Peter Fitzsimmons has written a lengthy piece on Fox today
sorry for screenshot
waiting for wiz and his " would never listen to the raging lefty " comment
anyway thought it interesting and prob pretty accurate
You need to be a member of 1Eyed Eel to add comments!
Replies
And nobody gave a shit as he wasn't a big name player. Which is exactly what would happen here if we were flush with talent. I like everyone want us to have the best team possible in 2027 , and honestly could not care less if we had a heroin addict playing halfback as long as they didn't have innocent victims in their wake. Literally don't care if we keep him . BUT, when the next players done , the bars been set.
I just want people to admit it rather than going on tangents about JAC's legal rights as some victim of unfairness to have this swept under the carpet 🤪. Just admit he's a good player and we wish to give him special treatment. There's probably an element of leftism due to which we won't speak of , creeping into peoples opinions too if we are being honest .
I understand your opinion and your thinking it. When a situation like this occurs the club must consider several things, whereas, us fans only worry about wins on game day. For example, if the fox gets nothing more than a slap on the wrist, considering he is a senior player at our club, the message sent to our younger players is poor. Another thing. I think I heard during the week that a sponsor was removing themselves from JAC. It wouldn't be outlandish to think that 1 or more club sponsors reconsidered their financial support to the club.
You and I both know the use of nose candy on a Saturday night in Sydney is as common as an Indian delivering food for Uber. If everyone out partying tonight was tested majority would have something in their system. What I can't understand is how/ why would a NRL player earning the best part of $10,000 (or more) per week, get on the gear and drive a car? If he is happy to spend the best part of $1000 on a couple of bags, why not spend a couple of hundred on Ubers?
Whatever the punishment is, 50% of it should be for utter stupidity alone.
Totally agree . When you're earning that kind of coin , I've never understood why they don't get a Airbnb , a couple of groupies and get on the bags in lockdown . Not even that , having had a few mates and aquantaces over the years who've been pro sportsman , we both know they have oodles of hangersona's that would be more then happy to be their drivers for the night.
I'd say you're on the money re sponsors and also guess the club may find themselves under pressure from sponsors should the NRL not do the dirty work for them and rub him out .
The only thing that may help Josh is the fact the lefty media types who'd usually be the ones hunting an NRL player down are taking JAC's side for some reason .... The king of woke pirate Pete is on Josh's side so we wouldn't think he'll be chased by the wokeness police to have sponsors act on it.
don't need to read,the club must show thier serious about setting standards and sack him. This dipstick took a ileagle substance and drove a vehicle, he could of cause an accident causing harm or worse killing someone, you need to look at what the stupidity could of caused and think well yes what if it was 1 of my family members he could of crashed into and maimed or kill bet if he did it to your family you'd want him sacked. nothing changes unless you stand and force change by holding them accountable.
I actually like Fitzsimmons , Carlo ......
Nahhhh just kidding , he's a goose. Not because he's a lefty , but just because he and his horrible wife are trash. I'll just go and take a look at Peters comments in defence of Munster, Kenny Dowell, and a few of the colonisers to see what he said about their pleas , and I'll come back and comment.
By the way , removing the driving part , I'm quite neutrals on the matter to be fair , as it's the club that have to deal with setting the standards, and if they wish to set the tone that players can get on the bags and drive and spit their second chances in the clubs face , then so be it. As I've asked Ploppa , if it were MON waving his cock around at this years awards night after his Tigers exit , would people be screaming for a second chance for him ?
I see you're in the good riddance to Addo Carr camp ? Least we know where Carlo stands on this matter.
What about the 8 year old who got the blue ribbon in sprints came second in long distance out of 7 classes .idles gout gout ronaldo guess the other one
It is worth noting, again, that 'impaired or not' is not as simple as 'tested positive'. JAC had an above-zero quantity of an illicit substance (cocaine) in his system while driving. This is illegal as the AUS laws are zero tolerance for drugs while driving. For alcohol, of course, it is not zero-tolerance: up to 0.05% blood alcohol content is permitted while driving.
However, what does it mean to be 'impaired' while driving with a non-zero quantity of illicit drugs in your system? It seems there is a moral and a legal argument? The moral argument is simple: we all figure there is a high risk that driving while high means you lack proper attention and it is reckless. But does the legal sense of impaired have anything to tell us in making that moral argument?
I searched PubMed for papers on impared driving: in lab work the median dose for impairment in crashes was 0.10mg/L, while below 0.07mg/L apparently means not impaired. These results were meant to convey that in accidents where the driver tested positive, higher concentrations were found than in cases where there was a positive result but no signs of poor driving. The issue with drugs like cocaine is how long they remain in the body and thus for how long residuals can be detected, which is 24-72 hours depending upon low or high dose. So, we can expect that lab results will show if JAC's result suggests impaired driving (or not).
I already posted those millilitre metrics and some jumped in to strictly equate a positive test with reckless driving. That is just not Australian law and nor does it gel with the lab test results for accident vs non-accident cases. in AUS a reckless driving charge is established separately to the positive drug test result. I have not located anything where, if the lab result shows 0.10mg/L and above, police add on reckless driving. That may be the case, but I have not seen anything remotely confirming it. Instead, I have seen that if the driver is actually in an accident and the test is positive, that's at least negligent driving.
None of this excuses JAC driving with drugs in his system. It's inexcusable for so many reasons. But I do not see any benefit to anyone to turn the case into a bigger moral issue by assuming or imagining he is driving about out of his mind. It's already his second offense so we already know a) really dumb, and b) will be very lucky not to be sacked. I I guess I am saying we should not add c) driving recklessly because his brain was outside his body, unless lab results confirm a high dose.
Not that my opinion matters, but I'd prefer the Eels kept JAC. We certainly need him. WADA considers cocaine performance-enhacing in-competition but not out-of-competition. JAC played a game on Sunday 6 September (late afternoon) and was booked at 23:00 Friday 11 September: out-of-competition. Note that WADA's finding of performance enhancing for recreational drugs is deeply contested. JAC has also been very involved in community charity and out-reach work, so he is no poster boy for drug fuelled misbehaviour, aside from twice now getting on it and stupidly driving. Lately most of these 'incidents' have been swept under the rug: Lattrell Mitchell had his powdery nose case wrapped in so much bunnies hoopla he walked away; Brandon Smith kept playing despite awaiting court; for drug supply (see the Mullen case below); Victor Radley got 10-weeks and is about to be in a GF qualifier; Cam Munster got a one week holiday and every footy show made it into a meme about why it did not matter. We probably have to go back to Ben Barba testing positive just after the GF in 2016, getting 12 weeks and released from his contract regardless, to find some harshness. Or to much worse cases, like Mullen and Earl on steroids and peptides, and Mullen making a full fist of it by progressing to drug supply.
JAC will be suspended for 12 weeks at the least, so even if he is not sacked the Eels are down their only strike outside back. Maybe I am so jaded by the Eels sucking bad, I'll turn a blind eye to most stuff, who knows.
I mean what makes it worse for JaC is he's a repeat offender.
Illegal substances are illegal there's no 2 ways about this and running to rehab trying to look contrite is a cover up of the worst kind.JaC has a problem.
I don't know that the club has any real options here if they keep him what message are they sending to the next guy.They can't have one rule for one guy whose high profile and another for everyone else.If they keep him the message is a setting a dangerous precedent.
Swallow hard and show him the door.
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next