No one knows the entire story, so I'm not sure why some (the usual suspects) try to come across thinking they know it all.

What's to say Col and his mates weren't sitting up til 5:30am playing poker? Col's had a quiet 6-pack and thought "I better not drive, I may be over the limit". I'm sure a lot of us have been in that situation before, and let's face it, if training were to start at 2pm or whatever time it was, I'm quite sure that would still give him ample time to get a good sleep in and be ready to train.

On the otherhand, he may well have been drinking all night, was blind drunk on his way home, and would've been in no condition whatsoever to train. It's possible too, but again, WHO KNOWS???

The amount of "mine's bigger than yours" on this site over the past few months has really made this site unenjoyable.

No one knows the entire story, so I'm not sure why some (the usual suspects) try to come across thinking they know it all.

What's to say Col and his mates weren't sitting up til 5:30am playing poker? Col's had a quiet 6-pack and thought "I better not drive, I may be over the limit". I'm sure a lot of us have been in that situation before, and let's face it, if training were to start at 2pm or whatever time it was, I'm quite sure that would still give him ample time to get a good sleep in and be ready to train.

On the otherhand, he may well have been drinking all night, was blind drunk on his way home, and would've been in no condition whatsoever to train. It's possible too, but again, WHO KNOWS???

The amount of "mine's bigger than yours" on this site over the past few months has really made this site unenjoyable.

Yoda > Billy2083

No one knows the entire story, so I'm not sure why some (the usual suspects) try to come across thinking they know it all.

What's to say Col and his mates weren't sitting up til 5:30am playing poker? Col's had a quiet 6-pack and thought "I better not drive, I may be over the limit". I'm sure a lot of us have been in that situation before, and let's face it, if training were to start at 2pm or whatever time it was, I'm quite sure that would still give him ample time to get a good sleep in and be ready to train.

On the otherhand, he may well have been drinking all night, was blind drunk on his way home, and would've been in no condition whatsoever to train. It's possible too, but again, WHO KNOWS???

The amount of "mine's bigger than yours" on this site over the past few months has really made this site unenjoyable.

Totally agree

There are so many houlier-than-thou douchebags on this site, so eager to stick the boot in with moral outrage based on nothing. I'm glad none of you were my parents, teachers or any of my bosses.

Even if he did do something wrong, who really gives a toss, I follow Australian Rules Football not the choir boy awards FCS, why does everyone care so much about these blokes personal lives? I reckon it comes down to tall poppy syndrome - everyone is jealous of the cash and the fame and the girls and the fact they get to play footy for a job, they feel they have to take something away from them.

Besides, Wayne Carey and Ben cousins.

Totally agree

There are so many houlier-than-thou douchebags on this site, so eager to stick the boot in with moral outrage based on nothing. I'm glad none of you were my parents, teachers or any of my bosses.

Even if he did do something wrong, who really gives a toss, I follow Australian Rules Football not the choir boy awards FCS, why does everyone care so much about these blokes personal lives? I reckon it comes down to tall poppy syndrome - everyone is jealous of the cash and the fame and the girls and the fact they get to play footy for a job, they feel they have to take something away from them.

Besides, Wayne Carey and Ben cousins.

I wonder if you'd write that if someone you know was killed or hurt by a drunk driver.

I wonder if you'd write that if someone you know was killed or hurt by a drunk driver.

way to prove my point, you have no clue if anyone was drunk and the fact Sylvia was the passenger makes it totally moot anyway

why don't you start a thread on the bloke who was speeding with a 7-year old kid on his bike, at least you aware of the facts on that one

Even if he did do something wrong, who really gives a toss, I follow Australian Rules Football not the choir boy awards FCS, why does everyone care so much about these blokes personal lives?

He can have a personal life, but I would have preferred he said to Anderson before the IR series "Sorry Adrian, I only get a few weeks to get maggotted with my mates and I really cherish that time so I won't be able to play IR."

But he decided to 'commit' to the venture, and was keen to play as Eade said he rang every day confirming his eagerness.

This is my only issue - he is not as professional as he needs to be to get the most out of himself.

The rest is just him being an idiot, and he is more than welcome to be that.

But he isn't professional enough for Neeld and that reaction is probably a good thing.

blah....so eager to stick the boot in with moral outrage based on nothing......spew spew spew

Clubs don't hand out punishments based on nothing.

You and billy2803 really should come to terms with this. It will save you from making further tripeful contributions that release your frustrations.

And I'm quite within my rights to question the terms of punishment that suit club and player, when it's evident the club has expressed it's desire and intent to improve one's (club) culture.

way to prove my point, you have no clue if anyone was drunk and the fact Sylvia was the passenger makes it totally moot anyway

Astonishing!

It doesn't matter if he was the passenger or the driver. It doesn't matter if he was even in the car or anywhere near it. That's not why he's been disciplined.

He's been disciplined because he was out drinking till 6 a.m. on a training day. If alcohol wasn't involved, he wouldn't be sent for alcohol counselling.

Read over what the club and Neeld said, it's pretty clear.

I understand this line of thinking, but I also recall Collingwood holding Shaw and Didak to account in 2008. Within a couple of years they were holding a premiership cup. If ever a club needed to change its culture it's the MFC. I'm happy for Neeld to make early inroads.

And maybe no coincidence, Geelong and Stevie J - 3 flags later..................

Clubs don't hand out punishments based on nothing.

You and billy2803 really should come to terms with this. It will save you from making further tripeful contributions that release your frustrations.

And I'm quite within my rights to question the terms of punishment that suit club and player, when it's evident the club has expressed it's desire and intent to improve one's (club) culture.

Hang on a minute HT, I'm pretty sure that walking away from an accident and not reporting it is a criminal offence and am of the opinion that the one-week suspension covered this.

The issue about how druk he was - well, that's the bit that we just don't know. Sure, the Club has penalised him by making him go to alcohol classes, but just how [censored] was he? Do you know for a fact that he was legless? Have you seen the CCTV footage? Did the Club put him on a breathalyzer? If they did, and you have seen the results, then I'm satisfied with that. If you are guessing, well, I'm quite within my rights not to agree with your opinion.

Don't get me wrong, the evidence doesn't look great for Col, but I, unlike most in here, prefer to wait until I see facts before I hang a man.

Hang on a minute HT, I'm pretty sure that walking away from an accident and not reporting it is a criminal offence and am of the opinion that the one-week suspension covered this.

Now you are getting the "facts" wrong here, billy

Now you are getting the "facts" wrong here, billy

Is it not a criminal offect? Thought it was, but am happy to be informed othewise. I guess when I was learning how to drive it was just belted in to me that leaving the scene of an accident is criminal!

My issue has nothing to do with drinking, billy. Read my posts. It's a failure of professionalism on Colins part, recognised by the MFC and AFL to follow team rules. My issue is the terms of the leniency of punishment handed out for a serial offender and the clubs intent in eradicating bad culture for good.

Your "mine's bigger than yours" and "usual suspects" comments really miss their mark unless you reply to them directly.

Is it not a criminal offect? Thought it was, but am happy to be informed othewise. I guess when I was learning how to drive it was just belted in to me that leaving the scene of an accident is criminal!

Dear oh dear Billy, you tell someone else to stick to known facts and then you wrongly accuse Sylvia of committing a "criminal offense" and then claim that was the reason for the 1 week ban.

You obviously haven't read this thread or you wouldn't be making that claim

My issue has nothing to do with drinking, billy. Read my posts. It's a failure of professionalism on Colins part, recognised by the MFC and AFL to follow team rules. My issue is the terms of the leniency of punishment handed out for a serial offender and the clubs intent in eradicating bad culture for good.

Your "mine's bigger than yours" and "usual suspects" comments really miss their mark unless you reply to them directly.

As the coach said, this is Col's first offence under the new FD, and has been punished accordingly. What it didn't say is to what degree they rate the offence.

I have no doubt that if his mate hadn't crashed the car, there wouldn't be an issue. Col would've happily turned up to training, went about his business in his professional manner, and no-one would be any wiser.

I don't really have an opinion about the punishment, only because I don't know all the facts. Sure, he had an accident and didn't report it straight away - FACT, he had been drinking - FACT, he was judged unprofessional by the AFL community - FACT. Did the Club see it as a fairly mild offence that has been blown up by the usual media sh!t-fight? Was it that insignificant that they (MFC) had to be seen to take some action and not throw the book at him? Would the Board buy Neeld's story of "it was the first time he stuffed up with me as coach so let him off lightly"? Would the punishment have been different if Col had've been driving? Did Col come staggering out of the passenger seat, or was he quite aware of what he was doing? There are just so many questions that I don't have an answer for, and I'm yet to see anyone on here have definite answers either.

If I were to reply to the usual suspects about their quest for supremacy, I'd have to reply to every one of B59's posts! But this isn't far off what I'm saying HT;

"Clubs don't hand out punishments based on nothing.

You and billy2803 really should come to terms with this. It will save you from making further tripeful contributions that release your frustrations."

Hope you felt better after you got that little one off your chest. Don't get me started on some of your other posts that I've replied to, but somehow you've managed to edit them and "forgot" to mark "edited". That has happened more than once.

Don't get me started on some of your other posts that I've replied to, but somehow you've managed to edit them and "forgot" to mark "edited". That has happened more than once.

Err, that isn't possible... an edited post is marked "edited" automatically; no way around that.

See:

Dear oh dear Billy, you tell someone else to stick to known facts and then you wrongly accuse Sylvia of committing a "criminal offense" and then claim that was the reason for the 1 week ban.

You obviously haven't read this thread or you wouldn't be making that claim

DC, please enlighten me. I admit, I haven't read the 6 pages of tripe in this thread - it got a bit boring after the first 2, that's why I made my initial post about this subject.

Perhaps you need to read my post too. I said it was my opinion that the 1 week suspension would cover the "leaving the scene of an accident".

And, I did nicely ask if leaving the seen of an accident was in fact a criminal offence or not. But you didn't answer that for me, so I'm still unsure if that's a rule. I'm no lawyer (I hope B59 is sitting down when reading that statement), but most of the research I have done states that leaving the seen of an accident, wether it causes death, injury or damage to property is against the law. But as I've already said, please tell me if that isn't correct so I know the facts, and I'll be happy to change my opinion accordingly.

Err, that isn't possible... an edited post is marked "edited" automatically; no way around that.

See:

It is possible hardtack. Mods can do it. HT did it a couple of times last week. Can't be bothered finding the thread where he admits to it, but I know of at least 1 other post that he edited without "ticking the box".

Ugh ! I was referring to yours and C&B 's post at the top of this page.

Err, that isn't possible... an edited post is marked "edited" automatically; no way around that.

See:

It is possible hardtack. Mods can do it. HT did it a couple of times last week. Can't be bothered finding the thread where he admits to it, but I know of at least 1 other post that he edited without "ticking the box".

Yes it's a mods tool so we can edit posts etc. And give reason where necessary (see below).

billy as I explained to you if I've posted and I quickly want to fix a spell check, grammar error or poorly worded sentence, I can do that like you. But if you've quickly replied in the meantime - which is what happened, twice. It can be confusing. I've explained this twice now. So now you can drop it.

Thanks.

Now back on topic.

PS. Get back to topic !

DC, please enlighten me. I admit, I haven't read the 6 pages of tripe in this thread - it got a bit boring after the first 2, that's why I made my initial post about this subject.

Perhaps you need to read my post too. I said it was my opinion that the 1 week suspension would cover the "leaving the scene of an accident".

And, I did nicely ask if leaving the seen of an accident was in fact a criminal offence or not. But you didn't answer that for me, so I'm still unsure if that's a rule. I'm no lawyer (I hope B59 is sitting down when reading that statement), but most of the research I have done states that leaving the seen of an accident, wether it causes death, injury or damage to property is against the law. But as I've already said, please tell me if that isn't correct so I know the facts, and I'll be happy to change my opinion accordingly.

Simple....Col wasn't the driver

Simple....Col wasn't the driver

It IS quite simple.

As far as the accident is concerned, that is an issue between the police and the driver - however, the fact that Col was the owner of the car and handed over the task of driving to a friend who may well have also been over the limit (or at the very least was driving dangerously) and then left the scene, brings into question Col's ability to make smart decisions - but yes, that should not have any bearing on the club imposed penalties.

As far as the drinking is concerned, Col has obviously confirmed to the club (and no doubt the police - who may well have breath tested him for all we know) that he had been been drinking and I would imagine there is a good chance he would have told them just how drunk he was (or maybe it was obvious to all and sundry?). Drinking the night before training is a no-no and the club acted accordingly. The drinking was obviously considered by the club to be worth taking reasonably strong action over. The fact that the club also put him down for the alcohol related course, would tend to indicate (unless it is a bar-tending course) that they considered it to be more than just a couple of sherberts at a mates place - perhaps the police passed on a reading to them?

To say that if the accident didn't happen the club may not have acted doesn't cut it, as he still could easily have denied drinking the night before regardless... that is, of course, unless there was irrefutable evidence that he had been so drunk that he needed to be driven home.

Proof? No... but there is plenty of circumstantial evidence.

........ (or at the very least was driving dangerously) ...........

I think (legally) it would be more accurate to say "(or at the very least was driving carelessly)"

Careless driving and Dangerous driving are both possible offences under victorian traffic law.

The driver could avoid careless driving charges (at the least) if he could prove (or convince police/judge/magistrate) that the accident occurred as a result of an unavoidable accident (e.g. swerved to avoid a dog, brakes failed etc)

This kind of stuff is ridiculous. Sylvia is employed to help us win games of football. Not sure what this incident has to do with winning games of football, particularly in 2012

Is it ?

So lets go one further.

Trengove does the same thing - so now we have two footballers who during their off time - drinking ( apparently too much - or the club wouldnt have told Sylvia to go to a responsible drinking course) one week before pre season training starts - and leaves the scene of the accident even though he was the passenger ?

still.

Jones and Frawley do the same - so now we have four footballers.

What people fail to realise is that it is a team game and you have to have team standards - you cant make exceptions for one (like Sylvia) or you have to make exceptions for all.

I have been the passenger in two accidents. I know a few friends who have had accidents - i have yet to know anyone who as a passenger has left the scene. It is just not a good look. Sylvia at best is guilty of being a dill. And dill is not the standard you set for a team

way to prove my point, you have no clue if anyone was drunk and the fact Sylvia was the passenger makes it totally moot anyway

why don't you start a thread on the bloke who was speeding with a 7-year old kid on his bike, at least you aware of the facts on that one

I said nothing of the 'facts'. My comment was effectively a swipe at what seems in your stance to be a cavalier disregard for player discipline and an inability to comprehend - as CS seems unable to do - that nightclubs + booze + [censored] mates + cars = trouble.

Your boys will be boys line of thought is archaic, John Elliot type stuff.

Yes it's a mods tool so we can edit posts etc. And give reason where necessary (see below).

...

I've explained this twice now. So now you can drop it.

You've done it quite alot lately.

It's frustrating when a mod edits their post to include elements relating to a post of an individual without acknowledging such. Moreso if/when daylight savings 'issues' allow a post to be edited and supplied with an EDIT tag - even though the edit was well after the subsequent post yet shows an earlier date/time stamp ...