1 minute ago, DV8 said:

.........

Let the hair tests begin...  from the top down.   Starting with  Gillon,  and the commissions themselves...  then all the way down thru club CEO's,  and administrations,  and onto staff,  and then players.

Test them all,  if they want things to change.

and them pretenders in the northern stand too, eh?

3 hours ago, rjay said:

...and they are treated as such if they are found in their system on game day as happened to the C/wood player last season.

So there is no problem if the AFL don't test, the performance enhancing aspect is already covered by WADA.

 

Collingwood players never tested positive for illicit drugs on game day. They tested positive to performance enhancing drugs. Which they claimed was within the illicit drugs they had took on the weekend.

4 hours ago, rjay said:

So there is no problem if the AFL don't test, the performance enhancing aspect is already covered by WADA.

If WADA had their way the AFL would conduct weekly or fortnightly blood tests (for PED use)

As it stands the AFL conducts (on average) 1 urine test per player per year.  Which is a token effort.

36 minutes ago, Macca said:

If WADA had their way the AFL would conduct weekly or fortnightly blood tests (for PED use)

As it stands the AFL conducts (on average) 1 urine test per player per year.  Which is a token effort.

The AFL conducts the urine tests? I thought it was ASADA that did that.

1 hour ago, Grimes Times said:

Collingwood players never tested positive for illicit drugs on game day. They tested positive to performance enhancing drugs. Which they claimed was within the illicit drugs they had took on the weekend.

Not this case 'Grimes'

...but Sam Murray who was tested positive on match day.

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/magpie-sam-murray-being-investigated-by-asada-20180824-p4zzh0.html

Interesting discussion.

From childhood we are taught that cheating is wrong. Therefore, the majority view the taking of performance enhancing substances as cheating.  And we pass judgement. 

Cheats are people that break the rules.

But it is not that simple. Some substances are banned, some not. Sports scientists around the world are always looking to find or develop substances that improve performance. When steroids were exposed the science and the sportspeople had moved on to EPO, and, later still, growth hormone and similar substances. So the line between banned and non banned substances is thin, despite the fact that non banned substances may improve performance. Caffeine for example.  But we don't regard drinking coffee or taking caffeine pills before an event as cheating.

Most sports participants consume or take supplements that they think will improve performance and the chance of winning. Some are banned, some not.  Often the moral question is blurred by the view that everyone else is doing it, therefore making it more acceptable. 

In regard to illicit recreational drugs, there are those that think it is wrong and should be punished. And in most cases it is a criminal offence. There are others that regard taking drugs as a normal and acceptable pastime. The use of marijuana is a case in point. Marijuana can be pleasurable and safe for some and also can assist those in pain and with mental illness.  Yet at the same time, it can damage peoples health and well being. In some cases these recreational drugs can improve physical performance. In other cases, it can adversely affect performance. 

What's, the answer ?

Like all health issues, information and education can assist.

Drug testing and punishment only goes so far and will never eradicate the behaviour.

Human nature being what it is, many will continue to take substances that make themselves feel better, improve performance and in the case of sport, give themselves an advantage, whether it is viewed as cheating or not 

In some cases, it can lead to the ravages of addiction. Cousins is an example of a life destroyed. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ignoring the moral arguments, I'm amazed that professional athletes who seem to have to pursue highly specific diets and exercise regimens would then participate in taking substances that wouldn't be on any list approved by the club's dietitians or sports scientists.

57 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

The AFL conducts the urine tests? I thought it was ASADA that did that.

I obviously 'meant' conducted tests ... whoever does those tests was never my point.

So what do you think about the AFL's token efforts towards PED use?

I urune test per year per player ... it might be 2 tests. 

Do you think the sport is clean?

14 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Ignoring the moral arguments, I'm amazed that professional athletes who seem to have to pursue highly specific diets and exercise regimens would then participate in taking substances that wouldn't be on any list approved by the club's dietitians or sports scientists.

And when Hogan was photographed smoking a cigarette that freaked me out a bit. What was the point, there is no upside. At least with most recreational drugs there is some sort of nice mood altering pay off. Ciggies are merely the worlds slowest form of suicide

2 hours ago, daisycutter said:

and them pretenders in the northern stand too, eh?

If they are board members, dc, YES.

 

How much white powders do you think we would all find out about, if all CEO's and Board Members across the Australian business nation,  were Hair Tested ?

 

Like the catholic news today, we would all be shocked by the revelations.

42 minutes ago, Macca said:

I obviously 'meant' conducted tests ... whoever does those tests was never my point.

So what do you think about the AFL's token efforts towards PED use?

I urune test per year per player ... it might be 2 tests. 

Do you think the sport is clean?

Where does the one or two tests per year figure come from?

To answer your question, I don't know whether the AFL's efforts are "token" or otherwise. What I do know is that I find any use of performance enhancing drugs or masking agents abhorrent and any use of recreational drugs by professional athletes to be bizarrely stupid behaviour. 

The last few days Grant Thomas has stated players are citing "mental health issues" to dodge the illicit drug policy. Nick Riewoldt has backed it up by saying players are taking the p.iss. Now Jack Steven is taking indefinite leave from the Saints for "mental health" reasons

Just sayin....

We wish Jack all the best.

7 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Where does the one or two tests per year figure come from?

Try google  - you'll have your answer in no time.

The trouble with the AFL policy is any player who takes time off with mental problems (or a long term mystery injury) will be painted with the drug brush even if it is far from true.

17 minutes ago, Macca said:

Try google  - you'll have your answer in no time.

Tried...and failed. Mind you, it's not that I don't want to believe you, I'm just following Ronald Reagan's policy of "Trust but verify".

18 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Tried...and failed. Mind you, it's not that I don't want to believe you, I'm just following Ronald Reagan's policy of "Trust but verify".

Bottom line ...

They may as well shut WADA down ... a miniscule organisation with no teeth.  Not their fault either ... it is just the way it is LDvC.

On 2/25/2019 at 11:32 AM, Ethan Tremblay said:

One strike and I lose my job. The AFL are ridiculously lenient on their players. I have no doubt that this ‘leniency’ contributes to players dabbling in illegal drug use. 

Exactly right. 

Drugs are illegal. You get caught you get punished. Sure you don’t get a jail sentence on a first strike, but you’ll likely get a good behavior bond, maybe community service or a suspended sentence. Why are AFL players excluded from that?

3 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Tried...and failed

You're right,  there's not much there (although there was a few years ago)

Found this article but I think if the figure was North of 1500 tests per year these days there would be some sort of recent internet history pointing us that way.  And with 700+ players in the system,  the average wouldn't be more than 2 tests per year.   And they aren't blood tests (which is another issue)

By the way,  the reason I've brought PED use into the conversation is that I see a correlation & connection between illicit drugs & performance enhancing drugs.  Just my opinion but the dealers would be dealing both so why wouldn't those seeking these drugs seek both?  

AFL targets stars for performance-enhancing drugs testing (May 2011)

3 hours ago, Macca said:

You're right,  there's not much there (although there was a few years ago)

Found this article but I think if the figure was North of 1500 tests per year these days there would be some sort of recent internet history pointing us that way.  And with 700+ players in the system,  the average wouldn't be more than 2 tests per year.   And they aren't blood tests (which is another issue)

By the way,  the reason I've brought PED use into the conversation is that I see a correlation & connection between illicit drugs & performance enhancing drugs.  Just my opinion but the dealers would be dealing both so why wouldn't those seeking these drugs seek both?  

AFL targets stars for performance-enhancing drugs testing (May 2011)

Maybe the holes in the NET weren't big enough, 'DC' ?

 

Me thinks Eddie protests too much.
I heard a rumour a while back it was his mob dodging tests with mental health issues.

Edited February 26, 20196 yr by Fork 'em

15 hours ago, jnrmac said:

The last few days Grant Thomas has stated players are citing "mental health issues" to dodge the illicit drug policy. Nick Riewoldt has backed it up by saying players are taking the p.iss. Now Jack Steven is taking indefinite leave from the Saints for "mental health" reasons

Just sayin....

We wish Jack all the best.

So an official declaration from any club that "player X now has a mental health issue and is stepping aside from the game for an undefined period of time" means he is ineligible for testing while absent?

12 hours ago, Macca said:

You're right,  there's not much there (although there was a few years ago)

Found this article but I think if the figure was North of 1500 tests per year these days there would be some sort of recent internet history pointing us that way.  And with 700+ players in the system,  the average wouldn't be more than 2 tests per year.   And they aren't blood tests (which is another issue)

By the way,  the reason I've brought PED use into the conversation is that I see a correlation & connection between illicit drugs & performance enhancing drugs.  Just my opinion but the dealers would be dealing both so why wouldn't those seeking these drugs seek both?  

AFL targets stars for performance-enhancing drugs testing (May 2011)

I think including PEDs in the discussion is unavoidable. There's a fine line between "recreational" and "performance enhancing" at the best of times which becomes even more blurred when you include masking agents.

15 hours ago, Jaded said:

Exactly right. 

Drugs are illegal. You get caught you get punished. Sure you don’t get a jail sentence on a first strike, but you’ll likely get a good behavior bond, maybe community service or a suspended sentence. Why are AFL players excluded from that?

They're not. If the police catch them with drugs they get charged. Simple.

It is not the AFL's - or any employer for that matter - job to catch and punish players who break the law. If it is why stop at drug use. What about tax avoidance?  Assault? Copyright?

5 minutes ago, binman said:

They're not. If the police catch them with drugs they get charged. Simple.

It is not the AFL's - or any employer for that matter - job to catch and punish players who break the law. If it is why stop at drug use. What about tax avoidance?  Assault? Copyright?

The AFL, and professional sport in general, is not like most workplaces. That's why the AFL has an enforceable rule that allows action to be taken against a player or official who may not have even broken a law but "brings the game into disrepute". Not many businesses (or vocations) have the ability to take action for bringing that particular industry (vocation) into "disrepute". Though recent findings of some Royal Commissions perhaps suggest it would be a good idea. 

11 hours ago, Rusty Nails said:

So an official declaration from any club that "player X now has a mental health issue and is stepping aside from the game for an undefined period of time" means he is ineligible for testing while absent?

Not sure but its an interesting point. MH would take precendence you would think.