Illicit Drugs and AFL Players

[dpositive 1,665]

Well, if we look at this in terms of what is real as opposed to what is ideal, then it would have to be said that you are the one responding with emotion as opposed to logic. The fact is that by law (whether we like it or not), certain substances are considered illegal and usage is punishable in a court of law. If a player is using any of these substances, then they are in effect breaking the law and the AFL must act accordingly.

Certain substances are illegal and the court decides the penalty.

The AFL does not have the jurisdiction to impose a penalty.

The Law will treat the case on the basis of the circumstances and apply a penalty based on its consideration of the circumstances.

Sometimes significant fines are imposed as the villian has the means to pay that amount and is considered the detterent by the court. If an employer (the AFL) took away the ability to pay they are adding to the considered sentance of the court and making the punishment harsher.

[hardtack 10,537]

Certain substances are illegal and the court decides the penalty.

The AFL does not have the jurisdiction to impose a penalty.

The Law will treat the case on the basis of the circumstances and apply a penalty based on its consideration of the circumstances.

Sometimes significant fines are imposed as the villian has the means to pay that amount and is considered the detterent by the court. If an employer (the AFL) took away the ability to pay they are adding to the considered sentance of the court and making the punishment harsher.

So in essence, you are saying that the AFL should not involve itself with anything that is out of its jurisdiction?

Ok, so if a player goes out and gets drunk and as a direct result becomes involved in a violent incident/car accident or whatever, then the AFL/club should not do anything to put that player's career at risk as that would limit his ability to pay any resultant fines.

Edited February 18, 2013 by hardtack

[autocol 448]

Well, if we look at this in terms of what is real as opposed to what is ideal, then it would have to be said that you are the one responding with emotion as opposed to logic. The fact is that by law (whether we like it or not), certain substances are considered illegal and usage is punishable in a court of law. If a player is using any of these substances, then they are in effect breaking the law and the AFL must act accordingly.

I'm not responding emotionally at all. The AFL does not currently seek to uncover breaches of any kind of law by their players... except for drugs. You guys are not asking for players to be immediately ejected from the league for breaching any kind of law... except for drugs. You're happy to let the current legal process apply for all matters of law... except for drugs.

Explain to me why the AFL doesn't need a "zero tolerance" policy for tax evasion, and how that differs from recreational drugs.

Really? Marijuana is proven to lead to depression and as entry point to other more harmful drugs. Alcohol is proven to lead to violence when consumed in excessive quantities. But I'm not sure there is conclusive proof to say that marijuana is "vastly less harmful" than alcohol.

I don't have the time to link you to a thousand different sources of peer-reviewed data. Here's just one from near the top of a google search, from a Canadian government study. In summary - "In terms of (health-related) costs per user: tobacco-related health costs are over $800 per user, alcohol-related health costs are much lower at $165 per user, and cannabis-related health costs are the lowest at $20 per user."

I can tell you with total confidence, further research on your part (if you stick to peer-reviewed stuff, not sensationalist waffle) will confirm without doubt that marijuana is vastly less harmful than alcohol, and LUDICROUSLY less harmful than tobacco. Unfortunately, laws get written by lobbyists and pecuniary interests, not scientists.

Edited February 18, 2013 by autocol

[old55 23,569]

Explain to me why the AFL doesn't need a "zero tolerance" policy for tax evasion, and how that differs from recreational drugs.

Succinct and excellent reasoning.

[rjay 24,921]

So in essence, you are saying that the AFL should not involve itself with anything that is out of its jurisdiction?

Ok, so if a player goes out and gets drunk and as a direct result becomes involved in a violent incident/car accident or whatever, then the AFL/club should not do anything to put that player's career at risk as that would limit his ability to pay any resultant fines.

Firstly let me say that I don't think the AFL should involve itself with anything that is out of it's jurisdiction.

Following your example I don't see the AFL setting up random booze buses to test their players. However if a player is found to have done something illegal by the relevant authorities then and only then the clubs and/or AFL could choose to take further action and delist,fine or suspend the player. Whatever penalty they deem necessary.

The trouble is the AFL is trying to head off problems with their image that they can see coming as they have seen it happening overseas with professional sportspeople. If they think they can stop it then they are p....into the wind, the problem is already out of control.

[Johnny Karate 559]

I read an article from everybody's favorite journalist a couple of weeks ago that part of the reasoning for the AFL's illicit drug policy & refusal to follow the WADA procedures were due to a large amount of Aboriginal players testing positive for cannabis during competition. Unlike much of her op-ed pieces I have little doubt that CW was on the money.

I don't think that every player that indulges in the odd puff should have their career ended & name dragged through the mud in the press in a 21st Century incarnation of the Salem Witch Trials. Ultimately if it becomes habitual 'the market' will sort it out - Ben Cousins never tested positive for illicit drugs yet found himself sacked from the Eagles less than 2 years after winning the Brownlow. Deviant behaviour & breaking team rules are not tolerated at AFL Clubs in this day and age.

I agree with other posters opinions that the AFL's policy is more about image protection than 'duty of care'. I also agree that it is a problem beyond their jurisdiction & they should butt out.

[dee-luded 2,959]

I find this whole situation very strange. Do all of you zero-tolerance zealots think a player should be sacked for having a beer? If not, why not? Alcohol is a drug, just as marijuana, MDMA and LSD are. Why does it receive special dispensation from your indignation? Because the US government couldn't stop gangsters from distributing it in the 1920's?

It's a joke. Smoking a joint is not going to affect the performance of an AFL player any more than drinking a beer. The line between them is entirely arbitrary and impossible to logically justify. You want zero tolerance? You have to include alcohol, caffeine, ibuprofen, aspirin, and everything else. It's a morally untenable position.

Alcohol & Marihuana to the best of my knowledge are downers, & won't help improve perfomance unless the patient is too anxious.

Uppers on the other hand, I believe could aid performance, in exertion & energy levels, not to mention positive mood, etc... I stand to be corrected if necessary.

In my opinion, the game should be clean of all artificials like any of these on game day & free of all illegal substances around the clock.

There should be no excuses & anyone tested & found taking drugs should be tested during games. if found 'under', they should miss as month to start with..

[binman 42,932]

Ok, so if a player goes out and gets drunk and as a direct result becomes involved in a violent incident/car accident or whatever, then the AFL/club should not do anything to put that player's career at risk as that would limit his ability to pay any resultant fines.

Kerr got smashed drunk, beat up a taxi driver and trashed his cab. He had form in this regard and like many AFL players had a problematical relationship with alcohol. The AFL did nothing - they let the matter go to court and play itself out there. What was the AFL's punishment for Heath Scotland by the by? He broke the law (and someone's face). The list goes on and on.

Despite no positive tests, no criminal charges, lots of whispers and a couple of sketchy incidents (no violence) the AFL charged Cousins with bringing the game into disrepute (he certainly brought himself into disrepute but the game?) and kicked him out of the game. Doesn't seemed to acted as much of a deterrent does it.

[autocol 448]

Uppers on the other hand, I believe could aid performance, in exertion & energy levels, not to mention positive mood, etc... I stand to be corrected if necessary.

I don't doubt that a player on speed possibly could outperform his sober self (indeed, current players are eating caffeine tablets on game day like they're M&M's for precisely that reason), but drug use while playing is not what we're talking about here. The issue is whether the AFL should be testing players for illicit drug use on a Wednesday night, or in October.

In my opinion, the game should be clean of all artificials like any of these on game day & free of all illegal substances around the clock.

Caffeine? Nicotine? Codeine? Which drugs? If we're going to make substance use on game day illegal, surely we need to have a logical discussion about which drugs are okay, and why. Caffeine is already causing some players serious issues with sleeping, even days after the game - leading them to start abusing other chemicals to counter the affects. But people are talking about marijuana being the gateway drug...

In my opinion, the game should be clean of all artificials like any of these on game day & free of all illegal substances around the clock.

Do you believe all players should be tested by the AFL for tax evasion as well? If not, why not? (I'm really struggling to find an anti-drug campaigner capable of answering this one! It's the third time I've asked!)

Edited February 18, 2013 by autocol

[dpositive 1,665]

I don't doubt that a player on speed possibly could outperform his sober self (indeed, current players are eating caffeine tablets on game day like they're M&M's for precisely that reason), but drug use while playing is not what we're talking about here. The issue is whether the AFL should be testing players for illicit drug use on a Wednesday night, or in October.

Caffeine? Nicotine? Codeine? Which drugs? If we're going to make substance use on game day illegal, surely we need to have a logical discussion about which drugs are okay, and why. Caffeine is already causing some players serious issues with sleeping, even days after the game - leading them to start abusing other chemicals to counter the affects. But people are talking about marijuana being the gateway drug...

Do you believe all players should be tested by the AFL for tax evasion as well? If not, why not? (I'm really struggling to find an anti-drug campaigner capable of answering this one! It's the third time I've asked!)

Tax Evasion could be a performance enhancing act

I had sympathy for Carey who was trained as the King and told he could anything as he later tried that attitude in a number of incorrect circumstances.

I think the testing regime has difficulties and have stated that before. I also think that the relationship between the player(employee) and the club (managers) should be open and transparent and actions should be recognised and treated thoughtfully. It is a problem with one size fits all solutions.

[autocol 448]

I realise the newspapers have moved on the the next exciting drama, (and we have actual football to talk about!), but as a person who has lost a couple of friends to drug-related causes, I remain an active harm-minimisation campaigner, so I'm digging up last week's issue.

I found this quote today, and in the context of people calling marijuana a "gateway drug", I think it's very powerful...

When asked why he and so many other 60's musicians ended up as heroin addicts in the 70's, Dickie Peterson of the band Blue Cheer said "When we discovered they were lying to us about (the dangers of) marijuana, we figured they were lying to us about everything else." The war on drugs is an abject failure, and it's time we tried something else. Demonising those who choose to experiment with drugs, whether they be AFL players or confused teenagers, doesn't help anyone.

Incidentally, my invitation to the "zero tolerance" crowd to explain why the AFL shouldn't actively seek out and punish tax-evading players remains open.

[rjay 24,921]

I realise the newspapers have moved on the the next exciting drama, (and we have actual football to talk about!), but as a person who has lost a couple of friends to drug-related causes, I remain an active harm-minimisation campaigner, so I'm digging up last week's issue.

I found this quote today, and in the context of people calling marijuana a "gateway drug", I think it's very powerful...

When asked why he and so many other 60's musicians ended up as heroin addicts in the 70's, Dickie Peterson of the band Blue Cheer said "When we discovered they were lying to us about (the dangers of) marijuana, we figured they were lying to us about everything else." The war on drugs is an abject failure, and it's time we tried something else. Demonising those who choose to experiment with drugs, whether they be AFL players or confused teenagers, doesn't help anyone.

Incidentally, my invitation to the "zero tolerance" crowd to explain why the AFL shouldn't actively seek out and punish tax-evading players remains open.

So..what's his point? Who was lying about marijuana and what were they lying about?

[dee-luded 2,959]

I don't doubt that a player on speed possibly could outperform his sober self (indeed, current players are eating caffeine tablets on game day like they're M&M's for precisely that reason), but drug use while playing is not what we're talking about here. The issue is whether the AFL should be testing players for illicit drug use on a Wednesday night, or in October.

IMO also players tasking Cocaine as an upper would likely play above themselves, especially if they can swim a lake in one easy splash & dash.

Caffeine? Nicotine? Codeine? Which drugs? If we're going to make substance use on game day illegal, surely we need to have a logical discussion about which drugs are okay, and why. Caffeine is already causing some players serious issues with sleeping, even days after the game - leading them to start abusing other chemicals to
counter the affects. But people are talking about marijuana being the gateway drug...

Drugs over the supermarket Counter should be OK in my book.

In my opinion, the game should be clean of all artificials like any of these on game day & free of all illegal substances around the clock.

Do you believe all players should be tested by the AFL for tax evasion as well? If not, why not? (I'm really struggling to find an anti-drug campaigner capable of answering this one! It's the third time I've asked!)

AFL, for Tax evasion? No, the Tax Office & the Federal police should look out for & after their spare time.

I don't doubt that a player on speed possibly could outperform his sober self (indeed, current players are eating caffeine tablets on game day like they're M&M's for precisely that reason), but drug use while playing is not what we're talking about here. The issue is whether the AFL should be testing players for illicit drug use on a Wednesday night, or in October.

Caffeine? Nicotine? Codeine? Which drugs? If we're going to make substance use on game day illegal, surely we need to have a logical discussion about which drugs are okay, and why. Caffeine is already causing some players serious issues with sleeping, even days after the game - leading them to start abusing other chemicals to counter the affects. But people are talking about marijuana being the gateway drug...

Do you believe all players should be tested by the AFL for tax evasion as well? If not, why not? (I'm really struggling to find an anti-drug campaigner capable of answering this one! It's the third time I've asked!)

[autocol 448]

So..what's his point? Who was lying about marijuana and what were they lying about?

The idea of of zero tolerance, and by extension the so called war on drugs as a whole, makes no effort to educate people about the effects and consequences of putting chemicals into our bodies. It demonises almost totally harmless chemicals (like marijuana) by classifying them as dangerous narcotics like opiates, whilst almost actively encouraging the use of other highly dangerous chemicals, like alcohol, thanks to glaring inconsistencies created by entirely arbitrary lines drawn between these substances. "They" were lying about the dangers of marijuana, and as a result, the people they were lying to chose not to trust them when it came to their warnings about other chemicals.

Ask any teenager with overly-strict parents how seriously they take warnings and advice from their parents (hint for the lazy: not seriously at all), and you'll understand.

IMO also players tasking Cocaine as an upper would likely play above themselves, especially if they can swim a lake in one easy splash & dash.

Agree, and I'm certainly not arguing that the AFL shouldn't be testing for performance enhancing drugs, particularly on game-day.

AFL, for Tax evasion? No, the Tax Office & the Federal police should look out for & after their spare time.

Thank you. On that basis, why is it appropriate for the AFL to arbitrarily investigate their players for other breaches of civil law?

[dee-luded 2,959]

The idea of of zero tolerance, and by extension the so called war on drugs as a whole, makes no effort to educate people about the effects and consequences of putting chemicals into our bodies. It demonises almost totally harmless chemicals (like marijuana) by classifying them as dangerous narcotics like opiates, whilst almost actively encouraging the use of other highly dangerous chemicals, like alcohol, thanks to glaring inconsistencies created by entirely arbitrary lines drawn between these substances. "They" were lying about the dangers of marijuana, and as a result, the people they were lying to chose not to trust them when it came to their warnings about other chemicals.

Ask any teenager with overly-strict parents how seriously they take warnings and advice from their parents (hint for the lazy: not seriously at all), and you'll understand.

Agree, and I'm certainly not arguing that the AFL shouldn't be testing for performance enhancing drugs, particularly on game-day.

Thank you. On that basis, why is it appropriate for the AFL to arbitrarily investigate their players for other breaches of civil law?

What are you talking about?

[hardtack 10,537]

Thank you. On that basis, why is it appropriate for the AFL to arbitrarily investigate their players for other breaches of civil law?

Possibly because drugs (and alchohol) can have a direct affect on on-field performance and as a consequence affect the outcome of a game... and when you take into account the amount of money being bet on AFL games, the affects can be far reaching... can't say I can recall any incidents of tax evasion that have affected a player's ability to deliver on-field (unless they have been locked up in a cell). Edited February 25, 2013 by hardtack

[autocol 448]

Possibly because drugs (and alchohol) can have a direct affect on on-field performance and as a consequence affect the outcome of a game... and when you take into account the amount of money being bet on AFL games, the affects can be far reaching... can't say I can recall any incidents of tax evasion that have affected a player's ability to deliver on-field (unless they have been locked up in a cell).

Some drugs can have a direct effect on games, yes, and I'm not suggesting that we wouldn't test for those. But there's plenty of illicit drugs which would clearly cause someone to play worse (marijuana, alcohol and LSD all come to mind as obvious examples of drugs that would adversely affect performance). Why should the AFL test for those, particularly in October? They have no greater effect on player performance than tax evasion.

[felixdacat 459]

Lets cut to the chase here - this is the biggest problem for the AFL NOT performance enhancing drugs.

I am emphatically against the AFL 3 strike policy. This policy is flawed and is not in line with public expectations of what should happen at your football club.

My view is kick any player out of the club who uses illicit drugs. Lets not nancy around with 3 chances, what sort of a message is this sending to young men who want to be elite footballers.

Illicit drugs is a broader society issue however, I will be telling the MFC in the strongest possible terms that they need to stay on top of this issue within the club. There is only one policy for illicit drug use in the AFL- Zero Tolerance! if you are caught using illicit drugs and you are on a AFL list - your gone. Get to hell out of this game.

I pay to support my club and I expect my club to get rid of drug users no matter who they are.

lol Zero Tolerance yeah because illicit drug use is such a straight forward issue. It is wrong and that all there is to it! If you do drugs then you are bad and you will be punished. Why don't we try prohibition cause that worked well in other places. I pay to support my club and I expect them to deal with the issue properly not bury it's head in the sand and say your now the community's problem.

Is it the biggest problem for the AFL?, seems to me there is a lot of rumours going around but nothing concrete to say that its as huge an issue as you say.

IMO people that use Illicit drugs have more tendency to use performance enhancing drugs

So yeah they should change the 3 strikes policy

Seriously? IMO people that drink beer have more tendency to use crack!

Yes Illicit drugs is part of society and yes it has been since before the opium wars in China, however I don't think it's too much to ask of an elite footballer at the highest level on 200,000 plus a year to stay away from this [censored]. There will always be a minority who will do as they please....catch them and show them the door!

If I get caught using illicit drugs I lose my job....I know the consequences.

Footballers know the consequences unless they live under a rock. Everybody is a victim these days....excuses excuses!!

What gives anyone the right to tell someone what they can or can't do with their wages. The amount they earn is irrelevant and comparing your job with theirs is illogical and is like apples and oranges. How does the AFL policy reinforce the idea that drug users are victims? AFL players just have better work conditions and bully for them.

Garbage.

Get on your high horse all you like but the law is the law. You take illegal drugs, you run the risk of being caught and punished. The afl shouldn't condone illegal drug use

AFL is not condoning illegal drug use it is recognising that if someone tests positive to illicit drugs it has to follow a process that is fair and equitable. You can show that someone has used it and you need to work with the player for them to address the situation, if they continue to use and test positive they will face the consequences. If a player is caught in possession of illicit drugs by the police they face the same law as everyone else. Drugs Laws treat users differently to suppliers, and possession amounts determine the penalties from 2 years to 25 years.

[jimcor 212]

For me, a significant issue is the link between illicit drugs, organised crime & game-fixing. The fact that criminals are involved both in the supply of illegal drugs and game-fixing, opens drug users up to blackmail. Is it feasible that pressure might be put onto a player buying illegal drugs to influence the result of a game? The answer, I think, is self-evident I.e. 'yes it is'.

[autocol 448]

For me, a significant issue is the link between illicit drugs, organised crime & game-fixing. The fact that criminals are involved both in the supply of illegal drugs and game-fixing, opens drug users up to blackmail. Is it feasible that pressure might be put onto a player buying illegal drugs to influence the result of a game? The answer, I think, is self-evident I.e. 'yes it is'.

Christ almighty, are you serious? You've never actually bought drugs, have you? "Drug dealers", that is, the person that sells small quantities for personal use, tend to be relatively normal people who've worked out that selling substances whose price have been artificially inflated by short-sighted prohibition laws can be a lucrative trade. They generally have normal jobs as well, and have large networks of friends who are "civilian" (ie, not criminal). You wouldn't notice them as being any different to anyone else at the supermarket.

"Drug traffickers", that is, people who sell large quantities to be divided up and onsold, are more likely to fit the stereotype you describe, with networks reaching into the underworld and all the other nastiness that entails. Note that "more likely" is just that. It's not a guarantee. I knew a bloke who used to grow and sell weed in commercial quantities (like, kilograms at a time), and he was in all other respects a normal functioning member of society. Perhaps he had a slightly worse driving record than average.

Suggesting that a normal user, purchasing small quantities for personal use, is likely to come under pressure from those "deeper" parts of the underworld while buying a gram of weed from the bloke in the house on the corner illustrates that you really have no experience or understanding of how this whole system works.

Funnily enough, however, you have raised the number one reason why all illicit drugs should be decriminalised and regulated; to remove the profitable nature of drug trafficking, which is far and away the most profitable venture the underworld engages in. Making drugs legal (and available) would cut the flow of money to these illegal organisations almost overnight, removing their ability to commit a great many other crimes which rely on the capital raised by drug trafficking to fund.

[autocol 448]

For me, a significant issue is the link between illicit drugs, organised crime & game-fixing. The fact that criminals are involved both in the supply of illegal drugs and game-fixing, opens drug users up to blackmail. Is it feasible that pressure might be put onto a player buying illegal drugs to influence the result of a game? The answer, I think, is self-evident I.e. 'yes it is'.

Incidentally, there's a pretty substantial link between alcohol abuse and domestic violence... Does that mean the AFL should terminate every player that has a beer on the basis of the fact that they might smack their woman when they get home?

[robbiefrom13 887]

Well, if we look at this in terms of what is real as opposed to what is ideal, then it would have to be said that you are the one responding with emotion as opposed to logic. The fact is that by law (whether we like it or not), certain substances are considered illegal and usage is punishable in a court of law. If a player is using any of these substances, then they are in effect breaking the law and the AFL must act accordingly.

Disagree.

If the players' actual performance is unaffected by an illicit drug, then I think we can argue that it is police matter, not aAFL matter. The AFL has limited responsibilities - wider than they used to be, but not absolute. And even courts have a degree of discretionary latitude - far too big and complex an issue for the AFL to be strapping on their six-guns and riding into the fray. If it comes up on their watch, yes, they have it in their in-tray. But if they go hunting elsewhere, it sounds like more misguided self-importance, and the intolerance would be an unconvincing mask attempting to hide their almost total incompetence when it comes to problem-solving equitably and justly. megalomania to me. Small government. please, AFL - your benevolent dictatorship is not reassuring.

ZIf a club i9s concerned about peer pressure or an example set, one player disrupting the group, then the club should act - for those reasons - and not as a special branch of the drug squad. Don't know that this is a brilliant "solution", but it's logical enough.

[jimcor 212]

Christ almighty, are you serious? You've never actually bought drugs, have you? "Drug dealers", that is, the person that sells small quantities for personal use, tend to be relatively normal people who've worked out that selling substances whose price have been artificially inflated by short-sighted prohibition laws can be a lucrative trade. They generally have normal jobs as well, and have large networks of friends who are "civilian" (ie, not criminal). You wouldn't notice them as being any different to anyone else at the supermarket.

Thanks Autocol. I bow to your greater knowledge of drug-dealing however I've just googled 'link between illicit drugs & match fixing' and the first item is an article by Roy Masters in The Age on 18 Feb which includes the statement;

" But the important thing is to make codes, clubs & players aware criminals want to enter their sports and use drugs as a path to match-fixing"

This is from the head of the Australian Crime commission, John Lawler. So that's at least two of us who are concerned!

[rjay 24,921]

The idea of of zero tolerance, and by extension the so called war on drugs as a whole, makes no effort to educate people about the effects and consequences of putting chemicals into our bodies. It demonises almost totally harmless chemicals (like marijuana) by classifying them as dangerous narcotics like opiates, whilst almost actively encouraging the use of other highly dangerous chemicals, like alcohol, thanks to glaring inconsistencies created by entirely arbitrary lines drawn between these substances. "They" were lying about the dangers of marijuana, and as a result, the people they were lying to chose not to trust them when it came to their warnings about other chemicals.

Ask any teenager with overly-strict parents how seriously they take warnings and advice from their parents (hint for the lazy: not seriously at all), and you'll understand.

Agree, and I'm certainly not arguing that the AFL shouldn't be testing for performance enhancing drugs, particularly on game-day.

Thank you. On that basis, why is it appropriate for the AFL to arbitrarily investigate their players for other breaches of civil law?

I don't think you really answered my question about the quote but I think I get where you are coming from.

I believe that the AFL should stay out of the testing for illicit drugs apart from match day testing, which is in line with the WADA testing procedures. This is the realm of law enforcement and not the AFL.

I think though that you dismissed 'Jimcor' to easily and although as you say dealers are at the bottom of the line there is a line and if the people at the top perceive they can gain an advantage they will take it. If they find a weakness they will exploit it and in the case of sport this could be in the manipulation of results....but I think there are better people to handle this than the AFL although they have aright to be concerned.

I don't agree that marijuana is a totally harmless chemical, this is a stupid thing to say. I do agree there are inconsistencies with alcohol and I think it should be decriminalised and controlled as other drugs should be but to say it's harmless is a total crock. It's links to mental problems cannot be just written off for the convenience of making a legalisation argument. As for our man 'Dickie Peterson', I wouldn't be quoting him as an authority on anything, sounds like he is another addict looking for an excuse for his behaviour and is blaming the mythical 'them'(and I'm not meaning Van Morrison's Them).

[jimcor 212]

You make a lot of sense, rjay. Also, I think there was a lot of concern that Bennie & Gardiner (?) at WCE were linked with a high-profile, 'alleged' criminal identity from Perth. I suspect that these 'identities' like to be associated with high-profile sportsmen (see also Morans & Carlton) and it is blindingly obvious to me that these friendships would be problematic.