• Keep up to date with Ausbb via Twitter and Facebook. Please add us!
  • Join the Ausbb - Australian BodyBuilding forum

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

    The Ausbb - Australian BodyBuilding forum is dedicated to no nonsense muscle and strength building. If you need advice that works, you have come to the right place. This forum focuses on building strength and muscle using the basics. You will also find that the Ausbb- Australian Bodybuilding Forum stresses encouragement and respect. Trolls and name calling are not allowed here. No matter what your personal goals are, you will be given effective advice that produces results.

    Please consider registering. It takes 30 seconds, and will allow you to get the most out of the forum.

Robert Wilkes Capo

Why are you being such a wanker about this spartacus. if you don't like PA join GPC

PA is growing
GPC is growing

both are well managed and cater for different populations.
There's room for both to continue growing without slagging off the other or trying to stir political crap
 
perthmac, Its a research article on powerlifting in Australia, nothing more.

The article argues that

if goal has been to promote drug free powerlifting, then role of govt and PA has proven a failure. Sport just as divided today as in 1990.

While I support drug-free goal, article also seeks to highlight all of the issues that divide the sport., and how such differences can be minimised to improve any pubic policy goal. After all, the article is catered for a journal that is focused on public policy.

Powerlifting is a sport that has been around for a long time, and I am sure it will be for a long time yet.

All I am doing is offering a summary of the situation. Given the ASC conducts no research on the sport, and almost blindly relies on PA, an alternative analysis is offered.
 
Last edited:
cleaning up article today in terms of grammar, at least to the best of my ability and attention span.

This is the abstract of what the article is about.


For several decades, governments/societies around the world have made a greater effort to test sports participants for the use of performance enhancing drugs (PEDs), aided by legislation. By 2014, however, flaws within national government approaches towards the testing of PEDs remain evident. This article focuses on the example of powerlifting in Australia, a sport where membership remains divided between tested and non-tested federations. While this article does not make a value judgment towards sportspeople who choose to compete in non-tested federations, and acknowledges that the Australian government recognises just one federation in each sport, that being Powerlifting Australia (PA), it argues that the Australian government’s strategy should have been much more pro-active over time if promoting drug-free powerlifting in Australia was the desired public policy goal. This includes minimising issues of division beyond drug-use, such as the degree of transparency and member input.
 
maybe cut out "and acknowledges that the Australian government recognises just one federation in each sport, that being Powerlifting Australia (PA)", or add a sentence. It gets mixed up there. Maybe even start from scratch and reword it rather than editing it all.

I think you have a good point which may have been better put in your remark "if goal has been to promote drug free powerlifting, then role of govt and PA has proven a failure. Sport just as divided today as in 1990." That seems to be the essence of it.
 
0ni said:
nobody even gives a fuck about powerlifting
in reality
Click to expand...

As much as I love the sport I 100% agree with this - only a VERY small % of people gives 2 fucks about powerlifting in Australia and def the Australian government couldnt care less if people are competing clean or not in a tested fed.
[MENTION=6618]spartacus[/MENTION]; why did you focus your article around powerlifting? and not Australian sport in general?
 
I agree it is a minor sport, maybe 1200-1400 competitors, but it could be a lot bigger.

But it is of interest to a public policy journal given that powerlifting provided a whole chapter of interest to the 1989-1990 Drugs in Sport inquiries here. Powerlifting also benefits from public-funded drug tests. 59 in 2012, which is quite a substantial cost, so those interested should know how sport operates.

All I have merely sought to do is demonstrate flawed govt policy since 1990 through a blind reliance on PA, and the factors that have led to the same division today as in 1990. It is not all about drugs, as Wilks suggests. I mean why have so many gone to GPC since 2012? I wold argue that good organisation also has a lot to do with it.

I have other projects on sport on the go, as well.

Here are some opinion pieces I have had published on Roar and other sites.

http://www.theroar.com.au/author/chris-lewis/
 
Last edited:
When I mention to people that I do powerlifting, the reply is always, without exception, "what's powerlifting?"

My answer is usually, "It's like olympic lifting only the lifts are different. Olympic lifting always ends with the barbell overhead, in powerlifting that never happens." No matter who you talk to, everyone knows what a bench press is and many know what a squat is, so that helps them understand the sport a bit. No one has a clue what a deadlift is.
 
I just tell people that I do strongman
"you know, like on telly with the stones and shit"
 
I didn't want to add to this- HOWEVER-
I was shown some of the emails sent to some of the PA officials over the weekend.
I have to say I am extremely annoyed and it comes across as 'muck-raking'.
Does Matt M know your article aims to present stuff about him as well? What were you trying to acheive with that? And quoting stuff off facebook and forums out of context is terrible form in my opinion.
The emails have caused major issues for the people you have quoted without consulting them. Some have formed that view that those people must have collaborated or worked with you- which is obviously not true.
 
Well I sent pa concerns to Ben, but got no response from him.


While you indicate Matt was one, I had no awareness. As for comments made, they were made and placed on the public record.


I don't have to ask ever tom, dick and harry, who I do not know, for permission. do you expect every journalist do that in regard to every story.


As for context, they were all comments about PA operations.


As for people working with me, what a load of rubbish. I have merely observed what they said on a public forum. It is quite clear what they were saying, as is the context that they made the comments. all I have suggested is that transparency can be improved to reflect such concerns.
 
Last edited:
I didnt say people were working with you. I meant that the way you presented information had lead people to assume that the people you had quoted were aware of your article. The legal position that you don't require permission is pretty poor- decency, ethics and respect typically exceed what is required at law. Thats what I have been trying to point out. I saw emails to Pam and Wilks- in one you raised issues about Matt- and I don't really understand what you were trying to acheive, but I am sure it would be interpreted by many as extremely disrepectful and distasteful- even if it is legal.
In my opinion cobbling together bits and peices from facebook and online forums to support your research is bad methodology and bad research. Its is disrespectful and to suggest it is somehow preserving the context of the original comments makes me think you don't really understand what context is.
It has caused major problems for me because Wilks thinks I endorsed what you said and freely gave you my opinion. Like I said before- I don't want any part of this and I know many others feel the same.
 
I really resent the tone you use with me.


You make out I am a trouble maker, and so on.


But at all stages of the article I have asked relevant players to get involved about to promote powerlifting. I have written many emails to PA members, but never one response.


In contrast, GPC and ADFPF responded, although nothing from CAPO.


You make out I do everything behind people's backs, mentioning ethics and so on.


I have done nothing behind peoples' backs, and I have the emails to prove it.


I have asked for feedback from RW and PA, but nothing, only insults from you.
 
Last edited:
spartacus said:
Well I sent pa concerns to Ben, but got no response from him.
Click to expand...

I didn't respond because I didn't know what you wanted me to do with the information. As I'm neither in charge of the fed or mentioned in the article in anyway it is not my position to be suggesting anything about it.
 
You obviously prepared stuff quoting me behind my back.
You did the same with other members of PA.
So explain to me how it is that you have done "nothing behind peoples' backs"?
Didnt this all start because you informed me- on this forum- that you had quoted me. And when I mentioned that you had asked me to cooperate and I declined you started up with this line about not needing permission. Its true you finally agreed to remove the references to me- but you obviously had them in. And I have seen emails with you referring to others. Pam doesnt know who you are and has never spoken to you. She says she has been forwarded stuff with you quoting her.
You say you asked people to get involved to promote powerlifting- but the problem with this is you seem to think that cooperating with you is promoting powerlifting and not cooperating is the opposite. You have your views about what is good for powerlifting- that doesnt make you right.
 
Last edited:
A message I will now email to Robert Wilks.


I, Chris Lewis, declare that not one PA member or official has offered any assistance in regard to my research on the state of powerlifting in Australia. All I have asked is for feedback, a request that remains unanswered.


And in regard to any questions I have asked of you Robert, it is till not too late to make a contribution.


Cheers,



Chris Lewis
 
SP, I know you are trying to humiliate me, so I will post all emails for forum members to see.


You know full well that I only included one comment made on this site, and I have not used it.
 
Last edited:
The only people I am using are posts from PA members who went on the public record expressing their concerns. I know none of them.


You would think I am trying to destroy PA, yet article seeks to promote PA by making legitimate improvements rather than slagging off about rival feds.
 
I'm still confused about what you are trying to achieve... and who this blog/article/story is aimed at.... and why they/we will care.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 0ni
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top