Most expensive buggy hire ever

[HomerJSimpson]

Ludicrous at this level. Take it to a simple base level. How many of us (myself included) take all sort of drugs for ailments like diabetes, cholesterol, blood pressure, heart conditions etc. I am sure if you dug deep enough some of these components would be on the banned list in some derivative. Does that mean we are all DQ'd and should hand any winnings, trophies etc back. Of course not. We play the game for fun and unless we are ever going to hit the higher levels and start competing at top end amateur level its not going to make a difference

 

[Kellfire]

I suppose you have never broken any rules then. Ever done 31mph in a 30?

How’s that relevant to my question?

Google whataboutery.

 

[Deleted Member 1156]

How’s that relevant to my question?

Google whataboutery.

It's relevant because it's breaking a rule. Something you seem to be claiming nobody should ever do.

 

[Kellfire]

It's relevant because it's breaking a rule. Something you seem to be claiming nobody should ever do.

Show me where I claimed that.

When you try you’ll actually see me asking someone to clarify their stance on breaking rules without once stating my own.

You’ll also see that I don’t compare incomparable situations, whereas you have.

 

[Deleted Member 1156]

Show me where I claimed that.

When you try you’ll actually see me asking someone to clarify their stance on breaking rules without once stating my own.

You’ll also see that I don’t compare incomparable situations, whereas you have.

OK, let's look at this a slightly different way. Why should I engage in a discussion with you when you have openly stated yourself that you like to post controversial opinions?

 

[PhilTheFragger]

Oh look

Another thread that has "CLOSE ME " written all over it..........................

 

[Kellfire]

OK, let's look at this a slightly different way. Why should I engage in a discussion with you when you have openly stated yourself that you like to post controversial opinions?

I haven’t given any opinions.

And so you only talk to people who agree with you?

I suggest you take this topic back on topic and perhaps answer my questions.

 

[Deleted member 25172]

Hmm.

“Show ignored content”.

Nah, I’ll pass. I know roughly what he has to say anyway, and which is why it’s ignored.

 

[Deleted Member 1156]

I haven’t given any opinions.

And so you only talk to people who agree with you?

I suggest you take this topic back on topic and perhaps answer my questions.

No, I don't only talk to people who agree with me.
You questioned my ability to make a judgement based on common sense, thanks for that. Do you walk around with rule books to cover every eventuality and consult them before making a decision? Or do you apply common sense and make what is 'probably' the correct decision in most cases?

 

[PhilTheFragger]

May I refer current posters to post number 206 above.................

 

[Deleted Member 1156]

Oh look

Another thread that has "CLOSE ME " written all over it..........................

May I refer current posters to post number 206 above.................

Just seen that Phil, probably not a bad idea to be honest

 

[Kellfire]

No, I don't only talk to people who agree with me.
You questioned my ability to make a judgement based on common sense, thanks for that. Do you walk around with rule books to cover every eventuality and consult them before making a decision? Or do you apply common sense and make what is 'probably' the correct decision in most cases?

Maybe I agree with you on this. You don’t know BECAUSE I HAVEN’T SAID.

 

[ExRabbit]

 

[backwoodsman]

You are right.

Having re-read it, my understanding is the list of limitations you post apply to doping control (testing) but the use of prohibited substances is still banned at all levels, just not policed or tested for.

FWIW, I don't think you are "understanding" correctly. You appear to be restricting the use of the phrase "anti drug control" to the element of testing. I don't see anything in the document that limits the phrase that way. I think it is very evident that "anti drug control" relates to the whole gamut of systems, strategies & processes to intended to eliminate inappropriate drug use. Testing & investigation ("control" as you choose to term it), is only a subset of the overall rules.

But to illustrate ...

1. The "prohibited list" lists the substances of concern (Lemsip may or may not be in it - I haven't checked 😁)
2. It is only the anti doping rules which prohibit the use of prohibited substances (effectively para 2.1)
3. The anti doping rules only apply to those persons defined as "players"within the rules .
4. The rules don't define us mere mortals as "players", (para 1.2.1 and the definitions).
5. Therefore the prohibition doesn't apply to us at our level.

If you look at the formal definition of "player" it is clear a National body could include us if it so chose (& presumably if it could justify it). But para 1.2.1 clearly shows they have not chosen to do so.

I'm now off to Boots to stock up for the weekend - I might slip a few sachets into the bag of anyone who finishes above me at the weekend. But I don't think its worth it .

 

[Dibby]

FWIW, I don't think you are "understanding" correctly. You appear to be restricting the use of the phrase "anti drug control" to the element of testing. I don't see anything in the document that limits the phrase that way. I think it is very evident that "anti drug control" relates to the whole gamut of systems, strategies & processes to intended to eliminate inappropriate drug use. Testing & investigation ("control" as you choose to term it), is only a subset of the overall rules.

But to illustrate ...

1. The "prohibited list" lists the substances of concern (Lemsip may or may not be in it - I haven't checked 😁)
2. It is only the anti doping rules which prohibit the use of prohibited substances (effectively para 2.1)
3. The anti doping rules only apply to those persons defined as "players"within the rules .
4. The rules don't define us mere mortals as "players", (para 1.2.1 and the definitions).
5. Therefore the prohibition doesn't apply to us at our level.

If you look at the formal definition of "player" it is clear a National body could include us if it so chose (& presumably if it could justify it). But para 1.2.1 clearly shows they have not chosen to do so.

I'm now off to Boots to stock up for the weekend - I might slip a few sachets into the bag of anyone who finishes above me at the weekend. But I don't think its worth it .

Actually, having re-read it, I take back my comment from my previous post.

The guidance published in 2016 clearly states:

England Golf has in place a set of anti-doping rules that all athletes, coaches and athlete support personnel must abide by. The anti-doping rules for England Golf are consistent with the World Anti-Doping Code (2015 Code), which governs anti-doping internationally.You can find the UK Anti-Doping Rules [www.ukad.org.uk/resources/document/uk-anti-doping-rules] here.(1)The anti-doping rules of England Golf are the UK Anti-Doping Rules published by UK Anti-Doping (or its successor), as amended from time to time. Such rules shall take effect and be construed as the rules of England Golf. If you are a member of England Golf then the anti-doping rules apply to you, regardless of what level you participate at.

There are 2 points I take from this (bolded parts in particular):

1. Whatever rules they published under their own name in 2015 have been superceded by the UKADA rules.
2. The rules apply to everyone, regardless of level.

 

[backwoodsman]

Actually, having re-read it, I take back my comment from my previous post.

The guidance published in 2016 clearly states:



There are 2 points I take from this (bolded parts in particular):

1. Whatever rules they published under their own name in 2015 have been superceded by the UKADA rules.
2. The rules apply to everyone, regardless of level.

I still think you'll find the rules don't apply to everyone. They still only apply to "athletes" who, for the purpose of anti doping rules, are defined within the UKAD rules as "Any Person who competes at any level in the sport under the jurisdiction of the NGB". The normal competitions run by clubs are not under the jurisdiction of the NGB (ie England Golf) - so we are not competing at any level under their jurisdiction - so we are still outside the scope of those rules. There are plenty of comps which are under the jurisdiction of England Golf - the Brabazon Trophy possibly being the most notable - but not ones monthly medal.

 

[PJ87]

I still think you'll find the rules don't apply to everyone. They still only apply to "athletes" who, for the purpose of anti doping rules, are defined within the UKAD rules as "Any Person who competes at any level in the sport under the jurisdiction of the NGB". The normal competitions run by clubs are not under the jurisdiction of the NGB (ie England Golf) - so we are not competing at any level under their jurisdiction - so we are still outside the scope of those rules. There are plenty of comps which are under the jurisdiction of England Golf - the Brabazon Trophy possibly being the most notable - but not ones monthly medal.

I think we should email them and ask look I took a lemsip where do I stand

 

[Dibby]

I still think you'll find the rules don't apply to everyone. They still only apply to "athletes" who, for the purpose of anti doping rules, are defined within the UKAD rules as "Any Person who competes at any level in the sport under the jurisdiction of the NGB". The normal competitions run by clubs are not under the jurisdiction of the NGB (ie England Golf) - so we are not competing at any level under their jurisdiction - so we are still outside the scope of those rules. There are plenty of comps which are under the jurisdiction of England Golf - the Brabazon Trophy possibly being the most notable - but not ones monthly medal.

I think it's pretty clear cut, why do you only bold "competes" and ignore the following words "at any level"?

England golf make the statement.

If you are a member of England Golf then the anti-doping rules apply to you, regardless of what level you participate at.

They obviously consider being a member of England golf as competing under their jurisdiction. I would think it reasonable to assume they correctly understand their own jurisdiction.

I think we should email them and ask look I took a lemsip where do I stand

Can we stop with the lemsip jokes now? I can take a joke at my expense, and it's a funny scenario to consider because although it's technically correct, it's also a bit ridiculous, but just repeating the same thing over and over, doesn't really add to the conversation.

 

[Deleted Member 1156]

Can we stop with the lemsip jokes now? I can take a joke at my expense, and it's a funny scenario to consider because although it's technically correct, it's also a bit ridiculous, but just repeating the same thing over and over, doesn't really add to the conversation.

OK, we can change it to ibuprofen if you prefer?

 

[Dibby]

OK, we can change it to ibuprofen if you prefer?

If you're going to make a bad joke, at least get it technically correct, and pick a substance that is actually on the banned list.