-
Website
http://afl.mollyzine.com -
Original page
http://afl.mollyzine.com/2007/03/18/mmm-special-mollys-annoyed-about-the-drug-debate/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
I don't agree that the media and administrators should be tested. However, I also don't think the players who test positive to elicit drug tests should be treated in any criminal way. The reason being that the players are with the clubs are employed for their bodies and skills, and often at great expense. It may be argued that then they have a duty to their employer to keep those bodies in a prime condition, something that drug use doesn't usually do. Although now that I think about it, perhaps dancing all night at a rave, is very good for keeping yourself trim and in ready shape for footy. Well whatever, huh? Cheers and thanks for your opinions.
As for making the accredited media adhere to the same testing requirements, don't be so fucking stupid, it's a piss poor attempt at deflection of the issue of your code being packed full of junkies and woman beaters.
Have a nice day.
I all ways love people that leave totally anonymous comments. UPDATE: This comment may be wrong. My appologies
"Full of Crims"? Really. There are some bad eggs but the majority don't have a problem. Not trying to deflect the attention. I just think that if the media is going to be the judge and jury they should put there piss where there mouth is (instead of the normal shit that is there). They are all on about naming the players but never will admit that they just want to write the story.
Molly
So much for that hey, guess you can do what you want on your own site, it is a real email address, not my fault I happen to share a name with some brain dead afl stooge.
Of course the journos want to write the story, fact is they haven't had the guts to have a go at the sporting body that goes to the nazi-esque extremes of contracting media outlets to provide fovourable coverage, until now anyway.
Would you expect them to stay silent? You probably hoped they would but the genie is out of the bottle now and it's not going back in any time soon, OD in the USA, Brodie the broad basher due in court soon, underworld figures, I could go on all day if you like but theres no point, I'm hoping newspaper sales are up on the back of these scandals and the media will launch a full scale offensive. There are an awful lot of skeletons yet to see the light of day.
Lots say that the AFL is protecting itself by hiding the names but this is completely wrong. It would be much easier and better for their image to give out the names but again, the players wouldn't be helped.
Why does everyone in the public and the media think that they know better then the drug experts that helped put the policy in place?
And finally, "Me again" I want to apologies for publishing your email address. Normally when I get fake looking email addresses I email them to prove their fakeness. I have now removed the email address and hope that you where not inconvenienced.
Molly
We'll agree to disagree on the naming issue, interestingly a WADA official was recently quoted as saying the AFL had done themselves and the players no favours in adopting the 3 strike policy, I tend to agree, as for the "experts" who formulated the original policy I beleive the AFLPA was heavily involved, that's like letting the lunatics run the asylum, not good for anybody.
You're not easily baited are you? Kudos for not reacting to my inflammatory comments, I'll try to be more reasonable in light of your reactions.
On the AFLPA involvement and WADA. I'm not sure WADA have any right to comment on this as the measures of the AFL and the AFLPA go over an above WADA. If the drug offense fulls in the WADA area (i.e. pretty much match day is my understanding) then the players will be treated in accordance with the WADA code. If the players are court out of competition, in their own time, they will be treated with the 3 strikes method.
The experts I was referring to where from Drug councils that are interested in rehabbing the players. Forget that these guys are AFL football players, do you think a person can really get help in the environment like that around Ben Cousins at the moment? 6 pages of Melbournes leading newspaper where dedicated to this issue on the last two days. Iraq, the water crisis, etc don't get that coverage! John Howard is lucky to get a page and he is running the country. These guys live in a fish bowl. There are benefits in that, but there are also negitives. From all reports, Ben Cousins is taking full responsibility for his situation and is not blaming anyone but himself.
Let me put this forward: When people ask does the AFL has a drug problem? yes but not because they are the AFL. Does society have a drug problem? yes. Is the AFL part of our society? Yes they are that is why the AFL has a drug problem. There has been quite a few cases of Lawyers (for example) having drug problems, have they done anything about cleaning up there ranks? no. So why isn't the AFL and the AFLPA been given credit for at least giving a damm!
JMTC
Molly
So if illegal drugs used in the lead up to the game gave the Eagles a 1.20% advantage, should the Swans be declared the winner of the 2006 grand final?
So click below for further information and to vote in the poll!
http://www.savefooty.com/index.php/2007/03/26/a...
Ben Johnson lost Olympic gold after testing positive to illegal drugs and the AFL reversed the winner of a home and away game last year after the siren.
Molly what do your readers think? If they also tell friends about this poll, they’ll also learn about the non-profit SaveFooty drought relief project!
Click here to cast your vote!
http://www.savefooty.com/index.php/2007/03/26/a...
-----------------------------
Don't let footy die of thirst
Visit www.SaveFooty.com today