Drugs and players and game outcomes

[Dan Warna]

how would we feel if we found out that we lost a game narrowly and one of the opposition players was under the influence of drugs?

alternatively its a grandfinal, you have two players with 1 strike and the rest of the team has no strikes under the 3 strike rule.

would you give your players performance enhancing drugs knowing that there is a limited chance of testing and the outcome wont be overturned and at worst you will have 2 players with 2 strikes against their name?

what if you season was on the balance and one player from the opposition was under the influence of performance enhancing drugs?

should the outcome of the game stand?

remember a whole rowing 8 was disqualified because of 1 person under the influence?!!

ben johnsons olympic medal would be returned to him because of the 3 strikes rule?!?!!!

[Life Long Saint]

My understanding of the three strikes policy for recreational drugs applie to out of season testing only.

If a player tests positive in season for recreational drugs he faces a 12 week ban.

If if tests positive to performance enhancing drugs, he is gone for two years...(either in or out of season).

[meher baba]

how would we feel if we found out that we lost a game narrowly and one of the opposition players was under the influence of drugs?

alternatively its a grandfinal, you have two players with 1 strike and the rest of the team has no strikes under the 3 strike rule.

would you give your players performance enhancing drugs knowing that there is a limited chance of testing and the outcome wont be overturned and at worst you will have 2 players with 2 strikes against their name?

what if you season was on the balance and one player from the opposition was under the influence of performance enhancing drugs?

should the outcome of the game stand?

remember a whole rowing 8 was disqualified because of 1 person under the influence?!!

ben johnsons olympic medal would be returned to him because of the 3 strikes rule?!?!!!

Sorry, I'm confused: isn't the "three strikes" policy only for illicit recreational drugs?

Personally, I couldn't care less if a team we are playing (or our team, ahem, ahem) has players who have tested positive for illicit drugs: one, twice, three or ten times. I think the whole idea of testing sportsmen and women for use of illicit drugs is an appalling piece of American puritanism that I wish had never come to Australia. Catching people who use illicit drugs should be a matter for the cops, not sporting administrators. Riewoldt was right to have a go at the policy a few years ago.

As for performance-enhancing drugs, I would love to see some players caught out using these. While I have no specific evidence, I suspect that drugs like EPO and steroids have been used extensively in the AFL over the past 20 or so years and I would love to see offending players caught and drummed out of the code: even if they play for St Kilda.

But I suspect that the current testing regime in the AFL for performance-enhancing drugs is pretty light touch: given that nobody ever seems to get caught.

[Dan Warna]

My understanding of the three strikes policy for recreational drugs applie to out of season testing only.

If a player tests positive in season for recreational drugs he faces a 12 week ban.

If if tests positive to performance enhancing drugs, he is gone for two years...(either in or out of season).

mmm performance enhancing is open to interpretation.

some drugs while used recreationally can also be used for performance enhancement.

Also the press indicates that EPO is out of the system in 48 hours, and we conducted less than 1 test for teh year per footballer in 06?!

this year is less than 1 1/2 tests for the year per footballer in 07?!

the chances of catching someone in game is pretty remote anyway.

[Dan Warna]

Sorry, I'm confused: isn't the "three strikes" policy only for illicit recreational drugs?

Personally, I couldn't care less if a team we are playing (or our team, ahem, ahem) has players who have tested positive for illicit drugs: one, twice, three or ten times. I think the whole idea of testing sportsmen and women for use of illicit drugs is an appalling piece of American puritanism that I wish had never come to Australia. Catching people who use illicit drugs should be a matter for the cops, not sporting administrators. Riewoldt was right to have a go at the policy a few years ago.

As for performance-enhancing drugs, I would love to see some players caught out using these. While I have no specific evidence, I suspect that drugs like EPO and steroids have been used extensively in the AFL over the past 20 or so years and I would love to see offending players caught and drummed out of the code: even if they play for St Kilda.

But I suspect that the current testing regime in the AFL for performance-enhancing drugs is pretty light touch: given that nobody ever seems to get caught.

some recreational drugs can have stimulating effects in game.

there is considerable argument for example that the crystal meth/ice etc can be an ingame stimulant for performance enhancement.

the US used 'go pills' which also are an amphetamine base for its pilots for increased performance and these are also considered recreational drugs.

what is or isn't a stimulant and what is or isn't a recreational drug is interesting.

even some depressants ahve been considered to have 'calming' effects

[meher baba]

Sorry, I'm confused: isn't the "three strikes" policy only for illicit recreational drugs?

Personally, I couldn't care less if a team we are playing (or our team, ahem, ahem) has players who have tested positive for illicit drugs: one, twice, three or ten times. I think the whole idea of testing sportsmen and women for use of illicit drugs is an appalling piece of American puritanism that I wish had never come to Australia. Catching people who use illicit drugs should be a matter for the cops, not sporting administrators. Riewoldt was right to have a go at the policy a few years ago.

As for performance-enhancing drugs, I would love to see some players caught out using these. While I have no specific evidence, I suspect that drugs like EPO and steroids have been used extensively in the AFL over the past 20 or so years and I would love to see offending players caught and drummed out of the code: even if they play for St Kilda.

But I suspect that the current testing regime in the AFL for performance-enhancing drugs is pretty light touch: given that nobody ever seems to get caught.

some recreational drugs can have stimulating effects in game.

there is considerable argument for example that the crystal meth/ice etc can be an ingame stimulant for performance enhancement.

the US used 'go pills' which also are an amphetamine base for its pilots for increased performance and these are also considered recreational drugs.

what is or isn't a stimulant and what is or isn't a recreational drug is interesting.

even some depressants ahve been considered to have 'calming' effects

I've no problem in testing for ice and every other sort of stimulant after a game as "performance-enhancing drugs". But testing for ice, cocaine, cannabis, etc. use out of season only about looking for illicit drug use.

[Dan Warna]

performance enhancing substances used as a stimulant during say a training regime, that enhances long term endurance and strength build up may be considered cheating.

FWIW I can't see positive long term effects of depressants such as tobbacco, alcohol and marajuana for example.

[meher baba]

performance enhancing substances used as a stimulant during say a training regime, that enhances long term endurance and strength build up may be considered cheating.

I had read that ice/crystal meths burn holes in your brain and lead to a medium-term decline in motor and other functions. I'm sure that nobody would choose these sorts of drugs simply as a tactic for enhancing on-field performance when there are others available that don't have these effects!!

I understand that it's possible that someone taking ice for recreational purposes might get a short-term on-field benefit in terms of increased aggression.

I must say that I very much doubt that the player about who has been most speculated about on this forum as a user of these sorts of "substances" has actually derived any on-field benefits from them. His hallmark as a player - as, unfortunately, we know only too well - is an extraordinary level of physical endurance: and I have not read that ice or crystal meths are much help with endurance.

But perhaps we need a medico (and I understand that there are some on the forum) to help us with this point.

Personally, I'm still largely worried about steroids and EPO (and possibly human growth hormone: although I understood that the latest scientific studies have shown that all the sportspeople around the world who have forked out many millions of $$$ for this may well have wasted their dough. Serves them right if true.)

[ausfatcat]

the US used 'go pills' which also are an amphetamine base for its pilots for increased performance and these are also considered recreational drugs.

what is or isn't a stimulant and what is or isn't a recreational drug is interesting.

even some depressants ahve been considered to have 'calming' effects

you have to consider that it impears judgement as well (several US pilots friendly fire accidents contributed to go pills). But what is that imparement against the benefits I sure as hell don't know.



Obviously illicite drugs isn't a field that is well known by medico's so the chances of under/over doesing will be high. Obviously under would have no effect, and overdoesing could kill them, knock em out cause unrestrained aggression (as likely to hit team mates as opponants) too many unknowns......


EPO is the worry for mine. AFL needs to lift its game in this regard as a minimum every player should be tested randomly every month for EPO in the least.

[aussierules0k]

[n1ck]

Why shouldnt we test every player after every game?

I realise the cost, but surely if it works in other sports it can work here.

[ausfatcat]

Why shouldnt we test every player after every game?

I realise the cost, but surely if it works in other sports it can work here.

exactly clean it up if it's dirty, or prove it's clean it's the only way to do it.

[Brewer]

Until recently I was very much against the 'invasion of privacy' that is testing for illicit drugs, especially out of season.

However, I have changed my mind.

Firstly, as others have pointed out, the line between 'recreational' and 'performance enhancing' is a very blurry one these days.

Secondly, drugs are no longer what they once were - most recreational drugs these days (even cannabis) are way stronger and more harmful than they were even 10 years ago, and I think we have a duty not to load young men up with huge amounts of cash and star status and then let them run riot on the town and stick harmful chemicals in their bodies.

For their own health and career longevity we need to make it clear that it is not acceptable, and they need to make a choice between a life of professional sport or one of the infinite number of jobs they can do where they won't be tested for drugs.

[bigred]

Performance enhancing is up for interpretation really..

IMHO if a club knowingly had a couple of players juicing up for a big game, it would not just be the players that would be in my sights.

I would want the club thrown out of the comp to be honest, with all involved given lifetime bans from the sport.

[ausfatcat]

even if a club deliberately did that it would be impossibe to prove.

[plugger66]

Why shouldnt we test every player after every game?

I realise the cost, but surely if it works in other sports it can work here.

No other sports at the moment test for recreational drugs out of competition except the AFL. If you tested every player every game it would cost 8,000,000 a year. What a waste of money when there has only ever been one positive test for recreationl or performance enhancing drugs used on match day in 15 years.

[n1ck]

Thats because they only test 1 or two players a game, plugger.

We should scrap testing out of competition.

Spend the money on testing for RECREATIONAL AND P.E.Ds during the season.

[plugger66]

Thats because they only test 1 or two players a game, plugger.

We should scrap testing out of competition.

Spend the money on testing for RECREATIONAL AND P.E.Ds during the season.

It is still on one person caught whether they test 1 or 2. When we see polls done for an election we dont poll everyone you still get an @ on who will vote for who. Our percentage of players caught on matchday is probably .003% Can we really afford 8 million with so little poeple being caught.

[n1ck]

Yes.

The ridiculous amounts of money the AFL get for TV rights shows that.

Financially the competition has never been in better shape, and if the AFL were fair dinkum about cracking down on drugs, every player would be tested after every game.

[meher baba]

and I have not read that ice or crystal meths are much help with endurance.

Well it is - believe me, the doctors and the cops. They can run all day... no all week... with out stopping, that's gotta help with endurance.

Agree out of season no testing for anything - it's their life.

Well, if you're right, now is the time for the AFL to stand up, methinks.

The individual who is most often accused of taking this stuff has once again - on the basis of an almost non-existent preparation - displayed almost superhuman endurance in a game.

The AFL should hit him hard with tests - daily if need be - to see if he is still taking the stuff and then ban him for two years on the basis of it being a performance-enhancing drug if any is found in his system. If he continues to test negative, the AFL should closely observe whether or not his on-field endurance suddenly returns to normal levels. If so, he should be banned for two years anyway, and the WCE should be stripped of the 2006 premiership.

But of course they won't do anything of the sort.

[Dan Warna]

you only have to go on the evidence of a recently retired footballer (jonathon Hay) who came across as an open and honest person who suffered during their career to know that drugs is an issue at football clubs.

And that testing is inadequate.

[Mr Magic]

On this issue, DRUGS, I have absolutely no faith in anything the AFL says publicly.


I thought I saw on TV or read in the newspapers that all Saints players at morning swimming recovery were drug tested? If so, this must have been a Club arranged test because I don't believe that the WADA/ASADA/AFL testing regime tests all players - only 4 or 5?

As for Benny-boy , the self confessed 'substance user' who apparently kicked his 'addiction' with a 4 week stint in Malibu, He is now the 'poster-boy' for rehabilitating substance addicts'. Why the various Federal and State Governments don't follow the superior medical advice of the WCE I am absolutely astonished. They could solve the Country's 'substance use' problems by sending all substance addicts to Malibu Rehab for a month of intense activity. They could all come back clean, rehabilitated and a boon to our society.

What an absolute farkin joke.

How stupid do they think we all are? Other than the adoring sycophants in Perth. These same morons moan when 'drug addicts' commit crimes in their neighbourhoods but cheer on Benny-boy, Special-K Kerr and Flatline Fletcher as heroes.

It makes me sick to my stomach.

And for anybody who thinks I'm being too harsh on WCE, if any Saints player did what these scum did without showing any genuine remorse, I would be just as judgmental and demand their sacking from our Club.

[meher baba]

And for anybody who thinks I'm being too harsh on WCE, if any Saints player did what these scum did without showing any genuine remorse, I would be just as judgmental and demand their sacking from our Club.

Be careful in making such a blanket statement, MM.

I am tempted to ask you about how you feel about the Saints hypothetically recruiting a player who might have done some of the same sorts of things that Kerr, Cousins and Fletcher are alleged to have done - indeed, might have done them - hypothetically speaking - in the company of some of these WCE gentleman as well as that of drug-dealing bikers - and who perhaps hasn't shown any particular remorse, at least in public?

But, remember, I'm only speaking hypothetically.

[stinger]

Why shouldnt we test every player after every game?

I realise the cost, but surely if it works in other sports it can work here.

at a thousand bucks a pop....too expensive......

[Mr Magic]

And for anybody who thinks I'm being too harsh on WCE, if any Saints player did what these scum did without showing any genuine remorse, I would be just as judgmental and demand their sacking from our Club.

Be careful in making such a blanket statement, MM.

I am tempted to ask you about how you feel about the Saints hypothetically recruiting a player who might have done some of the same sorts of things that Kerr, Cousins and Fletcher are alleged to have done - indeed, might have done them - hypothetically speaking - in the company of some of these WCE gentleman as well as that of drug-dealing bikers - and who perhaps hasn't shown any particular remorse, at least in public?

But, remember, I'm only speaking hypothetically.

MB, my point is recognizing your mistake and rectifying it. So far I haven't seen a skerrick of evidence that Benny-boy, Special-K Kerr or Flatline Fletcher have shown any remorse for their behaviour. in fact the smirk during Benny-boy's non-apology makes me believe that he is just laughing at all of us.

In relation to the other chap you are referring to, if he shows any sign of 're-offending or behaviour 'advocating use' then I will be right up at the front demanding his sacking. I don't want this form of 'cancer' infecting my Club, no matter how goos the player(s) concerned is/are.

As I've said in many other threads I sickened to my stomach at the sight of kids running around in WCE jumpers with Benny=boy's number on the back, idolizing and lauding him.

This 'substance using' cheat should have been forced to stay a month in Odyssey House (or similar) instead of being sent off to a Hollywood R&R in Malibu. Maybe then he would understand the outrage I and hopefully many others feel towards him