Wiggins Sports Scientist work for English Rugby - Page 2 - CyclingNews Forum

Go Back   CyclingNews Forum > Road > The Clinic

The Clinic The Clinic is the only place on Cyclingnews where you can discuss doping-related issues. Ask questions, discuss positives or improvements to procedures.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 11-20-12, 15:50
adamski101 adamski101 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 116
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mongol_Waaijer View Post
I know the final was a close game but they beasted the Aussie scrum all that day.

I also think NZ were humiliated at not being able to power over from 1m out in numerous attempts with 2 extra forwards.

It is more that massive quicktime bulking up of some of the players on that team that concerned me at the time.

But I have concerns about NZ too - I read somewhere that players were putting on several kilos of muscle at a pre season training camp that also involved a great deal of running around. Jerry Collins apparently was asked to lay off the dumbells as his biceps were getting too big to carry the ball properly.
The Australian scrum has been weak for years, even back in 2003. Also England did not play NZ during the 2003 world cup, i think the match you are referring to was played earlier that year in June 2003. England were down two forwards at one point, but it was not for a full ten minutes and also while England had two in Sin Bin the All Blacks had one, so England were never actually two on the field at any point in the game.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11-20-12, 16:04
del1962 del1962 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 3,116
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mongol_Waaijer View Post
English rugby has recently tended to be lower priority on attack skills and more into the 'gym bunny' culture than other nations. Forward power has been a strong cultural theme in the English game and the tactics have been based on domination up front at the expense of other areas. Plus the English club league is uniquely brutal and one dimensional compared to the faster paced more mobile Southern hemisphere game.
Thats clinic talk for EPO
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 11-20-12, 16:09
Mongol_Waaijer Mongol_Waaijer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 620
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by del1962 View Post
Thats clinic talk for EPO
A guy I know plays semipro in SA, and says roid use is rampant and necessary at the upper levels of SA rugby. it's an open secret among serious rugby players.

There may well be a reason why Pierre Spies is such a freak of nature - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNSwMFC53FI

Give that workout a try - I promise it is agony.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 11-20-12, 16:38
coinneach coinneach is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 612
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimmyFingers View Post
I think if you are going to make a statement like that in this context you need to quantify it: how many seasons did it take them to develop the squad into one capable of beating the best in the world? Also can you define 'domination'? They won the final with a last minute drop goal.

That England squad in 2003 was veteran, a very-well organised team that had been playing together for years and showed clear progression right up untilt the moment they won it. Or is it only Southern Hemisphere teams that are allowed to do so? 4 years later an unfancied England got to the final again and missed out narrowly to SA. I take it they were on PEDs too? Presumably the squad we sent to NZ had left theirs at home because they were abysmal.

Just to point out, England has the largest rugby union playing population in the world. If anything we consistently under-perform against countries who pick from far-smaller pools of talent. Presumably why they go and nick them from the Pacific Islands
Well, if they are at it (and HGH have been spoken about for a long time), they must have started early....I remember seeing Scotland v England under 19s.... 14 or 15 years ago: the English guys were 3-6 inches taller & broader right through the team (apart from #9). You don't need me to tell you who won with those statistics
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 11-20-12, 17:07
JimmyFingers's Avatar
JimmyFingers JimmyFingers is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,833
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mongol_Waaijer View Post
England have Manu Tuilagi and Maki Vunipola in their current squad. Born in Samoa and Tonga respectively. Move to England as rugby players to become pro rugby players for English clubs. And number 8 Thomas Waldron was born in NZ and spent all his life there until he realised he wasn't good enough to play for NZ but had an English grandmother. That's 3 nicked from Pacific Islands for you somewhat closer to home.

I believe virtually all the Polynesians who have played for NZ / Aus were either born in NZ or moved there as children, before they even began playing rugby. It also works both ways - a lot of guys who play for Tonga, Samoa or Fiji were born and grew up in NZ.

The reason why there are so many great NZ based rugby players of Polynesian origin is more the coupling of islanders having incredibly suitable physiques for rugby, coupled with being coached as youths in NZ.

If any countries are f&*king over the Pacific islanders right now it's England and France whose clubs won't release Fijian, Tongan and Samoan players for international duty, meaning they have to put out their second XV against top international opposition.
Haha, defensive much? Sure you're right, it was just a little dig
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 11-20-12, 18:29
del1962 del1962 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 3,116
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by coinneach View Post
Well, if they are at it (and HGH have been spoken about for a long time), they must have started early....I remember seeing Scotland v England under 19s.... 14 or 15 years ago: the English guys were 3-6 inches taller & broader right through the team (apart from #9). You don't need me to tell you who won with those statistics
The difference in size is probably more to do with Scotlands diet and the low numbers in Scotland (mainly Border Farmers and the odd upper class Midlothian) compared to the numbers who play RU in England
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 11-20-12, 19:27
JimmyFingers's Avatar
JimmyFingers JimmyFingers is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,833
Default

This thread shows the danger of idle speculation. It's along the lines of he's big, must be on drugs, he's fast, must be on drugs, they won, must be on drugs. While I think rugby is a good candidate for PEDs, particularly ones for bulking up, there's a danger in re-examining results and accusing a team of winning using nefarious means. If England '03 were using, then I am sure they weren't doing it in some sort of glorious isolation and steamrollering the poor,l drug-free Kiwis and Aussies.

We need to know more about PED culture in rugby, testing etc before lazy accusations start flying. I particularly don't want to hear England/France/Ireland etc must be doping because they managed to beat the ABs/Roos/Boks as if it can never be achieved without PEDs
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 11-20-12, 20:03
Dr. Maserati Dr. Maserati is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 11,035
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimmyFingers View Post
This thread shows the danger of idle speculation. It's along the lines of he's big, must be on drugs, he's fast, must be on drugs, they won, must be on drugs. While I think rugby is a good candidate for PEDs, particularly ones for bulking up, there's a danger in re-examining results and accusing a team of winning using nefarious means. If England '03 were using, then I am sure they weren't doing it in some sort of glorious isolation and steamrollering the poor,l drug-free Kiwis and Aussies.

We need to know more about PED culture in rugby, testing etc before lazy accusations start flying. I particularly don't want to hear England/France/Ireland etc must be doping because they managed to beat the ABs/Roos/Boks as if it can never be achieved without PEDs
Hi Jimmy,
Your post shows it is rather silly to attempt to dismiss something as idle speculation when you can take two minutes to look at the UKAD website and it confirms that Rugby (League & Union) has the highest number of incidents.

Nothing to do with Sky, Wiggins or marginal gains - but trying to dismiss something as idle speculation with your idle speculation is rather silly.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 11-20-12, 20:06
JimmyFingers's Avatar
JimmyFingers JimmyFingers is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,833
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimmyFingers View Post
This thread shows the danger of idle speculation. It's along the lines of he's big, must be on drugs, he's fast, must be on drugs, they won, must be on drugs. While I think rugby is a good candidate for PEDs, particularly ones for bulking up, there's a danger in re-examining results and accusing a team of winning using nefarious means. If England '03 were using, then I am sure they weren't doing it in some sort of glorious isolation and steamrollering the poor,l drug-free Kiwis and Aussies.

We need to know more about PED culture in rugby, testing etc before lazy accusations start flying. I particularly don't want to hear England/France/Ireland etc must be doping because they managed to beat the ABs/Roos/Boks as if it can never be achieved without PEDs
Apparently I have to write something here for it to post
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 11-20-12, 20:24
JimmyFingers's Avatar
JimmyFingers JimmyFingers is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,833
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimmyFingers View Post
This thread shows the danger of idle speculation. It's along the lines of he's big, must be on drugs, he's fast, must be on drugs, they won, must be on drugs. While I think rugby is a good candidate for PEDs, particularly ones for bulking up, there's a danger in re-examining results and accusing a team of winning using nefarious means. If England '03 were using, then I am sure they weren't doing it in some sort of glorious isolation and steamrollering the poor,l drug-free Kiwis and Aussies.

We need to know more about PED culture in rugby, testing etc before lazy accusations start flying. I particularly don't want to hear England/France/Ireland etc must be doping because they managed to beat the ABs/Roos/Boks as if it can never be achieved without PEDs
Oh yeah, this bit
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 17:45.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited. All rights reserved. Future Publishing Limited is part of the Future plc group. Future Publishing Limited is a company registered in England and Wales with company registration number 2008885 whose registered office is at Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW England.