Fletcher not allowed to watch his son play

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think the rules are rules ......they must be adhered to

If you bend them ...then players break them

You'd have players then coaching and umpiring and saying fletch is allowed at an afl match why aren't we

......rules are rules

It's 12 months not a death sentence
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Not allowed on the ground or in dressing sheds.

Not fair.

Victim.

It wasn't performance enhancing - says Dustin's dad.

Not nice that the bans extend beyond playing.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...ms-or-oval-for-sons-game-20160405-gnz529.html

Such a tragedy of our time.

In honour of his sacrifice, tomorrow I will trip over random people in the street, accidently knee them while falling over and shake the goalposts of their life to make sure they do not achieve happiness.
 
"It wasn't performance enhancing. I might be old-fashioned but what about the recreational drugs at clubs. That stuff will ruin your life more than anything and nothing is done about it."

:D
 
9 pages + 1 month of hysteria over a "story" that was obviously bullshit to begin with. Which speaks to how ridiculously this story was treated all along with people feeling qualified to comment on something they know nothing about.

Of course he was never banned from watching his son - he's banned from coaching or being involved in sport, which anyone who knows the first thing about the WADA and ASADA drug codes already knows.

And then this from The Age:

The ban on Essendon players meant Dustin Fletcher was barred from going on the ground or into the change rooms to talk to his son Mason as he played for Calder Cannons in a state trial game on Tuesday.

The champion Essendon full-back was allowed to go into the ground and sit in the stands with own father, former Bombers captain Ken, but he was otherwise prohibited from contact with his son.


Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...-sons-game-20160405-gnz529.html#ixzz44yq0l13L
Oh the horror, a guy who is serving a ban for the use of PEDs is not allowed to make a living from sport, or to influence young sportsmen and sportswomen!

:rolleyes: Crap thread. Would still read again :D
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

If Dustin Fletcher came out and admitted his error and showed some sort of remorse I'd be more inclined to feel for him. If he did that then I could see him influencing young men in a positive way - "hey guys, you do know you are responsible for everything that enters your body? I didn't take that seriously and look at what happened. Don't let that happen to you".

Instead we get more of the same - we didn't do anything wrong, it wasn't performance enhancing, it's not like doping in cycling and (my favourite) "what about recreational drugs?
 
How many games has Dustin missed seeing his son play whilst he was playing with Essendon?
  • Whilst interstate?
  • Whilst doing recovery?
  • Whilst on International duty in 2005, 2006, 2010, 2014 and 2015?
  • Whilst being injected off site and not consulting anyone?
A lot of parents miss kids games, Dustin is lucky that he can watch the game, some other parents don't have that luxury.
 
Cry me a river

Yep. These poor heroic players getting the rough end of the stick by the evil anti-doping agencies.

Fletch should have thought about these things before he agreed to participate in an experimental and (allegedly) performance enhancing supplement regime. Senior players like him have ZERO excuse, he'd have sat through the AFL anti-doping presentation a few times during his career.
 
Yep. These poor heroic players getting the rough end of the stick by the evil anti-doping agencies.

Fletch should have thought about these things before he agreed to participate in an experimental and (allegedly) performance enhancing supplement regime. Senior players like him have ZERO excuse, he'd have sat through the AFL anti-doping presentation a few times during his career.

Could have also thought about it when ASADA offered him a slap on the wrist NRL type deal...
 
One line of defense for the 34 was that they are naive young men, some still teenagers or in their early 20's. This line was dribbled out on SEN, repeatedly. Does this make the Fletcher far more culpable than the rest? Watson?

Fletch is still in his 'early twenties' - just that it's his '1 hundred and twenties'
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top