If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Originally posted by goswannie14 When a player breaks the law in other ways they are named, why not in this instance? After all they have broken the law.
People who get charged with breaking the law, get named. That's the difference.
The AFL and clubs have no legal power to require players to self-incriminate by providing a urine sample; it's purely a matter of contract/award within the employment relationship. The only sanction for refusing to do so is a contractual one (i.e. we can sack you if you refuse to pee). It follows that they have no duty to turn the results over to police if a positive test shows up; I seriously doubt whether even the most aggressive 'compulsory urine tests at work' employer does so. Anyway, police have got better things to do than bust down clubs' and the AFL's doors in the hope of gathering evidence for a few pissy 'self administration of prohibited drug' charges.
By the way, Crouch is a bit of an unusual conspiracy theorist if he believes that disclosed test results = increased risk of fraudulently altered test results. Don't conspiracy theorists normally argue that dastardly deeds are being done when the Gumment/powers that be start hiding information?
To my knowledge it isn't against the law to take many prescribed 'performance enhancers' anyway, it's just against sporting rules, which can't bring criminal charges.
Comment