Oppo Camp Other Clubs News/General Discussion

[sideswipe]

Perhaps I'm a bit too laissez faire about drugs, but I don't see the story as a big deal. To me, it's just like doing a breatho to see if you're over the limit and will lose your licence if you get tested when driving home.

Agree - as far as I can see it’s not breaking any rules, just an action to ensure rules aren’t broken?

Might be indicative of an “underlying drug culture”, one which is prevalent across society. Especially so for young blokes with money, under serious job pressure, looking to blow off steam with something that won’t affect performance. Until it does…


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[adammania9]

Fresh ACL for Doedee, no good. Was thinking for the past week I’d love for him to have come to us and succeeded Howe

 

[sr36]

Agree - as far as I can see it’s not breaking any rules, just an action to ensure rules aren’t broken?

Might be indicative of an “underlying drug culture”, one which is prevalent across society. Especially so for young blokes with money, under serious job pressure, looking to blow off steam with something that won’t affect performance. Until it does…


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

I agree. It's going to be a media shitshow though with politicians piping up. As the Pollies and media know that a large section of the general public don't get that zero tolerance of drugs doesn't work and are horrified by the modern recommended approach. Zero tolerance doesn't even work in obedient authoritarian China. FFS. I'd love it to become an opportunity to educate - but it won't.

Glad it's Melbourne. Hopefully Carlton and Essendon get linked in.

 

[Kirby]

It's a totally nothing story.

It's also another case of a polly abusing parliamentary privilege to push an agenda.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Perhaps I'm a bit too laissez faire about drugs, but I don't see the story as a big deal. To me, it's just like doing a breatho to see if you're over the limit and will lose your licence if you get tested when driving home.

There’s two things at play here.

1 is the WADA situation and you’re quite right, if you have a player at risk of being positive on game day then you test them… then rest them if they are positive and make up an injury story nobody believes. Obviously didn’t work for smith though

2 is the so called illlicit drug policy. Nothing to do with WADa or game day . From memory first strike an anonymous warning , second strike club gets informed and official warning, third strike suspension. We all know the at system doesn’t work but if the AFL themselves are complicit in this policy fail then it’s not a good look.

But it’s Melbourne. Thank god.

 

[AmericanMustard]

I have no doubt we’re also involved. Hi Dayne Beams

11

Dayne Beams

Age

34

Ht

187cm

Wt

88kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

25.6

5star

K

13.2

5star

HB

12.4

5star

M

4.5

4star

T

3.6

5star

CL

4.9

5star

No current season stats available

D

15.6

4star

K

6.6

3star

HB

9.0

5star

M

4.6

5star

T

2.6

4star

quad injury.

But also AFL players are too precious. I generally don’t think anyone gives a toss if we wake up and see “out: illicit drugs” . They’re all going to get speculation with injuries now and they deserve it.

 

[sr36]

There’s two things at play here.

1 is the WADA situation and you’re quite right, if you have a player at risk of being positive on game day then you test them… then rest them if they are positive and make up an injury story nobody believes. Obviously didn’t work for smith though

2 is the so called illlicit drug policy. Nothing to do with WADa or game day . From memory first strike an anonymous warning , second strike club gets informed and official warning, third strike suspension. We all know the at system doesn’t work but if the AFL themselves are complicit in this policy fail then it’s not a good look.

But it’s Melbourne. Thank god.

What does working look like to you?

 

[Abdul_The_Bull]

I understand the argument that it doesn't contradict any explicit policy however, If it is being used to help 'positive' players from avoiding the AFL/WADA's screening then that's another story. I can't imagine that the process that Melbourne have adopted is for purely altruistic reasons - it surely copntains an element of deception or avoidance.

 

[sr36]

I understand the argument that it doesn't contradict any explicit policy however, If it is being used to help 'positive' players from avoiding the AFL/WADA's screening then that's another story. I can't imagine that the process that Melbourne have adopted is for purely altruistic reasons - it surely copntains an element of deception or avoidance.

Regardless of the reason - it's about stopping players playing on match day when they've got Match Day banned drugs in their system. I hope we'd do something similar if a player let us know that he'd taken a recreational drug during the week. And I hope we have a system in place where players can tell someone at the club and that we have a harm prevention strategy if or when that occurs.

 

[Abdul_The_Bull]

Regardless of the reason - it's about stopping players playing on match day when they've got Match Day banned drugs in their system. I hope we'd do the same if a player let us know that he'd taken a recreational drug during the week.

If it's exclusively for that purpose, then fair enough. However, I suspect that it's more about ensuring the players that are tested are then kept at arms length from the true testing authorities. Perhaps I'm a little too sceptical but I don't see this as purely precuationary.

 

[sr36]

If it's exclusively for that purpose, then fair enough. However, I suspect that it's more about ensuring the players that are tested are then kept at arms length from the true testing authorities. Perhaps I'm a little too sceptical but I don't see this as purely precuationary.

Isn't that the same thing? Recreational drugs are only prohibited under the WADA code on match day. It's making sure that a bloke who might still have some cocaine in his system doesn't play a match with cocaine still in his system - as the consequences of that are huge.

 

[Abdul_The_Bull]

Isn't that the same thing? Recreational drugs are only prohibited under the WADA code on match day. It's making sure that a bloke who might still have some cocaine in his system doesn't play a match with cocaine still in his system.

Yes, but I'm not suggesting that they would omit players so that they're not subject to testing, I'm suggesting that those players would likely still play but the club then can 'run intercept' on testing authorities and steer them away from those players. And I don't believe for one second that this doesn't happen.

 

[HFF]

Doedee another ACL tear.
We dodged a bullet here tipping $750k x5 on a player having now his third ACL in 4 years.

 

[Roverjg]

Perhaps I'm a bit too laissez faire about drugs, but I don't see the story as a big deal. To me, it's just like doing a breatho to see if you're over the limit and will lose your licence if you get tested when driving home.

The implications are huge. This isn't just drug taking. Particularly with betting on football. If a drug affected player won the brownlow when he should not have been playing, or tipped the game in their teams favour there will be lawsuits against the AFL worth $$$$$$ , allegations of fraud when taking money from WADA etc.

On SM-N975F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Roverjg]

There’s two things at play here.

1 is the WADA situation and you’re quite right, if you have a player at risk of being positive on game day then you test them… then rest them if they are positive and make up an injury story nobody believes. Obviously didn’t work for smith though

2 is the so called illlicit drug policy. Nothing to do with WADa or game day . From memory first strike an anonymous warning , second strike club gets informed and official warning, third strike suspension. We all know the at system doesn’t work but if the AFL themselves are complicit in this policy fail then it’s not a good look.

But it’s Melbourne. Thank god.

The allegations are not just against Melbourne. With the AFL chief Medico involved it is claimed all clubs are possibly involved

On SM-N975F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[sr36]

Yes, but I'm not suggesting that they would omit players so that they're not subject to testing, I'm suggesting that those players would likely still play but the club then can 'run intercept' on testing authorities and steer them away from those players. And I don't believe for one second that this doesn't happen.

The story is that they planned to or did omit them with fake injuries.

I don't think they can steer them away from players on Matchday. My understanding is they have a list of players and stick around until they've seen them piss into a cup.

 

[barrackers]

Glad Goodwin isn’t our coach. What a weak press conference. Deflect, deflect, deny, deny… The audacity to claim no suspicion of this type of thing happening is remarkable given there’s been public whispers for years.

 

[swoop42]

'Incredibly heartbreaking': Lion's debut ruined by fresh ACL injury

Tom Doedee suffers a fresh ACL injury at training on Tuesday

www.afl.com.au

Unfortunate for him but I was never a fan of taking on someone after 2 knee reconstructions and especially so on a 4 year contract offer.

 

[barrackers]

Doedee another ACL tear.
We dodged a bullet here tipping $750k x5 on a player having now his third ACL in 4 years.

We certainly could have used a kpd, but another knee was always a risk. Unfortunate for Doedee

 

[stormskye]

Doedee another ACL tear.
We dodged a bullet here tipping $750k x5 on a player having now his third ACL in 4 years.

Oh wow….. we all said no chance is he worth that with his history.

Horrible luck for him.

 

[sr36]

The implications are huge. This isn't just drug taking. Particularly with betting on football. If a drug affected player won the brownlow when he should not have been playing, or tipped the game in their teams favour there will be lawsuits against the AFL worth $$$$$$ , allegations of fraud when taking money from WADA etc.

On SM-N975F using BigFooty.com mobile app

I think you're missing the point - the practice is to stop a bloke playing in a game with match day banned recreational drugs in their system. It's so that players don't breach the WADA code.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

The story is that they planned to or did omit them with fake injuries.

I don't think they can steer them away from players on Matchday. My understanding is they have a list of players and stick around until they've seen them piss into a cup.

Kinda what I said or tried to say. This is more about their illicit policy and if they took stuff a few days prior to game day they were testing then making up fake injuries so that they wouldn’t cop the wrath of WADA for a perfomance enhancing breach. Which in smiths case didn’t work anyway!

 

[sr36]

The allegations are not just against Melbourne. With the AFL chief Medico involved it is claimed all clubs are possibly involved

On SM-N975F using BigFooty.com mobile app

All well run clubs will encourage players to be open if they do take a recreational drug during the week - which would put them at risk of breaching the WADA code.

The only real difference would be whether you automically omit someone with "general soreness", "managed" etc or whether you test them and play them if the drug doesn't show up.

How else would you do it?

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

All well run clubs will encourage players to be open if they do take a recreational drug during the week - which would put them at risk of breaching the WADA code.

The only real difference would be whether you automically omit someone with "general soreness", "managed" etc or whether you test them and play them if the drug doesn't show up.

How else would you do it?

The three strike policy would fix it but it’s clearly not being implemented.

 

[sr36]

The three strike policy would fix it but it’s clearly not being implemented.

That'll be the AFL response. Get clubs to notch these things as a strike under the three strikes policy. I think the current 3 strikes policy is only if you test positive in an official drug test.

It won't "fix it" or reduce drug use. AFL clubs can't fix an issue that is society wide. It'll probably just make less players willing to repoort their drug use to the club if they are at risk of testing positive - resulting in more players playing with recreational drugs in their system.