Sam Burgess again! He is on a downward spiral.

[Davo5]

45 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

For me, this isn't about saying that Burgess shouldn't be responsible for his actions.

Instead, it's about understanding whether ex-rugby league players seem to have a greater-than-average propensity to have these types of difficulties and, if they do, find out why that is and what rugby league could do differently to support it's ex-pros. Like I said, the military has a similar challenge but unfortunately, it's one that all of society ends up paying for. 

My maths and recollection might be slightly out here, but Sam's age means that he was probably in an RL academy system where it was relatively "hit or miss" whether clubs provided college or university courses for their academy players. I'm talking in general terms here as I don't know what non-rugby skills Sam has, but I don't think it's unreasonable for RL to question whether and how it is equipping its players for life after rugby. I also don't think it's unreasonable, given what the clubs ask these players to put themselves through (how many other industries ask young lads to pack in education opportunities for a very high-risk career opportunity?), for clubs to take that responsibility seriously. Sam is a bit of an outlier in terms of what he made from the game, but it's not as if playing RL sets many people up for life.   

There seems to be as many current players,especially those in the NRL having these problems.

[The Rocket]

I hate these road-side drug tests as well, some kid smokes a joint a week ago and they can pick it up on a road side test, Sam Burgess probably had a line of coke, whenever, and now he`s being painted as a drug fiend, I don`t like it I think we are way over policed. Drink- driving yeah well that is an issue, but all these other tests, too much.

[Dunbar]

50 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

For me, this isn't about saying that Burgess shouldn't be responsible for his actions.

Instead, it's about understanding whether ex-rugby league players seem to have a greater-than-average propensity to have these types of difficulties and, if they do, find out why that is and what rugby league could do differently to support it's ex-pros. Like I said, the military has a similar challenge but unfortunately, it's one that all of society ends up paying for. 

My maths and recollection might be slightly out here, but Sam's age means that he was probably in an RL academy system where it was relatively "hit or miss" whether clubs provided college or university courses for their academy players. I'm talking in general terms here as I don't know what non-rugby skills Sam has, but I don't think it's unreasonable for RL to question whether and how it is equipping its players for life after rugby. I also don't think it's unreasonable, given what the clubs ask these players to put themselves through (how many other industries ask young lads to pack in education opportunities for a very high-risk career opportunity?), for clubs to take that responsibility seriously. Sam is a bit of an outlier in terms of what he made from the game, but it's not as if playing RL sets many people up for life.   

I don't disagree with the substance of what you say, although the analogy with the armed forces feels a little stretched to me.  A life in the armed forces is a very cossetted existence while Rugby League players never left 'society' and so don't really need to be reintroduced.

But, I am not without understanding of these situations and I agree that life after pro sports is a potentially difficult transition and support can and should be given.

But let's look at the Sam Burgess situation in particular (which is what I am commenting on).

He has made a lot of money from the game - reports suggest he was on £700k a season at the height of his career.  When he had to retire from playing he was immediately given an assistant coach role at Souths and was sitting on the expert panel for tv games - hardly being cut loose from the game.  He seems to be on the verge of losing these opportunities.  I am merely suggesting he should take some personal responsibility for that as we all do in our careers and personal life.

[Damien]

20 minutes ago, Davo5 said:

There seems to be as many current players,especially those in the NRL having these problems.

Or maybe they are just under the spotlight more and face greater scrutiny?

[muckymunksy]

Needs some prison time. 

[Adelaide Tiger]

11 minutes ago, The Rocket said:

I hate these road-side drug tests as well, some kid smokes a joint a week ago and they can pick it up on a road side test, Sam Burgess probably had a line of coke, whenever, and now he`s being painted as a drug fiend, I don`t like it I think we are way over policed. Drink- driving yeah well that is an issue, but all these other tests, too much.

Well I suppose I am an old fart for totally disagreeing with you.

Quite frankly I don’t give a flying **** for anyone that gets caught with drugs in their system even if it is a few days after they have taken something.   Because let’s be honest, none of those idiots would have thought ‘Ooh! I had best not drive for a week seeing I have taken drugs’..

Some would have driven straight away with impaired driving ability .... but if you are ok with that then that is your prerogative.

[Rupert Prince]

Helix.  Not a spiral.

[Rupert Prince]

35 minutes ago, The Rocket said:

I hate these road-side drug tests as well, some kid smokes a joint a week ago and they can pick it up on a road side test, Sam Burgess probably had a line of coke, whenever, and now he`s being painted as a drug fiend, I don`t like it I think we are way over policed. Drink- driving yeah well that is an issue, but all these other tests, too much.

Hmmm... you obviously posted a day too early to be free of the effects.

[corvusxiii]

8 minutes ago, Adelaide Tiger said:

Well I suppose I am an old fart for totally disagreeing with you.

Quite frankly I don’t give a flying **** for anyone that gets caught with drugs in their system even if it is a few days after they have taken something.   Because let’s be honest, none of those idiots would have thought ‘Ooh! I had best not drive for a week seeing I have taken drugs’..

Some would have driven straight away with impaired driving ability .... but if you are ok with that then that is your prerogative.

My take on this is that the punishment for being caught causes more damage to society than the offence. So someone has a line of coke/joint on Friday night along with a bottle of wine. He gets arrested on Monday, loses his job, his house, gets divorced and the kids end up in a flat somewhere at best. The wine is no problem but the message from the arbitary moral high ground is we make no apologies for saving the lives of little children etc. I don't think this is a helpful thing.

[FearTheVee]

9 minutes ago, corvusxiii said:

My take on this is that the punishment for being caught causes more damage to society than the offence. So someone has a line of coke/joint on Friday night along with a bottle of wine. He gets arrested on Monday, loses his job, his house, gets divorced and the kids end up in a flat somewhere at best. The wine is no problem but the message from the arbitary moral high ground is we make no apologies for saving the lives of little children etc. I don't think this is a helpful thing.

I get where you are coming from and there is certainly a lot of truth in what you say - but the events leading to the legal wine being available in the supermarket are somewhat different to the illegal drugs being available on the street, and the supply chains behave slightly differently . . . .

If you take the societal impacts across the chain (not just the impacts on the middle class married man man who bought the drugs in your example) it becomes a bit easier to understand the approach.

But then one could say the same for buying cheap clothes and iphones.

Anyway - this is worrying news and I hope the lad finds the right help (and wants to find the right help) to sort himself out.

Edited February 22, 2021 by FearTheVee

[Number 16]

Burgess needs help to fight his demons. His adult life has been in and around the NRL. Now is not the time for the NRL to wash its hands of him. 

[Adelaide Tiger]

2 minutes ago, corvusxiii said:

My take on this is that the punishment for being caught causes more damage to society than the offence. So someone has a line of coke/joint on Friday night along with a bottle of wine. He gets arrested on Monday, loses his job, his house, gets divorced and the kids end up in a flat somewhere at best. The wine is no problem but the message from the arbitary moral high ground is we make no apologies for saving the lives of little children etc. I don't think this is a helpful thing.

I think you missed my point.

If people who take drugs or drink too much wait until the drugs or drink are out of their system before they drive then I have no complaint.  But many of them have no issue jumping into a car when their driving ability is impaired and they couldn’t care less if that impairment leads to an accident.  That is my argument and that is why I don’t give a flying **** if it leads to them being fined, banned, getting divorced or losing their job.

[Click]

2 minutes ago, Adelaide Tiger said:

I think you missed my point.

If people who take drugs or drink too much wait until the drugs or drink are out of their system before they drive then I have no complaint.  But many of them have no issue jumping into a car when their driving ability is impaired and they couldn’t care less if that impairment leads to an accident.  That is my argument and that is why I don’t give a flying **** if it leads to them being fined, banned, getting divorced or losing their job.

I guess the question is how long after you take for example, cocaine are you impaired for your driving? 

If you do a line on Friday, and say on Sunday you get pulled over driving, I would say you wouldn't be under the effects of it still (I can't say that for 100%) but it will still come up in a test on Sunday.

[Dunbar]

2 hours ago, gingerjon said:

I'd say the distinction is that Folau broke a basic policy of the ARU and he did so whilst calmly and in his right mind (so far as anyone is aware).

As far as I am aware, Burgess didn't claim diminished responsibility for his conviction for intimidating behaviour and so he was also in his right mind.

[gingerjon]

4 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

As far as I am aware, Burgess didn't claim diminished responsibility for his conviction for intimidating behaviour and so he was also in his right mind.

Yes, that was bad wording on my part.

[gingerjon]

14 minutes ago, Click said:

I guess the question is how long after you take for example, cocaine are you impaired for your driving? 

If you do a line on Friday, and say on Sunday you get pulled over driving, I would say you wouldn't be under the effects of it still (I can't say that for 100%) but it will still come up in a test on Sunday.

This is the summary of the situation with regards to impairment/levels in the blood here in the UK:

https://www.gov.uk/drug-driving-law

[The Rocket]

3 minutes ago, Click said:

I guess the question is how long after you take for example, cocaine are you impaired for your driving? 

If you do a line on Friday, and say on Sunday you get pulled over driving, I would say you wouldn't be under the effects of it still (I can't say that for 100%) but it will still come up in a test on Sunday.

Yes and that`s the point I was making, a drug test is a blunt instrument, it doesn`t differentiate between a day or a week. 

If you are a below a certain level with alcohol they let you go, because it is not deemed dangerous, but if you have some trace of drugs in your system your busted even though the effects on your driving may be as equally negligible as in a low alcohol level.

And that is what bugs me, it then becomes a fine about supposed moral standards rather than public safety, and probably more to the point it`s just an easy way for the Government to slap a fine on someone and raise  some revenue.

 

[whatmichaelsays]

1 hour ago, Dunbar said:

I don't disagree with the substance of what you say, although the analogy with the armed forces feels a little stretched to me.  A life in the armed forces is a very cossetted existence while Rugby League players never left 'society' and so don't really need to be reintroduced.

But, I am not without understanding of these situations and I agree that life after pro sports is a potentially difficult transition and support can and should be given.

But let's look at the Sam Burgess situation in particular (which is what I am commenting on).

He has made a lot of money from the game - reports suggest he was on £700k a season at the height of his career.  When he had to retire from playing he was immediately given an assistant coach role at Souths and was sitting on the expert panel for tv games - hardly being cut loose from the game.  He seems to be on the verge of losing these opportunities.  I am merely suggesting he should take some personal responsibility for that as we all do in our careers and personal life.

I don't want to come across as an apologist for Sam's poor decision making, because that's not what I'm trying to do. 

But I do think that it's worth asking questions as to whether RL players seem more likely than average to make bad decisios and, if so, ask why that is and if there is anything that can be done about it. You will never be able to stop people making bad decisions, but you can help them to make the right ones. 

Because aside from the "it's a decent human thing to do" argument, there is a reputational argument here. It's easy to write these guys off and tell them that they deserve everything they get, but it does RL's image no favours when our players are in the newspapers, in the courts or in The Priory. 

The armed forces thing is clearly not a like-for-like scenario, but I think there are enough parallels to make it a fair comparison. If the game is asking young kids to divert their attention to what is a high-risk (and often low reward) opportunity, it's not unreasonable to expect the game to help those young men divert their attention back to "Civvy Street" when their careers end - especially if that career ending wasn't planned. 

Is it a player welfare issue? Is it a training and education issue? Is it down to family circumstances? Are these poor decisions driven by financial pressures? Is mental health a factor? Is it simply down to the socio-economic background of where the majority of RL players come from? Whatever factors or combination of factors it is, there is both an ethical and a commercial justification for trying to address it. 

You're right, Sam did make a lot of money out of RL and I did say that he was an outlier. What it shows is that money alone doesn't help people make the right decisions but for every Sam Burgess, there and many many more Scott Moores, Malcolm Alkers, Chev Walkers, Ryan Baileys, Leon Pryces, Stuart Reardons, Zak Hardakers Brett Dallas' and that's just off the top of my head of SL players who have had brushes with the law relatively recently. 

Let's treat this issue like we should any other player welfare issue. As a sport we're having a debate about head injuries because there is evidence the RL players seem to show a greater propensity to develop signs of dementia at a young age. I'd argue that the same debate should be had if RL players have a greater propensity to make poor life choices that put them on the wrong side of the law. 

[Dunbar]

1 minute ago, whatmichaelsays said:

I don't want to come across as an apologist for Sam's poor decision making, because that's not what I'm trying to do. 

But I do think that it's worth asking questions as to whether RL players seem more likely than average to make bad decisios and, if so, ask why that is and if there is anything that can be done about it. You will never be able to stop people making bad decisions, but you can help them to make the right ones. 

Because aside from the "it's a decent human thing to do" argument, there is a reputational argument here. It's easy to write these guys off and tell them that they deserve everything they get, but it does RL's image no favours when our players are in the newspapers, in the courts or in The Priory. 

The armed forces thing is clearly not a like-for-like scenario, but I think there are enough parallels to make it a fair comparison. If the game is asking young kids to divert their attention to what is a high-risk (and often low reward) opportunity, it's not unreasonable to expect the game to help those young men divert their attention back to "Civvy Street" when their careers end - especially if that career ending wasn't planned. 

Is it a player welfare issue? Is it a training and education issue? Is it down to family circumstances? Are these poor decisions driven by financial pressures? Is mental health a factor? Is it simply down to the socio-economic background of where the majority of RL players come from? Whatever factors or combination of factors it is, there is both an ethical and a commercial justification for trying to address it. 

You're right, Sam did make a lot of money out of RL and I did say that he was an outlier. What it shows is that money alone doesn't help people make the right decisions but for every Sam Burgess, there and many many more Scott Moores, Malcolm Alkers, Chev Walkers, Ryan Baileys, Leon Pryces, Stuart Reardons, Zak Hardakers Brett Dallas' and that's just off the top of my head of SL players who have had brushes with the law relatively recently. 

Let's treat this issue like we should any other player welfare issue. As a sport we're having a debate about head injuries because there is evidence the RL players seem to show a greater propensity to develop signs of dementia at a young age. I'd argue that the same debate should be had if RL players have a greater propensity to make poor life choices that put them on the wrong side of the law. 

As I say, I agree with the fundamentals of what you discuss.

And without going into the individual circumstances of every player you mention, I will simply say that support networks and rehabilitation on one side of the equation and personal responsibility on the other meet firmly in the middle and one will not work without the other.

[Eddie]

1 hour ago, Click said:

I guess the question is how long after you take for example, cocaine are you impaired for your driving? 

If you do a line on Friday, and say on Sunday you get pulled over driving, I would say you wouldn't be under the effects of it still (I can't say that for 100%) but it will still come up in a test on Sunday.

Just don’t drive until it is out of your system then. 

[dkw]

5 minutes ago, Johnoco said:

At my workplace they have introduced random drink tests. At least one guy has been sacked after being tested and was at least twice over the legal limit. I like a drink, probably more than most, but I don't bother when/before I am working as it's just not worth losing your job over. 

I have plenty of sympathy for ex players who might be going off the rails - they should be offered help - but ultimately we are all responsible for our actions. That's not me being unsympathetic, it's a fact. 

Weve had this where I work, the first and second time someone tested positivity they were offered help with the problem. Both times the guy said it wasnt a problem, it wont happen again etc. It did happen again and he was sacked, only for the union to fight the company for not helping him. The biggest part of any recovery from any addiction is to admit the problem, unfortunately some people just cant/wont.

[Manfred Mann]

I  had forgotten to mention Sam Burgess’s TV commentary career in my original posts. He had been stood down by Fox League after the earlier intimidation charge, pending the outcome of the trial. His conviction in that trial made a resumption of his TV career  most unlikely.

I never thought that Sam was good on TV commentary, especially when he was placed alongside highly intelligent and articulate ex-players such as Cooper Cronk, Ben Ikin, Greg Alexander, and Michael Ennis. In addition he compared poorly with the articulate and personally engaging player commentators James Graham and Benji Marshall. But he was there on TV because he was a very highly respected and popular player, almost a cult figure, regarded along with Jason Taumololo as one of the two most important forwards in the modern game. It was that reputation as a player that got him his potentially lucrative TV job. Now Sam’s fledgling TV career has been wiped out because of his reckless public behavior. That loss of income, along with the loss of valuable sponsorship deals that would have been possible had he pursued a squeaky clean life, and the loss of his coaching position, will be more significant for his life than whatever punishment is meted out by a court judge.

Edited February 23, 2021 by Manfred Mann

[The Future is League]

10 hours ago, Manfred Mann said:

Sam Burgess has been pulled over by the police on the Hume Highway in Sydney, on his way to pick up his children. He was charged with driving an unregistered car, never having held a NSW driver's licence, and most important failing a roadside drugs test for cocaine. He will appear in court in May.

https://www.foxsports.com.au/nrl/nrl-premiership/nrl-2021-sam-burgess-arrested-allegedly-failing-a-roadside-drug-test-south-sydney-rabbitohs/news-story/095313252c90b02916f5e13937487417?utm_source=breaking_sportsmail&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=crm&utm_content=statici

 

 

Sam Burgess has already been found guilty of intimidating his father in law. For that crime Burgess was sentenced to a two-year community corrections order and given a two-year apprehended violence order. Given his past record, the judge may not be lenient again this time.

What is the matter with this man? If he is found guilty no rugby league club will want to have anything to do with him as a coach in the future. At age 32 he appears to be destroying his life.

No surprise to me. He is obviously very troubled.

What did surprise was that he didn't have a NSW driving licence after living in Australia for a few years now, but that is the least of his problems.

Possible jail time and possible deportation i would have thought if he's not an Australian citizen

[graveyard johnny]

6 hours ago, muckymunksy said:

Needs some prison time. 

deportation back to Dewsbury may be a harsher punishment 

Edited February 22, 2021 by graveyard johnny

[Davo5]

3 hours ago, Manfred Mann said:

HII had forgotten to mention Sam Burgess’s TV commentary career in my original posts. He had been stood down by Fox League after the earlier intimidation charge, pending the outcome of the trial. His conviction in that trial made a resumption of his TV career  most unlikely.

I never thought that Sam was good on TV commentary, especially when he was placed alongside highly intelligent and articulate ex-players such as Cooper Cronk, Ben Ikin, Greg Alexander, and Michael Ennis. In addition he compared poorly with the articulate and personally engaging player commentators James Graham and Benji Marshall. But he was there on TV because he was a very highly respected and popular player, almost a cult figure, regarded along with Jason Taumololo as one of the two most important forwards in the modern game. It was that reputation as a player that got him his potentially lucrative TV job. Now Sam’s fledgling TV career has been wiped out because of his reckless public behavior. That loss of income, along with the loss of valuable sponsorship deals that would have been possible had he pursued a squeaky clean life, and the loss of his coaching position, will be more significant for his life than whatever punishment is meted out by a court judge.

I’m pretty sure it was Sam himself that stood down from both Fox & Souths in order to contest the original charges which was successful bar the intimidation one which I believe  he’s appealing.

Bad behaviour  and indulging in recreational drugs hasn’t hampered Andrew Johns broadcasting career.