Rumour Buddy drug scandal

[Adelaide Hawk]

Why is it every time Buddy misses a few matches there's another drug scandal? This has been going on since he was with the Hawks.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

Stick your head in the sand all you want, but the AFL have confirmed that in the past they've quietly given 3 strike bans to players that were disguised as injuries.

Amazing they formulate a drug policy based on baseball - 3 strikes you're out!!! Why not 2 strikes? Why not 4?

 

[GreyCrow]

Why is it every time Buddy misses a few matches there's another drug scandal? This has been going on since he was with the Hawks.

I'm confused as well. The injury is meant to have occurred in Round 1 yet he played until Round 5

 

[Turnover]

Patrick Smith alluded to this in today’s paper.

Must be b/s then

 

[frggr]

What did he say, tried googling but found nothing

He said this (in an article about the AFLs 'culture of confidentiality' - around off-field incidents, the MRP etc:

"When any players — but mostly influential ones — have missed a lump of games there has been talk around the AFL community that the long absence might not be related to injury but rather a breach of the drug code. Under previous incarnations of the drug policy the AFL would stay mute.

But so deep and sticky is the football community’s lack of belief and trust in the AFL that its silence is seen as damning, proof of duplicity. Certainly not as a way to serve all parties with both dignity and fairness.

The AFL accepts this pummelling because it serves two purposes. As much as it helps the people involved in disputes, the Shush don’t Shame ploy also adds another layer of protective clothing from the icy thoughts of sponsors, members and supporters.

The AFL could have deflected some of the criticism by detailing the timeline of the Fremantle story. It didn’t. Consequently it is being hammered about transparency, favouritism and “hush money”. This week has shown the AFL needs to find a better balance between looking after all its participants and keeping itself from being chopped up and shoved in the freezer."

 

[frggr]

Why is it every time Buddy misses a few matches there's another drug scandal? This has been going on since he was with the Hawks.

Partly because of the anecdotal evidence around Franklin's er, extra-curricular activities, the <injunction> issue that involved a handful of Hawthorn players and alleged drug rehab stints, and because Franklin's extended periods on the sidelines tend to have strange reasons - a bruised heel? That you played on for 4 rounds? etc. And it's probably a cognitive bias, but Franklin seems to have extended breaks with very few short breaks.

And because it's Franklin.

Sloane's missing an extended period and nobody's suggesting it's drug related, for instance.


Article about the injunction:

https://www.theage.com.au/news/in-depth/out-of-bounds/2007/08/31/1188067363024.html

 

[Superstar swan]

Partly because of the anecdotal evidence around Franklin's er, extra-curricular activities, the <injunction> issue that involved a handful of Hawthorn players and alleged drug rehab stints, and because Franklin's extended periods on the sidelines tend to have strange reasons - a bruised heel? That you played on for 4 rounds? etc. And it's probably a cognitive bias, but Franklin seems to have extended breaks with very few short breaks.

And because it's Franklin.

Sloane's missing an extended period and nobody's suggesting it's drug related, for instance.


Article about the injunction:

https://www.theage.com.au/news/in-depth/out-of-bounds/2007/08/31/1188067363024.html

If they were covering up a drug scandal,why go with something as abstract as a bruised heel...why not just say hamstring?

 

[frggr]

If they were covering up a drug scandal,why go with something as abstract as a bruised heel...why not just say hamstring?

Horse is a bit of a different cat. *shrug*

I don't believe the conspiracies, I was just explaining why they exist.

 

[Adz]

Was training fine during the week. Really had no reason to miss again.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

Partly because of the anecdotal evidence around Franklin's er, extra-curricular activities, the <injunction> issue that involved a handful of Hawthorn players and alleged drug rehab stints, and because Franklin's extended periods on the sidelines tend to have strange reasons - a bruised heel? That you played on for 4 rounds? etc. And it's probably a cognitive bias, but Franklin seems to have extended breaks with very few short breaks.

And because it's Franklin.

Sloane's missing an extended period and nobody's suggesting it's drug related, for instance.


Article about the injunction:

https://www.theage.com.au/news/in-depth/out-of-bounds/2007/08/31/1188067363024.html

I can't recall who was in charge of the AFL at the time (Demetriou/Gil), I think it was Demetriou who made a statement due to the amount of speculation surrounding Franklin at the time. He stated categorically that Franklin was not one of the players in the leaked information and in fact, had no strikes next to his name.

Having said that, I was told by someone inside the Hawthorn club at the time Buddy transferred to Sydney that "It was now Sydney's problem, not ours". He wouldn't elaborate, but it's clear he wasn't talking about his playing ability. Whether he actually knew something, who knows?

Now, we can take this for what it's worth. Personally, I don't care because if Buddy really has had 3 strikes, it's obvious the AFL don't wish to enforce their own rules (they're a rule unto themselves), and if he hasn't had 3 strikes, he's fine. Either way, nothing is going to change. I wouldn't trust the AFL's word if my life depended on it.

It's also worth remembering that the injunction wasn't put in place to help Hawthorn because the names had already been revealed, it was to prevent other clubs from having their players revealed if anything similar occurred in future. People who had supposedly seen the list of names would neither confirm nor deny that Buddy's name was on the list. Once again, take from that what you will.

 

[The King!]

Who cares

Just hurry up and flush them out so he can play, fix his heel do whatever

 

[deck]

I'd like to read that 3 strikes ban covered up as injuries article

The AFL says a player with a 2nd strike must seek rehabilitation but cannot play while doing so. They can only return to playing after they have been given the all clear from the doctors. They are able to continue training with the club.

A 3rd strike is supposed to lead to a proper suspension that is made public. The AFL has not admitted to covering these up.

 

[Starburns_]

I'd like to read that 3 strikes ban covered up as injuries article

Could not find the article that mentioned it, though came across this one which details the practice:

AFL players have been forced to miss matches due to breaches of the competition's illicit drugs policy, league boss Andrew Demetriou has revealed.

Under the AFL's controversial three-strikes policy - which only applies to illicit drugs as opposed to performance-enhancing substances - it is only after a third positive test that offenders' names are made public and they face the AFL Tribunal.

But AFL chief executive Demetriou said players had still faced bans without recording a third strike and without club officials, other than their club doctor, knowing the reason.

Whilst Googling I also came across this article, sound familiar to anyone?

The second, virtually unknown, reason that player X is unlikely to register a third strike is that the player in drug treatment, or rehabilitation, isn't subject to testing by the AFL. He will only be tested by those treating him and the results obviously aren't counted against him. They are between him and the clinician, who treats the player as he sees fit.

Furthermore, if a player has a serious drug problem and isn't responding to treatment or addressing his problem, the AFL doctors may not let him play. How this can be disguised is unclear - it's possible he will be stood down with depression (which was a co-factor with the game's only three-strike player, Hawthorn's Travis Tuck) or an unspecified injury/illness.

 

[GreyCrow]

You have to then question how a player at the AFC can miss 8 weeks with hamstring tightness

 

[deck]

You have to then question how a player at the AFC can miss 8 weeks with hamstring tightness

And that's the problem with the policy. The bloke who offends likes it as no one knows. The player who has a longer than expected layoff from injury now becomes part of the drug rumors.

 

[GreyCrow]

And that's the problem with the policy. The bloke who offends likes it as no one knows. The player who has a longer than expected layoff from injury now becomes part of the drug rumors.

Yep , I dont mean to be mischievious but this is the fall-out from a policy like this. You do start to cast an eye over long term injuries and if they are truly injuries

 

[Number37]

Yep , I dont mean to be mischievious but this is the fall-out from a policy like this. You do start to cast an eye over long term injuries and if they are truly injuries

The only people casting doubt are the bigfooty crowd.

 

[The King!]

Old Bud is so careless , basically gets the crack pipe out at every function he attends, but never see a pic or anything on social media

 

[catters_28]

Old Bud is so careless , basically gets the crack pipe out at every function he attends, but never see a pic or anything on social media

I know you’re saying this tongue in cheek, but you make a good point here, and something I’ve been wondering about for a while.

We always hear rumours of players doing drugs and going out partying etc , but we don’t seem to see a lot of it on social media. So let’s just say I’m out at a club in Melbourne and I see high profile player x snorting a couple of lines, what’s to stop me from taking a snap and tweeting it out?


You’d think this would happen more often in the days of smartphones but it doesn’t seem too.

I can’t think what legal recourse the AFL or the player could take. They can’t sue for defamation if the player is really snorting a line because you can’t sue for defamation for something that’s true. Maybe an injunction but I don’t see why that should be granted in that scenario.

Also just to clarify I have not seen nor am in possession of any photos like that, but it’s jjst food for thought really.

 

[The_Eagles]

I know you’re saying this tongue in cheek, but you make a good point here, and something I’ve been wondering about for a while.

We always hear rumours of players doing drugs and going out partying etc , but we don’t seem to see a lot of it on social media. So let’s just say I’m out at a club in Melbourne and I see high profile player x snorting a couple of lines, what’s to stop me from taking a snap and tweeting it out?


You’d think this would happen more often in the days of smartphones but it doesn’t seem too.

I can’t think what legal recourse the AFL or the player could take. They can’t sue for defamation if the player is really snorting a line because you can’t sue for defamation for something that’s true. Maybe an injunction but I don’t see why that should be granted in that scenario.

Also just to clarify I have not seen nor am in possession of any photos like that, but it’s jjst food for thought really.

Most people in a nightclub where people openly do drugs would probably not rat out each other, you’re all there to be fkd up and be around hot people. It also be dark blurry and flickering lights, and you’re not gonna be in the cubicle with them

 

[Number37]

Most people in a nightclub where people openly do drugs would probably not rat out each other, you’re all there to be fkd up and be around hot people. It also be dark blurry and flickering lights, and you’re not gonna be in the cubicle with them

Except when they do it on the street, in full view of street cams.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-11/rugby-league-players-snorting-cocaine-caught-on-video/9638676

 

[Dadda Dave]

Why is it every time Buddy misses a few matches there's another drug scandal? This has been going on since he was with the Hawks.

Because theres. No doubt he has a problem .where theres smoke theres fire

 

[PoppedCorn]

Thanks starburns

I did not know any of that

 

[CheapCharlie]

Why is it every time Buddy misses a few matches there's another drug scandal? This has been going on since he was with the Hawks.

What's been going on since Hawthorn?
The drug use?

 

[CheapCharlie]

Old Bud is so careless , basically gets the crack pipe out at every function he attends, but never see a pic or anything on social media

Get yourself on his Instagram feed
It's a show reel of illicit behaviour