Doping in Rugby

[goodNumber10]

Tell me again how PED's mean you don't have to work hard.

i guess it could be seen you don't have to manage your recovery as well...

 

[ratsapprentice]

You don't if you don't mind being worse off than the guy who is managing his recovery well and subsequently being in much better shape than you... as you would without PED's.

You then negate the advantage you are getting by doing that.

 

[TRF_heineken]

i guess it could be seen you don't have to manage your recovery as well...

But for that specific reason this is a grey area.

Every person at the gym nowadays use some sort of supplement (legal or illegal) to assist in recovery/fat burning/ muscle toning.

Most people don't want to manage the recovery time, and want results, so they use all sorts of shakes/powders/pills to aid them. How is that any different from doping??

 

[j'nuh]

The problem with doping is that if you allow it, then players who wouldn't want to do it would be pressured into doing it. From a player welfare POV, it should be banned.

The logic goes like this:
Doping is used to get a competitive advantage.
Without that competitive advantage, you lose out comparative to those that do take it.
This puts pressure on you, internally (desire to play better) and externally (pressure from coaches and fans about your perceived weaknesses) to dope.

Legalise it, and players would dope by default, with maybe a few renegades here and there that choose not to and get by on ability alone.

Also, think about the wider repercussions. Governing bodies and elite teams will be able to safely dope with considerations to the health of the player. Young and amateur players will not. We could set separate regulations for the professional and amateur game, but the example set by the professional game will lend the amateur game a culture of acceptability over doping. The main reason that amateurs don't dope is because most have a negative view towards doping. Legalise it in the professional game, and it will become more acceptable in the amateur game. Unless you plan on thoroughly policing doping in the amateur game (ha, not happening), then what weapon do you have left to stop doping in the amateur game? The IRB has just as much, if not more, responsibility towards the amateurs as they do the professionals.

+1^

People that are against doping...

Let me ask you this: Would you be upset if Jean De Villiers used illegal substances to halve the recovery time of his current injury, or if they ensured that he could return to the sport without hindrance?
Or if it meant that Alex Corbisiero could continue to play the sport without continual enforced absences?

I have no problem with medical exceptions. Hell, the IRB could employ a few doctors, whose acceptance is required to take banned substances. Seems a lot easier than openly accepting doping.

 

[Mikel92]

But for that specific reason this is a grey area.

Every person at the gym nowadays use some sort of supplement (legal or illegal) to assist in recovery/fat burning/ muscle toning.

Most people don't want to manage the recovery time, and want results, so they use all sorts of shakes/powders/pills to aid them. How is that any different from doping??

Oh, come on. I think doping creates a more unfair advantage than a chocolate flavour protein shake. Let's be real.

 

[ratsapprentice]

The problem with doping is that if you allow it, then players who wouldn't want to do it would be pressured into doing it. From a player welfare POV, it should be banned.

If a specific substance is harmful to player welfare then ban it!
If there isn't then there is no reason for the player in question to refuse to take it - no more than he has the right to refuse to do pre-season hill sprints.

The problem is that not all substances are - yet they are hit with a carpet ban.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

I can understand the players might want a competitive edge and substances might be safe enough etc but lets look at it from a market/spectator sport angle; would we as fans want doping to be open and rampant?

- Wouldn't even bigger bodies just translate into even more injuries and disruptions than we have on hands already? This greatly effects the way in which the teams we support play.
- Would it be reasonable to assume a greater emphasis on doping/pure physicality would lessen the importance of outright skill? If so, I'd say I'd rather see the best skill on offer rather than the biggest frames.
- It kinda feels like cheating and cheapens the product IMO even if that is mostly down to stigma.
- this would set back Rugby's progress as a truly world sport as it would create a HUGE gulf (or rather expand an existing gulf) between the haves and have nots; how is a country like Madagascar going ever going to be able to close a gap on an existing 'rugby powerhouse' or 1st world country when the others have access to dope on top of the other advantages they don't?

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

The problem with doping is that if you allow it, then players who wouldn't want to do it would be pressured into doing it. From a player welfare POV, it should be banned.

The logic goes like this:
Doping is used to get a competitive advantage.
Without that competitive advantage, you lose out comparative to those that do take it.
This puts pressure on you, internally (desire to play better) and externally (pressure from coaches and fans about your perceived weaknesses) to dope.

Legalise it, and players would dope by default, with maybe a few renegades here and there that choose not to and get by on ability alone.

Also, think about the wider repercussions. Governing bodies and elite teams will be able to safely dope with considerations to the health of the player. Young and amateur players will not. We could set separate regulations for the professional and amateur game, but the example set by the professional game will lend the amateur game a culture of acceptability over doping. The main reason that amateurs don't dope is because most have a negative view towards doping. Legalise it in the professional game, and it will become more acceptable in the amateur game. Unless you plan on thoroughly policing doping in the amateur game (ha, not happening), then what weapon do you have left to stop doping in the amateur game? The IRB has just as much, if not more, responsibility towards the amateurs as they do the professionals.


I have no problem with medical exceptions. Hell, the IRB could employ a few doctors, whose acceptance is required to take banned substances. Seems a lot easier than openly accepting doping.

This is the best counter argument to it, there are a lot of players out there who wouldn't want to associate themselves with the stigma related to PED's and if "World Rugby" allows doping in any form it subsequently puts these players at risk of injury due to being in inferior condition to those around them or losing their career to someone who isn't as good a rugby player as them but is willing to take PED's. One of the areas where I do believe it should be allowed is for players like Sam Chalmers from those Kimmage articles, he lost out because his genetics wouldn't allow him to gain the mass of players who weren't as good rugby players as he was but they beat him due to the fact they could gain mass easier than him due to genetics. This was in an aspect of rugby which we as a sport constantly claim doesn't matter ("All shapes and sizes") which anyone with any intelligence can tell is pure bull****.

 

[ratsapprentice]

This was in an aspect of rugby which we as a sport constantly claim doesn't matter ("All shapes and sizes") which anyone with any intelligence can tell is pure bull****.

That's not what that bloody adage means though... better athletes have always been better in any sport where athleticism is important.

A guy who is 5'8" has an advantage over a guy who is 6' and wants to play SH - the same for the fat bloke that wants to be a prop or the 6'10" guy who wants to be a lock.
The adage is just as true today as it ever was - the only difference is that today's pro players aren't borderline alcoholics or, you know... literally ****ing amateurs.

There wasn't some magical time when the slow, weak and poorly coordinated guy was better at rugby than he would be today.

 

[goodNumber10]

But for that specific reason this is a grey area.

Every person at the gym nowadays use some sort of supplement (legal or illegal) to assist in recovery/fat burning/ muscle toning.

agreed, but they are bought legally and adhere to "strict" guidlines.

Most people don't want to manage the recovery time, and want results, so they use all sorts of shakes/powders/pills to aid them. How is that any different from doping??

Not saying it is.

I'm not really going to offer an opinion on this, just interested on peoples thoughts.

 

[ratsapprentice]

agreed, but they are bought legally and adhere to "strict" guidlines.

It's legal to buy use anabolic steroids in the UK, it's their use in WADA affiliated sports that is illegal - a lot of supplements bought from smaller companies do not adhere to any guidelines at all... hence why you get "contaminated" supplements.

 

[goodNumber10]

It's legal to buy use anabolic steroids in the UK, it's their use in WADA affiliated sports that is illegal -

Pedantic, you know what i meant.

a lot of supplements bought from smaller companies do not adhere to any guidelines at all... hence why you get "contaminated" supplements.

yes, hence me saying "strict".

 

[TRF_heineken]

Oh, come on. I think doping creates a more unfair advantage than a chocolate flavour protein shake. Let's be real.

But it's about drawing a line.

Sure a chocolate flavoured protein bar has no negative effect, except that some of them taste pretty damn awful.

But what about something like a pre-workout drink, let's take a product I have used, N.2.O. Explode, It's assists your blood veins in opening up, providing more blood to flow to the areas where you are training, giving you quicker results. Some of the products to that supplement is legal in certain countries, and some aren't.

agreed, but they are bought legally and adhere to "strict" guidlines.

Bought legally? hmm that's also a matter of interpretation. Some products are very difficult to obtain legally at supplement shops, and most of the time trainers do "black market" sales behind the gym.

Not saying it is.

I'm not really going to offer an opinion on this, just interested on peoples thoughts.

I like this topic as it's open for discussion and debate, I'm not arguing with you, and I'm just like you voicing my opinion.

My opinion is based on personal experience, I have used both legal, and illegal supplements to some degree to assist my body in performing better at the gym. I can also from personal experience tell you that some of these products are seriously bad for your health. You might look like an Adonis but your body inside is frail.

 

[Mikel92]

I just think this is a case of the negatives outweighing the positives so far. And I don't deny there are positives. But there down sides seem to be far more significant. It's one thing for a group of guys on a rugby forum to understand the liberalization of it (although I don't personally), but the public perception is a totally different matter.

Would we be the only sport doing this? Sports is a very competitive market, and the sport adopted at childhood has lasting impressions and goals. Rugby is already competing against less "crash bash" sports, we don't need another reason to scare Mums across the globe who decide what Little Timmy can play. Not just kids, I think a lot of people would just flat out lose respect for the game and drift away with the knowledge the code freely embraces PEDs. Even if were to adopt this, there are surely okay substances and bad substances? To an average Joe that could be a pretty merky area.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

That's not what that bloody adage means though... better athletes have always been better in any sport where athleticism is important.

A guy who is 5'8" has an advantage over a guy who is 6' and wants to play SH - the same for the fat bloke that wants to be a prop or the 6'10" guy who wants to be a lock.
The adage is just as true today as it ever was - the only difference is that today's pro players aren't borderline alcoholics or, you know... literally ****ing amateurs.

There wasn't some magical time when the slow, weak and poorly coordinated guy was better at rugby than he would be today.

That was never my point, in modern rugby the faster, stronger and more coordinated player can get absolutely nowhere if they can't gain the required mass and it happens, some people can't get big enough naturally to play rugby nowadays when they could have been the best thirty years ago.

 

[ratsapprentice]

Well yeah... but that doesn't render the adage redundant - which is what you said.

But that's just a symptom of increased requirements of the professional game - it is what it is, you can get away with being small against out of shape lawyers... you can't with fully professional players.

Pedantic, you know what i meant.

No I didn't.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

That was never my point, in modern rugby the faster, stronger and more coordinated player can get absolutely nowhere if they can't gain the required mass and it happens, some people can't get big enough naturally to play rugby nowadays when they could have been the best thirty years ago.

He wouldn't be able to step like that at +10kgs. Just saying there is still a spot in pro rugby for the smaller folk if they contribute something different.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

He wouldn't be able to step like that at +10kgs. Just saying there is still a spot in pro rugby for the smaller folk if they contribute something different.

I didn't say there wasn't! But if we take a player like Owen Farrell, he's 96kg (wikipedia) and he certainly needs it. Not every 6ft 2 person in the world could achieve his mass and if he was one of those and could only reach 85-90kg he wouldn't be a pro rugby player despite having the skills. I love seeing smaller guys do well, having been told I've been too small for teams (usually a cop out from a coach with no balls considering I'm a 9 or 10) it's my favorite thing in rugby to see a player <80kg doing well.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

I didn't say there wasn't! But if we take a player like Owen Farrell, he's 96kg (wikipedia) and he certainly needs it. Not every 6ft 2 person in the world could achieve his mass and if he was one of those and could only reach 85-90kg he wouldn't be a pro rugby player despite having the skills. I love seeing smaller guys do well, having been told I've been too small for teams (usually a cop out from a coach with no balls considering I'm a 9 or 10) it's my favorite thing in rugby to see a player <80kg doing well.

Fair enough. If anything I just wanted to post something with Kolbe stepping his way through a team. But doesFarrell *really* need the weight? If so that begs the question if the skills are really there? I mean, 10's in Aaron Cruden and Pat Lambie weigh in at 84 and 83kg respectively.

On the reverse side the best news I've heard in the last month was that Frans Steyn has apparently shed 10kgs. Now I am sure it's not 10kgs of muscle but still weight can be a burden even in modern pro rugby at the highest levels is what I am getting at. Speed and technique really do count for a lot.

 

[ratsapprentice]

Just before we go any further: it's important to remember that PED's don't just cover athletic enhancers, but also nootropics as well.