Travis Tuck in drug overdose ...

[WonnaJurah 5]

Travis Tuck in drug overdose

Son of a Legend!

[Adzman 2,154]

It is sad that such great football family (Tuck/Ablett- Gary's sister is married to Michael Tuck) has such a history of substance abuse.

I hope Travis can turn it around. He has all the markings of a good footballer, but substance abuse/addiction will ultimately destroy any athlete at any level.

Sad day for Hawthorn fans.

[dee-luded 2,959]

Travis Tuck,, reported drug overdose... Good luck to the boy & good luck to his family as well.

[e25 5]

So the rumours were true...

Could be a lot more to come.

[WonnaJurah 5]

and thats his 3rd strike,which could mean big trouble

12 weeks suspension

Edited August 31, 2010 by WonnaJurah

[DaveyJones'sLocker 647]

hmm 12 weeks? is this the standard punishment or what?

forgive me if im wrong but cousins got banished for a year didnt he?

12 weeks seems really short for 3 strikes

i think there could be some big name players on one or two strikes already and the AFL are scared to punish tuck too harshly.

[Radar Detector 1,347]

Please take this with a grain of salt cos it's from Mark Robinson in the Hun today, but he suggests that once player hits 2 strikes and is placed in rehab or counselling, they are removed from the testing system whilst undergoing treatment. That would mean the only way a player would ever hit 3 strikes is if they're busted outside the testing system like Tuck (and Cousins for that matter). Not sure if it's true but it compromises the whole regime if it is.

[Deeman 1,497]

Feel for the kid.

He really needs a buddy.

[WonnaJurah 5]

hmm 12 weeks? is this the standard punishment or what?

forgive me if im wrong but cousins got banished for a year didnt he?

12 weeks seems really short for 3 strikes

i think there could be some big name players on one or two strikes already and the AFL are scared to punish tuck too harshly.

Cousins was banned for bringing game into disrepute, never tested positive

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Cousins was banned for bringing game into disrepute, never tested positive

Didn't have to be tested at all to bring the game into disrepute. Different rule than the drug code particularly for players who try to smart the system like Cousins.

[Chook 15,013]

Feel for the kid.

He really needs a buddy.

Franklin?

[e25 5]

Please take this with a grain of salt cos it's from Mark Robinson in the Hun today, but he suggests that once player hits 2 strikes and is placed in rehab or counselling, they are removed from the testing system whilst undergoing treatment. That would mean the only way a player would ever hit 3 strikes is if they're busted outside the testing system like Tuck (and Cousins for that matter). Not sure if it's true but it compromises the whole regime if it is.

If it is true, it may compromise the regime, but it would also indicate an understanding of the nature of addiction and the causes leading to the positive test in the first place.

If it is true, I have no problem with it.

The number 1 priority is getting these kids help and doing our best to eradicate drugs from the game, not handing out punishments.

He hasn't taken steroids.

[Weedster 174]

Please take this with a grain of salt cos it's from Mark Robinson in the Hun today, but he suggests that once player hits 2 strikes and is placed in rehab or counselling, they are removed from the testing system whilst undergoing treatment. That would mean the only way a player would ever hit 3 strikes is if they're busted outside the testing system like Tuck (and Cousins for that matter). Not sure if it's true but it compromises the whole regime if it is.

So true .. clearly the AFL doesn't want anyone to get ever 3 strikes - smacks of window dressing

[Radar Detector 1,347]

If it is true, it may compromise the regime, but it would also indicate an understanding of the nature of addiction and the causes leading to the positive test in the first place.

If it is true, I have no problem with it.

The number 1 priority is getting these kids help and doing our best to eradicate drugs from the game, not handing out punishments.

He hasn't taken steroids.

I agree with the need to provide help to these kids, but surely it defeats the purpose of having a penalty after three strikes if the system is designed so that nobody ever reaches that point!! Or might the illusion of a punishment provide some level of deterrent that assists in the rehab? As someone completely unfamiliar with the causes or effects of addiction, I wouldn't have a clue...

[Demon Tragic 0]

Feel for the kid.

He really needs a buddy.

Unless his buddy is a bad influence!

[Al`s DEMONS 0]

hmm 12 weeks? is this the standard punishment or what?

forgive me if im wrong but cousins got banished for a year didnt he?

12 weeks seems really short for 3 strikes

i think there could be some big name players on one or two strikes already and the AFL are scared to punish tuck too harshly.

12 weeks is a disgrace. AFL HQ keep shifting the goalposts to suit themselves.

[Demon Tragic 0]

12 weeks is a disgrace. AFL HQ keep shifting the goalposts to suit themselves.

Obviously you haven't researched this!

The standard and prescribed penatly for a third positive drug test is and always has been 12 weeks. The AFL haven't changed any policy, penalty or goal posts! This penalty has been agreed to by the players association and identified as the best way to treat the player with a view to rehabilitation. This policy is world's best practise and is now being implemented in many sports worldwide. The AFL should be commended for the faith they have shown to this policy in the face of stinging criticism from the media. The fact of the matter is, if this policy were to change, the AFLPA would withdraw thier support and recreational drug use would go on unchecked and untreated.

Ben Cousins was initially suspended by the West Coast Eagles for 16 weeks whilst he sought treatment for a self confessed drug addiction. The AFL saw no need to intervene as thier standard penalty would have been 12 weeks and WCE had exceeded this penalty internally.

Ben Cousins was charged with bringing the game into disrepute after this suspension after;

1. Admitting that he had a relapse with his drug problem.

2. Admitting that he had cheated the AFL system in that relapse.

3. He was arrested for possesion of an illegal substance.

I think the AFL have acted appropriately and according to it's rules through both the Ben Cousins and Travis Tuck incidents. But don't let the truth get in the way of a good rant!

Edited September 1, 2010 by Demon Tragic

[Disco Demons 92]

how long has travis got on his contract?

[Keyser Söze 0]

how long has travis got on his contract?

I got the impression he was coming out of contract.

If so, I'd expect them to retain him in some rookie capacity, for his own well-being.

I don't think the club could afford the appearance of just off-loading the son of a club champion when he is in such need of help.

(in fact, I think his surname has little to do with it.)

I think Dermot Brereton has declared his hand with the article he wrote yesterday about Tuck.

[Al`s DEMONS 0]

Obviously you haven't researched this!

The standard and prescribed penatly for a third positive drug test is and always has been 12 weeks. The AFL haven't changed any policy, penalty or goal posts! This penalty has been agreed to by the players association and identified as the best way to treat the player with a view to rehabilitation. This policy is world's best practise and is now being implemented in many sports worldwide. The AFL should be commended for the faith they have shown to this policy in the face of stinging criticism from the media. The fact of the matter is, if this policy were to change, the AFLPA would withdraw thier support and recreational drug use would go on unchecked and untreated.

Ben Cousins was initially suspended by the West Coast Eagles for 16 weeks whilst he sought treatment for a self confessed drug addiction. The AFL saw no need to intervene as thier standard penalty would have been 12 weeks and WCE had exceeded this penalty internally.

Ben Cousins was charged with bringing the game into disrepute after this suspension after;

1. Admitting that he had a relapse with his drug problem.

2. Admitting that he had cheated the AFL system in that relapse.

3. He was arrested for possesion of an illegal substance.

I think the AFL have acted appropriately and according to it's rules through both the Ben Cousins and Travis Tuck incidents. But don't let the truth get in the way of a good rant!

youre right , i have done no research on the matter nor do i intend to. I am a fan of the game and stand by what i said. `It was a disgrace`. Twelve weeks is not nearly enough for a three time offender. So you would have us believe passing out in a car due to overdose is not bringing the game into disrepute. Helping the player after hes hooked is `the worlds best practice`. This is when you tell me his club doctor is notified after the first strike . Clearly this isnt working . The AFL were [censored] they never caught him (cousins). They were made to look foolish. They still dont realise drugs like ecstacy and speed are out of your system in three days. Play friday night , get tested , all clear, go home get high, come tuesday morning youre good to go. The oldds of getting tested again before Tuesday would be slim. The last person to realise they have the problem is the person with the problem. If Travis`s family and friends were notified earlier about his useage he may not be where he is now. The current system is flawed. I dont care what the players have agreed to. Lots of players would try their luck as i have mentioned how it is possible.

[Red Sox 2]

Obviously you haven't researched this!

The standard and prescribed penatly for a third positive drug test is and always has been 12 weeks. The AFL haven't changed any policy, penalty or goal posts! This penalty has been agreed to by the players association and identified as the best way to treat the player with a view to rehabilitation. This policy is world's best practise and is now being implemented in many sports worldwide. The AFL should be commended for the faith they have shown to this policy in the face of stinging criticism from the media. The fact of the matter is, if this policy were to change, the AFLPA would withdraw thier support and recreational drug use would go on unchecked and untreated.

Ben Cousins was initially suspended by the West Coast Eagles for 16 weeks whilst he sought treatment for a self confessed drug addiction. The AFL saw no need to intervene as thier standard penalty would have been 12 weeks and WCE had exceeded this penalty internally.

Ben Cousins was charged with bringing the game into disrepute after this suspension after;

1. Admitting that he had a relapse with his drug problem.

2. Admitting that he had cheated the AFL system in that relapse.

3. He was arrested for possesion of an illegal substance.

I think the AFL have acted appropriately and according to it's rules through both the Ben Cousins and Travis Tuck incidents. But don't let the truth get in the way of a good rant!

I don't think that is entirely correct. The actual 1st or 2nd test sees 6 weeks handed out as part of the punishment as well as a $5000 fine. This is suspended and not activated until the 3rd positive test. A 3rd positive test can lead to as much as a 12 week suspension.

The 6 week suspension becomes active as does the fine. The AFL/tribunal can then decide how much of the 12 week ban from the 3rd test will be applied in addition to the 6. In Travis' case it was the 6 plus another 6.

I agree 100% with what you say here though and the AFL are to be commended.

youre right , i have done no research on the matter nor do i intend to. I am a fan of the game and stand by what i said. `It was a disgrace`. Twelve weeks is not nearly enough for a three time offender. So you would have us believe passing out in a car due to overdose is not bringing the game into disrepute. Helping the player after hes hooked is `the worlds best practice`. This is when you tell me his club doctor is notified after the first strike . Clearly this isnt working . The AFL were [censored] they never caught him (cousins). They were made to look foolish. They still dont realise drugs like ecstacy and speed are out of your system in three days. Play friday night , get tested , all clear, go home get high, come tuesday morning youre good to go. The oldds of getting tested again before Tuesday would be slim. The last person to realise they have the problem is the person with the problem. If Travis`s family and friends were notified earlier about his useage he may not be where he is now. The current system is flawed. I dont care what the players have agreed to. Lots of players would try their luck as i have mentioned how it is possible.

Clearly this is working.

There will always be people taking a chance with a 3 strike policy, hell some will do so even with the threat of 1 strike. The AFL are well aware by now of how quickly drugs can be out of one's system, give them a bit more credit that that but this has little to do with the number of strikes, you seem to be wanting improved testing?

I'm all for that and I am sure the AFL as sports bodies are around the world, are looking at better testing procedures.

[daisycutter 29,616]

. . . . his club doctor is notified after the first strike . Clearly this isnt working . . . .

I'm certainly no authority here, but I hear this comment "Clearly this isnt working" everywhere.

This implies that there is a methodology that does work.

If so it would be a world first. I can't see the logic that just because one approach with one player "doesn't work" that the methodology is the reason. Experience shows that there will be some who people can't be helped no matter what.

I'm not saying the AFL (as agreed by AFLPA) method is the best one, I wouldn't have a clue. Just amused how one event brings out so much uninformed opinion.

[Demon Tragic 0]

youre right , i have done no research on the matter nor do i intend to. I am a fan of the game and stand by what i said. `It was a disgrace`. Twelve weeks is not nearly enough for a three time offender.

This penalty was agreed upon by the AFL, the AFLPA and experienced drug experts. Any changes to this would most likely see the AFLPA withdraw thier support for out of competition testing for illicit substances all together. At least with this policy, we ARE testing for it.

So you would have us believe passing out in a car due to overdose is not bringing the game into disrepute.

No charges were laid in this instance. Cousins was charged, leaves the AFL without a leg to stand on for that charge.

Helping the player after hes hooked is `the worlds best practice`. This is when you tell me his club doctor is notified after the first strike . Clearly this isnt working .

The AFL conducts numerous courses and educational seminars for thier players about the dangers of illicit substances, as do the AFLPA. In my book, that would constitute as a great form of preventative action. The club doctor is notified only after the second strike. The fact that this incident casued the player to register his third strike would suggest that the policy is headed in the right direction.

If Travis`s family and friends were notified earlier about his useage he may not be where he is now. The current system is flawed. I dont care what the players have agreed to. Lots of players would try their luck as i have mentioned how it is possible.

This point I agree with you on. I think on the first strike the player must nominate a relative, either parent or legal spouse, to also be informed. This way the player at least has the immediate support of his family to help him through what could be a very big problem. I think this part of the policy shoudl be immediately tweaked.

Edited September 1, 2010 by Demon Tragic

[Al`s DEMONS 0]

charge or no charge , its not a good look for the game.

testing is expensive, so test smarter. test people tuesday / wednesday.

granted the AFL run lots of courses on drugs, alchohol, gambling and treatment of woman(that last one might just be the NRL)and if one should fall of the rails , is it the AFL`S fault, no , everyone has to take responsability for their own actions. But if a club is notified after one strike it can remain confidential , giving the club the ability to conduct inhouse testing and help the indiviual. The AFL and clubs should learn something from the Cousins debarcle.

[e25 5]

I'm certainly no authority here, but I hear this comment "Clearly this isnt working" everywhere.

This implies that there is a methodology that does work.

If so it would be a world first. I can't see the logic that just because one approach with one player "doesn't work" that the methodology is the reason. Experience shows that there will be some who people can't be helped no matter what.

I'm not saying the AFL (as agreed by AFLPA) method is the best one, I wouldn't have a clue. Just amused how one event brings out so much uninformed opinion.

Very good points made here.