Nostradamus Lives Is it beyond the realms of possibility for the AFL to cover up a drug incident involving a player

[The Dodger]

Re: Is it beyond the realms of possibility for the AFL to cover up a drug incident involving a playe

Echols is worth listening to, people

The whole idea that the League would cover up a third test is quite ludicrous. Publicizing a third test and it's a player and club issue; it's a scandal for a couple of months, a report gets written but everyone moves on and there is a nice tale of redemption to told .

Get caught covering it up and it's a steaming pile off s**t sitting in Vlad's lap. WADA sanctions, Commonwealth support in jeopardy. Heads roll and a testing regime instituted that will make every coke head in the league weep gently into their pillow.

I am wondering who will catch them though?
My understanding is that it is voluntary by the AFL therefore they would most likely keep it in house.
I can't see the AFL give up info that could do so much damage to the brand to a 3rd party when it is voluntary. It is not performance enhancing (unless taken on game day which falls under ASADA, completely different) so not sure what body could catch them.

My take on the 3rd strike is the AFL got wind of an illicit drug problem amongst player ranks wanted to do something to be on the front foot and bellowed from AFL house about how good they are for initiating testing that is beyond what they are required to do without thinking about the questions that the media will inevitably start asking (especially in the Cousins case).

As Echols said above the AFL did not go out to the car where Travis was found and test him they just went on anecdotal evidence from the scene. How professional does that sound, that he isn't even tested under the policy?
They wack him with the 3rd strike publicly, hurrah the system works.
In this case I believe the 3rd strike is there to protect the AFL from damage. They get to say "see we had him in our sights all along".

So I don't think it is a cover up that needs to take place as not sure who gets the info outside of AFL house.

 

[mollyfud]

Re: Is it beyond the realms of possibility for the AFL to cover up a drug incident involving a playe

As Echols said above the AFL did not go out to the car where Travis was found and test him they just went on anecdotal evidence from the scene. How professional does that sound, that he isn't even tested under the policy?

I think you will find they went on the Police report that he had Overdosed (I think he OD or at least the police found evidence of drug use) which counts as a strike in their drug code. The same way that Stokes of Geelong got a strike for his issue and Johnson of Freo also got a strike. So I'm afraid again logic raises its ugly little head again. I do apologies, I know this is meant to be a logic free zone!

 

[Catsmaninamerica]

Re: Is it beyond the realms of possibility for the AFL to cover up a drug incident involving a playe

Here is a newsbreak. Its not just players that do drugs. Personally have seen HEAVYWEIGHT AFL types doing lines. As in blokes that run the help run the show (NOT Vlad i will add)

Can guarantee many players know of AFL officials that love a line too, so there is the very real possibility that when out partying, in similar circles, if a Buddy type player knew of a Gil type person (totally hypothetical...) was also on the blow.... there'd be a self interest on "Gils" part to make sure "Buddy" got protected...

Just sayin...

 

[Messenger]

Re: Is it beyond the realms of possibility for the AFL to cover up a drug incident involving a playe

I am wondering who will catch them though?
My understanding is that it is voluntary by the AFL therefore they would most likely keep it in house.
I can't see the AFL give up info that could do so much damage to the brand to a 3rd party when it is voluntary. It is not performance enhancing (unless taken on game day which falls under ASADA, completely different) so not sure what body could catch them.

My take on the 3rd strike is the AFL got wind of an illicit drug problem amongst player ranks wanted to do something to be on the front foot and bellowed from AFL house about how good they are for initiating testing that is beyond what they are required to do without thinking about the questions that the media will inevitably start asking (especially in the Cousins case).

As Echols said above the AFL did not go out to the car where Travis was found and test him they just went on anecdotal evidence from the scene. How professional does that sound, that he isn't even tested under the policy?
They wack him with the 3rd strike publicly, hurrah the system works.
In this case I believe the 3rd strike is there to protect the AFL from damage. They get to say "see we had him in our sights all along".

So I don't think it is a cover up that needs to take place as not sure who gets the info outside of AFL house.

Who will catch them? Are you serious?

I would have thought the Mifsud shenanigans quite neatly illustrated the inability
of people to resist chit-chat. Is it at all plausible that everyone associated with the testing regime (many of whom do not work for the AFL) will simply stay silent to meet the supposed interests of the AFL?

As to damage, I'll ask again. What is more damaging to the league: a player getting a third strike or the league being caught covering the fact up?

And if you believe there is a cover up, tell me how the league exerts control over people they don't employ? They can barely control the people they do FFS.

 

[The Dodger]

Re: Is it beyond the realms of possibility for the AFL to cover up a drug incident involving a playe

Who will catch them? Are you serious?

I would have thought the Mifsud shenanigans quite neatly illustrated the inability
of people to resist chit-chat. Is it at all plausible that everyone associated with the testing regime (many of whom do not work for the AFL) will simply stay silent to meet the supposed interests of the AFL?

As to damage, I'll ask again. What is more damaging to the league: a player getting a third strike or the league being caught covering the fact up?

And if you believe there is a cover up, tell me how the league exerts control over people they don't employ? They can barely control the people they do FFS.

As I said before I don't think there would need to be cover up. Who outside of the AFL gets this info of how many strikes a player has. If you can give me the name of "many whom do not work in the AFL", I will accept that. I will not accept that a lab that gets test no. 315 will have the info on who has got that strike as IMO only the AFL will know who test no. 315 is. You dont believe the AFL would be silly enough to hand a lab a test that has "Brendan Goddard" written on the side of the sample do you?

How many people in AFL house do you think know the info on which players have the strikes and how many positive tests they have returned?
If lips were so loose on this issue (and so much money to be made by the media for getting that info) don't you think the list of players on 2 strikes would have surfaced by now? The media would kill for that list yet no one has yet got that info have they?

It is also not staying silent to meet the supposed interests of the AFL, what about the player? Do they want this to get out? (IIRC when this was proposed by the AFL the AFLPA had a big say in the way these strikes are handled to ensure players aren't dragged through the mud).
Which, is a question I asked an earlier poster which he refused to respond to; who out of all of the parties involved want this info to go public?

I will also ask another question again, why would the AFL, employ a voluntary, out of competition testing regime and let a 3rd party to the AFL (as the Mifsud situation also showed that the AFL are stubborn and so protective of their brand) decide whether a superstar should miss the game for a lengthy period? IMO does not sound like the AFL 1 bit.

Also remember the AFL give the strikes not WADA or ASADA, so my understanding is that they don't police the out of competition testing.

So please let me know the party that has the info and will come forward to let everyone know when a player has 3 strikes?

Below is an article I found which highlights the Vic governments concerns about in house testing.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/sport/three-strikes-youre-out-of-favour-government-backs-nrl-on-drugs/2007/06/21/1182019280154.html

"The Government, frustrated by the in-house controls of the testing process, was unable to convince the AFL to toughen its policy following a meeting with chief executive Andrew Demetriou last month."

The below article again was highlighting the secrecy with which the AFL guard those who have tested positive.
http://www.theroar.com.au/2008/11/19/afl-should-get-fair-dinkum-with-drug-tests/

and last but not least the AFL themselves.
http://www.afl.com.au/tabid/13144/Default.aspx?newsId=66504

“Our Illicit Drugs Policy is above and beyond the WADA policy and is about testing players out of competition for illicit drugs that are harmful to their physical and mental health.”

Please note from this article;
AFLPA role in "Voluntary Testing" - why would a player volunteer if they had no control over how the info was disseminated?
Only chief medical officer of club player is traded to is told about strikes - by whom...the AFL?
Where multiple test fails have happened the CEO of the club is told, but not the name of the player - by whom... the AFL?
Players positives tests are wiped after 4 years - IMO that is a get out of jail free card to the AFL.
As it would not be hard to offer player on 2 strikes counselling, treatment and based on advice about drug rehabilitation being a battle (which Demetriou is cautious to point out in the article; “Our policy is backed by Australia’s leading drug and medical experts. We are determined to have a policy that works – that actually leads to behaviour change and education and the evidence shows that our policy is working. We refuse to have a policy that is ‘name and shame’ and which benefits no-one,” Mr Demetriou said.) to not test that player again until some strikes have been removed, would it not? No point in testing a rehab person as we know they can relapse right? Or did the advice form all of the medicos & rehab experts not inform them of this?

 

[The Dodger]

Re: Is it beyond the realms of possibility for the AFL to cover up a drug incident involving a playe

I think you will find they went on the Police report that he had Overdosed (I think he OD or at least the police found evidence of drug use) which counts as a strike in their drug code. The same way that Stokes of Geelong got a strike for his issue and Johnson of Freo also got a strike. So I'm afraid again logic raises its ugly little head again. I do apologies, I know this is meant to be a logic free zone!

You are correct I forgot about that aspect of the strikes, which are handed down in retrospect by the AFL.

Thank you for reminding me about the logic free zone. Now please answer the questions about why a medico would blow the whistle on the AFL if the AFL employ them to help people with addiction? Or should we put that in the logic free zone?

Do the police know that Tuck had 2 strikes prior? Who did? Who forced the AFL hand to pass down the 3rd strike?

 

[Messenger]

Re: Is it beyond the realms of possibility for the AFL to cover up a drug incident involving a playe

As I said before I don't think there would need to be cover up. Who outside of the AFL gets this info of how many strikes a player has. If you can give me the name of "many whom do not work in the AFL", I will accept that. I will not accept that a lab that gets test no. 315 will have the info on who has got that strike as IMO only the AFL will know who test no. 315 is. You dont believe the AFL would be silly enough to hand a lab a test that has "Brendan Goddard" written on the side of the sample do you?

I'll acknowledge samples are deidentified but this thread is based on the premise that there is a conspiracy to cover up positive tests. So where did that idea come from? Plenty seem to be certain that players tested positive.

How many people in AFL house do you think know the info on which players have the strikes and how many positive tests they have returned?
If lips were so loose on this issue (and so much money to be made by the media for getting that info) don't you think the list of players on 2 strikes would have surfaced by now? The media would kill for that list yet no one has yet got that info have they?

I have no idea. Perhaps they're in Vlads draw.
Have you ever had anyone told you such-and-such has two strikes? Where do they get that? Sure most of its rubbish, but is it all false? Me neither.

It is also not staying silent to meet the supposed interests of the AFL, what about the player? Do they want this to get out? (IIRC when this was proposed by the AFL the AFLPA had a big say in the way these strikes are handled to ensure players aren't dragged through the mud).
Which, is a question I asked an earlier poster which he refused to respond to; who out of all of the parties involved want this info to go public?

As if the players get a choice.....

And I'll ask again, what is easier for the AFL to manage; A player recording a third strike, going through rehab and returning to the game, or the great big conspiracy everyone is so certain is occurring being busted open?

The crux of my argument is that I am utterly unconvinced that an organization of any size, and particularly the AFL, is capable of keeping a secret like this in the long term. Therefore my suggestion is that there is no secret, that the tests are as they say they are.

You make some fair points about the leagues desire for secrecy, but having worked in health for 15+ years and seeing various indiscretions with confidential medical information, I'd say from experience it is the nature of the beast to gossip.

 

[mollyfud]

Re: Is it beyond the realms of possibility for the AFL to cover up a drug incident involving a playe

You are correct I forgot about that aspect of the strikes, which are handed down in retrospect by the AFL.

Thank you for reminding me about the logic free zone. Now please answer the questions about why a medico would blow the whistle on the AFL if the AFL employ them to help people with addiction? Or should we put that in the logic free zone?

Do the police know that Tuck had 2 strikes prior? Who did? Who forced the AFL hand to pass down the 3rd strike?

A medico on the AFL Medical Commission (or what ever the thing is called I can't be bother relooking up now, sorry) being told that they need to be involved in covering up the AFL not executing their public policy on Drugs would have to decide if they are to be involved in the cover-up and face what ever wrath comes when it is found out or resign without reason or without specific reason or resign and go to the press that the AFL are not going by their own drug policy. Would they have a reason to name names? Probably not but surely if they are to serve on the committee they can't accept the AFL going against the policy's that they are working by.

On your last paragraph. The policy wouldn't have know or cared! The medical commission and the Hawks doctor should be the only ones who knew (apart from Travis) to know and I think the AFL didn't have their hand forced, they just went by their own policy. I put it forward as proof there is no reason not too. People hardly remember Travis was outed for 3 strikes let alone the League being tarnished by it. Justin Charles going for performance drugs is, to me, an issue that had the power to cause more embarrassment for the league then a 3 strike player and it hasn't!

JMTC

 

[The Dodger]

Re: Is it beyond the realms of possibility for the AFL to cover up a drug incident involving a playe

A medico on the AFL Medical Commission (or what ever the thing is called I can't be bother relooking up now, sorry) being told that they need to be involved in covering up the AFL not executing their public policy on Drugs would have to decide if they are to be involved in the cover-up and face what ever wrath comes when it is found out or resign without reason or without specific reason or resign and go to the press that the AFL are not going by their own drug policy. Would they have a reason to name names? Probably not but surely if they are to serve on the committee they can't accept the AFL going against the policy's that they are working by.

On your last paragraph. The policy wouldn't have know or cared! The medical commission and the Hawks doctor should be the only ones who knew (apart from Travis) to know and I think the AFL didn't have their hand forced, they just went by their own policy. I put it forward as proof there is no reason not too. People hardly remember Travis was outed for 3 strikes let alone the League being tarnished by it. Justin Charles going for performance drugs is, to me, an issue that had the power to cause more embarrassment for the league then a 3 strike player and it hasn't!

JMTC

Definitely, but that is something that they cannot control. Doesn't performance enhancing (or taking to increase recovery, as was Charles case IIRC) fall under the jurisdiction of ASADA or WADA. If these agencies are involved I cannot see the AFL being able to cover up anything, as they are independent and don't give a clacker about the AFL, they just know that someone has a positive test for steroid and that the AFL will make an announcement shortly, or face consequences.

With the Tuck situation, that is what Patrick Smith is getting at in the article I quoted in previous post to Messenger. That the only time we know a player gets a strike is when there is police involvement. He (myself included) are a bit dubious about the AFL policy until they act by themselves without a public 3rd party bringing it to their attention and sanction a player.

 

[mollyfud]

Re: Is it beyond the realms of possibility for the AFL to cover up a drug incident involving a playe

Definitely, but that is something that they cannot control. Doesn't performance enhancing (or taking to increase recovery, as was Charles case IIRC) fall under the jurisdiction of ASADA or WADA. If these agencies are involved I cannot see the AFL being able to cover up anything, as they are independent and don't give a clacker about the AFL, they just know that someone has a positive test for steroid and that the AFL will make an announcement shortly, or face consequences.

With the Tuck situation, that is what Patrick Smith is getting at in the article I quoted in previous post to Messenger. That the only time we know a player gets a strike is when there is police involvement. He (myself included) are a bit dubious about the AFL policy until they act by themselves without a public 3rd party bringing it to their attention and sanction a player.

I don't know if we were signed up with ASADA or WADA at the time of Charles issue as there was big issues with the AFL not being signed up to the WADA code (as it was weaker then theirs) when they brought in the Illicit Drug policy.

On the Tuck thing, no one in public knew that Tuck had strikes (I don't believe) when his incident happened. Others have got or had got strikes for public drug incidents (Stokes/Johnson) so if the AFL were in the cover up business, why would they not have covered up Tucks other strikes?

As an Occam's razor type of guy, the answer is that the AFL isn't in the business of covering up 3 strikers!

 

[The Dodger]

Re: Is it beyond the realms of possibility for the AFL to cover up a drug incident involving a playe

I'll acknowledge samples are deidentified but this thread is based on the premise that there is a conspiracy to cover up positive tests. So where did that idea come from? Plenty seem to be certain that players tested positive.



I have no idea. Perhaps they're in Vlads draw.
Have you ever had anyone told you such-and-such has two strikes? Where do they get that? Sure most of its rubbish, but is it all false? Me neither.



As if the players get a choice.....

And I'll ask again, what is easier for the AFL to manage; A player recording a third strike, going through rehab and returning to the game, or the great big conspiracy everyone is so certain is occurring being busted open?

The crux of my argument is that I am utterly unconvinced that an organization of any size, and particularly the AFL, is capable of keeping a secret like this in the long term. Therefore my suggestion is that there is no secret, that the tests are as they say they are.

You make some fair points about the leagues desire for secrecy, but having worked in health for 15+ years and seeing various indiscretions with confidential medical information, I'd say from experience it is the nature of the beast to gossip.

I think people know players test positive because the AFL tells us that x amount of players returned positive results and x amount have a second strike. By not being open they enable speculation to exist that
a) player x is definitley the player that has 2 strikes
b) the AFL are not accountable to anyone but the AFL for this policy.

As I said in the previous post I think the easiest position for the AFL is to take player x who has tested positive twice, hand him over to the medico's for re-education and rehabilitation and not test him until 4 years has passed and 1 of the strikes has disappeared. So I guess it would be easier for the AFL to deal with a 3rd strike by re-education and rehabilitation but when will that happen?

I understand your argument - you don't believe that it could happen. My argument is that there is enough grey area and self governance that it could happen.

With the question again who will bust open the AFL records of who has what strikes? My understanding of the policy is that it is completely governed by the AFL and they are not responsible to anyone else over this subject (hence the outcry by the media and Vic gov). Only the media prying and trying to get them to name names is what it has levelled to.
I know the saying loose lips sink ships but surely if it was not monitored properly we would have already had a list of players with 2 strikes against their name.

 

[Furuncle]

Re: Is it beyond the realms of possibility for the AFL to cover up a drug incident involving a playe

Let's assume for argument's sake that Lance Franklin was already on two strikes and failed a 3rd drug test. Everyone received a text or email about this rumour. It doesn't make it true, but let's assume it was true.

Ah... So what? The big AFL hotshot superstar liked to party. He liked to snort big lines of cocaine off women's breasts and then rub some on his penis while he banged three girls at a time. Allegedly.

Why are people complaining about this? Why are they making such an issue of it? The way some of you carry on, you'd think he was raping little boys. Is this what barracking has degenerated into? Smearing footballers from rival teams and hoping they get suspended for partying?

Here's a newsflash for all you gimps out there: truckloads of footballers have snorted cocaine and taken pills. From YOUR club... Yes, it's true. Probably your favourite footballer. What world have you all been living in? www.headuparse.com?

Stop for a second and just imagine how rife the drug use was in AFL circles BEFORE they started to test for illicit drugs.

Who cares what footballers do on their own time? Why does it concern any of you?

Why doesn't anyone care about performance-enhancing drugs? Why get so hung up on the "illicit" drugs?

Get a life... Get drunk... Find yourselves a girl and have sex, FFS...

 

[The Dodger]

Re: Is it beyond the realms of possibility for the AFL to cover up a drug incident involving a playe

I don't know if we were signed up with ASADA or WADA at the time of Charles issue as there was big issues with the AFL not being signed up to the WADA code (as it was weaker then theirs) when they brought in the Illicit Drug policy.

On the Tuck thing, no one in public knew that Tuck had strikes (I don't believe) when his incident happened. Others have got or had got strikes for public drug incidents (Stokes/Johnson) so if the AFL were in the cover up business, why would they not have covered up Tucks other strikes?

As an Occam's razor type of guy, the answer is that the AFL isn't in the business of covering up 3 strikers!

Yeah ok
But the Charles incident still falls under performance enhancing so still treated differently to the illicit drug program.

On the other hand the AFL don't tell us when other players get 1 strike so why tells us that Stokes / Johnson received one? Just for the public, because it was a public event? Makes the AFL look like it is doing something no?
Which IMO brings us back to the Tuck situation I believe the AFL don't have to cover things up in that they would not have to have tested Tuck during his rehab/counselling time (after 2 strikes) but he made a very public mistake and forced their hand. Remember this was all on the back of Ben Cousins and the AFL were keen to show they had a new tough stance on illicit drugs. But it still remains that the only strikes we know about whether it be 1st or 3rd is because of a public event. With Travis' and Ben's life the way they were would it have been hard to get that 3rd strike through consistent testing?

 

[mollyfud]

Re: Is it beyond the realms of possibility for the AFL to cover up a drug incident involving a playe

Yeah ok
But the Charles incident still falls under performance enhancing so still treated differently to the illicit drug program.

On the other hand the AFL don't tell us when other players get 1 strike so why tells us that Stokes / Johnson received one? Just for the public, because it was a public event? Makes the AFL look like it is doing something no?
Which IMO brings us back to the Tuck situation I believe the AFL don't have to cover things up in that they would not have to have tested Tuck during his rehab/counselling time (after 2 strikes) but he made a very public mistake and forced their hand. Remember this was all on the back of Ben Cousins and the AFL were keen to show they had a new tough stance on illicit drugs. But it still remains that the only strikes we know about whether it be 1st or 3rd is because of a public event. With Travis' and Ben's life the way they were would it have been hard to get that 3rd strike through consistent testing?

Note: Just mentioning Charles as an example that 3 strikes isn't the end of the world. Yes its different. I would argue worst!

On Stokes/Johnson getting public strikes, the AFL didn't have to announce them (and don't think they did as such, may have acknowledge if asked in an interview that yes they would get a strike) as we all know they get a strike as ITS IN THEIR POLICY.

On Tuck. I still say, if the premise (which again I call bullshit too) is that a player getting 3 strikes and being outed for 3 strikes hurts the AFL, they could have covered up the Tuck incident and said nothing, as they did with Stokes and Johnson and people would have assumed it was a first or second strike! They didn't. They went to their policy. The medical commission saw it was a third strike and he was sent to the tribunal.

What this comes down too is if you don't trust the AFL, then you are going to say its absolutely possible but there is no hard evidence that it has happened!
It would be equally true to say if you have any faith in the AFL, you are willing to accept that they follow through on their policies and in fact their is evidence that they will follow through on this one. What the people with faith in the AFL can't prove is that the AFL have never covered 3 strikes up.

To me the conclusion is this.

Is it possible for the AFL to try to coverup someone getting 3 strikes? Yes
Is it likely they would be successful? No
Is it likely they would try to cover it up? No


On the posts saying is it so bad if a player takes drugs in their own time, I say maybe not but its probably not a wise thing (see Ben Cousins). But that is not the point of this thread (to me) its about could/would the AFL try to cover it up!

 

[The Dodger]

Re: Is it beyond the realms of possibility for the AFL to cover up a drug incident involving a playe

On Stokes/Johnson getting public strikes, the AFL didn't have to announce them (and don't think they did as such, may have acknowledge if asked in an interview that yes they would get a strike) as we all know they get a strike as ITS IN THEIR POLICY.

On Tuck. I still say, if the premise (which again I call bullshit too) is that a player getting 3 strikes and being outed for 3 strikes hurts the AFL, they could have covered up the Tuck incident and said nothing, as they did with Stokes and Johnson and people would have assumed it was a first or second strike! They didn't. They went to their policy. The medical commission saw it was a third strike and he was sent to the tribunal.

What this comes down too is if you don't trust the AFL, then you are going to say its absolutely possible but there is no hard evidence that it has happened!
It would be equally true to say if you have any faith in the AFL, you are willing to accept that they follow through on their policies and in fact their is evidence that they will follow through on this one. What the people with faith in the AFL can't prove is that the AFL have never covered 3 strikes up.

To me the conclusion is this.

Is it possible for the AFL to try to coverup someone getting 3 strikes? Yes
Is it likely they would be successful? No
Is it likely they would try to cover it up? No

On the posts saying is it so bad if a player takes drugs in their own time, I say maybe not but its probably not a wise thing (see Ben Cousins). But that is not the point of this thread (to me) its about could/would the AFL try to cover it up!

Yeah see what you are saying about the Stokes / Johnson incident.

With Tuck I still don't believe they can conceal such a public event. Maybe I am not making myself clear. Yes I believe there would be an issue with a player who has 2 strikes doing such a public event in that all concerned will believe he should have a 3rd strike just for that incident, as in they couldn't cover that up and he needs help last resort type stuff. But what they could do (if Travis had not stuffed up publicly) is that the AFL just could not have tested him until 1 of the other strikes disappeared (after 4 years) as a lot that has been written (Demetriou himself) saying that they are aware that people with drug issues will relapse. This information they got form the medico's + rehab workers, so I am saying that would it medically be in the interest of a player who has had 2 strikes recorded to be target tested again knowing the above? What would the medico's + rehab say about that? To me it would be like shooting fish in barrel, as in my question would it really have been that hard to get a/to a 3rd strike by target testing Cousins + Tuck, based on what we know?

So my questions are a bit different to yours in that:
Is it necessary for the AFL to cover up someone getting 3 strikes? No
Can they manipulate their self governed policy (that no 3rd party has a say in) that it would be nigh on impossible to get the 3rd strike? Yes
Is it likely they would do this? Yes, as the info they would have from Medico's + Rehab people would suggest that if they went back the next day and tested player x on 2 strikes again they would get that 3rd strike.

That is the angle I have been trying to convey in my posts, that they are not responsible to anyone therefore they don't need to cover up anything.

 

[mehow2g]

Re: Is it beyond the realms of possibility for the AFL to cover up a drug incident involving a playe

There is a reason why Ben Cousins all of the sudden at the end of his career his drug abuse was put in the spot light because he doesnt have much value to the AFL anymore.

Franklin I know he has ATLEAST 2 he was using plenty of drugs before he got drafted.. The AFL wont care because this man makes alot of money for himself and the AFL.

I dont care about drug users in AFL as long its just weekend stuff I care just as much as the AFL and I also like having Franklin playing just as much as the AFL does.

(Im not having a dig at Franklin hes a star and thats all that matters)

People need to understand that AFL is a business its not a game to them its purely run on profits everything that is put into this game is to generate money the home and away system draw is based on what will generate the most TV ratings etc etc.

If they get rid of a player who abuses the **** out of drugs and is an absolute star that would be bad business.

All the drug policy is is to show the public that they care and it gives them a better image...


The world isnt all rainbows you'd be surprised how greedy people are and the AFL is one of them.

The AFL just couldnt hide Ben Cousins any more think about how much money they made from him he has a book, he had documentary and now they are following him and pinning him whenever he slips up that would make some one go insane and his insane reactions to the media is just gonna make more cash for them the man is getting milked and will be milked until hes dead...

Think about it look at how many crimes he has commited either they are lying about what hes been found with or they want to keep him in the headlines any other person would be locked up.

 

[Masto]

Re: Is it beyond the realms of possibility for the AFL to cover up a drug incident involving a playe

There is a reason why Ben Cousins all of the sudden at the end of his career his drug abuse was put in the spot light because he doesnt have much value to the AFL anymore.

Franklin I know he has ATLEAST 2 he was using plenty of drugs before he got drafted.. The AFL wont care because this man makes alot of money for himself and the AFL.

I dont care about drug users in AFL as long its just weekend stuff I care just as much as the AFL and I also like having Franklin playing just as much as the AFL does.

(Im not having a dig at Franklin hes a star and thats all that matters)

People need to understand that AFL is a business its not a game to them its purely run on profits everything that is put into this game is to generate money the home and away system draw is based on what will generate the most TV ratings etc etc.

If they get rid of a player who abuses the **** out of drugs and is an absolute star that would be bad business.

All the drug policy is is to show the public that they care and it gives them a better image...


The world isnt all rainbows you'd be surprised how greedy people are and the AFL is one of them.

The AFL just couldnt hide Ben Cousins any more think about how much money they made from him he has a book, he had documentary and now they are following him and pinning him whenever he slips up that would make some one go insane and his insane reactions to the media is just gonna make more cash for them the man is getting milked and will be milked until hes dead.

Its all well and good to say you have to make money but at some point you have to have some integrity. Even the NFL has learned this: they have a clear and transparent fixture where you can figure out future matchups based on last years standings. And yes they have star players who get rubbed out all the time for drugs. They even suspend coaches for misconduct, like the recent New Orleans Saints scandal. The sooner the AFL learn this the better off they will be as an organisation.

 

[mollyfud]

Re: Is it beyond the realms of possibility for the AFL to cover up a drug incident involving a playe

There is a reason why Ben Cousins all of the sudden at the end of his career his drug abuse was put in the spot light because he doesnt have much value to the AFL anymore.

You ever think that the reason that Cousins suddenly had his drug abuse put into the spotlight was that in fact the drug use got the better of him and he started acting more and more erratic and started to effect his football in a way that the Eagles could no longer put up with? He was still a very valuable player to the Eagles (Captain of the club until running from a Booze Bus (I believe over drugs), Premiership player (the year before his big suspension) and high profile personallity in Perth) when it all started going off the rails.

I would suggest looking at Cousins now is just another reason why the AFL would absolutely put a player out that got three strikes. If after all they do for the first two strikes the player is still not over his drug problem then I think the AFL would want to be seen of doing something about the issue. I think their main reason for this would be to try to help the player (by taking away something that they love in order to get their attention (for want of a better phrase)) and also in a more skeptical way to say to the public, "Hey, we are doing all we can but this guy just doesn't get it" and so soften any Cousins like issues.

But mainly, I really think the AFL and the AFLPA really do care about the welfare of the players and the believe that the players are better off not getting involved in drugs. The side effect of the program, according to the AFL, is that they are finding many of these players with strikes are facing bigger issues (mainly mental Illnesses) and are able to assist in that area.

 

[mehow2g]

Re: Is it beyond the realms of possibility for the AFL to cover up a drug incident involving a playe

Yeah as I said in my post they couldnt hide Ben any longer he was now damaging the image of the AFL, Just like Fev aswell Fev made a bad example when he was off his face infront of millions on brownlow night.

And yes the AFL care about players especially stars like Ben and Fev because they make money off of them.

I bet there is quite a few more that are smashing drugs but the AFL/Clubs are just keeping it quiet, which I think its good for the game and none of our business.

All I'm saying is if you look at things from a business point of a view and protecting a brand and business it kinda makes sense, the world would be a better place if people questioned everything said on the news about anything.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/afl-slams-offensive-web-page-20120417-1x5oc.html#ixzz1sJHMUoyv

This backs my argument further this is how anal they are about their image.

 

[The Dodger]

Re: Is it beyond the realms of possibility for the AFL to cover up a drug incident involving a playe

I would suggest looking at Cousins now is just another reason why the AFL would absolutely put a player out that got three strikes. If after all they do for the first two strikes the player is still not over his drug problem then I think the AFL would want to be seen of doing something about the issue. I think their main reason for this would be to try to help the player (by taking away something that they love in order to get their attention (for want of a better phrase)) and also in a more skeptical way to say to the public, "Hey, we are doing all we can but this guy just doesn't get it" and so soften any Cousins like issues.

But once again it is a public setting. IMO there 3 strikes policy is there to protect the players and provide help to those who need it while at the same time provide the AFL with a policy that enables them to distance themselves from serial trouble makers when they create problems for the AFL in the public eye, that 3rd strike IMO is an ace up the sleeve.

 

[HARKER]

Re: Is it beyond the realms of possibility for the AFL to cover up a drug incident involving a playe

Would it be possible that the AFL played a role in ensuring a third strike never saw the light of day?
Or is this too much too believe?

Easy to believe.
It would just slip under "The Greater Good" clause.

 

[Freak Dodgeball Accident]

Re: Is it beyond the realms of possibility for the AFL to cover up a drug incident involving a playe

I would suggest looking at Cousins now is just another reason why the AFL would absolutely put a player out that got three strikes. If after all they do for the first two strikes the player is still not over his drug problem then I think the AFL would want to be seen of doing something about the issue. I think their main reason for this would be to try to help the player (by taking away something that they love in order to get their attention (for want of a better phrase)) and also in a more skeptical way to say to the public, "Hey, we are doing all we can but this guy just doesn't get it" and so soften any Cousins like issues.

Who ever said people that take drugs have a problem? Sure, some people (and I believe very few) can, but it's no different to someone having an eating problem. While there might be a very small minority that do have troubles, what about the millions of others that don't?

Drugs are an absolutely massive part of society, whether people like to believe it or not. Maybe it's just the people I hang around, but I'd say that 2/3 of the people who I have met through school, work and footy teams, have done so or do take drugs on a semi-regular basis. Not ONE single person has ever had a problem, whether it be an addiction, illness, whatever. These are old people, young people, some with families, some not. All hard working, great careers, great people, who like to enjoy themselves every once and a while. And there would be millions more who are exactly the same.

It's just the small few who do get addicted, who do have issues, who do get in trouble with the law that 'spoil' (for lack of a better word) it for the rest. These are the ones who make the headlines, the ones that you see begging in the street, the ones that the rest of society looks down upon as scum, as law breakers. These people need help, not scorn from do-gooders.

Alcoholism is an illness. Problem gambling is an illness. Yet drug taking is a crime. Something needs to change here. If the government really cared about the health of it's citizens, it would ban cigarettes (I absolutely despise these by the way, but each to their own) outright. Until that happens, we should be able to have our cake*... And eat it too.

*Hash cake.

 

[ThePope]

Re: Is it beyond the realms of possibility for the AFL to cover up a drug incident involving a playe

If they're done for things that the rest of us probably have done, or do on a regular basis, I couldn't care less, and would expect them to have the same rights as every other citizen. i.e. if you are breaking the law, you are subject to the authority of the law as applied by the police, not your employer.

Ever applied for a job on a minesite, even temporary? You'll do a full drug test in pre-employment medical, daily alcohol test, daily random tests. Fair enough, you say, mining is dangerous work, don't want anyone affected working on dangerous equipment. But it applies equally across the board from the truck driver or driller to the CEO, secretary, IT guy or cleaner. It is your employer who makes those rules, for their own reasons. And it's perfectly legal (and in the AFL's case, agreed to by the players in the CBA/standard playing contract).

 

[eldorado]

Re: Is it beyond the realms of possibility for the AFL to cover up a drug incident involving a playe

Yes, I'm aware of that exception.

That is an exceptional field, where injury on a massive scale could result from impaired perception and performance. They undertake that agreement in the full knowledge of the consequences if they are under the influence of drugs.

I assume that in order to simplify the legalities, they make it industry wide, not job-specific

Those who are not involved in machinery, but want the good pay packets that come in that field, may agree to it.

It still doesn't explain why it the employers of AFL footballers, any more so than those of garbos, landscape gardeners, or real estate agents, have the right to control the private lives of their employees in what is purely a legal matter.

 

[mollyfud]

Re: Is it beyond the realms of possibility for the AFL to cover up a drug incident involving a playe

It still doesn't explain why it the employers of AFL footballers, any more so than those of garbos, landscape gardeners, or real estate agents, have the right to control the private lives of their employees in what is purely a legal matter.

I don't know about the other professions but the explanation for Footballers is their union (the AFLPA) felt it was a good system for the health and well being of their employees and it felt that it stopped each Club bringing their own rules in!