If the Essendon drugs controversy wasn’t around, St Kilda small forward Ahmed Saad testing positive to a banned substance would have rocked the footy world.
However, as more twists and turns dominate this Bombers’ story and even though the Iiterim report from ASADA has been released, an outcome may not happen before the season ends, so the Ahmed Saad drama remains a sub-plot.
The AFL and St Kilda, though, did the wrong thing by allowing Saad to play on the weekend against Brisbane. He came in as a late replacement, with the Saints keeping their cards very close to their chest about whether he would play or not.
How could he play? His A sample tested positive to having a banned substance in his system, like high profile sprinters Asafa Powell and Tyson Gay.
The World Athletics Championships start this week in Russia and even though the details of their B sample are not known yet, you won’t see Powell or Gay in the 100 metres and rightly so.
St Kilda and the AFL can’t really use the innocent until proven guilty argument, because he has already tested positive to one sample.
I still can’t work out what the Saints were trying to do. Saad had to sit the match out and the season out, while he waits for his penalty, even though he has admitted that it was an innocent mistake and that can’t be doubted. But as ASADA has said right throughout the Essendon saga, that ignorance is not an excuse.
St Kilda supporters and footy fans in general may ask why is Jobe Watson able to keep playing for the Bombers after admitting he took AOD. There still appears to be some consternation, according to ASADA documentation, about whether that substance or supplement is on the banned list.
The AFL has always promoted the fact that they have an excellent record when it comes to keeping drugs, whether they be performance enhancing or illicit out of the game, or in the case of the illicit usage, to the bare minimum.
However, it would be fair to say their reputation was tarnished with the appearance of Ahmed Saad in red, black and white colors at the weekend.
The league, through CEO Andrew Demetriou, has been talking the talk that if this lengthy ASADA report shows that Essendon and their players have cases to answer regarding using banned substances, the penalties are more than likely going to be harsh.
However, their attitude seems to have been different so far with Ahmed Saad and again it has to be emphasised that the Saints’ small forward had no intention of doing the wrong thing, but he has tested positive to one sample and that has to be enough reason for stopping him from playing.
This issue appears to have muddied the waters again and with it being such an emotive and delicate topic in such a high profile environment and competition, the AFL can’t pick and choose when to be proactive or not.
There’s too much riding on it for everyone involved in the game not to get it right.
Jack
Guest
From what we have been told, Ahmed took an over the counter supplement, totally unaware that anything in it was prohibited. From what we have been told, it would be fine for him to have this substance in his system during the week, just not on game day. It is a very minor infraction. Sports law expert Paul Horvath again defended Saad's right to play on until a tribunal. "It is regarded as a specified substance for the simple reason that it's regarded as a less serious substance and it's on the basis that it is more likely to have occurred through inadvertent doping." Compared to what happening at Essendon systematic doping over a long period of time, I keep hearing from commentators that essendon FC and the players were not aware of what they were taking and were not aware that it was a prohibited substance..... What a joke !!!! It's funny that people believe that...They knew what they were takingl, just as they knew that peptides are undetectable. It will be interesting to see what suspension Ahmed Saad gets, compared to the Essendon players, some of which have confessed to taking these banned substances, over the course of the year, through injections and intravenously. You know Lance Armstrong never tested positive throughout his career.......
Franko
Guest
I was told that 3 strikes only refers to illicit drugs, not performance enhancing. Hence I can get caught with a healthy wack of Coke or Heroin in my system and it remains between the club doctor and I, yet drinking the wrong sports drink has me taking up inches on the back page.
vicbomber
Guest
Like insulin?
Bob
Guest
Agree Kurt margar & co, Saad's name should NEVER have been released under all protocols unless it was done to..how do I say it, deflect from the EFC AOD issue and interim report scandal??
Johnny Howard
Guest
+1. The tests for drugs and other substances isn't 100% accurate the whole time (its something like 97%) so there is bound to be the odd false positive. Wait for the B sample everyone and keep calm.
margar
Guest
Why did Saad get named when others tested for drugs get a 3 strike option which even their clubs are not told about? Poor form -- are the AFL offering up a sacrificial lamb? If not, why one rule for some, and one rule for another? Oh, btw I am not a Saints fan.
Gecko
Roar Pro
Wasn't Saad's mistake just to drink a can of Red Bull? That stuff's available everywhere. I agree with Bruski above that drinking a commonly available energy drink is nowhere near as serious as injecting wierd stuff into your stomach. Maybe Saad should cop a 2-week suspension but let's not go overboard.
Australian Rules
Guest
Agreed Bill. The Saints looked deliberately provocative...especially given they've won just 3 games this year and could have benefitted from trialling a new kid in place of Saad. He should not have played - buit I understand the muddied context given the Essendon captain admitted taking a banned substance and has continued to play.
Gippy
Guest
I believe the AFL rules allow a player to continue playing until the B Sample comes back positive. If that is the case, then Saad was entitled to play. But the timing couldn't have been more horrible, with the Essendon-ASADA saga still playing out. As Bruski says, the penalties may be well out of kilter with the crime. Bad look, St Kilda.
Nathan of Perth
Guest
He hasn't had his B sample tested, he hasn't been issued an infraction notice. Until then, play.
Kurt
Guest
Maybe some of you could remember that under protocol the fact that Ahmed Saad has tested positive to an A sample should not have been released under protocol. There must have been many athletes who have tested positive to an A sample, remained anonymous, and been fine through the B test. The fact that Ahmed should never have even been released in the media means that no one should even know right now. He was fully within his rights to play especially since It is painfully obvious he has taken a supplement to help him through ramadan.
Bill Larkin
Guest
I can't understand this very poor decision. Saad has been out of the team, and is hardly a world beater. I think the Saints were being deliberately provocative.
Franko
Guest
Allowing Saad to play last weekend certainly was a dangerous precendent to set.
bruski
Roar Pro
I find all this quite difficult. The fact that Saad will get banned for 2 years for having an energy drink on match day is one thing. To then look at the Bombers scandal and see what these boys were given in a systematic implementation of stuff that is perhaps worse than what was in that energy drink get potentially 6 months suspension or even nothing. This boggles my mind, if Saad goes and the Bombers do not then this decision will be worse than the DRS in the current Ashes series.