3rdgenbulldog
Senior List
- Mar 14, 2022
- 171
- 309
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
Thanks dad
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Thanks dad
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.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.
Personally - Don't give two shits what a player does in the off season, go to Columbia and become Pablo for all I care.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...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.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 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.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.
schadenfreudenlich (is that a word?)
Yeah because use/possession laws are a farce. I don't think you'd get much argument from anyone regarding trafficking illegal substances though.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.
Disagree with the first bits but I'm probably in the minority.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.
Proof is in the pudding. The war on drugs has cost billions and achieved nothing.Disagree with the first bits but I'm probably in the minority.
Just hate seeing people * themselves up with drugs.
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?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.Proof is in the pudding. The war on drugs has cost billions and achieved nothing.
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.
Only Bulldog players so we win it every yearOnce you get rid of the players on party drugs, cheaters, liars and sycophants who will be left?
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
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).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.
This is a very valid viewpoint, and in good faith.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.
Interesting. Haven't had a chance to survey things yet. What's the gist of the zeitgeist on this?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.
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 whyInteresting. Haven't had a chance to survey things yet. What's the gist of the zeitgeist on this?
Once you get rid of the players on party drugs, cheaters, liars and sycophants who will be left?
Does it need to be explained the difference between theft, fraud, murder, assault, etc etc and consuming/possessing an illicit substance?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.