To respond to those earlier posts questioning my "Or is this just anther case of footballers getting away with what others cannot?" comment. It was an (unfounded) concern of mine that the club would seek to 'sweep it under the rug', as we've seen with many things at many other clubs over the years. I was wrong, and am happy about this.
I was hoping that the club would be a little
more strict on him than the regulations ($2.5k fine) allowed. Again, I am glad to be proven wrong. Although, from a personal point of view, I think they could have been stricter than only $3500. There is no place for this action in our society. He is old enough, and has enough experience under his belt to know better. He is in a position of responsibility and prominence, and whether he likes it or not, he MUST set an example. I can only hope the courts deal with this appropriately.
The actions of Ronnie Burns cannot be understated enough. He drove whilst under the influence of alcohol. No ifs, no buts. As he was lucky, and no one was killed/injured, this is an offence that (should) results in a loss of license, which is enough to seriously hinder most people's employment. This would obviously not happen to Ronnie in this way. As the press release states/implies, the AFC have a duty of care to Ronnie, and he will not be sacked over this issue. However, he has lost a lot of points in a lot of peoples opinions, and I certainly will only be cheering for the jumper if he manages a game this season.
And just for the record, there are quite a few jobs out there that you could very realistically expect to get the sack if you were charged with DUI. Police/law enforcement, legal/judicial, military, pilots. (St Kilda FC

)