Dont honestly think they need to cover anything up as the player on 2 strikes just goes into the medical world and testing dries up so that they never have to cover up a third strike.
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Nostradamus Lives Is it beyond the realms of possibility for the AFL to cover up a drug incident involving a player
- Thread starter Bengraham
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
No, a third strike triggers the tribunal route that we saw with Travis.
Again if you look back, you see the layers of people that would have knowledge about a third strike and that would have to be involved in a cover-up.
As for a player who has got three strikes divulging, a player knowing would be the last person I would want to try to keep it secret. Books after they retire, being bitter at the AFL or a Club, telling mates drunk or something. If the player finds out, it would be hard to hide and (again) as I said earlier, the risk of it getting out and damage that would do would be about a million times worst then any player (you take your pick) being given a third strike! There is zero benefit trying to cover up a 3rd strike! None!
You don't have to cover up anything if there was never a third strike? Remember I don't believe there would have to be a conspiracy, I am asking you why you think it would have to be hidden. Who hides it? Why would they target test a person known to have a drug dependancy?
There does not have to be the all conquering conspiracy because a player on 2 strikes will be forced to get help through the AFL channels and whilst that is being underdone IMO there is no testing for a third strike. You jump from player getting 1st strike to there would have to be a massive conspiracy. Its not that black and white, there are medical experts involved who take over the welfare of the player at the AFL request.
We had this discussion before and you or I don't know how long that window is for testing after strikes (especially 2) and that is a massive loop hole for the AFL never to have to face the prospect of a third strike.
For it to be a cover up.
-The AFL's testing regime would have to be as strict as they say it is, which seems at odds because we have seen the policy and then we have seen that AD has said that there is a window of non testing for a player that has failed a test, massive conflict.
-The Medico's + Healthcare Pro's would have to allow and probably make a suggestion that a current player seeking medical treatment for addiction should be target tested during treatment, seems counter productive to the well being of their patient.
-Then between the upper echelons of the AFL (who claim they do not know the players who are currently on 2 strikes [seems like BS to me] and the medico's would have to want to out this player to point out a cover up, can't really see that.
-You are right about the player making a buck in a tell all book, and it is that reason I cant see the AFL would trust the player to let them be a party to the whole process. It would be interesting to see how many players on 2 strikes have been tested at all, within a 4 year period of course because of strikes being removed after that, and wonder if they would say that in a book?
Strahany
Premiership Player
I don't necessarily believe that there is a cover up, but there is certainly enough evidence for it in my mind.
There's been continual rumours of player X or Y being seen on drugs or on a certain number of strikes for years now, and I've never had any reason to believe them.
That was until I may or may not have seen one particular player under the influence of something other than alcohol. That there proved to me that this particular individual has indulged in illegal substances at least once, and people don't often do it 'just once', particularly when it is so readily accessible to someone in their profession.
Because of what I saw, I certainly believe that there is a reasonably high possibility that this particular player is on at least one strike and, if the AFL is doing their job properly, should probably be on 2 or 3. Further, if this is the case, then it would almost be a given that there would be a cover up, as the damage this would cause to the AFL brand would be immense.
The only people involved in a possible cover up would be high-ranking officials, the player himself, and the doctor(s) involved. Of course the doctor(s) cannot say anything about the matter, the player would never speak of it, and the AFL officials certainly wouldn't discuss the very thing that they're trying to sweep under the carpet.
So, on that note, if this player I'm talking about has indeed received their third strike (which isn't unlikely based on what I've seen), then I see no reason why the AFL wouldn't attempt to hide this matter, nor any reason why they'd be unable to.
Just my observation on the matter.
There's been continual rumours of player X or Y being seen on drugs or on a certain number of strikes for years now, and I've never had any reason to believe them.
That was until I may or may not have seen one particular player under the influence of something other than alcohol. That there proved to me that this particular individual has indulged in illegal substances at least once, and people don't often do it 'just once', particularly when it is so readily accessible to someone in their profession.
Because of what I saw, I certainly believe that there is a reasonably high possibility that this particular player is on at least one strike and, if the AFL is doing their job properly, should probably be on 2 or 3. Further, if this is the case, then it would almost be a given that there would be a cover up, as the damage this would cause to the AFL brand would be immense.
The only people involved in a possible cover up would be high-ranking officials, the player himself, and the doctor(s) involved. Of course the doctor(s) cannot say anything about the matter, the player would never speak of it, and the AFL officials certainly wouldn't discuss the very thing that they're trying to sweep under the carpet.
So, on that note, if this player I'm talking about has indeed received their third strike (which isn't unlikely based on what I've seen), then I see no reason why the AFL wouldn't attempt to hide this matter, nor any reason why they'd be unable to.
Just my observation on the matter.
Obviously there are players using recreational drugs, if so and they have tested positive 3 times you'd hope that the AFL stick by their process and out the players and suspend them, not hide behind clauses and subtext. All anyone expects is the same treatment across the league no matter who they are, who they play for and which state they're from. I seriously doubt that it is the same treatment.
Necromancer Beth
Turn On The Bright Lights
You're probably the 2463rd person who has either done drugs with said player, or seen said player off his head. Funny when "said player" has pretty much been a ****ing homebody for the last three years. I smell bullshit.
Strahany
Premiership Player
It's wonderful how you can know who I'm talking about when I haven't even mentioned a name.
I'm not forcing you to believe me. I saw what I saw; that's enough for me to make up my mind on this issue.
Necromancer Beth
Turn On The Bright Lights
I call bullshit. Lets just leave it at that.
Strahany
Premiership Player
And I have no problem with that; you're entitled to your opinion.
An opinion which means less than nothing to me, no less.
IMO the 3 stirkes policy was an inititiative of 2 things;
1/ Player welfare point of view from the AFLPA
2/ AFL brand protection
They got together created the policy that is meant to be player welfare first but give the AFL an out if said player creates a media shit storm that looks bad for the AFL.
It is for this reason that I think the AFL reserves the 3rd strike for public incidents. They test the players and try and help them by getting medico's involved and after 2 failed tests they probably stop testing for some time. But if that player does something in the public eye, then the AFL can play the 3rd strike card and look like they are on top of that whole illicit drug use thing.
IIRC it was setup very in house and without proper consultation from WADA which lead them to their stand point of "well thats great and all, but it really isn't enough". They took a very medical approach consulting Doctors and people that work with addiction. But for their rep they had to come out and say "look at us we will punish any player caught with 3 strikes". Which lead the media to ask the obvious nuts and bolts questions which the AFL had no answer for and witch made the media smell bullshit. Hence why it got and still gets to this day such a negative rap.
No cover up required. The player simply becomes a patient who is getting treatment for addiction and unless he does something public will probably stay that way for some time.
boncer34
Formerly "Dos23"
80% of Bigfooty calls bullshit on everything you post.
Do you leave it there?
Necromancer Beth
Turn On The Bright Lights
80% of Bigfooty calls bullshit on everything you post.
Do you leave it there?
You mad about something?
boncer34
Formerly "Dos23"
lionaround
Club Legend
In other news, Buddy is a late withdrawal today with "illness"
Upgrayedd
A Vote for Clive is a Vote for Justice
6 and 3/4ths, Do the 3/4ths count as a whole game or does he have to be a sub when he comes back from his super secret suspension?
treefingers
Cancelled
- Jan 20, 2008
- 6,514
- 8,396
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
The easiest way to do it would be if a high profile player is on 2 strikes, they just stop testing them
peter care
Debutant
Yes, but they would have to face the tribunal. However there is nothing stopping the tribunal being held "in camera. " Lets say, for example a big name, the face of the competition tests positive 3 times, what happens? Here is a fictitious example of what could happen. A big name key forward from an important minority community, e.g Israel Folau or Nic Nat test positive 3 times. Huge name like this would hurt the competition. So there is an in-camera tribunal and the player is suspended for 8 weeks. It is announced that the player has "done a hammy" at training and would be out for 3 to 4 weeks. After 5 weeks of the club being conservative, the player trains well during the week but mysteriously pulls out of the morning of the game. The club announces he has an illness. Week 7 he pulls out again with a virus on the morning of the game. Week 8 he is left out because of a "personal" family issue, (with it being leaked there is an illness to a close family member). After 8 weeks, this big footballer is back from suspension, and nobody is the wiser. Note: I think Israel and Nic are clean, they are just mentioned as an example of the type of big name player this cover-up could happen to. So you may ask why no cover up of Travis Tuck? He is a "small name", thus dispensable, and he was caught by the police, not the AFL, so they could not cover it up.
Because I believe there would not be a third strike through testing. IMO Travis Tuck was not outed because he was a small name but because he did something publicly so that the AFL took their opportunity to play the 3rd strike card. He had 2 strikes and was probably getting help through an AFL medico for it. It is a get out of gaol free card when faced with a media shit storm about a player that is having troubles. For instance if Tuck had not been caught in a public event I think he would still be in the AFL on 2 strikes and getting help.
I honestly don't believe it's about the welfare of the player or the policy to be seen as a deterrent, it can only be seen as a form of control and protecting the games image. If what is thought to be happening is true then it's an utter disgrace
The players would not have signed up to it if they didn't think that players should get the appropriate help for a drug problem.
Well lets put it this way IMO the AFL wanted it for image protection but he AFLPA would have agreed because they wanted players with problems to get help than to be hung out to dry by clubs/league.
Well lets put it this way IMO the AFL wanted it for image protection but he AFLPA would have agreed because they wanted players with problems to get help than to be hung out to dry by clubs/league.
- Aug 12, 2012
- 134
- 53
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Banned
- #250
Age is apparently sorting its legal position out as we speak.
- Status
