Ch 7 vs drug users

[CureTheSane]

Hypocrisy among RWO users?

I've seen a LOT of people here condemning drug use by players etc etc
Every other day there is a West Coast thread sooking about Cousins.

I've always been f the mindset that it's purely and simply a police issue and that any illegal activity should not be monitored or chastised by the AFL.

Suddenly all I am hearing about is how scandalous Ch 7 are for buying evidence of drug use.

I don't know what exactly they've bought.
It may be a complete players medical history.
more likely it is the specific evidence of the player/s taking illegal drugs.

Now anyone who things any media organization adheres in any way to their code of conduct is fooling themselves.
They all suck and go about things any way they can.

I don't think that the AFL should be condoning an attack on channel 7, which is what they are in effect doing.
I think the AFL should stand by their (incorrect and ridiculous) policy of imitating the police force and judicial system.

And everyone here should be discussing how devastatingly bad it is that players have toyed with illegal drugs, and starting to think up new nicknames for the club involved.

Also, maybe the AFL should be reviewing their drug testing policy if players are managing to avoid testing positive withing the AFL, yet come back positive from GP tests.

[Glenn]

No doubt the AFL are trying to sweep all this under the carpet by refusing to acknowledge the problem exists, however how Seven reportedly got the documents is simply illegal.
Question is what is the greater problem, Seven with Illegally obtained documents, or the AFL who seem to be doing nothing about the drug problem rather attacking Seven for exposing it.

[CureTheSane]

Well, it may well have been illegal.
A court would surely be the judge of that.
Or perhaps the first step would be the police force deeming that they acted unlawfully and charging them.
If that doesn't eventuate, then it would have to be said that they had perhaps acted unethically but not illegally.
In which case I would suspect that Ch 7 might have a case against the AFL for slander etc etc

[Chow-Chicker]

Well, I believe Dale Lewis is owed an apology. Way back when he stated there there is a widespread problem of drug use in AFL he was hounded down and ridiculed by so called "experts" and star players of the day.

Now we are seeing an increasing problem evidenced by admissions and documented facts that there may in fact be a widespread problem. Now we hear "experts" and opinions from former players (who were the stars of yesteryear when Lewis made allegations) come out on Footy Classified and say "It would be foolish to believe there isn't a problem within the footballing community. It is no different to social problems in society".

[CureTheSane]

Well, I believe Dale Lewis is owed an apology. Way back when he stated there there is a widespread problem of drug use in AFL he was hounded down and ridiculed by so called "experts" and star players of the day.

Now we are seeing an increasing problem evidenced by admissions and documented facts that there may in fact be a widespread problem. Now we hear "experts" and opinions from former players (who were the stars of yesteryear when Lewis made allegations) come out on Footy Classified and say "It would be foolish to believe there isn't a problem within the footballing community. It is no different to social problems in society".

Exactly.

It is a problem in society.
Let society handle it.

Dale Lewis IS owed an apology if indeed there was a single person or persons who named him.

Having said that, he played like a dope head.
That doesn't mean he was a dope head.
If he wasn't playing to his potential, then he should have been delisted or traded.

But rightly or wrongly the AFL does have a drugs policy, and they need to adhere to it.
Unfortunate perhaps the way that the evidence came into play.
But does that mean that they shouldn't act on it?

I really like Demetriou (sp?) but he's acting like a big tool at the moment.

The backlash will start soon, and everyone will get sick of the 7 slamming and divert their attention to the team involved.

[ScottH]

I think the main issue is the underhanded way CH7 got the information, by buying stolen property and releasing private and confidential material into the public domain.

Not many people would want their private medical records put on display for all to see.

[swansrock4eva]

Yep spot on Scott. The records issue is totally separate to the drug use issue in this case imo - it just so happens the records were about drugs. Ch7 went the scoop, plain and simple, and had no regard for information privacy laws, no regard for the players, and no regard for the code - they wanted to crack the story before the other networks had the chance and it didn't matter what they had to do to achieve that. I personally wonder if it had been a medical illness rather than drug abuse, would Ch7 still have gone so hard to crack the story?

The drugs issue is a totally separate one, and if the AFL were in fact as hard on drugs as they say they are, they would have done a lot more a lot earlier to try to prevent this kind of thing, and the Ben Cousins thing from happening in the first place. I don't have a clue what the answer is, but the AFL's "answer" certainly isn't working, that much is for sure.

[CureTheSane]

I think the main issue is the underhanded way CH7 got the information, by buying stolen property and releasing private and confidential material into the public domain.

Not many people would want their private medical records put on display for all to see.

Then they should be charged with receiving stolen good shouldn't they?
I haven't seen any evidence that the documents were stolen.

Why has the organization that supposedly held the medical files securely escaped criticism?
who is this person who SOLD the files and why has she not been named and shamed?
Channel 7 most likely acted unethically in the wash up, but they are a big company and an easy target.

Also, the medical files have not been put on display for all to see.
Channel 7 merely reported information which they were given access to.
Freedom of speech?
I wouldn't go down that road personally, but I've seen reports before on public figures who's medical files have been found in trash and reported (to an extent)

In the end I don't really give a crap about channel 7 and their reporting style.
They are as unethical as 9 or 10 in the way they do business, just that they are the ones caught out here.

Anyone watched Chaser?
Or CNNNN before that?
Or Frontline before that?

no secret as to how the networks go about their business, yet SUDDENLY everyone is horrified and gob smacked about this little incident.

If I am ever in the public eye and also develop a drug problem, and it seems that that information is about to be leaked to the media, I know what I'll be doing.

I'll give some documentation to a Tv station and let them dispose of the issue for me.

That's what has happened.
The players involved must be rubbing their hands and smiling more every day this goes on.

[CureTheSane]

Yep spot on Scott. The records issue is totally separate to the drug use issue in this case imo

I personally wonder if it had been a medical illness rather than drug abuse, would Ch7 still have gone so hard to crack the story?

So you are saying that they are separate issues, but if it wasn't for the drugs, there potentially would be no issue at all.

seems they are linked pretty well.

The AFL has been widely condemned for their drug policy for a long time now.

I dare say that their slamming of ch 7 is a means of taking the heat of 'their' drug problem in the AFL.

They should have had balls enough to say "Illegal drugs are a matter for the police. The only drugs we care about and test for are performance enhancing drugs. We are a sporting organization, not a court of law"

[Chow-Chicker]

Just to put a different perspective on things......

1. If an AFL player (and it has happened) was caught drink driving, we would see the details splashed over the news along with the alleged or convicted BAC reading of eg .07. This is a medical record and no-one challenges that it is a breach of privacy because they have broken the law.

2. Taking illegal drugs is also against the law. I suspect the current police investigations on how the medical records were obtained will also focus on the factual information in the records to charge those taking illegal substances. It seems to me that there is a witch hunt to uncover the way in which a factual document was obtained rather than dealing with the illegal aspects of the information within it. Harsh? Well, I think it is more harsh trying to nail a news network for buying a document they believe was found in the public domain.

[Ruda Wakening]

Funny how there wasn't much sympathy given to Chad Fletcher's situation when the media were trying to obtain access to his medical records - yet now people are up in arms about privacy. He was labeled a liar for simply executing his rights by not wanting his medical records being made public.

I don't recall too many people defending his rights. Shame because it probably would have made the recent arguments by those who are now so very concerned a little more credible and a little less hypocritical.

[Sanecow]

Not many people would want their private medical records put on display for all to see.

I wouldn't want everyone's records available for big business to use but I could give a @@@@ if anyone saw my medical records. Good luck trying to find them the slightest bit interesting. Ooh, look, he had his ears syringed! He got a stomach bug from overseas! He had a cold! *yawn*

My high school Physics homework would be more exciting.

[AnnieH]

The backlash will start soon, and everyone will get sick of the 7 slamming and divert their attention to the team involved.

It's Thursday ... time to start sticking into the team involved.

[ScottH]

Then they should be charged with receiving stolen good shouldn't they?
I haven't seen any evidence that the documents were stolen.

Why has the organization that supposedly held the medical files securely escaped criticism?
who is this person who SOLD the files and why has she not been named and shamed?
Channel 7 most likely acted unethically in the wash up, but they are a big company and an easy target.

"On going police investigation". We Can't rush these things.

[ScottH]

I wouldn't want everyone's records available for big business to use but I could give a @@@@ if anyone saw my medical records. Good luck trying to find them the slightest bit interesting. Ooh, look, he had his ears syringed! He got a stomach bug from overseas! He had a cold! *yawn*

My high school Physics homework would be more exciting.

True if you have nothing to hide, but that ingrown toenail fiasco, may well appear when you least expect it.