Player Watch Sam Murray - Delisted 17/9

sr36

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 20, 2009
13,342
17,611
Vietnam
AFL Club
Collingwood
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/sports/item/why-wada-should-reclassify-cocaine-as-a-non-specified-substance-the-inequitable-case-of-jose-paolo-guerrero
Are you sure? An article that CFC2010 posted a while back suggested otherwise with a quote from an ASADA guy.

"An ASADA spokesperson said cocaine, cannabis, methamphetamine and heroin were all substances that needed to reach certain thresholds for a positive test, known as an "adverse analytical finding''."

The Age ›

AFL players warned of long bans with enhanced ASADA detection
Jake Niall March 08, 2019

AFL players are being warned by clubs that they can test positive on match day as much as seven days after taking an illicit drug and potentially earning bans of up to four years under the tough WADA code.

Some club doctors and football department officials have passed on the message to players that the detection capability of the ASADA laboratory that tests the players has improved to the point that they can test positive to the use of drugs such as cocaine seven days after it has been taken.
In November, the AFL's chief medical officer Dr Peter Harcourt told club doctors that players could be detected for illicit drug use within seven days of use. This message, intended for the doctors to pass on to players, has been communicated at different stages over summer by various clubs.

Harcourt's warning followed the positive test to cocaine by Collingwood defender Sam Murray in August, in a case that is in the hands of ASADA. Murray, who is training with Wangaratta Rovers, remains under provisional suspension as his legal team continues discussions with ASADA.

Magpie Sam Murray's case is still in WADA's hands.Credit:Wayne Ludbey
In the past, the conventional wisdom has been that illicit drugs such as cocaine, ecstasy and methamphetamine remain detectable via a urine test for a maximum of a few days, perhaps 48 or 72 hours, though it depends on the amount taken, the individual's physiology and other factors.
Despite speculation that Murray ingested the drug some days before his positive test, this cannot be confirmed. This is a rare instance of a player testing positive to an illicit drug in a way that jeopardises his AFL career, because the test happened on match day.

A player who tests positive to certain illicit drugs on match day faces a lengthy ban, because those drugs are considered performance-enhancing if taken immediately before a game.
Loading

A player who records a positive test (not on game day) under the AFL's completely separate illicit drugs code will be referred for treatment and counselling until the second "strike'', when he receives a four-match ban.
While Harcourt's warning - which has filtered back to players at some clubs - was intended to deter players from using illicit drugs by explaining the increased dangers of match-day positive tests, ASADA suggested improvements in the laboratory's detection capability did not have an impact on the drugs body's reporting of positive tests.

An ASADA spokesperson said cocaine, cannabis, methamphetamine and heroin were all substances that needed to reach certain thresholds for a positive test, known as an "adverse analytical finding''.
The concentration levels for positive results (which bring suspensions) for those drugs had not changed since 2013.
"Due to the set concentrations for these substances, an improvement in laboratory detection capability does not have an impact on the reporting of these substances,'' ASADA said.

But the AFL view is that the improved technology over the years means the Sydney-based laboratory can detect those minimum levels more easily than previously - hence their warnings to players via club doctors.
For example, the threshold for a positive test - and suspension - for cocaine is 100 nanograms per millilitre.
This is a very low reading compared to the standard level of about 1000 nanograms per millilitre that a player would typically have in his urine if he tested positive the day after taking cocaine.

Former ASADA boss Richard Ings said players were "playing Russian roulette'' with their careers if they used illicit drugs such as cocaine during the week. He said improvements in technology allowed the laboratories to detect substances at lower concentrations.
Ings said players faced bans of two to four years for match-day positives.
The AFL has long been concerned about the risks of match-day positive tests. One of the reasons the league established their own contentious illicit drugs code and testing regime was to treat and thus prevent at-risk players from having match-day positives that would bring lengthy bans.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

sideswipe

Club Legend
Jun 10, 2014
2,325
3,229
AFL Club
Collingwood
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.
Your fancy science talk reminds me of Kevin Kline talking Italian to Jamie Lee Curtis in a Fish Called Wanda. I understand nothing. But I like it.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
 

Black_White

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 7, 2001
12,531
9,186
AFL Club
Collingwood
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.
I think the Illicit drug policy is a requirement for the AFL to be able to be granted Government money.
So, no illicit drugs policy, no $15 mill for our latest project.
 

Bad Horse

Petfood
Mar 26, 2016
4,392
11,892
AFL Club
Collingwood
Are you sure? An article that CFC2010 posted a while back suggested otherwise with a quote from an ASADA guy.

"An ASADA spokesperson said cocaine, cannabis, methamphetamine and heroin were all substances that needed to reach certain thresholds for a positive test, known as an "adverse analytical finding''."
Thats great but im not seing it on the official 2019 banned substances list issued by wada. Which is a controlled document which athletes are supposed to rely on. The ones i listed are annotated on the list. Cocaine and heroin for example are not and im not aware of them ever having a threshold limit.
 

sr36

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 20, 2009
13,342
17,611
Vietnam
AFL Club
Collingwood
Thats great but im not seing it on the official 2019 banned substances list issued by wada. Which is a controlled document which athletes are supposed to rely on. The ones i listed are annotated on the list. Cocaine and heroin for example are not and im not aware of them ever having a threshold limit.
Jake Niall is one of the few afl journos who behaves like a proper journo, so I'm not willing to totally dismiss it, especially as he goes into details about what the actual threshold is. God knows.
 

sr36

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 20, 2009
13,342
17,611
Vietnam
AFL Club
Collingwood
The article IMO was an example of the AFL orchestrating a result here.

The only journalist who has given us any information........coincidence?

By the way I believe in conspiracy theories.
Personally, I'd put that down to the rest of the journos hearing about it, not having any idea what was being said, so instead making up some crap about who should be traded to who.
 

sr36

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 20, 2009
13,342
17,611
Vietnam
AFL Club
Collingwood
Yeah I get that sr36 but no one has provided information about him being permitted to train with a Football Club even if it isn’t professional.......it is against the ASADA/WADA rules.........especially once the penalty has been handed down.

What I find weird is our Club once again feels obligated to carry such a person.........how long is a piece of string?
Its been a very weird one. It does feel like some party is testing boundaries and the others don't know what to do or where the boundaries are.
 

sideswipe

Club Legend
Jun 10, 2014
2,325
3,229
AFL Club
Collingwood
Yeah I get that sr36 but no one has provided information about him being permitted to train with a Football Club even if it isn’t professional.......it is against the ASADA/WADA rules.........especially once the penalty has been handed down.

What I find weird is our Club once again feels obligated to carry such a person.........how long is a piece of string?
Give it a rest. The only rule at this stage is that parties aren’t permitted to disclose information. You are speaking crap about training.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
 

Bad Horse

Petfood
Mar 26, 2016
4,392
11,892
AFL Club
Collingwood
Jake Niall is one of the few afl journos who behaves like a proper journo, so I'm not willing to totally dismiss it, especially as he goes into details about what the actual threshold is. God knows.
The number he quoted is whats known as the Minimum Reliable Performance Limit (MRPL). For each substance, any testing laboratory part of the WADA framework must be able to detect down to the MRPL as a minimum benchmark. But that is not a threshold, nor does it effect the capacity of a laboratory to return a positive based on a reading below the MRPL if its testing equipment is capable of detection of levels even lower than the MRPL.

How do I know this? Not a newspaper report, primary sources.

https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/td2018mrpl_v1_finaleng.pdf

In particular, I quote

1.0 Minimum Required Performance Levels (MRPL) The MRPL is intended to harmonize the analytical performance of methods applied to the detection of Non-Threshold Substances. The MRPL is a mandatory analytical parameter of technical performance established by WADA with which the Laboratories shall comply when testing for the presence of a particular Prohibited Substance, its Metabolite(s) or Marker(s). The MRPL is the minimum concentration of a Prohibited Substance or Metabolite of a Prohibited Substance or Marker of a Prohibited Substance or Method that Laboratories shall be able to reliably detect and identify in routine daily operations.

• The MRPL is not a threshold (T) nor is it a Limit of Detection (LOD). Adverse Analytical Findings may result from concentrations below the established MRPL values;


The ASADA fu**nuckle quoted appears to have misrepresented the MRPL as a threshold, and was spouting pure gibberish.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

sr36

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 20, 2009
13,342
17,611
Vietnam
AFL Club
Collingwood
That is my read on it also mate.
My money is on both ASADA and the AFL having stuffed up somehow. If it was only one of them, the other would have leaked it. And Murray's lawyers have them in a corner. The way this is dragging on, with the addition of the training story, I'm expecting significantly less than 4 years with an inadequate explanation to follow.
 

Bad Horse

Petfood
Mar 26, 2016
4,392
11,892
AFL Club
Collingwood
If the ASADA person was going around saying what he is quoted as saying before Murray's test, and Murray's test result was below 100, it might explain why this has gone all a little weird.
 

sr36

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 20, 2009
13,342
17,611
Vietnam
AFL Club
Collingwood
The number he quoted is whats known as the Minimum Reliable Performance Limit (MRPL). For each substance, any testing laboratory part of the WADA framework must be able to detect down to the MRPL as a minimum benchmark. But that is not a threshold, nor does it effect the capacity of a laboratory to return a positive based on a reading below the MRPL if its testing equipment is capable of detection of levels even lower than the MRPL.

How do I know this? Not a newspaper report, primary sources.

https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/td2018mrpl_v1_finaleng.pdf

In particular, I quote

1.0 Minimum Required Performance Levels (MRPL) The MRPL is intended to harmonize the analytical performance of methods applied to the detection of Non-Threshold Substances. The MRPL is a mandatory analytical parameter of technical performance established by WADA with which the Laboratories shall comply when testing for the presence of a particular Prohibited Substance, its Metabolite(s) or Marker(s). The MRPL is the minimum concentration of a Prohibited Substance or Metabolite of a Prohibited Substance or Marker of a Prohibited Substance or Method that Laboratories shall be able to reliably detect and identify in routine daily operations.

• The MRPL is not a threshold (T) nor is it a Limit of Detection (LOD). Adverse Analytical Findings may result from concentrations below the established MRPL values;


The ASADA ****nuckle quoted appears to have misrepresented the MRPL as a threshold, and was spouting pure gibberish.
Very nice work.

I'll delete that email I was about to send: Hey Robbo, What's with this Murray malarkey? I'll buy you a bourbon if you tell me.
 

Somebody

Premiership Player
Apr 12, 2007
3,449
912
Somewhere
AFL Club
Collingwood
But is the legalised over the counter stuff the same as the stuff that was tested to have a medicinal benefit for certain conditions? Or have they just made a product that doesn't get you stoned, but also doesn't offer medical assistance?
IT's bred for CBD (cannabidiol) and is v high content of that, I heard something like 30%. Well that's what I'm told haven't had any analyzed or anything. I dont' know if you need a license and testing to sell it over the counter, probably not as long as it doesn't have THC.
 

sideswipe

Club Legend
Jun 10, 2014
2,325
3,229
AFL Club
Collingwood
No. The first paragraph of the article you supplied clearly states that threatened with the loss of funding, the afl signed up to the wada Code. Prior to that it had been reported that Demetriou et al were hoping the illicit drugs Code would be seen as sufficient enough to help them avoid becoming WADA signatories.

Why would government funding to a sporting body be conditional upon creating a code that no other sport used?


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
 

Pie eyed

Premium Platinum
Jun 26, 2007
38,572
16,312
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Magpies
I smoked some recently, as in a lot - enough to make me extremely stoned to the point of being incapacitated if it was normal weed, and it had virtually no effect at all.
Then it's not weed.
Someone sold you "medicinal tea leaves".
Strange that.
The whole "medicinal Marinara" industry is just a way to make huge profits from a weed.
 

Top Bottom