http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/ahmed-saad-given-18month-suspension-20131126-2y877.html (http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/ahmed-saad-given-18month-suspension-20131126-2y877.html)
How the f.. do these Essendon clowns expect scott free.
Now that Saad has been given an 18-month suspension, there is no way known that the Essendon players are going to get off scott-free for their misdemeanours.
Expect to see some infractions handed down between now and the end of January.
Now that Saad has been given an 18-month suspension, there is no way known that the Essendon players are going to get off scott-free for their misdemeanours.
Expect to see some infractions handed down between now and the end of January.
January 2020?
It will be interesting to see if ASADA appeal for the full two year ban, only to see if their eased up on their zero tolerance stance in the past.
Surely if Saad is made the sole scape goat for the AFL by ASADA, WADA MUST intervene. We are not fools.
Hopefully the Saad case is a mere practice run for ASADA for when it hits the Bummers with both barrels!
Surely what the Bummers did was far worse than Saad who c0cked up but didn't deliberately break the rules?
Of course it was! That's why ASADA has to make sure it well and truly nails them. A little practice run won't hurt.
Welcome to the 'top shelf' cookie! :P
There's still the unresolved issue of team orders. Doping by individual athletes such as Saad, intentional or otherwise, can justly be punished by banning them. But what do you do when the team is, intentionally or otherwise, doping players while assuring them that the drugs are WADA compliant? That's even more of an issue in the AFL as junior players have no choice regarding the team that they join, so they have no ability to protect themselves by avoiding clubs with suspect ethics. Once at a club, they have little ability to be conscientious objectors. If they fail to thrive at their initial club, their career is usually over. And if they fall out with their 1st club and team mates, that's probably the ballgame.
Of course, Jobe Watson has no excuse. This is a guy who was trying to organise a sit down at an AFL match to protest against the introduction of the sub rule, showing himself willing to take on the might of the AFL head on. And yet he had neither the courage nor the leadership to ensure that the players who were under him were safe.
Why would he when the team was clearly benefiting from the PEDs? Obviously he's happy to do whatever it takes, that is the measure of the man.
Why would he when the team was clearly benefiting from the PEDs? Obviously he's happy to do whatever it takes, that is the measure of the man.
Yep, it's amazing how "principles" can be affected by self-interest - what did Paul Keating once say - "Never underestimate the power of self-interest". :)
Bombers will be off scot free. No question about it.
There's still the unresolved issue of team orders. Doping by individual athletes such as Saad, intentional or otherwise, can justly be punished by banning them. But what do you do when the team is, intentionally or otherwise, doping players while assuring them that the drugs are WADA compliant? That's even more of an issue in the AFL as junior players have no choice regarding the team that they join, so they have no ability to protect themselves by avoiding clubs with suspect ethics. Once at a club, they have little ability to be conscientious objectors. If they fail to thrive at their initial club, their career is usually over. And if they fall out with their 1st club and team mates, that's probably the ballgame.
Of course, Jobe Watson has no excuse. This is a guy who was trying to organise a sit down at an AFL match to protest against the introduction of the sub rule, showing himself willing to take on the might of the AFL head on. And yet he had neither the courage nor the leadership to ensure that the players who were under him were safe.
Yet several players opted out, seemingly without repercussion Mav?
It's certainly not a black and white issue - I agree with that, Flyboy. It would be interesting to know who the stand-outs were. One was Zaharakis, IIRC. He was certainly one of the younger players, but had already cemented a senior spot and is a bit of a fan favourite. That gives him a bit of a bargaining position that a lot of younger players don't have when they're on the periphery. Fev had a lot of bargaining power given his talent and his popularity with fans, and he used every bit of it. The other factor is that the youngsters who are yet to prove themselves might feel they have no option other than to follow the Hird, even though in reality they could say no without repercussions. When you're young and insecure, how do you know unless the coaching staff go out of their way to stress that it is purely optional?
He should incur a penalty sure, but if your gonna have zero tolerance with penalty severity such as this in instances such as this (a year and half pushing on 2 and soon to be 4 of an athletes life), then sooner or later all stakeholders who stand to gain should be made to assume a more realistic level of responsibility to better inform. It's simply not realistic to leave this at the feet of the athlete.
Manufactures, suppliers and retailers should have a duty to do more than simply bury the name of a substance in the ingredients list. Suppliers who should be reasonably aware of the possibility that sports persons in competition may be purchasing their product should have a duty to better inform that the product has the potential to wipe a career. Perhaps develop a labeling system big bold and ugly. A better job needs to be done to flush out intent.
This rule is a rule is rule is rule bullshiiit simply doesn't sit well with me. If big sister is going to remain relevant, then regulators should either impose more realistic spread of responsibility, or the power freak should impose penalties accordingly.
Sorry DU but for me it's very simple - do the crime do the time, end of story.
Yep. Remember, it's not just about being fair to the athlete who dopes (intentionally or otherwise) - it's also about being fair to the athletes who don't. Raelene Boyle should have won a Gold Medal but being beaten by an East German woman who was doped up to the eye balls. Even if guys like Lance Armstrong are eventually kicked out of sport, there are many clean athletes who will never make a name for themselves because they haven't enjoyed the winning edge the drugs gave their dirty rivals.
Bombers will be off scot free. No question about it.
They've already been sanctioned by the AFL though Gozzinho, they missed finals and draft picks for 2 years as well as a huge fine, the largest punishment ever handed out to a club. Some that can't accept being wrong claim that they weren't punished but we know that's not you. It now comes down to whether ASADA also choose to sanction them I guess. I agree there's no guarantee but would be sweet if it happened!
Welcome to the 'top shelf' cookie! :P
Hey thanks Carrots - I've just realised what you meant - bit slow today! ;D
- do the crime do the time, end of story.
That's what the English said when they shipped people of to a foreign penal colony for stealing loaves of bread. Do the crime do the time, a rule is rule..
It's also what the Victorian Supreme Court said to Julian Knight after the Hoddle Street massacre. Struggling to see the point you're trying to make. Arguing the toss on anecdotal examples of sentencing from the past is just a nonsense.
Bloke drinks a protein shake and misses 18 months. Bloke goes on national television and admits to receiving illegal substances several times over and gets hailed as a martyr.
The world is farked.
Bloke drinks a protein shake and misses 18 months. Bloke goes on national television and admits to receiving illegal substances several times over and gets hailed as a martyr.
The world is farked.
AFL logic.
It's also what the Victorian Supreme Court said to Julian Knight after the Hoddle Street massacre. Struggling to see the point you're trying to make. Arguing the toss on anecdotal examples of sentencing from the past is just a nonsense.
Proportionality Mav, we re discussing proportionality. I'm certain that in its original finding, the Supreme Court considered the circumstances before handing down its penalty. What's nonsense is that even criminal sentencing has a greater option of applicable penalties than an anti doping code. The example I provided was chosen so as to highlight proportionality. The example you responded with just reinforces the need for proportionality, both in terms of responsibility and in penalty.
- do the crime do the time, end of story.
That's what the English said when they shipped people of to a foreign penal colony for stealing loaves of bread. Do the crime do the time, a rule is rule..
And look - it led to Australia being settled - good or bad? ;)
- do the crime do the time, end of story.
That's what the English said when they shipped people of to a foreign penal colony for stealing loaves of bread. Do the crime do the time, a rule is rule..
And look - it led to Australia being settled - good or bad? ;)
Lol....it's hard to argue against that...
It's also what the Victorian Supreme Court said to Julian Knight after the Hoddle Street massacre. Struggling to see the point you're trying to make. Arguing the toss on anecdotal examples of sentencing from the past is just a nonsense.
I do understand your point Mav...I just think this zero tolerance policy needs to be backed by sharing of responsibility to parties other than just the athlete.
It's also what the Victorian Supreme Court said to Julian Knight after the Hoddle Street massacre. Struggling to see the point you're trying to make. Arguing the toss on anecdotal examples of sentencing from the past is just a nonsense.
Proportionality Mav, we re discussing proportionality. I'm certain that in its original finding, the Supreme Court considered the circumstances before handing down its penalty. What's nonsense is that even criminal sentencing has a greater option of applicable penalties than an anti doping code. The example I provided was chosen so as to highlight proportionality. The example you responded with just reinforces the need for proportionality, both in terms of responsibility and in penalty.
Despite the fact that murder sentences are life?
What about drink-driving disqualifications? If you go to a party and drive the following day thinking that you're well under 0.05%, surely ignorance will protect you from the mandatory disqualifications? Say a family emergency arises one night when you've drunk a few heavies and you drive to help out, the court would take that into consideration and allow you to keep your licence (and perhaps your job as well)? Oh dear, don't tell me proportionality gives way to deterrence and keeping the competition (or in this case the roads) safe for the non-offenders out there?
There IS a safety valve - if you have no (substantial) fault or negligence. Which imposes the obligation on athletes to make sure they stay within the rules rather than pleading ignorance afterwards perhaps to no effect.
You're failing to grasp the notion that the WADA Code is there to protect the clean athletes - the ones who do make sure they steer away from PEDs. Once you allow the system to become a farce by allowing "the dog ate my homework" excuses, there's really no reason that athletes would avoid PEDs.
So was Saad really an unfortunate victim in this case? Or were the victims the team mates he beat out at selection and the defenders he beat whose careers may have taken a turn for the worse as a result? The label boasted that the drink would ""increase energy levels, endurance, focus and enhance drive & muscular pumps". Each serving contained 32mgs of a banned stimulant, Methyl Synepherine. Didn't he wonder how the drink could do those things?
Both world-class Jamaican and American sprinters have been using a banned drug called oxilofrine (also known as methylsynephrine, hydroxyephrine, oxyephrine, and 4-HMP) to boost their performance and smash records. Find out why these sprinters are breaking all of the rules to use oxilofrine and how it works.
A short while back, I saw an interesting piece of news regarding world-class Jamaican sprinters who were busted for doping. I also happened to see that a famous American sprinter named Tyson Gay was caught doping around the same time. After glancing at the headlines, I thought to myself, “More stories about athletes getting busted for steroids.” Despite my indifference to a subject that I’d read about so many times before, I checked out the stories anyways.
The guilty parties involved were Jamaica’s Asafa Powell and Sherone Simpson. Powell held the 100-meter world record from 2005-08 with a time of 9.74 seconds. Thanks to his blazing speed, he won a 4x100m relay gold medal at the 2008 Summer Olympics.
Powell’s female Jamaican teammate, Simpson, won a 4x100m gold medal at the 2004 Olympics along with 100-meter and 4x100m silver medals at the 2012 Olympics. As for Gay, his 100-meter time of 9.69 seconds is the second fastest in history, behind Usain Bolt (9.58).
Upon researching these sprinters’ accomplishments, my next thought was to find out what steroid they were busted for. But to my surprise, they weren’t caught using steroids at all. Instead, Gay, Powell and Simpson all tested positive for an amphetamine called oxilofrine.
...
Well another noteworthy effect of oxilofrine is that it increases the body’s production of adrenaline. And with increased adrenaline comes more exercise endurance, improved focus, better oxygenation of the blood, a faster heart rate, and increased alertness. Of these effects, the extra endurance and improved blood oxygenation would definitely give sprinters a boost during their training.
Because of all the performance-enhancing benefits of oxilofrine, it’s been banned by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). And those caught using this amphetamine face up to a two-year ban from sanctioned track & field competitions. But even with these potential punishments, I guarantee you that plenty of athletes are still using this drug.
http://bodybuilding.elitefitness.com/oxilofrine-methyl-synephrine-doping (http://bodybuilding.elitefitness.com/oxilofrine-methyl-synephrine-doping)
Oxilofrine is also known as Methyl Synepehrine.
You're failing to grasp the notion that the WADA Code is there to protect the clean athletes - the ones who do make sure they steer away from PEDs.
Well summed up Mav.
Yeah... Deporting petty offenders to Australia was also intended to protect those that did the right thing. I'm sure it even reduced the amount of missing bread.
punish the kid, but FFS 2 years (soon to be 4) for a drink, when others in the process have almost SFA responsibility to assist in reducing such errors is heavy handed and unrealistic.
For this code to remain relevant ( long term ) it needs to shift its focus from solely a prosecutorial deterrent.
Why do you bother with this tripe?
To paraphrase you, "punish the kid, but FFS 2 years (soon to be 4) for 32 mg doses of Methyl Synepherine which so increases energy levels, endurance, focus and enhances drive & muscular pumps that sprinters are willing to use it despite the risk of being banned". Seems your point gets lost in the details ...
That's the problem Mav, you can't see past the intricate detail of this case. I'm discussing the inequity of policy, and your linking the dots to justify a breach. I'm not disputing breach. I'm saying where a penalty is severe and not subject to intent then either the responsibility to inform and avoid collateral shrapnel such Saed needs to be broadened or your penalties need to be flexible enough to allow for such consideration. I'm discussing politics your discussing law.
It's becoming a usual occurrence but yet again we'll have to agree to disagree. ;)
Yep, ASADA should have some method, whether it be via telephone enquiries or a website which would enable players to get confirmation that ingredients on the label are WADA-compliant. And the AFL should hold information sessions in which players are warned not to take any supplement or drug without first checking that all the ingredients are legit. Oh wait, that's all in place already. You apparently didn't know that or else you wouldn't make the baseless claim that you do.
Yep, ASADA should have some method, whether it be via telephone enquiries or a website which would enable players to get confirmation that ingredients on the label are WADA-compliant. And the AFL should hold information sessions in which players are warned not to take any supplement or drug without first checking that all the ingredients are legit. Oh wait, that's all in place already. You apparently didn't know that or else you wouldn't make the baseless claim that you do.
Yep, and sports people to be tested get a manifest of thousands of products that are deemed WADA safe. There is some of just about everything on that list, so many things you struggle not to find at least one item on just about any supplement shop's or chemist's shelf.
Yep, ASADA should have some method, whether it be via telephone enquiries or a website which would enable players to get confirmation that ingredients on the label are WADA-compliant. And the AFL should hold information sessions in which players are warned not to take any supplement or drug without first checking that all the ingredients are legit. Oh wait, that's all in place already. You apparently didn't know that or else you wouldn't make the baseless claim that you do.
No Mav, I'm well aware of that. As Ive said in previous posts, a shared responsibility by substance manufacturers and suppliers with a stake in the sale of such products, to adopt better communication is not unreasonable. I raised the possibility of a labeling system as one example where an athlete can easily identify a banned substance. He'll they already exist for other potentially detrimental goods, and for marketing purposes. To hard? Then alter the penalty system.
By the way, how stupid is Saad? He must have heard about the 2 VFL players who were banned after drinking supplement drinks, and unless he was living on the Moon he would have been hearing daily about the ASADA investigation into the Essendon "supplement" scandal. And he didn't get the message he needed to check on supplements he was taking? It seems incredible he didn't ask the club doctor at least to check it out.
By the way, how stupid is Saad? He must have heard about the 2 VFL players who were banned after drinking supplement drinks, and unless he was living on the Moon he would have been hearing daily about the ASADA investigation into the Essendon "supplement" scandal. And he didn't get the message he needed to check on supplements he was taking? It seems incredible he didn't ask the club doctor at least to check it out.
Sometimes people need to be told their brain is not there as stuffing to stop your eyeballs from rolling into your head. Not saying this about Saad, but players need to ask questions all the time to stay out of trouble. Especially with the recent season that has gone by.
You do know, DU, that the label clearly named the banned ingredient. This was not a case where the label was misleading.
Although it would be nice for there to be a mandatory warning on labels that banned drugs are included, that's pretty much out of WADA's control, isn't it? These supplements can be used by non-athletes and athletes who compete in sports that aren't bound by the WADA code (e.g. bodybuilders). WADA has no control over those athletes, nor over the drugs or supplements sold to them.
If warnings are to be mandatory on labels, the Australian government has to do the honours.
Yes Saad was stupid, Mav I agree, do you think (at a guess that is) lets say for example a red dot half an inch in diameter, signifying g potentially in breach of doping code, on the bottle he purchased may have led to him not purchasing it ?
You do know, DU, that the label clearly named the banned ingredient. This was not a case where the label was misleading.
Although it would be nice for there to be a mandatory warning on labels that banned drugs are included, that's pretty much out of WADA's control, isn't it? These supplements can be used by non-athletes and athletes who compete in sports that aren't bound by the WADA code (e.g. bodybuilders). WADA has no control over those athletes, nor over the drugs or supplements sold to them.
If warnings are to be mandatory on labels, the Australian government has to do the honours.
Yes I know that Mav if you refer to an earlier post of mine on previous page in this thread, I discussed that I thought burying the breaching constituents in ingredient list isn't enough IMO. I'm not suggesting athletes are dumb, just that not many of us are doctors or chemists and for some of us (myself included) every ingredient list looks the same.
Then write to your parliamentarian. Neither the AFL nor ASADA can make that a law. And no doubt if it does, there'll be sob stories about athletes who took a drink out of someone else's personal bottle into which the supplement had been poured, and the athlete will point out that he was deprived of the opportunity of seeing the red dot.
Right at the start of the code, there is a clear statement that the athlete has the primary responsibility for ensuring that banned drugs don't enter his system, and that DVs are strict offences. Blame can't be shifted unless the 2 exemptions can be invoked, and neither was available to Saad.
Yes I know that Mav if you refer to an earlier post of mine on previous page in this thread, I discussed that I thought burying the breaching constituents in ingredient list isn't enough IMO. I'm not suggesting athletes are dumb, just that not many of us are doctors or chemists and for some of us (myself included) every ingredient list looks the same.
Something which starts with Methyl (as in Methyl Amphetamine, known as Speed), and ends with a drug that looks like pseudoephedrine, a notoriously banned substance, should have raised red flags even in the absence of red dots.
Eventually a dramatic shift in philosophy from prosecutorial deterrence will need to take place to preserve AD code. In time more and more Saads will surface, and sooner or later public opinion will shift.
You still haven't explained how the same inexorable shift in public opinion hasn't resulted in mandatory minimum drink-driving disqualifications being dumped. Seems that the sob stories haven't worked in that regard.
And maybe the sob stories have lost their potency in the PEDs area since Andre Agassi successfully argued that his drink had been spiked with chrystal meth and avoided any penalty for that in '97. He later admitted in his autobiography that this was a lie. Wonder if Warnie's "my mum gave me a diet pill" excuse impressed many either. And Sam Riley's coach saying he was the one who fed her the headache pill without checking it's contents and taking the bullet for her did much to lessen the need to sheet home responsibility to the athlete.
You still haven't explained how the same inexorable shift in public opinion hasn't resulted in mandatory minimum drink-driving disqualifications being dumped. Seems that the sob stories haven't worked in that regard.
And maybe the sob stories have lost their potency in the PEDs area since Andre Agassi successfully argued that his drink had been spiked with chrystal meth and avoided any penalty for that in '97. He later admitted in his autobiography that this was a lie. Wonder if Warnie's "my mum gave me a diet pill" excuse impressed many either. And Sam Riley's coach saying he was the one who fed her the headache pill without checking it's contents and taking the bullet for her did much to lessen the need to sheet home responsibility to the athlete.
It's led to publicans exercising a moral (and within reason) a legal duty to advise intoxicated patrons they they shouldn't drive under the influence so as to avoid tort. It's led to friends and relatives doing the same, on moral grounds. It's led to employers (for fear of breach of legal duty of care) to provide taxi service for staff at company social gatherings. It's led to provision of clear identification (by way of apparatus that determine blood alcohol readings) in venues. It's led to a sharing of responsibility, precisely what I'm arguing here.
I'm arguing that without such a reasonable spread of responsibility eventually public opinion will shift away from a pure prosecutorial model. Sport has a far reach, tugs the heart of emotion and leaves a long memory in followers.
And yet, despite all of those people pitching in, drink-driving offences are prosecuted and punished without extending any leniency. So using this as a model, ASADA should continue to deal with DVs strictly and leave it to other parties such as managers, coaches, club doctors, friends, family, and supplement vendors to do as much as they can to prevent athletes from making bad decisions. I think you've just made my case for me.
The thing has move off point a little but putting on the label whether a substance is banned or not wont work.
Why? Simple.
The items banned or allowed are always changing. What happens when you buy "old stock" with a label yet to be updated?
Good theory but not practical. Better that these guys err on the side of caution and not take sonething of this nature.
Good point Thry, highlights why zero tolerance with a no provision in penalty for consideration of intent is unrealistic. In your scenario, an athlete could call ASADA to clear a product, get clearance , purchase product, return some time later with confidence of having previously been given green light, yet be subject to guilt if an ingredient previously not on banned list changes classification. Under current system an athlete would have to call each time he purchases or stay away entirely). It's a barbaric system. Only way around it is to either spread responsibility (regulatory if necessary, to impose duties) to related stake holders (in a similar way publicans and employers have inherited legal duty at common law in drink driving) or change penalty to consider intent.
And yet, despite all of those people pitching in, drink-driving offences are prosecuted and punished without extending any leniency. So using this as a model, ASADA should continue to deal with DVs strictly and leave it to other parties such as managers, coaches, club doctors, friends, family, and supplement vendors to do as much as they can to prevent athletes from making bad decisions. I think you've just made my case for me.
Have never suggested ASADA has the powers to make such changes, of course it doesn't, I've suggested shared responsibility that can only come about by regulatory support or ultimately a future common law case that sets precedent for duty as has happened in drink driving.
Good point Thry, highlights why zero tolerance with a no provision in penalty for consideration of intent is unrealistic. In your scenario, an athlete could call ASADA to clear a product, get clearance , purchase product, return some time later with confidence of having previously been given green light, yet be subject to guilt if an ingredient previously not on banned list changes classification. Under current system an athlete would have to call each time he purchases or stay away entirely). It's a barbaric system. Only way around it is to either spread responsibility (regulatory if necessary, to impose duties) to related stake holders (in a similar way publicans and employers have inherited legal duty at common law in drink driving) or change penalty to consider intent.
Actually, in your scenario the athlete is likely to get off.
Its been documented that ASADA\WADA have a call logging system to check for the official status of substances and all contact would be logged by person X/Y or Z.
Therefore, if they Green Light a substance which they later ban they should be:
1. In the position to notify person X/Y or Z taking said substance in question is no longer allowed, and log that contact.
2. Person X/Y or Z is absolved by having made a sufficient effort to ensure they are not taking a banned substance and would then be cleared of any infractions and right to compete anyway.
The only people who should be worried is Person A/B or C who got information on the status of a substance from Person X/Y or Z. If it isnt first hand information, dont take the substance.
Likewise, the inverse is true. Case in point being Vijay Singh being the Deer Antler spray incident, and the fact that it was banned, but the infraction was later cleared due to the fact that the actual method of taking that particular substance yielded no results. He got lucky more than anything else. He still didnt take the correct precautions. Had it actually been found to enhance his performance, he would have been in strife.
At the end of the day, the reasonable outcome which makes it easy to apply and easy to adhere to for everyone involved is simply to check with the authority about the status of any substance going into your system. Odds are, if it comes in powder, injection, tablet form you should err on the side of caution and check with the anti doping authority.
Simple. There are no excuses that are available to an athlete outside those criteria that are seen as being grounds to absolve said person aside from them not being concious of what is going in (operating table/concussed/not in reasonable state of mind et al being the only ones that work).
As for intent, the road to hell is paved with good intentions they say. A disqualified driver sees their friend intoxicated and gets behind the wheel in order to prevent said friend from driving drunk. If that disqualified driver is pulled over, that doesnt absolve them. After all, the intention is good, but the actions are still not legal.
I agree generally with what you've written, Thry, but the logging system doesn't necessarily include the identity of the athlete making the enquiry or his or her contact details. Enquiries can be made anonymously, and ASADA will give the caller a receipt number which should be retained. If any issues arise later, the athlete can give that number to investigators who will then pull up the log of that enquiry to confirm that the athlete was acting in accordance with ASADA's advice.
Presumably, the option of allowing anonymous calls is intended to reassure athletes who think that the enquiry might put them on a targeted testing list.
But if a player makes an enquiry on Friday and is given the green light but WADA changes the code an hour later, you'd expect that the player would be exempted from a ban.
I guess that there'd also be alerts sent out about changes in the list that would help players keep abreast of changes.
Supplements that pass, could be give a 'WADA approved' label, similar to a 'heart smart' label or similar? But its a lot of faffing about and then what if the manufacturers tweak the recipe straight after getting the ok to use said label.
Hope the Saints keep him on the rookie list.
The Saints declined to rookie him, Raven, as he couldn't be paid at all next year or even attend training sessions. They wanted to fill out their rookie list.
Well I hope he has the focus and willpower to get back to playing afl when his ban expirres.
He can start playing/training as of Feb 2015, so I imagine that the AFL will let him enter the draft at the end of next year and someone may well add him to the rookie list. He just has to have the motivation to train by himself to keep his body in shape for footy.
Reality is that WADA and it's subsequent systems and methodology was created in response to Olympic and other international sporting environment. It's substance status and penalty system is primarily designed around major yet less frequent events. It's not best equipped to deal with local team sports. I'd much prefer to see the AFL ditch them and develop own doping code and related policing functions. Accountability can be handled by a general overarching Australian body overseeing all local sports bodies, unbound contractually to WADA insofar as penalties or accountability.
Unfortunately the AFL will lose all sorts of government funding as well as having to dip into their own pockets to police it. Then of course there's the question of integrity. Not possible.
Unfortunately the AFL will lose all sorts of government funding as well as having to dip into their own pockets to police it. Then of course there's the question of integrity. Not possible.
I Agree, its unlikely in the near future, especially because Australia was one of the main catalysts in the centralized WADA model. And yeah as you point out the funding losses are a deterrent.
But who knows, at some stage in the future, as the number of shrapnel cases such as Saad increase, the Australian conscience of justice and a fair go might just lead to a shift in public opinion and policy change.