SEN OPINION
Two strikes enough
9.19AM  1-9-2010

By Kevin Bartlett


The AFL's drug policy debate continues to rage.

The three strike policy has always been a hot topic.

It's on the agenda again now that Travis Tuck has been exposed.

I've said for a long time that a player needs at least one chance before being named. We draft young kids out of school, and send them all over the country, away from family and friends.

Peer pressure could cause a young man to do silly things. He needs a second chance.

That's why I've said a two strike policy sits well with me before naming and shaming.

Some critics like Patrick Smith believe in a one strike and you're exposed, others say the three strike policy is just right.

I believe if Travis Tuck was named after two strikes, he might have been in a better place than he was on Friday night.

 
Comments
Posted by Jade at 10.08AM  2-9-2010
I think this is a simplistic solution. I beleive you would need to know the details about his treatment and where he was at to make any call relating to whether he would've been better or worse off. He'd been having treatment since the first strike - so how would 'outing' him have made any difference?
Submit a comment
Name
Email
Comment

CONTACT US      PRIVACY POLICY


SEN SportSENtral

Sportal Australia