Channel 7 news to break huge AFL story

[rocket3]

But 7 from 1 club?

dont let facts get in the way.
Just keep making it up.

 

[Frederlick]

dont let facts get in the way.
Just keep making it up.

I heard the story on Friday night (as I'm sure many others did) before the injunction was in place and it was 3 players according to 7 but this morning it was 2? Has Chewy been on here yet? I think this might concern him.

 

[rocket3]

so far, thats right.
All we have is a story.

And a story that is under police investigation as well.

 

[- PC -]

dont let facts get in the way.
Just keep making it up.

So its changed? When the original story broke I read of 7. The injunction has prevented me getting the correct facts

 

[jazz]

So its changed? When the original story broke I read of 7. The injunction has prevented me getting the correct facts

Yeah - and now the 2 strikes seems to be wrong too. So what we seem to have is 2 players who got caught once and went to counseling.

Not quite in the West Coast league!

 

[Seadog]

The club involved must have known about this, if they'd done something about it things would never have got to this, blah blah blah.

The players involved should voluntarily release their medical records, if the've done nothing wrong they've got nothing to hide, blah blah blah.

How do we know the players involved weren't playing under the influence of drugs, the club involved should be stripped of all their wins this year, blah blah blah.

Sound familiar, lot of hypocrites in Melbourne and Caro Wilson is the biggest of them. She tried to tear the Eagles down on the back of no known positive tests but when its a Melbourne club she sympathises with them, after all its not murder and police rarely arrest anyone the first or second time they take drugs anyway.

Unbelievable.

 

[West Coast 06]

The club involved must have known about this, if they'd done something about it things would never have got to this, blah blah blah.

The players involved should voluntarily release their medical records, if the've done nothing wrong they've got nothing to hide, blah blah blah.

How do we know the players involved weren't playing under the influence of drugs, the club involved should be stripped of all their wins this year, blah blah blah.

Sound familiar, lot of hypocrites in Melbourne and Caro Wilson is the biggest of them. She tried to tear the Eagles down on the back of no known positive tests but when its a Melbourne club she sympathises with them, after all its not murder and police rarely arrest anyone the first or second time they take drugs anyway.

Unbelievable.

Well done Seadog, now we will see who all the hypocrites are wont we?

I'm guessing there will be a fair few putting pen to paper in the Melbourne media this week. I wonder if the game v Western Bulldogs today will be billed as good v evil? (Of course the Doggies must be the "good" as Aker plays for them, pure as the driven snow and holier than thou that one.)

I just wish we could have an amnesty on drug use, all the clubs air their dirty laundry and we start again from scratch. I'm sure they would all have some airing to do.

 

[- PC -]

I just wish we could have an amnesty on drug use, all the clubs air their dirty laundry and we start again from scratch. I'm sure they would all have some airing to do.

Not a bad idea and one I am sure the AFL would embrace

ie '' we wish to get to the bottom of this drug use so implore all users to come forward , confidentially and with no repercussions on the line. We will then start all counts from 0 and will have harsher penalties for those who transgress''

 

[Furious_G]

I'm an eastie, and to be honest I'm with all the West Coast fans. Didn't Cousins pass every single one of his tests? Didn't he admit that he has a problem in public. Haven't all the media (here in the east) demanded he apologise to his peers and the public? (even though I have no idea why).

Personally, this whole thing has confused me. The club doctor gets told but not the club? What workplace/employer in this country isn't told if their employee's test postive to illicit/illeagal drugs? The AFL chiefs have been found out and instead of admitting they have a problem with drugs/culture, they have come out on the attack against the media. While it may be warranted, they haven't in any of their media statements and appearances made mention of the drug policy or the work ahead with educating players.

 

[Isandula]

The one thing I would really want to know is how such a document was found in a gutter? How careless can a club me?

 

[claf-43]

The one thing I would really want to know is how such a document was found in a gutter? How careless can a club me?

I think gutter is just a smoke screen

I believe it was stolen, gutter seems a little odd.... its kinda like the old my dog ate my homework excuse...

 

[Mad Dog]

The one thing I would really want to know is how such a document was found in a gutter? How careless can a club me?

umm - they were the Doctor's records

 

[Isandula]

umm - they were the Doctor's records

Ok then, so that cancels out the clubs carelessness, someone else was careless and it shouldn't have happened. Seriously though, how do Doctors records make their way into a gutter? If this is true then that rehab place might be in a bit of trouble. This seems a little far fetched to me.

 

[doofdoof]

Does this mean there could have been a third positive, but the player managed to not get tested?

 

[Bestbird]

Does this mean there could have been a third positive, but the player managed to not get tested?

Then their is this article

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=8527763

Hawk slips through net
By Damian Barrett
May 16, 2007 AN AFL player has escaped testing for illicit drugs after telling testers he was unable to produce a urine sample.

The player, from Hawthorn, was last week allowed by an AFL-contracted drug agency to avoid a test in the latest flaw to be exposed in the game's illicit drugs code.

Permission for the footballer to escape the test was an unprecedented break with protocol followed by sports drug-testing bodies around the world.

The testers, from Dorevitch Pathology, asked club officials to provide a replacement player.

The AFL has a contract with the Dorevitch drug-testing laboratory at Heidelberg to carry out tests for its controversial illicit drugs policy.

The excused Hawk had already provided a urine sample for Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA) testers that day.

Hawthorn yesterday confirmed to the Herald Sun one of its players had been excused from a test after he said he was unable to urinate.

AFL football operations manager Adrian Anderson said last night he didn't see a problem with the Hawthorn situation, explaining ASADA testing took precedence over Dorevitch.

Anderson denied a player escaping the test undermined the policy.

"I don't see why. He will get tested anyway. It's a random test," Anderson said.

"There is just as much chance he will get detected the next time, because he will still get tested."

There is no suggestion the Hawthorn player sought to avoid the test for reasons other than he could not produce urine, but AFL medicos have confirmed some illicit substances leave the body within 48 hours.

ASADA was testing for performance-enhancing drugs, according to Anderson.

The Herald Sun believes the Hawk player would not have escaped a second test that day had the order of testing been reversed, as ASADA is legally bound by World Anti-Doping Agency procedures.

Those procedures stipulate a drug-tester must remain with an athlete until a sample is produced.

That testers from ASADA and Dorevitch were at the Hawks' Waverley headquarters at the same time bemused the club and the player who was randomly sought by both groups.

It is believed each agency requested five players for testing and, combined, they were at the club for five hours.

With just 500 tests for illicit drugs to be conducted on the 640-plus players this year, the AFL has strongly maintained random testing is a main facet of the policy.

However the Hawk player's ability to escape last week's test throws doubt on that claim.

It comes after Port Adelaide was last month given a tip-off two days in advance that its players would be tested.

And West Coast's Ben Cousins, suffering a substance abuse problem, was not detected under the AFL's own policies, despite 14 tests.

The policy has regularly been criticised since being introduced in 2005.

A clause that stipulates a player's name must be withheld from even his club until he has tested positive on three occasions has angered many club officials and social commentators.

Last month, AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou stressed the random nature of testing for illicit drugs was more important than boosting the number of tests. "It is not just about the quantum, it is also the when and where and the timing," he said.

 

[JeffDunne]

I think gutter is just a smoke screen

I agree.

Not that I'm accusing anyone of anything.

 

[Isandula]

Now they are saying theyre stolen (or believed to be), this is becoming a bit of a mess.

 

[FuManchu]

Why did they impose a restriction on when Ben could return?

I wait for Robert Walls to write an article about this team being evil. Don't think I'll see it though.

The difference is that the Eagles admitted knowing of Cousins' problems and allowed it to go on and on without anything more severe than a letter to Cousins and still allowed him to play in spite of the health considerations to the player and the possibility that he may have traces of a recreational drug in his system come match days. Other clubs that have players using drugs probably dont know about them until the third test.

There is a difference.

 

[Jafa]

The difference is that the Eagles admitted knowing of Cousins' problems and allowed it to go on and on without anything more severe than a letter to Cousins and still allowed him to play in spite of the health considerations to the player and the possibility that he may have traces of a recreational drug in his system come match days. Other clubs that have players using drugs probably dont know about them until the third test.
There is a difference.

Sure.

 

[The Majestic]

Now they are saying theyre stolen (or believed to be), this is becoming a bit of a mess.

I'd be very worried if a medical centres records end up in the streets for anyone to take have a read and then sell. Then again having them stolen and then sold to the media is pretty bad as well.

 

[Bestbird]

The difference is that the Eagles admitted knowing of Cousins' problems and allowed it to go on and on without anything more severe than a letter to Cousins and still allowed him to play in spite of the health considerations to the player and the possibility that he may have traces of a recreational drug in his system come match days. Other clubs that have players using drugs probably dont know about them until the third test.

There is a difference.

A bit of a mis truth their

As mentioned by Worsfold on the Footy Show

They had suspisions that he may have had a drug problem which was the reason for the letter. You would have to think many clubs could be in a similar position.

It was only after he missed a couple of training sessions that these supisions became more than that and he was then suspended indefinatley from that point onwards.

 

[Illinois Nazi]

Also Cousins wore a gay shirt and smiled.

 

[Jafa]

Also Cousins wore a gay shirt and smiled.

And a gay hat as well.

 

[Harvey to Hayes]

the drug testers came out in force drug testing every saints player at the recovery session today.

I heard Banger has tested positive twice for viagra....

 

[inside_player]

I hae info in regard to where the "document" was "found"...is this info able to be posted?