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

[mollyfud]

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

Is it beyond the realms of possibility for the AFL to not test someone again that is on 2 strikes?
- knowing that all of the advice they would have got from people who work in drug rehabilitation & the medical fraternity would point out that once someone has a problem, their chance of faltering again is pretty high.

Would it be in the interest of the AFL to "shoot fish in a barrel" by going back and testing players with 2 strikes who are undergoing rehab and re-education?
What would the drug rehab experts and the Medical fraternity think of that?

Well if you believe what the AFL say, and it seems from this whole thread not many of you do, yes, it makes sense to test guys on two strikes and in fact to target test them. That is what the experts have said should be done.

I haven't ever had to deal with someone on drugs but have with someone with a mental illness and while they are not the same thing at all, they can (not always) be linked and they have similarities to them. In sessions I have done about being a carer, they say you shouldn't give the person free range. At some point there has to be boundaries for there own good. That is what the 3rd strike is. If after 2 stirkes, counseling, support, etc the person is still involved with drugs, then the shock/punishment of the third strike is meant to be a final straw so to speak.

As the AFL pointed out that Travis Tuck was already on 2 strikes, and given the way his life was at the time would it have been hard to get that 3rd strike through testing rather than retroactively for a public incident?

Hmmmm...From memory Travis was meant to have been clean for 8 odd months after his 2nd strike. He was dealing with depression that (reading between the lines) probably lead to the drug use (i.e. self medication). Again, from reading between the lines the day of the tragic 3rd strike it is believe that he was informed that he wouldn't be considered for the Box Hill finals at a time his place on the list was iffy already. So, yes that probably setting him off to take the drugs and other big issues might have done the same, but any slipping off the program was going to be bad for him so it could absolutely be argued that the private third strike should have been handled the same way to make sure the message was received.

Whether he has had issue or drugs since, I don't know but from the reports we have, he seems to be doing better.

 

[The Dodger]

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

Well if you believe what the AFL say, and it seems from this whole thread not many of you do, yes, it makes sense to test guys on two strikes and in fact to target test them. That is what the experts have said should be done.

Are you able to show where they have said that? As I don't recall them ever saying anything along those lines.
Especially the medical experts.

 

[woopedazz]

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

No, its rumours and scandal not bay 13 or fairy tale board!

Believe what you will.

 

[mollyfud]

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

Are you able to show where they have said that? As I don't recall them ever saying anything along those lines.
Especially the medical experts.

The Policy has Target testing as part of it: http://www.afl.com.au/Portals/0/afl_docs/AFLPlayersSayNoToDrugs.pdf

Experts support the policy: http://www.afl.com.au/tabid/13144/Default.aspx?newsId=66540

Therefor, the experts support target testing! This one puts it exteremly well indeed: http://afl.com.au/tabid/13144/Default.aspx?newsId=66537

 

[mollyfud]

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

Believe what you will.

Lets get it straight by the way, I don't not believe that some plays take drugs. I will always disbelieve that the AFL would/Could/Have covered up a player on three strikes until I have hard proof it has happened, not people coming on forums say there brothers,mothers,dogs,cats,best mate knows its a cover up! Call me Thomas if you want!

 

[mollyfud]

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

Hmmmm...From memory Travis was meant to have been clean for 8 odd months after his 2nd strike. He was dealing with depression that (reading between the lines) probably lead to the drug use (i.e. self medication). Again, from reading between the lines the day of the tragic 3rd strike it is believe that he was informed that he wouldn't be considered for the Box Hill finals at a time his place on the list was iffy already. So, yes that probably setting him off to take the drugs and other big issues might have done the same, but any slipping off the program was going to be bad for him so it could absolutely be argued that the private third strike should have been handled the same way to make sure the message was received.

Whether he has had issue or drugs since, I don't know but from the reports we have, he seems to be doing better.

(Sorry for quoting myself but don't think an edit works)
Seems my reading is pretty right. Clarko was involved in a panel with a footy bent and he spells out the tragic situation that led to Travis' issue (about the 41min mark):

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/bigideas/stories/2012/04/23/3479506.htm

 

[NAB777]

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

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?

At least one club president thinks this has already happened

 

[Illinois Nazi]

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

If an AFL player was caught drug taking involved in any other sport they would immediately be banned, I do not know any single other sport where there is a 3 strikes policy.

You need to find out how the AFL's policy actually works in comparison to other sports before you have any more opinions on it.

 

[The Dodger]

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

The Policy has Target testing as part of it: http://www.afl.com.au/Portals/0/afl_docs/AFLPlayersSayNoToDrugs.pdf

Experts support the policy: http://www.afl.com.au/tabid/13144/Default.aspx?newsId=66540

Therefor, the experts support target testing! This one puts it exteremly well indeed: http://afl.com.au/tabid/13144/Default.aspx?newsId=66537

Thanks for those links I appreciate it.

Then you are right the AFL do say that but I don't believe them. I noticed the medical side did not mention target testing. They support the policy but they dont mention target testing an individual on 2 strikes.

I also noticed on page 4 that they say "Any player who does not respond to counseling and treatment programs - and who has failed a test for a third time". Maybe it just clumsily written but it sounds like they give it away there. "and", wouldn't failing a 3rd test on it's own be enough?
As of 2009 all players are tested and if they fail a test are target tested, as are players who are suspected of taking illicit drugs. How did Ben Cousins play 2 years of football without a strike from that point? If he did get a strike and was target tested surely they would have got him?

The Jon Currie link is interesting, and by reading it I believe more that the AFL would be careful in treating someone who is on 2 strikes. He really highlights the fact it is medical and people need help. He seems to avoid discussing the 3rd strike punishment element of it.

Also the last one does as well.
She makes the argument I was trying.
"It's rare though, if you know people who have given up cigarette smoking, that they don't find themselves smoking again."
The next bit in particular was the bit that seems in line with what I am thinking
"I think though if there's another time found after you've provided help and after you've given treatment and given them the opportunity, that's when extra leverage can be useful," she said.

How long does the help and treatment last for? As it seems that "after" that is when there is a chance that you could be in trouble.

All in all after reading that I think there is a disconnect between the AFL penalties for third strike and target testing and what the Medical people are saying.
There appears to be a gap between the "we test everyone, target test people who have failed / people we think might be on drugs" as opposed to "after the treatment there are still penalties".
Which I believe is where the grey area is. As IMO it would be counter productive to the health and well being of the patient to be target tested while getting help for that very problem, with people who work in the field saying that "it is likely that you will find yourself smoking again".

Thinking out loud this is IMO how the situation works.
If you refuse the medical help, the AFL tells you, you will be target tested and they will get you out of the game. If you accept the help and attend all of the education/rehab/councelling they will not target test you.
Faced with that alternative I think players will choose the anonymity and go along with it. Obviously then being involved in a public incident nullifies any anonymity you have and gives the AFL the chance to play the ace up their sleeve.

 

[mollyfud]

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

I also noticed on page 4 that they say "Any player who does not respond to counseling and treatment programs - and who has failed a test for a third time". Maybe it just clumsily written but it sounds like they give it away there. "and", wouldn't failing a 3rd test on it's own be enough?

Your right, the third strike is trigger enough. I think the point being made is that AFL don't just give the guy a strike and then send him out in the world saying good luck! They are saying they give them a short period (was confirmed in an interview that its a short period although can't find the source interview now) of test free counselling and treatment.

As of 2009 all players are tested and if they fail a test are target tested, as are players who are suspected of taking illicit drugs. How did Ben Cousins play 2 years of football without a strike from that point? If he did get a strike and was target tested surely they would have got him?

Ben Cousins was pretty much pre-testing. Also the target testing part of the law has changed in the last 2 or 3 years.

The Jon Currie link is interesting, and by reading it I believe more that the AFL would be careful in treating someone who is on 2 strikes. He really highlights the fact it is medical and people need help. He seems to avoid discussing the 3rd strike punishment element of it.

Noticed that. He seemed not as keen on the third strike but said he supported policy and policy clearly states that it has penalties for a 3rd Strike

Also the last one does as well.
She makes the argument I was trying.
"It's rare though, if you know people who have given up cigarette smoking, that they don't find themselves smoking again."
The next bit in particular was the bit that seems in line with what I am thinking
"I think though if there's another time found after you've provided help and after you've given treatment and given them the opportunity, that's when extra leverage can be useful," she said.

How long does the help and treatment last for? As it seems that "after" that is when there is a chance that you could be in trouble.

Same as above. Short time, weeks to a month or so.

 

[The Dodger]

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

Ben Cousins was pretty much pre-testing. Also the target testing part of the law has changed in the last 2 or 3 years.

The link you provided said what I wrote. I probably should have used quotations.
As of 2009 all players are tested, and if they are believed to be taking drugs or have failed a test they can be target tested. That is what the policy says.
Ben Cousins played football for 2 years under that regime, and being a player coming back from a well documented battle with drugs I don't think target testing should have escaped him over that period. If the system is as vigorous as it sounds in the brochure.

I believe the medical people support the policy because it seems non-punitive.
They don't say it but if you asked someone working in the industry IMO they would tell you that getting a person during rehab/counseling for drugs and target testing during this period would be counter productive. That is the area I think, and as you say a period of time is allowed. How long does it take to succeed at rehab? and who sets that timeline?
As a battle with any addiction takes time, and everyone is different and "it not uncommon to find people smoking again"

That "short period of test free counselling" differs greatly from the "we test everyone at all times, and while under treatment for strikes you will be target tested" that is in the brochure.

 

[mollyfud]

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

The link you provided said what I wrote. I probably should have used quotations.
As of 2009 all players are tested, and if they are believed to be taking drugs or have failed a test they can be target tested. That is what the policy says.
Ben Cousins played football for 2 years under that regime, and being a player coming back from a well documented battle with drugs I don't think target testing should have escaped him over that period. If the system is as vigorous as it sounds in the brochure.

There is only one huge issue finding someone that is using in a period of time. They have to actually be using in that time. It appears that Ben didn't use during that time. His behavior during that time could be said to back that up. It appears as though with out the structure behind him, he fell off the bandwagon.

 

[The Dodger]

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

There is only one huge issue finding someone that is using in a period of time. They have to actually be using in that time. It appears that Ben didn't use during that time. His behavior during that time could be said to back that up. It appears as though with out the structure behind him, he fell off the bandwagon.

IIRC Ben shaved all of his hair off when he was meant to have his hair test when returning to football because he used over the holidays. Although this is not the same as that is not punishable by a strike at that point I think it shows he was well away from having the situation under control. Enough to be sober for 2 straight years and avoid target testing?

 

[mollyfud]

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

IIRC Ben shaved all of his hair off when he was meant to have his hair test when returning to football because he used over the holidays. Although this is not the same as that is not punishable by a strike at that point I think it shows he was well away from having the situation under control. Enough to be sober for 2 straight years and avoid target testing?

The Hair testing point is a good point and I believe (and my brain might not be working properly on this one) he mentioned this in his Doco, no? Didn't mention anything about using during his Richmond time in the AFL. Who knows for sure if he was totally clean or not. I have no doubt it is possible to evade the testers even if your target tested but then again, its possible to win at Russian Roulette too but I wouldn't want to try it myself!

 

[woopedazz]

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

Lets get it straight by the way, I don't not believe that some plays take drugs. I will always disbelieve that the AFL would/Could/Have covered up a player on three strikes until I have hard proof it has happened, not people coming on forums say there brothers,mothers,dogs,cats,best mate knows its a cover up! Call me Thomas if you want!

You make that obvious. You will not believe anything else.

Hence, believe what you will and don't have a little hissy fit over other what other people believe; evidence or not.

 

[mollyfud]

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

You make that obvious. You will not believe anything else.

Hence, believe what you will and don't have a little hissy fit over other what other people believe; evidence or not.

I will believe the other side, when someone proves it too me. So I don't think its a "Hissy fit" pointing out that its easy to throw mud behind the cover of "I know someone".

 

[PINNACLE HEALTH]

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

I will believe the other side, when someone proves it too me. So I don't think its a "Hissy fit" pointing out that its easy to throw mud behind the cover of "I know someone".

This is why Big organisations can & do cover ups because of all the nieve people like yourself.

l could tell you some factual stories that would make make your hair curl, but why bother because you wouldn't believe me any way.

Remember Bill Clinton, i'm sure you believed him when he 1st denied any sexual activities with Monica Louwenski(spell check).

Ofcourse if its in the best interest of the AFL they will cover something up, just a logic business practise, its all about profit and nothing else & dont let them fool you otherwise.

 

[mollyfud]

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

This is why Big organisations can & do cover ups because of all the nieve people like yourself.

l could tell you some factual stories that would make make your hair curl, but why bother because you wouldn't believe me any way.

Remember Bill Clinton, i'm sure you believed him when he 1st denied any sexual activities with Monica Louwenski(spell check).

Ofcourse if its in the best interest of the AFL they will cover something up, just a logic business practise, its all about profit and nothing else & dont let them fool you otherwise.

Aghh.... but the Bill Clinton incident is a perfect example! He tried to cover it up but there was plenty of evidence that pointed to the incident and in the end, he was in more trouble because of the cover-up then he was for the incident!

Great example!

By the way if you can tell me "factual Stories" with evidence based Facts, go ahead, I'm all ears!

 

[PINNACLE HEALTH]

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

Aghh.... but the Bill Clinton incident is a perfect example! He tried to cover it up but there was plenty of evidence that pointed to the incident and in the end, he was in more trouble because of the cover-up then he was for the incident!

Great example!

By the way if you can tell me "factual Stories" with evidence based Facts, go ahead, I'm all ears!

The AFL have all the evidence & keep it behind closed doors so you dont find out , hence cover up!

If you seen the evidence then it would be too late to cover it up.

Ricky Nixon rings a bell!

 

[mollyfud]

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

The AFL have all the evidence & keep it behind closed doors so you dont find out , hence cover up!

If you seen the evidence then it would be too late to cover it up.

Ricky Nixon rings a bell!

Oh... You mean the evidence the AFL have! Why didn't you say so! My understanding is they keep all that evidence in the US in a place called Area 51!

 

[PINNACLE HEALTH]

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

Oh... You mean the evidence the AFL have! Why didn't you say so! My understanding is they keep all that evidence in the US in a place called Area 51!

Typical response from someone with their head in the sand.

You keep living in your safe little world where everyone is honest, pay there taxes & go to Church on Sundays.

 

[mollyfud]

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

Typical response from someone with their head in the sand.

You keep living in your safe little world where everyone is honest, pay there taxes & go to Church on Sundays.

No, I live in the real world where not every organisation is part of the whole world government! Yes there are bad things out there but as I pointed out in an earlier post, it makes absolutely and completely no sense for the AFL to cover up someone they caught that should get a third strike because of the number people involved, chances that they would be successful and the consequences to those involved in a cover-up!

Perhaps you think that my argument is that no AFL player takes drugs or that all players that do take drugs are being caught, that isn't my argument. My argument is solely around the original question, is it possible (or more to the point, is it likely) that the AFL would cover up a third strike!

So are you suggesting that you have "factual Stories" of the AFL covering up for players that under their policy should have got a third strike but didn't?

 

[Pie eyed]

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

Typical response from someone with their head in the sand.

You keep living in your safe little world where everyone is honest, pay there taxes & go to Church on Sundays.

Look! Behind the door!

Under the bed.............

 

[Baldur]

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

The AFL will never have to cover up a third strike. They refer a player on two strikes to counselling. No strikes are counted while he is at counselling. So no third strike ever occurs, regardless of how many times he tests postive.

 

[mollyfud]

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

The AFL will never have to cover up a third strike. They refer a player on two strikes to counselling. No strikes are counted while he is at counselling. So no third strike ever occurs, regardless of how many times he tests postive.

The AFL have cleared that Conspiracy Theory up. The Counselling isn't as long as your see someone once a year or something, its in the post 2nd strike time frame for a short period.