it's time for zero tolerance

[r dub 19]

I'm sick of all these drug scandals it is tarnishing our beautiful game. The AFL needs to have zero tolerance on the drug issue. It's time for in house testing , all results should be sent to the AFL and everything kept confidential. It has gotten to the point where people only pick up the papper to look for players off field beahviour and not how well a team has played etc. And for those who say players are no different to any other people in society and should not have to be under such scrutiny need to rethink. AFL players have to be treated differently they are role models they are responsible for upholding the brand of the AFL and for that they are expected to act within the law. As uncle ben said "with great power comes great responsibilty" this is exactly the case with players. They don't get paid large amounts of money to ruin the game. It's time for a change.

 

[sauce_head]

No, the media should only report on football related matters. If they were not always under the spot light, they would be under less pressure and not have to resort to drugs and drink for an outlet.

I consider no player a role model, personally. I do consder several CEOs and business people role models, and people who present the match on the television. They do not have as greater intrusion on their lives, or get subjected to stringent drug testing regiemes, if they did, my God, we would see a lot greater percentage of stories, considering what I have witnessed first hand.

I do agree that test results should be kept confidential though.

 

[hype]

No, the media should only report on football related matters. If they were not always under the spot light, they would be under less pressure and not have to resort to drugs and drink for an outlet.

I consider no player a role model, personally. I do consder several CEOs and business people role models, and people who present the match on the television. They do not have as greater intrusion on their lives, or get subjected to stringent drug testing regiemes, if they did, my God, we would see a lot greater percentage of stories, considering what I have witnessed first hand.

I do agree that test results should be kept confidential though.

Thats quite the cop out. They did the wrong, face the consequences. And yes I agree, we need to do something. Firstly 3 strikes is too much, I think you should get the 1 warning and then your out.

 

[sauce_head]

Thats quite the cop out. They did the wrong, face the consequences. And yes I agree, we need to do something. Firstly 3 strikes is too much, I think you should get the 1 warning and then your out.

I will not bother getting into another one of these, except to say that if the media were so concerned about the image of role models and the affect it has on the youth, they would not report this information in a format easily digested by thise under 14.

I can see your point, but mine is always that of media respolsibility. They have none, but should be held to account. Of course try to get that printed in the papers...

 

[huntos]

Thats quite the cop out. They did the wrong, face the consequences. And yes I agree, we need to do something. Firstly 3 strikes is too much, I think you should get the 1 warning and then your out.

Illicit drugs are addictive, once you take them you are more likely to take them again, thats why a 1 strike policy will not work.

Shaming players in the media for doing something that their friends from high school most likely do every weekend also seems like the media arn't really tackling the drugs problem either.

The current policy has been backed by the best drug addiction and rehabilatation experts in the country, why should the AFL bow down to government pressure when they think that when footballers stop taking drugs the issue goes away?

The AFL are serious about stopping their players from taking drugs, thats why the policy is in place. The only thing that needs to be done is more tests, if players get caught the system has been proven to work (until private medical records are stolen). The current system shouldn't be thrown out because channel 7 finds out that footballers take drugs and journalists are worried about the welfare of their children over the welfare of the people with the problem in the first place.

 

[sauce_head]

The current system shouldn't be thrown out because channel 7 finds out that footballers take drugs and journalists are worried about the welfare of their children over the welfare of the people with the problem in the first place.

I can't help it! You are right, if journos are so concerned about the health of their children, surely they do not go home and tell them that their hero takes drugs!

I am relatively confident that as a percentage of the population footy players take less than the general population. Especially given the governance. Why do they beat it up to fever point? To sell papers. Why is it the publics right to know that Ben Cousins took drugs? To sell papers. The media have a sickening influence upon public thought, and no method of control.

Any journo that tells you they have a differenct agenda is either a liar, or has enough cash to retire.

I think most parents would love their children to become pro athletes. They grow up fit, heathy, generally with good pay and post career time and money. They can discount the drug histeria as just that, given the percentages. Hell, they would be worse in finance!

 

[Messenger]

I can't help it! You are right, if journos are so concerned about the health of their children, surely they do not go home and tell them that their hero takes drugs!

I am relatively confident that as a percentage of the population footy players take less than the general population. Especially given the governance. Why do they beat it up to fever point? To sell papers. Why is it the publics right to know that Ben Cousins took drugs? To sell papers. The media have a sickening influence upon public thought, and no method of control.

Any journo that tells you they have a differenct agenda is either a liar, or has enough cash to retire.

I think most parents would love their children to become pro athletes. They grow up fit, heathy, generally with good pay and post career time and money. They can discount the drug histeria as just that, given the percentages. Hell, they would be worse in finance!

A point well made.

No one's interests are served by a "zero tolerance" approach. These are illicit drugs; testing only occurs with the agreement of the players. These guys need help, no to be pilloried.

The AFL has no capacity to do testing "in house". Hence they have tendered the work out to a major pathology lab. They are bound by the same confidentiality rules as all healthcare workers.

 

[campbell]

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22520718-2,00.html

 

[timthefish]

zero tolerance does not work.

 

[jenny61_99]

For the person that said footballers probably use less than the general population - these guys have more money and more spare time than the general population - therefore more opportunity. They seem to have a party mentality - just look at the general carryings on when teams travel! That's not ALL players but a very good proportion. Illicit drug use is a problem with society in general, but for any high profile person (who, because of that high profile, is also seen as a role-model), it is a major issue. Zero tolerance is the only way to go - if they know that by taking this pill or snorting this coke there is a very big chance they will be booted out of the sport, they might think twice.

 

[timthefish]

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22520718-2,00.html

yet another stupid article that places the focus of potential management on drug use and not on obvious mental illness.

 

[campbell]

yet another stupid article that places the focus of potential management on drug use and not on obvious mental illness.

So, ALL people who use drugs have a mental illness?

Thats interesting.

 

[Dyslexic Emo]

Mate, I take drugs, and I play for in proffesional sport series(not going to mention which one)....If i recreationally use something while i'm injured (when most of the players use them) then it's my choice....If I get caught then so be it....I don't think that I should be banned for something that 25% of the youths population use on a regular basis, just becuase 'your sick of hearing it'

get a life mate, i'm your freind, your neighbour, your lift, your entry, your idol, your server of fast food, your policeman, your lawyer, you name it....zero tolerance was around during the stolen generstion you trogloditic freak....if you want those times.....then don't live here!!!!

get used to it....people aren't perfect....that's it

if we hurt anyone else then incriminate us....until that S&^K MY D#^K

 

[fossman]

Many employers drug test workers these days. These ordinary workers get one strike, caught with drugs in the system and you are sacked, end of story.

Football players earn huge money, not because they play football, but because they have value in marketing terms, if they don't want to be role models they should play in lesser leagues were no body gives a shit what you do. There are massive responsibilities that go with earning huge money.

The government spend a fortune every year trying to teach kids to stay away from drugs. When kids see their sporting heros take illegal drugs without consequence this message is undermined.

Stuff the spoilt pricks, why should they get three chances when the average worker gets one?

 

[MarkT]

Zero tolerance? Exactly what do you propose to do about the MANY players who have been and will be trying something out in their own time? Suspend them all? Why do you think you have the right to impose your standards on footballers? If footballers undertake illegal practices they are subject to the same legal ramifications as dentists and plumbers.

As for ruining the game, on the same basis AD and the AFL justify anything they get criticised over, the game has never been healthier. Not sure I buy that crap but I also don’t know that drug scandals etc actually do any harm at all to the game. A few fringe dwellers might rant and rave about the issues like drugs and bumping poor grown men too hard but they are either paid whingers like journos or non footballer followers in the main. Punters like us that get on here and complain about this and that turn up at the gates or on the couch next week and the week after that and do the same year after Year.

The AFL harp on about brand damage when it suits and deny it when they are the cause.

 

[Father Jack]

Many employers drug test workers these days. These ordinary workers get one strike, caught with drugs in the system and you are sacked, end of story.

Football players earn huge money, not because they play football, but because they have value in marketing terms, if they don't want to be role models they should play in lesser leagues were no body gives a shit what you do. There are massive responsibilities that go with earning huge money.

The government spend a fortune every year trying to teach kids to stay away from drugs. When kids see their sporting heros take illegal drugs without consequence this message is undermined.

Stuff the spoilt pricks, why should they get three chances when the average worker gets one?

Many employers? Such as who? I would have thought that those in charge of big, expensive and dangerous equipment would be, but not yer average joe.

 

[fossman]

Many employers? Such as who? I would have thought that those in charge of big, expensive and dangerous equipment would be, but not yer average joe.

Take the NSW rail network for a start. They don't just test train drivers but all workers including sub contractors. Get caught get the sack. No strikes.

Drug testing of employees is far more common in Australia than anyone realises. The way the AFLPA carries on you would think they were the only people that were tested.

 

[Father Jack]

Take the NSW rail network for a start. They don't just test train drivers but all workers including sub contractors. Get caught get the sack. No strikes.

Drug testing of employees is far more common in Australia than anyone realises. The way the AFLPA carries on you would think they were the only people that were tested.

They'd be in charge of big, expensive and dangerous machinery then. Who are footy players gonna hurt? If you have a job where you could potentially kill someone then it is fair enough.

 

[Trickstar]

Many employers? Such as who? I would have thought that those in charge of big, expensive and dangerous equipment would be, but not yer average joe.

Just about every mine or large constructions project drug and alcohol test their employees on their first day of their shift. However if they tested government sectors they will find they are all dopes!

 

[fossman]

They'd be in charge of big, expensive and dangerous machinery then. Who are footy players gonna hurt? If you have a job where you could potentially kill someone then it is fair enough.

No, they test all employees, not just the ones that operate heavy machinery, even subcontractors that do the fit outs etc. Even some of the big accounting/law firms test their workers, it is not about safety but image. Shearers have been subjected to drug testing, now I realise they are in control of sheep but I wouldn't have thought there would be much public danger there.

Who are footballers gonna hurt? Well from an OHS point of veiw, each other. From the clubs point of view they will hurt the credibility and marketability of the club. My point is that plenty of Australian workers are drug tested but AFL players are the only ones that bitch and moan about it.

 

[Dyslexic Emo]

Many employers drug test workers these days. These ordinary workers get one strike, caught with drugs in the system and you are sacked, end of story.

Mate the reaon why 'these companies' have these testing is because of health and safety regultions...ie: dont use high grade explosives when stoned/high/drunk.....so yeah in that situation i agree, as their actions would endanger others, here on the other hand endangers no one bar ousleves

 

[Dyslexic Emo]

No, they test all employees, not just the ones that operate heavy machinery, even subcontractors that do the fit outs etc. Even some of the big accounting/law firms test their workers, it is not about safety but image. Shearers have been subjected to drug testing, now I realise they are in control of sheep but I wouldn't have thought there would be much public danger there.

Who are footballers gonna hurt? Well from an OHS point of veiw, each other. From the clubs point of view they will hurt the credibility and marketability of the club. My point is that plenty of Australian workers are drug tested but AFL players are the only ones that bitch and moan about it.

I'm not bitching and moanign about it....but as you said alot of these companies do have drug testing...but NONE of them are zero tolereance and if they are then they are low skilled (were you could find any bum to do it) and it wouldnt matter so who cares....everyone desevers the chance to rehabilitate themselves....think about it....your 15....you get picked up by a scout....your taken away to some institiue to play sport (which used to be with your mates but is now with randoms hence no longer a social thing) and then when you go out....who are tyou gonig to meet???

 

[Father Jack]

No, they test all employees, not just the ones that operate heavy machinery, even subcontractors that do the fit outs etc. Even some of the big accounting/law firms test their workers, it is not about safety but image. Shearers have been subjected to drug testing, now I realise they are in control of sheep but I wouldn't have thought there would be much public danger there.

Who are footballers gonna hurt? Well from an OHS point of veiw, each other. From the clubs point of view they will hurt the credibility and marketability of the club. My point is that plenty of Australian workers are drug tested but AFL players are the only ones that bitch and moan about it.

Well, I guess it may be an equality thing with the railways, ie if some have to be tested then all have to be tested, and as for shearing, that seems fair enough as well. Poor sheep have it tough as it is.

Also, do most Australian workers find their name in the papers as drug users with little or illegally gained evidence? That tends to be what the AFLPA bitches about.

 

[costanza]

Once again, and if we say it slowly and loudly......IT IS ZERO TOLERANCE ON GAME DAY!!!! when they may 'hurt' other people (but this is obviously more for the performance enhancing results). Train Drivers, Dogman etc. are NOT tested on holidays or after hours at ALL.

You try and equate these other jobs, but NONE are tested after hours except for Footballers. AND that is where the 3 strikes is. Turn up for Work (gameday) and you get 2 years!! no if nor buts....

 

[fossman]

Most Australian workers don't find their confidential medical records reported in the media, obviously that is a product of crap journalism.

Zero tolerance exists for most other workers drug tested. NSW premier only confirmed last week that anyone testing positive in NSW rail system would be dismissed immediately. These chaps are tradesmen, not low skilled workers, in fact highly skilled craftsmen.

I'm not suggesting that zero tolerance is the way to go, everyone deserves a chance. But if the AFL player on $500,000 a year gets 3 chances then I reckon the apprentice fitter on $20,000 should get the same opportunity.

I find it strange that the issue of testing AFL players and the 3 strikes policy causes so much controversy and discussion when the introduction of drug testing for the average worker never caused a ripple.