Brewer, I agree with you on this.Brewer wrote:Don't apologise Magic, you make good points and I'm certainly not in any position to defend the AFL.
I think what we have here is a policy which would work well - I think the '3 strikes' idea is a generous one but it is done with the best of intentions. However, it is really only effective as long as the testing is intensive enough.
On the current regime you could argue that 2 strikes is too generous, given how long players can go between tests. If, on the other hand, all players were tested 4 times a year then the AFL's progressive 'rehabilitation' policy would seem fair.
It amazes me how the AFL can cry poor over such insignificant costs like drug testing and fixed cameras at grounds. Maybe we are talking about a few thousand dollars per club per year but the AFL turns over hundreds of millions of dollars, and is a laughing stock because of these 2 issues.
There's no excuse for it IMO.
Their actions don't seem to match their stated goals.
They either have a ploicy of stamping out all behind the play incidents with cameras at all grounds or they don't
They eitehr have a drug testing programme to stamp out illicit drug use or they don't.
I didn't tell them to institute either policy. They did that on their own.
All I'm asking is that once they make the decision to have those policies then they need to show they are FAIR DINKUM about them and not serve up the crap that they have been and ecpect us to willingly accept their spin bs.