Thursday, February 07, 2013

Only a little bit of effort

The announcement on Tuesday that Essendon Football Club had called in the AFL and the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority in relation to supplements administered to some players in 2012 has created a tsunami of speculation. Fair enough. It’s a big issue and the implications are potentially devastating.

 

Sadly, some of the reporting has barely reached rudimentary. An example is Greg Baum’s story in The Age today.

 

There’s one crucial part of the story that suggests only the most rudimentary research has been done before writing. Baum writes:

Speculation centres on something called peptide. On ASADA's list, it is banned as a substance, in and out of competition, but permissible as a ''product''.

Last year, says ASADA's register, three Queensland amateur rugby players were caught in possession of, using and/or trafficking peptide, and suspended for two to four years.

There’s a lot in common between this story and the apparently magical special ingredients supposedly found in many women’s cosmetics. Take a simple word from chemistry that few average people would be familiar with, and dress it up as something extraordinary.

 

There is no “substance” called peptide. A peptide is a short chain of amino acids linked by a particular type of bond — a peptide bond, as it happens. A polypeptide is a long, unbroken chain of peptides. Polypeptides are the building blocks of proteins. Proteins are everywhere in organic chemistry. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peptide

 

AussieRulesBlog found this information in about 45 seconds.

 

Why is this important? Baum’s clear implication is that Essendon players have been using, perhaps inadvertently, a banned substance. The fact is that eating a steak is taking peptides, because the muscle tissue in the steak is built from proteins — which are made up of peptides.

 

The second part of Baum’s assertion focuses on the implications of taking a banned substance. “Peptide…” says Baum, “… is on ASADA’s list… [and] …is banned as a substance.” Well, that’s sort of true, but a long way from the full story.

 

A small number of very specific peptides are on ASADA’s list.

 

asada_peptide 

It’s immediately clear why this issue is big. These banned peptides are responsible for promoting the release of growth hormone which induces the user’s body to create more muscle mass.

 

Regular readers will know that AussieRulesBlog is a passionate Bombers supporter. We are not defending Essendon, because we don’t know what is happening behind closed doors.

 

Notwithstanding our own club loyalties, we would expect a senior journalist to have spent the couple of minutes we spent in researching and to be able to inform his readership more effectively than mimicking a cosmetics commercial. It’s a reflection on the quality of the journalism that the story wasn’t written in that way.

 

As an unfortunate side issue, we were mildly concerned when the Bombers’ 2013 membership collateral began appearing emblazoned with the tagline “Whatever it takes”. We’re betting that someone is wishing they’d knocked back that brazen proposition in favour of something less . . . provocative.

 

As a Bombers fan, we hope the Bombers are found to be clean. As a football fan, we’re wondering about the trajectory of the game we love. “Whatever it takes” implies an ends justify the means attitude that thumbs its nose at rules and regulations. The Bombers aren’t alone in the mindspace to move heaven and earth to achieve success. In the sport as big business era, success seems to be everything and AussieRulesBlog isn’t sure that’s a good place to be. That must sound rather trite to a Bulldogs or Demons fan.

 

The spectre of clubs doing less than their utmost in pursuit of a specific goal isn’t new. Priority draft picks almost mandated those actions. Success, or at least a vision of the future that promises a realistic chance of success, seems to be a ‘fix’ that few can deny themselves.

 

Despite more comfortable stadiums, despite fitter and stronger and more skillful professional players, despite the depredations of the ‘outer’ at suburban football grounds and standing freezing in the rain on the hill, we really miss those days when success was enjoyed, but we were almost as well pleased just to see our boys give a good account of themselves.

 

Whatever it takes? We’re not sure we want to buy that product.

No comments:

Only a little bit of effort

The announcement on Tuesday that Essendon Football Club had called in the AFL and the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority in relation to supplements administered to some players in 2012 has created a tsunami of speculation. Fair enough. It’s a big issue and the implications are potentially devastating.

 

Sadly, some of the reporting has barely reached rudimentary. An example is Greg Baum’s story in The Age today.

 

There’s one crucial part of the story that suggests only the most rudimentary research has been done before writing. Baum writes:

Speculation centres on something called peptide. On ASADA's list, it is banned as a substance, in and out of competition, but permissible as a ''product''.

Last year, says ASADA's register, three Queensland amateur rugby players were caught in possession of, using and/or trafficking peptide, and suspended for two to four years.

There’s a lot in common between this story and the apparently magical special ingredients supposedly found in many women’s cosmetics. Take a simple word from chemistry that few average people would be familiar with, and dress it up as something extraordinary.

 

There is no “substance” called peptide. A peptide is a short chain of amino acids linked by a particular type of bond — a peptide bond, as it happens. A polypeptide is a long, unbroken chain of peptides. Polypeptides are the building blocks of proteins. Proteins are everywhere in organic chemistry. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peptide

 

AussieRulesBlog found this information in about 45 seconds.

 

Why is this important? Baum’s clear implication is that Essendon players have been using, perhaps inadvertently, a banned substance. The fact is that eating a steak is taking peptides, because the muscle tissue in the steak is built from proteins — which are made up of peptides.

 

The second part of Baum’s assertion focuses on the implications of taking a banned substance. “Peptide…” says Baum, “… is on ASADA’s list… [and] …is banned as a substance.” Well, that’s sort of true, but a long way from the full story.

 

A small number of very specific peptides are on ASADA’s list.

 

asada_peptide 

It’s immediately clear why this issue is big. These banned peptides are responsible for promoting the release of growth hormone which induces the user’s body to create more muscle mass.

 

Regular readers will know that AussieRulesBlog is a passionate Bombers supporter. We are not defending Essendon, because we don’t know what is happening behind closed doors.

 

Notwithstanding our own club loyalties, we would expect a senior journalist to have spent the couple of minutes we spent in researching and to be able to inform his readership more effectively than mimicking a cosmetics commercial. It’s a reflection on the quality of the journalism that the story wasn’t written in that way.

 

As an unfortunate side issue, we were mildly concerned when the Bombers’ 2013 membership collateral began appearing emblazoned with the tagline “Whatever it takes”. We’re betting that someone is wishing they’d knocked back that brazen proposition in favour of something less . . . provocative.

 

As a Bombers fan, we hope the Bombers are found to be clean. As a football fan, we’re wondering about the trajectory of the game we love. “Whatever it takes” implies an ends justify the means attitude that thumbs its nose at rules and regulations. The Bombers aren’t alone in the mindspace to move heaven and earth to achieve success. In the sport as big business era, success seems to be everything and AussieRulesBlog isn’t sure that’s a good place to be. That must sound rather trite to a Bulldogs or Demons fan.

 

The spectre of clubs doing less than their utmost in pursuit of a specific goal isn’t new. Priority draft picks almost mandated those actions. Success, or at least a vision of the future that promises a realistic chance of success, seems to be a ‘fix’ that few can deny themselves.

 

Despite more comfortable stadiums, despite fitter and stronger and more skillful professional players, despite the depredations of the ‘outer’ at suburban football grounds and standing freezing in the rain on the hill, we really miss those days when success was enjoyed, but we were almost as well pleased just to see our boys give a good account of themselves.

 

Whatever it takes? We’re not sure we want to buy that product.

0 comments: