ManDee

Personally I think it would look better in invisible ink.

They may be keen on one.

That is what I though of Gysberts, but in reverse order.

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/

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.

Many illicit drugs appear on the WADA list of prohibited substances during completion. The fact that the AFL have a 3 strike policy suggests to me that they are protecting the players from WADA bans. Whitfield is alleged to have broken a rule that he must advise of his whereabouts for testing purposes. It would appear that he has received bad advice. This sounds like Essendon again, being too smart by half. The destroyed records coming back to bite them and Whitfield hiding should bite him too. Have the AFL got the gonads to enforce the rules? My guess is no.

That seems to be the problem Fifty, both cocaine and methamphetamine are listed as PED's (EDIT-Sorry Prohibited substances) on the WADA site. So I think the AFL is trying to protect the players and by that I mean protect themselves.

I shall reword my question. Which illicit drugs do you think the AFL should not worry about? How can a player be sure that illegally sourced illicit drugs are free from PED's? Have you had a look at the WADA link? PS:- Thanks for the lively discussion.

Which illicit drugs are you suggesting are OK? I would suggest that alcohol is a bigger problem but that is legal. Yes I have broken the law. Speeding is a law that I have broken and have been punished for it, I hardly ever speed now. Have a look at the WADA list, it may surprise you. http://list.wada-ama.org/prohibited-in-competition/prohibited-substances/ and I do think it is the AFL's business - for the moment.

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.

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

Where did that come from? I am talking about a player that did not follow AFL and WADA protocol by advising his whereabouts, as required, in case a drug test was called. That is a term of his employment with the AFL. This player with the aid of club employees disappeared and was unable to be located in case a drug test was required. The reason for disappearing was top avoid any drug test. It is claimed the player was using illegal drugs and was attempting to avoid being caught. That is the case as I understand it. The player may have taken a drug that was illegal, the drug or drugs may or may not have had performance enhancing properties, that is illegal. He has a contract that he is claimed to have breached. He is alleged to have used illegal drugs. He has a contact stating that he agrees to notify his whereabouts and did he not. He has a contact stating that he agrees to drug testing and he hid to avoid testing. What is the problem? If you sign a contact agreeing to testing and refuse or hide then you are breaking the rules and should accept the penalty. I have not undertaken to be drug tested to work in my profession and would have no problem being random tested, perhaps you do, perhaps this says more about you and your proclivities. If people break the law they deserve to be dealt with.

Breaking the law is breaking the law. And you say that is complete nonsense! Hopefully you can see the flaw in your reasoning.

Yes I can. Breaking the law is breaking the law. No one should break the law, and that is the logical endpoint. The extension is if the law is wrong you change the law, you don't simply break the law.

Seriously? Avoiding drug testing will become nothing! I hope not, I have given up on the Olympics I'd hate to give up on footy.

DG, are you seriously suggesting that breaking the law is not a problem? Historically PED's have been found in illegal drugs, who knows what ends up in them? As professional athletes covered by the WADA code they should be very careful with everything that they consume. In avoiding testing they break the rules of the competition and the WADA code. If being paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to play sport and be looked up to as a hero is not enough, then give up sport and disappear in a drug infused fog, otherwise play by the rules.

I would posit that 3 year olds get better.

Why? Perhaps you don't understand probabilities.

Saty, I call apple the evil empire, that or Granny Smith

What if a politician failed or refused a drug test, or a journalist, or a bus driver, or a school teacher? AFL footballers rightly or wrongly are seen as role models. If you refuse a drug/alcohol test while driving you are deemed guilty. This has become public because nothing has happened in over a year since the whistle blower raised concerns. I think it appropriate that it is now in the public domain. I hope that it is not swept under the carpet by the AFL, sigh!

I am sure there is a r missing.

Thinking of Jaeger O'Meara. New car, hardly driven over several years, has had several crashes, may or may not run again, could be a racing car if repairs work = 2 first round picks.

lol omg i wuz laughing about time sum 1pointed this out 2 us young people it doesnt matter so much time is wasted worrying about these things will it matter at all down the road ?? It matters.

My dear friend, when I said "defiant you are", that is what I meant. The context is lost when abbreviated. Communication is based on the sending, receiving and understanding of information, grammar and spelling help us to understand the message. Some people don't care and that is their choice, but others, like me need the nuances of language to truly understand. I may be a pedantic old fool but hopefully you know what I think.