Crows Booze Ban

[Mr.Craig]

Walsh, a teetotaller, wants to replicate at West Lakes the same booze ban developed this year at Port Adelaide where he was an assistant coach. Power players could drink after a game only if there was at least an eight-day break between matches.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/alcohol-ban-could-be-on-cards-for-adelaide-crows/story-fnia3gmi-1227133228559

Honestly think this is the wrong approach. It's basically saying to the playing group "we don't trust you to be responsible" instead of taking steps to nurture that responsibility.

[elephants]

I don't have a huge issue with this. At the end of the day these blokes are getting paid a ridiculous amount of money to kick a footy around an oval. Most of the get absolutely rekt in the off-season anyway so I don't see how banning of beers throughout the season would be detrimental to someone's life.

[Mr.Craig]

Most of the get absolutely rekt in the off-season anyway

And that's what I think they should be trying to avoid by promoting responsible use through the whole year.

[The_Captain]

I don't have a huge issue with this. At the end of the day these blokes are getting paid a ridiculous amount of money to kick a footy around an oval. Most of the get absolutely rekt in the off-season anyway so I don't see how banning of beers throughout the season would be detrimental to someone's life.

With ele, i dont mind it either.. They get there 8 weeks off to do that sorta stuff. Not that hard to stay off it through the season.

[elephants]

Most of the get absolutely rekt in the off-season anyway

And that's what I think they should be trying to avoid by promoting responsible use through the whole year.

Does the full loop though. If you're preaching for more freedom and trust in the players during the season, only to ensure they don't go mental in the off-season then you're only trusting them because you don't trust them :P

I think its a bit irrelevant though. Just because they can't have a few beers throughout the season it'd be unlikely to change what they do in the off-season, imo.

[kilbluff1985]

not sure ele i reckon they might want to go harder in the off season knowing they cant during the season they would be really looking forward to it obviously not all of them but those that like a drink

[elephants]

not sure ele i reckon they might want to go harder in the off season knowing they cant during the season they would be really looking forward to it obviously not all of them but those that like a drink

Maybe, but a lot of them go pretty hard anyway :P I don't think it'd be a big deal tbh

[kilbluff1985]

like if you haven't eaten all day you want a big meal and eat until your stuffed but if you have eaten normally your like whatever

it's like drugs also lots of overdoses happen after people have been clean for a while but then slip up and go on a bender

[kilbluff1985]

not sure ele i reckon they might want to go harder in the off season knowing they cant during the season they would be really looking forward to it obviously not all of them but those that like a drink

Maybe, but a lot of them go pretty hard anyway :P I don't think it'd be a big deal tbh

i agree not a big deal but just saying might be better to let them at least have 1 or 2 after a game at least for senior players so they don't make up for it in the off season

[Ricochet]

lol don't think many can go much harder in the offseason. And most take this AFL gig pretty seriously so dropping drinking isn't such a big deal. Clubs have done it at lower levels before

It goes hand in hand with the 'no excuses, no shortcuts' attitude they're implementing down there atm. The benefit is more a mental thing than a health aspect

[The_Captain]

not sure ele i reckon they might want to go harder in the off season knowing they cant during the season they would be really looking forward to it obviously not all of them but those that like a drink

Maybe, but a lot of them go pretty hard anyway :P I don't think it'd be a big deal tbh

i agree not a big deal but just saying might be better to let them at least have 1 or 2 after a game at least for senior players so they don't make up for it in the off season

1 or 2 would be fine. But i dont think that what is happening. Think its more the 11 or 12 sorta thing..

[Mr.Craig]

With all due respect Ele, I'm a qualified drug and alcohol counsellor and I don't believe this is the best course of action. It's not about giving players free reign to behave as they please because there needs to be boundaries, but an arbitrary ban doesn't address any of the issues and instead sends the message "we don't trust you".

If the leadership group believe it's the right way to go and it's supported by the players then fine, good luck to them but it runs the risk of marginalising anyone who doesn't agree.

[kilbluff1985]

i don't even drink myself so pretty funny that i'm kinda defending them

[elephants]

With all due respect Ele, I'm a qualified drug and alcohol counsellor and I don't believe this is the best course of action. It's not about giving players free reign to behave as they please because there needs to be boundaries, but an arbitrary ban doesn't address any of the issues and instead sends the message "we don't trust you".

If the leadership group believe it's the right way to go and it's supported by the players then fine, good luck to them but it runs the risk of marginalising anyone who doesn't agree.

Haha thats fine man, I'm just putting forward my opinion, the opinion I think is right :P

Seems nonsensical to me to condemn this on the grounds of not trusting their players, when the overall aim is to stop players from going mental post-season!?

[Ricochet]

With all due respect Ele, I'm a qualified drug and alcohol counsellor and I don't believe this is the best course of action. It's not about giving players free reign to behave as they please because there needs to be boundaries, but an arbitrary ban doesn't address any of the issues and instead sends the message "we don't trust you".

If the leadership group believe it's the right way to go and it's supported by the players then fine, good luck to them but it runs the risk of marginalising anyone who doesn't agree.

From personal experience (at a much lower level of course) that wasn't the message that was received by the group. It was more about getting everyone on the same path and actually brought the group closer together. It gives the group direction and a purpose, and has been very successful across many different levels