AFL urged to overhaul drugs policy

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 1
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous template Next
  • goswannie14
    Leadership Group
    • Sep 2005
    • 11166
    #1

    AFL urged to overhaul drugs policy

    In the light of the farce that is the AFL's drugs policy, there are those urging the AFL to get it right.

    AFL urged to overhaul drugs policy

    Please note this is not a thread about Ben Cousins, but about the ridiculous AFL drugs policy. Please keep all discussion to this topic. Any comments on the Ben Cousins case should be placed in the Ben Cousins thread.
    Does God believe in Atheists?
    Tags: afl, drugs, overhaul, policy, Swans, sydney, urged
    • AnnieH
      RWOs Black Sheep
      • Aug 2006
      • 11332
      #2
      Firstly, they should up the testing frequency for all players.
      According to the article, NRL players get 3000 tests done a year - AFL get 500. They should adopt the NRL policy.

      On the other hand, how much of a deterrent is a 12 months suspension? DEWECFSBC seems to think that he can take a year off and come back and play like normal. (Sorry GS14, it's part of my example.) Did Wendell come back? (Honestly, I don't know - I don't follow rah rah).
      Wild speculation, unsubstantiated rumours, silly jokes and opposition delight in another's failures is what makes an internet forum fun.
      Blessed are the cracked for they are the ones who let in the light.

        Comment

        • goswannie14
          Leadership Group
          • Sep 2005
          • 11166
          #3
          To me the biggest problem is this,

          "Ben has not been caught, has not tested positive under the AFL drug testing regime so that's been a little bit farcical," he said.

          "There's no doubt that Ben has a serious problem with illicit drugs and that he has been unable to shake that to the degree that we all want him to."

          Earlier this year, two players from another AFL club tested positive to illicit drugs use twice. They can not be named and neither can their club, under the AFL's drugs policy.
          It all smacks of hypocrisy to me.
          Does God believe in Atheists?

            Comment

            • AnnieH
              RWOs Black Sheep
              • Aug 2006
              • 11332
              #4
              Originally posted by goswannie14
              To me the biggest problem is this,

              It all smacks of hypocrisy to me.

              Not really.
              DEWCEFSBC did not test positive to anything. Certainly, part of that was the fact that he probably wasn't tested enough. (NRL 3000 / AFL 500). It was his father's admission that he had a substance abuse problem. It was only yesterday that he came out himself and admitted to having a problem.
              You have to remember all the other crap DEWCEFSBC has done. That had a huge impact on his suspension.

              As for the other club and their players (we all know who they are, so this injuction is a farce) ... they should be suspended for a year for testing positive - first time.

              If the AFL really want to rid the game of junkies ... they have to grow some balls.
              Wild speculation, unsubstantiated rumours, silly jokes and opposition delight in another's failures is what makes an internet forum fun.
              Blessed are the cracked for they are the ones who let in the light.

                Comment

                • swansrock4eva
                  On the Rookie List
                  • Jan 2003
                  • 1352
                  #5
                  When you consider the 500 tests a year, that means that not every player even gets tested once each year! Ridiculous!

                    Comment

                    • Ruda Wakening
                      Survived The Meltdown
                      • Aug 2003
                      • 1519
                      #6
                      Originally posted by Annie Haddad
                      Not really.
                      DEWCEFSBC did not test positive to anything. Certainly, part of that was the fact that he probably wasn't tested enough.
                      He was tested 14 times.

                      That's not including the multiple tests which were carried out each week as part of his new contract.

                      ... they should be suspended for a year for testing positive - first time.
                      Too bad if someone has a set on them at a nightclub.
                      Last edited by Ruda Wakening; 20 November 2007, 12:11 PM.
                      Sit down or i swear to God i'll have you shot.

                        Comment

                        • reigning premier
                          Suspended by the MRP
                          • Sep 2006
                          • 4335
                          #7
                          Nothing wrong with the AFL policy. Atleast they have one. And as has been proven, it doesn't matter whether it's a three strikes or zero tolerance policy, I think it's reasonabley fair to say that players will still get away with taking recreational drugs.

                          You can up the testing all you like, alter the policy, it won't make one iota of difference.

                            Comment

                            Previous template Next
                            Working...