Ronnie in trouble

[Fergus]

Originally posted by DaveW


Didn't St Kilda face this sort of double standard with Lawrence and Gehrig last year?

And failed miserably.

Marvin is 100% correct. Once the line is drawn in the sand, the same rules have to apply to everybody.

 

[napsyd]

Burns fined by Crows
11:44:17 AM Tue 16 March, 2004
Alan Shiell
Sportal

Adelaide has fined Ronnie Burns $3500 for being charged with drink-driving after a car accident.

Adelaide chief executive officer Steven Trigg said in a prepared statement on Tuesday that the club had fined Burns $3500 and would enforce mandatory counselling under the AFL/AFL Players Association code of conduct (on behaviour) and within the provisions of the club’s player rules.

Burns would be fined $1500 for each non-appearance at the counselling sessions.

“In addition, and further to the AFL’s existing program and the club’s educational programs, the entire playing group will undertake further briefings within the next week on the issue of drink-driving,” Trigg said.

“The club is extremely disappointed with this situation and the tarnishing of the image of the game and our club. Every endeavour will be made to ensure that all players are aware of their responsibilities.”

Trigg said Adelaide’s football operations committee had met at AAMI Stadium on Tuesday morning to consider the issue relating to Burns’s accident on Sunday morning – ‘and the fact that he was breath-tested and found to be over the legal limit’.

Burns received cuts, bruises and slight concussion when his four-wheel-drive vehicle struck a gutter and rolled over near his home at Tennyson, a north-western suburb of Adelaide, in the early hours of Sunday morning. No-one else was involved in the accident.

It is believed Burns and friends had been celebrating his 31st birthday (on Saturday). He had played for the Crows against Port Adelaide in a Wizard Regional Challenge Series match at Kadina on Saturday.

Burns, an elusive left-footed forward, has played 152 AFL matches – 134 with Geelong from 1996-2002 and 18 for Adelaide last season.

____________________________________________________

Handled well IMO. Without belittling the issue, hopefully Ronnie understands what he did and more importantly what he could have done. And hopefully the group are not unsettled by this.

 

[maccas_no1]

It's pretty disapointing that this has happened so close to the start of the season but it has been delt with and needs to be put in the past now, the club must now focus on 2004 and winning the premiership. Ronnie and the rest of the playing group must now focus on that Let ****er's like Sheehan and Rucci play aound with this bull****.

 

[MarksGirl-kbcrowgirl]

Re: Re: Ronnie in trouble

Originally posted by Macca19
Brett Burton lives a couple of doors down from me and he had a huge party yesterday and most of the Crows players and Eagles players were there. No doubt Ronnie would have been at that.

OMG Macca19!!! Why the hell didn't you have a Bigfooty party at the same time! hahaha

k
xx

 

[Stiffy_18]

I think $3,500 fine and counselling is fair. However, since Ronnie is a repeat offender when it comes to booze, I think the club should have been a bit stricter if he misses counselling sessions. I think the club should have said, we will fine you $3,500 and you need to go to counselling. If you miss a counselling session your AFL career with the club is over.

This would have given Ronnie no choice but to straighten himself out.

 

[MarksGirl-kbcrowgirl]

Well I think he has embarrassed himself, his club and his people. This alone should be enough to shame him into rehab.

k
xx

 

[Leigh Roy]

All this 'geez what about the Aboriginal kids/his Aboriginality' is annoying. Don't be naive, I'm more worried about the young guys at our footy club, no other kids no matter their skin colour.

 

[Still Crowing]

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 )

 

[brucetiki]

On the issue of sacking, I thought the rules about sacking players in-season had changed as a result of the St. Kilda situation with Capuano last year.

Still, I think his sentence was very lenient. I think he should have got the $3 500 fine and counselling PLUS a club suspension of 1-2 games this time, and if he was to do it again, he would be instantly sacked at the earliest possibility.

 

[macca23]

Originally posted by marvin
Punishment determined by expendability? .

I've got no time for drink drivers.

I've also never rated Ronnie as a footballer.

HOWEVER, if the AFC is going to dump him for this, they better be prepared to do it to anyone else who blows over 0.05 - whether it's Roo, Macca, Watts, Smith or Tommy Porridge.

Otherwise, leave it to the courts.

I agree with Dave W's opinion of this post which is a voice of sanity and reason, as opposed to those who want to flagellate Ronnie to death with big heavy sticks.

Ronnie quite correctly will be treated as a law-breaker in the courts and receive the appropriate penalty - to add to a $3500 club fine, compulsory counselling demanded by the club, and public embarrassment.

As marvin correctly implies you can't have punishment determined by expendability.

 

[Stiffy_18]

I think a few people are forgetting that Ronnie is repeat offender. Didn't he lose his licence once when he was with Geelong??????

$3,500 fine is adequate, counselling is an excellent idea but since he is a repeat offender I would have set the rules in concrete, miss a counselling session and you AFL career with the Crows is over.

He didn't learn from his past mistakes, what makes you think he will learn from this one?????? We should have made it absolutely certain if he does miss one counselling session its all over red rover. Maybe then he would be a bit more responsible.

 

[macca23]

Originally posted by Stiffy_18
I think a few people are forgetting that Ronnie is repeat offender. Didn't he lose his licence once when he was with Geelong??????

$3,500 fine is adequate, counselling is an excellent idea but since he is a repeat offender I would have set the rules in concrete, miss a counselling session and you AFL career with the Crows is over.

He didn't learn from his past mistakes, what makes you think he will learn from this one?????? We should have made it absolutely certain if he does miss one counselling session its all over red rover. Maybe then he would be a bit more responsible.

Ahhhh, but that's the whole point Stiffy.

I'm not saying whether he will or won't learn from this mistake with us.

He hasn't missed a counselling session yet, has he?

And you don't think the AFC hasn't said to him that it's all over if he does miss one??

I have a better idea. Let's hang him instead in case he does miss a counselling session.

That'll teach him, won't it!!

 

[Stiffy_18]

Originally posted by macca23
Ahhhh, but that's the whole point Stiffy.

I'm not saying whether he will or won't learn from this mistake with us.

He hasn't missed a counselling session yet, has he?

And you don't think the AFC hasn't said to him that it's all over if he does miss one??

I have a better idea. Let's hang him instead in case he does miss a counselling session.

That'll teach him, won't it!!

Didn't JR say that if he doesn't go to counselling or misses a session he will be fined additional $1,500. Nothing about getting the sack. IF he does miss a single session, I would give him the boot before he could blink.

He hasn't missed a session yet BUT if he does he gets a slap on the wrist with additional $1,500. To me if a person can't learn from their mistakes in the past, then they don't deserve any more chances. He was given a 2nd chance by Adelaide and was told in no uncertain terms that he better pull his head in. What does he do?????? Goes out and makes an arse out of himself while tarnishing the club in the process.

If he wasn't a repeat offender I would be more simpathetic but sorry, he has had more chances that he deserves. Drink driving is not the thing you muck around with. IMO, its equivelant of pointing the gun at someone's head and playin russian roulette.

 

[macca23]

Forget what was said publicly Stiffy.

Ronnie is definitely on probation.

One more slip and he's gone.

 

[Stiffy_18]

Originally posted by macca23
Forget what was said publicly Stiffy.

Ronnie is definitely on probation.

One more slip and he's gone.

Good.

I think it would have been an overreaction if he was sacked today but if he fails to abide by the rules set to him by AFC then he MUST be sacked.

Its not what you want a senior player to do. He is meant to set example to they youngers guys on our list. Last thing we need is negative publicity.

 

[Jars458]

Originally posted by Stiffy_18
I think a few people are forgetting that Ronnie is repeat offender. Didn't he lose his licence once when he was with Geelong??????

$3,500 fine is adequate, counselling is an excellent idea but since he is a repeat offender I would have set the rules in concrete, miss a counselling session and you AFL career with the Crows is over.

He didn't learn from his past mistakes, what makes you think he will learn from this one?????? We should have made it absolutely certain if he does miss one counselling session its all over red rover. Maybe then he would be a bit more responsible.

just playing devils advocate here


have you ever made the same mistake twice?

 

[Cobber]

I'm not defending Ronnie, but I think many people are going over the top. It disappoints me that an incident like this happens and it's plastered all over the media. If it was me or you, It wouldn't have said Ronnie Burns, the news would have said "a 31 year old from ..." That's double standards imo. The fact that it was an AFL footballer doesn't mean the public has to know the identity of the person and every detail about the incident. It would be humiliating enough for him that he's been in the paper like this, don't you think? And as for saying he's got an alcohol problem, again do we have to know all this. I can tell you in my town and most other country towns, you'd have most of the local team undergoing counseling for their alcohol consumption. It seems that being an AFL footballer means you automatically waive your right to privacy on issues that should be kept private, and I don't agree with that.

And to add to Jars above, simply have you ever made a mistake, let alone the same one twice?

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

AFC have handled the situation well IMO. They made a clear statement that what Ronnie did was unacceptable behaviour & handed out a fair punishment / counselling in line with AFL guidelines. Ronnie has been given a 2nd chance with AFC, but he would realise that it is also his last. He will be dealt with by the courts like any other citizen.

 

[Fergus]

Originally posted by Kane McGoodwin
AFC have handled the situation well IMO. They made a clear statement that what Ronnie did was unacceptable behaviour & handed out a fair punishment / counselling in line with AFL guidelines. Ronnie has been given a 2nd chance with AFC, but he would realise that it is also his last. He will be dealt with by the courts like any other citizen.

Perfect summary

 

[Still Crowing]

Originally posted by Cobber
I'm not defending Ronnie, but I think many people are going over the top. It disappoints me that an incident like this happens and it's plastered all over the media. If it was me or you, It wouldn't have said Ronnie Burns, the news would have said "a 31 year old from ..." That's double standards imo. The fact that it was an AFL footballer doesn't mean the public has to know the identity of the person and every detail about the incident. It would be humiliating enough for him that he's been in the paper like this, don't you think? And as for saying he's got an alcohol problem, again do we have to know all this. I can tell you in my town and most other country towns, you'd have most of the local team undergoing counseling for their alcohol consumption. It seems that being an AFL footballer means you automatically waive your right to privacy on issues that should be kept private, and I don't agree with that.

And to add to Jars above, simply have you ever made a mistake, let alone the same one twice?

I'm sorry to be blunt, but that quite simply is crap. When you choose certain career paths, you gain certain things, and give up others. For example, if you become a police officer, you lose the leniency that other citizens get if you slip up. You set yourself up to uphold the law, and if you break it, your punishment is greater. Conversely, you get the satisfaction of serving the community in this role, and a much greater responsibility.

Similarly if you become a professional footballer. It's not all money, parties and chicks. You have certain responsibilities. To your club, ie training and media commitments. To the greater community: you are a role model and as such your actions are scrutinised. Such is life. In the navy we say "Choose your rate*, choose your fate."

As for making the same mistake twice......we're not talking about locking your keys in the car here, we are talking about breaking the law by driving a motor vehicle whilst under the influence of alcohol. How many times do people need to be f*cking told about drink driving? Will it take Ronnie killing/injuring someone before he learns this basic tenet of our modern society.

*NB: A sailors' 'Rating' is their specialisation - technician, cook, clerical, aircrew, bosuns mate etc.

 

[MarksGirl-kbcrowgirl]

Originally posted by bluecrow
The fact that he's a footballer is a side issue...The Age today reported he had a .129 BAC. No one, footballer or not, should even contemplate driving in that state. And to say 'oh he left at 3am, he probably thought he waited long enough,' is crap. It's not THAT hard to tell whether you're going to be over or not??

Obviously he hasn't seen this website:
http://www.helpjacqui.com/Intro_02.htm

I blew .147 on Thursday night....I couldn't navigate stairs let alone a vehicle. He definatley should not have been driving.

k
xx

 

[Stiffy_18]

Originally posted by Jars458
just playing devils advocate here


have you ever made the same mistake twice?

Yes, but the mistakes I have made twice are no where near as big as the one Ronnie has made.

I have locked the keys in the car twice hardly qualifies as a big mistake.

 

[rubberman]

The Crows were busy boys on Saturday night. I almost ran over one of them in front of the Alma at 3 30 am. For some reason the security guard pushed him onto Magill rd and almost into traffic. There was some sort of stoush going on and a few people around. Didnt see any punches but it didnt look good.

 

[Jars458]

Originally posted by Stiffy_18
Yes, but the mistakes I have made twice are no where near as big as the one Ronnie has made.

I have locked the keys in the car twice hardly qualifies as a big mistake.

It would if you had left a baby child in the back of the car on a scorching hot day.

 

[Stiffy_18]

Originally posted by Jars458
It would if you had left a baby child in the back of the car on a scorching hot day.

Leaving a baby in the back seat on a hot day would be irresponsible. I am pretty careful with thse things because I never lock the car before I take something out of it.

If by some tiny chance I did lock the baby in the car the first thing I would do is smash the front dor window.