rugbyunion
Latest News:

The COML Message Board

The place for discussion, debate and nonsense about Bath Rugby.

Join our new Facebook Group today!

New visitors please read the house rules before posting

Test your prognostications at our Prediction League


DorsetBoy
Dorset Boy (IP Logged)

We don't look so we don't find....
15 February, 2018 20:50
RFU Declare clean bill of heakth

So, maybe 1 test per player per season is taking anti-doping seriously?! (Sm22)
I presume Phil Winstanley's nose is about 4 foot long.

Rugby, like football, like tennis DO NOT take this seriously, but hold the attitude that if they don't look they won't find and will therefore avoid controvesy. Pathetic really.

Compare and contrast with for example how many times Chris Froome is tested in a season (50+ last year probably) and the S. storm over his AAF for salbutumol.

 
MESSAGES->author
shipwrecked (IP Logged)

Re: We don't look so we don't find....
15 February, 2018 22:01
Agreed Dorset Boy, even if you test the general public you would get higher figures!

Don't get me started on Salbutemol, if all the can find are traces of an asthma drug that could only have a minor performance enhancement and probably a genuine explanation then I wonder why they are pursuing that course when significant undetectable violations are probably occurring that could be harming athletes long term.

There simply MUST be abuse in rugby, there is a culture of steroid use in gyms in South Wales simply to look good. They are easily obtained. It is inconceivable that there isn't a trickle over into rugby, yet officially there were 11 cases in 2017.

No doubt in my mind the more you look the more you will find.

 
MESSAGES->author
joethefanatic (IP Logged)

Re: We don't look so we don't find....
16 February, 2018 00:44
The advantageous and longlasting epigenetic effects of past steroid use may be part of the answer. An intelligent cheat will be using steroids in an environment where he/she won't be tested, allowing the illicit steroids in question to be metabolised away and then moving back to their sport of choice.

[blogs.scientificamerican.com]

Of course, this just begs the question why are we not testing for unusual epigenetic changes using DNA methylation patterns? It is a very good question but the underlying science is not well advanced at the moment.



... IMHO, of course.

Now in Honolulu

 
BathMatt53
BathMatt53 (IP Logged)

Re: We don't look so we don't find....
16 February, 2018 06:51
Quote:
joethefanatic
why are we not testing for unusual epigenetic changes using DNA methylation patterns?.

Duhh, stating the obvious again JTF!

 
MESSAGES->author
joethefanatic (IP Logged)

Re: We don't look so we don't find....
16 February, 2018 07:14
Quote:
BathMatt53
Quote:
joethefanatic
why are we not testing for unusual epigenetic changes using DNA methylation patterns?.

Duhh, stating the obvious again JTF!

Nah, I just do it to try to sound big and clever.



... IMHO, of course.

Now in Honolulu



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 16/02/2018 07:15 by joethefanatic.

 
MESSAGES->author
shipwrecked (IP Logged)

Re: We don't look so we don't find....
16 February, 2018 13:13
Joe, thats a really interesting article. I realise this only really applies to steroid use but that is the major method of cheating. Is there a link to the DNA methylation patterns?

It would be prohibitively expensive but would be almost impossible to refute!

 
MESSAGES->author
TCM2007 (IP Logged)

Re: We don't look so we don't find....
16 February, 2018 14:05
I've heard some Bath players have been lifting weights, despite it being shown by scientific research that it can have a performance enhancing effect. Others are rumoured to be eating food containing compounds called 'proteins' which build muscles. I've seen players on the pitch flagrantly dosing themselves with isotonic fluids containing chemicals.

In all seriousness, why are "drugs" different in kind to all the other things athletes do to make themselves stronger/faster/fitter?

There are strong health arguments against allowing youngsters to dose up on the some of them, but I don't get the moral indignation thing.



Stuart

Former ed.

 
DorsetBoy
Dorset Boy (IP Logged)

Re: We don't look so we don't find....
16 February, 2018 14:14
Stuart, the reason is that different people respond to drugs differently.
Lance Armstrong for example was a high responder so benefited massively from EPO, other competitors of his were low responders. Of course you still have to do the hard graft, but it creates an uneven playing field, not to mention the health dangers of certain drugs.

A number of young sports people have died in their sleep due to PED abuse. Others have been forced to retire prematurely with heart conditions. A fairly recently retired Bath forward had the classic symptoms that would put him in the latter group.

And if you really think your first paragraph explains why modern players are bigger, stronger and faster then sorry, but you're in cloud cuckoo land with your head buried in the sand.

 
MESSAGES->author
shipwrecked (IP Logged)

Re: We don't look so we don't find....
16 February, 2018 14:22
Not sure what you mean by, "moral indignation thing", But in answer to the first bit, If you do all those things, but add the steroids you get a different result.

Steroids long term are harmful, heart issues, liver cancer they can even cause a deeper voice in women.

Thats why their use shouldn't be condoned.

 
MESSAGES->author
TCM2007 (IP Logged)

Re: We don't look so we don't find....
16 February, 2018 14:23
Different people respond to gym work differently?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not in favour of drugs, but the "burn them!" "ban them for life!" response seems disproportionate.

I guess it's similar to the "alchohol good, cannabis bad" thing - about social conditioning not absolve facts.



Stuart

Former ed.

 
B4thB4ck
B4thB4ck (IP Logged)

Re: We don't look so we don't find....
16 February, 2018 14:33
Can opened, worms everywhere...

 
MESSAGES->author
shipwrecked (IP Logged)

Re: We don't look so we don't find....
16 February, 2018 14:50
Quote:
TCM2007
Don't get me wrong, I'm not in favour of drugs, but the "burn them!" "ban them for life!" response seems disproportionate.


Who is saying that?

We are talking about lazy policing.

 
Substitute
Substitute (IP Logged)

Re: We don't look so we don't find....
16 February, 2018 17:32
Quote:
TCM2007
Different people respond to gym work differently?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not in favour of drugs, but the "burn them!" "ban them for life!" response seems disproportionate.

I guess it's similar to the "alchohol good, cannabis bad" thing - about social conditioning not absolve facts.

Nobody does alcohol good but there is a lot to be said for mind-altering drugs bad.

Nevertheless I am in the 'ban them for life' school. They are grown adults able to handle the responsibility of not taking drugs - performance enhancing or otherwise.

 
MESSAGES->author
joethefanatic (IP Logged)

Re: We don't look so we don't find....
16 February, 2018 17:48
Quote:
shipwrecked
Joe, thats a really interesting article. I realise this only really applies to steroid use but that is the major method of cheating. Is there a link to the DNA methylation patterns?
It would be prohibitively expensive but would be almost impossible to refute!

SW the changes in DNA methylation patterns governing gene expression are related to environmental stimuli (the environment in question being that of the genes) and is a relatively new area of research but it should apply in principle to *any* PED not just steroids. However, you would need to be able to show that there was a detectable difference between the response to compounds produced naturally and those given as PEDs and, biologically, I'm not sure there is any reason to suppose this is the case. But the methylation pattern changes seem to be permanent and, most interesting of all as a biologist, heritable. This may provide another reason why the sons of athletic fathers seem to be disproportionately successful in sports.

But biologically speaking, the most controversial aspect of all this is that it provides a potential mechanism for Lamarckism

[en.m.wikipedia.org]

and biologists *really* don't like the article of faith that Lamarkism is false being questioned. smiling smiley

*edited for clarity



... IMHO, of course.

Now in Honolulu



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 16/02/2018 19:35 by joethefanatic.

 
Lost Soul
Lost Soul (IP Logged)

Re: We don't look so we don't find....
16 February, 2018 18:06
Quote:
TCM2007
Different people respond to gym work differently?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not in favour of drugs, but the "burn them!" "ban them for life!" response seems disproportionate.

I guess it's similar to the "alchohol good, cannabis bad" thing - about social conditioning not absolve facts.

Stuart
You are correct some people come out looking like Greek Gods and some look like props (ML exempt from that comparison)
In my eyes a good prop should be naturally freakishly strong, like a winger is swifter than a greyhound. I would rather that occurred naturally and with hard work than with the aids of stimulates

But where do you draw the line. I believe Tiger Woods has something like 4 eye operations. Did that give him an unfair advantage

 
fat lock
fat lock (IP Logged)

Re: We don't look so we don't find....
16 February, 2018 20:04
Playing professional rugby has significant long term health risks - knackered joints and probably brain damage. But somehow professional sport = good
I dare say using performance enhancing drugs causes less injury long term, but drugs = bad.
I don't buy the good and poor responders argument - otherwise we'd have to limit all athletes to the same training regimes to be equal

I think the only way to have a 'level playing field' is to let whoever take whatever and train however much as they want.

Bigger question to me is who picks up the bill for the consequences - the state, or the sport?


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
We record all IP addresses on the Sportnetwork message boards which may be required by the authorities in case of defamatory or abusive comment. We seek to monitor the Message Boards at regular intervals. We do not associate Sportnetwork with any of the comments and do not take responsibility for any statements or opinions expressed on the Message Boards. If you have any cause for concern over any material posted here please let us know as soon as possible by e-mailing abuse@sportnetwork.net
 
 

Who is online?

Total users online:  

Most users online:  

Users on this site:  

Where are they?