Questions for James O'Connor
- Thread starter Gagger
- Start date
- Status
Micheal
Nicholas Shehadie (39)
Alright I'll give you 10 minutes on Google Scholar but I'm hanging up the boots after this. I've made my perspective clear.
Disclaimer: the following is sourced and is not vintage Micheal anecdotal BS. They all come from peer reviewed academic sources.
+ Sports Medicine - "Drugs and Sport" (1997):
Shows "cocaine and exercise suggest that little to no performance gains are incurred from cocaine use. Moreover, the sense of euphoria may provide the illusion of better performance when, in actuality, performance was not improved or was impaired".
+ Best Practice & Research Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism - Central nervous system stimulants (2000):Finds that cocaine increases energy levels but poor for energy metabolism. Whatever that means.
+ Journal of Addictive Diseases - Cognitive Performance of Current Methamphetamine and Cocaine Abusers (2008).Users of cocaine were impaired on cognitive exercises.
Overall it seems to be pretty mixed and I couldn't find a lot of relevant studies. Short-term benefits that wouldn't seem to endure the length of a rugby match (a lot of papers researched impact upon sprinters) with long-term detriments.
May improve physical functioning in the short-term but decreases cognitive functioning in both the short-term and long-term.
The fact its not conclusive either way is enough for me.
Strewthcobber
Simon Poidevin (60)
Thank God we as a sport haven't tried the JOC (James O'Connor) debut at 17, across the other side of the country, too many times.
I can't help but think the rugby community let him down a fair bit in his early years. Too much, too soon.
I can't help but think the rugby community let him down a fair bit in his early years. Too much, too soon.
If the 3rd grade subbies player or the investment banker gets caught buying a street deal outside a nightclub I'd also say "what a plonker". They've taken a dumb risk and it will have consequences whether just public shame (within whatever circle they are in) and/or career consequences. That's whether or not there are actually criminal consequences. For a professional athlete that circle of public shame is very large.
Whether or not taking recreational drugs are part of the culture (and they clearly are in many areas of society), they're still illegal and getting caught is not nothing.
Regardless of your attitude to recreational drugs, that is not society's attitude on the whole and is unlikely ever to be (even as more countries move towards decriminalisation).
They will always be illegal as far as WADA is concerned because they may as well be. No one is going to run a statistically significant, peer reviewed study on the effects of cocaine on professional athletes in competition so it will never be proven they have no performance enhancing effect.
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
I think there are random drug tests everywhere but they are infrequent just by the product of number of players, cost etc.
It's not like players are getting drug tested after most weekends. They are also focusing on PEDs, not trying to catch people out after a loose weekend.
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
Strewthcobber
Simon Poidevin (60)
Coke and other party drugs are only banned in-competition anyway aren't they?
So as long as they're out of your system by game time they won't care
So as long as they're out of your system by game time they won't care
Gnostic
Mark Ella (57)
I won't quote all of your posts Michael but I have a simple reply to the right to use crowd. Fine do what ever you want, but ZERO medical support will be given for any health consequences. BTW I'd add in smoking to that, but when I mean zero I mean zero. If we cannot as a society afford to fund insulin and delivery systems for diabetes and treatments for a host of other health issues not related to "recreational" use of substances we do not support those who choose such a path.
That is well aside from the fact that as very highly paid professionals they are getting paid to maintain a certain physical conditioning as part of their "job". Such substances are not conducive to high performance and even if they weren't banned should well be regarded as justifiable cause for contract termination.
My entire working life has been spent in industries where a single positive test, and many places were weekly if not daily testing at the morning briefing, resulted in immediate termination with not prospect of appeal. These "professional" players are getting paid shit loads more than I was and don't face that.
That is well aside from the fact that as very highly paid professionals they are getting paid to maintain a certain physical conditioning as part of their "job". Such substances are not conducive to high performance and even if they weren't banned should well be regarded as justifiable cause for contract termination.
My entire working life has been spent in industries where a single positive test, and many places were weekly if not daily testing at the morning briefing, resulted in immediate termination with not prospect of appeal. These "professional" players are getting paid shit loads more than I was and don't face that.
Gnostic
Mark Ella (57)
That is actually been shown to be a myth. It will improved the drug F*&%^ idiot who has been a long term user because they struggle to function at a "normal" level without the gear.
A good series with filmed for TV a few years back and narrated by the late Robin Williams - Your Body on Drugs and showed the physiological effects of various substances very well.
T
TOCC
Guest
I don't buy into this suggestion that "everyone does it so it's ok", I live In the eastern suburbs of Sydney and sit in the demographic of those who are allegedly are all on cocaine.. i don't do it, never have and never will... and my social circle don't touch it either.
I have my reasons for not touching drugs, I did them when I was younger and I lost a very good mate at a young age as a byproduct of psychotic episodes brought on by his drug use.
I also work in a job where i can't take drugs and I get randomly tested, but even without testing I wouldn't touch it.
If someone wants to do it, then full power to them, that's their prerogative and they assume the risk of taking those actions.
Professional athletes are professional because sponsors pay to have their brand associated with them. Companies sponsor teams and individuals, they do it to leverage the marketing power and positive image that those athletes generate.
An athlete getting caught doing drugs isn't just about their actions, it's about the negative press that it generate for the club and the sponsors. It devalues the team and the athletes sponsorship value.
Whether you have a philosophical opposition to the laws on drugs isn't the point, the issue is they are illegal, it's associated with criminals and generates negative press.
I won't even start on the role that drugs like cocaine play as a gateway drug. JOC (James O'Connor) is currently injured and supposed to be in rehab, cocaine and drinking certainly doesn't accelerate the healing process, he has no knowledge over the quality of the drugs, where they were made or what's actually in them. My roommate used to get on it, a decent night partying would leave him a fragile wreck for the next 48hours.. how's that fit into the schedule of a professional athlete?
I have my reasons for not touching drugs, I did them when I was younger and I lost a very good mate at a young age as a byproduct of psychotic episodes brought on by his drug use.
I also work in a job where i can't take drugs and I get randomly tested, but even without testing I wouldn't touch it.
If someone wants to do it, then full power to them, that's their prerogative and they assume the risk of taking those actions.
Professional athletes are professional because sponsors pay to have their brand associated with them. Companies sponsor teams and individuals, they do it to leverage the marketing power and positive image that those athletes generate.
An athlete getting caught doing drugs isn't just about their actions, it's about the negative press that it generate for the club and the sponsors. It devalues the team and the athletes sponsorship value.
Whether you have a philosophical opposition to the laws on drugs isn't the point, the issue is they are illegal, it's associated with criminals and generates negative press.
I won't even start on the role that drugs like cocaine play as a gateway drug. JOC (James O'Connor) is currently injured and supposed to be in rehab, cocaine and drinking certainly doesn't accelerate the healing process, he has no knowledge over the quality of the drugs, where they were made or what's actually in them. My roommate used to get on it, a decent night partying would leave him a fragile wreck for the next 48hours.. how's that fit into the schedule of a professional athlete?
Good idea Tex.
Time to draw a line.
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
Time to draw a line.
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
swingpass
Peter Sullivan (51)
and inhale
Tex
Greg Davis (50)
Froggy
Nicholas Shehadie (39)
This is simple, it's illegal.
It's the same if he was caught drink driving or any other offence. I don't care how many people do it (not that many in my circle, but maybe I just move in the wrong circles), you are breaking the law.
If you don't like the drug laws (and there are some pretty good arguments that they should be changed), campaign against them, join a law reform group, stand for politics.
However, using and possessing cocaine is presently a criminal offence, simple as that.
It's the same if he was caught drink driving or any other offence. I don't care how many people do it (not that many in my circle, but maybe I just move in the wrong circles), you are breaking the law.
If you don't like the drug laws (and there are some pretty good arguments that they should be changed), campaign against them, join a law reform group, stand for politics.
However, using and possessing cocaine is presently a criminal offence, simple as that.
amirite
Chilla Wilson (44)
Well, there's some very good debates against that first point. Risk to self V risk to others being one.
As far as that second point though, the lack of acknowledgement of the separation between ethics and law is pretty absolutist. I think there's more room for nuance than that.
And saying you don't have the right to a point of view unless you're extremely civically engaged is a bit silly too. Normal people can have views.
I guess we just disagree.
- Status