Mumford and Murray
Users browsing this topic:0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 0 Guests Registered Users: None |
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
|
|
|
|
E
Joined: 05 May 2010
|
Post subject: | |
|
AN_Inkling wrote: | It's all a bit silly really. We all know that recreational drug use is quite widespread among players and the general population. Test positive out of comp and get a slap on the wrist, trace levels detected on match day and it's four years. Nuts really.
For mine, ASADA should need to prove that the levels found could have had an actual impact on performance. If not, it should be treated as an out of comp violation. |
that is the overwhelming thought that i have on this issue! ridiculous. _________________ Ohhh, the Premiership's a cakewalk ....... |
|
|
|
|
MatthewBoydFanClub
Joined: 12 Feb 2007 Location: Elwood
|
Post subject: | |
|
E wrote: | AN_Inkling wrote: | It's all a bit silly really. We all know that recreational drug use is quite widespread among players and the general population. Test positive out of comp and get a slap on the wrist, trace levels detected on match day and it's four years. Nuts really.
For mine, ASADA should need to prove that the levels found could have had an actual impact on performance. If not, it should be treated as an out of comp violation. |
that is the overwhelming thought that i have on this issue! ridiculous. |
And me as well. To destroy a young guy’s career for something he took a couple of days earlier which left a trace on game day, which would have given him no advantage for the actual game, is ridiculous. |
|
|
|
|
sherrife
Victorian Socialists - people before profit
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
|
Post subject: | |
|
MatthewBoydFanClub wrote: | E wrote: | AN_Inkling wrote: | It's all a bit silly really. We all know that recreational drug use is quite widespread among players and the general population. Test positive out of comp and get a slap on the wrist, trace levels detected on match day and it's four years. Nuts really.
For mine, ASADA should need to prove that the levels found could have had an actual impact on performance. If not, it should be treated as an out of comp violation. |
that is the overwhelming thought that i have on this issue! ridiculous. |
And me as well. To destroy a young guy’s career for something he took a couple of days earlier which left a trace on game day, which would have given him no advantage for the actual game, is ridiculous. |
Totally agree. But that's the absurdity of the modern world. The wealthy elites all take drugs, use prostitutes, run amok in every anti-social way imaginable, but then punish the plebs for doing the same.
The bigger the media scandal, the bigger the guilty consciences that are driving it. _________________ I would be ashamed to admit that I had risen from the ranks. When I rise it will be with the ranks... - Eugene Debs |
|
|
|
|
Mr Miyagi
Joined: 14 Sep 2018
|
Post subject: | |
|
So the feel-good "Mumford's a good bloke!" support continues in the Herald-Sun today. He's managed by Ricky Nixon (for boxing). AFL propaganda machine is well oiled. They (AFL and journos) are quite happy to throw Collingwood players under the bus, and never follow up with "feel good" stories. |
|
|
|
|
OEP
Joined: 12 Jan 2007 Location: Perth
|
Post subject: | |
|
Sometimes I wonder why players / people keep making the same mistakes resulting in known punishments until I read posts like some of the ones in this thread.
As a society we seem to have become very adept at blaming or finding fault anywhere else but with the person(s) ultimately responsible for their own actions. We diminish the level of culpability they have for their actions or find reasons to lesson the severity of their actions.
If Murray took what he's accused of taking then he knew the risks and consequences for his actions and made the conscious decision to do it anyway. Saying the possible penality is harsh on him is incorrect, it's harsh on th club who've lost a player and wasted a pick, it's harsh on another player who may lose their spot on the list due to Murray keeping his until the matter is finalised, it's harsh on the Collingwood FC because they now have to put up with the stigma associated with this and the media feeding frenzy that will ensue IF his B sample comes back positive, it's harsh on his family and friends who have to watch him go through this process, and yes it's going to be very unpleasant for Murray but if he didn't want to experience this he shouldn't have (allegedly) taken the f@$&ing stuff. _________________ A Collingwood supporter since the egg was inseminated. |
|
|
|
|
roar
Joined: 01 Sep 2004
|
Post subject: | |
|
stui magpie wrote: | the arsewipe who decided to put the video on social media deserves a cactus suppository. |
This. _________________ kill for collingwood! |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Location: Andromeda
|
Post subject: | |
|
I know AFL players are on a high pay grade, but $25,000 is just a crazy amount of money. What, exactly, is he being punished for?
Someone like Slavoj Zizek or the ghost of Michel Foucault needs to do a philosophical study one day on the psychoanalytical underpinnings of AFL (league as well as club) moral ideologies and their often masochistic obsession with inflicting and receiving punishment. Enough material there to last a lifetime.
What a strangely moralistic and frightened world football is. _________________ All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
Post subject: | |
|
^ It's not about morality. It's all about the money (which includes keeping sponsors happy). (Exhibit A: CA.) |
|
|
|
|
E
Joined: 05 May 2010
|
Post subject: | |
|
David wrote: | I know AFL players are on a high pay grade, but $25,000 is just a crazy amount of money. What, exactly, is he being punished for?
Someone like Slavoj Zizek or the ghost of Michel Foucault needs to do a philosophical study one day on the psychoanalytical underpinnings of AFL (league as well as club) moral ideologies and their often masochistic obsession with inflicting and receiving punishment. Enough material there to last a lifetime.
What a strangely moralistic and frightened world football is. |
I suspect Mumford loses 25,000 when he sneezes. 25,000 is total chump change...... fines never work for professional athletes. only suspensions... _________________ Ohhh, the Premiership's a cakewalk ....... |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
Post subject: | |
|
^ I assume they make sure they do all their sneezing before the expensive snorting. |
|
|
|
|
Monco Matt
Do it to THEM before THEY do it to YOU
Joined: 28 Apr 2009 Location: Sittin, Drinkin, Reloadin & Waitin
|
Post subject: | |
|
Didn't Mumford and Murray both come from the Sydney Swans / Sydney's academy? And let's not talk about Lance Franklin.....6 months off leading into a finals series because he's feeling a little bit sad? Give me a break. Sydney's drug culture is never brought under the microscope. _________________ RED "BABY" CAVANAUGH: Didn't hear what the bet was.
MONCO: Your life. |
|
|
|
|
Boogie Knights
Joined: 18 Sep 2015
|
Post subject: | |
|
OEP wrote: | Sometimes I wonder why players / people keep making the same mistakes resulting in known punishments until I read posts like some of the ones in this thread.
As a society we seem to have become very adept at blaming or finding fault anywhere else but with the person(s) ultimately responsible for their own actions. We diminish the level of culpability they have for their actions or find reasons to lesson the severity of their actions.
If Murray took what he's accused of taking then he knew the risks and consequences for his actions and made the conscious decision to do it anyway. Saying the possible penality is harsh on him is incorrect, it's harsh on th club who've lost a player and wasted a pick, it's harsh on another player who may lose their spot on the list due to Murray keeping his until the matter is finalised, it's harsh on the Collingwood FC because they now have to put up with the stigma associated with this and the media feeding frenzy that will ensue IF his B sample comes back positive, it's harsh on his family and friends who have to watch him go through this process, and yes it's going to be very unpleasant for Murray but if he didn't want to experience this he shouldn't have (allegedly) taken the f@$&ing stuff. |
This is a far too lucid and erudite post for such a forum.
Having said that, it mirrors my thoughts entirely - with one exception. It is also harsh on the fans; who have invested emotion in supporting him, and are left with no option but to apportion blame in any place other than where it rightfully belongs. |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Location: Andromeda
|
Post subject: | |
|
It's wrong though because it denies the possibility of excessive punishment. OEP's argument is that if you do something wrong (presuming we even consider a player's personal decision to take an illegal drug to be 'wrong' in the first place), you deserve whatever you get, and that the only victims are those who are secondarily affected by the punishment that Murray receives (i.e. we are punished because he was punished, and it's all his fault).
But obviously most of us understand that some forms of punishment are excessive and unjust. Most of us do not feel comfortable with the idea of people being imprisoned for adultery, executed for drink-driving or having their hand chopped off for stealing, for instance. In such cases, it is not good enough to say (as sheep-like authoritarians might) that anyone in such a situation knew the risk and therefore deserved whatever legal consequences were coming to them; we must also recognise that the penalty in such cases is too severe and that the person has been unfairly treated whether or not they were aware of the prevailing legal code. Anyone who cares about justice (as opposed to rigid, automaton-like enforcement of the law) can at least understand these principles.
Of course, you and OEP may not feel the penalty is too severe for cases such as these. Or perhaps you are of a more authoritarian bent and feel that there really is no limit to justifiable punishment, and that, if it's in the books, you deserve to cop whatever's coming to you. But I'm hopeful that the majority of people don't think like that, and can recognise when a punishment is draconian. To lose four years from your career (in an industry that only lasts ten to fifteen max) is a vastly excessive penalty for what is, essentially, a technicality. Murray, we can reasonably surmise, neither intended to seek an unfair performance enhancement and nor did he obtain any; and yet, he is likely receiving a punishment that is, as far as I can tell, on par with deliberately and successfully cheating. Those of us who sympathise with him are, I can assure you, perfectly lucid about that. _________________ All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
OEP
Joined: 12 Jan 2007 Location: Perth
|
Post subject: | |
|
David wrote: | It's wrong though because it denies the possibility of excessive punishment. OEP's argument is that if you do something wrong (presuming we even consider a player's personal decision to take an illegal drug to be 'wrong' in the first place), you deserve whatever you get, and that the only victims are those who are secondarily affected by the punishment that Murray receives (i.e. we are punished because he was punished, and it's all his fault).
But obviously most of us understand that some forms of punishment are excessive and unjust. Most of us do not feel comfortable with the idea of people being imprisoned for adultery, executed for drink-driving or having their hand chopped off for stealing, for instance. In such cases, it is not good enough to say (as sheep-like authoritarians might) that anyone in such a situation knew the risk and therefore deserved whatever legal consequences were coming to them; we must also recognise that the penalty in such cases is too severe and that the person has been unfairly treated whether or not they were aware of the prevailing legal code. Anyone who cares about justice (as opposed to rigid, automaton-like enforcement of the law) can at least understand these principles.
Of course, you and OEP may not feel the penalty is too severe for cases such as these. Or perhaps you are of a more authoritarian bent and feel that there really is no limit to justifiable punishment, and that, if it's in the books, you deserve to cop whatever's coming to you. But I'm hopeful that the majority of people don't think like that, and can recognise when a punishment is draconian. To lose four years from your career (in an industry that only lasts ten to fifteen max) is a vastly excessive penalty for what is, essentially, a technicality. Murray, we can reasonably surmise, neither intended to seek an unfair performance enhancement and nor did he obtain any; and yet, he is likely receiving a punishment that is, as far as I can tell, on par with deliberately and successfully cheating. Those of us who sympathise with him are, I can assure you, perfectly lucid about that. |
The punishment can't be to severe if it's never administered.
Don't commit the offence and no punishment is warranted, simple. _________________ A Collingwood supporter since the egg was inseminated. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
|
|