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
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.
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.
What is a repeat offender Coryn? probably bad luck in many cases and god only know's how many repeat offender's we have in the system, after all repeat offenders are punished by the justice system. Not your empoyer's unless you cannot live with that view.....he is not a serial killer? Interesting the NRL punishes player's for hitting the head or an illegal tackle, the one's with the same intent but miss do not get judged. Why is that?.......maybe because no one got hurt?
2nd offence is automatically 12 weeks suspension i think.
Andrew Johns admitted to taking drugs while playing and apparently hisxan imortal.
Fox dose alot for kids in the community and is not a bad fella. For mine fine him and after serving a suspension he plays for the Eels.
So you reckon we shoud pay him half a seasons salary to go around a few schools and kicking a ball around ?
He breaks the law , his contract , and throws our opportunity in our face , and his only punishment is having 12 extra weeks paid annual leave ? Oh and a fine ? How bigs the fine and who is it paid to ?
I could live with him going unpaid for 12 weeks and the club also fining him and it going to charity . Do you think Fox would accept this ? Doubt it.
-
1
-
2
-
3
of 3 Next