Dopers suck

[DieselnDust]

24 minutes ago, dave303e said:

in 2018/2019, 6/16 doping offences for the entire year were at craven week. Schoolboy rugby is arguably one of the dirtiest sports around. This will set a massive precedent

and it creates a mindset for life that you can get away with anything

[Jewbacca]

54 minutes ago, DieselnDust said:

and it creates a mindset for life that you can get away with anything

This is also compounded by the fact that schools have a tendency to protect and hide the misdemeanours and behaviour of their stars.

Rugby players at big rugby schools get away with murder with the help of the school body. Coupled with the open adulation and hero worship (also encouraged) of the younger kids, these guys are set up to expect to be untouchable forever.

 

[dave303e]

Picture this, ok they are going to ban the party administering the drugs/the support team and let her compete.

School X decides 1 parent can do the administering of the drugs and the coach knows nothing. The whole team can dope big time, not even small scale. Then come craven week, whole team tests positive but with the precedent set- Ban the 1 parent from the sport and let the drugged up team compete because they are minors. 

[Jewbacca]

2 minutes ago, dave303e said:

Picture this, ok they are going to ban the party administering the drugs/the support team and let her compete.

School X decides 1 parent can do the administering of the drugs and the coach knows nothing. The whole team can dope big time, not even small scale. Then come craven week, whole team tests positive but with the precedent set- Ban the 1 parent from the sport and let the drugged up team compete because they are minors. 

Only U16 though.... 16 and older and you're treated as an adult.

It all just stems back to the fact that the kids might be doping, but the adults are the real criminals. Pushing your and other peoples kids to such a point should come with some massive penalties. 

 

[TNT1]

1 hour ago, DieselnDust said:

and it creates a mindset for life that you can get away with anything

Well, you can.

 

is your head that far in the sand that you think this young (admittedly brilliant athlete) is the only one doped to the gills at WO22?

[Danger Dassie]

16 minutes ago, Jewbacca said:

Only U16 though.... 16 and older and you're treated as an adult.

It all just stems back to the fact that the kids might be doping, but the adults are the real criminals. Pushing your and other peoples kids to such a point should come with some massive penalties. 

 

The penalties should be criminal charges.

[TNT1]

Just now, Danger Dassie said:

The penalties should be criminal charges.

I forgot how funny you okes can be.

[Danger Dassie]

Glad you're so easily amused. 

[Jewbacca]

1 minute ago, TNT1 said:

I forgot how funny you okes can be.

So you don't think that parents/teachers feeding kids under 16 PEDS should receive serious sanction?

Dunno, if my kid was ever talented at anything and was influenced in this manner by people in a position to have said influence, I would definitely want some serious recourse. 

[TNT1]

Just now, Danger Dassie said:

Glad you're so easily amused. 

99% of peds, administered under proper supervision have almost zero side effects. To suggest criminal sanction is laughable.

[TNT1]

Just now, Jewbacca said:

So you don't think that parents/teachers feeding kids under 16 PEDS should receive serious sanction?

Dunno, if my kid was ever talented at anything and was influenced in this manner by people in a position to have said influence, I would definitely want some serious recourse. 

Why would you raise your kid to be in a position to be influenced by anyone without them talking to you about it?

[Danger Dassie]

1 minute ago, TNT1 said:

99% of peds, administered under proper supervision have almost zero side effects. To suggest criminal sanction is laughable.

Actually that is very flawed statement, the key part being "proper supervision" compounded by the lack of properly sourced peds, many of which shouldn't actually be used by still developing children. 
Prof Tucker has gone over this in detail before. 
And no, it isn't laughable at all. 

[Jewbacca]

1 minute ago, TNT1 said:

Why would you raise your kid to be in a position to be influenced by anyone without them talking to you about it?

Ideally? no

BUT, teachers and coaches can be helluva convincing. Your peers even more so. 

Especially in a team environment and especially when teenagers are involved. 

I would wager that all of us got up to some stuff we know we shouldn't have due to peer pressure or pressure from people we looked up to WITHOUT telling our parents at some point in our lives.

So as a parent, I can't afford to live in a world where my kids do everything they are supposed to. That is not the nature of kids, no matter how well you raise them.

[TNT1]

Just now, Danger Dassie said:

Actually that is very flawed statement, the key part being "proper supervision" compounded by the lack of properly sourced peds, many of which shouldn't actually be used by still developing children. 
Prof Tucker has gone over this in detail before. 
And no, it isn't laughable at all. 

It's the same argument Dr Carl Hart uses about so called recreational drugs.

If they weren't illegal, you would get a certified product and instructions on how to use it.

Criminalizing things that people are going to do anyway, removes oversight completely, resulting in a poor and questionable product and even worse direction on it's use.

 

Bring the things into the light and administer good quality products using the latest scientific best practice for their use.

[Jewbacca]

7 minutes ago, TNT1 said:

99% of peds, administered under proper supervision have almost zero side effects. To suggest criminal sanction is laughable.

The very concept of 'proper supervision' does not include engaging in illegal administering of drugs to other people's kids...... 

Surely, by definition, that would be 'Improper supervision'?

[TNT1]

1 minute ago, Jewbacca said:

The very concept of 'proper supervision' does not include engaging in illegal administering of drugs to other people's kids...... 

Surely, by definition, that would be 'Improper supervision'?

See my previous post.

 

My position is that they should not be illegal in the first place.