Nostradamus Lives Is it beyond the realms of possibility for the AFL to cover up a drug incident involving a player

[Slattery_20]

Re: Is it beyond the realms of possibility for the AFL to cover up a drug incident involving a playe

It still doesn't explain why it the employers of AFL footballers, any more so than those of garbos, landscape gardeners, or real estate agents, have the right to control the private lives of their employees in what is purely a legal matter.

Yes and Coles & Maccas don't ask you to do press conferences, don't control what you eat, make sure you have the correct amount of sleep etc etc etc.

The players all sign a contract with it on there. I don't know whether it was introduced by the AFL or the PA, but the policy is in the CBA and they're all signed on to it.

In response to the OP
I, like most others, suspect the illicit drug policy is a bit of a white elephant. That any big name player caught would be dealt with quietly, rather than going through the Ben Cousins saga all over again.
And I don't know that that's such a bad thing.
IMHO it'd be quite a different matter if the player was still out there every week, despite being caught breaking the rules.

 

[eldorado]

Re: Is it beyond the realms of possibility for the AFL to cover up a drug incident involving a playe

I don't know about the other professions but the explanation for Footballers is their union (the AFLPA) felt it was a good system for the health and well being of their employees and it felt that it stopped each Club bringing their own rules in!

That's not the background.

The Federal Government pushed it hard, and wanted it linked to funding, and it was to be a punitive clause, making the AFL a quasi-law enforcement entity.

It took months of wrangling for the AFLPA to change the focus of it from a punitive measure to a player welfare/health measure.

If it IS a genuine player welfare measure, aiming to stop players lives going off the rails a la ben Cousins, then I applaud it.

However, if it is (as it purports to be) a player health/welfare measure, and not a punitive measure, I don't see why:-

(a) the public need to be informed of the first, second, third or tenth strike,

(b) many members of the public assume that it IS their right to know the private issues of AFL players and

(c) why many members want punitive actions taken against players who have breached.

One of the problems with the program is that is aims are either muddled, poorly framed, or generally misunderstood by the public.

 

[eldorado]

Re: Is it beyond the realms of possibility for the AFL to cover up a drug incident involving a playe

Yes and Coles & Maccas don't ask you to do press conferences, don't control what you eat, make sure you have the correct amount of sleep etc etc etc.

With respect, what does the fact that they do press conferences have to do with their employers right to test them for recreational drugs?

Is the drug testing related to performance of their job, related to their welfare, or related to their lives as citizens?

As I said, the waters are muddied, and I can see no absolutely no reason that AFL footballers are subjected to these actions any more than others, unless it is on a genuine welfare basis.

Some people keep saying "It was in their clause, and they signed it!"

Yes, of course, I understand that, my question is do people feel it is right that something like this should be in their clause, and would they accept it without question if it was placed in their own employment contract?

 

[The Dodger]

Re: Is it beyond the realms of possibility for the AFL to cover up a drug incident involving a playe

Who ever said people that take drugs have a problem? Sure, some people (and I believe very few) can, but it's no different to someone having an eating problem. While there might be a very small minority that do have troubles, what about the millions of others that don't?

The part you quoted there specifically said "if they have had 2 strikes" meaning that they need to clean up their act otherwise they could be out of a job. If you could not do that, and I would argue getting to your second strike, means you have a problem. If it was as easy as just giving up the stuff wouldn't a player do that rather than run the risks, if drug use is as care free as you make it sound?

 

[The Dodger]

Re: Is it beyond the realms of possibility for the AFL to cover up a drug incident involving a playe

Ever applied for a job on a minesite, even temporary? You'll do a full drug test in pre-employment medical, daily alcohol test, daily random tests. Fair enough, you say, mining is dangerous work, don't want anyone affected working on dangerous equipment. But it applies equally across the board from the truck driver or driller to the CEO, secretary, IT guy or cleaner. It is your employer who makes those rules, for their own reasons. And it's perfectly legal (and in the AFL's case, agreed to by the players in the CBA/standard playing contract).

The players are tested during their time off from the game as well, as is my understanding. I doubt a FIFO would agree to be tested on his 1 - 2 weeks back in Perth, are they?

 

[The Dodger]

Re: Is it beyond the realms of possibility for the AFL to cover up a drug incident involving a playe

That's not the background.

The Federal Government pushed it hard, and wanted it linked to funding, and it was to be a punitive clause, making the AFL a quasi-law enforcement entity.

It took months of wrangling for the AFLPA to change the focus of it from a punitive measure to a player welfare/health measure.

If it IS a genuine player welfare measure, aiming to stop players lives going off the rails a la ben Cousins, then I applaud it.

However, if it is (as it purports to be) a player health/welfare measure, and not a punitive measure, I don't see why:-

(a) the public need to be informed of the first, second, third or tenth strike,

(b) many members of the public assume that it IS their right to know the private issues of AFL players and

(c) why many members want punitive actions taken against players who have breached.

One of the problems with the program is that is aims are either muddled, poorly framed, or generally misunderstood by the public.

Good Post.

I think it was meant to be implemented as a player welfare / protect the game from off field indiscretions policy. But the AFL in their clumsiness (and keenness to be seen to be doing the right thing ) advertised it as this harsh "do drugs and you will be booted from the game" without thinking about how the media love absolutes like that. So when pressed by the media as to the details, all of these grey areas that only the AFL have control over started showing up, and the media quite rightly smelt bullshit.
I also wonder where the idea that public need to be the first informed of the strikes as well. Possibly with the way the AFL made it sound punitive it muddied the waters between the performance enhancing and illicit out of comp testing making it seem like the player was going to be hung out to dry like they would in the case of a performance enhancing conviction.

 

[Slattery_20]

Re: Is it beyond the realms of possibility for the AFL to cover up a drug incident involving a playe

With respect, what does the fact that they do press conferences have to do with their employers right to test them for recreational drugs?

My point was it's far more than a 9-5 job.... there are plenty of other things that impinge on "their leisure time".

Is the drug testing related to performance of their job, related to their welfare, or related to their lives as citizens?

All 3. The AFL should only really be concerned with #2, though.

As I said, the waters are muddied, and I can see no absolutely no reason that AFL footballers are subjected to these actions any more than others, unless it is on a genuine welfare basis.

Some people keep saying "It was in their clause, and they signed it!"

Yes, of course, I understand that, my question is do people feel it is right that something like this should be in their clause, and would they accept it without question if it was placed in their own employment contract?

I'm not necessarily saying it's right.

Do you feel that it's necessarily right that Joe Average listed footballer gets something like $300k p.a?

I don't know if I do; but along with that very, very large amount of money comes a bloody long list of stipulations that basically ensure your image is wholesome & clean cut enough, to bring you out in front of the sponsors, to flog potato chips to kiddies, etc etc etc.

Signing it, saying it, and then completely ignoring it - and claiming everything's hunky dory - is, quite clearly, not right.

It's become a political hot potato; if they drop it it's an admission and questions get asked about the "brand" ; if they apply it - publicly - the same questions get asked.
So I have a feeling the path of least resistance has been chosen.

I couldn't really give two farts if they dropped it but while it's there, it should be observed.

{cheers for the background of who & why it was brought in}

Perhaps the best solution is to drop the punitive, & name-and-shame bit from the policy completely. If,as I suspect, it's not always being applied.

 

[eldorado]

Re: Is it beyond the realms of possibility for the AFL to cover up a drug incident involving a playe

I couldn't really give two farts if they dropped it but while it's there, it should be observed.

At the moment, there is no evidence that it isn't being observed.

 

[mollyfud]

Re: Is it beyond the realms of possibility for the AFL to cover up a drug incident involving a playe

That's not the background.

The Federal Government pushed it hard, and wanted it linked to funding, and it was to be a punitive clause, making the AFL a quasi-law enforcement entity.

It took months of wrangling for the AFLPA to change the focus of it from a punitive measure to a player welfare/health measure.

If it IS a genuine player welfare measure, aiming to stop players lives going off the rails a la ben Cousins, then I applaud it.

However, if it is (as it purports to be) a player health/welfare measure, and not a punitive measure, I don't see why:-

(a) the public need to be informed of the first, second, third or tenth strike,

(b) many members of the public assume that it IS their right to know the private issues of AFL players and

(c) why many members want punitive actions taken against players who have breached.

One of the problems with the program is that is aims are either muddled, poorly framed, or generally misunderstood by the public.

Good Post.

I think it was meant to be implemented as a player welfare / protect the game from off field indiscretions policy. But the AFL in their clumsiness (and keenness to be seen to be doing the right thing ) advertised it as this harsh "do drugs and you will be booted from the game" without thinking about how the media love absolutes like that. So when pressed by the media as to the details, all of these grey areas that only the AFL have control over started showing up, and the media quite rightly smelt bullshit.
I also wonder where the idea that public need to be the first informed of the strikes as well. Possibly with the way the AFL made it sound punitive it muddied the waters between the performance enhancing and illicit out of comp testing making it seem like the player was going to be hung out to dry like they would in the case of a performance enhancing conviction.

You may be right on the origins but it isn't the way I remember it. The way I remember it is the Howard government came in after the three strike policy came in (and possibly when the AFL said they weren't going to sign up to WADA as it was weaker then their policy), sent pollies down to bash the AFL over the head about allowing three strikes and after the meeting left with their tales between their legs when, again, it was shown the AFL know what their doing, went about the process in the right manner and had a policy that no other major sporting code had.

My memory was that the Drugs Code was hammered out on the back of Carlton having drug issues with a couple of players (and by no means to I point that out as a shot at the Blues as I agree that it goes on at all clubs, just they had a very public incident before the code) and (I could have this wrong) they wanted to setup their own drug testing scheme. With the threat of every club having their own code and research that showed that drugs were becoming/were an issue, they setup the code.

I am not sure the AFL ever pushed it as a punishment system. In fact they fought the media very hard to say that the three strikes were for plays health and best chance for them to get over the issue.

(NOTE: Here is a story around the time of the Blues incident and before the 3 Strike policy implemented: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/04/1083635139538.html?from=storyrhs)

 

[Bengraham]

Re: Is it beyond the realms of possibility for the AFL to cover up a drug incident involving a playe

Reckon I'll go out this saturday and take a few happy snaps.

 

[eldorado]

Re: Is it beyond the realms of possibility for the AFL to cover up a drug incident involving a playe

Reckon I'll go out this saturday and take a few happy snaps.

Good for you, champ.

I hope someone is doing the same to you.

 

[Bengraham]

Re: Is it beyond the realms of possibility for the AFL to cover up a drug incident involving a playe

Reckon I know where I'll go too.

Reckon there's a small fortune to be had.

 

[mollyfud]

Re: Is it beyond the realms of possibility for the AFL to cover up a drug incident involving a playe

Reckon I'll go out this saturday and take a few happy snaps.

If there was an opportunity in public to take photos of players taking drugs, in this day and age of Smart Phones, don't you think we would have seen them by now?

I call Bull hockey!

 

[The Dodger]

Re: Is it beyond the realms of possibility for the AFL to cover up a drug incident involving a playe

You may be right on the origins but it isn't the way I remember it. The way I remember it is the Howard government came in after the three strike policy came in (and possibly when the AFL said they weren't going to sign up to WADA as it was weaker then their policy), sent pollies down to bash the AFL over the head about allowing three strikes and after the meeting left with their tales between their legs when, again, it was shown the AFL know what their doing, went about the process in the right manner and had a policy that no other major sporting code had.

My memory was that the Drugs Code was hammered out on the back of Carlton having drug issues with a couple of players (and by no means to I point that out as a shot at the Blues as I agree that it goes on at all clubs, just they had a very public incident before the code) and (I could have this wrong) they wanted to setup their own drug testing scheme. With the threat of every club having their own code and research that showed that drugs were becoming/were an issue, they setup the code.

I am not sure the AFL ever pushed it as a punishment system. In fact they fought the media very hard to say that the three strikes were for plays health and best chance for them to get over the issue.

(NOTE: Here is a story around the time of the Blues incident and before the 3 Strike policy implemented: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/04/1083635139538.html?from=storyrhs)

Yeah you are right about the Gov getting involved and the AFL being found to actually being stricter with out of comp testing. As I said in previous post it was set up as player welfare / promote cleanness of AFL as a sport. However I remember Demetriou chest beating about this topic and it did come accross as "see the AFL go above and beyond what is required, if players want to use illicit drugs there is no room for them in the AFL" he also said something along those lines after the Ben Cousins case, which is why the media wanted to know more about the AFL's 3 strike policy and why Cousins was able to slip through, if the AFL "mean business" about clearing out illicit drug users from the code.

 

[flylikeaneagle]

Re: Is it beyond the realms of possibility for the AFL to cover up a drug incident involving a playe

Do people here realise the consequences of the AFL knowing and doing nothing about players who have 3 strikes against their names.

It would be one of the biggest scandals to come out of any sport worldwide these posters who claim to know about these things the onus is on them to name a few names if they dare,but as has been shown so far they are happy to snipe behind closed doors,if as they claimed they know names named them and then we can all watch them being crucified as they are quite happy to do to others from the sidelines.

Worldwide? Nobody gives a s**t about AFL overseas.

Look at Lance Armstrong, bits and pieces of info have surfaced regarding his drug use, but nothing major has come of it yet. If the UCI can manage to cover things up, why not the AFL? And this doesn't even affect the integrity of a sport the way performance enhancing drug use does, this is merely a rubbish moral issue concerning recreational drug use.

 

[flylikeaneagle]

Re: Is it beyond the realms of possibility for the AFL to cover up a drug incident involving a playe

Players do drugs.

All AFL clubs have players who do drugs.
Anyone who thinks otherwise is living in a fantasy land.

I would expand on this and state that all football clubs from all codes in almost all countries have players who do drugs.

 

[mollyfud]

Re: Is it beyond the realms of possibility for the AFL to cover up a drug incident involving a playe

Worldwide? Nobody gives a s**t about AFL overseas.

Look at Lance Armstrong, bits and pieces of info have surfaced regarding his drug use, but nothing major has come of it yet. If the UCI can manage to cover things up, why not the AFL? And this doesn't even affect the integrity of a sport the way performance enhancing drug use does, this is merely a rubbish moral issue concerning recreational drug use.

If the AFL didn't have a policy on illicit drugs, you may have a point but they do and so if the covered-up/didn't act on that policy then it would be a case that would effect their integrity. Questions would be asked, if they covered that up, what else are they lying about! The Government would look into them (rightly or wrongly, they would) and so on and so forth!

For the amount of short term grief (if any) for having someone caught a third time, there is no way a coverup would be worth it!

 

[woopedazz]

Re: Is it beyond the realms of possibility for the AFL to cover up a drug incident involving a playe

People in the know already know that at least one player has had 3 strikes covered up. Another is currently on two.

The AFL can't expose big names.

Source: club officials.

 

[ipswichpies]

Re: Is it beyond the realms of possibility for the AFL to cover up a drug incident involving a playe

People in the know already know that at least one player has had 3 strikes covered up. Another is currently on two.

The AFL can't expose big names.

Source: club officials.

Mate "these people who know of players" who have had 3 strikes and then had it covered well they should either put up or keep it shut.

I would love to see one of these snipers lose the shirt of their back because unless they have proof and do not mind it being tested in court that is what would happen if they named anyone,but of course have they got the gumption to name anyone,I did,nt think so they just hide behind their computers and snipe.

Mate you should name these people in the know and then we could watch them and you wriggling on a hook,all these people in the know and not one of them willing to name anyone,chinese whispers at it ,s worst.

 

[Messenger]

People in the know already know that at least one player has had 3 strikes covered up. Another is currently on two.

The AFL can't expose big names.

Source: club officials.

Meh, there's hundreds of people on BF who know someone that has a mate that knows someone who is connected to a club and they swear such and such has had three strikes. As mentioned earlier the Buddy version of that story comes out every year and has done so for almost his entire career.

If the league is truly that leaky and they knew the info was out, why cover it up? Why not make it the clubs issue or the players issue?

 

[mollyfud]

Re: Is it beyond the realms of possibility for the AFL to cover up a drug incident involving a playe

Mate "these people who know of players" who have had 3 strikes and then had it covered well they should either put up or keep it shut.

I would love to see one of these snipers lose the shirt of their back because unless they have proof and do not mind it being tested in court that is what would happen if they named anyone,but of course have they got the gumption to name anyone,I did,nt think so they just hide behind their computers and snipe.

Mate you should name these people in the know and then we could watch them and you wriggling on a hook,all these people in the know and not one of them willing to name anyone,chinese whispers at it ,s worst.

Here, here sir! I would love Bigfooty to start the ball rolling. Anyone claiming to be "in the know" should have to put up or shut up and if they can't put up, they should be carded or whatever the punishment is these days! Just to easy to slander people on here these days!

 

[woopedazz]

Re: Is it beyond the realms of possibility for the AFL to cover up a drug incident involving a playe

Mate "these people who know of players" who have had 3 strikes and then had it covered well they should either put up or keep it shut.

I would love to see one of these snipers lose the shirt of their back because unless they have proof and do not mind it being tested in court that is what would happen if they named anyone,but of course have they got the gumption to name anyone,I did,nt think so they just hide behind their computers and snipe.

Mate you should name these people in the know and then we could watch them and you wriggling on a hook,all these people in the know and not one of them willing to name anyone,chinese whispers at it ,s worst.

Oh I'm sorry, I thought this was scandals and rumours not the peer-review forum. Why on earth would I name someone I trust and who trusts me? I never named names so there's no libel going on here.

 

[mollyfud]

Re: Is it beyond the realms of possibility for the AFL to cover up a drug incident involving a playe

Oh I'm sorry, I thought this was scandals and rumours not the peer-review forum. Why on earth would I name someone I trust and who trusts me? I never named names so there's no libel going on here.

No, its rumours and scandal not bay 13 or fairy tale board!

 

[DOSACHOKER1]

Re: Is it beyond the realms of possibility for the AFL to cover up a drug incident involving a playe

Worldwide? Nobody gives a s**t about AFL overseas.

Look at Lance Armstrong, bits and pieces of info have surfaced regarding his drug use, but nothing major has come of it yet. If the UCI can manage to cover things up, why not the AFL? And this doesn't even affect the integrity of a sport the way performance enhancing drug use does, this is merely a rubbish moral issue concerning recreational drug use.

Just on this comment, Armstrong whilst in remission was given dispensation by the UCI to take certain drugs that were on the banned substance list to build his body back to an even level, he was in the negative as opposed to his contemperary's of the day, without these medications he may well have not lived. The problem was that UCI did not inform anyone under privacy for Armstrong, French media and Dick Pound don't like him and the witch hunt begins.

If an AFL player was caught drug taking involved in any other sport they would immediately be banned, I do not know any single other sport where there is a 3 strikes policy, there may be however it wouldn't be any of the traditional olympic sports that is for sure. The problem also is the clubs do not know either, the very people who may be able to help with collective support. It isn't a great policy and needs to be changed although I would imagine that the drug use amongst players would be far less than the general population by a long way.

 

[The Dodger]

Re: Is it beyond the realms of possibility for the AFL to cover up a drug incident involving a playe

Is it beyond the realms of possibility for the AFL to not test someone again that is on 2 strikes?
- knowing that all of the advice they would have got from people who work in drug rehabilitation & the medical fraternity would point out that once someone has a problem, their chance of faltering again is pretty high.

Would it be in the interest of the AFL to "shoot fish in a barrel" by going back and testing players with 2 strikes who are undergoing rehab and re-education?
What would the drug rehab experts and the Medical fraternity think of that?

As the AFL pointed out that Travis Tuck was already on 2 strikes, and given the way his life was at the time would it have been hard to get that 3rd strike through testing rather than retroactively for a public incident?