Author Topic: Would the AFL protect players if they were stars of the game?  (Read 2182 times)

Moi

  • Guest
Would the AFL protect players if they were stars of the game?
« on: February 06, 2008, 08:13:59 AM »
Like in their drugs policy.

Do you reckon they'd out a star player if he got three strikes or just save that for a lesser known, so they can say they're doing their job?

I don't trust 'em!

bushranger

  • Guest
Re: Would the AFL protect players if they were stars of the game?
« Reply #1 on: February 06, 2008, 08:48:45 AM »
What I think the AFL would do if it was a well known player, would be lessen the charge so it still looks like there are doing their job. And as for the lesser known player yes I think they wouldn't care and throw the book at them. Then pat themselves on the back and say what a good job we are doing.

Moi

  • Guest
Re: Would the AFL protect players if they were stars of the game?
« Reply #2 on: February 06, 2008, 09:02:38 AM »
I only say this because of ongoing rumours of a star player from an up-and-coming  ;) team who may be under investigation and already earned three strikes.

I thought they at least were supposed to make public who those players were after the second strike, but maybe I've got it wrong and there is no such player.

How will we ever know?

Ox

  • Guest
Re: Would the AFL protect players if they were stars of the game?
« Reply #3 on: February 06, 2008, 10:36:28 AM »
AFL is the biggest Boys club in the history of Australia.

Of course they would cover their products ars.

Offline mightytiges

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 58597
  • Eat 'Em Alive!
    • oneeyed-richmond.com
Re: Would the AFL protect players if they were stars of the game?
« Reply #4 on: February 06, 2008, 01:36:29 PM »
I only say this because of ongoing rumours of a star player from an up-and-coming  ;) team who may be under investigation and already earned three strikes.

I thought they at least were supposed to make public who those players were after the second strike, but maybe I've got it wrong and there is no such player.

How will we ever know?
Is that the new drug policy (max. 2 strikes?). Under the old drug policy of 3 strikes only the club doctor needed to know after the first strike then the club after the second. It was after the 3rd strike that it would be made public. The new rule I'm guessing isn't retrospective so there'd be a few players on 2 strikes but they won't be publicly named unless they get caught again.

You'll have to contact Ch 7 about any up and coming players and if they are willing to break an AFL court injunction over medical records :shh
All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be - Pink Floyd

Online WilliamPowell

  • Administrator
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 40307
  • Better to ignore a fool than encourage one
    • One Eyed Richmond
Re: Would the AFL protect players if they were stars of the game?
« Reply #5 on: February 06, 2008, 07:56:06 PM »
The AFL haven't yet changed their policy from 3 strikes to 2.

As to whether they'd protect - not a doubt in my mind they would. they only ever do what is in their best interest
"Oh yes I am a dreamer, I still see us flying high!"

from the song "Don't Walk Away" by Pat Benatar 1988 (Wide Awake In Dreamland)

Hellenic Tiger

  • Guest
Re: Would the AFL protect players if they were stars of the game?
« Reply #6 on: February 07, 2008, 07:58:38 PM »
Of course they would. Just look at what hapenned to Lawrence Angwin. He was told he was sacked by the club while blokes from the leadership group were present at that meeting as they were the night before. The club I am sure would know who the culprits are but some players are marketable earn $$$$$ and are reputable and hence will damage the comp if their true colours are shown. In Cousins case it was about a player who had reached the stage of his life where drugs were consuming him so much that the club had to intervene for the safety of the player. If W Coast kept their mouth shut so would the AFL and they would sweep it under the rug and one morning we would have woken to the news at 7 to say Ben Cousins is dead and that's it until more details would have been released............Football nowadays is no longer male macho dominated as in the days when Paul Van Der Haar would have a slab of beer on a Friday night and then rock up on a Saturday to play all whilst Sheeds would know too well where his champ was. Community attitudes have changed and so has the demographics of the supporters to a large degree and it is marketed as pure family entertainment and hence they do not want issues like drugs tarnishing it and if you don't agree look at the rule changes that are brought in to appease mum so that Timmy isn't scarred for life if he sees Jonathan Brown clean up two blokes who will be taken off on stretchers while taking a speccy on the back of his 6 ft 4 opponent. Yet when mum and dad divorce because of financial problems, alcoholic problems, physical and emotional abuse that  kids are a direct witness to they are not scarred???  Its all about image and it always will be.  Happens with those that have power. Remember Ed on the footy show Schulz is a crim because he drank and dve yet Cloke getting clocked doing 144 is okay because he didn't have 15 schooners of beer in him and Millane was unlucky hence we retired his jumper. Its about image people. To create a perception that will promote you ahead of those in direct and indirect competition and where does this lead us back to in short THE MIGHTY DOLLAR $$$$$$$$$$$$$$.