Aker twitter

[maxmustard]

A hamstring injury for a footballer? Nah, far more likely buddy pretended to strain it, and then with the tacit support of the AFL, used this hamstring strain to cover up the three strikes in a massive conspiracy.... Aker is such a douche bag.

 

[SpeciousArgument]

Slow news day

 

[estibador]

That's the better part.

WADA doesn't implement a "strike policy".

WADA doesn't give athlete's three chances after positive tests .... and they certainly don't leave the last strike up to the discretion of a physician, a strikes a strike, and the testing isn't administered by the governing body of the sport either.

Independent testing = no interference.


There's a reason WADA doesn't support it, and WADA covers every major sporting organisation on earth.

The AFL has the same penalties as WADA for performance enhancing drugs and in-competition testing (ie gameday).

The 3 strikes is only for recreational drugs outside of in-competition testing, which is above and beyond what WADA even test for.

 

[Rushed_Behind]

The AFL has the same penalties as WADA for performance enhancing drugs and in-competition testing (ie gameday).

The 3 strikes is only for recreational drugs outside of in-competition testing, which is above and beyond what WADA even test for.

Thank you. You used 1/3 of the words and painted a better picture.

 

[Necromancer Beth]

A hamstring injury for a footballer? Nah, far more likely buddy pretended to strain it, and then with the tacit support of the AFL, used this hamstring strain to cover up the three strikes in a massive conspiracy.... Aker is such a douche bag.

Meh. Everyone knows he's a halfwit.

 

[GreatBradScott]

Roby's theory will be better, trust me.

 

[Necromancer Beth]

God, Aker is sub-human.

What I dont understand is if they were so worried about him getting a third strike, why did they even bother testing him. If the reply is that its done independently then that would mean quite a few people would know this secret for a fact, and surely somebody with more credibility than Aker would have said something, and that the AFL doesn't have enough say in who they test, but enough sway to get these people to risk their careers on this conspiracy theory.

Allegedly, there was another ex bulldog who is also illiterate, who was spreading this rumour at a function a little while ago.

 

[GarnerSmash]

Okay so far it's

1. Drugs
2. Moving to Freo

Classic downward spiral.

Kids, stay away from drugs.

 

[GreatBradScott]

Classic downward spiral.

Kids, stay away from drugs.

Zac Dawson went from Hawthorn, to St.Kilda, to Freo.

New theory = Zac Dawson is Tony Montana.

 

[GarnerSmash]

Apparently nobody told Buddy he wasn't playing:

Buddy Franklin ‏@Buddy_Franklin
Can't wait to get out on the park this week .....longest 5 weeks of my life #enoughisenough

Rehab's a bitch.

 

[estibador]

Classic downward spiral.

Kids, stay away from drugs.

Classic story of drugs inspiring enlightenment.

John Lennon would be proud.

 

[Ron The Bear]

Fortunately Demetriou is hurrying back from his Olympic sojourn to front the media and personally deal with this and other pressing issues. He's due to touch down soon after his plane stops at Mauritius, Fiji, Noumea, Tahiti, Hawaii, the Caribbean and maybe a few other places he hasn't been to yet.

 

[The Dodger]

The AFL has the same penalties as WADA for performance enhancing drugs and in-competition testing (ie gameday).

The 3 strikes is only for recreational drugs outside of in-competition testing, which is above and beyond what WADA even test for.

Thank you. You used 1/3 of the words and painted a better picture.

WADA provide a guide for OOC testing that they believe should be followed. The AFL are well below the guidelines WADA suggest for OOC testing.
They seem to be more lenient about the where/when testing for OOC but if you propose to undetake OOC they basically want you to adhere to the WADA code, which reading it the AFL don't.

http://www.wada-ama.org/rtecontent/document/guidelines_ooct.pdf
That is the guideline for OOC testing

http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/W...DP-The-Code/WADA_Anti-Doping_CODE_2009_EN.pdf
That is the Code. Specifically 2.4 on page 23, for talking about violation of OOC and then 10.3.3 on page 54 for example of punishment, which is at least 1 year.

WADA want 3 failed appearances for testing to be treated like a failed test, so I would suggest that 3 failed tests before a punishment that is no where near a year is falling below WADA standards.

 

[Davo23]

To carry on about AFL consiparcy of silence type theories is a bit silly isn't it?

Consider this: the AFL are the ones who pushed ahead with this policy, and whilst the NRL and Cricket Australia finally adopted similar policies (after the politicisation of the topic during the later months of the Howard Govt) the AFL is the ONLY code that actually reports its results

 

[estibador]

WADA want 3 failed appearances for testing to be treated like a failed test, so I would suggest that 3 failed tests before a punishment that is no where near a year is falling below WADA standards.

What is the penalty for failing 3 tests in the AFL? We haven't actually seen it happen yet.

Do the AFL have a non-negotiable punishment spelt out anywhere? If it's a year ban then that would seem consistent with what WADA want.

 

[hawkman]

What is the penalty for failing 3 tests in the AFL? We haven't actually seen it happen yet.

Do the AFL have a non-negotiable punishment spelt out anywhere? If it's a year ban then that would seem consistent with what WADA want.

Travis Tuck received 3 strikes and was suspended for 12 matches

 

[estibador]

Travis Tuck received 3 strikes and was suspended for 12 matches

Right, I forgot about him.

Personally that seems plenty harsh enough to me, but then I don't believe in testing for recreational drugs in the first place.

 

[Rushed_Behind]

WADA provide a guide for OOC testing that they believe should be followed. The AFL are well below the guidelines WADA suggest for OOC testing.
They seem to be more lenient about the where/when testing for OOC but if you propose to undetake OOC they basically want you to adhere to the WADA code, which reading it the AFL don't.

http://www.wada-ama.org/rtecontent/document/guidelines_ooct.pdf
That is the guideline for OOC testing

http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/W...DP-The-Code/WADA_Anti-Doping_CODE_2009_EN.pdf
That is the Code. Specifically 2.4 on page 23, for talking about violation of OOC and then 10.3.3 on page 54 for example of punishment, which is at least 1 year.

WADA want 3 failed appearances for testing to be treated like a failed test, so I would suggest that 3 failed tests before a punishment that is no where near a year is falling below WADA standards.

This is the problem. They dont make OOC testing compulsory but say if you implement it they want their code followed. They are self righteous posturing flogs. In competition testing is what is required, the AFL comply.

They have gone above and beyond the duty of care to implement a policy that promotes further testing without ridiculing the offender by having every AFL journalist frothing at the mouth screaming "What about the children"

IF you implement it. HOW THE F%^$ DO YOU IMPLEMENT IT WITHOUT THE PLAYERS AGREEING.

 

[The Dodger]

What is the penalty for failing 3 tests in the AFL? We haven't actually seen it happen yet.

Do the AFL have a non-negotiable punishment spelt out anywhere? If it's a year ban then that would seem consistent with what WADA want.

Even if that was the case its still no where near. WADA want you gone for a year after 1 failed test or 3 no shows. AFL give you 3 failed tests.

But yes the AFL have outlined their punishment for a 3rd strike;
A failed 3rd test is 12 weeks on the sidelines + the 6 suspended weeks they get for their 2nd strike
http://www.afl.com.au/Portals/0/afl_docs/AFLPlayersSayNoToDrugs.pdf
Page 7

So technically they could get their 3rd strike early in a season and be back to play later on in that same season.

 

[The Dodger]

This is the problem. They dont make OOC testing compulsory but say if you implement it they want their code followed. They are self righteous posturing flogs. In competition testing is what is required, the AFL comply.

They have gone above and beyond the duty of care to implement a policy that promotes further testing without ridiculing the offender by having every AFL journalist frothing at the mouth screaming "What about the children"

IF you implement it. HOW THE F%^$ DO YOU IMPLEMENT IT WITHOUT THE PLAYERS AGREEING.

AFAIK WADA cant make OOC testing compulsory. They would probably like to, and praise the sports that take that leap into OOCT.

I don't believe WADA are to blame for making guidelines that they hope will be followed.
What I believe is wrong is the AFL beating their chest about this like they are going above and beyond when really they are choosing to go above and beyond and then saying, but we don't want to go that far.
AD, AA & co felt the need to announce this bold new way of tackling Illicit drug use that is not up to scratch. Then when pressed by the journos about the nuts and bolts of it they are vague.

One of the main problems that I see with it is that the AFL get medicos to look after the players once they have 1 or 2 strikes, but their policy says that "players will be target tested once they have failed test/s". I think any medico/person working with drug dependancy will tell you that pursuing testing once you establish a person has a habit would be shooting fish in a barrel. An exercise I cant see the AFL wanting to take up.

 

[Rushed_Behind]

AFAIK WADA cant make OOC testing compulsory. They would probably like to, and praise the sports that take that leap into OOCT.

I don't believe WADA are to blame for making guidelines that they hope will be followed.
What I believe is wrong is the AFL beating their chest about this like they are going above and beyond when really they are choosing to go above and beyond and then saying, but we don't want to go that far.
AD, AA & co felt the need to announce this bold new way of tackling Illicit drug use that is not up to scratch. Then when pressed by the journos about the nuts and bolts of it they are vague.

One of the main problems that I see with it is that the AFL get medicos to look after the players once they have 1 or 2 strikes, but their policy says that "players will be target tested once they have failed test/s. I think any medico/person working with drug dependancy will tell you that pursuing testing once you establish a person has a habit would be shooting fish in a barrel. An exercise I cant see the AFL wanting to take up.

This is i agree with.

So you are saying the AFL should scrap their policy and just do in competition testing?

 

[The Dodger]

This is i agree with.

So you are saying the AFL should scrap their policy and just do in competition testing?

Or the other option being put what they have in place, purely to help and educate the players but shut up about it. Dont go to the media going "look at how good we are stamping out drug use" and genuinely help players that have a problem. A punishment system loosely followed that allows innuendo to perpetuate is really no help at all to a young player that is not "cheating" the game but may have a party boy/on the edge lifestyle.
Really no one else needs to know but the AFL, the club & the player.

 

[Dont be a lemon]

Are his tweets ghost written like his book and newspaper pieces?

 

[r_boy]

This 3 strikes crap is just I dunno... wtf are they trying to achieve with this utterly pointless garbage.

 

[Rushed_Behind]

Or the other option being put what they have in place, purely to help and educate the players but shut up about it. Dont go to the media going "look at how good we are stamping out drug use" and genuinely help players that have a problem. A punishment system loosely followed that allows innuendo to perpetuate is really no help at all to a young player that is not "cheating" the game but may have a party boy/on the edge lifestyle.
Really no one else needs to know but the AFL, the club & the player.

Fair enough, but they are about image etc. They have to come out and be something for everyone. Take a hard stance on drugs to appease the right, with a softly softly approach to treating it to appease the left. Everything they do is purely for the image of the game and to protect their brand for major sponsorship dollars.

I do think you have valid points but i dont think we will full agree on this topic.