 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
RudeBoy
Joined: 28 Nov 2005
|
| 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. |
I couldn't put it any better than inky. |
|
|
|
 |
David 
to wish impossible things
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: the edge of the deep green sea
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| makri wrote: | | David wrote: |
Has any player in the history of the AFL actually turned up on match day high?
Yeah, I didn't think so either. |
Bassed on what happens overseas I'd say it's likely. Look at someone like Paul Gascoingne in England, high profile, extremely talented. Would play in games, and well, that he couldn't remember.
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/dave-prentice-gazzas-recipe-everton-3359249
I'd say there would be cases in most professional leagues around the world including the AFL. |
I can kind of imagine a few cases back in the '70s or '80s, but surely it'd be unthinkable in this day and age.
By high I do mean "off one's chops".
_________________
"Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange |
|
|
|
|
Bucks5 
Nicky D - Parting the red sea
Joined: 23 Mar 2002
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Who else remembers Lawrence Angwin from Carlton? Wasn't it rumoured that he was caught stealing from his team mates lockers in order to fund his drug addiction?? I am sure he turned up to training totally off his face too.
_________________
How would Siri know when to answer "Hey Siri" unless it is listening in to everything you say? |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
David, I'd still lay odds it's not.rare maybe.
As for $200,000 not being massive money, it is to kids straight out of school, many of whom are total meat heads who would be lucky to get a job as a trolley boy. Even the smartest uni kid straight out of uni is for the most part, Om less than $100,000 and has a hecs bill.
Some of you are very forgiving. If I found out my kids were doing drugs, I'd be that mum on the news last night, building a cold turkey cage! (mates with) with your head, your body, your wallet, just not worth it.
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
Neil Appleby 
Joined: 11 Feb 1998
Location: Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Dangles wrote: | What ever happened to "What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas"
I guess the AFL have amended it to "What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas unless we get you to piss it into a jar and take it to the lab" |
What actually happened in Vegas is one of the reasons the new policy has been introduced. I'm with you to a degree though. If the players want to drink and take drugs during the off season, I can't see why the club should be interested. Player welfare should be the driving force here, but they are very young men and don't always know what's best for them.
_________________
After the epic draw comes the decisive knockout!
Collingwood rules the world again and Mick Malthouse fulfils his destiny with the twenty ten premiership and can you hear the people sing! |
|
|
|
|
Neil Appleby
Joined: 11 Feb 1998
Location: Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Medieval wrote: | So many incorrect uses of 'their', 'there', and 'they're', 'to' and 'too', and 'your' and 'you're' in this thread that I think some of you may need to submit to some illicit drug testing.  |
Yes it's agony. So is the weird tendency for people to misuse the words than and then. At first I thought it was a mistake of the new arrivals, but Nick's disproves that theory.
_________________
After the epic draw comes the decisive knockout!
Collingwood rules the world again and Mick Malthouse fulfils his destiny with the twenty ten premiership and can you hear the people sing! |
|
|
|
|
neil 
Joined: 08 Sep 2005
Location: Queensland
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Neil Appleby wrote: |
What actually happened in Vegas is one of the reasons the new policy has been introduced. I'm with you to a degree though. If the players want to drink and take drugs during the off season, I can't see why the club should be interested. Player welfare should be the driving force here, but they are very young men and don't always know what's best for them. |
But we do
_________________
Carlscum 120 years being cheating scum |
|
|
|
|
Dangles
Balmey Army
Joined: 14 May 2015
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Neil Appleby wrote: | | Dangles wrote: | What ever happened to "What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas"
I guess the AFL have amended it to "What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas unless we get you to piss it into a jar and take it to the lab" |
What actually happened in Vegas is one of the reasons the new policy has been introduced. I'm with you to a degree though. If the players want to drink and take drugs during the off season, I can't see why the club should be interested. Player welfare should be the driving force here, but they are very young men and don't always know what's best for them. |
He was on illicit drugs?
So why aren't players being banned from drinking then? Plenty of players have stuffed up on the booze. Could it be that the AFL is sponsored by CUB?
And regarding the three strikes policy, how many strikes do players get for racist, sexist or homophobic acts before they're whacked with a two year sanction? |
|
|
|
|
AN_Inkling
Joined: 06 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I believe we don't need illicit drug testing at all. It should only be used in situations where there is a serious safety risk. We certainly shouldn't be going above and beyond the WADA code and testing outside of competition. Of the arguments for it though, I think there's a couple that have some merit:
What about Keeffe and Thomas? - those using illicit drugs are risking a 4 year ban for performance enhancing drugs. I would like to know how much of a risk this is though and how often it has happened.
We don't want drug affected players turning up to games - agreed. I don't have a huge problem with players being tested on game day (I think this is the only requirement under WADA), anything else though is just image management.
And others with less merit:
It affects their performance - what if it doesn't though? One of the reasons, according to Cousins, that some players use illicit drugs is because it affects their performance less than say, alcohol.
They earn a lot of money and should be responsible - where else do we apply this principle? Anywhere? Plenty of people earning a lot of money are not held to the same standard. Even young people like pop stars or actors who openly advocate drug use. The only reason such testing is contemplated is because there is a body which has some control over their lives and is concerned about adverse publicity.
They are role models - and pop stars and actors are not? And people forced to comply with draconian standards are not role models. A role model is someone who makes good choices despite having the option of making bad ones.
It's illegal - of course. So let the police deal with it. What role does the AFL have in apprehending offenders? A pretty minor offense in almost all cases. And it's illegal for everyone, maybe every workplace should be testing regularly.
We have to protect the game's brand - I guess. But I'd never support something just for PR reasons. Unfortunately this seems to be the overriding reason for why the AFL has such a focus on an irrelevancy.
_________________
Well done boys! |
|
|
|
|
Neil Appleby
Joined: 11 Feb 1998
Location: Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| neil wrote: | | Neil Appleby wrote: |
What actually happened in Vegas is one of the reasons the new policy has been introduced. I'm with you to a degree though. If the players want to drink and take drugs during the off season, I can't see why the club should be interested. Player welfare should be the driving force here, but they are very young men and don't always know what's best for them. |
But we do |
Not what I said Neil, but do you think Keeffe and Thomas made wise decisions?
These guys, kids many of them, are not always big on the 'wise'. The problem with illicit drugs for footballers is exactly that there is no guarantee of product.
Players have decisions to make and it really isn't that difficult I don't think. For example, my club offers me a contract for two years worth say $200,000 a year and that contract has certain behaviour provisions built in. If I sign then I accept the rules. The club that offers me 3-4 times the salary of any other industry has high expectations. If I choose to break the rules and I get found out, then I suffer the consequences.
_________________
After the epic draw comes the decisive knockout!
Collingwood rules the world again and Mick Malthouse fulfils his destiny with the twenty ten premiership and can you hear the people sing! |
|
|
|
|
David
to wish impossible things
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: the edge of the deep green sea
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| AN_Inkling wrote: | I believe we don't need illicit drug testing at all. It should only be used in situations where there is a serious safety risk. We certainly shouldn't be going above and beyond the WADA code and testing outside of competition. Of the arguments for it though, I think there's a couple that have some merit:
What about Keeffe and Thomas? - those using illicit drugs are risking a 4 year ban for performance enhancing drugs. I would like to know how much of a risk this is though and how often it has happened.
We don't want drug affected players turning up to games - agreed. I don't have a huge problem with players being tested on game day (I think this is the only requirement under WADA), anything else though is just image management.
And others with less merit:
It affects their performance - what if it doesn't though? One of the reasons, according to Cousins, that some players use illicit drugs is because it affects their performance less than say, alcohol.
They earn a lot of money and should be responsible - where else do we apply this principle? Anywhere? Plenty of people earning a lot of money are not held to the same standard. Even young people like pop stars or actors who openly advocate drug use. The only reason such testing is contemplated is because there is a body which has some control over their lives and is concerned about adverse publicity.
They are role models - and pop stars and actors are not? And people forced to comply with draconian standards are not role models. A role model is someone who makes good choices despite having the option of making bad ones.
It's illegal - of course. So let the police deal with it. What role does the AFL have in apprehending offenders? A pretty minor offense in almost all cases. And it's illegal for everyone, maybe every workplace should be testing regularly.
We have to protect the game's brand - I guess. But I'd never support something just for PR reasons. Unfortunately this seems to be the overriding reason for why the AFL has such a focus on an irrelevancy. |
Well posted, Inkling. On the first two, I don't see the issue with a player turning up to a game high (something I strongly doubt would ever happen at this level) so long as it's not actually performance enhancing. It's the same if they turn up drunk or eat an entire ice cream cake before the game - it's terribly unprofessional and their performance will suffer and their club will be pretty upset with them. But that's an in-house discipline issue; not really our or the AFL's problem.
As for Keeffe and Thomas, I'm with you. Whatever the data on that is, their misfortune would have proven a huge deterrent to other players considering doing a line. It's weird, really, that it's been a contributing factor in the tightening up of drug rules; I would have thought it'd be sufficient reason not to change them.
_________________
"Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange |
|
|
|
|
David
to wish impossible things
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: the edge of the deep green sea
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| The Seedsmeister wrote: | | Who else remembers Lawrence Angwin from Carlton? Wasn't it rumoured that he was caught stealing from his team mates lockers in order to fund his drug addiction?? I am sure he turned up to training totally off his face too. |
My point exactly. That was a huge story, over a decade ago and just a training session (had the season even started?). Angwin was a bit of a basket case, too; can you imagine how much of a masochist you'd have to be to pull that shit on game day? This is why I find it unimaginable.
_________________
"Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange |
|
|
|
|
Neil Appleby
Joined: 11 Feb 1998
Location: Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Oh come off the grass David. You don't mind if players turn up for a game high? How about drunk? I don't want that sort of unprofessional behaviour at my club for a second. That sort of behaviour says I don't give a stuff. Luckily, most players are sensible enough to get high or drunk in the safety and privacy of their own homes. I presume there is no evidence to suggest that drunk or high players perform well.
If you ever get to run a club though David, I reckon you'd be overrun with blokes very happy to play for it 
_________________
After the epic draw comes the decisive knockout!
Collingwood rules the world again and Mick Malthouse fulfils his destiny with the twenty ten premiership and can you hear the people sing! |
|
|
|
|
David
to wish impossible things
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: the edge of the deep green sea
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^ Precisely. I don't want players to turn up drunk either, but when has this ever actually happened? And, of course, even if it did, there would be no strikes, no (AFL) fine and no calls for them to be sent to Siberia; most likely a very, very long stint in the VFL. I wouldn't be happy about it, but it wouldn't really be my business either. It would be a matter between player and club, exactly the same as if you or I turned up to work tipsy.
I'm happy for illegal (non performance enhancing) drugs to be treated exactly the same way. But, again, this is something that will probably never happen, so it's hardly worth even discussing.
_________________
"Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange |
|
|
|
|
neil
Joined: 08 Sep 2005
Location: Queensland
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Neil Appleby wrote: | | neil wrote: | | Neil Appleby wrote: |
What actually happened in Vegas is one of the reasons the new policy has been introduced. I'm with you to a degree though. If the players want to drink and take drugs during the off season, I can't see why the club should be interested. Player welfare should be the driving force here, but they are very young men and don't always know what's best for them. |
But we do |
1 Not what I said Neil, but do you think Keeffe and Thomas made wise decisions?
These guys, kids many of them, are not always big on the 'wise'. The problem with illicit drugs for footballers is exactly that there is no guarantee of product.
Players have decisions to make and it really isn't that difficult I don't think.2 For example, my club offers me a contract for two years worth say $200,000 a year and that contract has certain behaviour provisions built in. If I sign then I accept the rules. The club that offers me 3-4 times the salary of any other industry has high expectations.3 If I choose to break the rules and I get found out, then I suffer the consequences. |
1 Did Keefe and Thomas make wise decisions? No and they were caught
It was the off season and they were not at training
2 While companies can have these requirements the testing is done at the work site generally when you arrive. They do not have an entitlement to turn up at your place when you are on holidays/weekend/time off. Nor do you have to provide information about where you are .
3 As i posted earlier different drugs stay in the system longer and so it becomes safer, from a testing point of view, to use harder drugs that cannot be detected than smoke a joint.
_________________
Carlscum 120 years being cheating scum |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
