RedM Posted October 23, 2005 Report Share Posted October 23, 2005 I was told towards the end of last season by someone who would know, that the club has, or had at that time, a breathaliser. It had been used 30 times with no positive results. I was shocked at the time as I didn't realise the drinking culture within the club was as bad as it now seems, alledgedly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tunley Legend Posted October 23, 2005 Report Share Posted October 23, 2005 Calm Rumbers old stick. Not an invasion of privacy but probably against the contract terms they are on under City. They are allowed to be randomly tested by an FA official or represenataive after a game but the club testing them for booze is against the express terms of ther contract or employment and they can refuse.They won't do it anyway.I've got a better idea. Sod contractual obligations. If a player has a bad game lets just take him round the back of the East End and shoot the *******. No questions. Just get rid of them!! That way, within three weeks, Johnson can assemble 20 emergency loan signings who might actually be trying to be PROFESSIONAL footballers rather than what we have to watch.Invading their privacy. These over-rated overpaid muppets are taking the (Am I naughty or what!) out of the badge that means much to us supporters and sweet f.a. to them when, for example, they are falling on their arses in the middle of the Essex Arms after consuming a barrel of 'Thorn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Mosquito Posted October 23, 2005 Report Share Posted October 23, 2005 Stortfordred has posted on the SL forum asking whether players can be tested at training for alcohol.I think this is a great idea for 2 reasons, 1)As our overpaid, under achieving professional boozers obviously can't be trusted to stay off the lash (when oredered not to) and 2)Perhaps when one or two of them arrive in their fast cars and are still over the limit from the night before (they might think twice) although I doubt it.I saw the 1-7 Swansea defeat highlights, well lowlights, last week and almost every outfield City player looked hungover and easily a yard off pace to almost every ball. Our players just are not good/fit enough to get away with boozing. Testing for alcohol at training would therefore be a great idea - fine/sack the players found over the limit as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin Maesknoll Red Posted October 24, 2005 Admin Report Share Posted October 24, 2005 I saw the 1-7 Swansea defeat highlights, well lowlights, last week and almost every outfield City player looked hungover and easily a yard off pace to almost every ball. Our players just are not good/fit enough to get away with boozing. Testing for alcohol at training would therefore be a great idea - fine/sack the players found over the limit as well.As RedM has already posted, under BT, there was (is?) a breathaliser at the club and it has been used. BT was more than aware of the problems.Whilst we languish near the relegation zone, any reports of players overstepping the mark will be taken more to heart than if we were 10 points clear at the top of the league - although if we were 10 points clear, we probably would have a squad without a drink culture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gazareth Posted October 24, 2005 Report Share Posted October 24, 2005 You would think so as alcohol is a drug of sorts.Alcohol's not a drug, it's a drink! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedTop Posted October 24, 2005 Report Share Posted October 24, 2005 I have no doubt the players would go running off to the PFA if we tried to bring in mandatory drug testing.Personally, I see no reason why the club shouldn't be allowed to test. My wife works for a company that stated when she joined that drinking and drug-taking was not tolerated, and that it it was found to be present when working, it would be a disciplinary matter. To this effect, it reserved the right to test her for drink or drugs at any time during the working day.I see no reason why our club should not be allowed to do the same. Maybe retrospectively is a bit difficult, but I think we should certainly look at introducing such a clause for any new players who we sign or re-sign. As the old adage says, they've got nothing to worry about if they have nothing to hide.In the meantime...Why not introduce VOLUNTARY breath-testing at the start of each training session. First of all, it would have the effect of spelling out the level of professionalism and lifestyle that is expected of players. Second, GJ could make it clear that those who take (and pass, obviously!) the test will be the first to be considered for the teamsheet. Those who refuse to take the test will be judged accordingly.I am sick of players who take the p*** out of our club and those of us who spend a fortune (not to mention hours stuck in roadworks) travelling the country to watch them pull on the beloved red and white jersey. It's about time they demonstrated their commitment to the cause, and to us, by acting like professionals. I'm sure not every report of players out on the town that surfaces on the forum is true, but we all know that many of them are.I for one would like to see the players make some sort of gesture to demonstrate they are serious about what they do. Voluntary breath tests would be a bloody good start. But sadly, I doubt most of the players would have the resolve and the dedication to make it happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedUn Posted October 24, 2005 Report Share Posted October 24, 2005 The main argument in favour of clubs instigating their own drug testing programme (including breathalysers) is that the players have a duty of care to their fellow professionals. Performance in training sessions is affected by the presence of banned substances, not least by the way they impair judgement, thereby increasing the risk of injuring other players (or themselves).I'd like to see the PFA try and argue against that ... could it lead to their membership being forced to embrace the idea that training sessions exist for higher purposes than simply running off the hangovers sustained early that morning! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rumbellow Posted October 24, 2005 Author Report Share Posted October 24, 2005 I see today that the PFA and their chief appologist Taylor has said that the PFA would fight to stop drugs testing at players homes (surprise visits) which the league are trying to introduce, He says it infringes their civil liberties.But surely if the PFA dosen't think that their is a problem why fight it, Athletes are tested at home out of season, I think the PFA's decision will further alienate already disillusioned fans, There is even a muttering of a players strike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest North Street Posted October 24, 2005 Report Share Posted October 24, 2005 Stortfordred has posted on the SL forum asking whether players can be tested at training for alcohol.I think this is a great idea for 2 reasons, 1)As our overpaid, under achieving professional boozers obviously can't be trusted to stay off the lash (when oredered not to) and 2)Perhaps when one or two of them arrive in their fast cars and are still over the limit from the night before (they might think twice) although I doubt it.Perhaps City can install CCTV around their homes and offer incentives to fans to report any signs of anti social behavioiur by BCFC players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atyeoboy17 Posted October 25, 2005 Report Share Posted October 25, 2005 I didnt think random ones were allowed thought thats why Chelsea had a problem but maybe I'm mistaken??they ought to be made legal its pathetic the way the city players act wen they get drunk and its the club that gets most of the comebacks not the players Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.