Ahmed Saad's ban for energy drink on match day

[Winmar2Lockett]

It's a harsh lesson for the young man, and I've no doubt he will cop the full whack as the AFL & WADA will want to make an example of him before treating Essendrug with kid gloves.

2 years is a long time to sit out, but he is young enough to make his comeback, so I hope he does.

The AFL might want to let Essendope off but WADA has no care about a p1ssant little football club in Melbourne.

They'll get whacked don't worry about that



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jack Stevens]

I think that Saad should be able to continue his ambassador role, even if he is banned. He's also in a good position to pick up an anti-doping ambassador role, his unfortunate experience would be a great lesson to athletes and sportspeople around the world that one small mistake can have massive impacts when it comes to doping.

I definitely hope we give him a chance to come back when the ban is over, if he keeps his fitness. He's young enough that it could work.

 

[Squizz]

These were the kind of comments my mates who are Bombers supporters throw back at me when the subject gets mentioned!

Hope they didn't do a runner on you (leaving you with the bill).

Big Tom's 'Dumb and Dumber' moment

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-11-13/dons-confirm-dumb-and-dumber-behaviour

Mark Thompson "We take it seriously and we know all the facts ... I've filled my car up with petrol and driven away without paying the bill."

 

[Kramer1]

Hi guys and pardon my intrusion onto your board, but I cant help but feel that Saad's delisting wouldn't have been an easy decision for St Kilda to make. I feel for the kid who apparently made an innocent mistake and now faces a challenging period. I hope all pans out well for him and that St Kilda manages to find a place for him on the rookie list.

Decision made before the hearing result...doesn't appear to have been a particularly hard call for them to make.

 

[Tongue In Cheek]

Decision made before the hearing result...doesn't appear to have been a particularly hard call for them to make.

The obvious choice and the easy one are not always the same thing.

 

[Nutsngum]

I REALLY hope we pick stick him on the rookie list and let him have that opportunity to look forward to.

 

[Manimal_Dunstan]

Not surprising. Don't think we'll rookie him.

 

[SaintLex]

We can't rookie him even if we wanted to

 

[Plugger35]

Would be a shame to lose him for good, had the makings of a great small forward replacement for Milne.

If his ban is less than 2 years he'd probably still be a decent chance of continuing his AFL career either with us or another club.

 

[ike2112]

Remember that St Kilda are not permitted to employ Saady in any capacity. Being a rookie listed & paid player defintely counts as employment.

Unless the AFL have advised that they can keep him on the rookie list basically be giving up a spot for nothing... once the ban comes through he'll be required to be cut.

Are you sure on this? Cos it's not a WADA or Australian doping agency rule.
They must be suspended from the sport, and can not even train with any club under a national governing body banner (so that's basically ruling out everything beyond mates in a park). But an athlete undergoing a doping suspension can stay under contract.
Indeed the court of arbitration in sport have made rulings as such, indicating that a players rights remain under ownership of their club unless that club choose to rescind the contract. In most cases, that's what happens - essentially the player is fired. But in some situations, such as the case with South African rugby players tour of UK, and numerous footballers participating in an under-age competition in Mexico, their clubs stood by them ans the players remained contracted. Likewise with all of those cyclists who eventually testified against Armstrong - most got bans but they were plea bargains, of sorts, so were worthless (3 or 6 months, covering off-season). The only one of those who was fired was due to him having lied to his current team/employer about it when he signed for them.
The athletes can still be paid a salary if the employer chooses, the stipulation is that they just cannot participate in "any team activities under the jurisdiction of the national governing body".
When it comes to the athletes employment status, it's usually just a matter of image. Do you want to be associated with a 'convicted cheat'. In Saad's case, I don't think any harm or any worse can come of it. The club is standing by him so far, I see no reason for that not to continue.

 

[ike2112]

Also to mention, WADA guidelines allow for a 50% reduction in the standard ban for a variety of circumstantial reasons.
Note they are guidelines, which they want to see national associations follow. But not rules. Some give even bigger reductions.
Look up cyclist Rui Costa, the current world champion. He and his brother took a supplement, it was found to be tainted, the Portuguese doping authority gave him a 5 month ban. He also 'casually' trained with teammates during the ban, keeping his fitness up.

Now I'm not sure if Saad's supplement was tainted (that means it contained traces of substances not on the label, via the production factory also creating other supplements containing banned substances), or whether the substance was listed in the ingredients and he just didn't read it. But I think he has a strong case to get his ban down to somewhere between 5 and 18 months. Note also his ban begins from the date of his being informed of positive B sample if taken, but backdated to A sample if relevant (happens in most cases). So the start date for the ban isn't the date of his trial, it's whatever date mid-season that letter hit his doormat. So I think there is a very good chance he could be banned for 2014 but be back for the 2015 preseason. Quirky thing is, if his ban is backdated as they usually are, Saints have to forego the result of the game he played in after knowing of the positive. So history officially ought to show the Saints forfeited a game in 2013.

This will all depend on how strict and arsey ASADA want to be. If Saad were an international athlete (say a 200m runner) he would be tried by whichever nation holds his license, and their authority would decide his fate. As mentioned above, the Portuguese one has applied common sense. The Russians are known to be ridiculously lenient, letting people off with positives just like Saad's, taking cold or asthma treatment containing banned substances without official permission. They have cleared numerous athletes completely for similar - one of them even won a compensation payout for being fired from their team. I could not however find any relevant cases involving the Egyptian association (not that it would have helped his cause really, but would have given an indication of his likely punishment had AFL been a worldwide professional sport rather than confined to Australia).
So let's hope ASADA see a bit of sense, take a lead from other reasonable case outcomes, and ban him for maybe 12 or 15 months and the Saints retain him.

 

[NarklesHelmet]

It is a massive fall from grace for Saad, and it is really sad for him and the club. He was such a shining light in our season last year and I really saw him as a player who could go on and become anything. This year he had a poor year on the field and off it and finds himself delisted and probably banned for drugs. What a massive turnaround. A real shame.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

We can't rookie him even if we wanted to

We'd have to get permission to Rookie him but not pay him.

 

[WAFLfan1969]

It's a saad state of affairs

 

[Jack Stevens]

It's a saad state of affairs

 

[Winmar2Lockett]

The Saad not being employed in any capacity comment was based on what Pelchen told members at the presentation night in August.

They were waiting on clarification from the AFL back in August as to how they they can support Saady


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[hayes]

Hate to say it cause I love Saad but he seems delusional. Anything less than two years will be a miracle.

If that is the outcome then unfortunately I think that should be it. As a mature age recruit you need to do absolutely everything right and now IMO he'll be too old by the time he's allowed to come back.

 

[ike2112]

As I mentioned in my previous post, the duration of ban will hinge on how strict ASADA wish to be. If they are going to stick to an extremely strict 2-yr ban regardless of circumstance, then they will pretty much be the harshest association in the world. Yet still be turning a blind eye to a number of other infringements (not just the Bombers), or ignoring previous decisions they have participated in. Shane Warne only got a year remember, and his was technically a worse infringement (a substance banned at all times, not just on match day/in-competition).
It is worrying to me that they are planning a case to question the level of stimulation provided by the substance. That is an argument I just can’t see them winning, and even if they did I think it would only serve to alter the WADA guidelines going forward – I don’t think it would retrospectively absolve him from the situation he’s in. It is certainly a discussion that should take place; a recent study showed that Paracetamol aiding performance in cycling, so are paracetamols to be banned now also? Where do we draw the line between athletes being allowed to utilise modern medicine to aid their health, and someone actually cheating? There has to be a line somewhere, and I think it is correct that it is drawn at a place of little to no tolerance. But where there is a genuine error of judgement made, and the test results match with the alibi, and the substance (supplement) used in error can be provided and confirmed to be the only cause of the failed sample… I think there ought to be leniency. I still believe the ‘Strict Liability’ from WADA is the correct stance. But even WADA acknowledge the need to provide for reductions for genuine clumsiness rather than attempted cheating, and the national associations should take consideration of that. Most do. ASADA suddenly getting a really heavy hand doesn’t make up for years of ignorance, if anything it makes them seem more like arseholes – what they did to that Frankston VFL player is a disgrace.

Also Saad was born in October and is now 24. If he is able to unofficially train with Saints players (he won’t be allowed to participate in ‘organised team activities’) and is able to have his ban reduced to 1 year (which I think is reasonable whilst still applying a ban, applying WADA’s strict liability, whilst also providing an excellent focal point for athlete awareness of supplements*), then he will still be 24 when he is able to make a potential return to playing for the Saints, maybe some sub appearances in the late rounds of 2014. Were he able to do that, he would still be younger than Beau Maister was when we drafted him.


* this I think has greater benefit to humankind than banning foolish athletes for 2 years. There have been two gym supplements directly linked to deaths in the last year, both banned but available to buy in Australia. Dimethylamylamine is a regarded as risky, if not dangerous, and yet you could buy it within a sports supplement called Jack3D, over the counter. The container looks and suggests that it’s all very well researched. Making Saad a picture boy for why you must know what the label means, not just as a pro, semi-pro or amateur athlete but even just as a health precaution for your average gym-goer, would be the greatest benefit out of all of this. Run a campaign with brief ads that explain the risks. When I played semi-pro and briefly pro sport, the once-a-year doping presentation was a nonsense. It’s not like that here in the UK now, and yet some people are still amazed that the thing they bought off Amazon last month could not only get them banned from sport, but may even kill them!

 

[saintbatty]

Apparently Saints and Saad know his verdict. If we're not told beforehand, we'll find out n the rookie draft...

AHMED Saad has been informed of his fate after a hearing of the AFL's Anti-Doping Tribunal hearing earlier this month, AFL.com.au understands.
The delisted St Kilda forward was hopeful of being re-drafted by the club in Wednesday's rookie draft.
Saad's management confirmed the ball was in the player's court, indicating it was considering a response.
Under ASADA rules, all parties have 21 days to respond to the Tribunal ruling – meaning the AFL and St Kilda could not comment when contacted on Tuesday.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-11-26/saad-learns-his-fate

 

[goodie23]

Still a bloody stupid system.

 

[stkildathunda]

Ahmed Saad has been handed a minor ban. Believe it's around one year mark, which is backdated to August.

 

[Defacto]

my money is on a back dated 12 month ban. he'll accept. we wont rookie him. will draft him next year again

 

[Defacto]

Ahmed Saad has been handed a minor ban. Believe it's around one year mark, which is backdated to August.

there we have it

best possible outcome. if true saad is very very lucky

 

[Manimal_Dunstan]

my money is on a back dated 12 month ban. he'll accept. we wont rookie him. will draft him next year again

If his ban ends before the season finishes, make him play at Sandringham.

 

[Defacto]

If his ban ends before the season finishes, make him play at Sandringham.

can he still play if he cant register there?