Richard Hinds implies some Swans players are using illegal substances

[dendol]

Then a swallow.

That would be giving "we're the eagles, we're flying high" a new meaning.

[NMWBloods]

Yes, the Eagles players do drugs, but none of the squeaky clean Swans players would do anything like that...

[cruiser]

Yes, the Eagles players do drugs, but none of the squeaky clean Swans players would do anything like that...

The difference is evidence. I find it quite astonishing that often when this subject comes up you imply that some Swans players also take drugs. I challenge you to back it up with evidence.

[CureTheSane]

Well, here's my opinion for the hell of it.

I think anyone found with illegal drugs should be dealt with by the police.
That is, if the police find drugs on them and decide to charge them, then that is their matter.

It's a complete joke that anyone's employer (for instance the Swans) has the right to test their employees (the players) without reasonable cause.

If they have concerns, then the player agrees to a test, and they are dealt with either in house, or the Swans reports the offender to the police.

The fact that a governing body (the AFL) has the right to randomly test players is ridiculous.
There was a reference to Big Brother made long before the TV show - this is just another instance of fiction becoming reality.

One could argue that the Swans would have had a great case for testing Dale Lewis given that he was always 2 steps behind.

I don't understand all the Ben Cousins hating.
I would have much preferred he get so warped on drugs that he is sacked from the Eagles and then is picked up by the Swans for next to nothing and they help him back into drug free form.

Having said that I hope he plays like crap on the weekend

[liz]

I half agree with you CTS but some illicit drugs are also considered performance enhancing when taken in competition. They don't have the long term physical benefits (ignoring the negatives as well) of steroids but in the short term some are considered enhancing.

I think your argument is stronger applied to the out-of-competition testing than in-competition testing.

[Layby]

Any elite sporstman, in any sport you care to mention, will take supplements.

Whether that be caffeine, creatanine, wild juju berry or anything else.

many many things are performance enhancing, prattling on about it without any knowledge of pharmacology is useless.

[Bleed Red Blood]

Yep, I was surprised at this too, just adds to sense of theatre around the whole saga. It may backfire on them- it takes time to get used to the physical contact, etc of playing a match after missing several months. Surely he cannot be match-fit.

For Cousins' I don't think fitness will be an issue.
He did the pre-season.
He's been an AFL footballer for 10+ years.
Known for hard running.

Nerves might be a bigger issue, but I reckon the guy is cool enough to go out there and slot a couple of goals no worries.

[CureTheSane]

I half agree with you CTS but some illicit drugs are also considered performance enhancing when taken in competition. They don't have the long term physical benefits (ignoring the negatives as well) of steroids but in the short term some are considered enhancing.

I think your argument is stronger applied to the out-of-competition testing than in-competition testing.

Yeah, it's not something I'm over passionate about, contrary to my seemingly passionate POV.

I don't know of any illegal (traditional) drugs which would enhance a performance as a whole, but again, one would think that the effects of this sort of drug taking would be obvious to a degree to the coaching staff who work with the players every day.

To me it's a negative blight on the game.
You can go down the 'innocent until proven guilty' road with recreational drugs, but performance enhancing drugs are a different kettle of fish.
Unfortunately they are ideally suited to sports in general and therefore they come under the heading "cheating"
Should performing enhancing drugs be tested for?
Probably, but why not everyone at random intervals through the year.
The knowledge that being caught was extremely likely would neutralize the potential problem.
I'd advocate that cheats be banned for life instantly, but then you have the "Shane Warne" type dilemma, with prescriptions etc

Anyway, the two different forms of drug taking should be dealt with differently I say with a hint of hypocrisy.

1. 'Recreational drugs' are dealt with by a court of law. There are laws in place for these drugs.
If a club wishes, the could ratify a policy stating what consequences they deem reasonable relating to court judgments.

2. Performance enhancing drugs - as far as I know many are not illegal and are readily available. Therefore the club has no reference with which to base a consequence for use of these drugs. Given that they affect the actual results of a game, then the clubs or AFL are required to weed out the offenders themselves.

[NMWBloods]

The difference is evidence. I find it quite astonishing that often when this subject comes up you imply that some Swans players also take drugs. I challenge you to back it up with evidence.

I have no doubt that players from every club have partaken of drugs. It would be naive to think that none of the Swans players have done so.

[giant]

I have no doubt that players from every club have partaken of drugs. It would be naive to think that none of the Swans players have done so.

And it would be wrong to compare any such issues with what's happened at the Eagles. This wasn't a case of a few youngsters having a cheeky joint at a Sunday summer barbecue at Cottesloe.

[Bas]

[QUOTE=TheHood;320403]I seem to remember a certain Sydney CEO popping his cloggs in a seedy William Street hotel room.

And yes, Dale Lewis may have been telling some truths amongst his exaggerations. We're not squeaky clean and it's not just drugs either, it can be abuse, assult or other.
QUOTE]

Drawing a very long bow on the Schwabb comparison if that was the case. I can't remember a Swans player being publicly critical of "Snorty" anyway. Most say that it's good he's back. I just wish he had come back next week though.

What players have been convicted of "abuse, assault or other"?

Allegations are just allegations until proven.

[TheHood]

[QUOTE=Bas;320586Drawing a very long bow on the Schwabb comparison if that was the case. I can't remember a Swans player being publicly critical of "Snorty" anyway. Most say that it's good he's back. I just wish he had come back next week though.

What players have been convicted of "abuse, assault or other"?

Allegations are just allegations until proven.[/QUOTE]

It's boring to get finicky on this issue but to clarify what I meant:

The article was more about supporter hypocricy than player.
Cousins still hasn't admitted his problem, i.e. he is still in allegation territory too, just as the Swans have been over a couple of reported incidents over many years; Schwabb death, the tour bus in Tassie allegation, the Magic pay-off allegation and the Dale Lewis' broadside.

The Swans are the cleanest performers in the AFL. Our recent record speaks for itself. Only super snoop Rebecca Wilson dug up the fare evasion dirt in 2004 and that send shockwaves through the AFL world

[canetoad]

Yes, the Eagles players do drugs, but none of the squeaky clean Swans players would do anything like that...

The way the bloods finish off a match suggest that their fitness levels are the envy of other clubs. They make those bike riders look second rate. I wish I knew how they did it!!!!!! Seems like a dip in the sea has amazing therapeutic effects Why havent other clubs thought of it.

[timthefish]

And it would be wrong to compare any such issues with what's happened at the Eagles. This wasn't a case of a few youngsters having a cheeky joint at a Sunday summer barbecue at Cottesloe.

i'm 35, teach and at uni and a large number of my friends and associates are musicians and dj's or work in similar environments. between my work and social life i get a fair insight into the "yoof" of today and i can tell you that while the current crop of 20-somethings have a large conservative streak in them, those that are partaking in illegal substances are not just having the odd puff now and then. mary-jane has plummeted in use as it is now perceived as causing schizophrenia and being a bit old. speed, coke, ecstacy and ice are much more popular as they are socially enabling because you can talk your head off, talk anyone else's down to your waistline, stay up all night, drive and appear straight enough for the brief moments you interact with parents, bouncers and police. they also combine well with booze, whereas a couple of bongs after a big night used to make me and my mates hurl with monotonous regularity.

i don't see any reason to believe that young footballers aren't attracted to the same things the rest of their cohort is. they are of course more careful because of the testing and their health education but i don't believe for a second that amphetamine use is restricted to a couple of well-publicised bad eggs.

the only thing that stopped me and 60% of everybody i knew not shovelling tonnes of the stuff up our noses when we were younger and much much more stupid was that it was so expensive. footy players do not have that problem

[giant]

You may well be right tim - indeed, as NMW said, you'd be naive to think otherwise. My point was that it would be wrong to suggest any such mischief at the Swans was of the same scale as has occurred at the Eagles. The Cousins incident didn't come out of the blue - there had been rumours to this effect for years and it's extremely unlikely on the basis of those rumours and other evidence that has since come to light that there were others (some who have moved on) at that club who's abuse was of a similar magnitude to the Iceman.

So, by all means, don't be blind enough to accept that they're all squeaky clean angels but also don't assume that every club shares the Eagles' culture on this point.