-
AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Demetriou says "Show me the proof"
- Thread starter Big Cox
- Start date
- Tagged users None
JeffDunne
TheBrownDog
I was about to post a picture of Ryan Houlihan . . . fortunately for me I re-read the thread title before I did. 
- Banned
- #54
You don't know me as a poster very well, so don't bloody well assume what I would or wouldn't do.
I have stuck my head up and have had it kicked on a couple of occasions, and have been happy to publicly apologise.
Jesus I even had to apologise to Embers once.
And believe me that hurt.
I cannot however speak for the journalists involved.
And whose fault is that???
I don't know who that white guy in the middle is, but the guy on the right is Dynamite MC!!
compare
http://www.teknoscape.com.au/gallery/details.php?image_id=12313
http://bradism.com/images/user/brad/christmas_dynamite.jpg
The thing is that if the allegations are found to be true (despite the BigFooty jury coming to their own verdict long ago), the AFL can't and won't do anything. It will be listed as a first strike, so Chad Fletcher can go out and OD again for all the AFL cares and there still won't be any damage done, except that people know his name.
Does anyone else think that the reason there's a recreational drug problem in the AFL is because there's no penalty until you're caught for a third time? This isn't about BigFooty's perceptions of a culture problem at WCE - it's no one's business what the players do off-field - this is about there being no fear in the players that if they are caught only once then their whole career is in jeopardy, ala Justin Charles and his 'roids.
So for the AFL to come out and say that they're doing everything they can - they're not at all and they won't be until the lax laws are tightened so much that there's no ambiguity or first (or even second) warnings. Players should feel like there's a noose around their neck every time they step out into a social situation if the AFL want to improve the image of the league. As it is, there's a feather duster being taken to the issue.
As I've said before, what happens in a player's own time is none of my business and I don't care at all, as long as it doesn't interfere with their performance on-field. Once it starts interfering with their form on the ground I'll get worried as my season ticket money is paid so I can see football, not role models who happen to play football.
If I were a Freo supporter (shocked at the thought) and I knew that Jeff Farmer beat his wife up (like every Freo supporter does), I'd still like to see him play good football (like every Freo supporter does) despite his obvious shortcomings off the field. However, when those shortcomings make their way onto the field (i.e blatant eyegouging), you'd have reasons to be concerned.
But sorry, I'll let everyone get back to how big and bad the West Coast Eagles are when their club is squeaky clean as we all know.
Does anyone else think that the reason there's a recreational drug problem in the AFL is because there's no penalty until you're caught for a third time? This isn't about BigFooty's perceptions of a culture problem at WCE - it's no one's business what the players do off-field - this is about there being no fear in the players that if they are caught only once then their whole career is in jeopardy, ala Justin Charles and his 'roids.
So for the AFL to come out and say that they're doing everything they can - they're not at all and they won't be until the lax laws are tightened so much that there's no ambiguity or first (or even second) warnings. Players should feel like there's a noose around their neck every time they step out into a social situation if the AFL want to improve the image of the league. As it is, there's a feather duster being taken to the issue.
As I've said before, what happens in a player's own time is none of my business and I don't care at all, as long as it doesn't interfere with their performance on-field. Once it starts interfering with their form on the ground I'll get worried as my season ticket money is paid so I can see football, not role models who happen to play football.
If I were a Freo supporter (shocked at the thought) and I knew that Jeff Farmer beat his wife up (like every Freo supporter does), I'd still like to see him play good football (like every Freo supporter does) despite his obvious shortcomings off the field. However, when those shortcomings make their way onto the field (i.e blatant eyegouging), you'd have reasons to be concerned.
But sorry, I'll let everyone get back to how big and bad the West Coast Eagles are when their club is squeaky clean as we all know.
Wooshavich
Debutant
- Sep 22, 2006
- 84
- 0
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Given that I don't live on BF that is more than likely true. Apologies.
You are one in a million Bushie, or one in 33,200 to be precise
Neither can you speak for very other Tom D1ick and Harry registered on these forums.
Anyhow. Perhaps what will come out of all of this is a better set of rules in the future, something in between the current arrangements and the NRLs one strike and you're out. The current arrangements do nothing to protect the game's image and "the brand" while NRLs do nothing for the player's welfare. Not sure if there is anything in between though.
Good question.
Time for the AFL Administration to grow some balls and tackle a big issue, instead of scandalising 18 year olds who've bet $10 on a match.
RoganSaint
Senior List
Probably been suggested before, or maybe I'll get flamed for suggesting it, but is it possible that if this was found to be proven to be 'drug related' that it wouldn't be a first strike? (given there is 24 or whatever and we don't know who they all are etc etc.) and if THAT was the case it would certainly explain the reluctance to admit it, cause hey, if it was a first strike and it was me I would say look I ****ed up, this is why you shouldn't try drugs
- Banned
- #63
No problems.
Thanks for that
You are one in a million Bushie, or one in 33,200 to be precise
No!!
Just too honest for my own good at times.
I only ever speak for myself and my opinions.
I have flamed more than one Docker supporter on here in the past.
Agree and hope that you are correct 100%.
But lets sort out the current crap first.
And then we can move forward.
- Banned
- #64
Now thats a nice shade of purple.
The lengths some Freo nuffs nuffs will go to to show their support
Pathetic isn't it!
It cost me a fortune to get that exact colour crayon.
That's a good point, maybe Chaddy is on a strike already. It would explain the cover up to a degree, but as it's all hush,hush on that front so i guess we will never know.
- Apr 27, 2002
- 16,226
- 13,298
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Edmonton Oilers, Newcastle
What he actually said was "Show me the ****". Not very PC, eh.
see post 52 for a better effort.
Gawd damn Vlad has got his head totally buried in the sand.
I am a Hawks supporter and I dont care which player flat lined from a supposed OD - if any player flat lines then the AFL must look outside their current rules and regulations. Right now, if the reports are true Chad should be going through the strike 1 phase of assistance however as he almost lost his life from drug use I think he should now be suspended by the AFL for several weeks (including all training) - ok I know Eagles supporters will hate this comment however this suspension would be applied so that he could dedicate time to talk to children around the country on the dangers of drug use. For a kids to hear from an elite sportsman about the dangers of drugs and how it almost took his life may stop a few in the future from taking the risk, experimenting and dying from an overdose.
Right now all I can see is that children are listening to these rumours being reported in the press and see that well if he is not in trouble with his employers and he lived well where is the problem with experimenting with drugs (and I am quoting my 12 year old son here). Can parents whose children die from an OD now sue the AFL as they are saying they see nothing wrong with drug usage from players.
Wake up Vlad and realise that if these incidents hit the press then the AFL must take a stand - DRUGS KILL and one day it could be one of your friends children or worse even yours.
I am a Hawks supporter and I dont care which player flat lined from a supposed OD - if any player flat lines then the AFL must look outside their current rules and regulations. Right now, if the reports are true Chad should be going through the strike 1 phase of assistance however as he almost lost his life from drug use I think he should now be suspended by the AFL for several weeks (including all training) - ok I know Eagles supporters will hate this comment however this suspension would be applied so that he could dedicate time to talk to children around the country on the dangers of drug use. For a kids to hear from an elite sportsman about the dangers of drugs and how it almost took his life may stop a few in the future from taking the risk, experimenting and dying from an overdose.
Right now all I can see is that children are listening to these rumours being reported in the press and see that well if he is not in trouble with his employers and he lived well where is the problem with experimenting with drugs (and I am quoting my 12 year old son here). Can parents whose children die from an OD now sue the AFL as they are saying they see nothing wrong with drug usage from players.
Wake up Vlad and realise that if these incidents hit the press then the AFL must take a stand - DRUGS KILL and one day it could be one of your friends children or worse even yours.
- Banned
- #69
Are you (even vaguely) familiar with issues of fairness and equity?
Are you (even vaguely) familiar with the reasons behind the confidential treatment of drug users?
Are you aware that both Chad Fletcher and his club are adamant that no drugs were involved in the incident?
Fairness and equity require you to treat all offenders equally.
Confidentiality is considered best practice to try and help people overcome their problem.
The third point is self explanatory.
Perhaps next time engage your brain BEFORE typing.
- Apr 27, 2002
- 16,226
- 13,298
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Edmonton Oilers, Newcastle
According to you
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.
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.
Big Cox you are a grade a jack****. Which will Mike Sheehan make more money from: writing about the drug use, or by burning his sources and stepping up to resolve the issue?
Similar threads
