-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
AFL launching investigation into the Weagles.
- Thread starter The_General
- Start date
Barnaba said Cowan and Scudamore would have the power to ask midfielder Chad Fletcher if he overdosed on drugs during the club's end-of-season trip to Las Vegas in 2006, but may not have the legal right to demand his medical reports.Baloo said:
http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/news/more-skeletons-in-eagles-closet/2007/11/09/1194329513605.html
Elmer said:
Exactly.
West Coast are the ones directly covering it up and they are the ones who would be far more aware of what their footballers are getting up to than the ostriches at AFL headquarters on the other side of the country.
I welcome this investigation and hope the in the wake of the results, that the AFL has the balls to toughen it's very lenient drug policy. This season poor player behavior reached levels previously unheard of.
The influence of 'recreational' (illegal) drugs has had devastating effects on the Weagles and their star players.
I want this mess cleaned up before we see something similar drug wise at Richmond.
Better late than never indeed..
Your right Oldie the Weagles must be made to account, but the AFL are also complicit in this whole situation although to a lesser degree. All parties have been involved in trying to cover this up, but as I predicted a while ago this would all come back to haunt them and it looks like this is the case now.
What concerns me greatly is that the AFL Commission continue to maintain that their drug Policy is adequate and is working. The events of this year woud suggest that it certainly is not working as well as it should be, yet the AFL continue to resist efforts to reform or reveiw the drug policy.
They are still yet to explain how Cousins slipped through the net for so long.
Only recently a journalist made reference to another player heading in a similar direction to Cousins and I don't think you have to be Einstein to figure out who he was talking about.
West Coast have at least gone some way to recognising they have a problem, but the AFL appear to continue to deny it is also a wider problem in the AFL and sport more generally.
What concerns me greatly is that the AFL Commission continue to maintain that their drug Policy is adequate and is working. The events of this year woud suggest that it certainly is not working as well as it should be, yet the AFL continue to resist efforts to reform or reveiw the drug policy.
They are still yet to explain how Cousins slipped through the net for so long.
Only recently a journalist made reference to another player heading in a similar direction to Cousins and I don't think you have to be Einstein to figure out who he was talking about.
West Coast have at least gone some way to recognising they have a problem, but the AFL appear to continue to deny it is also a wider problem in the AFL and sport more generally.
yeah they've been shocking. But maybe better late as buggery than never. Should have been done at the start of the year after the Cousins/ Kerr/ Gardiner/ Fletcher horrorshows and the club's 'get stuffed you eastern smartarses' attitude.
I still can't buy how Cousins actually went down in the end. A couple of bloody valiums. A dead mate, massive media pressure, he obviously is a bit confused and deluded about life, don't blame him for taking a couple of valiums myself. After all his actual bad deeds he got away with, I mean taking hard drugs, breaking the law and with no excuses, it seems very strange to me he was done for a soft drug that he had an excuse for taking.
I still can't buy how Cousins actually went down in the end. A couple of bloody valiums. A dead mate, massive media pressure, he obviously is a bit confused and deluded about life, don't blame him for taking a couple of valiums myself. After all his actual bad deeds he got away with, I mean taking hard drugs, breaking the law and with no excuses, it seems very strange to me he was done for a soft drug that he had an excuse for taking.
Why are so many posters blaming the AFL for this mess?
Cousins is responsible for his own behaviour and West Coast is responsible for the behaviour of its players.
the AFL is responsible for setting competition wide rules and guidelines - not for enforcing then at an individual player level. Do people seriously want the AFL determining player discipline within each club - ie Richmonds own players not answerable to the Club but to the AFL itself? NO WAY!! Its seems people complain about the AFL sticking its nose into clubs business and then complains that it doesnt..
The AFL made it absolutely clear to WC at the start of the year that they had to get their house in order: it was their responsibility. Now that they have failed and only now can the AFL legitimately investigate the club. The fact that they have appointed a Judge to the head the investigation shows how seriously they are taking it - and how it is not going to be a superficial exercise with a pre-determined outcome.
This princaple is exactly consistent with financially troubled (as opposed to drug troubled) clubs. The AFL doesnt get involved with a club's management of finances until it becomes a league issue- hence it doenst look at Essendons finances but it is involved with North's.
The AFL is not there to run Clubs for the Clubs: its there to supervise the competition: they can hardly be blamed because the WCE & Cousins have acted disgracefully. You cant legislate against stupidity... but you can penalise it: WCE should have the book thrown at them.
Cousins is responsible for his own behaviour and West Coast is responsible for the behaviour of its players.
the AFL is responsible for setting competition wide rules and guidelines - not for enforcing then at an individual player level. Do people seriously want the AFL determining player discipline within each club - ie Richmonds own players not answerable to the Club but to the AFL itself? NO WAY!! Its seems people complain about the AFL sticking its nose into clubs business and then complains that it doesnt..
The AFL made it absolutely clear to WC at the start of the year that they had to get their house in order: it was their responsibility. Now that they have failed and only now can the AFL legitimately investigate the club. The fact that they have appointed a Judge to the head the investigation shows how seriously they are taking it - and how it is not going to be a superficial exercise with a pre-determined outcome.
This princaple is exactly consistent with financially troubled (as opposed to drug troubled) clubs. The AFL doesnt get involved with a club's management of finances until it becomes a league issue- hence it doenst look at Essendons finances but it is involved with North's.
The AFL is not there to run Clubs for the Clubs: its there to supervise the competition: they can hardly be blamed because the WCE & Cousins have acted disgracefully. You cant legislate against stupidity... but you can penalise it: WCE should have the book thrown at them.
Hope it is the case that Gillard will have the power to speak to Cousins and that Cousins will have the duty to respond. Certainly Gillard wouldn't question him in regard to his outstanding criminal charge, but everthing else should be on the table.
It is interesting that as soon as the inquirey was announced, WC went into damage control by announcing 1) that other matters previously unknown would be made public and 2) that they would set up their own inquirey.
Parallel inquiries. :
At one point I think Worsefold suggested he had 9 players on drugs, at another a certain person of interest, was photographed in the pre-season looking like an East German swimmer.
Come the end I think that draft picks could go.
It is interesting that as soon as the inquirey was announced, WC went into damage control by announcing 1) that other matters previously unknown would be made public and 2) that they would set up their own inquirey.
Parallel inquiries. :
At one point I think Worsefold suggested he had 9 players on drugs, at another a certain person of interest, was photographed in the pre-season looking like an East German swimmer.
Come the end I think that draft picks could go.
B
Bill James
Guest
AstroboyUK said:
Why, because the AFL is responsible for drug testing. The clubs are no longer allowed to test players.
gustiger12 said:
Several journos (including Caro I think) have been saying on AW that a player in the club which has an injunction on it is behind every rumour in Melb at the moment, and they are just waiting to get that piece that has enough meet on it to publish without another injunction coming down. Are saying given his behaviour, if he doesn't pull his head in its inevitable someone will ping him soon.
The bloke conducting the investigation (Gillard) has the authority to recommend removal of premiership points or draft picks. Seems a lot of power to give to someone without a football background,as he may not fully understand the ramifications of any penalties he decides on. Also, he's investigating only one club, and therefore doesn't have anything to benchmark his findings against.