Undeeterred

Sorry, you're right. I should stop expressing opinions on a forum, then spelling out my argument for other posters who respond as if they can't read. Well done.

Why would they do that the day before the B&F? They'd have to have rocks in their heads.

Go on mate, let go of the restraint you edited out and tell me what you really think.

That was crafted expertly. I reckon you spent a while getting that one right!

It. Should. Be. Private.

Mate, you've lost track of what you are arguing about. The original point that DG made was that footballers shouldn't be being tested for illicit drugs, because it is none of their employers' business whether they take them. Mine was slightly different, in that I said if they were, the results shouldn't be in the public domain. You said 'breaking the law is breaking the law'. I then asked what makes footballers different to everybody else, in that they should be actively drug tested because 'breaking the law is breaking the law'. If you go down that path, why aren't we all subject to drug testing every day, to make sure that we are not breaking the law. Because breaking the law is breaking the law, after all. Your argument is absolute nonsense. You say that footballers should be tested for illegal drugs, because they shouldn't be allowed to get away with breaking the law. But you only pin this on footballers, not everybody else. What makes them different to you and me? I'm subject to complying with laws in exactly the same way as they are. As are you. I'm going to stop here, because there is clearly no point debating this further with you.

Being in the papers. I don't take drugs, for the record, but it is still a private matter.

Sorry, but that's complete nonsense. The logical endpoint to your argument is making everybody line up as they get off trains at Flinders St to get drug tested. Hopefully you can see the flaw in your reasoning.

Not sure. I certainly don't care if they administer this one or not! That's separate to my more overarching argument that it shouldn't be in their policies at all, but that's another story. And I should make clear, of course PEDs are different. I'm just talking here about your routine weekend party drugs, which I assume is all we're talking about in Whitfield's case.

No more than any other employee who is subject to private, confidential drug testing, where it is reasonable. You can't draw a line and say footballers shouldn't be permitted to break the law, because the logical endpoint of that argument is that so should everybody. And that is clearly non-sensical.

This, perhaps, is the problem. What they really are is young kids paid buckets of money and given lots of spare time and adulation. The sooner we all see this, the quicker stories like this will become nothing!

The point is, though, who cares?

This.

I'm not talking about drugs in general, in society. Believe me, I see enough of the problems caused by that. My point is, why do we as the public have a right to know about a footballer's interaction with drug testers? In any other employment situation, this is an in-house process with your employer. Why are footballers different? Tell you what, if I failed a drug test (which I am subject to in my work) and it ended up in the papers, I'd be spewing. It's just not appropriate for the public to be involved in these issues as they related to AFL footballers.

Why the hell does anybody give a [censored] if some kids take drugs? It's just none of anybody else's business. I just have never understood the public nature of player drug testing, notwithstanding the three strikes hooha.

I agree, incidentally, but wouldn't want to dredge up the pages and pages people went on about Hogan v Cripps last year

Definitely. But you're clearly not processing what I'm saying, so let's stop here.

That's ok! My main beef is statements about money, and resources, and salary, being made in a vacuum.

That's exactly what I'm saying, so I'm not sure why we're having a debate. The discussion you jumped in on was my response to another comment about 'spending the money better'. That's fine in principle but is based on waffle with no concrete analysis of the alternatives. That may be the case, but a bit of rigour in the analysis wouldn't go astray, rather than just 'I don't want to pay Chris Dawes because the money is better spent elsewhere'.

This is what I'm talking about. What resources? You're making definitive statements with absolutely zero context.

I put my thoughts up every day on this forum and am very willing to engage on them and debate them with you. As I said, definitely admire the passion!

Let's assume for a moment I'm not a complete idiot. Perhaps take off your Dawes Blinkers and go back and read my last post and see if you can work out what I was actually saying!

He hasn't been dropped once this year as far as I can recall. He has come on, and is absolutely, clearly best 22 when fit.

Quite. But the poor barstad at the club who has to read this type of guff doesn't.

That's not how your comment comes across. You (and others) often comment about how much players are 'worth' without any real anchor to the realities of how the salary cap works or an real idea of what players are paid, or what the market is for those players. How much a contract is worth has a direct bearing on whether it is a good idea, and you make blanket statements about 'money better spent' with no idea what we're talking about. Better spent on what? What if we're paying him $20k a year?