Malthouse says: recreational drugs may well be performance enhancing.

[Sanecow]

In his weekly newspaper column, Malthouse wrote that he was becoming "increasingly suspicious" about whether some illicit substance might help players' on-field performance.

...

"Just look at the drugs that (some) in the general community unfortunately have been involved with.

"You just read the chemical makeup of those and see what effect it has on the body - you can't tell me it's not performance-enhancing."


Source (http://www.theage.com.au/news/Sport/Malthouse-warns-of-AFL-drug-effects/2007/08/30/1188067252980.html)

So much for the dud line of "illicit drugs are a police problem and the AFL should ignore it".

[AnnieH]

Performance enhancing indeed.
Give them a joint and see how their performance is enhanced.
More likely they'll be lying on the grass looking at the clouds, ala the old guys in Crackerjack!!:D

[BeeEmmAre]

Performance enhancing indeed.
Give them a joint and see how their performance is enhanced.
More likely they'll be lying on the grass looking at the clouds, ala the old guys in Crackerjack!!:D

I agree with MM (for the second time ever).
If you're stoned I'd reckon you'd probably not feel pain and be able to play through it.
Just ask the Drug Lab on the other side of the country.

[NMWBloods]

Being stoned would impair both your decision making and your motor skills.

[AnnieH]

Being stoned would impair both your decision making and your motor skills.

Exactly.

How many of our players do you reckon play stoned?

[AnnieH]

I agree with MM (for the second time ever).
If you're stoned I'd reckon you'd probably not feel pain and be able to play through it.
Just ask the Drug Lab on the other side of the country.

When you're stoned, you still feel pain BMR. You just don't care about it as much.

[Sanecow]

I don't know where you guys live, but "illicit drugs" doesn't just mean marijuana.

[goswannie14]

Aren't pain killers performance enhancing too? If somewone has to have pain killers to be able to play then that is enhancing their performance, because without them they wouldn't be playing.

If you want to be pedantic even hay fever or ventolin medication could be seen as performance enhancing.

It's all a matter of what you define as performance enhancing.

[Sanecow]

And also, here's an interesting list of "Chronic Conditions Treated With Cannabis Encountered Between 1990-2005"

Source (http://www.canorml.org/prop/Mikuriya_ICD-9list.pdf)

Linked from a survey of conditions reported by medical cannabis specailist Dr. Tod Mikuriya (http://www.canorml.org/prop/MMJIndications.htm)

[NMWBloods]

Exactly.

How many of our players do you reckon play stoned?
Didn't you say in the other thread that recreational drugs were performance enhancing.

[Sanecow]

If you want to be pedantic even hay fever or ventolin medication could be seen as performance enhancing.

Ventolin is listed as prohibited on the asada web site.

[Layby]

Ventolin is listed as prohibited on the asada web site.

What !

Next you will be telling me things you find in your mums handbag are illegal.

[liz]

My understanding of the AFL drug code is that it treats "recreational" drugs as potentially short-term performance enhancing. That is, if you test positive for "recreational" drugs on game day, the sanctions are the same as if you test positive for those deemed to be "performance enhancing". I am not sure what their status is if you test positive midweek but during the season.

[Ruda Wakening]

I am not sure what their status is if you test positive midweek but during the season.

Basically it's viewed as being out of competition.

[cruiser]

Crystal meth is definitely performance enhancing.

[Mr_Juicy]

people who think that recreational drugs aren't performance enhancing, do not live in the real world.

[AnnieH]

Didn't you say in the other thread that recreational drugs were performance enhancing.

Well, really ... it depends on the drug.
According to the shopping brochure my friendly commonwealth government just sent me, some drugs are more performance enhancing than others.

For example,

If you take speed or ice or cocaine, your reaction is likely to be one that has you buzzing or giving you a sense of everything "rushing"; if you imbibe in marijuana, your reaction is likely to be one that has you feeling more relaxed than normal ... dead-set, I've never seen anyone run up a storm on marijuana.

I'm assuming that Maltmouth is talking more about your man-made chemical drug rather than one that is a weed.

[NMWBloods]

According to UNESCO...

Cannabis has no performing-enhancing benefit.

Cocaine has limited performing-enhancing benefit and potential to reduce performance.

Inhalants have no performing-enhancing benefit and potential to reduce performance.

Opiates have no performing-enhancing benefit and potential to reduce performance.

Amphetamines have performing-enhancing benefit but still have potential to reduce performance.

[AnnieH]

According to UNESCO...

Cannabis has no performing-enhancing benefit.

Cocaine has limited performing-enhancing benefit and potential to reduce performance.

Inhalants have no performing-enhancing benefit and potential to reduce performance.

Opiates have no performing-enhancing benefit and potential to reduce performance.

Amphetamines have performing-enhancing benefit but still have potential to reduce performance.

P.O.T.E.N.T.I.A.L.
There's a key word. In my experience, it's difference strokes for different folks ... kinda like a fingerprint - every experience is different. I know stockbrokers who perform fantasically on cocaine and amphetamines.
Did anyone take a codral type flu remedy over winter? (The speed you have when you don't have speed!!)

[BeeEmmAre]

When you're stoned, you still feel pain BMR. You just don't care about it as much.

I didn't think you'd be into that Annie?

[Mr_Juicy]

According to UNESCO...

Cannabis has no performing-enhancing benefit.

Cocaine has limited performing-enhancing benefit and potential to reduce performance.

Inhalants have no performing-enhancing benefit and potential to reduce performance.

Opiates have no performing-enhancing benefit and potential to reduce performance.

Amphetamines have performing-enhancing benefit but still have potential to reduce performance.

derrrr and what are most players taking

[AnnieH]

I didn't think you'd be into that Annie?

I'm very broad minded BMR.

[NMWBloods]

P.O.T.E.N.T.I.A.L.
There's a key word. In my experience, it's difference strokes for different folks ... kinda like a fingerprint - every experience is different. I know stockbrokers who perform fantasically on cocaine and amphetamines.
Did anyone take a codral type flu remedy over winter? (The speed you have when you don't have speed!!)
And the point is that most of them don't have performing-enhancing benefit, especially if they are taken outside game time.

[NMWBloods]

derrrr and what are most players taking
Yes - players taking performing-enhancing drugs to cheat is a normal issue that needs to be constantly monitored in professional sport.

A lot of the fuss is about the need to name and shame players taking recreational drugs outside game time and some people are arguing that these have some performing-enhancing benefit. That does not necessarily appear to be the case.

[Zlatorog]

Yes - players taking performing-enhancing drugs to cheat is a normal issue that needs to be constantly monitored in professional sport.

A lot of the fuss is about the need to name and shame players taking recreational drugs outside game time and some people are arguing that these have some performing-enhancing benefit. That does not necessarily appear to be the case.

Well, we don't know that, do we? How would you know if they didn't take those drugs when playing games. Or feeling aftereffects when playing? As said earlier, clubs and AFL are too soft on that issue and that is a problem. I don't care what they do in their off-season (and I don't want to know;)), but I get very upset if that behavior carries into the playing season. We heard from the Rugby player about his problems during and off the season, so what makes you think it wouldn't apply to any other AFL player? You don't need to look any further than WCE.

[NMWBloods]

Of course - as I've said, they need to be careful about drugs and sport where it is affecting performance during the game. However, a lot of the comments are about naming and shaming footballers for all their use of recreational drugs.

[AnnieH]

Of course - as I've said, they need to be careful about drugs and sport where it is affecting performance during the game. However, a lot of the comments are about naming and shaming footballers for all their use of recreational drugs.

Let's not forget that "recreational" drugs are still considered illegal in this country.
If an elite sportsperson get busted using recreational drugs and are found guilty, they get a criminal record, which, is available to all and sundry as part of the public domain.
We never hear of Joe Blow's (excuse the pun) arrest and subsequent guilty charge - Joe Blow's a nobody.
Of course the media want to name and shame elite sportspeople (no matter what sport) as recreational drug users (if they are) - it sells papers.

[NMWBloods]

Let's not forget that "recreational" drugs are still considered illegal in this country.Of course - no one is saying that they should be allowed to do it. I'm saying that there is no need to 'name and shame' them over recreational drug use.

If an elite sportsperson get busted using recreational drugs and are found guilty, they get a criminal record, which, is available to all and sundry as part of the public domain.Yes. But if they are in rehabilitation, then why should their private medical records be released to the public?


We never hear of Joe Blow's (excuse the pun) arrest and subsequent guilty charge - Joe Blow's a nobody.
Of course the media want to name and shame elite sportspeople (no matter what sport) as recreational drug users (if they are) - it sells papers.Because people like you crave scandal.

[AnnieH]

Of course - no one is saying that they should be allowed to do it. I'm saying that there is no need to 'name and shame' them over recreational drug use.
Yes. But if they are in rehabilitation, then why should their private medical records be released to the public?

Because people like you crave scandal.

Why not name them? Bring it all out into the open ... help them.

My argument is that whilst the majority of Australians put their sportspeople on pedestals, they should be made examples of. Put a better class of people on that pedestal Australia ... sportspeople are so well known for their abundance of grey matter and excellent decision-making abilities.

By virtue of them being in rehab, they have a problem. Part of being in rehab is admitting publicly you have a problem (be it in an "AA like" group, or one to one with your rehab officer). You have to admit that you have a problem before it can be fixed.

Of course I crave scandal. What's the point of buying a newspaper if it isn't going to entertain me??

[NMWBloods]

Why not name them? Bring it all out into the open ... help them.So putting their name in the paper helps them more than attending rehabilition...?


My argument is that whilst the majority of Australians put their sportspeople on pedestals, they should be made examples of. Put a better class of people on that pedestal Australia. Life would be easier for all concerned if Australian society placed other people on pedestals ... sportspeople are so well known for their abundance of grey matter and excellent decision-making abilities.Because idiots put sports people on a pedestal doesn't mean the private medical records of those sportspeople should be available to all and sundry.


By virtue of them being in rehab, they have a problem. Part of being in rehab is admitting publicly you have a problem (be it in an "AA like" group, or one to one with your rehab officer). You have to admit that you have a problem before it can be fixed.You don't have to admit publicly if you are doing rehab and you don't have to put your name in the paper to get better.


Of course I crave scandal. What's the point of buying a newspaper if it isn't going to entertain me??How unsurprising...

[Mr_Juicy]

I hate that term "recreational drugs." For @@@@s sake they are drugs and they are illegal. the term recreational diminishes that fact.

[NMWBloods]

They are distinguishing between performance-enhancing drugs and drugs taken in leisure time for recreational purposes.

[Mr_Juicy]

They are distinguishing between performance-enhancing drugs and drugs taken in leisure time for recreational purposes.then lets call them non-performance enhancing for the sake of argument

[NMWBloods]

then lets call them non-performance enhancing for the sake of argument
Fine. Makes little difference to the discussion though.

[Sanecow]

then lets call them non-performance enhancing for the sake of argument

Some "recreational" drugs are performance enhancing though.

[Mr_Juicy]

Some "recreational" drugs are performance enhancing though.damn :(

[reigning premier]

... dead-set, I've never seen anyone run up a storm on marijuana.




Not unless they were on the way to the 7-eleven.... :D

[reigning premier]

Some "recreational" drugs are performance enhancing though.

Only if your "performance" relates to dancing until 11am and hugging all and sundry.....

[NMWBloods]

Only if your "performance" relates to dancing until 11am and hugging all and sundry.....
And I think that's one of the critical points. If you are out at night clubs taking drugs, it's hardly going to benefit you on the football field, even if you are loading up on amphetamines.

[reigning premier]

And I think that's one of the critical points. If you are out at night clubs taking drugs, it's hardly going to benefit you on the football field, even if you are loading up on amphetamines.

That's actually a fair call..... :)

[Sanecow]

Of course drugs are only used in night clubs late at night and make you feel like hugging and staring at the sky. :rolleyes:

[CureTheSane]

Source (http://www.theage.com.au/news/Sport/Malthouse-warns-of-AFL-drug-effects/2007/08/30/1188067252980.html)

So much for the dud line of "illicit drugs are a police problem and the AFL should ignore it".

Well then , I graciously bow out of the discussion.
Had I known that MICK MALTHOUSE had made comment on the issue indicating that in his expert opinion recreational drugs are performance enhancing, then I would not have bothered ever posting on the issue.

I am surprised that Mick is a coke head, speed freak, or other type of drug user.
I presume his comments are made based on experience?

regardless of the P.O.T.E.N.T.I.A.L enhancing effect that illicit drugs are purported to possibly have, isn't the bigger issue the long term effects of the drug use.

For all I care all top non Swans players can juice up before the games, star for a year or two, develop addictions and retire.

Players aren't doing illicit drugs for the performance enhancing effect (if there is one) andf it really shouldn't be an issue IMO.

[Sanecow]

I presume his comments are made based on experience?

He coached the Eagles. *cough*

[reigning premier]

Of course drugs are only used in night clubs late at night and make you feel like hugging and staring at the sky. :rolleyes:


You can't see the sky inside a night club.

And alcohol is only consumed on licensed premises.

[AnnieH]

Some "recreational" drugs are performance enhancing though.

Viagra is performance enhancing.

[Sanecow]

Viagra is performance enhancing.

Approved for use in sport though.

[AnnieH]

And I think that's one of the critical points. If you are out at night clubs taking drugs, it's hardly going to benefit you on the football field, even if you are loading up on amphetamines.

Actually, it could very well effect your performance on the sports field.
No matter what "rereational" drug you're taking you're gunna get a "hangover" of sorts, for example, not sleeping (for a few days), sleeping (for a few days), flashbacks, etc. You'd be very wrong to think otherwise.
So, for instance, if you took ice on Sunday after the game, you're not likely to sleep until say, Tuesday, then you're going to be really tired for Wednesday, Thursday and probably Friday. You need to play on Saturday. What other "upper" have you taken to make yourself face up to training at the end of the week?

[AnnieH]

Demetriou explains the AFL's Illicit Drug Policy (http://www.afl.com.au/Default.aspx?tabid=208&newsId=50093)

[hammo]

Actually, it could very well effect your performance on the sports field.
No matter what "rereational" drug you're taking you're gunna get a "hangover" of sorts, for example, not sleeping (for a few days), sleeping (for a few days), flashbacks, etc. You'd be very wrong to think otherwise.

How is that performance enhancing though?

[NMWBloods]

Actually, it could very well effect your performance on the sports field.
No matter what "rereational" drug you're taking you're gunna get a "hangover" of sorts, for example, not sleeping (for a few days), sleeping (for a few days), flashbacks, etc. You'd be very wrong to think otherwise.
How does any of that benefit you though?

[AnnieH]

They should just call them illicit drugs and be done with it. "Performance enhancing" gives out the wrong message.

It doesn't ... it effects your performance - enhanced or otherwise.
As per my example above, if you've taken ice, for instance, on Sunday - trust me, by Thursday you'll be taking something else to help keep you awake for training and for the game the following week. That's where the performance enhancing bit comes in.

[NMWBloods]

What a ridiculous example. The performance-enhancing part is taking the 'upper' late in the week, not the ICE earlier in the week. That doesn't mean the ICE is performance-enhancing.

They are all illicit and illegal. However, they are used for different purposes.

[Layby]

They should just call them illicit drugs and be done with it. "Performance enhancing" gives out the wrong message.


Nasal technology ?

That gives out something very different to a message