-
Join the Ausbb - Australian BodyBuilding forum 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.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Please consider registering. It takes 30 seconds, and will allow you to get the most out of the forum.
Robert Wilkes Capo
spartacus
Well-known member
Scott, the article is hardly going to have an impact on powerlifting.
The sport will rise and wane in coming years, as it always has, and its future will depend on the efforts and quality of its feds and members. The future of the sport has little to do with any single analysis of the sport in Australia.
All it does is point out that 1990 govt aims never materialised and that govt should have been more proactive rather than rely on PA alone. in other words, it offers a reasonable alternative to the version that was indicated by Wilks. It helps readers understand why there are differences, and what may be done to diminish them.
I can't feel guilty about that.
What do you think would be worst case scenario from my efforts? Division, no, as you know, that already exists. GPC itself was formed as recently as 2012 after differences with CAPO.
Drug testing of all feds? No way, won't happen. There is neither the will, nor resources to achieve this. If anything, budgetary cuts may mean even less govt assistance. PA will survive as an affiliate of the IPF no matter what happens.
In other words, very little will change.
All I am doing is providing an alternative story based on the evidence I have gathered. This includes highlighting the strengths and imperfections of all feds.
The sport will rise and wane in coming years, as it always has, and its future will depend on the efforts and quality of its feds and members. The future of the sport has little to do with any single analysis of the sport in Australia.
All it does is point out that 1990 govt aims never materialised and that govt should have been more proactive rather than rely on PA alone. in other words, it offers a reasonable alternative to the version that was indicated by Wilks. It helps readers understand why there are differences, and what may be done to diminish them.
I can't feel guilty about that.
What do you think would be worst case scenario from my efforts? Division, no, as you know, that already exists. GPC itself was formed as recently as 2012 after differences with CAPO.
Drug testing of all feds? No way, won't happen. There is neither the will, nor resources to achieve this. If anything, budgetary cuts may mean even less govt assistance. PA will survive as an affiliate of the IPF no matter what happens.
In other words, very little will change.
All I am doing is providing an alternative story based on the evidence I have gathered. This includes highlighting the strengths and imperfections of all feds.
Last edited:
With the goal of trying to highlight lack of transparency of PA compared to other IPF affilliates, you were unable to engage any PA members. Now I could postulate a few reasons why, for me personally I am fine with the status quo. You seem to be, unecessarily, rocking the apple cart. You may consider yourself a stakeholder in the sport, legitimised as a tax payer or whatever ratiocination you can come up with but for the life of me I can't understand why you think you can bring a bigger spotlight upon a tiny little sport unbeknownst to most.
spartacus
Well-known member
ok, it is alright for wilks to offer a certain line, but it is not alright for me to respond. Should we just let wilks description of non-PA feds stand alone as supposed evidence of why sport is divided.
Sorry, I am responding whether PA members like it or not. I will let all fair-minded readers make their own minds up.
No one should ever fear a reasonable argument based on evidence.
Sorry, I am responding whether PA members like it or not. I will let all fair-minded readers make their own minds up.
No one should ever fear a reasonable argument based on evidence.
Last edited:
vonfram88
Active member
I believe it can happen. Most people now in the sport are not boofheads and are capable of rational decision making with an eye on the future. The doping scene in Australia will become too challenging for most to even bother with. There will be a point at which the supply of doped athletes (the antithesis of change) falls well below the demand for clean sports (the catalyst for change).
Take a look at Weightlifting in Australia if you want an example of unity (I hear some scoffing but you get the drift).
spartacus
Well-known member
I think it is much more likely to happen if powerlifing becomes an IOC sport, but can't see it for a very, very long time.
The other way is coercion, like Denmark and Swede where they test anyone, but this is not in line with Aust societal traditions in terms of privacy and human rights.
I feel best option is for all feds to adapt to demands of day, and attract members for a whole lot of reasons beyond mere drug-use. I still believe that most people also support drug-free sport, as difficult as it is to apply.
The other way is coercion, like Denmark and Swede where they test anyone, but this is not in line with Aust societal traditions in terms of privacy and human rights.
I feel best option is for all feds to adapt to demands of day, and attract members for a whole lot of reasons beyond mere drug-use. I still believe that most people also support drug-free sport, as difficult as it is to apply.
Sticky
Active member
Also, today I read the entire 8400 odd words Spartacus has written on the subject.
There is very little mention of PA lifters, maybe 2 names were quoted which then elude to his points.
All the points raised were not taken out of context (as I read the FB thread as it unfolded some months ago).... And the whole thing seems to be aimed at making PA grow and be more transparent.
It touches on GPC, and has raised a single flaw in our model that will be fixed today after I consult with the committee.
As much as I don't think Chris' efforts will have an impact on our sport, stress less, it's not a witch hunt. No body seems to be quoted out of context, even Markos.
The article spend most of the time talking about funding, denmark, and global test rates.
There is very little mention of PA lifters, maybe 2 names were quoted which then elude to his points.
All the points raised were not taken out of context (as I read the FB thread as it unfolded some months ago).... And the whole thing seems to be aimed at making PA grow and be more transparent.
It touches on GPC, and has raised a single flaw in our model that will be fixed today after I consult with the committee.
As much as I don't think Chris' efforts will have an impact on our sport, stress less, it's not a witch hunt. No body seems to be quoted out of context, even Markos.
The article spend most of the time talking about funding, denmark, and global test rates.
spartacus
Well-known member
Thanks Sticky for posting that.
It is a shame that my some may feel I am trying to screw them, in this case a sport. Perhaps it is my style, but I tried to work with relevant players throughout and consistently stated good people in all feds.
To elaborate on what Sticky says, article has a structure.
First section: indicates why Aust example of powerlifting provides an interesting case study. Point being sport just as divided today as was in 1990 despite govt aims. Key here is govt involvement, or journal would indeed have no interest in article.
Second section: highlights how sport got divided, drawing on events here and in the USA including division evident at Senate inquiry.
Third section: examines the success of IPF testing. I suggest IPF light years away from IOC accreditation.
Fourth section: highlights ongoing division in sport, but how learning from overseas examples and domestic concern may promote drug-free powerlifting. While I cite Danish and Swedish coercive models, I point to their weaknesses and why unlikely to be applied to aust given our greater respect to privacy.
Maybe I could have said it better, but I argue that PA can be more attractive to non-PA members, and that drug use alone does not explain why sport is divided.
Conclusion: govt policy has been a failure, should have been more proactive in regard to a sport with multiple feds.
As for PA members named, there are just three individuals by name. I cannot make the points without the use of such evidence.
It is a shame that my some may feel I am trying to screw them, in this case a sport. Perhaps it is my style, but I tried to work with relevant players throughout and consistently stated good people in all feds.
To elaborate on what Sticky says, article has a structure.
First section: indicates why Aust example of powerlifting provides an interesting case study. Point being sport just as divided today as was in 1990 despite govt aims. Key here is govt involvement, or journal would indeed have no interest in article.
Second section: highlights how sport got divided, drawing on events here and in the USA including division evident at Senate inquiry.
Third section: examines the success of IPF testing. I suggest IPF light years away from IOC accreditation.
Fourth section: highlights ongoing division in sport, but how learning from overseas examples and domestic concern may promote drug-free powerlifting. While I cite Danish and Swedish coercive models, I point to their weaknesses and why unlikely to be applied to aust given our greater respect to privacy.
Maybe I could have said it better, but I argue that PA can be more attractive to non-PA members, and that drug use alone does not explain why sport is divided.
Conclusion: govt policy has been a failure, should have been more proactive in regard to a sport with multiple feds.
As for PA members named, there are just three individuals by name. I cannot make the points without the use of such evidence.
Last edited:
vonfram88
Active member
I'm not sure if the numbers on the GPC website are accurate - at 391 paid up members (seems low), and have no idea about the membership numbers elsewhere.
AWF had 1230 paid up members in 2013, 457 of whom were in Qld. I feel as though you may be right about it being unlikely to get much bigger although there are all these flaky crossfit types who seem to be signing up lately to get their accreditation and compete in novice events.
Crossfitters also murder deadlifting technique in the same way they unlearn the oly lifts, maybe an opportunity for some powerlifting outreach which could boost membership numbers?
Last edited:
vonfram88
Active member
it (the weightlifting case) certainly is noteworthy and should be included in Spartacus' case study. Both are strength sports that would seem to have relatively a high incidence of PED use.
It would be fair to say that PL has a worse reputation than OL despite the numerous positive tests registered by weightlifters in Olympic competition. Is it because OL is an IOC sport and therefore more holy, or there is better unity amongst the administrators, or just fewer boofheads?
It would be fair to say that PL has a worse reputation than OL despite the numerous positive tests registered by weightlifters in Olympic competition. Is it because OL is an IOC sport and therefore more holy, or there is better unity amongst the administrators, or just fewer boofheads?
spartacus
Well-known member
yes, key point made by referees was that drug-testing regimes are really only of interest to govt to protect sports with IOC accreditation. Creates an image of clean sport.
Given that powerlifting is a unique case with pubic-funded testing for a minor sport, our govt also appear merely interested in elite lifters and the fed with IPF accreditation.
As I suggest, this is no way to measure the success of a govt's approach to sport. Fact is sport just as divided today as in 1990.
Given that powerlifting is a unique case with pubic-funded testing for a minor sport, our govt also appear merely interested in elite lifters and the fed with IPF accreditation.
As I suggest, this is no way to measure the success of a govt's approach to sport. Fact is sport just as divided today as in 1990.
Last edited:
spartacus
Well-known member
I also would think it would be hard for an IOC sport to split.
Sports do split, with even bigger profiles than weightlifting, such as tennis and cricket in past, but normally come together again.
If powerlifting ever became an Olympic sport, then I would imagine there would be much greater pressure and reason to merge. Whether this happens in the near future is another matter.
Sports do split, with even bigger profiles than weightlifting, such as tennis and cricket in past, but normally come together again.
If powerlifting ever became an Olympic sport, then I would imagine there would be much greater pressure and reason to merge. Whether this happens in the near future is another matter.
It's more just why would O lifting split. It's not going to help anyone but blokes that have been banned. Won't help the sport. Just dilute an already small talent pool.
Yep big sports have split but they come back because in the end it doesn't work very good.
An example. UFC is working so well because they are the top competition that the best want to compete in. If they split and the talent divides up and people can dodge the competition it will end up a shambles like boxing. Same happens with other sports that split.