The AFL Player Spectator Current AFL Threat Level

Millionaires with a Year Ten Education

Wednesday, March 26, 2008

Piss Weak: Footballers and Urine

With the recent spate of public urination by AFL footballers leaving our cities piss-soaked and and fetid, it's timely to consider the rich history of pissing in footy - and what it has to tell us about darker psychological disturbance of its practitioners.

The current bout was kicked off by Carlton's "troubled" knuckle-head, Brendan Fevola. It seems his ongoing problems with alcohol manifested itself in a late-night piss on Prahran hotspot Candy Bar. Below is the CC TV footage, care of our friends Channel 7:



Apart from the security video itself, the disturbing allegations in this clip include:
  • When challenged by a bar tender, Fevola asked him what his problem is! (Dude, you're pissing in public on someone else's shop.)

  • When confronted after training, he denied the incident had taken place saying he doubted it "very much". (Despite existence of said security footage.)

  • When asked by the bar tender if how he'd feel if someone did it to his business, he replied that he wouldn't mind.


Coincidentally, Fevola has a stake in a restaurant, Fellini's, just a few hundred metres away at 158 Toorak Rd, in South Yarra. (Get off at South Yarra station.) While I'd be curious to see Fevola's reaction to someone pissing on or near his business, in the interests of his wife, restaurateur Alex Fevola, I'd suggest not. After all, that poor woman has suffered enough being married to this idiot, putting up with his moronic actions, violence, infidelities etc to secure funding to start the business. So for her sake, please don't urinate on his restaurant.

The response from Carlton for this transgression from one of its *snigger* "leadership group"? No suspension. A fine amounting to a week's pay. Yet another "one more chance". (What is that Fev? Five or six last chances now? I wonder if his missus has given him that many.)

Given this piss-weak piece of theatrics in lieu of a substantive deterrence, it's not surprising that another player quickly followed suit. This time, Richmond's captain Kane Johnson brought disgrace by getting his cock out in public and having a good spray. Unfortunately for him, he chose to unload on the St Kilda Rd Police Complex. Unlike Fevola, he was apprehended by the police and is now facing charges. Bizarrely, Johnson - with his solid off-field reputation - quickly sanctioned himself by imposing a one match ban on himself. The club accepted his offer (plus a $5,000 penalty).

In a reversal of the normal order of events, I reckon this shows some promise. Credit where it's due I say, and at least Johnson has taken some personal responsibility, is fronting up to the courts and his club will wear the damage for this atrocious lapse in judgement, civility and decorum through his absence this weekend. It just throws into sharp relief the dangerous and selfish stance taken by Carlton over their repeat offender Brendan Fevola.

It should hardly come as a surprise to hear that AFL footballers enjoy splashing their piss about. Remember that pest Heath Black during his 2006 Christmas blow out? He copped a charge and guilty plea for pissing out the front of Fremantle's famed Little Creatures breweries. No doubt dozens or hundreds of other footballers do it regularly and get away with it. It's easy to dismiss this as "boys will be boys" and other apologetics.

But what of the darker side of the practice? AFL footballers had a disturbing little tradition going just a couple of years ago whereby they would literally urinate on women in nightclubs or bars in order to "mark" them of being interest to them. This "marking their territory" practice was reasonably widespread and various reports of it were covered in the mainstream media. And let's not forget a certain Fraser Gehrig and his urine splashing efforts with a young lady at a bar. Nor a rookie, Simon O'Keefe, who explained how his club booked a stripper for a "tag team" encounter and then other players offered her an extra $50 to urinate on her with another $50 to defecate on her.

Why would men want to get together in a group and piss and shit on a woman? There are no nice reasonable explanations for this. Simply put, the footballer selection process, reinforced practices and resulting warped culture ensure that power, dominance and humiliation are the key currencies. In their minds, urinating (and even defecation) are tools to achieve that end. Certainly, Fevola's arrogant and threatening remarks when challenged show up the mindset. And this "marking" women with piss in bars business? Only a caveman morality could inspire that urge, yet alone grant licence to act on it.

In light of this appalling and continuing problem, here at The Speccy we've got the answer. Past experience suggests that there's one thing guaranteed to dry up an AFL footballer quick smart: drug testing. That's right, urine tests looking for traces of ecstasy, meth and cocaine cause all sorts of problems for players. (Remember that Hawthorn player who "couldn't" provide a sample last year when selected, so the lightweight testers just picked another player?) After hearing about the seven out of eight positives from the Brownlow toilets and the ease of dodging the watered-down official tests, we like the odds.

So we're introducing a piss bounty system. We'll gladly pay anyone an easy $100 for every AFL footballer urine sample that is turned up. Whether it's from a bar, nightclub, police station, your own clothes or a sex worker, we'll pay for the sample. We only have two provisos:
  • You must provide provenance (ie chain of evidence of origin) for the sample to a level that will stand up in court.

  • It must be presented in a form and state that allows rigorous scientific testing for illicit drugs.

We'll take any currently-listed player's piss and pay you $100. Hell, we'll even pay $200 for a sample from Hawthorn's Lance "Buddy" Franklin. If you're interested, use the comment link below to get in touch.

We reckon it will only take one or two of those liberally applied unscheduled late-night samples from AFL players ending up in the lab (and then straight to the media) to staunch the flow in public. Some guy with a test-tube loitering around might just make those dickheads think twice about ensuring their urine is discreetly and safely dispensed.

*** UPDATE ***

I dunno what he's been drinking now, but the loose talk is that Brendan Fevola is off the piss for good. And the punt. Sort of. His well-publicised problems with alcohol (and, to a lesser extent, gambling) will be tackled through counselling, according to The Herald-Sun. Apparently, he won't be drinking during the season and is sworn off the club's end-of-season binges.

Well, good luck to him, I say. While I'm highly sceptical that he'll manage to keep this up given his $500,000 salary and piss-head workmates, getting counselling and going public with his attempt are good first steps.

So, in that same spirit of support and encouragement, if you happen to catch Fev sinking a few during the season, email in your photos so we can publish them here. I'm sure he'd thank us both, eventually.

*** UPDATE ***

Right, well Brendan Fevola's dabble with temperance lasted not much more than a month. After being busted on the turps at the Casino, Fev fell off the wagon again at South Melbourne's Star Bar last weekend. The Age also reported today that he was seen chugging back on beers at the Fenech/Nelson boxing match (along with Mick Gatto, Shane Warne, Kyle Sandilands and other undesirables). Anyone reckon he was on the punt too?

Of course, he's had a good run on the field and is now telling Carlton to piss off about putting special no-scandal clauses on his rumoured $1.75M contract. Carlton allegedly retaliated by offering him an extra $100K if he doesn't generate a scandal. That sure sends a powerful signal of impotence. Looks like the Malthouse Doctrine is alive and well.

*** UPDATE ***


The Mad Monday celebrations have been and gone. And, from the look of this image, it seems that Brendan Fevola is still off the wagon:


Fevola in Nighty with Comedy Dildo Prop
Source: Herald-Sun


Must be a laugh a minute heading out with these witty japesters.

Word Count: 1069


Labels: ,



Contribute         

24 Comments:

    <    >
  • why would you want to pay more for Buddys urine?? Are you inciting that Buddy would have illegal substances in his system any more than any other AFL player??

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 5:17 pm, March 27, 2008  

  • <    >
  • Holy crap no!

    No, I would never, ever suggest that. Do you realise how much trouble I'd get into?

    It's worth more because of the vast amounts of (naturally-occurring) testosterone in his piss. Big, strapping young man like him, with those bulging muscles, I figure I could extract the hormones and on-sell to the livestock industry for a tidy profit.

    Incidentally, the Sunday Age reported a few months ago that Buddy was seen running around a certain nightclub announcing that he was "off his chops".

    The journos inferred - correctly, IMHO - that this meant he was turning vegetarian.

    So Buddy's chemical essences would be safe for use in cattle, sheep, chickens and other livestock intended for human consumption.

    Of course, I'd give the Hawthorn Football Club the option of buying the sample. Not because they might be worried about anything, you understand, but for their own, um, horse stud program. Or whatever.

    By Blogger Greg, at 5:37 pm, March 27, 2008  

  • <    >
  • Tell you what, Greg. I'm curious myself. I'll match you, and encourage pledges from other readers of this august blog.

    By Blogger Dikkii, at 3:09 pm, April 01, 2008  

  • <    >
  • Whats your postal address do, I will send you a sample!
    Buddy

    By Anonymous Lance "Buddy" Franklin, at 4:05 pm, April 01, 2008  

  • <    >
  • Sure, my address is ... wait a sec! It's a trap!

    Seriously, though, if Buddy found out you were impersonating him on the interwebs, you might be in for a bigger special delivery than a vial piss.

    By Blogger Greg, at 4:10 pm, April 01, 2008  

  • <    >
  • Incidentally, before I fully commit to matching you dollar for dollar, Greg, how are we going to verify whose piss it is?

    Crappily filmed mobile phone footage may not cut it. And I'm not sure if you can "dust" for soneone's ID in urine.

    By Blogger Dikkii, at 5:00 pm, April 01, 2008  

  • <    >
  • That's the beauty of the offer - it's up to the provider to establish provenance to a level that will stand up in court.

    I'm not an expert, but I imagine urine is replete with DNA. But that may not be necessary - a statutory declaration from a qualified witness may suffice. Whatever works in court. (Remember punters, check your local jurisdiction's evidence laws before submission.)

    Interestingly, Louise Evans (columnist at The Oz) appears to have hit on a very similar idea about a week after I published this.

    I wonder if she'll ask Uncle Rupert to chip in a few bucks too? If News Corp matches the offer, they can have right of first refusal in media negotiations.

    On second thought, I suspect Rupert might be against such shenanigans. After all, one DNA test from a hair from a certain red-headed prince would be the story of the century for his muck-racking "red top" British tabloids. Since they haven't gone there, we can presume he must have a firm editorial policy with regards to such matters.

    By Blogger Greg, at 5:17 pm, April 01, 2008  

  • <    >
  • That's good enough for me, with the caveat that we get confirmation of details of the witness to the stat dec signature before we part with the green.

    I agree that DNA won't be required unless it goes to court. Suggest that we obtain an A and a B sample.

    I'm in!! Molly?

    By Blogger Dikkii, at 12:35 am, April 02, 2008  

  • <    >
  • In for what? I am wondering if it isn't you guys that actually need the drug test. And just to be accurate, the hawks play did give a sample, he wasn't asked to give a second one!
    Molly

    By Anonymous Philllip Molly Malone, at 1:43 am, April 02, 2008  

  • <    >
  • In light of your recent rant on this topic, we were hoping you be willing to chip in a few extra bucks for the piss-bounty.

    And, just to be properly accurate, yes, the Hawk in question was most definitely asked to provide a urine sample. And no, he didn't provide it when asked. A "replacement player" was sought instead.

    By Blogger Greg, at 2:03 am, April 02, 2008  

  • <    >
  • Greg, you show hard evidence (and I don't mean some Jorno's speculation, I mean hard evidence) of your claim about the Hawk player because it is against what I have heard for people closer to the source!
    Molly

    By Anonymous Philllip Molly Malone, at 8:43 am, April 02, 2008  

  • <    >
  • So, Molly, it's a race to the bottom for credibility you're wanting? Alright, I'll see your vague, unspecified rumour from an unnamed person "close to the source" and raise you a Herald Sun news report:

    AN AFL player has escaped testing for illicit drugs after telling testers he was unable to produce a urine sample.

    The player, from Hawthorn, was last week allowed by an AFL-contracted drug agency to avoid a test in the latest flaw to be exposed in the game's illicit drugs code.

    Permission for the footballer to escape the test was an unprecedented break with protocol followed by sports drug-testing bodies around the world.

    The testers, from Dorevitch Pathology, asked club officials to provide a replacement player. (Herald-Sun, 16/5/2007)


    This makes it pretty clear that the Hawk in question escaped a scheduled drug test. Now, it may be the case that other, parallel drug testing arrangements were in place that day for that particular player. But that is besides the point. For the protocols to work, each drug test must maintain its own integrity.

    By Blogger Greg, at 11:21 am, April 02, 2008  

  • <    >
  • Perhaps what I heard was wrong on whether or not the player knew he was required to do the second test or not but he it is beyond doubt that he was tested that day:

    "The excused Hawk had already provided a urine sample for Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA) testers that day."
    http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,,21739377-23211,00.html?from=public_rss

    And the AFL gave the reason for one test being done and the other not as this:
    “In this case, the player had already been tested by ASADA, and was having extreme difficulty giving a second sample for Dorevitch. The ASADA testing takes precedence, so the Dorevitch tester elected to test another player."

    So yes, the process wasn't followed but if the player had something to hide and that is the reason for trying to skip the test (is this what you are suggesting), he wouldn't be playing now and we would all know about it as he would have been caught in the ASADA test and would have been banned and "Named and Shamed" as the WADA policy has no strikes.

    So surely you would be happy that he was tested by the harder test and another player was also tested. But yes, Dorevitch stuffed up and I believe they won't be doing that again!

    Molly

    By Anonymous Phillip Molly Malone, at 2:37 pm, April 02, 2008  

  • <    >
  • Can't resist quoting the great Homer Simpson: "Stupid lack of public urinals."

    By Anonymous Web Hosting, at 5:10 pm, December 22, 2008  

  • <    >
  • Look I just want to point out in my defence that I didnt realise it popped out of my pants.I guess its like being unaware that your fly is down. Thanks for the photo. I'll be more careful next time.

    By Anonymous Brendan Fevola, at 11:05 am, May 04, 2009  

  • <    >
  • All I can say is - YOUR DREAMING

    By Anonymous Matthew Lloyd, at 11:10 am, May 04, 2009  

  • <    >
  • For gods sake get real brendan!

    By Anonymous Australian Football, at 11:15 am, May 04, 2009  

  • <    >
  • You should be wearingthat thing on you head Fev.

    By Anonymous Free Money, at 11:28 am, May 04, 2009  

  • <    >
  • Dont look in the mirror you might be confronted by the real head driving your world.

    By Anonymous Mazda, at 11:51 am, May 04, 2009  

  • <    >
  • Yeah Yeah at it again are we?

    By Anonymous AFL House, at 11:54 am, May 04, 2009  

  • <    >
  • No Comment!

    By Anonymous Football Comments, at 11:58 am, May 04, 2009  

  • <    >
  • What's a japester?

    By Anonymous I am not a Japester - I am a human being, at 11:33 am, May 05, 2009  

  • <    >
  • It better not have any relationship to Napster!

    By Anonymous Napster, at 11:36 am, May 05, 2009  

  • <    >
  • A "jape" is a practical joke, or stunt. It's similar to "lark".

    So a "japester" is one who practises japes.

    The term, as used here, is evocative of early-20th Century English public school kids and Enid Blyton adventurers.

    The intent was to create a mildly comedic effect by applying this "posh" term for "prank" to the lazy, low-brow antics of that dickhead Fevola.

    Did it work? Probably depends on the reader.

    By Blogger Greg, at 11:50 am, May 05, 2009  

Post a Comment    Comments: 

<< Home

Current