Worsfold - very impressive and forthright

[Corpuscles]

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?

I'll have a go!

The AFL and AFLPA have by their "drugs policy" effectively sanctioned illegal activity...... (It's Ok until 3 times.) I know it happens. I'm not an unrealistic prude but what if.... Fletcher or Cousins had died and it was found to be long term but known but kept secret addiction to illicit drugs as cause? Are they looking after the best interests of the game or the players?

The AFL is the custodian of the game. Is withholding information from employers. If there is demand from Clubs then they have to have the balls to properly and vigorously negotiate with AFLPA for sanity and good of the game sake.

They should not target WC but rather learn about the issue whilst it is exposed. Support WCFC achieve what if any it wants changed. If that is to tolerate it.... then at least they are in a better position to govern the game. No penalty use it as a learning excperience.

A Dimwit needs to grow some brains & balls or move over for someone who does!

 

[royals1922]

Worsfold's performance last night reminded me of Sergeant Schulz.

His attitude was in a nutshell - look the other way and say loudly "I know nothing".

As for a hard hitting interview was Worsfold asked about the Fletcher incident, the Crown incident, why Cousins was not suspended after the booze bus incident.

Don't sanctify this guy. He has stood by for years asking first - has a player been caught , two - was the player otherwise punished and most importantly three - if I suspend this player will it affect my chances of winning the premiership. If the answer was yes to any of those questions his attitude was to scold the press and then defend the player until he was blue in the face.

Worsfold showed last night the true character of the Eagles last night. Whatever it takes to win the flag do it - bad character, club image all irrelevant as long as the flag is won.

When a junior player is caught drink driving will Worsfold do the same things as he did for Cousins.

Unfortunately the eagles are all smoke and mirrors.

And by the way - Fletcher still hasn't released his medical records from Vegas. The Saints may have a new midfielder next year.

 

[Eagle87]

I'll have a go!

The AFL and AFLPA have by their "drugs policy" effectively sanctioned illegal activity...... (It's Ok until 3 times.) I know it happens. I'm not an unrealistic prude but what if.... Fletcher or Cousins had died and it was found to be long term but known but kept secret addiction to illicit drugs as cause? Are they looking after the best interests of the game or the players?

The AFL is the custodian of the game. Is withholding information from employers. If there is demand from Clubs then they have to have the balls to properly and vigorously negotiate with AFLPA for sanity and good of the game sake.

They should not target WC but rather learn about the issue whilst it is exposed. Support WCFC achieve what if any it wants changed. If that is to tolerate it.... then at least they are in a better position to govern the game. No penalty use it as a learning excperience.

A Dimwit needs to grow some brains & balls or move over for someone who does!

No problems with any of this. In the first bit you asked more questions rather than provided answers but broadly I believe you are right - you suggest that the current policy likely needs review and renegotiation, you then that the arrangements with the AFLPA probably need to be further pushed to allow the AFL/Clubs to be more demanding on players.

My point in actually getting plugger or one of the others to actually address the questions was that when you actually sit down and write down what can be done and what needs to be done, you begin to realise that under the system as it currently operates there wasnt much more that West Coast (for example) could have done.

If the AFL, at the very least, realises that it needs to involve the clubs from a first positive test, that it needs to more agressively support clubs who have suspicions on their players and that it needs to seriously look at the 3 strikes approach then something has been achieved.

The vitriol and the hate from some posters simply clouds their ability to rationally analyse what can practically be done both now and in future.

 

[Doog]

They sent him a letter, big deal and dont be naive.
I played sport for years and trained twice a week and played on saturday and knew everything that everybody was else doing good or bad and some WCE supporters are saying how could the club know if the players are saying they're squeaky clean....oh please!

 

[Eagle87]

They sent him a letter, big deal and dont be naive.
I played sport for years and trained twice a week and played on saturday and knew everything that everybody was else doing good or bad and some WCE supporters are saying how could the club know if the players are saying they're squeaky clean....oh please!

another massively useful post!

 

[Doog]

another massively useful post!

What do you expect at 4.30 friday arvo?
Im not anti WC, cousins or worsfold I just think alot of this has been known about and swept under the carpet

 

[Eagle87]

What do you expect at 4.30 friday arvo?
Im not anti WC, cousins or worsfold I just think alot of this has been known about and swept under the carpet

Its just that Woosha and others have clearly stated that it was far more than "just writing him a letter". Clearly we could have done some things differently and with hindsight maybe we would have (maybe not).

But the rabid ones on here (mainly Sydney & Freo fans strangely) just want to keep saying the same things over and over. I remain unsure what they want?

What would YOU have the AFL do to West Coast?

 

[plugger47]

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.

You are a johnny come lately in this discussion. The players association is getting legal advice as you wrote that garbage. Under employment law an employer can dismiss an employeee for breaches of both express and implied terms of a contract. You don't know what I'm talking about do you? And you have the gall to call people morons!

 

[scottwade]

What would YOU have the AFL do to West Coast?

Where's that bloody Saddam Hussein vid when you want?

 

[Eagle87]

You are a johnny come lately in this discussion. The players association is getting legal advice as you wrote that garbage. Under employment law an employer can dismiss an employeee for breaches of both express and implied terms of a contract. You don't know what I'm talking about do you? And you have the gall to call people morons!

Again, he is back , with his debateable claims and no doubt his complete unwillingness to address the issues previously raised as to the actual workings of and then the implications of the AFL or its clubs dismissing an employee for (a) failing to submit to a drug test that is not authorised expressly (i.e. the clubs requested test) or (b) for failing to produce "private" medical records to the club for public display!

Once you actually tell us how this would work and what its implications would be then you would have SOME credibility. Until that point you remain a bitter swannies fan with lots of bs and no substance.

 

[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?

I now have time to go through the ABC's of responsible management for your benefit. In answer to question 1 I assume that the WC Eagles were aware that our hero was consorting with suspected drug dealers about 5 years ago and that he was exhibiting signs and symptoms of drug abuse about eighteen months ago.

The WC management at around 18 months ago should have:
Step 1. Write to our hero's management (apparently daddy for ffs) and his union and inform them that an official investigation has commenced into two issues:

(a) our little hero's use of illicit drug substances;and
(b) bringing the club and the code into disrepute and thereby putting at risk the commercial success and viability of the club and the code.

Step 2 interview our hero with his representatives present.
With his union representative and daddy present ask our hero three questions:
a) do you associate with persons of interest to the police and who may be possibly involved in drug trafficing.
If the answer is yes - see response 1.
If the answer is no, seek information from the WA Police Force that can be made available. If our hero has fibbed - see Response 2.
If our hero says he doesn't know - see Resonse 3.

Management responses:
1. Counsel our hero and place him on a final warning that if there is a substantiated instance of further contact with criminal elements possibly involved in drug trafficing, his contract will be terminated and application will be made to the AFL to deregister his playing rights.
2. Terminate contract and seek de-registration.
3. Direct our hero be counselled by the WA Police in regard to his associates, and given final warning.

The staggering thing about Woosha's questioning of our hero is that the club despite its suspicions of continuing illicit drug use didn't even require him to undergo counselling ffs. Good one woosh lets just make this a man to man issue.

Our hero would then be directly asked - Do you use illicit substances.
a. If the answer is yes - see Response 1
b. If the answer is no - see Response 2

Management Response:
1. Suspend our hero and require him to attend rehabilitation and give all economic, emotional and organisational support.
2. Inform our hero that he will be subject to a club testing, counselling and monitoring program. This will involve testing and monitoring of signs and symptoms of drug use. If there is a term in the players contract that specifically prohibits the club testing (and if there is it would be a disgraceful dereliction of the duty of care of management to its own employees, particularly its young players) the club should seek to vary the players contract. There is a process to do this by negotiation, private arbitration or a challenge to the contract term on the basis it is in breach of statutory OH&S obligations and therefore an unenforcable term. If the situation is that the 3 test rule is merely an agreement between the AFL and the players association, the rule is not a term of the contract. Refer to Byrne v. Australian Airlines Limited (1995) 185 C.L.R. regarding the relationship of contractual terms to awards and extraneous instruments. If the latter is the case the monitoring process should have commenced immediately.
If our hero fails the monitoring program he should be counselled, assisted and placed in a rehabilitation program. If he refuses to comply with the reasonable directions of his employer his contract should be terminated and de-registration of the player requested. If our hero lies or misleads the program co-ordiantor he would have his contract terminated etc.
Now wouldn't something like this response have been better for all stakeholders, including our hero, than the weak ineffectual management of the WC?
In answer to your question of what or why the AFL should have done something I refuse to waste any more of my time making any suggestions as to what that over paid clown who is supposed to be running the joint should do. Except resign

 

[plugger47]

Again, he is back , with his debateable claims and no doubt his complete unwillingness to address the issues previously raised as to the actual workings of and then the implications of the AFL or its clubs dismissing an employee for (a) failing to submit to a drug test that is not authorised expressly (i.e. the clubs requested test) or (b) for failing to produce "private" medical records to the club for public display!

Once you actually tell us how this would work and what its implications would be then you would have SOME credibility. Until that point you remain a bitter swannies fan with lots of bs and no substance.

87 keep your head down. Incoming scandal. Next week you will learn all about employment law and one D. KERR

 

[Obi-Haive]

You are a johnny come lately in this discussion. The players association is getting legal advice as you wrote that garbage. Under employment law an employer can dismiss an employeee for breaches of both express and implied terms of a contract. You don't know what I'm talking about do you? And you have the gall to call people morons!

Pffft, gall I have - moron I call!

Maybe moron is too strong a word - ignorant?

Your constant referencing of employment law texts is laughable and flawed in it's reasoning.

Of course, the club can invoke litigation procedures for these breaches. However, this sporting club with a highly dependant team structure does not exist in a vacuum. To proceed with this kind of approach would be disastrous for all concerned.

The AFLPA is set up, as with any union type organisation, to protect the rights of its members. This includes setting rules for both clubs and players to follow in the hope of avoiding the very things you are suggesting.

What if, say for instance, a football club has heard that a player had a medical altercation while on holiday - it is rumoured drugs are involved. The club then demands that said player reveal his medical records but that player refuses. The club then undertakes legal action against the player. The whole debacle goes on for months and months, meanwhile team unity is being severely traumatised, the case is under heavy scrutiny through the media and in the eyes of public opinion the player is already guilty etc. etc.

The club wins and are able to enforce the player to reveal his records. However, these records then confirm that he was not using illicit drugs on the night in question. Unfortunately though, the player is now branded with suspicion, the club is destroyed through the media, the player's relationship with his club is irreconcilable and the football team's confidence in it's employer and each other is in tatters.

Now, I have no training in law but it doesn't take Sir John Frigging Madden to realise this isn't the ideal situation.

 

[plugger47]

Pffft, gall I have - moron I call!

Maybe moron is too strong a word - ignorant?

Your constant referencing of employment law texts is laughable and flawed in it's reasoning.

Of course, the club can invoke litigation procedures for these breaches. However, this sporting club with a highly dependant team structure does not exist in a vacuum. To proceed with this kind of approach would be disastrous for all concerned.

The AFLPA is set up, as with any union type organisation, to protect the rights of its members. This includes setting rules for both clubs and players to follow in the hope of avoiding the very things you are suggesting.

What if, say for instance, a football club has heard that a player had a medical altercation while on holiday - it is rumoured drugs are involved. The club then demands that said player reveal his medical records but that player refuses. The club then undertakes legal action against the player. The whole debacle goes on for months and months, meanwhile team unity is being severely traumatised, the case is under heavy scrutiny through the media and in the eyes of public opinion the player is already guilty etc. etc.

The club wins and are able to enforce the player to reveal his records. However, these records then confirm that he was not using illicit drugs on the night in question. Unfortunately though, the player is now branded with suspicion, the club is destroyed through the media, the player's relationship with his club is irreconcilable and the football team's confidence in it's employer and each other is in tatters.

Now, I have no training in law but it doesn't take Sir John Frigging Madden to realise this isn't the ideal situation.

Kerr's contract will be terminated next week or the AFL, your disgraceful shambles of an organization and the players association will be a national laughing stock, if they aren't already. Of course there is a cosy relationship between moneybags, woosh, the rip van winkles of the wc board and the high flyers. Its called a drug culture. It thrives with gutless management and the win at all costs mentality. Your mob has won a premiership but there is no glory left in the can.

 

[Obi-Haive]

Kerr's contract will be terminated next week or the AFL, your disgraceful shambles of an organization and the players association will be a national laughing stock, if they aren't already. Of course there is a cosy relationship between moneybags, woosh, the rip van winkles of the wc board and the high flyers. Its called a drug culture. It thrives with gutless management and the win at all costs mentality. Your mob has won a premiership but there is no glory left in the can.

Thanks for the excellent rebuttal to my assertion.

I'm glad you haven't let those sour grapes influence your posts.

I couldn't I give a red pi$$ what a grotty, little troll like you thinks of my proud and mighty club

 

[plugger47]

I couldn't I give a red pi$$ what a grotty, little troll like you thinks of my proud and mighty club

I'll let you into a little secret. Thats now in the past tense

 

[Eagle87]

87 keep your head down. Incoming scandal. Next week you will learn all about employment law and one D. KERR

Kerr's contract will be terminated next week or the AFL, your disgraceful shambles of an organization and the players association will be a national laughing stock, if they aren't already. Of course there is a cosy relationship between moneybags, woosh, the rip van winkles of the wc board and the high flyers. Its called a drug culture. It thrives with gutless management and the win at all costs mentality. Your mob has won a premiership but there is no glory left in the can.

Firstly, thanks for your actual response to my actual questions! Don't agree and I believe Obi-have addresses why quite well. What you argue is technically possible but practically would cause more damage to club and comp in terms of player relations than it would benefit anyone. But thats my view and you have stated yours.

As for the above posts, I look forward to your story being accurate re Kerr. You'd want to hope its something more than a 3 or 4 year old tape recording though. Not much currency there.

 

[Corpuscles]

Diggging yourself deep Plugger tried to support you.... get out before... you go down the Gunnar path.

WC could not possibly or reasonably acted the way you suggest... maybe it is legal... but it is/was not practical.

Your a true Blood...... remember our AA who went to several clubs to leave in mystery disgrace from the last, closely associated with the other bloke who had a famous "name" .....but Rocket pushed both to the outer and gone!... it was rife amongst a few (but nothin like toasters) in the D Lewis era.

One of the things Roosey & Club is NOW absolutely strong on

 

[plugger47]

Diggging yourself deep Plugger tried to support you.... get out before... you go down the Gunnar path.

WC could not possibly or reasonably acted the way you suggest... maybe it is legal... but it is/was not practical.

Your a true Blood...... remember our AA who went to several clubs to leave in mystery disgrace from the last, closely associated with the other bloke who had a famous "name" .....but Rocket pushed both to the outer and gone!... it was rife amongst a few (but nothin like toasters) in the D Lewis era.

One of the things Roosey & Club is NOW absolutely strong on

All the clubs have to take an equally strong line and thats where the AFL has to step up. But it appears the million dollar man has a bit of explaining to do himself. Thanks mate for the tip re. the horrible fate of poor old gunnar. Fate worse than death

 

[Bombers_Forever]

I am always impressed with the way Worsfold handles himself and that was increased last night.

 

[Crow-mo]

But everyone's more than comfortable in seeing a Worsfold after-match press conference and concluding that the man is an arrogant a**hole...

nah, many people think that because of his career on field, as a blindside sniper.

he's probably a good bloke over a beer.

 

[chapmanmagic35]

Strikes me as a very intelligent man - a good leader.

 

[ep2018]

woosh was and still is a champion.

I loved how he said that he doesn't care if benny doesnt play another game for the eagles (or AFL) as long as he gets better and gains his health back

well done woosh and good luck ben cousins for the future - I want to see you play footy again

 

[scout]

Wasn't impressed by Worsfold.

It's a crime that Cousins won't be running around on the footy field.

Worsfold watched Cousins develop a drug problem, and last night basically admitted that he wasn't equipped to help.

It's hard to believe that Worsfold isn't smart enough to work out who's lying to him and who's telling him reliable information.

 

[amazingjoshy]

I'll have a go!

The AFL and AFLPA have by their "drugs policy" effectively sanctioned illegal activity...... (It's Ok until 3 times.) I know it happens. I'm not an unrealistic prude but what if.... Fletcher or Cousins had died and it was found to be long term but known but kept secret addiction to illicit drugs as cause? Are they looking after the best interests of the game or the players?

The AFL is the custodian of the game. Is withholding information from employers. If there is demand from Clubs then they have to have the balls to properly and vigorously negotiate with AFLPA for sanity and good of the game sake.

They should not target WC but rather learn about the issue whilst it is exposed. Support WCFC achieve what if any it wants changed. If that is to tolerate it.... then at least they are in a better position to govern the game. No penalty use it as a learning excperience.

A Dimwit needs to grow some brains & balls or move over for someone who does!

You are right, but the fact is this issue has been covered up for years (Dale Lewis anyone?)...and not just at the Eagles (stop kidding yourselves).... you think the AFL wants the best players in the game sitting out?

Frankly, I think we all need a reality check and realise these guys chase a ball round a field...off the field they are young men who have hung around footy clubs all their lives...wake up!