I seem to recall this person, on her soapbox a couple of years ago, now quite happy to put Danny Ward's name on the front page.

Yeh, right Caroline - AFL has less room to punish punters.

SARCASM WARNING!

Back then, I'm SURE you had Daniel's best interests at heart.

No, you weren't thinking of selling newspapers.

Yours was a crusade for public morality.

[i gotta say though, your article today was appropriate].

I seem to recall this person, on her soapbox a couple of years ago, now quite happy to put Danny Ward's name on the front page.

Yeh, right Caroline - AFL has less room to punish punters.

SARCASM WARNING!

Back then, I'm SURE you had Daniel's best interests at heart.

No, you weren't thinking of selling newspapers.

Yours was a crusade for public morality.

[i gotta say though, your article today was appropriate].

"When Anderson hands down his decision today, or tomorrow at the latest, he will be aware that to suspend the punters — none of whom bet against their own sides — would be to concede that within AFL rules, their crimes were worse than that of a violent drunk."

Not to mention a trio of drug takers who have been caught offending twice and whose names are protected by the law!

It may well be fortunate for Wardy that Adelaide's Simon Goodwin is one of the other players involved. The word sweeping Adelaide is that the Crows would be mighty upset if Anderson came down with a sledgehammer on one of their top players.

I seem to recall this person, on her soapbox a couple of years ago, now quite happy to put Danny Ward's name on the front page.

Caro didnt put these guys on the front pagee - the AFL did.

They fell over themselves publicising the names. Caro's paper led the charge to expose the AFL drug takers ( with 2 positive tests) and only the AFL injunction stopped Fairfax.

Caro is merely seeking consistency of approach, although the issues of drug rehab. and gambling addiction may need differing strategies to help those involved.

I agree the articel was good, but target the hypocrisy tag at Anderson and Co. - they've earned it after all.

Caro didnt put these guys on the front pagee - the AFL did.

No, the player's individual clubs did. The AFL simply said they were investigating.

How are Anderson and Co. being hypocrites?

The word sweeping Adelaide is that the Crows would be mighty upset if Anderson came down with a sledgehammer on one of their top players.

Why would the AFL care about that? Adelaide need to realise that their player has done the wrong thing and needs to accept the consequences of his actions.

I'd be suprised if they get the 12 weeks that was circulating yesterday.

Why would the AFL care about that? Adelaide need to realise that their player has done the wrong thing and needs to accept the consequences of his actions.

I'd be suprised if they get the 12 weeks that was circulating yesterday.

They'd be worried if Adelaide took them to the Supreme Court over the fairness of the decision.

Decision to be announced at 1.30pm.

My tip is that Caro will be right.

The AFL can't come down too hard on the four players for the reasons she mentioned and it won't.

But heaven help anyone who gets caught betting from now on!

Shes a journilest and at the end of the day you report what will sell. Its like business...well it is business really. I have no issue with it

They'd be worried if Adelaide took them to the Supreme Court over the fairness of the decision.

It would go to the county court first after the Magistrates.

No, the player's individual clubs did. The AFL simply said they were investigating.

How are Anderson and Co. being hypocrites?

The clubs are the AFL.

Drugs and gambling both have addictive aspects for some.

AFL had to make this a huge issue now they are taking $'ss from Betfair ect, to show they mean to run a clean game. (How that's possible with last minute team changes, and Sheedy naming Hird every week excapes me, but i don't bet anyway and wouldn't under this system)

The clubs simply beat the AFL to the punch, and iv'e heard nothing from Anderson's office about the inappropriateness of naming players in this matter.

I've tried to say away from this issue until I've been able to reconcile it. I'm getting closer.

I sympathize with the AFL, I think they are in a no win situation here.

1. Recreational drug use should never be tested. It's an invasion of privacy. If a player is caught in the normal course of events by the police and is charged with recreational drug use then they are subject to whatever the law provides and whatever their employment contract provides. How the AFLPA could ever agree to have the drug police walk into a players house at anytime of day or night and ask them to urinate into a bottle is beyond me. It's akin to the police having the right to walk into anyone's house, without evidence, and search for stolen goods.

2. Performance enhancing drugs should be banned and you should be able to test for them at anytime.

3. No player should be allowed to bet on footy, nor should any club employee. It puts the integrity of the whole competition at risk.

The recreational out of season drug users are being rightly protected by the AFL. It is not a matter of public importance. The players should never have been tested in the first place, it's a complete invasion of privacy.

The AFL have it right.

The clubs simply beat the AFL to the punch.

And how would you know this? Just taking a wild stab in the dark are we?????

sorry 'tpgs' i didn't explain myself properly; it was late, i was [censored].

ms wilson broke the trav/wardy gabling story, last year?

at the time i thought she was blowing it up big time, questioning the players character.

now this article.

she's a bloody hypocrite, can't stand *her*. Edited by Mod Fan.

$10,000 fine with $5,000 suspended.

No match suspensions.

http://afl.com.au/Season2007/News/NewsArti...px?newsId=38560

And how would you know this? Just taking a wild stab in the dark are we?????

I wouldn't know - just as most of the views on this site are generally developed from 3rd hand observation and anlaysis.

It's called having an opinion and sharing it. Try it some time

Save the negativity for someone who cares mate.

I wouldn't know - just as most of the views on this site are generally developed from 3rd hand observation and anlaysis.

It's called having an opinion and sharing it. Try it some time

Save the negativity for someone who cares mate.

Thanks, well said