Freemantle AFL star Mathew Pavlich knows which code is best!

King-Eliagh · Post by **King-Eliagh** » Sat Jul 30, 2011 2:42 pm

Rugby League :D

Interesting chat on the soft illicit drugs policy here too... a real shame of the AFL and I just dont know why they wouldnt make a better policy.

Onions · Post by **Onions** » Sat Jul 30, 2011 11:11 pm

It's fucking better than the drug ridden NRL's!

Raiderdave · Post by **Raiderdave** » Sun Jul 31, 2011 8:24 am

so their brownlow medalist can do a line of coke everyother night
& theres no problem

wot a sport

Onions · Post by **Onions** » Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:42 am

Fucking slander again, Raider Boy? We have no fucking druggies!

Oh and Pavlich hasn't won the Brownlow you fuck wit!

Queen E, you can't fucking spell! I just saw that now in the title!

Raiderdave · Post by **Raiderdave** » Sun Jul 31, 2011 3:12 pm

Onions wrote:
******* slander again, Raider Boy? We have no ******* druggies!

Oh and Pavlich hasn't won the Brownlow you **** wit!

Queen E, you can't ******* spell! I just saw that now in the title!

no one suggested this wombat ( wots his name .. pavlova?) from which ever loser team he plays for is a drugo.. but its the amazing admition from your codes CEO that if he or anyone else did cocaine .. that wouldn't affect them getting the brownlow

you have druggies everywhere in your sport .. it is quite amazing
& your code refuses to name them & allows them to play on .. no other sport on the planet does that
you do coke .. or heroin .. or whatever you are named .. you are suspended straight away
not in your crown cuckoo land sport
it is a disgrace.....

Onions · Post by **Onions** » Sun Jul 31, 2011 6:00 pm

You've got druggies fucking everywhere! Players, fans the whole fucking shebang! And you do fuck all about them!! You don't even send them to fucking rehab, which is what the AFL does!

Truthsayer · Post by **Truthsayer** » Sun Jul 31, 2011 7:11 pm

Both sports are unable to control the use of non performance enhancing drugs, because it is not listed as a drug that sport is supposed to be controlling through tests and so forth. So it can be argued that both sports have drugs of this sort in them. They are hard to test for in the regular manner. The AFL test their players for 12 months of the year. The NRL only test their players during the season and that is a win in the drug war for the AFL, no matter what it's negatives may be.

I do agree with Onions about rehabilitation (what is with all this swearing just by the way?). The NRL do not have a program. The AFL do and that should be commended because they are educating and keeping players in the game as they should.

Just as a side line for the original poster, it's spelt "Fremantle".

King-Eliagh · Post by **King-Eliagh** » Sun Jul 31, 2011 7:34 pm

Ahh yes Fremantle, thankyou new member truthsayer. Now about the swearing vegetable you ask? Well he's actually got tourettes syndrome and also a nasty crack and ice habit. This is why he swears so often and we kindof let it be now that we understand his issues.

About the AFL testing. I can undestand testing for 12 months a year and having some rehab program might look good but what do you think about 3 strikes? Pretty lenient to me. And the fact the players are not named if they are found positive? Now if I were a player who say had a liking for dabbling in recreational drugs from time to time, I think I'd find the AFL policy a little more inviting. Wouldnt you? And please, think this through objectively, and be true to your name when you answer Mr ahem *cough* Truthsayer

Onions · Post by **Onions** » Sun Jul 31, 2011 7:51 pm

Shut the fuck up, Queen E! You know nothing about me and you fucking know it so you make things up! That's fucking slander and you should fucking say sorry!

Truthsayer · Post by **Truthsayer** » Sun Jul 31, 2011 8:05 pm

Mr Eliagh, the three strikes policy applies to the illicit drugs testing program and not recreational drugs so your argument strikes a fallacy in it's execution. I pointed out that neither sports tests for recreational drugs and have no policy relating to the use of them. The cases of Ben Cousins and Andrew Johns are a testament to this.

Given that the AFL have a rehabilitation program, I consider three strikes to be the correct policy. They do not wish to lose players and that should be commended. If the player persists in the usage they should be given the chance not to be exposed to public ridicule that would inhibit recovery and rehabilitation. If after that they still don't respond only then should they be dealt with.

I consider the general WADA rule of two strikes to be counter productive, although it is up to the individual sport to provide opportunities for rehabilitation.

King-Eliagh · Post by **King-Eliagh** » Sun Jul 31, 2011 8:18 pm

Hmmm I find your statements quite disturbing. Firstly I dont believe both sports dont test for recreational drugs... Actually I'm sure they do and that several players have been caught in the past, I just cant think of a name...

And if you are actually correct then what are these "illicit" drugs that the AFL players receive 3 strikes for? I would assume performance enhancers would be the main ones. So they get 3 strikes for steroid use!!!??? What sort of joke would that be! It would be more appropriate to give three strikes for recreational drugs, at least those players wouldnt be cheating.

Truthsayer · Post by **Truthsayer** » Sun Jul 31, 2011 8:29 pm

Am I to take it from your response that you do not support rehabilitation? Am I also to take it that you are unable to grasp the fact that it is not possible to "test" for recreational drugs? I would suggest that those who you are thinking of (perhaps Cousins or Johns) were only exposed because they were either caught or they confessed.

King-Eliagh · Post by **King-Eliagh** » Sun Jul 31, 2011 8:42 pm

I support rehab, if it is necessary. I dont know what you mean with it is unable to test for recreational drugs. It's a simple blood or urine test as far as I'm aware. So what do you mean "not possible to test for recreational drugs"?

Please enough of your suggestions wise guy, they're wrong all the time. I was not thinking of either Johns or Cousins. Was it Matai from league? no i think another guy, he got two years out of the game as far as I remember. And pretty sure it was for recreational drugs.

Would you like me to try look it up truthsayer?

Truthsayer · Post by **Truthsayer** » Sun Jul 31, 2011 8:49 pm

Recreational drugs are detected by more conventional means. For example it is obvious to the man in street when someone in drunk or high. There is a difference. It is not detectable through blood tests as such.

It is very rude of you to try to question my "suggestions" in the manner that you are. Is this the way you treat newcomers? If so it may explain why this forum isn't very active. I do suggest that you temper your attitude.

Yes please look up your supposed information. And do remember that circumstances may differ. For example, Ben Cousins was suspended for 12 months for "bringing the game into disrepute" and not for drug usage. The AFL could not suspend him for that because he wasn't caught by the AFL.

King-Eliagh · Post by **King-Eliagh** » Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:03 pm

Ahh we are in the fightclub truthsayer. I'd 'suggest' you read up on the guidelines before trying to tell long term members how they should behave.

So recreational are not detectable through blood tests?

Is this how the AFL sees it too?

Couldnt find any RL cases in my quick search but try this link http://www.theroar.com.au/2011/06/23/il ... players-2/

I think now it is fair I say your "pointing out" that neither sport tests for recreational drug use was, well, pigs vommit

Talking Footy

Talking Footy

Freemantle AFL star Mathew Pavlich knows which code is best!

Freemantle AFL star Mathew Pavlich knows which code is best!