Demetriou says "Show me the proof"

[Eagle87]

Have you ever had to help families pick up the pieces after a love one has died from an OD. Have you ever seen the anguish of parents as they have had to help a child deal with their drug addiction. Get your head out of the sand, engage your brain and remember that what we are dealing with are products that are illegal. As I said in my original post and quantified - if any player is found with illegal drugs in their system then they must be dealt with (and I include Hawthorn players in this statement) - this is just not a shot at the supposed Chad Fletcher incident but to all other 24 players that have been caught. I would also like to point out that in Victoria if you are caught with drugs in your system whilst driving a car your name is not suppressed - you are gulity and your offence is available to all via court documents - where does the AFL have the right to suppress names for an illegal offence. In all states throughout Australia if you are caught in possession of illegal drugs then you are either fined on the spot or dealt with in the court system, my question is why do the AFL think they are above the law. The fact is here that your name then is available in the open forum as you have broken the law.

In regards to the Chad Fletcher incident I am commenting on all of the press reports. I dont blame West Coast on this one if it is true but the AFL as I believe that West Coast are being guided by the AFL on this matter. No club would be that stupid to change their story 3 times at least without guidance from the AFL.

As I worked for a couple of years with Perths largest agency dealing with drug addiction, the answer to most of your questions is yes.

Certainly have found a kid dead, a couple almost dead and have been with the parents when told their kid is dead. So thanks for assuming I hadnt.

The reality is though that I am capable of separating the emotion from reality and it would be grossly unfair on Fletcher if he became the pin-up boy for drugs in the AFL just so a couple of Melbourne journos could stick it to the AFL for stopping them publishing names in the past.

The AFL has decided that best practice involves 3 strikes and prior to that treatment in confidence. Fletcher deserves (even if guilty) the same treatment as all the others.

 

[wal]

The AFL has decided that best practice involves 3 strikes and prior to that treatment in confidence. Fletcher deserves (even if guilty) the same treatment as all the others.

Overdosing on drugs has a completly different post code to testing positive.
"IF" it is proved that drugs were involved it won't and can't count as a strike.

 

[Eagle87]

Oh and one other aspect that I would like to make - in every other major sport throughout the world if a player is caught with any illegal substance in their system then they are not only outed but suspended for a lengthy period of time - should I point out the name Shane Warne.

This is simply not accurate.

Many leagues have no out of competition testing and all the US leagues (arguably the biggest sporting comps in the world in dollar terms) have confidentiality arrangements for the first couple of breaches- they are softer than the AFL.

The NRL are also close to implementing exactly the same type of 3 strikes policy as the AFL.

The AFL policy will out someone who test in season (at least that is what I understand). This is specifically an out of comp testing (happy to be corrected on this - as indicated in an earlier post).

 

[Eagle87]

Overdosing on drugs has a completly different post code to testing positive.
"IF" it is proved that drugs were involved it won't and can't count as a strike.

OK, so the policy is written as follows, Anyone who tests positive is given confidential treatment for the first 2 offences but anyone who O/D's is not afforded the same treatment.

This is because of what? Perhaps one chooses to o/d? As such it worse?

Mate, every drug taking incident involves the risk of o/d. Watch a junkie carefully test any new batch from any supplier, especially new ones to see how "strong" it is. Every time you use you risk an o/d. Just because someone did o/d doesnt make their activity any riskier - just their number was up. To alter the treatment based on that is inherently nonsensical.

 

[hawker5]

As I worked for a couple of years with Perths largest agency dealing with drug addiction, the answer to most of your questions is yes.

Certainly have found a kid dead, a couple almost dead and have been with the parents when told their kid is dead. So thanks for assuming I hadnt.

The reality is though that I am capable of separating the emotion from reality and it would be grossly unfair on Fletcher if he became the pin-up boy for drugs in the AFL just so a couple of Melbourne journos could stick it to the AFL for stopping them publishing names in the past.

The AFL has decided that best practice involves 3 strikes and prior to that treatment in confidence. Fletcher deserves (even if guilty) the same treatment as all the others.

Then you of all people should know why drugs are illegal and the 3 strike policy is wrong - are your sticking up for Chad Fletcher (if guilty) because he is an Eagle. Be objective as I would if it was Luke Hodge or any Hawk player - if you do drugs then you are dumb and deserve to be punished - if you got caught on the streets or if the cops raided your house and found drugs in your possession then your name would be open for all to see and more than likely published in the press (if your famous then expect bigger print) and there would be no 3 strike rule as you were hauled off to court.

I seriously feel sorry for Chad Fletcher as he is the one whos name is being dragged through the mud but come on - if he is guilty do you seriously think his name should be protected simply on the basis that he plays AFL.

To quote Chuck Norris - "Kick drugs out of sport" and I agree 100% on this.

 

[kimp]

OK, so the policy is written as follows, Anyone who tests positive is given confidential treatment for the first 2 offences but anyone who O/D's is not afforded the same treatment.

This is because of what? Perhaps one chooses to o/d? As such it worse?

Mate, every drug taking incident involves the risk of o/d. Watch a junkie carefully test any new batch from any supplier, especially new ones to see how "strong" it is. Every time you use you risk an o/d. Just because someone did o/d doesnt make their activity any riskier - just their number was up. To alter the treatment based on that is inherently nonsensical.

How can you possibly write that and defend players who are using?

How is that not a huge negative for the club?

 

[frankc]

The ball is in Mike Sheehans court now. Will he come forward with the evidence or run and hide like a coward?

Mike Sheehan has no idea. I don't know why anyone would bother reading the crap he writes.

Remember that back page 'Carlton united' spread - the guy is a fool. As per usual the herald-sun just tries to make an issue where there isn't one.

 

[frankc]

Then you of all people should know why drugs are illegal and the 3 strike policy is wrong - are your sticking up for Chad Fletcher (if guilty) because he is an Eagle. Be objective as I would if it was Luke Hodge or any Hawk player - if you do drugs then you are dumb and deserve to be punished - if you got caught on the streets or if the cops raided your house and found drugs in your possession then your name would be open for all to see and more than likely published in the press (if your famous then expect bigger print) and there would be no 3 strike rule as you were hauled off to court.

I seriously feel sorry for Chad Fletcher as he is the one whos name is being dragged through the mud but come on - if he is guilty do you seriously think his name should be protected simply on the basis that he plays AFL.

To quote Chuck Norris - "Kick drugs out of sport" and I agree 100% on this.

Agree Hawker5. Players have to take responsibility for what they do.

 

[wal]

OK, so the policy is written as follows, Anyone who tests positive is given confidential treatment for the first 2 offences but anyone who O/D's is not afforded the same treatment.

The players association agreed to out of season testing on the proviso that no names be released by the organization contracted to perform those tests should those said tests return a positive result.
Someone taken to hospital after overdosing is not in that agreement nor would a player being arrested for being in possession of illicit drugs.

 

[Eagle87]

The players association agreed to out of season testing on the proviso that no names be released by the organization contracted to perform those tests should those said tests return a positive result.
Someone taken to hospital after overdosing is not in that agreement nor would a player being arrested for being in possession of illicit drugs.

Fair enough.

Can see your point, just not sure that the outcome is consistent with the policy.

 

[Eagle87]

Then you of all people should know why drugs are illegal and the 3 strike policy is wrong - are your sticking up for Chad Fletcher (if guilty) because he is an Eagle. Be objective as I would if it was Luke Hodge or any Hawk player - if you do drugs then you are dumb and deserve to be punished - if you got caught on the streets or if the cops raided your house and found drugs in your possession then your name would be open for all to see and more than likely published in the press (if your famous then expect bigger print) and there would be no 3 strike rule as you were hauled off to court.

I seriously feel sorry for Chad Fletcher as he is the one whos name is being dragged through the mud but come on - if he is guilty do you seriously think his name should be protected simply on the basis that he plays AFL.

To quote Chuck Norris - "Kick drugs out of sport" and I agree 100% on this.

We are arguing at cross purposes.

I am suggesting that Fletcher needs to be treated fairly and consistently under the CURRENT AFL policy on drugs.

You are arguing that the policy is flawed/wrong etc. This may well be true but when implementing the policy in conjunction with the players association - the AFL agreed to these conditions. They will have NO out of comp testing regime if they go harder as the players association will simply refuse.

I don't necessarily agree that punishing or outing people helps anyone - based on my experience. ALthough it works with some.

 

[hawker5]

We are arguing at cross purposes.

I am suggesting that Fletcher needs to be treated fairly and consistently under the CURRENT AFL policy on drugs.

You are arguing that the policy is flawed/wrong etc. This may well be true but when implementing the policy in conjunction with the players association - the AFL agreed to these conditions. They will have NO out of comp testing regime if they go harder as the players association will simply refuse.

I don't necessarily agree that punishing or outing people helps anyone - based on my experience. ALthough it works with some.

Partially agree however do you really think that the AFL should of listened to the AFLPA when they are charged in protecting the interest of the players. I also agree that outing does not always work however when a player flatlines (as was the case that has been reported) do you seriously believe that the rules be applied. I will say I dont agree with the rules as the AFLPA are putting their players above the law and that is wrong (and possibly illegal - buts that another arguement).

What the AFL needs to do is get rid of this above the law belief and make it like it would be if they people were caught with drugs on the street

 

[giantsully]

It seems to me that no one here would in fact know if this was Fletcher's first offence.

 

[Eagle87]

Partially agree however do you really think that the AFL should of listened to the AFLPA when they are charged in protecting the interest of the players. I also agree that outing does not always work however when a player flatlines (as was the case that has been reported) do you seriously believe that the rules be applied. I will say I dont agree with the rules as the AFLPA are putting their players above the law and that is wrong (and possibly illegal - buts that another arguement).

What the AFL needs to do is get rid of this above the law belief and make it like it would be if they people were caught with drugs on the street

Sometimes its about getting the best outcome you can.

The AFLPA would not have agreed to anything more onerous. If the AFL imposed something more onerous the players would have been free to withdraw their services (i.e. strike). It has happened overseas ....

 

[hawker5]

Sometimes its about getting the best outcome you can.

The AFLPA would not have agreed to anything more onerous. If the AFL imposed something more onerous the players would have been free to withdraw their services (i.e. strike). It has happened overseas ....

Wrong - if memory serves me correct many large sporting organisations in Australia signed a memorandum of intent to join the World Drug Organisation in their attempt to abolish drugs in sport by agreeing to their International doping policies and punishments. (It was this agreement which was also signed by the ACB that cost Shane Warne 1 year in sport).

The AFL at the time refused to sign this agreement stating that they did not have a drug issue. At the same time a major doping incident occurred and Australian sport complained about the leniency of the sentance given to the offenders (Chinese Divers or swimmers I think). Richard Pound (the system asteriks out his shortened name of D1ck) then responded "how could Australia complain when a major sporting organisation in Australia refused to join the International Sporting community against doping". The Federal Government then stepped in and threatened the AFL with monetary restrictions and this forced the AFL to introduce the watered down version we currently have. I also seem to remember that the AFLPA also critised the AFL for not having a policy that was equivalent to international standards. This comment alone would of meant that the players would not have striked as if this had of occurred then it would of looked even worse for all sport in Australia.

The really sad part is that the drug policy created by the AFL was approved by **** Pound and since then other sporting organisations are now using the AFL's policies for their drug guidelines.

 

[AndyD]

Andy D has already seen the medical report from Vegas. Unless Sheehan has camera evidence in the hotel rooms hes gonna look like a dingbat

I have?

 

[RizzoTheRat]

Andy D has already seen the medical report from Vegas. Unless Sheehan has camera evidence in the hotel rooms hes gonna look like a dingbat

Has he? Why are you so sure? Your credibility is pretty much zero after your claims that Kerr was driven to the hospital in a cab against his own will.

Sheahan's comments were couched with a few caveats around it:

'Late last year, it was reported that a preimership player almost died on a recent players' trip to Las Vegas. The report did't mention drugs, but the industry soon knew exactly who had done exactly what'.

'The player supposedly is West Coasts 2006 premiership player Chad Fletcher, commonly believed to have almost died after an episode with an illicit substance that put him in hospital'.

He's reporting on what's being said around the traps, not that this is fact.

I find Goodings comments quite thin -

http://www.theage.com.au/realfooty/...etcher-collapse/2007/03/14/1173722558775.html

Chad Fletcher did get sick in Las Vegas on a private players trip," Gooding said. "We understand the sickness was alcohol-induced. He spent three days in hospital and the club is completely denying that there were any drugs involved."

Gooding said he could neither confirm nor deny that Fletcher had "flat-lined" in hospital and needed to be revived. He added that neither Fletcher nor the club had been misleading by suggesting that the collapse was due to an allergic reaction.

"If that (illness) involved an alcohol-induced triggering of an allergy to a vaccination we don't see that is misleading," he said.

Does 'any drug' include legal drugs?
Isn't a vaccination a 'drug'?
Was there a reaction between the booze and the vaccination? They don't seem to be sticking with this line.
Was it just booze? That's a hell of a lot of booze and really a problem in itself.

 

[toomanysquibs]

Mr Demetriou called for anyone with evidence of drug taking among players to come forward and tell the league

Do you have their number, apparently the entire WC football department are looking for it?