Speaker 1:
Are you ready?

Speaker 10:
Let's go.

Speaker 1:
From AMI Central. Now, start playing in the Neutral Zone. Here's a pitch on the way 36 yards for the win. This-

Speaker 10:
Here comes the big chance the shot.

Speaker 1:
... Is-

Speaker 10:
This the [inaudible 00:00:14].

Speaker 1:
... The Neutral Zone.

Speaker 10:
Let's go. Home run.

Speaker 1:
This as good it gets.
Now, here's your host, two-time Paralympian Brock Richardson.

Brock Richardson:
What's going on? It's time for another edition of the Neutral Zone. I am indeed your host, Brock Richardson, and I got to tell you that we have a real fascinating show ahead. Let me give you a little teaser of what's coming up on today's program. We speak with good friend Tony Walby about his involvement with the Canadian Center for Ethics in Sports and for those that don't know, that is the governing body which polices doping in sports. So that will be a fascinating conversation coming to you in a little bit. We also give you our thoughts on the interview and our own experiences with drug testing, the good and the bad and its importance. Plus, we will also bring you up to speed on the NBA and NHL playoffs. I'm joined by Josh Watson and Cam Jenkins, Claire Buchanan will return to the program next week. Let's get into our headlines.

Speaker 1:
Neutral Zone headlines. Headlines.

Josh Watson:
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says parents like him need assurance that the culture within Hockey Canada has changed.
We put extremely clear expectations before Hockey Canada before we would restore funding to them. They have indicated a real willingness to move forward on that, but we are going to continue to be extremely vigilant.
Hockey Canada has been mired in controversy for months after it was revealed last May, that the organization had settled a lawsuit with a woman who allegedly has been sexually assaulted by several members of the 2018 World Junior Team.
I believe we're going to talk about this a little bit in at the end of the segment here, but Hockey Canada really has its work cut out for it in order to regain the trust of Canadians after everything that's gone on in the last few years. I really hope that the new board of directors changes the culture and gets us back onto a road of respectability for the organization. But I'm kind of pessimistic and we'll get into it in a bit.

Brock Richardson:
The Canadian Wheelchair Basketball League recently concluded. We send out our congratulations to Team Quebec for being this year's champion. They defeated team BC 67-24. I will tell you that this was a women's event, so that's always fascinating when we get to highlight and showcase women of all sports and we send out our congratulations to Team Quebec who happened to host the event as well.

Cameron Jenkins:
The Calgary Flames and General Manager Brad Treliving have agreed to part ways, the club announced recently. Treliving's contract was set to expire on June 30th. The team also announced the promotion of Don Maloney to President of Hockey Operations and Interim GM. It's going to be another interesting summer in Calgary. Let me tell you about that. He was there for a good nine years and I think GM should be in the job anywhere from five to 10 years and it's good to have some new blood in there with some new ideas, but the problems run deep in Calgary and I don't think that they're going to be or to get any better until Coach Darryl Sutter gets fired.

Brock Richardson:
Wow. For me, I just look at Calgary's situation and I go back to the beginning of the season when they said, "Oh, you guys won the off-season," and Brad Treliving looked at them and said, "Huh? What does that mean? What will that get us? Nothing." In fact, what it did get them was him losing his job. Hopefully, Calgary will get things sorted out in the near future, but just goes to show you that winning or losing the off-season means nothing.
The Toronto Raptors have released their head coach Nick Nurse after 10 years within the organization. I have an interesting stat for you related to this. The Toronto Raptors have released two coaches consecutively that have won Coach of the Year in separate years. They have done this once again in Nick Nurse. It'd be interesting to see what happens in the off-season, but Masai Ujiri, president, had his post-season press conference and he didn't give a lot of information other than to say there will be changes beyond the coaching staff. Those are your headlines for this week.

Cameron Jenkins:
Oh, but Brock, wait one moment. These aren't the end of the headlines. I think Josh has one breaking news headline for us.

Josh Watson:
Yes, indeed. I'm a little short on details right at this very moment, but it appears that Aaron Rodgers of the Green Bay Packers has finally been traded to the New York Jets. Details will be pending.

Brock Richardson:
Well, there you go. I did not see that, so thank you for the breaking news. Appreciate it very much on the program. Those are your headlines for this week.
Let's discuss The government of Canada announced that they would be resending some funding over to Hockey Canada as we heard in your headlines. For me, I want to kick this conversation off by saying I needed a little bit more from Justin Trudeau than we got other than to say we're confident in the changes that have been made, we're confident in the steps that had been taken. There was really nothing concrete that said this is what's going to be happening.
Josh, it was your headline. I'll give you the first sort of crack at this.

Josh Watson:
I just look at this and while I'm not surprised that funding has been restored to Hockey Canada, I do feel that it's too soon. Yes, they have overhauled their board of directors and that is a great start, I still have not really seen anything from the new, quote-unquote, Hockey Canada as to what they are going to do to improve things. I think the last thing we need is for this situation or this story to be swept under the rug. This is a systemic issue and it's a long-standing issue and it needs to be properly addressed and thoroughly rooted out and I just don't know if that has happened yet.

Cameron Jenkins:
At the end of day, you would think that the Canadian government wanted a plan moving forward in writing of what they're going to do and I guess because it's going to the Canadian government or because the Canadian government gives money to Hockey Canada, does that mean that we as private citizens are entitled to that, to see what that is? And I think that's where the real conversation is going to come from, whether or not we're entitled to know that information or not. I think that if they have it in place and they have checks and balances, and I don't know if there needs to be a government watchdog to make sure that whatever was written out needs to be a government watchdog to make sure that that is happening. That's the only thing that I can see that maybe, would make it work.

Brock Richardson:
I just feel like with the amount of money that Canadians put into Hockey Canada, do they need the exact ins and outs of what's going on? No, but I feel like it would be beneficial to do more than just, oh, we're satisfied with what Hockey Canada has done and what we've seen. I think with the governments, and I don't mean to get involved in government discussion here, I think with governments and how people feel whether right, wrong or indifferent, I think the last sort of people that we're trusting are the Prime Minister and company who are saying, "We promise you, we satisfied with these changes." They live on promises that some get kept, some don't. For me, that's kind of where I sit and go, yeah, I needed a little bit more. Did I need everything from A to Z? Not necessarily, but I needed a little bit more than we promise because promises in government can sometimes not be kept.

Cameron Jenkins:
Sometimes. You're being so proper by saying sometimes.
Let me rephrase that for you and say, they hardly ever or seems to hardly ever.

Brock Richardson:
Listen, I'm trying to be diplomatic here, but this is...

Cameron Jenkins:
Allegedly, they keep their promises. Allegedly.

Brock Richardson:
Their whole existence is built on promises, so this is where we go.

Josh Watson:
I agree with you both a little bit about what has been seen, would have been helpful. I certainly haven't seen enough to be comfortable. I have four nephews varying in age from 16 down to seven months and I'm not sure I want them getting involved in hockey right now until I know that it's safe again. I'm not convinced that enough has been done. Do I understand why funding has been restored? Sure, but do I think it's appropriate at this time? No, not yet.

Brock Richardson:
Yeah, it's one of those things that, okay, you've done this, you're okay with it, fine but I think you need to get the trust back of the public and then the sponsors. I've seen plenty of articles that have surfaced and said, "Yeah, you've gotten the backing of the government who gives you a portion of the funding," but none of your sponsors have openly, to the best of my knowledge at this time of the recording, have openly said, "Yes, we'll restore funding because the government of Canada is satisfied," and I think that's where we're going to hear more and more about this as time goes on.
What you're going to hear more and more about now is our program and here's how you can get ahold of us on Twitter.

Speaker 1:
And welcome back to the Neutral Zone AMI broadcast booth.

Speaker 9:
Play Ball.

Speaker 1:
And we are set to get this ballgame underway. The first pitch's brought to you by Brock Richardson's Twitter account at Neutral Zone BR.

Speaker 9:
Strike.

Speaker 1:
First pitch strike and hey, gang. Why not strike up a Twitter chat with Claire Buchanan from the Neutral Zone. Find her at Neutral Zone CB. And there's a swing at a chopper out to second base right at Claire. She picks up the ball, throws it over to first base-

Speaker 9:
Out.

Speaker 1:
... For a routine out.
And fans, there is nothing routine about connecting with Cam and Josh from the Neutral Zone. At Neutral Zone Cam J and at J. Watson 200. Now that's a winning combination.
And this Oregon interlude is brought to you by AMI Audio on Twitter. Get in touch with the Neutral Zone. Type in @AMIAudio.

Brock Richardson:
Our guest for today has become a real friend of the show. When we first had him on, he was talking about being a judo athlete and representing Canada. We had him on again and he spoke about his involvement with the Canadian Paralympic Committee Athlete's Council. This time, we are going to have him on to discuss his involvement for the Centre for Ethics in Sports. I'm talking about Tony Walby from Ottawa, Ontario. Tony, welcome back to the program. Nice to have you along again.

Tony Walby:
Thanks, Brock. I'm glad to be back. I love being on the show.

Josh Watson:
Tony, can we start by talking about exactly what the Canadian Centre for Ethics and Sport is?

Tony Walby:
Sure. I'm sure most of you listeners have heard of WADA, the World Anti-Doping Agency. Every country is mandated to have what is called a national, that doping agency or organization and NATO. Canada's NATO or National Anti-Doping Agency is called the Canadian Centre for Ethics and Sports. We are mandated to have that as a member of the International Olympic Committee in the International Paralympic Committee.

Cameron Jenkins:
Can you maybe tell us how you became involved with the organization?

Tony Walby:
For many years, I sat on Athletes Can Anti-Doping working group for athletes. From that working group, the CEO of the CCES or the Canadian Centre for Ethics and Sports reached out to me and asked me if I would be interested in being on the board of directors. The board of directors, there's 12 board members and there's a skillset board, so they only select people of the skills that they are lacking. I sit on there and I represent a coaching expertise and my expertise in the accessibility technology and accessibility standards and legislation. That's my area of expertise on the board.

Josh Watson:
When we last had you on, Tony, we talked a little bit about this off-air and we could see how passionate you are about the CCES. What is it that brings out that passion for you?

Tony Walby:
I'm very big on fair play and clean sport. I would say my last competitive match, but I did compete in December, but my last Paralympic competitive match was against an Argentinian and I lost that match and it was found later that he was removed from the games for doping. He tested positive for a banned substance and was removed from the game. I found that for myself. I actually didn't feel slighted or cheated in any way because he did lose his [inaudible 00:14:59] match so he was beatable. But I found that my sport had a black mark on it and to me, it hurts more of the sport and hurts more of the integrity of sport when people cheat in any way. I latched on to not only the Anti-Doping [inaudible 00:15:16] Group, which I was a member of at the time, but I pushed to get on the board of directors of CCES because I think I can make a difference for clean sport, fair play and the values of a part of the CCES, which is called true sport and the principles of true sport.

Cameron Jenkins:
Why is it so important for Canada to have such an organization such as CCES?

Tony Walby:
Well, I mentioned, it's mandated. Without it, we can't have members go to the Olympics or Paralympics, but above that, I think it's rooted in Canadian values and ethics. It was Canada actually that sort of got the push started for what became the anti-doping agency with Dick Pound back in the '80s and the Dublin inquiry of 1989 got the ball rolling and brought this to light that there was doping in sport across the world, but also here in Canada. Since then, we've been pushing really hard to being the cleanest country in sport, to be the fairest country in sport man. I think the Canadian values and the Canadian ethics of fair play and true sport ring true whatever we travel abroad.

Brock Richardson:
We're joined by Tony Walby who is joining us today to discuss his involvement with the Center for Ethics and Sports. I'm your host, Brock Richardson, alongside Cam Jenkins and Josh Watson. Of course, you're listening and watching to the Neutral Zone.

Josh Watson:
Now, Tony, you mentioned a little bit earlier that you do sit on the board of directors and that you actively wanted to be on the board of directors for CCES. I'm wondering, is there any more information you'd like to give us about being a director?

Tony Walby:
Well, like I said, it is the skills-based board. There are many lawyers on the board, some doctors on the board. I'm the only engineer on the board, but it is a working board that is elected by the members and the members are the actual board itself. There's no favouritism like a normal election where the most popular person will get it. It's the person that they need the most, the skillset that they're lacking.
In this way, we have a very solid, very strong board. There's a couple of members of the board are actually ethicists and professors of ethics throughout Canada. From there, we actually do delve as the center of ethics and sports. We do delve into a lot of ethical questions within the sporting realm. We have some of the national sporting organizations and other organizations come to us with some of their sporting ethical dilemmas for us to ponder and give advice. I feel that the board itself is very important, but the organization itself does more than just the anti-doping. It is a very widespread organization, the tasks that we do. But our chief point is to may chain and to administer the CADP, the Canadian Anti-Doping Program.

Cameron Jenkins:
Now that you're on the board, what are maybe some of the hot topics that the board has to deal with?

Tony Walby:
Well, obviously, the Canadian Anti-Doping Program is what we administer and we deal with that. We have also dealt with safe sport or abuse-free sport. We actively put a proposal in to become an independent mechanism for safe support, which ultimately went to the SDRCC, the sport dispute resolution center of Canada but we work closely with them. We also are holding a symposium at the end of May on competition manipulation and that is the next big issue that's facing Canadian sport. We like to say we have a handle on the Canadian anti-doping program and we administer that well, we do that well, but the next step is what's called competition manipulation.
A year ago Canada passed a piece of legislation to allow single-match or single-game betting and with that, we were worried about competition manipulation and the underside betting coming to Canada. We've been really working with that and we're hosting a symposium, May 30th and 31st in Toronto, to that end.

Josh Watson:
Now with every group, every organization, even ourselves as athletes, there's always room for growth. I'm wondering where you see room for growth with the CCES?

Tony Walby:
Well, like I just mentioned competition manipulation is a big thing. We're moving in and moving towards, but at the same time, the Canadian Anti-Doping program is a living document. It's based on the waters charter, but we've added our own Canadian touches to it, our own Canadian values and ethics and there's always room to grow in that. And as our legislation in Canada on privacy and information sharing changes, we have to change our program as well but there's many, many ways of growth within CCES.
One of the programs that we offer within CCES is called True Sport and it has the seven guiding principles of sport and it's separate than competitive sport, it's separate than our doping program. And as things, one of the principles is sport for everyone and go for it and fair play, things like this in clean sports. We offer a program for community then organizations to come and take this program and become champions of true sport. There's a lot of growth to be done within the CCES and a lot of growth to be done within the Canadian Sportage system to have those values incorporated into all levels of sport.

Cameron Jenkins:
Because I never really thought about it before in regards to the gambling and you're brought that up as far as the board is looking at that to make sure that there's fair competition. What do you see as moving forward with gambling being there and there's a lot of different sports events that do have advertising as far as gambling goes? Where do you see the future of gambling in Olympics or in Paralympics moving forward in the relationship there?

Tony Walby:
Well, I hope that we never actually add gambling to amateur sports, but we do know it exists. It exists in other countries and it exists in the black markets of Asia, the black market gambling in Asia that they bet on amateur sport there. That's where we feel is some of the danger of athletes in Canada to succumb to some of that pressure that may be put on them by criminal organizations to come in and sort of pressure our athletes into helping manipulate amateur matches that can be bet on overseas through internet streaming.
Hopefully, in my view, it should never be legalized, amateur betting that is. Of course, betting on professional sports is legal in Canada and it's well regulated in Canada, but there's always room for improvement and that's what this symposium at the end of May pushes towards is what are the risks, how do we mitigate those risks and how can we see the warning signs and react to the warning signs. Especially with the FIFA World Cup coming to Canada in 2026, we want to make sure that we have a strong piece of legislation it placed in Canada, but also that we are aware of what the warning signs are and that there's an organization actively looking for those warning signs and communicating and working with the RCMP and Interpol and other organizations that already have this on their radar.

Cameron Jenkins:
And anti-doping always a pretty significant topic in the world of sport. Do you ever see a world where there will be no doping at all?

Tony Walby:
Ah, that would be nice, wouldn't it? Actually, no, I don't.

Cameron Jenkins:
I live in a Disney World kind of world here.

Tony Walby:
No, unfortunately, I don't ever see a world where there is no doping and no cheating. The stakes are too high for some countries and for some athletes in some of those countries, the Russia scandal is barely eight years old and then, they're still living with the backlash of the Russia scandal of a 2014, 2015. The reports that came out of that and RUSADA still being under sanctions, so RUSADA being a Russian anti-doping agency. I don't see a world where there's not an element of doping in sport. What I can see is maybe places like the X Games that may start allowing divisions where there are doping or where athletes have been suspended from amateur sport for doping may have a new life in X Games, but I can't see it in a world of the IOC or the IPC.

Brock Richardson:
Tony, I understand what I'm about to ask you is really going to open a real can of worms here, but for me, it's one of those things that we can live in a world where we hope there's no doping of any kind, but unfortunately, that's just not where we are. Why should the anti-doping organization still exist versus saying, "Well, if it's just going to be here, why don't we just let athletes do their thing and whatever happens happens?"

Tony Walby:
Well, there's a number of answers to that question. It's the first being health. Most athletes are under the age of 30 and most athletes become athletes under the age of 15 and work their way into the national sporting system. If we start having teenager, and there are, but if we start looking a blind eye to teenagers doping who can't make the rational decisions that only see the brass ring at the end of the tunnel, at the end of their career, their health is such bad disarray, I just can't see that.
The number one reason they're an anti-doping agency is not fair play, it's health. The number two reason is fair play. The number one reason is the health of athletes and athletes don't always make the smartest decisions for themselves because they start at such a young age and a lot of times, they're pressured into the positions they have to take or sometimes, the doping that they do. If there is free reign, now you have coaches in countries possibly forcing or using even more dire tactics to get these athletes to dope. I can't even look down that road, so that's why we're necessary.
If you were to look at the world anti-doping charter and to look at the Canadian anti-doping policy, well, education is one of the main things we have to do. And educating athletes on the dangers of doping, educating coaches on the danger of doping is there too, and educating parents and administrator, education is one of the key factors with World Anti-Doping Agency with WADA. That's one of the moving principles is the education piece and not just the administration and the penalties that come with getting caught or anything like that, but educating the risks that are involved in doping.

Brock Richardson:
I agree and I just want to put out there that I in no way, shape or form am suggesting that anti-doping agencies should not exist. However, I know that there are a portion of the population who say exactly what I said and so I felt that I was asking it for that portion of the population. But I do agree that anti-doping agencies are a necessary thing to do and sadly, Tony, I agree with you 100% that unfortunately, we're not going to see a world where there's no doping. And to your point, it's because the stakes are way too high.
Tony, thank you so much for joining us. We really appreciate it.

Tony Walby:
Well, my pleasure.

Brock Richardson:
That was Tony Walby, talking to us about doping and anti-doping in sports and his involvement with the Centre for Ethics and Sports. If you like what you heard on this interview, here's how you can get ahold of us by voicemail.

Speaker 1:
If you want to leave a message for the Neutral Zone, call now, 1-866-509-4545. And don't forget to give us permission to use your message on the air.
Let's get ready to leave a voicemail.

Brock Richardson:
Well, that was a wonderful interview we had with Tony Walby and I have some stuff I want to put on the table as we start this next portion of the show and that is to tell you that two things stood out. Number one was that he said he was involved, one of his competitors was caught doping and it didn't really affect himself, but it affected the sport. I think this was really powerful. This was really powerful because sometimes, as human beings or as athletes, we can get caught up in this whole, it's about us, it's about me, it's about what I do and all of that.
I think in this case, when Tony said it's about the sport and it affects the sport, that was really powerful. The second thing that he said that was really something for me was the fact that he did not see a world where there would be no doping. Although I agree with him and I think this is the way it is, it makes me sad that we are in a world today where people feel they need a competitive edge and to do that, they need to use something to enhance their performance.
I heard that mm-hmm from one Cam Jenkins, so I'll let you give a crack at what we heard on the interview and what you think.

Cameron Jenkins:
Yeah, I think it's sad too, that there's going to be not a world without doping, but that's reality and you have to deal with reality and you have to take the steps to be able to try to catch them for doping. It is unfortunate that a competitor feels that they need to dope in order to finish the competition, but there's so much pressure on them whether it's from the coaches that they have in their own mind, that they're competing for their country and they have to win to the money that it brings. Because otherwise, depending on the type of job that they have, they may not be able to make the money otherwise that they would from an Olympic win, so that's a lot of pressure. We know that there's some governments that can be very brutal. I can't think of another way to say it, as far as the pressure that they put on them to win.
I think all of those factors goes to... And just themselves because they want to be the best, so that's why they know that, "Oh, Cam Jenkins is the fastest guy in Canada," which is about 20 seconds on the 10 meter run. But if they're 25 they're like, "Oh, I've got to do something because I'm so competitive and I have that A type personality that I want to be the winner," so I think some of it, or maybe even a lot of it comes within themselves, whomever that person is, that they put pressure on themselves because of all of the factors that I've just named.

Josh Watson:
Yeah, it was a very, very interesting interview with Tony. He's always a fountain of information when he comes on to talk to us. I found it interesting that he sought out the opportunity to be involved as opposed to just waiting to be asked by the organization.
It is rather shocking to think that there is probably going to be a world where doping will always exist. We all want to think that sport is about fair play and everything else, but as you alluded to, Cam, it is all about winning. There is incentive to win, for athletes, for coaches, for countries. Like the rest of you, I'm not surprised that we agree on that point.
I know that for me, being a clean athlete has always been important and as I'm going down the road here, getting a little bit older and having to deal with a minor health situation, I'm going to have to make sure that whatever I'm going to be taking as a hormone replacement is not going to affect my sport because the last thing I want is to taint any competition I'm involved in. It's a challenging road to walk, but I think... Especially here in Canada, I think we pride ourselves on being clean and doing things the right way.

Brock Richardson:
For those that may not know, there is such a thing in the Paralympic and Olympic world that is called a therapeutic use exemption form, form TUE, which basically allows your doctor that if you need any kind of medication that is on the banned substance list, you are allowed to fill out this form and say I'm taking X medication for X reason and it has nothing to do with performance-enhancing and that's what gets you the allowance to use said medication for medical reasons. I think the other thing that stood out to me was he said sports secondarily is about fair play. For me, it was alarming that he said it was secondarily until he told us what the first part was. The first part was that to protect people from themselves.
I know I opened a can of worms and I said, "I know I'm doing this, but why can't we just have a world where everybody does what they want?" Because if we are admitting that this is what's going to happen, why don't we just go down the road? He explained for young people to protect themselves. You have athletes who are teenagers, who are young adults who are going to be looking at it very focused and say, "I need to get this medal now, which will equate to my funding," and it's that simple who don't necessarily look 20, 30 years down the line and say, "How could this affect my long-term health?" And I think that's a real damaging sort of thing. As Cameron alludes to Josh, we live in a Disney World, but it's kind of a bit scary that the fair play in sports gets knocked down to the second importance in this case.

Josh Watson:
Yeah, I totally agree with you on that. We all want fair play to be number one, but as Tony eloquently put it, we have to worry about the health of the athletes that aren't thinking 20 and 30 and 40 years down the road about what these things could do to them. Sometimes, they're not even at an age where they may feel that they can stand up and say no to a coach or to an official at their Olympic committee for example.
Cameron, I'm sure you and I, Brock might be too young for this, but I'm sure we've all heard the jokes about Oh yeah, such and such team better win, otherwise they're going to go home and be shot. Well, we don't want to think that that's really the case, but we don't know. We don't know what kind of pressure is being put on these athletes and by whom. It really has to be about the health of athletes unfortunately first and then, fair play second, which as you said Brock is an alarming thing to have to admit.

Cameron Jenkins:
I think that it's great to be able to have these organizations, to have all of these doping agencies to make sure that the athletes are clean because if you don't then, it's going to be anarchy and everyone's going to just do what they're going to do. It's nice, for the most part, that it's clean, the games. Obviously, there are going to be times where the sciences or the doping and being able to beat the agencies are going to happen, but then, they catch up and then it's kind of clean again. I think it's always going to be that cat-and-mouse game of, oh, we've found a new drug that they can't test for and now, we've found it and we can. Yeah, I think it's always going to be a game of cat and mouse.

Josh Watson:
Yeah, you read my mind on that one, Cameron.
I'm going to be certainly happiest when these anti-doping agencies can catch up to what the dors are doing because unfortunately, we run into situations we had with Derek Duran last year I believe it was where he's finally getting the medal he deserved because the doping finally caught up with the person that beat him. It's sad that it has to be like that because the games that he was involved with, I believe, was London 2012 where he won his medal and here we were in 2022, just finally realizing or finally able to prove that he should have won his medal.

Cameron Jenkins:
I guess what they do is do, whether it's urine samples or blood tests, do they take it from the gold, silver and bronze athletes and then, do they keep it in a test lab somewhere? Because how did they figure this out 10 years later? Things like that, I enjoy conversing about that or being a hashtag mystery Cam and figuring it out.

Brock Richardson:
No. Basically, Cameron, what happens is someone from the anti-doping agency, CCES will come and they will come to your national championships or anywhere that they're going to declare that they're going to be, and they'll make a medal winner give them a sample and it's very, very invasive, which I can get into on another program or this one if we have time, but it's very invasive and-

Cameron Jenkins:
I think we've talked about that before on the program.

Brock Richardson:
It's one of those things. It goes, basically, if you can visualize a vinegar bottle, it has a thicker bottom and then the top spout and you have to tighten it up and then, it goes to the lab and they tell you quote, no news is good news. If you hear no news then it's good news. If you get a call from the anti-doping agency, it is going to be bad news. What happens from there is, yes, it goes to their lab and that does take about two to three weeks. But then if you get caught, you then have the ability to appeal it and that's where the time becomes the problem because the appeals become the timely thing that takes place. If you lose the appeal, then you can double appeal it. If you lose that, then you can take it to the Supreme Court, which all takes time. Fast-forward 10 years and that's how that's taking place.
It's not that they're waiting 10 years and saying, "Well, we're just going to leave this sample here for 10 years and just test it one day." The athlete is well aware that their specimen is going to get tested. It's all the stuff that happens afterwards that takes the longest time.

Cameron Jenkins:
I just wonder how if when they test it, they don't recognize the banned substance at that point in time, but then, 10 years later, all of a sudden that they're like, "Oh yes, they were using this that wasn't on the banned substance," or it wasn't even detectable and now, it is detectable. For things that weren't detectable that are now detectable, I wonder how that process happens.

Brock Richardson:
That's the thing, and where do we go from the point of this wasn't detectable then but is now, where do we say at some point, "Well, they were able to use it then and it wasn't a banned substance, so do we just let it slide?" This is a million-dollar question that sits here, Josh.

Josh Watson:
Absolutely. I think for the most part, it's a matter of technology. Technology advances and advances and advances and you're able to, whether you're testing for DNA or banned substances, the technology just continues to improve to a point where these things can be located or found. I guess what you would have to say is that the drug that is found would have to already be in a class that would be banned during that games in order for it to apply. I think if somebody found, and I'm no expert on this by any means, let me clarify that, I would have to think that if somebody found some new miracle drug that wasn't on a banned substance list, you can't very well turn around and say, "Well, it enhanced your performance so you can't use it." But you can bet that a rule is going to go into place for the next quadrennial saying that that is no longer allowed.

Brock Richardson:
Let me also be clear and say there are two rules in the Bocce rule book that exist today that I classify them as the Brock Richardson rule and that's just the way they are. It's not that I was trying to cheat any system, but things do evolve over time and over time and you guys are right, that's just how it happens in today's world.
But to sum up this conversation, I think it's sad, but I think we can all agree around this proverbial table that there will be no world with no doping that occurs and that's where we are.
Really appreciate Tony and his time on our program who told us off camera that he really enjoys being on the program and we really enjoy having him.
What we really enjoy talking about is the NHL playoffs and we're going to give you a Canadian team perspective and everything we talk about is of course at the time of recording. Let's start here. Let's start with the Edmonton LA series. It is tied two-two. What we've seen is situations where there have been blown leads for the Edmonton Oilers. One, they didn't come back from when they did. How would you summarize this series? Let's start with Cam Jenkins.

Cameron Jenkins:
Well, I picked LA to win this series and it really built the confidence I think of the Kings, being able to come back after LA had the, oh sorry, Edmonton had the lead and LA came back. Just looking at the last game, which I believe Edmonton won, they were actually down, I believe, three goals and then, they ended up getting rid of Skinner and getting the Leafs former Goldie, Jack Campbell in and Edmonton ended up winning that game.
I think a smell a controversy goalie in Edmonton going on right about now. Who's going to be starting the next game? Is it going to be Campbell or is it going to be Skinner? I think that's going to be really interesting and I still think the Kings. Even though they blew that lead, Edmonton blew two leads I believe it was. I still have all the confidence in the Kings winning that series and as of right now, Crosby has two power-play goals, but he has no five-on-five goals up to the game being two-two. He hasn't scored a goal five on five, so they are shutting McDavid down.

Brock Richardson:
Yeah, they are definitely shutting McDavid down. I misread my own note. That's how lovely it is. Yes. What I meant to say was that they blew two leads in the same game was what took place and they were up three-nothing in the game that Cameron is talking... Sorry, they were down three- nothing as I still can't read my note and we just see that I would lean towards Jack Campbell going in. Josh, what's it you?

Josh Watson:
Well, I'm surprised to hear that. Jack Campbell has not been strong this entire year. I don't know that you want to put the fate of your playoff on Jack Campbell right now and that's coming from somebody who really liked Jack Campbell when he was here in Toronto. I thought he was a great goal tender and I was excited for him to go Toronto, excuse me, to Edmonton where maybe the pressure wasn't quite the same. I won't say it was less because we know Edmonton is the city of champions and they'd take pride in all those Stanley cups that they won back in the '80s but yeah, it has not been a good year for Jack. If he does get the net good on him and I hope he does well but I think you got to go back to Stuart Skinner just based on the body of work this year.
I don't believe for a moment that McDavid will be shut down for an entire series. I just don't think that's possible. I think Jay Woodcroft will come up with some way of getting him freed up and even if they do shut down McDavid, you've still got Leon Draisaitl, you've still got Zack Hyman. There are other ways for this team to score.
I don't know who's going to win this series. I'll be perfectly honest with you. I haven't seen enough of LA this year to know how strong they are. This is the second year in a row they've played Edmonton in this round, so they are obviously a quality hockey team but I will be interested to see how the next few games go.

Brock Richardson:
Joonas Korpisalo is playing very Jonathan Quick-esque when they were the eight seed and they ended up running to the Stanley Cup final and winning it a number of years ago. That's what I smell going on here.
Let's move on to Vegas-Winnipeg. I really, really feel that the game three loss was something that's going to debilitate Winnipeg. They came back, then they were down. We see so many inconsistencies from Winnipeg that unfortunately I think Vegas is just building and building towards doing good and wonderful things. Winnipeg just with all that's gone on this year, Cameron, doesn't look so good. Your thoughts.

Cameron Jenkins:
I watched that game, I think it was on Saturday and they were down three to one or four to one, and then, they ended up coming back and taking it to overtime and just to losing in overtime. A friend of AMI, Dave Bastel, I thought of him right away because he's a Winnipeg Jets fan and I felt so bad because I'm hoping Winnipeg wins this series. But with Vegas and with Stoneback in the lineup, season's over so there's no salary cap, so they got stone back in their own.

Josh Watson:
You're not suggesting shenanigans.

Cameron Jenkins:
Oh my god. No, I would never suggest salary cap shenanigans, but that's the rules. And people, you got to play by the rules and they are playing by the rules, but I just think... I want Winnipeg to win, but my gut or my heart is saying that Vegas is going to win it because of all of the firepower that Vegas has with stone in there. The gold tending has been fairly good as well. I think Vegas is going to win it. His name eludes me, so help me out here boys, the guy that they traded Eichel as well, he's never really been in the playoffs and now that he's in the playoffs and doing fairly well in the playoffs, I just think they've got too much firepower to lose to Winnipeg.

Josh Watson:
Yeah, I totally agree with you. I would love for the Winnipeg Jets to have some success just for the city of Winnipeg, but I just don't see it. And when you see a guy like Josh Morrisey go down with a season-ending injury as well on top of everything else, it doesn't look good. That's a real shame because it would be great for the city to see that team succeed.

Brock Richardson:
The images from Winnipeg, when you have the white out, is just something I have never seen before. Connor Hellebuyck has been Mr. Inconsistent all year and it's one of those situations where you feel for them at times, but they just don't have it all put together at all times.
To finish off, let's talk about the Toronto Maple Leafs and Tampa Bay Lightning. Josh, your thoughts are what?

Josh Watson:
My thoughts are that this could be going well or this could go seven games. I really don't know. I was a little alarmed after-

Cameron Jenkins:
You seem to be sitting on the-

Josh Watsons:
No, no.

Cameron Jenkins:
... You seem to be sitting on the fence of the couple of these.

Josh Watson:
Give me a chance, Cameron. Give me a chance.

Cameron Jenkins:
All right, I'll listen. I'll listen.

Josh Watson:
I was alarmed after game one because if you can't get up for the first game of a playoff series, there's a problem but they turned around and they gave it right back in game two, so that's encouraging to me. They squeaked out the game in game three, but I would like to see a little more dominance from this team. I do love the addition of Ryan O'Reilly, I think he has been a great addition, but I will never count Tampa Bay out until the series is over because I've had my heart broken too many times, boys.

Cameron Jenkins:
Agree with you. Tampa Bay, until you get the final game against them, they're going to be a very hard out. They've been to the last three Stanley Cups and yeah, they're going to be a hard out. Like you said, Josh, the first game, Leafs didn't show up. It was a blowout. Second game, Leafs blew them out. And then the last game, the Leafs did not deserve to win that game. They got outplayed for most of that game or the majority of it or all of it, except for maybe the first period. And then the brouhaha that went on with the Riley hit, was it suspendable, was it not? This that.

Josh Watson:
It wasn't when you looked at it.

Cameron Jenkins:
Yeah, but you had to go super slow motion in order to be able to see that but when you're going so quickly, you couldn't see that.
I love Crusty Keefe. I had given him the name Crusty Keefe. I love him because he was talking about that sequence, and this was two or three minutes after that happened and everyone was calming down and then the janitor, Austin Matthews, was just picking up the sticks and the gloves and he was just being a janitor. And then all of a sudden, Steve Stamkos started kicking him. I loved Keith's comment about Steve Stamkos knew exactly what he was doing because the Leafs were going on the power play, and he knew that they weren't going to call another penalty to go five on three.
Therefore, you have Matthews in the box, you had O'Reilly in the box and you had... Oh, sorry, Reilly in the box. Was O'Reilly in the box too? Both Reilly and O'Reilly? I can't remember. I think they had, all three them. You have three of their power place, especially Austin Matthews off when the Leafs were going on a power play. Steve Stamkos knew exactly what he was doing and good for him. He's playing within the rules or he knows the rules, even though there should have been an instigator penalty and good for him. We'll see how the rest of the series goes. I think it's going to be close games the rest of the way.

Brock Richardson:
It might glow too, to be honest with you. We'll see what happens with that. But that's your quick Canadian team analysis of what's going on. I sincerely hope that we have more teams than one in the second round. I would hope that we can get a little bit of Canadian love but do check out some of the other series as well that's going on because we didn't get a chance to preview those but there are some other good series as well.
That is the end of your show for this week. I would like to thank Josh Watson, Cam Jenkins, our technical producer is Marco Fallo, our podcast coordinator is Ryan Delehanty. Tune in next week because you just never know what happens when you enter the Neutral Zone. Have a great week, be safe, be well. We'll talk to you next week.