I was astonished when the NRL announced today that Manly was to be fined because of the alcohol consumption and bad behaviour at their season launch. (Of course, not blaming the individuals who misbehaved, but blaming the club and the alcohol.)
Why is the club responsible for the behaviour of it's players? Grown men. Haven't they had good manners and social behaviour instilled in them? (Wasn't Catherine Lumby employed to educate footballers* about correct and incorrect behaviour around women - oh wait, she believes some pretty weird things about what women want and fantasise about... maybe she's not the right person... looking at the link at the end of this paragraph, you'll see that she was appointed to the NRL in 2004.. and the ARL in 2006... it's now 2009. Gee, that's worked well, League and Aussie Rules players are still getting into trouble for bad behaviour, assault, other anti-social behaviour. I guess nothing's changed since 2004, huh?)
I think it's time that the clubs cut loose the problem players, and it's time for the players to understand that there are consequences to what they do, the club won't look after them if they do the wrong thing, if they get into strife. They are being paid shitloads** of money, they are role models for many kids (whether they like it or not), the are ambassadors for their sport, their club and their sponsors. They rake in the big money, they have responsibilities... not so hard when you think that these responsibilities align with the same expectations of any other man (or woman!) in society.
Brett Stewart has been charged with sexual assault of a seventeen year old girl. Stewart himself is only 24, and I hope that things work out well for the young woman and Stewart.
What do these blokes learn from their fathers?
*Oh wait, AFL, wrong code huh. Well she was employed years before that to advise and educate NRL players.
** Are we commoners allowed to use that word any more? Oh, maybe that's just shitstorm we can't use any more...