Would the AFL walk away from WADA?
- Thread starter nut
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Freo2012
Premiership Player
Personally I think nothing should change, other than what is coming with WADA and ASADA - they are pushing for greater funding, better integration with other national regulatory bodies and there will be broader rules with officials covered in the next 2015 code. There is one big benefit of having an "allowed list" policy though, and that is it totally removes the chem/bio sports science area from the game - absolutely no reason then for a club to be funding that area at all. The problem would be in the detail - lack of pertinent controls and detail and everyone would do things outside the clubs, as EFC did. Would still need to link in ASADA testing for PED's.
The AFL needs WADA accreditation for more than just the drug rules - IMAGE, ASADA controlled testing, Govt funding - not just $ granted but use of public facilities, grounds, public transport. Think about the total extent that govt enables footy to happen - and govt includes councils. Also the issue about gambling and being a "competitive sport" - which is already getting closer to the manipulated line every day.
invinciBlues
Norm Smith Medallist
Thats what I thought. If they get banned by ASADA/WADA arent they essentially delisted?
No. Bookmark the AFL Anti-doping code: http://mm.afl.com.au/Portals/0/afl_docs/afl_hq/Policies/AFL Anti-Doping Code 2010 ASADA FINAL.pdf
Refer to part 22 on page 39
I think that is pretty clear.
- Jul 16, 2013
- 13,446
- 17,167
- AFL Club
- Essendon
Holy Jesus you seriously have no idea.
So your telling me that if tomorrow (hypothetical here) Rance is caught for taking some form of HGH and then on Thursday Jake King is caught with some other form of HGH and neither knew the other was doing it and neither did Richmond.
In that scenario, the entire club should be banned for two years? Even though every other player on the list is clean?
******* stupid rule that shows why WADA is not fit to deal with large competitive sports.
Albert Ross
Premiership Player
Who is going to maintain the list of millions of allowed compounds? Is water allowed? Is bread?
- Mar 16, 2002
- 21,715
- 13,435
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Richmond
- Thread starter
- #58
My point being is the loss of ESS for two years would cost more than losing government funding.... IMO it would.
Black Diamond
Sleight of Hand
The idea of the AFL setting up an approved list is whack.
If there already players and/or teams pushing the boundaries and circumventing the rules, why would they not continue to do so to use substances on the "banned" list?
If there already players and/or teams pushing the boundaries and circumventing the rules, why would they not continue to do so to use substances on the "banned" list?
Serious?
- Mar 16, 2002
- 21,715
- 13,435
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Richmond
- Thread starter
- #61
Black Diamond
Sleight of Hand
Serious as in "Why do you even have to ask? Of course they would continue to push the boundaries"?
If ASADA hands out infractions meaning guilt in actually taking PEDS, that sympathy will evaporate.
You are so confused it's embarrassing
WADA signed off on the AFL Anti Doping code as THE document doping in the AFL is covered by. It IS the document that outlines AFL's WADA agreement. Do you really think WADA would sign off if it wasn't compliant. Seriously, just think it through for once.
CAS hear only misinterpretations of.. wanna guess? THE AFL ANTI DOPING CODE
- Mar 16, 2002
- 21,715
- 13,435
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Richmond
- Thread starter
- #65
WADA don't care about ASADA.... ASADA/AFL agreement means nothing to WADA. AFL signed up to WADA.
How can you push the boundaries when there's a list of what you can use and only that?
By definition you can't. You can only go over the line and cheat. And that would be obvious by following the receipt trail... No shades of grey
Freo2012
Premiership Player
LOL - obviously, that is the very VERY difficult part - using clear wording that can encompass food and beverages etc but not allow stimulants as well as the PED's which the approved list covers - simple eg. sport drinks with banned substances problem.
How about a hybrid mix? - WADA rules and ASADA testing, but also with the AFL controlling a list and supplying (big sponsors $) the only supplements that clubs and players are allowed to use, with the club doctors coming under greater control of the AFL directly and trainers and other club officials not allowed to be involved with any supplement. Include much tougher penalties for anyone caught breaking the WADA rules or the supplement rules - takes away that avenue for clubs to seek an "unfair advantage" and they return to focus on actual physical conditioning without chem/bio assistance - everyone should then be on a level playing field in that regards unless they cheat.
Not relevant.
The WADA code and the AFL Code are in perfect agreement, somebody else quoted the WADA code section earlier (and you liked the post).
The WADA Code says ".. the ruling body of the event..." has the power to impose additional penalties.
The AFL Code says ".. the AFL Commission.."
There is no conflict here.
Black Diamond
Sleight of Hand
So your reply was about the definition of "boundaries" and "list"?
I'll rephrase it: If there is an approved list, assuming there is no grey area, if athletes are already trying to circumvent the rules then why would they stick to this approved list in future and not work out ways to use something illegal?
God help me, I'm in agreement with Lance on this.
Well that's just cos its patently obvious what the situation is, and nut is completely confused
Albert Ross
Premiership Player
A good work-around for that would be to maintain a list of substances that were banned?
The reason you outsource this type of regulatory function is
a) The competition you are in doesn't have the skills, data base, money, experience etc to run it themselves.
amd
b) It needs to be independent of the competition so it cannot be corrupted or co-opted by the people who run the comp because they are hopelessly conflicted due to economic imperatives (at best) and possibly corrupt practices .
Like uh, I don't know. Not giving the Bombers their due penalty because it will cost the comp money.?
Do you think if the AFL could get away with making this go away without too much damage to the brand and revenue stream they wouldn't?
That's what I don't get about the Bomber Kool-Aiders, the AFL are trying to help you but you ust wanna keep fighting because it suits the narrative of James is innocent.
