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
I don't need to read any media article to have an opinion on this matter. What the Eels should do ( or any other club) is exactly what they would do if the offending player was #30 in their roster. If they want to set a strong standard regarding recreational drug use especially when driving a motor vehicle, the fox should have his contract torn up. However, if he receives a fine and suspension, the same should apply to anyone else who might get caught doing the same thing .
I know someone personally who had his contract with the West Tigers torn up and he only had a bag of nose candy in his pocket. He didn't test positive and he notified the club as soon as he was caught. He offered to do a drug test the next day but was denied.
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.
JAC as a player is MAYBE not a role model to the game in every aspect , team mates, other players and kids adore him, lets not treat these people as fools by saying “look at the example” he is setting.
The Hipocrisy is every second player say’s fcuk when something goes wrong, do you think the kids don’t know without being experts in “lip reading”. We watch it on TV every week and turn a blind eye when someone ask’s “what did he say”.
Animals like Latrell Mitchel (probably the most skilful player in the whole game) behaves like only he can, Cody Walker is not much better, you then have to have a close look at whose is actually in the “mud pit” with these guys.There are immortals annointed and some yet to be, who are all guilty.
The NRL will not make a life ban. They cannot be that hippocritical because the way they test the players is such that tell them they are coming!
Why do you think the NRL makes no convictions and the police pick up players in random tests?
I am not interested in the clubs reputation, its not any different to any other club. I would say that apart from our playing ability, Parramatta is a perfectly behaved club…….subsequent from the 2014 shenagains and the action we took to fix it!
So if anyone wants to cut JAC and live with it, ask them how many of them who have no indescretions should/can throw the first stones……
I fight for my club and I will fight for decent people like JAC or anyone compared to his situation, not because he is a good player and Parra needs him but because he is a DECENT MAN with no more faults than other decent men we have supported.
All you do gooder's out there, go and get a new pastime.....
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.
Agree with all those points Daz, actually wrote something similar.
It seems that our collegue's on here are more attuned to the morality rather than the factual issues. Yes the same people who will "LORD" over comments like "bring back the biff".
For the umpteenth time the justice system (a joke in itself to be called that) will look at all the issues that have an effect in society and will punish accordingly! He will get a driving infringement, and a suspension. End of Subject, how many of our esteemed colleage's have had DUI recordings against their name AND NOT LOST THEIR JOB?
What we as a club does will require, is a judgement...... unfortunately if Parra does tear up his contract, it will be because they are too weak to stand up and say the system has judged him and then put their chest out and say how moral we are as a club....REALLY?
Gee I wonder how many of these moralistic Rugby League power houses have CHEATED the salary cap.....just remember what JAC or anyone does on their holidays is their business and the laws. It took Jarryd Hayne 3 trials and 10 years of his life to prove the point of how the justice system works.
Finally JAC is not necessarily very bright and this being his second failure is academic....e.g. Adam McGrath on here is a former police officer pointed out that incorrect procedures were taken in JAC's first conviction, the people at the dogs who were very conveniently suited to the circumstances didn't use a specialist lawyer that would have had his case dismissed. I hope our club is aware that employing the right type of Barrister could save them a lot of soul searching and a decision they maybe too gutless to make otherwise.
-
1
-
2
-
3
of 3 Next