That Clinic in Ivanhoe !!

[Eastern]

I don't know the name of it

I don't know where it is

But I believe that those who run that clinic have some serious questions to answer as well.

How did these documents end up in the gutter as alleged?

What level of document security do they have?

Is there a level of incompetence within the clinic as far as document security is concerned?

What level of general security does the clinic have? (after all, it is a rehab clinic)

Yes, there are questions for those charged and Ch 7, but there are also questions for the clinic operators to answer too !!

[Mr Magic]

I don't know the name of it

I don't know where it is

But I believe that those who run that clinic have some serious questions to answer as well.

How did these documents end up in the gutter as alleged?

What level of document security do they have?

Is there a level of incompetence within the clinic as far as document security is concerned?

What level of general security does the clinic have? (after all, it is a rehab clinic)

Yes, there are questions for those charged and Ch 7, but there are also questions for the clinic operators to answer too !!

You're right Eastern, but how about the players involved - do they have questions to answer as well? Or are they just 'innocents' in this story?

[Eastern]

I don't know the name of it

I don't know where it is

But I believe that those who run that clinic have some serious questions to answer as well.

How did these documents end up in the gutter as alleged?

What level of document security do they have?

Is there a level of incompetence within the clinic as far as document security is concerned?

What level of general security does the clinic have? (after all, it is a rehab clinic)

Yes, there are questions for those charged and Ch 7, but there are also questions for the clinic operators to answer too !!

You're right Eastern, but how about the players involved - do they have questions to answer as well? Or are they just 'innocents' in this story?

Spot On Mr Magic. They need to provide answers too. After all the substances mentioned are illegal !!

[Brewer]

The clinic involved may or may not be like this one:

http://www.healthscopehospitals.com.au/ ... 42/itemId/

As for any questions they'll have to answer, I actually suspect that this is going to be a bit of a slam-dunk. My guess is that 'found in the gutter' actually means 'stolen by my girlfriend who is a cleaner there at nights' or something similar.

Whoever sold the records to Ch7 and gave their correct name and address is obviously not a criminal mastermind.

[fonz_#15]

they shouldnt have to answer anything mr.magic..the players agreed to the 3 strikes policy, and the alleged 2 have seeked rehabilitation for their second strike.

it is not our business what they do in their spare time.

[plugger66]

I don't know the name of it

I don't know where it is

But I believe that those who run that clinic have some serious questions to answer as well.

How did these documents end up in the gutter as alleged?

What level of document security do they have?

Is there a level of incompetence within the clinic as far as document security is concerned?

What level of general security does the clinic have? (after all, it is a rehab clinic)

Yes, there are questions for those charged and Ch 7, but there are also questions for the clinic operators to answer too !!

You're right Eastern, but how about the players involved - do they have questions to answer as well? Or are they just 'innocents' in this story?

Yes they have been caught using drugs but how do we know are players are innocents. We may have at least one player who has been caught maybe even twice who knows.. We shouldnt throw stones at glass houses should we. I do not condone drug use but 70 % of the popualation have tried apparently so being only 3% in the AFL isnt bad.

[Mr Magic]

The clinic involved may or may not be like this one:

http://www.healthscopehospitals.com.au/ ... 42/itemId/

As for any questions they'll have to answer, I actually suspect that this is going to be a bit of a slam-dunk. My guess is that 'found in the gutter' actually means 'stolen by my girlfriend who is a cleaner there at nights' or something similar.

Whoever sold the records to Ch7 and gave their correct name and address is obviously not a criminal mastermind.

Except they have been charged with 'theft by finding' which makes one suspect that either their story of finding the documents in the gutter is correct or there is no proof that they were stolen from within the Clinic?

[Eastern]

they shouldnt have to answer anything mr.magic..the players agreed to the 3 strikes policy, and the alleged 2 have seeked rehabilitation for their second strike.

it is not our business what they do in their spare time.

Let's NOT get the AFL's Drug Policy mixed up with the LAW !!

[plugger66]

I don't know the name of it

I don't know where it is

But I believe that those who run that clinic have some serious questions to answer as well.

How did these documents end up in the gutter as alleged?

What level of document security do they have?

Is there a level of incompetence within the clinic as far as document security is concerned?

What level of general security does the clinic have? (after all, it is a rehab clinic)

Yes, there are questions for those charged and Ch 7, but there are also questions for the clinic operators to answer too !!

You're right Eastern, but how about the players involved - do they have questions to answer as well? Or are they just 'innocents' in this story?

Spot On Mr Magic. They need to provide answers too. After all the substances mentioned are illegal !!

Only illegal to sell or have on your body not to use.

[Brewer]

I don't think the players should have to answer charges in this case.

Those are private medical records and the players are obviously seeking assistance with their problems. They are still at risk of being discovered in random tests, they are not being given any kind of immunity, but you can't allow stolen medical records to land players in crap that they wouldn't otherwise have to face.

Perhaps the AFL should seek assurance from the club that it will investigate and deal with the problem immediately, but you can't name and shame players because of illegally obtained personal medical files.

[stinger]

The clinic involved may or may not be like this one:

http://www.healthscopehospitals.com.au/ ... 42/itemId/

As for any questions they'll have to answer, I actually suspect that this is going to be a bit of a slam-dunk. My guess is that 'found in the gutter' actually means 'stolen by my girlfriend who is a cleaner there at nights' or something similar.

Whoever sold the records to Ch7 and gave their correct name and address is obviously not a criminal mastermind.

Except they have been charged with 'theft by finding' which makes one suspect that either their story of finding the documents in the gutter is correct or there is no proof that they were stolen from within the Clinic?

at this stage anyway....if...and i say if.....the story in the papers can be believed........

[fonz_#15]

I don't think the players should have to answer charges in this case.

Those are private medical records and the players are obviously seeking assistance with their problems. They are still at risk of being discovered in random tests, they are not being given any kind of immunity, but you can't allow stolen medical records to land players in crap that they wouldn't otherwise have to face.

Perhaps the AFL should seek assurance from the club that it will investigate and deal with the problem immediately, but you can't name and shame players because of illegally obtained personal medical files.

agree 100%

[fonz_#15]

they shouldnt have to answer anything mr.magic..the players agreed to the 3 strikes policy, and the alleged 2 have seeked rehabilitation for their second strike.

it is not our business what they do in their spare time.

Let's NOT get the AFL's Drug Policy mixed up with the LAW !!

yes but evidence of these mens drug problems have been obtained illegally.

they are being rehabilitated for their drug prolems.

[Brewer]

Except they have been charged with 'theft by finding' which makes one suspect that either their story of finding the documents in the gutter is correct or there is no proof that they were stolen from within the Clinic?

Interesting, I guess time will tell (enough media interest that I'm sure we'll hear the full story in due time).

If they were genuinely found in the gutter then my sympathy for the players concerned is greatly reduced (assuming they were stupid enough to drop them), but still think the AFL will find itself in a legal minefield if it wants to try and take any action on the information.

is the AFL even entitled to view the documents?! I know they were filing to become a party to the case but I'm not sure they would be automatically entitled to view the records themselves.

[saintbrat]

I
Perhaps the AFL should seek assurance from the club that it will investigate and deal with the problem immediately, but you can't name and shame players because of illegally obtained personal medical files.

the club isn't allowed to know either untill the second or third incident is it?

[meher baba]

My guess is that 'found in the gutter' actually means 'stolen by my girlfriend who is a cleaner there at nights' or something similar.

Too bloody right it does!! Almost certainly a cleaner, or more likely a boyfriend who is a security guard (who would be more likely to have a key to the records cabinet, methinks).

Channel 7 should really be ashamed of themselves for going ahead with the story. It breaches all sorts of journalistic codes of ethics.

What if the files had related to a Channel 7 on-air presenter or other media celebrity or one of their sons and daughters (and I'd bet my bottom dollar that we'd all be amazed if we were told the identities of some of the people who go to that clinic)? Would they have run the story then?

Of course not. It's just that drug-using footballers are clearly seen by some lowlifes in the media as fair game ATM. It's an outrageous invasion of privacy: personally, I'd like to see the reporter concern spend a bit of time in the clink to teach him and others a lesson. But it probably won't happen (after all, the whole thing was caught on video ).

[plugger66]

Except they have been charged with 'theft by finding' which makes one suspect that either their story of finding the documents in the gutter is correct or there is no proof that they were stolen from within the Clinic?

Interesting, I guess time will tell (enough media interest that I'm sure we'll hear the full story in due time).

If they were genuinely found in the gutter then my sympathy for the players concerned is greatly reduced (assuming they were stupid enough to drop them), but still think the AFL will find itself in a legal minefield if it wants to try and take any action on the information.

is the AFL even entitled to view the documents?! I know they were filing to become a party to the case but I'm not sure they would be automatically entitled to view the records themselves.

I think you will find the AFL know who the players are as they would have been sent to the clinic as a result of failing a drug test.

[Brewer]

I think you will find the AFL know who the players are as they would have been sent to the clinic as a result of failing a drug test.

Well that's an interesting point too - I hadn't considered that. If it's true then there's really not much more to this case - the players are following the procedure, the AFL knows about it and approves of it, the only issue here is the theft of the documents and Ch7's questionable conduct.

[plugger66]

I think you will find the AFL know who the players are as they would have been sent to the clinic as a result of failing a drug test.

Well that's an interesting point too - I hadn't considered that. If it's true then there's really not much more to this case - the players are following the procedure, the AFL knows about it and approves of it, the only issue here is the theft of the documents and Ch7's questionable conduct.

Yep thats how I see it too.

[Mr Magic]

I don't know the name of it

I don't know where it is

But I believe that those who run that clinic have some serious questions to answer as well.

How did these documents end up in the gutter as alleged?

What level of document security do they have?

Is there a level of incompetence within the clinic as far as document security is concerned?

What level of general security does the clinic have? (after all, it is a rehab clinic)

Yes, there are questions for those charged and Ch 7, but there are also questions for the clinic operators to answer too !!

You're right Eastern, but how about the players involved - do they have questions to answer as well? Or are they just 'innocents' in this story?

Yes they have been caught using drugs but how do we know are players are innocents. We may have at least one player who has been caught maybe even twice who knows.. We shouldnt throw stones at glass houses should we. I do not condone drug use but 70 % of the popualation have tried apparently so being only 3% in the AFL isnt bad.

Plugger66,
Do you really truly believe that only 3% of AFL players is an accurate figure? IMHO it's more likely a response to the insipid AFL Testing policy more than a reflection of what is going on out there.

Proof - the fact that this much hyped and vaunted AFL Illicit Drugs Policy never picked up Benny-boy with a positive result. Yet Benny-boy has a 'substance use' problem so severe he has to flee the country and check into a Malibu Rehab Clinic for a month. Note, the players who are the subject of the Ch7 story apparently don't have as severe a problem as Benny-boy did (he's miraculously cured now!) because their medical advice is they don't need to be committed inside for a Rehab Programme. They only require rehab counselling.

As for our players maybe also having similar problems, when I hear about them I will be just as scathing in my condemnation of their activity.

I don't understand where all the sympathy for these players is coming from? If they are oicked up by a 'booze bus' and blow over .05 we don't make excuses for them. What about if the booze bus' is a 'drug tester' as well and they have a positive result? Will we still talk about their rights then? If you or I test positive on a random drug test, we face police prosecution don't we. Maybe our names aren't splashed over the media but that is a reflection of the fact that they are high profile sportsmen and we're not. I can promise you if you were a 'high profile' businessman, lawyer, entrepeneur, politician, doctor, trade union official, teacher, hairdresser or anything else and the media got hold of the story, you'd be in the media too.

THe fact of the matter is that Sports in general and the AFL in particular have decided they want their sport 'drug free' and test accordingly. If players wish to partake of illegal substances, knowing that those substances are being tested by not only their governing body but by police as well, then they have to suffer the consequences. Unfortunately for them, their notoriety as football players means that one of the consequences is the likeliehood of them being named and shamed publicly if they are caught.

[plugger66]

I don't know the name of it

I don't know where it is

But I believe that those who run that clinic have some serious questions to answer as well.

How did these documents end up in the gutter as alleged?

What level of document security do they have?

Is there a level of incompetence within the clinic as far as document security is concerned?

What level of general security does the clinic have? (after all, it is a rehab clinic)

Yes, there are questions for those charged and Ch 7, but there are also questions for the clinic operators to answer too !!

You're right Eastern, but how about the players involved - do they have questions to answer as well? Or are they just 'innocents' in this story?

Yes they have been caught using drugs but how do we know are players are innocents. We may have at least one player who has been caught maybe even twice who knows.. We shouldnt throw stones at glass houses should we. I do not condone drug use but 70 % of the popualation have tried apparently so being only 3% in the AFL isnt bad.

Plugger66,
Do you really truly believe that only 3% of AFL players is an accurate figure? IMHO it's more likely a response to the insipid AFL Testing policy more than a reflection of what is going on out there.

Proof - the fact that this much hyped and vaunted AFL Illicit Drugs Policy never picked up Benny-boy with a positive result. Yet Benny-boy has a 'substance use' problem so severe he has to flee the country and check into a Malibu Rehab Clinic for a month. Note, the players who are the subject of the Ch7 story apparently don't have as severe a problem as Benny-boy did (he's miraculously cured now!) because their medical advice is they don't need to be committed inside for a Rehab Programme. They only require rehab counselling.

As for our players maybe also having similar problems, when I hear about them I will be just as scathing in my condemnation of their activity.

I don't understand where all the sympathy for these players is coming from? If they are oicked up by a 'booze bus' and blow over .05 we don't make excuses for them. What about if the booze bus' is a 'drug tester' as well and they have a positive result? Will we still talk about their rights then? If you or I test positive on a random drug test, we face police prosecution don't we. Maybe our names aren't splashed over the media but that is a reflection of the fact that they are high profile sportsmen and we're not. I can promise you if you were a 'high profile' businessman, lawyer, entrepeneur, politician, doctor, trade union official, teacher, hairdresser or anything else and the media got hold of the story, you'd be in the media too.

THe fact of the matter is that Sports in general and the AFL in particular have decided they want their sport 'drug free' and test accordingly. If players wish to partake of illegal substances, knowing that those substances are being tested by not only their governing body but by police as well, then they have to suffer the consequences. Unfortunately for them, their notoriety as football players means that one of the consequences is the likeliehood of them being named and shamed publicly if they are caught.

Not sure if the drug bus is similar to be tested in the AFL. One is to get dangerous people off the road. No danger to other AFL players if some fool wants to be on drugs before a game. BY the way no player has ever been caught in 3 years using on game day.

Would a high profile persons name be in the media if they had grugs on Saturday night. No.

[Brewer]

I don't understand where all the sympathy for these players is coming from? If they are oicked up by a 'booze bus' and blow over .05 we don't make excuses for them. What about if the booze bus' is a 'drug tester' as well and they have a positive result?

It isn't about sympathy Mr Magic. If a player tests positive at a booze bus or in any other 'general public' system then they will no doubt be named and shamed and very publicly humiliated.

The AFL has decided to address the problem of drugs within the league by first admitting that it is a problem. The next step is to administer its own testing of players, which it does, and then it has made the decision NOT to name and shame those it finds but to assist them in cleaning up their act and rehabilitating.

This is obviously a contentious issue, as it suggests that drugs are tolerated by the AFL, but it should be noted that the players VOLUNTEERED for this arrangement to help clean up their sport. If they thought that the results of AFL illicit drug testing would be made public they would not have agreed to the testing program, and they may well have every right to refuse testing for illicit drugs on civil rights grounds. Your employer can't just do random drug tests on you unless there is a legitimate public health and safety basis to justify testing, so it is hardly fair to test players (especially out of season) and then name and shame them, lay criminal charges and expel them from the league and everything else that the hardcore anti-drugs folks think they should do.

The AFL is making efforts to clean up the sport, but you catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar.

[Mr Magic]

The AFL has decided to address the problem of drugs within the league by first admitting that it is a problem. The next step is to administer its own testing of players, which it does, and then it has made the decision NOT to name and shame those it finds but to assist them in cleaning up their act and rehabilitating.

This is obviously a contentious issue, as it suggests that drugs are tolerated by the AFL, but it should be noted that the players VOLUNTEERED for this arrangement to help clean up their sport. If they thought that the results of AFL illicit drug testing would be made public they would not have agreed to the testing program, and they may well have every right to refuse testing for illicit drugs on civil rights grounds. Your employer can't just do random drug tests on you unless there is a legitimate public health and safety basis to justify testing, so it is hardly fair to test players (especially out of season) and then name and shame them, lay criminal charges and expel them from the league and everything else that the hardcore anti-drugs folks think they should do.

The AFL is making efforts to clean up the sport, but you catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar.

I suppose it comes back to if yuo think the AFL is really serious about making their game 'drug free'.

Once the players had agreed to random illicit drug testing then they are stuck with what stems from any positive results.

I wonder what was agreed between teh AFL and the AFLPA over the testing regime.

I for one don't consider a drug testing regime of 750 tests for 650 players to be too extensive. There have been players claim they haven't been tested in 3 years let alone on a regular basis. I saw a quote from Roo to say he has had 3 tests this year which means that on the law of averages there must be at least 1 player (probalby 2) who won't be tested this year.

I still cannot believe that the AFL is fair dinkum when you see that Benny-boy has never tested positive and is so seriously 'substance used' that he required immediate commital to a Malibu Drug Rehabilitation Clininc for a month. HOw is it possible he never tested positive? Someone please explain how this exhaustive and world's best practice drug policy failed to detect him? Oh, and by the way, anybody who goes out at night to nightclubs in Perth could have told you about Benny-boy at least 2 years ago, so given that the AFL admits to a 'target testing' programme within their drug testing programme, how on Earth did they not catch him>

One answer is he is the luckiest guy around.
Another is he is diabolically clever in masking/hiding his use.
A third policy is that no-one really wanted to catch him?

How come nobody, Benny-boy, WCE, AFL, have used the word DRUGS when describing Benny-boy's problem It is always called 'substance use' (note, they don't use the word abuse). Why is that?

Why haven't the AFL investigated Fletcher's 'mishap' in Las Vegas where he required medical intervention to possibly save his life? Where is the AFL's drug policy on this?

I have absolutely no faith in the AFL's Drug Policy. The Policy is a joke and designed, IMHO, to sweep the problem they know is rife amongst their players, under a carpet.

My apologies for the rant but I am sick and tired of the AFL bs on this matter. Taking/using drugs is life threatening and possibly the most serious issue amongst the young generation of society. To see it treated so cavalierly by a supposedly responsible body is a disgrace.
Even more than the players, the AFL have a moral responsibility to take this problem seriously and not pay 'lip-service' to it.

[plugger66]

They are not allowed to test players for 8 weeks in the off season so that is why Fletcher wasnt tested as agreed by the AFL and players association. There will be over 1000 tests next year and I also beleive they will only get one strike before it goes public so as of next year I think that should be much better.

Everyone deserves one chance before being on the front of every paper in Australia dont you think.

One other question what about all the other sports in the world who have no recreational drug policy. Surely what the AFL are trying to do is better than not trying at all.

[Brewer]

Don't apologise Magic, you make good points and I'm certainly not in any position to defend the AFL.

I think what we have here is a policy which would work well - I think the '3 strikes' idea is a generous one but it is done with the best of intentions. However, it is really only effective as long as the testing is intensive enough.

On the current regime you could argue that 2 strikes is too generous, given how long players can go between tests. If, on the other hand, all players were tested 4 times a year then the AFL's progressive 'rehabilitation' policy would seem fair.

It amazes me how the AFL can cry poor over such insignificant costs like drug testing and fixed cameras at grounds. Maybe we are talking about a few thousand dollars per club per year but the AFL turns over hundreds of millions of dollars, and is a laughing stock because of these 2 issues.

There's no excuse for it IMO.