• 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

PTCPerth said:
What do you think athletes would say if random drug testing would be at their cost? I would imagine its a few hundred dollars for a test.
Click to expand...

think again on the costs

As an example at recent WA comp that ASADA turned up at.
4 ASADA officials there for 4 hours.
ASADA - Fees

We had 18 lifters, if PA had to pay for own testing it would be the end of the organisation.
 
Bazza20 said:
And he has also done a lot of damage.
Click to expand...

To who? PA is growing.

It's you guys who claim powerlifting is all the same sport who are complaining the most. why not spend as much time promoting your own various feds as you do whinging online

My last post on this forum, I thought it was getting better but it's back to the old moaning from people who don't contribute to sport
 

Keep your head in the sand then if you don't think he has done any damage.
 
There are only a couple of sporting organisations in Australia that pay for their own drug testing. It's pretty much just the NRL and AFL.

The whole point of the introduction of the National Anti-Doping Scheme in 2005/2006 was to centralise drug testing and the investigation and carrying out of sanctions. Previously, sporting organisations funded their own programs and did their own investigations and tribunal hearings. It was a joke. Some of the stories of sporting bodies covering up positive drug tests of high profile athletes and scapegoating others were touched upon by the 4 corners documentary. The other problem was the smaller sporting bodies simply didn't have the resources, both financial and human capital, to fairly adjudicate anti-doping violations.

Now you can't have an effective central drug agency if you expect sporting bodies to fund their own tests. Otherwise, it will always be open for sporting bodies to excuse minimal testing on financial grounds. A full screen urine test if around $700 a pop. Blood test is more. The EPO test is almost $2,000. This doesn't include the overheads at comps for testers, chaperones etc. Giving the central agency complete control is the best way to avoid corruption and cheating.

Now, assuming we have ASADA as a federal statutory body because it is in the national interest to carry out a centralised anti-doping testing regime, it is only fair that ASADA is funded and then ASADA allocates its testing budget to where risk of doping is most likely to occur, as deemed appropriate by ASADA. Some sports aren't worth testing in at all. Sports like weightlifting and powerlifting receive a disproportionate amount of testing per participant because of the higher potential for improvement on performance through doping than other sports and statistically higher levels of PED use than say, synchronised swimming or gymastics or clay shooting. Other sports don't think they get enough tests to befit their status and the image they want to portray, hence they pay for their additional testing, eg AFL. The AFL even pays for HGH testing as an add-on service, which is ridiculously expensive.

A point that needs to be clarified is that sporting bodies like PA don't receive a testing budget. They don't receive cash. ASADA does all the testing and allocates the cost from its own budget. PA just doesn't have to pay for it.

As for outsiders commenting on PA's finances, well its all just speculation. PA has made all sorts of investments recently so that quality comps can be held all around Australia, eg buying comp racks and Eleiko bars and weight sets. There used to be a handful of equipment and it was transported around Australia every time there was a comp.
 
Im curious what incomes and expenses a pl fed has.

Incomes:
Membership fees
Sponsorships
ASC funds
Members meet fees
Merchandise
Sale of food/drink/supplements at meets

Expenses:
Asada testing
Meet venues
Meet equipment
Meet trophies / prizes
Judge training
Travel arrangements to nats/worlds for top members
 

Well for starters, PA doesn't get ASC funds and it doesn't pay for testing, so those two items in the ledger balance each other out.

A big missing expense is insurance.
 
Last edited:
PerthMac said:
think again on the costs

As an example at recent WA comp that ASADA turned up at.
4 ASADA officials there for 4 hours.
ASADA - Fees

We had 18 lifters, if PA had to pay for own testing it would be the end of the organisation.
Click to expand...

Wow Paul thanks for that info.

I wasnt suggesting it was a good idea I was merely asking if it meant more testing would the athletes contribute to the cost.
 
Strong enough, for what it is worth i am for a national drug testing agency.

however, how it is funded would have nothing to do with how it functions. Recent drama in the NRL and AFL proves that. They pay, ASADA investigates.


Reality is that in 2011-2012, ASADA had '3,996 government-funded tests across 45 sports and 3,200 user-pays tests for Australian sporting bodies and other organisations'.

Bazza and others have a point in regard to which sports get paid testing, as money does not grow on trees. This is why i have publicly criticised ASADA for its poor transparency in terms of how many tests and how much costs per sport, which the public has a right to know.

As for small sports not being able to afford testing, I would say that IPF data would indicate this is clearly bullshit. It would depend on how each sporting orgnisation manages its income.

I think if a fed has 400 members, even 40 tests would go a long way in putting fear in anyone tempted. This could be paid partly by govt and the organisation, if need be. And who is to ay that ASADA's costs could be much further through an exploration of new ideas.
 
Last edited:
SP, to be honest, my comments were answering Bazza's query. I dont care if Pa gets govt funded tests or not. That is a matter for PA and its lobbying, just as it would be a matter for any other organisation.

In regard to ASADA's list, i assume that is user-pay costs. Also, i assume that it, like any other govt dept, could do things a lot better and cheaper, should they actually try to.

But, given the thrust of recent posts, i will mantain that it would not take much for PA to remain affilated with the IPF. Just look at the IPF nation data, and tell me otherwise. GB had just 16 tests in 2012, some countries have no out-of-comp testing. Germany did not have one out-of-comp test. Italy had just 9 tests. Where i am confused with list is 14 for the US given USAPL site says 702.

http://www.powerlifting-ipf.com/fileadmin/data/Anti-Doping/national-doping-report-2012.pdf

Now i know some will point to DFPA having few tests, but it also paid for its own. It is indeed possible for a small organisation to have drug testing, as it is indeed possible for a govt dept to improve its efficiency.
 
Last edited:
There you go, both GB and the US has no public funding.

I also dont see how you cannot promote a sport with fewer resources; does not GPC and CAPO do it with fewer resources.

Also, whether ASADA could do it cheaper and more efficiently is indeed a matter for all interested given we pay for it, powerlifters or not. i have published academic articles on the Home Insulation Program, and yes, some govts and their depts can be quite useless.
 
Last edited:

How it is funded has plenty to do with how it functions once you take into account capacity to pay. What we have is a distinction between professional sports and amateur ones.

In 2012 the AFL had revenue of $425 million. Of the 3,000 user-paid tests, the AFL bought around 1,000 of them. There were rumours that year that Dane Swan was using hGH around the time he went to Arizona to rehab from a mid-season injury. ASADA flew investigators over to Arizona and did surprise 6am testing over several days (presumably this was the hGH suite, as the test is most sensitive first thing upon waking). The AFL paid for this. Clearly as a multi-million dollar professional enterprise, it is in a position to do so. Not many others are...maybe the NRL, ARL, FFA and Cricket Australia.

PA or the AWF for that matter could fund some level testing, but they would be ineffective programs. The difference between PA and other IPF affiliated national bodies that self fund is the standard of the programs. I would wager that ASADA does more athletes on the RTP and subject to round the clock out of comp testing than most other IPF countries. The guys I know on the RTP get tested pretty much every comp, and then maybe 2-10 times a year out of comp. When I trained at Melbourne Uni, I reckon the ASADA team dropped in for RTP testing maybe 4-5 times a year, testing an average of 3-4 guys each time.

I will give you a much more simple example to put into perspective whether PA has the capacity to self-fund their testing. I pay $140 annual membership. Let's assume I do three comps a year (average cost of $50 per year). My direct financial contribution to PA is at most $300 a year. Assuming perfectly random testing (with no targetting) not even taking into insurance, venue hire, and all the other costs, PA could afford to test me once in 3 years - for a urine test only, ie 1 in 9 comps. Once you look at the true cost, it's probably more like once every 6-8 years, ie more like 1 in 20 comps. If they did a blood test or out-of-comp test, the cost is blown out more.

How much confidence could I place in a system where I might be subjected to a single in-comp drug test once every 6 years, and if I reached a decent level, zero possibility of an out-of-comp test? About as much as ADFPA, a federation which, guess what, self funds its ASADA testing program.
 
Are you saying the USAPL and GB lifters therefore would not be clean.

To be honest, who pays has nothing to do with it, as long as their a naitonal body, as in australia, who decides who gets tested. I assume how they choose athletes can always be improved, as can non-drug testing methods which are increasingly gaining momentum.

Again, no sporting org has a birthright to public funded testing. It maybe that with an expansion for ASADA's mandate, and less reliance upon testing, that PA's no. of public funded tests declines further.
 
Last edited:
True, but money does not grow on trees, and everyone has the right to know where it is going, as some have suggested on this forum.

SP, are you sure you dont have time to write articles? I knew a public servant that did virtually nothing for two years, but read German literature. Oh, the APS has probably changed for the better.

I actually get paid to write such articles, lucky break for me.

All i am saying, is that PA will always be able to be affiiated with the IPF, as the US and GB are, whether it gets public funded drug tests or not. Whether PA then can do what it is being doing, is not really relevant.

In any case, i am pretty sure that ASADA and other naitonal drug testing bodies are now saying that drug testing is not that effctive, so not sure if they wll expand no. of tests any longer. If anything, it wll go other way with greater reliance on questioning and other avenues. I think the proposed ASADA legislation is to incorporate a $5000 fine for non-compliance for witnesses showng up to ASADA hearing. Now there is a novel way to get revenue and answers. The interviewee still does not have to answer questions, but maybe silence and the testimony of others can still cause complications. It is indeed a new era.
 
Last edited:
What they are saying is that drug testing is still effective - but not the traditional one-off analysis - they are moving towards biological passport testing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register