9 minutes ago, whatwhat say what said:

there's instagram direct messages going around of him asking for charlie back from before he was even drafted

the notion that this was a one-off is hilarious

It would be beyond stupid for him to go so full on 'it was a once off' if it wasn't true.  Their would be social media out there of other occasions. 

If it wasn't a once off best he just didn't say anything than risk being branded as a 'liar' spinner of the truth.

4 minutes ago, Lucifers Hero said:

It would be beyond stupid for him to go so full on 'it was a once off' if it wasn't true.  Their would be social media out there of other occasions. 

If it wasn't a once off best he just didn't say anything than risk being branded as a 'liar' spinner of the truth.

it's too late, there's already plenty of well-known instances of him hitting the bags

4 minutes ago, whatwhat say what said:

it's too late, there's already plenty of well-known instances of him hitting the bags

Well he is a fool for lying about it.  And the club is culpable if they knowingly let him do so.  They are risking his well being.

Unless the AFL activates its media ban of reporting events of players with mental health issues those instances will spread like wildfire.

He is 20 and with all the trauma of the last few days he needs protecting from the spin doctors around him.  Hope he has a decent manager as not sure he can rely on his club and the AFL to give him unbiased advice.

Edited June 13, 20223 yr by Lucifers Hero

20 minutes ago, whatwhat say what said:

there's instagram direct messages going around of him asking for charlie back from before he was even drafted

the notion that this was a one-off is hilarious

From the footage, the way he was so confidently and casually taking it, it didn’t exactly appear that it was his first experience. 

Just wait for Gill's spin after the "Integrity Commission" 😂 looks into it.

"We have determined that the Melbourne FootballClub, under the direction of its bullying coach, unfairly traumatised the Western Bulldogs in the 2021 Grand Final and effected their players' mental health, so they will be stripped of the Premiership, and all points for season 2022 will be null and void.  Further they will have no draft picks in 2022, and will have to donate 8 players, nominated by the AFL Commission, to the new Tasmanian team.  All remaining home games will be at 5pm Sundays and not televised."

27 minutes ago, Lucifers Hero said:

It would be beyond stupid for him to go so full on 'it was a once off' if it wasn't true. 

Not really, the sexy part of the story has already been told...it all dies down from here and most people won't care about any follow up unless he is caught out again.

Tell 'em it's a one off then get on with life.

11 minutes ago, rjay said:

Not really, the sexy part of the story has already been told...it all dies down from here and most people won't care about any follow up unless he is caught out again.

Tell 'em it's a one off then get on with life.

@whatwhat say whatis saying there is other evidence out there.

Unless the AFL gags mainstream media that evidence of other occasions will get out.

Anyway, as I said a few days ago I feel sorry for Smith; it could be any of our players going through this.  I wish him well.  Seems a decent guy.

Edited June 13, 20223 yr by Lucifers Hero

53 minutes ago, The heart beats true said:

I thought it was bizarre that Bevo said ‘…essentially any player with a clinically diagnosed mental health challenge will never be exposed to the policy anyway’ (from news.com.au)

So now we have someone on record saying that he knows where the loophole exists in the policy. The same coach whose had how many players take ‘mental health’ breaks in the last 6 years? It’s about 7 isn’t it?

Maybe a football journalist wants to report on this? Anyone?

Nathan Buckley said something very similar a few weeks ago in reference to this.    It's clearly enough of an issue at clubs for a former coach to mention this unprompted on a national telecast.  It begs the question whether players are using mental health as a smokescreen to avoid the three strikes policy?

 

Edited June 13, 20223 yr by grazman

.

Edited June 13, 20223 yr by Lucifers Hero

4 minutes ago, grazman said:

Nathan Buckley said something very similar a few weeks ago in reference to this.    It's clearly enough of an issue at clubs for a former coach to mention this unprompted on a national telecast.  It begs the question whether players are using mental health as a smokescreen to avoid the three strikes policy?

 

The way the policy has been set up it makes me wonder if the AFL are using mental heath as a smokescreen.

They would hardly want players suspended for illicit  drug taking.

They may have deliberately set the policy up to fail.

7 minutes ago, Lucifers Hero said:

Unless the AFL gags mainstream media that evidence of other occasions will get out.

Not sure on this. The tiptoeing is already in full force and I doubt most media outlets would want the potential backlash now that it's been framed around mental health and Bailey is both a victim and a hero. Even the usually reliable-for-gutter-reporting Herald Sun has already paid him to further that narrative too.

1 minute ago, rjay said:

The way the policy has been set up it makes me wonder if the AFL are using mental heath as a smokescreen.

They would hardly want players suspended for illicit  drug taking.

They may have deliberately set the policy up to fail.

Absolutely possible. This kind of thing is absolutely rife throughout the league, speaking from a number of first-hand encounters. 

1 hour ago, Lucifers Hero said:

Either the Bulldogs have a lot more than most or they aren't very good at keeping things in house.

We're struggling to keep things in house at the moment also...

I remember Eddie demanding that the club (at least the president) be told when a player is on 2 strikes I think it was.

Could you imagine how this would be now with us and someone with a lot of inside information from the top leaking like a sieve.

1 minute ago, Lord Nev said:

Not sure on this. The tiptoeing is already in full force and I doubt most media outlets would want the potential backlash now that it's been framed around mental health and Bailey is both a victim and a hero. Even the usually reliable-for-gutter-reporting Herald Sun has already paid him to further that narrative too.

That is what I was saying the AFL ban is:  no reporting of events around a player with mental health issues so new evidence won't get out.  Caroline Wilson discussed this 'ban' at the time of the Jack Stevens stabbing. 

1 minute ago, Scipio said:

Absolutely possible. This kind of thing is absolutely rife throughout the league, speaking from a number of first-hand encounters. 

Rife throughout young people, particularly young men, in general, which is why I find the 'mental health' narrative around this a bit unbelievable. If you're going to be legitimately honest just come out and say you got sucked into it just like so many young people do and then we can all have the REAL conversation about recreational drugs that needs to be had, instead of played off as something that people only get 'trapped into' when they have mental health problems.

31 minutes ago, grazman said:

Nathan Buckley said something very similar a few weeks ago in reference to this.    It's clearly enough of an issue at clubs for a former coach to mention this unprompted on a national telecast.  It begs the question whether players are using mental health as a smokescreen to avoid the three strikes policy?

 

“begs the question whether players are using mental health as a smokescreen to avoid the three strikes policy?”

That is a theory that has been around for many years , and is quite likely correct. 

7 minutes ago, monoccular said:

“begs the question whether players are using mental health as a smokescreen to avoid the three strikes policy?”

That is a theory that has been around for many years , and is quite likely correct. 

Bevo this morning says as much:  "And essentially any player with a clinically diagnosed mental health challenge will never be exposed to the policy anyway."  ie won't get a strike.  none-of-us-are-really-sure-it-works

And apparently, when a player admits to drug use they don't get a strike. 

It begs the question, if the drug taking is NOT performance enhancing, why is it any of the AFLs business..?

Young people have moved away from the socially allowed drugs in alcohol and cigarettes in droves, and now recreate with other drugs... society (as is common) is slowly catching up.

6 minutes ago, PaulRB said:

It begs the question, if the drug taking is NOT performance enhancing, why is it any of the AFLs business..?

Young people have moved away from the socially allowed drugs in alcohol and cigarettes in droves, and now recreate with other drugs... society (as is common) is slowly catching up.

It does beg the question.

The only answer can be brand protection, it's certainly not working as a deterrent.

 

31 minutes ago, PaulRB said:

It begs the question, if the drug taking is NOT performance enhancing, why is it any of the AFLs business..?

Young people have moved away from the socially allowed drugs in alcohol and cigarettes in droves, and now recreate with other drugs... society (as is common) is slowly catching up.

 

23 minutes ago, rjay said:

It does beg the question.

The only answer can be brand protection, it's certainly not working as a deterrent.

So you don't think that whatever a certain team were widely suspected of being on in the early / mid 2000s didn't enhance their performance on GF day?  

Edited June 13, 20223 yr by monoccular

33 minutes ago, PaulRB said:

t begs the question, if the drug taking is NOT performance enhancing, why is it any of the AFLs business..?

Some of them are banned by WADA/ASADA though - Amphetamines (including Meth) and Cocaine for example.   If you cast your mind back to the whole Essendrug gate scandal.  ASADA certainly had an issue with the AFLs drug policy. 

Edited June 13, 20223 yr by grazman

Gee he couldn't cope losing 1 gf. I think of those Geelong players like brownless who played in 4 losing ones.

57 minutes ago, PaulRB said:

It begs the question, if the drug taking is NOT performance enhancing, why is it any of the AFLs business..?

Young people have moved away from the socially allowed drugs in alcohol and cigarettes in droves, and now recreate with other drugs... society (as is common) is slowly catching up.

young people are moving away from alcohol????????  yeah, right

Bevo wants to ditch the policy, yeah right, of course he does🤯