3 minutes ago, Macca said:

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.

 

And you said I would make them legal to take if they weren't banned. No where have I said they shouldn't be banned. As I said earlier you can not judge users of these drugs in the past by todays standard. They did not know what we know now.

I also wont be watching or attending eutral games or any game involving the dons. I am actually very close to walking from the entire sport due to the complete disregard for fairness and and integrity within the AFL community, not just in AFL house.

Just now, Chris said:

And you said I would make them legal to take if they weren't banned. No where have I said they shouldn't be banned. As I said earlier you can not judge users of these drugs in the past by todays standard. They did not know what we know now.

I also wont be watching or attending eutral games or any game involving the dons. I am actually very close to walking from the entire sport due to the complete disregard for fairness and and integrity within the AFL community, not just in AFL house.

For what it's worth, I don't have much of an issue with your 2nd paragraph ... but don't punish your own club. We might have made a number of errors of judgement in the more recent past but the club needs every membership that it can get. I'm assuming you can afford one of course. 

My question about non-banned PED's (in this case, anabolic steroids - hypothetically) highlights the fact that a number of highly potent PED's were at some stage not banned ... these same exact drugs don't change in nature once they are banned.

And, many or most athletes knowingly took these "non-banned" PED's to gain an unfair advantage - and please, I don't want to have to address nonsense other examples such as "long legs" or "extra strong coffees" ... by the way, those silly examples were put forward by yourself and a couple of other people on this thread - not by me. I was only addressing the PED's that are worth talking about. 

 

10 minutes ago, Macca said:

For what it's worth, I don't have much of an issue with your 2nd paragraph ... but don't punish your own club. We might have made a number of errors of judgement in the more recent past but the club needs every membership that it can get. I'm assuming you can afford one of course. 

My question about non-banned PED's (in this case, anabolic steroids - hypothetically) highlights the fact that a number of highly potent PED's were at some stage not banned ... these same exact drugs don't change in nature once they are banned.

And, many or most athletes knowingly took these "non-banned" PED's to gain an unfair advantage - and please, I don't want to have to address nonsense other examples such as "long legs" or "extra strong coffees" ... by the way, those silly examples were put forward by yourself and a couple of other people on this thread - not by me. I was only addressing the PED's that are worth talking about. 

 

I am over the errors we made and for the first time in a long time am exited by our future. That is unfortunately being ruined by the rest of the AFL issues.

I understand the issue with health effects of drugs and agree they need to be found and drug. I just fail to see how it unfair if the rules allow it. That doesnt mean the rules shouldn't change and i am glad they do as our knowledge grows. Just like in every other aspect of life it is unfair to judge those of the past by todays standards. I also didnt bring up long legs and fast twitch. Strong coffee is an interesting one though as caffeine is actually a banned substance (or at least was when i went through the WADA training in the 90's) but wasn't completly banned but was past a certain point, which from memory was something like 10 cups a day.

On 3/10/2016 at 9:58 PM, Chris said:

I am over the errors we made and for the first time in a long time am exited by our future. That is unfortunately being ruined by the rest of the AFL issues.

I understand the issue with health effects of drugs and agree they need to be found and drug. I just fail to see how it unfair if the rules allow it. That doesnt mean the rules shouldn't change and i am glad they do as our knowledge grows. Just like in every other aspect of life it is unfair to judge those of the past by todays standards. I also didnt bring up long legs and fast twitch. Strong coffee is an interesting one though as caffeine is actually a banned substance (or at least was when i went through the WADA training in the 90's) but wasn't completly banned but was past a certain point, which from memory was something like 10 cups a day.

And I'm not doing that ... I'm simply saying that if an athlete knowingly takes a PED that he or she knows will give them an unfair advantage, I have a problem with that (whether the PED is banned or not) It's an opinion of mine of which you don't like or share.

I'm not advocating that athletes necessarily be punished for using a non-banned PED but I'm quite entitled to have my own strong stance against such a practice.

Anyway, I don't agree with your stance either. Especially your stance where you would happily allow athletes to use anabolic steroids - justifying that notion all because "it's not on the banned list" (hypothetically) is not something that I can agree with.

You also said this earlier today ... "Otherwise you could say Sandilands has an unfair advantage over big max because he has a better diet!" ... I'm specifically talking about PED's so that is not a good example of where I'm coming from.

Here's another hypothetical to ponder ...

If TB4 was not listed as a "banned" PED in time to nail the Bombers, would those here who have condemned Essendon change their stance? Assuming that we knew that TB4 was a PED (even though it wasn't on the banned list)

Bombers squeaky clean? yes? no?

It's just a hypothetical of course because history tells us that TB4 was banned in time.

 

Remind me never to buy any "Head" product who are going to extend her ladyship's racket contract.

 

8 hours ago, Macca said:

Here's another hypothetical to ponder ...

If TB4 was not listed as a "banned" PED in time to nail the Bombers, would those here who have condemned Essendon change their stance? Assuming that we knew that TB4 was a PED (even though it wasn't on the banned list)

Bombers squeaky clean? yes? no?

It's just a hypothetical of course because history tells us that TB4 was banned in time.

 

I woulsnt have any issue with TB4 use if it wasn't banned. 

What you have yet to explain is how you decide what is a PED and what isn't, that is where the Sandilands commentcomes in. A better diet will boost your performance, why would you not count that, where is that line. My stance is that you let WADA draw that line, otherwise you condemn people for playing within the rules.

I also fail to see how using something that is within the rules is unfair, can you explain how it is? 

I come from a background of family involvement in two very technical sports where engineer design plays a big part. Engineers are employed to push the rules to edge to find any little advantage that is within the rules. This is no different. If you follow F1 did you have an issue with Red Bull having the double diffuser? It was legal, anyone could have done it but they didnt think of it, and it gave Red Bull a clear advantage?

1 hour ago, old dee said:

Remind me never to buy any "Head" product who are going to extend her ladyship's racket contract.

 

cue uncle bitters

13 hours ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

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

"Sharapova had been warned on five separate occasions — three from the International Tennis Federation (ITF) and two from the Women's Tennis Association (WTA) — that meldonium had been added to the list of banned substances."

44 minutes ago, Chris said:

I woulsnt have any issue with TB4 use if it wasn't banned. 

What you have yet to explain is how you decide what is a PED and what isn't,

A PED is a performance enhancing drug that has been exposed as performance enhancing drug (but not necessarily on the banned list)

We now know that Meldonium was a PED before it was banned - so, in retrospect, we find out that athletes take these PED's (like Meldonium) before WADA gets the chance to ban them. But the drug doesn't suddenly change it's properties as soon as it gets banned. The other thing to consider is that by the time that WADA have got around to banning a PED, the athletes have often moved on to their next drug of choice.

I don't follow your logic because your logic doesn't take into account morals, ethics and integrity. With you, it's "anything goes" unless it's on a banned list - and I don't agree.

As stated earlier, this is somewhat of a conscience vote - some will take my stance, others will agree with you. I reckon we've exhausted this subject matter but both of us have had the the chance to state our case.

Let's agree to disagree.

17 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. 

 

Look, I was being mischievious because its not as black and white as you make out. You have a passionate view. Fine. No problem with that. But there are many things that give an advantage. and there are many drugs where the difference between them is so slight as to be barely perceptible yet the outcome of taking them is different and different for different people. Performance enhancing is a very grey term.

Caffeine has very little effect on me but I have read some athletes dose up on caffeine and feel totally buzzed. Is that an advantage for them? What about about aspirin? Makes the blood flow more freely. Beta blockers are used by shooters because they calm nerves and breathing yet many beta blockers are natural.

There are clearly drugs that are well over any 'grey' line such as anabolic steroids but there are hundreds if not thousands of drugs and supplements where a line drawn by some regulator is somewhat arbitrary. Nonetheless there is a line and if you cross it you get done.

You can't make moralistic statements about 'any PED that gives you an unfair advantage should be banned' because its impractical, undefinable, impossible to police and totally unrealistic.

 

11 hours ago, jnrmac said:

Look, I was being mischievious because its not as black and white as you make out. You have a passionate view. Fine. No problem with that. But there are many things that give an advantage. and there are many drugs where the difference between them is so slight as to be barely perceptible yet the outcome of taking them is different and different for different people. Performance enhancing is a very grey term.

Caffeine has very little effect on me but I have read some athletes dose up on caffeine and feel totally buzzed. Is that an advantage for them? What about about aspirin? Makes the blood flow more freely. Beta blockers are used by shooters because they calm nerves and breathing yet many beta blockers are natural.

There are clearly drugs that are well over any 'grey' line such as anabolic steroids but there are hundreds if not thousands of drugs and supplements where a line drawn by some regulator is somewhat arbitrary. Nonetheless there is a line and if you cross it you get done.

You can't make moralistic statements about 'any PED that gives you an unfair advantage should be banned' because its impractical, undefinable, impossible to police and totally unrealistic.

 

Like anyone here, I can have any opinion that I like (within reason) ... on any subject.

If anyone is seeing things in too much of a black and white way it's the likes of you ... "if it's not banned, it's fine, if it is banned, throw the book at them"

I'm seeing the nuance because I don't have such a 'cut & dried' opinion on PED use ... anyway, it's not like any sort of opinion on this matter is going to change how things are acted upon.

We are merely onlookers in the whole scheme of things.  

8 minutes ago, Macca said:

I can have any opinion that I like (within reason) .... you don't get to tell me how to think. 

If anyone is seeing things in too much of a black and white way it's the likes of you ... "if it's not banned it's fine, if it is banned, throw the book at them"

I'm seeing the nuance but I don't expect you to recognise that  

I think the difference of opinion is actually closer than it seems. If I am taking what you say and understanding ir right you dont like people taking anything that may be seen as performance enhancing to the broad community. The vast majority of these things end up banned, and rightly so. I certainly don't agree with having people allowed to take performance enhancing substances. The difference of opinion comes from an acceptance of regulation of what is deemed to be ethical and legal. Someone has to draw that line and then everyone plays within that line.

I veiw it like a playground, the fence around the playground is the rules, within that play ground you have to act with common decency and within the laws of the land but in terms of what you do it is up to you no matter how close to the fence you get. In motor racing millions of dollars are spent to get as close as possible without going past the fence. That includes dollars on the cars and on the best sports science for the drivers. There is a clear fence and that is what makes it fair and equitable. If you find a way to get closer than your competitor then well done. If you introduce another imaginary fence that varies depending on the opinions of people from day to day then no one knows where they stand and pretty much everyone can be seen as acting unethically at any point in time depending on whos standard you live by. 

Footy isn't a sport where the rules aren't pushed all that much at all so it is somwhat foreign in the grand scheme of things.

One question, do you think Australia should have won the Americas Cup in 83'. Ben Lexen pushed the rules and found a legal advantage that helped us win, was he ethical or right to do so. 

25 minutes ago, Macca said:

I can have any opinion that I like (within reason) .... you don't get to tell me how to think. 

If anyone is seeing things in too much of a black and white way it's the likes of you ... "if it's not banned it's fine, if it is banned, throw the book at them"

I'm seeing the nuance but I don't expect you to recognise that  

Now you are just being petulant and rude. What a glass jaw you must have. There is no need to denigrate a posters view. I haven't done that of you. I fully recognise your right to your opinion and said so. Don't put words in my mouth to suit your argument either.

 

My God this is boring !!!!

With all due respect jnrmac, Chris & Mandee, I disagree. 

old dee is right, it's boring

 

 

Edit: As for denigration and rudeness, people here might want to scroll back and see where that all started (and by whom)

 

 

8 minutes ago, Macca said:

With all due respect jnrmac, Chris $ Ma dee, I disagree. 

old dee is right, it's boring

Can you at least answer my questions? And what is with the dollar sign, is it a typo?

17 minutes ago, Macca said:

With all due respect jnrmac, Chris $ Ma dee, I disagree. 

old dee is right, it's boring

 

Macca, I'm not having a go, needed something to quote.

  Sorry, but it's getting boring.

If you swap the word Tennis for AFL ...

Sorority support for Maria Sharapova adds to belief that tennis turns a blind eye to scandal

 

53 minutes ago, Cards13 said:

If you swap the word Tennis for AFL ...

Sorority support for Maria Sharapova adds to belief that tennis turns a blind eye to scandal

 

Exactly what I was thinking. Sharapova was careless at best but the tennis world swiftly circled its protective ring like a wagon train under attack from Indians. Very reminiscent of the way the EFC and the blokey types within the AFL (like Sammy Newman) got around Hird and the Bombers. In the end, it doesn't matter if the gear is Mexican, Latvian, Chinese or made here, if it's a banned performance enhancing substance, it has to be stamped out and those who use it, wittingly or unwittingly, deserve to be punished.

The question has also been raised that the Sharapova camp knew meldonium was performance enhancing  but took it ostensibly for medicinal purposes and got away with it for ten years. If that's the case, and how do you prove it, she was being unethical and immoral and doing "whatever it takes" as James Hird would no doubt say. That's why WADA will always have the job ahead of it.

28 minutes ago, Whispering_Jack said:

Exactly what I was thinking. Scharapova was careless at best but the tennis world swiftly circled its protective ring like a wagon train under attack from Indians. Very reminiscent of the way the EFC and the blokey types within the AFL (like Sammy Newman) got around Hird and the Bombers. In the end, it doesn't matter if the gear is Mexican, Latvian, Chinese or made here, if it's a banned performance enhancing substance, it has to be stamped out and those who use it, wittingly or unwittingly, deserve to be punished.

Indeed WJ, Tim Lane has a similar article in The Age as well but a little softer. 

Apparently jake Carlisle wants to sue the saints cos they havent paid him yet ???? blokes a drug cheat