One-Eyed Richmond Forum
Football => View from the Outer => Topic started by: WilliamPowell on August 30, 2006, 01:02:25 PM
-
AFL wins drug-test names case
Peter Gregory, Jordan Chong
August 30, 2006 - 10:35AM
The Age and other media organisations have failed in a bid to name three AFL players alleged to have twice tested positive for social drugs.
Justice Murray Kellam today said he would uphold an application for a permanent injunction suppressing the players' names.
He gave lawyers for the AFL and media interests further time to discuss the terms of the court order, and maintained an earlier court order preventing publication.
In a published summary of his decision, Justice Kellam said AFL footballers had agreed to be tested out of competition in the interests of the code's illicit drugs policy, but on the proviso that the first two positive tests were confidential.
"The public interest does not require, nor is it served by, the breach of such confidentiality," he said.
Justice Kellam said media interests argued that information about the players' identities was already public, and it revealed criminal conduct on their behalf.
He said there was no evidence the material had been disseminated to the public at large.
The confidentiality orders were not being sought to prevent information disclosure to investigating authorities, and the information did not reveal misbehaviour or a crime that affected the community as a whole, he said
Outside the Supreme Court, AFL football operations manager Adrian Anderson said: "This decision enables the AFL to continue its fight against illicit drugs."
Anderson said keeping the players' names suppressed had nothing to do with protecting the AFL's brand.
"If we were more concerned about brand, you wouldn't bother testing players when you don't have to. We didn't go into this policy to protect our brand," he said.
AFL chief execeutive Andrew Demetriou welcomed the ruling and defended the league's approach to protecting the identities of players who returned positive drug tests.
"Drug experts tell us that this is the best way to make a difference and stop drug use," he said.
Demetrious said players needed counselling, education, treatment and rehabilitation to prevent them taking drugs during and after their careers.
In March, the AFL and AFL players' association obtained an injunction stopping The Age, Sydney Morning Herald and West Australian from publishing the names of three players who allegedly twice tested positive for illegal drugs.
The AFL also asked the police to investigate how the players' names were leaked to the media.
During the hearing before Justice Kellam, Will Houghton, QC, for the AFL, argued that publication of the footballers' identities would destroy the code's illicit drugs policy.
The policy, due to expire after the 2006 season, allowed disclosure of a first positive result only to an AFL medical officer. A second positive result could be revealed to a football club doctor, while a third finding meant the player would be named, front the AFL Tribunal and be suspended.
But Simon Marks, SC, for the newspapers, said the public had a substantial interest when a public figure was allegedly involved in conduct that society regarded as unacceptable.
theage.com.au
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/afl-wins-drugtest-names-case/2006/08/30/1156816938773.html
-
This stinks! How come players like Jay Schulz, Ben Cousins & Co get a hammering in the press for a much lesser offence, yet these repeat drug offenders get hushed up.
I have no idea who they are (A PM would be nice if someone has the good oil) but I feel they deserve to cop a bit of public ridicule. If the AFL were to spend less time in court protecting these bludgers, They would save enough money to drop the cost of ground admission.
Rugby League takes a very hard line on Drugs and other anti-social behaviour. Mitchell Seargent was just sacked by the Cowboys for testing poitive to cocaine, and two Bronco's players and 1 Sharks player have been sacked for violent anti-social behaviour.
What sort of message is the AFL trying to get across here. One wonders.......
-
That's fair enough, but wouldn't players want to know if they are going to be lining up on a crack-head?
"Drug experts tell us that this is the best way to make a difference and stop drug use," he said.
And if they do that, shouldn't they keep names of drink-drivers confidental too? Alcohol is a drug as well. And in Gardiner's case, if he is suffering from depression, airing his name in public isn't going to make him better...
What ever happened to Karl Norman by the way?
Schulz got more media attention from his drink-driving incident than Norman did with his relationship with the little white powder.
-
Richmond news sells papers and buys ratings ::).
Norman is playing football for Mooroopna in the Goulburn Valley Football League.
The players in question will only be named if they are caught for a third time.
-
Its amazing what happens when there are interstate clubs involved ::)
-
During the hearing before Justice Kellam, Will Houghton, QC, for the AFL, argued that publication of the footballers' identities would destroy the code's illicit drugs policy.
Not to mention the dill's careers - which is what this is all about IMO.
If any of these 3 twits had been caught by the cops in possession we'd all know about it - so why is this any different :help :banghead
Rugby League takes a very hard line on Drugs and other anti-social behaviour. Mitchell Seargent was just sacked by the Cowboys for testing poitive to cocaine, and two Bronco's players and 1 Sharks player have been sacked for violent anti-social behaviour.
Spot on tiga - Mitchell Sargent was a dill, a twit and a fool and has been punished. One strike and he's out end of story.
In the AFL you can be a moron and you get a pat on the head and told it's OK we'll support you. I am all for support but I sometimes think that AFL footballers are pampered to the point of no return
Outside the Supreme Court, AFL football operations manager Adrian Anderson said: "This decision enables the AFL to continue its fight against illicit drugs."
What fight you twit ::)
Anderson said keeping the players' names suppressed had nothing to do with protecting the AFL's brand.
"If we were more concerned about brand, you wouldn't bother testing players when you don't have to. We didn't go into this policy to protect our brand," he said.
As for the AFL and it's brand - further proof Adrian Anderson is a fool - your brand is damaged because of this policy :scream - the community thinks you are soft on spoilt drug taking footballers :wallywink
-
You might find at least 2 of the 3 will be offered as trades at end of year with no takers