AFL player investigated for drug dealing

[Leather Poisoning]

The reality is that AFL players are reasonably well remunerated but regardless, this notion that high income equates to some sort of obligation to give up certain rights, is a disturbing one.

Basically, we have created a situation in which any perosn in the public eye is now fair game for any failure to meet certain standards even though these standards are arbitrary and arguably much higher than what the average joe has to live with - then to prove they meet these arbitrary and arguably pointless standards they must give up basic rights.

Welcome to Australia.

For me this is the most disturbing aspect of the whole issue.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

The reality is that AFL players are reasonably well remunerated but regardless, this notion that high income equates to some sort of obligation to give up certain rights, is a disturbing one..

They are paid entertainters.

As public figures part of the package is a repsonsibility to behave as role models, or at least to not behave as bad role models. That just goes with the territory. The only reason a lot of them head towards drugs clubs and bad women in the first place is because they are high profile.

 

[FuManchu]

For me this is the most disturbing aspect of the whole issue.

And while there is an element of truth to this. Isn't it incumbant on the players to know that they are in the spotlight and any player with half a brain would know that whatever they did in the public domain, or even in private for that matter has the strong possibility it will become fodder for media orgs?

They take the money but complain when they cop the media flak which comes with the money.

In other words, clean your act up fellas, you're going to get caught out more often than not. it's not brain surgery.

And this includes Didaks stupid romp also

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

For me this is the most disturbing aspect of the whole issue.

Its not much to give up.

 

[Ron The Bear]

The reality is that AFL players are reasonably well remunerated but regardless, this notion that high income equates to some sort of obligation to give up certain rights, is a disturbing one.

Basically, we have created a situation in which any perosn in the public eye is now fair game for any failure to meet certain standards even though these standards are arbitrary and arguably much higher than what the average joe has to live with - then to prove they meet these arbitrary and arguably pointless standards they must give up basic rights.

Welcome to Australia.

AFL football has entered into a relationship with the media, without which it cannot sustain itself.

Welcome to Celebrityville.

 

[JeffDunne]

The same could be said of Gherig's record of assaults on women in public. Why didnt St Kilda rest him until they forced him to seek anger management for these incidents?

WTF? I said 'investigate'.

FWIW, both incidents involving Fraser have happened when the player has been on leave, months before the start of the season. The first incident was investigated and acted upon before preseason even started. In the latest case, it is before the courts and he is claiming to be innocent. How could a club possibly sanction a player for a matter that's before the courts? And as I have said previously, if convicted he should be sanctioned by the club.

I really laugh at you hypocritcal simpletons. Your position on every issue is based solely on club bias.

 

[Leather Poisoning]

And while there is an element of truth to this. Isn't it incumbant on the players to know that they are in the spotlight and any player with half a brain would know that whatever they did in the public domain, or even in private for that matter has the strong poosibility it will become fodder for media orgs?

They take the money but complain when they cop the media flak which comes with the money.

In other words, clean your act up fellas, you're going to get caught out more often than not. it's not brain surgery.

And this includes Didaks stupid romp also

If you do things in public and it's against the law or the public don't approve, then cop it sweet. To complain about this is to act as though you're above the law.

But when your rights are less just because you earn more - that makes me sick.

 

[FuManchu]

WTF? I said 'investigate'.

FWIW, both incidents involving Fraser have happened when the player has been on leave, months before the start of the season. The first incident was investigated and acted upon before preseason even started. In the latest case, it is before the courts and he is claiming to be innocent. How could a club possibly sanction a player for a matter that's before the courts? And as I have said previously, if convicted he should be sanctioned by the club.

I really laugh at you hypocritcal simpletons. Your position on every issue is based solely on club bias.

What statement has St Kilda issued saying it abhored the violence perpetrated by gherig on women?

Collingwood have stated that they abhored Didak's non criminal activity. have st Kilda said anything about gherigs continual abuses on women?

Funnily enough, you called for Didak to be sanctioned when no criminal offence occured, will you call for sanction against gherig if he is found guilty?

 

[FuManchu]

If you do things in public and it's against the law or the public don't approve, then cop it sweet. To complain about this is to act as though you're above the law.

But when your rights are less just because you earn more - that makes me sick.

Income doesnt enter into the equation here. But what does enter into the equation is the fact that players should be aware that they cant get away with too much, If it is legal but questionable or in bad taste, it will still be publicised. If the players dont acknowledge that, then short of having their rights to privacy invaded, they should know that they are in the firing line. it's called common sense. sadly lacking I think in football players.

 

[Dan Moody]

Surely this is a joke ...

ironic

 

[vanders]

Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story, will you HS

As far as I am concerned, it is the Police's job to catch criminals, not the AFL's. They should only be testing for performance enhancing drugs, not illicit crap. The police have their job, let them do it.

 

[mikben]

They're Drugs!!!! they trip ya out for a few hrs and sumtimes ya feel like u r the gr8est person alive, other than that, who the F$%^ cares..Its not like he was part of an arranged killing.

For a minute there I thought you were onto something, but know you are just the idiot I thought you were...

 

[FuManchu]

Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story, will you HS

As far as I am concerned, it is the Police's job to catch criminals, not the AFL's. They should only be testing for performance enhancing drugs, not illicit crap. The police have their job, let them do it.

The AFL werent carrying out the investigation on the supposed drug dealer.

The players have agreed to the conditions laid out in their contracts, so in effect, the AFL have every right to test for these type drugs. And just remember what is a recreational drug on Friday is performance enhancing on a saturday (if saturday is match day).

And why shouldnt the AFL expect that all players that run onto their sanctioned events, will be not affected by drugs and expose themselves to even further stresses than the game exposes them to? If I was the AFL, I would want to be positive that no player is going to have cardiac failure in front of a national audience. Its just too bad the AFL dont have any conviction towards their own drug code.

 

[JeffDunne]

What statement has St Kilda issued saying it abhored the violence perpetrated by gherig on women?

Collingwood have stated that they abhored Didak's non criminal activity. have st Kilda said anything about gherigs continual abuses on women?

Funnily enough, you called for Didak to be sanctioned when no criminal offence occured, will you call for sanction against gherig if he is found guilty?

Can you not read? Fair dinkum why do I bother trying to debate people so devoid of comprehension skills? Try reading the post you quoted fool.

And as for your praise of Collingwood, fair dinkum that is truly pathetic. They are a classic example of why clubs should not discipline their own players. This is a club that had a player die due to drink driving & speeding. Die as in killed, pretty heavy stuff. Their reaction? A series of token penalties that put results ahead of principle.

And FWIW, yes St Kilda did issue a strong condemnation of what Gehrig did when he pissed on a women's foot. But like all clubs, when push comes to shove, I doubt we'd suspend him this week if we need to win to make finals. Don't kid yourself, all clubs put success before principle.

 

[Chewy]

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:

I'm glad someone is prepared to offer actual reasons why.
I had almost given up.

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.

This is a long bow to draw. If you were truly concerned with safety, then you would ban the (rampant) use of painkillers. Workplace safety & painkillers is a real football issue. Remember Adrian Whitehead of Carlton? Every week players are expected to jeopardise their long-term health and no one bats an eyelid. And you dubiously want give safety concerns as a reason for illicit drug testing? What are you suggesting? That Benny Cousins will bump into someone and hurt them? These guys are trying to smash each other anyway. That's the game. Or maybe you are concerned that Benny will have a psychotic episode and beat someone to death with his footy boot? Please... It's pretty unrealistic anyway to presume these guys are off their heads on drugs whilst playing. The truth is that they are getting loaded after the game, away from the club, out at nightclubs, etc. The testing isn't confined to match day. They can get done for illicit drugs at any time during the season.

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.

Ben Cousins' best two seasons of football were in 2005 and 2006. It's fair to say, he was using drugs regularly during this period and suffered no ill effects to his footy whatsoever.

Where is your evidence that dabbling with pills or powder has any ill-effects on their performance?
The reason these drugs have become so popular with players is that unlike alcohol, they can use them to get blasted and unwind after a game, but suffer less after-effects.

This kind of flies in the face of your own argument.

And what next? Dob players in for eating McDonalds or KFC? Or ice-cream?
That's also putting in less than 100%. Are you going to penalise them for that?

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.

This point deserves its own thread.
I see people trot out this line. They say "role models" as though it has a special magical meaning.
What do you mean by "role models" ? What age are these kids you're referring to?

Kids mimic their footy heroes for their on-field deeds. This is why Nathan Buckley shouldn't abuse the umpires. It's sets a poor example. Players should respect their opponents, they shouldn't swear in post-match interviews, they shouldn't give the finger to the cheer squads. Kids see this and they emulate them, just like they mimic Matty Lloyd's goal routine, or Aker's goal celebration.

Consider this: 1000's of little Cat fans grew up idolising Gary Ablett Sr. But you would struggle to find a WORSE role model than Gazza Sr. If these footballer/role models had such a massive influence over the kiddies with their misdeeds away from the game, then heaven help the City of Geelong. It would be like that movie Escape From New York. It didn't matter what he did though. The kids only saw him as a role model for his on field deeds.

I reckon the puritans use this myth about "role models" as a way of forcing their own views on the footballers. It's not about the kids. It's more about themselves. Guys like Mike Sheahan love their Colgate, whitebread stars like James Hird. They want to elevate these guys as some type of saint, but it has nothing to do with the kiddies.

The kids loved Shane Warne. Again, you probably couldn't get a worse role model. He smoked. He drank. He ate crap food. He knew bookies. He failed a drugs test. He couldn't keep his pants on. He sledged. He carried like a twat on the Lords balcony. I'm not sure if he ever snorted drugs. Cricket Australia never tested their players. From what I saw, kids didn't care about any of this. They just wanted to bowl flippers and leg breaks like Warney did. God help us all if there is any credence to this role model crap. Imagine a nation of adults all influenced by Warney.

Are these footballers doing drugs in front of the kids? No.
So tell me how their nocturnal habits could possibly influence them.

The fact is, if we ddin't test players for illict drugs, then we wouldn't even know they were using the stuff.

You want to test players for illicit drugs, just to prove they are clean, so you can put them on pedestals as though they are saints.

You're just serving your own lilywhite fantasies. Don't bring the kiddies into 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.

As pointed out by someone else. It's mischievious to compare these professions. Sometimes it may seem like footy is life and death, but really, it's just a game. They are not taking people's lives into their own hands.

You could make a stronger argument that umpires should be tested for illicit drugs.

What about those goal umpires? They gotta be on something...

 

[FuManchu]

Can you not read? Fair dinkum why do I bother trying to debate people so devoid of comprehension skills? Try reading the post you quoted fool.

I did, I just see the blatant hypocracy in your argument that gherig should be afforded due process but a Collingwood player not even charged should be stood down.

And as for your praise of Collingwood, fair dinkum that is truly pathetic. They are a classic example of why clubs should not discipline their own players. This is a club that had a player die due to drink driving & speeding. Die as in killed, pretty heavy stuff. Their reaction? A series of token penalties that put results ahead of principle.

The same can be said for all clubs. Most clubs up until this year have done very little in the way of strong sanction for off field indiscretions. Has yours?

And FWIW, yes St Kilda did issue a strong condemnation of what Gehrig did when he pissed on a women's foot. But like all clubs, when push comes to shove, I doubt we'd suspend him this week if we need to win to make finals. Don't kid yourself, all clubs put success before principle.

Care to give me a quote from the club about the women he shoved half way to Elwood, which is indisputable as it is on video evidence.

 

[JeffDunne]

I did,

Clearly you didn't or you wouldn't have asked the question.

Seriously why do I bother with fools like you? It's posted in plain English and still you deny it. Embarrassing.

I just see the blatant hypocracy in your argument that gherig should be afforded due process but a Collingwood player not even charged should be stood down.

Learn to read as I have already explained that and there is nothing hypocritical at all in my position.

The same can be said for all clubs. Most clubs up until this year have done very little in the way of strong sanction for off field indiscretions. Has yours?

You are incredible. Do you even bother to read what you are quoting?

Care to give me a quote from the club about the women he shoved half way to Elwood, which is indisputable as it is on video evidence.

Seriously, your ignorance is amazing. Even more so that you're prepared to display it publicly.

You do understand this is before the courts don't you? You do realise any public comment by the club would be prejudicial? I have said, and I repeat for the umpteenth time, yes he should be sanctioned if found guilty of the charges.

Please, if you're not prepared to read what I write then don't quote me.

 

[Chewy]

How on earth is that being a hypocrite?

You took umbrage at my mention of the those sexual assault allegations against a couple of St Kilda players, called me a moron, yet you are quite happy to speculate about this aborted police investigation. I think you said that those Saints were cleared of any wrong doing.

As far as I remember, the police received a complaint, they investigated it and declined to lay any charges. It boiled down to he said, she said, he said, she said. You didn't like me bringing it up, but you are quite happy to hypothesise about an April investigation which went nowhere. You even try to infer that there are hidden meanings behind the Det Sgt's statement.

the player and their clubs are the ones who are hurt the most in all of this

Nonsense. Why do you think we have a drug code in the first place?
Answer that accurately and you'll see what a load of codswhallop your bleeding heart statement is.

I love how you say "codswhallop" but don't even bother to elaborate.
I think what I said was perfectly accurate.

Why don't you inform us all who you think is most hurt by these allegations?

 

[JeffDunne]

You didn't like me bringing it up, but you are quite happy to hypothesise about an April investigation which went nowhere.

I did?

Please, since you're so good at telling me what I think, what was my hypothesis?

You even try to infer that there are hidden meanings behind the Det Sgt's statement.

I said I thought it was interesting that he was prepared to say what he did. Indeed I have questioned the motive of doing so but that's a long way from suggesting that his comments were in anyway a suspicion of guilt. The "operational contingencies" part of the quote was what sparked my interest. It's not uncommon for the police to discover information in the course of an investigation that may lead them to pursue more serious crimes or suspects and drop the original investigation. It may very well be that the police found absolutely no evidence that the player was involved and decided to pursue the person that made the allegations. In short, I have no idea why he made the comments but I found it interesting that he was prepared to do so.

I love how you say "codswhallop" but don't even bother to elaborate.
I think what I said was perfectly accurate.

I said it was codswhallop because you are suggesting that players using illicit substances is a health and not a performance issue. West Coast supporters argue this all the time in defence of their club. If it's not a performance issue, then why are they listed under the WADA code for in-competition testing?

Why don't you inform us all who you think is most hurt by these allegations?

Which allegations? The allegations from last Friday or these allegations?

 

[Mr Lizard]

Dance much?

 

[FuManchu]

Clearly you didn't or you wouldn't have asked the question.

Seriously why do I bother with fools like you? It's posted in plain English and still you deny it. Embarrassing.


Learn to read as I have already explained that and there is nothing hypocritical at all in my position.


You are incredible. Do you even bother to read what you are quoting?


Seriously, your ignorance is amazing. Even more so that you're prepared to display it publicly.

You do understand this is before the courts don't you? You do realise any public comment by the club would be prejudicial? I have said, and I repeat for the umpteenth time, yes he should be sanctioned if found guilty of the charges.

Please, if you're not prepared to read what I write then don't quote me.

or, in plain english, 'do not question my team, but allow me to question yours'

hypocrite

 

[Frederlick]

Lucky the AFLPA have taken the moral high ground. The tsunami is about to wash them off it.

 

[94_Eagles]

Links to forums where names can be named?

 

[Brilliant]

I said it was codswhallop because you are suggesting that players using illicit substances is a health and not a performance issue. West Coast supporters argue this all the time in defence of their club. If it's not a performance issue, then why are they listed under the WADA code for in-competition testing?

Heroin and Marijuana are also on that list. Why are they listed as performance enhancing?

The they're on the list they must be performance enhancing argument does'nt add up.

 

[GoOsH1]

The reality is that AFL players are reasonably well remunerated but regardless, this notion that high income equates to some sort of obligation to give up certain rights, is a disturbing one.

Basically, we have created a situation in which any perosn in the public eye is now fair game for any failure to meet certain standards even though these standards are arbitrary and arguably much higher than what the average joe has to live with - then to prove they meet these arbitrary and arguably pointless standards they must give up basic rights.

Welcome to Australia.

totally agree, I just don't see why a person, just because they play sport for a living instead of sitting behind a desk has to be held up to a higher moral standard.
I totally agree with in competition testing of any drug that may enhance performance (that would include illicit drugs in competition), but outside that I just don't see what right we have to hold them up to a higher standard than everyone else, and invade their privacy and force them to give up their rights to do so.