Help for British champs

Users viewing topic: & 1 Guest

tokar		...	28-05-2007 @ 13:11
Невыносимо Высокомерный (RIP) Member 11, 965 posts SQ 190, BP 140, DL 255 585.0 kgs @ 95kgs UnEq	Originally posted by Martin1956... My understanding is no problem in BWLA but possible problem in BDFPA, because its constitution and rules are more explicitly anti-doping and require its members effectively not to associate (e.g. lift with/ train with etc.) with lifters who "supplement". That's ridiculous. Not event train with? How absurdly arrogant.

Martin1956		...	28-05-2007 @ 13:13
Old Age Presser Member 75, 7739 posts SQ 0, BP 200, DL 200 400.0 kgs @ 105kgs Eq	By the way I've been asked to do a stint on the mike, so I'll be down on the Sunday but not the Saturday. If you guys are getting tee shirts, do I get a tie?!

Rob		...	28-05-2007 @ 13:15
Does f*ck all for SugdenBarbell.co.uk Member 1, 7173 posts SQ 182.5, BP 110, DL 205 497.5 kgs @ 107kgs UnEq Administrator	Post Edited: 28.05.2007 @ 13:21 PM In that case I think the BDFPA rules are one step too far. To suggest you can't train with someone supplementing is ridiculous in my opinion. I think supplementing is an individual choice and as long as people compete in the federation that they are supposed to then really who's business is it who you train or associate with. Thanks for clearing it up about the training sessions Jim, Bryn did mention that anyone off the site was welcome but obviously Tony was just being a bit of a wind-up merchant. Although now you've gone to the trouble of clarifying everything maybe he will actually make the trip down from Middlesborough for one of the sessions

Martin1956		...	28-05-2007 @ 13:24
Old Age Presser Member 75, 7739 posts SQ 0, BP 200, DL 200 400.0 kgs @ 105kgs Eq	Originally posted by tokar... Originally posted by Martin1956... My understanding is no problem in BWLA but possible problem in BDFPA, because its constitution and rules are more explicitly anti-doping and require its members effectively not to associate (e.g. lift with/ train with etc.) with lifters who "supplement". That's ridiculous. Not event train with? How absurdly arrogant. On the face of it, yes Jon it is. But if you go back to the formation of the Drug Free Association in the '80s, the testing was crap, clean guys were feeling "cheated" by the system and when they formed their own association they built quite strong anti-doping wording into their constitution. The way I interpret it (and if you go on the BDFPA website and click on Constitution you can read it for yourself) if you just happen to find yourself at a training session or in a gym with a lifter who's let's called it untested, that's ok. But if you organise a training session and invite untested lifters to come along, you're effectively promoting drug use/abuse. I'm reluctant to name names, but say I were to take up a world champion's kind offer to come over and train with him in Leeds, I think that would be anti BDFPA rules. But if I went to Jim and Bryn's session and there just happened to be an untested lifter there, that wouldn't be a problem. If somebody else can shed more light on this, I'd be interested to read it.

Wogihao		...	28-05-2007 @ 13:30
Has turned into a fucking nobhead - any guesses as to what caused it ?? Member 30, 520 posts SQ 185, BP 160, DL 200 545.0 kgs @ 91kgs UnEq	But how would that work in practice, if you went to my gym or any serious gym you would be around people useing performance enhancers. and thats just a bodybuilding place imagine the issue you would have with a powerlifting or barbell club! what are you suposed to do ask everyone else to leave or train in your basement????


Martin1956		...	28-05-2007 @ 13:42
Old Age Presser Member 75, 7739 posts SQ 0, BP 200, DL 200 400.0 kgs @ 105kgs Eq	s**t! What have I started?! I train in a gym with lots of guys who juice. That's not a problem. But if I started coaching them and going along to untested comps as their coach, that would be a problem. If I got a job behind the desk in a gym where under the counter gear was sold, that would probably be a problem as well, even if I wasn't selling it. But just being in a gym at the same time as guys that juice is not a problem in itself. I think... Have a look at the constitution. I might be seeing something that isn't there.

Tony		...	28-05-2007 @ 13:53
Is partial to the odd bender. Member 6, 10239 posts SQ 280, BP 192.5, DL 317.5 790.0 kgs @ 102kgs Eq	Cheers for clearing that up lads. I'm always prepared to train with people who will have something to teach me regardless of Federation. We are all powerlifters at the end of the day.

tokar		...	28-05-2007 @ 17:22
Невыносимо Высокомерный (RIP) Member 11, 965 posts SQ 190, BP 140, DL 255 585.0 kgs @ 95kgs UnEq	The BDFPA maintains the right if it so chooses, to refuse membership to individuals who : e) Have been or who are involved with organisations or associations whose aims or stance is not considered compatible with the aims and/or stance of the BDFPA. f) Have in any way aided or abetted individuals to drug abuse. g) Have in any way helped or supported athletes/lifters or sports people to pursue their sporting endeavours when known to be abusing drugs, or those who have supported or participated with organisations whose stance or drug control is not considered by the BDFPA to be compatible with the aims and/or stance of the BDFPA. h) Have been or who are involved with organisations which have patently failed to do everything possible to stop drug abuse or have sought to bring drug control methods into disrepute. i) Have been or who are involved with organisations that accept as competitors, athletes/lifters under suspension or life ban for drug abuse or anti-social behaviour. j) It feels are in any way unsuitable, without giving a reason. e), h) and i) are not unlike the IPF rules that disallow lifters from competing in utested feds or even in tested feds against lifters who have tested positive. f) is a bit odd but is in line with the thinking behind BDFPA's existence. g) is what Martin must be referring to - but it seems to me only to rule out helping someone who is juicing, not being helped by someone who is juicing (although if you were regularly training with such a person it would be difficult to distinguish). This rule seems to me rather harsh and unnecessary. j) is quite simply outrageous and sounds like it belongs in the John Reid Powerlifting Association.

Rick		...	28-05-2007 @ 20:35
I am a bench-only guy Member 3, 10035 posts SQ 185, BP 175, DL 235 595.0 kgs @ 140kgs UnEq Administrator	Well, I for one am very glad that our dirty little (and not so little) friends will be welcome at the training sessions . I thought that the IPF ban of Siders for competing in the same event as Coan was outrageous, personally, and these BDFPA rules are worse. I'm glad the BWLA NW is being run by people who are sane and balanced as well as crazy strong.

Martin1956		...	28-05-2007 @ 21:23
Old Age Presser Member 75, 7739 posts SQ 0, BP 200, DL 200 400.0 kgs @ 105kgs Eq	Originally posted by tokar... The BDFPA maintains the right if it so chooses, to refuse membership to individuals who : e) Have been or who are involved with organisations or associations whose aims or stance is not considered compatible with the aims and/or stance of the BDFPA. f) Have in any way aided or abetted individuals to drug abuse. g) Have in any way helped or supported athletes/lifters or sports people to pursue their sporting endeavours when known to be abusing drugs, or those who have supported or participated with organisations whose stance or drug control is not considered by the BDFPA to be compatible with the aims and/or stance of the BDFPA. h) Have been or who are involved with organisations which have patently failed to do everything possible to stop drug abuse or have sought to bring drug control methods into disrepute. i) Have been or who are involved with organisations that accept as competitors, athletes/lifters under suspension or life ban for drug abuse or anti-social behaviour. j) It feels are in any way unsuitable, without giving a reason. e), h) and i) are not unlike the IPF rules that disallow lifters from competing in utested feds or even in tested feds against lifters who have tested positive. f) is a bit odd but is in line with the thinking behind BDFPA's existence. g) is what Martin must be referring to - but it seems to me only to rule out helping someone who is juicing, not being helped by someone who is juicing (although if you were regularly training with such a person it would be difficult to distinguish). This rule seems to me rather harsh and unnecessary. j) is quite simply outrageous and sounds like it belongs in the John Reid Powerlifting Association. j. is quite a common provision in constitutions ( I used to write the damn things) and is there to give the organisation discretion to remove someone who has behaved inappropriately in a manner not covered by the written rules. For example if someone stripped naked after a successful deadlift and pissed in the judge's tea and said "Test that, you bald old fcuker," they might expect expulsion, even though their offence is not specifically mentioned in the constitution. The j. clause, as most of the others, normally allows an appeal against the decision to the national council, so it's not quite as draconian as it might at first appear.

brynevans		...	28-05-2007 @ 21:46
Scotbasher - forever Member 59, 2115 posts	It would be interesting to see if the BDFPA had actually enforced these rules to the extent that someone was guilty by association? The training sessions were aimed at getting people together and attracting new people into the sport. Not everyone has the benefits of training with other lifters or indeed knows about how a contest runs. As far as a format goes it depends on the ability levels that come on the day, which is why it would be useful to get an idea of numbers and ability beforehand. Maybe a short talk from Jim then everyone get warmed up for squats, then bench, then deadlifts as per a contest. Its up to the individual whether you want to do "reps" to fit in with your current training or singles if you fancy going heavier. You could bring along a copy of there current training routine for critique? We'd welcome some input from you all about what you would want to get out of the day, there are a few very experienced lifters have indicated they will come along and Chris who owns Rhinos is also a BWLA registed coach so there should be enough experienced people at hand. So this is not an "official" BWLA event but obviously we are going to encourage any new lifters to join BWLA in preference to any other organisation and there maybe some BPC sinners who wish to repent!

tokar		...	29-05-2007 @ 21:50
Невыносимо Высокомерный (RIP) Member 11, 965 posts SQ 190, BP 140, DL 255 585.0 kgs @ 95kgs UnEq	j. is quite a common provision in constitutions ( I used to write the damn things) and is there to give the organisation discretion to remove someone who has behaved inappropriately in a manner not covered by the written rules. For example if someone stripped naked after a successful deadlift and pissed in the judge's tea and said "Test that, you bald old fcuker," they might expect expulsion, even though their offence is not specifically mentioned in the constitution. The j. clause, as most of the others, normally allows an appeal against the decision to the national council, so it's not quite as draconian as it might at first appear. Nonetheless I think a little bit of application and they could have come up with something sufficiently general to exclude obviously unacceptable behaviour without making it sound so Stalinist. I understand that appeals will be heard but it seems unnecessary to have the clause "without giving a reason" unless you actually intend to give yourself the option of booting someone out in a fairly Kafkaesque fashion.

1 2

You are here: Home → Forum → General Bullshit → Help for British champs

RETURN TO TOP