Knoughts have pulled out. Was checking out Facey comments yesterday...best one was some chick who said he should be left alone "because every second person in a nightclub had cocaine on them".
Printable View
Knoughts have pulled out. Was checking out Facey comments yesterday...best one was some chick who said he should be left alone "because every second person in a nightclub had cocaine on them".
Cronulla chairman caught with some nose beers, and 2 Kiwis after the test match caught on CCTV doing it.
It gets better and better.
One day football will take advantage of League's inability to stop falling over itselfQuote:
Originally Posted by skippy
Spreading worldwide culture. World doesnt need this grub sportQuote:
Rugby league player banned for life after knocking out referee
http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/r...06-gvzn4p.html
Cue the morons trying to find a similar incident to defend it.
Gonna have my say. Love me some Rugby League (up the eels). Every sport has dickheads and off field shit (sadly league has alot more these days).
So why does NRL appear to continually justify said dickheads?Quote:
Originally Posted by StannyCFCJET
Just read the Melbourne Kiwi was given a "heavy price" of two weeks in the stands for his nose candy episode in our nations capitalQuote:
Originally Posted by skippy
http://www.news.com.au/sport/nrl/mel...8c253791027231
Even the drug crowd find feral leaguies as a scourge. grubsQuote:
Traditionally, cocaine has been popular amongst Australian stockbrokers, lawyers, tech entrepreneurs and hospitality tycoons as a recreational party drug – however, the bourgeoisie gloss is starting the fade after nearly twenty rugby-league-related incidents in the last 12 months.
http://www.betootaadvocate.com/sport...ng-hurt-image/
just interested in hearing some peoples thoughts on what an appropriate penalty is for this?Quote:
Originally Posted by northern_swan
you have to share the bag with everyone next timeQuote:
Originally Posted by plague
imagine how inane a coked up conversation between NRL players would be
its keeps the game in news.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetmaster
It's got nothing to do with the club. It's a personal choice made by a player in their own time. Whether or not any laws have been breached is for the courts or police to decide not a football club or the sports governing body.Quote:
Originally Posted by plague
I mean these blokes run at each other flat out for 80mins a week placing unnatural stresses on their bodies - possibly causing permanent injuries - even brain damage ?
To come out and point the finger at recreational / illicit drug use by players because it makes might bring the game into disrepute is simply ridiculous.
Then again, I don't have an issue with players using performance enhancing drugs - and neither do the fans when they are quite happy to accept that today's players are much bigger, stronger, and faster than those of previous generations.
I mean if you really banned performance enhancing drugs I doubt you would have a single club in the competition capable of fielding a team.
On a similar note it really annoys me when I hear all the talk about players being role models and ambassadors and all this. Fair play to the guys who are able to do it well and the game does benefit from having the clean shaven, well spoken guys who do all the right stuff. But far out imagine if we as players were held to the same standards of behaviour that these guys are. They can't do anything in public without getting video'd or photographed and then the media gets a hold of it and all hell breaks loose.
Another analogy would be your current job, if they controlled (more than some already do) what you could and could not do outside working hours, days off etc as well as having thousands of people constantly surveilling you just trying to find a bit of dirt they can forward to your employer to get you in shit.
Last 2 posts - 100% agree.
Wish I could add more to it, but it's already been said. Well done Dunster and Macca
Interesting thing is the naughty blokes who they refuse to register a contract for.
When this happens i surprised the player hasnt went to court and ****ed them for restraint of trade
The governing body isnt punishing them for an indiscretion they are actually stopping them from working
Always amazes me how the Todd Carneys have not played that card
I agree with Wolfman for agreeing with Dunster and Macca.Quote:
Originally Posted by WolfMan
I've never understood this restraint of trade thing... isn't it just the same as some company not hiring me because they don't think I'm suitable for their company? What's the difference?Quote:
Originally Posted by MFKS
If the bloke is a professional drugby league player then the governing body by refusing to register his contract is preventing him from gaining employment at his profession.Quote:
Originally Posted by halo se7en
Most of the time this is not for any great crime other than being your usual drugby league bonehead as well
I reckon they would have **** all chance of it holding upo in court
Just as the salary caps would also go if challenged
That's their stupid fault for trying to be arrogant heroes. They're grubs that do grub stuff so no real surprise.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dunster
I think one of the player managers and Gus Gould made a statement about free markets and the restraint of trade thing - and it snowballed from there.Quote:
Originally Posted by halo se7en
But none of it is factual unfortunately and really only garners the approval of people with out any knowledge in law or economics for that matter.
If we refer to section 92 of the Australian constitution we will find the following:
"92. Trade within the Commonwealth to be free
On the imposition of uniform duties of customs, trade, commerce, and intercourse among the States, whether by means
of internal carriage or ocean navigation, shall be absolutely free.
But notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, goods imported before the imposition of uniform duties of customs
into any State, or into any Colony which, whilst the goods remain therein, becomes a State, shall, on thence passing into
another State within two years after the imposition of such duties, be liable to any duty chargeable on the importation
of such goods into the Commonwealth, less any duty paid in respect of the goods on their importation."
Good luck to anyone saying that this would apply to Todd Carney or indeed any Rugby League player.
With respect to the economic side of things there is no such thing as a free market. It's a pedagogical device used in textbooks - nothing more.
Cheers Dunst. I've heard it bandied around when the powers that be in the EPL talk about capping the # of foreigners in the league too (like that would ever happen).Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dunster
Nah soz in a day and age where basically everyone is on the nose-powder and basically can't be caught due to how quick it leaves their system (have it on the Saturday and pass your drug test on the Monday from all reports), it's about time someone somewhere gets punished for the shit. Not coming down on the blokes, famous or not, that get caught with it only further encourages casual users everywhere to use it. If it's legal, whom cares (and I for one am not smart enough to argue on what should/shouldn't be legal, so if you want to get into that one then I can't help you soz). But it's illegal, and there needs to be examples set.
I read that possession without intent to sell can be 2 years jail time in NSW, and 15 years in QLD. Lock 'em up, regardless of how famous they are. Stamp this shit out of society.
I'll preface this by saying I've never taken any illegal drugs - without going into the illegal/legal debate I just find it amusing the amount of damage caused by smokes and alcohol. Cigarettes should be illegal 100% in my opinion, no way they would be allowed to be brought into the market in this day and age.
Having said that I agree that people breaking the law should face the penalties whether famous or not. What I don't agree with is a couple of things. As I mentioned earlier, sportsmen being held to ridiculous standards. Some of the stuff these guys get media crucified for is ridiculous and would happen hundreds or thousands of times across the country every weekend. The governing bodies then go all sanctimonious and burn blokes to save face and appease social media shitstorms. Although this isn't just limited to sport, social media shitstorms happen every few weeks these days and influence politics somehow. Anyone remember Kony or Harambe? lel.
My other main issue is selective application of the law. You alluded to it yourself, this shit is happening everywhere all the time. Media and no doubt some law enforcement are attracted to anyone famous to try and attract attention for themselves. People caught cheating with performance enhancing drugs etc should be crucified in media (imo, although I respect your views Dunster), some player caught doing rec drugs a week or two into off season / annual leave is not an "A-league drug scandal". Imagine the Betoota Advocate headline "Late 20's well-off white male caught with drugs while on holidays". Not saying he should be glorified or let off but come on, is it really a big deal?
Ok. So what happens to their children ? I mean let us assume that the user was the provider in a single income home ? The three kids all went to good private schools, played several sports, were active in cultural activities such as arts / music - and so on....Quote:
Originally Posted by pv4
Basically, you want to destroy the lives of these three kids [not to mention the wife/mother] because the father liked a bit of recreational cocaine use ? Sorry it's a ridiculous idea to lock up people for drug use that has no significant impact on you and me.
IF someones driving a car under the influence - that's a different story.
Why not lock up people with type two diabetes ? I mean through crap diet decisions people are putting too much or the wrong foods [drugs] into their bodies - and the rest of society are paying for it with respect to the time and resources dedicated to finding drugs to allow these people to carry on eating shit and not looking after themselves.
People with those kids and those lifestyles should make wise, informed decisions on their own lifestyle choices and understand the risks and consequences associated with certain decisions. I don't use drugs and go overboard with alcohol because I'll lose my job and not be able to afford to live, for example. I don't do illegal shit because I don't want to go to jail, for example.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dunster
So these blokes with these kids.. if they don't want to go to jail, don't do shit that has jail-able offences. And like I said earlier, I don't have enough personal knowledge to know what should and shouldn't be illegal, and what should and shouldn't send you to jail. But guess what? The rules are written down. The offences and their consequences open for anyone to read. So don't do it if you're worried about the consequences! Simple!
tl;dr - "recreational cocaine use" is a jail-able offence according to my quick google. If you do it, you're risking the consequences. That's not on you, or me, or society, or the "damn liberals" - that's on the person that sought out, paid for, and snorted, that line of cocaine.
And what Macca is saying - I agree, blanket rule everyone. Lock them all up. Set examples. Stamp this shit out of society (if illegal, which this particular thing is).
What the **** do you mean by those lifestyles ? I know doctors, lawyers, stockbrokers, merchant bankers, and many other categories of people that are users. I even know an anaesthetist that's been a heroin user for over 20 years?Quote:
Originally Posted by pv4
And guess what - all good people, all devoted to their families, all contributing more to society than any of us would do in a dozen lifetimes. [spending wise for the banker types].
Why would you want to lock them up ? because of some stupid law ?
This law is wrong - just like those pertaining to same sex relations, race, and a host of other things.
We should educate people about the reasons not to use drugs - not simply lock them up.
Capital punishment hasn't done shit to lower murder rates in the US and locking up people for cocaine use is not going to do anything positive either.
I'm not an advocate for class a drugs either - I mean I don't do any drugs legal or otherwise. But that's my choice - and as long as other peoples use doesn't negatively impact upon me I'm more than fine about them using.
A lot of perfect people on the forum today.
By "those lifestyles" I mean the ones that you said "but what about these guys whom have kids etc". And by lifestyle choices I mean "people who choose to take illegal drugs". Whether people have kids, have jobs, contribute or not to society, are famous, whatever - if you get caught doing illegal stuff you should be dealt as harshly as anyone else. The rules say you go to jail, so send them all to jail.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dunster
Like I keep saying, I am not smart enough to argue what should and shouldn't be illegal.
I just find it fxxxing stupid to cry foul over being caught doing something illegal and being dealt the known consequences. If you do illegal shit and get caught doing it, I don't understand how you can kick up a stink about the consequences. That makes zero sense to me.
There are people in the world whom are racist, or murder people, or all kinds of shit that doesn't impact on me but I'm not exactly going to say I am fine about it.
im actually fine if someone breaks the rules if the rules and punishments are explicitly set out in a players contract etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by pv4
what im dead against are the interpretations of this "bringing the game into disrepute" law which is at the mercy of the mood of the arbiter.
but then y'all have got to be in favour of mandatory sentencing right?
100% re arbiter & interpretations from the sporting side of this just need to be a blanket rule, set example and stick to precedent.Quote:
Originally Posted by plague
I reckon minimum penalties are a great thing, within reason.
Remember the good old days when you could piss into your own mouth and not have to worry about your contract being ripped up.
:rof:
The within reason part means you think it's not. Because mandatory sentencing is what you apply when you don't want to rely on logic and reasoning on a case by case basis.Quote:
Originally Posted by pv4
The way i understand mandatory sentencing is you can't sentence someone to higher or lower for an offence.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dunster
Hence why I didn't say I was a fan of mandatory sentencing, but said i think minimum sentencing is a great thing. Because if things are more severe, i reckon a judge should be able to put a person away for longer. Much like how a red card has an automatic 1 week suspension unless added on, right?
I mean take Mitch nichols' case. I read he had "3 bags" of cocaine on him. Should he be treated harsher than someone with "1 bag"? Yes, yes he should imo. But 1 or 3, there should be a minimum punishment.
When i said within reason i was referring moreso to length of sentences and whom/how/etc they formulated that timeframe, how to define all the different types of crimes, etc.
I sure you will change your opinion on being fine about other people's drug use when you have to deal with a meth head off their dialQuote:
Originally Posted by The Dunster
But it ok
As long as they not affecting you attitude they can do what they like Hey
Hey where that place I read about Phillipines
The President over there has the police running around shooting all the drug users and dealers
Be a great policy here if all the cops were dealing with the druggos scum in society appropriately rather than giving them a slap on the wrist like they do
Then they wouldn't be bothering me or you and the gene pool will evolve
This is a good line.
It's illegal, end of. No point saying the law is wrong - it is the law now and you abide by it.Quote:
If you do illegal shit and get caught doing it, I don't understand how you can kick up a stink about the consequences. That makes zero sense to me.
It's a bit like these lefties that constantly whinge about Trump - "he ain't my president". He won a democratic election by the rules that everyone knew beforehand - no point crying afterwards.
Because we are cool copping parking fines and speeding fines huh?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetmaster
I don't agree with the narrative of 'all people that takes drugs are druggo scum' or even 'all people with addiction issues are scum'.Quote:
Originally Posted by MFKS
Everything in life is contextual and without knowing that meth heads life context I don't reckon we have the right to judge.
My work involve working with a bunch of people with addictions that have done a lot of horrible shit, but soap boxing around the issue isn't a helpful dialogue.
Some people may get what you call a 'slap on the wrist' but if you look at funding for services for mental health and addiction they are sorely lacking and even those people that are ready to work on their issues don't have a hope in hell of supporting the services they need.
and with the gene pool evolving comment..just because you don't take drugs it doesn't mean your'e not a dick.
Topically on sunday i lost 2 points and $260 or so for breaking a road rule that i oblivuoisly had pretty much the exact opposite understanding of. But a dig thru the rule book and it clearly shows i was in the wrongQuote:
Originally Posted by plague
So according to dunsters theory do i keep doing it my way, get caught 6 times, lose my license, can't drive the young one to swimming lessons anymore and can't afford presents so cancel christmas.. and then blame the system?
Hell no. I stop doing it because i want the young one to be safe in the water. And every time i consciously decide to do my way in future i know the risk and consewuences