Author Topic: IFBB Pro League Rules Article - 8 Drug Testing (Read 4854 times)

John Romano · « **on:** September 22, 2006, 08:28:48 AM »

Right from the Pro League Rules from the IFBB website:

"8.5 List of Prohibited Substances and Prohibited Methods:
The Pro League Medical Committee at its discretion will determine the
substances and methods that are prohibited, that are to be tested for, and that
constitute a doping offence. A list of prohibited substances and methods will be
maintained by the Pro League Medical Committee and will be made available to
all Athletes. The Pro League adopts the Rule of Strict Liability wherein Athletes
are solely responsible for what is found in their samples."

I know several pros and none of them have seen such a list. Hell, none of them have even seen the damn rule book! Have any of you guys I don't know ever seen this list? Or a rule book? Have any of you been tested?

Deciding to enforce one rule while flouting the others is going to make it hard for the IFBB's lawyers to prevail when Lee sues them.

sarcasm · « **Reply #1 on:** September 22, 2006, 08:31:21 AM »

hahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

John Romano · « **Reply #2 on:** September 22, 2006, 08:33:27 AM »

Quote from: Adam Empire on September 22, 2006, 08:31:02 AM

I bolded the unreadable part.

Thanks. I just learned you can't highlight in yellow

Chick · « **Reply #3 on:** September 22, 2006, 08:38:34 AM »

The rulebook is located on the IFBB website and can be downloaded if anyone cares enough to see it...

BTW John...to this date, not one pro has expressed concern to me as to why they HAVEN'T been tested.

When they start testing one person, and not another...now we have an issue with "selectively enforcing the rules".

John Romano · « **Reply #4 on:** September 22, 2006, 08:41:33 AM »

Quote from: Chick on September 22, 2006, 08:38:34 AM

The rulebook is located on the IFBB website and can be downloaded if anyone cares enough to see it...

BTW John...to this date, not one pro has expressed concern to me as to why they HAVEN'T been tested.

With all due respect, Bob, it is not up to the members to police the organization. If the federation has promulgated a set of rules they should follow ALL of them, not just pick and choose those that are economical or convenient.

Mr. Intenseone · « **Reply #5 on:** September 22, 2006, 08:42:21 AM »

Quote from: Chick on September 22, 2006, 08:38:34 AM

When they start testing one person, and not another...now we have an issue with "selectively enforcing the rules".

Stupid statement......you don't think suspending Lee for going to another organization and not drug testing isn't "selectively enforcing the rules"??

Nice spin Bob!!

warchild · « **Reply #6 on:** September 22, 2006, 08:44:06 AM »

Quote from: John Romano on September 22, 2006, 08:41:33 AM

With all due respect, Bob, it is not up to the members to police the organization. If the federation has promulgated a set of rules they should follow ALL of them, not just pick and choose those that are economical or convenient.

Excellent point John

Lift Studios · « **Reply #7 on:** September 22, 2006, 08:44:17 AM »

Quote from: John Romano on September 22, 2006, 08:28:48 AM

Deciding to enforce one rule while flouting the others is going to make it hard for the IFBB's lawyers to prevail when Lee sues them.

Rick Collins writes for you guys and you're friends with him. What's his take on this, considering he is the IFBB legal counsel?

Lift Studios · « **Reply #8 on:** September 22, 2006, 08:45:59 AM »

Quote from: John Romano on September 22, 2006, 08:41:33 AM

With all due respect, Bob, it is not up to the members to police the organization. If the federation has promulgated a set of rules they should follow ALL of them, not just pick and choose those that are economical or convenient.

MONSTER need of a dictionary after reading this post.

Bob - care to break out your jaywalking analogy on this one again?

John Romano · « **Reply #9 on:** September 22, 2006, 08:46:27 AM »

Quote from: Lift Studios on September 22, 2006, 08:44:17 AM

Rick Collins writes for you guys and you're friends with him. What's his take on this, considering he is the IFBB legal counsel?

Rick and I haven't been able to have a conversation "on the record" regarding this. As soon as we do, I'll let you know.

Chick · « **Reply #10 on:** September 22, 2006, 08:46:38 AM »

Quote from: Mr. Intenseone on September 22, 2006, 08:42:21 AM

Stupid statement......you don't think suspending Lee for going to another organization and not drug testing isn't "selectively enforcing the rules"??

Nice spin Bob!!

No, I don't...If they suspended Lee and not Valentin, THATS selective and certainly not fair.

It's clearly stated in the rule book that the IFBB retains the right to drug test,l and if your found in violation, you can be suspended, etc...

John Romano · « **Reply #11 on:** September 22, 2006, 08:47:51 AM »

Quote from: Lift Studios on September 22, 2006, 08:45:59 AM

MONSTER need of a dictionary after reading this post.

Bob - care to break out your jay walking analogy on this one again?

promulgate |?präm?l?g?t; pr??m?l-| verb [ trans. ] promote or make widely known (an idea or cause) : these objectives have to be promulgated within the organization. See note at announce . • put (a law or decree) into effect by official proclamation : in January 1852, the new constitution was promulgated.

Hope this helps

jaejonna · « **Reply #12 on:** September 22, 2006, 08:48:28 AM »

Its funny that people think that Chick can do things to change the decisions of the 'powers' that be. He is only a messenger and representative, he has no true power to do anything. Dont be so hard on him

sarcasm · « **Reply #13 on:** September 22, 2006, 08:49:01 AM »

Quote from: John Romano on September 22, 2006, 08:47:51 AM

promulgate |?präm?l?g?t; pr??m?l-| verb [ trans. ] promote or make widely known (an idea or cause) : these objectives have to be promulgated within the organization. See note at announce . • put (a law or decree) into effect by official proclamation : in January 1852, the new constitution was promulgated.

Hope this helps

are you insinuating that "Lift Studios" is an IFBB towel boy, John?

Lift Studios · « **Reply #14 on:** September 22, 2006, 08:50:30 AM »

Quote from: John Romano on September 22, 2006, 08:47:51 AM

promulgate |?präm?l?g?t; pr??m?l-| verb [ trans. ] promote or make widely known (an idea or cause) : these objectives have to be promulgated within the organization. See note at announce . • put (a law or decree) into effect by official proclamation : in January 1852, the new constitution was promulgated.

Hope this helps

See kids, yet again proving that Getbig is not only highly entertaining but also very informative.

The word of the day is promulgate.

That helped taking a trip to dictionary.com, thanks!

John Romano · « **Reply #15 on:** September 22, 2006, 08:50:39 AM »

Quote from: Chick on September 22, 2006, 08:46:38 AM

No, I don't...If they suspended Lee and not Valentin, THATS selective and certainly not fair.

It's clearly stated in the rule book that the IFBB retains the right to drug test,l and if your found in violation, you can be suspended, etc...

Come on Bob! If they are reserving the right to enforce their rules, then they're not rules but merely a suggestion! Like traffic laws in Mexico.

And the article says "will determin" not "might determin."

Chick · « **Reply #16 on:** September 22, 2006, 08:51:07 AM »

Exactly issac...

There are many rules/ laws we live under that are 'selectively enforced"...like jaywalking.

Even nthough it's clearly against the law, punishable by fine/ imprisonment...rarely do they enforce it.

Whether or not the IFBB CHOOSES to test is irrelevent, the onus is on THEM to impose drug testing...not us....and if they were to test, it would have to be equal.

John Romano · « **Reply #17 on:** September 22, 2006, 08:52:04 AM »

Quote from: sarcasm on September 22, 2006, 08:49:01 AM

are you insinuating that "Lift Studios" is an IFBB towel boy, John?

Of course not! I'm just being my usual helpful self

Chick · « **Reply #18 on:** September 22, 2006, 08:53:17 AM »

Quote from: John Romano on September 22, 2006, 08:50:39 AM

Come on Bob! If they are reserving the right to enforce their rules, then they're not rules but merely a suggestion! Like traffic laws in Mexico.

And the article says "will determin" not "might determin."

It also says "...at it's discretion".

case closed.

sarcasm · « **Reply #19 on:** September 22, 2006, 08:54:05 AM »

"what is a law, it seems to vary from time to time, place to place, what's legal today is suddenly illegal tomorrow because some society says it's so and what's illegal today is suddenly legal because everybody's doing it and you can't put everybody in jail, i'm not saying it's right or wrong i'm just saying that's the way it is"

Billy Hayes in Midnight Express

John Romano · « **Reply #20 on:** September 22, 2006, 08:57:10 AM »

Quote from: Chick on September 22, 2006, 08:51:07 AM

Exactly issac...

There are many rules/ laws we live under that are 'selectively enforced"...like jaywalking.

Even nthough it's clearly against the law, punishable by fine/ imprisonment...rarely do they enforce it.

Whether or not the IFBB CHOOSES to test is irrelevent, the onus is on THEM to impose drug testing...not us....and if they were to test, it would have to be equal.

Okay, so then why would a federation of such few rules choose to enforce the one about not competing anywhere else so you can make a few extra bucks, and choose not to enforce a rule that by flouting it could jeopardize one's health? Clearly that is not the IFBB's intension:

"8.1 Policy Statement:
Sport involves physical health and fitness, mental application and dedication to
training. Doping – the use of prohibited substances and/or prohibited methods –
to artificially enhance performance is unethical, contrary to the concept of fair
play, undermines the values of sport, and can endanger the health of the athletes."

Chick · « **Reply #21 on:** September 22, 2006, 09:04:49 AM »

You know exactly why...because it keeps all the best bodybuilders under the IFBB roof, thus maintaining their dominance over any other BB federation in the world.

It's a rule that was imposed years ago when the IFBB, AAU, NABBA, WABBA, WBBG, etc. were all jockying for position, trying to lure the best to their respective federations, magazines, endorse their products...

It's still a business at the end of the day. Not too different from magazines which have exclusivity, and prevent their athletes from "making a few extra bucks..." writing columns for other magazines. Why should they care? Yes, I realize that the mags are paying their athletes directly...but the IFBB feels that by being exclusive to them, you (as an IFBB athlete) are exposed to more opportunity, bigger prize money, contracts, endorsements, etc...

Hard to argue with the reesults, as more IFBB pro's have contracts, etc. then any other athletes from any other organization...

John Romano · « **Reply #22 on:** September 22, 2006, 09:24:21 AM »

Quote from: Chick on September 22, 2006, 09:04:49 AM

You know exactly why...because it keeps all the best bodybuilders under the IFBB roof, thus maintaining their dominance over any other BB federation in the world.

It's a rule that was imposed years ago when the IFBB, AAU, NABBA, WABBA, WBBG, etc. were all jockying for position, trying to lure the best to their respective federations, magazines, endorse their products...

It's still a business at the end of the day. Not too different from magazines which have exclusivity, and prevent their athletes from "making a few extra bucks..." writing columns for other magazines. Why should they care? Yes, I realize that the mags are paying their athletes directly...but the IFBB feels that by being exclusive to them, you (as an IFBB athlete) are exposed to more opportunity, bigger prize money, contracts, endorsements, etc...

Hard to argue with the reesults, as more IFBB pro's have contracts, etc. then any other athletes from any other organization...

Yes, but they don't have an IFBB contract. If the IFBB was paying the athletes directly, they could have more authority over their earning capacity because they are in fact supplying one.

The IFBB is saying their rules are completely arbitrary and subject to discresion unless you try to seek employment outside the IFBB (who isn't paying you).

Chick · « **Reply #23 on:** September 22, 2006, 09:29:56 AM »

Not exactly...they're saying , "this is what we offer if you pledge your alliegience to us..." No one is forced to join the Pro league/ IFBB...any athlete is free to join any other organization they wish, they just can't do both...that's the right you give up to gain access to all the IFBB has to offer.

dearth · « **Reply #24 on:** September 22, 2006, 09:38:07 AM »

Hey chick,

why don't they drug test IFBB shows?