- Banned
- #201
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 7 - Pride Round - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Drug Use Rampant in AFL (especially at the Weagles)
- Thread starter UpTheGuts
- Start date
- Tagged users None
The Eagles will do nothing about this.
As long as there is plenty of money in the franchises bank- all is OK.
The allegation that half of the players are "into it" is probably the most worrying for the AFL. That ratio isn't normal.
As long as there is plenty of money in the franchises bank- all is OK.
The allegation that half of the players are "into it" is probably the most worrying for the AFL. That ratio isn't normal.
First surfaced yesterday on realfooty with the title
"Drug abuse, shady dealings rampant among football's finest"
It then went missing for a while and resurfaced this morning with the title
"Footy's finest - young, rich and out of it"
That went missing for a while and is now back.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/natio...1173478727321.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
- Banned
- #205
A newspaper rehashes old strories of variable reliability (and in some cases just errant facts) and this amounts to "a crisis of public confidence in the AFL drugs policy"?
What are you on?
- Aug 9, 2006
- 3,359
- 5,941
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
- Other Teams
- Packers, Detroit Tigers
Rule was implying there were drugs involved. Quote: "The spectre of substance abuse hangs over the Las Vegas episode as it hangs over other strange incidents - the arrest, for instance of Geelong's Steve Johnson in Wangaratta this year after worried householders called police when he staggered into their yard late at night and allegedly tried to drink from a bottle of suntan lotion on their patio"
- Banned
- #207
Fairfax's lawyers would have checked the article well in advance of publication, I guarantee.
As for getting sued in a second, not a chance. Ever heard of the defence of truth and/or public interest?
You will find that Embers runs away when faced with the facts.
- Banned
- #208
I read that as alcohol abuse
A couple of things.
Firstly, the reason why many companies are drug testing their employees is NOT because of the Nanny State. It is because they are covering their backsides. If one of their employees is killed or injured (or kills or injures someone else), whilst working under the influence, then they are legally liable for damages due to the fact that they ALLOWED him/her to work in this condition. Crazy but true.
If they can prove that they do their absolute best to prevent this from happening (eg having a drug policy which is widely known and actively enforced) then they are able to minimise their liability should something go wrong.
Secondly, I can't help but wonder if it is time the AFL took over in determining the punishments handed out to misbehaving players. The clubs clearly can't be trusted to do it for two reasons: they have a vested interest in having their best team on the field each week and the fear of losing players to trades if the player(s) are unhappy with their punishments. For this reason, the best players (the likes of Tarrant, Cousins, Kerr and others) continually get off with little more than a slap on the wrist, while those who are seen to be expendable (Angwin, Norman, Gardiner) cop more meaningful penalties.
If the power to sanction players for off-field demeanours were given to the AFL then the players would probably receive more significant penalties - they would face suspension and/or deregistration, no matter who they were. Sure, the AFL would prefer to see all teams playing at full strength, but they (unlike the clubs) do not have a strongly vested interest in seeing any particular team win (insert latest conspiracy theory here). The players would not be able to hold their teams over a barrell as it would be the governing body which was enforcing their punishments and they would know that they would cop the same penalty no matter which club they represented.
Firstly, the reason why many companies are drug testing their employees is NOT because of the Nanny State. It is because they are covering their backsides. If one of their employees is killed or injured (or kills or injures someone else), whilst working under the influence, then they are legally liable for damages due to the fact that they ALLOWED him/her to work in this condition. Crazy but true.
If they can prove that they do their absolute best to prevent this from happening (eg having a drug policy which is widely known and actively enforced) then they are able to minimise their liability should something go wrong.
Secondly, I can't help but wonder if it is time the AFL took over in determining the punishments handed out to misbehaving players. The clubs clearly can't be trusted to do it for two reasons: they have a vested interest in having their best team on the field each week and the fear of losing players to trades if the player(s) are unhappy with their punishments. For this reason, the best players (the likes of Tarrant, Cousins, Kerr and others) continually get off with little more than a slap on the wrist, while those who are seen to be expendable (Angwin, Norman, Gardiner) cop more meaningful penalties.
If the power to sanction players for off-field demeanours were given to the AFL then the players would probably receive more significant penalties - they would face suspension and/or deregistration, no matter who they were. Sure, the AFL would prefer to see all teams playing at full strength, but they (unlike the clubs) do not have a strongly vested interest in seeing any particular team win (insert latest conspiracy theory here). The players would not be able to hold their teams over a barrell as it would be the governing body which was enforcing their punishments and they would know that they would cop the same penalty no matter which club they represented.
The similarities with BF eagles posters and the club are striking. First we have a more than half defending a team which more than half arecrack whores. Now this....
- May 15, 2006
- 19,595
- 19,977
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Other Teams
- The Cobblers who do the Cobbling
I've been on the wallop plenty of times, and even when i got extremely pissed, i don't recall ever entering someone else's backyard at night and mistaking a bottle of suntan lotion for a stubbie of VB.
There is a strong possibility other substances were involved,
- Banned
- #212
What if the lotion was in a beer bottle? I know of kids who have drank petrol from beer bottles...
Ceriouss
Debutant
- Feb 7, 2007
- 69
- 0
- AFL Club
- Richmond
Was Michael Gardiner an All-Australian?
I thought the reference was to a (former) defender from one of the interstate clubs...
Horse ****. I often sit down, type at the computer and slag off the weagles while sipping suntan lotion.
- Banned
- #217
I think Bunsen Burners point is that the 'random' testing of employees is restricted to the mining/oil& gas industries (in the main) and while it extends to all staff (including those not on site) it is restricted to times when they are actually at work (in that sense its hardly random).
I believe his example was that Woodside/Chevron or whoever are unlikely to be able to knock on the door at their receptionists house at 8am on a Sunday morning and test for substances.
The AFL and other agencies are in fact already testing outside work hours, when on holidays and at other times they like. This is in stark contrast to those employers in a very restricted set of industries.
Again his point remains valid that the majority of businesses do not test and will not test their employees for drugs or alcohol. The relatively small number that do, do not test outside working hours.
Of those that do not test, most would certainly retain the right to terminate staff for turning up loaded at work and most could terminate for committing a "serious" criminal offence. Serious is obviously a question of definition.
Bunsen burners point remains a resonable one. The AFL players are currently subjected to a far higher standard of testing than the vast majority of Australian workers and the reasons for this are hard to understand. Unless you accept the idea that footballers should be better people than the rest of us which is an interesting idea.
We come back to this notion of role models - the blunt instrument - anything that an AFL player does that is outside some "mum & dad" generic norm is "unacceptable". This is the same as political correctness- I mean who are these arbiters of what is "acceptable"? If its Andrew Rule or Joe Bloggs then I want them subjected to some sort of background check. Have they ever been pissed in public? or cheated on their partners? or filed an incorrect tax return? or or or ....
The point being something about glass houses and all that but in this debate the agenda setters are immune as they are not public figures AND they get to set the rules. Anytime you have someone who can make rules without accountability you have an inherent unfairness.
Rant over
PS: This does not mean that I agree that Kerry hasnt been a knob or that Cousins hasnt been "misguided", its just that its only a big issue because "they" (whoever they are) decided it was. They create an issue, create a story, refuse to be accountable and then say they are just reporting what people want to hear about. Really? You were all hanging out for THIS story?
The Other Coach (TOC)
Debutant
- Sep 24, 2006
- 93
- 1
and the player who alomost craoked in the US is allegedly???????
- Banned
- #220
Which is primarily an American notion (based on a lawsuit or two) being driven by Americans running large multi-nationals and trickles down to their key contractors and trading partners.
I understand why they do it. Can you tell me what level of risk an AFL side runs by having a player playing for the club who used a substance during his 6 week annual leave?
Cheers.
crikey man, 'tis written in various posts throughout this thread - chad fletcher.
I work in inner Melbourne where plenty of doorways are overnight hotels. There are plenty of odd left overs. lemon essence is a popular one. Wouldn't know what Johnno was up to, but I don't think even on substances you could get a bottle of suntan lotion confused with VB
- Banned
- #225
I think Bunsen Burners point is that the 'random' testing of employees is restricted to the mining/oil& gas industries (in the main) and while it extends to all staff (including those not on site) it is restricted to times when they are actually at work (in that sense its hardly random).
I believe his example was that Woodside/Chevron or whoever are unlikely to be able to knock on the door at their receptionists house at 8am on a Sunday morning and test for substances.
The AFL and other agencies are in fact already testing outside work hours, when on holidays and at other times they like. This is in stark contrast to those employers in a very restricted set of industries.
Again his point remains valid that the majority of businesses do not test and will not test their employees for drugs or alcohol. The relatively small number that do, do not test outside working hours.
Of those that do not test, most would certainly retain the right to terminate staff for turning up loaded at work and most could terminate for committing a "serious" criminal offence. Serious is obviously a question of definition.
Bunsen burners point remains a resonable one. The AFL players are currently subjected to a far higher standard of testing than the vast majority of Australian workers and the reasons for this are hard to understand. Unless you accept the idea that footballers should be better people than the rest of us which is an interesting idea.
We come back to this notion of role models - the blunt instrument - anything that an AFL player does that is outside some "mum & dad" generic norm is "unacceptable". This is the same as political correctness- I mean who are these arbiters of what is "acceptable"? If its Andrew Rule or Joe Bloggs then I want them subjected to some sort of background check. Have they ever been pissed in public? or cheated on their partners? or filed an incorrect tax return? or or or ....
The point being something about glass houses and all that but in this debate the agenda setters are immune as they are not public figures AND they get to set the rules. Anytime you have someone who can make rules without accountability you have an inherent unfairness.
Rant over
PS: This does not mean that I agree that Kerry hasnt been a knob or that Cousins hasnt been "misguided", its just that its only a big issue because "they" (whoever they are) decided it was. They create an issue, create a story, refuse to be accountable and then say they are just reporting what people want to hear about. Really? You were all hanging out for THIS story?
All very fair, valid and well made points!
If we were only talking about "recreational" drug use.
Unfortunately we aren't in this case.
The AFL has an obligation to also test for "Performance Enhancing Drugs" in its drug testing regime.
Hence the need for after hours random drug testing.
This is a unique situation for Athletes that reach the elite level in any type of sport.
Now if the AFL makes the decision that testing in the off season is to be restricted to performance enhancing drugs only, then I personally have no problem with that.
But do you think that now the regime has put these rules in place, they will do a public backflip on policy that will give a public projection of a recreational drug free for all in the off season?
I don't think they will in this climate of "Just say No to Drugs!!
It would be a very brave decision indeed!
Similar threads
