No Oppo Supporters Non Bulldog Footy Talk - Bulldogs only - Part 5

[3rdgenbulldog]

View attachment 1940898

Cover ups are okay. Mmkay

Thanks dad

 

[threenewpadlocks]

There is a statement, but these are the key takeaways from it. Essentially, the AFL has worked with clubs and doctors to basically cover up players that are on or have been on drugs:



The last bit is basically “we don’t condone it, but won’t reaallllly try to stop anyone doing them.

Now it will just bring up suspicion when a player is a “late withdrawal” for a previously unspecified injury.

The implications go beyond that, though. AFL have admitted that they're not adhering to their agreed-upon policy with ASADA/WADA. They're self-admittedly giving them the run around. Doping violations exist outside of just positive tests in and of themselves (it remains true, for example, that Lance Armstrong never tested positive but is banned for life), and it may be interpreted that the AFL itself - in its press release and despite trying to use the terms "medical model" as obfuscation - is institutionally committing violations.

This has legs and it's the starting point of the AFL already admitting what it does. Purely from an anti-doping perspective, I can see this dragging on and being as important as the Essendon saga.

 

[Merlins Revenge]

 

[Planet Dogs]

I don't care who this offends.
I'm now sick of these overpaid c**ts on illegal "party drugs" being protected by the AFL. I don't care if they are WB or non-WB players.
AFL fans should take a stand.
In an ideal world, I would like to see all new WB contracts include illegal drug use as a breach.

 

[BulldogMuscle]

I don't care who this offends.
I'm now sick of these overpaid c**ts on illegal "party drugs" being protected by the AFL. I don't care if they are WB or non-WB players.
AFL fans should take a stand.
In an ideal world, I would like to see all new WB contracts include illegal drug use as a breach.

Personally - Don't give two shits what a player does in the off season, go to Columbia and become Pablo for all I care.

During the season I want you to act 100% right, no booze, earn your pay, prep, recover, and play your best and represent the club in the best way you can. If Joe-Bob has to pass a drug test to earn minimum wage in some s**t-kicking job, these sports stars should be held to the same standard.

But off season? Go nuts. They are humans to and getting high is just apart of the human condition, has been for millions of years as much as some people like to deny it.

 

[dogwatch]

I don't care who this offends.
I'm now sick of these overpaid c**ts on illegal "party drugs" being protected by the AFL. I don't care if they are WB or non-WB players.
AFL fans should take a stand.
In an ideal world, I would like to see all new WB contracts include illegal drug use as a breach.

This is not a potshot at you PD, just a general observation...

None of us should get too self-righteous or schadenfreudenlich (is that a word?) until we see how it all pans out. Sounds like there might have been quite a few clubs into this caper.

Despite all we have come to despise about Melbourne it turns out they have a few whistleblowers with enough integrity (or enough of an axe to grind) to actually go public through Andrew Wilkie. That might be the only reason Melbourne FC's name has come up first.

I'm less concerned about the drug use itself than I am about the alleged corruption.

 

[Fossie 32]

I don't care who this offends.
I'm now sick of these overpaid c**ts on illegal "party drugs" being protected by the AFL. I don't care if they are WB or non-WB players.
AFL fans should take a stand.
In an ideal world, I would like to see all new WB contracts include illegal drug use as a breach.

Yeah bottom line is it's against the law to use, possess, cultivate or traffic a drug of dependence, including marijuana, heroin, amphetamines, cocaine, LSD and ecstasy.
But the AwFL half regard it as a medical issue rather than a legal one [conveniently].
If it was some other crime I guess people would care more about it, whether in or out of season.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Yeah bottom line is it's against the law to use, possess, cultivate or traffic a drug of dependence, including marijuana, heroin, amphetamines, cocaine, LSD and ecstasy.
But the AwFL half regard it as a medical issue rather than a legal one [conveniently].
If it was some other crime I guess people would care more about it, whether in or out of season.

I don't want to get into a debate about other poster's views on society and morality but it doesn't necessarily mean that it's in the AFL's remit. Employers of all types would not care if their employees committed certain crimes. In any case, the policy as it is formed in part because of a employers negotiating with a body that has 100% union membership. Even if you liked the fact that the AFL did enforce stricter drug policies, the AFLPA would almost certainly take strike action.

 

[geoffjennings79]

schadenfreudenlich (is that a word?)

Who cares if it's a word or not, it's certainly enhanced my perusing of BF for the day!

 

[BEaston]

Yeah bottom line is it's against the law to use, possess, cultivate or traffic a drug of dependence, including marijuana, heroin, amphetamines, cocaine, LSD and ecstasy.
But the AwFL half regard it as a medical issue rather than a legal one [conveniently].
If it was some other crime I guess people would care more about it, whether in or out of season.

Yeah because use/possession laws are a farce. I don't think you'd get much argument from anyone regarding trafficking illegal substances though.

It should be a medical issue rather than a legal one, something that society is starting to come around to.

Having said that, it's pretty laughable that the AFL are actively protecting players from positive tests, if the claims are true.

I don't think it's right but it would be also pretty hypocritical by them to go the other way, as I'd say a similar percentage of the administration are partaking just as much.

 

[BIG_BONTS]

I just got mail that an 'enhanced' AFL post-season carnival might be on the cards. Dillion is particularly partial to it. Mandatory beers and a ciggie at half time. Nick Daicos and Bailey Smith

6

Bailey Smith

Age

23

Ht

185cm

Wt

86kg

Pos.

M/F

Career

Season

Last 5

D

18.3

5star

K

8.5

3star

HB

9.8

5star

M

2.3

2star

T

3.8

5star

CL

2.7

4star

D

19.8

5star

K

9.6

4star

HB

10.2

5star

M

1.8

2star

T

3.2

4star

CL

3.2

4star

D

14.8

4star

K

7.6

3star

HB

7.2

5star

M

2.0

3star

T

3.4

5star

CL

1.6

4star

to be the face of it with their new beer. All to pay for the Tassie team which will cost the league a billion dollars over 10 years

 

[Fossie 32]

Yeah because use/possession laws are a farce. I don't think you'd get much argument from anyone regarding trafficking illegal substances though.

It should be a medical issue rather than a legal one, something that society is starting to come around to.

Having said that, it's pretty laughable that the AFL are actively protecting players from positive tests, if the claims are true.

I don't think it's right but it would be also pretty hypocritical by them to go the other way, as I'd say a similar percentage of the administration are partaking just as much.

Disagree with the first bits but I'm probably in the minority.
Just hate seeing people * themselves up with drugs.

 

[BEaston]

Disagree with the first bits but I'm probably in the minority.
Just hate seeing people * themselves up with drugs.

Proof is in the pudding. The war on drugs has cost billions and achieved nothing.

 

[Fossie 32]

Proof is in the pudding. The war on drugs has cost billions and achieved nothing.

The 'war' on other crimes isn't going too well either [many of them drug related] but we aren't giving up on that are we?

I'm not buying labelling drug use in players as just a medical issue. More of a party issue in many cases I would say.

 

[Norm De Guerre]

Today's brouhaha is just another example of the AFL engineering an outcome that would inevitably blew up in their face.

Its seems pretty apparent that both the AFL and AFLPA built a back door workaround into their policy so as protect the game from the PR disaster of having countless players being forced out of the game due to game day testing.

Dunno, but It seems to go something like this. Player X goes on a Bolivian marching powder binge with his civvy mates. Knowing full well that all he has to do is go to and see Dr Howlong who will give him cover knowing that he has little hope of passing a drug test should he be tested. Dr Howlong reports to the club that said player has a minor whatever and will be an out for 4 weeks. Everybody looks sideways ,laughs and nobody outside the inner sanctum is non the wiser. The way its supposed to be.

Its little wonder that the only players that seem to get drug strikes these days are the ones dumb enough to post the evidence on social media.

 

[BIG_BONTS]

Proof is in the pudding. The war on drugs has cost billions and achieved nothing.

Not only did it achieve nothing but it has had the unintended consequence of harming society more than the drugs themselves.

If anyone is curious I highly recommend 'In the realm of hungry ghosts by Gabor Maté'

 

[Dazb86]

I don't care who this offends.
I'm now sick of these overpaid c**ts on illegal "party drugs" being protected by the AFL. I don't care if they are WB or non-WB players.
AFL fans should take a stand.
In an ideal world, I would like to see all new WB contracts include illegal drug use as a breach.

I have pretty much the exact opposite view on players taking illicit drugs. Performance enhancing I completely agree.

I feel like you could maybe make a vague argument for an OH&S breach with an AFL player taking drugs. Perhaps they could have a heart attack potentially or something along those lines.

 

[BIG_BONTS]

Once you get rid of the players on party drugs, cheaters, liars and sycophants who will be left?

 

[Fossie 32]

Once you get rid of the players on party drugs, cheaters, liars and sycophants who will be left?

Only Bulldog players so we win it every year

 

[Planet Dogs]

I have pretty much the exact opposite view on players taking illicit drugs. Performance enhancing I completely agree.

I feel like you could maybe make a vague argument for an OH&S breachm

This is not a potshot at you PD, just a general observation...

None of us should get too self-righteous or schadenfreudenlich (is that a word?) until we see how it all pans out. Sounds like there might have been quite a few clubs into this caper.

Despite all we have come to despise about Melbourne it turns out they have a few whistleblowers with enough integrity (or enough of an axe to grind) to actually go public through Andrew Wilkie. That might be the only reason Melbourne FC's name has come up first.

I'm less concerned about the drug use itself than I am about the alleged corruption.

I agree with the schadenfreude observation. We know WB players have been (are?) on the gear. To the club's (Bevos?) credit we have shunted out some prime suspects. I have no idea if we are better or worse than other clubs (I hope better).

I tend towards liberalism. I believe the "war on drugs" is an abject failure. I believe a sensible decriminalization approach is the way to go.

However, two things have really triggered me about this "brouhaha" (I actually hope this builds into something bigger):

1. The acceptance of casual corruption by the ALF and Melbourne FC (I f**king hope not the WB): WTF: Club doctors saying to players "Just lie and fake an injury" This beggars belief!!! How the F*k is this acceptable?
2. I'm one of 2 million (a guess) "punters" (hate that term) who support this industry (hate that term) year after year, and spend/generate $1,000 p.a. (a guess) each ($2 Billion p.a.) to this industry and it's highly paid participates. I don't care if Joe Blogs down the street is on the gear. But like most of the 2 Million schmucks that create the revenue for this industry, I'm not OK with breaking the law.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

I agree with the schadenfreude observation. We know WB players have been (are?) on the gear. To the club's (Bevos?) credit we have shunted out some prime suspects. I have no idea if we are better or worse than other clubs (I hope better).

I tend towards liberalism. I believe the "war on drugs" is an abject failure. I believe a sensible decriminalization approach is the way to go.

However, two things have really triggered me about this "brouhaha" (I actually hope this builds into something bigger):

1. The acceptance of casual corruption by the ALF and Melbourne FC (I f**king hope not the WB): WTF: Club doctors saying to players "Just lie and fake an injury" This beggars belief!!! How the F*k is this acceptable?
2. I'm one of 2 million (a guess) "punters" (hate that term) who support this industry (hate that term) year after year, and spend/generate $1,000 p.a. (a guess) each ($2 Billion p.a.) to this industry and it's highly paid participates. I don't care if Joe Blogs down the street is on the gear. But like most of the 2 Million schmucks that create the revenue for this industry, I'm not OK with breaking the law.

This is a very valid viewpoint, and in good faith.

Reading the main board and a few other clubs' boards there's lots of bad faith going on. Intelligent people deliberately missing the point.

 

[Planet Dogs]

This is a very valid viewpoint, and in good faith.

Reading the main board and a few other clubs' boards there's lots of bad faith going on. Intelligent people deliberately missing the point.

Interesting. Haven't had a chance to survey things yet. What's the gist of the zeitgeist on this?

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Interesting. Haven't had a chance to survey things yet. What's the gist of the zeitgeist on this?

The thing is, I don't think anyone at all is really discussing what should be the main point - that it's just a bad look (and poor anti-doping integrity) to know that a player may test positive on game day, remove them from games, and lie about the reason why

• Certain drugs are banned on match-day only, including cocaine
• The AFL is doing its own testing to see, knowing how long it takes drugs to flush out of your system, whether a player may test positive for a performance enhancing drug, and standing them out of games.

The AFL admitted to not wanting players to contravene match-day anti-doping in its press release, but it also covers up the (obviously using common sense absurd and highly improbable) scenario that a player is using cocaine as a match-day performance enhancer.

Imagine if a Tour de France cyclist pulled out of the Tour de France immediately before the start - and the reason was because is that the team admits that they will have banned match-day (or race-day) substances in their system if they were to begin the race. Everyone would safely assume that the rider was trying to dope in the Tour de France and win. The principle of what the AFL itself is admitting to is essentially the same.

 

[W W Biscuit]

Once you get rid of the players on party drugs, cheaters, liars and sycophants who will be left?

The Bont

 

[BEaston]

The 'war' on other crimes isn't going too well either [many of them drug related] but we aren't giving up on that are we?

I'm not buying labelling drug use in players as just a medical issue. More of a party issue in many cases I would say.

Does it need to be explained the difference between theft, fraud, murder, assault, etc etc and consuming/possessing an illicit substance?

In any case, if a murder is prevented by policing, that is a life saved. Crimes with victims deserve punishment/justice.
Wasting time busting old mate smoking a joint while doing nothing to hurt anyone, isn't helping society at all.

I agree for the vast majority it is a party/life style/personal choice "issue", rather than a medical issue which makes it even less noteworthy. Meanwhile, the most dangerous party drug of all is legal. Not saying you are, but drawing lines in the sand around the nonsensical legalities of substances is not something I can get around.