Worsfold - very impressive and forthright

[Angry Dragon]

Like typical druggies/junkies, they lied to him outright when he asked if any one as on the gear.

 

[plugger47]

Bwahahahahaha.....

Implosion is it?

One bloke has been suspended to sort himself out and we remain the reigning premiers and the most profitable club in the land. This is an implosion?

But you arent trolling, just deeply concerned for the good of the code nationally and in particular in NSW...

A feather duster in Ostrichville

 

[AlecDuncan]

Re: Worsfold on TFS

Is anyone else impressed?

I was impressed. Stayed under the microscope for ages, didn't flinch, and didn't evade. Top quality that bloke.

Although it's ironic that the Eagles are coached by a pharmacist.

 

[One Big Anchor]

You definately can see what a smooth, professional operator John Worsfold is.

By reading between the lines I believe his playing group now a firm message:

If you play good footy and keep your nose clean - We will look after you.

If you play good footy and appear to keep your nose clean - We will look after you

If you play goot footy and are in trouble - We will look like we are trying to look after you.

If you play bad footy and are in trouble - You can play for the Saints

 

[Lach72]

With the benefit of hindsight, I agree with you, but what if the suspicions of being lied to were wrong?

I mean the blokes playing good footy, meeting all the clubs expectations re training and other committments and you are going to suspend him because "you think" he isnt being 100% honest with you?

Have you ever had employees? You wouldnt get very far running a business if you started sanctioning employees under suspicion of lying while they were perfoming at 100% requirements every day at work.[/QUOTE]

I agree to a point.
I have been at management level of a business for 9 years.
Our employees agree that they take a drug and alcohol test at our disgretion if we feel their work is impaired or they are a risk to bith themselves and others in the work place, as a normal part of duty of care, and to be quite frank, to cover our own @rse.
Cousins also has other duties in working for the club. while it may be true he was training OK, there is enough information going around that he may be a risk to himself and the club.

If the club can't test without the AFL sanction. Now Woosh is not a stupid man.

I can see where the club can insist he takes drug tests outside the AFL system.
"Ben I can't force you to take this test, however, your are lying to me and damging the reputation of this club. Now, without further information, I have no choice but to send you back to EF".

 

[Eagles 4 Mine]

Whereas you would have just kicked him out immediately. What a great leader you will make.

keep flippin those burgers mate

Gee-wiz I wouldn't even trust Yeah nah to flip burgers he might spike your burger.

 

[likka]

You definately can see what a smooth, professional operator John Worsfold is.

By reading between the lines I believe his playing group now a firm message:

If you play good footy and keep your nose clean - We will look after you.

If you play good footy and appear to keep your nose clean - We will look after you

If you play goot footy and are in trouble - We will look like we are trying to look after you.

If you play bad footy and are in trouble - You can play for the Saints

Exactly what I thought. Came across very well, but he had no choice but to be up front and honest. The credibility of his club is on the line.

If Ben was an ordinary player he would have been sacked from the club last year... or before.

Ben has lied multiple times to the face of Worsfold, but Woosha is still prepared to take him at his word when he returns. How could it be that easy?

 

[Eagle87]

I am writing a submission (paid work actually) and don't have time at the moment to give you a primer in employment law. Why don't you investigate the law of employment contracts before you post? Actually doing some research before pontificating and pronouncing ex cathedra might be a novel approach. Did you actually read Hollingsworth? And I am really getting tired of explaining that there is no such thing as "private" medical records. And I hope you get over that eye problem as well.

So basically, you refuse to back up any claim, you refuse to concede that the logical outcome of your approach would be litigation between players and clubs and the potential disintegration of the relatively could employment relations that currently exist.

Good to see. As expected.

No records are "private" using your approach but many laws and precedents exist protecting the "privacy" of many different types of records and documents. You surely know this?

The reality is that the only party who can authorise the release of the medical records in question is either Chad Fletcher or some body (Government/government agency) that is given an overriding power for some reason. The West Coast Eagles or AFL are unlikely to have this power or to have sufficient reason to get a US Court to order release of those documents.

The documents are private in that sense. capiche?

You are trolling AND being silly - quite the quinella.

... and best of luck with your submission, I really hope you get that new coffee machine in the cafeteria!

 

[plugger47]

So basically, you refuse to back up any claim, you refuse to concede that the logical outcome of your approach would be litigation between players and clubs and the potential disintegration of the relatively could employment relations that currently exist.

Good to see. As expected.

No records are "private" using your approach but many laws and precedents exist protecting the "privacy" of many different types of records and documents. You surely know this?

The reality is that the only party who can authorise the release of the medical records in question is either Chad Fletcher or some body (Government/government agency) that is given an overriding power for some reason. The West Coast Eagles or AFL are unlikely to have this power or to have sufficient reason to get a US Court to order release of those documents.

The documents are private in that sense. capiche?

You are trolling AND being silly - quite the quinella.

... and best of luck with your submission, I really hope you get that new coffee machine in the cafeteria!

Gunnar, VFL - you nicely round it out. Mate I've got a bridge over here that I can get for you pretty cheap ....

 

[Eagle87]

I can see where the club can insist he takes drug tests outside the AFL system.
"Ben I can't force you to take this test, however, your are lying to me and damging the reputation of this club. Now, without further information, I have no choice but to send you back to EF".

.... and then Ben, through his manager or directly contacts the players association who turn to their agreement with the AFL on drug testing. They point out that the agreement does not provide for such tests and they will walk away from it if the club either (a) demands its own test or (b) enforces the suspension for failing to take it.

This would happen.

The Eagles requested certain players be targetted, under the system that exists. Ben was not suspended under that system. Nothing more PRACTICALLY that the club can do. I do not disagree that clubs COULD attempt all sorts of other things under the sorts of concepts Plugger alludes to - I do disagree that they could win those arguments and win or lose they could destroy the current player relations regime that exists - a very bad outcome.

 

[Eagle87]

Gunnar, VFL - you nicely round it out. Mate I've got a bridge over here that I can get for you pretty cheap ....

WOW. Great comeback - as usual.

Avoid the issue: check
Act smug: check
Avoid the issue: check
Belittle pointlessly: check
Avoid the issue: check
Hate WCE: check

Well done

 

[Father Jack]

You definately can see what a smooth, professional operator John Worsfold is.

By reading between the lines I believe his playing group now a firm message:

If you play good footy and keep your nose clean - We will look after you.

If you play good footy and appear to keep your nose clean - We will look after you

If you play goot footy and are in trouble - We will look like we are trying to look after you.

If you play bad footy and are in trouble - You can play for the Saints

If you would like to take that from it, feel free to do so. If the players do, I do believe they will be in for a nasty shock. Even if, and that is a big if, it was true in the past, there is no way it will be true in the future. The management of the club is not stupid, otherwise it would not be as successful as it is, off and on the field.

 

[plugger47]

.... and then Ben, through his manager or directly contacts the players association who turn to their agreement with the AFL on drug testing. They point out that the agreement does not provide for such tests and they will walk away from it if the club either (a) demands its own test or (b) enforces the suspension for failing to take it.

This would happen.

The Eagles requested certain players be targetted, under the system that exists. Ben was not suspended under that system. Nothing more PRACTICALLY that the club can do. I do not disagree that clubs COULD attempt all sorts of other things under the sorts of concepts Plugger alludes to - I do disagree that they could win those arguments and win or lose they could destroy the current player relations regime that exists - a very bad outcome.

To eliminate drug cultures there are going to be casualties. If the "good relations" with players association is one (why that is so eludes me) so be it. This is a terrible social problem and kids die of both illegal and legal drugs every day. The issue is will the AFL and the overpaid pompous arses take a lead in the fight against drugs and addiction or will they continue to throw their resources at such critical issues as hands on the back infringements and "unattractive" styles of play. The AFL is a billion dollar business. When will it become a good corp[orate citizen undertaking its social responsibilities. So far all we have heard is rhetoric, vision statements and spin. Romes burning (or at least hicksville is) and Vlads fiddling

 

[Corpuscles]

Yes its zero tolerance for the Bloods. And they know it. And the commercial realities of sponsorship and the fierce competition amongst the football codes in NSW means that the club could and should enforce it. You have no idea the damage that the WC implosion is doing to the marketability of the code in NSW. And if you don't care the AFL should. Moneybags should get off his vastly over paid arse and do what he is paid an obsecene amount of moola to do - fix it.

Not sure I entirely agree on the extent of the damage but that bold comment is 100% spot on WELL SAID

No bozo I'm angry about next week. Instead of great promotion of a wonderful spectacle showcasing the great game in the huge NSW market, we will have your dysfunbctional disgraceful mob met by sniffer dogs, the hyenias of the media (most of it owned by the Dirty Digger who owns most of Rugby League) and a hugely damaging overshadowing of the footy. AFL would have taken another giant step forward over here but for the WC management who couldn't organise a root in a knock shop. And not being a bandwagoner, but a Bloods supporter of many years standing (still standing actually) who followed the Bloods and the code through the days when there was a man and a dog at AFL matches in Sydney, endured all the jokes (arial ping pong, ****tas game etc.) I have been chuffed to see not just the Bloods but the best bloody football game in the world make inroads against thugby league and the game the silvertails play in private school. And next week should have been a tremendous triumph for the game whoever won. But your arse clowns, instead of being treated as the reigning premiers with all the respect that deserves, will be Exhibit A in a media circus playing the game of "pick the druggie". Angry doesn't describe it Mr Magoo.
Contempt is closer.

Also worthy of a re run.

Over in WA footy & West Coke Ill_E-gals would still have obsessive following even if it was found they all were Al qaeda members!!! But Sydney has to differentiate itself & be the respectables and doing a darned good job of it! ( But yes there might be dirt there too ... Dimwit needs to tell the club... and stand up to AFLPA on that illegal issue for the good of the game!)
Plugger
----------------------------------------------------------------------
OT : Woosha did well, he is towing the party line of damage control. Was more impressed with the way he handled himself than what he said which was absolutely contradictory to the day before but that is politics and to be expected.

 

[jj1978]

Yes he was impressive..... BUT.......

What else was he going to say??? The cat was now out of the bag and within another week a lot more would of been revealed via the media.

As a senior spokesman for the club, he came out and told us (what we think) is the truth (in a believable manner).

For him to be allowed on the footy show in the first instance smacks that he was prepared with some story to tell us prior to coming on.

For him to appear he would have had to get clearance from the Eagles board and they would of sat together and made plans of what he should say.

Maybe Worsfold's uneasiness and indirect looks (head down etc) could be attributed to the fact he was uneasy at spinning a story as much as revealing some of the inner sanctum.

Lets give him a clap for providing a real good job at telling us what we pretty much had already summed up... whether that is really the truth???

 

[Eagle87]

To eliminate drug cultures there are going to be casualties. If the "good relations" with players association is one (why that is so eludes me) so be it. This is a terrible social problem and kids die of both illegal and legal drugs every day. The issue is will the AFL and the overpaid pompous arses take a lead in the fight against drugs and addiction or will they continue to throw their resources at such critical issues as hands on the back infringements and "unattractive" styles of play. The AFL is a billion dollar business. When will it become a good corp[orate citizen undertaking its social responsibilities. So far all we have heard is rhetoric, vision statements and spin. Romes burning (or at least hicksville is) and Vlads fiddling

*Massive overreaction board*

Any drug issues in NRL? Super 14's?

The reality is that ONE WCE player has been "outed" as a drug abuser and as many as 4 other have been suggested as using drugs. Do you seriously believe that all other sports codes in the world and in NSW dont have recreational drug users?

If you want the AFL to be the starting point for the eradiction of drugs in society you are naive or an ill-informed idealist. Neither of these are bad things but your expectations on what the AFL can/should do are unrealistic. The NRL were going to introduce the exact same code and have now (I believe) modified it to a 2 strike policy - semantics and spin. same same but different.

This is a problem in society and the notion that it is the AFL's job to fix it is unrealistic.

Your crticism of the AFL and its corporate citizenry just seems to be overly emotive and pointless.

 

[plugger47]

*Massive overreaction board*

Any drug issues in NRL? Super 14's?

The reality is that ONE WCE player has been "outed" as a drug abuser and as many as 4 other have been suggested as using drugs. Do you seriously believe that all other sports codes in the world and in NSW dont have recreational drug users?

If you want the AFL to be the starting point for the eradiction of drugs in society you are naive or an ill-informed idealist. Neither of these are bad things but your expectations on what the AFL can/should do are unrealistic. The NRL were going to introduce the exact same code and have now (I believe) modified it to a 2 strike policy - semantics and spin. same same but different.

This is a problem in society and the notion that it is the AFL's job to fix it is unrealistic.

Your crticism of the AFL and its corporate citizenry just seems to be overly emotive and pointless.

Where did I say the AFL should "fix" the social problem of drug abuse amongst young people. I said they should "take a lead". By taking a lead I said they should "fix" the problem of drug cultures in the AFL, starting with your shambolic mob. You do have an eye problem and I think I know whats causing it.

 

[Eagle87]

Where did I say the AFL should "fix" the social problem of drug abuse amongst young people. I said they should "take a lead". By taking a lead I said they should "fix" the problem of drug cultures in the AFL, starting with your shambolic mob. You do have an eye problem and I think I know whats causing it.

OK, what should the AFL do to West Coast to "take a lead" on this issue?

Secondly, why should the AFL specifically "take a lead" on this issue?

On an unrelated point, what did the Wallabies do to stamp out their culture of drug abuse in wake of Wendell Sailors demise?

 

[plugger47]

OK, what should the AFL do to West Coast to "take a lead" on this issue?

Secondly, why should the AFL specifically "take a lead" on this issue?

On an unrelated point, what did the Wallabies do to stamp out their culture of drug abuse in wake of Wendell Sailors demise?

Read Peter Lalors article in the Oz when you finish with Phantom comics.
The Wallaby's (do you mean Skippy) didn't do anything to Wendell. The ARU rubbed him out for two years. Over to you moneybags. And don't think the blazer and boater mob that run the Sydney Morning Herald won't be pointing that little discrepency out when your scallywags hit town.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

OK, what should the AFL do to West Coast to "take a lead" on this issue?

Secondly, why should the AFL specifically "take a lead" on this issue?

On an unrelated point, what did the Wallabies do to stamp out their culture of drug abuse in wake of Wendell Sailors demise?

So you think it would be appropriate for West Coast to do nothing? Mate, that's exactly what they HAVE been doing, and look where it got them.

 

[Doog]

Before we all congratulate Worsfold he knew for 8 months, obviously knows about others and put it all behind winning a game of footy.
Holier than thou now they've been caught.
Didn't see TFS last night

 

[Eagle87]

Read Peter Lalors article in the Oz when you finish with Phantom comics.
The Wallaby's (do you mean Skippy) didn't do anything to Wendell. The ARU rubbed him out for two years. Over to you moneybags. And don't think the blazer and boater mob that run the Sydney Morning Herald won't be pointing that little discrepency out when your scallywags hit town.

So the AFL should rub Cousins out for 2 years for NOT failing a drug test?

I had already read Peter Lalor's article and phantom comics I suspect are far more your area.

Wendell was suspended for failing a drug test during in competition testing. Ben will get exactly the same suspension if he fails such a test. So the AFL and the ARU agree on this point.

Your inability to maintain any reasonable discourse without juvenile abuse is indicative of your charachter - perhaps you could "take the lead" in dealing with that.

I note you did not address either of my first 2 questions, at least one of which would require you to think something right through to the end and draw a conclusion. As expected you avaoided such a position.

 

[Eagle87]

So you think it would be appropriate for West Coast to do nothing? Mate, that's exactly what they HAVE been doing, and look where it got them.

No, they have been doing more than nothing but I can understand that it may not have been enough to satisfy many.

I asked specific questions to a bloke who never answers anything and again he failed to answer. Feel free to answer the 3 questions yourself. I am intrigued as to what the knockers reckon should be done.

 

[Obi-Haive]

Before we all congratulate Worsfold he knew for 8 months, obviously knows about others and put it all behind winning a game of footy.
Holier than thou now they've been caught.
Didn't see TFS last night

You guys are playing devil's advocate right?

Do actually understand what has been said on those-big-pieces-of-paper-with-all-that-writing-on-it and on that show-on-the-other-channel-while-Simpsons/Neighbours/Biggest Loser-is-on?

The AFL, the players association and now the football club have stated time and again, ad nauseum that a club cannot sanction/suspend a player if they show up for training or game day physically and mentally able to play. A club cannot sanction a player on "suspected" drug use, it cannot suspend a player on rumour and innuendo. Christ, are you people so ignorant that you don't understand what this means for a football club.

If for instance Coach X is told that player Y has been seen dealing/taking/under the influence of a drug he cannot act on this unless he has proof. Remember for those of you who are deductively impaired, being told by someone, no matter who it is, is still just a rumour - it's not fact!

The only way Coach X can have the proof he needs is if player Y admits it, which is unlikely, or if Player Y produces a positive drug test. Now remember, in the current situation, the coach and the club do not know until a player has a positive result 3 times. Hence, the only way Coach X can have any proof that Player Y is taking illicit drugs is if he tests positive 3 times in 3 separate instances? Without this proof nothing can be done according to the rules of the AFL and the Players Association.

"Still," you drone, "why don't they investigate further when they hear these rumours?"

How exactly do they investigate this? By again asking the player? He'll deny or simply state it's none of your business. Maybe they could set up their own testing facilities? That would be great, if the PA would allow it, but they state it is not with in the clubs rights to do this. The only thing they can do is have the official AFL testers target players they suspect. But still in that instance, if it's their 1st or 2nd strike the club still won't know.

FFS are you morons really this stupid? Perhaps, heaven forbid, you guys should read something besides just bigfooty threads and posts you agree with, you might actually learn how it all works.

 

[Spook]

Yet no one thought of questioning why Fletcher nearly died?

If Cousins was counselled mid las year, how can Gooding claim that the club only became aware of the (drug) issue in the last few days?

A club has a fair idea what is happening off field. You can discipline a player for missing training.

Simple fact is that WCE were aware of issues dating back to Judge's tenure and chose to ignore them because it was deemed not to be in their self interest.

Who said the WCE didn't question the issue with Fletcher?

Who said the WCE ignored the problem?

Just because they didn't go public with it, just because the whole club to board level didn't know about it, just because they havn't published what they were doing doesn't mean they wern't working on it.

It astounds me that people think that just because the media hasn't reported it or someone hasn't said it, that it hasn't happened.

geeez FFS mate.... Do you publisise everything about your life?? Do you tell everyone about your problems??