The 3 strike clause should go......?

[zero]

stimulants are counted as PE when in-competition, so they should be (and are) tested for.

they should not be tested for out of competition.

 

[#1 Dogs Fan]

Drug test all winning teams, esp at finals time.

ZERO tolerance. If you can't guarantee that all players are clean you cna't guarantee the authenticity of any win.

Agree why dont they test all the players at the helf time break of every game in the season ?

 

[Aussiegod]

Are you happy for your employer to test you on your holidays?

What has this got to do with the AFL?

Who's talking holidays........??
My employer(due to my type of work) can drug test ME anytime, and I can't refuse.



Again, would you be happy for your employer to be able to spy into your private life?

I've nothing to hide..........not like some!


Bwahahahaha hahahahahaha.


How would that give "us" control. Think you been drinking too many drugs tonight.

The AFL have let this go on too long. Players have been ouy of control(this includes THEIR holidays too) and little seems to be done to bring them under control.
Think back to how many time there have been player problems outside, away from the club. There have been quite a few instances and court appearances.
If you really believe that the AFL have done a good job up to now, then you have been fooled......completely.
And I was under .05 and in complete control of my faculties, regardless of what some people think.

 

[jim boy]

3 strikes is patently unworkable. Essentially its just saying to the player that one or two strikes is fine, but once you hit two, clean up your act. Not that too many will get to two considering how few tests are actually carried out.

Which brings us to the next question, leaving aside WADA, should the AFL be testing for NPED at all, especially during the off-season? In one camp you have the argument going along the line of should your employer be allowed to test you on your holiday on the other hand we aren't footballers. AFL footballers are just sportsmen, they're arguably role models and the human face of footy. If they are caught doing drugs, even during the off-season, then footy as a whole is tarnished, not just the player.

 

[AndSmithMustScore]

No place for illicit drugs in society full stop, those are the sentiments of Joel Bowden and i agree with them.

One strike and a player should be out for a season.

Two and another season.

Three and never to play AFL again.

 

[Mofra]

Wat about the player who has multiple lines of coke? Over a long period of the off season? Does the club have a 'duty of care?

Duty of care? So if anyone develops a substance abuse problem they should have the right to sue their employer? Illogical.

 

[bunsen burner]

Agree why dont they test all the players at the helf time break of every game in the season ?

Because it'd cost nearly $8m.

 

[bunsen burner]

First and foremost: learn some forum etiquette and use the quote function properly. Shouldn't make people C&P if they want to quote you.

Who's talking holidays........??

You are talking holidays. You disagreed with what I was saying which is "The AFL should not be able to test for PED outside of game time. That includes holidays".

You also agree that illicit drugs positives should be named. These people are often tested in their holidays.

My employer(due to my type of work) can drug test ME anytime, and I can't refuse.

There's probably a very good reason for that. Now why do you think AFL players should be tested? Feel free to draw any similarities as to why you are tested and how that would relate to an AFL player.

I've nothing to hide..........not like some!

Let me rephrase it: Regardless whether you have anything to hide, and assuming that the said industry doesn't involve heavy machinery, weapons or other safety hazards, do you think it's fair for an employer can test and then make judgement on an employee's lifestyle choice?

The AFL have let this go on too long. Players have been ouy of control(this includes THEIR holidays too) and little seems to be done to bring them under control.

Ever considered it's not their business? And do you advocate bans for drink drivers, assault perps, and any other criminal behaviour?

If you really believe that the AFL have done a good job up to now, then you have been fooled......completely.

What has this got to do with anything at all?

 

[bunsen burner]

No place for illicit drugs in society full stop,

So we can assume you wouldn't have a problem with any employer being able to test it's employees at any time and even in holidays?

 

[stui magpie]

Even though I personally disagree with drugs I don't have a major problem with the 3 strikes policy in regard to out of competition testing. The part I disagree with is that the coach isn't made aware of the situation unless the players gets a 3rd strike and automatic suspension. Keep a first or second strike away from the public maybe, but let the club know and give them the option of discussing it with the player and/or taking action internally.

This privacy is B/S. How would you feel if you traded a high draft pick for a player not knowing that player already had 2 strikes on the board?

 

[bunsen burner]

Even though I personally disagree with drugs I don't have a major problem with the 3 strikes policy in regard to out of competition testing. The part I disagree with is that the coach isn't made aware of the situation unless the players gets a 3rd strike and automatic suspension. Keep a first or second strike away from the public maybe, but let the club know and give them the option of discussing it with the player and/or taking action internally.

An even better idea:

- Do not drug tests individual players for NPED as it's not cheating.
- Spend the vast majority of resources on PED
- Give the clubs the right to test players they suspect have a problem.

This privacy is B/S. How would you feel if you traded a high draft pick for a player not knowing that player already had 2 strikes on the board?

They should never be tested in the first place (or at least samples should be anon), but given the current system, the clubs all know who they are. Doesn't need to be public. Both StKilda and Richmond would have been well aware.

 

[Belgian_Tiger_Army]

Drug test all winning teams, esp at finals time.

ZERO tolerance. If you can't guarantee that all players are clean you cna't guarantee the authenticity of any win.

I'll propose something that I think is decent middle ground. It's based on a fait few thigns I've heard this week.

1. On first strike - a player, his coach, his doctor and his teams board get told. That's 15 people. If it gets out in public - well that is an indictment on the club. This gives players a single chance, and cuts out the "my drink was spiked" issues. After a first positive test a player will be tested 52 times in the next year - randomly.

2. Second strike - automatic suspension for 12/24 months (for soft/hard drugs?). If the player wishes to resume their career - they must fund another 52 tests randonly over the suspension period.

Another idea floated which I think has merit - Penalise the whole team by taking points away from the team - perhaps after >2 positive tests, or on any second strike? You'd think this would put a fair amount of peer group pressure on players - probably more then the pressure to take a few bickies with their mates.

 

[bunsen burner]

I'll propose something that I think is decent middle ground. It's based on a fait few thigns I've heard this week.

1. On first strike - a player, his coach, his doctor and his teams board get told. That's 15 people. If it gets out in public - well that is an indictment on the club. This gives players a single chance, and cuts out the "my drink was spiked" issues. After a first positive test a player will be tested 52 times in the next year - randomly.

2. Second strike - automatic suspension for 12/24 months (for soft/hard drugs?). If the player wishes to resume their career - they must fund another 52 tests randonly over the suspension period.

Another idea floated which I think has merit - Penalise the whole team by taking points away from the team - perhaps after >2 positive tests, or on any second strike? You'd think this would put a fair amount of peer group pressure on players - probably more then the pressure to take a few bickies with their mates.

You don't think that's a bit harsh for someone who has the occasional joint or line? We're not talking performance enhancing drugs here.

 

[Tas]

It will get to the point the players will have off-season testing removed if the penalties are too harsh. The only reason we have off-season testing is because the AFL compromised with the 3 strike system. If they remove that then the players will demand the removal of off-season testing, which is not mandatory with WADA, which is also where most of the players are being caught.

 

[Fryman]

Bunsen you have summed up my thoughts about this matter beautifully. Why are we testing AFL players for NPED's? Why should they be held more accountable than the rest of society? Do we honestly believe their jobs are so vital to the community that they have to be constantly monitored? If they have a problem with illegal drugs it's up to the police to deal with, just like it is for the rest of us.

I could name 100's of jobs were NPED drug testing would be more important. Doctor's, surgeons, nurses, bus drivers, teachers all have more influence than some young kids who kick around a footy on the weekend.

Better yet, how about being a PARENT. Surely it's vital that all parents remain drug free. I don't see people screaming for all parents to be drug tested.

I also hope no-one feeds the line about AFL players being role-models. If kids today are so stupid that they take up drugs because an AFL play did it then I say let them.

P.S Take a look down at your local footy club, I'll guarantee their is a higher % of players doing drugs than their AFL counterparts.

 

[Aussiegod]

First and foremost: learn some forum etiquette and use the quote function properly. Shouldn't make people C&P if they want to quote you.

[/color]
You are talking holidays. You disagreed with what I was saying which is "The AFL should not be able to test for PED outside of game time. That includes holidays".

You also agree that illicit drugs positives should be named. These people are often tested in their holidays.

There's probably a very good reason for that. Now why do you think AFL players should be tested? Feel free to draw any similarities as to why you are tested and how that would relate to an AFL player.


Let me rephrase it: Regardless whether you have anything to hide, and assuming that the said industry doesn't involve heavy machinery, weapons or other safety hazards, do you think it's fair for an employer can test and then make judgement on an employee's lifestyle choice?

Ever considered it's not their business? And do you advocate bans for drink drivers, assault perps, and any other criminal behaviour?

What has this got to do with anything at all?

You must be a council worker...............pick, pick, pick!!!!!

PS...there are worse jobs!

...and never make assumptions.....!

 

[Aussiegod]

First and foremost: learn some forum etiquette and use the quote function properly. Shouldn't make people C&P if they want to quote you.

[/color]
You are talking holidays. You disagreed with what I was saying which is "The AFL should not be able to test for PED outside of game time. That includes holidays".

You also agree that illicit drugs positives should be named. These people are often tested in their holidays.

There's probably a very good reason for that. Now why do you think AFL players should be tested? Feel free to draw any similarities as to why you are tested and how that would relate to an AFL player.


Let me rephrase it: Regardless whether you have anything to hide, and assuming that the said industry doesn't involve heavy machinery, weapons or other safety hazards, do you think it's fair for an employer can test and then make judgement on an employee's lifestyle choice?

Ever considered it's not their business? And do you advocate bans for drink drivers, assault perps, and any other criminal behaviour?

What has this got to do with anything at all?

I have a question for our over learned friend..........(alias.......a hot gas coming form below the beltline.......... where heat, usually arises and is repugnant) and I feel that a comment from the UPPER part would be more pleasant.
A fart sometimes can be construed as a bunsen burner, gone wrong. It depends on the element.(phew)

Q.
By what authority have you the right to question how members of this forum reply.?? I refer to your "forum etiquette".
The mode of how I/any other member of this forum reply is my/their business.
Q.
Are you a MODERATOR in this forum???......I would say no....if that's a problem....let a MODERATOR like "FRED or MAD DOG 2" inform me that I should not reply to POSTS this way. Otherwise BYB!

When you get technical with people.............watch out!