by Dip Thu Feb 02, 2017 1:40 pm
It's a tough one, which is fueled by a population (not necessarily just supporters) which generally has a holier than thou attitude that hold's these guys to a higher standard than pretty much any other 18-33 year old male. I'm not saying that is right or that I agree with it, but like it or not, that's how it is. From a club's (and NRL) point of view, that can and will affect sponsorship, so they have to have to protect their investment so to speak.
As far as I see it, I agree with article that the current recreational drug policy is probably not about helping the player.
Personally, I don't really care what these guys pop, providing it's not hurting anyone else (and keep in mind that self harm not only hurts themselves, but also their family), but like it or not they are role models to youngsters. Should they be? In some cases probably not, but for some reason my kids would prefer to admire a sportsman than the current Australian of the Year or Fred Hollows etc. They are role models because they have high exposure due to their sport and skills. This high exposure also results in them having a really good income compared to most other 18-35 year old men, so there is an argument that they don't want to be a role model and just play football, then maybe they should do that in the QCup or somewhere they can still play football and not be known by millions of people. Sure they won't get paid much for it, but if exposure = money = being a role model, then you might argue it's something you either take all of or none of.
I would also say that generally speaking, people need to take responsibility for their own actions, which would then lay all the consequences on the player alone, but in this case I'm going to make an exception and the club should help players prevent and rehabilitate from recreational drugs, because in part they are responsible for it. They are the ones who place the pressure on the players so that they want to let their hair down every now and then, and I am also harsher on organisations which generally don't show a lot of loyalty, and will quite happily cut/abandon a player if they think there is a better alternative. That's their perogative given the nature of the industry, but if you are going to be ruthless in some parts, I think it's fair to be overly generous in other areas.
So in summary, my opinion is based on the idea of letting the little things go relatively unpunished (sometimes the shame of it all is punishment enough), and being heavy handed on the big things. If some players take a couple of tablets that make them feel like the world's best dancer, but apart from that all that happens is they go home and wake up with a bad headache and they don't cause anyone else any trouble, then for sure give them no punishment, or at worst keep a confidential register of it and if it happens enough give them some advice/rehab that one day it's going to cause more problems.
If they take something and go on a trip that is followed by them having their stomach pumped in hospital, and their mother reading in the paper that they're a druggo, then give them a strike and and have some sort of rehab process that helps them not do something that will result in their 13 year old sibling being made fun of at school about their snorter brother.
It they take some ice and punch everyone in sight at a nightclub, or have a skinful of alcohol and come home and bash their missus, then throw the book at them. Unfortunately, there is too many do-gooders in society and the media that want to treat the first example exactly the same as the third.