Player Watch Sam Murray - (Delisted 2019)

[Alexander323bc]

Got it. Stick with your dealer because you don't know what you're getting with these dodgy doctors.

Actually if you look at the evidence without fear or favor you will realize that all doctors do is push prescription medication that they get kick backs from. If you don’t know that already you really need to get of BF and start researching these issues. However not all doctors are the same so there will always be the noble ones but they are hard to find.

 

[sideswipe]

We are going around in circles here Sidey.

Using your argument what if Murray said he was addicted to cocaine and he took it every Monday night after training.......is that grounds in your OPINION to get a reduced sentence?

Yes. Not sure I would bother with the "addicted" argument, but I might argue that taking a substance 5 days out from a game and thinking it would be out of my system by the time of an in competition test was reasonable approach which might meet the definition of testing positive "No significant fault" or failing that "negligence" (Article 10.5). Might even go further and give it a try under the "catch all" reduction provisions in 10.6.

We may be going around in circles because you seem to be refusing to acknowledge the fact that the Code contains avenues for penalty reduction.

 

[sr36]

Actually if you look at the evidence without fear or favor you will realize that all doctors do is push prescription medication that they get kick backs from. If you don’t know that already you really need to get of BF and start researching these issues. However not all doctors are the same so there will always be the noble ones but they are hard to find.

Whereas dealers provide an important service with no thought of personal gain?

 

[Bad Horse]

One of the interesting things to come out of this potentially is going to be the fact we are stomping all over a couple of elephants in the room in performance enhancing drug screening. I will be intrigued to see how they play in the outcome of this, and in the future practice in the area. The elephants are

1) Detection Limits

Our capacity to detect a wider range of metabolites at a lower and lower concentration improves with improvements in equipment and testing methodology. Technical practice for detection is heavily geared in setting a minimum limit that any accredited testing facility needs to be able to detect a substance above, but assumes any detection no matter what level is a positive no matter how far below the mandatory minimum MDL you go. The underlying assumption seems to be, if you had any at all in your system at any time, it really doesnt matter, you are a cheat. But we are getting to the point that detecting non-performance enhancing involuntary or incidental ingestion from environmental and food sources is going to start becoming a common problem. So at some point, the question starts to be asked, can we continue to support a zero tolerance detection equals presumption of guilt approach with the above. But it gets worse for

2) Performance enhancing effects of illicit drugs

The approach to illicit drugs which are deemed performance enhancing on match day is still too heavily driven by the same assumptions and protocols as all other substances, in particular the absence of sensible lower limits for what is considered a positive test. This blunt instrument effect makes things worse, because

- the match day performance enhancing effects are supported sometimes by limited evidence and at best may be sport-specific and dose dependant .

- For most, there is no minimum level set, so the likelihood of detecting what was use that would have had no conceivable match day effect goes up massively.

3) Politics makes things worse

The war on drugs makes anything involving "illicit" drugs hard to approach rationally at the best of times.


Perversely our improving science could undermine the legitimacy of the whole process by making it more likely that unintended or sometimes wholly innocent cases are being caught.

 

[sr36]

Its all being orchestrated by the AFL...…….IMO.

I wouldn't say orchestrated, but it's their job to run the prosecution and give out the penalty, so it's them who are delaying their decision. Asada/Wada will only get involved again if they don't like the verdict or punishment. The AFL maybe currently trying to negotiate a reduced penalty that they won't challenge, that's the only way they are likely to have any involvement at present. To me, the only things that could be delaying the decision is if Murray's lawyers have something on the AFL - eg. You advised and trained my client that cocaine clears your system in 4 days, he took cocaine 5 days before game day, we're suing you for millions unless you reduce the ban.

I suppose they may have found grounds to challenge the very nature of the law, but I find that unlikely.

 

[regpies]

4yrs for a non performance enhancing drug is not really fair. 12mths for coke is fair, 4yrs for steroids isn’t enough.

 

[Mick F]

One of the interesting things to come out of this potentially is going to be the fact we are stomping all over a couple of elephants in the room in performance enhancing drug screening. I will be intrigued to see how they play in the outcome of this, and in the future practice in the area. The elephants are

1) Detection Limits

Our capacity to detect a wider range of metabolites at a lower and lower concentration improves with improvements in equipment and testing methodology. Technical practice for detection is heavily geared in setting a minimum limit that any accredited testing facility needs to be able to detect a substance above, but assumes any detection no matter what level is a positive no matter how far below the mandatory minimum MDL you go. The underlying assumption seems to be, if you had any at all in your system at any time, it really doesnt matter, you are a cheat. But we are getting to the point that detecting non-performance enhancing involuntary or incidental ingestion from environmental and food sources is going to start becoming a common problem. So at some point, the question starts to be asked, can we continue to support a zero tolerance detection equals presumption of guilt approach with the above. But it gets worse for

2) Performance enhancing effects of illicit drugs

The approach to illicit drugs which are deemed performance enhancing on match day is still too heavily driven by the same assumptions and protocols as all other substances, in particular the absence of sensible lower limits for what is considered a positive test. This blunt instrument effect makes things worse, because

- the match day performance enhancing effects are supported sometimes by limited evidence and at best may be sport-specific and dose dependant .

- For most, there is no minimum level set, so the likelihood of detecting what was use that would have had no conceivable match day effect goes up massively.

3) Politics makes things worse

The war on drugs makes anything involving "illicit" drugs hard to approach rationally at the best of times.


Perversely our improving science could undermine the legitimacy of the whole process by making it more likely that unintended or sometimes wholly innocent cases are being caught.

The laws are in place to prevent the ‘65 cups of coffee’ defence and presumption of innocence unless proven guilty. No one would be constrained from taking drugs.

 

[sideswipe]

One of the interesting things to come out of this potentially is going to be the fact we are stomping all over a couple of elephants in the room in performance enhancing drug screening. I will be intrigued to see how they play in the outcome of this, and in the future practice in the area. The elephants are

1) Detection Limits

Our capacity to detect a wider range of metabolites at a lower and lower concentration improves with improvements in equipment and testing methodology. Technical practice for detection is heavily geared in setting a minimum limit that any accredited testing facility needs to be able to detect a substance above, but assumes any detection no matter what level is a positive no matter how far below the mandatory minimum MDL you go. The underlying assumption seems to be, if you had any at all in your system at any time, it really doesnt matter, you are a cheat. But we are getting to the point that detecting non-performance enhancing involuntary or incidental ingestion from environmental and food sources is going to start becoming a common problem. So at some point, the question starts to be asked, can we continue to support a zero tolerance detection equals presumption of guilt approach with the above. But it gets worse for

2) Performance enhancing effects of illicit drugs

The approach to illicit drugs which are deemed performance enhancing on match day is still too heavily driven by the same assumptions and protocols as all other substances, in particular the absence of sensible lower limits for what is considered a positive test. This blunt instrument effect makes things worse, because

- the match day performance enhancing effects are supported sometimes by limited evidence and at best may be sport-specific and dose dependant .

- For most, there is no minimum level set, so the likelihood of detecting what was use that would have had no conceivable match day effect goes up massively.

3) Politics makes things worse

The war on drugs makes anything involving "illicit" drugs hard to approach rationally at the best of times.


Perversely our improving science could undermine the legitimacy of the whole process by making it more likely that unintended or sometimes wholly innocent cases are being caught.

I am no scientist, but there have been plenty of cases where the low amount detected has resulted in a reduced or no sentence, but it seems to be hard going. The "kissing defence" of Gil Roberts, a US sprinter, where he tested to a very low amount of probenicid. He got off on the no significant fault provision. But others have failed where the amount was so low as to provide no benefit (as a performance enhancer or masking agent), but the facts didnt stack up, eg. Alberto Contador and his contaminated meat.

Keep in mind the aim of the WADA Code isn't just to target performance enhancing substances. It also states that it is there for athlete safety and "spirit of sport", whatever the hell that means.

 

[sideswipe]

I think "addicted" is better because he then in the last 10 months could have gone to rehab as part of the charade...............this as you rightly point out (again) will help him under the clauses get a reduced sentence.

Back to going around in circles and as your mate pointed out why I think WADA/ASADA is a joke is because using a bullshit excuse (as I have presented above) and getting a reduced sentence makes a mockery of the true Athletes that do the "RIGHT THING".

By the way I always acknowledged the Codes avenues for penalty reductions...…….I just don't approve of "grey areas".

Its all Black & White to me.

OK, so it's the full whack or nothing? Did Saad do the right or the wrong thing?

 

[sideswipe]

The laws are in place to prevent the ‘65 cups of coffee’ defence and presumption of innocence unless proven guilty. No one would be constrained from taking drugs.

Funnily enough, caffeine isn't a banned substance anymore. It is still on the "Monitoring Program" but I think it was removed in the early 2000s and prior to that it might have had a threshold. There aren't many substances on the list with a threshold, which is the problem Bad Horse may have been alluding to.

 

[sideswipe]

Cheats never prosper as they say...…………….full whack for me or the AFL needs to change the drug policy ASAP.

Saad's another imbecile so he definitely did something wrong.

So you think Saad should have gotten 2 years, right? The full penalty at the time?

It is WADA not the AFL which has the policy. But IMO the AFL could do a lot worse than throwing the Illicit Drugs Policy in the bin.

 

[sideswipe]

Yes the full two years.

Are you saying if an AFL player tests positive to illicit drugs on the WADA prohibited list then they should not be punished?

Care to reconcile your comment below with your above contention that you wish Saad got the full two years. You have confused me.

"Agreed four years for coke is a joke...…..just like two years that Saad got for a sport drink is a joke......but they are the rules that they signed off on."

As to your question on "illicit drugs" question, there is no mention of the term on the WADA list, so I have no answer. If an athlete tests positive to a prohibited substance, then yes they should be punished. In accordance with the Code which provides for an automatic sentence with avenues for reduction in certain circumstances. Which is what appears to be happening with Murray.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

Different sport, different country, but here is an example of an in-competition cocaine positive having the initial 4 year suspension cut to 10 months. Murray could be back this year!

https://www.punters.com.au/news/cocaine-sanction-cut-for-aus-based-irish-jockey_179783/

That’s interesting, as a single jockey being affected by opioids is a lot more dangerous than an AFL player...

 

[sideswipe]

That’s interesting, as a single jockey being affected by opioids is a lot more dangerous than an AFL player...

Am guessing they decided that he wasn't "affected" as such but still had the markers in his system from something taken days earlier, a la Murray?

 

[sideswipe]

I will be reading the Code at lunchtime.....thanks.

On further consideration, I don't think you should read the Code. You will just get angry that it doesn't say "Drugs are bad mmkay, you do them, no sport for you."

 

[sr36]

One of the interesting things to come out of this potentially is going to be the fact we are stomping all over a couple of elephants in the room in performance enhancing drug screening. I will be intrigued to see how they play in the outcome of this, and in the future practice in the area. The elephants are

1) Detection Limits

Our capacity to detect a wider range of metabolites at a lower and lower concentration improves with improvements in equipment and testing methodology. Technical practice for detection is heavily geared in setting a minimum limit that any accredited testing facility needs to be able to detect a substance above, but assumes any detection no matter what level is a positive no matter how far below the mandatory minimum MDL you go. The underlying assumption seems to be, if you had any at all in your system at any time, it really doesnt matter, you are a cheat. But we are getting to the point that detecting non-performance enhancing involuntary or incidental ingestion from environmental and food sources is going to start becoming a common problem. So at some point, the question starts to be asked, can we continue to support a zero tolerance detection equals presumption of guilt approach with the above. But it gets worse for

.

I'm pretty sure that there are limits set for the drugs that are only banned on game day - eg. Murray and cocaine.

 

[sideswipe]

I'm pretty sure that there are limits set for the drugs that are only banned on game day - eg. Murray and cocaine.

I am not sure that is the case in that the tests detect "markers or metabolites" (have no effing idea what that means) which indicate the presence rather than a threshold? Thresholds are specifically stated to apply to only a few of the listed substances like Cathine(?) and pseudoephedrine, but the vast majority are just listed without a threshold attached. Am well into the realms of bulltish here - year 10 science only takes you so far.

 

[jackcass]

My suspicion is that the reason it is dragging on for so long is that his lawyers have the AFL in flustered because it stayed in his system for longer than their advice and drug training programs said it would. Nothing to base this on other than gut feel and that one article that discussed more accurate testing and concerns about the issue, which brought up Murray.

Pretty sure all the literature specifies a time range (ie: 1-4 days *as cited earlier in the thread and not a quote from the actual literature*) rather than a finite period and I'd be surprised if players weren't advised verbally as well of that variability and why it occurs.

I'd say the delay is more about the league wanting to find an appropriate reduced sentence due to the prevalence of the illegal drugs issues and any precedent they might set.

 

[sr36]

Pretty sure all the literature specifies a time range (ie: 1-4 days *as cited earlier in the thread and not a quote from the actual literature*) rather than a finite period and I'd be surprised if players weren't advised verbally as well of that variability and why it occurs.

I'd say the delay is more about the league wanting to find an appropriate reduced sentence due to the prevalence of the illegal drugs issues and any precedent they might set.

Yeah my point is if they say 1-4 days and he tests positive after 6 days.

 

[jackcass]

Yeah my point is if they say 1-4 days and he tests positive after 6 days.

And my point was that the 1-4 days only describes the more normative expected periods for the drugs to clear the body but doesn't preclude longer time periods.

 

[sr36]

And my point was that the 1-4 days only describes the more normative expected periods for the drugs to clear the body but doesn't preclude longer time periods.

Yes, but do you think there is a chance that the AFL's literature didn't make that clear and instead stated that the drugs will clear in 1-4 days? That's my pure and utter guess on what's causing the delay.

 

[jackcass]

Yes, but do you think there is a chance that the AFL's literature didn't make that clear and instead stated that the drugs will clear in 1-4 days? That's my pure and utter guess on what's causing the delay.

I've got no idea, merely countering your guess with 1 of my own.

 

[DinoSoar]

I am not sure that is the case in that the tests detect "markers or metabolites" (have no effing idea what that means) which indicate the presence rather than a threshold? Thresholds are specifically stated to apply to only a few of the listed substances like Cathine(?) and pseudoephedrine, but the vast majority are just listed without a threshold attached. Am well into the realms of bulltish here - year 10 science only takes you so far.

Every analytical technique has what is called a limit of detection (LOD) which, in simple layman’s terms, reflects the sensitivity of the equipment and test method and it’s ability to give a reliable result down to a particular threshold. It’s basically the capability to analyse down to very small quantities, some techniques can and some can’t - it all depends on the molecule being tested, the vector it is in (eg blood, hair, water, oil, etc) and the analysis technique (eg HPLC, GC-MS, etc). Parts per million, parts per billion, millilitres per mol, nanomol, micrograms are all units commonly used in this type of analytical testing. Every test would have an LOD, what that is will differ by technique accordingly and is not necessarily made public. An easy analogy is a set of scales that has unit increments of 1kg - if you have place a weight on the scale that weighs less than 1 kg, the display would read zero because 0.4kg is less that the minimum it can detect. So that’s why a lot of work goes into improving detection limits in order to get more and more sensitivity so that the limit of detection becomes so small it is statistically insignificant.

A marker or metabolite is a molecule present in the sample that is tested for due to the body converting the original drug/chemical substance into a new molecule and therefore the original molecule can’t be tested for as it no longer exists.

 

[loki04]

Yes, but do you think there is a chance that the AFL's literature didn't make that clear and instead stated that the drugs will clear in 1-4 days? That's my pure and utter guess on what's causing the delay.

So by that reasoning his excuse for taking an illegal drug (in society and sport) is he thought, I would piss it out of my system in 1-4 days like the AFL drug codes stated so its not my fault it tested positive on day 5?
I'll sniff a bit less next time and give it 6 days, my bad?

 

[Bad Horse]

I'm pretty sure that there are limits set for the drugs that are only banned on game day - eg. Murray and cocaine.

No,.

Substances that are subject to a threshold limit are called Threshold Substances.

The list of Threshold Substances are

19-Norandrosterone
Carboxy-THC
Salbutamol
Formoterol
Glycerol
Morphine
Cathine
Ephedrine
Methylephedrine
Pseudoephedrine
Human Chorionic Gonadotrophin (hCG)

Some of them are indeed stimulants from Schedule 6 but not all and the vast majority of stimulants are not Threshold Substances.

So with cocaine, detection of any amount (which in practice is of its metabolite ecgonine) within the detection limit of the lab of testing triggers an Adverse Analytical Finding, if the test was an "in-competition" test.

Cocaine is defined also as a "non-specified substance". This may sound the better option than "specified substance" but its actually worse. "specified substances" are ones that, although not having a threshold limit, are acknowledged as being possible to find their way into an athletes body in ways not associated with an intent to dope. As a result, minimum penalties are lower and panels have more leeway in adjusting penalties to account. Not so for cocaine. cf

https://www.lawinsport.com/topics/s...e-the-inequitable-case-of-jose-paolo-guerrero