AFL Legend

[Xman]

This policy has failed Ben Cousins and IMO it didn't help Tuck none either, I think the club should be told on the first breach, ATM team mates/coaches aren't able to support anyone who may be in risk of developing a habit until the habits taken over, remember if you've been caught once you probably havn't been caught 20 times, I'm not saying there should be a punishment but the sooner it's brought into the open the better IMO.

The article I posted talks about this issue. Football clubs leak information to the media like sieves! The moment a club finds out about a players drug use it would be all over the media, jepeodising the players treatment, and their right to undergo it with a professional in a confidential manner. The club drs agree with this. The clubs don't but mainly for selfish reasons in my opinion.

The issue with tuck came under criticism because it was stated that if tucks family knew about his depression they could have supported him. But his depression is a medical issue! He chose to keep it from his family. The doctors respected his wish as they are required to do it by law.

Cousins issues started before the ilicit drug policy was established. As I stated earlier in this thread, if he was a new player now the education and support involved in the current policy may have prevented him from continuing his habit until it established itself into such a life destroying habit.As we can see by Bens behaviour now, banning him wouldn't have stopped him using. It may very well have made it worse. As I said, education is the way, not a simple ban.

[Xman]

The system isn't perfect, my way IMO would've helped,tuck and cousins but it may have not helped many others who've benefited from the current system, I don't think shaming people who put their god given skills at risk by breaking the law is a bad thing, and they are breaking the law, just like DUI, secrecy helps no one IMO.

Name and shame tactic was deliberately avoided because it has been shown to fail. Again, the policy as a first tactic, is a positive action to show players why using is bad for them, not a stick to hit them if they do. This is aimed at changing their life for the better, not just while they are players. If the behavior continues then the consequences are more negative. Once a player is found using they are tested far more often so they cannot escape any coming penalty if they continue to use.

I think the proof is in the pudding. No one could question the results we have seen so far. As a cross section of young males the percentage of users is extremely low, and dropping every year. 40 experts didn't develop this policy for nothing.

[NSWAFL]

Actually, Intentcity, your method wouldn't have helped Cousins. Don't forget it wasn't the AFL who first exposed his drug use. It was the police.

[Xman]

The system isn't perfect, my way IMO would've helped,tuck and cousins but it may have not helped many others who've benefited from the current system, I don't think shaming people who put their god given skills at risk by breaking the law is a bad thing, and they are breaking the law, just like DUI, secrecy helps no one IMO.

Name and shame tactic was deliberately avoided because it has been shown to fail. Again, the policy as a first tactic, is a positive action to show players why using is bad for them, not a stick to hit them if they do. This is aimed at changing their life for the better, not just while they are players. If the behavior continues then the consequences are more negative. Once a player is found using they are tested far more often so they cannot escape any coming penalty if they continue to use.

I think the proof is in the pudding. No one could question the results we have seen so far. As a cross section of young males the percentage of users is extremely low, and dropping every year. 40 experts didn't develop this policy for nothing.

Prevention is better than the cure, and 40 experts? Lol, experts who were paid as consultants who felt the need to come up with something new to justify their pay packet, fact is the AFL knows they have a massive drug problem, as all football codes do, I've been out many a night in Melbourne and I could name 15 well known players I know get on the gear for a fact, and their just the ones I've seen, I used to get on it myself, IMO this 3 strike policy is giving the younger players a green light until they get 2 strikes,and ****, if their smart about it they might not even get a strike for their first 20 times, think we'll have to,agree to disagree mate.

They were given a blank canvas to create a policy that they believed would work. It has. the proof is there for all to see.

Prevention is better than cure. Yep. But which is which? Educating players prevents them from using. Banning is a deterrent but only if they are caught.

The community has a drug problem, not sporting codes. Yet illicit drug use is illegal and punished by law. Has this worked? No. Hence the need to educate people so they can make the right choice.

Players who are caught on their first strike are then known to the AFL. They Are then tested rigorously. If they continue to use, despite counselling and education, they are punished.

[ParraEelsNRL]

[ParraEelsNRL]

AFL, the code that rots your brain.

[ParraEelsNRL]

[ParraEelsNRL]

AFL drugs policy.

[NSWAFL]

That's the NRL policy, Parra.

[Xman]

Andrew johns says hi

[ParraEelsNRL]

Yes, I did, hi back Ben, while your there, say hello to god.

[ParraEelsNRL]

After all, you'll be meeting him soon.

[ParraEelsNRL]

[Xman]

The thing with drugs like ice is if you have it once, you'll want it again, so making the risks for having it once higher fewer kids will gamble on taking it, also, why do you think the program is working? As I said before, I have first hand knowledge of at least 15 players who indulge, I have second hand knowledge of many more, I don't see this as an AFL V NRL thing, on average both codes will be the same, I'm just telling you drugs are rife in all codes, the reason the AFL won't implement a first strike banning policy is because they would lose to many players, this policy keeps the bad side of football out of the media much more than the alternative, and let's face it, that's all the AFL care about, if you think otherwise you're being nieve IMO, all's they care about is their image, they couldn't give 2 ***** about the players.

Those players are still risking a significant ban through WADA, with no chance if caught on match day, just a 2 year ban straight off. They are also more likely to get caught by the ilicit drug policy hair testing and be on the AFLs list of strike 1 for ever. They also risk running into trouble with the law like any other person.

The very reason the AFL players agreed to the policy was because it was thorough but fair. No other profession in the world Is subject to this sort of ilicit drug testing like AFL players are, most of which is in their own time. If the AFL had come to them and said "we want to test you all weekly and in your own time, even when you're on holidays, plus if you have a trace of ilicit drugs in your system you'll be banned instantly" they would never have agreed to the policy! Why should they? What other person in the world has that sort of invasion of privacy?

They would have simply refused, then we would be back to square one, with WADA only, and effectively endless chances.

[Xman]

After all, you'll be meeting him soon.

Lovely, celebrating a persons demise. How proud you must be!