Righto, time to be the bigger person and walk away from this one, clearly you and I are not going to agree on this one and I have no intention of descending to the immature level where you question someone's level of language comprehension.
-
Mobile App Discontinued
Due to a number of factors, support for the current BigFooty mobile app has been discontinued. Your BigFooty login will no longer work on the Tapatalk or the BigFooty App - which is based on Tapatalk.
Apologies for any inconvenience. We will try to find a replacement.
Analysis Drugs in Sport
- Thread starter Toffee Lion
- Start date
- Tagged users None
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
It's not like I wanted to, it is only because you either did not read my post addressing your concerns, you blatantly ignored it or you failed to comprehend it.
I don't really see how it is immature when it is relevant in the discussion of understanding each other's point of view. I don't believe I've been hostile or disrespectful if you read my posts trying to explain myself and what I actually meant by my statements.
Maybe what we both truly want is to reach our next post milestones of 3k and 1k each? 
Hollow Knight
Imperfect vessel
- May 3, 2005
- 98,144
- 111,586
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
- Other Teams
- Scuderia Ferrari, Dallas Cowboys
Disappointed in Browny to be honest. I read his arguments and they are quite ill-formed.
Being a great footballer and good bloke doesn't automatically make someone an astute thinker.
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
We are talking AFL footballers here... not some bloke who has lost his job, comes from a broken family, no career pathway or direction in life etc. These are role models for lovers of sport and the public in general which means greater responsibilities. I think the AFL needs to make a stand and commit to the zero drug policy 100% not just give the players many chances to hide their illegal activities to potentially inflict serious damages to oneself and his loved ones. Although in saying that I think 1 strike is going too far as mistakes do and will happen, I believe they should be named after the second strike though. After first strike, clubs should be informed and the correct action should be taken such as drug education, rehab, etc. We just can't let any more young footballers leeway to get potentially heavily addicted to any illicit substance. One case of Ben Cousins is enough for me. The players need help first and foremost but if they continually push the boundaries then they shouldn't be AFL footballers. Of course others have and will disagree but this is just a simple opinion on the matter that I believe strongly in.
Hollow Knight
Imperfect vessel
- May 3, 2005
- 98,144
- 111,586
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
- Other Teams
- Scuderia Ferrari, Dallas Cowboys
Plenty of people who don't fit those above criteria are still afflicted by mental illness and/or drug abuse. I thought general public awareness about mental illness had long since moved beyond that sort of thinking.
Football Pope
Norm Smith Medallist
- Sep 24, 2009
- 8,345
- 4,151
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
- Other Teams
- Australian International Sides
Dunno about that.... Most of the debate on here has been in acknowledgment that there is a problem...Makes facinating reading/viewing....naming Collingwood, which has modelled itself on being the blue collar working folks club, was a well calculated gamble...The Pies have already been found guilty... 2 of its players admitting using "recreational drugs", (which should be labled as euphoriants), that had traces of a banned performance enhancing substances....
On the soap box, folk will always experiment on various euphoriants... it's all about reaching that "high"...that feeling comes in various forms (Opioids, Inhalants, cannabinoids, stimulants and Intoxicants)....and at a guess are probably just as exhilarating as those reached by exercise...Don't be surprised to see Eddie register "The Mullers & Packers Union"
Last edited:
It wasn't a definitive list but a few points so not sure why you would assume this is what creates a druggo or the reason as to why people have health issues.
There are plenty of pathways people with mental issues can deal with their problems but I don't think getting stoned is the right way to go about it. I have a relative who has drug induced bi polar... I reckon more than a few cases of mental issues are a result of drug abuse to begin with. I want to see a prevention first society and making it legal or decriminalized will just allow more cases of potential drug induced mental issues to flourish. Of course you disagree with my opinion but I think we should be making it impossibly hard for people to choose/indulge in a drug lifestyle by increasing punishments for possessing or dealing with these horrid substances. Look towards countries like Singapore, Korea etc all have harsh drug laws and I'll guarantee it would limit a lot of potential first time users. Drugs will still be prevalent within society but it would be difficult to get access to if you are a young and impressionable person who would be fearing a long stint in prison/rehabs. Let's just agree to disagree as we both have different views and experiences it seems to narcotics.
Ironmonger
Brownlow Medallist
- Aug 13, 2001
- 10,485
- 17,756
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
- Other Teams
- Melbourne Victory
I don't agree with your views, SM, but I think you're making a reasonable case.
Hollow Knight
Imperfect vessel
- May 3, 2005
- 98,144
- 111,586
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
- Other Teams
- Scuderia Ferrari, Dallas Cowboys
I don't disagree with prioritising prevention. In fact, I completely agree. I just have a different view on how it should be done.
- Apr 19, 2012
- 10,473
- 10,836
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
- Other Teams
- San Francisco 49ers, Hertha Berlin
That's the thing- you can't make it impossibly hard to get drugs. Again, characterising drug use just as a choice/indulgence is a gross generalisation. Not even sure what a 'drug lifestyle' is. Not only that, the costs of using ever harsher measures to combat drug use are just too great. The US approach has seen its prison population skyrocket, especially among black males. Prisons in the US are filled with people who committed minor drug offences. Thanks to pointless measures such as mandatory minimum sentences, people who should never go near jail are locked up because it's 'tough on drugs' or whatever. We're already pretty good at locking up members of disadvantaged sections of the community (see Indigenous incarceration rates), do you think locking up more of these people is the answer? Singapore has lots of harsh laws. Actually, it's a borderline fascist state- not the best example to be following, I'd say. Unfortunately, your approach is typical of the sort of thinking that has got us into this mess in the first place. What's the definition of insanity?
I completely understand why people think being tougher on drugs will work. Believe me, it hasn't, it won't, and it can't. Or don't, look more deeply into the issue yourself. You may be surprised by what you find.
Drugs, right, this is an interesting topic. When has punishment ever deterred anyone from anything. Morals and ethics stop people from making poor life decisions. I reckon more time has to be spent on integrating AFL players into society. The club needs to provide this balance for their employees. How many teachers, doctors, lawyers etc do you think would fail a hair test?
This comes up every year, and the drugs debate has so many sides that I'm not sure everyone is on the same page or arguing the same issue.
If drugs in society are acceptable, should AFL players indulging be acceptable?
Whether one believes drugs should be decriminalised or not, they are currently illicit.
Does everyone taking illicit drugs have "a problem"? Why do we assume everyone needs help?
What is reasonably considered a player's "own time". Big bucks in big (public) business, isn't it fair that these guys are contracted 24/7/365?
Whether they are doing the wrong thing or what should be socially acceptable, there is a code, what is and isn't acceptable. We saw Dixon miss a game last year for drinking a glass of wine. There are things you can and can't do as part of your contract, team rules or accepted/negotiated by the league & payers' association.
There is a policy, and it obviously needs change. It has to be established what the policy hopes to achieve, and from there the best way to achieve it in everyone's interest.
I guess the rights of individuals and perils of illicit drugs can be argued in determining what should be the aim of a drugs policy, but one has to accept to a point what the current circumstances are.
Some seem to argue that the issue is so nuanced that a simple "NO DRUGS" policy is unfair or simplistic, but then assume that something (state of mind or illness) must be the cause and support is the key. This ignores that some blokes are just dickheads, or if the occasional recreational indulgence is okay, that the law or league requirements don't matter.
If community standards or society expectations change to the point that recreational drugs are legal and okay, then policy can be re-written to suit. I am all for debate on drugs in society and how they are dealt with. But in terms of the AFL, illicit drugs are still (for now) illicit. I don't think this should be ignored, because (even if large) a proportion of society thinks they're okay.
The topic of discussion was meant to be 'Drugs in sport', specifically the AFL's policy in dealing with illicit drug taking by its players. Not sure that right & wrong plays a big part here. It is what is allowed, not what is socially acceptable.
The policy considerations should be about how to deal with those caught, not whether to turn a blind eye or not. Who should be told after how many offences and what to do with them. The answer to these, probably should be largely a case by case proposition, rather than a one size fits all approach.
Much of the argument against WA Lion has been about how society should deal with the drugs debate, but we're not talking about society, we're talking about players, in the AFL. The two are not one & the same.
- Drugs in society, right or wrong?
- Legal, illegal or decriminalise?
- Punish or support?
- Fair terms of employment?
- Mental health issues and addiction.
If drugs in society are acceptable, should AFL players indulging be acceptable?
Whether one believes drugs should be decriminalised or not, they are currently illicit.
Does everyone taking illicit drugs have "a problem"? Why do we assume everyone needs help?
What is reasonably considered a player's "own time". Big bucks in big (public) business, isn't it fair that these guys are contracted 24/7/365?
Whether they are doing the wrong thing or what should be socially acceptable, there is a code, what is and isn't acceptable. We saw Dixon miss a game last year for drinking a glass of wine. There are things you can and can't do as part of your contract, team rules or accepted/negotiated by the league & payers' association.
There is a policy, and it obviously needs change. It has to be established what the policy hopes to achieve, and from there the best way to achieve it in everyone's interest.
I guess the rights of individuals and perils of illicit drugs can be argued in determining what should be the aim of a drugs policy, but one has to accept to a point what the current circumstances are.
Some seem to argue that the issue is so nuanced that a simple "NO DRUGS" policy is unfair or simplistic, but then assume that something (state of mind or illness) must be the cause and support is the key. This ignores that some blokes are just dickheads, or if the occasional recreational indulgence is okay, that the law or league requirements don't matter.
If community standards or society expectations change to the point that recreational drugs are legal and okay, then policy can be re-written to suit. I am all for debate on drugs in society and how they are dealt with. But in terms of the AFL, illicit drugs are still (for now) illicit. I don't think this should be ignored, because (even if large) a proportion of society thinks they're okay.
The topic of discussion was meant to be 'Drugs in sport', specifically the AFL's policy in dealing with illicit drug taking by its players. Not sure that right & wrong plays a big part here. It is what is allowed, not what is socially acceptable.
The policy considerations should be about how to deal with those caught, not whether to turn a blind eye or not. Who should be told after how many offences and what to do with them. The answer to these, probably should be largely a case by case proposition, rather than a one size fits all approach.
Much of the argument against WA Lion has been about how society should deal with the drugs debate, but we're not talking about society, we're talking about players, in the AFL. The two are not one & the same.
Football Pope
Norm Smith Medallist
- Sep 24, 2009
- 8,345
- 4,151
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
- Other Teams
- Australian International Sides
The discussion is of Collingwood players. We are given a figure that 11 of its players tested positive to drugs from hair testing in the off season....and mention in passing that two clubs( not named) fared worse... Gee wonder what Collingwood offical leaked Robbo that info?....
This is the bigest sham of all time.........Opening game of the season and noone finds it a bit strange two of Fox footy high profile employees use their "other jobs" to boost its ratings. And surprise surprise who happens to be the host for the night...... what unbelievable timing.
Section B and C answer your case by case proposition ... the policy related to hair testing....... tell me Robbo didn't know this.. and how long has Ed been pushing for tougher illicit drug rules...the old preaching from the pulpit.
http://www.triplem.com.au/melbourne...die-mcguire-wants-afl-to-be-tougher-on-drugs/
http://aflplayers.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/2015-AFL-Illicit-Drugs-Policy.pdf
22. Hair Testing
(a) The AFL and the AFLPA agree to work together in good faith regarding the
use of hair testing for Prohibited Substance.
(b) For the avoidance of doubt, as of the date of this Policy, the detection of a
Prohibited Substance in a Sample of hair will not be considered an
Adverse Finding.
(c) Any person who has a Prohibited Substance detected in a hair Sample will
be subject to a Management Plan and/or targeted testing as determined
by the AFL Medical Director
Last edited:
That actually seems like fair policy. No strikes from hair sampling, but instead, a determination of what's going on with that player. I presume in the short term there is no need to further test a player who has a problem, and support is given as required. On the other hand, those who don't appear to have a "problem" can be targeted to make sure they're toeing the line. This would suggest that those with "strikes" are simply repeat offenders as opposed to having a problem.
In general, the policy seems pretty fair to the players and provides plenty of scope to cease consumption. The question I would have is whether, and at what point should a club know about a player? Currently, only the doctor knows, and I would suggest this needs to be extended to the welfare officer.
For those defending the rights of players to please themselves in the off-season, you'll be pleased to know that players can't be tested on holidays. Now how long any substance stays in the system subject to approved testing, I don't know. We also don't know if some consideration is given to this and testing commences some time after returning to work.
*It seems, Football Pope that that policy is superseded. http://www.aflplayers.com.au/article/illicit-drugs-policy-changes-unveiled/
This seems much tighter/stricter and I wonder if a heavier emphasis should have been put on education, rather than punishment.
This seems much tighter/stricter and I wonder if a heavier emphasis should have been put on education, rather than punishment.
I live in Singapore and I gotta say, it works brilliantly BUT they have a set of other laws assisting to make it do so (directly and indirectly) which I wont go into.
By fear of arrest for speaking out against the government?
Hahahahaha nicely done.... there are some rough rules here undoubtedly
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
Football Pope
Norm Smith Medallist
- Sep 24, 2009
- 8,345
- 4,151
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
- Other Teams
- Australian International Sides
Thanks Skoob...you'll find its updated with a transition period...hair sampling is still the same.. it is still used only to monitor the player and put the player on direct urine testing ( the inventive back yard chemists will now produce masking agents to combat this).....The old "white line fever" has now got a new meaning...
- Urine testing and year-round hair testing – urine testing to determine consequences, hair testing to monitor behaviour and direct target testing and education programs
There may be a rise in players requiring time away from the game for personal reasons..
Yeah, sorry, didn't mean to imply any of your post was dated. You're quite right that the bit you posted is still the case.
Interestingly, the policy document hasn't been updated (at least on the AFLPA site). I think this is symptomatic of a failure in the AFL in general to educate and make all info current.
Grant Thomas tweeted about rule 7 of drug policy....Rita Panahi has retweeted it, which is where I saw it.
...if a player has not recorded a strike for 2yrs or more, they are given a clean slate.
Seriously? Geezus, the AFL are weak and gutless.
...if a player has not recorded a strike for 2yrs or more, they are given a clean slate.
Seriously? Geezus, the AFL are weak and gutless.
I think this is reasonable. 2 years is a long time between 'drinks'.
The policy isn't there to out anyone who ever smoked a billy. It is there to curb habitual use.
Grant's philosophy is to ban anyone who does the wrong thing, just once. Although I believe players shouldn't be using illicit drugs, I also think that zero tolerance resulting in bans is a bit overboard. It would be akin to being caught speeding in your car and losing your licence. Most people have done it, it should be discouraged, and if you don't get caught again for reasonable period you get your points back.
Anyone seen the alleged hair test ladder? We're on the way back to the top....
