Melbourne Watch 2023/24

[Grantysghost]

The policy is clearly one of cover up, rather than welfare. It appears its primary aim is to avoid players testing positive on game day. Sure, it avoids any unfair advantage, but what does it do for player health?
This is not a good look and the AFL should slap themselves with a Bringing the Game into Disrepute ban and fine.
Arguing medical confidentiality is rubbish. I bet there were high fives all round when someone thought that loop hole up.
Yes to all that.

Makes me wonder, what else are they bullshiting about?

[ledge]

There are lots of jobs that require regular drug testing. It is common across distrubtion centre and manufacutring environments for instance. You need to be zero acohol and also not have any other illicit substances in your stystem.

That’s me , I’m in the distribution environment and it’s done by a private company , they come in and pull names out of a hat and the minute you clock in they call you in. Alcohol and drug tested, if found in your system your sent home and then asked to do another test to double check, you are either sacked or can come back to work if result is negative , you could be off work 2 weeks while waiting but you do get paid.
I think this should be in all workplaces and can’t believe our politicians aren’t done as they make important decisions for all of us.

[bornadog]

ALPA statement


The AFL Players? Association has released the following statement regarding the Illicit Drugs Policy:

We note the article in today?s Herald Sun and the AFL?s statement issued earlier today.


The AFL Players? Association supports the AFL?s position on this issue and reiterates that the Illicit Drugs Policy (IDP) is entered into voluntarily by the players on the basis it is a medical model and is focused on identifying, educating, and rehabilitating.


What is often misunderstood on this topic is that the IDP is separate from the AFL Anti-Doping Code, which is overseen by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and focuses on identifying and sanctioning any athletes who may be taking performance enhancing substances.


These are two different policies with completely different objectives.


The AFLPA remains committed to reviewing the IDP in 2024 with the AFL and we are working with experts to ensure it remains best practice.

I have a solution - don't take drugs :)

[Grantysghost]

Players : wow we can take illegal drugs that support murderers and dealers and the afl will cover it up for us?

https://media.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTc5MGI3NjExaHY0YWUxa3RsbWRnZWo5enM1OHhjb2Jjc21yeGF1N W0ycHVkN2R0ZyZlcD12MV9pbnRlcm5hbF9naWZfYnlfaWQmY3Q9Zw/Q5RlCJ5QNkVIn0RHv5/giphy.gif

[Grantysghost]

I don't know what your job is but there are jobs where drug testing may be necessary (truck driver for example, even though by my understanding they'd break the tests), I'm not sure AFL footballer at training during the week is one of those jobs though.

The AFL response might take some steam out of the outrage but if you think about it for a couple of seconds doesn't it seem a completely ridiculous 'process'? Like you guys are the ones who put the illicit drug policy in place, why are you also doing these convoluted steps to circumvent it? Just change the policy.
It's due to my negative vetting, we have to be, you know, trust worthy.

[hujsh]

Yes to all that.

Makes me wonder, what else are they bullshiting about?

What aren't they?

[EasternWest]

ALPA statement



I have a solution - don't take drugs :)

Ridiculous.

I'd like my shitpost crown back please.

[hujsh]

Ridiculous.

I'd like my shitpost crown back please.

Oh, so you supporter MURDERERS and DEALERS now? Excuse me while i run off to find some more pearls to clutch.

[EasternWest]

Oh, so you supporter MURDERERS and DEALERS now? Excuse me while i run off to find some more pearls to clutch.

#notallmurderers

[bornadog]

Ridiculous.

I'd like my shitpost crown back please.

you just did

[Sedat]

The policy is clearly one of cover up, rather than welfare. It appears its primary aim is to avoid players testing positive on game day. Sure, it avoids any unfair advantage, but what does it do for player health?
This is not a good look and the AFL should slap themselves with a Bringing the Game into Disrepute ban and fine.
Arguing medical confidentiality is rubbish. I bet there were high fives all round when someone thought that loop hole up.
And also to ensure the AFEL gets its hands on some filthy lucre from the govt/taxpayer simply for having a policy in place.

The timing of Andrew Wilkie exposing this under parliamentary privilege is highly dubious, being one of the strongest critics of the federal and state govt funding dedicated to the new Tassie stadium. Poisoning the goodwill generated from the Devils launch last week plays well for him politically.

[Topdog]

Laughable pair of statements.
Saying it's a different policy and pretending that illicit drugs aren't tested for on game day

[Grantysghost]

#notallmurderers

Why do all the lefties go nuts when someone raises the fact this is a horrid trade ?

It's just a fact. The reaction is bizarre. What do pearls have to do with it hahaaaa fmd.

Being law abiding makes you an extreme conservative to all the hippies I guess.

Hope you guys know where the deodorant aisle is. (see stupid right).

#somearemurderers

[EasternWest]

you just did

Nah. I'm not dropping boomerisms left right and centre.

[EasternWest]

Why do all the lefties go nuts when someone raises the fact this is a horrid trade ?

It's just a fact. The reaction is bizarre. What do pearls have to do with it hahaaaa fmd.

Being law abiding makes you an extreme conservative to all the hippies I guess.

Hope you guys know where the deodorant aisle is. (see stupid right).

#somearemurderers

I haven't the faintest idea what this means but go off.

[bornadog]

Nah. I'm not dropping boomerisms left right and centre.

it was a joke son

[Grantysghost]

I haven't the faintest idea what this means but go off.
Yeah ya do.

[MrMahatma]

So when someone tests positive they miss a game with a hamstring or a dislocated finger or something, right?

[hujsh]

Why do all the lefties go nuts when someone raises the fact this is a horrid trade ?

It's just a fact. The reaction is bizarre. What do pearls have to do with it hahaaaa fmd.

Being law abiding makes you an extreme conservative to all the hippies I guess.

Hope you guys know where the deodorant aisle is. (see stupid right).

#somearemurderers

I'm happy for you/sorry this happened

[Axe Man]

Demons Clash With Port In Doubt After Entire Team Afflicted By Random Injuries Following F1 Weekend
(https://www.betootaadvocate.com/breaking-news/demons-clash-with-port-in-doubt-after-entire-team-afflicted-by-random-injuries-following-f1-weekend/?fbclid=IwAR0SBdktBVbUg0POawFIKfnIjwoNPswcbhkq7RxomxAupnsUAx He6AevYE8)
The AFL is dealing with its second crisis in as many days, after some shocking news has broken out of the Melbourne Demons training ground.

Sources close to the Demons have revealed that the team?s game against the Port Adelaide Football Club this weekend is in serious doubt.

In a throwback to the days when games were cancelled because Victorian people couldn?t stop coughing on each other and refused to wash their hands, the Round 3 (technically Round 3 and half) clash is a strong chance of being called off completely.

Set to take place at the Adelaide Oval on Saturday night, the game looks likely to be scrapped after the entire first grade list of the Melbourne Demons went down with an injury today.

From general soreness all the way to hamstring strains, every single first grade player is under a serious injury cloud ahead of the weekend.

It?s unknown whether enough VFL players can be pulled together in time for the trip to Adelaide, with the Demons staring down the barrel of the first forfeit in recent history.

The potential forfeit follows allegations the AFL has been complicit in helping AFL players avoid regulation anti-doping tests to ensure player?s drug use stays under wraps.

Politician Andrew Wilkie used parliamentary privilege to make a raft of allegations last night relating to the drug use within the AFL and the way the Demons and the league cover it up ? namely telling the players to make up fake injuries to avoid ASADA testing.

The AFL media who have known about the practice for the better part of a decade are yet to explain why the story was left to a politician to break under privilege ? who are still focusing on Wayne Carey boycotting the AFL because some big fella got 4 weeks for shoulder charging a little fella in the head.

More to come.

[hujsh]

In case anyone gets confused the above is an article by the Betoota Advocate. Satire.

[Hotdog60]

I take that this is a joke by someone with a sense of humor.

[Axe Man]

In case anyone gets confused the above is an article by the Betoota Advocate. Satire.

Man, I was hoping someone would take it seriously! :D

[Twodogs]

Strip them of the 2021 GF. I don?t remember who they played, but they should get they flag now.

I'm pretty sure that there was no AFEL grand final in 2021. I certainly don't remember watching it or reading anything about it.

[Grantysghost]

I'm happy for you/sorry this happened
I still don't get the pearls thing.

Is it bad to have enough money to buy pearls? Like trying to work out how it's an insult.

Please explain :cool:

Made me laugh though!

[Daughter of the West]

Oliver in injury scare at Demons training

Clayton Oliver left Melbourne training early on Wednesday and was sent for scans on a hand injury, as coach Simon Goodwin said backman Jake Lever would play against Port Adelaide in round three despite aggravating his knee last weekend.

This masthead was at Casey Fields on Wednesday when Oliver left training early, grabbing at his right hand and in clear pain.
A club source, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said the injury was believed to be a dislocation that was unlikely to stop him playing, but the club had sent the dynamic midfielder for scans for certainty.

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/oliver-in-injury-scare-at-demons-training-20240327-p5ffld.html



Getting in early this week?

[hujsh]

I still don't get the pearls thing.

Is it bad to have enough money to buy pearls? Like trying to work out how it's an insult.

Please explain :cool:

Made me laugh though!

Yeah it's really bad to own pearls. Did you know that most of the world's pearl trade actually funds criminal activity? Many of those criminals are murderers, some even deal.

[Grantysghost]

Yeah it's really bad to own pearls. Did you know that most of the world's pearl trade actually funds criminal activity? Many of those criminals are murderers, some even deal.
Dude.
Guess we leave it there on that master piece.

[hujsh]

Dude.
Guess we leave it there on that master piece.

Did you actually want me to explain a common phase?

[Grantysghost]

Did you actually want me to explain a common phase?

No you good.

I still love ya, not ew though.

I was more confused about the knee jerk to me stating coke dealers probably aren't good dudes.

I'm sure there are some very lovely coke dealers.

My point was, and to get it away from reactionary stuff, to me it is baffling that the AFL is covering up illicit drug use by lying.
A major sporting organisation is willingly supporting a criminal trade. It's beyond belief.

I was pretty impressed with the AFL smashing it out of the park early.

Wonder what the next play is.

Over to the Wilkie gang who have 0 vested interest right?

I do like that players are protected, just not the BS.

[Hotdog60]

If I was ASADA I would rock up at training and test all the players just for the fun of it after the news coming to light.

[hujsh]

No you good.

I still love ya, not ew though.

I was more confused about the knee jerk to me stating coke dealers probably aren't good dudes.

I'm sure there are some very lovely coke dealers.

My point was, and to get it away from reactionary stuff, to me it is baffling that the AFL is covering up illicit drug use by lying.
A major sporting organisation is willingly supporting a criminal trade. It's beyond belief.

I was pretty impressed with the AFL smashing it out of the park early.

Wonder what the next play is.

Over to the Wilkie gang who have 0 vested interest right?

I do like that players are protected, just not the BS.

I don't imagine anyone wants to see players missing games because they used drugs, teams will be missing half their players some weeks. I think the AFL trying to take a 'moral stance' with one part of their policy but ultimately failing at anything but giving them a policy they can point to when the issue is ever brought up has now reached it's expiration date. They've got to accept that the AFL is part of the real world and in the real world men in their 20s do drugs recreationally.

Players will still pretend to be injured if they have drugs in their system on gameday, the AFL will help them in avoiding that. Pretending they have a hard line against drug use, trying to paint themselves as moral bastions and role models for children, that will have to stop. If it wasn't clear as day that wasn't the case before it's completely transparent now.

As for funding 'criminal elements' well, apparently so does tobacco now. And if that's really our concern then we need to storm every nightclub in the CBD shouting about how the people there are giving money to gangs. Hell some of those bars and clubs might be owned by such figures. Can't eat at La Porchetta, can't take our car to the car wash. Actually I should probably cut down on a few things. Can't eat anything from a company owned by Nestle or Mars (small kerfuffle with child slavery), can't use a phone anymore (manufacturing and obtaining the materials are highly unethical, for sure not good guys), actually probably best to apply that to all electronics so goodbye WOOF too, anything I order off of Amazon is right out (though I have no computer to do so). Maybe I can drive to a local market and... nope that means I have to use a car and the fuel in it...

I personally try not to judge people for where they find relief or pleasure. Nothing in this world, the way we've created it, is completely ethical or free of cost.

[jazzadogs]

On the face of it, I don't actually have much of a problem with this.

Some players who are known by their doctors to take drugs (have possibly even had a strike) receive extra tests to ensure that they do not test positive on game day - as this would result in a lengthy suspension. Isn't that overall a good thing, for the player who gets to receive extra education in private?

Some clarifying questions:

- do WASA/ASADA have rules against illicit substances use outside of game day? I think the answer is no.

- how do they choose which players receive the tests? Why did Joel Smith, Sam Murray, Lachie Keeffe etc not get these tests? Do only 'high profile's players get them?

- how many extended absences could be explained by these tests? I can think of one very lengthy hamstring injury last year....

[ledge]

On the face of it, I don't actually have much of a problem with this.

Some players who are known by their doctors to take drugs (have possibly even had a strike) receive extra tests to ensure that they do not test positive on game day - as this would result in a lengthy suspension. Isn't that overall a good thing, for the player who gets to receive extra education in private?

Some clarifying questions:

- do WASA/ASADA have rules against illicit substances use outside of game day? I think the answer is no.

- how do they choose which players receive the tests? Why did Joel Smith, Sam Murray, Lachie Keeffe etc not get these tests? Do only 'high profile's players get them?

- how many extended absences could be explained by these tests? I can think of one very lengthy hamstring injury last year....

Personally I think they should turf it . If your earn that much money and don’t understand the consequences of doing drugs bad luck.
They are well educated when they enter the system and all through school.
If you get caught having drugs in your system before or after a game suffer the consequences.

[G-Mo77]

If I test positive at work. I'm out the door short term and probably fired. I'm sick of the throw away lines like "Everyone does it" It's illegal, if the AFL throw the book at these idiots doing this crap good for them. I encourage a hard stance.

[hujsh]

If I test positive at work. I'm out the door short term and probably fired. I'm sick of the throw away lines like "Everyone does it" It's illegal, if the AFL throw the book at these idiots doing this crap good for them. I encourage a hard stance.

So you'd have tossed Libba out years ago?

[G-Mo77]

So you'd have tossed Libba out years ago?

I'd rather him not of course but if there policy was suspension and he broke it that's on Libba and he's having a long break.

[hujsh]

FWIW I think something like a third of men 18-mid 20s use illicit drugs. We expect a lot of them, they get paid well (maybe, if they're lucky) but there are lasting impacts including the effects from concussion as we've been reminded of recently. Let them be normal. Do some coke in the Crown bathroom with all the bankers or whatever. I thought narcing wasn't allowed on WOOF

[ledge]

If I was 18 and got offered 300k a year to play footy but one of the terms were don’t do drugs . Well it’s not rocket science.

[ledge]

So you'd have tossed Libba out years ago?

If the rules were in you get sacked if you do , he might not have even got in the position he was in . Giving them an out encourages it. “Oh I can do drugs as long as I tell the doctor on Thursday I can have a weekend off and it will be fine.”

[jeemak]

I can't get too upset about AFL players breaking shit rules and shit laws through having a few rails or whatever.

The players signed up to the former conditionally, and those conditions need to be explained to the public. If the public don't like them the players will just demand more money and conditions to comply to the shit rules.

To me the only outcome here should be the WADA code and its stance on illicit drugs is turfed and the continuation of a health led, and science based approach is maintained.

If everyone else is shitted off about their own working conditions then they should join an effective union and lobby for different conditions over time (fantasy in today's day and age, I know).

The AFLPA is effective in leveraging the value of its members to get them the best outcomes. I get the jealousy, but just because other unions or associations are disempowered it doesn't mean the AFLPA should be.

[Grantysghost]

For me there's a distinction between what you're saying Jee around supporting rather than condemning (which i agree with) and purposely removing a player by lying about an injury.

It must be unique in world sport?

[Grantysghost]

If the rules were in you get sacked if you do , he might not have even got in the position he was in . Giving them an out encourages it. “Oh I can do drugs as long as I tell the doctor on Thursday I can have a weekend off and it will be fine.”

The other part is it's not the same as other jobs.

A pilot gets on the nose candy, then he's risking lives and I'm sure no one wants that. If they had a policy to remove them after a self report im tipping their business doesnt last long.

In sport, it's considered performance enhancing it's a very different situation.

Also how does this policy scale? What if 100 players self report in a week.

Gastro outbreak?

[Grantysghost]

https://i.postimg.cc/0jkD2dHS/IMG-20240328-073905-342.jpg (https://postimages.org/)

[jazzadogs]

If I was 18 and got offered 300k a year to play footy but one of the terms were don’t do drugs . Well it’s not rocket science.

How many 18 year old boys do you know? It would be a very small minority who take that approach... Especially the AFL players who have come through private school systems and are surrounded by all of their mates doing lines every Saturday.

What it would feel like to them is "here's 300k, but you're going to lose all your friends"

[jeemak]

For me there's a distinction between what you're saying Jee around supporting rather than condemning (which i agree with) and purposely removing a player by lying about an injury.

It must be unique in world sport?

What alternative do they have other than being dishonest about an injury or claim personal issues? Take it out of the hands of the club doctors and you just get players seeking out their own tests or administering tests themselves, and then lying to their club doctors about ailments. At least this way it's controlled.

What actually happens to an AFL player with a drug issue and why

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/what-actually-happens-to-an-afl-player-with-a-drug-issue-and-why-20240327-p5ffpz.html

The policy needs to evolve with the times and changes in attitudes of young people towards illicit substances, which it seems to be doing.

[MrMahatma]

How many 18 year old boys do you know? It would be a very small minority who take that approach... Especially the AFL players who have come through private school systems and are surrounded by all of their mates doing lines every Saturday.

What it would feel like to them is "here's 300k, but you're going to lose all your friends"

Rightly or wrongly though, it’s illegal. And the AFL essentially facilitate it.

[Grantysghost]

What alternative do they have other than being dishonest about an injury or claim personal issues? Take it out of the hands of the club doctors and you just get players seeking out their own tests or administering tests themselves, and then lying to their club doctors about ailments. At least this way it's controlled.

What actually happens to an AFL player with a drug issue and why

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/what-actually-happens-to-an-afl-player-with-a-drug-issue-and-why-20240327-p5ffpz.html

The policy needs to evolve with the times and changes in attitudes of young people towards illicit substances, which it seems to be doing.

Personal reasons is fine.

Lying about an injury, doesn't that have a ripple effect in all sorts of other areas?

I mean the coaches don't even know they're not injured. Nathan Buckley said he was just told that had a hamstring even though they completed a full session.

Trading? Well player x has a history of soft tissue injuries....

They have to shelve that.

[jeemak]

Rightly or wrongly though, it’s illegal. And the AFL essentially facilitate it.

Not sure we want corporations playing the role of police.

And again, the players allow themselves to be tested. They have an effective union lobbying for them to stop overreach into their personal lives. Just like medical practitioners.

When they implemented drug testing for white collar employees at a previous employer the white collar employees didn't have a union negotiating for them like the blue collar employees did. Thus we didn't get the year on year pay rises and incentives set in concrete, and didn't get the extra percentages in superannuation prior to it becoming legislation etc. as a trade off for submitting to testing. We just got drug tested "at random" and definitely not at the whim of HR/ safety managers with an axe to grind. That was crap.

[Yankee Hotel Foxtrot]

If I was 18 and got offered 300k a year to play footy but one of the terms were don’t do drugs . Well it’s not rocket science.

Punitive punishment hasn't seemed to cure young males mainly of poor decision making in the broader community, I just don't see how its any different in a professional sport setting.

In the US don't players just get a couple of games bans for illicit drug use? I'm sure in the NFL I regularly see players coming on and off the main roster due to 'breaking the league's code on substance abuse' or something like that.

I think the league (and the broader society) need to have a total rethink about all of this, but I'm just not sure as a society we're mature enough.

[Topdog]

So with all of this coming out does it mean the strike system no longer exists?

Or has it not existed for a long time and I'm just way behind on my afl news?

[bornadog]

So with all of this coming out does it mean the strike system no longer exists?

Or has it not existed for a long time and I'm just way behind on my afl news?

3 strikes still exists

[Grantysghost]

Punitive punishment hasn't seemed to cure young males mainly of poor decision making in the broader community, I just don't see how its any different in a professional sport setting.

In the US don't players just get a couple of games bans for illicit drug use? I'm sure in the NFL I regularly see players coming on and off the main roster due to 'breaking the league's code on substance abuse' or something like that.

I think the league (and the broader society) need to have a total rethink about all of this, but I'm just not sure as a society we're mature enough.

Yes young guys are going to explore their boundaries aren't they.

I don't know what the right way is, i think this policy is close to the mark just needs some tweaks.

Joel Smith wouldn't agree. He seems to be being made a scape goat i doubt he's trafficking in the sense we all understand that term to mean.

It' s easy to straw man it and say why have laws? As we all know though things are never black and white so we need to walk the spectrum until we find a niche.

[hujsh]

So with all of this coming out does it mean the strike system no longer exists?

Or has it not existed for a long time and I'm just way behind on my afl news?

It exists in theory, like the holy spirit.

[chef]

3 strikes still exists

Has anyone ever got 3 strikes?

[bornadog]

Has anyone ever got 3 strikes?
who knows, AFL lie about these things

[hujsh]

Yes young guys are going to explore their boundaries aren't they.

I don't know what the right way is, i think this policy is close to the mark just needs some tweaks.

Joel Smith wouldn't agree. He seems to be being made a scape goat i doubt he's trafficking in the sense we all understand that term to mean.

It' s easy to straw man it and say why have laws? As we all know though things are never black and white so we need to walk the spectrum until we find a niche.

Some laws are brought in for the wrong reasons and don't achieve their stated aim. No one's calling for all law to be ignored but the drug laws have always been a massive failure whose only achievements have been to line the pockets of those criminal types mentioned earlier. We will look back on them in time the same way we look back on prohibition.

[Topdog]

It exists in theory, like the holy spirit.

haha brilliant, wonder if these injuries count as strikes

[bornadog]

haha brilliant, wonder if these injuries count as strikes

No, because they are kept between Doctor and Player/Patient and no one knows about it.

[Before I Die]

Does a self-report count as a strike?

Oops, already answered above.

[mjp]

Joel Smith wouldn't agree.

I thought Joel Smith was stupid. Then this week I found out he could have gone to the Doc, done a 2-minute test and been ruled out with hamstring awareness. So I've decided that Joel Smith is REALLY stupid.

Don't test positive during competition - that's outside of the AFL's control and once that happens you are screwed. Joel Smith is screwed.

[Grantysghost]

I thought Joel Smith was stupid. Then this week I found out he could have gone to the Doc, done a 2-minute test and been ruled out with hamstring awareness. So I've decided that Joel Smith is REALLY stupid.

Don't test positive during competition - that's outside of the AFL's control and once that happens you are screwed. Joel Smith is screwed.

That is stupid when you've got a sanctioned cover up system at your finger tips.

[Sedat]

It's fantastic to see everybody so invested in preserving the doctor/patient confidentiality creed once again - nice change from a couple of years ago. But yay, Liam Jones is now a champion Bulldog key defender and not a selfish granny killer anymore lol

[hujsh]

It's fantastic to see everybody so invested in preserving the doctor/patient confidentiality creed once again - nice change from a couple of years ago. But yay, Liam Jones is now a champion Bulldog key defender and not a selfish granny killer anymore lol

Yeah let's bring anti-vax views into this. What we were all missing lol

[EasternWest]

Yeah let's bring anti-vax views into this. What we were all missing lol

Boy that scomo is a great guy.

[Sedat]

Yeah let's bring anti-vax views into this. What we were all missing lol
Way to miss the point. How about let's never, ever again compromise doctor/patient confidentiality in a (notionally) free and democratic society. Zero tolerance, no exceptions.

Glad to see that everybody is waving their pompoms for Liam now. History will judge him very kindly.

[Sedat]

Boy that scomo is a great guy.
Terrible human and politician - they all were/are

[Yankee Hotel Foxtrot]

Yes young guys are going to explore their boundaries aren't they.

I don't know what the right way is, i think this policy is close to the mark just needs some tweaks.

Joel Smith wouldn't agree. He seems to be being made a scape goat i doubt he's trafficking in the sense we all understand that term to mean.

It' s easy to straw man it and say why have laws? As we all know though things are never black and white so we need to walk the spectrum until we find a niche.

Oh I'm not saying we shouldn't have laws. I just think that we should have more sensible discussion about what those laws are... and the relationship to consequences, punishment and what the intended goal of any consequences are. I just don't think personally locking people up or removing their employment is always the answer. That' a general statement I know, and I certainly do think there are common sense applications. There are many jobs where we need confidence people are not off their chops and thus a requirement of abstinence.

I'm not convinced professional sport should be in that category of real punitive punishment..and loss of career. I think we can design a less blunt mechanism with nuance that provides the appropriate response for a drug related infraction in sport.
The league being clandestine and opaque doesn't help given confidence the current system is right.

[Grantysghost]

Boy that scomo is a great guy.

Insert shudder gif.

[hujsh]

Way to miss the point. How about let's never, ever again compromise doctor/patient confidentiality in a (notionally) free and democratic society. Zero tolerance, no exceptions.

Glad to see that everybody is waving their pompoms for Liam now. History will judge him very kindly.

Just like you missed my point :)

[Sedat]

Just like you missed my point :)
Not all vaccines are equal ;)

Some of them actually work - I quite like those ones.

[hujsh]

Not all vaccines are equal ;)

Some of them actually work - I quite like those ones.

I'll be more clear. No one wants to go be and talk about Covid stuff. We've all moved on. This is not the place to relitigate it if you are determined to do so.

[bornadog]

Oh I'm not saying we shouldn't have laws. I just think that we should have more sensible discussion about what those laws are... and the relationship to consequences, punishment and what the intended goal of any consequences are. I just don't think personally locking people up or removing their employment is always the answer. That' a general statement I know, and I certainly do think there are common sense applications. There are many jobs where we need confidence people are not off their chops and thus a requirement of abstinence.

I'm not convinced professional sport should be in that category of real punitive punishment..and loss of career. I think we can design a less blunt mechanism with nuance that provides the appropriate response for a drug related infraction in sport.
The league being clandestine and opaque doesn't help given confidence the current system is right.

Totally agree, the whole system needs a re-think and sensible rules need to be in place. AFL think they are in a world of their own.

[jeemak]

Richard Ings, ex ASADA which is now SIA was on the radio today and believes this is all a beat up.

The AFL goes beyond what it?s required to do from a legislative perspective, which only requires in competition testing. In doing so the AFL and the players negotiated this process.

They?re not obligated to do anything more or be more transparent.

[EasternWest]

Way to miss the point. How about let's never, ever again compromise doctor/patient confidentiality in a (notionally) free and democratic society. Zero tolerance, no exceptions.

Glad to see that everybody is waving their pompoms for Liam now. History will judge him very kindly.

Shrug.

When I joined my current job I was required to disclose my vaccination history to my employer. And if I didn't have certain vaccinations I couldn't work there.

Don't get me wrong I agree with your long espoused position that Laim Jones accepted the consequences of his decision without complaint and I respect that, but let's not pretend his decision was any breach of dr/patient confidentiality when his employer mandated the requirement and he chose not to follow it.

Now, back to the topic. Wait, what were we talking about?

Oh yeah tennis balls.

We've got as many dope fiends at our club as every other club. Don't come at me with "jUst DoN't Do iT iT's iLleGaL" bunkum because it's a total irrelevance as it's happening and it's going to keep happening.

Maybe, just maybe, it's time for grown up discussion on the matter rather than Reagan's garbage rhetoric.

[bornadog]

Richard Ings, ex ASADA which is now SIA was on the radio today and believes this is all a beat up.

The AFL goes beyond what it?s required to do from a legislative perspective, which only requires in competition testing. In doing so the AFL and the players negotiated this process.

They?re not obligated to do anything more or be more transparent.

The only thing is the lie that is generated after a positive test ie faking an injury

[Grantysghost]

I've got a big concern this process is being abused. As in, considering the secrecy (even the coaches don't know) what's to say they are registering a strike?

Needs to be some level of transparency at least to a club? I deal with in-confidence data every hour of every day this isn't something new.

[Grantysghost]

Shrug.

When I joined my current job I was required to disclose my vaccination history to my employer. And if I didn't have certain vaccinations I couldn't work there.

Don't get me wrong I agree with your long espoused position that Laim Jones accepted the consequences of his decision without complaint and I respect that, but let's not pretend his decision was any breach of dr/patient confidentiality when his employer mandated the requirement and he chose not to follow it.

Now, back to the topic. Wait, what were we talking about?

Oh yeah tennis balls.

We've got as many dope fiends at our club as every other club. Don't come at me with "jUst DoN't Do iT iT's iLleGaL" bunkum because it's a total irrelevance as it's happening and it's going to keep happening.

Maybe, just maybe, it's time for grown up discussion on the matter rather than Reagan's garbage rhetoric.


https://media.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTc5MGI3NjExZ2oyenRhZXR3ZzhrZzJ0eDhiczFoc3M5eHp3bTg1O ThoNzVvcDdmOSZlcD12MV9pbnRlcm5hbF9naWZfYnlfaWQmY3Q9Zw/rlL4XHR60GPew/giphy.gif

[jeemak]

I get it BAD but nobody can detail an alternative that effectively maintains confidentiality.

[EasternWest]

https://media.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTc5MGI3NjExZ2oyenRhZXR3ZzhrZzJ0eDhiczFoc3M5eHp3bTg1O ThoNzVvcDdmOSZlcD12MV9pbnRlcm5hbF9naWZfYnlfaWQmY3Q9Zw/rlL4XHR60GPew/giphy.gif

Elite gif work.

[Sedat]

I'll be more clear. No one wants to go be and talk about Covid stuff. We've all moved on. This is not the place to relitigate it if you are determined to do so.
I'm happy to have made the relevant point (specific to these latest Melbourne whistle-blower allegations) that doctor/patient confidentiality and individual patient health and welfare is suddenly once again very much back in vogue, because it most certainly wasn't a short time ago (to our collective shame, mine included) - that is a most welcome development as far as I'm concerned, and one that I hope never is under threat ever again. If you don't learn from history you are destined to repeat it. Move on by all means, but heed the lessons.

[SquirrelGrip]

I get it BAD but nobody can detail an alternative that effectively maintains confidentiality.

Well I think this is exactly what we need to work on and figure out.

Every player who is now injured or a late withdrawal is now viewed as a possible positive test. Who missed last week for Footscray? Scott and Busslinger? Are they now tarred with that brush?

And surely the coaches and high performance must have some idea when players are withdrawn by the doctor. What is the player's rehab plan if they have a "tight hammy" when it's actually a positive test?

[Grantysghost]

Well I think this is exactly what we need to work on and figure out.

Every player who is now injured or a late withdrawal is now viewed as a possible positive test. Who missed last week for Footscray? Scott and Busslinger? Are they now tarred with that brush?

And surely the coaches and high performance must have some idea when players are withdrawn by the doctor. What is the player's rehab plan if they have a "tight hammy" when it's actually a positive test?

JHF and Steele Sidebottom this week "managed".

They've placed everyone under suspicion with this crazy lying idea.

[jeemak]

Again, if this is so crazy what?s the alternative?

[EasternWest]

Again, if this is so crazy what?s the alternative?

Free coke for all?

[Axe Man]

JHF and Steele Sidebottom this week "managed".

They've placed everyone under suspicion with this crazy lying idea.

They should have just said omitted for Sidebottom, he was awful last week.

[Axe Man]

Again, if this is so crazy what?s the alternative?

https://i.postimg.cc/MZ5qRwHM/nudge.gif (https://postimages.org/)

[Grantysghost]

Again, if this is so crazy what?s the alternative?
Not lying? That's the bit, as in they had a hammy when they didn't.
Just say unavailable or personal reasons.

[Grantysghost]

Free coke for all?
I'm so conservative i want to go back to when coca cola had cocaine.

[jeemak]

Not lying? That's the bit, as in they had a hammy when they didn't.
Just say unavailable or personal reasons.

But that makes me think they?re on drugs.

[hujsh]

I'm happy to have made the relevant point (specific to these latest Melbourne whistle-blower allegations) that doctor/patient confidentiality and individual patient health and welfare is suddenly once again very much back in vogue, because it most certainly wasn't a short time ago (to our collective shame, mine included) - that is a most welcome development as far as I'm concerned, and one that I hope never is under threat ever again. If you don't learn from history you are destined to repeat it. Move on by all means, but heed the lessons.

It's not relevant at all. I find it a bit rich lecturing someone else to learn the lessons of history given a different conversation in another thread, but that's an even further derailment.

[hujsh]

Again, if this is so crazy what?s the alternative?

Remove the existing policy and otherwise continue as is. You can't have the '3 strikes' BS and also be testing players positive so they can avoid gameday positive tests.

[Grantysghost]

But that makes me think they?re on drugs.
Haha gold.
That's the issue isnt it.

[Sedat]

If the policy simply alters the definition of "on game day" to cover the whole AFEL season, that takes away any nefarious secrecy accusations and preserves the individual player health and welfare aspect of the policy.

I'm more concerned (but utterly unsurprised) that one sole politician from one specific electorate, who has a personal beef with the AFEL, has used parliamentary privilege to create division within the community purely to benefit his own political objectives. That's about the only thing that politicians are especially good at doing (apart from spending other people's money of course).

[Bulldog Joe]

Remove the existing policy and otherwise continue as is. You can't have the '3 strikes' BS and also be testing players positive so they can avoid gameday positive tests.

This is pertinent.

Just get rid of the three strikes policy and worry about game day.

If they withdraw players who would test positive I don't see an issue.

Where there is criminal conduct it is a police matter. Sport just requires competitors to be clean for competition.

[bornadog]

Remove the existing policy and otherwise continue as is. You can't have the '3 strikes' BS and also be testing players positive so they can avoid gameday positive tests.

No matter what policy, what stops a player getting tested privately and then declaring they feel ill and getting a doctors certificate for upset stomach or some ailment.

Reading all the replies in the thread, I still think a review is needed to make sure the right steps are in place, but otherwise as Jeemak says - what are you going to change.

[hujsh]

No matter what policy, what stops a player getting tested privately and then declaring they feel ill and getting a doctors certificate for upset stomach or some ailment.

Reading all the replies in the thread, I still think a review is needed to make sure the right steps are in place, but otherwise as Jeemak says - what are you going to change.

I have zero issue with that. I have zero issue with club doctors testing them. You just can't do that and have a 3 strikes policy because you want to present yourself as being hard on drugs or whatever. Don't be. Focus on player welfare.

[bornadog]

Anyone agree with this:


Hawthorn coach Sam Mitchell believes senior coaches should be privy to information about players within the league’s illicit drugs policy after bombshell revelations that players had been drug tested with the option of pulling out of matches.

[Grantysghost]

Anyone agree with this:
Not sure how you do that and maintain confidentiality.

[Hotdog60]

Does anyone think Cousins was ahead of his times. :)

[angelopetraglia]

Brent Harvey's view as a former player and a father with a child in the system https://x.com/RSN927/status/1773107380735070275?s=20

[Grantysghost]

Brent Harvey's view as a former player and a father with a child in the system https://x.com/RSN927/status/1773107380735070275?s=20

I could just see his pearls.

[mighty_west]

For me it's all or nothing, none of these half measures, oh it's ok to do this stuff but just make sure you're clean on game day, this game day testing crap, test them at training, at their homes, are the AFL trying to clean the game up. or not? All of a sudden Oliver is under an "injury cloud" for this weekend, test him today because he has form.

[GVGjr]

For what it's worth, I'm reluctantly okay with a player self reporting and being given a week off by the club Doctor but only once within a season and not more than twice within a career.
It also shouldn't be allowed to occur more than once without the coach knowing about it and he can make a decision if the player is worth maintaining on the list.
If you drive a car impaired you can lose your license for a period of time and we all accept that.
The same logic should apply to footballers and drug use and the rules also need to apply to the games best players with no exceptions.

[Axe Man]

If you drive a car impaired you can lose your license for a period of time and we all accept that.
The same logic should apply to footballers and drug use and the rules also need to apply to the games best players with no exceptions.

If you drive a car impaired you are more likely to kill or injure yourself and others, hardly the same logic. Especially when nobody is suggesting they should be able to play under the influence. If it was the same logic people would lose their license for drinking at home and not driving.

[Before I Die]

For me, it's all about evading a drug scandal.

Contrast the AFL (and its member clubs) attitude to Cocaine use or Alcohol use.

Can a player have a big night out on the piss, then self-report and get permission from the club doctor to fake an injury? Are they protected from a name and shame? Is it a medical situation?

They are both drugs of addiction. They can both ruin a player's health and wealth.

There is a difference though.

One is illegal and can lead to a lengthy disqualification.

The other is legal and its much harder to hide its use.

If the same rules applied to both, I would be able to accept the player welfare argument. Without that it is just a cover up.

The SIA and WADA stuff is irrelevant. They are not about player welfare, they are about sporting integrity. The AFL policy supports sporting integrity, it just also supports cocaine use, particularly as a party drug of choice over alcohol. That last line is possibly unfair, it wouldn't just be cocaine as they would also be giving fake injury permission for any other performance enhancing drug found in the blood sample, and ignoring any non-performance enhancing drug found, illegal or otherwise.

[GVGjr]

If you drive a car impaired you are more likely to kill or injure yourself and others, hardly the same logic. Especially when nobody is suggesting they should be able to play under the influence. If it was the same logic people would lose their license for drinking at home and not driving.

Drinking is not an illegal activity and taking drugs is, big difference in my opinion. Drinking and being over the limit is illegal if you are behind the wheel of a car and if you get caught then you pay a penalty.
With Drugs in the system anything over 0.00 and rocking up to play or train as a footballer is a problem.

[bornadog]

This to me is a concern: link (https://www.sportintegrity.gov.au/what-we-do/anti-doping/prohibited-substances-and-methods/cocaine-use-sport)

CAN COCAINE IMPROVE AN ATHLETE?S PERFORMANCE?

Cocaine does have a performance enhancing effect when used In-Competition and is a Prohibited Substance under the World Anti-Doping Code for In-Competition use. As a stimulant, cocaine can produce an intense ?rush? with users feeling a sense of alertness, arousal, and increased confidence.

WHY IS COCAINE A BANNED SUBSTANCE IN SPORT?

All prohibited substances are added to the Prohibited List because they meet two of the three following criteria:



Use of the substance has the potential to enhance or enhances performance.
Use of the substance represents an actual or potential health risk to the Athlete; and
Use of the substance violates the spirit of sport.

[angelopetraglia]

Stimulants assist in keeping your "ripped". Case in point.

https://static.ffx.io/images/$width_283%2C$height_425/t_crop_fill/q_86%2Cf_auto/434e5dbb0b929427aa43c2faf2d0695474ff6373

[Axe Man]

This to me is a concern: link (https://www.sportintegrity.gov.au/what-we-do/anti-doping/prohibited-substances-and-methods/cocaine-use-sport)

CAN COCAINE IMPROVE AN ATHLETE?S PERFORMANCE?

Cocaine does have a performance enhancing effect when used In-Competition and is a Prohibited Substance under the World Anti-Doping Code for In-Competition use. As a stimulant, cocaine can produce an intense ?rush? with users feeling a sense of alertness, arousal, and increased confidence.

WHY IS COCAINE A BANNED SUBSTANCE IN SPORT?

All prohibited substances are added to the Prohibited List because they meet two of the three following criteria:



Use of the substance has the potential to enhance or enhances performance.
Use of the substance represents an actual or potential health risk to the Athlete; and
Use of the substance violates the spirit of sport.


Where has anyone said players should be able to use it in competition? That's not what this whole thing is about.

[bornadog]

Where has anyone said players should be able to use it in competition? That's not what this whole thing is about.

Where did I say that?

The concern is if they use it, and not tested.

[Axe Man]

Drinking is not an illegal activity and taking drugs is, big difference in my opinion. Drinking and being over the limit is illegal if you are behind the wheel of a car and if you get caught then you pay a penalty.
With Drugs in the system anything over 0.00 and rocking up to play or train as a footballer is a problem.

Now you are making a different argument. I'm not actually arguing one way or the other, just that your drink driving comparison doesn't make any sense to me.

The only drink driving comparison I can see is the private drug tests are akin to blowing in a breathalyser before you drive to ensure you aren't over the limit and risking a driving (playing) ban.

[angelopetraglia]

Where has anyone said players should be able to use it in competition? That's not what this whole thing is about.

It is a valid point. Our Athletic Olympians for instance. They are not tested for Coacine in out of competition testing. Only in competition testing. So the AFL testing protocol is more strenous than someone compeititing at the Olympics.

However, I do believe illigeal stiumlants are an advantage to keep a lean body and should be banned for all athletes.

[Axe Man]

Where did I say that?

The concern is if they use it, and not tested.

I would have thought it's implied since you are talking about performance enhancement?

How are they not tested?

[Grantysghost]

Does it help in training? Eg recovery and or being abke to push harder?

[hujsh]

Brent Harvey's view as a former player and a father with a child in the system https://x.com/RSN927/status/1773107380735070275?s=20

'I'm a bit different' - gives the most basic conservative view point that has existed since the 1920s

[bornadog]

I would have thought it's implied since you are talking about performance enhancement?

How are they not tested?

Not tested out of competition.


WHEN CAN AN ATHLETE BE TESTED FOR COCAINE USE?

There are differences in Out-of-Competition tests conducted by Sport Integrity Australia and those tests conducted by a National Sporting Organisation under an illicit drugs policy.


Sport Integrity Australia can only test for substances prohibited In-Competition during the In-Competition period. In an Out-of-Competition environment, Sport Integrity Australia cannot test for Substances of Abuse but if an athlete uses an illicit substance Out-of-Competition, that athlete needs to be aware that these substances can stay in your system for a period of time, which might mean the substance could be detected in-competition.


Regardless of when an athlete takes illicit drugs, if they are still in their system on game day they will be penalised.

[angelopetraglia]

Does it help in training? Eg recovery and or being abke to push harder?

I'm not an expert. But look at the shape Ben Cousins was in. Stimulants no doubt can aid in those things in my opinion.

I have gone on a few runs after taking pseudoephedrine (taking for a blocked nose) and I felt pretty bloody good. Pushed hard and felt like I had additional energy.

[hujsh]

It is a valid point. Our Athletic Olympians for instance. They are not tested for Coacine in out of competition testing. Only in competition testing. So the AFL testing protocol is more strenous than someone compeititing at the Olympics.

However, I do believe illigeal stiumlants are an advantage to keep a lean body and should be banned for all athletes.

Does being 'ripped' actually improve performance though? Seems aesthetic as much as anything.

[angelopetraglia]

Does being 'ripped' actually improve performance though? Seems aesthetic as much as anything.

Absolutely. Does carrying less body fat while maintaining muscle mass help you be a better athlete in a sport where you need to cover the ground and have endurance, still be explosive and still have strength. 100% it does.

[Grantysghost]

Does being 'ripped' actually improve performance though? Seems aesthetic as much as anything.

Only with the laaaadies.... (sorry)

[Axe Man]

Not tested out of competition.

Olympic athletes aren't tested for illicit drugs out of competition. I'm not sure about other sports but it's been reported the AFL are one of the few that actually do test.

[bulldogsthru&thru]

Absolutely. Does carrying less body fat while maintaining muscle mass help you be a better athlete in a sport where you need to cover the ground and have endurance, still be explosive and still have strength. 100% it does.

That's not really being "ripped" though. Sure, being ripped can often mean the things you've listed but someone can be a great athlete without being ripped.

MJP has spoken to this before.

[GVGjr]

Now you are making a different argument. I'm not actually arguing one way or the other, just that your drink driving comparison doesn't make any sense to me.

The only drink driving comparison I can see is the private drug tests are akin to blowing in a breathalyser before you drive to ensure you aren't over the limit and risking a driving (playing) ban.

The point of view I'm putting forward should be simple to understand if you really want to.
It's about having consequences for your actions if I'm not making that as clear as it should be.
There are consequences for being over the limit as a driver and there should be consequences for being over the limit as a professional footballer with drugs.

During the season the starting point is supposed to be 0.00 as the limit for drugs being in players systems.
Some players can achieve that and clearly some others can't.
If a player makes an error during the week and self reports he's given a week off by the Doctor and in my opinion that is his first and final strike for the season. If he does it again during the season he should be given a period of time away from the club and the coach should be informed of his challenges. The coach can then make a decision if he wants to maintain the player on the list.
If he gets off course again the following season then we go through the same process but there is no 3rd chance.

Players are given extensive education and it isn't working like it should, if they want to be all in as a footballer then there shouldn't be a lot of latitude for them to keep pushing the boundaries and taking drugs.

[angelopetraglia]

That's not really being "ripped" though. Sure, being ripped can often mean the things you've listed but someone can be a great athlete without being ripped.

MJP has spoken to this before.

Yes you can. No doubt you can be a great athlete without being ripped.

But carrying less bodyfat matters. That is why clubs measure it.

[angelopetraglia]

The point of view I'm putting forward should be simple to understand if you really want to.
It's about having consequences for your actions if I'm not making that as clear as it should be.
There are consequences for being over the limit as a driver and there should be consequences for being over the limit as a professional footballer with drugs.

During the season the starting point is supposed to be 0.00 as the limit for drugs being in players systems.
Some players can achieve that and clearly some others can't.
If a player makes an error during the week and self reports he's given a week off by the Doctor and in my opinion that is his first and final strike for the season. If he does it again during the season he should be given a period of time away from the club and the coach should be informed of his challenges. The coach can then make a decision if he wants to maintain the player on the list.
If he gets off course again the following season then we go through the same process but there is no 3rd chance.

Players are given extensive education and it isn't working like it should, if they want to be all in as a footballer then there shouldn't be a lot of latitude for them to keep pushing the boundaries and taking drugs.

Well said and agree 100%

[hujsh]

Absolutely. Does carrying less body fat while maintaining muscle mass help you be a better athlete in a sport where you need to cover the ground and have endurance, still be explosive and still have strength. 100% it does.

I honestly doubt it's that simple. I can't see my mind changing unless there are studies into this and no number of pictures of Ben Cousins will change my mind. And then even if it did have some minor impact on the physical performance of an athlete it's hard to imagine their career lasting long if they do enough for it to alter their metabolism enough to have an impact without other issues rearing their head, impacting their performance in other negative ways.

[hujsh]

Yes you can. No doubt you can be a great athlete without being ripped.

But carrying less bodyfat matters. That is why clubs measure it.

I actually think they stopped doing that now. Am I mistaken can someone clarify?

[Grantysghost]

I actually think they stopped doing that now. Am I mistaken can someone clarify?

It's the "Born A Dog" rule.

[EasternWest]

Yes you can. No doubt you can be a great athlete without being ripped.

But carrying less bodyfat matters. That is why clubs measure it.

I think they measure to keep BAD off their case.

[angelopetraglia]

I honestly doubt it's that simple. I can't see my mind changing unless there are studies into this and no number of pictures of Ben Cousins will change my mind. And then even if it did have some minor impact on the physical performance of an athlete it's hard to imagine their career lasting long if they do enough for it to alter their metabolism enough to have an impact without other issues rearing their head, impacting their performance in other negative ways.

That is a fair argument.

However, two different points.

a) Less body fat is mostly good. It is hard to argue with that.

b) Having less body fat by taking illiegeal stimulants is an advantage.

I believe point a is hard to argue against. Point b, agree the advantages of less body fat could be diminished by the ongoing illegeal drug use and the other impacts it may have.

Ben Cousins is an interesting case study. Taking meth didn't appear to impact his on field ablitiy. He won a Brownlow, he won a Permiership. Was still playing at an incredible high level. BUT ... it did eventually catch up with him and his life spiralled out of control. However, there would be others who are most probably higher functioning drug users.

We hear about those whose life spiral out of control. Oliver and Cousins for example. I'm sure we don't hear about those who dabble frequently but there life doesn't spiral out of control.

[angelopetraglia]

I actually think they stopped doing that now. Am I mistaken can someone clarify?

Aricle from July 2023.

"Hawthorn ruckman Max Lynch has revealed Hawks players are still required to undergo 'skinfolds' testing, while ex-teammate and Magpies forward Brody Mihocek apparently hasn't been subject to one 'in over ten years'."

link: https://www.zerohanger.com/they-still-do-it-hawk-reveals-club-still-subjects-players-to-skinfold-tests-140407/

[Grantysghost]

This journal article from the British Journal of Sports Medicine from 2006 has some interesting points :

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2657493/

Cocaine in sport

Despite the popular myth, cocaine does not really enhance performance, whether in the job, in sports, at school, or during sex. On the contrary, long term use can lead to loss of concentration, irritability, loss of memory, paranoia, loss of energy, anxiety, and a loss of interest in sex. In particular, several studies have shown that cocaine has no beneficial effect on running times and reduces endurance performance. Furthermore, at all doses, cocaine significantly increases glycogen degradation while increasing plasma lactate concentration without producing consistent changes in plasma catecholamine levels.

[GVGjr]

I actually think they stopped doing that now. Am I mistaken can someone clarify?

They have, it happened a few years ago. I'd link it more to the progression of AFLW football but maybe the AFL just jumped early on it.

[angelopetraglia]

Skinfolds. Times have changed. Ha.



Hawthorn’s freshly-minted premiership heroes sat shamed in silence. They had spent 14 days sinking beers after the 2008 grand final on a bender that started at the MCG and finished in Hong Kong.

“Every player averaged 10mm more of skinfold when they came back,” then-Hawks fitness boss Andrew Russell told the Herald Sun.

“We had about 80kg more of body fat. So I went into a meeting with 80kg of lard and threw it on the floor and said, ‘Meet your new teammate’.

“I said, ‘You’ve got a new teammate because of the way you blokes went about the off-season and you’re going to have to carry him all year’.”

[EasternWest]

Skinfolds. Times have changed. Ha.



Hawthorn’s freshly-minted premiership heroes sat shamed in silence. They had spent 14 days sinking beers after the 2008 grand final on a bender that started at the MCG and finished in Hong Kong.

“Every player averaged 10mm more of skinfold when they came back,” then-Hawks fitness boss Andrew Russell told the Herald Sun.

“We had about 80kg more of body fat. So I went into a meeting with 80kg of lard and threw it on the floor and said, ‘Meet your new teammate’.

“I said, ‘You’ve got a new teammate because of the way you blokes went about the off-season and you’re going to have to carry him all year’.”

I would've replied "as long as Stewie gets it done on the last day in September I don't care about carrying him now"

[bornadog]

It's the "Born A Dog" rule.

Hey?

[Grantysghost]

Hey?

A light hearted dig at your penchant for fat shaming Josh Bruce :cool: (jk jk).

[bornadog]

A light hearted dig at your penchant for fat shaming Josh Bruce :cool: (jk jk).
yeah, I know:D- I was right though, he shed kilos in year two and was brilliant:D

[hujsh]

Aricle from July 2023.

"Hawthorn ruckman Max Lynch has revealed Hawks players are still required to undergo 'skinfolds' testing, while ex-teammate and Magpies forward Brody Mihocek apparently hasn't been subject to one 'in over ten years'."

link: https://www.zerohanger.com/they-still-do-it-hawk-reveals-club-still-subjects-players-to-skinfold-tests-140407/

So fair to say it's value as a measure is debateable at best.

[angelopetraglia]

So fair to say it's value as a measure is debateable at best.

No. I don't agree. It's ability to measure an athlete's fitness progress and its importance for doing that is not why they stopped using it.

The negative impact it can have on people when it comes to things like athletes relationship with their body and possibly eating disorders is what stopped its use. The potential upside isn't worth the potential negative consquences. Players welfare is put before straight out performance.

The Nike Oregon project was widely criticies for moniroting athletes body composition, especially females and the impact it had on them.

Articles:

https://www.letsrun.com/news/2019/11/tara-welling-shares-her-experiences-regarding-weight-as-a-member-of-the-nike-oregon-project/

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/07/opinion/nike-running-mary-cain.html

[hujsh]

No. I don't agree. It's ability to measure an athlete's fitness progress and its importance for doing that is not why they stopped using it.

The negative impact it can have on people when it comes to things like athletes relationship with their body and possibly eating disorders is what stopped its use. The potential upside isn't worth the potential negative consquences. Players welfare is put before straight out performance.

The Nike Oregon project was widely criticies for moniroting athletes body composition, especially females and the impact it had on them.

Articles:

https://www.letsrun.com/news/2019/11/tara-welling-shares-her-experiences-regarding-weight-as-a-member-of-the-nike-oregon-project/

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/07/opinion/nike-running-mary-cain.html

Do you have evidence to back that up? Specifically that it is the reason it's not used in the AFL?

[jeemak]

This journal article from the British Journal of Sports Medicine from 2006 has some interesting points :

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2657493/

Cocaine in sport

Despite the popular myth, cocaine does not really enhance performance, whether in the job, in sports, at school, or during sex. On the contrary, long term use can lead to loss of concentration, irritability, loss of memory, paranoia, loss of energy, anxiety, and a loss of interest in sex. In particular, several studies have shown that cocaine has no beneficial effect on running times and reduces endurance performance. Furthermore, at all doses, cocaine significantly increases glycogen degradation while increasing plasma lactate concentration without producing consistent changes in plasma catecholamine levels.

Anyone who says cocaine is performance enhancing probably hasn't had a lot of experience with it or people who use it.

[angelopetraglia]

Do you have evidence to back that up? Specifically that it is the reason it's not used in the AFL?

No. Not at all.

Pure speculation based on them even going as far as not even publishing player weights.

[jeemak]

The point of view I'm putting forward should be simple to understand if you really want to.
It's about having consequences for your actions if I'm not making that as clear as it should be.
There are consequences for being over the limit as a driver and there should be consequences for being over the limit as a professional footballer with drugs.

During the season the starting point is supposed to be 0.00 as the limit for drugs being in players systems.
Some players can achieve that and clearly some others can't.
If a player makes an error during the week and self reports he's given a week off by the Doctor and in my opinion that is his first and final strike for the season. If he does it again during the season he should be given a period of time away from the club and the coach should be informed of his challenges. The coach can then make a decision if he wants to maintain the player on the list.
If he gets off course again the following season then we go through the same process but there is no 3rd chance.

Players are given extensive education and it isn't working like it should, if they want to be all in as a footballer then there shouldn't be a lot of latitude for them to keep pushing the boundaries and taking drugs.

I understand the hard line but I don't think it helps if players genuinely have a medically diagnosed dependency or addiction. Getting high after a game on a Saturday night and having something in your system a few days later isn't going to do a lot for your performance most likely, and by the time you're testing at the end of the week or on the following game day you're unlikely to be drug affected. Having a dependency or addiction to worry about week to week, having your employment taken from you (one of the things that keeps you on the straight and narrow to an extent) because of those things doesn't sound helpful to me.

The AFL and the players are already going over and above what is required of them by WADA/ legislatively, I don't see how you can put a more punitive program in place without offering up the players more beneficial conditions. The AFL, clubs and the public aren't the police, they can try to be and that's fine but if that doesn't align with the best advice from actual professionals rather than ex-footballers or club administrators then it's a bit silly.

No offence G, but your opinion or mine for that matter doesn't and shouldn't have the same gravitas as an expert in drug dependence or addiction management. We can flap our arms or otherwise as much as we like, but I'd hate to see the health of players compromised in order to satisfy a hard line ideology or for the transparency (read potential for titillating content) sought by the public or league/ club staff or media with clearly vested interests outside of player wellbeing.

And I get the moral side of it that creates and issue for people, but what's moral changes over time as society evolves. The laws probably should as well.

[hujsh]

No. Not at all.

Pure speculation based on them even going as far as not even publishing player weights.

Appreciate the honesty. I'm open to changing my mind but not without evidence.

[JanLorMill]

Anyone who says cocaine is performance enhancing probably hasn't had a lot of experience with it or people who use it.
Is that from personal experience? ;)
I would say it probably effects people differently good and bad.

[JanLorMill]

Also I know there is addiction but why would a professional athlete continue using cocaine if it made his performances worse? He is risking his career.

[jeemak]

Is that from personal experience? ;)
I would say it probably effects people differently good and bad.

I've never tried to perform in elite sports on cocaine.

[JanLorMill]

I've never tried to perform in elite sports on cocaine.
How many years was Ben Cousins on it while playing?

[jeemak]

Also I know there is addiction but why would a professional athlete continue using cocaine if it made his performances worse? He is risking his career.

What the AFL could do is anonymously outline some circumstances where this "loophole" (that isn't a loophole) has actually been exploited. I'd be surprised if it was a long list of examples.

Casual usage earlier in the week after the in game period probably happens a lot, but I'd guess the usage would then drop back sharply with only a handful of players still tucking into it once the week's started.

The amount of players dealing with a genuine dependency or addiction would be very small (again, at a guess).

Where would cocaine really impact a player? Think things like attention to detail around diet and hydration, recovery and getting enough sleep. Players are probably still getting to all the sessions and doing the minimum requirements, and mostly wouldn't notice a huge difference if usage was sporadic.

[Grantysghost]

Anyone who says cocaine is performance enhancing probably hasn't had a lot of experience with it or people who use it.
I've had 0.

Speed was big in my day. Never wanted it myself. I'm already hyper enough.

[jeemak]

How many years was Ben Cousins on it while playing?

The Ben Cousins situation was largely exaggerated until he started smashing meth. Sure there were cover ups by the WCE and AFL but a bit like a current player who's having his challenges it's when the meth kicks off that things can really spiral.

Meth also metabolises more quickly so the real danger is players leaping from cocaine onto that if they think they can get a day or two more usage in before the next test.

With cocaine a usual employment based urine test probably won't be a problem a couple of days after usage if usage was casual. If usage is regular/ weekly then the detectable period increases. For someone like Smith at Melbourne (as an example, I have no idea), he may have stopped using the Sunday, Monday or Tuesday before being detected the following Saturday, but if he had been going at it for months on a weekly basis then he would be exposed to being caught as the metabolites in the system compound and take longer to clear. And it's a chance when he was caught he wasn't impaired or enhanced by the drug in any way, and given if he thought he was a danger of being caught he'd have just used the loophole that's apparently rife, right?

[jeemak]

I've had 0.

Speed was big in my day. Never wanted it myself. I'm already hyper enough.

GG on the bogan dust would be a proposition, wouldn't it!

[Grantysghost]

GG on the bogan dust would be a proposition, wouldn't it!
Haaaaa... Lock up your children

[JanLorMill]

What the AFL could do is anonymously outline some circumstances where this "loophole" (that isn't a loophole) has actually been exploited. I'd be surprised if it was a long list of examples.

Casual usage earlier in the week after the in game period probably happens a lot, but I'd guess the usage would then drop back sharply with only a handful of players still tucking into it once the week's started.

The amount of players dealing with a genuine dependency or addiction would be very small (again, at a guess).

Where would cocaine really impact a player? Think things like attention to detail around diet and hydration, recovery and getting enough sleep. Players are probably still getting to all the sessions and doing the minimum requirements, and mostly wouldn't notice a huge difference if usage was sporadic.
Well many players in the past would have binged on alcohol or even food. That is definitely isn’t performance enhancing and not illegal.

[jeemak]

Well many players in the past would have binged on alcohol or even food. That is definitely isn’t performance enhancing and not illegal.

The bit around alcohol is interesting. Most people would have illegally consumed it underage, in many instances sanctioned or encouraged by their parents/ family members.

We know the harms to society of alcohol far outweigh those of illicit drugs, but for some reason we don't moralise the indoctrination of its consumption into underage people.

Let's not get started on sugar and processed foods and the harms these things combined cause society. That'll take the thread right off track.

[GVGjr]

I understand the hard line but I don't think it helps if players genuinely have a medically diagnosed dependency or addiction. Getting high after a game on a Saturday night and having something in your system a few days later isn't going to do a lot for your performance most likely, and by the time you're testing at the end of the week or on the following game day you're unlikely to be drug affected. Having a dependency or addiction to worry about week to week, having your employment taken from you (one of the things that keeps you on the straight and narrow to an extent) because of those things doesn't sound helpful to me.

The AFL and the players are already going over and above what is required of them by WADA/ legislatively, I don't see how you can put a more punitive program in place without offering up the players more beneficial conditions. The AFL, clubs and the public aren't the police, they can try to be and that's fine but if that doesn't align with the best advice from actual professionals rather than ex-footballers or club administrators then it's a bit silly.

No offence G, but your opinion or mine for that matter doesn't and shouldn't have the same gravitas as an expert in drug dependence or addiction management. We can flap our arms or otherwise as much as we like, but I'd hate to see the health of players compromised in order to satisfy a hard line ideology or for the transparency (read potential for titillating content) sought by the public or league/ club staff or media with clearly vested interests outside of player wellbeing.

And I get the moral side of it that creates and issue for people, but what's moral changes over time as society evolves. The laws probably should as well.

I don't think what I've proposed is a hard line because it gives players a couple of chances and it's focused on the in season component. There are consequences but I wouldn't think it's a hard line.
We suspect that even extensive education that the AFL has on the pathway and the clubs have in place isn't working and that the players are working around it when they can.
The more flexibility we have within the allowances that are made then the more it will encourage not discourage use within the season. That's a poor net result for the competition and the welfare of the players if that is what is being suggested.

It's a complex issue no doubt and there will be variety of views but I'd hate to think that the challenge AFL faced with is about accepting that it's a somewhat 'healthy' solution to turn a blind eye to it.

[jeemak]

I don't think what I've proposed is a hard line because it gives players a couple of chances and it's focused on the in season component. There are consequences but I wouldn't think it's a hard line.
We suspect that even extensive education that the AFL has on the pathway and the clubs have in place isn't working and that the players are working around it when they can.
The more flexibility we have within the allowances that are made then the more it will encourage not discourage use within the season. That's a poor net result for the competition and the welfare of the players if that is what is being suggested.

It's a complex issue no doubt and there will be variety of views but I'd hate to think that the challenge AFL faced with is about accepting that it's a somewhat 'healthy' solution to turn a blind eye to it.

Maybe hard line is a bit much. Though a lot of what you say is that education hasn't had a sufficient impact on behaviour, and I'd counter that with how do you think the problem might be without it?

Nobody can really tell what fame and money does to the head of an eighteen year old, twenty year old or twenty four year old. The money these guys earn (more than their parents ever did in most cases) in such a short time would be a lot to take in. I remember when I got my first big pay bump in my early thirties (relative to the numbers AFL players get early in their careers it's inconsequential) after gradual progression I didn't know what to do with myself.

So I feel judging them by the standards we think as lay people believe are reasonable is limited, education or no education. To me the sooner we agree that AFL players aren't relatable to the rest of us, aren't role models or whatever, and the sooner we can start to get over feeling the need to police them or even worry about what they do in their spare time or how drugs might play a part in all that the better we'll all be.

If it was a complete shit show and players were missing games left right and centre then it'd be different. But I don't think that's the case. What really concerns me about this current situation is the complete lack of quantitative evidence that shows the extent of the issue, but everyone is carrying on as if it's the worst thing to happen to the league since the EFC drug saga. That's right, people are carrying on as if this is close to a systematic doping program. I mean, get a ****en grip.

So while I'm sensitive to how generational, moral or ethical concerns play a part, I feel everyone needs to take a breath and get some perspective. And adjust to more modern times/ norms while responding to quantitative evidence as and if it comes to hand.

It's just footy, after all.

[GVGjr]

Maybe hard line is a bit much. Though a lot of what you say is that education hasn't had a sufficient impact on behaviour, and I'd counter that with how do you think the problem might be without it?

Nobody can really tell what fame and money does to the head of an eighteen year old, twenty year old or twenty four year old. The money these guys earn (more than their parents ever did in most cases) in such a short time would be a lot to take in. I remember when I got my first big pay bump in my early thirties (relative to the numbers AFL players get early in their careers it's inconsequential) after gradual progression I didn't know what to do with myself.

So I feel judging them by the standards we think as lay people believe are reasonable is limited, education or no education. To me the sooner we agree that AFL players aren't relatable to the rest of us, aren't role models or whatever, and the sooner we can start to get over feeling the need to police them or even worry about what they do in their spare time or how drugs might play a part in all that the better we'll all be.

If it was a complete shit show and players were missing games left right and centre then it'd be different. But I don't think that's the case. What really concerns me about this current situation is the complete lack of quantitative evidence that shows the extent of the issue, but everyone is carrying on as if it's the worst thing to happen to the league since the EFC drug saga. That's right, people are carrying on as if this is close to a systematic doping program. I mean, get a ****en grip.

So while I'm sensitive to how generational, moral or ethical concerns play a part, I feel everyone needs to take a breath and get some perspective. And adjust to more modern times.

The reason why I raised the education part is that both Demetriou and Dillion have mentioned in recent days that it's the solution whenever any player gets caught. It's not.
Sure it plays a big part but if enough players aren't listening to it on the pathway then I don't see it as the sole solution once the horse has bolted. It then becomes more about counseling and support than education and it's why I'm of the strong belief that there needs to be some consequences around out the educate and support model the clubs offer players.

The irony to me is that as supporters we constantly get frustrated by players who's skill level and decision making don't improve despite all the coaching the players receive and then demand they get delisted because they're not up to it.
But when it comes to the decision making around drug taking during the season there are a large number of supporters that don't want anything like consequences applied and a vastly higher level of acceptance that it's just about an inevitable part of the journey for a player.
I'm calling bullshit on that.

[hujsh]

Haaaaa... Lock up your children

Jake?

[bornadog]

Anyone who says cocaine is performance enhancing probably hasn't had a lot of experience with it or people who use it.

I posted a link earlier from SIA that says it does enhance performance. see here (https://www.sportintegrity.gov.au/what-we-do/anti-doping/prohibited-substances-and-methods/cocaine-use-sport) Sorry I believe them not you.

[jeemak]

Jake?

GG's vision of himself on speed is someone who is a danger to children. I'm glad he didn't chase that rabbit.

[jeemak]

I posted a link earlier from SIA that says it does enhance performance. see here (https://www.sportintegrity.gov.au/what-we-do/anti-doping/prohibited-substances-and-methods/cocaine-use-sport) Sorry I believe them not you.

Of course they'd say it enhances performance, they're the ones prohibiting its use on that very basis.

I'm just telling you it's bullshit. It does all of the things they say it does, but that's in a controlled environment that wouldn't reflect an actual competition environment or actual usage of the drug itself.

Another academic study was posted in this thread contradicting the SIA's view on cocaine's impact on performance, and I'll believe that one given its objectivity, without even taking into account my personal experience with the drug.

[1eyedog]

Is taking hard drugs still a crime? Aren't the AFL covering up a known illegal activity? Also, if they are known players and repeat offenders that makes a difference in a court of law and is far more serious i.e. fines of up to 100k and up to 25 years in prison for repeated use. They are also likely repeatedly in possession of illicit hard drugs.

I know heaps of people do this however this is proof of people actually commiting a crime, and the AFL covering up the crime, repeatedly.

Times have changed that's for sure.

[jeemak]

John Ralph just called people who take drugs in the AFL ratbags and scallywags.......

Think about that. Ratbags and scallywags. Which one is which? If a player has a bit of toot is he a scallywag? If a player has an addiction are they a ratbag?

**** the media.

That's the type of throwaway commentary that is unhelpful and all too prevalent in the landscape right now. Disgraceful.

[hujsh]

I posted a link earlier from SIA that says it does enhance performance. see here (https://www.sportintegrity.gov.au/what-we-do/anti-doping/prohibited-substances-and-methods/cocaine-use-sport) Sorry I believe them not you.

Maybe it boosts your performance if you're just running or something, in a game like AFL where you have to make decisions it's not so clear cut. There are conflicting studies as to how much performance is enhanced on gameday (as Jeemak has mentioned) so I'm not surprised a governing body would just say 'yep it enhances performance' for the sake of simplicity.

[hujsh]

John Ralph just called people who take drugs in the AFL ratbags and scallywags.......

Think about that. Ratbags and scallywags. Which one is which? If a player has a bit of toot is he a scallywag? If a player has an addiction are they a ratbag?

**** the media.

That's the type of throwaway commentary that is unhelpful and all too prevalent in the landscape right now. Disgraceful.

Dastardly fellows they are

[jeemak]

Dastardly fellows they are

At least they're clean skins though. No drugs in the AFEL media.

[hujsh]

At least they're clean skins though. No drugs in the AFEL media.

Perish the thought!

[Grantysghost]

Jake?

Yes...

Shit!

[Grantysghost]

GG's vision of himself on speed is someone who is a danger to children. I'm glad he didn't chase that rabbit.

It was a nod to Antoine Dodson. Hide yo kids hide yo wife.

Somehow that's over ten years old.

[Topdog]

What defines "in" and "out of" competition?

Also find it amusing that the high performance team can dictate how much of everything a player has but may never find out about extended drug use by a player

[bornadog]

What defines "in" and "out of" competition?

Also find it amusing that the high performance team can dictate how much of everything a player has but may never find out about extended drug use by a player

In means while they are playing. SIA won't test before, like a day or whatever before.

[Topdog]

In means while they are playing. SIA won't test before, like a day or whatever before.

Cheers, assumed that was the case. So basically the AFL test out of competition to ensure the players arent caught with drugs in competition. Surely someone in the media has some balls to go hard at the AFL with it

[bornadog]

Cheers, assumed that was the case. So basically the AFL test out of competition to ensure the players arent caught with drugs in competition. Surely someone in the media has some balls to go hard at the AFL with it

AFL is the only sport that does this

[jeemak]

AFL is the only sport that does this

I can't believe brand management might bring them down again! :)

[jazzadogs]

Cheers, assumed that was the case. So basically the AFL test out of competition to ensure the players arent caught with drugs in competition. Surely someone in the media has some balls to go hard at the AFL with it

I still don't see the problem with this. They're protecting the players? Giving them opportunities for education and improvement without a two year ban, media circus and eliminating the risk of any team gaining a perceived advantage.

I may be completely off base but I think you can only be charged if you are found in possession of the substance? Once the player self reports... The doctor can't change that fact. They can't rewind and stop them taking it. So the best practice at that point is to protect, educate and prevent.

[angelopetraglia]

I still don't see the problem with this. They're protecting the players? Giving them opportunities for education and improvement without a two year ban, media circus and eliminating the risk of any team gaining a perceived advantage.

I may be completely off base but I think you can only be charged if you are found in possession of the substance? Once the player self reports... The doctor can't change that fact. They can't rewind and stop them taking it. So the best practice at that point is to protect, educate and prevent.


I don?t actually disagree with any of that.

The issue I have is that the players are smart and they know how the system works. If they are that way inclined they know there is basically zero risk. Just self report. Find the loophole. Rinse and repeat.

The system in place is basically supporting their indulgences.

?Don?t worry, have a line. You can?t get in trouble, we have a system and confidentially. I have done it before. Let?s party!?

[jeemak]

I don't buy the coaches and other staff don't know what's going on, especially if sections of media say they do.

Smashing drugs and then self-reporting repeatedly would be a career limiting move.

[angelopetraglia]

I don't buy the coaches and other staff don't know what's going on, especially if sections of media say they do.

Smashing drugs and then self-reporting repeatedly would be a career limiting move.

Patient doctor confidentiality. Don?t doctors take that stuff seriously?

[jeemak]

Patient doctor confidentiality. Don?t doctors take that stuff seriously?

Doctors probably do, but I'd reckon players probably don't.

[jazzadogs]

Patient doctor confidentiality. Don?t doctors take that stuff seriously?

Do you think a coach is really not going to have insight into why his players are unavailable though?

I think even if they're not told explicitly, a good coach would know which members of the playing group were having these sort of issues. e.g. Goodwin definitely knew about Oliver's alleged challenges, Bevo would have known about Hunter's alleged challenges.

[hujsh]

I don?t actually disagree with any of that.

The issue I have is that the players are smart and they know how the system works. If they are that way inclined they know there is basically zero risk. Just self report. Find the loophole. Rinse and repeat.

The system in place is basically supporting their indulgences.

?Don?t worry, have a line. You can?t get in trouble, we have a system and confidentially. I have done it before. Let?s party!?

um...

[ledge]

Do you think a coach is really not going to have insight into why his players are unavailable though?

I think even if they're not told explicitly, a good coach would know which members of the playing group were having these sort of issues. e.g. Goodwin definitely knew about Oliver's alleged challenges, Bevo would have known about Hunter's alleged challenges.

So going on what’s happened why did Bailey Smith get so many weeks when he wasn’t even in season, didn’t play a game while on it ?

[Grantysghost]

Do you think a coach is really not going to have insight into why his players are unavailable though?

I think even if they're not told explicitly, a good coach would know which members of the playing group were having these sort of issues. e.g. Goodwin definitely knew about Oliver's alleged challenges, Bevo would have known about Hunter's alleged challenges.

I thought so too, Nathan Buckley spoke to this and he said he had no idea.

[angelopetraglia]

Do you think a coach is really not going to have insight into why his players are unavailable though?

I think even if they're not told explicitly, a good coach would know which members of the playing group were having these sort of issues. e.g. Goodwin definitely knew about Oliver's alleged challenges, Bevo would have known about Hunter's alleged challenges.

Agree. Yes. Those whose lives spiral out of control.

What about the causal user. Who knows they can get away with it and there is a system that protects them.

The AFL stopped reporting the numbers of tests and positive reuslts. Why? They are a propaganda machine. If the numbers were good they would be transparent. That they now don?t publish speaks volumes.

The ?system? isn?t working.

[jazzadogs]

So going on what’s happened why did Bailey Smith get so many weeks when he wasn’t even in season, didn’t play a game while on it ?

Because he was filmed with it, and the video was widely circulated. That is effectively a 'bringing the game into disrepute' suspension. The AFL have been consistent with that.

[ledge]

Because he was filmed with it, and the video was widely circulated. That is effectively a 'bringing the game into disrepute' suspension. The AFL have been consistent with that.

It’s a conundrum isn’t it , so if you sneakily do it, it’s ok.

[angelopetraglia]

It’s a conundrum isn’t it , so if you sneakily do it, it’s ok.

Yes. The Doctors and the AFL will go out of their way to protect you. But if the public find out, all bets are off. You will be punished.

[Topdog]

I still don't see the problem with this. They're protecting the players? Giving them opportunities for education and improvement without a two year ban, media circus and eliminating the risk of any team gaining a perceived advantage.

I may be completely off base but I think you can only be charged if you are found in possession of the substance? Once the player self reports... The doctor can't change that fact. They can't rewind and stop them taking it. So the best practice at that point is to protect, educate and prevent.

I think if it were working this way we would hear about the success stories. It's just a black hole of sweep shit under the carpet and hope for the best

[BornInDroopSt'54]

So it is quite probable cocaine not MFC beat us in 2021 as evidenced by their doctor who said a third of them were regular users of illicit substances.

[bornadog]

Good article in Age how the whole affair came to light.

read here (https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/he-blew-the-whistle-on-the-afl-drugs-scandal-here-is-what-melbourne-s-ex-club-doctor-wants-to-change-20240328-p5fg3h.html)

[Grantysghost]

So it is quite probable cocaine not MFC beat us in 2021 as evidenced by their doctor who said a third of them were regular users of illicit substances.
I'd hope all players are tested in the gf.

[Bulldog4life]

Cocaine's sick, lay off it.

Max Gawn said there's no drug problem or culture at Melbourne because they don't get positive hair test results. Everything's OK.

Jee shouldn't that be "because Gawn doesn't get any test hair results".

[Sedat]

All the drugs shenanigans look like galvanising the Demons this year - they've got a real "us against the world" mentality a-la the John Northey years.

[dog town]

All the drugs shenanigans look like galvanising the Demons this year - they've got a real "us against the world" mentality a-la the John Northey years.

Looking very good at this stage and frighteningly they have improved their ball
movement significantly. Teams struggling to lay a glove on them once they get on the outside.

[jeemak]

It's week four in a 24 week season.

This team has made top four the past couple of years and gone out in straight sets, I'll keep my bag full for a while yet before I start blowing it all over them.*


*Keep it nice, I mean cash.

[Twodogs]

Has anyone ever got 3 strikes?

Travis Tuck

[Twodogs]

For what it's worth, I'm reluctantly okay with a player self reporting and being given a week off by the club Doctor but only once within a season and not more than twice within a career.
It also shouldn't be allowed to occur more than once without the coach knowing about it and he can make a decision if the player is worth maintaining on the list.
If you drive a car impaired you can lose your license for a period of time and we all accept that.
The same logic should apply to footballers and drug use and the rules also need to apply to the games best players with no exceptions.

If you test positive to certain substances you will lose your licence. For some reason they don't test for heroin (which is probably the worst substance to be operating a vehicle on) and ironically for the purposes of this discussion they don't test for cocaine.

I've never been able to get an answer as to why those two particular drugs aren't tested for.

[Twodogs]

Does it help in training? Eg recovery and or being abke to push harder?

I wouldn't think so. It makes your heart beat faster meaning that you can't push yourself harder without running the risk of heart trouble. It also interferes with your concentration and the effects don't really last that long and you quickly build up a tolerance.

If you were looking at something that lasted longer then you'd go with meth or ordinary amphetamine.

[1eyedog]

I wouldn't think so. It makes your heart beat faster meaning that you can't push yourself harder without running the risk of heart trouble. It also interferes with your concentration and the effects don't really last that long and you quickly build up a tolerance.

If you were looking at something that lasted longer then you'd go with meth or ordinary amphetamine.

There are footballers playing who have a clinical ADHD diagnosis and take dexamphetamine medication for the purposes of increasing their executive functioning ability. The medication is necessary to help them generally, in life.

It doesn't assist you physically in any way but your ability to organise and focus go though the roof. It makes you super alert and your brain works quicker. ADHD medication provides and unseen cognitive advantage on the footy field no doubt and this is a topic that has been afforded zero air time.

[Twodogs]

There are footballers playing who have a clinical ADHD diagnosis and take dexamphetamine medication for the purposes of increasing their executive functioning ability. The medication is necessary to help them generally, in life.

It doesn't assist you physically in any way but your ability to organise and focus go though the roof. It makes you super alert and your brain works quicker. ADHD medication provides and unseen cognitive advantage on the footy field no doubt and this is a topic that has been afforded zero air time.

I used amphetamine a lot when I was younger. Melbourne was awash with high quality and relatively cheap speed in the '80s. We'd buy it by the 1/4 ounce, none of this point nonsense.

But I always used to wonder why my friends would be bouncing off the walls after a taste but I'd be sitting in the corner chain smoking and doing crosswords.

Then in my mid 50s I was diagnosed as being ADHD and I almost felt the penny drop. I'm medicated nowadays and my life has improved no end.

[Axe Man]

Only partially Melbourne related but a continuation of the AFL drug policy discussion in this thread:

Harley Balic?s father Eddie slams AFL drugs secrecy amid Sport Integrity Australia probe (https://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/tragic-tale-of-exdee-docker-harley-balic-referenced-in-sia-investigation-into-afl-illicit-drugs-policy/news-story/3dec78cb537d6d6a136d0d7bc238c4f6)

The father of ex-Melbourne and Fremantle footballer Harley Balic, who died after a battle with substance abuse two years ago, says he blames the AFL and its illicit drugs policy for the tragedy.

Breaking his silence after the Herald Sun revealed Balic?s death had become the focus of a Sport Integrity Australia investigation into the league?s controversial drugs policy, Eddie Balic said:

?I believe that the AFL has a duty of care to formally intervene early into young vulnerable players who have been identified as having substance abuse issues.

?I also feel that had better support been put in place early for my son, it may have prevented this tragic outcome.

?The huge disappointment is that the AFL knew a lot and as a family we weren?t told. We may have saved him earlier.

?To this day it disappoints me that no one from senior management of the AFL has ever made contact with me over the terrible loss of my son.?

Balic died in January 2022, just four days after turning 25, following a battle with drug addiction.

During his three-year playing career, Balic was placed into the AFL?s ?medical model?, enabling him to take drugs repeatedly without penalty.

Balic witnessed Fremantle players using drugs just days after arriving at the club in late 2015, sources allege, and he soon became an addict in the AFL system.

He was traded to the Demons in late 2017 and retired the following year.

Balic?s case is referenced in a statement made by former Melbourne doctor Zeeshan Arain, which was handed to SIA by federal MP Andrew Wilkie last month.

In his statement, Dr Arain said: ?Often list management is used to solve a lot of problems.

?It gets to the point where they (AFL clubs) are like, ?Well, if we can?t help this player, we will move them on.

?And the problem is that the player doesn?t cease to exist to be a person once they are not in your club, the duty of care still goes on.

?Take Harley Balic, for example. A few years after Harley Balic left the Melbourne Football Club he was dead related to drug use.?

Dr Arain was interviewed by SIA investigators in Melbourne last week.

Under the so-called ?medical model? - which the AFL only detailed last month - players identified as occasional or regular drug users are exempted from the three strikes program.

The players can be secretly tested ?off the books? before games to ensure they are not positive, potentially being withdrawn from their team with fake injuries to avoid suspensions under the world anti-doping code.

Global anti-doping chiefs have pilloried the AFL over its secret testing procedures.

SIA has the power to investigate all sports integrity matters beyond whether the AFL has breached the world anti-doping code in authorising the ?off the books? tests.

SIA chief David Sharpe, a former Australian Federal Police officer who has pursued drug cartels in Mexico, Colombia and Vietnam, has previously warned that footballers taking cocaine, ice and ecstasy are *vulnerable to bikies and organised criminals who either sold them the drugs, or saw them taking them.

The AFL claims its illicit drugs policy puts players? welfare first, but sources insist the opposite was true in Balic?s case.

In July 2017, Fremantle announced that Balic had been granted ?indefinite leave? by the club after ?injuring his hamstring at training?, subsequent to another leave of absence for a ?personal issue?.

Mr Wilkie attempted to table Dr Arain?s statement in federal parliament last month as he accused the AFL of perpetrating a fraud on the public in a bombshell speech.

Balic, a star junior from Melbourne?s bayside region, was drafted by Fremantle with pick 38 in the 2015 national draft and played four games for the Dockers in 2017 before being traded to Melbourne.

He was delisted by the Demons after just one season without registering a senior game for the club.

Travis Tygart, the head of America?s anti-doping agency, USADA, last week described the AFL?s drug-testing policy as ?incredibly ill-informed? and reeking ?of nefarious behaviour?.

[GVGjr]

The Demons have announced superstar Christian Petracca will not attend the club’s best and fairest awards after recent turmoil.

It's just getting worse for them.

[Grantysghost]

The Demons have announced superstar Christian Petracca will not attend the club’s best and fairest awards after recent turmoil.

It's just getting worse for them.
Gee wiz. Roffey wasn't enough.

[ReLoad]

The Demons have announced superstar Christian Petracca will not attend the club’s best and fairest awards after recent turmoil.

It's just getting worse for them.

Absolutely they will be exploring trades for him.

I’ll start; straight swap for JUH.

[bulldogsthru&thru]

The Demons have announced superstar Christian Petracca will not attend the club’s best and fairest awards after recent turmoil.

It's just getting worse for them.

I heard it's because he's attending a red bull training camp in Austria.

There might be 2 seats available soon at Red Bull so maybe he's going to have a crack at F1.

[jazzadogs]

I heard it's because he's attending a red bull training camp in Austria.

There might be 2 seats available soon at Red Bull so maybe he's going to have a crack at F1.

Hope he takes some signed guernseys to present to the F1 drivers, for them to frame and put up on their walls.

[josie]

Absolutely they will be exploring trades for him.

I’ll start; straight swap for JUH.

The logical part of me says that’s a win-win trade. The emotional part says it would be sad to see Marra leave. Setting aside his really poor EF his recent form has mostly been good. And I am worried he will never be a particularly accurate kick for goal.

[jeemak]

The logical part of me says that’s a win-win trade. The emotional part says it would be sad to see Marra leave. Setting aside his really poor EF his recent form has mostly been good. And I am worried he will never be a particularly accurate kick for goal.

On a recent podcast/ vidcast which was really excellent listening and viewing, it's clear JUH knows his kicking is unacceptable and he's trying to work through it. It's also clear he's putting in a huge amount of work to be at the appropriate level to compete.

The good news is he gets opportunities, even if he's not playing at his best. Hopeful that at 22 and working hard he can get it all together. Absolutely no way I'd be trading him for anyone, outside of him refusing to commit to us at the end of next season prior to the trade period and his second and final contract year.

A pick in the twenties and a future late first rounder from a contending team would be way too much to stomach for someone like him, especially after the Dunkley and Smith stitch ups. So if we're not the place for him, we may as well get it over with while we hold the whip hand.

[ledge]

On a recent podcast/ vidcast which was really excellent listening and viewing, it's clear JUH knows his kicking is unacceptable and he's trying to work through it. It's also clear he's putting in a huge amount of work to be at the appropriate level to compete.

The good news is he gets opportunities, even if he's not playing at his best. Hopeful that at 22 and working hard he can get it all together. Absolutely no way I'd be trading him for anyone, outside of him refusing to commit to us at the end of next season prior to the trade period and his second and final contract year.

A pick in the twenties and a future late first rounder from a contending team would be way too much to stomach for someone like him, especially after the Dunkley and Smith stitch ups. So if we're not the place for him, we may as well get it over with while we hold the whip hand.

Smith stitch up ? We have no idea what is coming with regards to his trade . So I’m not sure it’s a stitch up as yet .