Goodbye Channel Rex???

[To the top]

Has Johns brought the NFL into dis-repute?

And where is the reputation of cycling following the Tour of France?

And where was the reputation of swimming when we had Chinese swimmers with the builds they had?

And where is the reputation of AFL football now Gale has publicly conceded players are on drugs?

And where is the reputation of Demitriou, who is attracted to any sniff which (in his view) impacts on the reputation of AFL football - like being critical of the Sydney game plan?

Simply, the reputation of the AFL competition is sullied - and it remains sullied whilst it condones and accepts players with a drug habit continuing to play at the highest echelon - and have a national profile solely because they play AFL football at the highest level.

The way the AFL, its Player's Association and certain posting here defend the culture is beyond comprehension.

Three strikes and you are out is a joke.

Player's have contracts.

Those contracts should include that, if they are tested positive, their contract is suspended until they succesfully undertake re-habilitation and they co-operate with authorities in the identification of the supply chain.

Only then will the re-instatement of their contract be CONSIDERED subject to a re-application criteria.

And, if they re-offend - OUT.

The way you address any problem is to actually address it and to put appropriate penalty around offenders.

One of the problems we have in this country currently is the involvement of solicitors, with their legal jargon and legal "no-speak" ("I acted on advice" etc. etc.) - starting from (currently) the top of our national political tree down to the AFL Player's Assn. President.

[plugger66]

Has Johns brought the NFL into dis-repute?

And where is the reputation of cycling following the Tour of France?

And where was the reputation of swimming when we had Chinese swimmers with the builds they had?

And where is the reputation of AFL football now Gale has publicly conceded players are on drugs?

And where is the reputation of Demitriou, who is attracted to any sniff which (in his view) impacts on the reputation of AFL football - like being critical of the Sydney game plan?

Simply, the reputation of the AFL competition is sullied - and it remains sullied whilst it condones and accepts players with a drug habit continuing to play at the highest echelon - and have a national profile solely because they play AFL football at the highest level.

The way the AFL, its Player's Association and certain posting here defend the culture is beyond comprehension.

Three strikes and you are out is a joke.

Player's have contracts.

Those contracts should include that, if they are tested positive, their contract is suspended until they succesfully undertake re-habilitation and they co-operate with authorities in the identification of the supply chain.

Only then will the re-instatement of their contract be CONSIDERED subject to a re-application criteria.

And, if they re-offend - OUT.

The way you address any problem is to actually address it and to put appropriate penalty around offenders.

One of the problems we have in this country currently is the involvement of solicitors, with their legal jargon and legal "no-speak" ("I acted on advice" etc. etc.) - starting from (currently) the top of our national political tree down to the AFL Player's Assn. President.

I have a contract at work and I dont get sacked if I have drugs on a Saturday night. I never get tested. Do you really think that a young silly 18 year old should be outed after one stupid night and being stupid enough to try a drug. They must at least have one chance before all this pressure is put on them.

[To the top]

Plugger 66, if you want to visit the drug culture on Saturday nights and present that it has no impact on your work life because you are not tested then that is one thing.

But how long you can keep responsible employment is another thing. And how long you can control your drug dependence to Saturday night usage is another - because in life, from time to time, we are all placed under real pressure - and it is how you deal with that pressure which is the measure of your character. So what are you going to do, find it all too tough and run off to your drugs? Take the easy way out?

And whether you ultimately have a negative impact on society, including because you are relying on tax payers for income support is also another thing.

But I have 4 young adults aged from 24 years to 19 years, and the truism with their up-bringing (and still) is that the greatest concern you have is other parents.

That is because other parent's do not necessarily subscribe to the values you attempt to convey to your children and have your children observe within the wider community.

You are one of those people every responsible parent is concerned about, because you go out on a Saturday night, take drugs and make the excuse that, because you are not tested, life goes on as normal.

You feed a distribution chain. And you do damage to yourself, physically and, more importantly, psychologically.

In terms of your use of the word "stupid" twice, well you have said it all.

The question is where does "stupid" start and where does "stupid" stop?

The point is that you have been stupid to ignore the warnings - and to ignore the values which under-pinnned your education in life.

You have not been stupid because you have been unaware of the consequences of your action.

You have made a deliberate decision contrary to the message which is out there in society.

Look at what Johns is saying now.

And learn the lesson, you dangerous fool.

In regards the Channel 7 issue, the proper conclusion now is for the players concerned to "out" themselves and to accept the consequences of their actions.

What they will find is support similar to the support Johns is now receiving courtesy of him "outing" himself - and owning up to a problem - a problem which must be addressed.

[plugger66]

Plugger 66, if you want to visit the drug culture on Saturday nights and present that it has no impact on your work life because you are not tested then that is one thing.

But how long you can keep responsible employment is another thing. And how long you can control your drug dependence to Saturday night usage is another - because in life, from time to time, we are all placed under real pressure - and it is how you deal with that pressure which is the measure of your character. So what are you going to do, find it all too tough and run off to your drugs? Take the easy way out?

And whether you ultimately have a negative impact on society, including because you are relying on tax payers for income support is also another thing.

But I have 4 young adults aged from 24 years to 19 years, and the truism with their up-bringing (and still) is that the greatest concern you have is other parents.

That is because other parent's do not necessarily subscribe to the values you attempt to convey to your children and have your children observe within the wider community.

You are one of those people every responsible parent is concerned about, because you go out on a Saturday night, take drugs and make the excuse that, because you are not tested, life goes on as normal.

You feed a distribution chain. And you do damage to yourself, physically and, more importantly, psychologically.

In terms of your use of the word "stupid" twice, well you have said it all.

The question is where does "stupid" start and where does "stupid" stop?

The point is that you have been stupid to ignore the warnings - and to ignore the values which under-pinnned your education in life.

You have not been stupid because you have been unaware of the consequences of your action.

You have made a deliberate decision contrary to the message which is out there in society.

Look at what Johns is saying now.

And learn the lesson, you dangerous fool.

In regards the Channel 7 issue, the proper conclusion now is for the players concerned to "out" themselves and to accept the consequences of their actions.

What they will find is support similar to the support Johns is now receiving courtesy of him "outing" himself - and owning up to a problem - a problem which must be addressed.

Why should they out themselves. No other player who has tested positive has to out themselves. And that is the way the AFLPA and AFL agreed to do it. I think you will find it will be one strike next year which IMO is right. Drugs are a shocking thing in society but sadly are a fact of life. In the AFL they are a fact of life even if it is much less than others in society.

[Brewer]

To The Top, you really are carrying on like a raw prawn about this.

Are you a right-wing Christian by any chance?

I ask this because it is generally only right-wing Christians that are fundamentalist enough to believe that a 'zero tolerance' policy can actually work, in ANY ASPECT of life. By criminalising 'undesirable' activity, naming and shaming and stripping the rights of those who partake, you simply drive the activity further underground where it can not be monitored nor the victims helped. Look at abortion, look at teen pregnancy, look at prohibition, in fact take a good look at the USA.

The painful fact is that drugs ARE a part of life. Why? Because there is a demand. Your children will come into contact with them one day, and it is your duty as a parent to educate them as best you can so that they can make an informed choice based on THEIR OWN value system, not because Daddy told them so. Jumping up and down about it and demanding that people be locked up and marginalised wherever it occurs HELPS NOBODY. Reducing the negative impact of issues like drugs is hard work and takes time, effort, and multi-pronged approaches such as education, rehabilitation and victim support. If you simply punish the victims then they will cease to seek help. You might think the problem will simply go away if you just leave them all to die in the gutter, but I can promise you it won't. And what if one day it is your child with a needle in his arm?

If you are scared of other parents then that is your problem. You cannot try to force everyone else to embrace your own naive, black-and-white value system. I certainly don't, because I believe you are wrong. The most successful communities at dealing with drug issues are those that are smart enough to recognise the complexity of the issue, and dedicated enough to put in the hard work required.

The communities that advocate a zero-tolerance approach (on any matter) generally fail miserably.

[To the top]

You see Brewer, I happen to think that when there is a problem you tackle it at source.

And in regards your impressions of me and my family, well I do not normally waste my time with such faunicated morons such as you.

But this issue is different to me because through a Service Organisation I am a member of I came into contact with Odessey House and their work.

And I continue to donate monies in support of their programme.

And I have a very close mate who lost an adult child of his to drugs.

I will engage you, when I otherwise would not, because you have to be countered on this particular issue.

You mention education, rehabilitation and victim support as the multi pronged effort to arrest the incursion of drugs into our community.

Well what about source?

What about availability?

Where are these drugs coming from, who is peddling them and who is profiting from their availability in our society?

And "zero tolerance" is the aim - as a recognition of the only cure available to society.

Anything less and you are kidding yourself.

[BAM! (shhhh)]

Pandora's box is open.

This is an issue that has always been around and always will be. Some societies will tackle it more successfully than others, and some will ignore it altogether.

Attempting zero tolerance in a free society is a near contradiction, and will ultimately fail... however, for those who choose to champion and believe in it, I hope that they never get forced into the world of grey that exists between the very narrow black and white lines.

[Brewer]

A faunicated moron?! How interesting (and on so many levels). I will not take offence to it because I care little what you think about me.

'What about source' you ask?

Do you really believe that there is a single Mr. Big somewhere? If we could only eliminate him, all our drug problems will be solved?

Then you are either a fool, who has watched too many movies, or a paranoid conspiracy theorist who believes the world's evils are the doing of a single entity.

Drugs are made all over the world, by 'Mr. Big's, Columbian cartels, bikie gangs and lowlifes in garden sheds. These people are not in cahoots, they are weeds that spring up wherever there is fertile soil. To go after them one by one in the hope of eradicating them completely is to fool yourself. Meanwhile, victims continue to die.

Targetting and punishing the suppliers where they are found is one aspect of managing the drug problem. Educating the community is another, treatment and rehabilitaion of victims yet another.

Presumably, if you support the compulsory testing of players out of season, then you also support the compulsory testing of yourself and your family and in fact the entire population. And if one of your children should happen to make a bad decision one Saturday night, and smoke a joint, or take half a tablet of something, you would support their public shaming and incarceration?

I may be making assumptions here, but are you also in favour of an Australian identity card? And unfettered government access to your personal records? What about taking people's DNA at birth and making this information available to law enforcement agencies?

I can also assume that you have led a life without sin? You have made no mistakes in life, and never benefitted from being given a second chance?

Are you aware that the players VOLUNTEERED for out-of-season testing for illicit drugs - a regime that no other member of the community undergoes? Are you also aware that one of the conditions of this agreement was that players would be given a chance to clean themselves up and be monitored, rather than be immediately publicly shamed and lose their position?

Would you prefer we return to a 'just don't test and nobody will ever know' approach?

Or do you somehow think that AFL players are public property and should have needles stuck in their arms and their medical records seized whenever we choose?

Did you raise your children the same way? Zero tolerance of any misdemeanor? And if so, how honest do you think they are when it comes to informing you of issues for which you will no doubt punish them? Or have you bred some kind of super-race which owns up to its mistakes AND expects the harshest punishment?

Sometimes you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar - but then again that may be a bit too subtle for you to understand.