l disagree that footballer have more at stake though! Yes they earn more money, but that is all relative.......its still their job, be it football or rugby......and you could argue that footballers would be better placed to deal with a 2 year ban, as most will have very healthy bank accounts, the same can not be said for many other sports!

I'd like to see you try … the comparative figures for positive tests shouldn't be too hard to find. Perhaps some sort of search engine search under "drug bans by sport, 1999-2009" – something like that?

all these are ergogenic aids (aids that enhance performance), creatine and protein supplementation are allowed by WADA so don't think Dunneman is referring to these aids.

The only person who has come out and said that this isn't the case in rugby league is Andrew Dunneman....when did he become the oracle and f he is correct, is it possible things have changed in the years since he retired?

Hardly ideal in terms of helping him perform better, is it? Or are there super drugs which are able to cover the whole year from just a two week course?







Does the story about a player deliberately buying medicine that he knows contains ephedrine ring true to you? To me it sounds like bull5hit. It doesn't make sense for the player to do that and it's difficult to imagine how someone could witness that unless they were stalking the player.







I'm surmising from those questions that you don't know the answers to these questions. Why don't you ask your sources who know who all the drug taking players are? Surely when they can get such potentially damaging information so easily getting the basic info about how the drug testing system operates financially will be a snip for them?







I'm sure if they did that then there'd be even more claims of cover-ups than there already is.

In UK Sport's published figures for 2007/8 RL was easily the sport with the most failed drug tests. We had 14 while the next highest was football with 6.

Does that suggest that we are the worst offenders or the most stringent when it comes to testing and punishing players?



Cycling?

LOL



They're called pro hormones. Or designer steroids.



They're basically steroids with red tape meaning they can't be immediatly banned.



Go into any sports supplement store and you'll find them.



The messed up thing is these are far harsher on your body than real steroids yet anyone can buy them without knowing what they are.



They have an extremly short half life so if you know when a test is you can do a quick cyclke and it'll be out of your system.



They are orals not injectables (you can't just buy injectables from a supplement store) so results are harsh and fast.

The best Pro hormone was 1-ad. Theres a gland which tells your body to produce testosterone and this basically told that gland to dump out loads more testosterone than it normally does.



Because of the 2 step conversion is wasn't methylated so wasn't liver toxic and you don't experience shut down because you aren't injecting or taking orally synthetic hormones.



It was the safest one.



George bush banned it though

Hell, you can inject IGF-1 and that is undetectable in blood and urine tests.



A player could take that and never get caught.

In fact IGF-1 is a fantastic performance enhancing drug and a fountain of youth.



A muscle biopsy is the only way to determine if a person has used IGF-1. And the anti-doping forces will never, ever be allowed to take muscle biopsies from athletes.

And as we're starting to recommend ways round drugs testing, we'll end it tbere.