Can Mike Sheahan do that?

[bunsen burner]

Far from it.

I just don't happen to believe that AFL players are public property in any way, shape or form, no matter how much they earn or how much they are on tv, or how much the league earns through sponsorship, or how much their team earns through sponsorship. There are just some things we don't have a right to know.

I also don't care about kids and their role models. If you're looking at a football player for a role model then you're in trouble. Admire the way they play but if you're looking for anything else then you're looking in the wrong place.

Well said.

Whilst i think they do have a reasonable obligation I don't believe the AFL should have any business testing them for NPED's and can't believe so many people think this is the AFL's business.

 

[King Elvis]

This thread is laughable.

Sooner or later someone's gonna start comparing Chad Fletcher to Pablo Escobar and start saying he should be gunned down in a blood-riddled massacre, ala Escobar.

Once again, another case of "nobody's-funkin'-business" getting everyone high and mighty.

The AFL aren't doing anything because they know they can't do anything.

Forgetting Fletcher for a second.

Assuming the drug use is as widespread as reported, what happens when a player from one of our Clubs goes to far and ODs?

If it's a big problem, like is being reported, then it needs to be admitted and steps taken to correct it.

Imagine if Fletcher had died, and Sheehan's allegations were correct.

 

[UpForGrabs]

Sorry mate, they have no choice and it matters not what you believe.

Yet I can't get anyone to give any reason why it matters or why it should.

(And "it just does" isn't a valid answer.)

Convince me otherwise. Anyone.

 

[Butane]

Forgetting Fletcher for a second.

Assuming the drug use is as widespread as reported, what happens when a player from one of our Clubs goes to far and ODs?

If it's a big problem, like is being reported, then it needs to be admitted and steps taken to correct it.

Imagine if Fletcher had died, and Sheehan's allegations were correct.

Is it the AFL's fault? or is it societies fault?

 

[King Elvis]

Players shouldn't have to pay that price though, no matter how much exposure they get or how much they are being paid. At what stage do you say to someone that they have to sacrifice a part of their life for the betterment of everyone else. Is a rookie-listed player on $50,000 a year (or whatever they earn) with no media exposure exempted from behaving badly by that same criteria??

(Wasn't there some furore when Nathan Ablett didn't want to play in the AFL because he just wanted to play footy and didn't want the exposure that comes with being an AFL player, let alone the son of one of the all-time greatest players?)

Why can't any player at any club get their paychecks and just play footy? Why does the fact that they earn lots and have media exposure mean that they are held to a higher social standard than everyone else and have to sacrifice a part of their life because the parents a 6-year-old they've never met may get upset and angry???

Rock stars earn heaps and are expected to live the high life on and off the stage, yet people aren't seemingly concerned about their impact on kids so they keep buying their cds. I just find it interesting that of all the people in the public eye, sportspeople are the only ones expected to behave above everybody else.

(Politicians don't count because no one grows up wanting to be a polly!)

You want to earn a few hundred grand as a Doctor - you don't take drugs.

You want to earn a few hundred grand as a Pilot - you don't take drugs.

You want to be a Nun - you be celibate.

There are sacrifices involved no matter what field you find yourself in - AFL players are living the dream, they are paid to play a sport they love, paid to keep themselves fit and healthy, and are treated like kings.

If they can't stay off drugs, a pretty simple thing that most of the population can manage, then they don't deserve the lifestyle.

 

[crackers57]

Well said.

Whilst i think they do have a reasonable obligation I don't believe the AFL should have any business testing them for NPED's and can't believe so many people think this is the AFL's business.

What's a "reasonable obligation"? Not die of an OD where you can be caught? Not to be picked up with a "dime bag"? F*** yourself up in private?

The players and the AFLPA signed off on the testing regime, then they have to abide by it.

 

[UpForGrabs]

Assuming the drug use is as widespread as reported, what happens when a player from one of our Clubs goes to far and ODs?

If it's a big problem, like is being reported, then it needs to be admitted and steps taken to correct it.

As I said in other threads;

* The AFL shouldn't be worried about their image being damaged, they should be worried about one of their players dying. I haven't seen or heard anything from them or from anyone on this board to say that the fears are to the contrary. Everyone seems worried that drug use will ruin the league's reputation, as if a player dying isn't the worst possible outcome imaginable.

* If Fletcher had died, then there would be huge steps taken to ensure it never happened again. If the AFL is so concerned, it should act that way before someone overdoses, not for the sake of the league's welfare, but for the players.

[A similar analogy would be gun control. It's ok introducing almost draconian gun laws in Australia, but it would've been even greater if they thought of them before some whacko gunned down 35 people in cold blood at Port Arthur.]

 

[Underdog]

You want to earn a few hundred grand as a Doctor - you don't take drugs.

You want to earn a few hundred grand as a Pilot - you don't take drugs.

You want to be a Nun - you be celibate.

As those either affect performance in a role where you hold many lives in the palm of your hand or is a personal choice due to faith

none are relevant to an AFL player

 

[bunsen burner]

Assuming the drug use is as widespread as reported,

No need to assume - it is.

what happens when a player from one of our Clubs goes too far and ODs?

Then he OD's. If he is still alive then the club counsel him and put him through rehab.

It's not up to the AFL to act as police. It is up to the AFL to provide an education and support system.

If it's a big problem, like is being reported, then it needs to be admitted and steps taken to correct it.

Education, prevention, counselling, rehab. Not punishment.

Imagine if Fletcher had died,

Makes little difference. Punishment is not the answer.

and Sheehan's allegations were correct.

Pretty sure most people have come to the realisation/opinion that there's a fair amount of truth in it (albeit unproven).

 

[bunsen burner]

You want to earn a few hundred grand as a Doctor - you don't take drugs.

You want to earn a few hundred grand as a Pilot - you don't take drugs.

You want to be a Nun - you be celibate.

There are sacrifices involved no matter what field you find yourself in - AFL players are living the dream, they are paid to play a sport they love, paid to keep themselves fit and healthy, and are treated like kings.

If they can't stay off drugs, a pretty simple thing that most of the population can manage, then they don't deserve the lifestyle.

This is some really naive logic.

1. Plenty of doctors take drugs
2. Pilots are in control of a plane. Of course they can't be UI.
3. A player take NPED in his own time really has no effect on his employer
4. I bet pilots don't get tested in their holidays.

 

[crackers57]

Yet I can't get anyone to give any reason why it matters or why it should.

(And "it just does" isn't a valid answer.)

Convince me otherwise. Anyone.

You work for "XYZ Co. Pty. Ltd." You decide to have a night out on the squirt and end up getting f*** up on Coke and collapse in Main St., Local Town. The cops pick you up and the local reporter happens to report in the paper the next day that Mr. UpForGrabs, employee of XYZ Co. Pty. Ltd. has been done for using illicit drugs, found f***ed up in the gutter and taken to the local lock up.

Is your employer goin into bat for you? How do you justify him doing it?

 

[bunsen burner]

What's a "reasonable obligation"? Not die of an OD where you can be caught? Not to be picked up with a "dime bag"? F*** yourself up in private?

That should be a player's own business.

Would you be happy if your employer came and breath tested you at 2am sat night/sun morning to make sure you weren't f***ing yourself up in private?

So why do you expect AFL players to be obliged to do this?

The players and the AFLPA signed off on the testing regime, then they have to abide by it.

not relevant.

 

[bunsen burner]

You work for "XYZ Co. Pty. Ltd." You decide to have a night out on the squirt and end up getting f*** up on Coke and collapse in Main St., Local Town. The cops pick you up and the local reporter happens to report in the paper the next day that Mr. UpForGrabs, employee of XYZ Co. Pty. Ltd. has been done for using illicit drugs, found f***ed up in the gutter and taken to the local lock up.

Is your employer goin into bat for you? How do you justify him doing it?

It's none of XYZ Co's business. If they don't go in to bat for you fair enough, but it's nothing to do with them.

 

[milko]

my only conclusion after labouring through this post is that bigfooty is full of doctors, lawyers and travel agents.....armchair experts everywhere (supposedly)

 

[crackers57]

That should be a player's own business.

Would you be happy if your employer came and breath tested you at 2am sat night/sun morning to make sure you weren't f***ing yourself up in private?

So why do you expect AFL players to be obliged to do this?


not relevant.

Why is it not relevant? That's the agreement they signed off on.

They agreed to "out of season testing" and that's what the AFL fall back on.

If the players want to whinge about it then take it to AFLPA.

 

[UpForGrabs]

You work for "XYZ Co. Pty. Ltd." You decide to have a night out on the squirt and end up getting f*** up on Coke and collapse in Main St., Local Town. The cops pick you up and the local reporter happens to report in the paper the next day that Mr. UpForGrabs, employee of XYZ Co. Pty. Ltd. has been done for using illicit drugs, found f***ed up in the gutter and taken to the local lock up.

Is your employer goin into bat for you? How do you justify him doing it?

Well, for starters, it's irrelevant who I work for and it looks like I'm the victim of a hack journalist. Saying "Mr. UpForGrabs, employee of XYZ Co. Pty. Ltd. has been done for using illicit drugs" is just as ethically wrong as saying "Mr. UpForGrabs, an aboriginal, has been done for using illicit drugs". The fact that I'm an aboriginal or employee of a certain company is completely beside the point and irrelevant.

But since we're not talking about journalism ethics here (or the lack thereof), I'll get back to the point.

If I worked for that company and if my employer went into bat for me I'd say it was because of maybe two things;

1) I was a valued employee and,

2) What happens in my own time is my own business and has nothing to do with who I work for unless it affects my performance for said company.

That's what I expect them to say (at least #2).

 

[yeah-nah]

my only conclusion after labouring through this post is that bigfooty is full of doctors, lawyers and travel agents.....armchair experts everywhere (supposedly)

pretty impressive for a bunch of 14 yr old geeks

 

[bunsen burner]

Why is it not relevant? That's the agreement they signed off on.

Because it's not the perspective we are talking about. That's like me saying "well chadwick wasn't tested by sanctioned AFL drug testers so he has no case to answer for".

Forget what the rules and agreements say.

Just speak from what you think is right. Regardless of the agreement, do you think the AFL should be testing these players for NPED's?

They agreed to "out of season testing" and that's what the AFL fall back on.

But do yu agree with it? Do you think it's right that there is such an agreement?

 

[bricon]

The players and the AFLPA signed off on the testing regime, then they have to abide by it.

Well there’s the thing; in Fletcher’s (alleged) case there hasn’t been a provable breach of the AFL Anti Doping Code; which requires a failed drug test or conviction for possession or trafficking to sustain a breach of the code. It doesn’t matter how much “proof”, eye-witness accounts or journalists’ theories abound; the code can only be breached by a failed drug test or conviction.

 

[UpForGrabs]

But do yu agree with it? Do you think it's right that there is such an agreement?

Abide by the agreement now that it's in.

However...

I would suggest that the introduction of out-of-season testing for drugs is a gross invasion of the players' privacy and civil liberties and should've been fought tooth and nail by the AFLPA when it was being bandied about.

 

[bunsen burner]

Abide by the agreement now that it's in.

However...

I would suggest that the introduction of out-of-season testing for drugs is a gross invasion of the players' privacy and civil liberties and should've been fought tooth and nail by the AFLPA when it was being bandied about.

exactly. Can't believe the AFLPA signed off on this? What were they thinking? Forget compromise, it should have been No way, get f***ed, f*** off.

Except:

- PED should be tested all year round.
- NPED should never be tested except for cocaine or amphetamine immediately prior or post match.

And personally, if I was a player, I'd tell the to GGF if they tried to test me for NPED. I'd go straight to my doc with my lawyer and get him to take a sample (assuming I'm clean).

 

[crackers57]

Well, for starters, it's irrelevant who I work for and it looks like I'm the victim of a hack journalist. Saying "Mr. UpForGrabs, employee of XYZ Co. Pty. Ltd. has been done for using illicit drugs" is just as ethically wrong as saying "Mr. UpForGrabs, an aboriginal, has been done for using illicit drugs". The fact that I'm an aboriginal or employee of a certain company is completely beside the point and irrelevant.

But since we're not talking about journalism ethics here (or the lack thereof), I'll get back to the point.QUOTE]

This is why who you work for is not irrelevant. If you worked for channel 9 and it was a "This Day Tonight" reporter then..........

If I worked for that company and if my employer went into bat for me I'd say it was because of maybe two things;

1) I was a valued employee and

So it's the Kerr (example only) V hack arguement?

2) What happens in my own time is my own business and has nothing to do with who I work for unless it affects my performance for said company.

Company image would not come into it? (not forgetting that they would probably pull out every stop to say .."it affects my performance for said company" to justify any decision

That's what I expect them to say (at least #2)

Don't hold your breath

 

[bushie]

exactly. Can't believe the AFLPA signed off on this? What were they thinking? Forget compromise, it should have been No way, get f***ed, f*** off.

Except:

- PED should be tested all year round.
- NPED should never be tested except for cocaine or amphetamine immediately prior or post match.

And personally, if I was a player, I'd tell the to GGF if they tried to test me for NPED. I'd go straight to my doc with my lawyer and get him to take a sample (assuming I'm clean).

Keep dreaming and hoping bunny.

The fact of the matter is that the AFLPA signed off on this, and there is not a chance in hell that the AFL will change it.

And in all probability they will probably strengthen it.

And nothing that you or I say or believe will change that.

Build a friggen bridge.

 

[Audacious]

Well Mike Sheehan certainly got what he wanted from the article - his name bandied around the football world so we dont forget him

 

[bunsen burner]

Keep dreaming and hoping bunny.

The fact of the matter is that the AFLPA signed off on this, and there is not a chance in hell that the AFL will change it.

And in all probability they will probably strengthen it.

And nothing that you or I say or believe will change that.

Build a friggen bridge.

What has that got to do with anything? What is your point?

Do you or do you not agree that the right agreements are in place?