http://www.sportingo.com/rugby/is_rugby_naive_believe_no/1001,4876After South Africa's 'massive' team destroyed England yesterday it seems poignant to question the sincerity.
Basic but interesting news piece on Rubgy vs Cycling doping
- Thread starter plectrum
- Start date
Too funny.
As if so-called doping tests discourage doping.
Let the doping apology myths continue.
As if so-called doping tests discourage doping.
Let the doping apology myths continue.
I think its highly likely that there is blood-doping in Rugby.
1. There is huge $$$ in rugby to the victors (teams and individuals)
2. There is huge advantages gained by a player that takes, for example, EPO - or transfuses haemaglobin.
3. There is no risk of detection - no tests.
4. The positive effects of EPO and red blood cell transfusions(let alone other non-urine detectable PED's) are well known in the world sports medical community.
5. The authorities are responding to questions about the risk (that players are blood-doping) with a denial mentality.
When England were at their peak in the early part of the decade, it always struck me that they finished a game with the same intensity that they started with. In sharp contrast usually to their opposing team. The new form of rugby (rules were changed in 1993 to speed up the game) is highly dependant on AT threshold, endurance and recovery from bouts of anaerobic effort. Much the same as cycling.
I am shocked when sports authorities don't test and then point the finger at cycling. What if cycling didn't do blood-testing? We'd have a squeaky clean image because cyclists wouldn't need to go into urine detectable PED's. EPO, blood transfusions, HGH would do just fine. No one would ever fail a urine test.
1. There is huge $$$ in rugby to the victors (teams and individuals)
2. There is huge advantages gained by a player that takes, for example, EPO - or transfuses haemaglobin.
3. There is no risk of detection - no tests.
4. The positive effects of EPO and red blood cell transfusions(let alone other non-urine detectable PED's) are well known in the world sports medical community.
5. The authorities are responding to questions about the risk (that players are blood-doping) with a denial mentality.
When England were at their peak in the early part of the decade, it always struck me that they finished a game with the same intensity that they started with. In sharp contrast usually to their opposing team. The new form of rugby (rules were changed in 1993 to speed up the game) is highly dependant on AT threshold, endurance and recovery from bouts of anaerobic effort. Much the same as cycling.
I am shocked when sports authorities don't test and then point the finger at cycling. What if cycling didn't do blood-testing? We'd have a squeaky clean image because cyclists wouldn't need to go into urine detectable PED's. EPO, blood transfusions, HGH would do just fine. No one would ever fail a urine test.
plectrum said:
Oi!
Why single out South Africa? We don't have the heaviest scrum, the biggest forwards or the tallest line out.
Just because england played like a bunch of girl scouts out for a cookie selling afternoon doesn't mean South African rugby players are druggies
I do agree though - the thought that any sport is played by clean gentlemen is both romantic and naive. The bigger the pay cheque the bigger the drug problem. A friend of mine refers to drugged up racing as "cheque book racing". He's quite right.
That said I've given up on the drug thing - if they all take I don't care. I'm enjoying the T20 world cup and the Rugby World Cup and haven't once wondered who's taking and who's not.
Ignorance is indeed bliss.
What if your son was the best U19 rugby player in South Africa. What if he came up to you and said he was going to go on steroids because everyone did it and he won't be able to compete otherwise. "Don't worry dad, I've looked into the consequences. Yeah my cholesterol's going to shoot up to 290 odd. My testicles are going to shrivel up. I have a good chance of going sterile. My chance of heart disease is going to skyrocket. But dad its worth it because I'll play for South Africa and people don't care that everyone's drugged up. They just look down on anyone who's clean who can't keep up with the players that are on on dope." Whilst this is a hypothetical scenario, IMO it is likely the scenario faced by most talented juniors trying to enter the pro ranks.
I think it comes down to if you love the whole sport or you love just the spectacle and cheering your team. IMO either we have to do a whole lot more research and legalize PED's that are reasonably safe, or we have to stand up for the talented athletes who want to stay clean. Saying you don't care if everyone's on it (drugs) is like saying the players are expendable monkeys, that we drug up, so they fight better for us to watch. And who cares if we turn our backs and create a system where players either take drugs or they can't compete. And who cares if many of them end up dying prematurely or suffering permanent health problems.
I didn't mean to be personal. I think everyone on PED's would be possibly the best practical solution (given that testing is so limited in its ability to detect). I think a lot of people feel that way. But IMHO it needs to be monitored and safe, and out in the open. PED's that are safe may be few, once the research is out. So then you're back in the same problem, with illegal (unsafe) PED's. Basically professional sport has created the motivation to risk health to get performance. I agree with you, the rewards are great enough that the health downsides are mostly considered an acceptable risk/sacrifice (to those who are even aware of them), even ignoring the moral issue. But I disagree that we should ignore it.
I'm not a great cyclist but I've played international rugby (before the rules changed, before it went professional, and before every back started looking like a forward except that they could run the 100m in less than 10.8 seconds). I would hate to be where I was in 1991, but having to either bulk up with drugs - or get out of the higher levels, as it seems just by observation, you need to do now.
To those that got this far, I apologize for the long post. I feel strongly about the issue. And I suspect if discussions about doping turned you off, you wouldn't have opened the thread.
I think it comes down to if you love the whole sport or you love just the spectacle and cheering your team. IMO either we have to do a whole lot more research and legalize PED's that are reasonably safe, or we have to stand up for the talented athletes who want to stay clean. Saying you don't care if everyone's on it (drugs) is like saying the players are expendable monkeys, that we drug up, so they fight better for us to watch. And who cares if we turn our backs and create a system where players either take drugs or they can't compete. And who cares if many of them end up dying prematurely or suffering permanent health problems.
I didn't mean to be personal. I think everyone on PED's would be possibly the best practical solution (given that testing is so limited in its ability to detect). I think a lot of people feel that way. But IMHO it needs to be monitored and safe, and out in the open. PED's that are safe may be few, once the research is out. So then you're back in the same problem, with illegal (unsafe) PED's. Basically professional sport has created the motivation to risk health to get performance. I agree with you, the rewards are great enough that the health downsides are mostly considered an acceptable risk/sacrifice (to those who are even aware of them), even ignoring the moral issue. But I disagree that we should ignore it.
I'm not a great cyclist but I've played international rugby (before the rules changed, before it went professional, and before every back started looking like a forward except that they could run the 100m in less than 10.8 seconds). I would hate to be where I was in 1991, but having to either bulk up with drugs - or get out of the higher levels, as it seems just by observation, you need to do now.
To those that got this far, I apologize for the long post. I feel strongly about the issue. And I suspect if discussions about doping turned you off, you wouldn't have opened the thread.
Eldron said:Oi!
Why single out South Africa? We don't have the heaviest scrum, the biggest forwards or the tallest line out.
Just because england played like a bunch of girl scouts out for a cookie selling afternoon doesn't mean South African rugby players are druggies
I do agree though - the thought that any sport is played by clean gentlemen is both romantic and naive. The bigger the pay cheque the bigger the drug problem. A friend of mine refers to drugged up racing as "cheque book racing". He's quite right.
That said I've given up on the drug thing - if they all take I don't care. I'm enjoying the T20 world cup and the Rugby World Cup and haven't once wondered who's taking and who's not.
Ignorance is indeed bliss.
Yes we got ***** slapped!Eldron said:Oi!
Why single out South Africa? We don't have the heaviest scrum, the biggest forwards or the tallest line out.
Just because england played like a bunch of girl scouts out for a cookie selling afternoon doesn't mean South African rugby players are druggies
Similar threads
