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

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.

ize_

Cancelled
Jun 15, 2007
5,881
4,041
AFL Club
Richmond
Re: Is it beyond the realms of possibility for the AFL to cover up a drug incident involving a playe

No need to cover anything up. I firmly believe that there is nothing random about illicit drug tests. PHDs, yes. But illicit drugs? Two weeks notice.
 

The Dodger

Norm Smith Medallist
Apr 12, 2010
7,287
7,225
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Re: Is it beyond the realms of possibility for the AFL to cover up a drug incident involving a playe

The AFL have cleared that Conspiracy Theory up. The Counselling isn't as long as your see someone once a year or something, its in the post 2nd strike time frame for a short period.

Is bolded bit you having a guess?

I don't think the AFL have cleared that up.
The brochure you provided the link to said something to the effect that they test players at any time including while being counselled over previous strikes. It also states that you are more likely to be target tested if you have failed a strike or have a well known drug problem. Page 7 of the brochure highlights the steps during failed strikes.

As I asked before how long is that period?
Who decides when that period is over?
If the answers to those questions are the AFL (or medico's employed by AFL) then it is not cleared up at all.
And it still conflicts with what the documentation says about testing at all times and target testing players with strikes.


I also want to refer to earlier post about Tuck when Clarkson was talking in that debate. I wanted to highlight at the time the way Clarkson talks about Tuck. He says (and I will watch again to double check) "that we were not going to play him for Box Hill in the condition he was in"
I took that to mean that he was not in a very good state prior to being told that he wasn't going to play for Box Hill. If he wasn't injured what state do you think he could be referring to?
 

mollyfud

Norm Smith Medallist
Apr 20, 2005
5,320
128
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Utah Jazz, Vikings
Re: Is it beyond the realms of possibility for the AFL to cover up a drug incident involving a playe

Is bolded bit you having a guess?

I don't think the AFL have cleared that up.
The brochure you provided the link to said something to the effect that they test players at any time including while being counselled over previous strikes. It also states that you are more likely to be target tested if you have failed a strike or have a well known drug problem. Page 7 of the brochure highlights the steps during failed strikes.

As I asked before how long is that period?
Who decides when that period is over?
If the answers to those questions are the AFL (or medico's employed by AFL) then it is not cleared up at all.
And it still conflicts with what the documentation says about testing at all times and target testing players with strikes.


I also want to refer to earlier post about Tuck when Clarkson was talking in that debate. I wanted to highlight at the time the way Clarkson talks about Tuck. He says (and I will watch again to double check) "that we were not going to play him for Box Hill in the condition he was in"
I took that to mean that he was not in a very good state prior to being told that he wasn't going to play for Box Hill. If he wasn't injured what state do you think he could be referring to?

AndyD mentioned that in an interview near the start of the year to clear up the counselling thing. I thought it in one of the radio interviews he did on the first week of the season but couldn't find it. Perhaps it was on FoxFooty, can't find it now, have looked.

On the Tucky one, from memory he had been carrying an injury. To answer the question inserted between the lines, no, he wasn't saying they knew he was on drugs! They also weren't aware that he had depression. Now you might say how do you not know (especially with Jeff the head of Beyond Blue) but (and I can say this as someone who has had very direct connection to someone with depressions) often people with depression become very good at hiding it in public situations.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

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

Molly, I would take most thing that Andrew D says in regards to things that could possibly look bad for his brand with a grain of salt.

Just look at "tanking", as one example.
 

mollyfud

Norm Smith Medallist
Apr 20, 2005
5,320
128
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Utah Jazz, Vikings
Re: Is it beyond the realms of possibility for the AFL to cover up a drug incident involving a playe

Molly, I would take most thing that Andrew D says in regards to things that could possibly look bad for his brand with a grain of salt.

Just look at "tanking", as one example.

Oh, thats right! Dam, he fooled me again! F#$K it!
 

The Dodger

Norm Smith Medallist
Apr 12, 2010
7,287
7,225
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Re: Is it beyond the realms of possibility for the AFL to cover up a drug incident involving a playe

AndyD mentioned that in an interview near the start of the year to clear up the counselling thing. I thought it in one of the radio interviews he did on the first week of the season but couldn't find it. Perhaps it was on FoxFooty, can't find it now, have looked.

On the Tucky one, from memory he had been carrying an injury. To answer the question inserted between the lines, no, he wasn't saying they knew he was on drugs! They also weren't aware that he had depression. Now you might say how do you not know (especially with Jeff the head of Beyond Blue) but (and I can say this as someone who has had very direct connection to someone with depressions) often people with depression become very good at hiding it in public situations.

Well if Andy D did say that then he is in contradiction to the policy that they have outlined in that brochure. An inconsistency in the policy perhaps?
I'm also guessing that he did not give an exact time frame that counselling ends and testing begins did he?

For Tuck no question between the lines. I believe he is referring to "state" outside of football. I mean if it was an injury he would say "he couldn't play because of an injury" and if it was because of an injury I fail to see why Tuck would of taken that news as hard as he did. I wasn't insinuating that Clarkson knew he was on drugs but that he was not right at the time he was told that he could not play as you say whether that was drugs, depression or combination of both. The way he put it sounds like they knew something wasn't right, and therefore thought his preparation for the game was not good enough. Their not doctors but from obviously from a footy perspective he wasn't doing what was asked.
Was asking what you took it to have meant.
 

mollyfud

Norm Smith Medallist
Apr 20, 2005
5,320
128
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Utah Jazz, Vikings
Re: Is it beyond the realms of possibility for the AFL to cover up a drug incident involving a playe

Well if Andy D did say that then he is in contradiction to the policy that they have outlined in that brochure. An inconsistency in the policy perhaps?
I'm also guessing that he did not give an exact time frame that counselling ends and testing begins did he?

He suggested a timeframe (weeks or a month or something) and I am not sure how that is outside of the policy, rather it is clarifying terminology. I think anyone hanging their hat on this as the workaround of the policy are off the mark!

For Tuck no question between the lines. I believe he is referring to "state" outside of football. I mean if it was an injury he would say "he couldn't play because of an injury" and if it was because of an injury I fail to see why Tuck would of taken that news as hard as he did. I wasn't insinuating that Clarkson knew he was on drugs but that he was not right at the time he was told that he could not play as you say whether that was drugs, depression or combination of both. The way he put it sounds like they knew something wasn't right, and therefore thought his preparation for the game was not good enough. Their not doctors but from obviously from a footy perspective he wasn't doing what was asked.
Was asking what you took it to have meant.

He had been battling injury and wasn't in cherry ripe form. Clarko's words were:
"he hadn't had the same preparation as what other guys had in the previous 3 or 4 weeks and perhaps...our idea was you'll get another week of training and play next week. Travis just looks at that as being dropped in the state that he was in. 'I'm dropped, I'm no longer any good'."

The last 2 lines were projecting what we now know was probably how Travis was feeling and not what the club knew at the time.

Just to take a slight side step, this, to me, is why Jeff Kennett so vigorously argued that more in the club should be informed about issues so the club can help out better. Before Tuck issue, I was a strong believer that clubs leak to much to let more then the doctor know but after, I can see Jeff's point. Seeing as the process isn't changing, I asked the club if there was any thought that the club should sort of assume any player could be in a bad state (depression) and provide some sort of extra support. Tricky I know. Any way, starting to get off original topic.
 
Re: Is it beyond the realms of possibility for the AFL to cover up a drug incident involving a playe

Oh, thats right! Dam, he fooled me again! F#$K it!
It's not the first, and it won't be the last time, I'm betting.
 

The Dodger

Norm Smith Medallist
Apr 12, 2010
7,287
7,225
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Re: Is it beyond the realms of possibility for the AFL to cover up a drug incident involving a playe

He suggested a timeframe (weeks or a month or something) and I am not sure how that is outside of the policy, rather it is clarifying terminology. I think anyone hanging their hat on this as the workaround of the policy are off the mark!

How can you say that when he has given no direct timeline other than a suggested time frame in passing in an interview, if he did say that?

There is no terminology that can be clarified.
The policy says (after failing 2 tests) ....."The Player's club Medical Officer is also advised. A suspended sanction of six matches is also applied. The player will again face ongoing target testing"

Where does "we don't test for a suggested period of ........ after a strike" fit in with the above as terminology?

Why is it not ok to hang your hat on a grey area that seems not in line with what you have heard Demetriou say? At the very least it shows an inconsistency and that it is not written in stone hence allowing doubt as to whether the AFL actively pursue a third strike through target testing of a player who is on 2 strikes and going through counselling.

Not sure how you can try to shutdown a glaring grey area as "off the mark"?

Would also like to point out the 180 of your current position. My argument originally was that there was a gap (possibly no testing) in testing after the 2nd strike. To which you replied the AFL have said that there is no gap, which I said that I have not heard them say that, which lead to you finding the brochure. I then point out that that would be inconsistent with people who are being counselled/rehabilitated and you then point out that there is a gap in testing, with vague time frame references from Demetriou in an interview = Rather large Grey area I would say.
 

PINNACLE HEALTH

All Australian
Feb 17, 2007
759
5
bendigo
AFL Club
Carlton
Re: Is it beyond the realms of possibility for the AFL to cover up a drug incident involving a playe

The AFL realise & a aware of how popular pill popping is amongst the players so they have smartly created a testing procedure that can protect the stars on reccies at no detriment the AFL brand, isn't funny how we never know who has failed a test once or twice.
It gives the AFL a chance when a player has had his 1st strike to deal with it hush hush so we never know who it is, star or no star.
Every now & again they will name & suspend/ban a noboby like Travis Tuck so it looks like the AFL are not tolerating drug use.

Lets be honest, if the AFL were fair dinkum about it the would name n shame & ban any player after their 1st failed test but the AFL know that if they rolled upto every club the day after every game & tested every player there would be a huge amount of players tested positive for illegal substances hence the testing procude they have now with several grey ares to cover their butts.
 
Mar 23, 2007
34,928
23,531
Where Premiership dreams are made...
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Man U, Canucks and 49ers
Re: Is it beyond the realms of possibility for the AFL to cover up a drug incident involving a playe

It's in the AFL's best interest to make the players appear purer than they are.

I don't therefore doubt that they make decisions in the best interest of this happening.

By the way, did we ever get to the bottom of who this star player is?
 
Re: Is it beyond the realms of possibility for the AFL to cover up a drug incident involving a playe

The AFL realise & a aware of how popular pill popping is amongst the players so they have smartly created a testing procedure that can protect the stars on reccies at no detriment the AFL brand, isn't funny how we never know who has failed a test once or twice.
It gives the AFL a chance when a player has had his 1st strike to deal with it hush hush so we never know who it is, star or no star.
Every now & again they will name & suspend/ban a noboby like Travis Tuck so it looks like the AFL are not tolerating drug use.

Lets be honest, if the AFL were fair dinkum about it the would name n shame & ban any player after their 1st failed test but the AFL know that if they rolled upto every club the day after every game & tested every player there would be a huge amount of players tested positive for illegal substances hence the testing procude they have now with several grey ares to cover their butts.

So you think players on recreational drugs should be banned?

There goes half the league.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

PINNACLE HEALTH

All Australian
Feb 17, 2007
759
5
bendigo
AFL Club
Carlton
Re: Is it beyond the realms of possibility for the AFL to cover up a drug incident involving a playe

So you think players on recreational drugs should be banned?

There goes half the league.


Not at all, if it doesnt effect there performances i don't care what they do in the private life.

l grew up idolising players performances , not their behavours.
 

lihei

Club Legend
Oct 16, 2003
2,499
307
Blue Balls, Pennsylvania
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Manangatang Thirds
Re: Is it beyond the realms of possibility for the AFL to cover up a drug incident involving a playe

Given that this player would seriously damage the brand the AFL works so feverishly to uphold?

Would it be possible that the AFL played a role in ensuring a third strike never saw the light of day?

Or is this too much too believe?

You could be right 'Buddy'
 
Re: Is it beyond the realms of possibility for the AFL to cover up a drug incident involving a playe

:eek: Hit a nerve?

Stop looking at me 'Swan'.


See, we can all play the game. ;)
 

mollyfud

Norm Smith Medallist
Apr 20, 2005
5,320
128
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Utah Jazz, Vikings
Re: Is it beyond the realms of possibility for the AFL to cover up a drug incident involving a playe

Come on buddy,
I am sure the hawks have nothing to be worried about buddy.

YAWN! I could make a comment about the West Coke Eagles, but I'm above such things!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back