THE BOMBERS' SWISS ADVENTURE

[old dee 23,787]

1 minute ago, Macca said:

Spot on ... by default an athlete will not be charged with drug offences if the PED's are not "officially" banned but what if they knowingly took the PED's knowing they were gaining an unfair advantage. 

It's academic anyway because it's more of a morals/ethics/integrity issue. 

That is sadly missing in International sport Macca.

The level of their integrity is directly relate able to their chance of being caught.

[Chris 2,892]

1 minute ago, Macca said:

With all due respect, I disagree Chris. 

Certainly outside of this country numerous athletes in a variety of sports have used EPO, HGH and other PED's before those drugs were banned - esp in the USA. 

Yes lots of athletes did. Judging by todays standards they are all cheats, back then they were not banned and you were not cheating, anyone could have done it. 

[monoccular 17,424]

3 minutes ago, old dee said:

That [morals] is sadly missing in International sport Macca.

The level of their integrity is directly relate able to their chance of being caught.

Not just international sport, old dee.  Our homegrown sport too ?

[old dee 23,787]

1 minute ago, monoccular said:

Not just international sport, old dee.  Our homegrown sport too ?

I have said this somewhere else mono but my love of the MFC is the only thing that keeps me supporting AFL.

Weeks like this week give me the feeling we are losing the battle if it has not been lost already.

[jnrmac 20,058]

1 hour ago, Macca said:

You and I are on a different page 

My attitude is that a PED doesn't have to be banned to be still giving an athlete an unfair advantage. 

An infair advantage = cheating. 

If you don't agree then so be it. 

The problem with this attitude is that it is totally unrealistic. Coffee? Coca Cola? Pepermint?Juniper berries? Aspirin?

What's a drug and what is performance enhancing?

As for unfair advantage, really? Long legs? high jumping? fast twitching? There are lots of unfair advantages.

The world isn't as black and white as you make out.

[Macca 16,961]

47 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

The problem with this attitude is that it is totally unrealistic. Coffee? Coca Cola? Pepermint?Juniper berries? Aspirin?

What's a drug and what is performance enhancing?

As for unfair advantage, really? Long legs? high jumping? fast twitching? There are lots of unfair advantages.

The world isn't as black and white as you make out.

You are reading in to what I'm saying in an obtuse way to suit your argument. 

I've already stated that these athletes who take PED's (that aren't banned) aren't going to be charged with drug offences but in my eyes they are still guilty (if they knowingly took PED's that weren't banned to gain an unfair advantage)

So it's not black and white, its my opinion ... and if you don't like my opinion, bad luck. 

My argument centres around performance enhancing drugs, not long legs or everyday supplements. If you or others can't see that you'te being deliberately mischevious. 

 

[Macca 16,961]

6 minutes ago, ManDee said:

Macca, there are shades of grey. For example caffeine which is an every day supplement, but take too much and it becomes a PED and illegal. Would 4 double shot espresso's a day be cheating? What about 6 or 8 ? 

If steroids wasn't on the banned list then it's ok to take steroids yeah? 

Let's keep it real ... we're about to find out a lot more about this PED that Maria took and it may not be pleasant reading. 

If the drug boosts endurance levels to a high degree, I can't see how anyone could view what she's done as being on the 'up and up' 

Technically I get it but as for the rest of it, I'm dismayed. 

[bing181 9,218]

7 hours ago, beelzebub said:

Only if they fell under SO. These drugs were approved for human use. As to whether they fell under the SO  I confess I dont know.

If they were approved for human use, they don't fall under S0.

 

[bing181 9,218]

3 hours ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

 I read today she was warned five times by WADA, no sympathy from me.

She wasn't warned by WADA. And the only warning she received, was one that all tennis players received from their association, letting them know of upcoming changes in the classification of a product.

[Chris 2,892]

2 hours ago, Macca said:

You are reading in to what I'm saying in an obtuse way to suit your argument. 

I've already stated that these athletes who take PED's (that aren't banned) aren't going to be charged with drug offences but in my eyes they are still guilty (if they knowingly took PED's that weren't banned to gain an unfair advantage)

So it's not black and white, its my opinion ... and if you don't like my opinion, bad luck. 

My argument centres around performance enhancing drugs, not long legs or everyday supplements. If you or others can't see that you'te being deliberately mischevious. 

 

I still cant see how taking something that is legal and available to everyone is an unfair advantage. It doesnt make sense.

[John Crow Batty 8,863]

Surely not Rafael Nadal too?

http://www.bbc.com/sport/tennis/35770949

http://www.foxsports.com.au/tennis/rafael-nadal-tired-of-doping-rumours-and-insists-maria-sharapova

Edited March 10, 2016 by america de cali

[old dee 23,787]

5 minutes ago, america de cali said:

Surely not Rafael Nadal too?

http://www.bbc.com/sport/tennis/35770949

http://www.foxsports.com.au/tennis/rafael-nadal-tired-of-doping-rumours-and-insists-maria-sharapova

He said it ain't so!

[Ethan Tremblay 30,856]

1 hour ago, bing181 said:

She wasn't warned by WADA. And the only warning she received, was one that all tennis players received from their association, letting them know of upcoming changes in the classification of a product.

She was warned five times by WADA that Meldonium was going to be placed onto the WADA ban list.

Edited March 10, 2016 by Ethan Tremblay

[Macca 16,961]

On 3/10/2016 at 6:57 PM, Chris said:

I still cant see how taking something that is legal and available to everyone is an unfair advantage. It doesnt make sense.

Well some will agree with you and some will agree with me. 

So let's agree to disagree. 

I remember when EPO was first talked about and not on the banned list ... we all should know it's qualities by now but it was initially viewed with a deal of scepticism. 

Of course, it became the drug of choice for any number of cyclists but for quite a while the cyclists were taking it knowing they couldn't get done for it. And they knew it was a PED - in my opinion. 

As I mentioned earlier, what if steroids wasn't on the banned list? Would you be ok with an athlete taking steroids even though it wasn't banned? (hypothetically) 

 

 

Edited March 12, 2016 by Macca

[daisycutter 29,613]

22 minutes ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

She was warned five times by WADA that Meldonium was going to be placed onto the WADA ban list.

thought i read it was 3 times by (wada?) and 2 times by WTA

[Chris 2,892]

14 minutes ago, Macca said:

Well some will agree with you and some will agree with me. 

So let's agree to disagree. 

I remember when EPO was first talked about and not on the banned list ... we all should know it's qualities by now but it was initially viewed with a deal of scepticism. 

Of course, it became the drug of choice for any number of cyclists but for quite a while the cyclists were taking it knowing they couldn't get done for it. And they knew it was a PED - in my opinion. 

As I mentioned earlier, what if steroids wasn't on the banned list? Would you be ok with an athlete taking steroids even though it wasn't banned? (hypothetically) 

'Mandee' has conveniently ignored the same question but what about you? 

 

We will disagree on this but yes i would be happy for them to take it if it wasn't banned.  If you are allowed to use then that is that, you are allowed to use it. No different to using other rules to your advantage like the Hawks did in 08 when the rushed a million behinds in the GF. It was allowed so there is no problem.

[daisycutter 29,613]

3 minutes ago, Chris said:

We will disagree on this but yes i would be happy for them to take it if it wasn't banned.  If you are allowed to use then that is that, you are allowed to use it. No different to using other rules to your advantage like the Hawks did in 08 when the rushed a million behinds in the GF. It was allowed so there is no problem.

well i wouldn't say no problem, unless you just mean legally

the afl certainly had a problem with it, so much that they changed the rules. they deemed it not within the spirit of the game so i would call that a problem

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

Thing is, some legal drugs are harmful. This meldonium may have long term harmful effects, like steroids. Some drugs are banned to save people from themselves as much as preventive performance enhancement. Like AOD-9604. Jury is out on whether it aids performance (suspicion is that it doesn't) but no-one knows what happens to people who take it in such and such a dose over time.

[Chris 2,892]

5 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

well i wouldn't say no problem, unless you just mean legally

the afl certainly had a problem with it, so much that they changed the rules. they deemed it not within the spirit of the game so i would call that a problem

That comes down to a question of whether it should be banned or not. That is a different question to me.

[daisycutter 29,613]

all banned substances were at some time not banned. there is many good reasons why there is a delay before a substance is banned by wada. if athletes didn't use substances to unfairly give them a competitive edge then there would be no need to ban substances and have a wada. professionalism ($$$s) changed all that, but so too did nationalism and other factors.

no doubt the real problem here is the intention of the athlete in the taking of the substance and this is really what the debate is all about (as well as health reasons)

admittedly in determining what substances should be banned can sometimes be a hard line to draw. take simple glucose for example which is prevalent in many common foodstuffs that it would be impossible to ban it (but maximum dosage levels could be set based on health reasons).

[Chris 2,892]

4 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

all banned substances were at some time not banned. there is many good reasons why there is a delay before a substance is banned by wada. if athletes didn't use substances to unfairly give them a competitive edge then there would be no need to ban substances and have a wada. professionalism ($$$s) changed all that, but so too did nationalism and other factors.

no doubt the real problem here is the intention of the athlete in the taking of the substance and this is really what the debate is all about (as well as health reasons)

admittedly in determining what substances should be banned can sometimes be a hard line to draw. take simple glucose for example which is prevalent in many common foodstuffs that it would be impossible to ban it (but maximum dosage levels could be set based on health reasons).

Agreed. I suppose my point is that if it is within the rules it is fair game. One of the great things WADA do, and a big part of why they were formed, is put in place protection for the health of athletes. That is not seen as a role of theirs by the vast majority of people. 

Glucose would be all but impossible to ban but you could have acceptable levels as they do with caffeine. 

[Macca 16,961]

49 minutes ago, Chris said:

We will disagree on this but yes i would be happy for them to take it if it wasn't banned.  If you are allowed to use then that is that, you are allowed to use it.

Anabolic steroids? - are you for real?

Have you any inkling of the health issues that this drug brings? And you'd make anabolic steroids legal to take just so long as it wasn't banned. Any athlete? (all of them)

Astonishing.

You're obviously a bit of a stickler for rules but you've taken this one a tad too far.

Of course, you're the same person who won't purchase a MFC membership because of the transgressions of others - another astonishing stance.

You will punish your own club even though most (or all) of your membership fees goes directly to the club.

 

[daisycutter 29,613]

3 minutes ago, Chris said:

Agreed. I suppose my point is that if it is within the rules it is fair game. One of the great things WADA do, and a big part of why they were formed, is put in place protection for the health of athletes. That is not seen as a role of theirs by the vast majority of people. 

Glucose would be all but impossible to ban but you could have acceptable levels as they do with caffeine. 

chris, i understand your point about it "being within the rules" or being "legal", but you could also reword this as "not currently covered by the rules" or "not illegal" and you can see that this puts a whole different meaning to it.

as i say it is the intention of the athlete to gain an unfair advantage or cheat that i would focus on. it's the ethics of it more than the "law". we also need to lcontinually look at the forest and not the trees i.e. not get distracted at some of the marginal or peripheral issues of which there will always be some

[Chris 2,892]

18 minutes ago, Macca said:

Anabolic steroids? - are you for real?

Have you any inkling of the health issues that this drug brings? And you'd make anabolic steroids legal to take just so long as it wasn't banned. Any athlete? (all of them)

Astonishing.

You're obviously a bit of a stickler for rules but you've taken this one a tad too far.

Of course, you're the same person who won't purchase a MFC membership because of the transgressions of others - another astonishing stance.

You will punish your own club even though most (or all) of your membership fees goes directly to the club.

 

You have completly miss understood my stance and have actually put words in my mouth. Can you please point out where I said steroids shouldn't be banned, that they aren't harmful, and that athletes should be using them? You may find I actually have never said any of that. I do find it completly illogical that you think people cant do things the rules allow them to do. If there is a problem you change the rules, as they do. I am all for doing that but you can't get upset at someone for doing something that is not against the rules.

Maybe I am a stickler for the rules but that would come from competing at a state, national, and international level in an olympic sport, it gave me pretty good exposure to the code and how it works and how the elite athletes (who 15 years ago were ahead of where the AFL boys are today for professionalism and commitment) go about their business and how the top level of sport works.

My protest of not paying my membership is also against the AFL, I know the club gets punished but what power do we have other than memberships, bums on seats, and eyes on TV? They are our only three options. 

[Macca 16,961]

1 minute ago, Chris said:

You have completly miss understood my stance and have actually put words in my mouth. Can you please point out where I said steroids shouldn't be banned, that they aren't harmful, and that athletes should be using them? You may find I actually have never said any of that. I do find it completly illogical that you think people cant do things the rules allow them to do. If there is a problem you change the rules, as they do. I am all for doing that but you can't get upset at someone for doing something that is not against the rules.

Maybe I am a stickler for the rules but that would come from competing at a state, national, and international level in an olympic sport, it gave me pretty good exposure to the code and how it works and how the elite athletes (who 15 years ago were ahead of where the AFL boys are today for professionalism and commitment) go about their business and how the top level of sport works.

My protest of not paying my membership is also against the AFL, I know the club gets punished but what power do we have other than memberships, bums on seats, and eyes on TV? They are our only three options. 

You said ...

"I would be happy for them (the athletes) to take it (anabolic steroids) if it wasn't banned" How is that putting words in your mouth? You're the one who said it.

As for not buying a membership - there are other, more creative ways of punishing the AFL (and not your own club) The club needs as many members as it can get. Your stance lacks thought.

Don't watch or attend neutral games - there's a start.