• Please read this post on the rules on BigFooty regarding posting copyright material, including fair dealing rules. Repeat infringements could see your account limited or closed.

Drew Petrie believes AFL should break away from WADA code.

Remove this Banner Ad

Blueballs38 said:
I know your opinion from you previous posting ... At least you admit you believe the bombers took TB 4.

You can be a stirrer and you obviously love your team and would be more than happy to get off on a technicality.

Does that sum you up?

What I do now wonder is whether you would like to see the AFL out of the WADA agreement and why if you do as I suspect.
Click to expand...

You're still missing the point. It doesn't matter what my opinion is and I don't expect a reasonable discussion about it if I did tell you.

When I saw this thread I (foolishly) expected a discussion on the issue Petrie had raised. Also not the first time it's been raised, mind you.

But it was just a good old opinion bashing with some very strong responses. It was laughable. The issue I have is with many people unable to see past their own nose and actually discuss something. This entire thread is nit-picking on someone's comments who essentially has no right of reply. Perfect for stroking your own beliefs.

Seriously the ****ing bay makes more sense than this board.
 
manboob said:
So sick of these obtuse posts. Haha you're so stupid you don't get what I'm saying. Well ******* say it.
Click to expand...

How the **** am I being obtuse? Are you dense as well?
 
Is this the beginning of an AFL-orchestrated media campaign to put shit on WADA for the next 6 months?
Is this the new direction they wanna take the story? (WADA… Who are these meddling, power-hungry bastards? Do we need 'em?)

We've already seen a few prominent people in the media stick their bib in. Now we've got ex-AFLPA board members, Channel 7 & Triple M commentators. Who else wants to trash WADA?

F**k the AFL and all their weak-arsed sycophants.

Maybe the AFL wouldn't be in this mess if they were more proactive back in 2011 when they first heard whispers about James Hird making enquiries about peptides. Instead of giving him a warning, they could've sent their watchdogs over to Windy Hill to supervise the Bombers supplement program and ban Steve Dank before he got his foot in the door.
 
Last edited:

Log in to remove this ad.

DapperJong said:
How the **** am I being obtuse? Are you dense as well?
Click to expand...
You've done it again... amazing... hard to tell if you're a piss take or stupid probably the former but I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt and assume it's the latter.
 
legend166 said:
I tell you what, if the AFL pulls out of WADA I'm done with the league.
Click to expand...
Why?

In this sport, the uncompromising, tough football of Hawthorn is heaped with praise. Even though their hits on the North players were met with 2 and 3 week suspensions, the will-to-win attitudes of Lewis and Hodge are applauded as exemplars of how to play the game. They committed dirty acts, but they rattled North - that's how teams become premiers, and most people accept it.

One of the most celebrated footballers in history badly hurt champion players like Robran and Cable. He shattered Neville Bruns's jaw.

These are all, outside the context of football, serious assaults. Yet we accept this as the price of playing a game between ruthless men. We accept that these men end up with concussions, and the long term consequences of that, horrific leg injuries that leave them crippled in later life. The ongoing cost of playing Australian football is enormous.

And yet people draw the line at 'drugs'. Why? How can you be against drugs yet accept Brent Reilly as the price of watching footy? Or Jason Snell? The reasons for Blake Caracella's retirement? The kidney injuries to Lonergan? Or the problems that beset Koschitzke (I expect a case being brought in 20 years time by him)? Or Neil Sasche?

When Petrie asks the point of WADA, he is making sense. It's an arbitrary set of rules for men who risk their bodies 22 times a year for a decade. If they're lucky and don't succumb to injury before hand.
 
Last edited:
Saying your Sport is clean versus having a WADA compliant competition that demonstrates your sport is clean

The AFL would need to pay for an independent body to screen, test and analyse. They would also need maintain the most up to date testing procedures and research new techniques to stay ahead of the clubs and players looking for that edge over their opponents.

How much money will they need to pump into the integrity unit for investigation and legal processes?

You spend a lot of money to run your own program for what? People will still say the AFL is not a clean sport.

Simpler to not do drugs or ingest substances until you have formal notification from WADA that says said substance is compliant to the WADA Code.

After all that's just an email!
 
clogged said:
Why?

In this sport, the uncompromising, tough football of Hawthorn is heaped with praise. Even though their hits on the North players were met with 2 and 3 week suspensions, the will-to-win attitudes of Lewis and Hodge are applauded as exemplars of how to play the game. They committed dirty acts, but they rattled North - that's how teams become premiers, and most people accept it.

One of the most celebrated footballers in history badly hurt champion players like Robran and Cable. He shattered Neville Bruns's jaw.

These are all, outside the context of football, serious assaults. Yet we accept this as the price of playing a game between ruthless men. We accept that these men end up with concussions, and the long term consequences of that, horrific leg injuries that leave them crippled in later life. The ongoing cost of playing Australian football is enormous.

And yet people draw the line at 'drugs'. Why? How can you be against drugs yet accept Brent Reilly as the price of watching footy? Or Jason Snell? The reasons for Blake Caracella's retirement? The kidney injuries to Lonergan? Or the problems that beset Koschitzke (I expect a case being brought in 20 years time by him)? Or Neil Sasche?

When Petrie asks the point of WADA, he is making sense. It's an arbitrary set of rules for men who risk their bodies 22 times a year for a decade. If they're lucky and don't succumb to injury before hand.
Click to expand...
You seem to be struggling with the direction the game is heading :$
 
RIOLIUSTAR said:
Going on what you posted... it's going down the shitter it seems but having the ability to dope is great as it may prolong careers :confused:
Click to expand...
You've misread me. People are happy to accept the consequences of men having their bodies damaged by playing the game of footy. Morally, physical assault is worse than consenting adults using drugs. If you draw the line at drugs then why didn't a Sydney supporter quit following footy when Hall king hit Staker and only got 7 weeks? Why should Essendon players get two years (or anything) for what is a far lesser crime?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

clogged said:
You've misread me. People are happy to accept the consequences of men having their bodies damaged by playing the game of footy. Morally, physical assault is worse than consenting adults using drugs. If you draw the line at drugs then why didn't a Sydney supporter quit following footy when Hall king hit Staker and only got 7 weeks? Why should Essendon players get two years (or anything) for what is a far lesser crime?
Click to expand...
You're arguing at cross-purposes.
 
clogged said:
You've misread me. People are happy to accept the consequences of men having their bodies damaged by playing the game of footy. Morally, physical assault is worse than consenting adults using drugs. If you draw the line at drugs then why didn't a Sydney supporter quit following footy when Hall king hit Staker and only got 7 weeks? Why should Essendon players get two years (or anything) for what is a far lesser crime?
Click to expand...
You mad about Crowley's treatment ?

Frankly you're not making a heap of sense and I'm doing my best not to ridicule you
 
manboob said:
You're arguing at cross-purposes.
Click to expand...
No, I'm not.

If you're going to quit footy over drug scandals, then how do you morally reconcile the far larger toll left on players by simply playing the game?

It's a risky sport, players do dangerous things in their will to win. Why does PED use matter?
 
clogged said:
No, I'm not.

If you're going to quit footy over drug scandals, then how do you morally reconcile the far larger toll left on players by simply playing the game?

It's a risky sport, players do dangerous things in their will to win. Why does PED use matter?
Click to expand...
The issue surrounding PED use in this instance isn't only the harm done to players taking them. It is the fact that it doesn't create a level playing field and thus is tantamount to cheating. If a player gets injured that is par for the course - they have a reasonable expectation that injury may occur. They also have a reasonable expectation that when they take the field everyone is playing under the same rules. Allowing PEDs is just the same as allowing one team to run 40 meters before they bounce the ball while the other remaining 17 teams have to bounce it every 15 steps.
 
manboob said:
The issue surrounding PED use in this instance isn't only the harm done to players taking them. It is the fact that it doesn't create a level playing field and thus is tantamount to cheating. If a player gets injured that is par for the course - they have a reasonable expectation that injury may occur. They also have a reasonable expectation that when they take the field everyone is playing under the same rules. Allowing PEDs is just the same as allowing one team to run 40 meters before they bounce the ball while the other remaining 17 teams have to bounce it every 15 steps.
Click to expand...
This is oh so often forgotten .... EFC tried to sidestep everyone else and obtain an unfair advantage ... That equals cheating in my book ... anyone care to disagree?
 
manboob said:
The issue surrounding PED use in this instance isn't only the harm done to players taking them. It is the fact that it doesn't create a level playing field and thus is tantamount to cheating. If a player gets injured that is par for the course - they have a reasonable expectation that injury may occur. They also have a reasonable expectation that when they take the field everyone is playing under the same rules. Allowing PEDs is just the same as allowing one team to run 40 meters before they bounce the ball while the other remaining 17 teams have to bounce it every 15 steps.
Click to expand...
There is no level playing field in the preparation for competition.
 
clogged said:
There is no level playing field in the preparation for competition.
Click to expand...
No but there are certain conditions put in place to ensure it is close as possible to this (as this is the accepted paradigm under which games are played). Such as 18 men on the field at a time. A salary cap. And restrictions on what can enter a player's body.
 
clogged said:
You've misread me. People are happy to accept the consequences of men having their bodies damaged by playing the game of footy. Morally, physical assault is worse than consenting adults using drugs. If you draw the line at drugs then why didn't a Sydney supporter quit following footy when Hall king hit Staker and only got 7 weeks? Why should Essendon players get two years (or anything) for what is a far lesser crime?
Click to expand...

But AFL is a contact sport and consenting adults getting physical with each other can occur. But there are clear consequences and it is easily policed and punished. As someone hit someone else it is caught on camera and the person is punished

Doping in Sport is harder to detect and police. Can also have unknown consequences for the players health.

WADA was created to provide a unified process and systems to ensure that sports who want to remain clean have a chance to do so. Also the uniformity of the rules ensure that sports men and women all over the world have transparency of process and punishment.

Petrie and others similar comments reeks of its all too hard so let give up or I am taking my bat and ball and going home.

As I have said previously don't ingest substance that haven't got a verifiable tick of approval from WADA and your covered. It's not rocket science!
 
clogged said:
Why?

In this sport, the uncompromising, tough football of Hawthorn is heaped with praise. Even though their hits on the North players were met with 2 and 3 week suspensions, the will-to-win attitudes of Lewis and Hodge are applauded as exemplars of how to play the game. They committed dirty acts, but they rattled North - that's how teams become premiers, and most people accept it.

One of the most celebrated footballers in history badly hurt champion players like Robran and Cable. He shattered Neville Bruns's jaw.

These are all, outside the context of football, serious assaults. Yet we accept this as the price of playing a game between ruthless men. We accept that these men end up with concussions, and the long term consequences of that, horrific leg injuries that leave them crippled in later life. The ongoing cost of playing Australian football is enormous.

And yet people draw the line at 'drugs'. Why? How can you be against drugs yet accept Brent Reilly as the price of watching footy? Or Jason Snell? The reasons for Blake Caracella's retirement? The kidney injuries to Lonergan? Or the problems that beset Koschitzke (I expect a case being brought in 20 years time by him)? Or Neil Sasche?

When Petrie asks the point of WADA, he is making sense. It's an arbitrary set of rules for men who risk their bodies 22 times a year for a decade. If they're lucky and don't succumb to injury before hand.
Click to expand...

Two wrongs dont make right.

The WADA rules are not arbitary at all - they have been developed internationally over many years dealing with issues world wide.

That is not to say they are perfect by any means. For instance, there is a big hole in the rules of the management of team sports - where as we can see there is very little liability for the managers of the sports when compared to the atheletes. That is why we end up with 34 players at risk of a ban and the driving force of the whole thing is unaccountable.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Drew Petrie believes AFL should break away from WADA code.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top