Jack Ginnivan admits drug use

[Lucifers Hero 39,818]

While Ginnivan's $5,000 fine was suspended he will be out of pocket a substantial amount as his contract is largely match payments:  doesn't play, no pay.  So he loses at least two games worth (H & A and maybe a practice match) and it will be harder for him to get back into the team as he can't train with them until round 3.

Altho they could do a deal with the AFL as Dangerfield did a few years ago where he played in the VFL practice matches.

[binman 42,975]

2 hours ago, Lucifers Hero said:

Just for the record May was suspended for one game by the club which was added to the week he missed for concussion.  He also had to do community service.

Ostensibly, May was suspended for drinking while injured.  But if the incident hadn't hit the media I doubt he would have been suspended at all.

Ginnivan is being punished for (take your pick):  being stupid using drugs in a public place, being caught, doing something illegal, and the old chestnut: bringing the game into disrepute!  All of those?

So not such double standards.

Would love to see the media carry on about Ginnivan for weeks and weeks as they did May.  And some scribes are still talking about the 'May incident' as when our 2022 season started unravelling which is rubbish.  But that is what the scribes keep writing.

That's all correct LF.

And he deserved the crtisim for his behaviour. 

But what I was contrasting was I hardly read any criticism of his EXCESSIVE alcohol use that night. There was some, but the focus on his obnoxiousous and being a [censored].

Ginnivan on the other hand is being slammed for using recreational drugs.

BUT there is no suggestion at all that he behaved poorly. No [censored] behaviour and no need for anyone to step in and get him to pull his head in.

All he did was take recreational drugs. A crime, sure. But a victimless crime. 

May didn't break the law, but his choice of drug (grog) contributed to his poor behaviour which impacted his teammates, any poor bugger who went our for a nice dinner and of course the staff at the restaurant.

The double standards I was referring to was not about Ginnivan v may"s behaviour or the punishment they both copped.

It was drugs v grog. 

Many (not saying you- many in the general sense) see use of drugs through a moral lens. Hence some of the moralising about Ginnivan - even though he didnt behave poorly.

But don't apply that same lens to grog.

And so might knock someone for not handling their grog and getting messy. But not moralise about their choice to drink.

The person who saw fit to surreptitiously film him and put it on social media is the only person in this story who I think deserves judgement.

 

Edited February 19, 2023 by binman

[BrisbaneDemon 1,572]

With so much to lose and so little to gain, I have no idea why these athletes do it in public, do whatever you want in the privacy of your own home.

 

as Shaq said:

“I do drink, but not in public because I can’t do nothing to jeopardize my mother’s empire..so If I’m at the house I’ll drink, but I’m not going to drink at a restaurant and jump in a car and then..cos my father always used to tell me, if you mess the money up, your mama ain’t going to have no house, if you mess the money up, your mama ain’t going to eat.“ 

With how much Shaq’s worth, I doubt his Mama will go without a meal.

 

[Deestar9 1,624]

4 hours ago, binman said:

That's all correct LF.

And he deserved the crtisim for his behaviour. 

But what I was contrasting was I hardly read any criticism of his EXCESSIVE alcohol use that night. There was some, but the focus on his obnoxiousous and being a [censored].

Ginnivan on the other hand is being slammed for using recreational drugs.

BUT there is no suggestion at all that he behaved poorly. No [censored] behaviour and no need for anyone to step in and get him to pull his head in.

All he did was take recreational drugs. A crime, sure. But a victimless crime. 

May didn't break the law, but his choice of drug (grog) contributed to his poor behaviour which impacted his teammates, any poor bugger who went our for a nice dinner and of course the staff at the restaurant.

The double standards I was referring to was not about Ginnivan v may"s behaviour or the punishment they both copped.

It was drugs v grog. 

Many (not saying you- many in the general sense) see use of drugs through a moral lens. Hence some of the moralising about Ginnivan - even though he didnt behave poorly.

But don't apply that same lens to grog.

And so might knock someone for not handling their grog and getting messy. But not moralise about their choice to drink.

The person who saw fit to surreptitiously film him and put it on social media is the only person in this story who I think deserves judgement.

 

Hmm…maybe illicit substances v grog. Whatever anyone’s opinion is on drugs …should they be legal /illegal is irrelevant. At the moment in todays society ..he was taking an illegal substance. I get the “everyone does it etc” however 

AFL players in general  have an extremely short playing career & a 1 strike & the ensuing fallout he will cop as  a 20yr old should send huge warning signs to the industry as a whole. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[kev martin 9,892]

7 hours ago, Monbon said:

 And, for the record, I don't do drugs 

Oh, and the Sardinian Vermentino, the Coriole Sangiovese, the Cirillo Grenache and any decent Pinot Noir or Barolo I can get my hands on. Hunter Shiraz and good Cab Sav are also life savers.

Alcohol is a recreational drug.

In the eyes of some, it is a poison.

Edited February 19, 2023 by kev martin

[Demonsterative 3,020]

15 hours ago, Monbon said:

The only sure thing about tough Drug laws is a corrupt Police Force. Not my quote, but something I agree with. And, for the record, I don't do drugs though I'd be dead without my Blood Pressure tablets, Blood Thinners, Diuretics, Zyloprim and Panadol Osteo to treat my Double Kneemonia. Then there's the Zinc, Euthenasia, Vitanmin C and B, the Thiamine, the Glucosomine and Magnesium, and the half a Prexum at night. Oh, then there's the Diltiazem.

Oh, and the Sardinian Vermentino, the Coriole Sangiovese, the Cirillo Grenache and any decent Pinot Noir or Barolo I can get my hands on. Hunter Shiraz and good Cab Sav are also life savers.

Yep, you take drugs. No doubt about it… You just justify it and I get it. Your type of drug taking is the socially acceptable type. 

[DubDee 25,882]

13 hours ago, BrisbaneDemon said:

With so much to lose and so little to gain, I have no idea why these athletes do it in public, do whatever you want in the privacy of your own home.

 

as Shaq said:

“I do drink, but not in public because I can’t do nothing to jeopardize my mother’s empire..so If I’m at the house I’ll drink, but I’m not going to drink at a restaurant and jump in a car and then..cos my father always used to tell me, if you mess the money up, your mama ain’t going to have no house, if you mess the money up, your mama ain’t going to eat.“ 

With how much Shaq’s worth, I doubt his Mama will go without a meal.

 

where’s the fun in doing coke at home?

[Lucifers Hero 39,818]

16 hours ago, binman said:

The double standards I was referring to was not about Ginnivan v may"s behaviour or the punishment they both copped.

It was drugs v grog. 

It didn't read this way to me. 

The 'double standard' sounded like Ginivan was punished for drug use, May was not punished for 'excessive' alcohol use/getting into a brawl.   (As an aside, was May 'paralytic' drunk?   How would anyone know? He wasn't arrested or tested for .05.  Someone doesn't need to be 'paralytic' to get angry and get into a brawl ).  If he was 'paralytic' and it was played down by the media maybe it is because a brawl gets more click bait.

The clubs and the AFL both came out and said they do not condone the respective events/behaviours/substances.   Punishments were issued.  Apologies made.  Public dressing downs occurred.   So responses seem very similar and commensurate.  Not sure what else could have been done to avoid the perceived 'double standard' in comparing these two cases.

The specifics of the two players aside, your underlying point seems to be the the media didn't do enough to highlight a societal 'double standard':  illegal drug use vs 'excessive' alcohol use/violence.   Not much a club of the AFL can do about the media.  To me they did all that was reasonable to do for the respective incidents.  Rightly, or wrongly, the AFL isn't going to promote that debate. 

I just hope the media leave Ginnivan alone.

Edited February 19, 2023 by Lucifers Hero

[640MD 3,377]

Footballers all get paid to be Role Models,  they sign up for it and the Role Model issue comes with that,

Whether they are media targets or very average  add on players.

 

They all get paid far more than I did or the average person per year,  rules come with being paid well.

I am barely a role model to my shadow, but they can be larger than life.  If they stuff up, then whack them the full penalty.

Maybe he will learn, probably not.  Then the role model idea might show others,   follow the rules or there are penalties.

Or don't get caught.   He is Collingwood as well   stuff him twice.

[Lucifers Hero 39,818]

18 hours ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

Bailey Smith copped 4 matches under the same circumstances so why would Ginnivan cop any more?

iirc, Smith got two weeks for being caught which was added to the two week suspension for some on field incident.

Ginnivan gets 4 matches:  2 practice games and 2 H & A and can't train with the club during that time.  He loses match payments and conditioning making it harder to get back into the team.

If there was to be a 'double standard' debate out of this it should be club/AFL treatment of a 'star' player vs a 'junior' player for almost identical incidents.

Ginnivan is getting a raw deal.

Edited February 19, 2023 by Lucifers Hero

[Lucifers Hero 39,818]

21 hours ago, Satan said:

Wright fronted the media on behalf of Collingwood on Sunday with chief executive Craig Kelly standing behind him but not taking questions. Both men were in plain clothes and no Magpies sponsors or colours were visible.
collingwood embarrassed ? 

Yes and protecting their sponsors but it hardly says 'our club' supports the player.

I wonder if they had done the same if it was Pendlebury or Daicos, the younger...

Edited February 19, 2023 by Lucifers Hero

[Smokey 4,389]

On 2/19/2023 at 12:15 AM, Fork 'em said:

Yeah, great strategy .... Not.
I don't wanna be waking the streets or on the roads full of trippin' zombies.

We should be aiming for harm minimization via quality control and using the tax revenue generated for education on using certain substances safely. Things like cannabis, MDMA and cocaine should absolutely be legal (although I would draw a line in the sand with meth). 

I think you'll find alcohol produces more social issues than any other substance. Anyone opposed to drug legalization should by virtue be pro alcohol prohibition. 

 

Edited February 19, 2023 by Smokey

[Sir Why You Little 37,040]

50 minutes ago, DubDee said:

where’s the fun in doing coke at home?

It is impossible!!

[Stiff Arm 4,419]

3 hours ago, Demonsterative said:

Yep, you take drugs. No doubt about it… You just justify it and I get it. Your type of drug taking is the socially acceptable type. 

I think you missed the humour part of Monbon's post

[TRIGON 4,783]

9 minutes ago, Smokey said:

We should be aiming for harm minimization via quality control and using the tax revenue generated for education on using certain substances safely. Things like cannabis, MDMA and cocaine should absolutely be legal (although I would draw a line in the sand with meth). 

I think you'll find alcohol produces more social issues than any other substance. Anyone opposed to drug legalization should by virtue be pro alcohol prohibition. 

 

Wouldn't it get lost in the grains?

[Lucifers Hero 39,818]

Just noticed that Moore wore club garb in front of their sponsor board this morning.  Good to see the captain at least is supporting his player.

I wonder if Collingwood saw how bad the optics of 'plain clothes/no sponsors' looked yesterday and allowed Moore to front the media 'in uniform' this morning.

[Fritta and Turner 4,419]

19 hours ago, Monbon said:

The only sure thing about tough Drug laws is a corrupt Police Force. Not my quote, but something I agree with. And, for the record, I don't do drugs though I'd be dead without my Blood Pressure tablets, Blood Thinners, Diuretics, Zyloprim and Panadol Osteo to treat my Double Kneemonia. Then there's the Zinc, Euthenasia, Vitanmin C and B, the Thiamine, the Glucosomine and Magnesium, and the half a Prexum at night. Oh, then there's the Diltiazem.

Oh, and the Sardinian Vermentino, the Coriole Sangiovese, the Cirillo Grenache and any decent Pinot Noir or Barolo I can get my hands on. Hunter Shiraz and good Cab Sav are also life savers.

No fish oil tablets????

[TRIGON 4,783]

19 hours ago, Monbon said:

The only sure thing about tough Drug laws is a corrupt Police Force. Not my quote, but something I agree with. And, for the record, I don't do drugs though I'd be dead without my Blood Pressure tablets, Blood Thinners, Diuretics, Zyloprim and Panadol Osteo to treat my Double Kneemonia. Then there's the Zinc, Euthenasia, Vitanmin C and B, the Thiamine, the Glucosomine and Magnesium, and the half a Prexum at night. Oh, then there's the Diltiazem.

Oh, and the Sardinian Vermentino, the Coriole Sangiovese, the Cirillo Grenache and any decent Pinot Noir or Barolo I can get my hands on. Hunter Shiraz and good Cab Sav are also life savers.

Impressive @Monbon. All this👆 and you still find time to post...busy people get things done!

[daisycutter 29,616]

37 minutes ago, Lucifers Hero said:

iirc, Smith got two weeks for being caught which was added to the two week suspension for some on field incident.

Ginnivan gets 4 matches:  2 practice games and 2 H & A and can't train with the club during that time.  He loses match payments and conditioning making it harder to get back into the team.

If there was to be a 'double standard' debate out of this it should be club/AFL treatment of a 'star' player vs a 'junior' player for almost identical incidents.

Ginnivan is getting a raw deal.

minor point but i think he's ok to train

https://www.bay939.com.au/news/local-news/139031-training-resumes-for-shamed-collingwood-star

[buck_nekkid 5,864]

9 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

minor point but i think he's ok to train

https://www.bay939.com.au/news/local-news/139031-training-resumes-for-shamed-collingwood-star

Says nothing about him rejoining main training (says nothing at all, really).  He has to train away from the club for the period of his suspension.  He got a cut on his knee in a praccy session - they knew about the drugs but hadn’t sanctioned him yet.  Last time at the club until after the suspension, apparently…..

[kev martin 9,892]

33 minutes ago, Stiff Arm said:

I think you missed the humour part of Monbon's post

Apologies @Monbon, I didn't take notice of the "though".

[Lucifers Hero 39,818]

21 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

minor point but i think he's ok to train

https://www.bay939.com.au/news/local-news/139031-training-resumes-for-shamed-collingwood-star

Thanks dc.  Not sure where I read/heard 'no training'.  As you say a minor point in what seems a raw deal for the kid.

 

Edit:  Found the article https://www.watoday.com.au/sport/afl/significant-cost-magpies-boss-says-ginnivan-will-pay-dearly-in-lost-match-fees-20230219-p5clmg.html

"Ginnivan will also have to train away from the group until his suspension is completed and can’t play in any pre-season games...This means he could miss more games of the season should his form and fitness not be good enough to earn an immediate recall in round three".

Edited February 20, 2023 by Lucifers Hero

[Lucifers Hero 39,818]

8 minutes ago, buck_nekkid said:

Says nothing about him rejoining main training (says nothing at all, really).  He has to train away from the club for the period of his suspension.  He got a cut on his knee in a praccy session - they knew about the drugs but hadn’t sanctioned him yet.  Last time at the club until after the suspension, apparently…..

That is what I recall reading somewhere but can't find it. 

He is back at the club today so something was misreported or negotiations with the AFL have occurred.

I'm happy for the kid to at least, be at the club and surrounded by his mates.

 

Edit:  Found the article https://www.watoday.com.au/sport/afl/significant-cost-magpies-boss-says-ginnivan-will-pay-dearly-in-lost-match-fees-20230219-p5clmg.html

"Ginnivan will also have to train away from the group until his suspension is completed and can’t play in any pre-season games...This means he could miss more games of the season should his form and fitness not be good enough to earn an immediate recall in round three".

Edited February 20, 2023 by Lucifers Hero

[binman 42,975]

1 hour ago, Lucifers Hero said:

It didn't read this way to me. 

The 'double standard' sounded like Ginivan was punished for drug use, May was not punished for 'excessive' alcohol use/getting into a brawl.   (As an aside, was May 'paralytic' drunk?   How would anyone know? He wasn't arrested or tested for .05.  Someone doesn't need to be 'paralytic' to get angry and get into a brawl ).  If he was 'paralytic' and it was played down by the media maybe it is because a brawl gets more click bait.

The clubs and the AFL both came out and said they do not condone the respective events/behaviours/substances.   Punishments were issued.  Apologies made.  Public dressing downs occurred.   So responses seem very similar and commensurate.  Not sure what else could have been done to avoid the perceived 'double standard' in comparing these two cases.

The specifics of the two players aside, your underlying point seems to be the the media didn't do enough to highlight a societal 'double standard':  illegal drug use vs 'excessive' alcohol use/violence.   Not much a club of the AFL can do about the media.  To me they did all that was reasonable to do for the respective incidents.  Rightly, or wrongly, the AFL isn't going to promote that debate. 

I just hope the media leave Ginnivan alone.

My post was admittedly a bit confusing Luci.

I was referring to Melksham as having received no admonishment, or punishment for that matter.

The point i was trying to make was that was an indication how out of line May must have been - i mean May was recovering from concussion and Melk broke his hand, if he was in any way in the wrong he would have copped a punishment. 

I don't think there is any question May was paralytic drunk. IIRC there were reports on DL that the group were seen at a boxing match all arvo prior to going to dinner and were drinking heavily. So a big day on the sauce and then off to a restaurant and more drinking. IIRC May admitted he was hammered. 

My underlying point is NOT that the media didn't do enough to highlight a societal 'double standard'.

Again, i was probably unclear.

My underlying point is that there is always a lot of moralizing, from fans and the public (and sometimes, but not always, the media), when a player gets pinged (pardon the pun) for using recreational drugs.

And very little moralizing when a player chooses to drink excessively. Excessive alcohol use only gets raised in the context of an incident that happens, as in the case of Steve May. In May's case i don't recall the club or AFL publicly criticizing May for his use of alcohol, other than in general sense - just his behavior. 

From a moral perspective, not many people had an issue with a big group of players drinking all afternoon and into the evening. But some (thankfully, perhaps less people now than might have been the case 10 years ago), judge Ginnivan for using drugs. 

This morality palaver means players are expected to come out with a pantomime statement saying how sorry they are for their use of drugs - one off, so sorry, let the club and fans down won't happen again blah blah blah. Just as Ginnvan did - despite there being NO suggestion he behaved poorly. 

Look at the rubbish Willi Rioli copped for being caught with a small amount of marijuana. Just ridiculous.  

A player caught using drugs is often criticised because they are 'role models'. Well surely that should also apply to their use of legal drugs such as alcohol. What sort of role models to young kids siting near them were the dees players drinking all arvo at the boxing or to diners at the restaurant?  

I could care less about a players choice of recreational mood enhancers - be it illicit drugs or alcohol (assuming of course it doesn't impact on their ability to perform). I care about their behavior.  That's where i draw my moral line. 

Edited February 20, 2023 by binman

[binman 42,975]

14 minutes ago, Lucifers Hero said:

in what seems a raw deal for the kid.

 

totes agree Luci.