Australian Crime Commission investigation finds widespread doping

[Mad Elephant Man]

Michael Tomalaris ‏@miketomalaris
EXCLUSIVE: Tonight on @SBSNews former Australian #tdf rider Jay Sweet shares his doping experiences when competing as a pro-cyclist.

Any chance of a live stream?

Probably not and it probably does not belong in this thread. Probably better to start its own thread, I doubt Jay Sweet has a thread, really quite a minor rider. I think a South Australian so I recognize the name but did not remember he rode the TDF.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Probably not and it probably does not belong in this thread. Probably better to start its own thread, I doubt Jay Sweet has a thread, really quite a minor rider. I think a South Australian so I recognize the name but did not remember he rode the TDF.

Realise it's offensive, but Tomo interviewing someone? Ick.

 

[del1962]

Yep, pace bowlers are the only group I can see using/needing dope. It's not baseball, you can't become a superstar or even an effective batsman by having huge biceps and trying to hit 4s and 6s all the time. Reflex improving PEDs for batsmen, as DW suggested, are a possibility; but really, you aren't going to get very far in the sport just by trying to launch sixes all the way to Islamabad off every ball (sly dig at Shahid Afridi).

I would Ghilcrist or Hayden type player beneffitiing from power increasing drugs.

 

[Frosty]

Probably not and it probably does not belong in this thread. Probably better to start its own thread, I doubt Jay Sweet has a thread, really quite a minor rider. I think a South Australian so I recognize the name but did not remember he rode the TDF.

Yeah, i remember him riding back in 1999 and getting a bit of a following after he was finishing last every day for a while as he was injured. Finished almost an hour down on Lance on the infamous Sestriere stage

http://www.cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/race.asp?raceid=12725

 

[Alphabet]

I would Ghilcrist or Hayden type player beneffitiing from power increasing drugs.

Gilchrist's and Hayden's respective games were much more sophisticated than clubbing it to all parts. It was mostly technique. If you look at Gilchrist, he's a pretty slight man compared to other sloggers like Symonds or Gayle.

 

[ljpoyz]

Gilchrist isn't the one that instantly jumps to mind. Got amazing batspeed through strange high grip. Though there are others that I would suspect. The advent and now increasing amount of T20 games seem to point to more emphasis on the "slugger" type of batsman.

I would Ghilcrist or Hayden type player beneffitiing from power increasing drugs.

 

[Galic Ho]

Ah, my bad. I don't remember Warne getting popped, but then, I would have only been 8 or 9 when that happened.

Still, Inzi carried about 20 or 30 extra kilograms his entire career and he's one of Pak-istan's greatest ever batsmen.

You really have no clue do you?

Want to name the corrupt ****stani cricketers for me? Actually name the legit good ones. The ****stani cricket board had their two best fast bowlers popped for Nandrolone. Caught red handed. What happened to them? Do you even remember their names? One was Brett Lee's major speed rival...that should ring a bell. Want to discuss the two rival captains of India and ****stan from the 90s and what they did? Or how about poor Hansie Cronje? Cricket is corrupt to it's core and has been for a long time. It's worse now. Much worse and that is down to the new found shorter matches and their obvious dependency and blatant emphasis on physicality.

Take a look at the physique changes in cricket today. All the guys who have broken down. It happens repeatedly these days. Sure some aspects of cricket are taxing on the lower back and always has, but guys carrying a keg on their gut do not make the grade anymore. There are no David Boons or Ul Haqs in world cricket anymore. They are all ripped and very fit. The fact the slog fest that is 20/20 cricket is now the number one pushed form of cricket practically screams drug abuse. It's pure brute force. Nothing more. If you hadn't noticed, a great cricketer could be a solid test batsman on technique alone. Want to tell us how many 6's Bradman hit in his career? You can count them on both hands with your fingers. Now skip to the 90s and early naughties and test cricket then, during Inzie's prime and when ****stans were good. Now skip forward to todays joke of a game...the doping and manner of cricket that would profit from it's exploitation is obvious.

 

[Galic Ho]

Wow. The English idiots who censored the name for the next door neighbours of Indians need a boot in their behinds. Pathetic. It's a simple describing word for a nations citizens. Oh but it's derogatory in the UK. Thanks cyclingnews for the cronyism.

 

[peterst6906]

Wow. The English idiots who censored the name for the next door neighbours of Indians need a boot in their behinds. Pathetic. It's a simple describing word for a nations citizens. Oh but it's derogatory in the UK. Thanks cyclingnews for the cronyism.

Yeah, it's just a offensive to censor ****stan as it is to use the shortened form.

 

[sugarman]

It's pure brute force. Nothing more. If you hadn't noticed, a great cricketer could be a solid test batsman on technique alone. Want to tell us how many 6's Bradman hit in his career?

Purely for interests sake, Bradman indeed only hit 6 sixes in his entire Test career (80 innings). However, he hit 618 fours, at an average of 7.7 per innings - higher than Lara, Hayden, Sehwag and Gayle (and probably most others) had in their careers. Bradman obviously was batting for longer on average, but this would be offset by not having roped in boundaries, less favourable pitch conditions etc.

Bradman was really a back foot slogger, just blessed with ridiculous hand-eye coordination. I see no reason why he, or someone like him, would be out of place in the modern game, even 20-20 if he had the chance.

But, your right, the physiques of players has changed a lot - the picture of gayle above says as much...

 

[Galic Ho]

This is a bit off-topic, but I've often seen people here say that the AIS is one of the worst sporting institutions in the world when it comes to facilitating doping. Why is that? I don't really know a lot about the AIS, I'd appreciate it if somebody could explain the situation to me .

Back long before you were born. Before I was born there was a day and age when Aussies could go to Olympics and simply flog other nations. Then the commies in Eastern Europe wanted to show the world their superiority. So they turned to medical science. They started winning all the Gold medals. Then 1972 in Munich happened. Australia won next to no medals. So the Government created the Australian Institute of Sport to remedy that perceived error. We Aussies love to win after all. It's been in our nations sporting fibre before federation. We win at sports. Every Aussie knows this. We punch well above our weight. It's a fact.

You see back in the day, like at the 1968 Mexico Olympics, an Aussie man could finish second in the mens 200m final between two African Americans. Black people aren't naturally faster than white people...that's drugs speaking today. They respond better in explosive sports. Look at our female runners. Cuthbert, Jackson and Strickland. We were the world powerhouse in female athletics. Then the drug eras came along. You take everyone off the juice, get them all clean and the times will be like the late 1960s in every athletic event. The world records are so far beyond what is naturally possible it isn't funny.

So where does the AIS step in? Well our athletes, like these women and our legendary swimmers of days long gone, well they weren't winning squat. But they looked at who was. A govt run body guaranteed govt funding on an annual basis. What necessitates more dollars flowing to your sport? Winning. Same deal with British cycling the past decade. You win GOLD, you get funded again and again. Success begets success. Especially when national pride is on the cards.

So how do you guarantee success? It's in the support staff. We either made them at home, or when they left Germany and Russia, we or should I say the AIS gave them a nice home. Look at swimming in Australia and it's boom post Seoul 1988 Olympics. One Gold from Duncan Armstrong...then lots and lots of Gold. Why? Alexander Popovs coach Gennadi Touretski. They came Down Under in 1990. Look at the number of ex Russians we have here or have had here...the list is large. Cycling is the same. Our boys got experience in Europe in the 90s and the doping knowledge has been on going for a long time. The AIS in the 80s set the groundwork for our later sporting success. Look especially at the talents of the swimming and cycling sports scientists. Team Sky have quite a few of them on the books. Look at the Chinese who bought out some of our coaches.

The AIS has had off the books and back door dodgy dealing going on for a long time in various sports. Most notably the big money sports and Gold medal glamour events. When another nations trumps us in these events, it's generally because they've out spent us in doping. Look at our recent swimming merits in London last year. We dropped the ball in comparison to others gains.

Fret not...I am pretty sure our divers, synchronised swimmers and gymnasts at the AIS are clean. Swimmers and cyclists? Well that just makes me laugh. Athletics? Look at the times of the individuals and their bests comparative to the old days and the winners now. Most are way, way off.

 

[Galic Ho]

Purely for interests sake, Bradman indeed only hit 6 sixes in his entire Test career (80 innings). However, he hit 618 fours, at an average of 7.7 per innings - higher than Lara, Hayden, Sehwag and Gayle (and probably most others) had in their careers. Bradman obviously was batting for longer on average, but this would be offset by not having roped in boundaries, less favourable pitch conditions etc.

Bradman was really a back foot slogger, just blessed with ridiculous hand-eye coordination. I see no reason why he, or someone like him, would be out of place in the modern game, even 20-20 if he had the chance.

But, your right, the physiques of players has changed a lot - the picture of gayle above says as much...

You got it right first go...well done.

I think Bradman would be fine in Test and One day cricket. But 20/20? No. His run rate would need to change. His whole approach as you demonstrated was focused on smart, focused and safe shots. His own personal strength he noted was his concentration. No amount of concentration can help you up the run rate with a number of boundaries that don't bounce. He'd clearly be useful, but not the best. The big sloggers would be more valued IMO simply because they hit the ball hard and get the run rate well over 100%. For a test cricketer Bradmans strike rate was very good, but to increase it something else must drop. That's the risk component.

Besides, that doesn't focus on physique. Want to tell everyone how big Bradman was? Or how heavy his bat was? Now contrast that with Sachin Tendulkars and you'll understand a great deal why Tendulkar is mostly an impostor masquerading as a cricket giant by comparison. Or perhaps you heard the stories about Bradman's first time batting on an uncovered wicket? How did that go? Or how it went the second time? There area number of indicators that would give an idea of how good he really would be, but fact is he was a small man who used a very light bat. His game would change a great deal in a faster paced mode that is pure brute force. He'd be noticed, but not like the guys the crowd loves who smash sixes all day long.

 

[zalacain]

I remember about 6-7 years ago when living in the UK, i heard that a few footballers who had various foot injuries, would be getting pain killing injections before games and that was accepted and people saw these players as tough guys for doing so and at the time,

You used to see this happening on the sideline with TV commentary about how brave they were!

 

[peterst6906]

Want to tell us how many 6's Bradman hit in his career?

One of Bradman's basic principles of batting, which was still being taught well into the 90's was:

If you don't hit the ball in the air, you can't get caught out.

If not dismissed for single figures his number of dismissals caught out is much lower than the average for batsman. Since he didn't hit the ball in the air, he had few sixes, but not because he wasn't able to hit them. It just wasn't part of his game.

 

[Galic Ho]

Yeah, it's just a offensive to censor ****stan as it is to use the shortened form.

Only in the UK is the four letter term offensive. Only used in a derogatory sense in the UK. Boo hoo champ. Boo hoo. Andy Murray and your doping countrymen have already made a mockery of a number of sports in Australia this year. Don't get people started. And your contribution to the Aussie thread is what exactly? Keeping tabs on the better country? Fret not, the Aussie dopers and aids to the Brits won't squeal on your boys...it's called omerta for a reason. If you paid attention on the forum you'd have caught on to this. Alas, things don't change for the better in the UK do they?

Enjoy your misplaced PC agenda.

 

[peterst6906]

Only in the UK is the four letter term offensive. Only used in a derogatory sense in the UK. Boo hoo champ. Boo hoo. Andy Murray and your doping countrymen have already made a mockery of a number of sports in Australia this year. Don't get people started. And your contribution to the Aussie thread is what exactly? Keeping tabs on the better country? Fret not, the Aussie dopers and aids to the Brits won't squeal on your boys...it's called omerta for a reason. If you paid attention on the forum you'd have caught on to this. Alas, things don't change for the better in the UK do they?

Enjoy your misplaced PC agenda.

I'm Australian

I was agreeing with you in the first place.

 

[Galic Ho]

One of Bradman's basic principles of batting, which was still being taught well into the 90's was:

If you don't hit the ball in the air, you can't get caught out.

If not dismissed for single figures his number of dismissals caught out is much lower than the average for batsman. Since he didn't hit the ball in the air, he had few sixes, but not because he wasn't able to hit them. It just wasn't part of his game.

Tell us all something we don't know. You're wasting our time. Now tell me how that relates to physique and todays game and their love of hitting the ball in the air long and far? Then get into what drugs would help. You catching on?

Considering last time ****stan ran around England they were match fixing I'd have thought the citizens of the UK might have caught on to the corruption in the sport. Good luck drug testing that lot. The subcontinent will not have anyone checking them peeing into a test tube. Like ever. Will not happen.

 

[peterst6906]

Tell us all something we don't know. You're wasting our time. Now tell me how that relates to physique and todays game and their love of hitting the ball in the air long and far? Then get into what drugs would help. You catching on?

Considering last time ****stan ran around England they were match fixing I'd have thought the citizens of the UK might have caught on to the corruption in the sport. Good luck drug testing that lot. The subcontinent will not have anyone checking them peeing into a test tube. Like ever. Will not happen.

Yep, definitely my last post was correct.

You raised the issue of Bradman as a contrast from the past to now. He didn't hit sixes, not because he wasn't on drugs (which obviously he wasn't), but because it wasn't part of his game. If you want to raise comparisons, at least make them relevant.

 

[Galic Ho]

I'm Australian.

I was agreeing with you in the first place.

Yeah well then why in the past were you shaking up with the Brits in the Sky threads? You sure sounded British then. Fair enough then, my apologies on calling you a Brit.

When people jump left and right on their ideas and attitudes it is hard to keep track of what the hell they are saying.

As for drugs in Aussie sports. Cricket is an obvious one. It pays really, really well. Especially in the sub continent short game. That is alarm bell one. The change in physical demand of the longer loads screams recovery drugs. So does the shorter method. Take a modern player back to Bradmans day and equipment IMO they'd lose out. But put him in todays era, he'd do well in test cricket and one day, but that's where I draw the line. Look at the rotation policy CA use. Nobody agrees with it. So why do they do it? Doping wise, or for pure recovery, which is what doping is about is what makes sense.

And to people who think this was big sporting news. Give me a break. It barely turned heads. Nobody cared. When people get carted off to the slammer this will be big news. They gave more frigs when Lance went on Oprah. Everyone with half a brain knows how the NRL and AFL do business. The AFL protect their own very well. 3 strike policy with non disclosure. Perfect cover system. Heck, I'm not even sure they are a WADA signatory. I beat the govt are gonna love any positive press this will bring them with the election coming on.

Until names are given and people shamed, this is all a lot of mumbo jumbo talk. It is good though cycling isn't the main target in this though. That's a nice change for once.

 

[sugarman]

You got it right first go...well done.

I think Bradman would be fine in Test and One day cricket. But 20/20? No. His run rate would need to change. His whole approach as you demonstrated was focused on smart, focused and safe shots.

Besides, that doesn't focus on physique. Want to tell everyone how big Bradman was? Or how heavy his bat was? Now contrast that with Sachin Tendulkars

Yep, Bradman was tiny, about 5 foot 6 or 7 i think, and an old school 'athletic' build, i.e. skinny. Not sure how heavy his bats actually were, but I have heard them described as like balsa wood, so I'm gonna say they were very light.

Absolutely not idea how much Tendulkar's bat would weigh, but he'd be a similar height to Bradman.

Modern bats definitely help with hitting sixes, the amount of wood in the middle is enormous, but they are (generally) lighter than the (not entirely comparable) bats of the ~90s which were rolled and pressed much more, thus heavier for a given amount of wood. In my experience playing (low level) cricket, balls bounce of modern bats heaps more than those of 15-20 years ago, and I'd guess a Bradman era bat would be even less helpful.

There is a story about Bradman hitting 100 runs off 3 (8 ball) overs when he went back to play for his club side, I think that included about 9 or 10 sixes in those 24 balls. It was probably on a concrete wicket, and club is obviously not comparable to international cricket, but I think it shows he could be handy at 20-20. Sure, perhaps not the best, but I think he'd get a game!

One of Bradman's basic principles of batting, which was still being taught well into the 90's was:

If you don't hit the ball in the air, you can't get caught out.

Still good advice for most forms of cricket!

 

[Frosty]

Considering last time ****stan ran around England they were match fixing I'd have thought the citizens of the UK might have caught on to the corruption in the sport. Good luck drug testing that lot. The subcontinent will not have anyone checking them peeing into a test tube. Like ever. Will not happen.

Well the Pak-istan Cricket Board did test two positive for nandrolone but then let them off. Apparently CAS was unable to overturn the decision as they couldnt legally.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/****stan/content/story/300348.html

 

[peterst6906]

Yeah well then why in the past were you shaking up with the Brit idiots in the Sky threads? You sure sounded British then. Fair enough then, my apologies on calling you a Brit.

Can you quote me where I'd 'shaken' it up with British fans.

I haven't said much in the Sky thread. So if you've read something, you've probably misinterpreted that also.

When people jump left and right on their ideas and attitudes it is hard to keep track of what the hell they are saying.

Same as last bit. Where left and right?

As for drugs in Aussie sports. Cricket is an obvious one.

Of cause it is. One of the first into it.

 

[Galic Ho]

Yep, definitely my last post was correct.

You raised the issue of Bradman as a contrast from the past to now. He didn't hit sixes, not because he wasn't on drugs (which obviously he wasn't), but because it wasn't part of his game. If you want to raise comparisons, at least make them relevant.

Bradman is relevant because he is the benchmark. The undisputed best. He comes from a classic era of cricket. The technology was less evolved. The physical conditions in players, the pay levels, the sports medicine, training and conditioning and sheer professionalism were worlds apart.

But the natural talent is identical. It mattered more then. Same with baseball in the States. The chief motivator in all doping is greed. That means money. I am more concerned about match fixing in cricket. I saw it going on at the tennis last month. At least it looked like it. That was from one set of a Serena Williams match. Focusing on a few sports that bring in lower amounts of money is a waste of time. Yeah the AFL and NRL are big wigs. How about the Tennis last month? What level of testing went on there? Do you know how big Rod Laver is? He's Bradmans size. Our greatest tennis player is 5 feet 7 inches tall. He's very small. But he played in an era where technique and skill meant you won. But by all means, lets only focus on the Aussies doping on Aussie soil. Lets leave the gambling dens to go about their business. Do you know who Tom Waterhouses parents are? And here someone said he entered into a $50 million contract with the NRL was it? Madness. I hope this investigation covers horse racing...because that is a super legit clean sport too hey.

Remove skill from the equation in sports and place the focus on RECOVERY and a bigger work load. There is only one natural conclusion. Drugs. That is an inevitability. It is implied. It is implied because the work loads have gone up , people are still getting fitter and there is more money than ever in the sport.

Before my mates wedding last September, well the reception, my mates and I saw a very well known NRL player at a pub at the Rocks on grand final day. He was watching the AFL. His physique was impressive. I spend a decent amount of time in the gym. This is a national rep and origin player. So I was shocked at how big he was yet he seemed lithe and streamlined for endurance at the same time. He looks a lot different in person than on tv. A hell of a lot bigger and more ripped. Like almost too ripped. I was thinking how easy it would be for him to dope and get away with it. You might have heard of him. He likes throwing glass objects at women and then blaming his house mates.

 

[thrawn]

RE: Cricket

I think peterst6906 is correct in terms of boundary hitting. Bradman didn't hit sixes as it wasn't his philosophy.

Funnily enough, most of you haven't mentioned the more relevant person when talking about 4's/6's hit. Sobers had a bit of an opposite philosophy of they don't have fielders in the air so you should hit over the top. Not exactly a contemporary of Bradman, but is pretty close to.

I agree with those who think cricket's biggest challenge is match fixing. Not because doping is non existent, but a) because it is less prevalent than match fixing, and b) because I think match fixing is worse from a moral perspective than doping to win.

 

[Galic Ho]

Can you quote me where I'd 'shaken' it up with British fans.

I haven't said much in the Sky thread. So if you've read something, you've probably misinterpreted that also.



Same as last bit. Where left and right?



Of cause it is. One of the first into it.

Ok. I am sorry. Want a more sincere apology? Want me to get down and beg for forgiveness. There are hundreds of people on this forum and a ton of people. I could have simply misread some posts or confused you with someone else. Wouldn't be the first time.

There always tends to be some disgruntled Brit in an Aussie thread. Goes with the territory. I incorrectly thought you were one. As I said, I was wrong.

Alphabet posted Gillie photos. Granted Gilly was one of my favourite players and I haven't really followed cricket since his departure, but I'd be careful about deeming him the beacon of clean sport. The guy slammed Sri Lanka's best bowler as a 'chucker.' Aussies are very quick to label other nations as cheats. We get the self righteous ego from the motherland, the UK. Do note Mathia Muralitharan's elbow flexion was at a lower degree than our best bowler...Glen McGrath. Both went over the allowed 10 degrees but Glen's was further. It was very uncool how that man was treated. Damn ignorant and hypocritical...which is what I am expecting from any investigation. But I guess the fact someone is looking is good.

Does this matter? If you want to investigate cricket, I'd start after Steve Waugh's departure. He batted with some extra weight. He wasn't super fit. The new generation that stepped in after most certainly were. Last cricketer from Australia I saw packing extra kilos was Warne and that was before he met Liz Hurley. His vanity is back in full swing. Maybe cricket started doping in the late 90s, but swimming and athletics IMO started way before that. Same with weight lifting and boxing. Cycling? Actually that I'd really like to know. Did our Euro pros learn the trend in Europe exclusively and bring it home or did it start here?

Personally I couldn't care less about PEDs in football. The recreational drugs, crime and issues with women are far more important than doping. But the sports I mentioned above? Well they don't have those social issues, they are purely sports orientated...so yeah, I want to know about them.