"Doping" in rugby?

[goreyguy]

at what point does aiding recovery become performance enhancing?
who has drawn that line in the sand?
what is totally natural athlete?
if you have surgery to fix your naturally injured knee are you not aiding recovery and enhancing future performance?

There are rules in sport. The rules say you may not take these drugs. If you take these drugs you are a cheat and you are banned. That's the difference between a drugs cheat and someone who has surgery to repair a knee.

but are the rules falling behind modern science?
if a drug aids your recovery and has no negative health consequences, why should it be banned?

[Alternative Ulster]

The rules on which drugs are banned and which are not is a bit like the qualification rules to play international rugby (e.g. the 3 year residency one)

You may not like or agree with them, but people acting within them are fine and those who are not are.........

[Broken Wing]

at what point does aiding recovery become performance enhancing?
who has drawn that line in the sand?
what is totally natural athlete?
if you have surgery to fix your naturally injured knee are you not aiding recovery and enhancing future performance?

There are rules in sport. The rules say you may not take these drugs. If you take these drugs you are a cheat and you are banned. That's the difference between a drugs cheat and someone who has surgery to repair a knee.

but are the rules falling behind modern science?
if a drug aids your recovery and has no negative health consequences, why should it be banned?

That's up to the body responsible for running the sport. If the drug is banned then taking it is cheating. If the ban is lifted then taking it will be acceptable. It really is that black and white.

[Alternative Ulster]

My point exactly. People having a rant about Michael Bent or Risteard O'Strabhas is wrong. Rant to the people who make the rules.

[Peg Leg]

No, thats why it should be legalised, you have some athletes with access to top class chemist and the ones who dont putting the wrong thing in their bodies and getting caught, Chilliboy Rallepelle is a recent example of this, given the wrong compound and fails a test as a result. Pro Athletes are going to dope, its a fact, nothing, bar return to amateur status, will change that. The best we can do is regulate as much as we can, as opposed to having individuals doing their own thing and possibly hurting their bodies. PEDs are endemic, anyone who thinks they aren't hasn't a clue.

So in Chilliboy's instance the differnce to you between right and wrong is getting caught or not?
We are trying to regulate it as much as we can.

Ignorant comment, you think Lance didnt bust his b*%&!cks? You think NFL players dont bust their b*%&!cks, you think league players, olympians dont work their hole off to get where they are, simply because they have chemicals aiding their recovery? If anything, they work twice as hard as non enchanced athletes. That whole skipping the effort and drugs as a shortcut shows you know next to nothing about how PED's work or anything about pro athletes who use them.

How can there be a clear winner in individual sports if the results are skewed by a PED?
Do you run a separate "constructors championship" for the drug developers? Or maybe akin to F1 a few yrs ago, the individual or team could commit to one drug manufacturer or another, just like the tyre manufacturers. I wouldn't say any user does it to skip effort, just to get more from what they have. But legalising something that has crazy effects on the human body for short term gain is stupid and dangerous, particularly with hormone triggers.

It'd be like putting lending managers on purely sales based commission, pro's would do anything to improve their stats- even if the end result is detrimental to themselves and the whole system long term.

[Tricky Dicky]

Yep, you think you're being pragmatic but you haven't a clue what this implies. You expect because someone is a pro athlete they should stick any old shite in their bodies? Things are bad enough with the head trauma legacy that's coming down the track.

No, thats why it should be legalised, you have some athletes with access to top class chemist and the ones who dont putting the wrong thing in their bodies and getting caught, Chilliboy Rallepelle is a recent example of this, given the wrong compound and fails a test as a result. Pro Athletes are going to dope, its a fact, nothing, bar return to amateur status, will change that. The best we can do is regulate as much as we can, as opposed to having individuals doing their own thing and possibly hurting their bodies. PEDs are endemic, anyone who thinks they aren't hasn't a clue.

But you're happy to encourage them to dope for success.

Doping is a weak act. The act of a coward. The act of someone who wants to skip the effort and take a shortcut rather than earning it. It takes a huge amount of delusion, aided by apologists like yourself, for a doper to believe they deserve their success. If you don't respect the competition how can you respect the prize?

Ignorant comment, you think Lance didnt bust his b*%&!cks? You think NFL players dont bust their b*%&!cks, you think league players, olympians dont work their hole off to get where they are, simply because they have chemicals aiding their recovery? If anything, they work twice as hard as non enchanced athletes. That whole skipping the effort and drugs as a shortcut shows you know next to nothing about how PED's work or anything about pro athletes who use them.

Are you for real? Do you know what you're advocating? What about the clean competitors who want to compete fairly, and not damage their future health, who would be beaten by naturally inferior athletes who are drug-fuelled?

Even if "safe" drug use was permitted to aid recovery, there would be individual athletes who would be prepared to go to dangerous lengths and take more drugs to gain an edge. The worrying thing is that there are sportspeople who share your views - like the boxer Tony Thompson.

I'm a huge Track fan - sprints especially - and It's great to look at the history of the 100m and all the great sprinters of the last 120 years or so. The likes of Archie Hahn, Charley Paddock, Jesse Owens, Bob Hayes, Valery Borzov, Maurice Greene, and Usain Bolt. With the druggies like Justin Gatlin and Ben Johnson you don't know where you stand. Would they have won if they were clean? It spoils the whole history of the sport if you can't make comparisons with past greats because there's drug taking. The cynic would say that they're all on drugs so it doesn't matter, but what if one competitor was clean and got cheated out of a medal? That happened to Sonia O'Sullivan quite a few times

Your opinion is way off and could lead to deaths. I suppose you haven't heard of the female competitor for East Germany who's now living as a man because of the industrial amounts of drugs that she was given as a teenager.

[Peg Leg]

Your opinion is way off and could lead to deaths. I suppose you haven't heard of the female competitor for East Germany who's now living as a man because of the industrial amounts of drugs that she was given as a teenager.

That'd be this beauty:

[paddyor]

It's the future...today!
http://thescore.thejournal.ie/chika-amalaha-weigthlifter-banned-doping-commonwealth-games-1594526-Jul2014/

16-year-old weightlifter banned after testing positive for doping at Commonwealth Games

NIGERIAN TEEN WEIGHTLIFTER Chika Amalaha has been provisionally suspended from the Commonwealth Games after testing positive in a doping test taken after she won gold in the women’s 53kg category, the Commonwealth Games Federation announced this morning.

The 16-year-old Amalaha provided an ‘A’ sample on July 25 which revealed traces of diuretics and masking agents.

She will have a ‘B’ sample tested at a laboratory in London on 30 July.

Commonwealth Games Federation chief executive Mike Hooper said: “We [have] issued a formal notice of disclosure to an athlete following an adverse analytical finding as a consequence of an in-competition test.

How can you not see this as sad? (And no I don't mean her getting caught)

[leinster4life13]

Are you for real? Do you know what you're advocating? What about the clean competitors who want to compete fairly, and not damage their future health, who would be beaten by naturally inferior athletes who are drug-fuelled?

Even if "safe" drug use was permitted to aid recovery, there would be individual athletes who would be prepared to go to dangerous lengths and take more drugs to gain an edge. The worrying thing is that there are sportspeople who share your views - like the boxer Tony Thompson.

I'm a huge Track fan - sprints especially - and It's great to look at the history of the 100m and all the great sprinters of the last 120 years or so. The likes of Archie Hahn, Charley Paddock, Jesse Owens, Bob Hayes, Valery Borzov, Maurice Greene, and Usain Bolt. With the druggies like Justin Gatlin and Ben Johnson you don't know where you stand. Would they have won if they were clean? It spoils the whole history of the sport if you can't make comparisons with past greats because there's drug taking. The cynic would say that they're all on drugs so it doesn't matter, but what if one competitor was clean and got cheated out of a medal? That happened to Sonia O'Sullivan quite a few times

Your opinion is way off and could lead to deaths. I suppose you haven't heard of the female competitor for East Germany who's now living as a man because of the industrial amounts of drugs that she was given as a teenager.

Huge track fan yet you think Green and Bolt are clean yet Gatlin and Johnson are sullying the name of athletics? LOL, you must be like those Lance fans who thought he was clean, no athlete from the past 30 years who wins a medal with any sort of impressive or WR/OR is clean, if they were, it would mean drugs dont work, however, we know drugs work therefore its impossible for natural athletes to raise the bar on enchanced ones and their record setting performances, training has not outstripped drugs, I know this first hand.

Ha, so you jump from "children" to "deaths", these compounds and their derivatives are well known, even the newer ones have known, manageable sides. So long as you have proper cycles, pct etc you are in no danger, painkillers and corticosteroids, anti imflammatories on the other hand are extremely dangerous, wrek your internal organs casu brittle tendons and joints etc, and actually have proven links with people dying yet no one cares.

[leinster4life13]

It's the future...today!
http://thescore.thejournal.ie/chika-amalaha-weigthlifter-banned-doping-commonwealth-games-1594526-Jul2014/

16-year-old weightlifter banned after testing positive for doping at Commonwealth Games

NIGERIAN TEEN WEIGHTLIFTER Chika Amalaha has been provisionally suspended from the Commonwealth Games after testing positive in a doping test taken after she won gold in the women’s 53kg category, the Commonwealth Games Federation announced this morning.

The 16-year-old Amalaha provided an ‘A’ sample on July 25 which revealed traces of diuretics and masking agents.

She will have a ‘B’ sample tested at a laboratory in London on 30 July.

Commonwealth Games Federation chief executive Mike Hooper said: “We [have] issued a formal notice of disclosure to an athlete following an adverse analytical finding as a consequence of an in-competition test.

How can you not see this as sad? (And no I don't mean her getting caught)

When you end someones ability to make a living out of sports you will end doping, until then it will be a free for all with someone like your one above messing up their cycle and not having it out of their system come competition time and getting caught.

[Tricky Dicky]

Are you for real? Do you know what you're advocating? What about the clean competitors who want to compete fairly, and not damage their future health, who would be beaten by naturally inferior athletes who are drug-fuelled?

Even if "safe" drug use was permitted to aid recovery, there would be individual athletes who would be prepared to go to dangerous lengths and take more drugs to gain an edge. The worrying thing is that there are sportspeople who share your views - like the boxer Tony Thompson.

I'm a huge Track fan - sprints especially - and It's great to look at the history of the 100m and all the great sprinters of the last 120 years or so. The likes of Archie Hahn, Charley Paddock, Jesse Owens, Bob Hayes, Valery Borzov, Maurice Greene, and Usain Bolt. With the druggies like Justin Gatlin and Ben Johnson you don't know where you stand. Would they have won if they were clean? It spoils the whole history of the sport if you can't make comparisons with past greats because there's drug taking. The cynic would say that they're all on drugs so it doesn't matter, but what if one competitor was clean and got cheated out of a medal? That happened to Sonia O'Sullivan quite a few times

Your opinion is way off and could lead to deaths. I suppose you haven't heard of the female competitor for East Germany who's now living as a man because of the industrial amounts of drugs that she was given as a teenager.

Huge track fan yet you think Green and Bolt are clean yet Gatlin and Johnson are sullying the name of athletics? LOL, you must be like those Lance fans who thought he was clean, no athlete from the past 30 years who wins a medal with any sort of impressive or WR/OR is clean, if they were, it would mean drugs dont work, however, we know drugs work therefore its impossible for natural athletes to raise the bar on enchanced ones and their record setting performances, training has not outstripped drugs, I know this first hand.

Ha, so you jump from "children" to "deaths", these compounds and their derivatives are well known, even the newer ones have known, manageable sides. So long as you have proper cycles, pct etc you are in no danger, painkillers and corticosteroids, anti imflammatories on the other hand are extremely dangerous, wrek your internal organs casu brittle tendons and joints etc, and actually have proven links with people dying yet no one cares.

Everyone knew Lance was doping. I didn't for one second believe he was clean. There were too many rumours. I wouldn't like to bet a lot that Greene was completely clean either. A lot of athletes from that time were drug takers, like Tim Montgomery and Marion Jones. I want to trust the system though.

Usain Bolt ran 19.93 for 200m at age 17. There's no way that guy's doping. He runs like a cat, not a tank. I'd bet anything that David Rudisha and Haile Gebrselassie are clean too.

Your assertion that any winner is on drugs is based on the assumption that everyone's on the same talent level starting off. That's ridiculous. No amount of drugs would make Mike Ross faster than Tommy Bowe over 100m. Some people are just naturally more athletic than the rest which is the case with Bolt or Ashton Eaton.

There have been quite a few deaths in cycling which were linked to EPO use. Marco Pantani is one name I remember.

You haven't addressed my point about individuals putting their health at risk to get an edge. In your perfect world where everyone's on drugs presumably everyone would improve by the same amount, making legalising drugs redundant. Individuals would take more and more drugs to get an edge. Where would it stop?

[ceemec]

Personally, I've strong doubts about Bolt. However, the hyperbolic claim that every medal winner who performed impressively is on drugs is utterly laughable. John Treacy claimed silver at the 1984 Olympics in the marathon, pretty much equalling the Olympic record. Not a hope he was on drugs.

If you look at the progression of a lot of world records over that time, the times aren't particularly stunning in a lot of events. The 5,000m world record has come down only about 20 seconds in 30 years. Mo Farah has never posted a time in the top 15 fastest of all time at 10,000m. If these guys were doping, they'd surely be going faster? The fact is that it's simply not a vintage field in the 10,000m event these days.

It's genuinely scary that someone could advocate permitting drug taking in sports given the massive evidence of the damage it does to individuals.

[leinster4life13]

Everyone knew Lance was doping. I didn't for one second believe he was clean. There were too many rumours. I wouldn't like to bet a lot that Greene was completely clean either. A lot of athletes from that time were drug takers, like Tim Montgomery and Marion Jones. I want to trust the system though.

Usain Bolt ran 19.93 for 200m at age 17. There's no way that guy's doping. He runs like a cat, not a tank. I'd bet anything that David Rudisha and Haile Gebrselassie are clean too.

Your assertion that any winner is on drugs is based on the assumption that everyone's on the same talent level starting off. That's ridiculous. No amount of drugs would make Mike Ross faster than Tommy Bowe over 100m. Some people are just naturally more athletic than the rest which is the case with Bolt or Ashton Eaton.

There have been quite a few deaths in cycling which were linked to EPO use. Marco Pantani is one name I remember.

You haven't addressed my point about individuals putting their health at risk to get an edge. In your perfect world where everyone's on drugs presumably everyone would improve by the same amount, making legalising drugs redundant. Individuals would take more and more drugs to get an edge. Where would it stop?

Victor conte head of BALCO claimed all the finalists in the mens 100m in 2000 were doping, he was supplying a lot of them. Marion Jones passed every test.
"Usain Bolt ran 19.93 for 200m at age 17. There's no way that guy's doping"....... That says it all, they have a thrid world testing system and when you are growing is when you get the most gains, Bolt is/was juiced to the gills.
you are right about talent level, but I know I could knock a fair few seconds of Ross's 100m time if I had him for a year.
Pantani died from cocaine abuse
thats not how they work, its not quite less is more, but there are ideal dosages depending on your sport, you dont want water retention or extra unnecessary mass, so taking 2cc's of Winstrol for example, wont make you a better spinter then a guy who takes 200-500mg a week.

Personally, I've strong doubts about Bolt. However, the hyperbolic claim that every medal winner who performed impressively is on drugs is utterly laughable. John Treacy claimed silver at the 1984 Olympics in the marathon, pretty much equalling the Olympic record. Not a hope he was on drugs.

If you look at the progression of a lot of world records over that time, the times aren't particularly stunning in a lot of events. The 5,000m world record has come down only about 20 seconds in 30 years. Mo Farah has never posted a time in the top 15 fastest of all time at 10,000m. If these guys were doping, they'd surely be going faster? The fact is that it's simply not a vintage field in the 10,000m event these days.

It's genuinely scary that someone could advocate permitting drug taking in sports given the massive evidence of the damage it does to individuals.

Granted not every medal winner is, I dont know enough about the training programming or drug routines for anything out of certain power/speed ranges so I cant comment, fair enough on the marathons I dont know, but I would suspect they are on some EPO type of drug, maybe Farah isn't and is just lucky to be racing against cr@p. I know for certain 100 to 400 is all drugs, all weightlifting is drugs, mens gymnastics has a lot of drugs.
PED's dont harm people, idiots misusing them do

[paddyor]

When you end someones ability to make a living out of sports you will end doping, until then it will be a free for all with someone like your one above messing up their cycle and not having it out of their system come competition time and getting caught.

Jaysus! By the same token, should we just regulate match fixing?

I don't deny that doping is an issue that will always be with sport but it doesn't mean you just have to accept it.

Oh and training and execution in competition do make you better at what your doing. Golf offers the best example of this. For one closer to Rugby see the Irish teams of the amatuer era and the pro era

[FLIP]

Trying to compare knee surgery to doping is nuts. All the surgery will do is restore close to natural function. Even with the surgery, an extensive physiotherapy effort is required to get the knee back to even walking normally, with running and sports a whole extra effort level above.

All drugs will do is give you extra results for the same effort.

[ceemec]

I'd have my doubts on 400m. Only 8 of the top 25 times in history have been ran in the 21st century. If doping is rife, that suggests that 400m has generally been a poor standard naturally for up to 15 years. It's even more stark for women where the fastest times are from a number of years ago. It very much appears like they've tightened up their act hugely and people are playing by the rules. Only 2 of the top 20 times in history have been ran in the last 5 years.

If these events are all drugs, the natural standard of athletes is at an all time low currently.

[Morf]

I'm neither as cynical as lfl13 nor do I believe that drugs are as scarce and boogeyman bad thing as others.

I'd like to think that big outliers come along from time to time too though. Then again PEDs would reduce their advantage over the rest of the sample.

[Vamos los azules]

I'd have my doubts on 400m. Only 8 of the top 25 times in history have been ran in the 21st century. If doping is rife, that suggests that 400m has generally been a poor standard naturally for up to 15 years. It's even more stark for women where the fastest times are from a number of years ago. It very much appears like they've tightened up their act hugely and people are playing by the rules. Only 2 of the top 20 times in history have been ran in the last 5 years.

If these events are all drugs, the natural standard of athletes is at an all time low currently.

Bear in mind the tracks are more advanced technology these days too, which should contribute to faster times. 400m is such a technical event that you could be doped to the eyeballs and still stuff it up on timing. Until they find something that can enable the human body to go flat out for that distance there would be limits to what doping could achieve in that event compared to an outright sprint like the 100m.

I have my doubts about many of the top sprinters at 100m and 200m, although someone like Christophe Lemaitre is still skinny as a rake and hasn't had any massive improvements in times over the past few years so I'm still inclined to think some may be there on natural ability. I would also say some countries are a lot cleaner than others.

There are also some rugby players out there that I would be more surprised if they hadn't taken something.

[simonokeeffe]

Just sayin..... [Olding photo]

In fairness to the lad, he injured his ACL nine months ago, which doesn't preclude you from doing any upper body weights.

He's a 21 year old professional athlete. Any dedicated lifter can make big gains in both size and strength at that age, and when you take into account the fact that it's his job to train, and he doesn't have to 'take time out' to play rugby and recover from it, it doesn't surprise me that he's put on so much muscle mass. He's in a really good working environment – good advice on nutrition, good trainers, good lifting partners who provide a lot of positive peer pressure, a great gym, and a big goal to aim for.

to expand on Hugo slightly a that age the body is still producing high amounts of HGH which is a wonder for muscle growth/development
Plus with staff/facilities there he could train twice a day and eat his brains out
Also I think Stephen Ferris eats the weaker players, case in point: Adam Darcy has vanished

Athletes to worry about arent 21 year olds who muscle up quickly/dramatically its late 20s who suddenly become bigger/stronger/faster swimmers or record breaking baseball players

[Peg Leg]

Just sayin..... [Olding photo]

In fairness to the lad, he injured his ACL nine months ago, which doesn't preclude you from doing any upper body weights.

He's a 21 year old professional athlete. Any dedicated lifter can make big gains in both size and strength at that age, and when you take into account the fact that it's his job to train, and he doesn't have to 'take time out' to play rugby and recover from it, it doesn't surprise me that he's put on so much muscle mass. He's in a really good working environment – good advice on nutrition, good trainers, good lifting partners who provide a lot of positive peer pressure, a great gym, and a big goal to aim for.

to expand on Hugo slightly a that age the body is still producing high amounts of HGH which is a wonder for muscle growth/development
Plus with staff/facilities there he could train twice a day and eat his brains out
Also I think Stephen Ferris eats the weaker players, case in point: Adam Darcy has vanished

Athletes to worry about arent 21 year olds who muscle up quickly/dramatically its late 20s who suddenly become bigger/stronger/faster swimmers or record breaking baseball players

Or Pierre Spies