Play Nice Drugs - we're losing

Remove this Banner Ad

Personally I think the only way to beat drugs is to ban the country of the offender. So if an athlete is tested positive ... the whole country is kicked out and stripped of all medals. This ensure that countries only send clean athletes.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

invite HST and Leary, make the games fun with zeka, get Ansell to sponsor the final party shindig and ho-down. hookers and blow in southamerica, shouldnt be too hard to find, someone gotta defuse this zeka thing, p'raps it is some dastardly concoction from steve fielding and family first.


#Poe's_law
 
I think it should be more judged on a case by case measure. deliberate cases should start getting harsher sentences.

Certain drugs, like EPO, which require significant expertise and equipment(etc they know what they are doing) should get 4 years plus a life time ban on the Olympics. of course, every athlete will claim that they ate a bit of meat but nothing new there. I know u can disguise certain drugs with other drugs but I am no medical expert, so I will leave that to the pros.

u should never punish innocent athletes for what drugs cheats do. If drug cheats actually thought of anyone else but themselves then that might be an effective deterrent. but by cheating already, they show that they couldn't give a damn
 
BobbyMorri said:
I think it should be more judged on a case by case measure. deliberate cases should start getting harsher sentences.

Certain drugs, like EPO, which require significant expertise and equipment(etc they know what they are doing) should get 4 years plus a life time ban on the Olympics. of course, every athlete will claim that they ate a bit of meat but nothing new there. I know u can disguise certain drugs with other drugs but I am no medical expert, so I will leave that to the pros.

u should never punish innocent athletes for what drugs cheats do. If drug cheats actually thought of anyone else but themselves then that might be an effective deterrent. but by cheating already, they show that they couldn't give a damn
Click to expand...
lutenising hormone? whattya give for that? what was the breakstroker sam riley on her coach scott volkers gave her? a headache tablet? yeah nah, one week at a time.

what about gennadi touretski and his security safe that turned up in lake burley griffin circa 2003 with nandrolone in it, or stanozolol, the drug that they got ben johnson with in seoul. guess wut, and here is the tell, you dont take stanozolol or nandrolone, think it was nandrolone, if you know you are gonna be tested out of competition cos for a PED it has a very long half life. When Thorpe wanted to come back for London, who did he use as coach? Where did Michael Klim go to do his preparation camp, and does that nation have a history of producing swimmers? Which Australian swimmer tested positive in 1998 and Swimming Oz covered it up? Nick Darcy, no way roid rage in his sharp elbows no? How does Brisbane produce so many world champion female sprinters in the pool? Like the German world record holding team half a dozen years ago all came out of Berlin.

NOT NORMAL is the cycling parlance. Stefan Widmar, Tim Kerrison et al from up in Brisbane they got the good gear i tell u

#Poe's_law

and RussellEbertHandball u could not convince me Redgrave and awesome foursome were on bread and water. Since the GDR were winning all in the regattas, Redgrave et al met fire with fire.

U dont bring a knife to a gunfight or some such inversion and torturing of metaphors
 
Ed_Gein said:
I'm a supporter of life bans as well. I don't think you can get more conclusive than positive blood samples and/or urine samples.
Click to expand...


Funny how those who support life bans will never be in a position to face any themselves.
 
Wallaby said:
At some point in sports you have to have rules defining the equipment - you can't use a cricket bat 12 inches wide, you can't use a pushbike with a motor (though there are rumours!).

The human body is the basic equipment we all have and use for sport - so it's fair enough we set some limits as to how much you can 'improve' the human body. Now you can argue about those limits (blood levels for endurance athletes, vitamin supplements, caffeine stimulants), but at some point, you have to set limits. Those are the rules of the game. At the moment, the rules say 'Panadol is allowed - EPO is not'.

If you don't have limits (rules) the race is just won by the person who is first to get hold of the latest gee-whiz superman supplement (or cricket bat, or golf club, or swiming cossie) - and he wins until the next person comes along with the better one.

So we set rules - arbitrary, sure, but all sporting rules are arbitrary. With drugs, there is an added extra consideration of potential health risk, so that makes setting the limits a bit more involved.

I don't have a problem with drugs per se - it's your body, do what you want with it. But drug cheats are sports cheats - they destroy the sport - if you cheat by taking illegal drugs, there is no competition. If you want to play the sport, play by the rules. If you get caught deliberately preparing to cheat (such as doing a course of drugs) - piss off out of the sport.
Click to expand...


I don't believe that drugs destroy a sport.

Exhibit A- The Tour De France

Apparently, every winning cyclist of the Tour De France during a twenty-year period, when Lance Armstrong was around, was on the gear (Armstrong, Floyd Landers, other members of Team U.S.A., Alberto Contador etc).

So, since there have been very few clean winners in the last few years (as far as I am concerned, Lance Armstrong has failed as many drug tests as Cadel Evans has), then how come the Tour De France still gets wide mainstream coverage.

My parents went on a world trip a few years ago, and happened to be in France when the Tour was on. They said that it was packed. This was AFTER Armstrong and co had brought the sport into disrepute.

If cycling can survive this, then the Olympics surely can.
 
It's cheating when someone else does it. It's strategy when you do it.
Or...according to the AOC.
It's cheating when another country does it. It's okay when Australian athletes do it.

When Australian Olympians smashed world records wearing body suits, where was the outcry? Wasn't that cheating? It was gaining an advantage that others didn't have.

Maybe all world records achieved via bodysuits should be wiped, all medals won in bodysuits should be stripped, and everyone who wore them should have been banned for four years.

Hey, what's good for the goose.

Australian cricketers whinged when England did "bodyline" and accused them of cheating, even though "leg theory" was legitimate, and there was no rule against it. The Australians just didn't like that someone outsmarted them and thought of it first.

Technically, any improvement is performance-enhancing. Athletes who train for more hours than others, have better exercise facilites etc.

Australia has better state-of-the-art equipment and training at the AIS, than some third-world country competing in the Olympics has. So, we have an advantage that they don't have, an economic advantage.

Those who train harder, eat better and exercise more gain an advantage over their competition as well. So, is exercise and diet "performance enhancing", since it improves your performance from what it was before?
 
oogac said:
Personally I think the only way to beat drugs is to ban the country of the offender. So if an athlete is tested positive ... the whole country is kicked out and stripped of all medals. This ensure that countries only send clean athletes.
Click to expand...


So, if one Australian athlete is caught using drugs, then Australia doesn't send over a team to the Olympics. So, all the ones who did the right thing get punished as well.

(Don't worry. This will never happen to Australia, since if one of our athletes was caught, it would be covered up, and excuses made, so that we can continue to ride our self-righteous high horse).

Punishing all for the sins of one. Gee, I hope you don't have kids. If one of your children does the wrong thing, will you send all your children to their rooms without dinner, to teach them all a lesson?
 
GreyCrow said:
I also support life bans.

I would take it one step further. Fill their drug fuelled bodies with more of the juice , and keep filling it till they are at toxic levels. Then wish them a happy , but short life.
Click to expand...


Good thing you don't work in the music industry, then. No-one would be left.
 
People bleat about fairness in sport.

BLAH! BLAH! Sport isn't fair. Guess what, LIFE ISN'T FAIR!

It isn't fair that my healthy brother got cancer and died, despite not smoking and being healthy.

It isn't fair that babies die, that we have terrorism, that the guilty get a slap on the wrist in court, that there is starvation in the world.

We complain about banning athletes, and the media and public seem more angry about a drug cheat than some murderer or rapist who gets away with things.

Let's compare the carry-on about the Essendon players compared to Jill Meagher's killer. The killer couldn't be named for a while, and evidence had to be provided to convict him. Essendon players were named, and evidence wasn't needed to convict them.

For Adrian Bayley, it was "innocent until proven guilty".
For many drug cheats, who don't fair tests, it was "guilty until proven innocent".

Adrian Bayley faced trial by jury.
Essendon players faced trial by media, and public opinion.

Yet who did the worse thing?

We bleat about throwing the book at drug cheats, yet murderers, pedophiles and rapists walk.

We go after the Essendon football club, yet the media let the drug dealer (Stephen Dank) get away with it.

We are a warped society. And life isn't fair, so why should sport be? Kay sera sera.

If it is about no-one getting a special advantage, just let everyone dope up, be upfront about it, and we can see who performs best on the gear. No tests, no bans, and no self-righteous slander from media hacks and the insecure in society.

Besides, Australia needs drug cheats to be around. That way, there is a built-in excuse when an Australian gets beaten, instead of admitting that they just weren't good enough.
 
GTOA said:
I don't believe that drugs destroy a sport.

Exhibit A- The Tour De France

Apparently, every winning cyclist of the Tour De France during a twenty-year period, when Lance Armstrong was around, was on the gear (Armstrong, Floyd Landers, other members of Team U.S.A., Alberto Contador etc).

So, since there have been very few clean winners in the last few years (as far as I am concerned, Lance Armstrong has failed as many drug tests as Cadel Evans has), then how come the Tour De France still gets wide mainstream coverage.

My parents went on a world trip a few years ago, and happened to be in France when the Tour was on. They said that it was packed. This was AFTER Armstrong and co had brought the sport into disrepute.

If cycling can survive this, then the Olympics surely can.
Click to expand...
the only person that went "boo" wrt Windy Hill, was evo and Ryan Okeefe. The proforma script voxpop mimicked Luke Darce Darcy "they are not drug cheatz".

A sentient being would then start to assess wtf is actually going on.

they have sublimate the doping so far that they have normalised it, and now sit in succour mom judgement like they are the arbiter, they determine who gets thru the gates to heaven.

if you think doping is wrong, cheating, unethical, you have been sold a pup.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

GTOA said:
So, if one Australian athlete is caught using drugs, then Australia doesn't send over a team to the Olympics. So, all the ones who did the right thing get punished as well.

(Don't worry. This will never happen to Australia, since if one of our athletes was caught, it would be covered up, and excuses made, so that we can continue to ride our self-righteous high horse).

Punishing all for the sins of one. Gee, I hope you don't have kids. If one of your children does the wrong thing, will you send all your children to their rooms without dinner, to teach them all a lesson?
Click to expand...

To clarify what I said ... If an athlete is "caught in Rio" the whole team should be banned. That ensures each country sends over only clean athletes. The onus is on the country to perform stringent drug testing before the athletes leave. There would be nothing more embarrassing than being the athlete who robbed the country of participation.
 
GTOA said:
It's cheating when someone else does it. It's strategy when you do it.
Or...according to the AOC.
It's cheating when another country does it. It's okay when Australian athletes do it.

When Australian Olympians smashed world records wearing body suits, where was the outcry? Wasn't that cheating? It was gaining an advantage that others didn't have.

Maybe all world records achieved via bodysuits should be wiped, all medals won in bodysuits should be stripped, and everyone who wore them should have been banned for four years.

Hey, what's good for the goose.

Australian cricketers whinged when England did "bodyline" and accused them of cheating, even though "leg theory" was legitimate, and there was no rule against it. The Australians just didn't like that someone outsmarted them and thought of it first.

Technically, any improvement is performance-enhancing. Athletes who train for more hours than others, have better exercise facilites etc.

Australia has better state-of-the-art equipment and training at the AIS, than some third-world country competing in the Olympics has. So, we have an advantage that they don't have, an economic advantage.

Those who train harder, eat better and exercise more gain an advantage over their competition as well. So, is exercise and diet "performance enhancing", since it improves your performance from what it was before?
Click to expand...

Every country had access to the bodysuits, they were legal, and every country's swimmers wore them and broke World Records. Australians had no advantage over any other country. I don't disagree that maybe we should ban the super-suit records, but no one was breaking any rules bu using them.

Bodyline was perfectly legal - there was a lot of talk that Australia should retaliate and pick their fastest, bounciest bowlers (Laurie Nash, for example). They didn't, because the Australian captain, Bill Woodfull, said Bodyline was against the spirit of cricket, and he wouldn't instruct his players to do it.
Bodyline was eventually banned by the MCC after they had seen it in operation in the 1933 and 1934 county seasons in England, when English players complained.

Any sport has rules - and those rules only apply to the sport - they have no validation outside the game. Human Growth is a perfectly legal supplement that has many medical uses - unfortunately it is deemed illegal for almost all sports. Motorbikes are allowed in all countries - yet I am not allowed to use them in the Tour De France. I bet I could beat Chris Froome up Mont Ventoux if I rode a Kawasaki.

If you don't have rules, you don't have a sport. By definition, a sport has arbitrary rules. I could beat Gary Kasparov at chess - if I was allowed to hit him over the head with a club. So sports set the rules. Training, diet, exercise all have rules as to what you can, and can't do. No one will put you in jail for taking EPO or steroids - that's legal in society - but you can't play the sport. You can still go and ride a bike up Mont Ventoux - but you can't compete in the TDF.

By the way, Stephen Dank did nothing LEGALLY wrong - none of the products he supplied was illegal. The Essendon players opted to take those products and continue playing AFL. That was against the rules of AFL - but that's purely a problem for the AFL (that's why none of the Essendon players are in jail - they haven't broken any laws).

If the AFL wanted, they could allow the players to play tomorrow - they would no longer get Government support, they would no longer by under the auspices of WADA - but, hey! - their sport, their rules. Nothing illegal.
 
GTOA said:
Good thing you don't work in the music industry, then. No-one would be left.
Click to expand...
Good thing you have gone completely over the top. This is about sport. Not about life. Its not about whether your brother got cancer , its not about the music industry. Its about the inherent fairness and rule setting in sport

Would you want the TDF riders to have motors? Swimmers to have fins? There must be rules and there must be standards.

When a sport , any sport , cares more about the result than the human then it has gone past what I recall as sport
 
GreyCrow said:
Would you want the TDF riders to have motors? Swimmers to have fins? There must be rules and there must be standards.
Click to expand...
but there have actually been motors used in the last half decade in the professional peloton in cycling. And highly suspcious accelerations and cadences in the Tour on Mont Ventoux. google it.

doping skulduggery had merely been a cultural reality, but adding motors just mean meant the sport jumped the shark like mick fanny inverted at Jeffrey's Bay or jeffries bay or jeffreys bay that one

or mick fanning

<shark emoji>

 
blackcat said:
and RussellEbertHandball u could not convince me Redgrave and awesome foursome were on bread and water. Since the GDR were winning all in the regattas, Redgrave et al met fire with fire.

U dont bring a knife to a gunfight or some such inversion and torturing of metaphors
Click to expand...
That's because you need to eat steak to row, not bread and water Eddy Merckx style and look like Chris Froome. ;)
 
Wallaby said:
Every country had access to the bodysuits, they were legal, and every country's swimmers wore them and broke World Records. Australians had no advantage over any other country. I don't disagree that maybe we should ban the super-suit records, but no one was breaking any rules bu using them.

Bodyline was perfectly legal - there was a lot of talk that Australia should retaliate and pick their fastest, bounciest bowlers (Laurie Nash, for example). They didn't, because the Australian captain, Bill Woodfull, said Bodyline was against the spirit of cricket, and he wouldn't instruct his players to do it.
Bodyline was eventually banned by the MCC after they had seen it in operation in the 1933 and 1934 county seasons in England, when English players complained.

Any sport has rules - and those rules only apply to the sport - they have no validation outside the game. Human Growth is a perfectly legal supplement that has many medical uses - unfortunately it is deemed illegal for almost all sports. Motorbikes are allowed in all countries - yet I am not allowed to use them in the Tour De France. I bet I could beat Chris Froome up Mont Ventoux if I rode a Kawasaki.

If you don't have rules, you don't have a sport. By definition, a sport has arbitrary rules. I could beat Gary Kasparov at chess - if I was allowed to hit him over the head with a club. So sports set the rules. Training, diet, exercise all have rules as to what you can, and can't do. No one will put you in jail for taking EPO or steroids - that's legal in society - but you can't play the sport. You can still go and ride a bike up Mont Ventoux - but you can't compete in the TDF.

By the way, Stephen Dank did nothing LEGALLY wrong - none of the products he supplied was illegal. The Essendon players opted to take those products and continue playing AFL. That was against the rules of AFL - but that's purely a problem for the AFL (that's why none of the Essendon players are in jail - they haven't broken any laws).

If the AFL wanted, they could allow the players to play tomorrow - they would no longer get Government support, they would no longer by under the auspices of WADA - but, hey! - their sport, their rules. Nothing illegal.
Click to expand...

1) Everyone has access to bodysuits. Well, following that logic, then every athlete can use drugs to gain an advantage as well.

The bodysuits were a huge advantage. World records got smashed, and Australians won medals out of it. Saying that it is legal doesn't mean that it is gaining an advantage that others don't have.

I bet if another country used the bodysuits, instead of Australia, the Aussie athletes, press and public would bitch and moan how unfair it is. But when we do it, it is okay.

2) Why do the AFL get government support anyway? They make money from the $2.8 billion TV rights deal, plus money from attendance, merchandise, and other sources. I read a few years ago that the AFL is the fifth most profitable venture in Australia. The money they make out of Grand Final tickets alone makes a pretty penny for them. So they can tell the government to get stuffed, because they can survive without one cent of taxpayers' money.

Also, why do they operate under the auspices of WADA? The only reason that the AFL even went under the WADA code was to make themselves "look good" and at the "forefront of sports testing". That was an Andrew Demetriou idea, who cares more about what people outside of football think, than the fan who attends every week. The AFL thought that they would get pats on the back for willingly submitting themselves to the WADA code. Well, they were wrong. The AFL should tell WADA to f... off as well.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top