No Oppo Supporters CAS hands down guilty verdict - Players appealing - Dank shot - no opposition - (cont in pt.2)

[fairlight_cmi]

So can probably skip pages 240 through to 480.

And it was slow at around 1500 also, so yeah, skip that.

Or to actually answer your question- wada starts in mid November. Hopefully we get an idea on where we stand by the end of the year.

cheers

 

[lysp]

New AFL hair-testing drug policy:

AFL players who binge on dangerous drugs during their holidays will be exposed to their clubs whether or not they have a drug strike against their names.

The league has negotiated the right to dob in those players recording heavy drug dosages as a result of hair testing in a significant late win for the new illicit drugs policy, to be signed off by the AFL Commission on Wednesday.

The new provision comes as clubs have continued to rail against the anonymity clause in the new code which will see players having their names withheld from their club chiefs after recording a first drug strike.

Growing alarm at some of the off-season hair-test results which have produced growing evidence of footballers recording positive results to dangerous methamphetamines such as ice, along with examples of disturbingly high illicit drug dosages, has seen the AFL push for the policy change.

The view is shared by the AFL Players Association that players who continue to take advantage of the "second-chance" policy and continue to use drugs in the belief their names will be suppressed should be placed under more pressure to change their behaviour.

Under the new illicit drugs code, a player showing evidence of high drug dosages through hair testing will be given one chance to clean up his act before his identity is revealed to his club chief executive.

That information will be communicated by the AFL medical officers.

Should target hair testing provide further evidence of illicit drug use, the player will be forced to undergo additional counselling and treatment with the knowledge of his club bosses, whether or not he has provided a positive sample under the new tougher, three-detection policy.

While the AFL industry is still reeling from St Kilda's predicament after its new highly-priced recruit Jake Carlisle was revealed on film using an illicit drug, league chief Gillon McLachlan has refused for a week to take a public position on it. McLachlan first pushed for a tougher drugs code in March after two Collingwood players tested positive to performance-enhancing drugs which had been laced in illicit substances.

Increasingly sophisticated hair testing now reveals significantly more detail regarding dosage levels and the type of drugs involved, although clubs have become increasingly concerned at the existence of new and potentially undetectable chemical substances.

The AFLPA has won its battle to suppress positive detection numbers but it is understood those drug-strike numbers have continued to increase.

With the clubs and a significant number of players pushing for year-round hair testing, the competition has reserved the right to more frequently hair test players, potentially on a regular basis during the home-and-away season, without including those results in the punitive policy.

As revealed by Fairfax Media in August, the new policy will see players identified to their clubs, suspended for four weeks and fined $5000 after a second positive in-season drug detection. A third detection will result in a 12-week suspension and a $10,000 fine, with a first strike resulting in a suspended $5000 fine.

The players and the AFL have agreed upon a transitional series of penalties for those players already operating on strikes. Those on one strike will not be suspended should they receive a second strike but will be exposed to their clubs and fined $5000.

Those on two strikes will be suspended for four weeks — not 12 — and fined $5000 — not $10,000 — should they produce a third positive.

Under the new policy, a fourth positive detection looks likely to prove career-ending.

The AFL and the players' association remain focused upon reducing illicit drug use among players through harsher penalties along with providing an advanced medical model through better treatment and counselling for footballers with serious medial issues and drug addictions.

However the prevailing view is that only a handful of footballers who have provided positive illicit drug results have been diagnosed with medical issues. Under the new policy, those players will remain invisible under the three-strike system and placed on a private medical pathway.

Quoting the full-text as probably don't want CW getting additional hits.

I'm basically all for it - although I'm not sure why the PA wants detection numbers hidden, especially when they are totals and not identifying individual players? Making those numbers public will help force a cultural change.

 

[Eleven 38]

Good too see they are getting a little more harsh.

Still a long way to go. I'm sick of the argument "less footballers are doing drugs than the general public" That's total BS footballers are role models and if they aren't doing drugs and are advocates against drugs it can only help lessen the drug problems in the general public.

 

[Red Black and Blue]

That's total BS footballers are role models

Why?

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Why?

Cos kids worship em

 

[Walesy]

Cos kids worship em

Good thing they aren't doing drugs with the kids then.

If that's the argument, surely the better approach is to stop the reporting of it?

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Good thing they aren't doing drugs with the kids then.

If that's the argument, surely the better approach is to stop the reporting of it?

There’s hundreds of em running around the nightclubs of Australia and just as many dumpster dwellers following them around for a “scoop”

If it was a free for all it’d be front page every second day.

 

[Red Black and Blue]

Cos kids worship em

Plenty of people who shouldn't be worshipped have been. Fault lies with the worshipper rather than the recipient.

 

[Walesy]

If it was a free for all it’d be front page every second day.

Because the only reason that footballs don't take drugs is because of the strikes?

1 + 1 <> THE SKY IS FALLING

 

[Mr Mojo Risin]

New AFL hair-testing drug policy:



Quoting the full-text as probably don't want CW getting additional hits.

I'm basically all for it - although I'm not sure why the PA wants detection numbers hidden, especially when they are totals and not identifying individual players? Making those numbers public will help force a cultural change.

Or make those who partake feel like there's safety in numbers.

 

[Beerfish]

I predict a lot more shaved heads going forward..

 

[Mr Mojo Risin]

I predict a lot more shaved heads going forward..

Total aerodynamic shave head to toe? Players will be faster. Better reduce the interchange cap again. Fitness will then need to improve, I reckon we should implement a supplements program to support this, who's with me?

 

[Beerfish]

Total aerodynamic shave head to toe? Players will be faster. Better reduce the interchange cap again.

Back, crack and sack.

 

[bombadeer]

For all those calling for illicit drug testing for players - I expect they should undergo the same regime? Or would that be encroaching on their own civil liberties?

 

[IggypopsTshirt]

If a player can turn up and do his job for the club on game day, why does it matter to anyone what he does in his own time?

This whole issue prompts far too much moral pontificating as far as I'm concerned. Where do we draw the line for policing players lives?

 

[IggypopsTshirt]

For all those calling for illicit drug testing for players - I expect they should undergo the same regime? Or would that be encroaching on their own civil liberties?

Civil liberties are so 1970's. We might as well just set up Big Brother style cameras in players houses with a direct feed to Caro and Damo and be done with it.

 

[Alfred E Neuman]

Civil liberties are so 1970's. We might as well just set up Big Brother style cameras in players houses with a direct feed to Caro and Damo and be done with it.

Anyone who thinks our civil liberties aren't already completely compromised should watch Citizen Four.

 

[Eleven 38]

For all those calling for illicit drug testing for players - I expect they should undergo the same regime? Or would that be encroaching on their own civil liberties?

My work place has random drug and alcohol testing. There is no 3 strikes policy either.

Anyway my argument isn't about that. If the AFL want me to give them money to watch the games I want them to do as much as they can to make sure the players aren't doing drugs.

It's not that hard to not do them honestly.

 

[IggypopsTshirt]

My work place has random drug and alcohol testing. There is no 3 strikes policy either.

Anyway my argument isn't about that. If the AFL want me to give them money to watch the games I want them to do as much as they can to make sure the players aren't doing drugs.

It's not that hard to not do them honestly.

So if a player has smoked a joint the week of a game that bothers you?
But if a player has drunk 6 beers throughout the week, and taken his dexies for ADHD that's fine?
How does it affect you one way or the other?
Is one worse than the other? If yes, why?

What if they're huffing jenkem, it's not illegal?

 

[efcboy]

Should be hair follicle testing for big footy posters

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Plenty of people who shouldn't be worshipped have been. Fault lies with the worshipper rather than the recipient.

Ok. Tell that to an 8 year old. Bloody hell.

Because the only reason that footballs don't take drugs is because of the strikes?

1 + 1 <> THE SKY IS FALLING

Of course not. But if there was no significant guaranteed deterrent to do so, those that do would be less inclined to be careful.

It's an image thing, obviously.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

For all those calling for illicit drug testing for players - I expect they should undergo the same regime? Or would that be encroaching on their own civil liberties?

Do I also get the money, fame, women and seas parting for me wherever I go?

Civil liberties hasn't got anything to do with it. It's about being a public figure and the face of a brand.

Unfortunately for footballers, that's what they are. They get the perks, but there's obviously some drawbacks.

 

[Walesy]

It's an image thing, obviously.

Just like it's ok for the players to get pain relief jabs. So long as it's done in the rooms, away from the kids, it's all good.

 

[bombadeer]

My work place has random drug and alcohol testing. There is no 3 strikes policy either.

Anyway my argument isn't about that. If the AFL want me to give them money to watch the games I want them to do as much as they can to make sure the players aren't doing drugs.

It's not that hard to not do them honestly.

I'm supportive of drug testing where others are placed at risk if the individual is under the influence of drugs - akin to drunk driving if you will.

I'm also supportive of drug testing where the intention is purely focused on the welfare of individual, if they choose to participate.

Other than those scenarios, I'm not sure there is a place for it - if you're educated about the risks, and you do it anyway, that's your choice. I don't see why it's your employers job or place to punish you for it.

The fact that it's illegal - well lots of things are illegal. I'd place it up there with a 5 over speeding ticket - it's an indiscretion - and virtually everyone does wilfully screw up once in a while.

 

[Red Black and Blue]

Ok. Tell that to an 8 year old. Bloody hell.

Why wouldn't you? Too many people assume children can't understand complex issues so they don't take the time to explain it to them. That's how you end up with emotional stunted adult-children.