Oppo Camp Other Club News/General Discussion

[sideswipe]

You’ve got it backwards because earlier you posted this;



I can tell you that catching people and punishing them is very much part of WADA’s modus operandi, otherwise they wouldn’t be turning up on doorsteps unannounced, they would only test immediately prior to competition, and they wouldn’t be testing for things like clenbuterol out of season. They do this because they lack the resources to test everyone; so random testing with heavy penalties to act as a deterrent.

At odds with that is the AFL’s position; they don’t want to catch anybody, they don’t want anyone to test positive. So when they hold a player with cocaine in his system out of competition it’s good for the player, it keeps the league from being exposed to negative press, but it subverts WADA’s process.

SIA can test anyone at anytime. How does missing a game subvert that process? Might even be a prompt for target testing?


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[sr36]

You’ve got it backwards because earlier you posted this;



I can tell you that catching people and punishing them is very much part of WADA’s modus operandi, otherwise they wouldn’t be turning up on doorsteps unannounced, they would only test immediately prior to competition, and they wouldn’t be testing for things like clenbuterol out of season. They do this because they lack the resources to test everyone; so random testing with heavy penalties to act as a deterrent.

At odds with that is the AFL’s position; they don’t want to catch anybody, they don’t want anyone to test positive. So when they hold a player with cocaine in his system out of competition it’s good for the player, it keeps the league from being exposed to negative press, but it subverts WADA’s process.

It's part of their MO, but that's the method they use to meet the purpose of stopping athletes from using PEDs - and in terms of the recreational stimulant PEDs, the purpose is only to stop them having them in the system on match day.

With the match day banned substances, there's two different ways of conforming to WADA's code:

a) not using them at all
b) using them out of competition but making sure they're out of your system in-competition

They both conform to the code. Melbourne's testing helps the players in category b) conform to the code. It's an acknowledgement that a percentage of players will use stimulants for recreational purposes, but reduces the damage done by ensuring they still meet the WADA code.

I'd be surprised if most clubs aren't doing something similar, although some might simply have them sit out wihtout a test - that's what I'd do, as I'd be worried that you could be negative in one test but then have enough of a trace in a later urine sample - but maybe that's more cautious than is medically necessary.

If you're a footy club who thinks none of your 42 players will use drugs at all - you're living in dreamland.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

SIA can test anyone at anytime. How does missing a game subvert that process? Might even be a prompt for target testing?


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Because if they miss the game, the drug in their system is no longer considered performance enhancing.

 

[sideswipe]

Because if they miss the game, the drug in their system is no longer considered performance enhancing.

And they didn’t commit an offence.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[sr36]

Because if they miss the game, the drug in their system is no longer considered performance enhancing.

I'm a bit confused. Are you talking about party drugs or are you assuming that theyre testing for a Thomas/Keeffe type situation? Accidental prohibited out of competition as well?

It's getting greyer there if they then sit them out to reduce the likelihood of getting tested. Plus the ethics of not reporting them.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

It's part of their MO, but that's the method they use to meet the purpose of stopping athletes from using PEDs - and in terms of the recreational stimulant PEDs, the purpose is only to stop them having them in the system on match day.

With the match day banned substances, there's two different ways of conforming to WADA's code:

a) not using them at all
b) using them out of competition but making sure they're out of your system in-competition

They both conform to the code. Melbourne's testing helps the players in category b) conform to the code. It's an acknowledgement that a percentage of players will use stimulants for recreational purposes, but reduces the damage done by ensuring they still meet the WADA code.

I'd be surprised if most clubs aren't doing something similar, although some might simply have them sit out wihtout a test - that's what I'd do, as I'd be worried that you could be negative in one test but then have enough of a trace in a later urine sample - but maybe that's more cautious than is medically necessary.

If you're a footy club who thinks none of your 42 players will use drugs at all - you're living in dreamland.

It’s a way for players to maintain the same amount of drug use as they were previously, but instead of risking a two-year ban and ruination of their reputation as a fair competitor, they become a certainty to miss that week only and no-one ever hears of it.

It’s actually like the movie Minority Report, however instead of arresting the offender for murder based on the visions of the pre-cogs, John Anderton and the Pre-crime Division just hold them in a cell until after the crime was meant to have been committed.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

I'm a bit confused. Are you talking about party drugs or are you assuming that theyre testing for a Thomas/Keeffe type situation? Accidental prohibited out of competition as well?

It's getting greyer there if they then sit them out to reduce the likelihood of getting tested. Plus the ethics of not reporting them.

No. That could certainly enter the equation, but those drugs are banned in and out of competition, and are no more or less likely to be tested for regardless of whether the player plays, to the best of my knowledge.

Also, I don’t think of them as party drugs. There are drugs that are banned on gameday, and drugs that are banned at all times. Anything else is none of my business and frankly shouldn’t be the AFL’s either.

 

[Markfs]

SIA can test anyone at anytime. How does missing a game subvert that process? Might even be a prompt for target testing?


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

if they test midweek and find cocaine, then its not on game day and not a problem....

 

[The Royal Sampler]

And they didn’t commit an offence.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Yes, it’s like the drink drive scenario presented by others.

If a mate says “don’t drive home tonight, there’s a booze bus around the corner” then that’s a good mate looking out for you.

If the police knock on your door and tell you “if you drive home tonight you’ll lose your license, we’ve got a booze bus stationed just around the corner” that’s a bit more of a grey area. Especially when the testing is meant to catch a random sample of drivers and act as a deterrent.

The extra wrinkle, I guess, is if you walk up to the police and say “I need to get home tonight, but I’m probably just over 0.05; can you test me and keep testing me until I’m clear to drive again?”… which is probably fine up to the point where the police say “oh yeah, that would be awesome, because it reflects really badly on us if you drink-drive and get caught”.

 

[sr36]

Yes, it’s like the drink drive scenario presented by others.

If a mate says “don’t drive home tonight, there’s a booze bus around the corner” then that’s a good mate looking out for you.

If the police knock on your door and tell you “if you drive home tonight you’ll lose your license, we’ve got a booze bus stationed just around the corner” that’s a bit more of a grey area. Especially when the testing is meant to catch a random sample of drivers and act as a deterrent.

The extra wrinkle, I guess, is if you walk up to the police and say “I need to get home tonight, but I’m probably just over 0.05; can you test me and keep testing me until I’m clear to drive again?”… which is probably fine up to the point where the police say “oh yeah, that would be awesome, because it reflects really badly on us if you drink-drive and get caught”.

In terms of drink driving - it's a p plater having a couple of beers at lunch and their employer giving them a breath test to ensure that their blood alcohol reading is 00 before they drive home that night.

Yes it helps the AFL in terms of optics if blokes don't get caught, but it's also good practice in terms of ensuring the player doesn't break the rules and protects them from harm.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

In terms of drink driving - it's a p plater having a couple of beers at lunch and their employer giving them a breath test to ensure that their blood alcohol reading is 00 before they drive home that night.

Yes it helps the AFL in terms of optics if blokes don't get caught, but it's also good practice in terms of ensuring the player doesn't break the rules and protects them from harm.

My Minority Report analogy was way better.

 

[sideswipe]

Yes, it’s like the drink drive scenario presented by others.

If a mate says “don’t drive home tonight, there’s a booze bus around the corner” then that’s a good mate looking out for you.

If the police knock on your door and tell you “if you drive home tonight you’ll lose your license, we’ve got a booze bus stationed just around the corner” that’s a bit more of a grey area. Especially when the testing is meant to catch a random sample of drivers and act as a deterrent.

The extra wrinkle, I guess, is if you walk up to the police and say “I need to get home tonight, but I’m probably just over 0.05; can you test me and keep testing me until I’m clear to drive again?”… which is probably fine up to the point where the police say “oh yeah, that would be awesome, because it reflects really badly on us if you drink-drive and get caught”.

You need to make a very large distinction between IDP and SIA.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[The Royal Sampler]

You need to make a very large distinction between IDP and SIA.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Individual Defensive Player and who?

 

[Black_White]

Here we go again.
The excuses made for highly paid athletes, who are coached every year about the risks in taking drugs, reaches new heights.
Here’s the thing. A footballer has 10-15 years at the elite level if they are the some of the best players in the comp. So most are finished by 30, maybe 35 for the very few.
So guys and girls, lay off the gear until you finish playing. You’re still young enough to f**k up your life going down that path.
For me, all sporting codes simply should have bans in place for any positive drug test, in or out of competition.
It gives absolute clarity for the followers of sport, and the unfortunate individuals who bet on sport.

 

[sideswipe]

Individual Defensive Player and who?

Illicit drugs policy and sport integrity Australia.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[The Royal Sampler]

Illicit drugs policy and sport integrity Australia.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Is that a roundabout way of saying recreational drugs vs performance enhancing drugs? Because one is a policy and the other an organization.

 

[Markfs]

You need to make a very large distinction between IDP and SIA.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

you are so sexy when you use your anacronyms, wipey....

 

[sideswipe]

Is that a roundabout way of saying recreational drugs vs performance enhancing drugs? Because one is a policy and the other an organization.

Ok IDP testing. I hoped it was a relatively straightforward way to tell you they are separate “regimes”. They don’t influence each other.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[sr36]

My Minority Report analogy was way better.

I don't know it. So it went over my head.

I just watched 4 corners on David McBride and think that Wilkie and McBride have a bit in common - strange whistlelblowing.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

Ok IDP testing. I hoped it was a relatively straightforward way to tell you they are separate “regimes”. They don’t influence each other.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

I’ve already stated I think the illicit drugs policy is a wank, and the AFL are too far over their skis even being involved.

If the AFL want to position themselves as being about player welfare, and assisting players in avoiding breaching the WADA code to which they are signatories, then they need to get rid of the three-strike policy or indeed any scenario in which they hand out drug-related penalties.

It should all be left to SIA to mete out any punishments, and the AFL can transparent in its aims of protecting its brand and its players, without a conflict of interest.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

I don't know it. So it went over my head.

I just watched 4 corners on David McBride and think that Wilkie and McBride have a bit in common - strange whistlelblowing.

Wilkie at least has parliamentary privilege to hide behind. David McBride has no such protection as a whistle blower in this country.

 

[sideswipe]

I’ve already stated I think the illicit drugs policy is a wank, and the AFL are too far over their skis even being involved.

If the AFL want to position themselves as being about player welfare, and assisting players in avoiding breaching the WADA code to which they are signatories, then they need to get rid of the three-strike policy or indeed any scenario in which they hand out drug-related penalties.

It should all be left to SIA to mete out any punishments, and the AFL can transparent in its aims of protecting its brand and its players, without a conflict of interest.

Assisting players to avoid breaching the wada code? How does not playing stop a player being wada/sia tested?

Don’t give me the in competition bs

On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[The Royal Sampler]

Assisting players to avoid breaching the wada code? How does not playing stop a player being wada/sia tested?


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Christ, Swipey, we’ve been through this. It doesn’t stop them being tested, it stops the day in question being considered “in-competition” if they are withdrawn from playing. Hence cocaine no longer performance enhancing if they are not selected to play on the day. Ketamine the same.

 

[jmac70]

TRS and Swipey arguing gives me the horn.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Where's Clarry?

Clarry is unaware.