| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Neil Appleby 
Joined: 11 Feb 1998
Location: Melbourne
|
|
|
|
 |
Dave The Man 
Joined: 01 Apr 2005
Location: Someville, Victoria, Australia
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
and Player Named?
Still get 1 chance though
_________________
I am Da Man |
|
|
|
|
mattys123
Joined: 07 Jul 2009
Location: Narre Warren, VIC
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Seems fair to me, everyone gets a good warning before any real punishment is handed out.
If you get caught a second or third term then you really can't blame anyone but yourself. |
|
|
|
|
Dave The Man
Joined: 01 Apr 2005
Location: Someville, Victoria, Australia
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| mattys123 wrote: | Seems fair to me, everyone gets a good warning before any real punishment is handed out.
If you get caught a second or third term then you really can't blame anyone but yourself. |
The AFLPA would come up with Excuses why someone would get caught more then Once 
_________________
I am Da Man |
|
|
|
|
AN_Inkling
Joined: 06 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Not too fussed. I'd scrap the illicit drug testing entirely. Footy's not a life or death situation (surgery is and not even surgeons are tested) and testing for illicit drugs is completely unnecessary. It's nothing other than a brand saving measure.
_________________
Well done boys! |
|
|
|
|
Dave The Man
Joined: 01 Apr 2005
Location: Someville, Victoria, Australia
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| AN_Inkling wrote: | | Not too fussed. I'd scrap the illicit drug testing entirely. Footy's not a life or death situation (surgery is and not even surgeons are tested) and testing for illicit drugs is completely unnecessary. It's nothing other than a brand saving measure. |
So you be Happy for Players to play AFL off there Heads?
_________________
I am Da Man |
|
|
|
|
Dangles
Balmey Army
Joined: 14 May 2015
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| AN_Inkling wrote: | | Not too fussed. I'd scrap the illicit drug testing entirely. Footy's not a life or death situation (surgery is and not even surgeons are tested) and testing for illicit drugs is completely unnecessary. It's nothing other than a brand saving measure. |
I agree. What next? Mandatory drug testing for celebrities and politicians because they're role models too? |
|
|
|
|
Bob Sugar
Joined: 11 Feb 2010
Location: Benalla
|
| Post subject: | |
|
There should be different punishments for different drugs, if a player enjoys a toke on a joint then so what? But doing that gives him the same punishment as someone sucking the glass dick, IMO if you test positive to Meth you're banned until you undergo rehabilitation, there's a reason meth is such a dangerous drug, not many get off it when addicted and let's be real, the chances of getting caught the first time you use it are remote, so those who do get caught have probably been using for a while, same goes for other heavy drugs.
_________________
Defender...........
On the day before the first, Daicos created God.
You like this. |
|
|
|
|
Bob Sugar
Joined: 11 Feb 2010
Location: Benalla
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Dangles wrote: | | AN_Inkling wrote: | | Not too fussed. I'd scrap the illicit drug testing entirely. Footy's not a life or death situation (surgery is and not even surgeons are tested) and testing for illicit drugs is completely unnecessary. It's nothing other than a brand saving measure. |
I agree. What next? Mandatory drug testing for celebrities and politicians because they're role models too? |
It's protecting the clubs as well as the players, no ones saying don't use drugs, all's their saying is if you want clubs to pay you ridiculous amounts of money then don't use drugs, if you don't like the rule do something else.
_________________
Defender...........
On the day before the first, Daicos created God.
You like this. |
|
|
|
|
think positive 
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Defender wrote: | | Dangles wrote: | | AN_Inkling wrote: | | Not too fussed. I'd scrap the illicit drug testing entirely. Footy's not a life or death situation (surgery is and not even surgeons are tested) and testing for illicit drugs is completely unnecessary. It's nothing other than a brand saving measure. |
I agree. What next? Mandatory drug testing for celebrities and politicians because they're role models too? |
It's protecting the clubs as well as the players, no ones saying don't use drugs, all's their saying is if you want clubs to pay you ridiculous amounts of money then don't use drugs, if you don't like the rule do something else. |
Spot
On
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
Cuthbert Collingwood 
Once was on fire, now all at sea
Joined: 08 Dec 2005
Location: The BBC (Brunswick Bowling Club)
|
| Post subject: | |
|
A few years ago now the drug test for opiates was so sensitive that you could get a positive reading from eating a small sprinkle of poppy seeds. Needless to say, many confused Eastern Europeans and Russians failed to get jobs they applied for with no explanation.
_________________
McRae for Governor-General! |
|
|
|
|
AN_Inkling
Joined: 06 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Defender wrote: | | Dangles wrote: | | AN_Inkling wrote: | | Not too fussed. I'd scrap the illicit drug testing entirely. Footy's not a life or death situation (surgery is and not even surgeons are tested) and testing for illicit drugs is completely unnecessary. It's nothing other than a brand saving measure. |
I agree. What next? Mandatory drug testing for celebrities and politicians because they're role models too? |
It's protecting the clubs as well as the players, no ones saying don't use drugs, all's their saying is if you want clubs to pay you ridiculous amounts of money then don't use drugs, if you don't like the rule do something else. |
An average wage of $200,000 isn't "massive" money. It's modest for elite sports people (Soccer, Basketball, NFL, Baseball are all earning many more millions). There are plenty of people who earn this and more, doing jobs that are far more important, and they're not drug tested. It has nothing to do with how much they're being paid, it has nothing to do with player welfare, it's all about protecting the brand.
The irrelevant fact that they earn "a lot of money" just makes people feel better about treating them unfairly. Why aren't politicians tested? They earn good money and do a job where it actually might matter whether you're using drugs or not.
_________________
Well done boys! |
|
|
|
|
jackcass 
Joined: 01 Mar 2005
Location: Bendigo
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Dave The Man wrote: | and Player Named?
Still get 1 chance though |
Pretty hard to suspend a player for 4 weeks secretly. Guess they could claim an injury but wouldn't take too long to get out. |
|
|
|
|
jackcass
Joined: 01 Mar 2005
Location: Bendigo
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| AN_Inkling wrote: | | Not too fussed. I'd scrap the illicit drug testing entirely. Footy's not a life or death situation (surgery is and not even surgeons are tested) and testing for illicit drugs is completely unnecessary. It's nothing other than a brand saving measure. |
Tend to agree although there is some research that suggests illicit drugs can offer some enhanced performance. |
|
|
|
|
swoop42 
Whatcha gonna do when he comes for you?
Joined: 02 Aug 2008
Location: The 18
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| AN_Inkling wrote: | | Defender wrote: | | Dangles wrote: | | AN_Inkling wrote: | | Not too fussed. I'd scrap the illicit drug testing entirely. Footy's not a life or death situation (surgery is and not even surgeons are tested) and testing for illicit drugs is completely unnecessary. It's nothing other than a brand saving measure. |
I agree. What next? Mandatory drug testing for celebrities and politicians because they're role models too? |
It's protecting the clubs as well as the players, no ones saying don't use drugs, all's their saying is if you want clubs to pay you ridiculous amounts of money then don't use drugs, if you don't like the rule do something else. |
An average wage of $200,000 isn't "massive" money. It's modest for elite sports people (Soccer, Basketball, NFL, Baseball are all earning many more millions). There are plenty of people who earn this and more, doing jobs that are far more important, and they're not drug tested. It has nothing to do with how much they're being paid, it has nothing to do with player welfare, it's all about protecting the brand.
The irrelevant fact that they earn "a lot of money" just makes people feel better about treating them unfairly. Why aren't politicians tested? They earn good money and do a job where it actually might matter whether you're using drugs or not. |
People working in the mining industry for example are often required to undertake random drug tests and know to get or retain the job they have to agree to it. Penalties or loss of job will apply for any failures.
I don't see any difference here.
Players sign essentially a job contract with there clubs who in turn are beholden to the AFL who has a policy in relation to illicit drugs.
I don't see what the big deal is to be honest.
Players are employees and don't set the terms for that employment. |
|
|
|
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
