So – we still talking about cocaine? We are? Okay then! Like everyone, I’ve got a few extra shillings left over from my two bobs.
And thus, in no particular order, I say these things.
Testing for a drug that isn’t performance-enhancing is a waste of time. What’s the point? They don’t test for cigarettes; they’ve killed more people than all the wars.
They don’t test for booze; alcohol’s responsible for all other NRL ‘scandals’ (and, yes, old mate Fitzsimons has been banging on about it this week, doesn’t mean he owns the idea).
If a player’s taking a recreational drug, it should be none of the NRL’s business. The players shouldn’t cop the testing. Who else would? What other workplace or industry? (Yes, apart from pilots and cops and FIFO workers, all that.)
Would you? The players should tell their union to tell the NRL to bugger off. And then as one, boycott their bloody tests. Tell ‘em flat out – nup. Not doing it. You piss in the bloody thing.
Do it en masse. What are they going to do?
Or if they must undergo these blinking tests they should demand the same standards of behaviour from everyone in the NRL.
From Todd Greenberg down, all the suits, the receptionist, the mailroom guy, the referees, the referees’ masseuse, all of them – should have to walk in every morning and undergo a drug test.
Mr Archer? Wee in this, please. Thanks.
(Image: NRL Photos)
And not just NRL employees, all ‘stakeholders’ in the game. Club executives, pundits at Channel Nine and Fox, everyone who makes a quid from rugby league – yes, you, Jaimee Rogers, and you fat bloke with the phone from Sportsbet – all should face the same random drug testing, the same public shaming, the same effect on their livelihood should their urine contain cocaine.
And so should you, dear reader, especially if you’re sitting there now pontificating how they’re massively well paid and role models for the children, and drugs are illegal, mmmkay, and people shouldn’t take them and if they do they should be put in jail forever.
No – if it’s good for the players, it’s good for everyone. And everyone should cop the same penalty: Counselling on first offence. Public shaming second offence. Two-year ban from work, probable dismissal, community service, public shaming – the full freakin’ gamut.
And then: jail.
Not jail.
But y’know … how can you get brushed from footy because you sniffed some dodgy icing sugar on a Friday night? As literally one million people do every single weekend? Please. You wouldn’t cop it.
Yes, it’s a bad ‘look’ for the NRL. It’s negative publicity. Sponsors have fled the Sharks and Roosters.
Okay – if the NRL doesn’t want the bad publicity of positive tests, don’t publicise positive tests.
And if a player – or the chairman of a board – gets done by the coppers, take it case by case, as they do every other illegal bit of kit – usually under the effect of alcohol – perpetrated by footy players.
All the domestic violence, all the anti-social stupidity – all are dealt with case by case.
So just do that. Treat drugs on a scale the courts do. Like it does drink-driving and speeding, all that.
(Image: NRL Photos)
Why’s the NRL testing anyway? ASADA and WADA test for cocaine and such ‘in competition’ when it would apparently (dunno how, but I’ll cop it from the boffins) assist performance.
And there’s a case that a club should be able to test their players – their employees – to see if they’re taking something deleterious to their performance, as our Timmy Gore opined yesterday.
(Which would be ironic, right? One mob’s testing for enhancement of performance, the other for detraction.)
The NRL appears to have taken its cues from the police on how to deal with those who test positive for or are charged with possession of illicit drugs.
“If drugs are detected in the system following a random test there’s an opportunity to take a rehab path without being sacked, followed by targeted testing,” says one senior NSW policeman of in-house copper drug policy.
“But get pinged for possession and it’s an 181D – essentially ‘show cause’ and tell us why you should still be a cop.
“And if criminal charges are laid for possession, you can face dismissal. If any of those footy players were cops and found guilty, they’d likely be gone.”
Our man says most cops who get caught resign. He says that apart from the health and societal issues, there’s the criminality associated with supply and use.
“It’s very hard to recover with regards to your reputation in the cops,” says our man.
In rugby league? Same. But why?
Rugby league will forgive men who bash their wives and spend time in jail for dealing drugs. But test positive for something that affects only you, and you can be rissoled out of the game.
Banished.
The NRL tests their players because they don’t like the shame and the stigma of illegal drugs attached to their ‘brand’. Yet for years they took the money from cigarettes, a legal product which has killed more people than all the wars.
Alcohol sponsors the game. Gambling sponsors the game. And if cocaine was sold in shops it would sponsor the bloody game, I bloody bet it.
Look at poker machines. Pokies screw more people than leprosy. They essentially sponsor rugby league.
Rugby league doesn’t care – or can look the other way, or mute the idea of it – that pokie money comes from a source that so shatters families and the very communities rugby league purports to represent.
I could go on.
No – recreational drugs are on the nose because they would cause poor, fractious sponsors to disassociate their brand from NRL’s brand. As they’ve done at Roosters and Sharks.
Know what? People need to chill. Each weekend, suspect white powders from suspect origins are hoovered up hooters. It’s grubby and bad for one’s health. But the light is on and burning bright. And it’s really not anyone’s business, except yours.
Oh yeah, and the cops’. And the judicial system’s.
And the NRL’s.
And here we are.
Bunney
Roar Rookie
Brendon and Matt, I am late to the party on this, but I read your comments with interest, esp. the drugs are addictive part. I encourage you to view this: https://youtu.be/PY9DcIMGxMs Fascinating stuff
Jack E
Roar Rookie
You don't actually know that's in their contract because you don't know what the employee in your own workplace has in their contract. You assume it's the same because you do the same job but you simply don't know. For instance Jack Bird currently takes something which is on the ASADA banned list but gets an exemption because of his aggressive arthritis, his contract lets him do that but no one else in the NRL gets that particular drug exempted. There all sorts of weird things in contracts nobody understands, gets or would expect to be there. Some clubs simply might not have it in there unbelievably and the NRL doesn't check contracts as close as you think when registering them so it's very possible it's not in there. ( Cue blind rage response from guy who can't comprehend something like this possibly happening despite it happening many times in many sports before)
Grumpy old Nowra Warrior
Guest
The NRL hasn't reacted at all. It's the clubs & the KIWI international board that has stood their ground and handed down punishments (to weak or to strong) you guys can debate that. Greenberg (as usual) has come out with strong words but taken or enforced no actions. The media is loving it, cause it's an easy story to write. Let story die it's natural death.
The Neutral View From Sweden
Roar Guru
LOL! Scarface
Kramer
Guest
Smart argument that...he wears a red bandana so he must be a tosser. Only a tosser would care what someone wears on there head.
Kramer
Guest
Im a fan...didnt' let me down. Could not give 2 stuffs what they or anyone else does in there free time.
Pablo
Guest
I'm actually pro decriminalisation of drugs, but "drug use is victimless" .......... you clearly don't have a clue what you are talking about.
Tony H
Roar Pro
What a complete nonsense! Cocaine IS performance enhancing. It is a central nervous system stimulant, and is banned by WADA. If the NRL was full of rubbish and actually signed up to the world anti doping code, these idiots would.be banned for years. Just ask Wendell Sailor.
shiftyxr
Guest
Yea, cause we all trust politicians to do what's in our best interests
shiftyxr
Guest
Yea, cause we all trust politicians to do what's in our best interests
Chris Love
Guest
Good grief? You know women voting was illegal once. Slavery was legal, and so was bashing your missus if you go back far enough. Just because some conservative Christians have held the balls of too many politicians over the years doesn't make it right. Legal or not legal drug use is victimless. It's none of yours, the NRL's or anyone else business until the player turns up at training or game day. Then, test away all you like. But if he's clean at work who are you are any one else to determine what he does in his spare time.
Lidcombe Oval
Guest
You having a go at Commo Atheist Red Cuban Bandana ???- Keep it up- the blokes a tosser
Lidcombe Oval
Guest
Cigarettes and Alcohol are legal though - This term recreational and or party drugs needs to be eliminated from the vocabulary as these drugs are anything but that- No one forces people to smoke/drink/gamble or take drugs it's their own choice. Illicit drug testing is the NRL policy and it could well be questioned why there is not more illicit drug testing in work places and at festivals /raves or what ever they are called as how many people would be caught.
Justin Kearney
Guest
I personally do not care too much about the merits of this argument. Just dont reference peter fitzsimons without a public warning. He is an avid hater of league and a pathetic journalist.
Gray-Hand
Guest
You can quite easily acquire clothing that isn't the result of slavery, torture and murder. Even the worst sweatshops can't compete with the scale of cocaine cartel violence. I don't think anyone would seriously equate the morality of an alcohol manufacturer like, say Guinness or Heineken with that of a Colombian Drug cartel. That's just silly. Cocaine has traditionally been relatively popular amongst white collar professionals due to its relatively high cost. Morality has nothing to do with it. Most recreational drugs have negative health consequences to one degree or another. The difference between just about all the rest and cocaine is that the others could be regulated and produced in Australia or another relatively respectable country to insure the safety of the product and the workforce. That can't happen with cocaine because the conditions necessary to grow it don't exist in many places in the world and just about all of them are controlled by the cartels. To be clear - in Australia, it is possible (not necessarily easy) to acquire marijuana, heroin, speed or ecstasy which were produced and distributed without any significant harm being caused to anyone. That's not the case with cocaine. Every single gram of cocaine that has been smuggled into Australia in the last 50 years was produced by a South American drug cartel that used slavery, torture and murder to do it. There's just no avoiding it.
Cadfael
Roar Guru
Last time looked, cocaine was an illegal drug and if caught in possession or using it it is a crime. if you don't like it, see your local member and get the law changed. Similarly, alcohol and cigarettes are not illegal though depending on what one is doing, its use can be illegal.
Peter
Guest
So you are now saying it's performance enhancing and is therefore a bad thing, presumably because it distorts the competition, never mind the illegality. I would have thought the club would be legitimately concerned if the drug of choice was, on the other hand, performance inhibiting so that the player is incapable of giving his best, and therefore not earning his salary. Just as a matter of interest, because I don't know - is"in competition" really limited to the 80 or 90 minutes of the game, and not the start and end of the season, training, etc? If so, really smart of the athletes to put that one over their employers!
Peter
Guest
So you are now saying it's performance enhancing and is therefore a bad thing, presumably because it distorts the competition, never mind the illegality. I would have tjought the club would be legitimately concerned if the drug of choice was, on the other hand, performance inhibiting so that the player is incapable of giving his best, and therefore not earning his salary. Just as a matter of interest, because I don't know - is"in competition" really limited to the 80 or 90 minutes of the fame, and not the start and end of the season, training, etc? If so, really smart of the athletes to put that one over their employers!
Elliott Wrigglesworth-Smith
Guest
Except you'd have doped up junkies on every street corner, more lives destroyed by drugs, children getting hooked on drugs since they are seeing so many adults take drugs recreationally. Get a better hobby. Life can't be so bad you need drugs to get through it.
TigerMike
Guest
Haha! Great article love it yeah test the testers first And all commentators and even All bloggers on here!