Hot Topic Off The Books Illicit Drug Test Claims in Bombshell AFL ‘Cover-Up’ - Injuries Faked To Evade Game Day Detection

[Rathdown_Redeemer]

What about Jack Martin?

Cleary both Jack and Caleb are card carrying Medellín Cartel king pins!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Rathdown_Redeemer]

Why? They are ensuring players are not breaking the rules on GameDay.

It's not like the clubs are hiding players from testers.

Sent from my SM-F926B using BigFooty.com mobile app

ASADA Representatives in Australia, have already suggested this is technically cheating.., and by definition, having off the books, testing suggested they are hiding players from testers. Otherwise, there’s no story here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SkyhorseTamer]

Think about what you’re saying.
If you don’t start the race, you can’t cheat in said race.

And you can’t violate an in-competition drug rule if you’re not in competition.

AFL had to sign the wada stuff regarding illicit drugs in 2006. They're now skirting it. That simple. It's a huge deal. It's not about the individual players. The strike system was implemented. It too is being avoided.

 

[SkyhorseTamer]

Why? They are ensuring players are not breaking the rules on GameDay.

It's not like the clubs are hiding players from testers.

Sent from my SM-F926B using BigFooty.com mobile app

.... Yes they are. It's off the books testing. IE to hide the testing from the independent wada/asada legal agreements with the Aus gov and the afl, testing and regulations

 

[My Hat]

Hey My Hat, I totally get your point of view. I just don’t agree with it. Clearly it would be construed as a grey area but not for me personally. The fact that Andrew Wilke brought this out under parliamentary privilege lets you know that this is a dangerous topic that could potentially involve lawsuits. The fact that it’s made the news suggest that it doesn’t really pass the pub sniff test. The AFL is saying that this all about players welfare but if you’re looking at it from a long way away, it looks like tampering. Off the books drug test before games being played and then making up bullshit stories to remove the player from scrutiny is not a good look.. The fact that the AFL is now reviewing the policy suggest that with the spotlight on them, they understand there is a moral (cheating) dilemma here.. you brought up emotive - it’s actually not emotive for me at all. If it was a Carlton player, I would be doubly pissed… and then it would definitely be emotive…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Fair enough, and I apologise for assuming an emotive motivation to your choice of words.

I have a lot of respect for Andrew Wilkie and am predisposed to take him seriously whenever he raises something, but in this case it does seem to me that he's got hold of the wrong end of the stick.

I think we've all been conditioned to assume the worst when we hear about drug tests being avoided because there are plenty of cases where taking something outside of a game day context is obviously and seriously bad, Essendon being just one example. But in this case it seems to only be about 'recreational' drugs which are not actually performance enhancing other than on game day (and that's not just me saying it, apparently that's what the rules say).

So you may well be right that it's not a good look -- but that's all it is. Nobody seems to be suggesting that any AFL / WADA / ASADA rules have been broken, or that any team has received an unfair advantage in any game due to this. You describe it as 'tampering', but what exactly is being tampered with? Not game results. Not tests for any of the players who actually played each game. Nobody seems to be alleging that anything was preplanned, so there doesn't seem to be a betting/gambling angle here around players being selected or not. What's left?

 

[Rathdown_Redeemer]

AFL had to sign the wada stuff regarding illicit drugs in 2006. They're now skirting it. That simple. It's a huge deal. It's not about the individual players. The strike system was implemented. It too is being avoided.

Interesting comment skyhorsetamer… this is the part that I’m not clear on and I want more information on. The question is whether or not the player that tests positive in the in-house testing gets a strike against them - or does the in-house testing actually skirt around and avoid the three strikes policy? Does anyone know the answer to this question? Maybe I missed it in the news coverage and commentary?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[DangerousD]

That is all fair and reasonable. The bit that I cannot stomach is the AFL SECRETLY doing the testing and providing inaccurate reasons for a player not playing. It now means that any player not playing for any personal reason or for hamstring tightness or some other not physically obvious reason is now under suspicion.

Happy for the AFL to have this illicit drug testing regime but 1. don't make it secret, 2. record a positive finding as a 'strike' as in the illicit drug 3 strike policy, 3. record a players absence as 'substance abuse recovery' or something similar (and make it at least a 2 week absence from playing). Affected players may not like it but a little bit of 'sunlight' is a very good disinfectant. You would hope that the vast majority of players and supporters would accept this and be supportive of the affected player and be there to help ensure they don't continue to offend and potentially impact on their long-term health.

If the suspect players don't like that and want to continue their lifestyle choice then let them risk wearing the 4 year suspension when they test positive on game day.

The AFL aren’t doing any testing, players are going to get tested and the AFL know its happening, these are very different to the AFL conducting testing.

Any positive test isn’t recorded because a positive test is only known by the person who took the test.

In regards to your last paragraph, people are allowed to go to any doctor they want and get any test they want and use the results of that test to make decisions that suit them, the AFL is powerless to stop this.

 

[Rathdown_Redeemer]

Fair enough, and I apologise for assuming an emotive motivation to your choice of words.

I have a lot of respect for Andrew Wilkie and am predisposed to take him seriously whenever he raises something, but in this case it does seem to me that he's got hold of the wrong end of the stick.

I think we've all been conditioned to assume the worst when we hear about drug tests being avoided because there are plenty of cases where taking something outside of a game day context is obviously and seriously bad, Essendon being just one example. But in this case it seems to only be about 'recreational' drugs which are not actually performance enhancing other than on game day (and that's not just me saying it, apparently that's what the rules say).

So you may well be right that it's not a good look -- but that's all it is. Nobody seems to be suggesting that any AFL / WADA / ASADA rules have been broken, or that any team has received an unfair advantage in any game due to this. You describe it as 'tampering', but what exactly is being tampered with? Not game results. Not tests for any of the players who actually played each game. Nobody seems to be alleging that anything was preplanned, so there doesn't seem to be a betting/gambling angle here around players being selected or not. What's left?

Yes agreed - recreational and not performance enhancing! That said, the part that I am most disturbed by and actually not clear on and perhaps I’m wrong here or misinformed ? It seems like internally (and aided and abetted by the AFL), the players that test positive in the pretest protocols are avoiding the three strike policy through this clandestine pretesting process. Is that your understanding or do I have the wrong end of the stick? And yes for me the tampering bit would be if the players are avoiding the three strike policy by getting pretested and dropping out of the games with fake injuries?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Stamos]

.... Yes they are. It's off the books testing. IE to hide the testing from the independent wada/asada legal agreements with the Aus gov and the afl, testing and regulations

WADA only tests for coke in competition. They don’t care if you do it out of competition. So it’s not hiding tests from them.

 

[Rathdown_Redeemer]

WADA only tests for coke in competition. They don’t care if you do it out of competition. So it’s not hiding tests from them.

Whaaaaat? If they are pretesting before game day, and then the Player magically develops mysterious injury prior to the game and is withdrawn he avoids game day testing then that seems to be in competition, not out of competition?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Stamos]

Whaaaaat? If they are pretesting before game day, and then the Player magically develops mysterious injury prior to the game and is withdrawn he avoids game day testing then that seems to be in competition, not out of competition?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How are you ‘in competition’ if you’re withdrawn before game day?

 

[Rathdown_Redeemer]

How are you ‘in competition’ if you’re withdrawn before game day?

It’s the Footy season - it’s in game … you can’t hide behind the fact that the player is not playing on that day … therefore, no harm no foul..,


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[teagueyubeauty]

Not sure why there’s an AFL sanctioned drugs policy, just remove it…only reason I can think of is so the AFL can control it. players can still go to the club doctor and have that confidentiality, and then they can totally own the consequences.

The IDP is a sham, just remove it altogether


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Stamos]

It’s the Footy season - it’s in game … you can’t hide behind the fact that the player is not playing on that day … therefore, no harm no foul..,


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How is it ‘in game’ if the player is not playing that day?
Think about what you’re saying.

 

[My Hat]

Yes agreed - recreational and not performance enhancing! That said, the part that I am most disturbed by and actually not clear on and perhaps I’m wrong here or misinformed ? It seems like internally (and aided and abetted by the AFL), the players that test positive in the pretest protocols are avoiding the three strike policy through this clandestine pretesting process. Is that your understanding or do I have the wrong end of the stick? And yes for me the tampering bit would be if the players are avoiding the three strike policy by getting pretested and dropping out of the games with fake injuries?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Regarding the three strike policy, my understanding is that it operates separately to game day testing, e.g. when Ginnivan got his second strike it had nothing to do with game day testing. So avoiding games is neither here nor there with respect to the three strike policy.

I do agree that the three strike policy is not really doing what it claims to do. It seems the AFL's 'medical model' has taken precedence over the three strike policy to the extent that almost nobody gets a second strike, let alone a third. Some sort of review is clearly needed to bring policy and reality more into line with each other. What that change should be is probably a whole other discussion.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

How is it ‘in game’ if the player is not playing that day?
Think about what you’re saying.

I was under the impression that WADA's definition of 'in competition' was during an active season, not game day.

 

[Stamos]

I was under the impression that WADA's definition of 'in competition' was during an active season, not game day.

No, starts 11.59 pm the night before you play/compete.

 

[Arr0w]

No, starts 11.59 pm the night before you play/compete.

Somewhat bizarre though isn't it

A rolling deadline, essentially the day of of your shift

But many organisations are similar, turn up clean the day of work, do whatever you want outside of those parameters

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

SuperCoach AFL

Clayton Oliver has been sent for scans following a training mishap. DETAILS | bit.ly/3VCrFuj

www.facebook.com

Everything is suspicious now. Oliver sent for scans on his finger after a training mishap.

You couldn't write a script with a bigger coincidence.

 

[mrjones]

* poster on the Main Board

Obviously doesn’t know the difference between PEDS & illicit drugs.

My eyes aren’t great. I was reading blah blah and the something about Mitch Fisting. I was hoping Mitch was OK!

 

[passmark]

So tell me, how do I explain this to my 8 year old when asked the question, especially when they are already getting educated about what’s right and wrong??

Oh boy.

 

[mrjones]

I’m not really sure if this is as big of a story as being made out.

Doctors are testing players for drug use and withdrawing them from games to avoid the possibility of player breaking ASADA or WADA rules.

There’s no gotcha moment here, the AFLs drug testing program is voluntary, the players are testing voluntarily and are being tested to make sure they don’t risk a 2-4 year doping ban.

I find it funny that a few people hear are making fun of the Demons in regards to their doctor being mentioned but I wonder if these same people are looking forward to our own player being named for his first game on Friday, after serving a ban for drug possession and needing to go to court.

Australia has doctor patient confidentiality laws, people can see their doctor for many many reasons and what they discuss there and do there is none of anyone’s business, especially their employer.

Bullshit. I’m a Dad and FFS I don’t want my kids hearing how easy it could be to “escape a ban”
Happy to have any AFL player that has made a commitment to his / her club and fans stand in court if required for doing the wrong thing. It’s hard work but they get paid pretty well to play the game he or she loves.
I’m already having awkward conversations about strikes and drug use in AFL with them. It shouldn’t be confusing.

 

[Rathdown_Redeemer]

‘Biggest scandal since Essendon’: AFL greats, pollies respond to drug test bombshell​

https://archive.md/p4mGY

Great summary… what a shitshow!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[THEYSEEMEROLLIN]

I’m totally not surprised by any of this news from this club and its doctor. I had three of their premiership players in my rideshare car last year and it was clear from their discussions amongst themselves that two had been on the snow that night and one had done a line before the game in the change rooms as a booster. I was surprised they discussed it so openly. I won’t name the players (and for all I know it was just talk even though they weren’t involving me in the conversation or trying to impress) but it was clear to me they have a cultural issue at the club after that night and the string of headlines that have come out since related to the club. That said, I’m sure there are many players at other clubs that also secretly use it to get up for a game or recreationally (which is apparently common in lower level leagues).

I concur with this story. My wife and I were having drinks in St Kilda years ago when the Dees current list was young and about 5 or 6 of them were at a daytime dance party at the same venue. 4 or 5 were blatantly doing nose beers in full view without a care in the world. One nameless #1 draft pick was off his nut all day and looked like he thought he was in Scarface. Acting a goat and had blow all over his face everytime he came out of the loos, which was about every 5 minutes. What you do in your own home is your business but public displays like that are total arrogance. Very noticeably, the 1 player that stayed out of it all and wasn't even drinking, he is their best player now. Funny that. But is beyond him or anyone to control that culture outside the footy club. I don't doubt any story I hear now out of the Dees concerning drug culture.

 

[ESKIE]

Wow here’s me thinking the booze cruise was bad