Mega Thread Hot Topic - Drugs and AFL

[RussellEbertHandball]

This is a question i want answered as well. it seems unfair that if they are cleared, then they still cant play out of fear for an appeal to be upheld......

I think people see today as some sort of closure on this, but is is likely to be far from that.

Correct it will drag on - just like the big athletics and big cycling cases involving investigations when no positive sample has been collected.

To use a legal analogy we are at the District Court stage. This thing could go all the way to the High Court.

 

[jack_black16]

Why are you angry? This is more the norm in professional sports than it isnt. A US uni and separately Adelaide Uni research studies found that even with maximum testing you have a 2.3% or 2.9% (cant remember which study produced which result) of testing positive. You tell a professional sportsman - whose job it is to push things to the limit - that they have a 97% chance of getting away with using PED"s what do you reckon they realisticaly will choose?

Do you reckon those Euro soccer players who are playing for the big clubs, and are top end players - who through league games, cup games, champion league games and internationals are playing about 70 games a season, sometimes 3 games in 8 days, making millions of Euros a month let alone in a year, arent on some sort of chemical assistance to keep up their high standard, then you are kidding yourself. And by chemical assistance I mean legal and illegal, banned from sports and not banned from sports.

Do you think KT and Ken are aware that the majority of Port Adelaide players are using performance enhancing drugs?

 

[Grave Danger]

Heard former Hawks player Nick Holland on the radio this morning - he's a lawyer these days, currently acting for some of the Essendon officials. He is of the belief that the players will get off due to insufficient evidence, but Stephen Dank will be banned. This sounds contradictory.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Do you think KT and Ken are aware that the majority of Port Adelaide players are using performance enhancing drugs?

Nope

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Heard former Hawks player Nick Holland on the radio this morning - he's a lawyer these days, currently acting for some of the Essendon officials. He is of the belief that the players will get off due to insufficient evidence, but Stephen Dank will be banned. This sounds contradictory.

Its the protecting the good blokes and my industry line. NRL players coped 12 months - backdated, Dank got a lifetime ban.

 

[Greasyrhys]

Fingers crossed that Ryder & Gus won't get a lengthy ban...

 

[RossFC]

If Butcher can stay in form, The loss of Ryder won't be so bad.
Monfries (apart from the Prelim) had a terrible year and can be easily replaced by Neade.

 

[Shaxx Attaxx]

So what I'm reading is that despite today being D-day it really is just a little bump in the never ending road that is the Essendon drug saga. Ohh yay!

 

[BornPort]

Why are you angry? This is more the norm in professional sports than it isnt. A US uni and separately Adelaide Uni research studies found that even with maximum testing you have a 2.3% or 2.9% (cant remember which study produced which result) of testing positive. You tell a professional sportsman - whose job it is to push things to the limit - that they have a 97% chance of getting away with using PED"s what do you reckon they realisticaly will choose?

Do you reckon those Euro soccer players who are playing for the big clubs, and are top end players - who through league games, cup games, champion league games and internationals are playing about 70 games a season, sometimes 3 games in 8 days, making millions of Euros a month let alone in a year, arent on some sort of chemical assistance to keep up their high standard, then you are kidding yourself. And by chemical assistance I mean legal and illegal, banned from sports and not banned from sports.

That's per test.

Using typical values of detectability of 48 hours, sensitivity of 40% and testing frequency once every three months, the probability of detecting a cheater who uses doping methods every week is only 2.9% per test.

If tests are repeated every month, the probability raises to about 33%, meaning that two thirds of dopers would slip through the net. This is assuming that testing happens genuinely at random with no prior warning to the athletes.

 

[wollieoines]

I wouldn't be surprised if a certain amount of players are found not guilty while another group being found guilty, I would suspect they have more evidence on certain players while others they have very little evidence on.

 

[JohnHinckleyJr]

Should of lent ryder n monfs my piss that day

 

[JimmyBeerCans]

I suspect we'll all need a few ales this arvo

 

[WhyAlwaysMe]

Why the hell is this thing starting at 2? If they go through player by player it will take 4 or 5 hours to get through them all, probably more with breaks. Then the players will discuss with their lawyers the guilty/not guilty verdict. Then only will we find out via a press release. This could take until 10 or 11pm.

 

[Janey]

I wouldn't be surprised if a certain amount of players are found not guilty while another group being found guilty, I would suspect they have more evidence on certain players while others they have very little evidence on.

That sounds likely. I wonder if ASADA/WADA will be less likely to appeal the not guilty players if there are others found guilty. Not saying that our boys would necessarily be in the not guilty group though, that seems unlikely.

 

[wollieoines]

ill be happy if Monfries is guilty and Ryder not guilty, ill take that right now

 

[Andre]

If they are found not guilty everyone seems to think ASADA are likely to appeal. If we let Gus and Paddy play in the meantime and a subsequent appeal is upheld, surely that will mean that any penalty will start afresh from the last game they play so they won't be able to take advantage of any backdating. Should the club wait to see if ASADA are going to appeal before letting them play anyway, even if it's a not guilty decision?

This is crap. They've been suspended. At the least that time has to count, even if they play whilst appeals are going on.

 

[BornPort]

ill be happy if Monfries is guilty and Ryder not guilty, ill take that right now

What a shitty thing to say.

 

[Andre]

ill be happy if Monfries is guilty and Ryder not guilty, ill take that right now

Ryder made a big deal about his concerns. That should weigh against all the #standbyhird crowds when considering verdicts and sentences.

 

[finbarr]

Heard former Hawks player Nick Holland on the radio this morning - he's a lawyer these days, currently acting for some of the Essendon officials. He is of the belief that the players will get off due to insufficient evidence, but Stephen Dank will be banned. This sounds contradictory.

Is there any way we can get a 'Guilty by association'' ban on Graham Cornes?

 

[LFC2010]

Why the hell is this thing starting at 2? If they go through player by player it will take 4 or 5 hours to get through them all, probably more with breaks. Then the players will discuss with their lawyers the guilty/not guilty verdict. Then only will we find out via a press release. This could take until 10 or 11pm.

They won't go player by player, punishments will be handed in groups from the less severe, to the more severe. If they don't it this way, then yes it'll take forever which is something they really wouldn't want to do.

 

[Janus]

This is crap. They've been suspended. At the least that time has to count, even if they play whilst appeals are going on.

Yep, it's like you've been remanded in custody, the judge says "not guilty", you go free...and then after the appeal you have to start again from zero, whereas if you were found guilty at the start you would get time already served.

 

[LFC2010]

If Butcher can stay in form, The loss of Ryder won't be so bad.
Monfries (apart from the Prelim) had a terrible year and can be easily replaced by Neade.

or even Krakouer! based on last season's final's form, Neade deserves a spot in the team though.

 

[Grave Danger]

Is there any way we can get a 'Guilty by association'' ban on Graham Cornes?

Apparently it's Stephen that isn't returning Graham's calls these days

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

That's per test.

Thanks for digging that up.

But read the last sentence you quoted very closely. Do sports organisations really want to do that many tests and have that many positives??

Here's a good example from Dr Robin Parisotto's book Blood Sports - The inside dope on drugs in sport. Parisotto was the AIS sports scientists who lead the team that discovered the EPO urine and blood doping test. The IOC approved his urine tests to be used in Sydney Olympics in 2000 but not his blood tests. But the IOC approved they could take blood samples for future testing when the blood tests where legally full proof. The athletes couldnt be banned and stripped of medals unlike since the 2008 games where future positives can mean loss of medals.

There were aprox 3,000 endurance sports/event athletes in Sydney and they collected 300 random blood samples. A few years later they found 7 positive EPO samples. So its fair to extrapolate and say there probably was 70 positives among those 3,000 athletes. Imagine 70 positives at the Olympics?? You start competition on Saturday morning and say Sunday lunchtime you get your first positive sample. Then every 5 or 6 hours another positive is discovered. They would have to shut the Olympics down by the 2nd Saturday with the 2nd week of events being abandoned

But even with maximum testing and commitment to catching them all the time only producing a 33% catch rate - then as a well paid athlete you'd implement the Meatloaf 2 out of 3 aint bad policy.

 

[finbarr]

What a shitty thing to say.

Some people should really run what they've typed past a legal guardian before hitting 'post reply'.