An AFL PED arms race is inevitable

[the_interloper]

Of course, I was asking how many knew without google. This saga or asaga or drama is really boring me so I thought I'd throw up something different. The masses ignored me so I stand in isolation as a spectator as I did when I watched the start of the footscray reserves start at 10am back in the mid 70s.

The nicky defence.

 

[PetterdHoisted]

Who cares?

Memberships up by 20,000
Made finals in back to back years.
Made a profit and paid off ultra advanced facilities.
Had a grand total of 1 player leave.
Recruited a second Brownlow Medallist
Been the most watched club on TV
Got Vlad sacked
Got Andruska 'retired'
Had opposition supporters rage at us for two years straight and actually took the shine off back-to-back Hawthorn flags as a result.

All under conditions that would have destroyed any other club in the country.
It's actually been pretty awesome.

Essendon is king.

Any older Richmond fan can recognise this post. Classic. There's a certain mythology that surrounds a big four club that's been good for a good while.
But suddenly there's incompetence, backstabbing, club legends ostracised, and so on.
The myth collapses, the fan is hurting, and......you get posts like this.

The bit about taking the shine off Hawthorns b2b is not so easily analysed...that's a little weird.

 

[Go_Blues!]

So it never dawned on a single person at the EFC anytime at all that football is just a game, it is not life? That risking a players long term health in the pursuit of an "edge" which has not been proven conclusively is a good thing to do? That thousands of injections into players could somehow turn them into superman regardless of the legal/illegal status of the drugs involved? That making a player a superman for maybe 10 years of his career only to have him possibly suffering health concerns 20 years or more after his career is over was really all worth it?

Now I really understand "Whatever it takes".

http://www.smh.com.au/sport/leading...supplements-investigation-20140527-zrq2r.html

Not sure if this has been posted on here but it is a pretty good article which refers specifically to Essendon, but can certainly be cast more generally, about winning-at-all-costs and the adoption by sports of capitalist, commercial and business values.

Clearly all AFL clubs have been making this transition over the past 20 years where the fans are principally against the commercialization of our game. If Essendon players are suspended, will we all stop for a moment and reflect on what our game has become and if that transition has been a good thing?

It is funny, the game has put in place strong equalization measures around the draft, salary cap and more recently the "tax" on football department spend. Is the natural competitive drive such that without being able to leverage any of these things that clubs look to gain advantages in some other way? Is it not therefore these measures for equalization that has led to the commercialization and adoption of business-like values at AFL clubs which may have led to multiple clubs doping and certainly created an ecosystem where doping is going to happen if it has not already.

 

[Chameleon75]

http://www.smh.com.au/sport/leading...supplements-investigation-20140527-zrq2r.html

Not sure if this has been posted on here but it is a pretty good article which refers specifically to Essendon, but can certainly be cast more generally, about winning-at-all-costs and the adoption by sports of capitalist, commercial and business values.

Clearly all AFL clubs have been making this transition over the past 20 years where the fans are principally against the commercialization of our game. If Essendon players are suspended, will we all stop for a moment and reflect on what our game has become and if that transition has been a good thing?

It is funny, the game has put in place strong equalization measures around the draft, salary cap and more recently the "tax" on football department spend. Is the natural competitive drive such that without being able to leverage any of these things that clubs look to gain advantages in some other way? Is it not therefore these measures for equalization that has led to the commercialization and adoption of business-like values at AFL clubs which may have led to multiple clubs doping and certainly created an ecosystem where doping is going to happen if it has not already.

don't disagree, however doping has always been around, anecdotally when the sport was amateur so to the doping and as it's moved professional the doping has followed suit. Hell even when I was playing junior footy there were a handful of players on the gear. Think this has shined a light and forced the average supporter to confront this issue rather remain blissfully ignorant.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Strangely enough, that entry does not contain any reference to finding out drugs had been followed to your premises by an investigation into major criminal activity; then "self reporting" after destroying the evidence.

To be fair Danks theories have more in common with witchcraft than medicine....

 

[Ancient Tiger]

To be fair Danks theories have more in common with witchcraft than medicine....

That's doing witchcraft a disservice!

 

[blackcat]

To be fair Danks theories have more in common with witchcraft than medicine....

gabriel garcia marquez alchemy magic realism soil earth diet nutritions

 

[Albert Ross]

Although arguably an outright ban on the taking of the syringe activity makes it a touch easier to prove a violation against the AFL anti-doping code (if the AFL is keen to follow up).

I was reading something up your alley this morning, in the Canberra Times: Australian on doping list.

The unnamed Australian athlete is among a list of hundreds of athletes reported to have produced suspicious blood samples that the IAAF sought to cover up or did nothing to pursue.​

Alternatively you could argue that 225 athletes with suspicious bloods, but nonetheless within 'normal' ranges represents progress in the fight against doping.

Doping has always existed and will always exist.

All that can achieved it is to reduce its effectiveness, increase its costs, and get it to the point where someone can choose not to dope and still be competitive.

Those 225 dopers might have hematocrit in the range of 47-49 instead or their 'natural' 44 but they are gaining relatively less than they have in the past and those competing at their natural 44 have a better chance of winning than if their rivals were all in the 50s.

People suggesting that doping is some sinister sports-related evil have must never parked for 2 hours 10 minutes in a 2 hour carpark. People cheat to gain an advantage. We all do it, every day in some way.

 

[blackcat]

Alternatively you could argue that 225 athletes with suspicious bloods, but nonetheless within 'normal' ranges represents progress in the fight against doping.

Doping has always existed and will always exist.

All that can achieved it is to reduce its effectiveness, increase its costs, and get it to the point where someone can choose not to dope and still be competitive.

Those 225 dopers might have hematocrit in the range of 47-49 instead or their 'natural' 44 but they are gaining relatively less than they have in the past and those competing at their natural 44 have a better chance of winning than if their rivals were all in the 50s.

People suggesting that doping is some sinister sports-related evil have must never parked for 2 hours 10 minutes in a 2 hour carpark. People cheat to gain an advantage. We all do it, every day in some way.

think once it reaches threshold in tennis and footy, it comes back to skills and talents with the ball or racquet in hand. which is how it always should be. but it (athleticism) needs to reach this threshold.

Tough for a 20 to win the brownlow, or break into the top 10 in the ATP now. It always was, but now it might be ascent unachievable.

like to see if Diesel Williams and Sam Mitchell ever make it out of the combine. (I know Mitch came thru BoxHill). my assumption is, it would be nigh impossible, but they would have had a force of will to fight thru the minors to a rook spot. They are top 100 of all time, p'raps top 30 afterall

 

[Go_Blues!]

Alternatively you could argue that 225 athletes with suspicious bloods, but nonetheless within 'normal' ranges represents progress in the fight against doping.

Doping has always existed and will always exist.

All that can achieved it is to reduce its effectiveness, increase its costs, and get it to the point where someone can choose not to dope and still be competitive.

Those 225 dopers might have hematocrit in the range of 47-49 instead or their 'natural' 44 but they are gaining relatively less than they have in the past and those competing at their natural 44 have a better chance of winning than if their rivals were all in the 50s.

People suggesting that doping is some sinister sports-related evil have must never parked for 2 hours 10 minutes in a 2 hour carpark. People cheat to gain an advantage. We all do it, every day in some way.

This is a great post. However, on the last paragraph, I think you are right, but surely there is a big difference between overstaying a timed parking lot and doping. For one, the scale of the deceit is so much greater. In the case of Lance Armstrong, which is a very easy example to give, he not only cheated his competitors, but also his many millions of fans. I think this is cheating on a pretty grand scale but I think it is great how you did put that into an everyday human context. Good post.

 

[Albert Ross]

This is a great post. However, on the last paragraph, I think you are right, but surely there is a big difference between overstaying a timed parking lot and doping. For one, the scale of the deceit is so much greater. In the case of Lance Armstrong, which is a very easy example to give, he not only cheated his competitors, but also his many millions of fans. I think this is cheating on a pretty grand scale but I think it is great how you did put that into an everyday human context. Good post.

We are a bad sample because we are on this site presumably because we all love sport a little too much and take it a little too seriously. Many thousands of people will commit adultery this month, have their marriages end in divorce and leave their children in circumstances somewhere between difficult and disadvantaged. I'd argue that that is is probably more significant cheating than trying to take a short cut to win a metal trinket.

The difference between Armstrong and the person with a mistress is Armstong's pathological commitment and absolute obsession, not some black heart unique to him over everyone else.

 

[kiwicrow]

Who cares?

Memberships up by 20,000
Made finals in back to back years.
Made a profit and paid off ultra advanced facilities.
Had a grand total of 1 player leave.
Recruited a second Brownlow Medallist
Been the most watched club on TV
Got Vlad sacked
Got Andruska 'retired'
Had opposition supporters rage at us for two years straight and actually took the shine off back-to-back Hawthorn flags as a result.

All under conditions that would have destroyed any other club in the country.
It's actually been pretty awesome.

Essendon is king.

Yep, should have done it years ago....

Only someone as stupid as you would think there has been any gloss on this disgraceful episode, we're all the poorer for it.

 

[Albert Ross]

think once it reaches threshold in tennis and footy, it comes back to skills and talents with the ball or racquet in hand. which is how it always should be. but it (athleticism) needs to reach this threshold.

Tough for a 20 to win the brownlow, or break into the top 10 in the ATP now. It always was, but now it might be ascent unachievable.

like to see if Diesel Williams and Sam Mitchell ever make it out of the combine. (I know Mitch came thru BoxHill). my assumption is, it would be nigh impossible, but they would have had a force of will to fight thru the minors to a rook spot. They are top 100 of all time, p'raps top 30 afterall

Agreed, and have previously argued this point. The more skill and team play the less advantageous doping is and the less corrupted the outcomes.

A 1% athletic edge in the Tour de France (winning time this year about 90 hours) equates to 54 minutes. That is the difference between 1st and 20th (probably more in practice with people out of contention backing-off and going easy). Those 1% margins can be the difference between having a job as a cyclist or working in a bike store.

A 1% athletic edge in a skills-based, team sport like AFL will help some, be of little help to others, and could still see you get delisted even if you win every athletic trial at your club.

 

[blackcat]

Agreed, and have previously argued this point. The more skill and team play the less advantageous doping is and the less corrupted the outcomes.

A 1% athletic edge in the Tour de France (winning time this year about 90 hours) equates to 54 minutes. That is the difference between 1st and 20th (probably more in practice with people out of contention backing-off and going easy). Those 1% margins can be the difference between having a job as a cyclist or working in a bike store.

A 1% athletic edge in a skills-based, team sport like AFL will help some, be of little help to others, and could still see you get delisted even if you win every athletic trial at your club.

but in cycling, the determinants are usually the last 5 km of 4 finishing climbs, and two 45 minute tts. The rest of the race is basically neutralised. But you cant have a crash, or stumble and lose a wheel when you go over the cobbles, which is only about once a decade however.

 

[Chameleon75]

Agreed, and have previously argued this point. The more skill and team play the less advantageous doping is and the less corrupted the outcomes.

A 1% athletic edge in the Tour de France (winning time this year about 90 hours) equates to 54 minutes. That is the difference between 1st and 20th (probably more in practice with people out of contention backing-off and going easy). Those 1% margins can be the difference between having a job as a cyclist or working in a bike store.

A 1% athletic edge in a skills-based, team sport like AFL will help some, be of little help to others, and could still see you get delisted even if you win every athletic trial at your club.

it's late in the last quarter where peds help, you get to more contests and when fatigue sets in the skills drop off, but if you still have plenty in the tank you maintain a higher standard of skills, that and being able to push your opponents off the ball.

 

[blackcat]

it's late in the last quarter where peds help, you get to more contests and when fatigue sets in the skills drop off, but if you still have plenty in the tank you maintain a higher standard of skills, that and being able to push your opponents off the ball.

but the bigger your appetite will lead to bigger white tissue injury list as your body goes ping.

so it can be a false economy at some point

 

[Chameleon75]

but the bigger your appetite will lead to bigger white tissue injury list as your body goes ping.

so it can be a false economy at some point

True, but that gets ironed out over time, look at the nuggety midfielders of the 80,90's, compare them to todays midfielders. Roids might help around the contest but they struggled to cover the ground, so the formula gets tweeked.

Same with injuries, late 90's had a plague of OP with HGH hitting the big time, today not so much, tweek the formula.

Today its tendons snapping instead of the muscles, expect in 10 yrs that won't be as much of an issue once they perfect the mechanism (copy right dank).

 

[Ned_Flanders]

True, but that gets ironed out over time, look at the nuggety midfielders of the 80,90's, compare them to todays midfielders. Roids might help around the contest but they struggled to cover the ground, so the formula gets tweeked.

Same with injuries, late 90's had a plague of OP with HGH hitting the big time, today not so much, tweek the formula.

Today its tendons snapping instead of the muscles, expect in 10 yrs that won't be as much of an issue once they perfect the mechanism (copy right dank).

But afl players don't do PED's except at essendon....

 

[Albert Ross]

it's late in the last quarter where peds help, you get to more contests and when fatigue sets in the skills drop off, but if you still have plenty in the tank you maintain a higher standard of skills, that and being able to push your opponents off the ball.

Most games are not competitive late in the first quarter. If you don't have the skills to begin with it doesn't matter. Your smarts can also get you to that contest, and your courage can fail you when you get there. No one is suggesting that PEDs don't help at all, only that the marginal gains the doper gets don't mean that he, and only he, can compete. If you weren't doping in cycling in the 90s you could not get a professional contract. The 5% marginal gain that the likes of Hamilton estimate their doping gave them translates to hours in the Grand Tours. You doped, or watched on TV, simple choice.

 

[Chameleon75]

Most games are not competitive late in the first quarter. If you don't have the skills to begin with it doesn't matter. Your smarts can also get you to that contest, and your courage can fail you when you get there. No one is suggesting that PEDs don't help at all, only that the marginal gains the doper gets don't mean that he, and only he, can compete. If you weren't doping in cycling in the 90s you could not get a professional contract. The 5% marginal gain that the likes of Hamilton estimate their doping gave them translates to hours in the Grand Tours. You doped, or watched on TV, simple choice.

don't necessarily disagree but they must have a tangible influence otherwise people wouldn't risk it.

even in the beautiful game they're doped to the eyeballs, its about being able to run just as hard in 100th minute as you can in the first. If you don't get to the contest your skills don't do you much good.

afl is somewhat different as most games aren't on a knifes edge like soccer, but size at the contest will help while the game is still in the balance.

 

[Chameleon75]

But afl players don't do PED's except at essendon....

look at other sports where doping is rife: fame, fortune and a sense of purpose in life (average athlete isn't qualified to do much else). Its no different to the afl, yet I keep hearing there's minimal doping in the afl.

begs the question why is the average afl player fundamentally more honest than the average athlete from another sport. Particularly when you look at what they get up to away from the track that argument doesn't stack up.

 

[blackcat]

True, but that gets ironed out over time, look at the nuggety midfielders of the 80,90's, compare them to todays midfielders. Roids might help around the contest but they struggled to cover the ground, so the formula gets tweeked.

Same with injuries, late 90's had a plague of OP with HGH hitting the big time, today not so much, tweek the formula.

Today its tendons snapping instead of the muscles, expect in 10 yrs that won't be as much of an issue once they perfect the mechanism (copy right dank).

was it not 2000s that OP surfaced in earnest?

the thing about the best coaches and players, at some time MM, now Clarko, they lead the pack. It is no good tweaking to follow the "best practice". no, one must become the best practice for your unique club. See: Oakland A's in Michael Lewis Moneyball. I was reading his blogs when he was an Economist (magazine this is) out of Brown art history and Salomon's was not he medusala.

anyway, the point is, one must triangulate their athletic gifts, compared to your opponents and taggers, and see how you can make your talents and athletic gifts, more pronounced. Like people in the front office and recruiting of NBA teams say, dont be a player who can do everything, just be a player in the top 10 in one particular stat, either defense for your particular position, or perimeter shooting, rebounding, clogging the lane like Gausol brother, or intimidation like Detroit of 80s or Ron Artest. You need to compete v your opponent, the field of opponents, the opposition 22 when they defend as team, and where the game is going in short term. It is no good your one talent being neutralised, then you just become a utility who can be master of everything expert of nothing. No, one wishes to become an expert of one thing. Then you have a gig. TRanspose this to AFL analogy.

 

[blackcat]

begs the question why is the average afl player fundamentally more honest than the average athlete from another sport. Particularly when you look at what they get up to away from the track that argument doesn't stack up.

yes, it is begging the question. For "average athlete", insert "average person" in wider society. Everyone vulnerable to the same influences. Rarely individuals act with autonomy.

 

[blackcat]

don't necessarily disagree but they must have a tangible influence otherwise people wouldn't risk it.

even in the beautiful game they're doped to the eyeballs, its about being able to run just as hard in 100th minute as you can in the first. If you don't get to the contest your skills don't do you much good.

afl is somewhat different as most games aren't on a knifes edge like soccer, but size at the contest will help while the game is still in the balance.

die mannschaft

 

[blackcat]

for basketball. they almost could start the final quarter everygame at 80 apiece, and go from there.