Page 3 of 5
Re: AFL's Fattest Fatcat Proves Raiderdave correct
Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 5:49 pm
by Stewie
King-Eliagh wrote:
I'll say it again. Lordy lordy me oh my. What a flamin joke of an organisation. How many more times do we gotta see what happened to Tuck and numerous others who have been essentially hidden from those closest to them, their club mates and colleagues in their direst times of need before the AFL get's its act together and actually does something!? Absolutely disgusting! The circumstances around the death of the port adeliade player in vegas last year concern me deeply and I must say, I'm quite worried that if this guy did have problems, the AFL's weak drugs policy may have kept those close teammates and club officials, those who could have helped him most from helping him...
McCarthy's death was not drug related dip shit.
Re: AFL's Fattest Fatcat Proves Raiderdave correct
Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 5:51 pm
by Xman
King-Eliagh wrote:This isnt about Kennett you silly twat Xman. It's about instituting a policy which deters players from using drugs. From Tucks and others examples we can see the current policy doesnt cut it. Yet they wish for it to remain...shame shame shame, how many more need to be found unconscious in their car, while the fatcats down at AFL HQ hide their knowledge of the players problems from those who can help them most?
You're just plain wrong! The AFLs policy has consistently reduced usage year after year. Remember, their results are published to the media for scrutiny, and so far the policy has done exactly what they said it would: identify players at risk, educate them of the dangers, consistently test them from then on, and manage their treatment.
Re: AFL's Fattest Fatcat Proves Raiderdave correct
Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 6:03 pm
by King-Eliagh
Oh I'm wrong am I...? So Kennett and the club were made aware of Tuck's drugs issue so they could work with him on it?
dont think so. The AFL fatcats hid it because they like da control. Never mind the welfare of the players.
Shame shame shame.
Re: AFL's Fattest Fatcat Proves Raiderdave correct
Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 6:24 pm
by Xman
King-Eliagh wrote:Oh I'm wrong am I...? So Kennett and the club were made aware of Tuck's drugs issue so they could work with him on it?
dont think so. The AFL fatcats hid it because they like da control. Never mind the welfare of the players.
Shame shame shame.
Not wrong about that, everything else. Its part of doctor patient confidentiality dumbarse. Why the hell should the club know?
Re: AFL's Fattest Fatcat Proves Raiderdave correct
Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 10:00 pm
by piesman2011
Stewie wrote:King-Eliagh wrote:
I'll say it again. Lordy lordy me oh my. What a flamin joke of an organisation. How many more times do we gotta see what happened to Tuck and numerous others who have been essentially hidden from those closest to them, their club mates and colleagues in their direst times of need before the AFL get's its act together and actually does something!? Absolutely disgusting! The circumstances around the death of the port adeliade player in vegas last year concern me deeply and I must say, I'm quite worried that if this guy did have problems, the AFL's weak drugs policy may have kept those close teammates and club officials, those who could have helped him most from helping him...
McCarthy's death was not drug related dip shit.
Thats a low blow KE. You shouldnt use a dead man as an example with no proof to back it up. Its very poor form. I would suggest an apology.
Re: AFL's Fattest Fatcat Proves Raiderdave correct
Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 10:10 pm
by eelofwest
piesman2011 wrote:Stewie wrote:King-Eliagh wrote:
I'll say it again. Lordy lordy me oh my. What a flamin joke of an organisation. How many more times do we gotta see what happened to Tuck and numerous others who have been essentially hidden from those closest to them, their club mates and colleagues in their direst times of need before the AFL get's its act together and actually does something!? Absolutely disgusting! The circumstances around the death of the port adeliade player in vegas last year concern me deeply and I must say, I'm quite worried that if this guy did have problems, the AFL's weak drugs policy may have kept those close teammates and club officials, those who could have helped him most from helping him...
McCarthy's death was not drug related dip shit.
Thats a low blow KE. You shouldnt use a dead man as an example with no proof to back it up. Its very poor form. I would suggest an apology.
Well i suggest you all admit we handed your singlet wearers a arse kicking in the TV ratings for 2012, then and only then can KE admit anything. Over to you Chip chasers......
Re: AFL's Fattest Fatcat Proves Raiderdave correct
Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 10:15 pm
by Xman
eelofwest wrote:piesman2011 wrote:Stewie wrote: McCarthy's death was not drug related dip shit.
Thats a low blow KE. You shouldnt use a dead man as an example with no proof to back it up. Its very poor form. I would suggest an apology.
Well i suggest you all admit we handed your singlet wearers a arse kicking in the TV ratings for 2012, then and only then can KE admit anything. Over to you Chip chasers......
Once you find a legitimate source I'm happy to concede. Unfortunately for you the only legitimate source shows the AFL well ahead
Re: AFL's Fattest Fatcat Proves Raiderdave correct
Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2013 12:28 pm
by King-Eliagh
Xman wrote:King-Eliagh wrote:Oh I'm wrong am I...? So Kennett and the club were made aware of Tuck's drugs issue so they could work with him on it?
dont think so. The AFL fatcats hid it because they like da control. Never mind the welfare of the players.
Shame shame shame.
Not wrong about that, everything else. Its part of doctor patient confidentiality dumbarse. Why the hell should the club know?
Contradicting yourself again. Doctor patient confidentiality
Why the hell should the AFL know? The NRL have gottit right. The AFL policy effectively leaves its employees/players with drug issues to lie unconscious in a car. This is clear.
Re: AFL's Fattest Fatcat Proves Raiderdave correct
Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2013 12:47 pm
by King-Eliagh
piesman2011 wrote:Stewie wrote:King-Eliagh wrote:
I'll say it again. Lordy lordy me oh my. What a flamin joke of an organisation. How many more times do we gotta see what happened to Tuck and numerous others who have been essentially hidden from those closest to them, their club mates and colleagues in their direst times of need before the AFL get's its act together and actually does something!? Absolutely disgusting! The circumstances around the death of the port adeliade player in vegas last year concern me deeply and I must say, I'm quite worried that if this guy did have problems, the AFL's weak drugs policy may have kept those close teammates and club officials, those who could have helped him most from helping him...
McCarthy's death was not drug related dip shit.
Thats a low blow KE. You shouldnt use a dead man as an example with no proof to back it up. Its very poor form. I would suggest an apology.
This aint what i'm doing pies. The circumstances were very concerning, as is the AFL's drugs policy, and the players with him on the night highlighted that they were at a venue where drugs were freely available and had indeed been offered to the players. . Thats the facts I've received on this matter.
Re: AFL's Fattest Fatcat Proves Raiderdave correct
Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2013 1:04 pm
by piesman2011
eelofwest wrote:piesman2011 wrote:Stewie wrote: McCarthy's death was not drug related dip shit.
Thats a low blow KE. You shouldnt use a dead man as an example with no proof to back it up. Its very poor form. I would suggest an apology.
Well i suggest you all admit we handed your singlet wearers a arse kicking in the TV ratings for 2012, then and only then can KE admit anything. Over to you Chip chasers......
I would be happy to conceed but all sources so far have AFL in front. The only news report was in the Australian which had AFL in front using two different sources of data. Until then we are all laughing at the RL trolls trying to spin something with no data.
Re: AFL's Fattest Fatcat Proves Raiderdave correct
Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2013 1:09 pm
by Stewie
King-Eliagh wrote:piesman2011 wrote:Stewie wrote: McCarthy's death was not drug related dip shit.
Thats a low blow KE. You shouldnt use a dead man as an example with no proof to back it up. Its very poor form. I would suggest an apology.
This aint what i'm doing pies. The circumstances were very concerning, as is the AFL's drugs policy, and the players with him on the night highlighted that they were at a venue where drugs were freely available and had indeed been offered to the players. . Thats the facts I've received on this matter.
And they also highlighted that no one took any of the drugs you fucking twat.
Re: AFL's Fattest Fatcat Proves Raiderdave correct
Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2013 1:14 pm
by piesman2011
King-Eliagh wrote:piesman2011 wrote:Stewie wrote: McCarthy's death was not drug related dip shit.
Thats a low blow KE. You shouldnt use a dead man as an example with no proof to back it up. Its very poor form. I would suggest an apology.
This aint what i'm doing pies. The circumstances were very concerning, as is the AFL's drugs policy, and the players with him on the night highlighted that they were at a venue where drugs were freely available and had indeed been offered to the players. . Thats the facts I've received on this matter.
There are drugs avaliable just about anywhere you go, thats no excuse to speculate. I understand what you are trying to do but you shouldnt drag a dead mans name though the mud in a public forum with no proof. Talk about AFL players having issue with drugs all you want (and I agree with you by the way, although it is the same in the NRL) but you dont know anything about what caused that particular players death, I could make claims about a similar recent NRL tragedy but that would be wrong as well.
Re: AFL's Fattest Fatcat Proves Raiderdave correct
Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2013 5:01 pm
by King-Eliagh
Drag a dead man's name through the mud? Ahhhh you wanna re read the post? Expressing concern about the strange circumstances surrounding someones passing is in fact quite the opposite, and can lead to increased understanding.
Re: AFL's Fattest Fatcat Proves Raiderdave correct
Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2013 7:41 pm
by piesman2011
King-Eliagh wrote:Drag a dead man's name through the mud? Ahhhh you wanna re read the post? Expressing concern about the strange circumstances surrounding someones passing is in fact quite the opposite, and can lead to increased understanding.
KE wrote:
The circumstances around the death of the port adeliade player in vegas last year concern me deeply and I must say, I'm quite worried that if this guy did have problems, the AFL's weak drugs policy may have kept those close teammates and club officials, those who could have helped him most from helping him...
You are suggesting that drugs were responsible for his death with no proof.
Looks like defamation to me and if his family could track you down it could be libel.
Re: AFL's Fattest Fatcat Proves Raiderdave correct
Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2013 9:32 pm
by Stewie
KE is fucking scum.