News Thomas and Keefe - 2 year ban - Trade, De-List, Rookie

[Gone Critical]

No, because so called "illicit" drugs are often used to mask PED's

Tell me about the illicit drugs that are masking agents.

 

[Gone Critical]

http://www.ncaa.org/health-and-safety/policy/ncaa-doping-drug-education-and-drug-testing-task-force

Masking Agents: Masking agents are taken with the intent of hiding other performance-enhancing drugs. Since most drug tests are through analysis of urine, a masking agent can theoretically affect the chemical analysis of urine, thereby interfering with analysis. Diuretics are the simplest and most classic form of masking agents. Diuretics increase urine production and excretion, and therefore dilute the urine. In a very dilute urine sample, it will be more difficult to detect other drugs. Diuretics and other masking agents do not enhance performance, but can cause serious side effects such as dehydration and abnormally low potassium in the body.

Diuretics are one of the classic masking agents. Shane Warne stuff, used by people who like Warne are actually cheats. Tell us about the illicit drugs that are masking agents

 

[Markfs]

It happens in the US today.

I believe it's tied in with their healthcare. In the US employers often provide healthcare for their employees, and they can probably get discounts on their premiums if they do drug testing.

that's a good point.

 

[Pedro]

Sure drugs can **** up families but if someone in the family is ******* themselves because of drugs, the family was already stuffed up in some way, this is just natural selection. Cousins will either stop and be forever known as a clown or he will kill himself, either option doesn't change the greater goods ability to handle their drugs and continue to not care what society thinks.

I had a family member end up getting found in a park in Fitzroy after suffering a heroin overdose (an inevitable one). Yes he was a junkie and it was nobody's fault but his own. I'll let his mum know that it was just natural selection. I'm sure she'll be chuffed.

Good luck to you though. It seems you can handle your drugs like a trooper.

 

[Gone Critical]

Some might at some hospitals etc, but yes, doctors probably don't get drug tested. That said, as part of their profession they have a range of obligations that they have to meet to retain their professional qualification. Soms of these are over and above the law of the land, others relate to adverse consequences if they are found to have broken some laws, even if they did so away from work.

That's right doctors don't get drug tested. Don't get drug tested even though we know there is a problem with doctors turning up to work, to operate or anaesthetise patients, while under the influence of illicit drugs or alcohol. The profession would never allow such testing. It would be a waste. The profession has addressed it much more effectively by encouraging reporting of suspected problems, confidential counselling and attempts to return those doctors to the workplace. Remember these are professionals much more senior and better paid than your average AFL footballers who definitely have a drug issue as they are turning up at work affected.

AFL players are tested in the workplace and if found positive are immediately suspended. If it is out of work illicit drugs that are found to be positive then the 3 strikes policy comes into play.

So what is the bigger problem a doctor operating on you while drunk or an AFL player having a joint at home on a day off.

 

[ottoman]

It must be nice to only think of yourself while snorting a line and not all the innocent bodies that were killed so you can have some fun. If you buy coke from them you have directly caused that murder to happen.

Unless your growing it yourself some how.

Do you care about the slave labor conditions people work in so that you can wear cheap T-Shirts and shoes. Does it bother you that fruit pickers can work a full day in the stinking heat and earn a pittance so you can enjoy cheap fruit.
This sort of reasoning is flawed. All illicit drug production doesn't result in lines of dead bodies. Your sensationalising it. And if the governments made it legal so adults could use their own brains to decide what they want to do then the industry would not need to go underground.
Holland allows adults to smoke pot or take magic mushrooms etc. Doesn't seem to be a problem there.

 

[jasonwilde]

I had a family member end up getting found in a park in Fitzroy after suffering a heroin overdose (an inevitable one). Yes he was a junkie and it was nobody's fault but his own. I'll let his mum know that it was just natural selection. I'm sure she'll be chuffed.

Good luck to you though. It seems you can handle your drugs like a trooper.

So, you've never had a beer?

I've seen more than one family member and plenty of acquaintances fk their lives on alcohol.

But hey, Warnie is allowed to advocate for it on national (sorry international television) in front of kids.

I hope you've never touched a drink!

Double standards much?

Abolition, here were come again.

 

[Kappa]

So, you've never had a beer?

I've seen more than one family member and plenty of acquaintances fk their lives on alcohol.

But hey, Warnie is allowed to advocate for it on national (sorry international television) in front of kids.

I hope you've never touched a drink!

Double standards much?

Abolition, here were come again.

It's not double standards, its about where do you draw the line. By your logic it's either everything is legal or everything is illegal. I think the mix is fine at the moment all though if you wanted to legalize marijuana and have designated places you can have it then fine.

 

[jasonwilde]

Diuretics are one of the classic masking agents. Shane Warne stuff, used by people who like Warne are actually cheats. Tell us about the illicit drugs that are masking agents

So it wasn't me misreading the situation? I was thinking the guy was a little off the mark!

 

[jasonwilde]

It's not double standards, its about where do you draw the line. By your logic it's either everything is legal or everything is illegal. I think the mix is fine at the moment all though if you wanted to legalize marijuana and have designated places you can have it then fine.

Why not legalise and tax coke and smack?

Not to be a prick, but hypothetically, if heroin was legalised (& taxed & provided with injecting rooms) wouldn't overdoses decrease? Pure smack, safely injected is a far more suitable option. But hey, there's the whole stigma thing to get over first...

 

[Kappa]

Why not legalise and tax coke and smack?

Not to be a prick, but hypothetically, if heroin was legalised (& taxed & provided with injecting rooms) wouldn't overdoses decrease? Pure smack, safely injected is a far more suitable option. But hey, there's the whole stigma thing to get over first...

Overdose would decrease, but heroin usage could skyrocket.. and how exactly is that a good thing for the community?

You would have 18 year olds who try heroin because its now legal then get hooked on it for life and quit school to get a job to pay for more heroin... brilliant.

 

[jasonwilde]

It's not double standards, its about where do you draw the line. By your logic it's either everything is legal or everything is illegal. I think the mix is fine at the moment all though if you wanted to legalize marijuana and have designated places you can have it then fine.

Oh, & don't get me started on gambling.

I've seen how much damage the shit can do. More than drugs, ciggies or divorces combined.

I'm fact, if I could make one thing illegal out of gay marrige, heroin, sharia law, gambling, Barbara Streisand, Charlie, my kitchen rules or Miley Cyrus, it would be Barbara followed by gambling.

 

[jasonwilde]

Overdose would decrease, but heroin usage could skyrocket.. and how exactly is that a good thing for the community?

You would have 18 year olds who try heroin because its now legal then get hooked on it for life and quit school to get a job to pay for more heroin... brilliant.

They said that about weed in the US and Canada.

 

[jasonwilde]

Overdose would decrease, but heroin usage could skyrocket.. and how exactly is that a good thing for the community?

You would have 18 year olds who try heroin because its now legal then get hooked on it for life and quit school to get a job to pay for more heroin... brilliant.

Also, it's not like people are hooked on cigarettes, alcohol or pokies (or any gambling FWIW) for life...


In a decade or so, we'll look back and face palm at our archaic views on gay marriage and recreational drugs.

 

[Hagla]

They said that about weed in the US and Canada.

Big difference between weed and heroin...

 

[jasonwilde]

Big difference between weed and heroin...

In your opinion.

Pure heroin supplied by the government and taxed would save lives and money

 

[popin]

Lachie Keeffe, Josh Thomas summoned to face ASADA

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...ed-to-face-asada/story-fni5f6hd-1227296161646

 

[TheGreatGrundy]

Drugs are awesome, that's common knowledge. If you disagree you are either Christian or have never tried them, or any of the good ones, so you don't don't qualify in having an opinion.

If these boys took clen on purpose and are found to be judged that way then they can cop it.

However, if they seriously and legitimately got stuffed on by a bad cut of coke then I feel the laws must be more flexible and lenient.
That of course won't happen and we know their careers are over, but that's exactly the point, their careers are going to be over because of pure accident and not purposeful.

Who the **** goes through their 20's without trying drugs? No one, and if you do, I feel sorry for you.
"It's not a war on drugs, it's a war on personal freedom is what it is, keep that in mind at all times." Bill Hicks.

I can see where you're coming from. Drug education should acknowledge one element of drug taking that is inescapable - drugs are fun. It's always 'drugs are illegal' 'drugs are dangerous' or 'drugs destroy you' messages. But anyone who has used drugs knows that they can be lots of fun. At the very least, drugs kill time and numb pain. They serve a purpose to the user.

All the moralising and pontificating does not alter the fact that people like, or feel they need, to live life in an altered state. A person who is unhappy with their life is most likely to seek a mood-alterer. It's easier than facing their demons. Alcohol serves the purpose, but nowhere near as effectively as heroin. If you favour a more animated approach to deflecting unhappiness, ecstasy and amphetamines might be the drugs of choice. And of course there's always dope. Sure you can become addicted to drugs and destroy families, but so just as effectively and more commonly can heavy alcohol users.

This has bugger all to do with Keeffe and Thomas. Drugs and sport do not mix well. Alcohol on the other hand is seen as a legitimate bonding and relaxation agent. It has also in the past been the catalyst of many riotous end of season sport's trips. It fuels anger and is central to a lot of violence. Certainly alcohol use is far more likely than marijuana to set people against each other.

Old Spice made one important observation about drug use by individual players when he raised the issues of enforced secrecy and the establishment of cliques based on choice of substance. In a sport where team cohesion and understanding is vital, a good case can be mounted for players adhering to a common set of values and an agreed upon code of conduct.

 

[DAWESOME!!]

That's right doctors don't get drug tested. Don't get drug tested even though we know there is a problem with doctors turning up to work, to operate or anaesthetise patients, while under the influence of illicit drugs or alcohol. The profession would never allow such testing. It would be a waste. The profession has addressed it much more effectively by encouraging reporting of suspected problems, confidential counselling and attempts to return those doctors to the workplace. Remember these are professionals much more senior and better paid than your average AFL footballers who definitely have a drug issue as they are turning up at work affected.

AFL players are tested in the workplace and if found positive are immediately suspended. If it is out of work illicit drugs that are found to be positive then the 3 strikes policy comes into play.

So what is the bigger problem a doctor operating on you while drunk or an AFL player having a joint at home on a day off.

That's a false dilemma. Its possible to at once accept that the level of drug testing for doctors should be higher and at the same time still want the AFL to try to have as stringent standards as possible for their players. The two positions don't even contradict each other.

If you're saying its hypocritical to advocate for one and not the other, that's true to a point, but it also doesn't make a lot of sense to make posts about medical profession standards on a forum dedicated to the AFL. Of course we're going to focus on football here.

 

[ColinWood]

Actually, lots of them still drink, and I'm sure plenty eat rubbish at times too. They still have to 'generally' take care of themselves, but actually, Ben Cousins had an ice habit and played every week (which is pretty amazing really). So really, the thing about illicit drugs is just moralism, I reckon. Yes, they should stay away from too much of it, but in the same way that they should generally look after themselves - everything in moderation. Obviously if they're not performing, then they have to perform - and they can make any decisions they like to improve that. It's up to them.

Hey there FinnishPie, yes there's definitely a moralistic angle to my view (eg in my view if it's illegal that should be the end of the story) but as I articulated before it's not the only basis for my opinion.

Thanks for engaging and sharing your views - it's a good thought-provoking thread.

Don't see us agreeing on this one though!

 

[Pedro]

So, you've never had a beer?

I've seen more than one family member and plenty of acquaintances fk their lives on alcohol.

But hey, Warnie is allowed to advocate for it on national (sorry international television) in front of kids.

I hope you've never touched a drink!

Double standards much?

Abolition, here were come again.

Wow, thats what you got from that?? I was just pointing out what a shit attitude the previous poster had. Because someone wrecks themselves on drugs it doesn't necessarily mean there were issues in the family to start with. And 'Natural selection'. That was just a smartarse comment. Thats the only point I was addressing.

I've also had family members and friends wreck themselves with alcohol. Its sad to see. Does it stop me having a beer? No it doesn't. But I also don't abuse it. And its legal. And Warnie, yes he probably went to far. What do you expect from such a massive bogan. He's got nothing else.

 

[Gone Critical]

That's a false dilemma. Its possible to at once accept that the level of drug testing for doctors should be higher and at the same time still want the AFL to try to have as stringent standards as possible for their players. The two positions don't even contradict each other.

If you're saying its hypocritical to advocate for one and not the other, that's true to a point, but it also doesn't make a lot of sense to make posts about medical profession standards on a forum dedicated to the AFL. Of course we're going to focus on football here.

Fair enough in a way. I suppose if we want to really consistent in this view we should be advocating out of workplace testing for all members of our community. Perhaps the aim should be to have random drug tests once or twice a year for every citizen maybe from 14 years old onwards. Why should AFL footballers be one of the only groups to benefit from this approach. Surely all our citizens should be seen to be equally important.

 

[Markfs]

Do you care about the slave labor conditions people work in so that you can wear cheap T-Shirts and shoes. Does it bother you that fruit pickers can work a full day in the stinking heat and earn a pittance so you can enjoy cheap fruit.
This sort of reasoning is flawed. All illicit drug production doesn't result in lines of dead bodies. Your sensationalising it. And if the governments made it legal so adults could use their own brains to decide what they want to do then the industry would not need to go underground.
Holland allows adults to smoke pot or take magic mushrooms etc. Doesn't seem to be a problem there.

And if I could add the fact that the "prohibition" on drug taking has been totally ineffective so far. The mad monk initiated another jihad against Ice yesterday and we all know how this is going to end. Why not legalise it and try another approach?

http://www.theage.com.au/comment/lose-prohibition-to-help-win-war-on-drugs-20150406-1meqoe.html

well worth a read

 

[DAWESOME!!]

And if I could add the fact that the "prohibition" on drug taking has been totally ineffective so far. The mad monk initiated another jihad against Ice yesterday and we all know how this is going to end. Why not legalise it and try another approach?

http://www.theage.com.au/comment/lose-prohibition-to-help-win-war-on-drugs-20150406-1meqoe.html

well worth a read

One of the reasons I'd support decriminalisation of some drugs is tongive people options that are more attractive than ice. Not all drugs are equal, and ice is nasty shit that really ruins people. So I support that initiative.

But if weed and ecstasy for instance were decriminalised and available as a safe, decently priced alternative, maybe we'd get fewer people abusing ice.

 

[DAWESOME!!]

Fair enough in a way. I suppose if we want to really consistent in this view we should be advocating out of workplace testing for all members of our community. Perhaps the aim should be to have random drug tests once or twice a year for every citizen maybe from 14 years old onwards. Why should AFL footballers be one of the only groups to benefit from this approach. Surely all our citizens should be seen to be equally important.

In a way, I think you're right. Issue is that legally it would be impossible to get up for the state to do that to everyone, whereas professional bodies and employers can impose extra restrictions legally. Hence my comment about the AFL doing what it can.

To be clear, my concerns aren't moralistic. I completely agree with the double standard between say alcohol and weed. I think some harder drugs are right to be illegal as they are more harmful.

My concerns are all around the practicalities. They are illegal and are unlikely to change in that regard. That means you're risking criminal charges, unsafe substances made outside of any regulation, and exposure and vulnerability to organised crime. I think the AFL and Collingwood are right to be very worried about each of those issues and be proactive to address them.

Maybe that's not how the world should be, but it's how it is, and so I think the club and comp are right to act that way. I also think Collingwood should have right of first redial on all promising 17 year old footballers,and that it should be an automatic free kick if an opponent tackles a Pies player. But I think it would be disastrous if our recruitment department and coaching staff ran their business around how I *think* the world should work.

Should add that I get where you're coming from - thanks for an interesting discussion.