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

General Rugby Discussion 3

1515254565787

Comments

  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    I take nothing in the dailymail at face value and that's a 10 year old article and I don't know who rugby Warfare are or what their methodology was. This is dated and weak evidence tbh. I'm sure you'll google some better ones now.

    Yes Webb was using hgh for recovery, but it is used for recovery and I suspect that will turn out to be an admin error. If not, it's an example of the system working.

    I know a lot of former and recent pro and international players and this isn't common knowledge at all. Ive heard comments about certain players but nothing institutional and nothing widespread. There is a strong belief that schoolboy rugby in South Africa is a hotbed of drug use but outside of that your anecdotal experience and mine are worlds apart.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,095 ✭✭✭Blut2


    Right, well as great as you claiming to have intimate knowledge of the pro scene is you're not providing any actual sourced facts, just your own opinion. Whereas I gave you a quote in an international newspaper from a professional coach and a study of 4000 players. And they're just the tip of the iceberg, there are literally hundreds of articles out there about this. Here are a few more:

    "I asked a very senior official in Welsh sport how many rugby players he thought were using steroids. He put it simply: “How many aren’t?”"

    Daniel Spencer-Tonks, who was interviewed as part of a documentary this week on Welsh rugby, is actually a former England under-16 rugby union international who was playing rugby league for the University of Gloucestershire All Golds when he failed a drug test in February. He says steroid use is "hugely widespread" at all levels because of a pressure on players to be "bigger, faster and stronger".

    ""It's inherent in the sport at the moment, it's almost condoned. It's not a case of it being frowned upon, it's very much a case of 'Yeah, he's on the gear' and it's quite clear who is on gear by the make-up of their bodies.

    "https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/drugs-rugby-very-welsh-problem-15313345

    etc

    Feel free to Google it yourself, you'll find plenty of reading.

    The fact you didn't know what HGH is used for by high level athletes in their 30s, first posting about strength gains and then aerobic performance, would suggest you don't actually have the prerequisite level of knowledge to be commenting with any level of authority on this.

    Post edited by Boards.ie: Mike on


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,607 ✭✭✭RichieRich_89


    You were a middle distance runner, were you? What sort of times did you do?

    Post edited by Boards.ie: Mike on


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,276 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    Even if you are 100% just using it for recovery, the hormone doesnt know that, you still end up a bigger individual, in some cases we are talking about someone adding inches to their height, and corresponding muscle/body mass increase.

    Post edited by Boards.ie: Mike on


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Again - what you are posting here isn't evidence, it's hearsay. My facts and figures are this - we have a national testing body and they scrutinise high performance athletes to a high degree. We don't have a high rate of positive tests in Ireland.

    I went to the website of the company that did that survey of 4000 players. It's a clothes shop. And you expect to be taken seriously? https://rugbywarfare.com/ This is your compelling argument?

    Honestly - if you had scratched one layer beneath the surface you would realise you were posting nonsense. If you have a very strong and informed opinion, your first port of call to defend that opinion isn't decades old articles from one of the lowest common denominator publications in the world nor the insights of Jean Paul Gaultier and 4000 thousand of his mates. Certainly not as your first supporting argument - if you have a strong and informed opinion.

    And one disgruntled coach does not a conspiracy make nor is it a requirement to list every single use for HGH to satisfy the indignation of someone with strong and informed opinions on the internet.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,095 ✭✭✭Blut2


    I posted multiple articles, from multiple national level newspapers, that quoted both named and unnamed sources in the professional game. Who were all in agreement.

    If your entire argument boils down to "we don't have a drug problem obviously because players aren't being caught by the national testing body in high numbers" then you know very little about doping in professional sports in general, and apparently drug use in rugby in particular.

    Its not a requirement to list every single use for HGH, no, but to imply you have detailed insider knowledge of S&C matters when you apparently didn't even know about the primary purpose of use of HGH by rugby players of a certain age does rather undermine your credibility.

    Post edited by Boards.ie: Mike on


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    You posted hearsay from rags and un backed up statements from people that wouldn't stand over their words. You then cited a clothing brand for their opinion on drugs. Look - you believe whatever you want to believe, I can't tell you anything more than I have.

    And I've no idea where you are getting that about HGH. Can you point to specifically what I said that has given you this impression?



  • Registered Users Posts: 12,920 ✭✭✭✭stephen_n


    The fact you didn't know what HGH is used for by high level athletes in their 30s, first posting about strength gains and then aerobic performance, would suggest you don't actually have the prerequisite level of knowledge to be commenting with any level of authority on this.

    Both are the same thing. HGH reduces inflammation and aids recovery. That’s how you build muscle, tear and repair. HGH by itself doesn’t do anything, it doesn’t grow muscle or improve aerobic performance. It just aids recovery. Players may have different goals for using it at different times but essentially it’s always about recovery.

    Post edited by stephen_n on


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,276 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    Childrens growth is triggered by natural production/release of HGH from the pituitary gland.

    To say that it doesnt do anything unless you have an injury is at best misleading.

    Taking HGH will increase mass. It wont magically make you stronger, bit with more mass, especially muscle mass, it will enable you to train to be stronger.

    It will also offset the natural reduction in HGH produced by your body, somewhat slowing the impact of aging.



  • Registered Users Posts: 12,920 ✭✭✭✭stephen_n


    It doesn’t increase mass by taking it. If you take it and sit on your arse it will do nothing.

    I never said it doesn’t do anything unless you have an injury. The process of building muscle is one of tearing and repairing. That does not mean injury. Higher levels of HGH, influence the replication rate of white blood cells. Which means muscle and tissue gets repaired quicker.

    So if you’re seeking that repair so you can bulk up or because you’re aging and producing less HGH, so are taking longer to recover. It doesn’t really matter.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,276 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    Depends on your particular circumstances, especially your age. Give HGH to a teenager and even if they sit in their arse they will grow more than they would have without it. Its literally the purpose of the hormone, hence the name.


    Out of interest, why do you think its banned if it does nothing?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,095 ✭✭✭Blut2


    The Irish Times, that directly quoted an ex professional player, is an unbacked up statement from a rag? Thats a hot take.

    You posted two very lengthy posts in response to posts on Webb taking HGH commenting exclusively about strength standards and aerobic gains as justification for its your belief in its use not being prevalent:

    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121031950/#Comment_121031950

    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121035496/#Comment_121035496

    Which would suggest you were completely unaware of the fact that its actually used by players of his age for recovery.

    Post edited by Boards.ie: Mike on


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    You didn't read my post or you didn't understand it, or you didn't read what I was replying to. That's a you problem.

    As for your articles - 10 and 15 year old articles and surveys done by clothes brands do not suggest there is widespread drug use anywhere but inside your head.

    I'm out - as I said, believe what you like.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,095 ✭✭✭Blut2


    ? Strength gains, aerobic performance, and injury recovery are all completely different (and well recognised) sports science concepts.

    HGH is used primarily for injury recovery by athletes in their 30s. It massively increases the speed of recovery from injuries obtained playing contact sports like rugby. It does a large amount even taken entirely by itself, recovery periods are significantly shortened.

    Thats my point, Venjur's trying to argue that HGH use isn't common because of strength standards and aerobic performance shows a complete ignorance of how the drug is commonly used by 34 year old professional athletes. They're not the metrics that are relevant.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,095 ✭✭✭Blut2


    The articles were spread from 2013-2020, and there are plenty more recent on Google if you want to look.

    I'll take that as an admission that you don't, infact, have enough claimed insider knowledge to know better than international newspapers like the Irish Times, The Mail, and Wales Online quoting professionals involved in the game so.

    I'd suggest if you have an interest in rugby you go off and do some reading on the issue. Theres plenty to read that will educate you on it, and give you a better understanding of the game.

    Post edited by Boards.ie: Mike on


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,920 ✭✭✭✭stephen_n


    You seem to be utterly determined to try and put words in my mouth or else you are simply not reading my posts.



  • Registered Users Posts: 12,920 ✭✭✭✭stephen_n


    HGH has little benefit in Aerobic performance. Other PED’s are more beneficial there.

    With or without HGH building muscle is based on tearing it and repairing it. If you want to get bigger and stronger HGH allows the muscle to recover quicker after tearing it. So you can train harder and more often because of that recovery time. If as you say an older player uses it. They are using it to recover quicker. By 34 your natural HGH levels have dropped significantly. Either way, HGH’s role is in the ability for cells to replicate and repair.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Did that Netflix six nations series get abandoned or what's the craic with it?



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,302 ✭✭✭All_in_Flynn


    2024 release apparently, just before next years 6 nations.

    Post edited by Boards.ie: Mike on


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,820 ✭✭✭b.gud


    I think it's due to come out next year, maybe around the time of the 2024 6 nations

    Post edited by Boards.ie: Mike on


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Will be interesting to see how it turns out, seems something happened early on in the production that spooked the teams and access was restricted from there on.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,458 ✭✭✭kuang1


    Post edited by Boards.ie: Mike on


  • Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 16,395 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    I think some of the teams gave the cameras complete access - Into the Changing rooms and team huddles etc. but others weren't so keen.

    Think the Irish team didn't allow them completely unfiltered access as I recall.



    I seem to recall there being a bit of friction right at the beginning between where the Camera crews thought they could/should have access and what the teams and players felt comfortable with etc.

    Post edited by Boards.ie: Mike on


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    My recollection may be inaccurate but I recall there was a period of around 2 - 3 weeks where reports emerged in the media that some of the teams (including Ireland) were unhappy with the level of access or that the crews were too intrusive.

    I always wondered was there a bit more to it - as it was abrupt and seemed to only be a few of the teams. I'm sure the journo's poked about a bit but nothing more came of it.



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 16,395 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    I think that there hadn't been a huge amount of communications about the specifics of filming with the players and coaches themselves . The deal was done between the production company and the 6N's organisers.

    So when the cameras arrived they assumed that they could go everywhere and be the "fly on the wall" for every little detail which some of the squads weren't happy with - Ireland definitely pushed back on access to team-talks etc.

    Think there was a bit of "Who are you and where do you think you going with the camera!" going on.

    It went quiet after a week or two , probably after the Production company sat down with Team Management and clarified the ground rules - Something that should have been done long before the thing started.

    Post edited by Boards.ie: Mike on


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 35,554 Mod ✭✭✭✭pickarooney


    It was a weird idea. Netflix pays pretty much nothing to the 6N or the teams and makes a documentary which is supposed to increase interest in rugby?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,764 ✭✭✭✭AdamD


    That sounds like a completely reasonable idea, until the teams don't cooperate, so it'll probably be rubbish. They are also about 2 years late to the table, each sport that releases one of these gets less and less attention.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    I'll watch it either way, but a year later seems counter intuitive to me.



  • Registered Users Posts: 548 ✭✭✭MaddChris


    Seems to be following the same format as Drive to Survive has been doing the last 5 years

    2022 F1 Season droped on netflix in Febuary, 2023 season started in March.

    Suppose the difference is there's only one F1 competition and thats the World Championship, where as alot will have happened between the 2023 and 2024 Six nations as is the nature of Rugby.

    Post edited by Boards.ie: Mike on


  • Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 16,395 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    And at least a 3rd (if not more) of the players involved in this past years 6N's will be retired/dropped from the new season so it'll be a bit weird..



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 27,489 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    I'd say the more open teams are to the camera the longer gap they'd want also.

    Anyway the 6N is the prime competition in Europe. We have a RWC this year but in general the 6N is when rugby interest will be highest. Makes sense to release just before the next one.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,095 ✭✭✭Blut2


    The difference is though the 2022 F1 season only finished in late November. So their turnaround time from filming to release was about 3 months.

    11 months turnaround for the rugby one is way too long, the previous year's competition will be way out of people's minds. A summer release mightn't be ideal for viewership, but even September as rugby season kicks off again would probably be better.



  • Registered Users Posts: 548 ✭✭✭MaddChris


    Ehh, thats what I kinda said

    .....where as alot will have happened between the 2023 and 2024 Six nations as is the nature of Rugby

    Agree 100% with your point though



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,599 ✭✭✭✭CIARAN_BOYLE


    I've made the point recently that theres a bunch of players in the AIL that could be poorly paid professionals if they want to (finding berths in MLR/NPC/Championship/Federale).

    Its upto them if they want to work for half nothing abroad away from family but its an option.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,203 ✭✭✭Lost Ormond


    Oh most certainly i know plenty who have done it but theres only so long you can do that before you just have to come back and earn a decent wage/give up the pro rugby side of things.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,044 ✭✭✭Yeah_Right


    Had a few mates from back home who had only ever played club rugby (level below NPC) spend a good few years playing in Europe, North America, Asia and the Middle East. They'd get their accommodation and a vehicle and few hundred bucks a week or be set up with a "job". They loved it as young single guys. Travel the world and play rugby.

    Some then returned to NZ and actually played NPC and even Super Rugby.

    I think we'll see more Irish lads do this. Both Treadwell and Thornbury spent time in NZ I think.



  • Subscribers Posts: 41,942 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat




  • Registered Users Posts: 186 ✭✭tmc1963


    Wales definitely had a particular issue with Netflix from memory - it was around the time of their threats to strike.



  • Registered Users Posts: 12,920 ✭✭✭✭stephen_n


    Don’t think they had an issue. As part of their strike action they withdrew cooperation.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 12,920 ✭✭✭✭stephen_n


    Yes but that had nothing to do with them withdrawing their permission. That didn’t come till the strike.



  • Registered Users Posts: 186 ✭✭tmc1963


    I didn't say it had anything 'to do with them withdrawing their permission' - I said 'Wales definitely had a particular issue with Netflix'.



  • Registered Users Posts: 12,920 ✭✭✭✭stephen_n


    Wales definitely had a particular issue with Netflix from memory - it was around the time of their threats to strike.

    The article you posted was from January, before the tournament began. Questions asked directly to Gatland.

    I am pretty sure Andy Farrell responded to questions about it in a similar manner at the time. I don’t think any of the coaches were overly impressed by it.

    Withdrawing access was part of the strike action for leverage with the WRU. Nothing to do with the issues raised by Gatland in that response.



  • Registered Users Posts: 186 ✭✭tmc1963


    I'm not really that bothered to be honest. Are you this argumentative with everybody or did I earn a special focus by daring to suggest earlier that Scotland had narrowed the gap on Ireland since the 6N?

    Incidentally, Shane Horgan writing in the Sunday Times seems to think that it's not the slam dunk that some imagine: “……. I have no difficulty imagining Scotland coming out on top against the Springboks a week today. I’m not saying it will happen, but Gregor Townsend’s team are coming to the boil nicely. If you look back to the Six Nations game against Ireland at Murrayfield, the first half at any rate, you see that they are one of the few sides to have tested Ireland out in the wide channels. There were times during that opening 40 minutes when the Irish defence was stretched to its limit and only a combination of luck, desperation and Scottish inaccuracy kept the home side’s try count to one. South Africa won’t find it any easier.”



  • Registered Users Posts: 12,920 ✭✭✭✭stephen_n


    Facts matter, it’s easy to be down on Wales. In fact I love being down on Wales. If you have difficulty having the facts pointed out. I’d suggest a public comments board may be difficult.

    As for Scotland, I hope they do come out on top. I can’t see it though, SA play the exact type of game Scotland struggle with. As things stand, SA are probably favorites going into the tournament. We have an interesting month ahead of us.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,842 ✭✭✭✭bilston




  • Registered Users Posts: 186 ✭✭tmc1963


    If only you had pointed out facts….



  • Registered Users Posts: 12,920 ✭✭✭✭stephen_n


    If only you understood what facts are. You claimed Wales definitely had an issue with the Netflix documentary around the time of their strike. Then posted an article about comments Gatland made 2 months before the strike. Conflating two things that had absolutely nothing to do with each other.



  • Registered Users Posts: 37 reflekting


    Might have dated very badly depending on how the WC ends up. If Ireland/France are out in the QF to Boks and All Blacks, Scotland out in the pools, whilst England scrape through to the SF due to their easy draw then the 6N documentary ends up looking very inconsistent with reality.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 186 ✭✭tmc1963


    Gatland's comments reported 28 Jan 2023

    Wales strike threats reported 14 February 2023

    That is not "...2 months before the strike..." as you claimed, and to any reasonable person looking at it 7 months later it is clearly "...around the time..." which is what I said.



Advertisement