KP, as I understood it the money that made the AFL cave in was nothing as direct as all that - rather it was funding and accreditation for the ‘auskick’ programs, the affiliated country leagues and other development programs, particularly rural.

They could have gone it alone, but it would have been the hard road indeed.

The moment for doing that was lost 15 years ago when the whole international anti-doping ball began to roll and the only marching powder that rugby players were known to be doing was wintergreen linement. Seeking exemption now would surely be a tacit acknowledgement that [gasp] players do drugs.
Rock. Hard place.

If only. Like so many other things, Howard just employs drugs as a political symbol. If he was really ‘tough’ on drugs, he would have policies that deal with causes and effects, not just be ‘against’ them.

… you’re going to look like a total dickhead if you’re the ARU and you’re asking for a coke exemption. You really aren’t going to go there, are you?

No, the ARU isn’t. Still, you’re not going to ask for a ‘coke exemption’ either, are you? Surely you’d stand on the general privacy principle and insist on testing for performance enhancement only … unless, of course, whole populations are going to be tested for everything (*sees day coming*).

Tough on drugs is a Howardian fundamental, surely.

The whole point about world anti-doping conventions is that once they’re generally agreed to be A Good Thing and eveyone is signing up you’re going to look like a total dickhead if you’re the ARU and you’re asking for a coke exemption. You really aren’t going to go there, are you?

Interesting that the government allows themselves to be dictated to by an international convention, namely the World Doping Code. Not quite consistent with their stand on other issues…

- the same reason most people let themselves be dictated to - somewhere along the line there’s a gun pointing, and in this case it is in ASDA’s hands, see the first comment on this thread (which is also my understanding).

The only thing I do not quite understand is..why the hell do elite sportsmen allow their employers to dictate their personal life style to them? (RM:- I think acceptance of recreational drug testing is in their contract). If they are stupid enough to allow such an intrusion then I reckon we should be pretty sanguine about it - but not about the silly moralism that accompanies the process.

All up, however, I end in the usual quandry. Might we assume these are the tips of a loutish iceberg; or might sportstars be subject to far higher public scrutiny than other folk, creating a magnified effect?

Boiled down, in the last 10 years: he was picked into a fight; was so drunk one night in Townsville he spat on a woman’s face; smashed a window in road rage; talked on his mobile while driving; stayed up late before a game; and had a spew on a street.

If that’s something like the full story, I guess I’d only really pay the spit (was it a big deliberate goobly, or an accidental spray from being up too close?); and the window (with his fist?) as seriously regrettable, when you come down to it. Generally, it’s the kinda thing you expect to run into with musclebound sportsdudes. They’re rarely exposed to, say, allegations of having read top secret official cables about funding the nation’s enemies, and not doing anything about it.

Of course, Sailor’s unforgiveable crime is that he was a lousy rugby player.

October 2000: Arrested in a Townsville Street for being drunk in a public place.

May 2001: Fines $400 and ordered to pay $500 compensation for spitting in a woman’s face on the same night as the Townsville arrest.

May 2002: Smashes a truck window and admits to being the aggressor in a road rage incident in Brisbane. Pays for damages.

January 2003: Fined for talking on a mobile phone while driving. His lisence had already been cancelled because he hadn’t payed an earlier speeding fine. (The charges were later dropped as he was on tour at the time he was supposed to pay the fine.)

July 2005: One of three Wallabies reprimanded over Cape Town incident which led to Matt Henjak being sent home. Fined $500 for breaching team standards.

February 2006: Sent home from NSW tour of South Africa for the spewing incident.

May 2006: Stood down indefinitely - white line fever.

As far as I know, before this incident, ‘dell once stayed up too late at night, and another time he had a spew in the street - the first Australian male to ever do so, apparently.

What else has he done Tony? Tell a fib? Steal milk money? Have dirty thoughts? Fail to polish his boots? Bribe Saddam to buy wheat?

At the very least, we should test sports commentators.

OBSCURE BUT PLEASURABLE FACT:

At the end of WW2 in Britain, when the first Ascot was held, the police put a huge cordon round the course and tested every single vehicle they could stop, to find out if they had a legitimate reason for owning a car, and where they got the petrol.

Just imagine this for the Brownlow, for drugs.

Does John Howard get randomly tested for cocaine after Question Time? How about some random drug testing the day after the Logies - amongst a group of people who are very much inspirations to young people (God help us, but it doesn’t make it any less true)?

Aside from the points bove, to me the drug testing business reflects the notion that young athletes are somehow owned by the team, when this is actually an agreement between workers and management. No employer should have the right to intrude on the private life of an employee.

I agree with Ken too. Its also remarkable how these things never seem to result in police investigations or action, the NSWRU/ARU last I heard were even denying it was a police matter. Well, yeah it is actually — IF you’re fair dinkum about the noble “won’t somebody think of the children” sentiments. Way to send a positive message to the kiddies, we dont want you getting our game bad headlines but the actual law? Whatevs.

But of course, once the authorities are not testing for performance enhancement drugs, they are grossly invading privacy. If ordinary sportspeople, even less than ordinary ones like dear ol’ dumb ol’ ‘dell, are to be subject to these sorts of random invasions, why not the CEOs of the leading companies and politicians, who theoretically have serious responsibilities in the real world?