• 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

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...

by wada's estimation only around 2% of dopers get caught, hence the current system doesn't provide a level playing field. perversely if you allowed doping everyone would be taking them and you would have a level playing field.

there's probably better arguments than the level playing field angle.
 
For starters, it's likely the AFL will lose government funding if they split from ASADA/WADA. Additionally, they would need to implement their own responsible body. This is a highly specialised field that would cost a large amount to staff, police and to fund R&D.

Furthermore, WADA offer a truly independent body to rule on such matters. The AFL have a strong history of manipulating things as simple as a fixture let alone something so important to player health and the integrity of the league. I'd suggest a significant part of society simply won't trust them and the families that they target are at risk of being disillusioned.

I see no reason whatsoever to split from ASADA/WADA. As long as clubs and players operate professionally, according to process and cleanly, they won't face an ongoing saga that Essendon is facing.

Let's not forget that a lot of parties did a lot of things wrong for Essendon to be where they are. A simple phone call from one player to ASADA (as per their responsibilities) and this whole issue might not have occurred.

As for Petrie sharing his thoughts, stupidity, particularly as a representative of the AFLPA. I'll be disgusted if the position of the AFLPA is to shield players from an independent body responsible for policing performance enhancing drugs within their sport.
 
Chameleon75 said:
by wada's estimation only around 2% of dopers get caught, hence the current system doesn't provide a level playing field. perversely if you allowed doping everyone would be taking them and you would have a level playing field.

there's probably better arguments than the level playing field angle.
Click to expand...
Yeah and no - I'm talking about expectations. And is that 2% across all sports for a prolonged period of time or just small sample from 2010 ;)?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Chameleon75 said:
by wada's estimation only around 2% of dopers get caught, hence the current system doesn't provide a level playing field. perversely if you allowed doping everyone would be taking them and you would have a level playing field.

there's probably better arguments than the level playing field angle.
Click to expand...
The better argument is the ethical argument. Nobody really wants to see all professional athletes pumped full of substances that will stretch their body to (and sometimes past) the absolute limits. That's a great way to lose families supporting and playing the game (as well as lives). All for a game.

It's simply not an option.

As a result, we need to implement a framework that can assist in policing illegal drug use to create as fair of a playing field as possible. Will it ever capture everyone? No. All we can do is our best knowing that the alternative is far worse.

In context, what he said was perfectly reasonable.
 
Underdog said:
Nobody really wants to see all professional athletes pumped full of substances that will stretch their body to (and sometimes past) the absolute limits.
Click to expand...

Why not?

They're entertainers at the end of the day.

No different to Charlie Sheen or Miley Cyrus.

As long as the end results are entertaining, I say dope them up to the eyeballs.
 
sataris said:
Why not?

They're entertainers at the end of the day.

No different to Charlie Sheen or Miley Cyrus.

As long as the end results are entertaining, I say dope them up to the eyeballs.
Click to expand...
Ok, the vast majority don't.

If that becomes the environment in the AFL, my kids will be playing soccer instead.
 
Underdog said:
Ok, the vast majority don't.

If that becomes the environment in the AFL, my kids will be playing soccer instead.
Click to expand...

I've long past the point of viewing any kind of sport with the assumption that their clean with a few exceptions.

I assume their all doped up on something or the other.

Watching bolt win the gold, my immediate thoughts were, wow his drugs are much better than the rest.

It is what it is, no point pretending otherwise.

Sidenote: The chemistry involved I find far more interesting than watching dudes run around for 90 minutes on a saturday.
 
sataris said:
I've long past the point of viewing any kind of sport with the assumption that their clean with a few exceptions.

I assume their all doped up on something or the other
Click to expand...
You can think what you want. I don't condone it and the position the AFL has on the matter will be a big determining factor as to whether my kids (and tens of thousands of others across Australia) play the game.
 
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...

Flip the argument the other way, why should we allow a further health risk of PEDs which are often off label and or not yet approved for therapeutic use on to what is, as you rightly say, a very dangerous sport to begin with? Aicar and GW1516 would be without doubt the drugs of choice if it wasn't for the pesky side effects.

http://cyclingtips.com.au/2013/04/the-new-epo-gw1516-aicar-and-their-use-in-cycling/ or
http://www.weareforensic.co.uk/how-to-get-skinny-and-get-cancer-gw1516/

As with all other PEDs it is stupidly easy to obtain. http://muscle-science-australia.com/store/gw1516/

I support the notion that we should do everything possibe to reduce the unnecessary risks to any athletes health.
 
Last edited:
sataris said:
Why not?

They're entertainers at the end of the day.

No different to Charlie Sheen or Miley Cyrus.

As long as the end results are entertaining, I say dope them up to the eyeballs.
Click to expand...
Its also the teenagers and adult amateurs who mimic the pros, who don't earn hundreds of thousands that need to be considered.
 
Chameleon75 said:
by wada's estimation only around 2% of dopers get caught, hence the current system doesn't provide a level playing field. perversely if you allowed doping everyone would be taking them and you would have a level playing field.

there's probably better arguments than the level playing field angle.
Click to expand...

This is exactly why Petrie's comments are silly, naive, or both. Even if WADA's 2% estimation is wildly inaccurate, they're almost certainly right in saying most dopers avoid detection.
On the weight of numbers I see no reason why the AFL would be some sort of clean sport haven where anti doping regulations aren't required. Even leaving Essendon aside there's been enough shady characters and questionable practices over the years to hint that not everyone is above board all the time.
Getting back to the argument for a doping regulator though. The playing field may not be level, however trying to create one (with respect to doping) shouldn't be cast aside imo. I for one don't want our sport to become one where the winner will simply be assumed to be the one with the best pharmacist. Plenty of other sports have already lost this credibility test, and it's a long way back to respectability.
If the AFL were to go it alone, as Petrie might want, well, they've shown me enough times they lack the integrity to be trusted with the process.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

DapperJong said:
Maybe he has but does that mean he's a shit bloke all of a sudden? Symptomatic of how the HTB jumps down anyone's throats with a differing opinion.
Click to expand...
Thought they are more indicating dumb bloke not shit bloke

Agree there's not much discussion here, just a lot of how dumb is Drew.
 
Underdog said:
You can think what you want. I don't condone it and the position the AFL has on the matter will be a big determining factor as to whether my kids (and tens of thousands of others across Australia) play the game.
Click to expand...
yep, I have been in a sport where in the past PED use was not policed. The outcome is very simple - you want to win you must use. the health impacts long term are severe.

For the AFL it is simple - stay with the mainstream or any 15 yearly wanting to be drafted will have to be using PED as they prepare.
 
DapperJong said:
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 ******* bay makes more sense than this board.
Click to expand...
Okay, let's discuss it.

What genuine reasons are there for pulling out of the WADA code, aside from the fact that people don't like them going after Essendon?

That anyone believes that it's a good idea that the AFL should become the judge, jury and executioner in doping cases is just completely baffling to me. It's asking for inconsistency, a lack of transparency, and at the end of the day, just plain old corruption.

Scenario: let's say two months after Gary Ablett announced he was signing with Gold Coast back in 2011, it's discovered he uses HGH and EPO. Do you think the AFL is going come down hard on the star player for the club just as they're starting? Do you think they'd even announce it? Or is it just swept under the carpet? The financial impact and loss of credibility in the Gold Coast would be huge. Much like the situation with Essendon now.

I know people think it's like pushing a rock up hill, but we have to be strong against doping. There's simply too many downsides to allow it to run riot. Aside from the obvious moral imperative of allowing people to cheat (even if it's 80% in the case of cycling, we owe it to the 20%). The flow on effect to the health of those in the amateur/junior ranks is huge if they see that doping is required to compete at the top level.

To allow the AFL, which has a financial imperative to not allow doping to be seen as an issue in their competition, is asinine.
 
manboob said:
Very surprised this hasn't received more airtime. Pretty disgraceful comments if you ask me.
Basically, according to Petrie:
We are an Australian sport we don't need them.
Other sports dope we don't.

Listen from minute 10.

listen to this on Audioboo
Click to expand...

Drew is obviously unaware of the fallout. Less in sponsorship, members of all clubs, government funding. Huge financial loss to the league.

It isn't surprising that a player has such an insular view.
 
Crankyhawk said:
Agree there's not much discussion here, just a lot of how dumb is Drew.
Click to expand...
Good thing too, shows the community standard is still well and truly 'drugs are bad'.

Appealing for rational discussion of something dismissed out-of-hand by the vast majority is an oft-used ploy to legitimise a radical position.

I think we need to start a poll.
What was less thought-through?
1. Petrie's WADA comments
2. EFCs forward50 entries in the 4Q last night straight into Petrie's lap
 
PetterdHoisted said:
Good thing too, shows the community standard is still well and truly 'drugs are bad'.

Appealing for rational discussion of something dismissed out-of-hand by the vast majority is an oft-used ploy to legitimise a radical position.

I think we need to start a poll.
What was less thought-through?
1. Petrie's WADA comments
2. EFCs forward50 entries in the 4Q last night straight into Petrie's lap
Click to expand...
Sorry - Drew Petrie is a radical?

He can't be. He's North Melbourne. Roos are not radicals.

I like that you say 'oft' used. Adds a touch of poetry to your posts :)
 
legend166 said:
Okay, let's discuss it.

What genuine reasons are there for pulling out of the WADA code, aside from the fact that people don't like them going after Essendon?

That anyone believes that it's a good idea that the AFL should become the judge, jury and executioner in doping cases is just completely baffling to me. It's asking for inconsistency, a lack of transparency, and at the end of the day, just plain old corruption.

Scenario: let's say two months after Gary Ablett announced he was signing with Gold Coast back in 2011, it's discovered he uses HGH and EPO. Do you think the AFL is going come down hard on the star player for the club just as they're starting? Do you think they'd even announce it? Or is it just swept under the carpet? The financial impact and loss of credibility in the Gold Coast would be huge. Much like the situation with Essendon now.

I know people think it's like pushing a rock up hill, but we have to be strong against doping. There's simply too many downsides to allow it to run riot. Aside from the obvious moral imperative of allowing people to cheat (even if it's 80% in the case of cycling, we owe it to the 20%). The flow on effect to the health of those in the amateur/junior ranks is huge if they see that doping is required to compete at the top level.

To allow the AFL, which has a financial imperative to not allow doping to be seen as an issue in their competition, is asinine.
Click to expand...

I don't think AFL should be judge, jury and executioner either, but I think it's worth exploring whether there is an alternative that suits the game better than the ASADA/WADA code. I mean, there may not be, and there is no alternative at the moment, but can there be something that is an improvement?

I think it's fair to say that the EFC case is so annoying simply because of how long it has taken. Both sides had a role to play in this but this is just one factor to think about.*

In no way, just because I was sticking up for Petrie, am I saying we should be soft on PED use. There was a valid point somewhere in his words, he just executed it poorly.


*inb4 "if youse admitted drugz use this would all b ova"
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Drew Petrie believes AFL should break away from WADA code.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top