former president of WADA slams AFL an unclean sport

[azif]

Dick Pound likens the AFL's tactics of hiding 100 plus players from competition to being similar to Soviet Block nations drug programs during the cold war
sanctioned cheating that looks like East Germany in the 1970's
https://www.heraldsun.com.au/subscribe/ ... nt-1-SCORE

what a vile disgusting sport the AFL is
what responsible parent would allow their child anywhere near this drug fucked shit show

[Terry]

Dick Pound likens the AFL's tactics of hiding 100 plus players from competition to being similar to Soviet Block nations drug programs during the cold war
sanctioned cheating that looks like East Germany in the 1970's
https://www.heraldsun.com.au/subscribe/ ... nt-1-SCORE

what a vile disgusting sport the AFL is
what responsible parent would allow their child anywhere near this drug fucked shit show

Pound is 100% correct. How anyone, anywhere can defend the AFL regime about this is incredible. The Big Dill's cover-up squad is tantamount to the old East German Stasi. They must be so proud.

A couple of other quotes from todays Herald Sun: "League's (AFL) attitude creates addicts". And, "Policy opens the door to organised crime, blackmail and corruption".

It sure must be fun being a fumble fan!!!!!!! What a sport!!

[azif]

Dick Pound likens the AFL's tactics of hiding 100 plus players from competition to being similar to Soviet Block nations drug programs during the cold war
sanctioned cheating that looks like East Germany in the 1970's
https://www.heraldsun.com.au/subscribe/ ... nt-1-SCORE

what a vile disgusting sport the AFL is
what responsible parent would allow their child anywhere near this drug fucked shit show

Pound is 100% correct. How anyone, anywhere can defend the AFL regime about this is incredible. The Big Dill's cover-up squad is tantamount to the old East German Stasi. They must be so proud.

A couple of other quotes from todays Herald Sun: "League's (AFL) attitude creates addicts". And, "Policy opens the door to organised crime, blackmail and corruption".

It sure must be fun being a fumble fan!!!!!!! What a sport!!

what I despise most is the AFL claiming their behaviour is motivated by player welfare
Like fuck it is

its motivated by brand protection & image management
they would happily throw 100 hundred young men under the bus if it meant its dopey supporters believe there isn't an alarming drug problem within its sport & the parents of skinny young white unco children across the nation would be happy to have their kids fumble bumble & miss in singlets

the truth hurts the brand
the truth will NOT .. be told

[Bbear]

The AFL players association had too much say on this policy. and watered it down, so players avoid being penalised., they need to butt out.
Leave the development of such policy to administrators and consultants who have expert knowledge of substance abuse in sport.

[Fred]

The AFL players association had too much say on this policy. and watered it down, so players avoid being penalised., they need to butt out.
Leave the development of such policy to administrators and consultants who have expert knowledge of substance abuse in sport.

You do realise it is a voluntary code for the illicit substances - the players could just choose not to do any testing for illicit substances apart from game day where some illicit substances are seen as performance enhancing. So the ADLPA have a lot of power as could just say - nope - we are not going to be part of this voluntary protocol.

[azif]

The AFL players association had too much say on this policy. and watered it down, so players avoid being penalised., they need to butt out.
Leave the development of such policy to administrators and consultants who have expert knowledge of substance abuse in sport.

You do realise it is a voluntary code for the illicit substances - the players could just choose not to do any testing for illicit substances apart from game day where some illicit substances are seen as performance enhancing. So the ADLPA have a lot of power as could just say - nope - we are not going to be part of this voluntary protocol.

then the AFL becomes non signatory to the WADA code that all other major sports on the planet are part of , potentially putting at risk millions in federal govt funding

the AFL was weak
piss weak infact

this is a disgrace plain & simple

[Fred]

The AFL players association had too much say on this policy. and watered it down, so players avoid being penalised., they need to butt out.
Leave the development of such policy to administrators and consultants who have expert knowledge of substance abuse in sport.

You do realise it is a voluntary code for the illicit substances - the players could just choose not to do any testing for illicit substances apart from game day where some illicit substances are seen as performance enhancing. So the ADLPA have a lot of power as could just say - nope - we are not going to be part of this voluntary protocol.

then the AFL becomes non signatory to the WADA code that all other major sports on the planet are part of , potentially putting at risk millions in federal govt funding

the AFL was weak
piss weak infact

this is a disgrace plain & simple

I thought wada just did performance enhancing drugs - not illicit substances. That’s the read I have on it anyway. The testing for “party drugs” I don’t think is done as an official wada thing but is a voluntary code the players agree to adhere to.

[azif]

You do realise it is a voluntary code for the illicit substances - the players could just choose not to do any testing for illicit substances apart from game day where some illicit substances are seen as performance enhancing. So the ADLPA have a lot of power as could just say - nope - we are not going to be part of this voluntary protocol.

then the AFL becomes non signatory to the WADA code that all other major sports on the planet are part of , potentially putting at risk millions in federal govt funding

the AFL was weak
piss weak infact

this is a disgrace plain & simple

I thought wada just did performance enhancing drugs - not illicit substances. That’s the read I have on it anyway. The testing for “party drugs” I don’t think is done as an official wada thing but is a voluntary code the players agree to adhere to.

ah
no
wrong
many party drugs are on the banned list for their performance enhancing properties ,

a governing body of a sport openly running a program that flaunts WADAs rules is beyond the pale
unacceptable
disgusting

[Fred]

then the AFL becomes non signatory to the WADA code that all other major sports on the planet are part of , potentially putting at risk millions in federal govt funding

the AFL was weak
piss weak infact

this is a disgrace plain & simple

I thought wada just did performance enhancing drugs - not illicit substances. That’s the read I have on it anyway. The testing for “party drugs” I don’t think is done as an official wada thing but is a voluntary code the players agree to adhere to.

ah
no
wrong
many party drugs are on the banned list for their performance enhancing properties ,

a governing body of a sport openly running a program that flaunts WADAs rules is beyond the pale
unacceptable
disgusting

Fair enough - the reports I have seen state that if you have cocaine in your body game day then, and only then, is it considered a performance enhancing drug. I am pretty sure that the current issue is with substance abuse issues - but admittedly my knowledge isn't great so maybe I need to do a deeper dive.

This seems like a good balanced article - but importantly it outlines what WADA is testing for and the voluntary illicit substances protocol in the AFL (and NRL). What's your read on the article and whether it makes it clearer re: testing and illicit substances as opposed to performance enhancing (of which, some illicit substances in the system on game day are con sidered to be)?

https://www.uts.edu.au/about/uts-busine ... %20doctors.

[Fred]

Here's another article that explains the different testing regimes, what they test for and why, including the AFL out of comp testing which is the topic of the moment. So any funding is tied to WADA and SIA (formerly ASADA) it seems, and then there is the AFL out of comp testing for illicit substances which is a voluntary code signed onto by the AFLPA.

opps forgot to posy the article. Will try and find,

Wasn't this one - but this seems to balanced.
https://theconversation.com/protection- ... are-226735

[azif]

I thought wada just did performance enhancing drugs - not illicit substances. That’s the read I have on it anyway. The testing for “party drugs” I don’t think is done as an official wada thing but is a voluntary code the players agree to adhere to.

ah
no
wrong
many party drugs are on the banned list for their performance enhancing properties ,

a governing body of a sport openly running a program that flaunts WADAs rules is beyond the pale
unacceptable
disgusting

Fair enough - the reports I have seen state that if you have cocaine in your body game day then, and only then, is it considered a performance enhancing drug. I am pretty sure that the current issue is with substance abuse issues - but admittedly my knowledge isn't great so maybe I need to do a deeper dive.

This seems like a good balanced article - but importantly it outlines what WADA is testing for and the voluntary illicit substances protocol in the AFL (and NRL). What's your read on the article and whether it makes it clearer re: testing and illicit substances as opposed to performance enhancing (of which, some illicit substances in the system on game day are con sidered to be)?

https://www.uts.edu.au/about/uts-busine ... %20doctors.

thats just propaganda & I completely reject the reasoning , its excuse making for this disgraceful behaviour

As I posted earlier
if this was a " necessary measure " then why has no other sport on the planet done anything like this , why have they all followed the rules except the AFL & why is the AFL is on its own here ?

flouting the rules
thinking they're a law unto themselves
brand protection
controlling information
deceitful conduct

[Fred]

But do you see where it is a voluntary code - hence I commented to someone else who stated the AFLPA watered it down - re: they could have just said no to it - not many other sports actually have the AFLs out of comp testing for illicit substances - which this falls under.

I do agree that it looks pretty dodgy when a player taking illicit substances in the week is tested and removed from playing so as to not then come under the WADA code - as the substance would be then considered performance enhancing. I can see how not letting a player play that has remnants of illicit substances in their system would seem logical - the question is, only the player and his doctor know of this. So then what is the answer - if a person goes to his doctor and gets a urine test that shows cocaise in his system still from taking some Wednesday night - so he withdraws with a fake injury - should the doctor inform the club? Should the player inform the club? My initial concern was that it seemed orchestrated as a way (and it is) to avoid game day testing - which would see a year plus ban - as considered performance enhancing.

It is a difficult one I think - and not as straight forward as I would like indeed. I am not sure the solution is either. The problem seemed to be it looks like a cover up - may be it is - but often people think there are simple siltions to complex problems - which there is often not.

[azif]

But do you see where it is a voluntary code - hence I commented to someone else who stated the AFLPA watered it down - re: they could have just said no to it - not many other sports actually have the AFLs out of comp testing for illicit substances - which this falls under.

I do agree that it looks pretty dodgy when a player taking illicit substances in the week is tested and removed from playing so as to not then come under the WADA code - as the substance would be then considered performance enhancing. I can see how not letting a player play that has remnants of illicit substances in their system would seem logical - the question is, only the player and his doctor know of this. So then what is the answer - if a person goes to his doctor and gets a urine test that shows cocaise in his system still from taking some Wednesday night - so he withdraws with a fake injury - should the doctor inform the club? Should the player inform the club? My initial concern was that it seemed orchestrated as a way (and it is) to avoid game day testing - which would see a year plus ban - as considered performance enhancing.

It is a difficult one I think - and not as straight forward as I would like indeed. I am not sure the solution is either. The problem seemed to be it looks like a cover up - may be it is - but often people think there are simple siltions to complex problems - which there is often not.

only the AFL allows it to be voluntary
all other sports run with the integrity of their sport in mind , & do not allow the lunatics to run the asylum !

the AFL's position is so out of touch with all other sports on the planet it beggars belief

[Fred]

I think the AFL is one of few to even have such a code for non-game day testing of illicit substances - that was my read of the articles anyway. Many other sports don't test for this from what I can see - I believe the NRL also does as well - but not many others world wide. The former head of ASADA was pointing this out in one article i read.






Earlier this week, independent MP Andrew Wilkie accused the AFL of conducting “off the books” illicit drug testing to identify players using substances of abuse, then inappropriately withdrawing them from matches under false pretences.

His comments created a media storm, largely because he inferred a nefarious cover-up.

However, Wilkie may not understand how and why Australian sports are pressured into taking a responsibility for protecting athletes, which the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and Sports Integrity Australia (SIA) fail to do in regards to illicit drugs.

What is WADA’s position on illicit drugs?
Australia is a signatory to the WADA Code, which monitors performance integrity in respect of doping. This includes substances banned at all times, such as anabolic steroids and EPO, as well as substances banned only in competition, notably cannabis, heroin, ecstasy, and cocaine.

The latter are deemed “substances of abuse” and are associated with so-called recreational use in society.

Scientists do not consider these to be performance-enhancing – if anything they compromise exercise and endurance.

However, according to WADA, these drugs contravene two pillars (Section 4.3) of the anti-doping code: they are understood to be a “threat to athletes’ health” and their use contrary to the “spirit of sport”.

Despite this position, WADA, and by extension SIA, does not monitor substances of abuse outside of competition; it is only interested in their use on match day.

Indeed, WADA’s unwillingness to test for illicit substances out of competition (which it could do from the same urine sample that tests for performance-enhancing drugs) means sports are left to manage the risk of athletes engaging with substances of abuse and testing positive on match day.

Why does the AFL have an illicit drug policy?
Since 2005, the AFL has operated an illicit drug policy with a core goal of monitoring substance abuse behaviour to minimise the risk of WADA’s match-day violations.

To do so, it pays a drug testing company to act on its behalf and report back to the league, which then communicates with club doctors.

It is a medical model where drug addiction personnel work with players to try to change substance abuse behaviours.

With three “strikes”, the emphasis is on rehabilitation rather than punishment, though a player with a second or third strike will be named publicly, fined, and miss games.

The illicit drug policy is made possible because the AFL Players Association – like their equivalents in the NRL, cricket, and so on – have voluntarily consented to the process, provided it is driven by a medical model that protects players’ privacy up to the second strike, at which point there are consequences for repeat misconduct.

[azif]

I think the AFL is one of few to even have such a code for non-game day testing of illicit substances - that was my read of the articles anyway. Many other sports don't test for this from what I can see - I believe the NRL also does as well - but not many others world wide. The former head of ASADA was pointing this out in one article i read.






Earlier this week, independent MP Andrew Wilkie accused the AFL of conducting “off the books” illicit drug testing to identify players using substances of abuse, then inappropriately withdrawing them from matches under false pretences.

His comments created a media storm, largely because he inferred a nefarious cover-up.

However, Wilkie may not understand how and why Australian sports are pressured into taking a responsibility for protecting athletes, which the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and Sports Integrity Australia (SIA) fail to do in regards to illicit drugs.

What is WADA’s position on illicit drugs?
Australia is a signatory to the WADA Code, which monitors performance integrity in respect of doping. This includes substances banned at all times, such as anabolic steroids and EPO, as well as substances banned only in competition, notably cannabis, heroin, ecstasy, and cocaine.

The latter are deemed “substances of abuse” and are associated with so-called recreational use in society.

Scientists do not consider these to be performance-enhancing – if anything they compromise exercise and endurance.

However, according to WADA, these drugs contravene two pillars (Section 4.3) of the anti-doping code: they are understood to be a “threat to athletes’ health” and their use contrary to the “spirit of sport”.

Despite this position, WADA, and by extension SIA, does not monitor substances of abuse outside of competition; it is only interested in their use on match day.

Indeed, WADA’s unwillingness to test for illicit substances out of competition (which it could do from the same urine sample that tests for performance-enhancing drugs) means sports are left to manage the risk of athletes engaging with substances of abuse and testing positive on match day.

Why does the AFL have an illicit drug policy?
Since 2005, the AFL has operated an illicit drug policy with a core goal of monitoring substance abuse behaviour to minimise the risk of WADA’s match-day violations.

To do so, it pays a drug testing company to act on its behalf and report back to the league, which then communicates with club doctors.

It is a medical model where drug addiction personnel work with players to try to change substance abuse behaviours.

With three “strikes”, the emphasis is on rehabilitation rather than punishment, though a player with a second or third strike will be named publicly, fined, and miss games.

The illicit drug policy is made possible because the AFL Players Association – like their equivalents in the NRL, cricket, and so on – have voluntarily consented to the process, provided it is driven by a medical model that protects players’ privacy up to the second strike, at which point there are consequences for repeat misconduct.

see
this is absolutely... laughable

With three “strikes”, the emphasis is on rehabilitation rather than punishment, though a player with a second or third strike will be named publicly, fined, and miss games.

what bloody three strikes ???????

The AFL is shielding its players from ever getting one strike let alone three , rendering their own policy ( which was ridiculous in the first place)
..... pointless

there is no spinning this
its systemic passive acceptance of drug use by the AFL & if I was a parent I would not let my child near this sport