SA Footy

if a player(s) from a team gets drug tested & its proven positive, should that team lose its premiership points from that game (presuming they won) or for the year ? & if caught during finals should that team be declared the loser ? & if it happened in the grand final would or should that team be disqualified ?

i'm thinking they should seeing its a lot deeper than first thought

Depends if it is performance enhancing or not. If it is, then you may have a good point. If not, then the outcome of a game is irrelevant to whether anyone took drugs or not so no, points should not be taken off.

bayman wrote:if a player(s) from a team gets drug tested & its proven positive, should that team lose its premiership points from that game (presuming they won) or for the year ? & if caught during finals should that team be declared the loser ? & if it happened in the grand final would or should that team be disqualified ?

i'm thinking they should seeing its a lot deeper than first thought

Not sure how you came up with that, given that the AFL doesn't advise the club until the 3rd positive test.

i'm asking should it be that way & yes to performance enhancing drugs

bayman wrote:i'm asking should it be that way & yes to performance enhancing drugs

Theres no doubt the policy needs changing, but penalising the club premiership points after one test isn't the way to go IMO. I'd be worried about people spiking players' drinks in order to get them a positive result and stuffing up their clubs' season.

what is the difference between a team with possible drug cheats or a team that has broken the salary cap.......

dinglinga wrote:what is the difference between a team with possible drug cheats or a team that has broken the salary cap.......

Salary cap is a "whole of club" thing whereas a player could be a drug cheat without the club's sanction.

sorry GWW .. not what i meant ... which team should be penalised first ...96 Carlton or 06 West Coast

dinglinga wrote:sorry GWW .. not what i meant ... which team should be penalised first ...96 Carlton or 06 West Coast

My point is though that West Coast or a club like them shouldn't be penalised unless its proved that they either knew about the player's drug use or actually endorsed/encouraged it. If drug use is rife at the club and the club doesn't do anything about it, then fair enough to dock premiership points, but shouldn't be the initial sanction.

dinglinga wrote:sorry GWW .. not what i meant ... which team should be penalised first ...96 Carlton or 06 West Coast

I tell you what if we are docking points from clubs that have players using illicit drugs during the season then no sides are going to have points..

So how are we going to decide who loses points? WCE because Cousins admitted to having a problem, The Side who cant be named because of the positive tests? or just every club that has had a player test positive once?

You can't dock premiership points unless they implement a 100% coverage system - test all players after the game, every game. Otherwise its luck of the draw as to whether you get caught.

Having said all that, I think the individual player has to be punished rather than the club. You can look at punishing the club if they have a much higher occurrence rate over the others over a period of time.

Recreational drugs are not performance enhancing, yet CAN be used to mask performance enhancing drugs.
EPO is a drug that increases athletic endurance- ie performance enhancing.

Shane Warne has shoulder surgery, makes a miraculous recovery, yet tests positive to a diuretic (banned substance- masking agent)... that's just 1 example.

dinglinga wrote:sorry GWW .. not what i meant ... which team should be penalised first ...96 Carlton or 06 West Coast

06 West Coast for sure !!

SJABC wrote:

dinglinga wrote:sorry GWW .. not what i meant ... which team should be penalised first ...96 Carlton or 06 West Coast

06 West Coast for sure !!

cheating is cheating, surely?

I say Carlton '96, as that was pre-meditated, calculated Board level cheating

I wonder if there ever will be a time when there will be a place for both.
The Australian Drug Boosted Football League (ADBFL) and the Australian Clean Football League (ACFL).

The ADBFL will only host players on any drug or substance they want, and as much of it as the want.
7 foot, 150kg musclebound giants who can leap 2 meters in the air, and run the 100m in 7 and a half seconds.
Kick the ball consistently 80 metres.

And of course the clean league ACFL, which will have only the purest of players running around.
Such as James Hird's kid.

silicone skyline wrote:I wonder if there ever will be a time when there will be a place for both.
The Australian Drug Boosted Football League (ADBFL) and the Australian Clean Football League (ACFL).

The ADBFL will only host players on any drug or substance they want, and as much of it as the want.
7 foot, 150kg musclebound giants who can leap 2 meters in the air, and run the 100m in 7 and a half seconds.
Kick the ball consistently 80 metres.

And of course the clean league ACFL, which will have only the purest of players running around.
Such as James Hird's kid.

Perhaps that could be next years All-Star game. Druggies vs Yoga Boys. Would hold more interest than Vics vs the Rest!

I feel that the three strikes policy needs to be abandoned. The board of the club should be informed immediantly of any player that tests positive to any banned drug.

People in other workplaces that test for drugs dont get a three strike policy nor information witheld from their employer, so it should be no difference in these cases.

Sojourner wrote:I feel that the three strikes policy needs to be abandoned. The board of the club should be informed immediantly of any player that tests positive to any banned drug.

People in other workplaces that test for drugs dont get a three strike policy nor information witheld from their employer, so it should be no difference in these cases.

AGREED!