Let's not forget I also suggested the 50 hour education program dc, which "who-I-should-not-mention-again" ('SJ'), did for his misbehaviour - which I think you even supported educating somewhere in this thread *IIRRC - for player/personal development.

*If I remember reading correctly (new term I'm adding to the D'Land abbreviation library)

PS. You can still include educating programs as part of 'punishment' rulings for misbehaviour.

Edited November 2, 201113 yr by H_T

3 flags and a Normy for that player would suggest it was a course of action not without merit.

Perhaps the decision-makers in those 'hundreds of other Steve J style situations across otherAFL clubs' wish, in retrospect, that they had been so bold.

3 flags and a Normy for that player would suggest it was a course of action not without merit.

Perhaps the decision-makers in those 'hundreds of other Steve J style situations across otherAFL clubs' wish, in retrospect, that they had been so bold.

P.S.

Correct me if I'm wrong but in the SJ case didn't the player peer group come up with the sanction and didn't he agree/accept it as a result of confrontation with his peers?

Sylvia has also been istructed to undergo Alcohol counseling.

Just as a q DC. How do you see the SJ and CS occurences as being that different?. Both serial offenders. Both failed to heed ealier fines/punishments.. Quite similar I would have thought .

Sylvia has also been istructed to undergo Alcohol counseling.

Just as a q DC. How do you see the SJ and CS occurences as being that different?. Both serial offenders. Both failed to heed ealier fines/punishments.. Quite similar I would have thought .

I do think they are different but it would just become a pointless pizzing competition to compare point by point esp as your personal feelings towards CS are quite obvious

In the end it is too hypothetical and subjective

Don't sit on the fence Yoda

Do you think it is a panacea, some kind of accepted bullet-proof generic solution or just a one-off with limited generic applicability?

In the absence of a defining study I reckon it's the best medicine available for self-satisfied recidivists and should be liberally applied.

Is it a bullet-proof preventative? Probably not ... but then again neither are condoms.

Btw, no one else has brought up the SJ case in this thread. Maybe you speak of threads elsewhere in the abyss...just saying.

I do think they are different but it would just become a pointless pizzing competition to compare point by point esp as your personal feelings towards CS are quite obvious

In the end it is too hypothetical and subjective

Now now.. Im simply asking a fair question.. You do however go to a point which I think becomes manifest in viewing much of this. There might well be a thousand pemutations of offences and trangressions. ANd there may well indeed be some merit in approaching them with a view that different horses run on different course and as such a selection of sanctions needs to be drawn upon. Th eproblem as I see this is how many different sets of rules do you employ in a realtively focused environment such as a footbal club. There arent even 50 people for whom the rules apply. Its because of this I beleive you make the boundaries very simple and remove any vagary.

Lets keep it simple. These are said rules and this is what happens should you break them. Individualise it too much and you create a minefield.

Now now.. Im simply asking a fair question.. You do however go to a point which I think becomes manifest in viewing much of this. There might well be a thousand pemutations of offences and trangressions. ANd there may well indeed be some merit in approaching them with a view that different horses run on different course and as such a selection of sanctions needs to be drawn upon. Th eproblem as I see this is how many different sets of rules do you employ in a realtively focused environment such as a footbal club. There arent even 50 people for whom the rules apply. Its because of this I beleive you make the boundaries very simple and remove any vagary.

Lets keep it simple. These are said rules and this is what happens should you break them. Individualise it too much and you create a minefield.

I don't disagree with this. No doubt the answer lies between the two extremes,

I think being dropped from IR team, fined 5K, miss one premiership game and attend alcohol counselling program (thats 4 separate penalties) is ok except I stated that the 1 game ban dragged the issue out too long. I would prefer this was substituted with something else (related community program?) I also stated I would prefer NAB cup games (probably 2 maybe more) in preference. I also stated I hoped the new coaching staff give him a really tough time on the track.

So, I'm not saying he didn't deserve punishment and his misbehaviour could be ignored.

I did object to the suggestion his 1 game ban should be 6 games to show we really mean business now (despite yoda's claim it could mean 3 flags and a Normy - lol)

Thats just my opinion and obviously at odds with a handful of posters. I don't think I have much more to add (other than to tell H_T that my shoulders are fine thanks)

I did object to the suggestion his 1 game ban should be 6 games to show we really mean business now (despite yoda's claim it could mean 3 flags and a Normy - lol)

I mentioned 5 games, several times. But I'll grant you that '6' is next to '5' on the keyboard. Although you have mentioned '6' twice now..

Jrmac.. you fail to grasp the situation I think.. You place much credence upon the notion he was only the pasenger ina car. The actual trangression was failing to be fit for work...I.e he was p!ssed on the job . Techincally he did much.!! He also showed scant respect for team rules or anyones directives other than his own.. Thats the context.

I'm sorry but you do not know that he failed to be fit for work; or, that he was p!ssed. He was dropped from the Aust team before he could go to 'work'. As to whether he was too drunk we can guess but we don't know for sure.

Nor did you answer what would you would expect if you had an accident on a Monday morning at 6am? So you can talk about context and I get the frustration and team rules etc but my point was about normal work standards. Many of us have been out til the wee hours before having to go to work. We still do our jobs.

Now if he rocked up to a game half cut that would be different....

Edited November 2, 201113 yr by jnrmac

I mentioned 5 games, several times. But I'll grant you that '6' is next to '5' on the keyboard. Although you have mentioned '6' twice now..

omg! that changes everything.....now i will have to reconsider my position....so sorry

(2 more wasted posts)

omg! that changes everything.....now i will have to reconsider my position....so sorry

(2 more wasted posts)

Please DC can you get it correct!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

omg! that changes everything.....now i will have to reconsider my position....so sorry

(2 more wasted posts)

Accepted. Yeah...what old dee said..^

STEVE JOHNSON DRUNK AGAIN

Ben Jensen 2 January 2007

By Ben Jensen GEELONG's STEVE JOHNSON has once more been arrested for being drunk and disorderly, this time in his native Wangaratta on Christmas Eve. The erratic AFL star was on 'leave' from the club at the time, presumably catching up with the same old mates he tried in vain to reach at the Torquay Hotel back in 2003. According to Geelong Football GM Neil Balme, Johnson only told the club today (2 January), more than a week after the incident. As most top brass at the GFC are on leave, no sanctions will be announced until 9 January.

In 2005, Johnson and fellow erratic forward Andrew Mackie were arrested after an incident outside Geelong nightclub 'Home House, following a round 19 loss to St Kilda. Keeping in check with previous incidents involving alcohol at the club such as Ronnie Burns, neither player was suspended and fined just $1,000 apiece.

But the Home House incident wasn't the first for Johnson; his struggles to maintain fitness and a place in the AFL stem from another incident involving alcohol, at the Torquay pub in late December 2003. Johnson, who was earlier ejected from the Torquay Hotel, attempted to regain entry by climbing a fence. He fell, broke his ankle and has played just 40 out of a possible 71 games since.

3AW commentator Robert Walls described the news as "very sad", saying Johnson is a "talented footballer", and the Cats, instead of trading Johnson, he was given another chance. Walls said it may be time for the club to say "enough is enough" and it may be to time for the club to "cut its losses and move on", delist Johnson, or at least refuse to select him in the AFL side for the 2007 season.

WHAT SHALL WE DO WITH THE DRUNKEN PLAYER?

The Cattery has believed for some time now Johnson is an unwanted distraction; off field arrests excluded, his struggle to maintain fitness and petulance on field mean he'll never attain the heights fellow 'enigmatic' young forwards such as Sydney Nick Davis have - and that's saying something. Whilst delisting is probably not a realistic option, particularly for the risk averse GFC board, a lengthy suspension and five figure financial penalty is in order.

Angry GFC Members have already flooded talkback stations 3AW and SEN with complaints - should the club once more fail to take swift action, it is likely to result in a drop in membership for 2007.

OFFICIAL GFC STATEMENT

The Geelong Football Club advises that forward Steve Johnson was arrested on 24 December in Wangaratta for being drunk in a public place.

Johnson was on leave from the club over the Christmas break when the alleged incident occurred and only advised the club of the situation today.

“We are bitterly disappointed that this situation has occurred and that there has been a delay in telling us about it,” Geelong general manager of football operations Neil Balme said.

“We expect that all of our players behave well and we are particularly disappointed in Steve as he has been rehabilitating his knee following post-season surgery.

“A number of key decision makers will not return to the club until next week, and as such no punishment will be determined until then. We expect to be in a position to announce any sanction on Tuesday 9 January. Until such time the club will not speculate as to any potential penalty.”

I'm sorry but you do not know that he failed to be fit for work; or, that he was p!ssed. He was dropped from the Aust team before he could go to 'work'. As to whether he was too drunk we can guess but we don't know for sure.

Nor did you answer what would you would expect if you had an accident on a Monday morning at 6am? So you can talk about context and I get the frustration and team rules etc but my point was about normal work standards. Many of us have been out til the wee hours before having to go to work. We still do our jobs.

Now if he rocked up to a game half cut that would be different....

He wasnt dropped because he had a stack. Was he ?

He's not having to attend Alcohol counselling because he sat in the passenger seat is he ?

He'd been out on the turps. Do you doubt or question that ? Seems the club and Eade alike believe this. Eade didnt hesitate in considering him unfit to continue to the training camp. He therefore must have been unfit for this purpose.

He was expected to uphold certain requirements and he failed. EPIC

He wasnt dropped because he had a stack. Was he ?

He's not having to attend Alcohol counselling because he sat in the passenger seat is he ?

He'd been out on the turps. Do you doubt or question that ? Seems the club and Eade alike believe this. Eade didnt hesitate in considering him unfit to continue to the training camp. He therefore must have been unfit for this purpose.

He was expected to uphold certain requirements and he failed. EPIC

I don't consider having a few drinks at a mates place as "out on the turps" implying being drunk in public

There is only an assumption of possibly being over the .05 drinking limitation which is not a definition of drunkeness

you really should avoid the hyperbole and stick to what is known

STEVE JOHNSON DRUNK AGAIN

Ben Jensen 2 January 2007

By Ben Jensen GEELONG's STEVE JOHNSON has once more been arrested for being drunk and disorderly, this time in his native Wangaratta on Christmas Eve. The erratic AFL star was on 'leave' from the club at the time, presumably catching up with the same old mates he tried in vain to reach at the Torquay Hotel back in 2003. According to Geelong Football GM Neil Balme, Johnson only told the club today (2 January), more than a week after the incident. As most top brass at the GFC are on leave, no sanctions will be announced until 9 January.

In 2005, Johnson and fellow erratic forward Andrew Mackie were arrested after an incident outside Geelong nightclub 'Home House, following a round 19 loss to St Kilda. Keeping in check with previous incidents involving alcohol at the club such as Ronnie Burns, neither player was suspended and fined just $1,000 apiece.

But the Home House incident wasn't the first for Johnson; his struggles to maintain fitness and a place in the AFL stem from another incident involving alcohol, at the Torquay pub in late December 2003. Johnson, who was earlier ejected from the Torquay Hotel, attempted to regain entry by climbing a fence. He fell, broke his ankle and has played just 40 out of a possible 71 games since.

3AW commentator Robert Walls described the news as "very sad", saying Johnson is a "talented footballer", and the Cats, instead of trading Johnson, he was given another chance. Walls said it may be time for the club to say "enough is enough" and it may be to time for the club to "cut its losses and move on", delist Johnson, or at least refuse to select him in the AFL side for the 2007 season.

WHAT SHALL WE DO WITH THE DRUNKEN PLAYER?

The Cattery has believed for some time now Johnson is an unwanted distraction; off field arrests excluded, his struggle to maintain fitness and petulance on field mean he'll never attain the heights fellow 'enigmatic' young forwards such as Sydney Nick Davis have - and that's saying something. Whilst delisting is probably not a realistic option, particularly for the risk averse GFC board, a lengthy suspension and five figure financial penalty is in order.

Angry GFC Members have already flooded talkback stations 3AW and SEN with complaints - should the club once more fail to take swift action, it is likely to result in a drop in membership for 2007.

OFFICIAL GFC STATEMENT

The Geelong Football Club advises that forward Steve Johnson was arrested on 24 December in Wangaratta for being drunk in a public place.

Johnson was on leave from the club over the Christmas break when the alleged incident occurred and only advised the club of the situation today.

“We are bitterly disappointed that this situation has occurred and that there has been a delay in telling us about it,” Geelong general manager of football operations Neil Balme said.

“We expect that all of our players behave well and we are particularly disappointed in Steve as he has been rehabilitating his knee following post-season surgery.

“A number of key decision makers will not return to the club until next week, and as such no punishment will be determined until then. We expect to be in a position to announce any sanction on Tuesday 9 January. Until such time the club will not speculate as to any potential penalty.”

You now seem intrigued ? I added a reference link on you-know-who back on page ~ 3. But it does make it more comprehensive viewing.

edit: I'll acknowledge that the 5 or 6 weeks suspension and the 50 hour program were for separate offences. Still in each case I believe they are appropriate penalties to get SJ on the right footing.

Edited November 2, 201113 yr by H_T

I see Jack Trengove Chip Frawley is tweeting something about going for a ride in a V8 supercar (is he at Surfers?) - it's so tempting to tweet back with a CS reference :-)

Edited November 2, 201113 yr by hardtack

I see Jack Trengove is tweeting something about going for a ride in a V8 supercar (is he at Surfers?) - it's so tempting to tweet back with a CS reference :-)

Must be at the Other track in Brisbane as the Surfers race track was back to normal traffic on monday 24th I drove along it.

You now seem intrigued ? I added a reference link on you-know-who back on page ~ 3. But it does make it more comprehensive viewing.

No, just thought some of the details needed refreshing so readers could decide for themselves on similarities

Your page 3 link was about a 2008 speeding offense after the 5 week ban, with only a fleeting ref to the previous D&D arrest

Seems his long ban didn't solve quite all his issues

And yes maybe other references to SJ I saw elsewhere incl 'ology

No, just thought some of the details needed refreshing so readers could decide for themselves on similarities

Your page 3 link was about a 2008 speeding offense after the 5 week ban, with only a fleeting ref to the previous D&D arrest

Seems his long ban didn't solve quite all his issues

And yes maybe other references to SJ I saw elsewhere incl 'ology

Fair enough re: O'logy. Haven't read there just recently.

It was his speeding offence which resulted in him taking a 50 hour road trauma education program.

Edited November 2, 201113 yr by H_T

Must be at the Other track in Brisbane as the Surfers race track was back to normal traffic on monday 24th I drove along it.

Yeah, it looks like a track in the photo... and a correction... it's Chip Frawley tweeting, not Trengove.

I don't consider having a few drinks at a mates place as "out on the turps" implying being drunk in public

There is only an assumption of possibly being over the .05 drinking limitation which is not a definition of drunkeness

you really should avoid the hyperbole and stick to what is known

Youre confusing sobriety for driving with abstenace in view of attending your job.

Cols job was to be fit for training . That required him to abstain from drinking for a period prior. He didnt .

Is it though too far to draw a bow to deduce he at least considered himself above your mentioned limit of .05 ? He wasnt driving after all, so why ?and I dont for a minute suggest he ought to have been , thats not the point.

Its been mentioned by some that theyve been out for a drink before attending work the next day so what the broughaha. But in those circumstances was it pointedly a condition that they didnt ?

Were talking about elite sporting environments. Not an office job. Part of being in tip top condition prior to embarking on team training would in all probability preclude an eveing of inbibing. The club took this stance, IR-Eade held it too.

The SJ comnparison is interesting. That club acted upon a situation ( and arguably a different one in some respects ) but took to setting a standard for players. Its hardly looked back from that juncture.and added to the cupboard in the process.

I suppose it all comes down to whether youve come to play ....or work.

Youre confusing sobriety for driving with abstenace in view of attending your job.

Cols job was to be fit for training . That required him to abstain from drinking for a period prior. He didnt .

Is it though too far to draw a bow to deduce he at least considered himself above your mentioned limit of .05 ? He wasnt driving after all, so why ?and I dont for a minute suggest he ought to have been , thats not the point.

Its been mentioned by some that theyve been out for a drink before attending work the next day so what the broughaha. But in those circumstances was it pointedly a condition that they didnt ?

Were talking about elite sporting environments. Not an office job. Part of being in tip top condition prior to embarking on team training would in all probability preclude an eveing of inbibing. The club took this stance, IR-Eade held it too.

The SJ comnparison is interesting. That club acted upon a situation ( and arguably a different one in some respects ) but took to setting a standard for players. Its hardly looked back from that juncture.and added to the cupboard in the process.

I suppose it all comes down to whether youve come to play ....or work.

BB I was only having a crack at your original "out on the turps" comment which I thought overstated the known facts

BB I was only having a crack at your original "out on the turps" comment which I thought overstated the known facts

fair enough