AFL"s Illicit Drug Policy | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • 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"s Illicit Drug Policy

Do you agree with the 3 strike policy currently in place?

  • 1 strike you are out.

    Votes: 18 24.3%
  • Leave it as it is.

    Votes: 5 6.8%
  • 2 is better

    Votes: 25 33.8%
  • All codes should have a uniform drug policy

    Votes: 6 8.1%
  • Confidentiality should be in place to protect players

    Votes: 2 2.7%
  • Name and shame

    Votes: 9 12.2%
  • Education is more important then all out punishment

    Votes: 9 12.2%

  • Total voters
    74
Dyer'ere said:
I have read in the papers over the years (usually after an injury) that AFL players have in their contracts that are banned from:

Other sports (including indoor cricket and local basketball)
Motorcycling
Wearing thongs
Surfing
Gardening
Use of power tools
Waterskiing
Snow sports including skiing
Mountain biking
Hang gliding
Parachuting

That's why they use drugs. They've got nuthen else to do.

Fair point DE
 
KnightersRevenge said:
It makes sense for them to care about that product but that does not imply that the players owe the AFL a duty to be good citizens. Role models schmole models. Do kids love certain players? Sure. Do they ape the behaviours of those players? Not in my experience?

No but Cartman reckons that kids offered drugs will reel off Juddie's contested ball gets stats as a mnemonic before chicken-winging the pusher into submission and then calling the cops with their free hand.
 
antman said:
No but Cartman reckons that kids offered drugs will reel off Juddie's contested ball gets stats as a mnemonic before chicken-winging the pusher into submission and then calling the cops with their free hand.

perhaps not, but a 16yo who fancies a career in footy my see that AFL players can take drugs and still have be successful, or he might see that a player who has taken drugs has lost his career cos of it. then he might think twice.
 
Brodders17 said:
perhaps not, but a 16yo who fancies a career in footy my see that AFL players can take drugs and still have be successful, or he might see that a player who has taken drugs has lost his career cos of it. then he might think twice.

And what about all those unfortunates who will never have a career in footy and also like to have a good time? And let's face, that's 99.99% of the 16 year old male demographic.

AFL players as role models? Way overstated IMO.
 
A lot of policies seem to be set by the middle aged and those policies effectively punish youth, attempt to stifle their enjoyment of life or are simply based on "we know better because we are older"; generally this is largely because the policies no longer directly effect them.

Would like to see the AFL's illicit drug policy set solely by 18-21 year players.
 
A bunch of alcoholics telling a bunch of kids not to escape the pressures of life through substance abuse. :police:
 
Chimptastic said:
A bunch of alcoholics telling a bunch of kids not to escape the pressures of life through substance abuse. :police:

If you support Richmond then abuse is your middle name - it's inflicted upon you so you must then finish the job
 
did anyone hear/read about the comments james brayshaw made on radio during our game on the weekend regarding one of our players?
 
Ian4 said:
did anyone hear/read about the comments james brayshaw made on radio during our game on the weekend regarding one of our players?
No ??
 
well many people are aware that there is one player on our list that has a reputation for indulging so to speak... and brayshaw said in his commentary something along the lines of... said player "continues to rack up possession in this game." then added "I've got to be careful with my words."
 
Interesting.

There is no explicit option in this poll to have no illicit drugs policy at all.

The problem with nanny States is once you introduce any form of perceived morality into the rules/law, it can only become harsher and harsher as nobody wants to be the one saying 'yeah they'll be right, reduce all penalties or scrap it'.

Meanwhile, Indonesia is thinking about banning alcohol. To many of them, it's immoral to drink alcohol. To us, it's immoral to pop pills. Maybe in 30 years the situation will be reversed, like what's happening to marijuana at the moment in America? Or maybe pills/powder will spiral out of control in coming decades and require even harsher penalties. For this reason we should probably hedge our bets either way, which means not overcompensating with a 1-strike you're fired policy (which is easy for non-druggies like myself to support).
 
Has people's thoughts changed here?

It appears the AFL is looking at this code.

Harsher penalties might be in play. Is this better than the players welfare?
 
Much better. Then softly softly approach has been counter productive.

Drink a glass of wine the night before a match and you get suspended for a match. Do a few lines and there is no penalty, no public naming and shaming, no real issue.

Where is the logic in that?
 
That's the way no right or wrong ,no good or bad , more diminished responsibility , do whatever makes you feel good with little to no consequence. A very slippery slope for society, moral decline throughout history and the results of it does not give me a lot of confidence.
 
I'm way outta the loop, but, isn't actually taking the stuff against the law? Are people actually prosecuted for this anymore?