No Oppo Supporters Non Bulldog Footy Talk - Bulldogs only - Part 3

[Mattdougie]

MD, I kind of agree with you but I have personally trained used ritalin, a form of amphetamine. I lifted more, for longer, even cardio improved. I was a bottomless pit of energy. I would assume goey would be pretty similar let alone meth. Used properly these ‘recreational’ drugs enhance athletic ability no doubt in my mind.

On the other hand if GWS want to smoke cones or inject heroin before playing us I would have no problem.

There is no doubt they will but the other effects would make it near impossible

Stability, vision, reactions, hand eye, and others can all be out of synch on drugs and in a fast moving game of AFL I can’t imagine how that wouldn’t efffect you

 

[BRWB]

Matt, I'm not arguing whether the law as it stands is right or wrong [ and given laws are the work of lawyers and politicians, more often than not it will live up to the classic definition : "the law is an ass"]. Personally I think all players should be regularly and routinely tested, not just for performance enhancing, but also 'recreational' drugs, and the clubs and the league should automatically be given all results. They could then make an informed decision if the player should or shouldn't remain a part of their group/club. Given all clubs have a lot of very young and probably impressionable kids that look up to, and are likely to be influenced by the more senior players, clubs should have the right to decide if an individual is potentially a good or bad influence. They could also then counsel the player, hopefully before their drug use becomes a problem for the club or player himself.

Couldn't disagree more. Drugs (inc alcohol) should only be tested for by employers if there is a workplace safety issue. There isnt one with footy players who pose no safety risk to anyone by snorting some coke or smoking some dope even if they do it mid training session. The risk you seem concerned with is moral (ooh the 'impressionable' youngsters will be led astray) which IMO is none of your, the AFL's or my business.

I cannot understand why the players assoc agree to any rec testing. Should be the players own business and they should be subject to societal laws (not mores) like anyone else.

 

[Mattdougie]

Couldn't disagree more. Drugs (inc alcohol) should only be tested for by employers if there is a workplace safety issue. There isnt one with footy players who pose no safety risk to anyone by snorting some coke or smoking some dope even if they do it mid training session. The risk you seem concerned with is moral (ooh the 'impressionable' youngsters will be led astray) which IMO is none of your, the AFL's or my business.

I cannot understand why the players assoc agree to any rec testing. Should be the players own business and they should be subject to societal laws (not mores) like anyone else.

Because people like to think they “own” players.

It’s sickening the amount of control some want over others coz they kick a footy and should be role models.

I’d bet the same people that want complete control watch Married at first sight

 

[paulveed]

Because people like to think they “own” players.

It’s sickening the amount of control some want over others coz they kick a footy and should be role models.

I’d bet the same people that want complete control watch Married at first sight

Well I know how you hate being told your wrong about anything Matt, but you are 100% WRONG here if you are including me in this.
[As an aside], I have never watched any of this so called 'entertainment' for more than a couple of seconds. Most of the tripe on TV these
days is just that, mindless drivel.
Although I admit I do not do drugs [beyond alcohol], I spent years in the music business, and was constantly surrounded by drug use by
people I liked personally, worked and played with. And if you believe drug tacking is harmless, I have news for you. It just ain't so. I witnessed numerous careers, families and lives destroyed by drug use.
I have taken the position I have on this issue, on the basis of sad experience, and not any goody 2 shoes moralist stance.

Why do governments put speed limits on suburban roads ? Are they being 'nanny states' ? No they do it [other than when it is just for revenue raising]
both to protect innocent 'bystanders', and to protect the foolish from themselves. That is the position I view this issue from, not from any nanny morals.

It is peoples prerogative to choose what they will do to/with their own lives, however it is impossible to isolate the effects on themselves, from
the effects it potentially has on those around them. So whether you like the idea or not, it is not just the individual themselves who they are going to impact
by their decisions and behaviour.

 

[BRWB]

Because people like to think they “own” players.

It’s sickening the amount of control some want over others coz they kick a footy and should be role models.

I’d bet the same people that want complete control watch Married at first sight

Not sure id go that far.

But I do think that people wanting forced drug tests on anyone when there is no direct safety issue are trying to impose their own morality on others. (Usually people do this under the cloke of the best of intentions but boiled down its one person or group seeking to impose their will on others)

 

[Mattdougie]

Well I know how you hate being told your wrong about anything Matt, but you are 100% WRONG here if you are including me in this.
[As an aside], I have never watched any of this so called 'entertainment' for more than a couple of seconds. Most of the tripe on TV these
days is just that, mindless drivel.
Although I admit I do not do drugs [beyond alcohol], I spent years in the music business, and was constantly surrounded by drug use by
people I liked personally, worked and played with. And if you believe drug tacking is harmless, I have news for you. It just ain't so. I witnessed numerous careers, families and lives destroyed by drug use.
I have taken the position I have on this issue, on the basis of sad experience, and not any goody 2 shoes moralist stance.

Why do governments put speed limits on suburban roads ? Are they being 'nanny states' ? No they do it [other than when it is just for revenue raising]
both to protect innocent 'bystanders', and to protect the foolish from themselves. That is the position I view this issue from, not from any nanny morals.

It is peoples prerogative to choose what they will do to/with their own lives, however it is impossible to isolate the effects on themselves, from
the effects it potentially has on those around them. So whether you like the idea or not, it is not just the individual themselves who they are going to impact
by their decisions and behaviour.

Wasn’t referring to anyone in particular

 

[Dry Rot]

Stringer allegedly cherry ripe. Sounds like he has finally taken pre season seriously.

https://www.afl.com.au/news/2019-02-26/like-tackling-a-big-fridge-bombers-warning-for-rivals

 

[Mattdougie]

Well I know how you hate being told your wrong about anything Matt, but you are 100% WRONG here if you are including me in this.
[As an aside], I have never watched any of this so called 'entertainment' for more than a couple of seconds. Most of the tripe on TV these
days is just that, mindless drivel.
Although I admit I do not do drugs [beyond alcohol], I spent years in the music business, and was constantly surrounded by drug use by
people I liked personally, worked and played with. And if you believe drug tacking is harmless, I have news for you. It just ain't so. I witnessed numerous careers, families and lives destroyed by drug use.
I have taken the position I have on this issue, on the basis of sad experience, and not any goody 2 shoes moralist stance.

Why do governments put speed limits on suburban roads ? Are they being 'nanny states' ? No they do it [other than when it is just for revenue raising]
both to protect innocent 'bystanders', and to protect the foolish from themselves. That is the position I view this issue from, not from any nanny morals.

It is peoples prerogative to choose what they will do to/with their own lives, however it is impossible to isolate the effects on themselves, from
the effects it potentially has on those around them. So whether you like the idea or not, it is not just the individual themselves who they are going to impact
by their decisions and behaviour.

Wait a minute

I never said it was harmless I said it’s none of my business and it’s a criminal issue.

I in fact lost my sister(as in she is not the same person) to drugs but that was her decision and she was not judged by any different measure to any other person. I drove around the City for days looking for her, spent hours with police, watched my mother have a breakdown so please don’t tell me I don’t know the effects it has on others.

That doesn’t change my opinion that we should have power over any individual because they play footy.

I’m not encouraging it, I’m not excusing it at a criminal level but I’m also not so self important I want/need to know everything players do and think I have some ownership over what they do. I couldn’t care less if the plumber down the street takes pills all weekend that’s between him and the cops if he gets caught and that’s how I feel about eveyone

 

[Mattdougie]

Stringer allegedly cherry ripe. Sounds like he has finally taken pre season seriously.

https://www.afl.com.au/news/2019-02-26/like-tackling-a-big-fridge-bombers-warning-for-rivals

No doubt kicking him out will end up biting us on the a$$

The image of him with a premiership medal on it that jumper will make me want to kick the tv in

 

[BRWB]

No doubt kicking him out will end up biting us on the a$$

The image of him with a premiership medal on it that jumper will make me want to kick the tv in

Stringer is a bit of a choker - any team relying heavily on him to perform in big games will come up short. go back and have a look at Stringers last GF. Blink and you will miss him.

 

[Sentinel]

Stringer allegedly cherry ripe. Sounds like he has finally taken pre season seriously.

https://www.afl.com.au/news/2019-02-26/like-tackling-a-big-fridge-bombers-warning-for-rivals

2018:
https://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-01-12/more-than-one-string-to-new-bombers-bow
https://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-02-05/jobe-replacement-recruit-dominating-don-stoppages
https://www.sportingnews.com/au/afl...sendon-recruits-afl/w1okxp4u01pu1hlgi4k5q8si9

2017:
https://www.sen.com.au/news/2017/04/01/stringer-becoming-a-midfielder-is-my-aspiration/

 

[Mattdougie]

Stringer is a bit of a choker - any team relying heavily on him to perform in big games will come up short. go back and have a look at Stringers last GF. Blink and you will miss him.

Getting older may straighten him up mate

He was the 2nd most talented bloke on our list until he went pear shaped

That ability is still there. I’d still love him in our jumper where he belongs

 

[BRWB]

Getting older may straighten him up mate

He was the 2nd most talented bloke on our list until he went pear shaped

That ability is still there. I’d still love him in our jumper where he belongs

Diagree, he was the most talented player on our list. Just wasn't meant to be sadly.

Being talented doesn't mean he isn't a choker. Mental strengths and weknesses affect some more than others. Stringer is affected more than most IMO.

 

[Virgin Dog]

I think we're forgetting the fact that it doesn't matter how talented Stringer is - he was voted out by the players because of what he had done. They made it clear there was no playing future for him at the club.

Were North Melbourne wrong for kicking out Carey? Were Brisbane wrong for kicking out Aker? Were Carlton wrong for kicking out Fev?

 

[Bont2Bruce]

Diagree, he was the most talented player on our list. Just wasn't meant to be sadly.

Being talented doesn't mean he isn't a choker. Mental strengths and weknesses affect some more than others. Stringer is affected more than most IMO.

Disagree totally. This was and is the most talented player on our list.

 

[BRWB]

Disagree totally. This was and is the most talented player on our list.

Ha...based on pure physical talent I have Stringer ahead. But if you consider the whole.package...that includes mental toughness and application. Its no contest.

The Bont has the package

 

[BrisDog]

Stringer allegedly cherry ripe. Sounds like he has finally taken pre season seriously.

https://www.afl.com.au/news/2019-02-26/like-tackling-a-big-fridge-bombers-warning-for-rivals

Hope he gets run over by the water cart personally

 

[BrisDog]

Wait a minute

I never said it was harmless I said it’s none of my business and it’s a criminal issue.

I in fact lost my sister(as in she is not the same person) to drugs but that was her decision and she was not judged by any different measure to any other person. I drove around the City for days looking for her, spent hours with police, watched my mother have a breakdown so please don’t tell me I don’t know the effects it has on others.

That doesn’t change my opinion that we should have power over any individual because they play footy.

I’m not encouraging it, I’m not excusing it at a criminal level but I’m also not so self important I want/need to know everything players do and think I have some ownership over what they do. I couldn’t care less if the plumber down the street takes pills all weekend that’s between him and the cops if he gets caught and that’s how I feel about eveyone

All good points MD, sorry to hear about your experience too:

1. I couldn’t give a faark what people do in their spare time.
2. If you watch ‘Married at First Sight’ your IQ is questionable.

However, if you reckon the fun drugs (Ritalin) do not enhance your performance dramatically you are wrong.

There has been an enourmous increase in ADHD diagnosis for athletes in the US purely so they can access the good stuff.

 

[paulveed]

Wait a minute

I never said it was harmless I said it’s none of my business and it’s a criminal issue.

I in fact lost my sister(as in she is not the same person) to drugs but that was her decision and she was not judged by any different measure to any other person. I drove around the City for days looking for her, spent hours with police, watched my mother have a breakdown so please don’t tell me I don’t know the effects it has on others.

That doesn’t change my opinion that we should have power over any individual because they play footy.

I’m not encouraging it, I’m not excusing it at a criminal level but I’m also not so self important I want/need to know everything players do and think I have some ownership over what they do. I couldn’t care less if the plumber down the street takes pills all weekend that’s between him and the cops if he gets caught and that’s how I feel about eveyone

Matt if that is your history, I'm genuinely saddened to hear that. However that should show you conclusively, that the decision to take drugs cannot be fobbed off as simply a personal choice. Like it or not, that is also making a decision that will eventually impact others, most likely those closest to, or in close contact with that person. They are not being given a choice in a matter with potential to impact on them. It is simply all but impossible to isolate impacts just to the one taking the drugs, unless I suppose they are a hermit living on an otherwise deserted island.
If someone elects to run a red light, they may say they are just risking a fine or loss of their licence, and it's their decision. They may do it a couple of times and just risk the police consequences. But eventually someone will be coming the other way, and it ceases to merely be their choice to disobey the rules and take their own chances.
Now I'm probably one of the very last to champion 'authorities' controlling peoples life choices, but in this case they risk making choices for more than just themselves, but also for others. Is that really an inalienable personal right, or something that those with the authority to do so, have an obligation to try and protect all parties here ?
I agree with you that it doesn't need a public naming and shaming situation, but those in the position to be impacted, surely do have a right to know.

 

[Mattdougie]

All good points MD, sorry to hear about your experience too:

1. I couldn’t give a faark what people do in their spare time.
2. If you watch ‘Married at First Sight’ your IQ is questionable.

However, if you reckon the fun drugs (Ritalin) do not enhance your performance dramatically you are wrong.

There has been an enourmous increase in ADHD diagnosis for athletes in the US purely so they can access the good stuff.

Mate that’s life I’m sure many here have had an experience with drugs of some type that isn’t positive.

I have no idea what Ritalin does re performance so I can’t commebt but I will take our word for it.

Ivan only talk from personal experience or encounters and I’m referring to The party drugs that most know.

 

[Mattdougie]

Matt if that is your history, I'm genuinely saddened to hear that. However that should show you conclusively, that the decision to take drugs cannot be fobbed off as simply a personal choice. Like it or not, that is also making a decision that will eventually impact others, most likely those closest to, or in close contact with that person. They are not being given a choice in a matter with potential to impact on them. It is simply all but impossible to isolate impacts just to the one taking the drugs, unless I suppose they are a hermit living on an otherwise deserted island.
If someone elects to run a red light, they may say they are just risking a fine or loss of their licence, and it's their decision. They may do it a couple of times and just risk the police consequences. But eventually someone will be coming the other way, and it ceases to merely be their choice to disobey the rules and take their own chances.
Now I'm probably one of the very last to champion 'authorities' controlling peoples life choices, but in this case they risk making choices for more than just themselves, but also for others. Is that really an inalienable personal right, or something that those with the authority to do so, have an obligation to try and protect all parties here ?
I agree with you that it doesn't need a public naming and shaming situation, but those in the position to be impacted, surely do have a right to know.

People can think I make things up but that is indeed my experience and one side of my family has had a long running addiction issue both alcohol and drugs so I can speak to this with some awareness.

But I guess I’m a live and let live kind of guy, you make your own mistakes deal with them. We can try and guide people to the right path and help then when they get there but I don’t think it’s possobe to pretend that we can keep everyone on the straight and narrow by simply testing them.

I stand by my opinion that footy players should be treated ni differently to run of the mill man on the street doing his job.

So perhaps the answer is to test eveyone? I wouldn’t have a problem with that because then eveyone is being treated equally. I can’t stand the “they are role models” line. It’s an excuse to be a voyeur into celebrities lives in my opinion.

Ps I work for myself so I would carry out my own test so I’d be pretty safe I think?

 

[Scary_Foot_9]

Stringer is a bit of a choker - any team relying heavily on him to perform in big games will come up short. go back and have a look at Stringers last GF. Blink and you will miss him.

Last GF? Has he played in more than one?

 

[BRWB]

Gee ole mate Richo must be unbackable for getting sacked.

Steven out indefinitely. Carlisle out for months.

Sad for Richo. Feel for players.

Couldn't happen to a better club though.

 

[compact72]

Interesting. More to it?

The 2 players that love the "nose beers" are out

 

[Lindsay_Gilbee]

Nose beers is such a lame term.