Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board

Krakouer Magic wrote:Coaches really have very little control over the off feild behaviour of individual, or a group of, players. Didn't we have a load of guys hair test positive for drug use recently? That's one thing I don't blame Bucks for. He has f@ck all control over what players do in their own time. Young blokes will always test boundaries and experiment with booze and drugs.

He and the club have no knowledge nor will they have any until they strike out and are banned which is rather silly. I mean, how can the club support them through a rehab program if they're tested and nothing becomes of the pre-season tests? Regardless of whether or not the drug use is down there's still drug use and no one seems to be too concerned about it at the AFL if they just sweep the names under the carpet.

Oh sure, let's give the clubs a rough estimate of the player numbers, but what are they doing to prevent a player from overdosing? The drugs Keeffe and Thomas were laced with something else, what happens if that was fatal and the AFL knew they were doing the drugs in the past?


But you are right the club has no control over what they do in their own time away from the club in the off-season and the likes but sadly the worst thing is they have no idea who is doing what drug. That's a little troubling. More so that a journo can have a list of the names, but not the clubs.

3rd degree wrote:

jackcass wrote:

RudeBoy wrote: FFS, Mick left them at the end of 1999.

But they were his boys...

I wish he wasn't so worried about Chad Morrison.

Or Williams...

Mountains Magpie wrote:

5 from the wing on debut wrote:

Daniel wrote:Chad Fletcher

Thank's Daniel. I wasn't quite truthful. I was aware of the name but even though this is a notice board there is no immunity from defamation laws. If something is defamatory this board assists the plaintiff by publishing the amount of views the post has received.

You can't be successfully sued for defamation if you are telling the truth.

MM

This really isn' t the forum for a discussion on defamation, but truth is only a defence if you establish the truth of a statement. Who has proof? The AFL didn't.

5 from the wing on debut wrote:

Mountains Magpie wrote:

5 from the wing on debut wrote: Thank's Daniel. I wasn't quite truthful. I was aware of the name but even though this is a notice board there is no immunity from defamation laws. If something is defamatory this board assists the plaintiff by publishing the amount of views the post has received.

You can't be successfully sued for defamation if you are telling the truth.

MM

This really isn' t the forum for a discussion on defamation, but truth is only a defence if you establish the truth of a statement. Who has proof? The AFL didn't.

Can't recall any of the media outlets who reported on it being sued.

jackcass wrote:

5 from the wing on debut wrote:

Mountains Magpie wrote: You can't be successfully sued for defamation if you are telling the truth.

MM

This really isn' t the forum for a discussion on defamation, but truth is only a defence if you establish the truth of a statement. Who has proof? The AFL didn't.

Can't recall any of the media outlets who reported on it being sued.

Either can I but :
1. Being the first to be sued isn't a defence either. Defending a defamation case will set you back a couple of hundred thousand;
2. Media outlets normally get clearance on a contentious story from their lawyers and phrase the stories appropriately. Ever heard of a Nicks poster doing that?
3 Media outlets are generally not silly enough to encourage people to promote the fact that people are suing them.

5 from the wing on debut wrote:Either can I but :
1. Being the first to be sued isn't a defence either. Defending a defamation case will set you back a couple of hundred thousand;
2. Media outlets normally get clearance on a contentious story from their lawyers and phrase the stories appropriately. Ever heard of a Nicks poster doing that?
3 Media outlets are generally not silly enough to encourage people to promote the fact that people are suing them.

It's reported in the public domain. That it remains unchallenged for so long implies tacit approval.

No.

Member 7167 wrote:I personally think that seeing that MM left in 1999 you would have to give him the benefit of doubt and assume that he bears little to no responsibility for what occurred after he left. I have some issues about MM's relationship with players but he should not be looked upon as being responsible for this mess.

Taken directly from Wikipedia:

Chris Mainwaring played 201 games for the Eagles between 1987 and 1999, kicking 84 goals. wasn't MM just about his only coach there?????? He played almost his entire career under MM.

Cousins on the other hand, started his career in 1996 and I would hazard a guess that his problems starting with having figures like Chris Mainwaring and others giving him drugs back then (under MMs watchful eye).


I only wrote this post because I thought the Eagles drug culture era was completely during MMs watch. it looks like the bulk of the problems did in fact occur under his watch (and simply weren't addressed by subsequent coaches).

I am not an MM hater. I just wonder why no one appears to have been held to account for a club that by all reports allowed players to turn up for training completely high and out of their minds.

I contrast this of course with Collingwood, who have tried to stamp out recreational drug use (and there is no evidence that I am aware of that suggests any players have life threatening additiction problems.

Oh and I remember now what made me post this. There was an article on the AFL website with Terry Wallace's description of what went on at Richmond when they were exploring picking up Cousins. It looks like revisionist history at its finest, but it paints a pretty scary picture of where he ended up.

Axll Rose and Ben Cousins. hard to tell who has fallen harder!!!!

E wrote:

Member 7167 wrote:I personally think that seeing that MM left in 1999 you would have to give him the benefit of doubt and assume that he bears little to no responsibility for what occurred after he left. I have some issues about MM's relationship with players but he should not be looked upon as being responsible for this mess.

Taken directly from Wikipedia:

Chris Mainwaring played 201 games for the Eagles between 1987 and 1999, kicking 84 goals. wasn't MM just about his only coach there?????? He played almost his entire career under MM.

Cousins on the other hand, started his career in 1996 and I would hazard a guess that his problems starting with having figures like Chris Mainwaring and others giving him drugs back then (under MMs watchful eye).


I only wrote this post because I thought the Eagles drug culture era was completely during MMs watch. it looks like the bulk of the problems did in fact occur under his watch (and simply weren't addressed by subsequent coaches).

I am not an MM hater. I just wonder why no one appears to have been held to account for a club that by all reports allowed players to turn up for training completely high and out of their minds.

I contrast this of course with Collingwood, who have tried to stamp out recreational drug use (and there is no evidence that I am aware of that suggests any players have life threatening additiction problems.

Oh and I remember now what made me post this. There was an article on the AFL website with Terry Wallace's description of what went on at Richmond when they were exploring picking up Cousins. It looks like revisionist history at its finest, but it paints a pretty scary picture of where he ended up.

Axll Rose and Ben Cousins. hard to tell who has fallen harder!!!!

Probably Rose - at least Ben Cousins isn't singing for a living in an AC/DC tribute band.

I think its more to do with the fact that their era was the first to have widespread hugely disposable income, plus a rise in the party drug culture.

E wrote:Taken directly from Wikipedia:

Chris Mainwaring played 201 games for the Eagles between 1987 and 1999, kicking 84 goals. wasn't MM just about his only coach there?????? He played almost his entire career under MM.

Cousins on the other hand, started his career in 1996 and I would hazard a guess that his problems starting with having figures like Chris Mainwaring and others giving him drugs back then (under MMs watchful eye).


I only wrote this post because I thought the Eagles drug culture era was completely during MMs watch. it looks like the bulk of the problems did in fact occur under his watch (and simply weren't addressed by subsequent coaches).

I am not an MM hater. I just wonder why no one appears to have been held to account for a club that by all reports allowed players to turn up for training completely high and out of their minds.

I contrast this of course with Collingwood, who have tried to stamp out recreational drug use (and there is no evidence that I am aware of that suggests any players have life threatening additiction problems.

Oh and I remember now what made me post this. There was an article on the AFL website with Terry Wallace's description of what went on at Richmond when they were exploring picking up Cousins. It looks like revisionist history at its finest, but it paints a pretty scary picture of where he ended up.

Axll Rose and Ben Cousins. hard to tell who has fallen harder!!!!

Well Dale Lewis had said back in the 1990s that there was widespread drug use going on, no one seemed to take notice or care. Crossica came out and said he was using back in the day, I guess if Mick knew, and others knew it was a widespread attitude towards rec drugs back then.

The Prototype wrote: Well Dale Lewis had said back in the 1990s that there was widespread drug use going on, no one seemed to take notice or care. Crossica came out and said he was using back in the day, I guess if Mick knew, and others knew it was a widespread attitude towards rec drugs back then.

Worse, in 2002 when he said it he was lambasted and lampooned. Every man and his dog shouted that poor guy down, all the while hiding their mounds of the white stuff and spliffs under the metaphorical tables with one hand whilst using the other to point at Dale Lewis and laugh.

He deserves an official AFL apology.

Interesting coming from one G Lyon, behold, from 2002.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/03/ ... 48371.html

Cam wrote:

The Prototype wrote: Well Dale Lewis had said back in the 1990s that there was widespread drug use going on, no one seemed to take notice or care. Crossica came out and said he was using back in the day, I guess if Mick knew, and others knew it was a widespread attitude towards rec drugs back then.

Worse, in 2002 when he said it he was lambasted and lampooned. Every man and his dog shouted that poor guy down, all the while hiding their mounds of the white stuff and spliffs under the metaphorical tables with one hand whilst using the other to point at Dale Lewis and laugh.

He deserves an official AFL apology.

Interesting coming from one G Lyon, behold, from 2002.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/03/ ... 48371.html

...and those shouting him down the loudest were journos and AFL and club administrators - all renowned pissheads. Seemed they preferred different drugs.