Robert Wilkes Capo

[spartacus]

interesting thing about sports you mention, is that even they have made much greater effort to address drug-testing.

I think once a sport gets mainstream, then the same pressure and awareness about drug-use comes to attention.

For now, powerlifting, for all of its attraction to gym goers through bench press and squats, remains a fringe sport.

As it gets bigger, then greater pressure will emerge on it.

Once a sport is known, and stars are banned for drug use, it will be hard for any alternative fed to gain the mainstream public attention.

 

[spartacus]

Could you imagine if a rival athletics or rugby union tried to emerge and said, we think drug-testing is a joke, we are going to start a new fed and have no testing.

Well, I would bet that such proposals would be laughed out of town. It just wont happen given recent trends.

Drug-testing may indeed be an imperfect practice, but i think it is here to stay.

This is why I would suggest that all feds of any power sport have some sort of drug policy to be seen as having awareness of the times. It just leaves you less subject to criticism. you have to play the game and go with the flow should any situation arise.

 

[Bazza20]

Suppose there is the other side of it. If the people running, competing and spectating in these other Feds are happy with it who are we to say its no good.

Just that the top guys in the sports don't tend to get the recognition the deserve.

 

[spartacus]

yes, that is right.

As powerlifting stands today, there is room for many feds. This may stay similar for a long time.

There is one view that powerlfting will never get IOC accreditation, which I think is a bit pessimistic.

Hunt and todd argue, that differingviews over drug use ‘inadvertently destroyed thegreat hope of many of its members for widespread acceptance of their sport and,ultimately, a place on the Olympic program’, while ‘opening the door to aproliferation of powerlifting federations each of which possess differentconstitutive rules (Hunt and Todd 2007, p. 7).

 

[spartacus]

Another thing to note is that being the IPF affiliate does not guarantee you are the number one fed in each country.

In GB, there is a whole lot of evidence to show that the WDFPA affiliate the British Drug Free Powerlifting Association operates much better.

the IPF affiliate, GBPF notes that it was just ‘one of many other powerlifting organisations’ withits 2013 Strategic Plan urging a need to increase its 2012 membership of 815 to1500 in order to gain National Governing Body status.

So, there is a possibility that competition here, depending on the quality and effort of each fed, can change the supposed status quo. Nothing should ever be taken for granted.

 

[Spritcha]

I think you are confusing things. Without having read the material you are referring to I can tell you accreditation goes both ways. In Australia for example I understand that the ASC has said it will only recognise the national body that is affiliated with the international body recognised by the IOC and wada. Thats the IPF. I believe its the same in GB. So if another fed wants national accrediation it also has to be the recognised IPF affiliate. The national affiliate can change- as it did in the US, but its clearly a tricky process. Similarly, PA could lose its IPF affiliation if it lost its government recognition.
In GB I think the reference to gaining National GOverning Body status relates to a level of recognition that includes funding- something they lost when they split from weightlifting a few years ago.

This opinion is not representitive of the views of any group or organisation- so dont quote me LOL.

 

[strong enough?]

The Hunt and Todd article is a good one. It highlights why there is division in powerlifting along drug testing lines and this has not happened in other sports.

I think it is important to understand the international context in order to understand Australia. Australia effectively mirrored the international experience, but was about 5 years behind the pace. The reason why other sports haven't split in the same manner as powerlifting, and in my view probably never will, is tied up with how things panned out internationally. This is why I think that the assumption underlying spartacus's thesis, ie that the Australian government was in a position as a matter of public policy to promote unity in the sport of powerlifting or somehow promote effective drug policies across more than one federation, is fundamentally flawed. Of course, if you assume this is what the Govt wanted, policy has been a failure - but the government never had such a stated aim, nor could it have done anything when you look at the international splits in the sport. It's simply not the government's role to intervene in this manner. But that is another story.

In my view, the divisions stem from the fact that the powerlifting emerged primarily from the US, which dominated that sport until the late 1980s, and probably still does in terms of participation rates across all feds.

The original split in international powerlifting occurred because:
- by the 1980s, powerlifting had grown considerably. It was featured on ESPN. It had grown well beyond the US and it was starting to become very popular in Australia and Europe. This was a natural evolution because powerlifting was the kind of training already practised in other strength sports - especially throwing events in track and field.
- a number of lifters in the US were concerned that power was being taken away from the US and becoming concentrated in Europe as the IPF become more sophisticated and tied itself closer to the IOC
- US citizens have a constitutional right to freedom of association, a right which many Americans hold very dear and will fight hard to protect.
- when the IPF decided to align itself with international efforts initiated by the IOC (who created WADA in the first place) to implement drug testing in sport, US powerlifters quickly split - those who did not like being told what to do by a bunch of snobs in Europe and those that wanted PED use stamped out. This initially led to the formation of the Drug Free Powerlifting Association - which in turn became an international federation when other countries followed suit. The other camp then formed what became the WPC when they decided to hold their own non-drug tested events. When the IPF threatened to ban lifters who broke away, the WPC guys got very gun-ho about it and sued the IPF (and lost). And after that, the sport was never really going to be reunited.
- the WPC then itself divided up and proliferated into a number of other federations. Most of these were almost primarily based in the US, including the WPC. It is really only in the last few years that WPC and GPC have gained more ground internationally, as the sport has become more popular across the board.
- the IPF affiliate, USPF, was eventually kicked out of the IPF because it wasn't doing enough by way of drug testing.
- ironically, the US drug free powerlifting association which formed the WDFPA (of which the ADFPA is an affiliate) became the IPF affiliate and renamed itself USA Powerlifting. It is now the most powerful and popular US powerlifting federation. On one view, the purpose for which the WDFPA was created is gone because the IPF eventually became what the WDFPA was intended to be. Ideologically, I don't see any reason why the WDFPA could not rejoin the IPF. If the IPF got olympic recognition, I am certain this would happen.

Now, turning back to other sports, let's look at which established sports do not follow WADA: really, it's only the NFL, MLB, strongman and combat sports (other than IOC-aligned combat sport federation, like amateur boxing). What all of these sports have in common is that are all corporatised professional sports based in the US. World's Strongest Man is owned by IMG based in NY. UFC - based in Las Vegas. Professional boxing - based in Las Vegas. List goes on. The financial clout of these organisations, combined with their US ethos of not wanting to be told by a bunch of Europeans in the IOC what to do, is why you won't see them follow WADA, even if some forms of the sport do some window dressing with respect to drug testing - look at the joke that the MLB is for example. the NFL is a bit better but they still have a long way to go - their athlete union is resisting HGH testing for example.

Apart from the very good reasons Bazza raised, this is why you won't see other sports such as weightlifting split - at least not unless they become a hugely popular professional sporting competition televised on US pay per view TV.

When powerlifting split in Australia, even if you accept the false assumption that it wasn't because of drug testing (this is the precise catalyst for the initial split), then it wouldn't have happened had there not been an alternative international federation, ie the WPC, to which one an Australian body could align itself. That international body was created solely because there were athletes who did not want to be drug tested.

The Australian government was never going to recognise a body that aligned itself with the WPC. Then there is also the matter of policies concerning allowing international athletes to compete when they are serving drug bans. This directly contradicts and undermines the ASC's charter of promoting drug-free sport. That, and the policy Spritcha pointed out. You need to look at the criteria for ASC recognition - it's not as simple as the ASC only recognising one sporting body - you still have to satisfy all of the other criteria. See: http://www.ausport.gov.au/__data/as...9-13_NSO_Recognition_Eligibility_Criteria.pdf. Unless you have more than 5,000 members you need to be affiliated with an international federation that is a member of the IOC or SportAccord - see B3-B5 - only PA or an alternative IPF affiliate could ever satisfy these criteria.

Now, none of this is intended to be a judgment on CAPO or GPC or implying that they are "pro-drug", because of course I recognise that views in these organisations will vary just as they do in any sport - there are individuals in CAPO and GPC who are either agnostic to drug testing or are actually in favour of it. I am merely trying to point out some of the historical reasons why things are the way they are.

DISCLAIMER: spartacus, feel free to use these ideas in your article, but do not attribute them to me. They do not necessarily represent my views and I am just trying to give you some alternative arguments, based on factual material I have read, to consider.

 

[spartacus]

thanks Strong enough, some of your summary is like what I have in one section. Senate committee was actually against PA getting prime recognition, but govt wanted IPF affiliate. Here is when mistake begins, but I wont say more about that here.

As far as the ASC is concerned, however, my opinion it hat it is not up to scratch; just another pretty ordinary govt dept. As one professor told me, they still only concern themselves with elite sport, and nothing has changed from when he did work for them.

In the case of powerlifting, they have very little expertise. Sad really.

There is also a lot to laugh about IPF testing. For example, most USAPL tests in 2012 were not done in WADA labs. But you can read article, if it ever gets published, for data and research about that.

 

[Spritcha]

who is going to read this? I reckon there would be no more than 5 people in the world who could be bothered.

 

[strong enough?]

No problem.I am aware of the deficiencies of some of the testing undertaken by IPF affiliates at a domestic level (keep in mind there are effectively 2-tiers of testing - domestic testing conducted by the local affiliate and testing at international events conducted by the IPF itself).My criticism was not so much at the implementation of testing but the policy. An anti-doping policy is more than just a testing policy. The WADA code covers a range of prohibited substances and prohibited methods, and covers numerous offences including not just adverse analytical samples, but also attempted use, possession, trafficking and use uncovered through investigations. It covers testing process, procedure, tribunals, appeals, and ties in with national legislation in many countries, giving it more force (for example, in Australia, the National Anti-Doping Scheme which incorporates the WADA code is a legislative instrument under federal legislation). Other powerlifting policies pale in comparison. Check out the AWPC drug policy for example constitutes solely of a list of steroids tested as part of a particular testing panel - with about 2 dozen steroid related substances. There is no actual policy document saying what sanctions apply etc - at least not one that is available on its website.The WDFPF is somewhat better and they are trying as hard as they can, but it's still not a proper drug policy: http://www.wdfpf.co.uk/federation/constitution.php For example, there is no policy that it will honour bans issued in WADA sports - there is only a discretion to refuse membership on that basis. There is a blanket lifetime ban as a penalty with no differentation as to the severity of the offence, no transparency and no means of appealing to the Court of Arbitrarion for Sport. There is no prescribed testing procedure - this is left to national bodies. The banned list refers only to the IOC banned list - a completely outdated concept since WADA took over the control of anti-doping from the IOC.While all sports including the IPF must be open to scrutiny, in powerlifting it is the only thing that comes close to a credible international governing body.Your description of what the happened with ASC accreditation is slightly inaccurate. I don't think the government went against any recommendation of the Senate Committee as you imply. The Senate Committee granted accreditation to the ADFPF only because it saw that the other bodies were in disarray. ADFPF actually got the accreditation. You need to take into account that the PA/CAPO split had not actually occurred by this point - there was a lot of confict and tension but the formal split really happened a few years later. You can verify this by looking at when the bodies formed on the ASIC website - it all happened well after the Senate Committee report. Once the split was complete, and it was clear that the APF (PA's predecessor) was the sole IPF affiliate, it got the government accreditation. It would have also occurred to this governmnet by this point that ADFPF was exactly as Wilks characterised it - a small splinter group affiliated with a world governing body that did not have the international credibility the IPF had. With respect to the ADFPF, the government's decision has been largely vindicated. It was and remained a small group, no where near as big as either PA or CAPO. Just read their history: http://australiandrugfreepowerlifting.com.au/about-2/history-adfpf/ - they have folded 3 times in the past 15 years. You can't blame the government for this either as CAPO and PA managed to survive just fine without direct government funding (paid drug testing does not count as direct funding FWIW). I will read your article with interest, as you have no doubt come to a different conclusion.

 

[spartacus]

Strong enough, not sure whether article will tell you much that you don't know.

My main aim has been to document 'the Aust powerlifting experience', and provide an alternative analysis in contrast to another opinion that states only drug use divides the sport. As people in the scene know, this is not entirely true.

and, despite my own preference for drug-free sport, within an understanding made clear by referees that there are many faults with such an aim, I have not urged conformity of drug testing for all powerlifting feds. what I do suggest briefly, however, is a mixed public-private funding model, for all feds who want testing, albeit this is an unlikely policy goal by govt.

As for govt and PA, the article demonstrates how its goals can improve, and why they are clearly behind the eight ball in terms of non-drug-testing criteria.


As sticky alludes to, this article will not shock the world. At best, it may be read by Abbott and the sports minister, who will both receive a copy if it is ever published.

What it will clearly show, however, is that Aust govt policy since 1990 has really been quite useless in regard to powerlifting. It put all of its eggs in PA, merely because it was the IPF affiliate, but the sport is just as divided today as it was then. I have a document from the great man written in 1989 which claims that recent measures will promote the unity of the sport, but history has proven otherwise.

 

[strong enough?]

who is going to read this? I reckon there would be no more than 5 people in the world who could be bothered.

There's me, but I can't figure out who the other 4 are lol.

 

[spartacus]

SP, I will let you know. I reckon a few would. last time I looked this thread had been read 16,800 times, so there may be some interest. Here's hoping. I know that 4 people have read my article draft so far, so getting one more should not be too hard. Oh, strong enough will make five. Also, heads of two other feds are looking forward to reading it. that makes seven.

6800 reads collectively of five pieces I had published on one sports site, so maybe some of them will also read it when (if) I do an opinion piece summarising article.

http://www.theroar.com.au/author/chris-lewis/

There is also another popular policy online forum that has published many of my articles.

I am surprised someone with a PhD would say something like that about an article that may go in one of the top sports academic journals overseas. But then again, you appear a lot more confident on forums as long as your words aren't actually cited.

and, I should not brag, but two pms read some of my work, so why not send them a copy as well.

But no need for you to read it. Even after sticky suggests that my piece actually talks about how PA could improve, you have to bag my effort.

Tell Rob I said hi.

 

[Bench Polkov]

DISCLAIMER: spartacus, feel free to use these ideas in your article, but do not attribute them to me. They do not necessarily represent my views and I am just trying to give you some alternative arguments, based on factual material I have read, to consider.

Bahahahahahaha

 

[spartacus]

Strong enough, another thing I will disagree with you is funding.

Fact is that PA does benefit from paid drug-testing. While ASADA would not provide details of cost, i used my own approach to calculate a substantial cost ($2,500 per test when taking account of total revenue and tests carried out). PA had 59 tests in 2012, according to IPF data.

Even if we say cost $1500 per test, at 60 per year, the total of $90,000 not much less than total revenue in 2010-11.

Now if PA did not get that funding, it would indeed be interesting to see how it would fare against the other feds. My gut feeling is that it would be more likely to struggle, but again I wont go into reasons here.

In terms of member fees alone, given that open fees are nearly twice that of GPC and CAPO, they would need to rise substantially (or costs be cut elsewhere) to fund own testing.

So really, I am amused at such claims that PA is not advantaged by such funding. Go ask the ADFPF if they don't see it as an enormous advantage. Of course such a fed was unlikely to be able to compete with PA since 1990. Fact it nearly folded three times does not mean that much. If govt had gone with senate committee rather than IPF affiliate, although unlikely, it most likely would have been other way around.

In GB, however, the situation is quite different because both feds have to pay for their own tests. in gb, it is the IPF affiliate which tests far less, even going on tests carried out in WADA labs.

 

[strong enough?]

You need to balance paid drug testing against the governance requirements that ASC accreditation entails. You need to implement the corporate structure dictated by ASC (company governed by board plus executive plus office bearers), you need to implement a member protection policy, risk management policy, privacy policy, you need to develop a strategic plan every 3 years (if you look at the last PA one, it was a professional document), you need to have an education program, coaching development program, meet the ASC's insurance requirements, financial reporting etc. PA has to pay for all this in some way, which explains why it is more expensive to join. Any competitive advantage enjoyed by PA as a result of funding of drug-testing and the prestige of ASC recognition is balanced out by some major competitive disadvantages. GPC, CAPO and ADFPF have the flexibility to run their organisations however they want, free of the ASC looking over their shoulder. This makes it much easier to appeal to potential members, particularly when powerlifting is really just a bunch of guys doing gym lifts.

Also, ADFPF was given accreditation in accordance with Senate Committee recommendations, but it was taken away due to non-compliance and given to APF (now called PA). According to the ADFPF, losing the accreditation was their choice. They would have had to accede to ASDA/WADA but they didn't want to - they considered the WDFPF's policy to be superior and made a choice - the ADFPF says so on its website: http://australiandrugfreepowerlifting.com.au/about-2/history-adfpf/ :

Federal Government investigated drugs in sport and applied pressure to sporting bodies with similar disciplines to amalgamate in order to access government financial support and drug testing facilities in Australia. Access to ASDA ( Australian Sports Drug Testing Association ) denied to drug free powerlifting on non-compliance. Such amalgamation would have required compulsory disfranchising from WDFPF whose drug testing policies mandate a component of ‘ random, targeted, out of competition testing’. Those found with performance enhancing agents face immediate life-time bans, dismissal from the association and all records struck out. WDFPF standards for testing procedures and sanctions for positive tests exceed ASDA standards. Decision was taken to support the more rigorous stance on drugs in sport and retain WDFPF affiliation in preference to local recognition with lower standards.

ADFPF clearly thought it made the right decision but in hindsight, they backed the wrong team. USAPL was in the ADFPF's position effectively and went the other way.

 

[spartacus]

yes, but having public-funded tests still gives it an enormous advantage. In contrast, IPF affiliates in the US, GB and Canada pay for their own.

I am just saying that PA would be more likely to struggle without this advantage. But even with such an advantage, PA may only have half of powerlifting numbers.

You say that the govt did not want to promote unity in the sport, yet Wilks wrote in 1989 to the ASC,

the formation of the new incorporated body should greatly enhance theadministrative efficiency and unity of Australian powerlifting. The constitution to be adopted includes a specific item mandating drug testing and making clear the penalties associated with positive test results (Parliament of Australia 1990, pp. 224-225).

 

[spartacus]

Strong enough, I have to thank for engaging in debate. Some of your points are every useful.

 

[strong enough?]

No problem.

I am just saying that PA would be more likely to struggle without this advantage. But even with such an advantage, PA may only have half of powerlifting numbers.

Or you can look at it another way, if PA only has half the powerlifting numbers, perhaps that suggests that paid drug tests is not the advantage you perceive it to be. Anecdotal evidence supports this - just look at this board for example. The potential inconvenience of random out-of-comp drug testing would probably deter most casual athletes. It's a disservice to the good work PA has done promoting the sport for many years to suggest it would stuggle without paid testing. It might have made it more expensive to run, or rendered its drug policy less effective, but it doesn't follow that it would have had less members. Comparisons with the UK don't really work here. ADFPF was never going to be competitive - it was always run out of small regional centres, while PA always had its power base and ran its comps in the most populated cities.

You need to consider context to understand Wilks comments. Prior to 1989, the AAPLF was an unincorporated association made up of state bodies, each of which ran the sport independently in their own states. Wilks was talking about the AAPLF's attempts to set up the new national body which would effectively take over the running of powerlifting. He's talking governance here. It was still all IPF at this stage. The dispute referred to in the Senate Committee report concerned attempts by two groups to each set up their own national body. While these two groups disagreed about testing and IPF affiliation, it was a few years after these comments were made that the actual rift happened that led to the formation of PA and CAPO (1991 Nationals). Wilks wasn't appealing to government attempts to unify the sport. It was pretty much still unified when the Senate Committee looked into drugs in powerlifting (with the exception of ADFPF).

 

[spartacus]

This is true, but I strongly argue that pa could be a lot more attractive in terms of a couple of non-drug issues, in line with overseas examples. Some of us consider these issues important, at least I do.

With this type of article, which also tries its darnest not to offend any fed within an argument supporting the general goal of drug-free sport, it is almost impossible to produce something which cannot be criticised. I have tried, to the best of my ability, but I am sure you may find a lot of holes in argument.

Again, most important goal for me is to get it published, and perhaps encourage debate that moves on from only emphasising drug-differences.