daisycutter

there you go again causing trouble old dee must time for a bex and a lie down (after a banana daiquiri that is)

was also on 3AW with Mitchell this morning on same topic. Very frank.

yep i had that then did a screen refresh and it changed to energy watch, so its probably all just happening now

BB I was only having a crack at your original "out on the turps" comment which I thought overstated the known facts

No, just thought some of the details needed refreshing so readers could decide for themselves on similarities Your page 3 link was about a 2008 speeding offense after the 5 week ban, with only a fleeting ref to the previous D&D arrest Seems his long ban didn't solve quite all his issues And yes maybe other references to SJ I saw elsewhere incl 'ology

all TLA's

I don't consider having a few drinks at a mates place as "out on the turps" implying being drunk in public There is only an assumption of possibly being over the .05 drinking limitation which is not a definition of drunkeness you really should avoid the hyperbole and stick to what is known

STEVE JOHNSON DRUNK AGAIN Ben Jensen 2 January 2007 By Ben Jensen GEELONG's STEVE JOHNSON has once more been arrested for being drunk and disorderly, this time in his native Wangaratta on Christmas Eve. The erratic AFL star was on 'leave' from the club at the time, presumably catching up with the same old mates he tried in vain to reach at the Torquay Hotel back in 2003. According to Geelong Football GM Neil Balme, Johnson only told the club today (2 January), more than a week after the incident. As most top brass at the GFC are on leave, no sanctions will be announced until 9 January. In 2005, Johnson and fellow erratic forward Andrew Mackie were arrested after an incident outside Geelong nightclub 'Home House, following a round 19 loss to St Kilda. Keeping in check with previous incidents involving alcohol at the club such as Ronnie Burns, neither player was suspended and fined just $1,000 apiece. But the Home House incident wasn't the first for Johnson; his struggles to maintain fitness and a place in the AFL stem from another incident involving alcohol, at the Torquay pub in late December 2003. Johnson, who was earlier ejected from the Torquay Hotel, attempted to regain entry by climbing a fence. He fell, broke his ankle and has played just 40 out of a possible 71 games since. 3AW commentator Robert Walls described the news as "very sad", saying Johnson is a "talented footballer", and the Cats, instead of trading Johnson, he was given another chance. Walls said it may be time for the club to say "enough is enough" and it may be to time for the club to "cut its losses and move on", delist Johnson, or at least refuse to select him in the AFL side for the 2007 season. WHAT SHALL WE DO WITH THE DRUNKEN PLAYER? The Cattery has believed for some time now Johnson is an unwanted distraction; off field arrests excluded, his struggle to maintain fitness and petulance on field mean he'll never attain the heights fellow 'enigmatic' young forwards such as Sydney Nick Davis have - and that's saying something. Whilst delisting is probably not a realistic option, particularly for the risk averse GFC board, a lengthy suspension and five figure financial penalty is in order. Angry GFC Members have already flooded talkback stations 3AW and SEN with complaints - should the club once more fail to take swift action, it is likely to result in a drop in membership for 2007. OFFICIAL GFC STATEMENT The Geelong Football Club advises that forward Steve Johnson was arrested on 24 December in Wangaratta for being drunk in a public place. Johnson was on leave from the club over the Christmas break when the alleged incident occurred and only advised the club of the situation today. “We are bitterly disappointed that this situation has occurred and that there has been a delay in telling us about it,” Geelong general manager of football operations Neil Balme said. “We expect that all of our players behave well and we are particularly disappointed in Steve as he has been rehabilitating his knee following post-season surgery. “A number of key decision makers will not return to the club until next week, and as such no punishment will be determined until then. We expect to be in a position to announce any sanction on Tuesday 9 January. Until such time the club will not speculate as to any potential penalty.”

omg! that changes everything.....now i will have to reconsider my position....so sorry (2 more wasted posts)

I don't disagree with this. No doubt the answer lies between the two extremes, I think being dropped from IR team, fined 5K, miss one premiership game and attend alcohol counselling program (thats 4 separate penalties) is ok except I stated that the 1 game ban dragged the issue out too long. I would prefer this was substituted with something else (related community program?) I also stated I would prefer NAB cup games (probably 2 maybe more) in preference. I also stated I hoped the new coaching staff give him a really tough time on the track. So, I'm not saying he didn't deserve punishment and his misbehaviour could be ignored. I did object to the suggestion his 1 game ban should be 6 games to show we really mean business now (despite yoda's claim it could mean 3 flags and a Normy - lol) Thats just my opinion and obviously at odds with a handful of posters. I don't think I have much more to add (other than to tell H_T that my shoulders are fine thanks)

I do think they are different but it would just become a pointless pizzing competition to compare point by point esp as your personal feelings towards CS are quite obvious In the end it is too hypothetical and subjective

P.S. Correct me if I'm wrong but in the SJ case didn't the player peer group come up with the sanction and didn't he agree/accept it as a result of confrontation with his peers?

Don't sit on the fence Yoda Do you think it is a panacea, some kind of accepted bullet-proof generic solution or just a one-off with limited generic applicability?

the assumption (yours) seems to be that the StevieJ situation is some kind of panacea to players with behavioural or form issues it is not. each situation has its own nuances else we would have seen hundreds of StevieJ style situations across the afl clubs I wish people would stop bringing up StevieJ as if it is some kind of accepted bullet-proof generic solution

So we should fine and game ban players who "float through careers without ever fulfilling their talent"? This is what I mean about separating "misbehaviour" from "on-field performance". Punishment for "misbehaviour" must address only the "misbehaviour". Once misbehaviour punishment starts to encompass both elements it starts to get quite murky. It doesn't necessarily follow that punishment for off-field misbehaviour will improve on-field performance.

Oxygen anyone?

we're on the same page there Bbb.

Maybe that's why [insert your deity here] invented forums?

Um.....think about it..................kidding

are you kidding?

Maybe that was Juice's excuse too?

I'm probably not making my point very clearly. And btw I wasn't implying you were one who was calling for extreme penalties. I don't want to rehash his latest incident. Yes it was dumb even it wasn't one of the more serious kinds of misdemeanor. Yes, it deserves punishment. I would have preferred something more immediate rather than something simmering for nearly six months but that is just a personal pov. Yes it was training/attitude related in that he was drinking (and presumably not sleeping) the night before IR training (an offense I would estimate is quite common among AFL players especially early in the week). Yes, this should be taken into consideration in his punishment. But, with regard to his on-field performance/attitude generally this example should be the only example taken into punishment consideration for this specific incident. I was intimating that a number of posters have been very critical of Sylvia's (perceived) on-field performance/attitude for a number of years especially because of his high drafting position and that in part they may be wanting to "punish" him for that as well as punish him for the incident. Yes, I know that off-field attitude and on-field attitude can often be correlated but not always. There are plenty of examples which disprove this as there are examples which seem to prove it. I say punish him for his off-field misbehavior appropriately on the one hand, and on the other hand, work through the coaching department (heavens knows we now have enough of them) to improve his on-field accountability through improving his fitness, tactics, defense, 2nd efforts, etc etc. I hope the coaches work on him heavily and give him hell, but that is a different issue than his recent misdemeanor Hope that puts my pov better and I haven't just muddied it more.

So, are you seriously suggesting we should start fining players whose on-field performances and perceived on-field attitudes don't meet expectations. There would be a lot of players being fined based on 2011 performances. I don't think you really meant that, so similarly Sylvia shouldn't have these factors included in his punishment for his current misbehaviour. However, I would agree that if the punishment does have an effect on his attitude this could consequently well have a positive effect on his on-field performance. Can't you see that off-field misdemeanors and on-field perceived attitude/performance are handled by different and separate mechanisms even though one could incidentally impact the other?

Why do you think I would bring it up if I didn't think there could be some correlation there? Shees! The punishment should be related to the offense (and any priors) and not tainted by other subjective emotions. On-field performance issues are tackled by training, coaching and selection regimes.