Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: That Saad Lad (Read 26989 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: That Saad Lad

Reply #45 –
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. 

Re: That Saad Lad

Reply #46 –
Quote from: Mav – on
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.
“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

― Mark Twain

Re: That Saad Lad

Reply #47 –
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.

Re: That Saad Lad

Reply #48 –
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.
"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson

Re: That Saad Lad

Reply #49 –
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.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

― Mark Twain

Re: That Saad Lad

Reply #50 –
Quote from: Mav – on
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.
“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

― Mark Twain

Re: That Saad Lad

Reply #51 –
Quote from: denimundies – on
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.
"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson

Re: That Saad Lad

Reply #52 –
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. 

Re: That Saad Lad

Reply #53 –
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.

Re: That Saad Lad

Reply #54 –
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.

Re: That Saad Lad

Reply #55 –
Well I hope he has the focus and willpower to get back to playing afl when his ban expirres.

Re: That Saad Lad

Reply #56 –
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. 

Re: That Saad Lad

Reply #57 –
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.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

― Mark Twain

Re: That Saad Lad

Reply #58 –
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.
Ignorance is bliss.

ONWARDS AND UPWARDS!
 

Re: That Saad Lad

Reply #59 –
Quote from: PassIt2Carrots – on
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. 
“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

― Mark Twain