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 |
David 
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| OEP wrote: | The punishment can't be to severe if it's never administered.
Don't commit the offence and no punishment is warranted, simple. |
That's a pretty silly response, isn't it?
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
 |
OEP 
Joined: 12 Jan 2007
Location: Perth
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | OEP wrote: | The punishment can't be to severe if it's never administered.
Don't commit the offence and no punishment is warranted, simple. |
That's a pretty silly response, isn't it? |
Nope. It's the problem at it's root cause. To many people worry about the punishments handed out instead of the reason why the person(s) were punished and why they committed the act. Instead of working out ways of reducing the penalties wouldn't everyones time and money be better spent on reducing the one off offending and recidivist offending.
Pensonally I'd like to see the punishment also include players having to attend hospital clinics as orderlies assisting the staff dealing with people with addictions, rehab programs and once a player has recovered public speaking on their experiences with the substance, their recovery and the effect it had on them personally and their career.
_________________
A Collingwood supporter since the egg was inseminated. |
|
|
|
|
MatthewBoydFanClub
Joined: 12 Feb 2007
Location: Elwood
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| OEP wrote: | | David wrote: | | OEP wrote: | The punishment can't be to severe if it's never administered.
Don't commit the offence and no punishment is warranted, simple. |
That's a pretty silly response, isn't it? |
Nope. It's the problem at it's root cause. To many people worry about the punishments handed out instead of the reason why the person(s) were punished and why they committed the act. Instead of working out ways of reducing the penalties wouldn't everyones time and money be better spent on reducing the one off offending and recidivist offending.
Pensonally I'd like to see the punishment also include players having to attend hospital clinics as orderlies assisting the staff dealing with people with addictions, rehab programs and once a player has recovered public speaking on their experiences with the substance, their recovery and the effect it had on them personally and their career. |
When it comes down to it, being human is the root cause. The punishment you describe is nothing compared to the anguish he is currently going through not knowing if the result of his second blood sample will end his career. All of us make mistakes including the ones arbitrating on his punishment. One of the purposes of punishment is rehabilitation. Then how can a player be rehabilitated if he has 4 years of his career taken off him which will effectively end his career. CFC have said they will place him on the rookie list, but effectively the club will protect it's own interests before that of the player because that is the nature of the football industry. The only ones protecting the interests of the player is the AFL players association. The fans will soon lose interest in Murray if he gets 4 years and you can bet the club will delist him at the end of next year too. So how is justice served by effectively eliminating a player's career, who for all we know took an illicit substance, on one occasion in his whole life, with the intention of giving himself a high and having little or no effect on his performance in a football match? |
|
|
|
|
OEP
Joined: 12 Jan 2007
Location: Perth
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| MatthewBoydFanClub wrote: | | When it comes down to it, being human is the root cause. The punishment you describe is nothing compared to the anguish he is currently going through not knowing if the result of his second blood sample will end his career. All of us make mistakes including the ones arbitrating on his punishment. One of the purposes of punishment is rehabilitation. Then how can a player be rehabilitated if he has 4 years of his career taken off him which will effectively end his career. CFC have said they will place him on the rookie list, but effectively the club will protect it's own interests before that of the player because that is the nature of the football industry. The only ones protecting the interests of the player is the AFL players association. The fans will soon lose interest in Murray if he gets 4 years and you can bet the club will delist him at the end of next year too. So how is justice served by effectively eliminating a player's career, who for all we know took an illicit substance, on one occasion in his whole life, with the intention of giving himself a high and having little or no effect on his performance in a football match? |
Saying being human being is the root cause is not an excuse for this type of behaviour or else you could just as easily say killing another human being is just human behaviour as we've been doing that to each other since the dawn of time (and yes I know that's taking it to the extreme, but so is the human being / root cause excuse).
On the other parts of your post....do I think 4 years is a big penalty, yes I do. Do I disagree with it, no I don't. My reasoning is because players and sporting bodies will continue to try and excuse / diminish this (and other types) of behaviour so the penalty needs to come from an independent body and it needs to be harsh to deter as many players as possible from considering doing the same, and to encourage the various clubs / sporting bodies to educate their players on the pit falls associated with it.
What I'd like to see is the penalty reduced slightly to 2 years (maximum) but also what I've previously posted incorporated into that period away from the sport so the player has a realistic chance at playing the sport again but also rehabilitating themselves and educating others so they don't suffer the same fate.
Penalty, rehabilitation, education and incentive....I believe this will provide a better outcome all-round than just penalty.
_________________
A Collingwood supporter since the egg was inseminated. |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| OEP wrote: | | David wrote: | | OEP wrote: | The punishment can't be to severe if it's never administered.
Don't commit the offence and no punishment is warranted, simple. |
That's a pretty silly response, isn't it? |
Nope. It's the problem at it's root cause. To many people worry about the punishments handed out instead of the reason why the person(s) were punished and why they committed the act. Instead of working out ways of reducing the penalties wouldn't everyones time and money be better spent on reducing the one off offending and recidivist offending.
Pensonally I'd like to see the punishment also include players having to attend hospital clinics as orderlies assisting the staff dealing with people with addictions, rehab programs and once a player has recovered public speaking on their experiences with the substance, their recovery and the effect it had on them personally and their career. |
It's all a question of what you want to focus on and what "problem" you're trying to fix. If the issue is players taking cocaine on a Tuesday night, then that's a problem that may be related to the law, personal welfare and club discipline, but is not really related to maintaining competitive integrity (though players do need to be educated about the chance of such drugs remaining in their blood system). Where it comes into contact with anti-doping rules, as it has with Murray, it's an edge case and should be treated accordingly. It's a long way from a player secretly enhancing their performance with substances, attempting to do so or doing so by mistake.
If the "problem", however, is getting performance-enhancing drugs out of the game and ensuring fairness – and, this, let us remember, is the only necessary and justifiable purpose of WADA – then I see no reason that general principles of proportionate justice (present in courts of law and the AFL tribunal alike) can't be applied: by grading transgressions according to severity of outcome as well as intent. Clearly Murray's act was on the low end of both criteria and thus should be looking at something like a reprimand or official warning at worst.
A one-size-fits-all, zero-tolerance rule, on the other hand, is bad policy out in the real world – nobody in the legal system wants mandatory detention – and bad policy in a sporting code, too. It's actually a perfect instance of how draconian punishment becomes counterproductive, and will undoubtedly lead to "better hung for a sheep than a lamb"-type behaviour.
Legal codes and sub-legal codes (like workplace codes of conduct) are like a kind of contract: we collectively agree to be governed by them because we trust, on some level, that we will be treated fairly. Of course, sometimes unfair rules exist and we as individuals are bound by them, but we do have the power (and one that we should always be ready to exercise as employees, citizens and free-thinking people) to question those rules and, where possible, push for them to be overturned. The "problem" isn't just players failing to comply with a draconian system, and the "solution" isn't just increasing authority and punishment. We're capable of taking a nuanced approach here.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
E
Joined: 05 May 2010
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | OEP wrote: | | David wrote: | | OEP wrote: | The punishment can't be to severe if it's never administered.
Don't commit the offence and no punishment is warranted, simple. |
That's a pretty silly response, isn't it? |
Nope. It's the problem at it's root cause. To many people worry about the punishments handed out instead of the reason why the person(s) were punished and why they committed the act. Instead of working out ways of reducing the penalties wouldn't everyones time and money be better spent on reducing the one off offending and recidivist offending.
Pensonally I'd like to see the punishment also include players having to attend hospital clinics as orderlies assisting the staff dealing with people with addictions, rehab programs and once a player has recovered public speaking on their experiences with the substance, their recovery and the effect it had on them personally and their career. |
It's all a question of what you want to focus on and what "problem" you're trying to fix. If the issue is players taking cocaine on a Tuesday night, then that's a problem that may be related to the law, personal welfare and club discipline, but is not really related to maintaining competitive integrity (though players do need to be educated about the chance of such drugs remaining in their blood system). Where it comes into contact with anti-doping rules, as it has with Murray, it's an edge case and should be treated accordingly. It's a long way from a player secretly enhancing their performance with substances, attempting to do so or doing so by mistake.
If the "problem", however, is getting performance-enhancing drugs out of the game and ensuring fairness – and, this, let us remember, is the only necessary and justifiable purpose of WADA – then I see no reason that general principles of proportionate justice (present in courts of law and the AFL tribunal alike) can't be applied: by grading transgressions according to severity of outcome as well as intent. Clearly Murray's act was on the low end of both criteria and thus should be looking at something like a reprimand or official warning at worst.
A one-size-fits-all, zero-tolerance rule, on the other hand, is bad policy out in the real world – nobody in the legal system wants mandatory detention – and bad policy in a sporting code, too. It's actually a perfect instance of how draconian punishment becomes counterproductive, and will undoubtedly lead to "better hung for a sheep than a lamb"-type behaviour.
Legal codes and sub-legal codes (like workplace codes of conduct) are like a kind of contract: we collectively agree to be governed by them because we trust, on some level, that we will be treated fairly. Of course, sometimes unfair rules exist and we as individuals are bound by them, but we do have the power (and one that we should always be ready to exercise as employees, citizens and free-thinking people) to question those rules and, where possible, push for them to be overturned. The "problem" isn't just players failing to comply with a draconian system, and the "solution" isn't just increasing authority and punishment. We're capable of taking a nuanced approach here. |
if you move away from zero tolerance, then every single drug cheat will fit inside a loophole. Remember when all of the Tour De France riders claimed they ate tainted steak. where does it end.
Zero tolerance is the only way to stop the drug cheats and everyone has a duty of care to make sure they know what they digest and what it contains.
How can you have any sympathy for a coke head who cares so little about his performance that he's prepared to get wasted during the week he has a game?
_________________
Ohhh, the Premiership's a cakewalk ....... |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Easily. People take drugs for all kinds of reasons, some of which include addiction, mental health issues and as a means of coping with life in general (and some people even like to have fun in their own time, which I know is outrageous and really ought to be stopped). If you are unable to have sympathy for someone in Murray's position, then perhaps that's a personal issue that you need to deal with.
I'm not necessarily saying that the club should have turned a blind eye to this. It is entirely possible that, for an elite sportsperson, taking substances during the week is going to negatively affect your fitness, training regime and match-preparedness, and the club may have been justified in taking internal disciplinary measures against him accordingly. But none of that, again, has anything to do with being a drug cheat, and of course the anti-doping authority should be taking things like intent and effect into consideration in their sanctions.
I don't agree with you at all on zero tolerance. First of all, it's a basic principle of justice that the accused should be able to defend themselves. If it is indeed possible to accidentally ingest this stuff (whether it be through tainted meat, being spiked or whatever), then why on earth would you want to treat a person in such a situation as if they were a drug cheat? (You may well want to strip them of any medals they won in that period and make them sit things out until they are no longer under the influence; but why punish someone further for something they had no conscious intention to do?)
Perhaps, you may say, there are too many possible excuses out there and too few investigative resources. If so, that's nonsense. If you're going to make a decision that has such potentially severe repercussions on a competitor's career and personal reputation, then of course you $£$%^%%$ investigate. If the excuse is ridiculous and can't be substantiated, then you find them guilty; but if it's legitimate, then that should at least be a mitigating factor in sentencing.
We don't use the law as a sledgehammer for matters of actual life and death, so I'm bewildered by the suggestion that we should do so for football, where the stakes are so much lower. Frankly, I suspect that there's no logical justification in operation for ASADA's "zero-tolerance" standover tactics – rather, it's all about power, money and politics.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Pacino
Joined: 04 Sep 2016
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Yes, and zero tolerance has been a huge success in preventing drug use in the community!!!!
_________________
Carpe Diem |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| ^ Well, members of the community are not regularly drug-tested and banned from the community if they fail. |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
No, in the US they're merely thrown into prison for decades.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| E wrote: | | David wrote: | | OEP wrote: | | David wrote: | | OEP wrote: | The punishment can't be to severe if it's never administered.
Don't commit the offence and no punishment is warranted, simple. |
That's a pretty silly response, isn't it? |
Nope. It's the problem at it's root cause. To many people worry about the punishments handed out instead of the reason why the person(s) were punished and why they committed the act. Instead of working out ways of reducing the penalties wouldn't everyones time and money be better spent on reducing the one off offending and recidivist offending.
Pensonally I'd like to see the punishment also include players having to attend hospital clinics as orderlies assisting the staff dealing with people with addictions, rehab programs and once a player has recovered public speaking on their experiences with the substance, their recovery and the effect it had on them personally and their career. |
It's all a question of what you want to focus on and what "problem" you're trying to fix. If the issue is players taking cocaine on a Tuesday night, then that's a problem that may be related to the law, personal welfare and club discipline, but is not really related to maintaining competitive integrity (though players do need to be educated about the chance of such drugs remaining in their blood system). Where it comes into contact with anti-doping rules, as it has with Murray, it's an edge case and should be treated accordingly. It's a long way from a player secretly enhancing their performance with substances, attempting to do so or doing so by mistake.
If the "problem", however, is getting performance-enhancing drugs out of the game and ensuring fairness – and, this, let us remember, is the only necessary and justifiable purpose of WADA – then I see no reason that general principles of proportionate justice (present in courts of law and the AFL tribunal alike) can't be applied: by grading transgressions according to severity of outcome as well as intent. Clearly Murray's act was on the low end of both criteria and thus should be looking at something like a reprimand or official warning at worst.
A one-size-fits-all, zero-tolerance rule, on the other hand, is bad policy out in the real world – nobody in the legal system wants mandatory detention – and bad policy in a sporting code, too. It's actually a perfect instance of how draconian punishment becomes counterproductive, and will undoubtedly lead to "better hung for a sheep than a lamb"-type behaviour.
Legal codes and sub-legal codes (like workplace codes of conduct) are like a kind of contract: we collectively agree to be governed by them because we trust, on some level, that we will be treated fairly. Of course, sometimes unfair rules exist and we as individuals are bound by them, but we do have the power (and one that we should always be ready to exercise as employees, citizens and free-thinking people) to question those rules and, where possible, push for them to be overturned. The "problem" isn't just players failing to comply with a draconian system, and the "solution" isn't just increasing authority and punishment. We're capable of taking a nuanced approach here. |
if you move away from zero tolerance, then every single drug cheat will fit inside a loophole. Remember when all of the Tour De France riders claimed they ate tainted steak. where does it end.
Zero tolerance is the only way to stop the drug cheats and everyone has a duty of care to make sure they know what they digest and what it contains.
How can you have any sympathy for a coke head who cares so little about his performance that he's prepared to get wasted during the week he has a game? |
I agree.
we lost the grand $£$%^%%$ final by 5 $£$%^%%$ points with 90 $£$%^%%$ seconds left on the clock.
If he wants or needs to do drugs, then he forgoes his AFL career.
Thomas was damn lucky, and i believe (from what ive seen of) his behaviour and attitude since he came back from his suspension means he realizes it. I admit i didnt want him back, his 2nd chance worked for him but he was indeed very lucky to get it.
Murray got a shot at an AFL career, the year the team that picked him up played in a grand final, it was his choice, his risk, his decision, his responsibility, and the fact remains if he didnt take an illegal substance saturday, tuesday, last Christmas eve, whenever, he would have had a good chance in playing in a grand final. he blew it. dont give me the shit about being unlucky it showed up 4 days later, he took that chance. Nobody made him do it.
Collingwood owe him nothing. Ask Thomas what Collingwood owed him. Im betting he would tell you how grateful he is for the support he got and the second chance. He had the talent, and he must have worked hard over those 2 years to get the chance he got. And i cheer him on every week. Now ask him about his regrets.
Murray wasnt a bad player, and he may indeed get lucky with the 2nd test. Doesnt mean he automatically deserves a spot on our list. And if that 2nd test is dirty too, see ya later, He was fringe anyway, Thats the reality of professional sport.
Sure offer him counseling, but i hope someone also tells him what a bloody idiot he was.
David you are right, everyone deserves a second chance, BUT that doesnt mean they deserve it back at the level they were at. hes not going to jail or exile island.
as for the bolded, id like to see every single recruit do this when they first get drafted. and it wouldnt hurt the rest of the players either.
I will never get it. We know how hard an individual has to work to be at the top of their sport, to the elite level, why would you risk it for a not so cheap thrill? crazy. A highly paid AFL career can set you up for life, not to mention all the extra perks, and noone gets that on a platter. and even if they did, they dont get to abuse it. Well thats not totally true, but gees that played out well for Ben Cousins didnt it?
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
|
|
|
|
Mr Miyagi
Joined: 14 Sep 2018
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| I'm just angry at the AFL and media's spin-doctoring for other clubs caught out (they're really good blokes and deserve a chance!) compared to what our players cop (bad culture, parents should keep their kids away from Collingwood, they're evil and Satanic). It's *%#ing b.s., but it is what it is for decades. |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Mr Miyagi wrote: | | I'm just angry at the AFL and media's spin-doctoring for other clubs caught out (they're really good blokes and deserve a chance!) compared to what our players cop (bad culture, parents should keep their kids away from Collingwood, they're evil and Satanic). It's *%#ing b.s., but it is what it is for decades. |
doesnt bother me. they hold us to higher standards - and higher regard!!
hate us hate us hate us!!
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
E
Joined: 05 May 2010
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | No, in the US they're merely thrown into prison for decades. |
oh boy, you're going down that rabbit hole...... i'm going to end our little trip down self righteous lane. Enjoy your day folks.
_________________
Ohhh, the Premiership's a cakewalk ....... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
