Play Nice Drugs - we're losing

Remove this Banner Ad

GreyCrow said:
I get it. You hate WADA. But give me a better system before spouting off about whether I follow any sheep mentality
Click to expand...


I never said that I hate WADA.

But I don't see them as some all-knowing, unaccountable demi-god either.

I will tell you a better system. WADA investigate more thoroughly, and have to have overwhelming evidence. The burden of proof should be same as in society, "Innocent until proven guilty".

I would be more supportive if it was done like a court. The accused sportsperson and WADA both are represented, both sides present their case, WADA must prove their case through evidence, equivalent to the standard of a court of law (since a drug cheat has broken "sports law", then it should be treated like any other law in society being broken), and that evidence can then be tested by the defence. A neutral person (like a retired judge) could preside, and reach a verdict. If the accused is found guilty, then they get a four year ban, or maybe even a life ban. If found "not guilty", then WADA haven't proven their case, and the defendant is free to go.

I think you hate sportspeople. You resent them because they are rich, famous and living their dream, while you are probably not making a lot of money, don't get recognized by your boss, and you hate your job. To see someone doing better than you sticks in your craw, doesn't it? So then, when a sportsperson loses it all, you find glee in it, because you think "I may not have their money, prestige, influence, or talent, but I don't do drugs, so, at least morally, I am a better person than them".

Now, I might have you pegged wrong. But you want to question my agenda, then I will question yours.
 
telsor said:
Because the AFL still needs to deal with the government on a great many issues regardless and pissing them off is a really bad move? Especially when they'd lose the PR fight that came from it, meaning they'd be portrayed as the bad guys. (and politicians love being strongly 'against' bad guys..not least because it helps hide all the other bad guys they're mates with).

There is also the not insubstantial issue of player health and safety, and dumping PED prevention programs would give them lots of problems on that front (from worksafe initially, but also down the line you can expect a lot of players to end up suing them).
Click to expand...

How would people side with the politicians? Most people hate politicians, and see them as the scum of the earth. Even the AFL will win a PR battle against govt.

As long as it isn't costing taxpayers money, then the voting public don't really care if the AFL has ASADA or non-affiliated independent drug testers. Only the footy media, made up of has-beens and never-weres who are looking to "bite the hand that feeds them" and sell out the AFL for a good story and therefore, a quick buck, would make an issue of it. And from what I have heard, journos are some of the last people to have a right to condemn anyone else's drug taking.
 
:'(:drunk:

Urine samples are taken and split into 2 samples. If the A sample tests positive the athlete is informed. They can then choose to accept the sample is tainted or they can ask for the B sample to be tested as well.

What I would like to see is what levels an athlete needs to breach and why this limit is set. What separates the Human Production v Chemical.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

GTOA said:
I will tell you a better system. WADA investigate more thoroughly, and have to have overwhelming evidence. The burden of proof should be same as in society, "Innocent until proven guilty".
Click to expand...

You completely don't understand how WADA works.

Its not up to WADA to investigate. Its even been suggested that there is a tug of war within WADA that doing so for the Independent Pound and McLaren reports into Russia was beyond their own power.

I would be more supportive if it was done like a court. The accused sportsperson and WADA both are represented, both sides present their case, WADA must prove their case through evidence, equivalent to the standard of a court of law (since a drug cheat has broken "sports law", then it should be treated like any other law in society being broken), and that evidence can then be tested by the defence. A neutral person (like a retired judge) could preside, and reach a verdict. If the accused is found guilty, then they get a four year ban, or maybe even a life ban. If found "not guilty", then WADA haven't proven their case, and the defendant is free to go.
Click to expand...

So you mean just like CAS in other word, but made to sound more a Court in your own mind.

I think you hate sportspeople. You resent them because they are rich, famous and living their dream, while you are probably not making a lot of money, don't get recognized by your boss, and you hate your job. To see someone doing better than you sticks in your craw, doesn't it? So then, when a sportsperson loses it all, you find glee in it, because you think "I may not have their money, prestige, influence, or talent, but I don't do drugs, so, at least morally, I am a better person than them".
Click to expand...

You'll be very surprised at how little money there is in Olympic sports. Maybe this is a jab closer to home.
 
GTOA said:
How would people side with the politicians? Most people hate politicians, and see them as the scum of the earth. Even the AFL will win a PR battle against govt.

As long as it isn't costing taxpayers money, then the voting public don't really care if the AFL has ASADA or non-affiliated independent drug testers. Only the footy media, made up of has-beens and never-weres who are looking to "bite the hand that feeds them" and sell out the AFL for a good story and therefore, a quick buck, would make an issue of it. And from what I have heard, journos are some of the last people to have a right to condemn anyone else's drug taking.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but the AFL doesn't operate in a vaccuum...When the whole EFC thing came up, remember the AOC getting angsty about how the the rules needed to be followed, because not doing so would have international implications? It wouldn't be AFL vs the politicians, it would be AFL Vs Government AND practically every other sporting body, with the AFL easily painted as supporting/condoning drug cheats. The AFL is big/popular, but they're not bigger and more popular than everyone else combined, and the media would mostly side with the bigger group.

We're also not talking insubstantial amounts of money...in the past decade, over a billion in government money would have gone towards the AFL (or at least, to things the AFL really likes)...Perth stadium anyone? ( + AO, KP, a lot of stuff in NSW/QLD, etc etc).
 
GTOA said:
How would people side with the politicians? Most people hate politicians, and see them as the scum of the earth. Even the AFL will win a PR battle against govt.

As long as it isn't costing taxpayers money, then the voting public don't really care if the AFL has ASADA or non-affiliated independent drug testers. Only the footy media, made up of has-beens and never-weres who are looking to "bite the hand that feeds them" and sell out the AFL for a good story and therefore, a quick buck, would make an issue of it. And from what I have heard, journos are some of the last people to have a right to condemn anyone else's drug taking.
Click to expand...

Yeah the AFL aren't going to turn off the tap to Government money when they and their clubs are needing that money to fund brand new training facilities and upgrades to Stadiums. Add to that the fact they are starting a Womens League and academies around the country they certainly aren't going to shot themselves in the foot by ripping up the WADA code when the AFL Players are due to ask for a large increase in the CBA.

But nice dream to have
 
blackcat said:
making a person sign a contract saying they wont cheat is a liars paradox innit?
Click to expand...

its like telling kids when they sign up for the draft, that if they sign up, it means that they accept that they might be picked by any team. It's a condition of getting in the door....if you sign up, you can play, if you don't sign up, move along..... same for the Olympics, if you sign the paper agreeing a positive test will mean that you will be forever banned, and then if you test positive...you are banned
 
Markfs said:
its like telling kids when they sign up for the draft, that if they sign up, it means that they accept that they might be picked by any team. It's a condition of getting in the door....if you sign up, you can play, if you don't sign up, move along..... same for the Olympics, if you sign the paper agreeing a positive test will mean that you will be forever banned, and then if you test positive...you are banned
Click to expand...


It's not the positive tests banning you that bother me.

It's when there are no positive test. Instead of investigating further, and trying to get other ways of finding guilt (e.g. hair samples), it seems that everyone is willing to accept that if someone calls someone else a "drug cheat" because they beat them in a race, for example, that it is fact, rather than sour grapes.

It seems that, if an Australian athlete, especially, alleges that someone cheated, but there are no positive samples, we all seem to believe it is true, even though it is one person's word as against another's, depending on which country they are from. Dawn Fraser has thrown around the "drug cheat" tag like it was going out of fashion, yet she wasn't held up as a liar if her allegations against others weren't true.

Also, it seems we have one rule for us and another for everyone else. The media and people like Dave Culbert make it sound like every other athlete from every other country cheats, except us, and no Australian ever cheats. If an Australian is accused, it is dismissed or excuses are made (e.g. Sam Riley) yet if anyone else is accused, we accept it without question. I think there is a lot of prejudice that shapes people's opinions on this.
 
GTOA said:
It's not the positive tests banning you that bother me.

It's when there are no positive test. Instead of investigating further, and trying to get other ways of finding guilt (e.g. hair samples), it seems that everyone is willing to accept that if someone calls someone else a "drug cheat" because they beat them in a race, for example, that it is fact, rather than sour grapes.

It seems that, if an Australian athlete, especially, alleges that someone cheated, but there are no positive samples, we all seem to believe it is true, even though it is one person's word as against another's, depending on which country they are from. Dawn Fraser has thrown around the "drug cheat" tag like it was going out of fashion, yet she wasn't held up as a liar if her allegations against others weren't true.

Also, it seems we have one rule for us and another for everyone else. The media and people like Dave Culbert make it sound like every other athlete from every other country cheats, except us, and no Australian ever cheats. If an Australian is accused, it is dismissed or excuses are made (e.g. Sam Riley) yet if anyone else is accused, we accept it without question. I think there is a lot of prejudice that shapes people's opinions on this.
Click to expand...

no doubt and each nation thinks its own doesn't cheat.
 
Markfs said:
its like telling kids when they sign up for the draft, that if they sign up, it means that they accept that they might be picked by any team. It's a condition of getting in the door....if you sign up, you can play, if you don't sign up, move along..... same for the Olympics, if you sign the paper agreeing a positive test will mean that you will be forever banned, and then if you test positive...you are banned
Click to expand...
IQ tests
61_99 knows they are iq tests....

jenny61_99
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

GTOA said:
It's not the positive tests banning you that bother me.

It's when there are no positive test. Instead of investigating further, and trying to get other ways of finding guilt (e.g. hair samples), it seems that everyone is willing to accept that if someone calls someone else a "drug cheat" because they beat them in a race, for example, that it is fact, rather than sour grapes.
Click to expand...
No we don't

It seems that, if an Australian athlete, especially, alleges that someone cheated, but there are no positive samples, we all seem to believe it is true,
Click to expand...
Once again. No we don't

Also, it seems we have one rule for us and another for everyone else. The media and people like Dave Culbert make it sound like every other athlete from every other country cheats, except us, and no Australian ever cheats. If an Australian is accused, it is dismissed or excuses are made (e.g. Sam Riley) yet if anyone else is accused, we accept it without question. I think there is a lot of prejudice that shapes people's opinions on this.
Click to expand...
You can have this one ;)

Its easy to make generalisations. Alex Watson? Sure buddy you managed 15 coffees in 15 minutes. Riiight. Dean Capobianco. Yep those huge kahunas of yours were proof you weren't on the gear. Riiight. Stuart Grady only used for 1 year. Riiight

I am not some simpering 12 yr old who believes that Australia has the sun shining from every golden orifice. I accept there are/will be athletes who decide to cheat to gain an advantage. And when they are caught they are pilloried by me.

The Russians are a whole different kettle of fish. Just like the East Germans they were involved in PROVEN systematic doping or the COVERING UP of systematic doping.
 
The death row comparison is also ridiculous - one is a punishment for breaking rules of law - the other are rules of a game or sport. If the athletes don't like it they can always not play.
 
kranky al I edited^

Hanutensil qua utensil and the accountant never saw any potential in the rubber prophylactic ansell market innit

i prefer Gina to Rose Porteus. You would never know, but Gina was very fetching as a young lass

look how gorgeous the young rinehart was
272166_c320735eaa82b6b7d9545486ac4937d8.jpeg


dont know if i trust Henry Kissinger, he might be doing a little bit of that Trump daughter lust like Zeus and Cenchreis mythology tale(s)

then again, Henry K's aphorism about power's aphrodisiac
 
blackcat said:
kranky al I edited^

Hanutensil qua utensil and the accountant never saw any potential in the rubber prophylactic ansell market innit

i prefer Gina to Rose Porteus. You would never know, but Gina was very fetching as a young lass

look how gorgeous the young rinehart was
272166_c320735eaa82b6b7d9545486ac4937d8.jpeg


dont know if i trust Henry Kissinger, he might be doing a little bit of that Trump daughter lust like Zeus and Cenchreis mythology tale(s)

then again, Henry K's aphorism about power's aphrodisiac
Click to expand...

i'd cast my net wider if I was looking for a billionairess.... personally, i'd settle for someone with a hundred million...maybe two
 
Markfs said:
i'd cast my net wider if I was looking for a billionairess.... personally, i'd settle for someone with a hundred million...maybe two
Click to expand...

Gisele at 3+ Foxtrot Tango Whiskey

blackcat said:
^oh man, if I edit that post to correct my typo of ostensibly i will ruin the purity of the prose with the edited qualification.
Click to expand...

B. Or'gami?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top