The Rumour Mill

[The Adelaide Connection]

Thought every good forum needs a place to stick the rumours that come through on various AFL going ons. Well actually the reason I thought I'd start it is because a mate of mine has just let me know something huge.

He has it on pretty good authority that a senior player in a top 8 side from last year has been listed as injured, and whilst that may be the case, there is more to it.

Turns out that this player has alledgedly registered his third strike in the drug tests. The AFL and the club in question, wanting to avoid a media storm and more bad publicity, have decided to suspend the player and spin the line that he is injured.

You heard it on Woof first. I seriously question that if true, we can get through the whole season without it being leaked. Time will tell.

Oh, just to alleviate some stress it is NOT a Western Bulldogs player.

[G-Mo77]

Do we start guessing or are you going to tell us?

Instead of waiting I'm going to take a punt on Jordan Lewis. Am I close?

[Max469]

There are always these rumours going around. This player is on 2 strikes or have you heard that is it why that player retired. And round and round they go.

You know how it goes - everyone would be now putting their money on the Hawks and probably trolling the injury lists to see if they can put it together. Is is Croad - Is it Smith - Is it this one or that one?

As long as they don't involve our team, leave them be.

[The Adelaide Connection]

There are always these rumours going around. This player is on 2 strikes or have you heard that is it why that player retired. And round and round they go.

You know how it goes - everyone would be now putting their money on the Hawks and probably trolling the injury lists to see if they can put it together. Is is Croad - Is it Smith - Is it this one or that one?

As long as they don't involve our team, leave them be.

Very true and I agree to a degree. I haven't actually caught any of these types of rumours before (we obviously miss a bit in Adelaide) but if the rumour is correct I don't think anyone (media, supporters or whoever) should let them be.

I haven't named the player because, whilst I have no reason to doubt my sources and know it would probably be pretty accurate coming from him, I would hate to name him and it to end up being wrong. I added it to the forum to generate a bit of discussion, not necessarily on who it is, and also as a pre-emptive "watch this space" sort of thing.

If a player is stupid enouch to rack up two strikes and not pull his head in I think they are fair game and probably should be pulled through the ringer to a degree. If the player has a serious problem (Ala Cousins) I feel that should have been addressed heavily by the club at strike two and if they are not fit to play they shouldn't be. In this case you would think the club would be conducting their own tests on the player too.

So you would have to assume that they do not have a serious problem. In that case should we shelter them and their club, take a soft stance or brush it under the carpet? I wouldn't think so. This could breed a situation like what happened at West Coast.

Ha ha, just on a side note (Max your profile pic has reminded me) has anyone else thought about how Roger Ramjet was the biggest roid head that ever lived? "Hang on Eagles (also very poignant) I will just take my proton pills and then I will be able to defeat the bad guys".

[Max469]

I also should have added that I think they should be named after 1 strike.

[Bumper Bulldogs]

I also should have added that I think they should be named after 1 strike.

I fully agree here as last time i looked these drug are banned substances and bring Jail time for an average Joe, just not an AFL footballer who are clearly above the law.

If we are serious about rehap and support we would name them and then the eyes would be watching.

[G-Mo77]

I also should have added that I think they should be named after 1 strike.

I can see both sides to the argument although I'd hate to see some kid labeled a junkie for the rest of his career because of one mistake.

I think they should be banned after 2 strikes, if your stupid enough to try it again after being caught the first time they don't deserve to be there.

[LostDoggy]

Be very careful what you post and do not put names. For the record, two clubs with accusations of having drug cultures have won premierships in the last few years, both knocked us out of the finals - and if they get an edge from their drug use we deserve to know. The club itself should be shamed not the player, for turning a blind eye.

[GVGjr]

Be very careful what you post and do not put names. For the record, two clubs with accusations of having drug cultures have won premierships in the last few years, both knocked us out of the finals - and if they get an edge from their drug use we deserve to know. The club itself should be shamed not the player, for turning a blind eye.

Yes, it's important that no names are mentioned. If the media hasn't done it, there is no way we should do it. A lot of it is just speculation anyway.

[ledge]

Yes, it's important that no names are mentioned. If the media hasn't done it, there is no way we should do it. A lot of it is just speculation anyway.

On that point it is a rumour post so it is stated as rumour not fact, why cant names be mentioned?
Hate a rumour without names, defeats the purpose of them being juicy :D

[Drunken Bum]

I fully agree here as last time i looked these drug are banned substances and bring Jail time for an average Joe, just not an AFL footballer who are clearly above the law.

Thats not actually even close to correct, you would need to be caught in possesion of a serious amount of drugs to get jail time for a first offence and as far as i am aware the only time you can be charged for being under the influence of drugs(as opposed to being in possession) is if you are driving. Even us average Joe's would need to be caught in possession at least 3-4 times before getting close to jail time if it was just personal use and more than likely wouldnt even end up in court the first and possibly the second time, although you might have to attend a drug rehab/education seminar.

[GVGjr]

On that point it is a rumour post so it is stated as rumour not fact, why cant names be mentioned?
Hate a rumour without names, defeats the purpose of them being juicy :D

Are you serious? I would have thought the reasons for not defaming someone are pretty obvious.

There is a huge difference between saying that there is a rumour that (someone like) Matthew Boyd won't play today because of injury and a certain player is on two strikes for the drugs policy.

The difference in the two statements seems obvious to me.

If people can't see they difference and continue to speculate on names then this thread will be closed.

[ledge]

I did put up a smiley face !

[The Adelaide Connection]

Thats not actually even close to correct, you would need to be caught in possesion of a serious amount of drugs to get jail time for a first offence and as far as i am aware the only time you can be charged for being under the influence of drugs(as opposed to being in possession) is if you are driving. Even us average Joe's would need to be caught at least 3-4 times before getting close to jail time if it was just personal use and more than likely wouldnt even end up in court the first and possibly the second time, although you might have to attend a drug rehab/education seminar.

I think it needs to put in a sporting perspective though as well. Are there any other codes in the world that are as leanient as the three strikes AFL policy? I wouldnt think so. The Olympics would have to be the pinnacle of sport, covering a huge range of sporting disciplines, and whilst there drug code is much maligned it at least takes an aggressive stance and doesnt stuff about if an athlete is caught.

[azabob]

Are you serious? I would have thought the reasons for not defaming someone are pretty obvious.

There is a huge difference between saying that there is a rumour that (someone like) Matthew Boyd won't play today because of injury and a certain player is on two strikes for the drugs policy.

The difference in the two statements seems obvious to me.

If people can't see they difference and continue to speculate on names then this thread will be closed.

Maybe you should close it. I dont know much about the law and what not, but who ever is in charge of maintaining / running the site could also get into strife for what is said on this forum?

[The Adelaide Connection]

Are you serious? I would have thought the reasons for not defaming someone are pretty obvious.

There is a huge difference between saying that there is a rumour that (someone like) Matthew Boyd won't play today because of injury and a certain player is on two strikes for the drugs policy.

The difference in the two statements seems obvious to me.

If people can't see they difference and continue to speculate on names then this thread will be closed.

Well put. That is why I didn't and won't post the name as previously mentioned.