Australian Crime Commission investigation finds widespread doping

[Galic Ho]

RE: Cricket

I think peterst6906 is correct in terms of boundary hitting. Bradman didn't hit sixes as it wasn't his philosophy.

Funnily enough, most of you haven't mentioned the more relevant person when talking about 4's/6's hit. Sobers had a bit of an opposite philosophy of they don't have fielders in the air so you should hit over the top. Not exactly a contemporary of Bradman, but is pretty close to.

I agree with those who think cricket's biggest challenge is match fixing. Not because doping is non existent, but a) because it is less prevalent than match fixing, and b) because I think match fixing is worse from a moral perspective than doping to win.

Match fixing has a very long history in the subcontinent. Who runs cricket now? The subcontinent money and power brokers. They're also the ones who pushed the 20/20 format. I know this might sound racially insensitive...but Asians are well known for their love of gambling.

Regarding people's attitude Down Under to cricket. More people care about the idiotic rotation policy than doping, let alone match fixing. Irony is you go to any two rival teams in the NRL in a match and what do fans of the losing team accuse the ref of every single week? Match fixing. Ironic isn't it.

 

[sugarman]

RE: Cricket

I agree with those who think cricket's biggest challenge is match fixing. Not because doping is non existent, but a) because it is less prevalent than match fixing, and b) because I think match fixing is worse from a moral perspective than doping to win.

Agree 100%.

 

[Galic Ho]

Yep, Bradman was tiny, about 5 foot 6 or 7 i think, and an old school 'athletic' build, i.e. skinny. Not sure how heavy his bats actually were, but I have heard them described as like balsa wood, so I'm gonna say they were very light.

Absolutely not idea how much Tendulkar's bat would weigh, but he'd be a similar height to Bradman.

Modern bats definitely help with hitting sixes, the amount of wood in the middle is enormous, but they are (generally) lighter than the (not entirely comparable) bats of the ~90s which were rolled and pressed much more, thus heavier for a given amount of wood. In my experience playing (low level) cricket, balls bounce of modern bats heaps more than those of 15-20 years ago, and I'd guess a Bradman era bat would be even less helpful.

There is a story about Bradman hitting 100 runs off 3 (8 ball) overs when he went back to play for his club side, I think that included about 9 or 10 sixes in those 24 balls. It was probably on a concrete wicket, and club is obviously not comparable to international cricket, but I think it shows he could be handy at 20-20. Sure, perhaps not the best, but I think he'd get a game!



Still good advice for most forms of cricket!

That isn't a story. It happened. Mount Victoria cricket field in the Blue Mountains. You'll understand if you've ever been there. Very, very small boundaries. My grandmothers father had the score book.

Tendulkars bat for test cricket was about 50% heavier than Bradmans. I still have at my grandfathers, a very old bat, a Len Hutton edition, that is of the same make as what was going around back in the 1950s. It is knocked in very well, but you cannot really smash a cricket ball with it. Well you couldn't a decade ago. Super light compared to modern bats.

This article talks about Sachin's test bat. http://www.theroar.com.au/2007/12/31/sachin-tendulkars-bat-is-too-heavy/

His one day bat was about 30% heavier, so about 1.5kg for a starting weight. It wouldn't surprise me if he was swinging a 2kg bat. The rules only cover the width of the face of the bat and maximum length. Tendulkar was one of the first to go super heavy. Bradman era bats were 1kg or there about's max. The article below says he scored that century in Blackheath, that may be the case for the articule, as the cricket pitch is between Blackheath and Mt Victoria, but it is far closer to Mt Vic and is called the Mt Vic grounds or has been like basically as long as I have known about it. Also back then, there were 8 deliveries in an over, not 6 as is the case today. Hence a century in 3 overs. Any modern 20/20 player was on that pitch, they'd hit cars on the highway that is there today, no sweat with a straight drive. Other end they'd hit a train on the rail tracks. A professional player would have a blast on that field.

http://www.theroar.com.au/2008/02/18/the-weight-of-bradmans-bat/

 

[Alphabet]

You really have no clue do you?

Want to name the corrupt ****stani cricketers for me? Actually name the legit good ones. The ****stani cricket board had their two best fast bowlers popped for Nandrolone. Caught red handed. What happened to them? Do you even remember their names? One was Brett Lee's major speed rival...that should ring a bell. Want to discuss the two rival captains of India and ****stan from the 90s and what they did? Or how about poor Hansie Cronje? Cricket is corrupt to it's core and has been for a long time. It's worse now. Much worse and that is down to the new found shorter matches and their obvious dependency and blatant emphasis on physicality.

Take a look at the physique changes in cricket today. All the guys who have broken down. It happens repeatedly these days. Sure some aspects of cricket are taxing on the lower back and always has, but guys carrying a keg on their gut do not make the grade anymore. There are no David Boons or Ul Haqs in world cricket anymore. They are all ripped and very fit. The fact the slog fest that is 20/20 cricket is now the number one pushed form of cricket practically screams drug abuse. It's pure brute force. Nothing more. If you hadn't noticed, a great cricketer could be a solid test batsman on technique alone. Want to tell us how many 6's Bradman hit in his career? You can count them on both hands with your fingers. Now skip to the 90s and early naughties and test cricket then, during Inzie's prime and when ****stans were good. Now skip forward to todays joke of a game...the doping and manner of cricket that would profit from it's exploitation is obvious.

Inzamam only stopped playing 6 years ago, and he was a titan throughout his career, from the late 80s to 2007. He didn't suddenly tail off whenever this supposed doping explosion took off among batsmen in cricket.

I count the following overweight current international players:

Gambhir (India)
Sehwag (hilariously overweight) (India)
Tendulkar (India)
Yuvraj Singh (considered one of the greatest T20 players in the world) (India)
RP Singh (India)
Ashwin (India)
Patel (England)
Herath (Sri Lanka)


The only 'musclemen' going around cricket at the moment are Afridi (who has been dropped from the Pak-istani squad for poor performances), Pollard and Gayle. Just about every other batsman is either reasonably slim or overweight. T20 or not, you cannot be a successful batsman with pure power. Nobody will pay you if you're a hit-and-miss guy who'll hit a 6 and then a 4 and then get out the next ball. There's no incentive for them to bulk up and resemble Andre Greipel, because at the end of it, technique is what gets you those 4s and 6s not big muscles. Sure, having biceps the size of Mount Everest helps, but it's an unnecessary distraction away from spending hour after hour in the nets improving your technique.

 

[Eshnar]

have I to remember some of you that insults are forbidden?

 

[Mad Elephant Man]

RE: Cricket

I think peterst6906 is correct in terms of boundary hitting. Bradman didn't hit sixes as it wasn't his philosophy.

Funnily enough, most of you haven't mentioned the more relevant person when talking about 4's/6's hit. Sobers had a bit of an opposite philosophy of they don't have fielders in the air so you should hit over the top. Not exactly a contemporary of Bradman, but is pretty close to.

I agree with those who think cricket's biggest challenge is match fixing. Not because doping is non existent, but a) because it is less prevalent than match fixing, and b) because I think match fixing is worse from a moral perspective than doping to win.

What goes up must come down.
But in both cases if you hit the shot where you want then you are not going to get out.

 

[Galic Ho]

have I to remember some of you that insults are forbidden?

And you are?

What ever happened to Alpe and and Bala Verde? Good posters and guys who were solid mods? Not suggesting you're not, but when I don't even recognise your handle and you've supposedly been here since 2011...well. Yeah. You been hiding under a rock in this part of the forum?

No but seriously, who are you? I don't remember ever seeing you in the Clinic. Ever. And I've read well over 100K posts in the Clinic. And you're a mod. When did this happen?

 

[Galic Ho]

Inzamam only stopped playing 6 years ago, and he was a titan throughout his career, from the late 80s to 2007. He didn't suddenly tail off whenever this supposed doping explosion took off among batsmen in cricket.

I count the following overweight current international players:

Gambhir (India)
Sehwag (hilariously overweight) (India)
Tendulkar (India)
Yuvraj Singh (considered one of the greatest T20 players in the world) (India)
RP Singh (India)
Ashwin (India)
Patel (England)
Herath (Sri Lanka)


The only 'musclemen' going around cricket at the moment are Afridi (who has been dropped from the Pak-istani squad for poor performances), Pollard and Gayle. Just about every other batsman is either reasonably slim or overweight. T20 or not, you cannot be a successful batsman with pure power. Nobody will pay you if you're a hit-and-miss guy who'll hit a 6 and then a 4 and then get out the next ball. There's no incentive for them to bulk up and resemble Andre Greipel, because at the end of it, technique is what gets you those 4s and 6s not big muscles. Sure, having biceps the size of Mount Everest helps, but it's an unnecessary distraction away from spending hour after hour in the nets improving your technique.

You need to take a good solid look at the build of of Aussie fast bowlers. When did bulking up mean that was the only form of strength? It's about total body condition. Our bowlers are very, very strong men. Free tip, don't ever punch one in the head, they have exceptional upper body strength.

BTW Tendulkar is not fat. Nor is Virendar Sehwag. They're not lean and muscular like our aforementioned bowlers but they're strong men. Think Hefty Smurf type builds. If they need a runner or can't keep the run rate up, then they're out of shape. Both can and have done so very well. Could they afford to lose some weight? Of course, but they're not out of shape. If they were they wouldn't play anymore. They're like Steve Waugh when he was nearing retirement. Still good, but not super fit. Their skill is still carrying them.

And yes, if they were fitter they'd be much better players. That is a universal given.

 

[Eshnar]

And you are?

What ever happened to Alpe and and Bala Verde? Good posters and guys who were solid mods? Not suggesting you're not, but when I don't even recognise your handle and you've supposedly been here since 2011...well. Yeah. You been hiding under a rock in this part of the forum?

No but seriously, who are you? I don't remember ever seeing you in the Clinic. Ever. And I've read well over 100K posts in the Clinic. And you're a mod. When did this happen?

about a week ago. I'm a very well known poster in the road section, it's a pity we never met there. Anyway I didn't replace anyone, all former mods are still here no worries. there are just 5 more

 

[Dazed and Confused]

Neutral on the content, but Galic Ho is very good for information and entertainment. Kill him and his likes and you are left with us numb-skulls.

 

[Eshnar]

Neutral on the content, but Galic Ho is very good for information and entertainment. Kill him and his likes and you are left with us numb-skulls.

I don't wanna kill anyone. I'm all for non-violence

 

[Dazed and Confused]

I don't wanna kill anyone. I'm all for non-violence

I am sure you don't (first part). It was a sign of preemptive support. Mainly egoistic.

 

[blackcat]

Match fixing has a very long history in the subcontinent. Who runs cricket now? The subcontinent money and power brokers. They're also the ones who pushed the 20/20 format. I know this might sound racially insensitive...but Asians are well known for their love of gambling.

Regarding people's attitude Down Under to cricket. More people care about the idiotic rotation policy than doping, let alone match fixing. Irony is you go to any two rival teams in the NRL in a match and what do fans of the losing team accuse the ref of every single week? Match fixing. Ironic isn't it.

albino melanin foot apparel rounders team from illinois in capone era

 

[slowspoke]

You need to take a good solid look at the build of of Aussie fast bowlers. When did bulking up mean that was the only form of strength? It's about total body condition. Our bowlers are very, very strong men. Free tip, don't ever punch one in the head, they have exceptional upper body strength.

+1

If doping works for baseball, it works for cricket.

 

[blackcat]

galic ho is on fire with the vitriol and for once I am really enjoying being a spectator and not the author of the invective. it is almost as much fun as typing and authoring

 

[blackcat]

You need to take a good solid look at the build of of Aussie fast bowlers. When did bulking up mean that was the only form of strength? It's about total body condition. Our bowlers are very, very strong men. Free tip, don't ever punch one in the head, they have exceptional upper body strength.

BTW Tendulkar is not fat. Nor is Virendar Sehwag. They're not lean and muscular like our aforementioned bowlers but they're strong men. Think Hefty Smurf type builds. If they need a runner or can't keep the run rate up, then they're out of shape. Both can and have done so very well. Could they afford to lose some weight? Of course, but they're not out of shape. If they were they wouldn't play anymore. They're like Steve Waugh when he was nearing retirement. Still good, but not super fit. Their skill is still carrying them.

And yes, if they were fitter they'd be much better players. That is a universal given.

ryan harris underwent a late career metamorphosis. any wonder he breaks down.

no prizes for the elixir for the new body and the 148kmph fast ball. when previously a mediocre middle class bowler struggling to hold his spot in the first class team.

no metronomic paul rieiffel was he prviously

 

[blackcat]

Bradman is relevant because he is the benchmark. The undisputed best. He comes from a classic era of cricket. The technology was less evolved. The physical conditions in players, the pay levels, the sports medicine, training and conditioning and sheer professionalism were worlds apart.

But the natural talent is identical. It mattered more then. Same with baseball in the States. The chief motivator in all doping is greed. That means money. I am more concerned about match fixing in cricket. I saw it going on at the tennis last month. At least it looked like it. That was from one set of a Serena Williams match. Focusing on a few sports that bring in lower amounts of money is a waste of time. Yeah the AFL and NRL are big wigs. How about the Tennis last month? What level of testing went on there? Do you know how big Rod Laver is? He's Bradmans size. Our greatest tennis player is 5 feet 7 inches tall. He's very small. But he played in an era where technique and skill meant you won. But by all means, lets only focus on the Aussies doping on Aussie soil. Lets leave the gambling dens to go about their business. Do you know who Tom Waterhouses parents are? And here someone said he entered into a $50 million contract with the NRL was it? Madness. I hope this investigation covers horse racing...because that is a super legit clean sport too hey.

Remove skill from the equation in sports and place the focus on RECOVERY and a bigger work load. There is only one natural conclusion. Drugs. That is an inevitability. It is implied. It is implied because the work loads have gone up , people are still getting fitter and there is more money than ever in the sport.

Before my mates wedding last September, well the reception, my mates and I saw a very well known NRL player at a pub at the Rocks on grand final day. He was watching the AFL. His physique was impressive. I spend a decent amount of time in the gym. This is a national rep and origin player. So I was shocked at how big he was yet he seemed lithe and streamlined for endurance at the same time. He looks a lot different in person than on tv. A hell of a lot bigger and more ripped. Like almost too ripped. I was thinking how easy it would be for him to dope and get away with it. You might have heard of him. He likes throwing glass objects at women and then blaming his house mates.

bradman was in a very small pool of athletes.

the catchment was tiny.

so the outlier then, may not be so much more of an outlier in the last decades.

could have been just a sobers or a pollock

emphasis could have. dont know, not really speculating, just a devils advocate

 

[blackcat]

Back long before you were born. Before I was born there was a day and age when Aussies could go to Olympics and simply flog other nations. Then the commies in Eastern Europe wanted to show the world their superiority. So they turned to medical science. They started winning all the Gold medals. Then 1972 in Munich happened. Australia won next to no medals. So the Government created the Australian Institute of Sport to remedy that perceived error. We Aussies love to win after all. It's been in our nations sporting fibre before federation. We win at sports. Every Aussie knows this. We punch well above our weight. It's a fact.

You see back in the day, like at the 1968 Mexico Olympics, an Aussie man could finish second in the mens 200m final between two African Americans. Black people aren't naturally faster than white people...that's drugs speaking today. They respond better in explosive sports. Look at our female runners. Cuthbert, Jackson and Strickland. We were the world powerhouse in female athletics. Then the drug eras came along. You take everyone off the juice, get them all clean and the times will be like the late 1960s in every athletic event. The world records are so far beyond what is naturally possible it isn't funny.

So where does the AIS step in? Well our athletes, like these women and our legendary swimmers of days long gone, well they weren't winning squat. But they looked at who was. A govt run body guaranteed govt funding on an annual basis. What necessitates more dollars flowing to your sport? Winning. Same deal with British cycling the past decade. You win GOLD, you get funded again and again. Success begets success. Especially when national pride is on the cards.

So how do you guarantee success? It's in the support staff. We either made them at home, or when they left Germany and Russia, we or should I say the AIS gave them a nice home. Look at swimming in Australia and it's boom post Seoul 1988 Olympics. One Gold from Duncan Armstrong...then lots and lots of Gold. Why? Alexander Popovs coach Gennadi Touretski. They came Down Under in 1990. Look at the number of ex Russians we have here or have had here...the list is large. Cycling is the same. Our boys got experience in Europe in the 90s and the doping knowledge has been on going for a long time. The AIS in the 80s set the groundwork for our later sporting success. Look especially at the talents of the swimming and cycling sports scientists. Team Sky have quite a few of them on the books. Look at the Chinese who bought out some of our coaches.

The AIS has had off the books and back door dodgy dealing going on for a long time in various sports. Most notably the big money sports and Gold medal glamour events. When another nations trumps us in these events, it's generally because they've out spent us in doping. Look at our recent swimming merits in London last year. We dropped the ball in comparison to others gains.

Fret not...I am pretty sure our divers, synchronised swimmers and gymnasts at the AIS are clean. Swimmers and cyclists? Well that just makes me laugh. Athletics? Look at the times of the individuals and their bests comparative to the old days and the winners now. Most are way, way off.

new zealand are even better than us. And their chix are feisty I hear

and BigBoats "hehehhe" on Gennadi Touretski.

My stanozolol un my (security) safe that is found in Lake Burley Griffin lolza

now he coaches Ian Thorpe, hows that lutanizing hormone going ian? and the brazilian boyfriend.... hehehehhehe


and why stanozolol? why, why when the half life is looooong, and it stays in your system for months. Cos they would not have been doing any OOC testing on Popov and his other AIS squad athletes at the time. That is only why they would have had stanozolol. think it was ben johnson drug. you dont take that if you are an athlete and get tested, unless you can mask or subvert the test, cos those metabolites last for many months in the urine eh.

oh, and one of Gennadi, I think it was one of his athletes, or BECAME one of his athletes (NOT ian) tested positive in 1997 0r 98 and Swimming Australia covered it up. 3rd hand chinese whisper qualification.

aus swimming official -> marathon swimmer, not competitive -> swedish olympic swimmer -> me

*NB chinese whispers, could be apocryphal. I have not named the name tho.

 

[Stueyy]

Drugs have been in Rugby League in Oz for at least since the eighties so no surprise there at all. When I was 18 starting to play seniors is when I first saw it, our A grade player coach was a former NSWRL (NRL now) player and he peddled drugs to the players back then. Nothing like what the guys now are using but it was country Qld so even at our low level there was drugs way back then...

As an avid Rugby Union supporter now this has to be one of the most obvious sports for drug use on the international scene. South Africa have to be the worst culprits in my mind but watching England vs Scotland last weekend, let's just say the size and speed of the English team was impressive... ;-)

 

[AcademyCC]

The whole situation is really sad. Pro sports are basically a waste pit. I presume most people here are sports fans, I certainly am, it just brings into question everything you know or think about sport.

Not a happy camper right now

 

[Galic Ho]

bradman was in a very small pool of athletes.

the catchment was tiny.

so the outlier then, may not be so much more of an outlier in the last decades.

could have been just a sobers or a pollock

emphasis could have. dont know, not really speculating, just a devils advocate

That is always the baseline assumption. How good was he really? At the worst like you said, he gets dragged down 30 runs in his average score to a Garfield Sobers or a Graham Pollock. Mr Cricket was averaging 70 in his first 15-20 tests. Dropped a lot afterwards though, nearer to his retirement. So if Hussey could look brilliant for a short time, Ponting and Clarke have done the same, then the deciding factor must be time. So he is still an outlier in modern times if he played now, but the number of standard deviations he is from the mean, well if gets reduced. Then again, there were no helmets and no limits on how many high balls were bowled in an over when The Don was in his glory. Then again I doubt many players back then faced constant barrages of 140km+ deliveries for over after over.

Problem is Bradman's era had so few tests. But he was still twice as good as his team mates. Ponting for a while around 2003-2005 was that good. Shane Warne and McGrath were as well, twice as good as the next guy. But playing the Devils advocate card is the key...he'd still be numero uno but closer to Sobers. The mark of a very strong batsman is an average of 50. Lots of guys hit that. They have spells where they are on fire, then crash back to earth. Bradman never did and I think that is conditional on the way the game was played. Fewer games and more down time. That is impossible in todays era. Sure drugs might help make up the deficit, but we will never see the likes of The Don again unless the game changes. Money says it won't.

Time is the test in all sports. Just compare all these sports mentioned in the reports for the past 15 years to how they were in the early 80s and before. Could yesterdays heroes to the fans be great today? Well yeah, but they'd need drugs. Also I thought of another guy who is a great but size means today he'd be limited. Dally Messenger. Union and Rugby champion. Actually the first true natural to emerge in both sports 100 years ago. Same size as Bradman and Laver. Okay, an inch taller but still small. I'm not suggesting you need to go back 50 years to get an idea, the 80s is more than adequate. Doping went apocalyptic in the 90s so the 80s serves as a good measure for contrasts.

 

[JimmyFingers]

Drugs have been in Rugby League in Oz for at least since the eighties so no surprise there at all. When I was 18 starting to play seniors is when I first saw it, our A grade player coach was a former NSWRL (NRL now) player and he peddled drugs to the players back then. Nothing like what the guys now are using but it was country Qld so even at our low level there was drugs way back then...

As an avid Rugby Union supporter now this has to be one of the most obvious sports for drug use on the international scene. South Africa have to be the worst culprits in my mind but watching England vs Scotland last weekend, let's just say the size and speed of the English team was impressive... ;-)

The lessons in the forum suggests it is the team that dominates be the onbe most suspect, which makes the ALL Blacks look a little too good to be true. That said I'm sue rugby is riddled with it, I think over 25% of uk positive tests are in rugby, but I don't think you can single out any one team.

I think back to growing up and watching the sport and you could tell the forwards and backs apart by their size not by their number. Then I watched Lomu literally run over Underwood, his opposing wing, and they are all are a colossus, not just the Samoans.

 

[Galic Ho]

new zealand are even better than us. And their chix are feisty I hear

and BigBoats "hehehhe" on Gennadi Touretski.

My stanozolol un my (security) safe that is found in Lake Burley Griffin lolza

now he coaches Ian Thorpe, hows that lutanizing hormone going ian? and the brazilian boyfriend.... hehehehhehe


and why stanozolol? why, why when the half life is looooong, and it stays in your system for months. Cos they would not have been doing any OOC testing on Popov and his other AIS squad athletes at the time. That is only why they would have had stanozolol. think it was ben johnson drug. you dont take that if you are an athlete and get tested, unless you can mask or subvert the test, cos those metabolites last for many months in the urine eh.

oh, and one of Gennadi, I think it was one of his athletes, or BECAME one of his athletes (NOT ian) tested positive in 1997 0r 98 and Swimming Australia covered it up. 3rd hand chinese whisper qualification.

aus swimming official -> marathon swimmer, not competitive -> swedish olympic swimmer -> me

*NB chinese whispers, could be apocryphal. I have not named the name tho.

We all like the Chinese whispers around here. I am talking about the non mail order variety BTW. Come to think of it, I did hear some talk the other week about Chinese black market drug rings for new age PEDs. Who is Australia's largest trading partner in the global economy? China. What I would give to be a fly on the wall in an Aussie customs office. Did you know they only open about 7% of all imports to check if they're legit? That not counting the tip-offs and bribes to not open specific parcels.

Good ol Thorpie. I always found it interesting that both Ian and Jodie Henry retired around the same time and they were supposed to be using the services of that Team Sky swim coach, who I shall refrain from naming. That guy must have dirt on everyone. So Thorpedo dances to the tunes of Copacabana? Can we expect to see another revival for Rio in 2016? Maybe he can enter the fashion market as a model for the Rio means brief underwear range in the next few years. I expect that brand name could use some gluttonous and shameful advertising given it's name. Two big events in Rio in the next 3 and a half years. If any former Aussie swimmers are making waves in Brazil...well that my put to rest all the rumours.

Stanozolol and Ben Johnson. With all 11 split times, reaction/starting and each 10m segment, if Johnson's best are put together he would have run a 9.55 sec 100m. Now look at what Bolt is doing. I've known it's possible for quite some time. Clean? I don't think many in history can crack 10 clean. 9.9 is definitely the outer maximal clean limit. Maybe the once in a lifetime champ in the right form in the right weather could do it, with wind assistance. But yeah stanozolol is not the go to roid. Water retention and lasting microbes are a tell.

Want to see the tell signs? Look up the new Mark Wahlberg film with Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson. Marky Mark is showing some serious signs of roid use to get not just big, but uber massive big in a very short period of time. All the classic tells are there. Some 80s Miami Vice type action flick, just search for the pictures. The Mail in the UK had lots of shots of Marky Mark for the ladies, most had no clue he was juicing. What do they use nowadays to flush water out of their system when the bulking cycle ends? Clenbuterol. Thus the circle of doping comes full circle back to pro cycling. Six degrees of separation...or is it four? I'd heard it was amended.

It's drugs like this that will be the main ones the NRL, AFL and ARU boys have been using. An on cycle rotation of one drug, then the other that clears you up. With no real independent external testing. Heck I heard the NRL team that was most suspicious was the Gold Coast Titans. Remember the pictures from their female trainer, former pron star/exotic dancer, who was 'seeing' the CEO and looked like Schwarzenegger's long lost sister? And people thought they weren't using stuff....its all so entertaining and funny!

 

[Galic Ho]

The lessons in the forum suggests it is the team that dominates be the onbe most suspect, which makes the ALL Blacks look a little too good to be true. That said I'm sue rugby is riddled with it, I think over 25% of uk positive tests are in rugby, but I don't think you can single out any one team.

I think back to growing up and watching the sport and you could tell the forwards and backs apart by their size not by their number. Then I watched Lomu literally run over Underwood, his opposing wing, and they are all are a colossus, not just the Samoans.

Jonah Lomu had a well known kidney disorder. Underwent kidney transplant surgery a few years back.

Look at him during his prime. His build was impressive. Look at him when the kidney problems occurred. Heavier, slower and less effective. The pictures tell a thousand words in his case. 1995-1999 was his prime and he was a machine. That's the suspicious period.

@Stueyy

All the big four Rugby nations are suspect. The Sports of Science guys touted as beacons for anti-doping on this forum and knowledgeable...one of them works with Saffer teams as a consultant.

The really dangerous and obvious dopers...the strong, fast ones who have incredible endurance and stamina. They tend to be the fullbacks, halfbacks, wingers and centres. In AFL they are the midfield boys and they are pure machines. They are the guys who when everyone else shuts down in the final 25% of the game, they are visibly unaffected. In League Down Under, they are the guys who make the Origin team.

I don't doubt what you say but it's when not only roids are being utilised that players become amazing in today's game. Local football clubs use to do the RPM classes at the gym I go to. They'd struggle to finish 40min class. A lot just focus on resistance training. Cardiovascular side often gets overlooked. I believe the guys who have both strength and endurance are the obvious ones to target. They also tend to make the most $$$. Catch one or two of them and it's game on for the anti-doping brigade.

 

[Galic Ho]

about a week ago. I'm a very well known poster in the road section, it's a pity we never met there. Anyway I didn't replace anyone, all former mods are still here no worries. there are just 5 more

I assumed you were in the pro-cycling thread. I pop in there mostly to catch up on news. I tend to only post on the live race threads or the GT discussions and I don't do that often. Especially last year. I figured most of the stuff I needed to know out, via cyclingnews articles or from watching the races.

I had noticed some new mods around. Thanks for the reply. I'll endeavour to spend some more time in the pro thread.