Players and the turps - should they all stay off it?

[Thats Wright]

The consequences aren’t imaginary. Go into a rehabilitation clinic for people who have been in serious car accidents or been hit by cars. It’s not very nice.

Of course. It's life. There'd be folk who want every rapist castrated, every killer killed.

Probably not the worst idea but give it another 50 years before we start locking people up for crimes they could've committed (except terrorists).

 

[Gone Critical]

The Simpkin thing isn’t a great case study here. If you have a history of getting on the piss and making poor decisions as an AFL player, then you should look at your consumption habits. Seems like that was more of a freak accident that could happen to anyone rather than getting into a car and choosing to drive.

I think this is spot on. Simpkin had a good few drinks it seems, nothing that he is barred from doing by his contract. He then had an accident which can happen, especially after a few drinks. We all know that risk including the NMFC.

You can't punish someone for having an accident.

 

[demondavey]

Of course. It's life. There'd be folk who want every rapist castrated, every killer killed.

Probably not the worst idea but give it another 50 years before we start locking people up for crimes they could've committed (except terrorists).

You just don’t get it. Why is the punishment applied after the fact? In a reactive way? Why allow the actions that cause a serious crime to occur to be given a lighter level punishment? Why not apply a heavy handed punishment to the actions to DETER the offender and hence try and reduce an unhappy outcome?

We know the facts surrounding drink driving right? We know that you’re more likely to be involved in an accident or to lose control of your vehicle whilst under the influence, so why say ‘mate, you’ve been caught DUI, here is a 6 month suspension. You could’ve bloody killed someone’. Why not say ‘Mate, you could’ve killed someone by doing something seriously dangerous, you’ve forfeited your right to drive a car because of your actions today. Here is a 5 year ban’.

If I’d had 4-5 beers and wasn’t sure I was over or not, I’d be thinking ‘if I get done I am done for 5 years!’ That’s ******* major. I’ll definitely get a cab or I’ll just bloody walk. The alternative is saying ‘nah, I am actually ok, I won’t get caught’. Then losing concentration and killing 2 kids and putting the Mum in a Wheelchair.

Heavy s**t....

 

[demondavey]

I am glad your view is consistent and really has nothing to do with De Goey himself but with your belief that DUI punishments are very inadequate.

I don't agree with you and believe taking a licence for 5 years for a 1st offence is too severe. I think 6 months is about correct. Still a pretty big disincentive to DUI

It’s got everything to do with De Goey. He was the idiot caught DUI. He was the idiot that could’ve killed someone. What’s the first offence got to do with it? Has he never heard of drink driving before? Aren’t you sponsored by TAC? Lol.....

You set the precedent early mate, you’ll stop the idiots offending.

How would you feel if your family member got killed by De Goey that night? 6 months still ok?

 

[Thats Wright]

You just don’t get it. Why is the punishment applied after the fact? In a reactive way? Why allow the actions that cause a serious crime to occur to be given a lighter level punishment? Why not apply a heavy handed punishment to the actions to DETER the offender and hence try and reduce an unhappy outcome?

We know the facts surrounding drink driving right? We know that you’re more likely to be involved in an accident or to lose control of your vehicle whilst under the influence, so why say ‘mate, you’ve been caught DUI, here is a 6 month suspension. You could’ve bloody killed someone’. Why not say ‘Mate, you could’ve killed someone by doing something seriously dangerous, you’ve forfeited your right to drive a car because of your actions today. Here is a 5 year ban’.

If I’d had 4-5 beers and wasn’t sure I was over or not, I’d be thinking ‘if I get done I am done for 5 years!’ That’s ******* major. I’ll definitely get a cab or I’ll just bloody walk. The alternative is saying ‘nah, I am actually ok, I won’t get caught’. Then losing concentration and killing 2 kids and putting the Mum in a Wheelchair.

Heavy s**t....

You want to throw a kid into hopelessness for possibly taking a few backstreets and harming nobody?

You'll replace road trauma with suicide, unemployment and recidivist unlicensed drivers.

Bringing down the hammer on those that deliberately cause harm to society would be a better way to begin a police state.

 

[kaiserchief13]

If they stay off it, what alternative is there?

Cutting off alcohol the majority will take drugs instead

 

[demondavey]

You want to throw a kid into hopelessness for possibly taking a few backstreets and harming nobody?

You'll replace road trauma with suicide, unemployment and recidivist unlicensed drivers.

Bringing down the hammer on those that deliberately cause harm to society would be a better way to begin a police state.

Hopelessness? Please, don’t cry for that idiot De Goey. Don’t give me the sob story for some clown who significantly increased his chances of killing someone by driving a car drunk. Unemployment? Ride your bike to work, catch the train or tram, or if that’s too hard don’t be a ******* and drive drunk when you’ve got a choice.

 

[Thats Wright]

Hopelessness? Please, don’t cry for that idiot De Goey. Don’t give me the sob story for some clown who significantly increased his chances of killing someone by driving a car drunk. Unemployment? Ride your bike to work, catch the train or tram, or if that’s too hard don’t be a ******* and drive drunk when you’ve got a choice.

Broadly, most people don't play AFL or live near a tram stop. Hell, some states don't even have trains.

But yea, in your context, this Collingwood player could cope with whatever so it's a matter of PR.

 

[demondavey]

Broadly, most people don't play AFL or live near a tram stop. Hell, some states don't even have trains.

But yea, in your context, this Collingwood player could cope with whatever so it's a matter of PR.

My point is, you’ve got a choice mate. Don’t do something that increases your chance of killing someone, better off it ruins your life in the short term than someone else’s in the long term.

 

[Thats Wright]

My point is, you’ve got a choice mate. Don’t do something that increases your chance of killing someone, better off it ruins your life in the short term than someone else’s in the long term.

One day mate. I'd also suspend those who don't indicate and the pricks that pull into driveways too slowly given the chance.

Personal preference doesn't really count in a free community though.

Cyclists as well. The cure and the cancer all in one.

 

[hoianbulldog]

My god i am glad i have no athletic ability.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

From a health and fitness and optimum performance sort of thing it’d probably be best, but if they just have a few in moderation I doubt it hurts them too much.

2 or 3 beers sometime or a glass of red with dinner isn’t a big deal.

 

[Damon_3388]

I am glad your view is consistent and really has nothing to do with De Goey himself but with your belief that DUI punishments are very inadequate.

I don't agree with you and believe taking a licence for 5 years for a 1st offence is too severe. I think 6 months is about correct. Still a pretty big disincentive to DUI

If potential serious injury or loss of life for yourself or someone else isn't a deterrent (and it doesn't appear to be much of one, as drink-driving is seemingly always viewed by potential offenders through the "getting caught" and legal punishment prism), then lengthier bans probably won't change anything.

The real change and detterent would come with some absolute rules, as in, any age or license level must have zero alcohol in the system, and you're permanently disqualified from driving if caught, even on the first offence.

If you're old enough and capable enough to drink, then you're old enough and capable enough to plan ahead or find alternate means of transport. Public transport, cabs, Uber, etc. aren't hard to find or use, and aren't any more expensive or difficult than the cost of petrol, trying to drive drunk, or the potential outcomes of drink-driving.

 

[Topkent]

I find this thread ludicrous.
Let's ask a 500 odd 18-24 year Olds to swear sober.

Players are already complaining that they aren't enjoying footy as much as they should be, it's become more of a job than a game and something like this would see a lot of players choose another career

 

[Gysberts2Bate]

Yeah everything in moderation. Even the virtue signalling of GF players at the Brownlow swearing off alcohol always seemed a bit extreme to me - I, a scrawny 23yo, can usually have 3-4 beers and pull up fine on a Tuesday morning. I’d be shocked if an incredibly fit professional athlete couldn’t do the same. I suppose it’s a matter of focus but I also feel it’s a matter of being wary of a puritanical culture and a press that’s ready to flog them at the sight of a tilted champagne glass

 

[The Dice Man]

No, I don’t, I believe that De Goey is a member of the public like you and I, and if you were caught that far over I’d expect you to cop 5 years.

My whole point is that giving him a 6 month suspension for committing a crime that could’ve ended someone’s life is pathetic. Don’t you think? If Jordan De Goey hit and killed your family member, would you be happy with him having his car back after 6 months? Think of it that way.

In that case he would be charged with Manslaughter and would probably have got 3 years jail or some token pittance.

My cousin in an alcoholic and an ice addict... He is 40 years old and recently lost his license FOR THE TENTH TIME for driving while under the influence of drugs... for 6 months.

He should have lost it for far longer.

Australia like to fine people. Locking them up doesn't generate revenue. Look out when the country inevitably goes the way of privatisation and watch those sentences increase.

 

[Hellgood]

Yeah everything in moderation. Even the virtue signalling of GF players at the Brownlow swearing off alcohol always seemed a bit extreme to me - I, a scrawny 23yo, can usually have 3-4 beers and pull up fine on a Tuesday morning. I’d be shocked if an incredibly fit professional athlete couldn’t do the same. I suppose it’s a matter of focus but I also feel it’s a matter of being wary of a puritanical culture and a press that’s ready to flog them at the sight of a tilted champagne glass

I don't have an issue with players having the odd drink or two throughout the season or even up to the week off in September, but surely a player would be insane to be touching alcohol should they be fortunate enough to be part of grand final week. At that stage of the year, participating players bodies are battered, bruised with many carrying through niggles that might otherwise keep them out if it was earlier in the season. Given the negative effects of alcohol on recovery of the body surely no player would take the risk of doing anything detrimental to their body going into the biggest match of their lives.

 

[Gone Critical]

It’s got everything to do with De Goey. He was the idiot caught DUI. He was the idiot that could’ve killed someone. What’s the first offence got to do with it? Has he never heard of drink driving before? Aren’t you sponsored by TAC? Lol.....

You set the precedent early mate, you’ll stop the idiots offending.

How would you feel if your family member got killed by De Goey that night? 6 months still ok?

I mean you believe everyone caught DUI should lose their licence for 5 years not just De Goey.

It is way too strong a penalty and there is no prospect the authorities would remotely consider such a draconian punishment. Your view is extreme and would have very little to no support in the community so there is not much else to say.

It's a moot argument re 6 months and someone being killed. If that was too happen De Goey probably faces jail time. So a much more severe penalty that 5 years loss of licence.

 

[Gone Critical]

The real change and detterent would come with some absolute rules, as in, any age or license level must have zero alcohol in the system, and you're permanently disqualified from driving if caught, even on the first offence.

Not sure if you are saying this is something you would support but it's a very extreme idea that would have no support. I would give it no support.

 

[Damon_3388]

Not sure if you are saying this is something you would support but it's a very extreme idea that would have no support. I would give it no support.

Well, there's two parts:

Would you (or anyone) support a 0.00 limit?

Would you (or anyone) support permanent disqualification from driving on the first offence?

Personally, I would support the first one, because I feel an allowance for any alcohol creates too many situations where people "take their chances". If they know they're supposed to be at zero, then it's absolutely clear-cut.

I'm more flexible on the penalty, but it would certainly change people's thinking and actions, which is a big part of the point of the laws and penalties in the first place.

 

[Gone Critical]

Well, there's two parts:

Would you (or anyone) support a 0.00 limit?

Would you (or anyone) support permanent disqualification from driving on the first offence?

Personally, I would support the first one, because I feel an allowance for any alcohol creates too many situations where people "take their chances". If they know they're supposed to be at zero, then it's absolutely clear-cut.

I'm more flexible on the penalty, but it would certainly change people's thinking and actions, which is a big part of the point of the laws and penalties in the first place.

I would not support at all the 0.00 limit. Like it or not alcohol is our legal drug and permeates our culture. Prohibition type actions which this fits under just don't work. Not a realistic solution. Too extreme and would cause massive change to the way we live and drive. Would never be accepted.

e.g Parents go out for a nice dinner and have a bottle of wine and a cocktail or two. Next morning need to pick up kids from grandparents and then drive kids to neighbouring town for morning sport. Neither can do that because they wont be sure they are 0.00.

The permanent disqualification for the same reasons is an even worse idea.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

nah I don't think so. At least, more accurately, it shouldn't be mandated on them.

They are already mollycoddled from their late teens, they don't need any more external direction on how to live their life I wouldn't have thought. Of course, balance is important, and a few drinks is a good way to bond. But even more so, I tend to think that players can choose to abstain if they want to, and it can be a good way of knowing who is really committed. The guys with the discipline deserve the advantage they get imo.

I hesitate to use a tired old cliche like nanny state, but in general it should be up to the individuals to work out what works for them. The penalty for getting it wrong is pretty harsh for these kids and some of them probably learn some pretty valuable life lessons.

The other issue is that young men are always going to try and have fun and prohibition rarely works. They might just turn even more to pingas and the like if banned from a beer

 

[Ricky Vaughn]

Plenty barely drink.

There are better ways of altering your conscious state that don't adversely affect your fitness.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

I think a lot of Australians in general can’t really handle their drink.

Even the meaning of the phrase is distorted. A lot of parts of Europe “being able to handle your drink“ means being satisfied with a glass of wine at dinner and not feeling compelled to keep drinking. Here it often means being able to drink the best part of a slab and stay standing (sort of).

Professional sport is that weird intersection of incredible self-discipline and incredible egoistic self-indulgence. Not surprised some footy players struggle to set limits for themselves.

I don’t really know what I’m saying. I’m on the train and I just started typing.
But I think I’m saying although it depends on the individual, I suspect more footy players than not might benefit from jumping on the wagon.

 

[Thats Wright]

nah I don't think so. At least, more accurately, it shouldn't be mandated on them.

They are already mollycoddled from their late teens, they don't need any more external direction on how to live their life I wouldn't have thought. Of course, balance is important, and a few drinks is a good way to bond. But even more so, I tend to think that players can choose to abstain if they want to, and it can be a good way of knowing who is really committed. The guys with the discipline deserve the advantage they get imo.

I hesitate to use a tired old cliche like nanny state, but in general it should be up to the individuals to work out what works for them. The penalty for getting it wrong is pretty harsh for these kids and some of them probably learn some pretty valuable life lessons.

The other issue is that young men are always going to try and have fun and prohibition rarely works. They might just turn even more to pingas and the like if banned from a beer

It is a bit of a balancing act.

You don't really want the sjw's and terrorists to win but you want a safe as realistic environment.

For all the negatives associated with alcohol there are plenty of positives that have countries that indulge clearly more livable.

Who doesn't know people that are only bearable to talk to under the influence? Inviting the neigbour over for water and crackers rarely ends with connection.

Unfortunately a society of whiny and safe nerds is going to be hell in a few decades.