• 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

ADFPA has a WADA compliant anti-doping policy. It's exactly the same pro forma used by PA and all the other sports tested by ASADA. But they have to pay for their own testing. Its a pretty small federation concentrated in a few regional areas in Vic, NSW and SA.

They don't publish much info on how many tests they do but it looks like less than 10 tests a year, in competition only. Their AGM says they would test 3 individual lifters at their Nationals, their biggest comp. It was announced how many tests they would be doing before the event as well.
 
spartacus said:
Interestingly, the GB version of the Aust Drug Free Powerlifting Federation appears to have more tests that GB's IPF version. 35 in 2012, with 2 caught lifters banned for life.

http://www.bdfpa.co.uk/drugcontrol/BDFPA%20DRUGS%20TESTS-12.pdf
Click to expand...

For what it's worth, the former IPF affiliate in the US was USPF, as it had been for many many years. They did something like 100 drug tests a year. The IPF considered them to be dragging the chain, gave them the boot and the US affiliate of the WDFPA, formerly called ADFPA (American drug free powerlifting association) got given the IPF affiliate and renamed itself USAPL.

Too many acronyms
 
that is indeed interesting, at least for me.

The politics of powerlifting would make a great (and timely) academic article.

I think i am going to go ahead with it. In my opinion, the debate on powerlifting has become a bit one-sided given recent events, and i think all sides need to be displayed to provide a more balanced portrayal of the sport in australia.

I have said it before on many occasions; there are good people in all feds and the various arguments made by all should be on the public record.
 
Last edited:
What does that mean SP?

Does that mean that no one has a right to say anythign beyond what Wilks has said?

I mean did you not go on to TV and say something?

Does that mean that any non-PA person cannot comment?

Does that mean that CAPO or any other fed should not have right of reply?

Does that mean that the public can be convinced that CAPO is a criminal orgnisation and accept its fate?

Hey, i have a right to write what i like. You can bet that what ever i do will be balanced and fair.

I have also been a CAPO and PA member and am quite aware of historical debates about the sport, and the issue of drugs in sport. i am also very capable of higlighting hypocrisy should i find it.

If you want to contribute, along with any other person of and fed, feel free to contact me. It will be a thoroughly researched paper.
 
Last edited:
I will be promoting the sport.

I just think all of the facts should be out there.

You would agree that they are not at present.

To be honest, you cant really promote the sport without referring to all of the components of powerlifting in Australia. While there are a few, along with PA, that have done a great job boosting numbers, the debate has now entered a new dangerous stage where an exaggeration of differences has the potential to target some and favour others.

Therefore, any resolution that takes place (should events escelate), needs to take into consideration the various realities that exist here and overseas in the sport. In other words, any argument needs to be sure they are actually factual, whether it concerns the affiliaton of naitonal organisations with the IPF, the nature and extent of drug testing here and overseas, and even transparency in the sport.
 
Last edited:
that is fine, i tend to respond too quickly.

I think the sport can indeed be promoted, albeit in a climate where drug use and testing it is hardly going to go away, yet also refer to important differences between federations and how they may or may not be overcome.

That would be my aim.

I would also agree focus should be on national, but it would be impossible to discuss the link of drugs in sport without some referral to internaitonal situation.
 
Last edited:
If anyone has any objections, ideas how to improve sport, reasons why they in certain feds, or anything else that maybe relevant, please email me.

I will keep all emails private and only use quoted infromation with permission from author.

c11lewis@yahoo.com.au
 
*Deleted Quote*

Yeah... this is certainly the conclusion I came to
 
Last edited by a moderator:
man
why is this even a discussion
why is discussing if PA can fund it's own tests even a thing
 
*Deleted Quote*

It should be user pays, don't like it don't lift or lift elsewhere. Other Feds pay their own way.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
*Deleted Quote*

I lift in my shed.

I don't powerlift because I play footy. I have an interest in powerlifting because I can see it as something I will do when my body is too fucked to play footy any longer.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It is funny how history evolves.

In 1989-90, the Senate committee recommended that the Aust Drug free powerlifting Fed be the powerlifting fed that received public funding, not PA. This was later rejected by the Govt.


Recommendation 20, chapter also has some amusing reading in the early days of drug-tested powerlifting

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=robeert%20wilks%20senate%20inquiry%20&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CDYQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aph.gov.au%2FParliamentary_Business%2FCommittees%2FSenate_Committees%3Furl%3Decita_ctte%2Fcompleted_inquiries%2Fpre1996%2Fdrug-2nd%2F08ch8.pdf&ei=iYSHUdOYLeyTiAefmYCwBw&usg=AFQjCNEfHxEmvt-mMHqDf4gosaJkk9A5rg
 
Maybe, but the Senate Committe had some interesting things to say about PA then. Enough to convince them that an alternative fed should be the one getting public funding, despite PA's association with the IPF.

Interesting stuff.

I would say Govt stuffed up then, as same divisions still evident today.
 
Last edited:
spartacus said:
I will be promoting the sport.

the debate has now entered a new dangerous stage where an exaggeration of differences has the potential to target some and favour others.
Click to expand...

From what I saw in the four corners interview, some of the sanctimonious twaddle that was uttered has the potential to target all and damage all.

Reading through the senate enquiry again there were some "irregular" testing practices that might have a benefited a few of the celebrities at that time. Presided over by............

Throwing stones is dangerous in a glass house.
 
vonfram, yes, i have also thought that.

Though certain players are on the front foot, the strategy does run the risk of backfiring and adversely affecting powerlifting in general.

That is why different tactics should have been adopted rather than an us-and-them approach, again given the facts and despite the new context of the day.

To be honest, from looking at the Senate inquiry, i think it is the govt that is the biggest culrpit for the mess that became of powerlifting. Some of the flaws that exist today, were evident back then. The govt of the day should have done much more, but not necessarily to simply favour PA and the IPF. There were real reasons for divsions, and they could not be swept away.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register