AFL player investigated for drug dealing

[Waverley73]

I know who you are talking about and I would still want them sacked. Taking the drugs I can handle but dealing is serious and is dangerous. i don't want anyone like that at my club

I agree dealing drugs is extremely serious but no-one has been even charged with anything have they?

 

[FuManchu]

This doesn't sound too good:

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,22323292-5006065,00.html
A source close to the AFL star said the investigated player's affinity with drugs "went to another level'' when he started dealing.

"He would brag about making $10,000 a week from it,'' the source said. "He's had scales and cutting equipment just lying around his house. His teammates would just come over and pick it up.''

The player would openly use and deal illicit substances during the Spring Racing Carnival, the source said.

"At the spring carny . . . it was rife, just out of control. Two or three times a day, every day ... he'd have it in his pocket and just do it then and there.''

two or three times a day!!!!!!!!

hardly out of control, its when it's every half hour on the half hour, .......... now thats a raging habit!

 

[plugger47]

In Regards to West Coast

As per the Worsfold interview on the Footy show, all they had were suspicions and he pointed out the fustration of the club in not being made aware of players failing drug tests so that appropriate action could be taken.

Hawthorn and other clubs for that matter were/are probably in a similar position.

The problem was made worse after the media witch hunt of Cousins and how it was handled by the aFL

What player in there right mind would admit publicly, or for that matter advise the Club that they have a substance abuse problem. Their reputation would be harmed and they might risk a suspension that would not be lifted too after they were cleared by the AFL medico's

Far better for them to continue to hide behind the confidentiality of the AFL's Drug code, seek rehab privately and continue playing the game.

The usual gibberish from a dysfunctional organisation. The big AFL drug cover up is falling apart at the seams. Don't you realise in a modern society with an all pervasive media its just not possible for a large football code to keep its dirty little secrets behind closed doors. Is the hiding of the AFL dirty drug secrets better for the game, our kids, society or even the individual addict? Disgraceful opinion

 

[hawka_fan]

high profile player so probably senior. i know they haven't been charged if it's true i for one would't want them at my club if they were at my club.

 

[Choota]

high profile player so probably senior. i know they haven't been charged if it's true i for one would't want them at my club if they were at my club.

High profile player does not mean senior. It means high profile.

There is a name that has been unfairly bandied around in this scandal. Just more reason why Channel 7 must be punished.

 

[hawka_fan]

this isn't channel 7's story this is the huns isn't it? Or you mean this wouldn't ever have come out if it wasn't for their sory?

 

[Leather Poisoning]

High profile player does not mean senior. It means high profile.

There is a name that has been unfairly bandied around in this scandal. Just more reason why Channel 7 must be punished.

That's right - these players names have already been thrown around and it will be interesting to see how the opposition crowd treats them on the weekend.....

THat might show the extent of the effect that Ch 7 has had.

 

[thetan]

Any player that requires rehab for a drug problem shouldn't be playing the game.

I agree. But ask yourself, who really requires rehab? Find me one credible "drug expert" who thinks that a fit young man who's taken ecstasy, speed or cocaine a couple of times needs rehab, or counselling or therapy. They're not addicts who need six weeks in Odyssey House, they're just plain naughty brats who reckon they'll get away with it. Sadly, they're right.

The AFL's strategy these past few years has been to cast this as a medical issue, not a disciplinary one. This gets them a weak/ineffective testing regime, a three strikes policy, "privacy" (freedom from scrutiny), public sympathy etc.

By setting the terms of the debate like this they advance their real agenda. That is, securing revenue by ensuring the best footballers continue to play each week, despite any illicit drug use. Contrast with the AFL's policies on player gambling, which does threaten revenue. No counselling, privacy, three strikes etc there. Very cynical stuff, AD.

There's no doubt that the medical approach is crucial to helping some drug users. I'm not at all convinced that AFL footballers fit that profile.

 

[FuManchu]

Thge players mentioned because of the medical report have every right to be aggrieved and should be protected by the law in terms of remaining anon.

the player under investigation for drug dealing is open game

 

[Leather Poisoning]

Thge players mentioned because of the medical report have every right to be aggrieved and should be protected by the law in terms of remaining anon.

the player under investigation for drug dealing is open game

Yes they should cop the full brunt of the law - criminal charges etc. However, I think the AFL and the club should hand the matter over to the police, and leave it with them.

 

[k00k]

If you're dealing, I dont give a toss whose team it is, sack 'em. If there's a dealer at WCE, I'd want them sacked immediately, I dont care who it is.

 

[Bloben]

High profile player does not mean senior. It means high profile.

There is a name that has been unfairly bandied around in this scandal. Just more reason why Channel 7 must be punished.

By far the worst thing that these accusations have done is create an environment where all names at that club are branded as potential criminals.

As the club has been named it has tarnished every player in that club. This will only get worse too.

 

[JeffDunne]

I agree. But ask yourself, who really requires rehab? Find me one credible "drug expert" who thinks that a fit young man who's taken ecstasy, speed or cocaine a couple of times needs rehab, or counselling or therapy. They're not addicts who need six weeks in Odyssey House, they're just plain naughty brats who reckon they'll get away with it. Sadly, they're right.

The AFL's strategy these past few years has been to cast this as a medical issue, not a disciplinary one. This gets them a weak/ineffective testing regime, a three strikes policy, "privacy" (freedom from scrutiny), public sympathy etc.

By setting the terms of the debate like this they advance their real agenda. That is, securing revenue by ensuring the best footballers continue to play each week, despite any illicit drug use. Contrast with the AFL's policies on player gambling, which does threaten revenue. No counselling, privacy, three strikes etc there. Very cynical stuff, AD.

There's no doubt that the medical approach is crucial to helping some drug users. I'm not at all convinced that AFL footballers fit that profile.

Good post and I agree. I probably should have expanded on my comment but you've nailed it.

 

[Chewy]

Christ I wish you morons would stop raising this issue.

The boys were cleared when sexual abuse was a national story and with the police under unprecedented public scrutiny on this issue. In fact I'd go as far to say there was a public witch hunt at the time on professional footballers and sexual abuse charges.

They were completely cleared of all charges in that environment.

Stop trying to deflect from the issue by doing exactly what you are complaining about.

And you called me a hypocrite.......

No charges were ever laid against Milne and Montagna.
Police received information, they investigated, they found the witnesses to be unreliable and the claims were unsubstantiated.

Just like this supposed drug dealer. Police received information, they investigated, the claims were unsubstantiated and no charges were laid.

What's that you were saying, you hypocrite?

As for the issue of clubs being informed. Why should they? Clubs have shown in the past given the opportunity they'll put success ahead of dealing with player indiscretions. Look no further than West Coast. By their own admission they were aware of the problem last year and basically did nothing about it. I have a sneaking suspicion too there are clubs that have traded players knowing full well they had an existing problem.

The clubs should be informed because at the end of the day, it is in their best interests to see that the player(s) gets their act together. Maybe it's an underlying selfish motive, but ultimately, the player and their clubs are the ones who are hurt the most in all of this. No one else. So why shouldn't they be allowed to control the situation?

I can see that your whole view is punish, punish, punish. You want to see blood. But unless the players' behaviour is so out of control and warrants it, I can't quite see what you're going to punish them for. The players volunteer to subject themselves to these drugs tests, remember. You disagree with the 3 strikes policy, but without it, there would be no "illicit" drugs testing.

The AFL are the people that should be dealing with this issue and they should be dealing with it by handing out suspensions. This whole player rehab is a farce and it's about time we made players face up to their responsibilities.

As stated above, without the players' support for the 3 strikes policy, there would be no illicit drug testing.
Just the ASADA tests for performance-enhancing drugs.

Where would that leave you?

I guess that's a side-step of the issue. I can see that you're all gung-ho and want players to be tested and punished like they were naughty schoolkids. But why is this the role of the AFL? Should the AFL build special jail cells in Fed Square and we can all go along and laugh and point and throw rotten tomatoes at the transgressors?

The NFL suspends their drug offenders for 12 months.

Please do some research and tell us all what happens to these guys. Let us know how their lives pan out and whether the 12 month suspensions and "naming and shaming" had the desired effect.

[It must be the best way 'cos it's the American way..... You w***er!]

 

[Chewy]

I agree. But ask yourself, who really requires rehab? Find me one credible "drug expert" who thinks that a fit young man who's taken ecstasy, speed or cocaine a couple of times needs rehab, or counselling or therapy. They're not addicts who need six weeks in Odyssey House, they're just plain naughty brats who reckon they'll get away with it. Sadly, they're right.

The AFL's strategy these past few years has been to cast this as a medical issue, not a disciplinary one. This gets them a weak/ineffective testing regime, a three strikes policy, "privacy" (freedom from scrutiny), public sympathy etc.

By setting the terms of the debate like this they advance their real agenda. That is, securing revenue by ensuring the best footballers continue to play each week, despite any illicit drug use. Contrast with the AFL's policies on player gambling, which does threaten revenue. No counselling, privacy, three strikes etc there. Very cynical stuff, AD.

There's no doubt that the medical approach is crucial to helping some drug users. I'm not at all convinced that AFL footballers fit that profile.

Please state why AFL footballers should volunteer to submit themselves to tests for cocaine, speed and ecstasy.

This is Australia. We have laws. We have police to enforce these laws.

Why should AFL footballers volunteer to put themselves through this?

 

[Ron The Bear]

I can see that you're all gung-ho and want players to be tested and punished like they were naughty schoolkids. But why is this the role of the AFL

Why was it the role of the AFL to take a hard line on racism? Their stances on the two issues are like chalk and cheese. Don't pretend to be doing something with a Clayton's policy - either get fair dinkum or scrap it.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Please state why AFL footballers should volunteer to submit themselves to tests for cocaine, speed and ecstasy.

So they can earn exorbidant salaries they would not earn in the real world.

 

[Makka]

If these new allegations are true does the injunction in place deny this player being named as well or is it something different? I'm not really up on a lot of the legal mumbo jumbo. If someone could ellaborate that would be great!

 

[kelvin_sheedy]

If these new allegations are true does the injunction in place deny this player being named as well or is it something different? I'm not really up on a lot of the legal mumbo jumbo. If someone could ellaborate that would be great!

I think you already know the rule. Here it is if you are unsure:

If the allegations are against a Melbourne club then the name of the club or persons involved cannot be made available to the public.

It the allegations are against a club outside of Melbourne and Victoria for that matter then it is a free for all.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

I think you already know the rule. Here it is if you are unsure:

If the allegations are against a Melbourne club then the name of the club or persons involved cannot be made available to the public.

It the allegations are against a club outside of Melbourne and Victoria for that matter then it is a free for all.

Cousins had been playing up for 18 months before any public information broke, and thats because it got so bad the club couldnt hide it any more. For example when you turn up trashed at the club's jumper presentation, you have pretty much given the game away.

Just because these allegations are suupressed now does not mean they will be indefinitely.

 

[thetan]

Please state why AFL footballers should volunteer to submit themselves to tests for cocaine, speed and ecstasy.

This is Australia. We have laws. We have police to enforce these laws.

Why should AFL footballers volunteer to put themselves through this?

Proper drug testing should be part of the employment contract for AFL footballers. If you want to play at an elite level, you stay off the pills and powders for a few years. (You can always go back to them when you've stuffed your knee at 23.) If the price is too high, stay in the suburban leagues.

No doubt you'll ask why the clubs should make it a condition in the contract. Three reasons:

1) Safety. Training and playing football at that level with people under the influence or feeling the effects of drugs (yes, including alcohol) is dangerous. Other players shouldn't have to worry about a "spaced" opponent doing them an injury.

2) Performance. Taking hundreds of thousands of dollars from fans and then putting in anything less than 100% effort at training and playing is a rip-off. You sign up to do your best, anything less is taking money under false pretences.

3) Reputation. Like it or not, footballers are role models for kids. A large part of their income stems from this and the resulting sponsorship deals. Absent a proper testing regime, these scandals will just continue to roll on.

I regard myself as politically libertarian and very progressive on drug use. By the same token, I have no problem with individuals freely entering into binding contracts that diminish their rights (including "privacy") - as long as they can judge if they're adequately compensated. It's called personal responsibility and I think AFL players should try it.

Do you object to breath-testing and "dobbing in" for airline pilots and surgeons too? A mature society can handle the idea that some people are subject to extra scrutiny because the stakes are higher for them.

 

[FuManchu]

Yes they should cop the full brunt of the law - criminal charges etc. However, I think the AFL and the club should hand the matter over to the police, and leave it with them.

I assumed the investigation was a police matter and had nothing to do with the AFL. The AFL and club however should look closely at any findings and act accordingly.

 

[doodlefeatures]

Did the police interview anyone?? I got the impression from what Christine Nixon said they were given a tip, they investigated it and determined it was rubbish, case closed.

 

[Chewy]

Why was it the role of the AFL to take a hard line on racism? Their stances on the two issues are like chalk and cheese. Don't pretend to be doing something with a Clayton's policy - either get fair dinkum or scrap it.

I don't think it was the role of the AFL to take a hard line on racism. But because they are so obsessed with their image and they had an image problem with regard to racism, they felt compelled to act. Deja Vu...

Racism and Drugs are chalk and cheese so why compare the AFL stance on the two?

As for getting fairdinkum, what is wrong with 3 strikes? People say it's wrong, offenders should get no leeway, others say they should get 2 chances. But on what basis does this make them right?

There are players who have two strikes against them, but no one has failed three tests.
It seems to me like the system is working...

 

[Chewy]

I think you already know the rule. Here it is if you are unsure:

If the allegations are against a Melbourne club then the name of the club or persons involved cannot be made available to the public.

It the allegations are against a club outside of Melbourne and Victoria for that matter then it is a free for all.

Last year, the names of three 2-time drug offenders were leaked, but their names were suppressed by a court injunction.
Many people know who they are. It is common knowledge that all three were from outside of Victoria.

You were saying?