"Doping" in rugby?

[Broken Wing]

I know I brought it up but bear in mind that it is all speculation.

It's worth remembering that Jamaica has a reputation for sprinting. They won medals for sprinting in the Olympics in 1948, 1952, 1968, 1972, 1976, 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008 and 2012. In all they've won 66 of their 67 Olympic medals in athletics.

Bolt's 200m times:
19.91s - 2007 Osaka IAAF World Championships (finished 2nd behind Tyson Gay)
19.32s - 2008 Beijing Olympics
19.19s - 2009 Berlin IAAF World Championships (Set the current World Record)
19.40s – 2011 Daegu IAAF World Championships
19.32s – 2012 London Olympics

A massive improvement over two years between 2007 and 2009. He would probably have broken the record in London but he eased off over the last few strides as it was in the bag.

[ronk]

Worrying. I have heard that with a lot of drug cheats in athletics the difference in times from when they were younger to after they doped is quite obvious (no sh*t Sherlock!) but that with Bolt, his times always showed steady progress which tied in with his physical development.

That's very worrying though.

To be honest it never seriously crossed my mind that Bolt wasn't awash in drugs. Not once.

Same here.

I don't buy the argument about smooth progression of times, there are two ways around it: start doping earlier and don't run too fast. Bolt was an elite runner from a young age (and knew that he wanted to be) and it's pretty obvious watching him at times that he's able to sandbag.

[gleesonisgod]

Worrying. I have heard that with a lot of drug cheats in athletics the difference in times from when they were younger to after they doped is quite obvious (no sh*t Sherlock!) but that with Bolt, his times always showed steady progress which tied in with his physical development.

That's very worrying though.

To be honest it never seriously crossed my mind that Bolt wasn't awash in drugs. Not once.

Same here.

I don't buy the argument about smooth progression of times, there are two ways around it: start doping earlier and don't run too fast. Bolt was an elite runner from a young age (and knew that he wanted to be) and it's pretty obvious watching him at times that he's able to sandbag.

Usain Bolt is a different frame to any of the others that have gone before him so I think that gives him advantages. Dwayne Chambers has said the drugs were a waste of time because they didn't make that much of a difference to his times. Taking drugs doesn't make you the fastest man in history, if it was that simple we would have seen crazier times before the doping authorities caught on.

[ronk]

Usain Bolt is a different frame to any of the others that have gone before him so I think that gives him advantages. Dwayne Chambers has said the drugs were a waste of time because they didn't make that much of a difference to his times. Taking drugs doesn't make you the fastest man in history, if it was that simple we would have seen crazier times before the doping authorities caught on.

True Bolt has a different frame, but the whole field has gotten a lot quicker in a short space of time. Only one finalist ran over 10s in London and he was a medal hopeful who was injured.

I don't think Bolt is any cleaner or dirtier than the guys he's running against, but that's not the same thing as not cheating. If we've seen the way Armstrong can rely on a team doping effort, why would we rule out something similar with Bolt?

[Broken Wing]

It's of course possible that Bolt has a frame advantage in the same way that Thorpe and Phelps have natural advantages.

Yohan Blake has cut that advantage to just .07 seconds but that's a huge gap over 100m.

[tones]

I remember reading a Franno piece years ago where he reads the issue of doping in rugby, specifically Irish rugby. He claimed it was prevalent and had encountered it during his playing days (not booze now )
He "interviewed" a powerlifting competitor I think, who dealt drugs on the side to support his costs to use supplements & steroids and this individual claimed Irish rugby was awash with doping.
Obviously since then stricter measures/testing has come into place, so not sure whether Franno had accidentally tripped and came across accuracy before typing an article or not.

[fourthirtythree]

...... Taking drugs doesn't make you the fastest man in history, if it was that simple we would have seen crazier times before the doping authorities caught on.

Maybe not but it certainly makes you one of the fastest six women in history. Crazy times. And the doping authorities never caught on.

[CiaranIrl]

I know I brought it up but bear in mind that it is all speculation.

It's worth remembering that Jamaica has a reputation for sprinting. They won medals for sprinting in the Olympics in 1948, 1952, 1968, 1972, 1976, 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008 and 2012. In all they've won 66 of their 67 Olympic medals in athletics.

Bolt's 200m times:
19.91s - 2007 Osaka IAAF World Championships (finished 2nd behind Tyson Gay)
19.32s - 2008 Beijing Olympics
19.19s - 2009 Berlin IAAF World Championships (Set the current World Record)
19.40s – 2011 Daegu IAAF World Championships
19.32s – 2012 London Olympics

A massive improvement over two years between 2007 and 2009. He would probably have broken the record in London but he eased off over the last few strides as it was in the bag.

There was an interesting channel 4 documentary in the lead up to the olympics where Michael Johnson talked about possible reasons as to why Jamaican sprinters have done so well.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... inals.html

[waterboy]

I know I brought it up but bear in mind that it is all speculation.

It's worth remembering that Jamaica has a reputation for sprinting. They won medals for sprinting in the Olympics in 1948, 1952, 1968, 1972, 1976, 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008 and 2012. In all they've won 66 of their 67 Olympic medals in athletics.

Bolt's 200m times:
19.91s - 2007 Osaka IAAF World Championships (finished 2nd behind Tyson Gay)
19.32s - 2008 Beijing Olympics
19.19s - 2009 Berlin IAAF World Championships (Set the current World Record)
19.40s – 2011 Daegu IAAF World Championships
19.32s – 2012 London Olympics

A massive improvement over two years between 2007 and 2009. He would probably have broken the record in London but he eased off over the last few strides as it was in the bag.

Also worth remembering in 2007 he was 21, not unusual for an athlete to make a big performance gain between the ages of 21 - 23, especially in the 200m, where stamina rather than absolute top speed is a big factor in attaining fast times.

I have always believed that Carl Lewis was doped up to his eyeballs, but if it ever came out, that that would have been end of athletics there and then. A lot of adult athlete's of that era, like Lewis, suddenly all started to wear braces around the same time!! In the same way if it ever comes out that Bolt is cheating, it'll be the end of the sport which had almost disappeared until Bolt single handily saved it, and became a global superstar.

[fourthirtythree]

The entire US track and field team needed braces in the mid to late 90s!

It's funny, even if you think of yourself as not being emotionally swayed when it comes to drugs you really are. For me Carl Lewis would be a step too far. I'd love to believe he wasn't deep into it whereas someone like Michael Johnson, for a random example, it would never occur to me that he wasn't.

But basically, athletics is like cycling without the police involvement. I don't know who athletics Charlie Mottet is, but there must be some guy out there who didn't take drugs in the last 30 years. And never won a really major medal.

And lets not forget the distance runners here. They may not be dying of cancer at 40 odd any more from the shite they were taking (see women's sprinting records for another example of that - the holder of some of those is buried in a hazchem site lest anyone else explode with cancer) but they're still hooky as bedamned.

[waterboy]

The entire US track and field team needed braces in the mid to late 90s!

It's funny, even if you think of yourself as not being emotionally swayed when it comes to drugs you really are. For me Carl Lewis would be a step too far. I'd love to believe he wasn't deep into it whereas someone like Michael Johnson, for a random example, it would never occur to me that he wasn't.

Think it was a BBC Documentary during the summer which talked about US Track and Field doing a lot of testing in the lead up to the LA Olympics as "research" to ensure they didn't have any problems with any of their athletes doping as they didn't want the shame of one of their stars testing positive at their homes games. The belief was though that they were actually perfecting their drugs regiment to ensure that by the time an athlete was tested in competition that any drugs would have cleared their system.

Definitely agree that everyone is swayed whether they think they are or not. I'd be the opposite to yourself in that I always believed Lewis was on the good stuff but never thought Johnson was at all. Think a lot of that comes from whether you like a particular athlete, and if you do then you're inclined to think they are one of the good guys!! Unfortunately the reality is that in all likelihood any top athlete competing these days in athletics is probably, if not illegal then definitely walking a very thin grey line.

[fourthirtythree]

Definitely agree that everyone is swayed whether they think they are or not. I'd be the opposite to yourself in that I always believed Lewis was on the good stuff but never thought Johnson was at all. Think a lot of that comes from whether you like a particular athlete, and if you do then you're inclined to think they are one of the good guys!! Unfortunately the reality is that in all likelihood any top athlete competing these days in athletics is probably, if not illegal then definitely walking a very thin grey line.

That's it isn't it? It's not like they wake up one morning and decide to take drugs out of the blue. It's a gradual process that their supplements etc. blur for them.

By the way, I think Johnson is and was great and I like him a lot. He's lost a lot of chin since he stopped competing though. So it's nice to know it's not irreversible.

[cormac]

The entire US track and field team needed braces in the mid to late 90s!

It's funny, even if you think of yourself as not being emotionally swayed when it comes to drugs you really are. For me Carl Lewis would be a step too far. I'd love to believe he wasn't deep into it whereas someone like Michael Johnson, for a random example, it would never occur to me that he wasn't.

But basically, athletics is like cycling without the police involvement. I don't know who athletics Charlie Mottet is, but there must be some guy out there who didn't take drugs in the last 30 years. And never won a really major medal.

And lets not forget the distance runners here. They may not be dying of cancer at 40 odd any more from the shite they were taking (see women's sprinting records for another example of that - the holder of some of those is buried in a hazchem site lest anyone else explode with cancer) but they're still hooky as bedamned.

Carl Lewis failed a drugs test at one of the US Olympic trials, think it was 88. Six of the eight athletes who started the 100m final in Seoul failed drug tests, or later admitted taking drugs. Carl Lewis, Ben Johnson, Linford Christie and Denis Mitchell all failed drug tests, Desai Williams wasn't caught but admitted to taking drugs in the Canadian investigation into Ben Johnson's disqualification, while Ray Stewart of Jamaica was convicted a few years ago of providing drugs to athletes he was coaching. Only Calvin Smith and Robson da Silva have clean records. That BBC documentary on the 100m final was scary in terms of the lengths that the US authorities went to cover up drug taking amongst its athletes in the 80's.

[ronk]

Definitely agree that everyone is swayed whether they think they are or not. I'd be the opposite to yourself in that I always believed Lewis was on the good stuff but never thought Johnson was at all. Think a lot of that comes from whether you like a particular athlete, and if you do then you're inclined to think they are one of the good guys!! Unfortunately the reality is that in all likelihood any top athlete competing these days in athletics is probably, if not illegal then definitely walking a very thin grey line.

That's it isn't it? It's not like they wake up one morning and decide to take drugs out of the blue. It's a gradual process that their supplements etc. blur for them.

By the way, I think Johnson is and was great and I like him a lot. He's lost a lot of chin since he stopped competing though. So it's nice to know it's not irreversible.

No, I don't think so at all. There's a big commitment already to training, but accurate use of drugs is a major decision with huge implications and massive effects on your life. If you're already registered with WADA you're used to the prospect of testing at any time, any place. If you're doping, this means that you have to alter your life. You need a detailed understanding of the whole WADA system, what drugs to take, when to take them and then you play a game of cat and mouse with the testers. Michelle Smith wouldn't answer the door, couldn't just go down to the supermarket. The testers hid away for hours and surprised her when she left the bins out. That required surveillance and dedication above and beyond the call of duty (and pay) of the testers. Some of the techniques like blood doping carry huge risks unless the proper precautions are used. The precautions need to be hidden.

It's not something you just do. To get away with it at the top levels, it has to take over your life. Where athletes do it individually, they can spend months researching before starting.

[Logorrhea]

So despite all this, we think our favourite athletes are clean?

Again, I'm not in the know, I'm not making any accusations, but christ, imagine a certain Irish international was found to be doping. The damage it would do to the game here would be unbelievable.

I'm in no way convinced that we are all that good (or intersted) in policing it at all.

[LeRouxIsPHat]

Sorry for being dense but what's the significance of the braces? Is it an indication that their teeth had been wrecked by drugs or that the "dental visits" could be used to administer drugs or what?

I agree with whoever said that there's an element of just wanting to believe in certain people because you like them. Bolt and Johnson would both fall into that category for me. One thing about Bolt that gives me hope is that he's always been so laid back, I'd just can't imagine him wanting to win enough that he'd do it. I know he obviously still has to have a lot of determination to get to where he has but the interview with Johnson a year or two ago indicated that he was a fairly poor trainer...I do realise that that could indicate that the drugs made up the difference but just can't see him being that serious about things.

[ronk]

Sorry for being dense but what's the significance of the braces? Is it an indication that their teeth had been wrecked by drugs or that the "dental visits" could be used to administer drugs or what?

I agree with whoever said that there's an element of just wanting to believe in certain people because you like them. Bolt and Johnson would both fall into that category for me. One thing about Bolt that gives me hope is that he's always been so laid back, I'd just can't imagine him wanting to win enough that he'd do it. I know he obviously still has to have a lot of determination to get to where he has but the interview with Johnson a year or two ago indicated that he was a fairly poor trainer...I do realise that that could indicate that the drugs made up the difference but just can't see him being that serious about things.

It's that the shape of their jaws were being changed by the hormones so they needed braces to correct their teeth.

[fourthirtythree]

No, I don't think so at all. There's a big commitment already to training, but accurate use of drugs is a major decision with huge implications and massive effects on your life. If you're already registered with WADA you're used to the prospect of testing at any time, any place. If you're doping, this means that you have to alter your life. You need a detailed understanding of the whole WADA system, what drugs to take, when to take them and then you play a game of cat and mouse with the testers. Michelle Smith wouldn't answer the door, couldn't just go down to the supermarket. The testers hid away for hours and surprised her when she left the bins out. That required surveillance and dedication above and beyond the call of duty (and pay) of the testers. Some of the techniques like blood doping carry huge risks unless the proper precautions are used. The precautions need to be hidden.

It's not something you just do. To get away with it at the top levels, it has to take over your life. Where athletes do it individually, they can spend months researching before starting.

This is the narrative of sin and redemption that we tend to hear from felon athletes, that it was an individual fall from grace and a sin they carried with them through their professional careers. One big mistake. For various reasons I find that unconvincing.

You don't go from zero to EPO. In cycling they get their Haemocrit measured daily, it's an environment in which if you are not on the legal limit there's something wrong. They take pills and injections all the time, as they do in most major sports. They don't do it on their own, they do it as part of a team. Go back in time to the 80s and some spotless athletes with political careers would have been siphoning off blood in the winter to use for their record attempts. Not technically illegal at the time I believe, but morally no different from taking EPO or the like. Their records will not be expunged and they feel entitled to lecture others. An Irish athlete or two would have responded to rampant and obvious doping in their sport by going for "out of season training" in Australia. Why there? In the 90s Australia was like East Germany to the USA's Soviet Union. In the 90s two team doctors in a row resigned from the US team over the fact that they had to deal with rampant and systematic doping. Not individuals but an entire culture. The example you gave of Michelle de Bruin (who didn't act on her own, her coach was her husband) will never happen to Usain Bolt. Drug testers flying in to Kingston are spotted immediately, there are no surprises.

Sportspeople are urged to cheat, to push the boundaries, to be winners, to break the laws of the game. It's just that sometimes there are unwritten laws that we as spectators see as being more important. I'm not sure they do. Drug taking is a continuum that they travel throughout their careers. What they took last year may be illegal next. They may get a medical cert for their growth hormones or their steroids, but be medically no different from the next athlete without the certs.

That closeness to the athletes and the way we have turned some of them into "good guys" in our minds is part of the reason the sports authorities, I think, will never combat drugs. They're too close. It's usually criminal investigations involving illegal use and transport of medicines that kick things right open. So obviously I believe in my heart that no Irish rugby player is taking drugs. But belief is thinking something is true without actually having any evidence.

[Oldschool]

Carl Lewis - There was definitely a Whiff of Cordite about his performances after he retired.
Our own multi gold winning swimmer won mainly because the other swimmers were running scared (and had stopped taking their enhancements) because the testers had convinced them they were onto to them. Michele still has her medals, so at the very least she was smarter than the rest of them. Her times were nothing special either. Her main accuser was the American swimmer who missed out on all that that dosh because things didn't quite go to plan.
I don't believe all the bull about her missing tests etc. Rio Ferdinand got done, not for taking drugs but, for missing his appointments. So why would Michel not get done for missing her appointments. Unless, of ,course she had convinced them she was alcoholic and had been on the piss the night before, had had a bottle of wine for breakfast and a bottle of brandy for tea break and so they took pity on her.
People will cheat be it with drugs or rule bending or what ever. There are plenty of ways to cheat, drugs is just one of them.
We even had a situation where female athletes got pregnant and then had abortions to improve their performances. Nothing is sacred, not even life.

[LeRouxIsPHat]

Thanks ronk. That's scary, not only because of the effects that were caused but also because it was seemingly so obvious.