Roast I'm so upset with the whole club.

[jasonwilde]

Why not neither?

The AFL should either get serious about illicit drugs, or either simply stop testing for them/keep results entirely confidential.

Apologies, I've mentioned earlier in the thread that it's obvious that it's better for a player to refrain from 'impurities' altogether. My comment concerns the physical effects of recreational drugs vs. alcohol.

And as for the rest of your post, what do you mean 'get serious about illicit drugs'? Do you think honestly there's a problem? If so, why?

 

[The Royal Sampler]

what do you mean 'get serious about illicit drugs'? Do you think honestly there's a problem? If so, why?

I think there's a problem for the AFL, in that they test for illicit drugs in order to project the image of a safe and healthy pastime for kids to get involved with, but the only news that comes out of it damages the AFL's brand.

They should either stop testing for illicit drugs, or institute a two-strike policy where a second strike is permanent deregistration from the AFL. The first strike should be sold as an "in case your drink gets spiked", but in actual fact would be a wake-up call to someone who is young and potentially prone to making mistakes.

People seem to think that if you outlaw illicit drugs that you would not have a league. In reality, players are disposable, there are legions of players out there who would die to play for the most elite league in the country in front of adoring fans for boatloads of money. The game would move on very quickly, and the new standard would be set.

 

[jasonwilde]

I think there's a problem for the AFL, in that they test for illicit drugs in order to project the image of a safe and healthy pastime for kids to get involved with, but the only news that comes out of it damages the AFL's brand.

They should either stop testing for illicit drugs, or institute a two-strike policy where a second strike is permanent deregistration from the AFL. The first strike should be sold as an "in case your drink gets spiked", but in actual fact would be a wake-up call to someone who is young and potentially prone to making mistakes.

People seem to think that if you outlaw illicit drugs that you would not have a league. In reality, players are disposable, there are legions of players out there who would die to play for the most elite league in the country in front of adoring fans for boatloads of money. The game would move on very quickly, and the new standard would be set.

This issue stemmed from testing in the off season. I'm not sure why you have ignored this fact.

Still, I somewhat agree with you about the motivations for the AFL testing for recreational drugs in-season. We also can't ignore the harm Ben Cousins did to the brand and you can always count on the good old AFL to knee-jerk.

At the end of the day, there exists the possibility that recreational drug-taking will become decriminalised. I don't think it's fair that, in your scenario, a number of quality athletes/footballers should be penalised for this. I'm going off the top of my head, but didn't some Olympic athletes have medals returned after initially having them stripped for taking recreational drugs?

PEDs, yes. Different ballgame altogether.

At the end of the day their drug-taking is not harming anybody but themselves. But so does eating too much crap food, gambling, watching 'Neighbours' and perhaps chronic masterbating. As a cross-section of people they are far healthier and more financially successful than most other groups.

The issue is if their drug-taking gets out of control and it's pretty obvious that if anyone were to end up like Ben Cousins, then clubs would (now) be onto it pretty quick smart.

 

[jasonwilde]

This guy's on the money:
http://www.theroar.com.au/2016/03/31/dont-go-off-head-afls-illicit-drug-problem/

(Also, some interesting comments on the legalities of the testing conducted)

 

[PicaBoo]

This guy's on the money:
http://www.theroar.com.au/2016/03/31/dont-go-off-head-afls-illicit-drug-problem/

(Also, some interesting comments on the legalities of the testing conducted)

Nice dig here...

a tabloid journalist broke the news

 

[The Royal Sampler]

This issue stemmed from testing in the off season. I'm not sure why you have ignored this fact.

Still, I somewhat agree with you about the motivations for the AFL testing for recreational drugs in-season. We also can't ignore the harm Ben Cousins did to the brand and you can always count on the good old AFL to knee-jerk.

At the end of the day, there exists the possibility that recreational drug-taking will become decriminalised. I don't think it's fair that, in your scenario, a number of quality athletes/footballers should be penalised for this. I'm going off the top of my head, but didn't some Olympic athletes have medals returned after initially having them stripped for taking recreational drugs?

PEDs, yes. Different ballgame altogether.

At the end of the day their drug-taking is not harming anybody but themselves. But so does eating too much crap food, gambling, watching 'Neighbours' and perhaps chronic masterbating. As a cross-section of people they are far healthier and more financially successful than most other groups.

The issue is if their drug-taking gets out of control and it's pretty obvious that if anyone were to end up like Ben Cousins, then clubs would (now) be onto it pretty quick smart.

In-season, out of season, if I'm the AFL commissioner it's all the same to me. Illicit drugs don't need to be tested for. If it's out of season, we still have leaks. If it's in-season, you have every player who's suffered a medium term injury suspected of having his second strike.

My proposal eradicates that. One strike and you're named and you have a presser to give an apology. Second strike you're out.

I have no interest in whether taking drugs that are currently illegal might become legal in future. I'm running a sporting body and a billion dollar business. Couldn't care less if a few bad eggs are weeded out, and how much harm is done to the player themselves vs society by their drug-taking is also irrelevant. They are breaking the law and tarnishing my brand.

The soccer mums will love AFL because AFL footballers don't take drugs. There will be very little negative press surrounding illicit drug taking to deal with, and what there is will have a hard-line stance taken against it while also giving second chances.

That or, you know, just stop testing for it. Either way I'm good.

 

[jasonwilde]

In-season, out of season, if I'm the AFL commissioner it's all the same to me. Illicit drugs don't need to be tested for. If it's out of season, we still have leaks. If it's in-season, you have every player who's suffered a medium term injury suspected of having his second strike.

My proposal eradicates that. One strike and you're named and you have a presser to give an apology. Second strike you're out.

I have no interest in whether taking drugs that are currently illegal might become legal in future. I'm running a sporting body and a billion dollar business. Couldn't care less if a few bad eggs are weeded out, and how much harm is done to the player themselves vs society by their drug-taking is also irrelevant. They are breaking the law and tarnishing my brand.

The soccer mums will love AFL because AFL footballers don't take drugs. There will be very little negative press surrounding illicit drug taking to deal with, and what there is will have a hard-line stance taken against it while also giving second chances.

That or, you know, just stop testing for it. Either way I'm good.

Wow. We're poles apart here.
Civil liberties and that.

We might as well dig up Nancy and she can sell a 'just say no' policy to potential draftees. I've no doubt it would work well.

 

[Cousin of Daicos]

I don't get why there is an illicit drugs policy.

No other sport in the world has one. It's not needed and the fact that these players VOLUNTEER for the hair testing just makes it all the more pointless.

 

[Collingwoodity]

Whilst I appreciate your attempt at a well-reasoned post, like many other posters here you have missed the 'voluntary' 'illicit' drug testing in the 'off season'.

They respect the very stringent rules during the regular season.

You seem to have confused the issue and it means that a lot of what you've written is moot.

And you know this how?

 

[Schraderbrau]

.

People seem to think that if you outlaw illicit drugs that you would not have a league. In reality, players are disposable, there are legions of players out there who would die to play for the most elite league in the country in front of adoring fans for boatloads of money. The game would move on very quickly, and the new standard would be set.

That may have been the case in the past but the existence of the PA means that that kind of attitude towards players doesn't exist anymore. Any kind of illicit drug code will have to have the PA onside and a punitive one will have take involve significant concessions from the AFL if it has any chance.

 

[malteaser]

The funny thing is that we have no idea out of our list who took the so call illicit drugs, even pot comes under illegal, but thats not my point. My point is that we often see the half glass full scenario. Rather I would say if 11 was the magic number, then in my reckoning 35 players tested negative. LOL what are we so pissed of about. So a kid had a line when going out for news year eve, did he kill someone. The attitude by many must believe the players have kilos of the stuff in their fridge, who line up every day during the off season. OMG. As a 52 year old get a grip, I've been fortunate enough to work O/S for many well known big companies and for many wealthy powerful people. In my own opinion they have far worse drug habit than the general population and they make life changing decisions that effect more than just a bloody footy team. It's just that we, the middle class, like to throw stones at those who are powerless, than to the people we should be throwing stones at. I have witnessed the top 1% money earners of their trees on uppers downers and work at the same time. We NEVER question their decisions or their behaviour. Social norms made by those who make the rest of us feel guilty. Everyone is addicted to something or have some sort of phobias which alters our behaviour. It's human nature. Maybe if we weren't pawns in a chess game and our society were treated with some sort of respect then people wouldn't have to take something to make their lives better. Lets not also forget, our grand forefathers saw the great benefit of Opium. The Egyptians, the Incas etc etc have also been affected by drugs or poisons. It's not new, never will go away. It's only illegal because the government says so. Funny how MDA was once used and never questioned by slave owners, so they could improve the sex drive of African American slaves. Hemp was seen as taking profits from Dupont when nylon became the cheap alternative. Hence funny how Hemp was eventually criminalised.

 

[jasonwilde]

And you know this how?

Ummm, because they're tested a fair bit...
Perhaps more than most other sports.

Drugs aside, they also have their lives under the microscope. Skin folds, eating & training regimes.
To try and pretend that they're this group of out of control individuals is horse shit.

 

[Collingwoodity]

Ummm, because they're tested a fair bit...
Perhaps more than most other sports.

Drugs aside, they also have their lives under the microscope. Skin folds, eating & training regimes.
To try and pretend that they're this group of out of control individuals is horse shit.

I don't know who is doing that, I certainly am not.

Frankly I don't care what they do so long as it does not affect their performance. Based on what Buckley and Eddie have said, it has affected their performances. In Thomas and Keeffe's cases, it has meant that they have not played for 2 years.

This seems to be somewhere between "out of control" and "controlled".

 

[jasonwilde]

I don't know who is doing that, I certainly am not.

Frankly I don't care what they do so long as it does not affect their performance. Based on what Buckley and Eddie have said, it has affected their performances. In Thomas and Keeffe's cases, it has meant that they have not played for 2 years.

This seems to be somewhere between "out of control" and "controlled".

Buckley said that that Collingwood were 'named' affected their performance. Not the drug-taking in the off season.

 

[Collingwoodity]

Buckley said that that Collingwood were 'named' affected their performance. Not the drug-taking in the off season.

But the naming of Collingwood players taking drugs is a corollary of Collingwood players taking drugs?

 

[jasonwilde]

But the naming of Collingwood players taking drugs is a corollary of Collingwood players taking drugs?

Honestly?

You're aware that it was revealed that quite a few AFL players tested positive to illicit drugs in the off season? With Collingwood 'possibly' being ranked the third highest?

The issue, for those that see beyond the bullshit, sensationalist headlines, is that Collongwood only were named and shamed (by an alcoholic too).

 

[Collingwoodity]

Honestly?

You're aware that it was revealed that quite a few AFL players tested positive to illicit drugs in the off season? With Collingwood 'possibly' being ranked the third highest?

The issue, for those that see beyond the bullshit, sensationalist headlines, is that Collongwood only were named and shamed (by an alcoholic too).

I know all of that, but I don't care about other clubs or Robbo. I care that it has affected Collingwood.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

Wow. We're poles apart here.
Civil liberties and that.

We might as well dig up Nancy and she can sell a 'just say no' policy to potential draftees. I've no doubt it would work well.

I think you missed the part where I was hypothetically in the role of commissioner of the AFL. As a fan I would obviously do things differently.

That may have been the case in the past but the existence of the PA means that that kind of attitude towards players doesn't exist anymore. Any kind of illicit drug code will have to have the PA onside and a punitive one will have take involve significant concessions from the AFL if it has any chance.

Not sure on that one. If the AFL wanted to tighten the policy and include the threat of deregistration under the catch-all of "bringing the game into disrepute", I'm not sure the cleanskins would jeopardize their future to allow others taking their opportunity, club and teammates for granted to have a three-strike policy.

See: GWS' CEO's attitude to negotiations with the AFLPA. They're essentially a paper tiger because the game will go on regardless. Fans love the players, but if a new bunch of guys run out in the jumper, they'll still support them instead.

 

[NT.Thunder]

Who is this Robbo bloke you all speak about anyway?

 

[Somebody]

Why test in the off season?

didnt they get Keefe and Thomas for off-season use?

 

[Anzacday]

didnt they get Keefe and Thomas for off-season use?

Different testing.
One was for banned substances, (which they happened to be as a result of illicit drugs).
The other was for illicit drugs and doesn't involve banned substances.

 

[jmac70]

didnt they get Keefe and Thomas for off-season use?

They took PEDs.

 

[sirlothie]

This issue stemmed from testing in the off season. I'm not sure why you have ignored this fact.

Still, I somewhat agree with you about the motivations for the AFL testing for recreational drugs in-season. We also can't ignore the harm Ben Cousins did to the brand and you can always count on the good old AFL to knee-jerk.

At the end of the day, there exists the possibility that recreational drug-taking will become decriminalised. I don't think it's fair that, in your scenario, a number of quality athletes/footballers should be penalised for this. I'm going off the top of my head, but didn't some Olympic athletes have medals returned after initially having them stripped for taking recreational drugs?

PEDs, yes. Different ballgame altogether.

At the end of the day their drug-taking is not harming anybody but themselves. But so does eating too much crap food, gambling, watching 'Neighbours' and perhaps chronic masterbating. As a cross-section of people they are far healthier and more financially successful than most other groups.

The issue is if their drug-taking gets out of control and it's pretty obvious that if anyone were to end up like Ben Cousins, then clubs would (now) be onto it pretty quick smart.

There is a tiny chance marijuana will be decriminalised. No other drug will ever become legal.

 

[Heater39]

& It's obviously better for them to take recreational drugs than to drink lots of beer.

Provided you are taking what you think you are taking... which you can never be 100% sure of with illicit drugs

 

[TheSierBear]

They took PEDs.

Did they tell you this?