GAA player test positive in drugs test.

[JMohan]

Uladh, he's an amateur not a professional, thats the difference for me. I don't believe that any GAA player uses an asthma inhaler for doping purposes. its  far easier to use other substances that wouldn't be detected. On that basis its an honest mistake in my view. And the evidence that points to the substance in question as being performance enhancing is contradictatory depending on what study you read.

I disagree on three points here ..

1. Rules are in place and must be adhered to. The GAA signed up to the rules (and sold their soul), and as a member he must abide. Things are either black or white or we end up with the mess T&F is in and Baseball and the NFL. Black and white. Anything else will lead to long drawn out court cases down the line.

2. Whether he is professional or not is irrelevant. Whether amateurs should be tested or not is a completely different argument - and it should have been debated at the time - but it wasn't.

3. Salbutamol does have some benefits - is it a massive benefit - no, but does it have some benefit and this is sufficient to suggest banning. And it may be used to mask and 'confuse' the use of other chemicals.

I want to say I don't think Aidan O'Mahony intended to do wrong - but he did and should have paid the price.

I also think the GAA had a wonderful opportunity to make one clear cut decision and ban O'Mahony, send a message out loud and clear - it's black or white, test positive and you're banned and put an end to anyone who fails a test thinking of trying to appeal to courts or even arguing. Now it's grey, so the first guy to test (for a more effective drug) will appeal and try and get off.

Typical GAA fudgery.

 

[AZOffaly]

Hang on there J..

You say that you accept that Aidan O'Mahony didn't mean to do wrong, so I assume you accept that he had informed the authorities of the asthma situation and filled out the wrong forms? The panel decided he had used the inhaler in good faith, and the high levels were attributed to inhaler usage, rather than something more sinister.

So why should he be punished? I agree rules are rules, but each case should be judged on it's merits, and in this case I think 'fair play' was obviously done. If it was mandatory sentencing, then you'd be punishing a lad for having the flu and asthma. That'd be wrong in my eyes.

[JMohan]

Hang on there J..

You say that you accept that Aidan O'Mahony didn't mean to do wrong, so I assume you accept that he had informed the authorities of the asthma situation and filled out the wrong forms? The panel decided he had used the inhaler in good faith, and the high levels were attributed to inhaler usage, rather than something more sinister.

I'm not really arguing the O'Mahony case per se ... it's the fact someone 'failed a drugs test' - whether technically or not and now has been let off.
If someone makes a mistake - fills out wrong forms or forgets to tell a tester where they are or takes the wrong medicine etc etc - it doesn't matter - they broke the terms of the test. The rules are there for a reason.
Why?
Because the next guilty person will try and use the O'Mahony case to get off and we'll have the DRA and CCCCCC trying to sort these out too in time.

I just think the wrong message was sent out and I think we'll pay in time.

To be perfectly honest I don't think GAA players should be tested in the first place - but like I say that's another story. It's two wrongs and rights and all that.

Hang onSo why should he be punished? I agree rules are rules, but each case should be judged on it's merits, and in this case I think 'fair play' was obviously done. If it was mandatory sentencing, then you'd be punishing a lad for having the flu and asthma. That'd be wrong in my eyes.

You see you can't judge every case differently.
The rules are rules - either that or we'll have a mess.

Don't get me wrong - I don't think there was intent - but remember even in a court of law - Ignorance is not a defence.

[INDIANA]

Uladh, he's an amateur not a professional, thats the difference for me. I don't believe that any GAA player uses an asthma inhaler for doping purposes. its  far easier to use other substances that wouldn't be detected. On that basis its an honest mistake in my view. And the evidence that points to the substance in question as being performance enhancing is contradictatory depending on what study you read.

I disagree on three points here ..

1. Rules are in place and must be adhered to. The GAA signed up to the rules (and sold their soul), and as a member he must abide. Things are either black or white or we end up with the mess T&F is in and Baseball and the NFL. Black and white. Anything else will lead to long drawn out court cases down the line.

2. Whether he is professional or not is irrelevant. Whether amateurs should be tested or not is a completely different argument - and it should have been debated at the time - but it wasn't.

3. Salbutamol does have some benefits - is it a massive benefit - no, but does it have some benefit and this is sufficient to suggest banning. And it may be used to mask and 'confuse' the use of other chemicals.

I want to say I don't think Aidan O'Mahony intended to do wrong - but he did and should have paid the price.

I also think the GAA had a wonderful opportunity to make one clear cut decision and ban O'Mahony, send a message out loud and clear - it's black or white, test positive and you're banned and put an end to anyone who fails a test thinking of trying to appeal to courts or even arguing. Now it's grey, so the first guy to test (for a more effective drug) will appeal and try and get off.

Typical GAA fudgery.

 

1- You're not comparing like with like in my view. Baseball is a million dollar industry in a sport where steroids are actively promoted. I not suggesting an easy approach, but this is a simple enough mistake to me. I've relations who've suffered from asthma, unless you know its effects on a hot dry day, its hard to understand where O Mahony is coming from.

2- I believe the issue of amateur is very relevent. There was no due process in this case. He was named in the media before the testing was complete. Thats a disgrace in my view.

3- It has very limited aerobic benefit for an asthma sufferer ( a lifelong one), and it certainly wouldn't be used to mask other substances. There are easier masking agents anyone could take that are virtually undetectable. I doubt very much salbutomol is the first port of call in that department.

4- I don't agree about the fudgery, I believe the GPA should never have signed up to the Grants considering the demands on diet and medicines that every player can/cannot take. This is not professional sport where meals are prepared by qualified chefs to players on a daily basis. You would be putting asthma suffereer's health at risk by playing sport using your definition. You can't just discard them from the sport. Its nigh on impossible to quantify the effects of dehydration and sickness on one's dose.

[JMohan]

Again we disagree ...

Uladh, he's an amateur not a professional, thats the difference for me. I don't believe that any GAA player uses an asthma inhaler for doping purposes. its  far easier to use other substances that wouldn't be detected. On that basis its an honest mistake in my view. And the evidence that points to the substance in question as being performance enhancing is contradictatory depending on what study you read.

I disagree on three points here ..

1. Rules are in place and must be adhered to. The GAA signed up to the rules (and sold their soul), and as a member he must abide. Things are either black or white or we end up with the mess T&F is in and Baseball and the NFL. Black and white. Anything else will lead to long drawn out court cases down the line.

2. Whether he is professional or not is irrelevant. Whether amateurs should be tested or not is a completely different argument - and it should have been debated at the time - but it wasn't.

3. Salbutamol does have some benefits - is it a massive benefit - no, but does it have some benefit and this is sufficient to suggest banning. And it may be used to mask and 'confuse' the use of other chemicals.

I want to say I don't think Aidan O'Mahony intended to do wrong - but he did and should have paid the price.

I also think the GAA had a wonderful opportunity to make one clear cut decision and ban O'Mahony, send a message out loud and clear - it's black or white, test positive and you're banned and put an end to anyone who fails a test thinking of trying to appeal to courts or even arguing. Now it's grey, so the first guy to test (for a more effective drug) will appeal and try and get off.

Typical GAA fudgery.

 

1- You're not comparing like with like in my view. Baseball is a million dollar industry in a sport where steroids are actively promoted. I not suggesting an easy approach, but this is a simple enough mistake to me. I've relations who've suffered from asthma, unless you know its effects on a hot dry day, its hard to understand where O Mahony is coming from.

With respect - that's not the point.
The point is that whether it's asthma medication or whatever - it must be notified to doping control. This is the issue - not whether or not he should be allowed use it.

Simple mistake or not - I repeat - ignorance is not a defence.

2- I believe the issue of amateur is very relevent. There was no due process in this case. He was named in the media before the testing was complete. Thats a disgrace in my view.

Those are two completely separate issues here don't confuse them ...
A. - Being Amateur is irrelevant makes no difference to being tested, everyone world wide, amateur and professional who have have signed up to this agree to the rules.
B. - Being named in the media - Who named him? Did he or the Kerry CB name, themselves? Regardless that's nothing to do with pro v amateur. Nor does it have any effect on the outcome.

3- It has very limited aerobic benefit for an asthma sufferer ( a lifelong one), and it certainly wouldn't be used to mask other substances. There are easier masking agents anyone could take that are virtually undetectable. I doubt very much salbutomol is the first port of call in that department.

Again we're off point - he broke the rules in place to catch doping and keep sport clean.
The fact is has some benefit is why it's banned - the degree of intent or limit is irrelevant.

4- I don't agree about the fudgery, I believe the GPA should never have signed up to the Grants considering the demands on diet and medicines that every player can/cannot take. This is not professional sport where meals are prepared by qualified chefs to players on a daily basis. You would be putting asthma suffereer's health at risk by playing sport using your definition. You can't just discard them from the sport. Its nigh on impossible to quantify the effects of dehydration and sickness on one's dose.

I agree with you on the GPA point - which is past now. The GAA and GPA just saw grants and were hungry for money.

But you are very wrong and ill informed on a number of points here ...
- Most professional soccer players have only one meal prepared by the kitchen staff in any professional team - the rest of the time it's their responsibility

- If you think that WADA are putting sport people and athletes across the world at risk of illness then you're making a very foolish statement IMO and forgetting about hundreds of thousands of athletes across the world playing many sports. It's not about putting players health at risk - it's about tidying up sport and making sure it's a level and honest playing field... but more importantly it's about making sure players and athletes do not use anything that may put an athletes health at risk. 

- Dehydration and sickness do not as a rule affect the specific gravity of the degree of chemical as these are considered in the testing process. Don't you think that's be thought of by at least one Olympic athlete by now?
   


On the issue of asthma - people think it's harmless ...
Well how come approx 10% of a countries population have asthma but more than 20% of Olympic athletes claim to have it?
- It's widely known that athletes use it to enhance breathing and endurance - even to a small degree. In fact it's widely known how athletes manage to convince doctors to declare them asthmatics for this very reason too.

THATS why salbutamol must be declared.

Finally and once again - the point is not - was he cheating/doping/is asthma a serious medical condition/amateur vs professional /was he spiked etc etc .... NO .... the point is simple - there are rules in place to prevent doping and catch cheating and he broke them and should have been punished.

[Hound]

You say that you accept that Aidan O'Mahony didn't mean to do wrong, so I assume you accept that he had informed the authorities of the asthma situation and filled out the wrong forms? The panel decided he had used the inhaler in good faith, and the high levels were attributed to inhaler usage, rather than something more sinister.

So why should he be punished? I agree rules are rules, but each case should be judged on it's merits, and in this case I think 'fair play' was obviously done. If it was mandatory sentencing, then you'd be punishing a lad for having the flu and asthma. That'd be wrong in my eyes.

AZ, there was nothing in the ruling that I noticed about him filling out forms wrong. The fact is he took more than he was allowed. In my opinion it was because he had cold/flu symptoms and went OTT on the inhaling.

He has been found guily of cheating - but quite clearly in the opinion of the judges it was inadvertant cheating. There was a range of sanctions open to them having found him guilty, from a reprimand to a 2 year ban. The most lenient sentence was chosen.

It seems to me to have been a fair process and a fair and open result. Of course in my view its only today that we should have discovered the name of the person found guilty.

I wonder what the repurcussions would have been had Kerry beaten Tyrone? Would the result have stood? Would the Tyrone County Board have sought a replay???

[Rois]

Seem like he got a fair hearing (even if the chair was a Tyroneman, if I am not mistaken  )

A founder member of Club Tyrone in fact.

I wonder what the repurcussions would have been had Kerry beaten Tyrone? Would the result have stood? Would the Tyrone County Board have sought a replay???

I would really really like to think the result would have stood.  Tyrone's main legal counsel (the above chair) is already involved so they'd have to look elsewhere to drive the legal protests.

[JMohan]

You say that you accept that Aidan O'Mahony didn't mean to do wrong, so I assume you accept that he had informed the authorities of the asthma situation and filled out the wrong forms? The panel decided he had used the inhaler in good faith, and the high levels were attributed to inhaler usage, rather than something more sinister.

So why should he be punished? I agree rules are rules, but each case should be judged on it's merits, and in this case I think 'fair play' was obviously done. If it was mandatory sentencing, then you'd be punishing a lad for having the flu and asthma. That'd be wrong in my eyes.

AZ, there was nothing in the ruling that I noticed about him filling out forms wrong. The fact is he took more than he was allowed. In my opinion it was because he had cold/flu symptoms and went OTT on the inhaling.

I'll accept this - however it's a thin line between cold symptoms and then a few extra puffs for added benefit.

He has been found guily of cheating - but quite clearly in the opinion of the judges it was inadvertant cheating. There was a range of sanctions open to them having found him guilty, from a reprimand to a 2 year ban. The most lenient sentence was chosen.

It seems to me to have been a fair process and a fair and open result. Of course in my view its only today that we should have discovered the name of the person found guilty.

I wonder what the repurcussions would have been had Kerry beaten Tyrone? Would the result have stood? Would the Tyrone County Board have sought a replay???

[INDIANA]

We're not dealing with olympic Athletes J Mohan or anywhere near it. Thats where you and I differ. There is a world of difference in my opinion between a lifelong asthma sufferer and someone who is an Olympic athlete and develops asthma at 21/22, where its obvious they are doping. The fact that WADA is incapable of making that distinction says an awful lot about them and maybe why the likes of professional cycling in particular are totten to the core with banned substances when the authorities can't even make that distinction.
If a Gaa player developed a case at 22/23 similar to a lot of Olympic athletes, then I 'd agree with you. But I don't in this instance, its very much an honest mistake for someone who was suffering from an a cold as certified by his team doctor at the time.

[AZOffaly]

You say that you accept that Aidan O'Mahony didn't mean to do wrong, so I assume you accept that he had informed the authorities of the asthma situation and filled out the wrong forms? The panel decided he had used the inhaler in good faith, and the high levels were attributed to inhaler usage, rather than something more sinister.

So why should he be punished? I agree rules are rules, but each case should be judged on it's merits, and in this case I think 'fair play' was obviously done. If it was mandatory sentencing, then you'd be punishing a lad for having the flu and asthma. That'd be wrong in my eyes.

AZ, there was nothing in the ruling that I noticed about him filling out forms wrong. The fact is he took more than he was allowed. In my opinion it was because he had cold/flu symptoms and went OTT on the inhaling.

He has been found guily of cheating - but quite clearly in the opinion of the judges it was inadvertant cheating. There was a range of sanctions open to them having found him guilty, from a reprimand to a 2 year ban. The most lenient sentence was chosen.

It seems to me to have been a fair process and a fair and open result. Of course in my view its only today that we should have discovered the name of the person found guilty.

I wonder what the repurcussions would have been had Kerry beaten Tyrone? Would the result have stood? Would the Tyrone County Board have sought a replay???

Sorry Hound, I don't know what I was thinking, I meant filled in the RIGHT forms. And I have to disagree with JMohan about the black and white of a case such as this. If steroids were found, then by all means throw the book, but where it is prescribed medication, for a known and notified reason, then there has to be lattitude for common sense. Even WADA have downgraded Salbutemol (sp) because of this.

[JMohan]

We're not dealing with olympic Athletes J Mohan or anywhere near it. Thats where you and I differ. There is a world of difference in my opinion between a lifelong asthma sufferer and someone who is an Olympic athlete and develops asthma at 21/22, where its obvious they are doping. The fact that WADA is incapable of making that distinction says an awful lot about them and maybe why the likes of professional cycling in particular are totten to the core with banned substances when the authorities can't even make that distinction.
If a Gaa player developed a case at 22/23 similar to a lot of Olympic athletes, then I 'd agree with you. But I don't in this instance, its very much an honest mistake for someone who was suffering from an a cold as certified by his team doctor at the time.

You're not arguing the correct point.

You see - this is where most of the GAA world sleep walked into this ...

We signed up to drug testing
We have to abide by the rules

Crying about not being Olympic athletes means nothing in terms of drug testing.

Furthermore - stop thinking of Olympic athletes and Tour deFrance athletes - they are also the local athletes (hundreds) in T&F clubs across the country who compete currently under these rules and conditions.

Fair or not doesn't enter into this - we agreed (or were bought with) to the rules for a few hundred euros per player and thus have to live with it now.

[JMohan]

You say that you accept that Aidan O'Mahony didn't mean to do wrong, so I assume you accept that he had informed the authorities of the asthma situation and filled out the wrong forms? The panel decided he had used the inhaler in good faith, and the high levels were attributed to inhaler usage, rather than something more sinister.

So why should he be punished? I agree rules are rules, but each case should be judged on it's merits, and in this case I think 'fair play' was obviously done. If it was mandatory sentencing, then you'd be punishing a lad for having the flu and asthma. That'd be wrong in my eyes.

AZ, there was nothing in the ruling that I noticed about him filling out forms wrong. The fact is he took more than he was allowed. In my opinion it was because he had cold/flu symptoms and went OTT on the inhaling.

He has been found guily of cheating - but quite clearly in the opinion of the judges it was inadvertant cheating. There was a range of sanctions open to them having found him guilty, from a reprimand to a 2 year ban. The most lenient sentence was chosen.

It seems to me to have been a fair process and a fair and open result. Of course in my view its only today that we should have discovered the name of the person found guilty.

I wonder what the repurcussions would have been had Kerry beaten Tyrone? Would the result have stood? Would the Tyrone County Board have sought a replay???

Sorry Hound, I don't know what I was thinking, I meant filled in the RIGHT forms. And I have to disagree with JMohan about the black and white of a case such as this. If steroids were found, then by all means throw the book, but where it is prescribed medication, for a known and notified reason, then there has to be lattitude for common sense. Even WADA have downgraded Salbutemol (sp) because of this.

I agree it's harsh - but once more - we agreed to this.

EVERY other athlete under these rules must agree to it - why should we be different?

The reason they are so stringent is that once you make a grey area athletes jump into it and try and get right up close to the line and get away with it. I'm not going to list all the examples - but we've many cases - even in our own small but sullied history of doping in Ireland.

[AZOffaly]

You say that you accept that Aidan O'Mahony didn't mean to do wrong, so I assume you accept that he had informed the authorities of the asthma situation and filled out the wrong forms? The panel decided he had used the inhaler in good faith, and the high levels were attributed to inhaler usage, rather than something more sinister.

So why should he be punished? I agree rules are rules, but each case should be judged on it's merits, and in this case I think 'fair play' was obviously done. If it was mandatory sentencing, then you'd be punishing a lad for having the flu and asthma. That'd be wrong in my eyes.

AZ, there was nothing in the ruling that I noticed about him filling out forms wrong. The fact is he took more than he was allowed. In my opinion it was because he had cold/flu symptoms and went OTT on the inhaling.

He has been found guily of cheating - but quite clearly in the opinion of the judges it was inadvertant cheating. There was a range of sanctions open to them having found him guilty, from a reprimand to a 2 year ban. The most lenient sentence was chosen.

It seems to me to have been a fair process and a fair and open result. Of course in my view its only today that we should have discovered the name of the person found guilty.

I wonder what the repurcussions would have been had Kerry beaten Tyrone? Would the result have stood? Would the Tyrone County Board have sought a replay???

Sorry Hound, I don't know what I was thinking, I meant filled in the RIGHT forms. And I have to disagree with JMohan about the black and white of a case such as this. If steroids were found, then by all means throw the book, but where it is prescribed medication, for a known and notified reason, then there has to be lattitude for common sense. Even WADA have downgraded Salbutemol (sp) because of this.

I agree it's harsh - but once more - we agreed to this.

EVERY other athlete under these rules must agree to it - why should we be different?

The reason they are so stringent is that once you make a grey area athletes jump into it and try and get right up close to the line and get away with it. I'm not going to list all the examples - but we've many cases - even in our own small but sullied history of doping in Ireland.

I understand where you are coming from J, but even WADA have downgraded this particular drug, so I don't see any issue in using common sense when dealing with it. The Sports Council of Ireland have agreed with the decision themselves.

[Billys Boots]

On Morning Ireland this morning, a medic implied that the Sports Council hadn't acknowledged receipt of O'Mahony's forms, and in fact don't acknowledge anyone's 'exclusion' forms, so team doctors don't and can't know what players can and can't take.  Oh, they don't acknowledge the forms, becuase it would be too expensive to do so - and the breakdown of the system's the GAA's fault??

[JMohan]

You say that you accept that Aidan O'Mahony didn't mean to do wrong, so I assume you accept that he had informed the authorities of the asthma situation and filled out the wrong forms? The panel decided he had used the inhaler in good faith, and the high levels were attributed to inhaler usage, rather than something more sinister.

So why should he be punished? I agree rules are rules, but each case should be judged on it's merits, and in this case I think 'fair play' was obviously done. If it was mandatory sentencing, then you'd be punishing a lad for having the flu and asthma. That'd be wrong in my eyes.

AZ, there was nothing in the ruling that I noticed about him filling out forms wrong. The fact is he took more than he was allowed. In my opinion it was because he had cold/flu symptoms and went OTT on the inhaling.

He has been found guily of cheating - but quite clearly in the opinion of the judges it was inadvertant cheating. There was a range of sanctions open to them having found him guilty, from a reprimand to a 2 year ban. The most lenient sentence was chosen.

It seems to me to have been a fair process and a fair and open result. Of course in my view its only today that we should have discovered the name of the person found guilty.

I wonder what the repurcussions would have been had Kerry beaten Tyrone? Would the result have stood? Would the Tyrone County Board have sought a replay???

Sorry Hound, I don't know what I was thinking, I meant filled in the RIGHT forms. And I have to disagree with JMohan about the black and white of a case such as this. If steroids were found, then by all means throw the book, but where it is prescribed medication, for a known and notified reason, then there has to be lattitude for common sense. Even WADA have downgraded Salbutemol (sp) because of this.

I agree it's harsh - but once more - we agreed to this.

EVERY other athlete under these rules must agree to it - why should we be different?

The reason they are so stringent is that once you make a grey area athletes jump into it and try and get right up close to the line and get away with it. I'm not going to list all the examples - but we've many cases - even in our own small but sullied history of doping in Ireland.

I understand where you are coming from J, but even WADA have downgraded this particular drug, so I don't see any issue in using common sense when dealing with it. The Sports Council of Ireland have agreed with the decision themselves.

In an ideal world common sense would be applied - but we're dealing with sport where people will use any available means to cheat.
Once you bring in ambiguity then you have people pulling strokes for people. It's black and white for a very good reason.

As for the Sports Council - they I'm sure would rather not have to test hundred of GAA players each year and potentially have this issue with a few hundred asthmatics.