Thing that gets me is Luke Hodge, a poster boy for fhe game, a club captain gets caught drink driving which kills how many people on our roads each year and everyone lets it slide fairly easy... A bloke snorts a line of rack and it's the end of the world, yes drugs are illegal but is a bloke doing a line of coke compared to some driving under the influence of alcohol more of a danger and a worse scenario ? I know which one has holds graver consequence. Yes drugs kills thousands of people each year but that's a different argument. People (mainly media) need to get this into perspective

Agree but Hodge was just over .05, if wasn't like he was [censored].

You can be over .05 and still show minimal affects of alcohol. Can't snort a line of crack/speed ect and show no effects.

Not excusing Hodge as he broke the law, but I think most realise it was just over, if he was [censored] I'm sure he would have copped a right whack.

Agree but Hodge was just over .05, if wasn't like he was [censored].

You can be over .05 and still show minimal affects of alcohol. Can't snort a line of crack/speed ect and show no effects.

Not excusing Hodge as he broke the law, but I think most realise it was just over, if he was [censored] I'm sure he would have copped a right whack.

That's a nonsense. Over is over. He was impaired. If he had been involved in an traffic incident that required him to react his impairment might have caused an accident. If there was a fatality he would likely go to jail for manslaughter - even if the accident wasn't his fault.

Assuming Carlisle didn't drive - and there is no suggestion he did - who did he put at risk other than himself?

I posted yesterday words to the same effect but removed it after having reservations about the reliability of my source. My mate, who is an ardent Dons supporter, said he knew of three EFC players who used illicit drugs. He gave me only one name (no longer at the Dons). That was two weeks ago.

Given the area in which my mate works, as well as Carlisle being outed, gives some credibility to his claim.

It's rife in the AFL, anyone who doesn't think it is has their head in the sand....

There will be way more than 3 at EFC and every other club. Does it make it right? no, but what should be done.

I posted yesterday words to the same effect but removed it after having reservations about the reliability of my source. My mate, who is an ardent Dons supporter, said he knew of three EFC players who used illicit drugs. He gave me only one name (no longer at the Dons). That was two weeks ago.

Given the area in which my mate works, as well as Carlisle being outed, gives some credibility to his claim.

No surprise especially as they come from a club that officially sanctions, in fact required, players to use drugs.

St Kilda's reaction to the news about Jake !!

It would be extremely nieve to dont believe that many footballers from all clubs indulge in alcohol and recreational drugs

An associate of mine (of certain midlle eastern ethnicity) has many clients in the football industry and not just players.

It is a fact of modern life and it is plain stupid to think it is not rife in this community

It would be extremely nieve to dont believe that many footballers from all clubs indulge in alcohol and recreational drugs

An associate of mine (of certain midlle eastern ethnicity) has many clients in the football industry and not just players.

It is a fact of modern life and it is plain stupid to think it is not rife in this community

Maybe, but don't film your self doing it.

Maybe, but don't film your self doing it.

and in the US of all places..lol

And what about that maggot McConville. Allegedly knew in the days before that the video was around (when CA rang for comment) but kept schtum. He completely farked his career as no club in their right mind will trust him again....

That's a nonsense. Over is over. He was impaired. If he had been involved in an traffic incident that required him to react his impairment might have caused an accident. If there was a fatality he would likely go to jail for manslaughter - even if the accident wasn't his fault.

Assuming Carlisle didn't drive - and there is no suggestion he did - who did he put at risk other than himself?

What utter tripe. You'd be the same kind of muppet that says you are doing 1km over the spped limit you deserve a $380 fine

I heard Grant Thomas on SEN this morning say that, in his opinion, the Saints had failed to do their due diligence on Carlisle, and that he had heard 'stories' (can't remember exactly what he said).

We do know that Thomas has an axe to grind with the Saints, but the fact that both the Dogs and North eliminated Carlisle early, and also what I had heard about three Dons players (earlier post in this thread), Thomas may be right.

I certainly hope we did our due diligence on Milkshake.

It would be extremely nieve to dont believe that many footballers from all clubs indulge in alcohol and recreational drugs

An associate of mine (of certain midlle eastern ethnicity) has many clients in the football industry and not just players.

It is a fact of modern life and it is plain stupid to think it is not rife in this community

What?

A player doing coke in October is not really a big deal. Surely many players would be racking up discretely over the off season including some of our guys. I'd guess the number would be in the hundreds across the league. Only one of them was stupid enough to film a selfie of it. I would honestly consider it very close to the stupidest thing a footballer has ever done off the field, particularly when he was in the middle of changing employers.

It is a big deal if the cocaine is mixed with a PED and they get a 2 year (soon to be 4 year) ban.

Post the 2 Pies players any AFL player who chooses to use cocaine is an idiot.

It is a big deal if the cocaine is mixed with a PED and they get a 2 year (soon to be 4 year) ban.

Post the 2 Pies players any AFL player who chooses to use cocaine is an idiot.

That probably covers it.

But remember a lot of them are not Rocket scientists e.g. Mr Carlisle

No doubt he will be tested on his return to Oz. Including hair samples. I would be very suspicious if he has shaved down like Cousins. Still may be more to come on this one.

It would be extremely nieve to dont believe that many footballers from all clubs indulge in alcohol and recreational drugs

An associate of mine (of certain midlle eastern ethnicity) has many clients in the football industry and not just players.

It is a fact of modern life and it is plain stupid to think it is not rife in this community

What?

Is it a yarmulke sales agent?

A duduk instructor?

Shisha repairman?

Chocolate-coated date importer?

Saffron farmer?

Diamond wholesaler?

Race horse trainer?

What utter tripe. You'd be the same kind of muppet that says you are doing 1km over the spped limit you deserve a $380 fine

Thanks for the insult.

So you think being a bit over the limit is no big deal? Where do you draw the line on drink driving 0.08, 0.09 or perhaps 0.10?

How on earth could you argue the bit from my post is tripe? Are you honestly saying that someone who is 0.06 is not impaired, not affected by alcohol? Is that what you're saying?

With your speeding analogy you're also implying that you don't really deserve a penalty for being just a little bit over? You really believe that?

Note i didn't say drunk, i said impaired. The difference between life and death in some accidents might be literally a split second reaction time. Any impairment might impact on that reaction time. That's why we have a limit. It is a serious offence to go over, far more serious and much more likely to be a factor in an innocent person being hurt than some bozo taking a line of coke in Vegas.

Edited October 23, 20159 yr by binman

And what about that maggot McConville. Allegedly knew in the days before that the video was around (when CA rang for comment) but kept schtum. He completely farked his career as no club in their right mind will trust him again....

Serious question...isn't a player's manager's loyalty to his client? In other words, wouldn't McConville have a duty to represent Carlisle to the best of his (McConville's) ability? If I'm right, doesn't that mean while McConville can't tell porkies he also doesn't have to disclose negative information.

Thanks for the insult.

So you think being a bit over the limit is no big deal where do you draw the line on drink driving 0.08, 0.09 or perhaps 0.10?

How on earth could you argue the bit from my post is tripe? Are you honestly saying that someone who is 0.06 is not impaired, not affected by alcohol? Is that what you're saying?

With your speeding analogy you're also implying that you don't really deserve a penalty for being just a little bit over? You really believe that?

Note i didn't say drunk, i said impaired. The difference between life and death in some accidents might be literally a split second reaction time. Any impairment might impact on that reaction time. That's why we have a limit. It is a serious offence to go over, far more serious and much more likely to be a factor in an innocent person being hurt than some bozo taking a line of coke in Vegas.

Well said. And I'll go one step further. I can tell that after a couple of drinks, which would probably result in me having a blood alcohol level of something like 0.02%, my driving would be marginally impaired and for that reason I won't drive. Relying on a law to determine whether someone should drive or not is an unfortunate necessity. It would be so much better if we were all self-aware and capable of making a sound decision. However, as a society we're not, so we need a law with a prescribed number to enforce what should be common sense.

Thanks for the insult.

So you think being a bit over the limit is no big deal where do you draw the line on drink driving 0.08, 0.09 or perhaps 0.10?

How on earth could you argue the bit from my post is tripe? Are you honestly saying that someone who is 0.06 is not impaired, not affected by alcohol? Is that what you're saying?

With your speeding analogy you're also implying that you don't really deserve a penalty for being just a little bit over? You really believe that?

Note i didn't say drunk, i said impaired. The difference between life and death in some accidents might be literally a split second reaction time. Any impairment might impact on that reaction time. That's why we have a limit. It is a serious offence to go over, far more serious and much more likely to be a factor in an innocent person being hurt than some bozo taking a line of coke in Vegas.

c'mon binman, i really didn't want to intervene....but anyway

speed fines and drink driving fines are quite arbitrary, are victimless crimes and the fine amounts lack relativity to ability to pay

for example not all .06 fined drivers are equally impaired. there are many other factors that affect impairment

for example a 60kph speed limit is also quite arbitrary. it is 60kph whether it is day or night, whether traffic is light or heavy, whether it is fine weather or raining or whether you are driving towards the sun on the horizon at dusk, or whether the stretch of road you are on is a corner or straight stretch, or whether the vehicle is a truck, 20 years old car or top of the range car, or whether the driver is experienced or not, etc etc

i don't mean any of the above to say there shouldn't be fines for these offences but yes, sometimes, depending, being over a limit is no big deal

Carlisle will be hair tested upon his return from the United States but it is understood that alone will not be enough for him to register a strike under the illicit drugs policy.

He will be target tested by the League though if his hair test returns a positive result, following an admission of "inappropriate behaviour" and a video that depicted him snorting a white powder.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-10-23/saints-plot-carlisle-punishment-as-he-returns-from-overseas-trip

"but it is understood that alone will not be enough for him to register a strike under the illicit drugs policy."

Why? Surely a positive test is a positive test.

Edit: remove some bold type

Edited October 23, 20159 yr by ManDee

Thanks for the insult.

So you think being a bit over the limit is no big deal? Where do you draw the line on drink driving 0.08, 0.09 or perhaps 0.10?

How on earth could you argue the bit from my post is tripe? Are you honestly saying that someone who is 0.06 is not impaired, not affected by alcohol? Is that what you're saying?

With your speeding analogy you're also implying that you don't really deserve a penalty for being just a little bit over? You really believe that?

Note i didn't say drunk, i said impaired. The difference between life and death in some accidents might be literally a split second reaction time. Any impairment might impact on that reaction time. That's why we have a limit. It is a serious offence to go over, far more serious and much more likely to be a factor in an innocent person being hurt than some bozo taking a line of coke in Vegas.

Yep I do. Everyone is different,. If you are a 45kg female you will have a totally different absorption rate to 100kg male. Nothing is ever black and white. They can't even agree on what the limit should be, When it was first brought in the ads claimed 5 standard drinks in the first hour and one every hour after that kept you under the limit. Now its two stubbies.

As for speeding I drive through a stretch of road where there are 8 changes of speed limit within 6kms. Its farcical. More people are probably killed because they are looking at their speedos and hot a pedestrian that is walking accross the road against the lights and listening to their ipod. Its particularly ridiculous given that the Australian standards for speedometers in cars sets a 10% margin for error.

We need rules and limits. I get that. But the [censored] revenue raising nazi-ism when it comes to this stuff and the ridiculous zealotry is just insane.

The St Kilda Football Club has today emailed its members inviting them to renew membership for 2016. Included is this line:

"We also encourage you to check out our official St Kilda social media accounts on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and Snapchat or download the app!"

Carlisle will be hair tested upon his return from the United States but it is understood that alone will not be enough for him to register a strike under the illicit drugs policy.

He will be target tested by the League though if his hair test returns a positive result, following an admission of "inappropriate behaviour" and a video that depicted him snorting a white powder.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-10-23/saints-plot-carlisle-punishment-as-he-returns-from-overseas-trip

"but it is understood that alone will not be enough for him to register a strike under the illicit drugs policy."

Why? Surely a positive test is a positive test.

Edit: remove some bold type

The AFL doesn't have a drugs policy....If it did 70% of the players would be on 2 year bans

It is a complete laugh...

He's probably got 2 already...