Jack Crisp

[chookrat 4,201]

19 hours ago, Gawndy the Great said:

Magpies star Jack Crisp investigated after leaked video circulates on social media

Does Collingwood have a drug culture issue? They had to deal with Ginnivan earlier on the year and now this!

I haven't bothered reading the article because these are young kids out doing what young kids do and I'm sick of this type of reporting.

I wonder if the reporters and AFL staff would be happy to be subject to similar reporting. Another interesting observation is how the players are subject to illicit drug testing but not the AFL reporters, club and AFL staff and executive. In any other industry with drug and alcohol testing it doesn't matter if you drive heavy vehicles or are the CEO, everyone is subject to the same obligations.

[old dee 23,486]

1 hour ago, chookrat said:

I haven't bothered reading the article because these are young kids out doing what young kids do and I'm sick of this type of reporting.

I wonder if the reporters and AFL staff would be happy to be subject to similar reporting. Another interesting observation is how the players are subject to illicit drug testing but not the AFL reporters, club and AFL staff and executive. In any other industry with drug and alcohol testing it doesn't matter if you drive heavy vehicles or are the CEO, everyone is subject to the same obligations.

This is not an excuse for poor behaviour by players. They are drilled about the rules as they apply to them. What a report/ executive does has no bearing on  player misbehaviour. 

Edited April 6, 2023 by old dee

[Jaded No More 67,623]

2 hours ago, chookrat said:

I haven't bothered reading the article because these are young kids

He’s 29 with a wife and 2 kids. 
I don’t know how old these Snapchats are, but not being a POS has nothing to do with age. 

[whatwhat say what 22,080]

14 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

He’s 29 with a wife and 2 kids. 
I don’t know how old these Snapchats are, but not being a POS has nothing to do with age. 

8 years old

i think he was actually at the bears at the time the snapchats were made

[chookrat 4,201]

13 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

He’s 29 with a wife and 2 kids. 
I don’t know how old these Snapchats are, but not being a POS has nothing to do with age. 

Thanks Jaded, as I said I hadn't read the article so have no idea how old he is.  In any case this is hardly news.

[Jaded No More 67,623]

7 minutes ago, chookrat said:

Thanks Jaded, as I said I hadn't read the article so have no idea how old he is.  In any case this is hardly news.

Being derogatory to women and talking about young girls isn’t news?

I couldn’t care less if he does coke. But given the league has worked so hard with the AFLW this is not a good look. 

[Demonsterative 3,016]

Misogyny is a culture that never should be accepted. Public crucifying of such behaviour makes a great statement. 

[Redleg 40,031]

5 hours ago, Demonsterative said:
 

if it was private, it would not have become public. 
 

If I send you a private message and you post it publicly, it has become public.

[Demonsterative 3,016]

19 minutes ago, Redleg said:

If I send you a private message and you post it publicly, it has become public.

And if it’s inappropriate and offensive Redleg, it’s game on and it’s for all to see…

[Redleg 40,031]

7 minutes ago, Demonsterative said:

And if it’s inappropriate and offensive Redleg, it’s game on and it’s for all to see…

Yes obviously. But you said if it was private it wouldn’t become public.

I was showing it could have started private, but someone else made it public.

[Demonsterative 3,016]

Fact is Red, it became public. To send a message, albeit with the intention of being private is inferring the recipient will keep it this way. As you would know being in law, this is not always the way or a strong legal argument. 

[layzie 32,761]

How can it not be news?

[Redleg 40,031]

44 minutes ago, Demonsterative said:

Fact is Red, it became public. To send a message, albeit with the intention of being private is inferring the recipient will keep it this way. As you would know being in law, this is not always the way or a strong legal argument. 

What about the fact it stayed private for 8 years? It was clearly private, until someone decided to make it public.

The Pamela Anderson sex tape was a private video, which was stolen and sold to a newspaper. Do you think she has released a public sex tape then?

Its a very strong legal argument in fact.

My discussion is not about what is in the video, but rather what you stated, that it was public. It may have ended up that way but we don’t know the origin of that.

[whatwhat say what 22,080]

technically, anything uploaded to a social media platform is 'owned' by them

[layzie 32,761]

It's about time they took a stand on this garbage.

[The Jackson FIX 2,682]

12 hours ago, chookrat said:

.

I wonder if the reporters and AFL staff would be happy to be subject to similar reporting. Another interesting observation is how the players are subject to illicit drug testing but not the AFL reporters, club and AFL staff and executive. In any other industry with drug and alcohol testing it doesn't matter if you drive heavy vehicles or are the CEO, everyone is subject to the same obligations.

They are though, aren’t they? Tom Morris on the media side and then Lethlean, Simkiss et al at AFL House as examples?

On the illicit drug testing side of things, you’ll notice no player is currently getting caught through a testing process, it is all stupidly being caught on camera.

For some time now, players who claim they have ‘mental health challenges’ can sit out ‘mandatory’ illicit drug testing. Not sure if it was a measure introduced after the issues Tuck went through. I’m sure it is legitimately used by some but similarly there are those who use it as a loophole. I know one player for certain (non-MFC) who is in the ‘loophole’ category. 

 

[rumpole 511]

Jack Crisp is 29 years of age and crossed over from the Brisbane Lions at the start of the 2015 season. If the vision circulating on social media was indeed taken 8 or more years ago then, even if there is apparently no statute of limitations applying to these cases, that has to be considered in how the AFL deals with the situation. I’m not suggesting that he be let off for what he might have done but this is a hell of a lot different to Ginnivan’s circumstances.

[dee-tox 4,835]

Footballers behaving badly will always be news. 

We the public are titilated by it. We consume it. Talk about it at work, on online forums at the pub, at the dinner table, etc.

If there was no demand, there'd be no supply.

Personally, I'd like to read about things that really matter to people. But maybe that's just me!

Edited April 6, 2023 by dee-tox

[old dee 23,486]

10 hours ago, layzie said:

How can it not be news?

Randolf Hearst said news is something that someone does not want you hear the rest is unpaid advertising. 

[Redleg 40,031]

6 minutes ago, old dee said:

Randolf Hearst said news is something that someone does not want you hear the rest is unpaid advertising. 

You mean William Randolph Hearst. I don’t know him well enough to call him by his middle name.

[Demonsterative 3,016]

10 hours ago, Redleg said:

What about the fact it stayed private for 8 years? It was clearly private, until someone decided to make it public.

The Pamela Anderson sex tape was a private video, which was stolen and sold to a newspaper. Do you think she has released a public sex tape then?

Its a very strong legal argument in fact.

My discussion is not about what is in the video, but rather what you stated, that it was public. It may have ended up that way but we don’t know the origin of that.

The Pamela Anderson case was a VHS tape stolen by someone from her garage. Very different circumstances. The court case was about copyright. 

Inferred consent is a grey area. I would think anyone posting on the internet through a social media site believing it will never get out are kidding themselves, regardless of timelines. Particularly if you are ‘famous’. Stupidity IMO. 

The content is concerning and Eddie and others are turning this argument sideways as a crisis management strategy. Feeding drugs to a women for sexual pleasure is scary IMO 

[Deestar9 1,548]

11 hours ago, Redleg said:

What about the fact it stayed private for 8 years? It was clearly private, until someone decided to make it public.

The Pamela Anderson sex tape was a private video, which was stolen and sold to a newspaper. Do you think she has released a public sex tape then?

Its a very strong legal argument in fact.

My discussion is not about what is in the video, but rather what you stated, that it was public. It may have ended up that way but we don’t know the origin of that.

Where did it state 8 years ? Interested because I’ve read that there was some old stuff a few years ago but some of this is relatively new ..

[chookrat 4,201]

14 hours ago, old dee said:

This is not an excuse for poor behaviour by players. They are drilled about the rules as they apply to them. What a report/ executive does has no bearing on  player misbehaviour. 

I agree that it is no excuse for Crisps behaviour however if the AFL wants to establish a baseline standard for the players behaviour then they need to hold themselves and the entire organisation to that standard. It is for this reason that organisations in heavy industries have the same standards whether you perform a hazardous role or work in the office. I've seen first hand in these industries the safety culture and care that is instilled if everyone knows what to expect and are held to the same standards.

[layzie 32,761]

2 hours ago, dee-tox said:

Footballers behaving badly will always be news. 

We the public are titilated by it. We consume it. Talk about it at work, on online forums at the pub, at the dinner table, etc.

If there was no demand, there'd be no supply.

Personally, I'd like to read about things that really matter to people. But maybe that's just me!

The people who form the 'demand' will probably never admit it but it is there.

[chookrat 4,201]

3 hours ago, The Jackson FIX said:

They are though, aren’t they? Tom Morris on the media side and then Lethlean, Simkiss et al at AFL House as examples?

On the illicit drug testing side of things, you’ll notice no player is currently getting caught through a testing process, it is all stupidly being caught on camera.

For some time now, players who claim they have ‘mental health challenges’ can sit out ‘mandatory’ illicit drug testing. Not sure if it was a measure introduced after the issues Tuck went through. I’m sure it is legitimately used by some but similarly there are those who use it as a loophole. I know one player for certain (non-MFC) who is in the ‘loophole’ category. 

 

Some good points raised. In any case why doesn't the AFL simply mandate illicit drug testing for all staff and executive in the workplace as well? Outside of performance drugs there is no reason why the players should be subject to any different illicit drug requirements to anyone else working in the industry or workplace including the media and executive. Having different illicit drug requirements for players sends a message that illicit drug use is ok if it doesn't impact on performance or you don't get caught. Instead it is the same problem whether its a player, club or AFL staff, reporter, consultant in the workplace or executive.