Melbourne Watch 2023/24

[Yankee Hotel Foxtrot]

Now I may have recently had cause to look into the efficacy of urine testing for specific drugs........no real reason or paranoia driving it as you could imagine.*

Anyway, with rack one off usage is usually detectable within urine loosely between 0.5 and a couple of days maximum, regular usage (classified as a few times a week) up to about five days and chronic usage (daily over time) up to between ten and twenty days.

Body composition has a big influence on how long metabolites stay in the system, fat people longer, lean people less. This is an unqualified opinion, however, if he's pissed a hot rack sample after a footy game he's been on it hard in an equivalent time of say a Thursday night before a Saturday afternoon game, maybe even a Friday night versus a Saturday night game, or on game day itself. Otherwise he's had his snout in the trough a lot within the days and weeks leading up to the test.



*I recently had to submit to a urine test by surprise, the job I was going for wasn't advertised thus the requirement wasn't disclosed to me during negotiations. You can imagine my delight when I found out the very next morning after being given some weed by a friend that I was well in the hunt for said job (verbal offer), with only a medical to pass on my way to securing it...........

That is some shit ass luck Jee.

[jeemak]

That is some shit ass luck Jee.

Ha....the weed piece is confounding I guess. I managed to push out the test to a week later, telling the company I had things planned and couldn't align with the clinic, so a Tuesday verbal resulted in a Wednesday week test. Weed sticks around longer but again, chronic usage is what gets you in trouble so I was less stressed by the time the test rolled around. However, the doc on Wednesday told me the company would have the report that night, but they actually didn't get it until late Friday afternoon. And I got the formal offer a little later after a pretty stressful 48 hours.

But by confounding I really mean that getting a positive result for having smoked weed to me isn't failing a drug test.......I say it's actually a pass. And if a company doesn't want me because of that it's not the company for me. I don't do it all the time, or even regularly, but weed's alright.

The odd thing is you get tested for a range of things (outside of the piss test, for example mobility, weight, etc.) for an hour and you don't get to ever see the results. The company does.

Rack is a grey area. And I also need to acknowledge that the weed wasn't "given to me by a friend" like I'm in high school. I smoked it, loved it, and own that I did.

[bornadog]

Ha....the weed piece is confounding I guess. I managed to push out the test to a week later, telling the company I had things planned and couldn't align with the clinic, so a Tuesday verbal resulted in a Wednesday week test. Weed sticks around longer but again, chronic usage is what gets you in trouble so I was less stressed by the time the test rolled around. However, the doc on Wednesday told me the company would have the report that night, but they actually didn't get it until late Friday afternoon. And I got the formal offer a little later after a pretty stressful 48 hours.

But by confounding I really mean that getting a positive result for having smoked weed to me isn't failing a drug test.......I say it's actually a pass. And if a company doesn't want me because of that it's not the company for me. I don't do it all the time, or even regularly, but weed's alright.

The odd thing is you get tested for a range of things (outside of the piss test, for example mobility, weight, etc.) for an hour and you don't get to ever see the results. The company does.

Rack is a grey area. And I also need to acknowledge that the weed wasn't "given to me by a friend" like I'm in high school. I smoked it, loved it, and own that I did.

So you got the role? Congratulations.

[GVGjr]

It will be interesting to see if the AFL find a loophole for Smith to escape out of or if they treat it seriously and take the opportunity to send a strong message to the competition. I tend to think it needs to be a strong message if they actually want to deter it.

[MrMahatma]

So you got the role? Congratulations.

Pretty much what I learnt from the post. Jee got a sweet new role... and maybe a roll.

[Sedat]

It will be interesting to see if the AFL find a loophole for Smith to escape out of or if they treat it seriously and take the opportunity to send a strong message to the competition. I tend to think it needs to be a strong message if they actually want to deter it.

They will send a strong and highly visible message via a stern press conference to show how serious they are about this issue, and then quietly in the background do everything possible to find a loophole to get Smith back playing ASAP. And when they find that loophole, they will very quietly rush out a website statement at "take the trash out" time (Friday late afternoon).

[Dry Rot]

I wonder what the sponsors of the Demons think of the actions of Smith and Oliver?

[Axe Man]

Baz Smith and Jack Ginnivan both got 2 week suspensions for being filmed taking drugs out of season. Joel Smith has has tested positive on a match day which is obviously a worse situation.

If it is true that Smith had such a small amount of cocaine in his system that it would in no way be performance enhancing is 2 years well and truly disproportionate to the crime?

To me the 3 month out of season ban that was mooted seemed too light on, he should miss some games based on the Baz and Ginnivan penalties, but 2 years seems over the top if no advantage was obtained.

[Twodogs]

Ha....the weed piece is confounding I guess. I managed to push out the test to a week later, telling the company I had things planned and couldn't align with the clinic, so a Tuesday verbal resulted in a Wednesday week test. Weed sticks around longer but again, chronic usage is what gets you in trouble so I was less stressed by the time the test rolled around. However, the doc on Wednesday told me the company would have the report that night, but they actually didn't get it until late Friday afternoon. And I got the formal offer a little later after a pretty stressful 48 hours.

But by confounding I really mean that getting a positive result for having smoked weed to me isn't failing a drug test.......I say it's actually a pass. And if a company doesn't want me because of that it's not the company for me. I don't do it all the time, or even regularly, but weed's alright.

The odd thing is you get tested for a range of things (outside of the piss test, for example mobility, weight, etc.) for an hour and you don't get to ever see the results. The company does.

Rack is a grey area. And I also need to acknowledge that the weed wasn't "given to me by a friend" like I'm in high school. I smoked it, loved it, and own that I did.

Yeah I love it too but for one is too many and a thousand ain't enough.

[Twodogs]

Xander McGuire on Twitter just now:


Breaking: Clayton Oliver has not returned to Melbourne for the first day of training in 2024.

Clayton’s welfare team believe he is not yet ready for an AFL environment, but remain optimistic about a return date in the coming weeks.

@FootyonNine @9NewsMelb

[Stevo]

Baz Smith and Jack Ginnivan both got 2 week suspensions for being filmed taking drugs out of season. Joel Smith has has tested positive on a match day which is obviously a worse situation.

If it is true that Smith had such a small amount of cocaine in his system that it would in no way be performance enhancing is 2 years well and truly disproportionate to the crime?

To me the 3 month out of season ban that was mooted seemed too light on, he should miss some games based on the Baz and Ginnivan penalties, but 2 years seems over the top if no advantage was obtained.

There is almost a soft SovCit type public acceptance that taking drugs is inevitable and that AFL community including fans and sponsors should simply turn a blind eye to it for the players who represent our clubs.
I don't know what the penalty should be but 2 years does sound excessive and the 3 months option almost farcical.
This needs to be a 12 week in season ban from representing the club if the AFL is serious about getting the message out there that the players can't be consuming drugs during the season.

[ReLoad]

There is almost a soft SovCit type public acceptance that taking drugs is inevitable and that AFL community including fans and sponsors should simply turn a blind eye to it for the players who represent our clubs.
I don't know what the penalty should be but 2 years does sound excessive and the 3 months option almost farcical.
This needs to be a 12 week in season ban from representing the club if the AFL is serious about getting the message out there that the players can't be consuming drugs during the season.

the thing is its in season. cocaine is a performance enhancing drug. this isn't a societal thing, its cheating.

He can argue as much as he likes that it was at a party etc or whatever, but during the season, players taking it are performance enhanced.

Its no different to during the season if he tested positive for EPO or HGH.

[Bulldog Joe]

the thing is its in season. cocaine is a performance enhancing drug. this isn't a societal thing, its cheating.

He can argue as much as he likes that it was at a party etc or whatever, but during the season, players taking it are performance enhanced.

Its no different to during the season if he tested positive for EPO or HGH.

This is absolutely the truth.

It cannot be exempted as he has clearly taken the drug within the time frame of playing a game.

There cannot be an excuse of "it is only low level" as that still means a level of performance enhancement.

[Axe Man]

the thing is its in season. cocaine is a performance enhancing drug. this isn't a societal thing, its cheating.

He can argue as much as he likes that it was at a party etc or whatever, but during the season, players taking it are performance enhanced.

Its no different to during the season if he tested positive for EPO or HGH.

This is absolutely the truth.

It cannot be exempted as he has clearly taken the drug within the time frame of playing a game.

There cannot be an excuse of "it is only low level" as that still means a level of performance enhancement.

Let's just say for arguments sake his level was so low there was no likelihood that he recevied any performance enhancing effect. Should he receive the same punishment as someone who was fully juiced up on steroids or was undergoing some sort of sophisticated Lance Armstrong type program?

Not everything is black and white, should you receive the same punishment for 10kms over the speed limit as 100kms over the limit? Or 0.05 BAC vs 0.4?

If the facts are he recevied an advantage then by all means throw the book at him, if not there should be some common sense in the punishment.

[ledge]

Let's just say for arguments sake his level was so low there was no likelihood that he recevied any performance enhancing effect. Should he receive the same punishment as someone who was fully juiced up on steroids or was undergoing some sort of sophisticated Lance Armstrong type program?

Not everything is black and white, should you receive the same punishment for 10kms over the speed limit as 100kms over the limit? Or 0.05 BAC vs 0.4?

If the facts are he recevied an advantage then by all means throw the book at him, if not there should be some common sense in the punishment.

I have always been confused when players go in limping for a jab during a game because they twisted an ankle or something , then they come back out like a super fit athlete.
If that jab didn’t enhance their performance what did ?