vonfram88
Active member
People didn't squeal 20 years ago and they probably don't today. It would be difficult to get away with anything today if you are a tested top lifter. But a while back, well.......
-
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.
- Status
People didn't squeal 20 years ago and they probably don't today. It would be difficult to get away with anything today if you are a tested top lifter. But a while back, well.......
WoodyAllen
Well-known member
That's not how it works. Some lifters are targeted. Steve Pritchard had a thread on here a while back about his being tested every month on average (might have been a touch more) over 12 months. That including turning up on his doorstep at 6.30am, not just at comps. He suspected that someone was getting their knickers in a twist because he was Australia's strongest tested lifter and held various raw world records.
But no one is targeted to let others slip through. This isn't Russia. If you think about it, all the goons that turn up at our comps (and other sporting events) are paid by our hard earned tax dollars (no thanks to Google, Apple, Gina Rhinehart and Glencore) which are fisted over to them via federal budgets. If you are spending massive amounts of money paying people to run around the country plus lab fees and all their costs, the last thing you want is to be letting people "slip through". That's like having a police station with zero arrests and zero speeding fines. You are going to have that station closed down pretty quick. It's in the interests of the testers to be seen to be not only busy but "effective" in order to get continued and increased funding.
The one thing public servants are good at is keeping their jobs and keeping the money coming in.
joeblowforshow
New member
Just posted on this in another thread. I think that's a slight over-simplification. Yes there is an incentive to catch people to justify your funding.
But there is also a conflict where the biggest names are concerned. If they're caught, it undermines the entire sport's credibility. In my view, it's more accurate to say that the testing organisations have an incentive to catch SOME people, but not TOO many and not TOO big a fish.
joeblowforshow
New member
Excellent point. If there is ANY subjective influence over who gets tested or when, it's a flaw in the system.
EDIT: Unless those who are influencing the testing are ethically irreproachable - which is unlikely. Even Novitsky has shown himself to be biased (in this case AGAINST one particular athlete)
Ive spoken briefly to Steve in person and hes been lifting for almost 30 years.not only that when he began he was training with a world champ.Hes built like a tank.I think its a case of just putting in the time.eventually you get strong,or in his case extremely strong.
im not sure why they would let people get away with anything.theres plenty of super strong talent out there that hasnt touched a thing.not everyone who is freakishly strong is a drug user or has used.
however you do need these tests to prove innocence.im just under this idea that PA is relatively clean.that the cheating is quite rare.
im not sure why they would let people get away with anything.theres plenty of super strong talent out there that hasnt touched a thing.not everyone who is freakishly strong is a drug user or has used.
however you do need these tests to prove innocence.im just under this idea that PA is relatively clean.that the cheating is quite rare.
Last edited:
yep thats true.you have to have the inherent ability to be at the top,as well as as almost insatiable desire to be the best you can be.if you have the work ethic but not the talent then you have to rely on luck to a degree.If you have the talent but not the work ethic then you probably will only get so far as well.You will lose to equally talented who works harder
joeblowforshow
New member
“For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.”
It's a Schrodinger's cat thing. It's definitely possible that doping is rampant as physically beating the tests is relatively straight forward. It's also possible that doping is very rare. But just because you're (me) a skeptic doesn't mean that everyone MUST be doping. And just because someone else is a believer doesn't mean that doping IS rare.
Truth is probably somewhere in between. I just wish they'd legalise it all and appoint doctors to oversee it - at least then you'd know what you were watching.
It's a Schrodinger's cat thing. It's definitely possible that doping is rampant as physically beating the tests is relatively straight forward. It's also possible that doping is very rare. But just because you're (me) a skeptic doesn't mean that everyone MUST be doping. And just because someone else is a believer doesn't mean that doping IS rare.
Truth is probably somewhere in between. I just wish they'd legalise it all and appoint doctors to oversee it - at least then you'd know what you were watching.
Repacked
Punxsutawney resident
I'm no authority on the administration of PA and have no interest in getting into a protracted discussion about it, simply repeating the opinion of a competing member. As you have cited above there are obviously those who are of the opinion that whether it be simply to put pressure on a specific athlete because of someone 'getting their knickers in a twist' or tall poppy syndrome as it's better known, or to augment the testing patterns, the process can be abused by those who are in the position to do so.
It's worthwhile food for thought to recognise that there is an underlying tension between, as you said 'the interests of the testers to be seen to be not only busy but "effective" in order to get continued and increased funding', and the fact that to raise the profile of the federation athletes lifting bigger weights and bigger totals are necessary. At the top end of the scale there may well be more likelihood of PED use, but when these elite athletes are championing meets and are big draw-cards, make no mistake, there is an incentive (financial and otherwise) for PA not to allow the opportunity for a positive test to be returned. I'm not saying PEDs are being used, I'm simply saying that the dichotomy between effective testing and ever increasing performance, financial return and publicity exists. Historically this is the problem with any organisation that self-polices. Is the system perfect?...no; is it the best system given the resources available and what PA requires for continued success?.. probably, could it be improved?...yes.
The example provided above seems to ring true with the opinion voiced to me in conversation that PA is a more political federation that CAPO or GPC, can be cliquey, and if an athlete falls out of the good graces of the powers that be, then pressure can be applied through means such as above. You have to admit that in the case that PA mandates X amount of tests per year or allots a specific monetary amount to testing, testing an athlete monthly over a period of a year is at the very least irresponsible administration, and regardless of whether or not it was the purpose, increases the chances that an athlete who was using PEDs would not be tested. This is simple statistics. Once again this is just an observation. If in fact the testing regime is coordinated by PA itself (as opposed to say ASADA or an independent 3rd party) it is a significant procedural flaw, and by design you could call the testing system anything but robust. To my way of thinking implementing a truly robust, independently scrutinised and well designed testing process is likely to be of far more benefit, instil more credibility in the federation, and provide more incentive for athletes to be clean than effectively using testing as a big stick, or token bannings for PED use. There would be considerable expense and ongoing administration involved in raising the bar to this level, and I don't believe that there is any sort of independent certification available that is relevant to this specific scenario, however ISO9001 would be an appropriate place to start.
Ultimately as a spectator I just want to see some kunces lift some big ass weights.
vonfram88
Active member
I'm afraid much of what has been written above sounds more than plausible. The funny thing about the 'clique' assertion/observation if it were true (and holding my breath here as a paid up member) - is that there really is so little at stake. PL is full of some very special people indeed.
sounds ridiculous to me.a big long post full of speculations and accusations.So what if there are cliques.You get that anywhere you go.Doesnt mean these particular people are corrupt.And the idea that the top lifters are automatically juicing based on the fact they are better lifters is lame.Once again,some of these people have been lifting for many many years.
er thats probably why there isnt that much juice use in PA to begin with.Its an amateur sport.The parallels between raw powerlifting in Oceania and pro cycling or any other highly paid sports ends right where the cheque is signed.Theres actually no real incentive to endanger your health drug wise to squeeze out a bigger total.
vonfram88
Active member
Some of the old timers who have been lifting for yonks are not in the clique that some believe to exist. I guess they are just patient.
I would be very interested to see the histogram of totals understand at what percentiles the cuts are made for each grade. I would guess that E1 would have to be cut at something like 99 percentile whereas a B would be around 66 percentile.
I would be very interested to see the histogram of totals understand at what percentiles the cuts are made for each grade. I would guess that E1 would have to be cut at something like 99 percentile whereas a B would be around 66 percentile.
- Status