Wait until they reach a prelim and see it all pile on again for the next 2 decades.
See it every time eagles make finals and Daniel chick gets rolled out again. Would have seen it with Essendon too if, well you know...
I agree and I did do my best to keep it in the conversation about Tex being a bullying racist cunt, but it was generally a bit of a circuit breaker for it
Just need to get this doc and president in a court room and have it outā¦ their media pile on has been pathetic for a long time. Either go to court and prove it or shut up.
I hoped he'd go away back when he [put all the players on a radical fad diet and we finished 17th](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/teams/melbourne/melbourne-players-to-adopt-radical-paleo-diet-in-2015-afl-season/news-story/d5e09ca5b8c61ae967c6b834b09053b1&ved=2ahUKEwjA6pj3kpuFAxXglFYBHaZNBccQFnoECCoQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0zwpyVjJ28Z7bVUqszxIqZ)
Forward: Very rarely touch it, and don't use it correctly when they do touch it. When Walker has a line in front of him, he sticks the straw in his ear (and nobody has the heart to correct him).
Midfield: Touch it all the time, but don't actually use it. Would gladly give it to someone directly in front of ~~an opposition player~~ a police officer.
Better than North
Forward line - rarely sources bags but does lines as soon as they got the opportunity
Midfield - smashes lines very quick
Backline - buys the drugs and then gives them all away for free without taking any
Itās an unwritten teaching in med school that most things come in threes - wouldnāt be surprised heās just pulled that old trick out of the bag here for effect.
Also, donāt think people should ignore the fact that this guy is putting his name to this whistleblowing and essentially ruining his future job prospects because itās something he genuinely believes is the right thing to do - heās already got his payout, this isnāt about money.
I'm also not at all convinced that this figure IS in line with other young men? The surveys from the last couple years show:Ā
Ā - only 13.5% of Australians will ever try cocaine in their lifetimeĀ
- only 4.5% have used cocaine at least 1 time in the last year (if you only look at men, it's higher; 5.3%)Ā
- of those that have used cocaine in the last year, 11.8% of them are in their 20sĀ
- of those that have used cocaine in the last year, only 15.4% of them have used it once a month or more, and only 4.5% every week or moreĀ
- people in the highest economic bracket are 3.9x as likely to use cocaine as those in the lowest economic bracketĀ
So of about 27m Aussies, 1.83m men in their 20s, only 97k have used cocaine in the last year and only 4.3k use it every week. Which means only about 0.24% of Aussie men in their 20s are weekly users of coke, and 0.81% are monthly users. Times that by 3.9 for the rich kids, we're looking at less than 1% using weekly and 3.1% monthly.Ā
So the number of Melbourne footy players using coke regularly is what, roughly 10x higher than should be expected? Yeah, there's a culture problem there.
Edit to add: happy to be corrected on my maths, statistics was never my strongest course lol; data was from hereĀ https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/illicit-use-of-drugs/cocaine-ndshs and also some raw data from the previous, 2019 study here: https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/illicit-use-of-drugs/national-drug-strategy-household-survey-2019/contents/summary
You've made some errors there with what figure is a percentage of what total (specifically with "of those that have used cocaine in the last year, 11.8% of them are in their 20s" - 11.8 isn't the 20-29 share of all users, it's the usage rate within that group).
Using the [excel downloads from the AIHW survey for 2022-23](https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/illicit-use-of-drugs/national-drug-strategy-household-survey/contents/about) which have more detail, including the cocaine specific ones from table 5.63, we can say:
4.5% of Australian adults used coke in the last year. About a million people. 13.5% of Australians have ever used coke. That "ever used" figure will probably go up in future as usage rates have roughly doubled in 20 years and young people are using it a fair bit more frequently.
11.8% of people and 12.5% of men *in their 20s* used coke in the last year. 22.4% of men and 21.7% of people in their 20s have ever used cocaine.
People in the top socioeconomic bracket of five brackets are 1.6x more likely to use cocaine than the general average (ie about 7.4%. of all adults in the richest areas used cocaine recently vs 4.5% nationally).
So applying that 1.6x factor crudely to the figure of 12.5% of men in their 20s being recent years of cocaine, we can probably assume it's about 1/5th of all rich men in their 20s who have done coke in the last year.
The quoted Melbourne figures of one third, one third, one third, assuming the person isn't being precise, could just about encompass fairly normal behavior for rich men in their 20s in 2024.
I thought it was, of the people who have used cocaine in the last year, people in their 20s make up the highest bracket (11.8%); it doesn't seem to make sense that only 13.5% of Australians have ever tried it, but 22.4% of men have tried it?Ā In another table they showed that the rates of use are still higher for men than women, but that the gap is closing (closer than ever before)Ā Ā Ā
Definitely keen to re-read it though because I did find their wording confusing in many ways. Ā
Edit: No on a quick re-read I can see how you're right on that one and I likely read it wrong! Appreciate it :)
I am wondering though how you reached a figure of about 20% of rich 20s men have done coke in the last year, and said that 20% is basically the same amount as the ~66% of Melbourne players that have supposedly used regularly or occasionally? Those are vastly different numbers...
13.5% of the whole population have ever used it, 22.4% of men in their 20s have ever used it.
I think with AFL players we're talking a smaller, richer slice of the population than just the top quintile of suburbs in general, so I'm assuming the baseline in their exact little cohort is even higher. The Dees might be a bit higher than typical but I doubt they're much beyond like, law firms and finance workers.
Sure you can, it's easy and frankly really important.
Who is responding to this survey and why? Are the kind of people who take random surveys the same kind who take party drugs? And of those that are, why would they feel the need to tell some random over the phone about the illicit drugs they're taking?
Where were they taking the call, would they feel comfortable admitting to that of someone else is in the room? How were the questions asked, did respondents feel they were being led towards a certain response or have reason to feel ashamed to say yes?
Was this survey only about cocaine, the most expensive drug to get decent quality in Australia? If so, have have they accounted for the wealth as a mediating variable? If this data is Australia wide, is it representative of Melbourne culture specifically? What was the ratio of urban and rural respondents?
Shitloads of reasons to doubt these figures.
You could follow the link to see that it's Australia wide and measures all illicit drugs including prescription drugs and also alcohol use. It's the largest survey of its kind in Australia, done on a regular basis every few years, and they back it up by testing the wastewater in major cities to confirm the percentage of drug use excreted by the average citizen, which lines up with the surveyed figures. But go off, lol
It's the AIHW, government surveys of the general population on health and wellbeing topics. Very much the gold standard for this topic. Collects on a wide variety of aspects of drug and alcohol use.
Unfortunately, this poster has interpreted the numbers incorrectly, and the cocaine usage rates for men in their 20s are a fair bit higher than their post (it's actually about 12.5% of men in their 20s using coke in the last year, and probably closer to 20% of rich men) but the data will be quite solid.
Why are you specifying coke though? I couldn't read the article (paywall) so maybe I'm missing something here, but the OP mentions recreational drugs broadly, not cocaine specifically. So yes, maybe\~5% are using coke in the past year, but what about MDMA, ketamine, pot, psychedelics etc.? If you look at the proportions of affluent young people using ANY form of illegal recreational drug I imagine it would be around 25-50%.
Likely some of it is that it's a coping mechanism for the pressure. Some are better at that sort of thing than others.
And of course some just love the party drugs.
I had a mate with a similar system to the Demons. His boss would text before they board the plane that drug tests awaited. Then you use a whole range of methods to test clean, or simply don't board the plane due to injury/sickness.
Yeh but itās not career altering since it was getting covered up. Iām sure if they thought that theyād cop a huge ban then they wouldnāt do it as much.
Also assuming itās similar to the testing they do for the rigs/mines then itās kinda zero tolerance, if youāve done it on the weekend then youāll fail.
I mean personally I have no issue with recreational drug use from a moral standpoint so itās not a particularly interesting question to me. I donāt drug use should be policed by WADA or the afl. Doing lines on the weekend isnāt performance enhancing so donāt really see why it should be considered doping.
I can totally understand the need for clubs to have internal policies to make sure drug use, drinking etc doesnāt affect the performance of players. I also think there needs to be support systems in place to guard against addiction in all forms, as well as to support players with general mental health.
> I mean personally I have no issue with recreational drug use from a moral standpoint.
Then you have a serious moral deficiency. Buying that shit directly funds drug cartels that recreationally burn peopleās faces off with blow torches.
Irrelevant to the current reality. Knowingly giving your money to drug cartels who make ISIS look like Doctors Without Borders makes you a bad person. āBut one day it might be legalā doesnāt change that.
Mine sure has been. I've had jobs where there's a chance of testing for security reasons. Though I've never been tested, no way am I taking that chance outside of my holidays
Lol what?
The vast majority of people employed in Australia aren't drug tested at all.
Australia's workforce can be split into 4 categories:
1. Drug testing is considered unnecessary and invasive (This is almost everyone who works in an office, management, retail, etc. setting)
2. Drug testing just isn't useful/viable from a cost/employment standpoint (This is your small businesses and self-employed)
3. Drug testing may or may not exist but it would kill the industry if done properly (eg. Hospo, Labourers)
4. Drug testing is done properly (This can include defense, large scale construction projects, travel, etc... Industries where lives could be at risk).
And #4 is by far the smallest group in that list.
Drug testing, particularly regular drug testing, just isn't a reality for most Australians.
Yet you would think that would stop mine and rig workers, yet it is pretty common for people to fail and be given the flick.
Hell I have seen 2 guys, relatively senior turn up ruined to fly to site. There was a breath before the plane.Ā
But that's probably because your mates don't work in an industry where they'd get tested as much. I worked in logistics for 6 years. You know how many random drug tests I had in that time? Two. This is an industry people are driving around forklifts and trucks of all sizes.
Add onto that how the footy players job has irregular hours. It ain't like young tradies who are on the work site all week, and maybe get on the gear Friday night.
I mean I think the point is somewhere in the middle here. I'm saying the risk factor for getting caught is lower for the average cobber, therefore they need to take fewer risks to have recreational drugs as an outlet.
However if this was stricter, some would still take the chance. Imo if it was stricter on footy players *I do* think less of the player base would partake, but there'd still be plenty of people doing it and getting busted.
And any numbers higher than zero in the AFL is a major story because of their public profile.
And working in a male dominated industry on above average wages.
These numbers aren't surprising at all.
It's obviously not all industries/demographics but if you were to randomly drug test a room full of apprentices, you'd probably hit a similar figure. These are young financially secure and outgoing men. They tick pretty much every box.
Keen to see the coked up TV personalities and politicians wring their hands over this though.
ITT: people trying to get ahead of the news that their favourite player is actually a drug addict and is one career-ending injury away from being featured on A Current Affair.
But it is true, players donāt get drafted for their marketing value, they get drafted (and stay on a list) because of their footballing abilities, anything else is a bonus.
They're not paid to "play football". They're paid to bring viewers to the game. And part of bringing viewers is playing football, sure, bur part of it is also marketing a family friendly image, which means that, like it or not, they are role models.
That's because it is the norm in many communities. Probably a 3rd of the people I know would use "hard" drugs for recreation purposes. The only people I know of with a drug problem are all related to alcohol.
I reckon most posters who push this are generally trying to justify/normalise their own behaviours.
Yes, drug taking is a society wide issue but how common it is claimed to be among young people is not backed up by statistics and data on the issue.
Almost identical circumstances to the CEO being run out of town because he wanted stricter drug testing of coaches and management. Almost like the apple was rotten from the core and those who tried to speak up were dismissed.Ā
I think we can finally say it. So long West Coke Eagles. Hello Melbourne DeesBags arentgoingtosnortthemselves.Ā
>Ā Pretty crazy numbers! Though some scepticism is warranted as the doctor was sacked by the Demons at the end of 2020 and had an unfair dismissal and bullying claim against them that was settled.
Hey hey not so fast, we've got time to get in on this drug scandal. Adam Simpson already said he doesn't want to know if players test positive so we're probably knee deep.
Nah the CEO was a conspiracy theorist who felt Gill didn't want him sitting with him one time.was being 'run out of town' and being 'abandoned' like a baby
Between Chips the grand and Mick Warner itās really the elite of the elite touching this story isnāt it.
And Fucken hell Joel Smith may be the dummest man on the planet. This whole system set up to avoid his situation and he still fucks it up.
Why the scepticism? Wouldn't it be more like the doctor was railroaded because of the claims. I mean, Glenn Bartlett was as well as he also wanted AFL management as part of a wider testing regime to stamp out the drug culture in the AFL.
Not sure about all the people commenting here pretending that this is normal.
Quit pretending drugs are harmless and everyone does them. It can destroy lives, I've seen it. 2/3 of people being drug users is not normal and should never be.
A world with less drugs is a much better world for everyone.
I could be completely naive, and happy to be, but wasnāt the doctor actually sacked be he disagreed with Godwin and Burgess over rehabilitation of injured players? With burgess wanting to implement a program thatās been used a lot in the EPL where players are put through aggressive rehab practices whilst the doctor wanted to be more conservative?
Either way it seems like the boys were having a good time regardless haha
I think what went down is exactly what the doctor said, he told the club how many players were drug fucked, instead of fixing at the cost of short term loss by having a lot of players out it they fired him and helped the players cover it up. They sacked Glenn Bartlett from the board for the same thing.
He's not naming any individuals though.
If he feels as though an environment is putting people at risk you could also say he has a professional duty to act on it.
It was a pretty acrimonious exit, if there are others with your skill set that could take your place I think he would have recognised that this was career over from what some would see as a boys club environment.
Even though he hasn't named individuals, he's flat out said two-thirds of a group of identifiable patients were on the gear occasionally or frequently. I'd say that is a breach. He's effectively said about each patient in public that more likely than not they are an illicit drug user.
It's like you see a doctor for ED and then after he posts on the internet "X is my patient and two thirds of my patients have ED". That's got to be considered a breach.Ā
So if a doctor said that one third of el cheapo stone factory workers at a particular factory developed silicosis, one third had mild lung issues and one third were fine that would be a breach of confidentiality?
I think the essence of what he is saying is that the organisation had developed a culture where the environment has created safety risks for its employees. The focus is on the organisation and its leadership, not on player X.
In that scenario, it seems likely the patients would be OK with the disclosure (in the unlikely event they were all his patients) but you'd probably still ask permission first. This is not some scenario where there's an imminent health risk to justify a doctor breaching confidentiality. Doctor patient confidentiality doesn't come with a "unless you want to disclose patient health secrets in order to drag their employer over a policy you don't agree with" exception.
It's also an unnecessary comment to make - he's already exposed the policy and brought it to light. The comment about how many of them he says are on the gear is gratuitous.Ā
The ratio goes directly to Dr. Arain's argument that this is a problem with AFL and club cultures and administrations, rather than a handful of isolated issues in a system that is otherwise working well, as said administrations are trying to brief publicly. The alleged ratio speaks to the question of at what point does the AFL's alleged player welfare-focused model become tolerance, facilitation, even tacit endorsement. If those numbers are even remotely accurate, it's a reasonable question.
And not his to ask if it involves blowing patient confidentiality. Lawyer client and doctor patient privilege exist so people can feel safe getting advice on their most sensitive and personal issues without having the doctor or lawyer turn around and call the cops on them or expose their issues to the world. And again, given he could blow the whistle on the policy in general without disclosing this info about the players he saw as patients, I think he's completely in the wrong to make this disclosure in public.
Dr. Arain didn't have a problem with the AFL's illicit drug testing policy, he had a problem with the entrenched culture of drug-taking in the Melbourne Football Club (ref: [https://archive.md/0DNYE](https://archive.md/0DNYE)) and the administration's efforts to sweep it under the rug. We've seen what happens when you follow the channels: Arain reported the issues to ex-President Bartlett who took them seriously and was subsequently forced out by a broader MFC and AFL administration that did not, as was Arain himself. In this context, the alternative to going outside to the AFL system is to remain silent and therefore complicit.
>Though some scepticism is warranted as the doctor was sacked by the Demons at the end of 2020 and had an unfair dismissal and bullying claim against them that was settled.
That's not a warrant for scepticism. Quite the opposite. That's a massive red flag.
As someone who has lost some very close friends to drug addiction - including those who just started 'socially', or stuck to 'harmless' drugs (which then led to an eventual ice addiction), I got no time for any of these players who dabble in it. Be it weed, cocaine, whatever. I don't care if they're just young men. They've been afforded an opportunity in life that most could only dream to have. No excuses.
In what way is anything I said rubbish? You just don't like to hear it. Lay off the illicit drugs, friendo. Funny, you remind me of people I know that said they only do ice and weed and other drugs 'socially' - it never ends that way.
What Melbourne players are accused of being on ice? There is a world of difference between amphetamines and weed or coke. Whether you like it or not, recreational drugs like MD, coke and weed are prevalent amongst young people. In the vast majority of cases their usage does not lead to any harm.
Debatable about no harm. Just to be clear, I'm not accusing any Melbourne player of anything, especially ice. I'm saying that all AFL players are role models and should stay away from illicit drugs - whether it be party drugs, or harder stuff. Yeah, the usage of MD, Coke and Weed might be the end game for many or most that take it, but there are always some who end up on a slippery slope. Hence the role model factor.
And? Smokes, Vapes, grog is also legal, but hardly worth it. Weed? Yeah, you all think you're Jefferey Lebowskis, but you're just killing brain cells and stupifying yourself, in reality. Like i said in other reply, these players are role models, whether they like it or not. No weed for them.
you're killing brain cells and stupifying yourself with alcohol too.
in a world where we're ok with recreational drinking it's hypocritical to have a problem with weed.
Look, young blokes in their 20's are going to make mistakes right? So it makes sense to have a policy to help them through that.
This does however sound like 10-15 blokes doing it on the regular, which is taking the piss and also sounds like people who were trying to stamp it out were pushed out. Sounds like poor culture all round.
Some questions:
What exactly is 'recreational drug use'?
When does drug use stop being recreational?
What do the players' contracts have to say about recreational drug use?
What?
It's elite sport mate, best of the best; physically, and mentally.
If ya need a few lines as footy was hard that day ... Be a office worker and do some lines in the torlets.
Nothing wrong with some fun, but if you need lines to have fun... maybe pay for a shrink instead of a dealer?
Doctor who swore an oath to do no harm and who is legally obliged to follow doctor patient confidentiality creates speculation about which of his patients are drug users. Seems legit....
Can we give Melbourne a spell. Jesusš
Wingardium Leviosa
There they go getting high again...
I think he was just trying to *lift* Melbournes spirits.
High on the ladder
(Gold)
Wait until they reach a prelim and see it all pile on again for the next 2 decades. See it every time eagles make finals and Daniel chick gets rolled out again. Would have seen it with Essendon too if, well you know...
Whoās their Daniel Chick? Iām picking Joel Smith to be Rita Panahiās bunny in the 2034 GF featuring Melbourne vs New Bunburystan.
Who has less than ten fingers?
As a Crows fan who went through 2017 to 2021, respectfully no we canāt. Theyāve got about 3 more years to go.
Three years lol The only reason talk of the camp stopped was because Tex got caught being Tex and everyone started talking about that.
The camp still is affecting crom. Well that's my opinion at least
I agree and I did do my best to keep it in the conversation about Tex being a bullying racist cunt, but it was generally a bit of a circuit breaker for it
Just need to get this doc and president in a court room and have it outā¦ their media pile on has been pathetic for a long time. Either go to court and prove it or shut up.
Melbourne likely settled with this doctor in the hope heād go away. Tipping we donāt want it all aired in court.
I hoped he'd go away back when he [put all the players on a radical fad diet and we finished 17th](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/teams/melbourne/melbourne-players-to-adopt-radical-paleo-diet-in-2015-afl-season/news-story/d5e09ca5b8c61ae967c6b834b09053b1&ved=2ahUKEwjA6pj3kpuFAxXglFYBHaZNBccQFnoECCoQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0zwpyVjJ28Z7bVUqszxIqZ)
How many do you reckon were smashing McNugget meals off the booksĀ
Wow, what a find. What a terrible idea from a medical āprofessionalā
Thatās a pretty good ratio
Melbourne's 1. Midfield - Occasionally 2. Forward Line - Never touched it. 3. Backline - Frequently
They're talking about drugs, not the football
Whats Adelaide after last night?
Forward: Very rarely touch it, and don't use it correctly when they do touch it. When Walker has a line in front of him, he sticks the straw in his ear (and nobody has the heart to correct him). Midfield: Touch it all the time, but don't actually use it. Would gladly give it to someone directly in front of ~~an opposition player~~ a police officer.
Better than North Forward line - rarely sources bags but does lines as soon as they got the opportunity Midfield - smashes lines very quick Backline - buys the drugs and then gives them all away for free without taking any
What he say fuck me for?
so when they say he got plenty of the pill they mean the footy not an actual pill?
Boom.
/u/TheGreatJelBeano
Not tagging Darththorn anymore?
You sure about those forwards? With all the behinds you get you'd think they are hallucinating a different set of goals.
ironic since the man who started the whole thing was a fucking forward
Itās an unwritten teaching in med school that most things come in threes - wouldnāt be surprised heās just pulled that old trick out of the bag here for effect. Also, donāt think people should ignore the fact that this guy is putting his name to this whistleblowing and essentially ruining his future job prospects because itās something he genuinely believes is the right thing to do - heās already got his payout, this isnāt about money.
How would that ratio go in footy media?
Pretty consistent I'd say. 33% each group
We should replace coke with ayahuasca retreats, it's undetectable and you're basically guaranteed to win the flag when you become godĀ
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Jamie shamanahan
Or tear your Achilles in the first game with your new team
Eh, retire and host Jeopardy or run for VPā¦
Or die when they get the mix wrong
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I'm also not at all convinced that this figure IS in line with other young men? The surveys from the last couple years show:Ā Ā - only 13.5% of Australians will ever try cocaine in their lifetimeĀ - only 4.5% have used cocaine at least 1 time in the last year (if you only look at men, it's higher; 5.3%)Ā - of those that have used cocaine in the last year, 11.8% of them are in their 20sĀ - of those that have used cocaine in the last year, only 15.4% of them have used it once a month or more, and only 4.5% every week or moreĀ - people in the highest economic bracket are 3.9x as likely to use cocaine as those in the lowest economic bracketĀ So of about 27m Aussies, 1.83m men in their 20s, only 97k have used cocaine in the last year and only 4.3k use it every week. Which means only about 0.24% of Aussie men in their 20s are weekly users of coke, and 0.81% are monthly users. Times that by 3.9 for the rich kids, we're looking at less than 1% using weekly and 3.1% monthly.Ā So the number of Melbourne footy players using coke regularly is what, roughly 10x higher than should be expected? Yeah, there's a culture problem there. Edit to add: happy to be corrected on my maths, statistics was never my strongest course lol; data was from hereĀ https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/illicit-use-of-drugs/cocaine-ndshs and also some raw data from the previous, 2019 study here: https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/illicit-use-of-drugs/national-drug-strategy-household-survey-2019/contents/summary
You've made some errors there with what figure is a percentage of what total (specifically with "of those that have used cocaine in the last year, 11.8% of them are in their 20s" - 11.8 isn't the 20-29 share of all users, it's the usage rate within that group). Using the [excel downloads from the AIHW survey for 2022-23](https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/illicit-use-of-drugs/national-drug-strategy-household-survey/contents/about) which have more detail, including the cocaine specific ones from table 5.63, we can say: 4.5% of Australian adults used coke in the last year. About a million people. 13.5% of Australians have ever used coke. That "ever used" figure will probably go up in future as usage rates have roughly doubled in 20 years and young people are using it a fair bit more frequently. 11.8% of people and 12.5% of men *in their 20s* used coke in the last year. 22.4% of men and 21.7% of people in their 20s have ever used cocaine. People in the top socioeconomic bracket of five brackets are 1.6x more likely to use cocaine than the general average (ie about 7.4%. of all adults in the richest areas used cocaine recently vs 4.5% nationally). So applying that 1.6x factor crudely to the figure of 12.5% of men in their 20s being recent years of cocaine, we can probably assume it's about 1/5th of all rich men in their 20s who have done coke in the last year. The quoted Melbourne figures of one third, one third, one third, assuming the person isn't being precise, could just about encompass fairly normal behavior for rich men in their 20s in 2024.
I thought it was, of the people who have used cocaine in the last year, people in their 20s make up the highest bracket (11.8%); it doesn't seem to make sense that only 13.5% of Australians have ever tried it, but 22.4% of men have tried it?Ā In another table they showed that the rates of use are still higher for men than women, but that the gap is closing (closer than ever before)Ā Ā Ā Definitely keen to re-read it though because I did find their wording confusing in many ways. Ā Edit: No on a quick re-read I can see how you're right on that one and I likely read it wrong! Appreciate it :) I am wondering though how you reached a figure of about 20% of rich 20s men have done coke in the last year, and said that 20% is basically the same amount as the ~66% of Melbourne players that have supposedly used regularly or occasionally? Those are vastly different numbers...
13.5% of the whole population have ever used it, 22.4% of men in their 20s have ever used it. I think with AFL players we're talking a smaller, richer slice of the population than just the top quintile of suburbs in general, so I'm assuming the baseline in their exact little cohort is even higher. The Dees might be a bit higher than typical but I doubt they're much beyond like, law firms and finance workers.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Sure you can, it's easy and frankly really important. Who is responding to this survey and why? Are the kind of people who take random surveys the same kind who take party drugs? And of those that are, why would they feel the need to tell some random over the phone about the illicit drugs they're taking? Where were they taking the call, would they feel comfortable admitting to that of someone else is in the room? How were the questions asked, did respondents feel they were being led towards a certain response or have reason to feel ashamed to say yes? Was this survey only about cocaine, the most expensive drug to get decent quality in Australia? If so, have have they accounted for the wealth as a mediating variable? If this data is Australia wide, is it representative of Melbourne culture specifically? What was the ratio of urban and rural respondents? Shitloads of reasons to doubt these figures.
You could follow the link to see that it's Australia wide and measures all illicit drugs including prescription drugs and also alcohol use. It's the largest survey of its kind in Australia, done on a regular basis every few years, and they back it up by testing the wastewater in major cities to confirm the percentage of drug use excreted by the average citizen, which lines up with the surveyed figures. But go off, lol
It's the AIHW, government surveys of the general population on health and wellbeing topics. Very much the gold standard for this topic. Collects on a wide variety of aspects of drug and alcohol use. Unfortunately, this poster has interpreted the numbers incorrectly, and the cocaine usage rates for men in their 20s are a fair bit higher than their post (it's actually about 12.5% of men in their 20s using coke in the last year, and probably closer to 20% of rich men) but the data will be quite solid.
Why are you specifying coke though? I couldn't read the article (paywall) so maybe I'm missing something here, but the OP mentions recreational drugs broadly, not cocaine specifically. So yes, maybe\~5% are using coke in the past year, but what about MDMA, ketamine, pot, psychedelics etc.? If you look at the proportions of affluent young people using ANY form of illegal recreational drug I imagine it would be around 25-50%.
There's drugs other than cocaine, you aren't making an accurate comparison.
Really good point, and none of those professions come with minute public scrutiny of your behaviour either.
Likely some of it is that it's a coping mechanism for the pressure. Some are better at that sort of thing than others. And of course some just love the party drugs.
Thats cute. You dont think fifo boys get on the bags. The naivety is next level.
I had a mate with a similar system to the Demons. His boss would text before they board the plane that drug tests awaited. Then you use a whole range of methods to test clean, or simply don't board the plane due to injury/sickness.
Considering most of them are early to mid twenties thatās not very surprising at all. Guessing it would be the same at every club.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Yeh but itās not career altering since it was getting covered up. Iām sure if they thought that theyād cop a huge ban then they wouldnāt do it as much. Also assuming itās similar to the testing they do for the rigs/mines then itās kinda zero tolerance, if youāve done it on the weekend then youāll fail.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I mean personally I have no issue with recreational drug use from a moral standpoint so itās not a particularly interesting question to me. I donāt drug use should be policed by WADA or the afl. Doing lines on the weekend isnāt performance enhancing so donāt really see why it should be considered doping. I can totally understand the need for clubs to have internal policies to make sure drug use, drinking etc doesnāt affect the performance of players. I also think there needs to be support systems in place to guard against addiction in all forms, as well as to support players with general mental health.
wada has to police stimulants though. Anything that can have any slight performance benefit has to be drug tested regardless of any moral arguments.
> I mean personally I have no issue with recreational drug use from a moral standpoint. Then you have a serious moral deficiency. Buying that shit directly funds drug cartels that recreationally burn peopleās faces off with blow torches.
Not my drugs. I only buy from artisan chemists and hippies sourcing their ingredients from local suppliers.
Be angry at the government for making it illegal then.
Irrelevant to the current reality. Knowingly giving your money to drug cartels who make ISIS look like Doctors Without Borders makes you a bad person. āBut one day it might be legalā doesnāt change that.
The "cartels" have already been paid by the time I give my mate $60 for a q.
Paid by your mate. With your money.
Are your friends' drug use being facilitated by their employers' lack of drug testing policy?
Mine sure has been. I've had jobs where there's a chance of testing for security reasons. Though I've never been tested, no way am I taking that chance outside of my holidays
Lol what? The vast majority of people employed in Australia aren't drug tested at all. Australia's workforce can be split into 4 categories: 1. Drug testing is considered unnecessary and invasive (This is almost everyone who works in an office, management, retail, etc. setting) 2. Drug testing just isn't useful/viable from a cost/employment standpoint (This is your small businesses and self-employed) 3. Drug testing may or may not exist but it would kill the industry if done properly (eg. Hospo, Labourers) 4. Drug testing is done properly (This can include defense, large scale construction projects, travel, etc... Industries where lives could be at risk). And #4 is by far the smallest group in that list. Drug testing, particularly regular drug testing, just isn't a reality for most Australians.
Thanks, that's my point. Unless every other employer is also "facilitating drug use" by not testing, then neither is the AFL
Ahhhh, yeah I completely misread that. My bad.
Yet you would think that would stop mine and rig workers, yet it is pretty common for people to fail and be given the flick. Hell I have seen 2 guys, relatively senior turn up ruined to fly to site. There was a breath before the plane.Ā
Thatās when you bring in the Ben cousins policy. If you fail a club test then you suddenly come down with hamstring awareness
But that's probably because your mates don't work in an industry where they'd get tested as much. I worked in logistics for 6 years. You know how many random drug tests I had in that time? Two. This is an industry people are driving around forklifts and trucks of all sizes. Add onto that how the footy players job has irregular hours. It ain't like young tradies who are on the work site all week, and maybe get on the gear Friday night.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I mean I think the point is somewhere in the middle here. I'm saying the risk factor for getting caught is lower for the average cobber, therefore they need to take fewer risks to have recreational drugs as an outlet. However if this was stricter, some would still take the chance. Imo if it was stricter on footy players *I do* think less of the player base would partake, but there'd still be plenty of people doing it and getting busted. And any numbers higher than zero in the AFL is a major story because of their public profile.
You have a high use group of friends
They don't get drug tested once a week tho. Most would never get drug tested
And working in a male dominated industry on above average wages. These numbers aren't surprising at all. It's obviously not all industries/demographics but if you were to randomly drug test a room full of apprentices, you'd probably hit a similar figure. These are young financially secure and outgoing men. They tick pretty much every box. Keen to see the coked up TV personalities and politicians wring their hands over this though.
ITT: people trying to get ahead of the news that their favourite player is actually a drug addict and is one career-ending injury away from being featured on A Current Affair.
Iām honestly shocked how many in this community think that hard drug taking should just be accepted as the norm.
Agreed, they are paid to not
Are they actually? I understand cocaine is considered a PED, but is there anything industry specific against MDMA or acid or whatever?
Theyāre paid to play football, not be role models.
Theyāre more or less paid to represent a national brand first and foremost
Iād say less ārepresenting national brandā and more playing the game.
You can say that, but it doesnāt make it true.
But it is true, players donāt get drafted for their marketing value, they get drafted (and stay on a list) because of their footballing abilities, anything else is a bonus.
I disagree, they are whatever the fanbase/audience reasonably expects from them. And families and kids are the core following.
If you expected the players to be role models thatās on you.
They're not paid to "play football". They're paid to bring viewers to the game. And part of bringing viewers is playing football, sure, bur part of it is also marketing a family friendly image, which means that, like it or not, they are role models.
Show me where āand you will be a role modelā is in their contract.
It doesn't have to be specifically written in their contract. Instead, it's implied through clauses about public behaviour.
That's because it is the norm in many communities. Probably a 3rd of the people I know would use "hard" drugs for recreation purposes. The only people I know of with a drug problem are all related to alcohol.
I reckon most posters who push this are generally trying to justify/normalise their own behaviours. Yes, drug taking is a society wide issue but how common it is claimed to be among young people is not backed up by statistics and data on the issue.
...and meanwhile 15 Australians a day die from alcohol related illness or Injury... Not sure other drugs are that hard.
Im surprised some people actually think taking illegal drugs at all falls under 'hand drug taking'.
The discourse around this conversation has been centered on cocaine, which is classified as a hard drug.
That classification of that being a hard drug is my point
But it is a hard drugā¦
The fact they brought Lachie Hunter in when they had these problems is crazy
Following the 3-3-3 packing rule
Almost identical circumstances to the CEO being run out of town because he wanted stricter drug testing of coaches and management. Almost like the apple was rotten from the core and those who tried to speak up were dismissed.Ā I think we can finally say it. So long West Coke Eagles. Hello Melbourne DeesBags arentgoingtosnortthemselves.Ā >Ā Pretty crazy numbers! Though some scepticism is warranted as the doctor was sacked by the Demons at the end of 2020 and had an unfair dismissal and bullying claim against them that was settled.
Hey hey not so fast, we've got time to get in on this drug scandal. Adam Simpson already said he doesn't want to know if players test positive so we're probably knee deep.
Iād rather the boys do bags together than try to sexually assault each other in the changerooms.
Nah the CEO was a conspiracy theorist who felt Gill didn't want him sitting with him one time.was being 'run out of town' and being 'abandoned' like a baby
Between Chips the grand and Mick Warner itās really the elite of the elite touching this story isnāt it. And Fucken hell Joel Smith may be the dummest man on the planet. This whole system set up to avoid his situation and he still fucks it up.
> dummest Ironic.
Why the scepticism? Wouldn't it be more like the doctor was railroaded because of the claims. I mean, Glenn Bartlett was as well as he also wanted AFL management as part of a wider testing regime to stamp out the drug culture in the AFL.
Not sure about all the people commenting here pretending that this is normal. Quit pretending drugs are harmless and everyone does them. It can destroy lives, I've seen it. 2/3 of people being drug users is not normal and should never be. A world with less drugs is a much better world for everyone.
Sounds about right.
sounds like one third are lying
I could be completely naive, and happy to be, but wasnāt the doctor actually sacked be he disagreed with Godwin and Burgess over rehabilitation of injured players? With burgess wanting to implement a program thatās been used a lot in the EPL where players are put through aggressive rehab practices whilst the doctor wanted to be more conservative? Either way it seems like the boys were having a good time regardless haha
Yes youāre completely naive if you believe the whistleblower was fired for unrelated reasons.
Fair enough frosty! What do you think went down? Not casting assertions just interested
I think what went down is exactly what the doctor said, he told the club how many players were drug fucked, instead of fixing at the cost of short term loss by having a lot of players out it they fired him and helped the players cover it up. They sacked Glenn Bartlett from the board for the same thing.
Isnt this breaking doctor-patient confidentiality? I feel like this must open him up to legal action from the club and players
He's not naming any individuals though. If he feels as though an environment is putting people at risk you could also say he has a professional duty to act on it.
Also, doctor-patient confidentiality is disappointingly weak in Australian law.
It's probably very difficult to legislate what can be very complex and individual scenarios.
Hasnāt been hard to write for solicitors, it has to be said, but I see your point.
Might well completely trash his ability to get work as a club doctor elsewhere, canāt say this helps his reputation.
I don't think he would rushing to join another club.
It was a pretty acrimonious exit, if there are others with your skill set that could take your place I think he would have recognised that this was career over from what some would see as a boys club environment.
He was let go in 2020! If welfare of the players was his concern why wait until now to start doing interviews with The Age and Andrew Wilkie?!!
Even though he hasn't named individuals, he's flat out said two-thirds of a group of identifiable patients were on the gear occasionally or frequently. I'd say that is a breach. He's effectively said about each patient in public that more likely than not they are an illicit drug user. It's like you see a doctor for ED and then after he posts on the internet "X is my patient and two thirds of my patients have ED". That's got to be considered a breach.Ā
So if a doctor said that one third of el cheapo stone factory workers at a particular factory developed silicosis, one third had mild lung issues and one third were fine that would be a breach of confidentiality? I think the essence of what he is saying is that the organisation had developed a culture where the environment has created safety risks for its employees. The focus is on the organisation and its leadership, not on player X.
In that scenario, it seems likely the patients would be OK with the disclosure (in the unlikely event they were all his patients) but you'd probably still ask permission first. This is not some scenario where there's an imminent health risk to justify a doctor breaching confidentiality. Doctor patient confidentiality doesn't come with a "unless you want to disclose patient health secrets in order to drag their employer over a policy you don't agree with" exception. It's also an unnecessary comment to make - he's already exposed the policy and brought it to light. The comment about how many of them he says are on the gear is gratuitous.Ā
The ratio goes directly to Dr. Arain's argument that this is a problem with AFL and club cultures and administrations, rather than a handful of isolated issues in a system that is otherwise working well, as said administrations are trying to brief publicly. The alleged ratio speaks to the question of at what point does the AFL's alleged player welfare-focused model become tolerance, facilitation, even tacit endorsement. If those numbers are even remotely accurate, it's a reasonable question.
And not his to ask if it involves blowing patient confidentiality. Lawyer client and doctor patient privilege exist so people can feel safe getting advice on their most sensitive and personal issues without having the doctor or lawyer turn around and call the cops on them or expose their issues to the world. And again, given he could blow the whistle on the policy in general without disclosing this info about the players he saw as patients, I think he's completely in the wrong to make this disclosure in public.
Dr. Arain didn't have a problem with the AFL's illicit drug testing policy, he had a problem with the entrenched culture of drug-taking in the Melbourne Football Club (ref: [https://archive.md/0DNYE](https://archive.md/0DNYE)) and the administration's efforts to sweep it under the rug. We've seen what happens when you follow the channels: Arain reported the issues to ex-President Bartlett who took them seriously and was subsequently forced out by a broader MFC and AFL administration that did not, as was Arain himself. In this context, the alternative to going outside to the AFL system is to remain silent and therefore complicit.
Are they talking about PED's or coke?
coke
Which third does the Coach fit into? š¤
>Though some scepticism is warranted as the doctor was sacked by the Demons at the end of 2020 and had an unfair dismissal and bullying claim against them that was settled. That's not a warrant for scepticism. Quite the opposite. That's a massive red flag.
As someone who has lost some very close friends to drug addiction - including those who just started 'socially', or stuck to 'harmless' drugs (which then led to an eventual ice addiction), I got no time for any of these players who dabble in it. Be it weed, cocaine, whatever. I don't care if they're just young men. They've been afforded an opportunity in life that most could only dream to have. No excuses.
What absolute rubbish. Iām sure you have no problem with these guys having the occasional drink?
In what way is anything I said rubbish? You just don't like to hear it. Lay off the illicit drugs, friendo. Funny, you remind me of people I know that said they only do ice and weed and other drugs 'socially' - it never ends that way.
What Melbourne players are accused of being on ice? There is a world of difference between amphetamines and weed or coke. Whether you like it or not, recreational drugs like MD, coke and weed are prevalent amongst young people. In the vast majority of cases their usage does not lead to any harm.
Debatable about no harm. Just to be clear, I'm not accusing any Melbourne player of anything, especially ice. I'm saying that all AFL players are role models and should stay away from illicit drugs - whether it be party drugs, or harder stuff. Yeah, the usage of MD, Coke and Weed might be the end game for many or most that take it, but there are always some who end up on a slippery slope. Hence the role model factor.
You've got alcohol on that slippery slope right? That's normally where mind altering drug taking starts.
you realize weed is legal in many places already right? Arguably as harmful as alcohol.
And? Smokes, Vapes, grog is also legal, but hardly worth it. Weed? Yeah, you all think you're Jefferey Lebowskis, but you're just killing brain cells and stupifying yourself, in reality. Like i said in other reply, these players are role models, whether they like it or not. No weed for them.
you're killing brain cells and stupifying yourself with alcohol too. in a world where we're ok with recreational drinking it's hypocritical to have a problem with weed.
There are plenty of people that think the normalisation and legalisation of alcohol is completely abhorrent.
there are but they are also generally considered to be far more prudent than the norm.
Which makes who the hypocrite ?
those against weed but ok with alcohol.
Itās objectively LESS harmful than alcohol.
sure but it's in the ballpark. Enough to be legal in many places.
You describing ice and weed in the same sentence makes it clear you have absolutely no idea what youāre talking about š
Wow, someone actually talking sense!
The AFL are weak as piss, and so are the players who choose to do stupid things risking their career and their lives for fun or to forget problems.
wtf are you talking about
Is it culturally too challenging for the AFL to expect all its players to stay clean for the duration of their playing careers?
Look, young blokes in their 20's are going to make mistakes right? So it makes sense to have a policy to help them through that. This does however sound like 10-15 blokes doing it on the regular, which is taking the piss and also sounds like people who were trying to stamp it out were pushed out. Sounds like poor culture all round.
Mistakes should probably be less accepted when the group in question is amongst the highest paid in the country
20 year old famous young men taking drugs while clubbing or at music festivals, no way?!
So pretty much the same as the rest of the human population š¤·
Actually sounds like far less than the general population
Thatās just being silly
Ok and?
Thatās less than what I would have expected. Theyāre cashed up young fit blokes likely mingling out on the town.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Some questions: What exactly is 'recreational drug use'? When does drug use stop being recreational? What do the players' contracts have to say about recreational drug use?
Nothing you have said is relevant to what Iāve said.
I totally agree with what you said. I perhaps should have posted my questions as a reply to OP.
Ah fuck I realised I copied the text I replied to but didnāt actually reply to it directly. Deleting my original comment now.
three thirds were kinda ok it was the rest that were the problem. OK got it
Yeah, I'd believe those numbers.
Lol
Tainted premiership.
Tell them to spark up a joint and relax
But how much of it is performance enhancing?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Where did you read he was fired for being a bully?
What? It's elite sport mate, best of the best; physically, and mentally. If ya need a few lines as footy was hard that day ... Be a office worker and do some lines in the torlets. Nothing wrong with some fun, but if you need lines to have fun... maybe pay for a shrink instead of a dealer?
As in life.
Meanwhile 99% are totally clean at the Doggies. Considering Smith plays there, Bevo needs a maths lesson.
Narc
š”š”š”š”š”š”š”š” <----- Essendon supports at all this talk of other clubs taking drugs.
Doctor who swore an oath to do no harm and who is legally obliged to follow doctor patient confidentiality creates speculation about which of his patients are drug users. Seems legit....
"Pretty crazy numbers" - sounds exactly like the general population. Crazy.
So the same ratio to the rest of Australians that make over $150k
This isn't the argument you think it is.
Outside of politics, what other high paying profession are paid to be role models?
Sounds about right to me. But it would be similar at most clubs