Hence my comment on Brad's emphasis that Darcy was "medically available."Doesn’t sound like the coaches are told it is a fake injury. So the player also has to sell it as a real injury to their coach…?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Hence my comment on Brad's emphasis that Darcy was "medically available."Doesn’t sound like the coaches are told it is a fake injury. So the player also has to sell it as a real injury to their coach…?
and now that is in your browser history and algorithms...
Nah definitely the foot. Kaine said he wanted an 11 week bender while Tex felt that was a little extreme and wanted 3.
can't say i'm too surprised, honestly, i suppose i'd be curious as to who's the most prolific snorterAnd no club with less than five.
can't say i'm too surprised, honestly, i suppose i'd be curious as to who's the most prolific snorter
I definitely understand why the AFL are trying to help ensure players don't get banned for having drugs in their system. And whilst it is refreshing to have another club taking most of the heat on this, the reality is that all clubs will have players affected here. The issues I have is whether the secret tests breach the WADA code (seemingly not) and the AFL is sanctioning players faking injuries to not get caught. I couldnt care less about the gambling implications but there is something fundamentally wrong about a sanction process of players faking injuries. I guess the AFL see it is the lesser of two evils to stop players getting rubbed out for 1-2 years.
If they do tighten all this up which is now suggested will happen, then it is a matter of time until multiple players get caught out and rubbed out for some time.
If i was a truckie and was under the influence i wouldn't turn up. I'd a love a personal breathalyser to check...even if i wasn't a truckie.I think WADA should look into it solely for the reason that the AFL is allegedly condoning the secretive tests happening and protecting players who're on drugs. Shouldn't a policy both exist to prevent players from taking drugs and have players who're caught be suspended? If I turned up to work drunk or high I'd be booted, why do they get the pass, because they're non-sensible dickheads with money? * 'em, they deserve to face actual punishment for it, show them that they're not untouchable messiahs.
The other thing I didn't like from the AFL's statement was linking taking recreational drugs to mental health problems. It seems whenever someone wants to explain or justify any negative/poor/inappropriate behaviour, just throw in the words "mental health" and it is all magically acceptable (or at least not as bad).Also the AFL having an illicit drugs policy, then actively enabling clubs to get around it is pretty sketchy.
I feel like this is likely the standard system for pro sports worldwide and not exclusive to the AFL. Truth be told it's kind of too ingenious of a system for it to not be utilised everywhere.Just a shambles and the AFL have lost whatever integrity they had left.
I definitely understand why the AFL are trying to help ensure players don't get banned for having drugs in their system. And whilst it is refreshing to have another club taking most of the heat on this, the reality is that all clubs will have players affected here. The issues I have is whether the secret tests breach the WADA code (seemingly not) and the AFL is sanctioning players faking injuries to not get caught. I couldnt care less about the gambling implications but there is something fundamentally wrong about a sanction process of players faking injuries. I guess the AFL see it is the lesser of two evils to stop players getting rubbed out for 1-2 years.
If they do tighten all this up which is now suggested will happen, then it is a matter of time until multiple players get caught out and rubbed out for some time.
It's a good point that what the AFL seem to be doing no doubt wasn't their idea but what is done in professional sports around the world. I am as critical as most on the AFL, but less so on this issue, simply because we dont want Russian roulette of which players are going to get rubbed out for 1-2 years.I feel like this is likely the standard system for pro sports worldwide and not exclusive to the AFL. Truth be told it's kind of too ingenious of a system for it to not be utilised everywhere.
It seems to be a bit of a unique circumstance that's led to it leaking out, usually there would be a culture of mutual interests leading to silence and protection, but there's been a perfect storm at Melbourne with cultural issues leading to a disaffected CEO, club doctor, and a father/player manager whose kid has slipped through the cracks of the protection racket.
It's a really complicated issue. There's no world in which you pool $2.3 billion between ~750 young men and some of them don't use it to buy drugs. That stuff is contagious too, just look what happens in mining towns.
I think the AFL's approach, while obviously imperfect, is somewhat the right angle. People shouldn't be getting named publicly by their employer for substance use. But they also need to be doing more not to facilitate an environment of drug use - it feels like the unlimited strikes system, as I understand it, does just that. Many employers have strong enough deterrents to prevent their workers taking drugs. Maybe mandatory rehab upon second strike would be a deterrent for drug use during the playing season... but getting past the doctor/patient confidentiality component of the current system would be very tricky.
So they've lost nothingJust a shambles and the AFL have lost whatever integrity they had left.
This is the bottom line as far as I'm concerned. If your workplace performance is impacted negatively because you chose to break the law by taking an illicit substance, it becomes a contractual matter.Still think clubs should be told if a player tests positive to any ilicit drug. All this medical privacy is BS IMO, this is not a medical issue. No different to a roadside breath test and club doctors are flat out lying, where is the integrity in that?
We are not talking personal medical records that should remain private, we are talking breach of contract by willingly taking a substance that is banned and affects clubs directly as you can't play. Clubs and coaches should know. I bet truck bosses would know if one of their drivers failed a RBT.
Of course players will dabble and Coke is the choice as it doesn't affect weight as much a say booze but if it is affecting in season availability then players should be fined by their clubs for breach of contract IMO.
All a bit murky.
So on a separate note, who gets up tonight? I'm tipping the Lions. Partly cos I think they'll win, partly cos I really just want to see Collingwood go 0-4.
Brisbane for mine. Should be fired up to avenge the GF loss. Pies might have cue in the rack by Anzac Day...I'm tipping Brisbane too.
Pies need a Plan B because their game plan seems to have been thoroughly figured out.
...continued.Legal minefield. No doubt the lawyers at AFL House have been busy today.
I've been pondering interesting happenings from the past;
- John McCarthy's death (RIP)
- Jake King inviting Toby Mitchell (Bandidos bikie boss) into the Richmond rooms
- Karmichael Hunt and the group of Suns players who were regular party boys with him
- The Buddy rumours
- The Oliver and Goodwin rumours
I'm sure there's more, but the implications of the AFL's double standard with this will run deep for those affected.
I didn't know the Australian Crime Commission warned about 10 years ago that drug use and organised crime was widespread in professional sport.
At some point the question of the extent to which the AFL's system of non-reporting actually was an enabler will be asked. If I'm John McCarthy's father, I want some answers.