Most expensive buggy hire ever

[Deleted Member 1156]

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.

If you really want to be pedantic, lemsip isn't currently banned either.

 

[backwoodsman]

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.



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.

The bits I highlighted bold were to emphasise that the rules apply if you are competing under the jurisdiction of the national body - but the whole phrase was lifted straight from the current rules. Yes, you can be competing at any level, and yes England Golf have jurisdiction over various competions at varying levels. But the rules say "competing ... under the jurisdiction of the national body". I still maintain that yer basic monthly medal does not meet that criterion, but it is evident you are not going to agree - so I can't see much point in me arguing further.

 

[Dibby]

The bits I highlighted bold were to emphasise that the rules apply if you are competing under the jurisdiction of the national body - but the whole phrase was lifted straight from the current rules. Yes, you can be competing at any level, and yes England Golf have jurisdiction over various competions at varying levels. But the rules say "competing ... under the jurisdiction of the national body". I still maintain that yer basic monthly medal does not meet that criterion, but it is evident you are not going to agree - so I can't see much point in me arguing further.

One last thought, and then if we still disagree, I will stop there.

It's clear that you are assuming the competition itself is under the jurisdiction of England golf, I think this is where we differ.

"Any Person who competes at any level in the sport under the jurisdiction of the NGB".

Taking the statement above, I am reading the subject of the sentence to be the athlete. So to my interpretation, it is not saying the competition has to be under the jurisdiction of England golf, just the athlete. That is to say, by being a member of England golf, you are within their jurisdiction, even if the competition you play in is not.

If that makes sense, great, if not even if we disagree, at least we understand why the other thinks the way they do.

 

[Deleted Member 1156]

I'm with backwoodsman on this. I don't see how an athlete can come under the jurisdiction of the governing body whereas I can see how a competition does. Once an athlete enters then he comes under its jurisdiction.

 

[PJ87]

I'm with backwoodsman on this. I don't see how an athlete can come under the jurisdiction of the governing body whereas I can see how a competition does. Once an athlete enters then he comes under its jurisdiction.

Just think of it this way.. no matter how fat any of us are we are athletes

 

[Dibby]

I'm with backwoodsman on this. I don't see how an athlete can come under the jurisdiction of the governing body whereas I can see how a competition does. Once an athlete enters then he comes under its jurisdiction.

That would be true if the athlete wasn't a member of England Golf.

By paying your subscription and becoming a member, you come under their jurisdiction through being a member of their organisation.

 

[Deleted Member 1156]

That would be true if the athlete wasn't a member of England Golf.

By paying your subscription and becoming a member, you come under their jurisdiction through being a member of their organisation.

I understand what you are saying but that means every club member in England is bound by WADA rules even if they only enter the odd club stable Ford. Which goes back to not being able to take Lemsip before playing in a medal, it just isn't workable.

 

[Dibby]

I understand what you are saying but that means every club member in England is bound by WADA rules even if they only enter the odd club stable Ford. Which goes back to not being able to take Lemsip before playing in a medal, it just isn't workable.

Yes, exactly, and that's a different point. Of course, it's unworkable, which is why there is no testing and registration because the cost and admin would be huge.

The fact the rule may not be easy to prove, or enforce doesn't remove the existence of the rule.

However, you can't remove the rule, because although most participants will get nowhere near the elite level, without the rule you are saying elite athletes can dope, until they reach the elite level. You could pull a promising youngster out of the representative teams and competitions and drug them up into the bionic man, and then release them back into sanctioned competitions. This is likely less useful for golf than other sports, but the rules are blanket rather than sport specific.

 

[backwoodsman]

Ok, I said I'd not debate further - and I think we'll still disagree, but one final go. (And crikey, it is a lot harder to convey in writing what one is thinking ...)

Starting with..
"Any Person who competes at any level in the sport under the jurisdiction of the NGB"

So, we agree that are talking about golf, and that the "at any level" bit applies, so we can drop the middle bit out. Which leaves us
"Any Person who competes under the jurisdiction of the NGB"

If it was merely the athlete who was under jurisdiction of the NGB, the "who competes" words would be superfluous to the statement.

And as we know, in all things "rules-like", wording tends to be precise - and every word tends to be there for a reason. So, to me, the "who competes... under" bit implies much more than a person simply being under their jurisdiction by default - to me its there to mean competing in something (ie a comp) which is under the jurisdiction of the NGB.

But yes, I think we know why we probably wont agree.

 

[YandaB]

Yes, exactly, and that's a different point. Of course, it's unworkable, which is why there is no testing and registration because the cost and admin would be huge.

The fact the rule may not be easy to prove, or enforce doesn't remove the existence of the rule.

However, you can't remove the rule, because although most participants will get nowhere near the elite level, without the rule you are saying elite athletes can dope, until they reach the elite level. You could pull a promising youngster out of the representative teams and competitions and drug them up into the bionic man, and then release them back into sanctioned competitions. This is likely less useful for golf than other sports, but the rules are blanket rather than sport specific.

Actually there are some sport specific ones. Golf specifies Beta Blockers which I would hazard a guess are taken by many thousands of golfers for good reason (along with advice from the Doctor to get more gentle exercise like golf). Wada page: https://www.wada-ama.org/en/content/what-is-prohibited/prohibited-in-particular-sports indicated that relates to the International Golf Federation of which England Golf, Golf Wales, Scottish Golf Limited and the R&A (amongst many more) are all members. Having been playing at a level of sport in the past where testing was a possibility, I recall many common things other than lemsip which were out of the question, particularly hayfever remedies (without which makes golf impossible for some during the summer).

 

[Dibby]

Actually there are some sport specific ones. Golf specifies Beta Blockers which I would hazard a guess are taken by many thousands of golfers for good reason (along with advice from the Doctor to get more gentle exercise like golf). Wada page: https://www.wada-ama.org/en/content/what-is-prohibited/prohibited-in-particular-sports indicated that relates to the International Golf Federation of which England Golf, Golf Wales, Scottish Golf Limited and the R&A (amongst many more) are all members. Having been playing at a level of sport in the past where testing was a possibility, I recall many common things other than lemsip which were out of the question, particularly hayfever remedies (without which makes golf impossible for some during the summer).

Yes, I was aware, but I didn't want to go too far off track, as for the purposes of golf it is blanket in terms of who is covered by anti-doping. I don't miss not having to check everything on Global DRO!

Ok, I said I'd not debate further - and I think we'll still disagree, but one final go. (And crikey, it is a lot harder to convey in writing what one is thinking ...)

Starting with..
"Any Person who competes at any level in the sport under the jurisdiction of the NGB"

So, we agree that are talking about golf, and that the "at any level" bit applies, so we can drop the middle bit out. Which leaves us
"Any Person who competes under the jurisdiction of the NGB"

If it was merely the athlete who was under jurisdiction of the NGB, the "who competes" words would be superfluous to the statement.

And as we know, in all things "rules-like", wording tends to be precise - and every word tends to be there for a reason. So, to me, the "who competes... under" bit implies much more than a person simply being under their jurisdiction by default - to me its there to mean competing in something (ie a comp) which is under the jurisdiction of the NGB.

But yes, I think we know why we probably wont agree.

I know I said I would leave it, but one last point, you cannot remove parts of the sentence in the way you do to extrapolate a meaning. The sentence must comprise of it's whole to extract the true meaning.

"Any Person who competes"
"competes at any level"

Do you see the meaning of these are different, even though they come from the same sentence?

Everyone is free to interpret this however they like, but I will feel comfortable that I am not too far wrong sticking with what England golf directly say in their guidance, which at the present time is - "If you are a member of England Golf then the anti-doping rules apply to you, regardless of what level you participate at "

 

[Tashyboy]

There's an old saying " common sense Ain't that common after all". Having read some of the Rammel on here. Never had a truer word/ saying been spoken.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

So what about tablets for blood pressure, cholestoral, heart conditions, diabetes to name just a few. Many of us on here, myself included take a plethora of medication daily and I for one second cannot see me getting banned from the club championship or any other event as a result. If you take it to the logical conclusion of having to comply with EGU and drug rulings, there would be minimal participants each week and clubs closing quicker than local pubs

 

[PJ87]

So what about tablets for blood pressure, cholestoral, heart conditions, diabetes to name just a few. Many of us on here, myself included take a plethora of medication daily and I for one second cannot see me getting banned from the club championship or any other event as a result. If you take it to the logical conclusion of having to comply with EGU and drug rulings, there would be minimal participants each week and clubs closing quicker than local pubs

Sorry homer your a cheat .. hand in your clubs, and tour membership and report to the snooker room for debrief

 

[HomerJSimpson]

Sorry homer your a cheat .. hand in your clubs, and tour membership and report to the snooker room for debrief

I'll form a queue with the majority of other club golfers. Best get in front of the seniors and Frag.

 

[richart]

So what about tablets for blood pressure, cholestoral, heart conditions, diabetes to name just a few. Many of us on here, myself included take a plethora of medication daily and I for one second cannot see me getting banned from the club championship or any other event as a result. If you take it to the logical conclusion of having to comply with EGU and drug rulings, there would be minimal participants each week and clubs closing quicker than local pubs

At least you can not be accused of taking performance enhancing drugs.

I would add a smiley but for some reason I can not access on iPad. Gloomy face.

 

[PJ87]

I'll form a clue with the majority of other club golfers. Best get in front of the seniors and Frag.

Maybe we can start a break away golf Union that isn’t bound by the everyone’s a cheat rule

 

[Tashyboy]

Maybe we can start a break away golf Union that isn’t bound by the everyone’s a cheat rule

Al be the treasurer, am good wi money. 😁😘

 

[woofers]

Hey Dibby, next time you feel the need to digress (post no 153), how about starting a new dedicated thread?
That way we wouldn’t have to wade through 80 posts that have eff all to do with the original topic.
Just a thought.

 

[PJ87]

Hey Dibby, next time you feel the need to digress (post no 153), how about starting a new dedicated thread?
That way we wouldn’t have to wade through 80 posts that have eff all to do with the original topic.
Just a thought.

I’d offer some treatment to dibby for that 3rd degree burn you just served him.. however I wouldn’t want him to be breaking the rules of being a club member 🤨