 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
think positive 
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| jackcass wrote: | | David wrote: | ^ No, I'd expect them to fight the case using whatever evidence they can muster.
This, of course, is presuming that we throw the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty' out the window. |
A rule of law that doesn't apply in sports doping issues. |
The ease dopers seem to be getting away with it
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
 |
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| AN_Inkling wrote: | | David wrote: | | Pies4shaw wrote: | Also, it's only an "unrelated social problem" if it doesn't affect on-field performance, directly or indirectly, at all. I think the concerns expressed by Pert and others arise from a view that the sport is such a competitive one that you can't really afford to do anything that might reduce your on-field output, even by a smidgeon. What's the point of all that sports science and personalised training regimes if you can't adjust to take reasonable account of the fact that player X is getting into the recreational substances twice a week?
One might, eg, occasionally come across a lawyer in court with an "unrelated social problem". Lawyers don't need to be fit, don't need to be especially healthy and can - on one view - probably live the rest of their lives stoned if they "can do their jobs" adequately. But they don't have to come to court stoned to present as ill-prepared and incompetent, or unreliable - sometimes what happens elsewhere can very much affect the "match-day" product, even for people who don't have to perform elite physical feats on "match-day".
One typical difficulty is that most people tend to overestimate the extent to which their personal choices and "unrelated social problems" are completely separate from their work performance. In the highly-complex and fine-tuned world of elite sports performance, I suspect there's more than a little bit of that, too.
There's a further debate to be had, though, about whether the penalties for the deliberate use of PEDs are, in any event, appropriate. In the NFL, you typically get 4 weeks for a first offence. I'm not sure whether it's a bigger or smaller problem there - they get detected more often but I have the impression that the testing is more generalised, too. |
I don't really disagree with any of that. But to talk about drug use from an on-field performance angle alone would require a radically different approach that would a) be purely club-directed, with no input from the AFL or external drug codes and b) place the issue in the same category as having a mid-week drink or eating too much junk food.
To some extent, the consequences would be wholly organic. Unless, like Ben Cousins, they were able to remain consummate professionals on the track whilst maintaining an active nightlife, any player who sacrificed on-field performance for drug use would find themselves in the VFL very quickly.
If only it were that simple. |
I pretty much agree. It's fairly simple: if a player isn't performing or training as required they don't play. Whether that's down to lack of effort, too much drinking, wrong diet, poor sleeping habits, poor mental health, illicit drugs etc... you can then work with the player to improve their performance. If they're doing any of the above and still performing to the required standard, then, in terms of the footy club, where is the issue? I don't see what is so different to any other workplace. You work with the players as much as possible to develop them into quality young men, but you can't control them completely just as a parent can't. Like everyone else they're responsible for their own behaviour. Unfortunately, these young men are being elevated above the likes of surgeons, where it's actually important that they are performing, for nothing other than protecting the brand of a club and the league. It's pretty disgusting.
And I'm sorry but 4 years for one off PED use is never going to be a fair outcome. If you're going to hand out those type of bans I feel you need more than that (ie. proof that use has been ongoing). It's way out of proportion to the offense. The reason for that is they know they can't catch the bulk of offenders and especially the hardcore offenders. The ones they do end up catching are usually on the lower end and they end up getting smashed with a suspension that is out of all proportion. It's a garbage system that is more about face saving than genuinely cleaning things up, and it's regrettable that the government ever forced the AFL to be a part of it. |
If you do a robbery the cops do t have to prove you've done more than one. A one of PED use? Really? If they took it deliberately, and only once, gees you'd be unlucky! I don't agree, the penalty is harsh to stop the crime being committed. When you consider how many players there are in the AFL, and forget about Essendon, the policy is working pretty well. Unless they are not doing enough tests.
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
David
to wish impossible things
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: the edge of the deep green sea
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| think positive wrote: | | David wrote: | ^ No, I'd expect them to fight the case using whatever evidence they can muster.
This, of course, is presuming that we throw the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty' out the window. |
the test proved them guilty David
the rest is just heresay, and im not convinced that it was taken with rec drugs, not convinced it was taken to cheat, definately convinced it wasnt in the meat!! |
No it didn't. It proved that the substance was in their system.
It's the equivalent of the police finding a stolen car on your front lawn. Is that proof that you're guilty of stealing it? What if you bought it from a used car dealer, or what if someone else dumped it on your front lawn and took off? Merely establishing that the car is there is not proof of guilt.
Now, if you happened to be buying a few grams of cocaine on a regular basis and your dealer decided (without your permission) that your front yard would be a good venue for his latest joyride, would that make you a car thief? "We hereby sentence Think Positive to the harshest possible penalty for car thievery; not because she was actually involved in the car theft, but because we need to remind impressionable members of society that drugs are bad." 
_________________
"Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange |
|
|
|
|
Bucks5 
Nicky D - Parting the red sea
Joined: 23 Mar 2002
|
| Post subject: | |
|
The problem is that all sportspeople caught with PEDs in their system can simply claim they got it from some tainted illicit drug as a way to get their suspension reduced.
Who wouldn't say this if it could halve a potential ban? Do you seriously think that the type of person who would purposely cheat by PEDs will be truthful and honest??
_________________
How would Siri know when to answer "Hey Siri" unless it is listening in to everything you say? |
|
|
|
|
Dave The Man 
Joined: 01 Apr 2005
Location: Someville, Victoria, Australia
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I have head the Lions could Rookie both these 2 Boys before we get a Chance to Rooking them
_________________
I am Da Man |
|
|
|
|
AN_Inkling
Joined: 06 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| The Seedsmeister wrote: | The problem is that all sportspeople caught with PEDs in their system can simply claim they got it from some tainted illicit drug as a way to get their suspension reduced.
Who wouldn't say this if it could halve a potential ban? Do you seriously think that the type of person who would purposely cheat by PEDs will be truthful and honest?? |
Of course. But that's why you need other evidence: statements from others, purchase proof etc. As David points out that's how it works in a real court. Many doping bans don't come about as the result of testing anyway as it's simply inadequate.
The reason for strict liability is because the doping agencies are fighting a losing battle. Their tests aren't good enough so they ramp up the punishments and make it easier to get convictions. The result: you catch more small fry who likely never intended to cheat. As of this year they could still get a 4 year ban.
Four years is a lifetime for an athlete. You can't hand out that kind of sentence without proving cheating. Strict liability has been done away with to a degree as inadvertent use will mean a reduced sentence (more like two years). I'd argue though that even for a two year ban some cheating intention should need to be shown, either by other evidence or a pattern of use. If all you can prove is once off usage, two years is still too harsh.
_________________
Well done boys! |
|
|
|
|
King Monkey
Joined: 15 Apr 2009
Location: On a journey to seek the scriptures of enlightenment....
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | ^ No, I'd expect them to fight the case using whatever evidence they can muster.
This, of course, is presuming that we throw the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty' out the window. |
Including names of dealers, friends, acquaintances, etc.......??
How do you think that would work out for them??
_________________
"I am a great sage, equal of heaven.
Grow stick, grow.
Fly cloud, fly.
Oh you are a dee-mon, I love to fiiight." |
|
|
|
|
4everpies
Joined: 13 Aug 2008
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Dave The Man wrote: | | I have head the Lions could Rookie both these 2 Boys before we get a Chance to Rooking them |
Brisbane may be able to rookie one of them before us, but not both. They will have one rookie pick before us, not two. |
|
|
|
|
Piethagoras' Theorem 
the hypotenuse, is always a cakewalk
Joined: 29 May 2006
|
| Post subject: | |
|
We were told we had to undergo a drug test recently as part of an induction for a particular job site. Yep, no worries... Well, it was all lies and deceit. I soon discovered we weren't there to test drugs at all!
_________________
Formally frankiboy and FrankieGoesToCollingwood. |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| FrankieGoesToCollingwood wrote: | | We were told we had to undergo a drug test recently as part of an induction for a particular job site. Yep, no worries... Well, it was all lies and deceit. I soon discovered we weren't there to test drugs at all! |
Bugger.
| 4everpies wrote: | | Dave The Man wrote: | | I have head the Lions could Rookie both these 2 Boys before we get a Chance to Rooking them |
Brisbane may be able to rookie one of them before us, but not both. They will have one rookie pick before us, not two. |
Or they could senior list one or both with late picks.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
4everpies
Joined: 13 Aug 2008
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | | FrankieGoesToCollingwood wrote: | | We were told we had to undergo a drug test recently as part of an induction for a particular job site. Yep, no worries... Well, it was all lies and deceit. I soon discovered we weren't there to test drugs at all! |
Bugger.
| 4everpies wrote: | | Dave The Man wrote: | | I have head the Lions could Rookie both these 2 Boys before we get a Chance to Rooking them |
Brisbane may be able to rookie one of them before us, but not both. They will have one rookie pick before us, not two. |
Or they could senior list one or both with late picks. |
It would be a huge risk for any club to senior list even one of them for 2016. |
|
|
|
|
4everpies
Joined: 13 Aug 2008
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| FrankieGoesToCollingwood wrote: | | We were told we had to undergo a drug test recently as part of an induction for a particular job site. Yep, no worries... Well, it was all lies and deceit. I soon discovered we weren't there to test drugs at all! |
Hilarious, did you look like your avatar when you found out?
|
|
|
|
|
Piethagoras' Theorem
the hypotenuse, is always a cakewalk
Joined: 29 May 2006
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I resigned
_________________
Formally frankiboy and FrankieGoesToCollingwood. |
|
|
|
|
Rexy17
Joined: 09 Oct 2006
Location: Ballarat
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Dave The Man wrote: | | I have head the Lions could Rookie both these 2 Boys before we get a Chance to Rooking them |
Half the Lions luck and good luck to them. It wont be a great loss if we don't get to pick them up.
_________________
B.U.M.S ROCK...That's Ballarat United Magpies Supporters.....Long trip but even longer hangovers! |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw 
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| I think the Club would be pleased if we were relieved of the burden of carrying them for a further year and a half. I base that on what Pert specifically said on the subject. As for Brisbane, well, let's just say that their list is so full of stars that I'm sure they can carry two guaranteed non-starters for that year and a half.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
