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

[Bengraham]

Given that this player would seriously damage the brand the AFL works so feverishly to uphold?

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?

 

[Quinz]

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

Probably get more of a response on the main board, but I don't think it's beyond the realms of possibility at all. I have no doubt they would attempt to cover up a three strike record from one of the games stars if they could- just get someone to have a 12 week 'injury', and that they are seeing a 'specialist' overseas to get treatment.

 

[bundyisthefuture]

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

I know this has happened at least once over the last 3 years. Would have sent the game into turmoil had this guy got the 3rd strike as he is one of the games biggest stars and crowd pullers. There was no way the afl were letting him fall from grace particularly with the expansion clubs on their way

 

[Defacto]

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

The are bullshit I reckon.

Having said that cousins was never caught. Which is very alarming given his admission that he wasn't sober for longer than 3 months.

Personally I'd like to see the whole list tested (including hair samples) on game day or during the week at training. This target testing stuff is bullshit.

 

[markm106]

I would like to think it would not happen. But if one of the stars was allowed to keep playing despite a third strike imagine the fallout if a premiership was won and the story came out later, even years later. Let's hope the AFL are not that stupid.

 

[Samsara]

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

Money > everything else.

If someone like Buddy Franklin were to be on three strikes, we'd never hear about it.

 

[Hobgoblin]

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

Buddy Hell that would never happen. Ever.

More chance of Franklin becoming a Full Back

 

[scooter600x]

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

If this was true, to cover their backsides, the AFL would come up with a line like...

"making a third strike public isn't compulsory if we feel that the players welfare would be at risk"

...in case they were ever found out.






Oh wait ...

 

[The Magenius]

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

I know this has happened at least once over the last 3 years. Would have sent the game into turmoil had this guy got the 3rd strike as he is one of the games biggest stars and crowd pullers. There was no way the afl were letting him fall from grace particularly with the expansion clubs on their way

Yep and now he is the poster boy/face of the AFL, they really are treading a fine line doing this...

It will all come out one day but just reinforces the fact that the AFL is not a democracy and it is not fair and it is run by a dictator Andy D whose goal is to make as much $ as possible mostly through TV rights deals.

 

[mollyfud]

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

To answer the OP, yes it beyond the realms of possibility! In fact its completely radicious to even suggested it. All you have to think about is firstly who would have to be in on the coverup and if you can somehow think that its possible that all the people would work together to cover it up, then you have to look at what would happen if the coverup broke down, which from history, always seems to happen in one way or another. You would then need to compare that to the press of someone being caught (again) no matter their standing in the game.

So people that would need to be involved or possibly need to be involved in the cover up:
1) AFL medical commissioners - They are the AFL link to the testing. They know how has strikes and who gets strikes. They would be the first to know that 3 strikes had been registered. Dr Peter Hardcourt and Dr Harry Unglik are two I found to have either been Commissioners or are still commissioners. I can't see them putting the careers on the line to lie for the AFL/Players

2) Club Medico - Depending on your belief on how the coverup would work, they would need to be involved. Especially if the cover-up is to say the players injured.

3) Andrian Anderson - Think he is involved in his role. Not sure he would put his future career on the line to cover-up players or for the game

4) Andrew Demetriou - Would have to be involved unless the cover-up came from below. Again, 2m a year is a lot to risk for the sake of some bad press/players career. Player getting 3 strikes isn't going to get him sacked, getting caught covering it up would (maybe jail time, although maybe thats going overboard)

5) AFL Commission - Again, depending on level of the cover-up is executed, you would believe that they would have to be involved. Lot of important people with important jobs that would rather a bit of bad press and a player getting done for drugs no matter the player then putting their reputations and possibly careers on the line to be involved in a coverup!

6) Club President - See AFL Commission

7) Club Coach - Again, if player is to miss 12+ weeks, the coach is going to want to know why!

8) Other Players - some would surely know or suspect.

9) AFLPA - Would have to be involved from the player side.

10) symbion pathology - They do the tests. Have put them last as I am not 100% sure if they would be involved. It depends if they keep record of players with positive tests so would know a player has 3 strikes and not announced. Assuming they did know and was in the coverup, if it came out, it would end their business as they couldn't be trusted to do testing.

11) Media - Some claim that the media would know but wouldn't go against the AFL. At some level they would eventually get their asses kicked and maybe never work again if it was found that they had the story and sat on it! Whether it was their editors, or the directors of the organisation (if you say editors in on it) or shareholders (who would probably have a pretty solid case to sue the company for not doing their job properly).

So that the people. What about the fall out? Well I touched on that at some of the people level, but you would think it would start with sackings of anyone that was involved. Medical staff would probably have to face their supervisory bodies and possibly loss license to practice. Would taint those invovled for the rest of their lives. Imagine the effect on their families. Would taint the game a babbillioin times more then 1 player rubbed out. Would lose all support of the government. Would probably even feel the rath of the government that would feel like it had to better regulate things. Criminal charges might be possible, although maybe not too. Complete loss of faith from the Fans. If you think about how many fans do believe anything the AFL or its Clubs say now, imagine the level if it was found that they were covering up a player with 3 strikes.

So what about if a player was caught with 3 strikes (again). There would be a media storm. The player would be disgraced, unless there were reasons behind it like a mental illness or something. Player would miss a fair piece of footy. The AFL could say while they were disappointed, they did everything they could. Maybe some sponsors walk away, maybe. Government might arc up but what could they say about the AFL catching one of their own. AFLPA would support the play as would the club and league as a whole. Player would get treatment.

Sorry, I just don't get why the AFL would risk so, so, so much to cover-up so little! Doesn't make any sense what so ever!

JMTC

 

[Cynic]

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

Seems like it would be a ridiculous gamble by the AFL, if, as this thinly veiled trolled suggests, Buddy was done for three strikes any potential loss of face over him being named and shamed would pale in comparison to what would unfold if they were to cover it up and it come out.

It seems very unlikely that such a thing could be covered up with no parties going to the media for a payout that would dwarf their pay packets for a decade.

 

[Ziggi]

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

I know for a fact that if a player has two strikes to his name then undertakes counselling for drug use he can get as many strikes as he likes and he will face no ramifications what-so-ever. It's a joke. So basically if you get counselling you can get on the juice every weekend get tested every week, return positive tests every week yet still face no punishment.

 

[mollyfud]

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

I know for a fact that if a player has two strikes to his name then undertakes counselling for drug use he can get as many strikes as he likes and he will face no ramifications what-so-ever. It's a joke. So basically if you get counselling you can get on the juice every weekend get tested every week, return positive tests every week yet still face no punishment.

Buzz.....Wrong! AD stated in radio interviews before round 1 that was a short period of time after a 2nd strike in order to get help. Reading between the lines it was more of a case of a player doing intensive therapy like going to a facility. It definitely isn't a get out clause! Proof this is the case is that Tucky was still "in therapy" when he had his incident.

The thing this logic (or illogical) fails to take into account is the AFL don't want the young people in the game taking drugs as it is a risk to their health so if they fail to learn through the 2 strikes the 3rd is the big stick after going softly, softly! If the AFL didn't want bad publicity of a third strike, they would can the testing altogether as they aren't required to do it, its a matter of health and welfare!

 

[The Dodger]

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

So people that would need to be involved or possibly need to be involved in the cover up:
1) AFL medical commissioners - They are the AFL link to the testing. They know how has strikes and who gets strikes. They would be the first to know that 3 strikes had been registered. Dr Peter Hardcourt and Dr Harry Unglik are two I found to have either been Commissioners or are still commissioners. I can't see them putting the careers on the line to lie for the AFL/Players

Would think that they are bound by a confidentialty agreement

2) Club Medico - Depending on your belief on how the coverup would work, they would need to be involved. Especially if the cover-up is to say the players injured.

Wouldn't the player be a patient of a doc therefore doc/patient confidentiality? Could mean the doc loses his license if he goes public?

3) Andrian Anderson - Think he is involved in his role. Not sure he would put his future career on the line to cover-up players or for the game

4) Andrew Demetriou - Would have to be involved unless the cover-up came from below. Again, 2m a year is a lot to risk for the sake of some bad press/players career. Player getting 3 strikes isn't going to get him sacked, getting caught covering it up would (maybe jail time, although maybe thats going overboard)

5) AFL Commission - Again, depending on level of the cover-up is executed, you would believe that they would have to be involved. Lot of important people with important jobs that would rather a bit of bad press and a player getting done for drugs no matter the player then putting their reputations and possibly careers on the line to be involved in a coverup!

6) Club President - See AFL Commission

Doubt they would know to be honest

7) Club Coach - Again, if player is to miss 12+ weeks, the coach is going to want to know why!

8) Other Players - some would surely know or suspect.

9) AFLPA - Would have to be involved from the player side.
After the response to the channel 7 airing of names by the AFLPA, I think they have gone and put confidentiality agreements so that there is protocol to be followed if a player tests positive and not hung out to dry

10) symbion pathology - They do the tests. Have put them last as I am not 100% sure if they would be involved. It depends if they keep record of players with positive tests so would know a player has 3 strikes and not announced. Assuming they did know and was in the coverup, if it came out, it would end their business as they couldn't be trusted to do testing.

would assume that they get "sample 315" and not names

11) Media - Some claim that the media would know but wouldn't go against the AFL. At some level they would eventually get their asses kicked and maybe never work again if it was found that they had the story and sat on it! Whether it was their editors, or the directors of the organisation (if you say editors in on it) or shareholders (who would probably have a pretty solid case to sue the company for not doing their job properly).

JMTC

I see what you are getting at but rather than a AFL conspiracy/cover up I think there is more like confidentiality agreements between the AFL & AFLPA that cover this. So no one is really lying they are all following a scripted procedure that they know if it got out would destroy a players life. Remember we are talking illicit (use outside of the game)not performance enhancing, for which I think the AFL would have no qualms putting someone to the sword because it would be outside the laws of the game. I think the 3 strikes is to try and clean up the behavior that surrounds drug use, to protect the brand rather than police it like it is performance enhancing.

 

[The Dodger]

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

Buzz.....Wrong! AD stated in radio interviews before round 1 that was a short period of time after a 2nd strike in order to get help. Reading between the lines it was more of a case of a player doing intensive therapy like going to a facility. It definitely isn't a get out clause! Proof this is the case is that Tucky was still "in therapy" when he had his incident.

The thing this logic (or illogical) fails to take into account is the AFL don't want the young people in the game taking drugs as it is a risk to their health so if they fail to learn through the 2 strikes the 3rd is the big stick after going softly, softly! If the AFL didn't want bad publicity of a third strike, they would can the testing altogether as they aren't required to do it, its a matter of health and welfare!

The bolded bit to me is the reason why they would like to know, and yet still not have to make a decision like de-registering a player. Because in reality they aren't required in the first place to do it.

 

[spudmaster]

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

Notacluey alias?

 

[ize_]

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

I know for a fact that if a player has two strikes to his name then undertakes counselling for drug use he can get as many strikes as he likes and he will face no ramifications what-so-ever. It's a joke. So basically if you get counselling you can get on the juice every weekend get tested every week, return positive tests every week yet still face no punishment.

This is under the assumption that counseling is useless... That a player would continue to use drugs every weekend whilst still attending the sessions. Whilst it's not true, if this were this system in place it would be far from a "joke." The aim is to help people, not catch them out and publicly hang them. If a player has displayed risky drug using behaviour, and then goes and seeks counseling before it's too late, then I say the system has worked.

 

[mollyfud]

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

I see what you are getting at but rather than a AFL conspiracy/cover up I think there is more like confidentiality agreements between the AFL & AFLPA that cover this. So no one is really lying they are all following a scripted procedure that they know if it got out would destroy a players life. Remember we are talking illicit (use outside of the game)not performance enhancing, for which I think the AFL would have no qualms putting someone to the sword because it would be outside the laws of the game. I think the 3 strikes is to try and clean up the behavior that surrounds drug use, to protect the brand rather than police it like it is performance enhancing.

I think the AFL Medical Commission would not have confidientallity agreements if the AFL went against their policy. They would either have to resign on mass or call the AFL out (unless they are in on it).

I agree that the policy is more of a health issue and not meant as a policing scheme but I think the policy itself says that if they go through 2 strikes (and short period of test free rehab) and still go back, they need the jolt of a big kick up the ass.

 

[mollyfud]

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

This is under the assumption that counseling is useless... That a player would continue to use drugs every weekend whilst still attending the sessions. Whilst it's not true, if this were this system in place it would be far from a "joke." The aim is to help people, not catch them out and publicly hang them. If a player has displayed risky drug using behaviour, and then goes and seeks counseling before it's too late, then I say the system has worked.

Plus the AFL have already noted that (I believe the number was) about half the players caught where found that the drug use was more a symptom of a deeper issue, mainly a mental illness. That was the case in the Tuck case.

 

[Ziggi]

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

I know a player who has been caught twice, currently attends drug clinics and counselling and still goes out most weekends and gets on the gear. It's his opinion that it's pretty much impossible to get three strikes (and for it to become public). He doesn't have any mental issues, or any underlying conditions. He just loves getting on the gear on the weekend and due to the current AFL policy he will never be caught (so to speak).

I don't care what AD says publicly, the system is an absolute joke and is clearly being abused by players.

 

[mollyfud]

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

I know a player who has been caught twice, currently attends drug clinics and counselling and still goes out most weekends and gets on the gear. It's his opinion that it's pretty much impossible to get three strikes (and for it to become public). He doesn't have any mental issues, or any underlying conditions. He just loves getting on the gear on the weekend and due to the current AFL policy he will never be caught (so to speak).

I don't care what AD says publicly, the system is an absolute joke and is clearly being abused by players.

If the guy likes Russian roulette that's his business!

 

[The Dodger]

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

I think the AFL Medical Commission would not have confidientallity agreements if the AFL went against their policy. They would either have to resign on mass or call the AFL out (unless they are in on it).

I agree that the policy is more of a health issue and not meant as a policing scheme but I think the policy itself says that if they go through 2 strikes (and short period of test free rehab) and still go back, they need the jolt of a big kick up the ass.

I don't think AFL medico's would quit if the AFL had in place a policy where by someone who tested positive multiple times to illicit drugs would receive help from the medical fraternity for the condition. Just wondering why you think that would make them quit? As I would think they are required to care about health and welfare of player "x" and not so much about the game itself? As I think the confidentiality says nothing about cover ups but just that a player should not be dragged through the mud publicly for having a personal battle with drugs as part of the agreement by the AFLPA to do the testing.

Also I cant recall (and not sure if memory serves) but I remeber Demetriou being asked about if a player has had a 3rd strike and he said no. But the questioning went further (think it was Mike Sheehan on the couch) and asked would it be made known if a player had a 3rd strike and Demetriou was very dismissive and said something about that not being part of the illicit drug policy ie. naming and shaming. Maybe someone else saw or remembers?

But would think that any AFL employee that deals with this subject would be bound by the AFLPA confidentiality and any medico's dealing with this issue no matter who they are employed by care more about the well being of the person involved and not the game itself. I could see medico's getting up in arms if the AFL had no policy to the 3rd strike and just told them to keep it hush while not offering the player any help.

 

[harropower]

I know a player who has been caught twice, currently attends drug clinics and counselling and still goes out most weekends and gets on the gear. It's his opinion that it's pretty much impossible to get three strikes (and for it to become public). He doesn't have any mental issues, or any underlying conditions. He just loves getting on the gear on the weekend and due to the current AFL policy he will never be caught (so to speak).

I don't care what AD says publicly, the system is an absolute joke and is clearly being abused by players.

Name and shame or it's total bullshit

 

[Ziggi]

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

If the guy likes Russian roulette that's his business!

He is undertaking the AFL's 'drug program' and therefore can test positive to drug tests every week and face no consequences. He has a free ride.

 

[Ziggi]

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

Name and shame or it's total bullshit

His first name has an 'S' in it..