seems the anzac cup might have to be renamed the Ped Cup

  On 30/03/2015 at 04:50, daisycutter said:

seems the anzac cup might have to be renamed the Ped Cup

What about playing for the ASADA Cup?

  On 30/03/2015 at 04:04, The Song Formerly Known As said:

Nope. Has played very well in the PRACTISE matches. When he starts consistently doing it in the real VFL games, THEN he may debut.

No need to rush him in. Although he is a very, very exciting prospect.

He has done way more in one pre season than what Watts has done in 5 years.

He puts his head over the ball and stuff it if he needs hospitalisation.

Don't ask me how a Brayshaw comment got onto this site.

  On 30/03/2015 at 04:34, rjay said:

A few things...

Thanks. I agree with much of that especially the WC situation. What with Barry getting off and WC on drugs I suspect that those two flags should be cancelled.

I just think that the drug situation is so appalling the AFL were pretty impotent. Hird I suspect was on drugs for years given his relationship with Charters, the Essendon situation was always going to happen once he was made coach and the AFL couldn't stop that and young players with heaps of money are going to use recreational drugs. Personally I don't see that as an AFL problem, it's a Government problem and asking the AFL to do the Governments job doesn't do it for me.

Also with spots on lists so hard to get and difficult to keep (particularly for marginal players) I don't think the AFL can stop some players looking for a way to stay in the system. Players think "if I don't I get delisted and if I do I might get banned". And for the record, how stupid is it that IF the two Collingwood players did ingest the drug by eating Mexican meat they miss 6 months of footy anyway.

The problem is so much wider than the AFL. Personally I don't believe we should test for recreational drugs. But I know I'm in a small minority.

  On 30/03/2015 at 05:18, Baghdad Bob said:

The problem is so much wider than the AFL. Personally I don't believe we should test for recreational drugs. But I know I'm in a small minority.

I'm with you BB. I'd legalize them all anyway.

  On 30/03/2015 at 05:18, Baghdad Bob said:

...

The problem is so much wider than the AFL. Personally I don't believe we should test for recreational drugs. But I know I'm in a small minority.

I'm in your minority. Personally I am dead against any drugs (though hate the 'war on drugs' as the solution), but I don't see how recreational drugs which have no impact on footy performance are any business of the employer, regardless of the reputation the employer wants to spout. It's not as if they are airline pilots or even bus drivers.

Just love the term " Recreational Drugs".

Sue generally I agree with that but I think AFL players as a population have a high risk of drug taking behaviour due to a range of factors.

It is possibly a legitimate duty of care issue.

  On 30/03/2015 at 05:24, sue said:

I'm in your minority. Personally I am dead against any drugs (though hate the 'war on drugs' as the solution), but I don't see how recreational drugs which have no impact on footy performance are any business of the employer, regardless of the reputation the employer wants to spout. It's not as if they are airline pilots or even bus drivers.

no, they're are better paid than airline pilots and bus drivers

the clubs have a huge financial investment in them and can't afford to have them turn up stoned to training or matches, or just addicted

the aflpa signed off on the "recreational" drug testing regime

In this modern skewed world I think more would be shocked if a player was photographed smoking a legal cigarette. Seem to be a bigger no no than strange exotic drugs and alcohol binges these days. I am sure the media would spout outrage similar to something like what happened to Shane Warne.

  On 30/03/2015 at 05:32, daisycutter said:

the clubs have a huge financial investment in them and can't afford to have them turn up stoned to training or matches,

I wish I had turned up to most of our games stoned - would have made them more bearable.

  On 30/03/2015 at 05:42, nutbean said:

I wish I had turned up to most of our games stoned - would have made them more bearable.

Being stoned at our games would induce paranoia and early onset psychosis at a faster rate than usual. Bad experiences and the weed do not mix.

  On 30/03/2015 at 05:46, america de cali said:

Being stoned at our games would induce paranoia and early onset psychosis at a faster rate than usual. Bad experiences and the weed do not mix.

meh - I come to Demonland to get my daily does of paranoia and displays of psychosis - how much worse could it be ?

  On 30/03/2015 at 05:32, daisycutter said:

no, they're are better paid than airline pilots and bus drivers

the clubs have a huge financial investment in them and can't afford to have them turn up stoned to training or matches, or just addicted

the aflpa signed off on the "recreational" drug testing regime

Then the penalty should be entirely within the club. For example if you roll up too stoned to train, it has affected your performance and you will be playing in the 2s for 6 months or whatever. But if it doesn't affect your performance, I don't see it is of any interest to the club unless they have good grounds for claiming that in some long-term way it does affect performance.

Just because they get paid a lot makes no difference. The fact that their union signed-up to it does. But I reckon that was a mistake.

Society's acceptance of and reliance on drugs is the issue.

When drugs impact on performance at work it is an issue of safety and output.

Sportsmen and AFL players also have responsibilities above others as their employment is subject to immediate scrutiny of gambling and so performance enhancement is an unfair advantage.

Perhaps improved recreation may lead to improved performance.

We do not want a winner based on the best pharmacueticals although we are heading rapidly in that direction.

I think Pandora's Box is officially open now

I now seriously wonder if the AFL as we know it will survive...

All these issues have to be handled very carefully or else sponsorships and long term contracts may be terminated if this goes on year after year

Essendon must be hit hard...otherwise it will not stop

  On 30/03/2015 at 06:08, Sir Why You Little said:

Essendon must be hit hard...otherwise it will not stop

We will find out in less than 24 hours

  On 30/03/2015 at 06:08, Sir Why You Little said:

I think Pandora's Box is officially open now

I now seriously wonder if the AFL as we know it will survive...

Bollocks pure and simple. NRL is thriving despite 2 decades of off field incidents, including drug use. MLB ditto. Athletics ticking along ok. NBA yet another example. Cycling probably the best example. In spite of the pervasive PED use 10 years ago it It has never been bigger.

Do you have any examples where a popular sport has ceased to exist because of positive tests?

  On 30/03/2015 at 04:34, rjay said:

I know in the main these drugs are not seen as performance enhancing but some are and now the last WC premiership is tainted.

Absolutely. Remember Cousin's behaviour after the final siren, carrying on during the presentation...man was he WIRED!

  On 30/03/2015 at 05:55, sue said:

Then the penalty should be entirely within the club. For example if you roll up too stoned to train, it has affected your performance and you will be playing in the 2s for 6 months or whatever. But if it doesn't affect your performance, I don't see it is of any interest to the club unless they have good grounds for claiming that in some long-term way it does affect performance.

Just because they get paid a lot makes no difference. The fact that their union signed-up to it does. But I reckon that was a mistake.

strictly speaking, handling it inside the club is probably breaking the law (i did say strictly speaking)

so, how is the club going to know someone turned up to training stoned (without testing)?

then there is the question of duty of care. What if someone is seriously injured at training or in a match when under the influence.

at least the testing regime (afl responsibility) indicates some care. no testing would indicate what?

afl football is a dangerous sport, made more so if not in full possession of your faculties. the club could be sued if someone got seriously hurt when a player was stoned (even a little)

there is probably a better argument for no testing in the off season

problem then though is you can pick up bad habits or get addicted which are hard to shake off in the season proper

not an easy problem, but with no restrictions could easily get out of hand

  On 30/03/2015 at 06:23, daisycutter said:

strictly speaking, handling it inside the club is probably breaking the law (i did say strictly speaking)

so, how is the club going to know someone turned up to training stoned (without testing)?

then there is the question of duty of care. What if someone is seriously injured at training or in a match when under the influence.

at least the testing regime (afl responsibility) indicates some care. no testing would indicate what?

afl football is a dangerous sport, made more so if not in full possession of your faculties. the club could be sued if someone got seriously hurt when a player was stoned (even a little)

there is probably a better argument for no testing in the off season

problem then though is you can pick up bad habits or get addicted which are hard to shake off in the season proper

not an easy problem, but with no restrictions could easily get out of hand

I'm not saying the club shouldn't test for rec drugs if they are worried about any of the things you raise. I just don't think the AFL need get involved.

But you do raise a very interesting question about dobbing players into the cops. I can see it now, Eddie locked up for not reporting a crime he has witnessed.

An odd thought.

How will the AFL handle recreational drugs if they become legal? For instance, can they penalise an Adelaide player for taking weed when they are legally able to do so in South Australia? What if the push to legalise ecstasy succeeds? Do they still regard them as impacting the performance of their employees and as such attach penalties or do they loosen up and treat them much the same as most clubs are now treating alcohol?

  On 30/03/2015 at 06:36, RalphiusMaximus said:

An odd thought.

How will the AFL handle recreational drugs if they become legal? For instance, can they penalise an Adelaide player for taking weed when they are legally able to do so in South Australia? What if the push to legalise ecstasy succeeds? Do they still regard them as impacting the performance of their employees and as such attach penalties or do they loosen up and treat them much the same as most clubs are now treating alcohol?

Good point. Alcohol can cause the performance problems posters such as DaisyC have raised. But it is treated in-club. The only reason other rec drugs are not is because they are illegal. But the response of the AFL and clubs is not to invoke the law. Bit of a mess really.

  On 29/03/2015 at 23:59, rjay said:

He shouldn't have access to the evidence 'Bob'. You or I aren't able to see it nor should Dill, he has no part in making the decision and he was not privy, or so I thought to the proceedings.

What it has allowed him to do is set the spin masters in motion a week before the decision is handed down. I would hardly think this is the action of an independent tribunal.

The AFL needed to have ASADA's evidence in order to charge them. Presumably, Gill doesn't have access to any additional/further evidence from the tribunal.

Agree on the question of independence, he shouldn't have commented.