Quite. When we catch a drugs cheat I don't consider it bad news for our sport. I consider it good news for our sport. We're actively catching the cheats.

Obviously we're doing well in comparison to many other sports. We shouldn't be resting on our laurels though. If blood tests are only done every few years then I'd say that could be improved, do you agree?

Going by what the RFL spokesman said on Boots"n"all last night we do Blood tests every year and the numbers are increasing again this season.

It's a cost issue Sam, plain and simple.

If there was a bottomless pot of money available through UK Sport or WADA then I'd be in full agreement - blood testing is the way forward.

That doesn't really say much as it could mean only one club a year is blood tested. From what I hear this needs to improve as it can be years between tests.




I thought as much, how much more is it for the blood tests? Is it really that expensive?

I think its around £50 for a drugs test. But it can depend what you are testing for I think.

I just wondered what the difference in cost was between a blood test and the more common urine tests. Probably hard for anyone on here to answer.

I suppose it's always been easier to take the pi55.

Badumpsht.

[iIn May the RFL nominated 17 players in its elite training squad as its ‘National Registered Testing Pool’ who under new WADA rules must agree to give notice of their location on a chosen one-hour period each day, seven days a week.[/i

This is the same as all pro-tour teams registered pro-cyclists have to do... it is quite extreme but it will be the only way to beat this in the long term.

In respect of the alleged drugs offence that Newton has been suspended for, pending further investigation, it is an out of competition test, not an in competition test as Gareth Hock's. As such, it is only certain drugs that carry a possible 2 year ban in this situation, many other 'so called' recreation drugs carry lesser bans when used 'out of competition'. So if Hock had been tested out of competition and not in competition and Cocaine had been found in his system, he would have only received a 3 month ban (IIRC) and not two years.

Mrs Janitor, how did G1 miss this, he must be high as a kite.

My bad. I've just come down from the Glue.

How could I let a scrubs reference, especially one from arguably its' best character, go without some mention.

BigRob is awarded 825 brownie points.

Quote: Head High Tackle "The neanderthal inbreds don't like it up em do they? Got a good 11 page thread from simply indicating if found guilty the club have to take some responsibility for failing to control their players. Carnage ensued. Abuse, falling over themselves to brush it under the carpet, severe gnashing of teeth (one bit his tongue at one point) and then billy the kid got involved. Bless their 7 fingered gloves.'" Yes,it would be great if clubs took the responsibility for individuals actions or the club can quite simply welcome the player back and allow them to continue with their contract. news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 113199.stm

Quote: Head High Tackle "The neanderthal inbreds don't like it up em do they? Got a good 11 page thread from simply indicating if found guilty the club have to take some responsibility for failing to control their players. Carnage ensued. Abuse, falling over themselves to brush it under the carpet, severe gnashing of teeth (one bit his tongue at one point) and then billy the kid got involved. Bless their 7 fingered gloves.'" Yes,it would be great if clubs took the responsibility for individuals actions or the club can quite simply welcome the player back and allow them to continue with their contract. news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 113199.stm

Ok, you two, stop trolling each other.

Clubs do have to take responsibility like all employers, to a certain extent, for all the players (and staff in general) they are responsible for but when it comes the use of drugs (recreational or not) in RL than I am not sure any club could be held responsible for all of a players personal actions.

The point I am making is that drug taking in RL (and football and RU for that matter) is not a major issue or problem. This is because the of the nature of the sport, endurance and explosive events are most at risk of performance enhancing drug use in general while team and skill based sports, other than out of season strength enhancement work, are not really a massive risk.

When David Millar was suspended from pro-cycling for 2 years for the use of EPO, he took his ban on the chin, kept his head down and when he came back he said that ultimately it was him alone that had the choice to take a performance enhancing substance BUT he then also went about braking the biggest taboo in world cycling. That the pro-teams (and sponsors) put riders under immense pressure to succeed and as such they turned a blind eye to the issue of drug use and had done so for 30 or 40 years. He said that the teams needed to take as much responsibility as the riders (all young and therefore easily influenced) for the widespread abuse of drugs in pro-cycling. Until they did so, the problem would continue.

I would suggest that we do not have a drug taking culture in RL at all and while fitness and strength do matter, so does skill and aptitude for the game. I think that the clubs can only take so much responsibility for players and more over older players who possibly should know better. I think that the current drug-testing programme is more than appropriate and fit for purpose and I don't think for one second any of the clubs (unlike in cycling) were/are turning a blind eye to any sort of drug or substance abuse. As such, unless fairly compelling evidence was to emerge against any RL club to the contrary, I don't think any club could be held as being responsible for a single players actions.

100% agree,top post.

I've had a scan through the thread, but not seen any specific reference to this ....

Newton's test was done 'out-of-competition' last November, why has it taken so long for it to emerge now ?

Exactly how long does it take to do these tests and get the results back, or are RFL doing it on the cheap ? My point is that in most international cometitions, like say the Olympics, the test results are through at most a couple of days after the event .... Not FOUR MONTHS later. Surely, any half decent testing regieme would have ensured that a player would not have even started the season with their club had they had a positive test result back on their A-Sample (and then subsequent testing of the B-Sample).

Has the news been 'hushed up' for a couple of weeks for whatever reason ?


As for the blood testing of players, this is something that has been available for years and a darn sight easier that the old scenario of dehydrated players having to wait around for hours after a game for a p**s. This is something I have advocated for years.


Again, as I maintain, it is statistically easier to miss a drugs test given on a game-by-game basis these days than it was when the tests were first brought in during the early 90s. In those days, the sport was 13+2 on a team, but today it is still 2 but from a team of 17. Given the top players (regardless of what they might say) are less games being played too and you can see how to the untrained eye, it might be easier to dodge testing ?

Perhaps the RFL should publish the number of times each player has been tested (not specifically when) at the end of each season ?

To be honest when you talk about the Olympics, the Tour, World Cup etc then they have a special lab set up just for the event or hire an existing lab to do exclusive immediate testing. In terms of Cycling, now the most screened and advanced drug testing sport in the world, the world governing body the UCI funds it's programme via the pro-teams and the national federations and of course the risk of drug abuse is higher and therefore their response is proportionate to risk. Even then, out of competition tests in Cycling, as they are less urgent, will often take several weeks if not months to return results as many of these are done via the national cycling federations systems which use commercial labs, such as I imagine the RFL's system does.

I don't think the RFL do it on the cheap, I just think they have a system that is proportionate to risk and that out of competition tests will be given a lower priority by the commercial lab and the RFL than in competition tests, in which results would be expected in just a few weeks. Why would the RFL pay a commercial lab to priority test when they don't really have to. It might mean positive tests take a few more weeks to emerge but given that we don't have a major problem, I think that is fine.

I understand that they do publish overall stats in relation to player testing but not sure what individual's figures will do for anybody?