Peptides! *The * Dopers: come smell the bull****! ESSENDON FANS NOT WANTED

[Davo23]

"Volunteer" is a polite way of putting it.

There is/was massive pressure from the government to tie in funding with an illicit drug tsting program.

Personally, I think the ALFPA should say "Go **** yourself" until such time as lawyers, journalists, AFL administrators, teachers, and pretty much anyone else who also qualifies for this dubious ******* bullshit 'role model' tag also gets tested for illicit drugs in their private time.

I couldn't give a **** what they do privately, until they become anti-social publicly. If they're happily partying in the off-season, their habits are a matter for them and the official law enforcement agency of the citizenry; i.e. Victorian or Federal police.

Exactly, this is actually a privacy issue.
Why can't people have their private time, whether they are footballers or any other employment?

I have 4 employees: I'm not following them to Rosebud each Summer!

 

[eldorado]

That may be true of footballers, but not teachers. In the case of teachers, they are required to have not broken the law (with the exception of speeding) or face losing their job. So their employer does have a say in what substances they take.

Yeah, but the Department of Education doesn't enforce the law, or have compulsory police powers over you. The police charge you, and then a court finds you guilty.

Then it may affect a teacher's employment if it is severe enough. The same may also be true of doctors, and lawyers, but the key point is that the employer makes a decision on your suitability according to the laws enacted by the legitimate authorities. They do not have investigative powers for activities conducted outside your workplace.

 

[Thaihawk]

Why isn't Collingwood drug story making a bigs plash on the AFL sit?
Edit.
Watching too much 'Allo 'Allo, I think.

Lack of coverage of the news story on the AFL site, is what I'm getting at. But, really I guess it's no surprise.

 

[Davo23]

Why isn't Collingwood drug story making a bigs plash on the AFL sit?

Apparently one Sydney paper had the headline "Franklin Returns to face Tainted Magpies"

Mind you, Collingwood is tainted, even without the drugs!

 

[Seagull Supremacy]

Jared Tallent will receive (and I think already has received) his gold medal.

So do we dare hope that Mitch and Cotch will ever receive their 2012 Brownlows?

 

[Gralin]

Why isn't Collingwood drug story making a bigs plash on the AFL sit?
Edit.
Watching too much 'Allo 'Allo, I think.

Lack of coverage of the news story on the AFL site, is what I'm getting at. But, really I guess it's no surprise.

It shouldn't be collingwoods drug story they apparently weren't the worst club, just the one that would generate the most clicks.

 

[grumbleguts]

Yeah, but the Department of Education doesn't enforce the law, or have compulsory police powers over you. The police charge you, and then a court finds you guilty.

Then it may affect a teacher's employment if it is severe enough. The same may also be true of doctors, and lawyers, but the key point is that the employer makes a decision on your suitability according to the laws enacted by the legitimate authorities. They do not have investigative powers for activities conducted outside your workplace.

Good point.

 

[scout]

Apparently one Sydney paper had the headline "Franklin Returns to face Tainted Magpies"

Ridiculous, but no love lost between Eddie & the Swans.

 

[Hong Kong Hawk]

Ridiculous, but no love lost between Eddie & the Swans.

Let's all be ready for all the numbers to come out - and yes folks, guess what, some Hawks players will most likely have tested positive.

 

[Lord_Espos]

Drug use in some industries is dangerous, but I guess the offseason, as long as you've had time for the drugs to clear your system.

 

[randall boner]

Mmmm drugs

 

[CD Xbow]

"Volunteer" is a polite way of putting it.

There is/was massive pressure from the government to tie in funding with an illicit drug tsting program.

Personally, I think the ALFPA should say "Go **** yourself" until such time as lawyers, journalists, AFL administrators, teachers, and pretty much anyone else who also qualifies for this dubious ******* bullshit 'role model' tag also gets tested for illicit drugs in their private time.

I couldn't give a **** what they do privately, until they become anti-social publicly. If they're happily partying in the off-season, their habits are a matter for them and the official law enforcement agency of the citizenry; i.e. Victorian or Federal police.

Agree. Hard to understand why ALFPA would put the players in such a position that they were bound to fail. To busy defending the EFC drug cheats?

I know it was supposed to be anonymous but these things have a habit of getting out, and drunken, slimey Spew Corp maggots will get hold of it and splash it across the front page. Interesting it was the Pies.

 

[Off The Couch]

Seems to be lots of chatter that this whole thing is being orchestrated by the pies so as to put the problem very squarely back on to the afl to do something about it

 

[zenmasterfu]

http://m.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news...ns-only-for-swiss-appeal-20160401-gnw7r6.html

"Legal counsel at the AFL Players' Association, which has guided the suspended footballers through a three-year ordeal but now entrusted the appeal execution to Swiss lawyers, had been unaware of the procedural mechanics."

Amateur hour continues at the AFLPA. Good luck cheaters.

"... not expect a final judgment before the end of August 2016"

Just in time for Sammy to get two Brownlows?

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

Every now and then, Patrick Smith makes an interesting point. Personally, I've been angry with the AFL for not making a stance against illicit drugs. Smith claims that the AFL just doesn't get it when it comes to drugs.

He draws the comparison that when it comes to drinking or gambling (both LEGAL activities) the AFL are all over it calling for player suspensions, but when it comes to illicit drugs (an ILLEGAL activity), the AFL want it to be kept confidential and the players protected.

Strange double standards by Gilligan and his band of merry men.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

Let's all be ready for all the numbers to come out - and yes folks, guess what, some Hawks players will most likely have tested positive.

I have no doubt at all about that. None whatsoever. Footballers just can't help themselves.

 

[Gralin]

Every now and then, Patrick Smith makes an interesting point. Personally, I've been angry with the AFL for not making a stance against illicit drugs. Smith claims that the AFL just doesn't get it when it comes to drugs.

He draws the comparison that when it comes to drinking or gambling (both LEGAL activities) the AFL are all over it calling for player suspensions, but when it comes to illicit drugs (an ILLEGAL activity), the AFL want it to be kept confidential and the players protected.

Strange double standards by Gilligan and his band of merry men.

There was a good one brought up on the BF podcast.
If you go to Amsterdam or Colorado and smoke pot where it is legal then come back to Australia and get a hair test that shows you did pot so what, you didn't break the law anywhere

 

[B&GBlood]

That may be true of footballers, but not teachers. In the case of teachers, they are required to have not broken the law (with the exception of speeding) or face losing their job. So their employer does have a say in what substances they take.

But teachers are not subjected to drug tests during their holidays, hair tests after their holidays nor are they required to front up for a test without notice while at work.

 

[grumbleguts]

But teachers are not subjected to drug tests during their holidays, hair tests after their holidays nor are they required to front up for a test without notice while at work.

I know. it's really sad. Free hair cuts.

 

[Off The Couch]

But teachers are not subjected to drug tests during their holidays, hair tests after their holidays nor are they required to front up for a test without notice while at work.

Which brings us back to the AFLPA being stupid enough to ever agree to such testing. I can't begin to imagine what the teachers union would of said to such a request. It's one thing to say it's confidential but it's another to guarantee it

 

[Gralin]

Which brings us back to the AFLPA being stupid enough to ever agree to such testing. I can't begin to imagine what the teachers union would of said to such a request. It's one thing to say it's confidential but it's another to guarantee it

Slight difference in the $$$ on the table, you can guarantee that the testing was agreed to by the AFLPA in exchange for more revenue sharing/increased salary cap

 

[Boo71]

The afl will sign anything if it gets the old boys network more money, esp if they can make a contract up that has no consequence to them at all - who wouldn't?

 

[Off The Couch]

Slight difference in the $$$ on the table, you can guarantee that the testing was agreed to by the AFLPA in exchange for more revenue sharing/increased salary cap

lets hope it's worth the pay off then

 

[Gralin]

lets hope it's worth the pay off then

matters not to us, there were some interesting comments from Mitch for example though. He said kids are coming to clubs now already exposed to drugs and as a father he'd want to know that the club had the players health as a primary focus for any drugs policy

 

[Prudster]

Every now and then, Patrick Smith makes an interesting point. Personally, I've been angry with the AFL for not making a stance against illicit drugs. Smith claims that the AFL just doesn't get it when it comes to drugs.

He draws the comparison that when it comes to drinking or gambling (both LEGAL activities) the AFL are all over it calling for player suspensions, but when it comes to illicit drugs (an ILLEGAL activity), the AFL want it to be kept confidential and the players protected.

Strange double standards by Gilligan and his band of merry men.

It's a little different isn't it? AFL players are allowed to drink, and as far as i'm aware, are allowed to gamble, as long as it's not on AFL related markets. It's only when a player does something while drunk, or bets on AFL markets that it becomes an issue.

It should should be noted that unlike gambling on AFL markets, or acting up while drunk, testing positive to illicit drugs is not illegal (except under certain circumstances, such as while driving a car). If a player gets caught with drugs, ala Stokes a couple of years back, they get into legal trouble, however, the illicit drug testing scheme is completely voluntary by the playing group, and is not a matter of legality.