JOE-E

First with the tabloid headlines. Thank you, thank you, thank you. Pity he's not a lock, then he'd be a pill-lock. Aaaaaannyway:

Johns 'forgot' about ecstasy tablet

Rugby league legend Andrew Johns says an unknown person put an ecstasy tablet in his jeans pocket before his drugs arrest in London last weekend.

A question for lawyers; and barrackroom lawyers, feel free to contribute your half-arsed opinions. This and other reports say Johns was "released without charge", but now he "has a record" in the UK. How does that work?

Another question: is this why they are called pushers?

A statement released by Johns' management company a short time ago said he "recalled an unknown person pushing a tablet into his jeans at a crowded entertainment venue" earlier in the day.

"I was having such a good time, seeing it was the last day before I flew home, I stupidly forget about the tablet and instead of getting rid of it I left myself in a situation I soon deeply regretted," he said in the statement.

Do you reckon Joe-E's management are trying to ... ummm ... push him into the comedy scene? "An unknown person pushed a tablet into my pocket, but I forgot about it." Chuckle-wise, that's up down there with "Psst, buddy, you wanna buy these here medical records what we's found in the gutter?" and that Leslie girl's conversion to Muslimism.

Comments

[13th Man]

On the facts: no charge = no conviction = no record.
In the sense of criminal records, anyway. If he was cautioned, they'd have recorded that.

[Tony T.]

Oh, righto, I see how that works now. Initially I put 2 and 2 together and came up with pie.

[David]

I don't know which is worse - the half-arsed 'apology' which follows a celeb's/sports star's fall from grace (like that Vick dog murderer), or the ridiculous 'it's not what it seems, officer!' pleading, straight from the 'I think you're as stupid as me, so you're obviously going to fall for this' guidebook, like this, or that cruising Senator in the US.

And speaking of apologies - yikes! Gotta say sorry for the tortured structure of that sentence!

[Tony T.]

I've posted before on celeb apologies. I don't think I've ever heard a "heartfelt" one despite the overblown rehetoric about the offender being "gutted". They, like apologies to the footy tribunal, are merely an attempt to get off with a lighter sentence.

Regarding that tortured sentence structure from Joe-E's spin team: no one's getting out of that apology alive.

[13th Man]

I hear the Illegals have a slot for Johns should he ever decide to swap codes.
(All that talk of apologies lead to Cousins' anti-apology/confession earlier in the year.)

[David]

In fact, the more I think about that "An unknown person pushed a tablet into my pocket, but I forgot about it" line, the more bewildered I get. I'm obviously hanging around the wrong bars if that sort of thing is so matter-of-fact that you put it to the back of your mind.

[Tony T.]

Not just the Illeagles, but the Happ-E Team At Injunction, too.

It's a bull(shit) market.

[David]

Sorry - for the sake of a complete record, what I quoted was your (Tone's) paraphrase, but it's a faithful paraphrase, and my point stands.

[13th Man]

Regarding the latest fiasco in the AFL, I love how Demetriou is championing doctor-patient confidentiality as the reason for his outrage over 7's actions. Not that the AFL has been shown up as an incompetent rabble - yet again - no, it's all about the privilege. At least for once the AFLPA is agreeing with the AFL (big surprise there - no vested interest at all). Irrespective of any trangressions on 7's part, they're much less heinous than the AFLs stance on drugs.
I suspect the carpet at AFL House must look like a 4x4 testing track - what with all of the lumps in from all of the stuff that's been swept under it!

[nick]

'doctor-patient confidentiality'
The records were stolen, were they not?

[13th Man]

They were - which is matter for the police and the judiciary (as has been indicated). Do you really believe that the AFL and AFLPA are genuinely branching out into jurisprudence and ethics? It's a smokescreen - by carrying on about that, they clearly hope to avoid any discussion of what the breach of confidentiality (outside of their remit) has revealed. To wit: 1. there appears to be a drug culture running rampant throughout the AFL; 2. that the AFL is doing it's best to ignore the problem; and 3. that the current policy with respect to drugs is a joke.

[nick]

There is no need for the AFL to have a policy beyond 'we disapprove of recreational and performance enhancing drugs'. They can then sanction clubs that fail to uphold this policy - by points or bans. The clubs could then enforce their own rules, knowing that failure could cost points and dollars. Players could be employed under contracts, much like Mr Cousins', that mandate being drug free. Players could seek medical attention (hopefully confidential) like any other member of the community, if they had drug related issues.

Isn't Johns retired?

[13th Man]

With all due respect: bullshit.
So: There is no need for the AFL to have a policy beyond 'we disapprove of recreational and performance enhancing drugs'., then you imply that the AFL should have the ability to sanction non-compliant clubs. Maybe these clubs can adopt the same 'policy' - we disapprove, but that's it. How can a club fail to comply with a blanket disapproval? Either the AFL declares a zero-tolerance policy, with appropriate penalties for non-compliance, or it just puts into words its current policy: none of our business, certainly not our problem (problem, what problem?).

[nick]

Sorry 13th, my mistake. I meant to imply that the AFL should not get caught up in how the clubs police the zero tolerance policy, not that there shouldn't be one. I would agree with 'the AFL declares a zero-tolerance policy, with appropriate penalties for non-compliance', and then let the clubs work under that guideline.

[13th Man]

Agreed - the AFL issues a general policy guideline, then leaves it to the clubs to institute their version thereof. Then, if they fail, the AFL acts, imposing relevant penalties as set out in their head policy. At the moment, it seems to be just declaring the whole issue a personal (player) issue - or at best (worst?) one for each club.

[nick]

The AFL is as out of touch as the ICC. Campbell Brown gets a huge fine, but drugs abound, players are unhappy, Rocca will single handedly stone the Crows after single handedly trying to brain damage Goodes...the list goes on.

ps Murali injured for 4-6 weeks...maybe trying to dodge the Oz tour?

[Tony T.]

Disappointing. I get home from Nursery Tour 2007, which yielded two jars of jam, a grevillea and a wooden duck (not a wood-duck, by the way), to see Showdown XXIV developing, but it gets patched up courtesy of a misunderstanding. Letdown XXIV, more like. No wonder you Eaters have ceded the AFL's No.1 match to the Groper Derrrrby.

The AGB, Channel Seven and Ben Cousins are owed an official & heartfelt apology.

Joe-E has indeed retired, but I'm less interested in the NRL drugs policy - assuming they have one - and more "interested" in Joe-E's sad spin and bull shit.

By the way, it's about time the Affle stopped splitting the drug policy into ILLICIT and PERFORMANCE ENHANCING. Sounds to me like that's a get-out to dodge flack over the fact that plenty of illicit drugs (E, Speed, etc) are also performance enhancing.

[Scott Wickstein]

Red Bull enhances my performance. It gives me wings. Should that be banned?

[Nabakov]

"I stupidly forget about the tablet..."

See, drugs do cause brian brain dommage damnage damage.

[CB]

Yeah, cos Joey started taking E's AFTER he quit the NRL. Turn it up tiger, pull the other one. Let's see that deranged dickhead brother of his try and spin this on The Fooseball Show. 'Err, he was taking it for pain relief for his injured neck?'

Man was a wanker. He is a wanker. Always will BE a wanker. Taking eccy isn't going to stop him being a wanker.

[Nabakov]

"Taking eccy isn't going to stop him being a wanker."

No but it will make him feel goood about self-love.

[Nabakov]

"crowded entertainment venue"

Another on the short list Tone for new AGB log lines.

[Nabakov]

"I stupidly forget about the tablet..."

See, drugs do cause brian brain dommage damnage damage.

[nick]

I bet Josh Carr never said 'Sorry, my mistake' to Mark Ricciuto.

[nick]

The main effect of Red Bull comes from the caffeine content. Some clubs give their players caffeine tablets before the game. Perhaps the AFL could go into partnership with Red Bull and all the players could ignore expensive illicit drugs in favour of sponsored licit ones?

[pat]

Joey confessed all on tonights "Footy Show" under heavy interrogation from Gus. Matty was almost in tears and the Chief shaken.

Great interview. Joey was completely honest and stated he's been taking ecstasy for most of his career. Gus bagged out Joey for his lame apology saying something like "no one's gonna buy that".

Too bad Gus can't get a job on Lateline. I'd loved to have seen him grill the shiteating 2 can screamer Rudd.

[nick]

Here's the dilemma for both codes. Ben Cousins appears to be an incredible athlete, despite sinking titanic amounts of ice/meth/speed. Andrew Johns (from my admittedly poor knowledge of rugby) is another incredible player, who has been downing ecstasy for yonks. I, on the other hand, have little more than a passing accquaintance with these substances, and have the athletic ability of a small rock. I shall be finding a dealer forthwith.

[nick]

Perhaps JWH should get on the whiz before the election?

[pat]

I think you have a good case for breach of http://www.leaguehq.com.au/news/news/joe-es-fall/2007/08/30/1188067281144.html>copyright Tone.

The Joey interview was also riveting for the fact that Gus looked like he wanted to, really really wanted to, knock Joey's block off. It was quite a tense affair.

[Tony T.]

It was only a matter of time before a Joe-E headline appeared, Pat. I'm just chuffed I managed to get in first. I'm surprised no one has so far run with "Say it ain't so, Joe-E".

I saw bits and pieces of the Rugby Footy Show interview. I couldn't work out whether he looked relieved it was out in the open or looked guilty as sin because he'd been sprung. Bit of both, probably. Still, it's good he admitted his spin was bullshit. But I still want illicit drugs lumped in with PE drugs. As Nick said, both Cousins and Johns are guns and both have gobble piles of chemicals. It's not too much of a stretch to imagine there's a connection.

[Tony T.]

When I think of Wicky and Red Bulls, I'm reminded of the Tandberg cartoon when Alex Watson was sprung for two much caffeine. Alex was sat behind a long line of coffees and the caption was "Alex Watson attempts his personal best".

[David]

I haven't seen the interview in question, but I take back my criticism of him for his lame apology. I certainly don't hold back criticising him for using drugs (since he was 19?!?).

Nick, I think you hit it on the head, even though you were being tongue in cheek. These drugs will fuck you up severely, and the last thing we need is some 'picture of health and fitness' to be the mental image teenagers have when they think of what it means to take them.

[Scott Wickstein]

Drugs are bad, mmmmkay?

[Tony T.]

I once took drugs AFTER playing in a winning grand final because I was too buggered to enjoy the celebrations and needed my performance enhanced.

[Tony T.]

Errrr ... sorry.

[nick]

Andrew Johns 'I'm sorry...that I've told all aspiring players how to avoid the drug testers...'

"People probably ask 'How do you avoid the drug testers'. Well if you play Friday night and don't train on a Saturday or Sunday, then generally it is out (of your system) by Monday."

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=291390

[Francis Xavier Holden]

I've never heard of these "celebrities" prior to their appearance on the tv and the front page of my papers. Like the concern with horse flu - my response is So What.

I've never been able to figure out what the problem is with performance enhancing drugs or drugs per se.

Sure some drugs are dangerous. The evidence says alcohol and tobacco are the most harmful, but then lots are other things are more dangerous: parachuting, mountain climbing, crossing the road while pissed, eating lots of shit food and not excercising...........

Again - so what

[Big Ramifications]

"I saw bits and pieces of the Rugby Footy Show interview. I couldn't work out whether he looked relieved it was out in the open or looked guilty as sin because he'd been sprung."

I'll give you London to a brick that "interview" was rehearsed or scripted. At least partially.

I'm not saying Gus Gould is dumb, but the way he assessed answers and rattled off questions was positively Geoffrey Robertson QC-esque. It all seemed a little too slick.

Not that it has anything to do with the argument(s) at hand. Just sayin'.

[Yobbo]

"I once took drugs AFTER playing in a winning grand final because I was too buggered to enjoy the celebrations and needed my performance enhanced."

And that is how they are best used.

You can't lump E and Meth in with performance enhancing drugs because they just have too short an effect.

It's not like Cousins was playing while under the effect of Meth. If he was, their club doctor should be sacked because it's extremely dangerous.

The whole point of performance enhancing drugs like Steroids or HGH is that they give you a long-term benefit by enabling you to reach a level of fitness/strength you otherwise wouldn't be capable of. That benefit persists even after you stop taking the drugs, assuming you keep training.

Meth wears off after about 24 hours and has no beneficial permanent effects, Ecstasy even more quickly.

[Tony T.]

Agree with that. But are there any amphetamine style drugs that could be used for performance boosts in sport? I mean, sure you'd be unlikely to snort a line of speed before a game of footy, but there are probably amphetamines out there, very similar to speed, that could be used to make you train better.

[Tony T.]

And, Biggy, I agree with you that the interview was scripted. It certainly looked too slick.

Maybe that was the look on Joe-E's face - he was trying to remember what the next question was supposed to be.

[Bindi]

Um, pills are two quid in the UK, so people do just stuff 'em in your mouth and pocket at music festivals and similar joyous summer occasion's.

After three months over there my partner and I spent considerable time carefully going through our things before flying home, just in case.

[Tony T.]

Bindi, that wasn't even a believable excuse BEFORE he came out and admitted his bulk usage.

[steve at the pub]

"....was "released without charge", but now he "has a record" in the UK. How does that work?"

As I understand it, under English law, a "caution" is effectively a summary conviction.

It saves a lot of time & effort for the judicial system, whereby the offender can elect to not be dealt with by a court for minor offences in which the offender feels he/she has no hope of an acquittal.

Quite a trap for the unwary. Particularly with the disingenuous use of the word "caution".