So are we allowed to discuss the Sharkies situation?

T

TigersFan4Life

New member
Surprised there's no thread about it yet.

Here are the things I find frown-worthy:

1) The stuff they took was not on the banned list back in 2011, so why is it a problem now?

2) If the club told them it was okay to take the stuff, why are the players facing six-month bans? Surely the club itself should take the lion's share of the blame? Or are they actually saying that, despite being told that the stuff was okay to take, the players STILL should have checked if it was okay? That just seems ridiculous.

3) This happened DURING THE 2011 SEASON, when the Sharks won just 7 games and finished 13th. Surely, based on that, the substances were not especially performance-enhancing.
 
There is a coverall clause in the guidlines. The substance Marion Jones got done for was not on the banned list at the time of using it but it still saw her stripped of medals.

If anything this should see a rise in personal responsibility. To say I took it without question isn't an excuse under law.
 
There is - http://www.weststigersforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=16487&view=unread#unread

It's in the wrong section though, probably why you didn't see it.
 
@TigersFan4Life said:
Surprised there's no thread about it yet.

Here are the things I find frown-worthy:

1) The stuff they took was not on the banned list back in 2011, so why is it a problem now?

2) If the club told them it was okay to take the stuff, why are the players facing six-month bans? Surely the club itself should take the lion's share of the blame? Or are they actually saying that, despite being told that the stuff was okay to take, the players STILL should have checked if it was okay? That just seems ridiculous.

3) This happened DURING THE 2011 SEASON, when the Sharks won just 7 games and finished 13th. Surely, based on that, the substances were not especially performance-enhancing.
Click to expand...

1\. How do you know what they took?
2\. It's the player's responsibility to know what they're taking. Yes the club needs to be held account. Approaching this from the starting point that the player's are ignorant victims is not necessarily the right approach.
3\. That's not great reasoning. Often the benefits are more long-term. Besides nobody doubted their forward pack and PEDs have limited impact on skills. Sharks have long been good at stopping tries, not so good at scoring them.

I'd caution anyone with making assumptions about the whole matter before all the facts are brought into the open. ASADA are not on a witch hunt. These are serious issues that need to be investigated.
 
It says what they took in one of the four or five SMH articles on the issue, and goes on to say that the substances were not on the banned list in 2011.

Personal responsibility is all fine and good in day-to-day life, but are you saying that if in any other kind of employment, if your boss gives you instructions to do something and it is later found out that what you did is illegal (although you were told it wasn't), that YOU are the one responsible for the problem?
 
They were not on the banned list but are covered by a provision.

If you are suspicious of what you are doing you look into it. If you are an athelete your body is your income stream so you don't risk it by taking a bunch of stuff that you don't know the make up of. You would be doubly suspicious i asked to sign a waiver before doing it
 
@TigersFan4Life said:
It says what they took in one of the four or five SMH articles on the issue, and goes on to say that the substances were not on the banned list in 2011.

Personal responsibility is all fine and good in day-to-day life, but are you saying that if in any other kind of employment, if your boss gives you instructions to do something and it is later found out that what you did is illegal (although you were told it wasn't), that YOU are the one responsible for the problem?
Click to expand...

But I don't work in a profession where it is established that I need to be aware of what I am consuming/taking. It's not a reasonable comparison to pro sports people.

The SMH article is not necessarily a full account of what is in the report. To be honest I'm surprised those things weren't on WADA's list although I'd also be surprised if they weren't subject to other controls. If ASADA believed the drugs being administered were legal to use in pro sport I doubt they would have bothered asking the ACC to investigate.
 
@smeghead said:
If you are suspicious of what you are doing you look into it.
Click to expand...

I can't agree more.

Mentioned in:
http://m.smh.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/players-may-sue-cronulla-if-they-are-banned-for-drug-use-20130306-2flrd.html

Are Thymosin Beta 4 and CJC1295.

From 20 seconds of googling and Mrsupplement.com.au

CJC-1295 is an injectable synthetic peptide hormone that is similar in structure to the growth hormone releasing hormone. Consequently, it can stimulate the release of growth hormone from the pituitary gland. As its name suggests, growth hormone is an anabolic hormone and is responsible for the production of some other anabolic hormones, such as IGF1\. This makes the use of CJC-1295 attractive to certain individuals wishing to make gains in lean muscle.

Surely that would sound alarm bells to any professional sportsmen.

_Posted using RoarFEED 2013_
 
You have to remember that most of these blokes aren't rocket scientists.
How far do they go?
Who do they question if the club , the club doctor and their agents all tell them it's ok?
Smacks of getting financial advice from a professional and when it goes sour then you're the one who goes broke - while they continue to make money 'advising' other suckers.
 
Fair enough. I just think the club needs to take some of the responsibility. After all, they were the ones who brought this Dank guy or whatever his name is into the lives of their players.
 
I agree that the players need to be responsible for their own actions, but these lists change every year. What was OK last year might not be this year or vice versa.

It should be up to the clubs to have someone on board who can review the constant changes and advise the players.

I still don't understand the fact that they were not on the banned list but now they are so using them in the past automatically becomes illegal. That would be like changing the speed limit from 100 down to 50 today and booking me for driving down it last week at 100.
 
@TigersFan4Life said:
Fair enough. I just think the club needs to take some of the responsibility. After all, they were the ones who brought this Dank guy or whatever his name is into the lives of their players.
Click to expand...

That is true and the coaching and management side of these events will need to be investigated. To some extent you're correct in that the wider playing group were accepting the advice that everything was okay. Certain players though won't be able to make that claim.
 
Sharks have not won a premiership ever so they should sue the company as the drugs were not performance enhancing. (LOL)

Why now on the eve of the 2013 premiership?

I hate our great game is again raked through the mud.
 
These guys are professional athletes, and in turn 'contract' themselves to the clubs, continually wanting more and more money for their services.

Therefore they have sole responsibility for what they put into their bodies to perform their duties as 'contractors'…
 
@DavidDuncan said:
I agree that the players need to be responsible for their own actions, but these lists change every year. What was OK last year might not be this year or vice versa.

It should be up to the clubs to have someone on board who can review the constant changes and advise the players.

I still don't understand the fact that they were not on the banned list but now they are so using them in the past automatically becomes illegal. That would be like changing the speed limit from 100 down to 50 today and booking me for driving down it last week at 100.
Click to expand...

\

Well they are banned. CJC-1295 and GHRP-6 were banned in 2011\. Also things never leave the list.. they just get added. I checked the 2011 WADA prohibited list and human growth hormones are clearly listed on page 4:
http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/World_Anti-Doping_Program/WADP-Prohibited-list/To_be_effective/WADA_Prohibited_List_2011_EN.pdf
\
\
If you GOOGLE CJC-1295 and GHRP6 then you will see that they clearly fit into this category and im not even a doctor. At the very least DANK misled the sharkies.. at the very worst the Sharkies knew and went along with it. Benefit of the doubt - give them 6 months.. which is a season
 
@Tiger Watto said:
These guys are professional athletes, and in turn 'contract' themselves to the clubs, continually wanting more and more money for their services.

Therefore **they have sole responsibility for what they put into their bodies** to perform their duties as 'contractors'…
Click to expand...

Like I said before - not too many of these guys are necessarily the sharpest tools in the shed.
Most of them pay managers to look after their interests - and part of that pay goes towards keeping up to date on this sort of thing.
The clubs also have a duty of care in that the players are getting 'expert' advice from the medical staff they supply .
 
@Hardwick said:
@DavidDuncan said:
I agree that the players need to be responsible for their own actions, but these lists change every year. What was OK last year might not be this year or vice versa.

It should be up to the clubs to have someone on board who can review the constant changes and advise the players.

I still don't understand the fact that they were not on the banned list but now they are so using them in the past automatically becomes illegal. That would be like changing the speed limit from 100 down to 50 today and booking me for driving down it last week at 100.

\

Well they are banned. CJC-1295 and GHRP-6 were banned in 2011\. Also things never leave the list.. they just get added. I checked the 2011 WADA prohibited list and human growth hormones are clearly listed on page 4:
http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/World_Anti-Doping_Program/WADP-Prohibited-list/To_be_effective/WADA_Prohibited_List_2011_EN.pdf
\
\
If you GOOGLE CJC-1295 and GHRP6 then you will see that they clearly fit into this category and im not even a doctor. At the very least DANK misled the sharkies.. at the very worst the Sharkies knew and went along with it. Benefit of the doubt - give them 6 months.. which is a season
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

That's correct according to my info too. Specific names may not be listed but the core components were. I understand they've been banned since 2008…
 
The problem for the players is the wada code is quite clear that the athlete is responsible for the substance found in their system regardless of how it got there. Ignorance isn't a defence.

If what is being written in the papers is true, do you think the sharks are done for good?

_Posted using RoarFEED 2013_
 
@Forty20 said:
The problem for the players is the wada code is quite clear that the athlete is responsible for the substance found in their system regardless of how it got there. Ignorance isn't a defence.

If what is being written in the papers is true, do you think the sharks are done for good?

_Posted using RoarFEED 2013_
Click to expand...

No but this year is a bit of a write-off. Fortunately they've got enough guys in recently so they won't have to field a reserve grade or NYC standard team but they can forget about winning the comp you'd think.
 
here's my question say the players do cop the six months (if found they were taking PEDs they are getting off easy if you ask me) will the NRL suspend the club and if so what happens to the players who were not involved do they sit out the season as well or what happens to them
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Members online

Total: 899 (members: 10, guests: 889)
Back
Top