Does anyone REALLY expect the Essendon players to be suspended? (Now with new options!)

[Ned_Flanders]

So is a procedural audit. And that's assuming the genuine records are audited.

Neither approach is comprehensive. To argue that any single shot system is an improvement is plain silly.

I never argued for one to replace another. As I said earlier, testing will remain in place.

Can I ask you how we detect tb4 with a test though when it cannot be detected after 30 minutes? To nail that, you need to look outside testing. Right now, the afl program is virtually 100%focused on testing.

 

[Crankyhawk]

Just to pull out your points:

- introduce a rule that only supplements on an afl approved list can be used at all, and anything outside this (bar for medical purposes) results in an automatic two year ban

Um, we have this. It's called the WADA code.

- require clubs only procure supplements from afl approved suppliers

Um, same again. We have this already. The AFL is not a medical organisation, the rules in place cover what players can take.

- ban non medical staff from administering supplements

All injections are supposed to go through the club doctor aren't they?

- require all supplement use be recorded on a central afl log (listing supp, player, dose, etc)

Not necessary if the first few rules are being followed.

- advise clubs any violation of these rules will result in fines and the like for the club, and 10 year bans for support staff

We already have penalties in place that cover this too. Essendon got a whack for how they handled it financially, and the players will get their whack if they are found guilty.

The point about the AFL educating people is a different one to could the AFL have handled this differently once a breach was deemed possible (as you said). How the AFL handled this isn't the point of this particular discussion, it's about Essendon mouth-pieces trying to apportion blame elsewhere for the place they are in now - and the scrutiny and pressure that they have been under for a couple of years.

Actually there's a difference between the WADA code which names what you cannot take but leaves open to interpretation as to what is a similar type of drug which may not explicitly be banned and Gigantors proposed explicit you can only take this code which while more restrictive is probably easier to police.

Edit rfctiger not gigantor. A thousand apologies

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Actually there's a difference between the WADA code which names what you cannot take but leaves open to interpretation as to what is a similar type of drug which may not explicitly be banned and Gigantors proposed explicit you can only take this code which while more restrictive is probably easier to police.

Dude, I'm not gigantor

 

[Chameleon75]

The amount of testing we do for stuff we can detect in the afl is woeful.

Also agree this will never stop full blown corruption, but it will stop th situation you have today with players buying independently (ie saad) and clubs providing way too much scope and freedom to one guy and his mates

Fwiw I'm not too worried about the Armageddon situation anyway (where a club has an institutionalize do illegal program they knowing cover up). Too many staff and players change between afl clubs, and it's impossible to keep that kind of corruption quiet for too long.

they'll just buy there gear from the same place they buy there coke from, all in cash.

 

[Crankyhawk]

Dude, I'm not gigantor

Sorry sorry sorry

 

[neutralguy]

Sorry sorry sorry

IMO that is nowhere near enough sorries, that accusation deserves a bottle of the poor mans choice.

 

[Gavstar]

Actually there's a difference between the WADA code which names what you cannot take but leaves open to interpretation as to what is a similar type of drug which may not explicitly be banned and Gigantors proposed explicit you can only take this code which while more restrictive is probably easier to police.

I talked about this way back a list of AFL approved compounds (and/or suppliers), you take something not on that list and your instabanned for 2-4 years even if it was vitamins. Injections/patches etc forbidden without a TUE (exclusion for pain killers) though this change has been made.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

they'll just buy there gear from the same place they buy there coke from, all in cash.

That's individuals, and that's incredibly hard to trace no matter what we do

Thing with clubs it had to have $50k in petty cash disappearing. People tend to ask questions, esp the ato

 

[Chameleon75]

That's individuals, and that's incredibly hard to trace no matter what we do

Thing with clubs it had to have $50k in petty cash disappearing. People tend to ask questions, esp the ato

thats the thing with essendon, brought it in house. Cronalla at least a secret bank account.

 

[BlueWorld]

Players will get suspended but it will be shorter than many want. Backdated so they return by June.

What makes you think that? Don't just make statements without supplying any reasons as to why you are saying that.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

thats the thing with essendon, brought it in house. Cronalla at least a secret bank account.

I call bullshit, as if Cronulla had a bank account, let alone a secret one

On club based illegal programs, only way I can see it being off the books is coterie funded, but while they have cash, they are the biggest gossips since Mrs Mangle. Not saying it's impossible, but you know some tosser will brag to his mates when half cut

 

[jenny61_99]

I call bullshit, as if Cronulla had a bank account, let alone a secret one

On club based illegal programs, only way I can see it being off the books is coterie funded, but while they have cash, they are the biggest gossips since Mrs Mangle. Not saying it's impossible, but you know some tosser will brag to his mates when half cut

Cronulla says secret bank account not used for 2011 supplements program under ASADA investigation

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Cronulla says secret bank account not used for 2011 supplements program under ASADA investigation

Well bugger me, I thought you had to have $5 to open an account these days? They must have had a pie night or something

 

[Chameleon75]

I call bullshit, as if Cronulla had a bank account, let alone a secret one

On club based illegal programs, only way I can see it being off the books is coterie funded, but while they have cash, they are the biggest gossips since Mrs Mangle. Not saying it's impossible, but you know some tosser will brag to his mates when half cut

http://m.dailytelegraph.com.au/spor...700909351?nk=73bd8f8b5e16786aaeb0e46c0c3c21b4

that how the bank account of the high performance unit at cronulla operated, via fundraisers. Why not tax the fans.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

http://m.dailytelegraph.com.au/spor...700909351?nk=73bd8f8b5e16786aaeb0e46c0c3c21b4

that how the bank account of the high performance unit at cronulla operated, via fundraisers. Why not tax the fans.

Now you are talking crazy, Cronulla has fans?!?!?

Jokes aside, I think the coterie sponsored stuff is unsustainable, just because too many people get in the know, and word would leak out when players/coaches switch clubs. Not saying some idiot wouldn't try it, but I reckon it would be doomed to fail

 

[Baldur]

Now you are talking crazy, Cronulla has fans?!?!?

Jokes aside, I think the coterie sponsored stuff is unsustainable, just because too many people get in the know, and word would leak out when players/coaches switch clubs. Not saying some idiot wouldn't try it, but I reckon it would be doomed to fail

Yep, not many but they have them. Their entire fan base appeared on TV a while ago, some sort of so called riot.

 

[Laphroaig]

I never argued for one to replace another. As I said earlier, testing will remain in place.

Can I ask you how we detect tb4 with a test though when it cannot be detected after 30 minutes? To nail that, you need to look outside testing. Right now, the afl program is virtually 100%focused on testing.

I think it's widely agreed that non analytical investigation is an essential.

I assume though, that you are championing a white list rather than a blacklist. If you are, it's impossible to implement effectively and if tried would rapidly be overwhelmed by applications for additional drugs to be added.

For a white list to be workable every single substance on the planet has to be studied for performance enhancement potential and given a tick or a cross. Which is clearly not workable.

Gigantors proposed explicit you can only take this code which while more restrictive is probably easier to police.

It's not. Far from it.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

I think it's widely agreed that non analytical investigation is an essential.

I assume though, that you are championing a white list rather than a blacklist. If you are, it's impossible to implement effectively and if tried would rapidly be overwhelmed by applications for additional drugs to be added.

For a white list to be workable every single substance on the planet has to be studied for performance enhancement potential and given a tick or a cross. Which is clearly not workable.



It's not. Far from it.

Definitely in fav of a whitelist, firstly because it's easier to enforce (no definitional disputes), but secondly players should be smeared or injected with every new fad chemical just because it's not banned by WADA. How many substances outside prescribed medicines do that need?

 

[Crankyhawk]

I'd be thinking a whitelist with very few chemicals on it. ie paracetamol, ibuprofen, lignocaine, actual vitamins.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

I understand your procedural argument but its just as easily bypassed, plenty of businesses keep two sets of books, and it doesn't prevent off site informal systems.

testing is a joke because they don't really want to catch too many, think I read a post by RussellEbertHandball that calculated the risk of getting caught in the afl at 0.03% under current testing. Victor conte wrote to wada after he came clean suggesting that most of the testing be done during preseason as thats when the doping occurs instead of the minimal amount currently done, same too in the afl most testing is done on game day, not too many are stupid enough to turn up loaded on game day.

then you always have new products where there are no tests. Back in the lead up to the 2000 games asada's predecessor was setting up a system whereby pharma would only release drugs once the concurrently developed a test for it. The then sports minister Jackie Kelly shut it down. It seems we like to catch dopers, just not too many lest it undermines the financial foundation of the sport.

but even with that system, you still wouldn't stop the balco labs of this world.

I have quoted from a couple of studies, a US one which says the maximum chance of getting caught via a positive sample is 2.3% ( or might have been 2.7%) and an Adelaide Uni one which said 2.9%, which I may have written as p = 0.029 where p is probability.

This article from the Conversation in August 2012 puts it at about 2% world wide.

http://theconversation.com/how-many-olympic-athletes-are-taking-drugs-8527
In 2009 there were 35 WADA-accredited laboratories, conducting a combined total of 277,928 analyses. A total of 5,610 samples - or 2.02% of the complete sample - produced either “adverse” or “atypical” findings.

In their reports, WADA representatives stressed that an adverse or atypical finding is not the same as an adjudicated or sanctioned anti-doping rule violation. That’s because some athletes are allowed to use substances for therapeutic reasons. So it would be incorrect to assume that the incidence of doping is 2.02%; in all probability it is lower.
http://theconversation.com/how-many-olympic-athletes-are-taking-drugs-8527

I think I might have said the 2.9% for AFL might be 1/10th or 1/100th as there were around 780 players on AFL lists in 2011 but the AFL annual report said the AFL conducted almost 1,000 anti-doping tests and spent a lot of time talking about illicit drug tests. From page 49 of the annual report 1/4 of a page on PEDs and 1/2 on illicit drugs and a table with stats about how many tests and what they caught. As David Culbert said, only 2 lines about what they really did. But no info about what tests were in and out of competition, how many were blood, how many urine, how many per athlete and therefore how many athletes had zero test.


http://www.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL Tenant/AFL/Files/afl_annual_report_2011.pdf
AFL Anti-Doping Code
The AFL’s most recent 12-month period of testing by the
Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA) for
performance-enhancing drugs under the AFL’s Anti-Doping Code
recorded no positive test results.

ASADA reported to the AFL it conducted almost 1000 tests for
the 12-month period from November 1, 2009, to October 31, 2010,
with no positive test results.

The testing period saw the introduction of a number
of initiatives designed to further deter any athlete
considering doping, as the AFL and ASADA annually determine
what is current best practice in combating the use of
performance-enhancing substances.

Testing for EPO and CERA was introduced, as well as testing
for human growth hormone (HGH), and an information-sharing
arrangement between the AFL and ASADA officially started.
Testing of players on overseas training camps was also instigated
as another measure to enhance the testing program.

Out-of-competition testing also improved, and the AFL
expanded its blood-profiling program in this 12-month period,
with a number of players repeat tested.

The AFL was the first Australian sport to pay for its own HGH,
EPO and CERA testing program, after working with ASADA to
examine all possible testing options. The AFL remains proud that
ASADA describes the AFL testing program as ‘gold standard’.

http://www.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL Tenant/AFL/Files/afl_annual_report_2011.pdf

 

[Laphroaig]

Definitely in fav of a whitelist, firstly because it's easier to enforce (no definitional disputes), but secondly players should be smeared or injected with every new fad chemical just because it's not banned by WADA. How many substances outside prescribed medicines do that need?

No, it's not. The question of food alone becomes utterly unmanageable. Every single possible ingredient and chemical in any food has to be classified yes or no. AFL players love hair gel, and even hair spray. But as a huge number of chemicals can be absorbed transdermally, every single ingredient in any cosmetic on the planet has to be classified, yes or no.

And that's before we come to medicines. Last time I saw a hard copy of Mims, the directory of approved medicines in Australia, it was a * ing great big book with REALLY small writing. The vast majority of these medications are not suspected of having PE qualities - but just because you're an athlete tough luck. Your medical treatment regime goes back to the days of leeches. Better hope your appendix doesn't become inflamed, or even a bad ingrown toenail. You're a dead man.

I'd be thinking a whitelist with very few chemicals on it. ie paracetamol, ibuprofen, lignocaine, actual vitamins.

So treatment for tinea will be not approved? Shingles, worms, pubic parasites? Stomach ulcers - stiff s**t. Potentially fatal infection to a minor wound - no way. There are hundreds of antibiotics to choose from, and effective treatment needs the right one. You are free to die of sometehing that's been easily curable for 100 years. You're an asthmatic or an epilectic? Tough s**t. No sports career for you.

Athletes don't get sick? And if they get anything worse than a minor headache they must not receive treatment?

 

[baldandbroke]

Definitely in fav of a whitelist, firstly because it's easier to enforce (no definitional disputes), but secondly players should be smeared or injected with every new fad chemical just because it's not banned by WADA. How many substances outside prescribed medicines do that need?

Can you just confirm for me what the whitelist would be for? It's not a whitelist for players - it's a whitelist for what clubs can administer, right? So clubs found to be giving players anything outside the list receive instant penalties and bans - wouldn't that push a club to seek a solution outside of the AFL boundary for these types of things? I actually don't mind the logic here, just wondering about the effect.

I understand the point that whitelists are easier to police - it's like a whitelist of approved websites you can see compared to trying to maintain a blacklist ... forget about it.

What I'm not exactly getting my head around is how it will improve on the current system. How do you find out if someone is going outside the rules? We all agree that testing is more of a deterrent than an actual attempt to catch positive samples ... but how does a change to a whitelist help? Is it a combination of club whitelist + authorised suppliers + audits + insta-bans that you see as being the solution? How will it improve where we are at right now?

I'm not getting all rhetoric here, I'm actually asking

 

[Ned_Flanders]

No, it's not. The question of food alone becomes utterly unmanageable. Every single possible ingredient and chemical in any food has to be classified yes or no. AFL players love hair gel, and even hair spray. But as a huge number of chemicals can be absorbed transdermally, every single ingredient in any cosmetic on the planet has to be classified, yes or no.

And that's before we come to medicines. Last time I saw a hard copy of Mims, the directory of approved medicines in Australia, it was a **** ing great big book with REALLY small writing. The vast majority of these medications are not suspected of having PE qualities - but just because you're an athlete tough luck. Your medical treatment regime goes back to the days of leeches. Better hope your appendix doesn't become inflamed, or even a bad ingrown toenail. You're a dead man.



So treatment for tinea will be not approved? Shingles, worms, pubic parasites? Stomach ulcers - stiff s**t. Potentially fatal infection to a minor wound - no way. There are hundreds of antibiotics to choose from, and effective treatment needs the right one. You are free to die of sometehing that's been easily curable for 100 years. You're an asthmatic or an epilectic? Tough s**t. No sports career for you.

Athletes don't get sick? And if they get anything worse than a minor headache they must not receive treatment?

First I said prescribed medicines for a medical condition are out, surely we don't want footballer taking medicine without a doctor being involved, and there being a legitimate medical reason for it.


Secondly food is not defined as a supplement, and we actually do have separate definitions for a good and functional food

What's your solution then? Rely on acc investigations to accidentally catch these people out?

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Can you just confirm for me what the whitelist would be for? It's not a whitelist for players - it's a whitelist for what clubs can administer, right? So clubs found to be giving players anything outside the list receive instant penalties and bans - wouldn't that push a club to seek a solution outside of the AFL boundary for these types of things? I actually don't mind the logic here, just wondering about the effect.

I understand the point that whitelists are easier to police - it's like a whitelist of approved websites you can see compared to trying to maintain a blacklist ... forget about it.

What I'm not exactly getting my head around is how it will improve on the current system. How do you find out if someone is going outside the rules? We all agree that testing is more of a deterrent than an actual attempt to catch positive samples ... but how does a change to a whitelist help? Is it a combination of club whitelist + authorised suppliers + audits + insta-bans that you see as being the solution? How will it improve where we are at right now?

I'm not getting all rhetoric here, I'm actually asking

Yes officials too. What the dees doc did was a joke, and was an obvious way of trying to say the club wasn't involved. Any of these referrals have to be sanctioned just as hard.

The afl also need to police this. They had concerns of the efc program. They checked no inventories, reconciled no invoices, reviewed no programs. All they did was a test, which was always a long shot to detect anything.

If we are to rely on tests or the acc to trigger investigations, you may as well give clubs the green light, and I hope the afl does learn from this

you need a complete program of process and review, as no one tool is the be all and end all

I think we also need to ask the question, do we want supplements in our sport

 

[baldandbroke]

SNIP

I think we also need to ask the question, do we want supplements in our sport

I agree with this completely. As I said earlier, no elective injections to start with. I know the blood passport (or biological passport) is not THE solution, but it definitely gives the authorities a tool to monitor the effects of whatever the athlete is taking.

If you haven't heard of this, here is a good summary:

The blood passport represents a new approach in anti-doping measures. Rather than attempt to detect a specific substance, such as EPO or a steroid, the test examines whether specific changes in the body’s physiology occur, changes which suggest the presence of an exogenous substance. In other words, the passport seeks to identify the effects of some performance enhancing substance, rather than the substance itself.​