Peter Gordon explores Swiss appeal and injunction on suspension

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
mxett said:
but thats the point, how many players are actively ensuring their clubs staff use WADA compliant drinks? Or are they just assuming the club is looking after this for them? I'm not comparing this to Essendon's failings, I'm using it as an example of were the WADA code is difficult in a club setting.
Click to expand...
How exactly more difficult then the relationship between an individual swimmer and coach? How does a club setting make monitoring your WADA compliance more than a cycling team? I get that trainers run out with drinks and (real) club doctors may inject anaesthetics. A club can establish injections only to be provided my the club doctor - and provide a full (real) list of all medicines and supplements used for a player to further research himself if there are concerns. In the event of an issue, no significant fault or no fault might just get up.

Of course, clubs with unsafe environments, randoms giving injections to players and staff, encouraging secrecy etc - players should be alert to risks. In EFCs case a few players do seem to have been alert, but carried on anyway.

Or players wanted a competitive advantage and would wear a risk for it, no?

There is a point where the media and others need to cease with the mythical extreme vulnerability and incapacity of AFL players, as some particular and special group, beyond any other athlete individual or team, child or adult. Their hours are better than mine, these people aren't time poor comparatively and a fair few get more money. So why are they less able to spend some time and effort on their WADA compliance? A bit of responsibility would be nice. Even after the event. FFS - one ****ing player having the grace to say I realise that I have been found to be in breach of the WADA code, and while not liking the circumstances I understand and accept the penalty, that would be a big step and go a long way to establishing some patience and sympathy from the not-perfect-either public.
 
Muggs said:
It's no different to any other sport, pretty much all professional atheltes rely on support staff to some extent, be it coach, trainer, caddy in golf, your pit crew in motor racing. It's rare now days to have the athelte wholly on their own.
Click to expand...
one difference I can see is an individual athlete can appoint their own support staff who work for them, where as a player in a large club must trust staff employed by others
TheArchivist said:
Oh come on, mxett - be realistic. If clubs are using gatorade or powerade - you know, the drinks with the little cardboard seal you have to peel off before you can drink it - then you're fairly safe in assuming that a commercially-available electrolyte drink full of sodium and sugar is WADA compliant. The WADA code is *not* difficult in a club setting.
Click to expand...
the players appear to drink from generic club bottles, not gatorade bottles
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Randomizor said:
I'm still yet to see/hear why the players would lie directly to a Doping Control Officer when asked about their supplement usage over the last 7 days.
Click to expand...
Well if you go by what has been written on here, apparently every single one of them picked up a 12 month virus called 'collective amnesia'
I kid you not, people actually believe that
 
Randomizor said:
I'm still yet to see/hear why the players would lie directly to a Doping Control Officer when asked about their supplement usage over the last 7 days.
Click to expand...
Especially considering Hird says it wasn't a club directive. Seems odd.

So let's assume for a second it was a Dank and Robinson directive, why wouldn't the club say as much, really throw them under the bus? It would certainly help with the "rogue" storyline.

If it was a Dank directive, and the players as we now know, followed, why has no one said as much?


The silence is deafening, and the longer no one explains just who's idea it was to keep the "Thymosin" injections a secret, the more it looks like everyone was in on it.

P.s If you find the Baker and McKenzie article about the doctor shopping all the dots become connected much easier.
 
Last edited:
mxett said:
one difference I can see is an individual athlete can appoint their own support staff who work for them, where as a player in a large club must trust staff employed by others

the players appear to drink from generic club bottles, not gatorade bottles
Click to expand...
True. They mix it up from commercially available powders that you can buy from Coles. Still just sodium and sugar. Begs the question then - if EFC are so diligent about making sure that what they take is WADA compliant, why use drugs compounded from raw ingredients imported from China? Because surely the drugs they use are commercially available, by prescriptions, for genuine medical conditions. Unless Dank et al were planning on using the 'Chinese contamination' defence if they ever tested positive....
 
TheArchivist said:
True. They mix it up from commercially available powders that you can buy from Coles. Still just sodium and sugar. Begs the question then - if EFC are so diligent about making sure that what they take is WADA compliant, why use drugs compounded from raw ingredients imported from China? Because surely the drugs they use are commercially available, by prescriptions, for genuine medical conditions. Unless Dank et al were planning on using the 'Chinese contamination' defence if they ever tested positive....
Click to expand...
again, Im not comparing it to Essendon, I understand that was on a completely different level. My point is a club environment makes it impractical for every athlete to check every substance, which is what they are expected to do. I just cannot see it happening even in today's environment
 
mxett said:
again, Im not comparing it to Essendon, I understand that was on a completely different level. My point is a club environment makes it impractical for every athlete to check every substance, which is what they are expected to do. I just cannot see it happening even in today's environment
Click to expand...

honesty and accountability is so impractical, how do we all get by?
 
Lance Uppercut said:
well I don't see any evidence? Do you? I added combined a bit later and yeah, it's probably the wrong word as it sets an adversarial tone I was specifically seeking to debunk. The point I was (clumsily I guess) trying to make was exactly what you've come back to me with, which is how do you quantify the impact of the constituencies? You really can't.

Eveyone seems to be on the same page that if the government employs its will to enforce a treaty then it will be enforced, but if they don't it won't necessarily be. I've made a couple of consistent points; namely that the original decision was enforced strongly by the Howard government; that that decision is not demonstrated to be an immutable policy position of all governments now and in the future (there are very few of these); that it would require the investment of political capital should the afl declare their intent to do this (which I freely admit, and have done so often, is highly unlikely) to stop them and that's not a given that it would be palatable; and that therefore the absolute assertion regarding punitive sanctions from the government is an implicit and unsupported assumption.

So far no-one has provided any evidence that this is not the case, and you and most others seem to be agreeing with me in what you say but just trying to make various points that it could happen, which isn't in dispute
Click to expand...

An appreciation of the political/sporting context gets you a start, and then you have a choice of what evidence you decide to look for, or have some sort of prior understanding on which to base your stance. So, yeah, I see evidence. Some of it is in the participation rates, some in the revenue growth rates, some in the expansion or consolidation of competitions at the lower levels (awful lot of of AFL folks traveling into the bush to tell locals how they need to restructure their shrinking competitions, and always in very nice 4WD's).

Most modern gubmints, no matter what the persuasion, operate the decision making process a la Henry Blake in M*A*S*H i.e. to quote, 'My mind is open to whatever you think, General' (paraphrased, but the essence is there). Nowadays the 'you' is who has the lobbying clout.

Most powerful sporting administrator in Oz, right now? John Coates, sans any doubt. Reckon he's a) p***ed off and b) spots an opportunity? You bet he is, and does. Why is he the most powerful? Reflect on how gubmints use the Olympics - it's the international cred thing.

The post colonial sporting xenophobia, and the Victorian concentrated parochial nonsense, relied on by the AFL, a lot, but certainly not to the exclusion of all other shallow PR tools, is wearing down. The numbers are in the participation rates, particularly with kids.

The AFL has one growth sector - women. Apart from women, it's either shrinking, or within the statistical error, depending on what figures you look at. What is on the rise is delusion, and people sticking their fingers in their ears, and chanting "La La La" to drown out reality.

The AFL has a very tenuous hold on the young - which entertainment 'package' is better? About 15 years ago, standing outside my local pub (having a dhurrie, oddly), I listened to a group of late teens 20/somethings talking about the sports they followed. After 10 odd minutes, I did the 'scusa me, chaps, can I ask which sports you rate the highest?". Universal answer - THE football. Asked about who they followed, and they all had teams in the UK, Spain, Germany, France, and elsewhere - 15 years ago! I asked them if they followed AFL sides - every one did. Then I asked them to name players from those AFL sides they followed - the average number they could name was 3-4. Then I asked them to name the players from the football sides they followed in Europe - a few of them could name multiple starting 11's!! The rest about 50 - 75% of 3-4 sides 11's. 15 years ago. Admittedly I live close to Monash, but this trend has been swelling for years.

The point? The increasingly tenuous hold the AFL has on its audience. One of the reasons the EPL and the other Euro competitions continue to thrive is that they have maintained their home bases. The AFL? Let's market an amorphous 'product' - we've got a captive audience.

I've gone a bit off track here, but the AFL have created a mass of problems for themselves. And, revenue might be absolute, but profit is marginal.

I don't reckon they've got enough plaster to paper over these cracks - bar one thing - the participation rate of women - it's their one growth area. And, if the push by women is played smart (and they are smart), they will exploit the E'dope matter to help their side of the game grow.

Edited for a P.S. - it's worth listening to what Hal Hunter's mum has had to say - woman, mother and the Principal Scientist at Melbourne Water - ticks a lot of boxes, does Hal's mum. And, what do the AFL and E'dope do - squawk they're gonna a do Hal for costs. Seriously, they are brain dead - they spend their entire time p***ing in each other's pockets, drinking their own bathwater, and disregarding what's happening out here in reality land. Business managers, my fat cloaker.

Edited for a P.P.S. (I keep remembering what I intended to include). The one celebration point for the AFL has been the increase in the size of the broadcast/telecast media contract. What has not been considered is a) every freakin' media organisation in the world is massively overpaying for live sport, because everything else is either so fragmented, or dead and b) those spending the dough don't even fancy their chances of making a buck - they're doing it 'cos that's all they know, and they're frantically defending old ground to stay alive - it's all hope. Go and have a look at what's happened at ESPN in the last few months - they've fallen off a cliff - that's modern media, they're all trying to salvage something out of their sunk capital....

Bar the areas that are growing naturally - India with cricket, China with the sports they choose, football, always - most of the rest? Treading water, at best, except for women, again.
 
Last edited:
mxett said:
again, Im not comparing it to Essendon, I understand that was on a completely different level. My point is a club environment makes it impractical for every athlete to check every substance, which is what they are expected to do. I just cannot see it happening even in today's environment
Click to expand...
Do you watch any other sport other than AFL football? Do you understand that many, many other team-based sports operate around the world under the WADA code quite easily? Look at pro cycling: many teams are made up of riders of many nationalities. They function as a team, they train as a team, they race as a team. They cannot exist if not in team format. Even if part of the year, each athlete retreats to his home country for the off-season. All riders operate under one or several team doctors. They only consume WADA-approved supplements, they're expected to notify the UCI of there whereabouts 24/7 (and the failure to do so results in a penalty) so that they can be available for testing any time, any where. Cyclists understand that they are ultimately 100% responsible for what goes into their body, even if a doctor has given them something. Do you even realise that the arena in which they compete - climbing a mountain in the Tour de France, with literally millions of spectators on the side of the road offering them bottles of water, slapping them on the back, etc. Do you know how easy it would be to spike a bottle of water for a rider you didn't like? So easy. But how many riders take water bottles from the side of the road. None. At best, they tip the water over their head, but even that is taking a massive risk. Complying to the WADA code is easy. The sports and teams that believe it is onerous and difficult are the ones that want to be able to 'push the boundaries', find the loopholes, use compounding pharmacists, and deflect blame to anyone but who is actually responsible.
 
mxett said:
My point is a club environment makes it impractical for every athlete to check every substance
Click to expand...
Not this "no significant fault" bullshit again.

The Essendon players did not access the WADA/ASADA helplines despite being warned they were "taken to a cliff" and the injections feeling like "concrete in the ass". The deliberately omitted performance enhancing drugs on their control forms. They were found to be disingenuous and untrustworthy during their interviews. Only one of the players googled the drugs they said they were told they were using. No one consulted the club doctor (who acted as a WADA witness). They lied in media interviews about the injections.

They players are extremely lucky they are only on the sidelines for 12 months. They deserve more.

mxettsy said:
if they were trying to hide 'thymosin' why not declare all the other compliant substances?
Click to expand...
1. Who says they didn't?
2. It doesn't matter if they were trying to hide taking performance enhancing drugs or not; they facts are they did and they were significantly at fault
 
Last edited:

Log in to remove this ad.

Suma Magic said:
That's probably more of a red flag (to only exclude the one substance).
Click to expand...
agree. It made little sense to not claim a single substance, unless declaring is not as common as we assume
Satan said:
Middleton praised Andruska as a witness. Are you calling Middleton a liar?
Click to expand...
I have no issue with Middleton
Toump Ass said:
Not this "no significant fault" bullshit again.

The Essendon players did not access the WADA/ASADA helplines despite being warned they were "taken to a cliff" and the injections feeling like "concrete in the ass". The deliberately omitted performance enhancing drugs on their control forms. They were found to be disingenuous and untrustworthy during their interviews. Only one of the players googled the drugs they said they were told they were using. No one consulted the club doctor (who acted as a WADA witness). They lied in media interviews about the injections.

They players are extremely lucky they are only on the sidelines for 12 months. They deserve more.

1. Who says they didn't?
2. It doesn't matter if they were trying to hide taking performance enhancing drugs or not; they facts are they did and they were significantly at fault
Click to expand...
would you like me to say "I am not talking about Essendon" for the third time? :rolleyes:
TheArchivist said:
Do you watch any other sport other than AFL football? Do you understand that many, many other team-based sports operate around the world under the WADA code quite easily? Look at pro cycling: many teams are made up of riders of many nationalities. They function as a team, they train as a team, they race as a team. They cannot exist if not in team format. Even if part of the year, each athlete retreats to his home country for the off-season. All riders operate under one or several team doctors. They only consume WADA-approved supplements, they're expected to notify the UCI of there whereabouts 24/7 (and the failure to do so results in a penalty) so that they can be available for testing any time, any where. Cyclists understand that they are ultimately 100% responsible for what goes into their body, even if a doctor has given them something. Do you even realise that the arena in which they compete - climbing a mountain in the Tour de France, with literally millions of spectators on the side of the road offering them bottles of water, slapping them on the back, etc. Do you know how easy it would be to spike a bottle of water for a rider you didn't like? So easy. But how many riders take water bottles from the side of the road. None. At best, they tip the water over their head, but even that is taking a massive risk. Complying to the WADA code is easy. The sports and teams that believe it is onerous and difficult are the ones that want to be able to 'push the boundaries', find the loopholes, use compounding pharmacists, and deflect blame to anyone but who is actually responsible.
Click to expand...
not sure I'd be using cycling as an example of a sport correctly operating under the WADA code
 
Lance Uppercut said:
I think it's important to accept the umpires decision. But not only that, I never denied there was worrying evidence, and you know I'm cynical enough to have no problem with the concept that it's feasible my club and my one time idol are competitive enough to take it too far. These things happen
Click to expand...

****in hell man stick fat! ;)
 
mxett said:
would you like me to say "I am not talking about Essendon" for the third time?
Click to expand...
I'd prefer if you just admitted that the Essendon players deliberately cheated and were significantly at fault.

I think it would be good for you.
 
mxett said:
one difference I can see is an individual athlete can appoint their own support staff who work for them, where as a player in a large club must trust staff employed by others
Click to expand...

Like how Hird appointed Charters in his playing days ;)

Is there really any such thing as an individual sport? Tennis and golf definitely, maybe marathon running. But swimming has training groups and then convenes as a team, athletics similar but maybe less so, cycling is definitely teams, gymnastics is very centralised, there are very few sports that actually exist as a bubble for the individual athlete. And pretty much all major sporting nations run AIS type systems that throw them all in a pot together anyway.
 
mxett said:
I wont admit it no. There are too many parts of the saga that indicate they werent complicit, and too few suggesting they were
Click to expand...
Forget that though. Why care? CAS didn't hand down penalties on the basis they were complicit - stated fairly clearly what they regarded as their culpability. If you're unhappy with people with false names (mine is real) saying they believe the players knew, what the hell does it matter?
 
mxett said:
if they were trying to hide 'thymosin' why not declare all the other compliant substances?
Click to expand...
This is almost my point. It boggles the mind that they would omit this information when asked by a DCO, after all the anti-doping education they receive. Hell, even if the ASADA secretary rang me up I'd certainly be given them all the information they asked for! Considering the harsh penalties for a misstep, why would you take the risk?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

The_Wookie
The Andrew Wilkie Allegations
Replies
17
Views
2K
pattymalone00
pattymalone00
Back
Top