Re: We keep telling fumblers
Posted: Thu Mar 28, 2024 1:23 pm
And?……I never said I agreed with it…and?azif wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2024 10:34 amtheir 3 strikes drug policy was roundly howled down as ludicrous , now there is a covert system to ensure no one ever gets near 2 strikes , let alone 3Terry wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2024 10:15 amQuolls2019 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2024 8:51 am
I think the policy/practise as reported is flawed, but it has not broken any of the rules regarding performance enhancing drugs whether Australian or International.
It would appear that the “reporting” was between the player and the clubs doctor and the club doctors are not obligated to report a positive or a negative, in fact it maybe illegal to do so under confidentiality clauses. This is why the unavailability of the player is often reported as an injury, this is deceitful and perhaps unavailable would be more accurate although would be assumed to be an identifier.
My understanding that when a player has tested positive, other than game day, the are “unavailable” for the next game, which must affect their match payments, and put into some kind of rehab “course”.
How that could be kept quiet from the club, coach or other players is difficult to fathom.
I would think if a player is consistently unavailable they would be delisted or up for trade before to long.
That being said, would it pass the pub test, maybe not, but this is not about performance enhancing drugs.
Would anyone here like their private, albeit, illegal drug use made public by their employer?
It is interesting that the reporting was made under parliamentary privilege, from information provided by 3 disenchanted persons.
I would think a reasonable policy/practise is an affected player should be tested every week and suspended after a determined number of infractions.
I’m sure they will be much more movement on this, I would be surprised if the AFL was the only sport affected.
There are a lot issues with this post pal. Firstly, the drug of choice for AFL players is widely known to be cocaine. It is considered to have a performance enhancing effect when detected IN competition. As such it is prohibited by WADA. It is why Joel Smith was suspended. Note: cocaine can be taken OUT of competition but DETECTED IN competition with the sensitive tests conducted by SIA. I.E. it is still in the system. So you are wrong - cocaine is considered performance enhancing when detected IN competition.
Further: it has been revealed that the AFL effectively has 3 testing procedures. This was purposefully kept secret. One is run by SIA on game day. The 2nd is the AFL's illicit drug testing regime which has a 3 strikes policy. The 3rd is apparently run by club doctors and is wholly confidential - secret until now.
Important fact: No player has ever been struck out by a 2nd or 3rd AFL sanctioned positive test under the illicit drugs policy. Never. Not one. Ever. We now know why. The 3rd testing regime kicks in when a player is identified 'at risk'. It effectively protects him from sanctions. Some people call this a confidential 'medical model'. More cynical folk say it is a straight out cover-up. Brand protection where lies are told, secrets are kept and evasion is key. Sure sounds like Fumblehouse to me!!!
then watch these lying slimebags trot out some fuzzy wuzzy feel good propaganda piece about how positive drug tests in their sport are.....
down !!
filthy lying scum