Oppo Camp Other Clubs News/General Discussion

[Jen2310]

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

That was the plan last year but he chose Brisbane instead.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ElliottsMaggies]

It's a totally nothing story.

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

You should see them salivating over it on the Rumour thread.. particularly Bomber supporters, lol.

All wondering why it's not as big a story today as they thought it would be.

 

[TheVillageIdiot7]

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.

3 strikes is out of competition testing.

Match day is WADA. Zero tolerance to substances deemed performance enhancing.
Not run or controlled by the AFL.

AFL should not sign up to WADA if they are going to do their own thing anyway.

 

[TheVillageIdiot7]

You should see them salivating over it on the Rumour thread.. particularly Bomber supporters, lol.

All wondering why it's not as big a story today as they thought it would be.

Its a big story.
But like a few on here, i agree it's not because of the fact players are taking the drugs.

More that the AFL are actively circumventing WADA authority on match day (allegedly).

IMO - that and the manipulation of a game by virtue of benching players are actually the stories.

 

[gouki88]

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

Man, his knees seem totally shot!

 

[gouki88]

It's a totally nothing story.

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

It is, but it also smears Shaun Smith, so…

 

[Vicky Park]

It's a totally nothing story.

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

You may be right, but I’m hoping the story will take some attention away from us. We are copping it from all angles at the moment, and any distraction is welcome. Especially if it doesn’t involve us - for now…

 

[The Royal Sampler]

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.

If it’s “off the books” it makes a complete mockery of the three strikes policy for illicit drugs. Yes it protects the player from testing positive under the WADA code, and a lengthy ban, but the ulterior motive of the AFL is to keep its premium product out on the field and avoid unwanted negative press.

The illicit drugs policy is designed to maximise player welfare, and it is being subverted by the clubs’ and league’s interests.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

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

Unfortunate but that contract was Russian Roulette from the get-go. At least we price enforced.

 

[ElliottsMaggies]

Its a big story.
But like a few on here, i agree it's not because of the fact players are taking the drugs.

More that the AFL are actively circumventing WADA authority on match day (allegedly).

IMO - that and the manipulation of a game by virtue of benching players are actually the stories.

I don't think it is a big story. It's in line with the AFL illicit drug policy. They're not putting players on the field who may have illicit drugs in their system.

It's Bartlett, Smith Snr trying to get revenge against the Dees via a politician in Wilkie who doesn't want a Tasmanian footy team & who clearly doesn't understand the AFL's illicit drug policy.

 

[sideswipe]

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.

Utter nonsense. Clubs cannot 'run intercept'. WADA testers walk into the rooms and inform who they are testing and do not leave their sight until a sample is provided. There is no "choice".

 

[The Royal Sampler]

I don't think it is a big story. It's in line with the AFL illicit drug policy. They're not putting players on the field who may have illicit drugs in their system.

It’s also preventing them recording a strike under the AFL’s own policy, devised specifically to deal with recreational (but not performance-enhancing) drug use. And the benefits for clubs and the AFL in doing so are obvious, such that they have no moral authority.

 

[Abdul_The_Bull]

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.

Willie Rioli says 'Hi'.

 

[sr36]

If it’s “off the books” it makes a complete mockery of the three strikes policy for illicit drugs. Yes it protects the player from testing positive under the WADA code, and a lengthy ban, but the ulterior motive of the AFL is to keep its premium product out on the field and avoid unwanted negative press.

The illicit drugs policy is designed to maximise player welfare, and it is being subverted by the clubs’ and league’s interests.

I'm talking about the self reporting part rather than the testing part. I'd argue that the 3 strikes policy isn't about maximising player welfare but is a compromise between recommended practice and the public's desire to see the AFL police player recreational drug use. Discouraging self reporting by making self reporting a strike isn't the way to go.

Where Melbourne went wrong is that they tested the players rather than just simply omitting them. It would be a risk as something could still show up in a subsequent test and it may have also contravened the three strikes policy (I'm not sure if it's 3 positive tests or 3 positive WADA tests.)

A fair chance that they also went wrong in terms of the counselling phase that would be recommended for self reporting - that's a guess though.

 

[sr36]

Willie Rioli says 'Hi'.

He tried to beat the system and got done.

 

[sideswipe]

Willie Rioli says 'Hi'.

You know he got caught trying to tamper with his sample? It goes against your contention.

 

[ElliottsMaggies]

It’s also preventing them recording a strike under the AFL’s own policy, devised specifically to deal with recreational (but not performance-enhancing) drug use. And the benefits for clubs and the AFL in doing so are obvious, such that they have no moral authority.

Well maybe that might be where the Dee's are called out..if they were doing this so their players avoided a strike. But if players self report, I didn't think it was recorded as strike anyway.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Its a big story.
But like a few on here, i agree it's not because of the fact players are taking the drugs.

More that the AFL are actively circumventing WADA authority on match day (allegedly).

IMO - that and the manipulation of a game by virtue of benching players are actually the stories.

Or another way of looking at it… the AFL are endorsing a practice where players with illicit drugs in their system are withheld from matches so that they don’t break the WADA code.

 

[Abdul_The_Bull]

You know he got caught trying to tamper with his sample? It goes against your contention.

And what penalty did he received from that? Tampering with a sample is subject to a four year ban - I don't recall that happening....

 

[sr36]

3 strikes is out of competition testing.

Match day is WADA. Zero tolerance to substances deemed performance enhancing.
Not run or controlled by the AFL.

AFL should not sign up to WADA if they are going to do their own thing anyway.

Out of competition testing is WADA/ASADA too. This doesn't contravene WADA. It helps players to not breach the WADA code (unless we're all misunderstanding and they were doing this for PEDs). WADA don't care about the AFL's separate out of competition recreational drug policy.

 

[sr36]

And what penalty did he received from that? Tampering with a sample is subject to a four year ban - I don't recall that happening....

He got two years, which assumedly there was a provision within th ASADA code to give a bloke two years rather than 4 - or perhaps it was just 2 at the time - it seems to change every couple of years.

 

[sideswipe]

And what penalty did he received from that? Tampering with a sample is subject to a four year ban - I don't recall that happening....

Two-year suspension: Rioli's backdated ban revealed

West Coast's Willie Rioli can play again in August after the AFL Anti-Doping Tribunal handed down its ban

www.afl.com.au

 

[The Royal Sampler]

This doesn't contravene WADA. It helps players to not breach the WADA code (unless we're all misunderstanding and they were doing this for PEDs).

Kinda like how telling people where all the speed cameras are, helps people not to speed.

Or telling a mob boss you’re wearing a wire helps him not incriminate himself.

 

[sr36]

You may be right, but I’m hoping the story will take some attention away from us. We are copping it from all angles at the moment, and any distraction is welcome. Especially if it doesn’t involve us - for now…

It will, but it will probably become a league wide story - clubs would be negligent to not encourage self reporting and then to take action to avoid the risk of blokes testing positive.

Hopefully, it then winds back to just Melbourne and the probability that they then just ignored the drug use, rather than counselling players. A Dees negligence story would be fun.

Either way - they'll cop an AFL whack - which is good - because that's what the AFL do with a negative story - regardless of whether the club has done anything wrong.

 

[sideswipe]

It will, but it will probably become a league wide story - clubs would be negligent to not encourage self reporting and then to take action to avoid the risk of blokes testing positive.

Hopefully, it then winds back to just Melbourne and the probability that they then just ignored the drug use, rather than counselling players. A Dees negligence story would be fun.

Either way - they'll cop an AFL whack - which is good - because that's what the AFL do with a negative story - regardless of whether the club has done anything wrong.

Don't think there will be any whack. The AFL has come out very strongly supporting the extra testing.