Does One bad Apple Spoil The Barrel?
The endless merry-go-round of rumors and innuendos surrounding the Geelong Football Club at the moment is something to behold. It seems a drug story has journalists frothing at the mouth trying to unravel some sinister club plot to cover up a much wider problem. Recent comments by football commentator Brian Taylor on 3AW calls for a public come clean on drug testing of other Geelong players to prevent another “West Coast Eagles” situation.
This article in no way has any proof that any accusations are true or false but as a member of the public I have to question the attempts by some journalists to create such sensationalist claims in order to tarnish the reputation of a great Victorian club. Brian Taylors comments that all the players should be drug tested and the results made public in order to dispel any accusations of other players involved in drugs on the surface seems to be a rational plan.
But since when do we violate the individual rights of other people just for the sake of a “Trial By Media?”? The AFL has a very specific three strikes drug policy for the use of recreational drugs which aims at identifying players taking recreational drugs, and actually trying to help them. But according to Brain Taylor a public “Trial by Drug Test” is what is needed here. There was even a point made that this is the reason why so many of the Geelong players have shaved heads. To prevent hair testing for cocaine. Bloody ridiculous!
Then Gerard Healey adds mockingly that it was “funny” how Stokes had shaved his mustache off the day after he was questioned by the Police. Is he implying a cover up attempt by Stokes? I still see Matthew has a full head of hair so I don’t understand how shaving off his mustache is going to help him? This is the kind of crap that I am sure he doesn’t need right now.
You can see just how ridiculous Brian Taylor has become by making these statements. Let’s not forget that BT has a tremendous dislike for the Geelong Football Club in general. My assumption is that when news broke of Stokes situation that all of the players would have been tested by the AFL. But unless any results constitute a third strike then the results are kept private within the AFL and the Club. This is not a cover up, but a chance to give any players found positive a chance to get help and education.
The next point they criticise the Club over is that after they announced Stokes punishment the Clubs press release said that they would make no further statements about the situation until all the legal stuff is sorted out. Great stance by the Club. Let’s protect a persons legal right to a fair trial and their day in court without them being responsible for a “Trial by Media”. I really think the Club has kicked a goal here. Infuriating as that is for the muck rakers like BT to have no one within the Club to make a public comment about it. This shows the Club at least has some compassion for one of their own who has made a big mistake. Not allowing Stokes to be eaten alive by the media hungry for off season news stories just shows me how good our Club’s culture is.
What Matthew did was wrong, no one disagrees with that. The actions of the Club have been swift and appropriate and fully supported by the AFL and the AFL Players Association. The Police have not charged any other player and have made a public statement that no other players are under investigation. This is not enough for media personalities like BT who base their claims on being a past player himself and knowing lots of current players and how things work. I am not sure what he is saying about his own self there so maybe people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.











“What Stokes did was wrong” What mate? I didn’t realise he had been convicted of anything yet. Talk about trial by media, how about trial by blog! And you even had the gall to mention glass houses!!
considering Stokes was arrested in possession of 1 gram of cocaine I hardly think my comments are that controversial. You must be a complete noob mate.
Stokes was not arrested in possession of anything. Because the police found no drugs on his person or at his residence they charged him with trafficking after he admitted in a police interview that he had purchased 1 gram of cocaine for a “mate”. Trafficking is usually deemed in Victoria to be dealing in 2 grams or more. The police don’t have any physical evidence of Stokes being in possession of any cocaine.
The police know their case is very weak which is why the hearing was adjourned while the the police trawl through their phone taps to see if they can make any sort of proper case.
Sorry if this is old news but I thought it needed clarification.