-
AFLW 2024 - Round 8 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Play Nice WADA v Essendon 34: Guilty, 2 Yr Susp. (backdated to Mar 2015). Affects 17 current AFL plyrs.
- Thread starter The_Wookie
- Start date
-
- Tags
- wada
- Tagged users None
- Jul 22, 2013
- 18,822
- 27,489
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Duuuh.
By this astounding logic we should only test footballers in the Grand Final.
Do you think Olympic athletes might maybe have to perform to GET to an Olympics? For a great many of them, who have no genuine chance of winning a medal, the most important day of their career is the day they hit an Olympic qualifying standard. Which may be at a crappy little event in pigknuckle Arkansas in front of three people and a black dog.
Should have been the next step 4 years ago
Keys
Looking for a cloud to yell at
- Moderator
- #5,504
By that logic a two year ban may well be enough to keep an athlete out of the Olympics. A three year ban almost certainly would
A 4 year ban is there to ensure an athlete misses at least one Olympics
There's a difference in the impact between Olympic and non Olympic athletes
it puzzles me how quickly you forget things. Yes that discussion was had at length but it was many, many months ago that I conceded I was wrong about strict liability only being relevant in AAF scenarios, because once guilt is proven by whatever method then strict liability (the legal principle that reverses the onus of proof, as I correctly argued) then applies from that point
The new four years are based on research showing elevated performance from PEDs lasts longer than 2 years. The Olympic cycle is an absolute furfy and isn't an issue. Dope cheats affect more than sports played at the Olympic Games and should not be allowed in any sport, even bloody tiddywinks
Bullcrap!
Cheating is cheating...in any sport. Doping is doping...in any sport.
Here's a very simple concept for you, don't dope, don't cheat and then have no problems
that might be the narrative, but I question that, you can argue that roids last your whole career if you maintain the size you gained, whilst stimulants have no lasting benefit after a few days. not sure why 4 is the magic number given the diverse range of substances banned.
I would agree with you as far as short term stimulants are concerned but Im not so sure about increased muscle mass. (prepared to be shift my stance if the evidence stacks up)
I'm trying to identify the research involved (I saw this a long time back when the changes to the WADA code were being discussed) I think it involved an analysis of sprinters and cyclists (??? my brain is no longer young
) and it showed elevated performance levels that tapered off but were still present after 2 years. They tapered off further after but from memory were still detectable.Either, if you don't cheat and follow your obligations under the code, you won't lose a minute through bans
edit: Also unsure what PEDS were being discussed in the research but from my point of view, if you want to make sure there is no chance of an elevated level, then go life bans for the first offence. I'd be happy with that.
It's really painful.
Essendon is a team, just like the US postal service team was a team. Just like the East German olympic team was a team, just like the Chinese swim team was a team. I mean heck, if the Essendon players think they got it bad, how would you like to be an olympian in a communist regime?
Keys
Looking for a cloud to yell at
- Moderator
- #5,512
They're not all the same. Saad for example was a genuine one off screw up so 2 years was a massive penalty for a moment of stupidity.
In other instances 4 years still isn't long enough.
My point is that 4 year bans is a result of the Olympic cycle and that when comparing to other sports a 4 year ban isn't necessarily comparing apples with apples
Saad made unsupported claims that it was a screw up. Guess what? Unsupported claims are worth zip. Saad took a banned stimulant on game day and got caught. From my own team, Crowley took a pain killer that left traces in his system on gameday. They both breached the code and wore bans.
The whole reason sport exists is to have an even competition, played within the rules, where ALL participants respect the game, the rules and each other to provide a fair contest. If you're not a part of that ethos then you don't belong in sport. Call it entertainment but just be honest enough to declare it staged and not a sport. If you cop a four year ban or life because you can't respect the rules then good. Go and do something else but don't lie about being a sportsman
Scott Embery
Senior List
- Oct 29, 2010
- 212
- 96
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
Ever heard of the Diamond League for athletes as well as world championships? It's not all about the Olympic games only.
jenny61_99
Premium Platinum
That's cool. I did seem to miss that. (I blame old age). But I just thought it interesting. Wasn't trying to do anything other than just confer with you re the finding. No biggy.
- Jan 7, 2010
- 12,760
- 37,476
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Adelaide Strikers
Essendon CAS verdict: Decision gives cause for comfort
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/afl...-gives-cause-for-comfort-20160116-gm7axr.html
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/afl...-gives-cause-for-comfort-20160116-gm7axr.html
I was being sarcastic, maybe you missed that.
There is no doubt the AFL tribunal set the doubt level somewhere between comfortable satisfaction and beyond reasonable doubt. CAS simply lowered it to what it should have been and we have the result we had this week.
I was making fun of 60sbomber, there is no way they didn't rule to the correct level of doubt.
I liked the following extract from that report:-
Claims the AFL sought a pragmatic early solution to the Essendon drama in the first half of 2013 were denied by CEO Gillon McLachlan on Tuesday night's AFL 360. Yet Aurora Andruska, the CEO of the Australian Anti-Doping Authority through the first 15 months of the saga, is on record as saying: "Their [the AFL's] objectives and ASADA's objectives are almost at odds with each other's. They are about protecting their business, protecting their brand." Andruska, it should be pointed out, was specifically lauded by Justice John Middleton of the Federal Court, in September 2014, as a "truthful witness".
Read more: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/afl/afl-news/tim-lane-cas-decision-gives-cause-for-comfort-20160116-gm7axr.html#ixzz3xOdGeXb7
Follow us: @canberratimes on Twitter | CanberraTimes on Facebook
Arden
Brownlow Medallist
So swiftly. In a three year blink of the eye.
Great article by Tim. Hit the nail on the head beautifully.
Yes it makes Australia look like s*** to the rest of the world but at every other athlete is now absolutely on notice. Don't cheat.
Best one yet.
Man.. you have zero, zilch and nada, which is why you were, ultimately, found guilty by...
Just slink away. It's better than being a laughing stock.
Because no matter what you write now, a laughing stock is all you'll ever be. There is no face saving to be had by any Bomber supporter, certainly not one who has fought tooth and nail and then proved to be so very wrong.
The new code has alot more variability in it's penalties. Not as rigid. It gives 4 years to deliberate true drug cheats using stuff like HGH, steroids etc.. but there's now more variability in the penalties for inadvertent errors, those guilty but certainly no intent to cheat. Ahmed Saad would've been treated more leniently under the new code. So there is more variability under the new code. Stimulants unlikely to get 4 years, although that can depends on circumstances too. I'm sure deliberately taking a stimulant for an Olympic final might get 4 years. Inadvertent 6-12 months. Think there may be a tougher interpretation on Teams but not sure. They spoke about it. Be interesting to see how Essendon may have gone under the new code.
ManWithNoName
TheBrownDog
Interesting article from Tim Lane.
Between the AFL's version of events and ASADA's, I'm inclined to trust ASADA's. Their interests, seemingly, are clean sport. That's it. The AFL has so many conflicts of interests, and a history of managing situations to their desired outcomes, with Gillon's hands all over it (see his threats to Neil Craig) that I don't trust a word he says.
Between the AFL's version of events and ASADA's, I'm inclined to trust ASADA's. Their interests, seemingly, are clean sport. That's it. The AFL has so many conflicts of interests, and a history of managing situations to their desired outcomes, with Gillon's hands all over it (see his threats to Neil Craig) that I don't trust a word he says.
Talks about how solidarity brought down the players.
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...n_code=nocode&promote_channel=social_facebook
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...n_code=nocode&promote_channel=social_facebook
