Media AFLW Swans News in the Media 2024

[Tedeski]

You genuinely disagree that three months ago is recent for criminal charges?

It doesn’t really matter. The girls have been looked after. It’s out now so perhaps they can sort themselves out.

 

[SM]

It doesn’t really matter. The girls have been looked after. It’s out now so perhaps they can sort themselves out.

Have they been looked after? How so?

This is a really poor take from you mate.

 

[Tedeski]

Have they been looked after? How so?

This is a really poor take from you mate.

According to some perhaps.
According to others a real good take.
The beauty of having our own opinions.

 

[SM]

According to some perhaps.
According to others a real good take.
The beauty of having our own opinions.

Except when you claim three months is a long time. But good on you, have a crack at the players. How many men have had their drug use exposed? Two?

 

[Arwib]

As it stands, if you are going to do drugs, you are better off doing coke on a game day than in the off season. Seems ridiculous to me.

This is very not true, a match day positive test puts you in the Joel Smith position. Long ban for PEDs.

 

[Arwib]

They were at the Clovelly pub and were being watched when they went out to a waiting Toyota , that dealer was probably the reason the cops were watching .

What a waste of time and money by the cops

 

[Ticky009]

‘I have two, she has one’: Moment Sydney Swans players were caught with cocaine

It was a late Saturday afternoon when Alexia Hamilton and Paige Sheppard left the Clovelly Hotel to find a silver Toyota. They have apologised for what happened next.

www.theage.com.au

 

[Callipygian]

While I get that being a police matter it is in the public forum and therefore able to published etc, but there are serious issues with a drugs policy that could see 2 players doing coke, yet 2 wildly different pathways.

2 players - one does coke at a hotel in the off season, one does it the morning before a game.
The one in the offseason gets picked up by the cops and charged, the one in play tests positive on game day yet has no consequence of a criminal nature.
The one in the offseason is named in a public forum, club is aware and is suspended. The one in play, maintains anonymity, club is not informed of the positive test and does not receive a penalty of any form.

As it stands, if you are going to do drugs, you are better off doing coke on a game day than in the off season. Seems ridiculous to me.

The issue of differing consequences is not based on when they use or are caught - it's who catches them. If the club or AFL catch the player then they deal with it off broadway. If law enforcement (police, WADA) catch the player, they deal with them according to law and it becomes public. Then the AFL imposes the additional sanction of bringing the game into disrepute - more for getting caught than for the drug use. That itself is not illogical because the getting caught is the major issue for the AFL - they don't want the sport to be associated with drug use and they don't want the bad influence which both arise through the publicity rather than the drug use or possession per se (albeit the publicity doesn't arise if there isn't drug use).

Yes, the consequences are wildly different according to who catches them but it's debateable whether it's the AFL's role to be the morality police for the players and the police are bound to do their job the same regardless of whether someone is an AFL player. It's the same for you or I: if we were to use drugs and nobody caught us nothing would happen. But if we used drugs and did get caught we would be subject to the criminal process and penalties and the court proceedings would be public (although probably not reported on). Same behaviour but wildly different outcomes based on being caught by law enforcement.

 

[Big Blood]

Not to make light of it but I'm sure for a lot Sydney people hearing the news the response is

• don't buy drugs at the Clovelly
• the Sydney Swans have a women's team.

It's far and away the most publicity our AFLW side has ever had -- eg, it was the no.1 story on the SMH site for half a day, no doubt helped by the pro-rugby/pro-league anti-AFL bias in the Sydney newsrooms. Not to encourage or condone but as long as there isn't another PR mishap the downside is quite limited.

 

[the hypnotoad]

The issue of differing consequences is not based on when they use or are caught - it's who catches them. If the club or AFL catch the player then they deal with it off broadway. If law enforcement (police, WADA) catch the player, they deal with them according to law and it becomes public. Then the AFL imposes the additional sanction of bringing the game into disrepute - more for getting caught than for the drug use. That itself is not illogical because the getting caught is the major issue for the AFL - they don't want the sport to be associated with drug use and they don't want the bad influence which both arise through the publicity rather than the drug use or possession per se (albeit the publicity doesn't arise if there isn't drug use).

Yes, the consequences are wildly different according to who catches them but it's debateable whether it's the AFL's role to be the morality police for the players and the police are bound to do their job the same regardless of whether someone is an AFL player. It's the same for you or I: if we were to use drugs and nobody caught us nothing would happen. But if we used drugs and did get caught we would be subject to the criminal process and penalties and the court proceedings would be public (although probably not reported on). Same behaviour but wildly different outcomes based on being caught by law enforcement.

not to harp on too much, but geez, "the morality police"?
i don't see this in terms of "morals" at all ... where's the "morality" line drawn? and who draws it?
put a spotlight on that one night at the clovelly hotel ...
some footy players get done buying cocaine ...
but several other people get pissed on legal alcohol, then: a) get in the car and drive somewhere, potentially risking lives; b) get into a fight and cause physical damage, and taken to its nth degree, also risking lives; c) go home and belt their partner ... etc etc
there's a legal line, which i say again is a separate debate, but where's the "morality" line?

 

[Callipygian]

not to harp on too much, but geez, "the morality police"?
i don't see this in terms of "morals" at all ... where's the "morality" line drawn? and who draws it?
put a spotlight on that one night at the clovelly hotel ...
some footy players get done buying cocaine ...
but several other people get pissed on legal alcohol, then: a) get in the car and drive somewhere, potentially risking lives; b) get into a fight and cause physical damage, and taken to its nth degree, also risking lives; c) go home and belt their partner ... etc etc
there's a legal line, which i say again is a separate debate, but where's the "morality" line?

It reads like you're taking issue with something I've written, but when I look closer I can't see what we disagree about.

The overall point of my post was to differ with Mr B and his conclusion that: "As it stands, if you are going to do drugs, you are better off doing coke on a game day than in the off season. Seems ridiculous to me." I do agree that being caught with drugs can lead to really disparate outcomes or 'punishments'. But I don't think that is ridiculous (because there are reasons for it) and I don't think you are better off doing coke on a game day, particularly if you get caught because you are potentially then guilty of WADA offences as well as just general criminal punishment.

 

[Tedeski]

Except when you claim three months is a long time. But good on you, have a crack at the players. How many men have had their drug use exposed? Two?

You seem VERY sensitive with this topic.
They should ALL be exposed right away.
Men, women, they, them, cats, dogs.......everyone.
What has come out today with the AFL covering everything up is an absolute disgrace.

Three months is a long time.
For men but not for women.
Whatever.

 

[SM]

You seem VERY sensitive with this topic.
They should ALL be exposed right away.
Men, women, they, them, cats, dogs.......everyone.
What has come out today with the AFL covering everything up is an absolute disgrace.

Three months is a long time.
For men but not for women.
Whatever.

I'm sensitive because you think it was swept under the rug while due process was being carried out. It's absurd to suggest that because it took place 3 months ago. We're not talking 3 years ago..

Why on earth should they be exposed? Should you have your name put up in lights if you look at your phone while stopped at a traffic light? Or go for a piss against a tree after a night out? Or any other sort of indiscretion? It's none of your business.

'For men but not for women'? What a weird comment. This is what's got my back up, you seem to be coming down hard on this because of the gender involved, it's a pretty poor stance. Probably time to move on and get your head in the 21st century.

 

[Tedeski]

I'm sensitive because you think it was swept under the rug while due process was being carried out. It's absurd to suggest that because it took place 3 months ago. We're not talking 3 years ago..

Why on earth should they be exposed? Should you have your name put up in lights if you look at your phone while stopped at a traffic light? Or go for a piss against a tree after a night out? Or any other sort of indiscretion? It's none of your business.

'For men but not for women'? What a weird comment. This is what's got my back up, you seem to be coming down hard on this because of the gender involved, it's a pretty poor stance. Probably time to move on and get your head in the 21st century.

You took the bait.
Can't believe it.
Three months is a long time by the way.
They are all lucky to be playing AFL.
So to cover up something that is illegal is a disgrace.
They used an illegal substance.
That's all I give a sh.t about.
Couldn't care less what you think.

 

[SM]

You took the bait.
Can't believe it.
Three months is a long time by the way.
They are all lucky to be playing AFL.
So to cover up something that is illegal is a disgrace.
They used an illegal substance.
That's all I give a sh.t about.
Couldn't care less what you think.

Three months is not a long time, you're sticking with an unbelievably stupid line. I see you've migrated to another thread to continue this because you're such a stick in the mud.

How on earth is something 'covered up' if it's been dealt with by the police and courts? That means it's a matter of public record, but that doesn't mean it needs their names splashed across the news ffs.

Why do you give a s**t that they used an illegal substance? I hate to break it to you but 90% of our list has probably used an illegal substance. The other 10% probably had a drink underage or have sped, or have broken the law in some other way. Do you want their names up in lights too?

You couldn't care what I think but you've engaged me in two separate threads on this issue. Move on.

 

[SwansProudly]

Take a break.

 

[the hypnotoad]

It reads like you're taking issue with something I've written, but when I look closer I can't see what we disagree about.

The overall point of my post was to differ with Mr B and his conclusion that: "As it stands, if you are going to do drugs, you are better off doing coke on a game day than in the off season. Seems ridiculous to me." I do agree that being caught with drugs can lead to really disparate outcomes or 'punishments'. But I don't think that is ridiculous (because there are reasons for it) and I don't think you are better off doing coke on a game day, particularly if you get caught because you are potentially then guilty of WADA offences as well as just general criminal punishment.

i think if an elite-level athlete is taking coke within 24-48 hours or whatever of an official competition game he/she is meant to be playing in, they have a problem with taking it at all ... and probably other problems as well