Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

All Blacks: Allegedly on Steroids in the 90s

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    All Blacks: Allegedly on Steroids in the 90s

    http://www.espnscrum.com/newzealand/...ry/154021.html
    All Blacks accused of steroid abuse
    ESPNscrum Staff
    November 11, 2011
    A former New Zealand Rugby Union (NZRU) official has accused two former All Blacks of taking steroids during the 1990s.
    Jack Ralston, who was the NZRU's head of sales and marketing between 1997 and 1999, has made the shocking allegation in his forthcoming biography, The Sports Insider, reports The Press newspaper. Ralston has not named the players, who he said had told him in confidence, but revealed that they were "smaller guys who needed to put on muscle and bulk who were under pressure".
    "People might be stunned by this but I know at least two All Blacks in the 1990s who responded to demands that they bulk up by taking steroids," he wrote. He added that the players may now feel they can speak publicly about taking the performance enhancing substances.
    The All Blacks' coach at the 1999 Rugby World Cup, John Hart, told the newspaper that he had "never heard" of players taking steroids in the 1990s. "I never saw it on my watch. It would surprise me greatly," Hart said. "It's very easy to make those comments. From my knowledge, [there was] none at all."
    Former captain Taine Randell echoed Hart's comments and slammed Ralston's decision not to name the players in question. "I know Jack," he said. "He is a good man. But for him to come out with those comments and not name names is gutless. He has cast aspersion on a lot of people and I can say that during my time with the team I saw none of that."
    Ralston has since defended his book and its claims. "I am saddened that Taine is upset and he would be the last person I would point the finger at as he was big," he said. "It was the smaller guys who needed to put on muscle and bulk who were under pressure and for rugby to think this did not go on is silly. They have their heads buried in the soil."

    #2
    just the 90's?

    After the final the all blacks are a bit grey for me but I hope people dont start pointing the finger entirely at them. Its clearly widespread. You only have to look at the players physique thesedays with an honest eye (Mauri/poly/melanesians etc excepted) to realise that protein shakes and creatine dont build 13 stoners into incredible hulks.....radiation does
    If the lessons of history teach us anything it is that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.

    Comment


      #3
      A steroids and physiology expert was on the radio a few years back, he claimed he could tell an athlete who was on steroids just by the muscle development and structure, which is quite different from normal trained build apparently. He was shown a photo of the 1987 All Black RWC team in the air in the Haka. He maintained that 14 of them were definitely on steroids and the 15th guy had a more than 50% probability of being on something.... now that 87 team are a helluva lot smaller and lighter than any since, so draw your own conclusions.

      p.s. Looking at SBW for instance, its hard to accept that he can be in that shape without the use of performance enhancing drugs same for Ali Williams, Kieran Read and both wingers for starters!!
      ____________________________________________
      Munster were great when they were Munster.

      alas they are just north munster now.......
      ____________________________________________

      Comment


        #4
        Interesting comment Daithi. SBW is certainly in superb condition as you mentioned above. He does also box professionally though so not sure his physique would be anything unusual in that sphere? It also needs to be taken into account that sports science and professionalism have moved on significantly since 87 (1/4 of a century almost!) and still almost a decade out from full profesionalism. Players are now training twice a day, they are defnitiely going to be bigger than they were. It looks to me though that players are starting to get a little smaller, leaner and its about becoming more about agility and explosiveness than brute strenght.

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by Daithi View Post
          A steroids and physiology expert was on the radio a few years back, he claimed he could tell an athlete who was on steroids just by the muscle development and structure, which is quite different from normal trained build apparently. He was shown a photo of the 1987 All Black RWC team in the air in the Haka. He maintained that 14 of them were definitely on steroids and the 15th guy had a more than 50% probability of being on something.... now that 87 team are a helluva lot smaller and lighter than any since, so draw your own conclusions.

          p.s. Looking at SBW for instance, its hard to accept that he can be in that shape without the use of performance enhancing drugs same for Ali Williams, Kieran Read and both wingers for starters!!
          No it's not. They can easliy be that way. Some guys are bigger and more powerful, that's just the way of it.

          What you need to watch out for is sudden significant jumps in physical condition. A certain Welsh backrow who came on the scene a while ago would jump at me straight away as falling to that category.

          Comment


            #6
            I've mentioned this in the past but a relation of mine was at a medical conference a few years ago and was chatting with someone who was one of the top pharmacologists in NZ and they were matter of factly talking about the ABs using steroids throughout December, their off season time, and then would take huge levels for creatine in January.

            Comment


              #7
              Isn't there mandatory drug testing after test matches?

              Comment


                #8
                Whatever about Ralston's claim, the 87 team cannot be tested at this stage. Anecdotal 'evidence' is not evidence, it's just heresay. If he has real evidence (i.e. documentation) he should present it to the IRB; if not his 'claims' just throw unjustified suspicion on everyone in those squads. Hardly just or fair.

                Now current players can (& should be tested according to agreement). There were thousands of test at the recent WC and it is interesting to note they were carried out by an Aussie lab as there is no accredited lab in NZ. Oz is actually well regarded in drug-testing circles. Sydney olympics were the first modern summer games that are generally acknowledged as being generally drug free or that the perpetrators were either then or subsequently caught (took 7 years to get Marion Jones to relinquish the medals...). The samples from the recent WC are stored so that if new drugs or markers are found the samples can be revisited. Noteworthy that the director general of WADA (Howman) is a former NZ rugby drug officer who was a colleague of Ralston.

                Busbi, there are tests available to test for historic drug use/abuse. They were first used in Sydney to ban some athletes from competing before the games began (Chinese and a Bulgarian are the most noteworthy caught). You saying these techniques should be used in rugby?

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by Point View Post
                  I've mentioned this in the past but a relation of mine was at a medical conference a few years ago and was chatting with someone who was one of the top pharmacologists in NZ and they were matter of factly talking about the ABs using steroids throughout December, their off season time, and then would take huge levels for creatine in January.
                  Out-of-competition testing is the norm these days. Most busts are got this way. Rugby fares well compared to most other sports, but you are aware of a few high profile cases.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by Viigand View Post
                    Isn't there mandatory drug testing after test matches?
                    Yes but the inference is that Out of Season testing isn't as frequent/happening.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Originally posted by 99_oK? View Post
                      Out-of-competition testing is the norm these days. Most busts are got this way. Rugby fares well compared to most other sports, but you are aware of a few high profile cases.
                      Do you have any figures on that, 99 ? I would imagine things tightening up as a result of Rugby getting into the Olympics though.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by Point View Post
                        Yes but the inference is that Out of Season testing isn't as frequent/happening.
                        Out-of-competition tests supposed to be 60%+ of all tests, and out of season (decipher that as you wish) should be part of that. In other sports athletes have been banned for taking a quick plane to places like Lanzarote for a sunny holiday and not informing the drug barons (I mean testers.....).

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Would be interested in the use/abuse of HGH in sports like Rugby. I know the NFL are very keen to get a viable test for it, whilst the NFLPA (players union) are keen to block any test at every opportunity. Drug testing outside any of the top Olympic sports is very hit & miss, as are national governing bodies commitments to them (e.g. "sorry missed test, forgot & went shopping")

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by Point View Post
                            Do you have any figures on that, 99 ? I would imagine things tightening up as a result of Rugby getting into the Olympics though.
                            Not to hand, but at a conference (not just drugs, but coaching in general - many sports represented - in Dub btw) about a year ago we were told the 60% aim/mark. That comes directly from WADA; they probably took that from looking at the previous high-profile cases - e.g. Balco where it was all taken out of competition/season.

                            Don't have figures on actual tests, but if I do come across I'll post.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Originally posted by plastic View Post
                              Would be interested in the use/abuse of HGH in sports like Rugby. I know the NFL are very keen to get a viable test for it, whilst the NFLPA (players union) are keen to block any test at every opportunity. Drug testing outside any of the top Olympic sports is very hit & miss, as are national governing bodies commitments to them (e.g. "sorry missed test, forgot & went shopping")
                              There are reliable tests for HGH (the synthetic type). Nearly impossible to source 'natural' HGH now and nobody in their right mind would dream of taking the stuff anyway. NFL drug-testing is not quite at the level of most international sports.

                              I'd substitute the word 'international' for 'top Olympic' in your comment above. NFL doesn't come into either category. If you miss a test, you are deemed guilty and banned (that clause in operation for years).

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X