I learnt a lot from Nick Riewoldt’s bold statements about drugs this week.
I learnt that in Riewoldt’s view, illicit drug use among AFL players is “out of control”. I learnt that Riewoldt believes that the AFL should take a “tougher stance” on the issue, and that during his playing career he had lobbied them to do just that.
I learnt that Riewoldt believes that if the “three strikes” policy were changed to a single-strike policy, whereby any player caught using recreational drugs is suspended immediately, it could help stamp out drug use among footballers.
The only thing I didn’t learn was why I should care.
Seriously. Why should I give a flying fricassee about what substances professional sportspeople chuck into themselves?
Performance-enhancing drugs, sure – I’m a sports fan, and so anyone seeking an advantage outside the rules rubs me up the wrong way something chronic. If players found taking steroids are rubbed out for years on end, that’s fine with me.
Likewise if they take the field under the influence, I’d fully support their club coming down like a ton of bricks on them for letting the team down.
But drugs they’re taking for fun, in their own time? I have no idea whether I speak for millions or just for myself when I say this, but big freaking whoop.
Frankly, if I were to agree with Nick Riewoldt’s straight-edge philosophy, I’d be pretty hypocritical. Most of my friends have consumed illicit substances at one time or another, and I’d be furious if, having consumed those substances during their leisure time, my friends were subjected to disciplinary action by their employer for a matter which is frankly none of their employer’s damn business.
Oh but it’s illegal, you – and Nick Riewoldt cry. Yes it is. It shouldn’t be, but it is. So if a player is breaking the law, feel free to go tell the police about it.
The distinct lack of “football star imprisoned for popping eccies at rave” stories in the news cycle suggests the cops don’t particularly consider it a high priority, but I’m absolutely willing to concede that if a footballer is in jail, he or she will probably have to miss a bit of footy.
If you or Riewoldt are that much into law and order, go ahead. Be a dobber. Personally I think it’s none of my business. Maybe you think it’s some of yours. It sure isn’t any of the AFL’s.
Nick Riewoldt (AAP Image/Julian Smith)
Perhaps the biggest reason I don’t care even a little bit whether AFL players are stuffing themselves full of mind-altering substances every weekend is that I know for a fact that there is one mind-altering substance that almost every footballer does stuff himself with regularly, and they don’t even go to any great effort to hide the fact.
Alcohol is as closely entwined with football as Stephen Silvagni with the torso of a full-forward, and it causes more damage to players and those unfortunate enough to venture into their orbit than every other drug combined.
Think of every footballing scandal. Every assault, every act of public indecency, every loss of bladder control, every offence against persons, property and general society that footy stars hit the headlines for – the one common factor is is not pot or coke or speed or ecstasy or acid or ice or heroin.
We know what it is and we know the destruction these young men so often wreak upon themselves and others when they’ve been drinking.
But Nick Riewoldt will never, ever, ever call for alcohol bans. He’ll never demand the AFL crack down on drinking. He’d rather demand even more draconian measures be taken in the league’s endless war on harmlessness.
Now, one might say that footballers taking drugs sets a bad example, and it’s true, it does.
I definitely don’t want my kids taking drugs, and I hope they never see a famous sporting hero take them and decide on that basis that it’s a good idea. But I also love playing my children music by legendary drug-takers without suffering a crisis of conscience.
More importantly, the only way drug-taking footballers set a bad example is if their drug-taking is made public, so Riewoldt’s suggestion that they be suspended for a first offence would actually make the risk of bad example-setting far greater.
If all we’re worried about is the example we’re setting, we have a powerful incentive not to crack down on druggies, but to keep the whole issue a secret from everyone.
Drugs, I would like to make clear, are bad. I’m not a fan of them. But I’m also not a fan of empty, pointless moralising.
Footballers who take drugs might be hurting themselves. But they’re not hurting me. They’re not hurting you.
They’re not hurting Nick Riewoldt. And it doesn’t matter in the slightest to the game itself. I don’t care. The sooner the AFL stops caring the better.
Seano
Roar Rookie
Absolutely I did, I thought it was disgusting that he was suspended without being caught.
michael RVC
Roar Pro
A good question for all sanctimonious Vic footy fans.
Pelican
Roar Rookie
I'm not conceding that at all. I was being facetious because with the lead alcohol has it won't be overtaken in my lifetime. The people I saw brought in for alcohol were messy and many. All the other drugs combined don't come close in those two factors. Most of the drug addicts are still lucid enough to admit themselves the alcoholics are usually brought in by ambulance. Drugs have had 30 years to close the gap now but haven't. Also rehab is not the same as detox.
League4Ever
Roar Rookie
Firstly, crash rate versus population is lower in Germany with unlimited speeds on autobahn so your assertion that crash rates are reduced by speed limits is problematical at best. Quoting the original poster: The comparative effects of those illegal drugs on an individual are substantially worse than alcohol. So you are saying that assualt on women and children as a result of legal alcohol is not as bad as the issues resulting from Drugs? Nice and evolved that is. Women and children can be bashed by alcohol because that is comparatively less serious than impact of drugs?
michael RVC
Roar Pro
Shane, let's play a game of true or false: 1. You are the only person as far as I can see that preambled one of your comments above with "I am guessing". T or F? 2. You would have no idea of Ben Pobjie's ("writer and comedian") qualifications to speak about the merits of illegal drug taking on any level, yet you agree with him "wholeheartedly". T or F? 3. You "understand" there is no federal crime......" etc which would be because you don't want to admit that the states are responsible for domestic crime fighting and drug taking is illegal in all states? T or F? 4. You want everyone with a dissenting view to yours to provide evidence for their views? T or F?
michael RVC
Roar Pro
Once again Shane, you make a statement without evidence. My assertion that illegal drugs have a far worse effect on any given individual that alcohol on a like for like level of consumption is not affected by your rebuttal. Have you lived with a serious drug addict? I sincerely hope not, but no need to lecture me about experience, I reckon I’ve got you covered. I am not a Prohibitionist, just to let you know, whilst you are giving me an unwarranted label. I simply will not agree to the use of illegal drugs on any basis due to the fact that they are illegal and the clear evidence that they have serious harmful effects on people and communities and we already have enough of that. I’m not conflating anything. I am pointing out that you supporters of illegal drug use forget that there are plenty of other abhorrent activities that you would choose not to accept, like I choose not to accept illegal drug use. Thankfully, I also choose not to vilify others.
michael RVC
Roar Pro
Thank you Randy, saved me the trouble. L4E, you can reflect on the world the way you wish to, and we may share the same views or we may not. But when replying, please read what I have actually said and actually answer that at least. If you want to add more, ok, but spare me the year 5 Social Studies rant.........(dare I say it?)...........I deserve better.
michael RVC
Roar Pro
The cost of our version of freedom Shane, involves the investment in upholding the law. Nothing new and as history shows, unavoidable. If you want to be ultruistic, then yes we could redirect money, but that isn’t realistic.
michael RVC
Roar Pro
I don’t see how, I have not derided them or mentioned them in any way. Maybe you can enlighten me?
michael RVC
Roar Pro
Shane, looking at several of your replies above, you have recused, opined and rebutted all based on your own perspectives and opinions. Then you want to hold everyone else to some exacting standard when they offer their own versions. Umm, no.
michael RVC
Roar Pro
Maybe read your reply to Confused above. Completely your opinion, nothing more.
michael RVC
Roar Pro
But, as you are conceding in your comment, drug related social damage (ie like the need for rehab services) will take over in terms of majority share. You don’t know what “soon” is, but if it was within the balance of your lifetime, that would not be unexpected.
Confused
Guest
Did you think the same about Cousins?
Downsey
Roar Pro
I didn't realise 'caring' was rampant entitlement. Let me check my purple privilege while I replace the yew on my bow so I can draw an even longer one to make a point.
Downsey
Roar Pro
Their employment has nuances and complexities to it that spill over to other areas. It's the nature of the game they're in.
RandyM
Guest
League4ever, if you read his post he said that the problems caused by alcohol are because it is far more widely used and available. Surely you would agree that if ice was legal and as widely used as alcohol the problems it causes would far exceed those of alcohol? People still die on the road in car crashes even though there is speed limits, should we just get rid of speed limits because it hasn't stopped people having accidents and dying?
Paul D
Roar Guru
Yeah nah, I’ll take the word of the afl medical director referencing the actual drug tests undertaken over Shane off the internet. I know I’m right in stating cocaine is the drug of choice for afl players who choose to indulge.
Shane
Guest
Lol, no it doesn't.
Shane
Guest
You can expect all you like. It doesn't mean you are entitled to it. All those false expectations do is set you up to be cranky at the internet. By the way, as a net tax contributor, I expect you to pull your head in and worry about your own place in society.
Shane
Guest
Agree wholeheartedly, Ben. My understanding is that there is no federal crime against personal use of drugs, and some states do and don't prosecute to varying degrees. Seems like this is a split issue everywhere, not just for AFL, all of Australian society. Another reason to yawn at Reiwoldt's click bait.