There is no such thing as moderate drug use, clubs should be informed after the first positive test so the player can get help, (and miss a week).
-
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
- Thread starter waiting
- Start date
joegarra said:
that's a comment from someone who clearly hasn't been exposed to this type of environment.
let me tell you something... we've been hearing stories about ice and weed and how illicit drugs ruin peoples lives. for every 1 person who 'ruins their life' by taking drugs, there are another 100 people (at least) who work, have families, and lead a normal life. like alcohol, moderation is the key.
ToraToraTora said:
Only if you're the average citizen. If you're one of the top 1%, you know, the pillars of our society holding the place together with all their hard work and flawless examples of how to live and be the ideal person with upstanding morals and ethics, then you can pretty much do as you please without fear of punishment.
Also wanted to add while I'm ranting. Heard on the radio this morning some guy say 'You can't just sack Harley Bennell, because then you would have to sack all the players taking recreational drugs'.
Two things here:
1. Why not?
2. Is it that widespread? :
Two things here:
1. Why not?
2. Is it that widespread? :
1eyedtiger said:Also wanted to add while I'm ranting. Heard on the radio this morning some guy say 'You can't just sack Harley Bennell, because then you would have to sack all the players taking recreational drugs'.
Two things here:
1. Why not?
2. Is it that widespread? :
It is definitely that widespread, and the commonly taken drugs such as cocaine aren't in the system long enough for most testing to catch it.
Re Bennell you'd have to consider how many strikes under the current policy he had. If it's less than 2 then he's fine.
Also that photo shows him racking up a line, doesn't show him snorting it. >
#lawyerhat
True. And who says it really is speed? Might be a joke and its wiz fizz or something.St Kevin said:It is definitely that widespread, and the commonly taken drugs such as cocaine aren't in the system long enough for most testing to catch it.
Re Bennell you'd have to consider how many strikes under the current policy he had. If it's less than 2 then he's fine.
Also that photo shows him racking up a line, doesn't show him snorting it. >
Only if you're the average citizen. If you're one of the top 1%, you know, the pillars of our society holding the place together with all their hard work and flawless examples of how to live and be the ideal person with upstanding morals and ethics, then you can pretty much do as you please without fear of punishment.
Exactly 1eyedtiger!
My point . There is a rule for some and a rule for 99% of us. Do drugs do the time. But we have a 3 strike policy that doesn't really help the player but the code.
This image in the paper today may shake the AFL to really do something and not bend to the ALFPA.
I'm all for helping the player, first time but not let the player take the policy and tarnish the game for the young kid aspiring to play the game. Just may push parents to other codes!!!
With the way the policy is now , players just treat is a joke cause nothing will happen to them.
Lewis I think it was of the Swans over a decade again said it was quite widespread and he was rediculed, laughed at and shot down.
Well we all know what this past decade has brought and shown us with numerous players. I don't think it's just a small %.
We read that between the ages of 18-30, it's rampant( use of drugs that is).
I worry for our kids the way society is heading AND yes it shows him NOT taking the stuff (in the pic) but lining it up there is certainly implications.
Exactly 1eyedtiger!
My point . There is a rule for some and a rule for 99% of us. Do drugs do the time. But we have a 3 strike policy that doesn't really help the player but the code.
This image in the paper today may shake the AFL to really do something and not bend to the ALFPA.
I'm all for helping the player, first time but not let the player take the policy and tarnish the game for the young kid aspiring to play the game. Just may push parents to other codes!!!
With the way the policy is now , players just treat is a joke cause nothing will happen to them.
Lewis I think it was of the Swans over a decade again said it was quite widespread and he was rediculed, laughed at and shot down.
Well we all know what this past decade has brought and shown us with numerous players. I don't think it's just a small %.
We read that between the ages of 18-30, it's rampant( use of drugs that is).
I worry for our kids the way society is heading AND yes it shows him NOT taking the stuff (in the pic) but lining it up there is certainly implications.
The players should say that they agree to in season testing for performancing enhancing drugs and tell the AFL they should screw themselves in relation to testing for recreational drugs.
If the AFL don't agree the players should go on strike.
The present scenario was a good attempt at harm minimisation where players VOLUNTARILY accepted more restrictions on their lives in return for a welfare based approach.
However due to the nongs in the press and the general public sensationalising what appears to be drug use well below the norm in society we have come to this witchhunt and bull$hit bastardry masquerading as brainless middle class morality.
If the AFL don't agree the players should go on strike.
The present scenario was a good attempt at harm minimisation where players VOLUNTARILY accepted more restrictions on their lives in return for a welfare based approach.
However due to the nongs in the press and the general public sensationalising what appears to be drug use well below the norm in society we have come to this witchhunt and bull$hit bastardry masquerading as brainless middle class morality.
If the illegal drugs are causing changes to performance, good or bad, then the employer has every right to ensure their staff are not using illegal drugs. There is also the reputation of the company/team that needs to be considered.
Many companies and industries out there would take swift action if an emplyee was discovered to be using illegal drugs in a manner that impacted their performance. Why should AFL players be any different ?
Many companies and industries out there would take swift action if an emplyee was discovered to be using illegal drugs in a manner that impacted their performance. Why should AFL players be any different ?
What is wrong in expecting these athletes to not take any ILLEGAL substances at any time. If they do knowingly then it is THEIR choice . The consequences then so be it.
In addition , if they wish to take ILLEGAL substances, nobody is making them play AFL , they can opt out and live any illegal lifestyle they like, after all it is a choice.
Baloo said:
It's perfectly fine for a company to take action if an employee's work performance is affected by drugs, including alcohol of course. This certainly happens where I work.
Too my knowledge, not many companies/industries have the right to force an employee to have a drug test - aside from those for which impairment can kill (eg airline pilot, truck driver). Even fewer employers have the right to test an employee when they're on holiday.
If we are serious we should have every employee bow into a breathalyser each morning and anyone above 0.0 should be sacked on the spot.
They could have them at Centrelink and we can save heaps by stripping pensioners, the disabled and the unemployed of their benefits.
They could do random audits of the homeless and those without benefits could get the lash instead.
It never ceases to amaze me how the common man or woman in the street has such contempt for notions such as freedom of choice and freedom of expression.
It really doesn't take much to rouse the torpid from their slumber with the prospect of a good stoning of someone not quite like us. (or like us, but NOT actully us)
They could have them at Centrelink and we can save heaps by stripping pensioners, the disabled and the unemployed of their benefits.
They could do random audits of the homeless and those without benefits could get the lash instead.
It never ceases to amaze me how the common man or woman in the street has such contempt for notions such as freedom of choice and freedom of expression.
It really doesn't take much to rouse the torpid from their slumber with the prospect of a good stoning of someone not quite like us. (or like us, but NOT actully us)
