First of all - Congratulations Carlton on an excellent win over Collingwood. A huge crowd of 112,964 packed the MCG to witness another victory for Carlton. Ashman booted 3 goals, Maclure, McKay and Sheldon each kicked 2 each with Johnston, Buckley and Harmes kicking 1 apiece. Carlton’s best were Doull, Fitzpatrick, Hunter and Marcou with great performances by Maylin, English, Howell, Harmes, Perovic and Glascott.
The first tap out of the game was won by Mike Fitzpatrick, and scooped up by Ken Sheldon. In a tight opening quarter, the Blues would score first after a nice 1-handed mark from Maclure, but it would…
Ooops, that was 1981.
The 2010 Grand Final just finished a few hours ago and I’m still high as a kite. Not from drugs but from the incredible spectacle called Australian Rules Football. This game was so exciting, so invigorating, so fucking fantastic that I am wondering if we actually need drugs. Okay, so the game was a draw but what a draw it was. Speed might be intense, ecstasy can be exhilarating and pot can be trippy but what I saw today reconfirmed that footy is mind blowing.
Today’s game between Collingwood and St-Kilda was Aussie rules at it’s best and it was on display for the whole world to see. I doubt you will find many people who saw the game who would complain that they weren’t fully entertained. Like most people, I usually draw the line at watching footy that doesn’t involve my team - except the Grand Final of course. But Grand Finals can end up quite boring especially when your team isn’t playing.
Now this is where drugs come in handy. Many Aussies watching the Grand Final also indulge in some heavy drug taking. Yes, I’m talking about ethanol, booze or alcohol. And like most drugs, alcohol can make the experience more intense, more fun or more exciting. Fantastic for when your team is winning, adding excitement when your team is not playing and filling the void when the game is boring. I must admit that alcohol is the ideal drug to take when watching footy. I have previously watched footy on speed, pot and heroin but booze wins out by a long shot.
Ethanol, also called ethyl alcohol, pure alcohol, grain alcohol, or drinking alcohol, is a volatile, flammable, colorless liquid. It is a powerful psychoactive drug and one of the oldest recreational drugs. It is best known as the type of alcohol found in alcoholic beverages and thermometers.
[…]
The fermentation of sugar into ethanol is one of the earliest organic reactions employed by humanity. The intoxicating effects of ethanol consumption have been known since ancient times. In modern times, ethanol intended for industrial use is also produced from by-products of petroleum refining. Ethanol has widespread use as a solvent of substances intended for human contact or consumption, including scents, flavorings, colorings, and medicines. In chemistry, it is both an essential solvent and a feedstock for the synthesis of other products. It has a long history as a fuel for heat and light, and more recently as a fuel for internal combustion engines.
Unfortunately, Collingwood didn’t lose and the game was a draw which means there will be a rematch next week. With 100,000 fans, 2 football teams and a spattering of officials looking so bewildered and ultimately, let down, there will be plenty of debate about the current system. And I’m sure it will change after today’s result. Although it was an amazing game, there needed to be a clear winner. If not for the sake of the teams who focussed so heavily all week on today’s match but the poor old public who will have to, once again over indulge in their favourite drug, alcohol.
It amazes me the flack that Ben Cousins has received over his documentary. Why? Ben simply tells it like it is. But this is where the controversy lies - the critics don’t want to hear the truth but an anti-drug message that makes them feel better. “Them” being mostly parents who always respond well to the usual tough messages about drugs but have no idea if the message actually works. The effectiveness of a anti-drug message is not the issue for “them” but whether it works in their eyes and makes them feel safer.
Ben’s story doesn’t paint a typical scenario of what most drug users would encounter because he is someone with special circumstances. Ben is an elite sportsman, a champion footballer and a pinup boy for the girls. Somewhat the opposite of what we perceive as a “drug addict”. Trying to dig out some sort of anti-drug message for the masses just won’t happen. If anything, it shows that someone who took nasty, illicit drugs was able to perform at peak conditions for so long.
This morning, I heard 3AW’s Neil Mitchell berate Ben Cousins after first declaring he loathed him for being a spoilt brat. What Mitchell was saying was that Ben’s story wasn’t what he wanted to hear. Ben didn’t collapse into a maelstrom of drug addiction hell or lose everything. Instead, Ben faced his problematic drug use and turned it around. This is what really irked Mitchell.
Ben Cousins is a likeable fellow who probably copped more media attention than he deserved. And like Michael Phelps, the American champion swimmer, he was ruthlessly dissected by the media for taking illegal drugs. But the real lesson was that their drug use had very little if anything to do with performing on the sports field (or in the swimming pool). No one would even know they were using drugs judging by their on-field display of superior sports skills.
THE Ben Cousins issue could be looked at from another perspective. Here is a sportsman excelling in his game and everyone wonders how his drug taking took so long to uncover. Doesn't this show that one can use drugs and not have it interfere with one's work? People were shocked mainly because he didn't fit their idea of a drug taker. How do you know your solicitor didn't get high over the weekend? Or your child's teacher or your accountant?
For 12 years, Ben Cousins took huge amounts of illicit drugs. During that time, he won a Brownlow Medal, captained a Grand Final winning team and won various sporting awards. Not a sign of an out-of-control drug addict, that’s for sure. The hard, cold truth is that many people do take these drugs and live a relatively normal life. The downfall happens when the drugs are abused for too long or if they are caught. Across Australia, millions of people take these recreational drugs and get up for work on Monday morning with little or no evidence of their weekend behaviour. Only small fraction of these people will ever have a problem with drugs but if they do, it can be life changing. And it’s these people we tend to focus on.
Critics Vs. Supporters
What do Neil Mitchell, Miranda Devine, Karl O’Callaghan, Jeff Kennett and other critics have in common? They wanted the documentary to be a anti-drug warning for kids. But the documentary was never meant to be an anti-drug campaign or one of the usual attempts to scare people into being drug free. It was Ben Cousins explaining his side of the story and how he saw it. He didn’t harp on about regretting what he did or try to appear as a disgraced junkie, instead he told it in his own words. Ben’s character is confident and he comes across as cheeky or smug but this is just his manner. To criticise the delivery of his story is just an attempt by self important, misguided moralists to undermine a documentary that didn’t fit their ideal for an anti-drug message.
Mike Sheahan, in the HeraldSun had a go at the so called “experts” who criticised Cousins for being smug and a spoiled brat. He rightly asked what experience they had in dealing with drug addiction and if humiliating him was the right course of action.
WHAT an amazing coincidence. Why is that so many of the people who have applauded Ben Cousins and his father Bryan in the past couple of days all seem to have had first-hand experience of drug addiction?
Extraordinary, really.
It's confusing. The "experts", those wise old heads with microphones and newspaper columns at their disposal on a daily basis, say it's all a nonsense. It's a spoiled brat showing off.
Surely THEY know, because they know EVERYTHING.
Yet people caught up in the drug spiral, those working with and on behalf of those caught up in the drug spiral, keep telling me the Cousins - father and son - are their new heroes, their inspiration.
That's not to suggest for one minute Ben is cured. Simply, he is battling a terrible addiction, and apparently going OK.
I just can't work this one out. He simply offered his story. I didn't see any wild promises. What I do know is that an ongoing problem of any sort is much more likely to be solved by discussion.
Which is why it is so disappointing to hear people who should know better slamming the documentary.
OK, let's not worry about the message. Let's bake him for being "smug", for being a narcissist, for daring to thumb his nose at the system.
That's it. Let's have a public humiliation in Fed Square. That will make us all feel better that naughty Ben will do his penance. Can't have handsome boys from middle-class families who refuse to cry doing drugs, can we.
Let's not worry about the problem. Or the cure.
If awareness of drug addiction, and how it is best handled and treated, hasn't been heightened by the Cousins documentary, then the MCG is in Sydney.
Here's the issue. Those who know the subject best, either personally or professionally, all share the same view - good on Ben, good on his family for laying itself open for two million people to see.
I feel compelled to applaud Mike Sheahan who could have so easily fell into line with other fellow sportswriters and slammed the Ben Cousins documentary. But it seems that Mike Sheahan actually took a few minutes to access the documentary for what it really was and gave more credence to the real experts who have experience with this issue.
I respect the opinion of Les Twentyman and some other people who have experience with drug addiction but Les and Paul Dillon are barking up the wrong tree. It is not an anti-drug documentary developed by someone in the AOD sector but a Ben Cousins story and his struggle with drugs.
Neil Mitchell 3AW
Over at 3AW, Neil Mitchell wasn’t the only bearded burbler making silly comments. Derryn Hinch, Mitchell’s fellow jittering mouthpiece and highly animated conscious crusader was also stuttering his way through his own criticisms of Ben. But in typical Hinch style, there was more than just Ben to hammer. There was drug addiction itself. And if that wasn’t enough, there was the complaint that all this damage to people’s lives didn’t include locking them up as well. Ironic really when Hinch himself has been jailed for making a stance against laws that he warranted as counter productive.
And I thought Bryan Cousins deserves a medal for doing everything a parent could possibly do to support a selfish, self-indulgent, flawed, drugged up Peter Pan son, who apparently has never said ‘sorry’ to his Dad, Mum, brother and sisters for what he put them through.
[…]
At not stage in all of this did I heard the word ‘illegal’. Cousins was breaking the law. He hasn’t revealed the names of his dealers.
[…]
The other point belaboured last night by well-meaning people was the argument that drug addiction is a health problem. An illness. A disease.
Bryan Cousins even said the AFL Three Strikes policy was right and zero tolerance was wrong because ‘you can’t make a moral problem out of a health problem’. People steal to support a habit. Is that just a health problem?
Drug addiction is not a disease. It can lead to illness and disease. Like cigarette smoking is an addiction. It can lead to diseases like lung cancer and blood clots.
Alcohol addiction is not a disease. It can lead to diseases like brain damage and cirrhosis of the liver.
I believe that if you neatly brand heroin or cocaine addiction as an illness then you are giving an addict an excuse. Conveniently forgetting that you snort the first line, inject the first muck of your own volition. It’s not compulsory.
Claiming Ben Cousins feels no remorse or the documentary glamorises drug use is just the opinion of those who expected a different show on Channel 7. It seems to be the Australian way to cut down those who have a drug problem even if they try to amend their situation. The feedback on 3AW and other media outlets has been mixed with many callers/readers slamming Cousins for throwing it all away or being a greedy rich kid who wanted it all and got what he deserved.
Cousins has contrasted how Americans were willing to ''high five'' him during his stay in a drug and alcohol treatment centre with an Australian environment in which his addiction was ''looked down upon'' by society. But the researchers said that the Brownlow medallist did not ''whinge'' about his lot and was simply explaining how he viewed his situation.
I’m sure that if Ben Cousins was not a sports star then the criticism would have been worse. Takeaway his high profile and Ben would be judged as just another druggie. What many of the critics overlook is that drug addiction is often portrayed by the media as a problem for the lower classes. A problem that plagues lazy dolebludgers, bogans and unmarried mothers. Airing a show that has a champion footballer as the disgraced druggie might open the public’s eyes about a problem that has no boundaries and can affect anyone’s family. Whether this sinks in or not is another issue but at least it’s out there for discussion.
Our society is none too keen on "junkies". Even in the context of death, the term is applied as a deeply derogatory label in tabloid headlines. Public opinion surveys show that the majority of people regard drug addicts as dangerous, unpredictable and, crucially, having only themselves to blame for their predicament. And it is this latter aspect that seems key to the extreme stigma associated with drug addiction.
Many people have little sympathy for drug addicts because they took illegal substances in the first place. People believe that if drug users really wanted to, they could just simply stop taking drugs. Such attitudes betray a lack of understanding of the nature of addiction.
What would any drug issue be without a comment from that old anti-drug, anti-harm minimisation work horse, Miranda the Devine? Devine thinks drug addiction is a failing of weak individuals who run away from personal responsibly. Like Hinch, she dismisses the notion of drug addiction being a health issue but simply, a bad choice made by bad people. I must admit, I don’t consider drug use a “disease” but for many users, the compulsion to use drugs is an attempt to self medicated a deep problem. People use drugs for many reasons but a small group are actually born with a predisposition to self medicate. These people usually have a combination of several factors including a chemical imbalance in the brain, 66 known genes and other physical medical conditions that make it harder to quit drugs than most. To write them off as just being weak, selfish or childish doesn’t cut it anymore in the 21st century. Those days are gone along with burning witches and chaining up mental health patients.
Despite all the gratuitous public service announcements about the evils of drugs, Channel Seven's two-part documentary on AFL's most famous drug abuser, Ben Cousins, did more to glorify cocaine, ice and six-day-benders than any nightclub VIP room.
There was very little remorse from Cousins, 32, who plays his final game for Richmond tomorrow. But there was a lot of self-pity, blame-shifting and the fatuous idea that he is afflicted by a ''disease'', rather than that he is simply a spoiled, selfish, childish man.
So, did the documentary, Such is Life: The Troubled Times of Ben Cousins glamourise drugs? Did Ben “get it” as asked by Neil Mitchell? Was it just a bunch of excuses?
I think Mike Sheahan correctly answers these much asked questions:
As for glamourising the use of illicit drugs, spare me. If you are of that view, did you see Cousins twitching uncontrollably under the influence of illicit substances?
Did you see him shamed and humiliated in public in Perth?
Do you remember him as the most famous name in West Australian sport being stripped of the captaincy of his football club, then sacked, then deregistered by the AFL?
Did you see him helping carry the coffin of his friend and fellow drug victim, Chris Mainwaring?
Did you listen to the 911 call in the US, when he had to be rushed to hospital by ambulance? Did you see him almost break the spirit of his parents, Stephanie and Bryan, and sister, Melanie?
Last month, Steve Price from radio station, MTR interviewed John Rogerson, the CEO of the Australian Drug Foundation. The topic was the AFL’s 3 strike drug policy.
Steve Price:What do you think of this idea that you can have 2 strikes and still not be named?
John Rogerson:I think it’s one of the strengths of the policy. This policy is about trying to help players who are using drugs to get off them.
Steve Price:Wouldn’t publicly shaming you after the 1st offence be more likely to get you off than keeping it a secret?
John Rogerson:The research is very, very clear on this. Public shaming does not work … one bit.
Steve Price:I don’t know how you can say that.
Yes, the man known as the “Angry Dwarf” was not going to accept the word of a drug addiction expert or even the dozens of studies into the subject. He had his own views and it became obvious that nothing was going to change his mind.
Steve Price:How’s it working?
John Rogerson:It’s working because the number of players failing tests is decreasing.
Steve Price:That’s the numbers caught. You’re not really suggesting only 14 AFL players in the 2009 on and off season took illicit drugs, are you?
John Rogerson:I don’t know what else we can expect the AFL to do. They are testing and testing more and clearly the percentage of players failing tests is decreasing. I think what we need to bear in mind with this whole program is that if we look at the level of drug use in the AFL compared to what’s going on in the community, it’s far, far, far less so we look at the recent stats around cannabis use, 20% of males aged between 20 and 29 are using cannabis. The AFL have got one failed test.
Steve Price:Yeah, but those stats don’t match reality.
John Rogerson said on at least 5 occasions, that research clearly shows that publicly shaming drug users has a negative impact. What was Steve Price’s source of information? Why was he so adamant that John Rogerson was wrong and he was right? Price was more concerned with punishing a player than any need to help them.
Steve Price has a long history of trying to sensationalise moral issues, especially drugs. From way back in the days when he worked on 3AW, to his years on 2UE trying to crack the Sydney market, Price has been consistent with his “Shock Jock” image and bursts of moral outrage. For those who might not have had the pleasure of seeing Steve in action, here is a refresher.
The problem with bucketheads like Steve Price is that they take themselves so seriously they forget the need to check facts. It’s being perpetually angry, self righteous and having an insatiable quest for popularity that will enviably lead to taking short cuts and without the facts, it can backfire. ABC’s MediaWatch has at least 2 examples of this. But the biggest problem for Price is hypocrisy. Steve might hate drugs but his love affair with booze is somehow OK. He has written about his own excessive drinking several times for News Ltd and even has a police record for drunk-driving. Interestingly, his drunk-driving conviction didn’t stop him fronting a report on car hoons for A Current Affair. Conveniently, his current disqualification for drunk driving wasn’t mentioned and either were his 7 driving offences including 5 for speeding. Another example of hypocrisy was the failure to declare his wife, Wendy Black, worked for ex Workplace Relations Minister, Joe Hockey. How many interviews did he conduct with politicians without declaring that rip-snorter? And to top it off, it seems that the bulldog image he endears so much can be a wee bit sensitive at times. Steve Price has the honour of being one of Australia’s most litigious journalist. He has sued Steven Mayne from Crikey, Richmond’s Kevin Bartlett, Adnews magazine and Dr Turf as well as threatening various others with court action. Not surprisingly, he himself has been sued 3 times at least including one incident involving gay slurs.
Very much about different styles of talk radio and why Steve Price is moving to Sydney, and it's seen as quite a good move for Steve, because he probably suits the radio shock-jock culture that Sydney has got firmly entrenched far more than he suits Melbourne. His sort of abusive and abrasive style I think will sit very well in a 2UE where you've had John Laws for years and up until recently, Alan Jones, so I think he fits that genre of shock-jock quite well.
Let’s face it. Steve Price is not a journalist or a well researched opinionist. He is a shock jock like Stan Zemanek or Alan Jones. His holier-than-thou rants might boost his own self confidence but it is a far cry from the serious, hard hitting “journalism” that he tries to portray. Maybe, someone should tell him that defying experts on air with smug, bully-like tactics does not change the facts. It may entertain an ignorant public by sticking it to an ivory tower academic but it still just boils down to trash reporting from a uninformed, shock jock.
This is a big part of the MTR philosophy: you don’t have to read a book to know what’s what.
The interview with John Rogerson was disgraceful. Throwing in ridiculous comments like, “You think it’s OK to take drugs, do you?” or using out of context scenarios are just cheap ploys to win a straw man argument. But nothing stings your credibility more than not knowing who you are actually interviewing.
Steve Price:OK Thank you John, John Rogerson CEO from the Australian Drug Foundation. Can we work out what the Australian Drug Foundation actually is? So I can tell people why that bloke has got such a stupid, soft view of the world. What a dumb thing to say. What an absolutely stupid thing to say. What are the Australian Drug Foundation? A marketing arm for drug dealers?
There you go. “Can we work out what the Australian Drug Foundation actually is?” Maybe, this question should have been asked before the interview. I wonder if Steve would ask the same question about Good Sports, Australian Drug Information Network(ADIN), Community Alcohol Action Network(CAAN), Centre for Youth Drug Studies(CYDS) or the DrugInfo Clearinghouse? All these groups are part of ADF. They certainly are not, “a marketing arm for drug dealers”.
Full Transcript
Steve Price:What do you think of this idea that you can have 2 strikes and still not be named?
John Rogerson:I think it’s one of the strengths of the policy. This policy is about trying to help players who are using drugs to get off them.
Steve Price:Wouldn’t publicly shaming you after the 1st offence be more likely to get you off than keeping it a secret?
John Rogerson:The research is very, very clear on this. Public shaming does not work … one bit.
Steve Price:I don’t know how you can say that.
John Rogerson:The research shows right around the world shows that if you want to help people with their addiction, where it drugs, sex, food, whatever. Then publicly shaming them has a negative impact.
Steve Price:So we should have kept Tiger Woods sexual escapades secret and he would have been more easily cured?
John Rogerson:Nah, definitely not saying that.
Steve Price:But you are saying that.
John Rogerson:No, the evidence on this is very, very clear. Public shaming is not to going to help anybody in our community get off any addiction that they have.
Steve Price:As an employer, shouldn’t I know if one of my employees is taking drugs illegally?
John Rogerson:Well, I guess it depends on what you are going to do. If you look at the general community attitude towards illicit drugs, there is all sorts of hire and shame when they hear of anyone who takes illicit drugs. And in general Steve, it stigmatises these people. So therefore that doesn’t help with their recovery. So the whole purpose of this program is to help people recover. And stigmatising them, berating them is not going to help.
Steve Price:It’s just a soft way out. It’s just saying we’ll keep it secret. No one will ever know, if you’re not a bad boy again, we won’t punish you.
John Rogerson:I don’t know how you can say that. Clearly this policy, this program is working.
Steve Price:How’s it working?
John Rogerson:It’s working because the number of players failing tests is decreasing.
Steve Price:That’s the numbers court. You’re not really suggesting only 14 AFL players in the 2009 on and off season took illicit drugs, are you?
John Rogerson:I don’t know what else we can expect the AFL to do. They are testing and testing more and clearly the percentage of players failing tests is decreasing. I think what we need to bear in mind with this whole program is that if we look at the level of drug use in the AFL compared to what’s going on in the community, it’s far, far, far less so we look at the recent stats around cannabis use, 20% of males aged between 20 and 29 are using cannabis. The AFL have got one failed test.
Steve Price:Yeah, but those stats don’t match reality.
John Rogerson:What would you like them to do Steve?
Steve Price:What I would like them to do is make public those players who are using drugs so if I have a 17 year old kid who is going to be drafted, I would like to know the club is going to be tough on their players who take drugs and they aught to be sacked. I’d be sacked if I got caught taking drugs.
John Rogerson:Well, you might be sacked.
Steve Price:Not might … would be!
John Rogerson:But the average person in the community who got caught using cannabis for example...
John Rogerson:There’s an issue there about public safety. The average person in the community caught using cannabis does not get put in jail. They actually get support, treatment and diversion.
Steve Price:What about the average person who goes out and buys ice, ecstasy and cocaine from a drug dealer? That’s fine is it? What message are you sending to young people?
John Rogerson:What this is about, and I know the view in the community is, let’s get tough on them, it actually doesn’t help them.
Steve Price:The community actually reflects what really should be the real view. They should get tough on people. This is just a soft way to deal with the issue. It is absolutely just ruining the lives of so many young people.
John Rogerson:No, no…
Steve Price:You think it’s OK to take drugs, do you?
John Rogerson:No, I definitely don’t think it’s OK to take drugs. But if we are going to help people using drugs get off them, then public shaming, putting them in jail, all that stuff … it doesn’t work. And the research and evidence is really clear on this. So it’s alright to have public opinion to be really tough on them but it doesn’t work.
Steve Price:OK Thank you John, John Rogerson CEO from the Australian Drug Foundation. Can we work out what the Australian Drug Foundation actually is? So I can tell people why that bloke has got such a stupid, soft view of the world. What a dumb thing to say. What an absolutely stupid thing to say. What are the Australian Drug Foundation? A marketing arm for drug dealers?
The 2009 results from the AFL’s out-of-competition illicit drug testing scheme has shown that less than 1% of players has used recreational drugs compared to 4% in 2008. Although the total number of positive results was 14 in 2009, 2 more than 2008, it came from 348 more tests than the previous year. For those who favour drug testing players for non-performance enhancing drugs, it must be music to their ears. You would think so anyway but reducing drug use and the players welfare is not always the main motive behind a tough approach as we found out last week.
IF I am arrested for drug use or possession, I will more than likely be charged, face a court hearing, a fine and a possible jail sentence. My work contract will dictate that I am sacked upon conviction and face a lengthy time without employment because of my crime.
If I am an AFL player, my first and second positive drug tests will be kept a secret from everyone except me, including my club boss. I will not face charges or public humiliation. I will get away with it and never face a set of consequences like the rest of the general public.
For a football organisation that prides itself on progressive policies, the AFL's persistence with its morally indefensible drugs policy is inexcusable. This week, the AFL's operations manager Adrian Anderson announced that 14 players had tested positive to illicit drugs in 2009. These included ice, ecstasy and cocaine. Anderson did not name a single player. Two players recorded second strikes but their identities have also been protected. It is only when a player records his third strike that he is named (this has never happened because strikes are cancelled from the player's records after four years).
According to the AFL's chief medic, Dr Peter Harcourt, cocaine was the dominant drug of choice. Cocaine is viewed as both recreational and performance-enhancing. It triggers a two-year ban if it is detected on match day. But even though AFL administrators know it is becoming a big problem, they steadfastly refuse to name and shame the players who return positive tests.
The AFL defends its privacy policy because Anderson and co believe that a player deserves a chance to reform himself before he is publicly shamed. The mere fact that there are two players on a second strike in one year of testing should be enough for the AFL to realise that the molly-coddle approach does not work. Dr Harcourt admitted the two players were a concern but Anderson believes "only" 14 positive tests is a "phenomenal" result.
He cannot be serious. The law dictates that all cocaine use is illegal, whether it is a first offence or not. Police force those caught with the drug to go through the law courts and face the consequences.
At the AFL, even when a player is caught red-handed by the police, and tried through the legal system, he is quickly re-admitted to the fold. Geelong star Matthew Stokes was arrested for drug trafficking in February this year. His charge was later downgraded to possession of one gram of cocaine, which he says was "silly, stupid and senseless". That, it seems, is enough for the AFL. Stokes was convicted and will unbelievably take to the field for the Cats this weekend in Brisbane. He has been given a second chance that normal punters could only ever dream of. Cocaine, ice and ecstasy are a scourge. There is no good that can come from their use.
That is what we teach our kids, pleading with them to think twice before they try any form of illicit drugs. But a football body that claims to produce more role models than any other sport in Australia thumbs its nose at those general principles and parenting theories. The AFL is saying to young people that drugs are OK - that if you become an elite athlete you will be granted special favours that do not apply to anyone else. Furthermore, and most importantly, the policy also says that you can break the law three times before anyone will know your name.
Hawthorn boss Jeff Kennett believes club bosses should be told if their players return positive tests.
"It is my preference that as head of the family, if one of my children got into trouble I would like to know about it. Not to reprimand but to assist the child to pursue a drug-free lifestyle," Kennett said. He is mostly right. Reprimanding should be in there too. How players are expected to reform themselves after one positive test, without any help from their club or peers, is beyond me.
Fourteen players should have been outed by the AFL this week and reported to police. It is a conservative line but it is the only way anyone will ever get the message about drugs - they are illegal and very, very damaging to an athlete's health. When it comes to cocaine, ice and ecstasy, the AFL is living in a dreamland. Not a single gram of any of it is performance-enhancing in the long term.
Adrian Anderson's "phenomenal" result is a sham. There are 14 players out there who would be beside themselves with delight that they are allowed to exist in a cocoon that is completely devoid of reality checks and normal rules.
I must first declare that testing for recreational drugs in sport is wrong. Just as delving into a players sexual behaviour or their religious beliefs has nothing to do with sporting competition, neither does their use of alcohol or drugs. It might make sense if the off-field activities of sportspeople caused harm to others or threatened the security of the nation but whether someone simply choses to be intoxicated, is frankly their business. If it unfairly enhances their performance, then penalise them. If it will alter the outcome of a game, ban them. If taking a recreational drug causes terrorist activities, then send them to jail. If they are caught with drugs, then call the cops. But don’t demand a sportsperson meet someone else’s moral standards … especially off the field and out-of-season. More importantly, drug testing for recreational drugs has never provided any positive outcomes in any situation. Whether it’s drug testing school students, workers or sportspeople … it has never proved to be effective. If the pro-testing pundits had actually spent just 30 minutes researching the issue instead of promoting their own misguided opinion, then they might have noticed this fact. One classic fallout from drug testing is the shift away from soft drugs that linger in your system for weeks to other much more dangerous drugs that clear the blood system much quicker e.g. cocaine, heroin etc. I fail to see any benefits of a shift from pot to cocaine as the drug of choice for players.
Remember Little Johnny Howard having a go at the AFL and NRL for not introducing a Zero Tolerance drug policy? His demands were contrary to all advice from drug and medical experts and rightfully the AFL rejected his repeated "Tough on Drugs" rhetoric. But Howard wasn’t the only critic of the AFL’s drug policy. There was the usual assortment of anti-drug pundits, self righteous opinion writers and other ignorant, chest pounding protecters of public morals. The real experts hardly got a mention except when the AFL had to laboriously repeat their sound reasoning to those who disagreed with them. Move forward a few years and it appears that not much has changed. The AFL keep applying evidence based drug policies that put the welfare of the player first and self righteous twats keep opposing them.
What is the urgency to punish players who use recreational drugs? Party drugs and excessive alcohol do not help with a players performance so why is it necessary to name and shame them? Research shows that the behaviour of sports heroes doesn’t influence their young fans to take up alcohol or drugs. And there is a fundamental difference between voluntary testing and being caught with drugs. Those players caught by police with drugs are treated like anyone else and charged but what the critics failed to get through their thick heads is that there is no law against testing positive for drugs. It’s these obvious flaws in their argument that expose the critics as either having an ulterior motive or simply being too stupid and caught up in drug hysteria to understand the policy.
From the outside it would appear the police are doing more to stop drug use in the AFL than the league itself. At least the police are seen to be doing something where the AFL actually conceals players it knows use drugs.
The critics of AFL’s drug policy sound remarkably like the critics of Harm Minimisation. The usual calls for tougher penalties, exaggerating the harms and classing drug use as evil whilst the highly additive and often more dangerous drug called alcohol is given the green light. Face it, these critics are basing their arguments purely on personal feelings or misinformation. Exactly the same conditions and mentality that drive the failed "War on Drugs”. Drug use is a medical and social issue and has nothing to do with playing a ball game like footy. Unfortunately there are too many loud mouth critics who have drank the "Tough on Drugs" Kool-Aid, pushing aside expert advice and historical reality for the popular but misguided, “lock ‘em” mentality.
Steve Price, local Melbourne drunkard and morning DJ on MTR radio station recently teamed up with fellow moralist Andrew Bolt to discuss the AFL drug policy. This was never going to be a rational discussion and as expected, harm minimisation was put up as public enemy number one.
You could just see that coming down the corridor, couldn’t you … harm minimisation.
It was the usual chest beating and finger pointing from self opinionated fuckwits with very little research and distorted facts. Ironically, Bolt tripped up Price repeatedly for making a false claim which had Price pathetically trying to save some face. After repeating his assumption as fact several times, Bolt then buried Price with this cracker:
Because I looked it up and you didn’t … research will always save you Steve.
It was a clear reminder of how little depth that critics like Price really have. Steve Price is notorious for spectacular assumptions with no basis and his agenda is simply to cause outrage. It’s must be embarrassing when they get so caught up in their own importance, they forget what is fabricated and what is not.
Later that morning, Steve Price interviewed John Rogerson – CEO of the Australian Drug Foundation. It was one of the worst prepared interviews I have ever heard. After John Rogerson repeated the fact that research and evidence clearly shows that naming and shaming doesn’t work, Price lost it. He tried to write off the AFLs statistics are not being reality based, cried out about sending the wrong message to children and then asked, what is the Australian Drug Foundation?
What the Australian Drug Foundation? … A marketing arm for drug dealers?
The issue that critics can’t seem to comprehend is that all the harsh penalties, strict enforcement and warnings in the world will not stop drug use. It never has and never will. Only this week, Ben Cousins explained how he got around being drug tested for so long. He simply adapted to the guidelines and worked out a way around them. In his whole career, he was never tested even once until his spectacular fall from grace. If we can’t stop prisoners from using drugs, what chance do we have with highly paid, very sociable young men?
Cocaine is viewed as both recreational and performance-enhancing. It triggers a two-year ban if it is detected on match day. But even though AFL administrators know it is becoming a big problem, they steadfastly refuse to name and shame the players who return positive tests.
Ah … Rebecca Wilson. Wilson is well known for her often silly and inane articles but is probably better known for her rabid attacks on issues or people that irk her. Her recent article in The Daily Telegraph titled, It's One Set Of Rules is a classic example of how hysterical some people will get over the issue of drugs. From the opening sentence that confuses being arrested with voluntarily submitting a hair sample for drug testing, Wilson is on a witch-hunt. But it’s the bending of the facts and wild assumptions by WIlson that are really on show here as her reasons just wouldn’t make sense without them. Like indicating that for drug policies to be progressive, they must resort to the old drug war rhetoric which is the opposite of what progressive drug policies actually are. Or the bizarre reasoning that an AFL player should face public humiliation because a member of the public would suffer the same fate if caught using drugs. Except that nobody would give two shits if some stranger from another state was caught with a few pills or a tiny bag of grass/cocaine/speed etc. It’s this distortion between sports and moral imperatives that make Wilson and other critics look silly. Maybe if she was reporting on school football then drug use would have some relevance but the fact is, adult sportspeople have no obligation to be a moral compass for the public and any recreational drug use is their business.
For a football organisation that prides itself on progressive policies, the AFL's persistence with its morally indefensible drugs policy is inexcusable.
Surprisingly, the argument over role models for children gets very little mention in Wilson’s article. But no self respecting moralist would write an article like this without at least one cry of, “For God’s sake … won’t someone think of the children!!!”.
That is what we teach our kids, pleading with them to think twice before they try any form of illicit drugs. But a football body that claims to produce more role models than any other sport in Australia thumbs its nose at those general principles and parenting theories. The AFL is saying to young people that drugs are OK - that if you become an elite athlete you will be granted special favours that do not apply to anyone else. Furthermore, and most importantly, the policy also says that you can break the law three times before anyone will know your name.
I am always curious why sportspeople are put forward by some as role models for children. Sure, it’s fine to admire their skills but allowing your kids to look up to a 20 something year old stranger is not my idea of positive parenting. I would be inclined to suggest my father to my kids for admiration or a well known philanthropist.
The main point of this article appears to be the treatment AFL players get for drug use compared to everyone else. The numerous mentions of drugs being illegal and the consequences of being caught by police is harped on again and again but WIlson misses one important point - police do not arrest you for having previously used drugs. The 14 positive results are from voluntary tests which have nothing to do with the police. Wilson writes, “Furthermore, and most importantly, the policy also says that you can break the law three times before anyone will know your name”. This is where any rational person should be asking themselves - is this really about what’s best for the game or how far Rebecca Wilson will go to push her own conservative ideology.
Maybe this might shed some light.
Rebecca Wilson - How Does She Get A Gig Writing Opinion Pieces?
So I have read two Rebecca Wilson 'opinion' pieces lately and both have been, IMO, absolute garbage. Unfortunately, they don't seem to publish comments on her pieces on news.com.au (wonder why), so I thought I would discuss her rubbishness here.
What I basically want to know is this: How do flogs like Rebecca Wilson get a gig writing opinion pieces in widely-circulated newspapers?
Last week's article was about teenage drinking, and the perils thereof. Wilson basically tried to say that she is a model parent because she lets her son have a beer every now and then, but doesn't let him out of her sight to drink any more than the solitary beer (i.e. she drives him to and from friends' houses, no parties, etc.). Lots of trust she has for her kids, there (and how do you reckon the poor kid went at school the day after that piece went to print?). Anyway, it was all rather silly given that she is a multi-convicted drink-driver. Where does she get off lecturing others on responsible alcohol consumption? Kids might go around getting drunk at mates places but until they get behind the wheel their chances of doing somebody damage pales in comparison to what Wilson has done more than once.
This week she got on her high-horse regarding the group-sex 'issue' with which the media is so wound up at the moment. Her contention? She isn't a 'wowser', but consensual sex between more than two people is just plain 'shameful and sad'. Her justification? Well, her teenaged son reckons group-sex is weird, and if a teenaged boy reckons group-sex is weird, it must be wrong, right? She even argues that sex is wrong wherever the parties involved do not 'deeply care' for one another.
