Robert Wilkes Capo

[lkt004]

Knowing Scott, there is no way he would do that, it's a little thing called respect, something Scott has a lot of, Wilkes seems to have none.

 

[Sticky]

Look at it in the context of what is at stake Sticky, if you had the opportunity to secure funding for your organisation and to help your lifters would you play the political game. I think the answer is Yes.

That's all it is, nothing personal just a play for funding on the back of media sentiment and by appealing to the masses not the minority even if the minority is members of the organisation you chair.

I get what your saying, but no I wouldn't

I also think your wrong, this is nothing but personal.

Nothing is at stake in regards to his funding.... At least not in regards to GPC or CAPO.

Unless you have some understanding of what happened within PL in the 80's and early 90's, you don't really know why things happen the way they do.

I also dont see this as a political game.....


Anyway, how did I get caught back up in this lol, I said I wouldnt post in here any more.

I wont be posting back in this thread (unless somebody says something really stupid).

 

[Brick]

Knowing Scott, there is no way he would do that, it's a little thing called respect, something Scott has a lot of, Wilkes seems to have none.

Respect is a matter of perception. Not casting any doubts on Scotts integrity or personal character I think this whole thing is a farce anyway.

Mr Wilkes is just trading on the broader publics perceptions not the lifters, it isn't about right and wrong or respect and integrity it's about political manoeuvring.

People should just see it for what it is, bullshit shovelled into the media machine.

Oh dear god there are bikies in the organisation, someone has a drug conviction quick lock up your daughters. It is beyond comical.................

I get what your saying, but no I wouldn't

I also think your wrong, this is nothing but personal.

Nothing is at stake in regards to his funding.... At least not in regards to GPC or CAPO.

Unless you have some understanding of what happened within PL in the 80's and early 90's, you don't really know why things happen the way they do.

I also dont see this as a political game.....


Anyway, how did I get caught back up in this lol, I said I wouldnt post in here any more.

I wont be posting back in this thread (unless somebody says something really stupid).

Okay fair enough. I guess there are probably things at play I know nothing about. I'm just a cycnical **** and think no one could possible be that stupid that they would say shit that dumb unless it was to gain some sort of advantage for their organisation.

 

[spartacus]

Oh, it is a political game alright. You dont go on national tv, especially Four Corners, without a concrete agenda.

Politics is everywhere and i dont expect its role in powerlifting to end anytime soon.

The fact that debate now involves the AFL and NRL means new possibilities in drug use in sport enforcement.


i am just glad i am back in track and field.

 

[Chum]

Going on TV and stating your opinion against drugs is one thing.

But to personally single out powerlifting fans who don't belong to your fed, and look at them like they are dirt, without ever having met or spoken to them, speaks of his personality and not his political motivations.

Truth is Robert Wilks has zero class.

 

[spartacus]

yes, he should have focused on his concerns rather than attacking a whole orgnisation.

I think there will be three possible scenarios from recent events.

1) Things will stay as they are now once publicity on the AFL and NRL goes away.

2)ASADA will be given a mandate to test any organised sport thoroughly, including all federations.

3)action is taken against certain organisations, say under the Incorporation ACT.

My feeling is that option 2 may be taken up if events and publicity into drugs in the NRL and AFL escalates further.

 

[spartacus]

How so, easy by changing the laws and giving ASADA a mandate.

It would be quite easy to do.

 

[Chum]

Your starting to sound like Vonfram

 

[spartacus]

I dont care what they do. I will lift in CAPO regardless.

I am only saying what they could do. If the NRL and AFL problems escalates, there is going to be much greater pressure to test athletes at all levels.


This is not the US; it is Australia where Commonwealth control is much easier to implement.

I am just offering an opinion, but i am also am a bit of a futurist in my tendency to look at coming policy trends. I could be wrong on this one, but i think it is going to escalate for all sport.

 

[spartacus]

Ah the Oni joke, good one SP. Funny man. But i can live with that.

Am i wrong, does not powerlifting operate in Australia under WADA.

 

[spartacus]

Call me mad; i am thick skinned.

All i am saying is that it is a possibility and all federations should be aware of it.

It is precisely what Wilks was getting at with Ray Hadley, well at least that is my understanding although PA in 1989-90 was expected or encouraged to bring other federations into the fold.

Wilks has now raised the bar in public by arguing it is not possible to bring other feds into fold.

Now i could keep my head in the sand and say ASADA's extra mandate will never happen, but i will leave that to others.

 

[strong enough?]

Arguably existing laws do in fact criminalise certain sports doping activity in Australia, but this obviously does not extend to all kinds of sports doping: FlagPost: Is doping in sport a crime? (doping in sports pt. 5) There are some in Canberra agitating for the criminalisation of sports doping.

While I think such a policy would be fraught with difficulty, if it did happen, Australia would not be the first country to do so. In Italy, France, Spain and Austria it is a criminal offence to use a WADA prohibited substance in sporting competition, without any qualification on that sport have a WADA compliant anti-doping policy.

I recall reading about an early WPC world champs which was ultimately shut down (?) because it was being held in a jurisdiction where it was illegal, at that time, to hold an international sporting event that did not involve drug testing. It may have been South Africa, I can't remember.

If authorities did have the political desire to tackle doping in powerlifting (which I don't think is actually on the policy agenda at all, although many would like it to be), then there are other more effective policy measures that could be adopted to encourage people to participate in a drug tested version of the sport:

1) fund PA. The ASC currently does not fund powerlifting at all, effectively putting the sport on a lower level than say, Bocce (which does get Commonwealth funding!). PA has testing provided by ASADA for free, but no money actually passes to PA. Funding for elite athletes to compete in regional and international championships, or even to study at the AIS, would provide a massive incentive for the most talented athletes to want to compete in the WADA compliant version of the sport.

This would leave people with the choice where they want to compete. There are differences, aside from testing, between IPF style powerlifting and other feds which attract different people to different feds, eg rules, equipment, etc.

2) amend the ASC recognition model, to allow multiple NSOs in a single sport to receive funded ASADA testing. Currently, even if GPC or CAPO wanted to implement a WADA-compliant doping policy, it would be prohibitively expensive to do so on their own. As is seen from the ADFPA, which has a WADA compliant policy, but cannot receive ASC recognition, having a doping policy is redundant if you don't actually carry out any testing. The idea would be to give GPC or CAPO the ability to obtain ASC recognition if they meet the same requirements PA has to meet to get its funded testing. In reality though, this will not happen, because GPC and WPC internationally have no intention of being part of WADA and any alignment with those international feds would contravene the objects of the ASC. However, if an alternative fed came about, with no alignment with any international fed, and it met the ASC criteria, this might be a different story.

Of course all of this will change if, and when, the IPF gets full IOC recognition. If powerlifting gets into the Olympics, everything will change. I predict we will see the multiply feds develop into professional leagues and the IPF will become the ubiquitous amatuer sporting body. The best analogy I can think of is the situation in boxing.

Just a few of my thoughts on the matter.

 

[Sticky]

Arguably existing laws do in fact criminalise certain sports doping activity in Australia, but this obviously does not extend to all kinds of sports doping: FlagPost: Is doping in sport a crime? (doping in sports pt. 5) There are some in Canberra agitating for the criminalisation of sports doping.

While I think such a policy would be fraught with difficulty, if it did happen, Australia would not be the first country to do so. In Italy, France, Spain and Austria it is a criminal offence to use a WADA prohibited substance in sporting competition, without any qualification on that sport have a WADA compliant anti-doping policy.

I recall reading about an early WPC world champs which was ultimately shut down (?) because it was being held in a jurisdiction where it was illegal, at that time, to hold an international sporting event that did not involve drug testing. It may have been South Africa, I can't remember.

If authorities did have the political desire to tackle doping in powerlifting (which I don't think is actually on the policy agenda at all, although many would like it to be), then there are other more effective policy measures that could be adopted to encourage people to participate in a drug tested version of the sport:

1) fund PA. The ASC currently does not fund powerlifting at all, effectively putting the sport on a lower level than say, Bocce (which does get Commonwealth funding!). PA has testing provided by ASADA for free, but no money actually passes to PA. Funding for elite athletes to compete in regional and international championships, or even to study at the AIS, would provide a massive incentive for the most talented athletes to want to compete in the WADA compliant version of the sport.

This would leave people with the choice where they want to compete. There are differences, aside from testing, between IPF style powerlifting and other feds which attract different people to different feds, eg rules, equipment, etc.

2) amend the ASC recognition model, to allow multiple NSOs in a single sport to receive funded ASADA testing. Currently, even if GPC or CAPO wanted to implement a WADA-compliant doping policy, it would be prohibitively expensive to do so on their own. As is seen from the ADFPA, which has a WADA compliant policy, but cannot receive ASC recognition, having a doping policy is redundant if you don't actually carry out any testing. The idea would be to give GPC or CAPO the ability to obtain ASC recognition if they meet the same requirements PA has to meet to get its funded testing. In reality though, this will not happen, because GPC and WPC internationally have no intention of being part of WADA and any alignment with those international feds would contravene the objects of the ASC. However, if an alternative fed came about, with no alignment with any international fed, and it met the ASC criteria, this might be a different story.

Of course all of this will change if, and when, the IPF gets full IOC recognition. If powerlifting gets into the Olympics, everything will change. I predict we will see the multiply feds develop into professional leagues and the IPF will become the ubiquitous amatuer sporting body. The best analogy I can think of is the situation in boxing.

Just a few of my thoughts on the matter.

Excellent post.

Point number 2 should have been issued as a statement by CAPO to four corners instead of saying nothing.

 

[spartacus]

Thanks for that Strong Enough.

It is not my intention to take sides in debate. Rather, I seek to point out possible policy in the future, and the need for any organisation to be on top of their game.

 

[spartacus]

Sticky, i dont think govt would be interested in funding different feds; too complicated. It certainly would have no regard for a fed being part of an international fed that does not test.

If an attack comes, i would say the French, Italian and Spanish model would prevail that tests any sportsperson, although it may be based through ASADA rather than law enforcement.

As for funding to promote powerlifting as a an ASC sport, it would only be considered if powerlifting ever made it to Olympics. Even then it will struggle given what has happened to weightlifting funding.

 

[spartacus]

Here is the latest ASADA bill discussion which includes some of the points raised by strong enough.

Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Amendment Bill 2013 – Parliament of Australia

 

[PerthMac]

While this is a good point, any funding for ASADA testing would be conditional on the whole organisation adopting a WADA compliant testing policy.
You couldn't have a non-tested section in a competition, and competitors opting in and out of testing.
I'd have no problem, and would like every sport with a wada compliant policy to get "free" ( = taxpayer subsidised ) testin, as this way All Round weightlifting could get free testing. And it would mean the current PA rule of no competing in another federation could be dropped if all feds had the same testing rules.
It's not going to ever happen though.
As a hypothetical, what would happen if a another fed got ASADA funding,
and a lifter tested positive and was banned from competing in WADA tested sport for 2 years. There would be nothing stopping that lifter in competing at an international comp with the world body if only the australian arm had testing.

 

[spartacus]

This is an interesting section that may confirm what i have been suggesting; a much tougher approach to drugs in sport is coming.

WADA developed the WADC, which applies to all athletes, and to all those who assist athletes in their preparation for international sporting participation. All National Olympic Committees and International Sports Federations are required to sign the WADC. As governments were not bound by the WADC, in October 2005 the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) adopted the International Convention against Doping in Sport.[3] Parties to this Convention (of which Australia is one), are required to implement the WADC. As a result, the WADC applies to anyone who participates in sport at the international or national levels or at lower levels of competition, as well as to athlete support persons, including coaches, agents, managers and medical personnel.[4]

 

[0ni]

I just realised that referring people to oni was the new argumentum ad hitler

 

[strong enough?]

As a hypothetical, what would happen if a another fed got ASADA funding,
and a lifter tested positive and was banned from competing in WADA tested sport for 2 years. There would be nothing stopping that lifter in competing at an international comp with the world body if only the australian arm had testing.

Correct, and this is the part which no one really discusses. There's an assumption that you can draw a clear line between untested and tested sports and that they can happily co-exist without one influencing the other. There are a number of problems with this assumption which I don't want to go much into, but currently athletes who are serving doping bans can walk into another fed with no anti-doping policy and just continuing competing. This undermines the whole legislative intent of the Australian National Anti-Doping Scheme, under which doping bans are meant to be mutually recognised across all sports.

Interestingly, I have reviewed the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Act and the National Anti-Doping Scheme (the legislative instrument created under the Act) and on its face it actually applies to all sporting organisations, not just those recognised by the ASC. It also applies directly to "athletes" which is defined widely enough to include "a person who competes in international, national or state sporting competition held, or to be held, in Australia." (National Anti-Doping Scheme, section 4(1)(e)). There is no qualification on who the sporting body is as the scheme was written assuming all sporting bodies would be subject to it. The athlete just needs to be competing in a sport at a sufficiently high level.

This has only been the case since the NAD scheme was introduced in 2006.

The NAD scheme also applies to all "sporting organisations" under section 92A. That term is actually not defined in the scheme and technically, any "sporting organisation" is required to have a WADA compliant policy. Funnily enough, there's no penalty for breaching this requirement. Under section 93(2), ASADA can only notify the ASC and publish reports about a sporting body's non-compliance to WADA.

What this means is that it is actually within ASADA's legislative powers to request samples from athletes competing and investigate doping in any powerlifting comp anywhere in Australia if it is at state, national or international level (ie excluding novice comps). There would be no compulsion for the athlete to give a sample or co-operate with investigators, but refusal would result in an automatic 2 year ban.

The practical consequence is that a powerlifting organisation that does not have an anti-doping policy is not required to recognise the ban, but that person would arguably be banned for competing in any sport which does have an anti-doping policy.

Based on that, ASADA did actually have the power to investigate the matters in Wilks' letter in 2007 even though it relates to a non drug testing sporting body - it did. The reality probably was that ASADA didn't actually care.