AFL drugs charge

[Psyber]

True enough, yet the older set of today [55+] were the youth of the 1970s when drug use did seem to be more universal than today,

Was that stat in your book about Alfred the Great?
regards, REB

Hardly.. see my emboldened bit to help reading comprehension, which I didn't think would be needed when I originally posted...
Sympathetic regards, Psyber.

[Rik E Boy]

True enough, yet the older set of today [55+] were the youth of the 1970s when drug use did seem to be more universal than today,

Was that stat in your book about Alfred the Great?
regards, REB

Hardly.. see my emboldened bit to help reading comprehension, which I didn't think would be needed when I originally posted...
Sympathetic regards, Psyber.

I just love been patronised. Keep up the good work.

regards,

REB

[interested observer]

When we are talking about druge use, this is the age bracket we are referring to when we say it is prevelant. I'm not going to refer to it when talking of 60 year old people (and you know that too). How many AFL players do you think do the majority of their socialising with the mature aged set??? Bugger all. It's all well and good to say drugs aren't everywhere, which probably is the case, if you are referring to every single social set. At the end of the day though, the social groups that these players, and people their age group in general get around, are not the mature age set etc, who are generally not into the drug scene.

True enough, yet the older set of today [55+] were the youth of the 1970s when drug use did seem to be more universal than today, but somehow less destructive - perhaps it was the choice of drug - or perhaps the "free love" ideal.. In that era, I didn't use drugs, but I did know a few among the professional set, who dabbled with LSD, Psilocybin, and mushrooms.

From neolithic days until fairly recently, the younger set of the tribe and society were more obliged to mingle with their seniors who had been there, seen or done that, and seen the folly of it.
Perhaps it would be good for them if they still did...

Is it just me ???????

[Bum Crack]

When we are talking about druge use, this is the age bracket we are referring to when we say it is prevelant. I'm not going to refer to it when talking of 60 year old people (and you know that too). How many AFL players do you think do the majority of their socialising with the mature aged set??? Bugger all. It's all well and good to say drugs aren't everywhere, which probably is the case, if you are referring to every single social set. At the end of the day though, the social groups that these players, and people their age group in general get around, are not the mature age set etc, who are generally not into the drug scene.

True enough, yet the older set of today [55+] were the youth of the 1970s when drug use did seem to be more universal than today, but somehow less destructive - perhaps it was the choice of drug - or perhaps the "free love" ideal.. In that era, I didn't use drugs, but I did know a few among the professional set, who dabbled with LSD, Psilocybin, and mushrooms.

From neolithic days until fairly recently, the younger set of the tribe and society were more obliged to mingle with their seniors who had been there, seen or done that, and seen the folly of it.
Perhaps it would be good for them if they still did...

Is it just me ???????

If you want to have a laugh, read his last paragraph while doing your best David Attenborough impersonation. Just do it and you'll see what I mean

[dodgingandweaving]

in stitches.

[OnSong]

Very good BC

[interested observer]

When we are talking about druge use, this is the age bracket we are referring to when we say it is prevelant. I'm not going to refer to it when talking of 60 year old people (and you know that too). How many AFL players do you think do the majority of their socialising with the mature aged set??? Bugger all. It's all well and good to say drugs aren't everywhere, which probably is the case, if you are referring to every single social set. At the end of the day though, the social groups that these players, and people their age group in general get around, are not the mature age set etc, who are generally not into the drug scene.

True enough, yet the older set of today [55+] were the youth of the 1970s when drug use did seem to be more universal than today, but somehow less destructive - perhaps it was the choice of drug - or perhaps the "free love" ideal.. In that era, I didn't use drugs, but I did know a few among the professional set, who dabbled with LSD, Psilocybin, and mushrooms.

From neolithic days until fairly recently, the younger set of the tribe and society were more obliged to mingle with their seniors who had been there, seen or done that, and seen the folly of it.
Perhaps it would be good for them if they still did...

Is it just me ???????

If you want to have a laugh, read his last paragraph while doing your best David Attenborough impersonation. Just do it and you'll see what I mean

[AFLflyer]

bum crack you are all over this topic, im agreeing with all you say.... !!

too many older people quote what they read, stats etc. they really dont know what goes on in the real world, yet they will tell you they do and wont listen to anyone . i have a mother in law just like it!!! listen people to things you really dont know about!!

[The Sleeping Giant]

i have a mother in law just like it!!!

I think you will find we all have that in common.

[AFLflyer]

i have a mother in law just like it!!!

I think you will find we all have that in common.

hahahahaa and i thought i was alone!! i think there should be another thread for this..

[centrecirclelegend]

the first bombshell was Stokes being caught and charged........

the second bombshell is still to come?

[Magpiespower]

Bit worried.

If Stokes gets nicked for that.

Everyone I know is a drugs trafficker!

[Psyber]

True enough, yet the older set of today [55+] were the youth of the 1970s when drug use did seem to be more universal than today,

Was that stat in your book about Alfred the Great?
regards, REB

Hardly.. see my emboldened bit to help reading comprehension, which I didn't think would be needed when I originally posted...
Sympathetic regards, Psyber.

I just love been patronised. Keep up the good work.
regards,
REB

It seemed an appropriate response to me - response in kind..

[Rik E Boy]

It seemed an appropriate response to me - response in kind..

You were wrong. I know, that's not supposed to happen eh?

regards,

REB

[Bum Crack]

the first bombshell was Stokes being caught and charged........

the second bombshell is still to come?

OK Robbo

[Q.]

"The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'."

[Psyber]

It seemed an appropriate response to me - response in kind..

You were wrong. I know, that's not supposed to happen eh?
regards,
REB

I'll take your word for it, and apologise if, as it appears, I misunderstood..

[Rik E Boy]

It seemed an appropriate response to me - response in kind..

You were wrong. I know, that's not supposed to happen eh?
regards,
REB

I'll take your word for it, and apologise if, as it appears, I misunderstood..

No worries mate. Play on.

regards,

REB

[Thiele]

Has been Suspended until round 8 and fined $5000 http://www.geelongcats.com.au/geelongne ... fault.aspx

[aceman]

Has been Suspended until round 8 and fined $5000 http://www.geelongcats.com.au/geelongne ... fault.aspx

Fairly "soft" considering the charge I would have thought with the stance they were supposedly going to take. I wonder what the AFL hierachy thinks about it?
Doesn't need to be 'hanged' but what is a $5K fine and 8 match payments to an AFL player who earns maybe $200K in the scheme of things considering the severity of the offence.