Latest Drug Casualty

[Barto]

who?

His dad could play a bit, and his brother aint too shabby, but he is definitely a "who?"

Be interesting to see what the AFL does to a player who is not a gun...

His cousins were pretty handy, and his uncles and I think even his grandfather and great grandfather were pretty good too.

His lesser known brother, Tyzan wasn't so good

[Rik E Boy]

Looks like Tyzan, plays like Jane.

regards,

REB

[cennals05]

Has just been confirmed that Tuck is the first player with three strikes to his name now.

[Media Park]

Has just been confirmed that Tuck is the first player with three strikes to his name now.

so he is done???

[spell_check]

As for the individual player, I've said it many times, I'll say it again. I have no sympathy whatsoever for players who think they can cheat the system. In his documentary, Ben Cousins himself said the beauty of the system is you are allowed to continue playing AFL football whilst still using drugs. To me, this is the issue, and that comment went over most peoples' heads at 1,000 kph.

I've said it many times before, but this is it. You can't place a $5 bet on a match that has nothing to do with your team, but you can screw yourself over with drugs and get away with it until you're caught three times!

Not only does the AFL stuff up grassroots football, but it stuffs up players who really need help!

[Mop Up]

I really don't think there is a perfect way to handle these situations, situations which are incredibly delicate. Your damned if ya do, damned if ya don't

If they test positive once, do you throw the book at them, kick them out of the AFL, the Media and Public turns on them and what will he do.... either see the right path or just turn to more drugs.

Or like this situation do you try to rehabilitate them, they don't and end up like this but
I'm sure there are many who have tested positive, been counselled and have turned their lives around, are Drug Free and still have an occupation.

Either way you do it, there will still be the ones which rehabilitate and there will be the ones that don't...

[Phantom Gossiper]

Seriously i think the AFL is a joke on its drug policy, 3 strikes your out WTF?! In the NRL if a player is tested positive he is immediately outted and sacked.

Don't you think by the AFL giving blokes 3 chances its sort of opening the door a bit for them to run wild a couple times or rather run wild UNTIL caught twice? And by that stage they prob wouldve developed a habit/problem?

Im sure if players knew they only had one chance then they would possibly be less inclined to indulge in rec drugs.

[the joker]

Seriously i think the AFL is a joke on its drug policy, 3 strikes your out WTF?! In the NRL if a player is tested positive he is immediately outted and sacked.

Don't you think by the AFL giving blokes 3 chances its sort of opening the door a bit for them to run wild a couple times or rather run wild UNTIL caught twice? And by that stage they prob wouldve developed a habit/problem?

Im sure if players knew they only had one chance then they would possibly be less inclined to indulge in rec drugs.

no they dont

The NRL imposes a suspended fine of five per cent of a player's salary for a first offence. There is an official written employment warning and three months' compulsory attendance at counselling. The player is suspended for 12 weeks for a second positive test and the first fine is payable

[Media Park]

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/t ... 5912456398

link from one hour ago, and the bottom explains, in a dumbed-down version, the AFL drugs policy...

Regards,

Media Park

[brod]

Tuck has been suspended for 12 AFL games (or 8 VFL games)

[Phantom Gossiper]

no they dont

The NRL imposes a suspended fine of five per cent of a player's salary for a first offence. There is an official written employment warning and three months' compulsory attendance at counselling. The player is suspended for 12 weeks for a second positive test and the first fine is payable

My apologies, i still think either way 3 chances is 2 too many..

[JK]

Interesting point raised on the radio this morning regarding players with 1 or 2 strikes already against their name being unknown to the clubs.

Let's say John Smith is a very well credentialled AFL player and is recruited by a team, but unbeknownst to them he has 2 strikes against his name .. He plays one game (for example) at his new club then hit's his third strike.

Sure, the new club would have contract clauses to cut his pay, but that club has still lost players and or draft picks for a bloke that now has to sit on the shelf.

[Gingernuts]

Interesting point raised on the radio this morning regarding players with 1 or 2 strikes already against their name being unknown to the clubs.

Let's say John Smith is a very well credentialled AFL player and is recruited by a team, but unbeknownst to them he has 2 strikes against his name .. He plays one game (for example) at his new club then hit's his third strike.

Sure, the new club would have contract clauses to cut his pay, but that club has still lost players and or draft picks for a bloke that now has to sit on the shelf.

Yep, Hawthorn has come out and said they are very unhappy about not knowing about Tuck's situation. I agree, surely they have a right to know about it. Not so they can impose penalties on him, more that they are his employee and as such they have a duty of care to him. How are they supposed to fulfill that duty when they are completely blind to it until it's too late?

[brod]

Interesting point raised on the radio this morning regarding players with 1 or 2 strikes already against their name being unknown to the clubs.

Let's say John Smith is a very well credentialled AFL player and is recruited by a team, but unbeknownst to them he has 2 strikes against his name .. He plays one game (for example) at his new club then hit's his third strike.

Sure, the new club would have contract clauses to cut his pay, but that club has still lost players and or draft picks for a bloke that now has to sit on the shelf.

Yep, Hawthorn has come out and said they are very unhappy about not knowing about Tuck's situation. I agree, surely they have a right to know about it. Not so they can impose penalties on him, more that they are his employee and as such they have a duty of care to him. How are they supposed to fulfill that duty when they are completely blind to it until it's too late?

What now for Hawthorn...Tuck has been pretty well top of the list of players to be delisted at the end of this season..Do they cut him loose now, as they would surely have done if this has not occured??

[Media Park]

GWS should sign him... let him sit out his suspension in the VFL, then he can resume in 2012...

[teaoby]

I think you'll find that Hawthorn well and truely knew about this situation and are just saying the right things at the moment, because rightly so the 3strike system is flawed. the club (or a club rep.) should be informed on the first strike, so help can be given to the player and his family.

from watching the cousins doco the other night. the one thing i got from it was that the only reason he isnt 6foot under, is because his family knew what was going on and could help him (moniter him)

i think you'll find most clubs and almost all the media in th know could tell you who is on what amount of strikes. but the clubs hands are tied becuase if they talk to the player about it, it is in breach of the strike policy. which is outrageous!

[Booney]

Tuck has been suspended for 12 AFL games (or 8 VFL games)

Consitent at least. Well, Cousins got a year off and didn't test positive once.....or did he?

Either way this drug code is a joke.

[Zelezny Chucks]

Interesting point raised on the radio this morning regarding players with 1 or 2 strikes already against their name being unknown to the clubs.

Let's say John Smith is a very well credentialled AFL player and is recruited by a team, but unbeknownst to them he has 2 strikes against his name .. He plays one game (for example) at his new club then hit's his third strike.

Sure, the new club would have contract clauses to cut his pay, but that club has still lost players and or draft picks for a bloke that now has to sit on the shelf.

Yep, Hawthorn has come out and said they are very unhappy about not knowing about Tuck's situation. I agree, surely they have a right to know about it. Not so they can impose penalties on him, more that they are his employee and as such they have a duty of care to him. How are they supposed to fulfill that duty when they are completely blind to it until it's too late?

This is my thought on the policy! The AFL should be testing for performance enhancing drugs as they are a sporting body, it is upto the clubs to test for illicit drugs as it would, with any workplace, be a breach of their terms of employment?

The AFL has opened itself up to ridicule no matter what policy it uses, a smarter option would have been to ensure each club has an adequate drugs policy and polices their own employees.

[Q.]

I wonder whether AFL drug testing even scopes for GHB. I doubt it. And given that it would be metabolised quickly (thanks to it naturally occuring in the body) it's probably a pointless exercise.

[The Wuss]

Interesting situation this illicit drugs policy....

There are only a few sports in Australia that have this type of policy, which is an out of competition illicit drug policy.

It's also interesting to note the ALFPA entered into the policy on a voluntary basis, and would also mean that they could withdraw their support for it.... effectively ending the testing.

In reading some of the news articles today it seems that the player was and still is receiving counseling for his issue, not only the drugs but also depression. So in that respect I don't think that you could say that the policy has failed this player, clearly there are bigger issues for him other than getting "caught".

I think that instead of everyone jumping on their moral high horse they should let this whole process play itself out, I’m pretty confident in saying that the AFL and the AFLPA would have the best information available to them when considering these policies, better than Johnno from down the roads 2 cents.

After all isn't it better to have a policy that my need a few tweaks other than no policy at all????