real life. its quite frankly boring to me.

spooiirt!!

"My point was that American football in the US breeds better athletes on average."

Thats just the myth of Black genetic superiority

jdivision

Percentage wise per 1,000 of population there's more Samoans or people of Samoan descent in the NFL than African Americans so spooirts point doesn't count. Having said that I think BizzyC's phrasing was wrong.

ElDuderino

American football is a far superior game than rugby. It is far more technical and is a much tougher and more physical game.

RuggieBear

ElDuderino wrote:

American football is a far superior game than rugby. It is far more technical and is a much tougher and more physical game.

Well you've convinced me....

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

wyk

Rugby is a great game, with great athletes, and I enjoy it, uh..greatly.

However, you need to look at the monsters on your average American Football line. These guys are over 325 lbs, 6'5" tall, many are all muscle, most are likely pumped up on designer steroids and pain killers, and they all want to hurt you as much as possible. Even the running backs are about 6'2" and 220 lbs, and can still manage a sub 5 second 40 yard time. The best Olympic sprinters can only manage a 4.2ish 40 yard time(hand held timed). So it's a lot of ugly out there, very fast, and very powerful.

Even Vince Young, a quarterback whom fears linemen for Chrissakes, is 6'5" and 233 lbs.

Here's some of the stats on the better players:

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/preps/football/2005-08-30-super-25-players_x.htm

Remove the armor, and the NFL won't be able to replace players fast enough to keep the show on the road. The armor allows the players to try and kill each other every second of every game. Truly, that's what makes it so interesting

Wez

Leon11

Rugby is a great game that is played on average for 2-3 minutes before a stoppage.

NFL is played for 15 seconds max before a stoppage. (A guess)

I don't think it is fair to compare both types of athlete as one may have to jump, catch and drive, sprint for 20yrds hit a ruck, reposition and take on the next phase of play throwing a skip pass before hitting the ruck again. Repeat.

The other athlete may set down, sprint off 40yrds down the field, check and draw infield 10 yards to recieve a pass with 2 defenders attempting to decapitate him.

Rugby is a more team oriented sport, lines are run and rucks set up to open space or move the defense to where you want. If one person is not in the right position you can usually get away with it.

NFL is a team sport but the aside from the linebackers each play is entirely individual in your movement. If you don't reach a certain position on the field the QB may overthrow, if the RB doesn't run a certain line the WR has less space to recieve.

There both great sports in my opinion, as a rugby player I'd imagine the NFL athlete to excel over the rugby player though. They're just bred from a young age to play, you look at high schools and it's 6am training sessions on the field, weights after school, playbook sessions etc.

Rugby is a sport where the palyer is allowed to do whatever you want in a general sense. Do it in Football and no-one else will have a bloody clue what your up to.

jdivision

Leon11 wrote:

Rugby is a more team oriented sport, lines are run and rucks set up to open space or move the defense to where you want. If one person is not in the right position you can usually get away with it.

NFL is a team sport but the aside from the linebackers each play is entirely individual in your movement. If you don't reach a certain position on the field the QB may overthrow, if the RB doesn't run a certain line the WR has less space to recieve.

Good points but you forgot about the running game, each player has a responsibility in that and has to move the defence the way they want. Space is opened that way. don't know if you play the sport but a pulling guard blocking the outside linebacker is a joy to behold and if you're the guard doing it all the better! Can't find any good pops on youtube though. The one pulling guard play is rubbish.

spooiirt!!

jdivision wrote:

Percentage wise per 1,000 of population there's more Samoans or people of Samoan descent in the NFL than African Americans so spooirts point doesn't count. Having said that I think BizzyC's phrasing was wrong.

What is the point of your comment about samoans i dont geddit..

Mweelrea

ElDuderino wrote: »

American football is a far superior game than rugby. It is far more technical and is a much tougher and more physical game.

Are you actualy serious????????
They wear crash helemets!! all a rugby player has is the ocasional scrum cap.
NFL lasts no time before they stop-restart stop-restart stop-restart,wow fun!

If we took a nfl player out of his warm fuzzy protective padding and made him play rugby wearing a simple jersy and shorts he would'nt last 5 minutes before he was stretchered off.

Nfl is for guys who call themselves hard but in reality are puffs

tallaghtoutlaws

Mweelrea wrote: »

Are you actualy serious????????
They wear crash helemets!! all a rugby player has is the ocasional scrum cap.
NFL lasts no time before they stop-restart stop-restart stop-restart,wow fun!

If we took a nfl player out of his warm fuzzy protective padding and made him play rugby wearing a simple jersy and shorts he would'nt last 5 minutes before he was stretchered off.

Nfl is for guys who call themselves hard but in reality are puffs

Ignorance is bliss. The equipment is a safety thing. A linebacker running 10 yards full tilt at a running back at full tilt hitting head on would cause alot of damage to any part of the body and maybe paralysation or death. Dude take your stupid ignorance elsewhere. Rugby players rarely hit head on full tilt and the occaisonal ones that do get up of the ground very very slowly. As anyone who has played both sports i.e me and they will tell each sport has its own differences your ignorance is what fuels these ridiculous arguments.

I stand by my original opinion u cannot compare both these sports.