Lachie Whitfield under investigation

[jnrmac 20,060]

6 hours ago, Choke said:

Huh?

'Steriods' are performance enhancing, my posts were pretty clearly about the illicit drug policy, in response to another poster's question about weed.

Performance enhancing drugs should be tested for regularly, on or off season.

There's no reason to test players for illicit drugs when they aren't playing or training, as in those circumstances they are not a risk to other players (or employees of the AFL, in this context).

Not sure if you've wilfully misinterpreted my posts, genuinely don't know the difference, or simply made a mistake, but you are extrapolating an example out of something I didn't say. I think it is your logic that is flawed.

Sure not all drugs are performance enhancing. Coke and ice are not supposed to be but players can run through brick walls and think they are bulletproof. That makes them performance enhancing in my book. 

As for weed well I have a simple response. It's illegal and they get paid well to play a highly competitive sport. If they want to indulge go find another career.

[Dr. Gonzo 24,215]

6 hours ago, ManDee said:

He is alleged to have broken his contract and a law.

To call any illegal drugs recreational is minimising the potential great harm that can occur when using drugs not manufactured to exacting safety standards. 

The players agreed to the testing, it is in the contract that every player signs. If in the future that is removed so be it, but for now they have agreed.

Clubs accept a role in protecting players at many levels including drug use. If a player breaks any law including traffic offences, drink driving, public nuisance, assault etc. the clubs become involved in helping the player. I put it to you that the purpose of this non PED drug testing was put into place to protect the players. If cocaine or other Rec. drug was laced with steroids or some other PED what would happen? What if Max Gawn smoked some grass,is that OK?  oh sorry it is listed as a PED  http://list.wada-ama.org/prohibited-in-competition/prohibited-substances/ What about cocaine, sorry PED. Amphetamines, sorry PED. Look at the list and tell me which party drugs are ok. How in hell are the players to know what is in any illegal drug?

 

Edit:- fix one of my no doubt many typos

Prohibited by WADA on match day, what they do in their personal time is their personal business.

[Dr. Gonzo 24,215]

7 hours ago, Choke said:

I don't think it's a long bow at all.

People take illicit drugs to alter their perception. While under the influence of altered perception, or coming down from it, they can be a danger to others.

Sticking them on a football field magnifies the danger, certainly more than would be present in most other work environments like an office.

It IS the AFL's jurisdiction because the AFL are law-bound to make the sport as 'safe' as they can within the rules of the sport. Illicit drug testing is one way they can mitigate the risk that their duty of care towards players is violated.

The AFL may well be found negligent if a player who has illicit drugs in their system causes damage or injury to another player that is attributable to a lapse in judgement or altered perception. The AFL should be testing for illicit drugs, but as I said, not while the players are on holiday (ie not training or playing) and the results should not be released to the public.

But what the AFL should do and what the AFL do do (heh, do do) are two completely different things.

Edit: any lawyers around care to weigh in on the issue? The above is just a result of my own reading on the issue.

Altered perception can also be caused by legal drugs like alcohol or excessive amounts of caffeine (like the Hawks - and others no doubt - were doing and probably still are). The AFL don't test for that though. You're probably as much of a risk to teammates at training hungover from alcohol than you would be coming down from ecstacy or coke. 

Edited August 31, 2016 by Dr. Gonzo

[Dr. Gonzo 24,215]

6 hours ago, ManDee said:

Argumentum ad absurdum does not help here. These are real issues, if you do not see the need for rules and regulations that is your choice. Highly paid athletes agree to conditions of employment. If you want to argue don't make up scenarios not agreed to anywhere, stick to the facts.

The point is though AFL players are tested above and beyond what a lot of other pro athletes are subjected to. Most athletes are signatories to the WADA code the AFL players also have an illicit drug code specifically for their competition. 

The NFL is not a signatory to the WADA code as far as I'm aware and there you see the ridiculous situation where a lot of players cop 4 week suspensions for PED's and others get a year for smoking weed and then another year for drinking alcohol after they were found guilty of smoking weed. Most other athletes though are not tested for recreational drugs because it has no impact on their profession.

[Dr. Gonzo 24,215]

6 hours ago, Choke said:

Fine. If there's reason to suspect a player did something negligent or dangerous due to being drug-impared, then sure, test them after the fact.

I'm not saying that there is a problem - yet. And to be honest, I shouldn't know if there is one. As a member of the public I shouldn't be privy to that information if the AFL's found that x% of their players are on some illicit drug.

I just really don't see a problem with the AFL:
a) reducing liability via a random testing regime
b) using results to better player welfare

You said before that illicit drugs are none of the AFL's business. Well, for liability reasons, I think it is - again with the proviso that it's only when the player is training and playing. Welfare reasons are debatable as the AFL seem to want to take this on themselves rather than it being a requirement, but it would be consistent at least with what they say about acting in the players' best interest.

So there's the divergence. We won't agree, let's move on.

I get what you're saying but I think you're overstating the effects of recreational drugs somewhat. People operating heavy machinery are tested for good reason. The risk of athletes to themselves or others days after having used something is so minimal as to be probably irrelevant. Put it this way, the cops drug test drivers for weed, amphetamines and opioids as far as I remember (coke is not tested for by the cops with the random drug driving tests). These tests generally only come up positive if you've taken something in the last few hours or so but possibly up to the next day (similar to alcohol breath testing) - and this is for people operating a vehicle on public roads. The potential for a footy player to cause harm to someone due to drug impairment days after consuming would be no different to someone a couple of days after a binge drinking session.

Edited August 31, 2016 by Dr. Gonzo

[Moonshadow 17,676]

1 hour ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Altered perception can also be caused by legal drugs like alcohol or excessive amounts of caffeine (like the Hawks - and others no doubt - were doing and probably still are). The AFL don't test for that though. You're probably as much of a risk to teammates at training hungover from alcohol than you would be coming down from ecstacy or coke. 

Yes, the AFL do test for excessive levels of caffeine as high levels are considered PE. I was told this by a recent AFL player. They take caffeine tablets (nodoze?), but are told how many to take so as to not go past the permissible limit.

And I doubt any club would let a player take the field with excessive amounts of alcohol in their system. They are permitted to drug and alcohol test their players, or at least have in the past.

Edited August 31, 2016 by Moonshadow

[SaberFang 7,151]

The pathetic thing is that GWS could have their number 1 draft pick banned for 4 years and it wouldn't even impact them.

[ManDee 7,134]

10 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Prohibited by WADA on match day, what they do in their personal time is their personal business.

The only mention of time I can find is within 6 months of competition.  So based on that their personal time is probably October or not at all.

[Dr. Gonzo 24,215]

2 hours ago, ManDee said:

The only mention of time I can find is within 6 months of competition.  So based on that their personal time is probably October or not at all.

Just did a very quick search on WADA in competition definition and came up with this from USADA website

"Substances and Methods Prohibited In-Competition Only

This section focuses on substances that are prohibited in-competition, only. These substances are not tested for out-of-competition.

It is very important to understand the definition of “in-competition.” Knowing how the sporting event defines the “in-competition” period is the athlete’s responsibility. Each International Federation (IF) may have a different definition and it may vary by event. For some events, this period may be defined as 12 hours before the start of the competition and different rules may apply to multi-day events (e.g, the Olympic Games)."

So effectively seems like it relates to game day only.

[jackaub 1,402]

On 8/31/2016 at 10:00 AM, pineapple dee said:

Dont waste money on drugs!!!!!!   Just give me the money so I can go to the casino.

 

[ManDee 7,134]

12 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Just did a very quick search on WADA in competition definition and came up with this from USADA website

"Substances and Methods Prohibited In-Competition Only

This section focuses on substances that are prohibited in-competition, only. These substances are not tested for out-of-competition.

It is very important to understand the definition of “in-competition.” Knowing how the sporting event defines the “in-competition” period is the athlete’s responsibility. Each International Federation (IF) may have a different definition and it may vary by event. For some events, this period may be defined as 12 hours before the start of the competition and different rules may apply to multi-day events (e.g, the Olympic Games)."

So effectively seems like it relates to game day only.

From the AFL   http://www.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL Tenant/AFL/Files/Schedule 6 - National Anti-Doping Code.pdf

In-Competition means, for purposes of differentiating between In-Competition and Out-of-Competition Testing, where a Player is selected for Testing on the day of a Match conducted in the AFL Home and Away Season, the AFL Finals Series, the AFL Pre-Season Series and the International Rules Series.

In other sports it is during the season. AFL taking the soft option.

So cocaine can stay in the system 2-4 days in urine, marijuana 1-67 days (generally 1-10), amphetamines 1-3 in blood 90days in hair (hi Ben Cousins) http://www.drugs.ie/drugs_info/about_drugs/how_long_do_drugs_stay_in_your_system/ 

[old55 23,564]

12 minutes ago, ManDee said:

From the AFL   http://www.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL Tenant/AFL/Files/Schedule 6 - National Anti-Doping Code.pdf

In-Competition means, for purposes of differentiating between In-Competition and Out-of-Competition Testing, where a Player is selected for Testing on the day of a Match conducted in the AFL Home and Away Season, the AFL Finals Series, the AFL Pre-Season Series and the International Rules Series.

In other sports it is during the season. AFL taking the soft option.

So cocaine can stay in the system 2-4 days in urine, marijuana 1-67 days (generally 1-10), amphetamines 1-3 in blood 90days in hair (hi Ben Cousins) http://www.drugs.ie/drugs_info/about_drugs/how_long_do_drugs_stay_in_your_system/ 

It's not the "soft option", the PE effects of these drugs is limited to the day they're taken.  The fact that they are detectable in urine for a long period after is actually a deterrent to use for non PE purposes.

[Undeeterred 3,123]

On 31 August 2016 at 1:01 PM, jnrmac said:

About being in the papers or the stupidity of taking drugs?

Being in the papers. I don't take drugs, for the record, but it is still a private matter. 

[Undeeterred 3,123]

On 31 August 2016 at 1:12 PM, ManDee said:

Breaking the law is breaking the law. And you say that is complete nonsense!

Hopefully you can see the flaw in your reasoning.

Mate, you've lost track of what you are arguing about.

The original point that DG made was that footballers shouldn't be being tested for illicit drugs, because it is none of their employers' business whether they take them. Mine was slightly different, in that I said if they were, the results shouldn't be in the public domain.

You said 'breaking the law is breaking the law'. 

I then asked what makes footballers different to everybody else, in that they should be actively drug tested because 'breaking the law is breaking the law'. If you go down that path, why aren't we all subject to drug testing every day, to make sure that we are not breaking the law. Because breaking the law is breaking the law, after all.

Your argument is absolute nonsense. You say that footballers should be tested for illegal drugs, because they shouldn't be allowed to get away with breaking the law. But you only pin this on footballers, not everybody else. What makes them different to you and me? I'm subject to complying with laws in exactly the same way as they are. As are you. 

I'm going to stop here, because there is clearly no point debating this further with you.

[ManDee 7,134]

9 minutes ago, Undeeterred said:

Mate, you've lost track of what you are arguing about.

The original point that DG made was that footballers shouldn't be being tested for illicit drugs, because it is none of their employers' business whether they take them. Mine was slightly different, in that I said if they were, the results shouldn't be in the public domain.

You said 'breaking the law is breaking the law'. 

I then asked what makes footballers different to everybody else, in that they should be actively drug tested because 'breaking the law is breaking the law'. If you go down that path, why aren't we all subject to drug testing every day, to make sure that we are not breaking the law. Because breaking the law is breaking the law, after all.

Your argument is absolute nonsense. You say that footballers should be tested for illegal drugs, because they shouldn't be allowed to get away with breaking the law. But you only pin this on footballers, not everybody else. What makes them different to you and me? I'm subject to complying with laws in exactly the same way as they are. As are you. 

I'm going to stop here, because there is clearly no point debating this further with you.

In the players work contact they have agreed to testing. They did not have to. Given that they have all signed contracts agreeing to the testing what is the problem with them being tested? Other workplaces have testing, perhaps more should. The point is once tested and being found to have broken the law what do you do? Surely this was a consideration of the players prior to signing.

PS:- I did not say players should be tested. But given it is a condition of employment they have agreed to why not. I do think there should be more testing in society generally, like doctors, nurses, taxi drivers users of heavy equipment etc. personally I would have no problem with being tested.  I have no problem with testing of drivers, do you?

 

Edited September 1, 2016 by ManDee

[Willmoy1947 4,085]

I read that Matt Thompson Report on Gws's  Lachie Whitfield. It is not saying that ASADA are sitting back watching proceedings and probably do not have more information.

That's very interesting for the Media, Public and the AFL to contemplate.

[Undeeterred 3,123]

12 hours ago, ManDee said:

In the players work contact they have agreed to testing. They did not have to. Given that they have all signed contracts agreeing to the testing what is the problem with them being tested? Other workplaces have testing, perhaps more should. The point is once tested and being found to have broken the law what do you do? Surely this was a consideration of the players prior to signing.

PS:- I did not say players should be tested. But given it is a condition of employment they have agreed to why not. I do think there should be more testing in society generally, like doctors, nurses, taxi drivers users of heavy equipment etc. personally I would have no problem with being tested.  I have no problem with testing of drivers, do you?

 

It. Should. Be. Private.

[monoccular 17,427]

On 30 August 2016 at 10:53 PM, Choke said:

Fine. If there's reason to suspect a player did something negligent or dangerous due to being drug-impared, then sure, test them after the fact.

I'm not saying that there is a problem - yet. And to be honest, I shouldn't know if there is one. As a member of the public I shouldn't be privy to that information if the AFL's found that x% of their players are on some illicit drug.

I just really don't see a problem with the AFL:
a) reducing liability via a random testing regime
b) using results to better player welfare

You said before that illicit drugs are none of the AFL's business. Well, for liability reasons, I think it is - again with the proviso that it's only when the player is training and playing. Welfare reasons are debatable as the AFL seem to want to take this on themselves rather than it being a requirement, but it would be consistent at least with what they say about acting in the players' best interest.

So there's the divergence. We won't agree, let's move on.

Does anyone really doubt that Ben Cousins running all day like a maniac in that GF years ago (did he win the NS Medal?) was not 'enhanced' by speed or a similar substance?   IF the AFL had taken and kept specimens from all players in that GF, and subjected them to testing, I wonder what the result would be and how they would have handled it?  Personal opinion is that it would be swept under a pile of rugs. Too hard to rescind a Premiership.

So, yes it is the AFL's business, and it should be taken seriously.

[faultydet 7,594]

On 02/09/2016 at 8:54 PM, Undeeterred said:

It. Should. Be. Private.

It. Isn't. So Stop. Whining. About. It

[ManDee 7,134]

On 9/2/2016 at 8:54 PM, Undeeterred said:

It. Should. Be. Private.

Elite sportsperson disappears and misses a game to avoid possible test. Yeah right, that will be private.

[Sir Why You Little 37,034]

4 hours ago, monoccular said:

Does anyone really doubt that Ben Cousins running all day like a maniac in that GF years ago (did he win the NS Medal?) was not 'enhanced' by speed or a similar substance?   IF the AFL had taken and kept specimens from all players in that GF, and subjected them to testing, I wonder what the result would be and how they would have handled it?  Personal opinion is that it would be swept under a pile of rugs. Too hard to rescind a Premiership.

So, yes it is the AFL's business, and it should be taken seriously.

Well said

[Ethan Tremblay 30,856]

Who is that Patrick imbecile that is on SEN with Kevin Bartlett? This morning he said getting players away from ththe clubs has nothing to do with dodging a drug test but it's to do with player safety. Getting the drug affected player away from the club so he doesn't injure himself or another player. Pull the other one Patrick you [censored], it has everything to do with dodging a drug test. 

Edited September 6, 2016 by Ethan Tremblay

[PaulRB 6,362]

This will sound stupid, but... "How does Lachie Whitfield get to play in an AFL final series when he's 

1. suspected of intentionally avoiding a drug test for PEDs,

2. taken illegal drugs,

3. brought the game into disrepute...???

Weirdly it's been know about and "investigated" for much of this year, yet won't be resolved till after the finals...

Blows my mind how corrupt and blind the AFL have become.

 

 

Edited September 6, 2016 by PaulRB

[Mach5 4,767]

4 minutes ago, PaulRB said:

This will sound stupid, but... "How does Lachie Whitfield get to play in an AFL final series when he's 

1. suspected of intentionally avoiding a drug test for PEDs,

2. taken illegal drugs,

3. brought the game into disrepute...???

Weirdly it's been know about and "investigated" for much of this year, yet won't be resolved till after the finals...

Blows my mind how corrupt and blind the AFL have become.

 

 

 

Correct - not sure any of this has been proven true at this time.

[PaulRB 6,362]

Just now, Mach5 said:

 

Correct - not sure any of this has been proven true at this time.

So when did the "alleged" infraction occur?

and why haven't the AFL protected the integrity of the 2016 Finals by ensuring it is resolved prior to now?