39 minutes ago, Undeeterred said:

I'm not talking about drugs in general, in society. Believe me, I see enough of the problems caused by that.

My point is, why do we as the public have a right to know about a footballer's interaction with drug testers? In any other employment situation, this is an in-house process with your employer. Why are footballers different? Tell you what, if I failed a drug test (which I am subject to in my work) and it ended up in the papers, I'd be spewing.

It's just not appropriate for the public to be involved in these issues as they related to AFL footballers.

 

 

Its quite simple. Whatever job you are in, it is not deemed worthy of press coverage.

It's not illegal to report it, and it sells papers, so why wouldn't they report it?

 

I'm in the mines, so I do a alcohol test every morning, and random drug tests whenever my number comes up. I know the consequences, so I am careful with what I do. The football players have the same responsibility as I do. Get caught, get in trouble.

14 minutes ago, Choke said:

This is the irony though. If he'd just stayed home, even if he was tested, the results would have been confidential.

By trying to avoid the test (which didn't eventuate) he opened himself up to scrutiny.

Per Caro's article, they were all highly aware that the illicit drugs could well contain a prohibited substance like the Collingwood boys. Hence why trying to stay out of the testers way. 

Just now, Swooper said:

Per Caro's article, they were all highly aware that the illicit drugs could well contain a prohibited substance like the Collingwood boys. Hence why trying to stay out of the testers way. 

Welp

2 to 4 years it is then.

Idiots.

24 minutes ago, Choke said:

On a more general note, how long do we think it'll be before the AFL starts with the vilification of the ex-girlfriend? 'She's got an axe to grind, she's not reliable, she's making it up, looking for revenge' etc. Nice way to distract the punters from the real issue eh?

I'm already imagining the radio call-backs:

'I know Lachie, he's a good guy, he wouldn't do this.'
'Lachie's a top bloke who stuck his dick in crazy'
'Where is the investigation into this ex-girlfriend is what I want to know! She's got a lot to answer for!'
'She just wants her 15 minutes of fame'

I'd almost put money on this happening within the next few days.

Oh don't worry, News Corp (GWS sponsor & AFL lapdog) is already onto it.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/teams/gws/lachie-whitfield-gws-giants-star-denies-drugs-scandal-says-former-lover-is-source-of-allegations/news-story/bf3aa95ff3208804bab9499fd37be8fa

Edited August 31, 20169 yr by Dr. Gonzo

25 minutes ago, Choke said:

This is the irony though. If he'd just stayed home, even if he was tested, the results would have been confidential.

By trying to avoid the test (which didn't eventuate) he opened himself up to scrutiny.

 

 

On a more general note, how long do we think it'll be before the AFL starts with the vilification of the ex-girlfriend? 'She's got an axe to grind, she's not reliable, she's making it up, looking for revenge' etc. Nice way to distract the punters from the real issue eh?

I'm already imagining the radio call-backs:

'I know Lachie, he's a good guy, he wouldn't do this.'
'Lachie's a top bloke who stuck his dick in crazy'
'Where is the investigation into this ex-girlfriend is what I want to know! She's got a lot to answer for!'
'She just wants her 15 minutes of fame'

I'd almost put money on this happening within the next few days.

Correct Choke the "shot the messenger" comments will start shortly if they have not  already.

3 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Oh don't worry, News Corp (GWS sponsor & AFL lapdog) is already onto it.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/teams/gws/lachie-whitfield-gws-giants-star-denies-drugs-scandal-says-former-lover-is-source-of-allegations/news-story/bf3aa95ff3208804bab9499fd37be8fa

Wow, that was fast.

Thanks for the link, I don't normally read the herald sun.

Now that that article's there, the implication that she's out for revenge will seep down into the punters' psyche and any evidence against Whitfield will be seen through that lens.

This is sickening.

14 minutes ago, faultydet said:

Its quite simple. Whatever job you are in, it is not deemed worthy of press coverage.

It's not illegal to report it, and it sells papers, so why wouldn't they report it?

 

I'm in the mines, so I do a alcohol test every morning, and random drug tests whenever my number comes up. I know the consequences, so I am careful with what I do. The football players have the same responsibility as I do. Get caught, get in trouble.

That covers it fd

'Former lover...' Already pivoting the narrative to the scorned ex out to ruin the poor, innocent guys career... with the truth.

1 minute ago, TeamPlayedFine39 said:

'Former lover...' Already pivoting the narrative to the scorned ex out to ruin the poor, innocent guys career... with the truth.

Almost every day I hear / read a comment that makes me smile. TPF39 you have done it today.

3 minutes ago, Choke said:

Wow, that was fast.

Thanks for the link, I don't normally read the herald sun.

Now that that article's there, the implication that she's out for revenge will seep down into the punters' psyche and any evidence against Whitfield will be seen through that lens.

This is sickening.

Don't worry, I don't read the rag either but it was linked on BF.

18 minutes ago, faultydet said:

I'm in the mines, so I do a alcohol test every morning, and random drug tests whenever my number comes up. I know the consequences, so I am careful with what I do. The football players have the same responsibility as I do. Get caught, get in trouble.

You're in a job where drug/alcohol testing is reasonable for OH&S purposes and the potential risks to other people.

Footy players shouldn't be subject to drug testing for illicit drugs, only PED's. From memory there was controversy when it was brought in, the AFL didn't even want to sign up to the WADA code (circa 2006) but were forced to by the Howard government at the threat of funding being withheld/cut off. Was it the AFL or the government who pushed the illicit drugs policy?

Another thought on the public vs private thing - I agree with posters saying illicit drug testing and results should be private. However, given the example we have here, do we trust the AFL to actually follow through on their own policies without the public bringing pressure?

I guess what I'm saying is that if the AFL were actually run properly, there'd be no need for the debate. We could trust that the AFL were testing and punishing/helping players based on results.

What we can clearly see here is the AFL trying to bury their own (and GWS's) failure to properly implement their own drugs policy. Without the leak and subsequent public interest, nothing happens. It's a pretty sad day when the general public has to be a check and balance on the game's administrators who can't act in the game's (and players') own best interest.

And then you get the reaction we've just seen against the leaker (in this case, the ex-girfriend), all because some big shots didn't do the right thing.

The whole thing is so arse-about it makes me question why I follow this game at all.

10 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

You're in a job where drug/alcohol testing is reasonable for OH&S purposes and the potential risks to other people.

Footy players shouldn't be subject to drug testing for illicit drugs, only PED's. From memory there was controversy when it was brought in, the AFL didn't even want to sign up to the WADA code (circa 2006) but were forced to by the Howard government at the threat of funding being withheld/cut off. Was it the AFL or the government who pushed the illicit drugs policy?

This.

3 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

You're in a job where drug/alcohol testing is reasonable for OH&S purposes and the potential risks to other people.

Footy players shouldn't be subject to drug testing for illicit drugs, only PED's. From memory there was controversy when it was brought in, the AFL didn't even want to sign up to the WADA code (circa 2006) but were forced to by the Howard government at the threat of funding being withheld/cut off. Was it the AFL or the government who pushed the illicit drugs policy?

DG, are you seriously suggesting that breaking the law is not a problem?

Historically PED's have been found in illegal drugs, who knows what ends up in them? As professional athletes covered by the WADA code they should be very careful with everything that they consume. In avoiding testing they break the rules of the competition and the WADA code. If being paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to play sport and be looked up to as a hero is not enough, then give up sport and disappear in a drug infused fog, otherwise play by the rules.

2 minutes ago, Choke said:

Another thought on the public vs private thing - I agree with posters saying illicit drug testing and results should be private. However, given the example we have here, do we trust the AFL to actually follow through on their own policies without the public bringing pressure?

I guess what I'm saying is that if the AFL were actually run properly, there'd be no need for the debate. We could trust that the AFL were testing and punishing/helping players based on results.

What we can clearly see here is the AFL trying to bury their own (and GWS's) failure to properly implement their own drugs policy. Without the leak and subsequent public interest, nothing happens. It's a pretty sad day when the general public has to be a check and balance on the game's administrators who can't act in the game's (and players') own best interest.

And then you get the reaction we've just seen against the leaker (in this case, the ex-girfriend), all because some big shots didn't do the right thing.

The whole thing is so arse-about it makes me question why I follow this game at all.

The point is, though, who cares?

Just now, Undeeterred said:

The point is, though, who cares?

Who cares about the AFL being able to implement and administer their own policies?

I would have thought pretty much every footy fan?

1 hour ago, ManDee said:

What if a politician failed or refused a drug test, or a journalist, or a bus driver, or a school teacher?

AFL footballers rightly or wrongly are seen as role models. If you refuse a drug/alcohol test while driving you are deemed guilty. This has become public because nothing has happened in over a year since the whistle blower raised concerns. I think it appropriate that it is now in the public domain. I hope that it is not swept under the carpet by the AFL, sigh!

This, perhaps, is the problem. What they really are is young kids paid buckets of money and given lots of spare time and adulation.

The sooner we all see this, the quicker stories like this will become nothing!

3 minutes ago, ManDee said:

DG, are you seriously suggesting that breaking the law is not a problem?

Historically PED's have been found in illegal drugs, who knows what ends up in them? As professional athletes covered by the WADA code they should be very careful with everything that they consume. In avoiding testing they break the rules of the competition and the WADA code. If being paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to play sport and be looked up to as a hero is not enough, then give up sport and disappear in a drug infused fog, otherwise play by the rules.

No more than any other employee who is subject to private, confidential drug testing, where it is reasonable.

You can't draw a line and say footballers shouldn't be permitted to break the law, because the logical endpoint of that argument is that so should everybody. And that is clearly non-sensical.

2 minutes ago, Undeeterred said:

This, perhaps, is the problem. What they really are is young kids paid buckets of money and given lots of spare time and adulation.

The sooner we all see this, the quicker stories like this will become nothing!

Seriously?

Avoiding drug testing will become nothing!

I hope not, I have given up on the Olympics I'd hate to give up on footy.

3 minutes ago, Choke said:

Who cares about the AFL being able to implement and administer their own policies?

I would have thought pretty much every footy fan?

Not sure. I certainly don't care if they administer this one or not! That's separate to my more overarching argument that it shouldn't be in their policies at all, but that's another story.

And I should make clear, of course PEDs are different. I'm just talking here about your routine weekend party drugs, which I assume is all we're talking about in Whitfield's case.

2 minutes ago, Undeeterred said:

No more than any other employee who is subject to private, confidential drug testing, where it is reasonable.

You can't draw a line and say footballers shouldn't be permitted to break the law, because the logical endpoint of that argument is that so should everybody. And that is clearly non-sensical.

Yes I can. Breaking the law is breaking the law. No one should break the law, and that is the logical endpoint. The extension is if the law is wrong you change the law, you don't simply break the law.

4 minutes ago, ManDee said:

Seriously?

Avoiding drug testing will become nothing!

I hope not, I have given up on the Olympics I'd hate to give up on footy.

Me too Mandee and I have all but given up on Footy. I follow the Dees and not much else.

I will follow Casey and my AMOS team the next next month.

As far as the AFL finals go I have next to no interest.

15 minutes ago, ManDee said:

DG, are you seriously suggesting that breaking the law is not a problem?

Historically PED's have been found in illegal drugs, who knows what ends up in them? As professional athletes covered by the WADA code they should be very careful with everything that they consume. In avoiding testing they break the rules of the competition and the WADA code. If being paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to play sport and be looked up to as a hero is not enough, then give up sport and disappear in a drug infused fog, otherwise play by the rules.

They should get tested for PED's and if they take an illicit drug cut with a banned substance they'll be banned.

Breaking the law is not the domain of the AFL or any employer. It is a problem for a private citizen with the police and courts.

Just now, Undeeterred said:

Not sure. I certainly don't care if they administer this one or not! That's separate to my more overarching argument that it shouldn't be in their policies at all, but that's another story.

And I should make clear, of course PEDs are different. I'm just talking here about your routine weekend party drugs, which I assume is all we're talking about in Whitfield's case.

It's all or nothing though. The policy is there, rightly or wrongly, and a competent administration would implement it properly without protecting vested interests (in this case, GWS).

The merits of an illicit drug testing policy itself to me are a different matter, but my thoughts are:

- you can't show up to your job high, this should include footballers
- many jobs include mandatory illicit drug testing, in order to reduce the incidents of the above
- in football, each player has a limited duty of care* to the other players on the field, and being high during a game impinges on that duty (for example by effecting judgement)
- the AFL is also bound to make its sport as 'safe' as is practicable given the activites of the sport itself. Players on illicit drugs make this harder
- some illicit drugs can effect performance
- some illicit drugs can contain banned substances
- results of testing should be private (in an ideal world where the AFL can be trusted to implement the program)
- the program should be geared towards helping and rehabilitation rather than punishment

If a mod would like to split this into another thread debating the merits of the illicit drug program I would be all for that as we might be getting sidetracked here.

* For example, not performing careless or violent acts.

8 minutes ago, ManDee said:

Yes I can. Breaking the law is breaking the law. No one should break the law, and that is the logical endpoint. The extension is if the law is wrong you change the law, you don't simply break the law.

But people break the law all the time and are dealt with through the appropriate channels (police and courts). It is not up to the employer to act as a semi-Stasi operation where they spy on their employees to dob them in to the authorities.

And the issue is hardly the law being broken. How many players who fail an illicit drug test are handed over to the police? It's all about image and PR. The AFL want to be seen to be taking a tough stance on illicit drugs, but don't actually want to find anything that will harm their image and lead to players being suspended.