One more chance pleads Walker

[nqboy]

Yeah, well that's what you get for taking drugs. Put up with it.

Correction that is what you get for taking what someone once termed an illict drug.
Alcohol - a legal drug is widely accepted, in some cases encouraged.

Yes alright, if you want to split hairs, I'll specify illegal drugs. Don't imagine that I'm thrilled about the legal drugs in our society.

 

[nqboy]

Except of course alcohol, perhaps you are unaware alcohol is a drug.

No, but thanks for your enlightenlment anyway :roll: Once again, I'll spell it out for anal types like you, "Illegal Drugs"

 

[Mr Angry]

Except of course alcohol, perhaps you are unaware alcohol is a drug.

No, but thanks for your enlightenlment anyway :roll: Once again, I'll spell it out for anal types like you, "Illegal Drugs"

Cheers

among the fittest people in Australian sport

Obviously you never saw Wally having a puff in his Green and Gold.


If he trains and plays as required by the coach and is not using enchancments where is the problem?

oooohhhh that is right, we are fascists who MUST control every aspect of our players lives.

Robots is what you people are after.

So you are saying that Des Hasler requires him to have cocaine in his system?

No can you read? I am saying If Andrew shows up on time and trains as Des would expect and plays as Des would expect and is not cheating his fellow players buy taking performance enhancing substances, Des and you and the NRL have no business knowing about his private life.

Okay............maybe in your world......... :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Is there more than one world? In my world you laugh at other people jokes. Are you on drugs?

I thnik a player on cocaine at the time of training/playing is comitting a gross act of negligence to his club his game and it's fans.

Agreed, whilst he is training or playing.
If done in his private time and he is performing as expect, it is a police matter.
Is it OK if he gets pissed at a party? Has a cigar? Can he root his girlfriend or is there specific days?
Maybe we should assign a minder to each player, make sure they don't speed whilst driving, cheat on thier wifes, text bad messages, get a bad hair cut, get in a fight, swear, have an opinion or *red alert* do something that a normal human would.

They are footy players, we own their arses because we watch them.

You think it's totally OK. The world is cool, OK?

Na, seriously can you read? Point out where I said Andrew should not be in trouble for his specific actions. Andrew broke his contract. My issue is the contract. *I have bolded this so you get the point*

The world is cool, OK?

Very farrggin far from it, the world is series of big groups of fascist bastards.

By any chance do you follow Nimbin in Group 1???????

No never heard of them, can I buy a beer from them? Or do they also tell me what to do in my spare time?

Lets agree to disagree.

OK

What he did was a criminal act. Its not only punishable under the procotols of the NRL, the anti-doping agencies and his club, but its also punishable by law.

So where are the cops. Why is Andrew not subjected to the same laws as me, were the police called? Was he charged? Is the NRL above the law?

A general person in the community could also face dismissal from their company - in most company policies being caught with drugs will lead to termination of employment.

Was Andrew caught with a quantity of a substance? No. Was Andrew caught with a quantity of a substance whilst at work? No
Rubbish statement.
The general person would not be subjected to such oppressive employment conditions. The vast majority of workers are not tested.
The general person is subjected to general law, League players appear they are not. If they have cocaine, it is an internal matter for the club apparently, the police have nothing to do it.

To think its just because he is an NRL player is ludicrous - truckies are medically tested for medical issues and drugs, so are several other sectors of the work force.

Truckies drive heavy machinery, that could endanger others, hardly the same. In fact Iafeta the Vast majority of companies do no such testing. It is a very, very select few who do, and those who do have a specific reason. Other than completely controlling a players private life what does this test achieve for the NRL?
So far just a bunch of bad publicity that will just continue. Do you really think this will stop players taking stuff occasionally?

priveledge position

:lol: You just own his arse don't ya, you watch him, he should do what YOU want, what a priveledge.

 

[Sea_Eagles_Rock]

I liked Walker in our team, and was bitterly disappointed he tested positive to drugs. I was disappointed for him, I was disappointed for the club as it left a big hole, and I was disappointed as a fan.

I have a picture of him with my son. It's pretty hard to explain to a 4 year old, why won't he be playing for Manly next year. But on the same basis he can't be allowed to play because he is supposed to set an example. Maybe they shouldn't test for it, but surely the player should try to take the field for 80 minutes focused. Especially when it is a contractual obligation.

To be honest I felt his performance around the time was hot and cold. I couldn't understand how he could do some amazing things one minute, and then make some absolutely unbelievable blunders moments later. Cocaine does effect performance . But certainly not enhancing. I know he stated he only took it once, but obviously his mind wasn't on footy.

As for Rugged and his Manly drug culture claim. They tested the rest of the team and they are clean. Walker was the one and only. The club took a punt on him and it backfired.

 

[rugged]

As for Rugged and his Manly drug culture claim.

An ex fringe Manly player said that and he also said it was rife through the whole NRL. I hope not.

 

[simon says]

Mr Angry......that was one hell of a post.

Bloody well said,I couldnt agree more.

Cheers.

 

[Mr Angry]

Just to highlight the complete and utter double standards of the NRL and those fascists who support such testing.

The Daily Telegraph
Edition 1 - State
WED 22 DEC 2004, Page 005
NRL star's guilty plea over crash

NRL footballer Chris Flannery was already suspended from driving when, with nine glasses of wine under his belt, he got behind the wheel of his car and collided with another vehicle and then took off without exchanging details.
The Roosters rugby league forward yesterday pleaded guilty at Waverley Local Court to a charge of mid-range drink-driving.
He had a blood-alcohol count of .120 after the incident at Double Bay on December 4. Despite ``aggravating factors'' of the collision and the suspension of his licence on October 6 for failing to pay a fine, 24-year-old Flannery was disqualified from driving for only nine months. Magistrate Jayeann Carney noted Flannery, of Kensington, was ``an outstanding athlete'' and imposed a fine of $700 plus court costs of $63. The maximum penalty for mid-range drink-driving is a $2200 fine or nine months jail.

first dui - 2000
secomd offence - 2003
third offence - 2004

But he keeps his job, he did a criminal thing, he was actually charged by the police, he actually stood in front of a judge, but does he get a suspension from his employer???

Of course not.

innsaneink - this is effecting others - note the farrrggin difference, endangering others lives, no problem - keep your job.
Have some coke in your spare time at a party and NO SOUP FOR!!!

The duplicity is truely astounding.

 

[simon says]

 

[nqboy]

And Walker had possession of cocaine but wasn't caught in time to be prosecuted. So he gets away with it.

 

[Mr Angry]

And Walker had possession of cocaine but wasn't caught in time to be prosecuted. So he gets away with it.

:lol: Yes that is correct the NRL thinks it is above the law.
:lol: Yes he got away with it, who is playing this season, Walker or Flannery?

 

[nqboy]

1. The NRL is entitled to make whatever rules it chooses, you can choose to play in their comp or not. Or you can challenge their rules in court if you want.

2. He got away with the criminal part, Mr Simple.

 

[Mr Angry]

1. The NRL is entitled to make whatever rules it chooses, you can choose to play in their comp or not. Or you can challenge their rules in court if you want.

Yes indeed they can, and they will continue to suffer because of thier own rules.

2. He got away with the criminal part, Mr Simple.

Yes he did, why is that? Is the NRL above the law? Why weren't the police involved???

 

[innsaneink]

Just to highlight the complete and utter double standards of the NRL and those fascists who support such testing.

The Daily Telegraph
Edition 1 - State
WED 22 DEC 2004, Page 005
NRL star's guilty plea over crash

NRL footballer Chris Flannery was already suspended from driving when, with nine glasses of wine under his belt, he got behind the wheel of his car and collided with another vehicle and then took off without exchanging details.
The Roosters rugby league forward yesterday pleaded guilty at Waverley Local Court to a charge of mid-range drink-driving.
He had a blood-alcohol count of .120 after the incident at Double Bay on December 4. Despite ``aggravating factors'' of the collision and the suspension of his licence on October 6 for failing to pay a fine, 24-year-old Flannery was disqualified from driving for only nine months. Magistrate Jayeann Carney noted Flannery, of Kensington, was ``an outstanding athlete'' and imposed a fine of $700 plus court costs of $63. The maximum penalty for mid-range drink-driving is a $2200 fine or nine months jail.

first dui - 2000
secomd offence - 2003
third offence - 2004

But he keeps his job, he did a criminal thing, he was actually charged by the police, he actually stood in front of a judge, but does he get a suspension from his employer???

Of course not.

innsaneink - this is effecting others - note the farrrggin difference, endangering others lives, no problem - keep your job.
Have some coke in your spare time at a party and NO SOUP FOR!!!

The duplicity is truely astounding.

Why is this directed at me?

Did I endorse what flannery did somewhere?

 

[Mr Angry]

But it hasnt affected only him....its affected his family, his team mates, his fans.

A victimless crime? I think not.

You seem to think taking cocaine effects others.
Pointing out the difference.

 

[innsaneink]

Just to highlight the complete and utter double standards of the NRL and those fascists who support such testing.

The Daily Telegraph
Edition 1 - State
WED 22 DEC 2004, Page 005
NRL star's guilty plea over crash

NRL footballer Chris Flannery was already suspended from driving when, with nine glasses of wine under his belt, he got behind the wheel of his car and collided with another vehicle and then took off without exchanging details.
The Roosters rugby league forward yesterday pleaded guilty at Waverley Local Court to a charge of mid-range drink-driving.
He had a blood-alcohol count of .120 after the incident at Double Bay on December 4. Despite ``aggravating factors'' of the collision and the suspension of his licence on October 6 for failing to pay a fine, 24-year-old Flannery was disqualified from driving for only nine months. Magistrate Jayeann Carney noted Flannery, of Kensington, was ``an outstanding athlete'' and imposed a fine of $700 plus court costs of $63. The maximum penalty for mid-range drink-driving is a $2200 fine or nine months jail.

first dui - 2000
secomd offence - 2003
third offence - 2004

But he keeps his job, he did a criminal thing, he was actually charged by the police, he actually stood in front of a judge, but does he get a suspension from his employer???

Of course not.

innsaneink - this is effecting others - note the farrrggin difference, endangering others lives, no problem - keep your job.
Have some coke in your spare time at a party and NO SOUP FOR!!!

The duplicity is truely astounding.

Why is this directed at me?

Did I endorse what flannery did somewhere?

Once again.......why is this directed at me?

But it hasnt affected only him....its affected his family, his team mates, his fans.

A victimless crime? I think not.

You seem to think taking cocaine effects others.
Pointing out the difference.

And you wrongly think only cocaine users are affected.

As I pointed out before, the kids who are fatherless after their cop dads are murdered by colombian drug cartels arent affected?????
The guy driving home from work whos rammed up the rear by a guy smashed on coke?
My neighbour down the road who was burgled by junkies, shes not affected?
What about the 10 year old manly fan that had the Andrew walker poster on his wall, but now cant cheer for him?

It does affect others, there is no difference.

I am not OK with what Flannery did, nor his penalty and I would prefer it if you would not post opinions for me on my behalf in future.

 

[Mr Angry]

And you wrongly think only cocaine users are affected.

What utter nonsense, rubbish, you actually believe that too.

As I pointed out before, the kids who are fatherless after their cop dads are murdered by colombian drug cartels arent affected?????

This is a by product of prohibition, cocaine come from a plant. This is a direct result of mans laws not an individual taking a substance deemed by someone to be bead.

The guy driving home from work whos rammed up the rear by a guy smashed on coke?

This is equal to drink driving, but did any league players do this?

My neighbour down the road who was burgled by junkies, shes not affected?

This is a by product of prohibition laws, cocaine comes from a plant. BTW junkies do not do cocaine. Wrong drug.

What about the 10 year old manly fan that had the Andrew walker poster on his wall, but now cant cheer for him?

He can blame the NRL's oppressive employment conditions Andrew has done nothing illegal, ask the police they have no charges to lay. No Test, no headlines no need to take the poster down.

It does affect others, there is no difference.

You just keep believing that.

Taking cocaine = drink driving :lol: classic.

I am not OK with what Flannery did, nor his penalty and I would prefer it if you would not post opinions for me on my behalf in future.

No problem, what should happen to the convicted person? 3 years? 4 years? lifetime?
Your happy to see a 2 year ban on a person who has in fact has no charges against him.
Clear it up.

 

[Mr Angry]

innsaneink - this is effecting others - note the farrrggin difference, endangering others lives, no problem - keep your job.
Have some coke in your spare time at a party and NO SOUP FOR!!!

this was that is it the rest was a statement

Once again.......why is this directed at me?

You seem to think taking cocaine effects others.
Pointing out the difference.

 

[innsaneink]

And you wrongly think only cocaine users are affected.

What utter nonsense, rubbish, you actually believe that too.

As I pointed out before, the kids who are fatherless after their cop dads are murdered by colombian drug cartels arent affected?????

This is a by product of prohibition, cocaine come from a plant. This is a direct result of mans laws not an individual taking a substance deemed by someone to be bead.

The guy driving home from work whos rammed up the rear by a guy smashed on coke?

This is equal to drink driving, but did any league players do this?

My neighbour down the road who was burgled by junkies, shes not affected?

This is a by product of prohibition laws, cocaine comes from a plant. BTW junkies do not do cocaine. Wrong drug.

What about the 10 year old manly fan that had the Andrew walker poster on his wall, but now cant cheer for him?

He can blame the NRL's oppressive employment conditions Andrew has done nothing illegal, ask the police they have no charges to lay. No Test, no headlines no need to take the poster down.

It does affect others, there is no difference.

You just keep believing that.

Taking cocaine = drink driving :lol: classic.

I am not OK with what Flannery did, nor his penalty and I would prefer it if you would not post opinions for me on my behalf in future.

No problem, what should happen to the convicted person? 3 years? 4 years? lifetime?
Your happy to see a 2 year ban on a person who has in fact has no charges against him.
Clear it up.

Hmm yeah lets not let the law stand in the way of a good argument.

 

[innsaneink]

innsaneink - this is effecting others - note the farrrggin difference, endangering others lives, no problem - keep your job.
Have some coke in your spare time at a party and NO SOUP FOR!!!

this was that is it the rest was a statement

Once again.......why is this directed at me?

You seem to think taking cocaine effects others.
Pointing out the difference.

Clear as crystal that.....LOL :iwstupid:

 

[Mr Angry]

Go get someone to tell you how to think sheepboy. you already have.