Chris Ladhams

[sus]

Did they just publish the facts in the same way on any other recent DUI offences of non-footballers?

No, but they reported it in a similar fashion to when other public figures have committed an offence.

We are obviously different people - I dont give a rats razoo what public figures do with their private lives (unless they are connected in some way with law making and therefore have a stronger duty of care than others).

[For what it's worth, I don't know of a single newspaper/television station in the world (other than the Christian channels) that reports purely on positive community stories.

There lies a fundamental problem with our world JR!

[JessicaRabbit69]

The NAFC themselves conceded Ladhams is a role model.

And you're right - we're obviously very different people. If a public figure (and I think an ex-AFL player and current SANFL player falls into that category) does something illegal, I believe it's the responsibility of the media to report it.

[sus]

The NAFC themselves conceded Ladhams is a role model.

And you're right - we're obviously very different people. If a public figure (and I think an ex-AFL player and current SANFL player falls into that category) does something illegal, I believe it's the responsibility of the media to report it.

This is going around in circles a bit - Im getting giddy!!!! . Maybe I should do a dasher and put this in big bold writing. If SANFL PLAYERS ARE ROLE MODELS THEN WHY DOESNT THE PRESS JUMP ON EVRY LITTLE THING THEY DO RIGHT FOR THE COMMUNITY? Answer - cause it doesnt sell papers - derr!

The mass media has no responsibility - actually they are probably the most irresponsible sector of our community - most of what we get fed is biased, selective, propoganda, downright gutter rubbish. They dont tell you things out of duty - they are interested in one thing and one thing only - $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

Go study some sociology, it will open your eyes JM, and then get back to me!

[dash61]

we never hear of the good any of these players do,and i wont shout, there are players from all sides that do very good community things coming from the SANFL sides. If it was an AFL player that helps some old dear cross the road im sure rucci (if it was a power player) would report it.

Just get on with it and let the roosters deal with it, and i dont wanna hear in the paper the next SANFL DUI driver but id rather read some positive news from the SANFL, we want the league promoted not demoted and JessicaRabbit69 if you ask nicely im sure we could find a player from westies to call bingo at your nursing home or help on the cake stall at your moral church, they are not doing anything on the oval at present

[Aerie]

the most dissapointing thing about this is that he got caught at the early hours of saturday morning, the morning after playing the game from the previous night. you would think most players go home after the game, relax, then get up the next morning and meet as a team for there recovery session.

Really? In my experience the night after the game is the one where a player will let his hair down. Pity he hasn't heard of taxis.

The players deserve a drink and a good night after the game. They put their bodies on the line during the week and in games and if they can't go out and enjoy themselves with team mates or other friends after the game then what can they do?

As for the drink driving offence, well, that is against the law. He has been caught and punished. As sus says, if they published all the great things the clubs and players do for the community, then Ladhams and Cooper are fair game, but to only publish negative stuff to sell papers gives a false impression to the community.

[JessicaRabbit69]

Go study some sociology, it will open your eyes JM, and then get back to me!

Sorry, I didn't realise you were necessarily better qualified to discuss the subject than me.

So, what's the answer? Ignore both the good and the bad? Or report both? Or report just the good?

And, again, you're right - this is going around in circles.

[sydney-dog]

for me, if causing Chris a little of embarrassment helps raise awareness and saves one life then I am all for it, once you lose somebody because of the selfless acts of a drink driver you soon change your outlook

hopefully a bit of public focus has a positive effect on Chris and helps him learn from his mistake and prevents injury or loss to not only himself but others

[Magpiespower]

[For what it's worth, I don't know of a single newspaper/television station in the world (other than the Christian channels) that reports purely on positive community stories.

There lies a fundamental problem with our world JR!

There's a simple reason for that - they're boring and don't rate/sell newspapers.

The tabloids often run stories of people getting done DUI.

Country newspapers always run such stories so it's not surprising that they also get a run in the 'Tiser.

[sydney-dog]

the issue is greater then the individual, the issue is drink driving and it's impact on families, emergency workers and the community.......

so whether it's Chris Ladhams, John Howard or Jonny Jonny down the road, if exposing their offence and using this as a vehicle to raise awareness, get us all talking about the issues, if this results in fewer fatalities then I am all for it........

Their are wider and stronger issues here then Chris's embarrassment.......

[sus]

the issue is greater then the individual, the issue is drink driving and it's impact on families, emergency workers and the community.......

so whether it's Chris Ladhams, John Howard or Jonny Jonny down the road, if exposing their offence and using this as a vehicle to raise awareness, get us all talking about the issues, if this results in fewer fatalities then I am all for it........

Their are wider and stronger issues here then Chris's embarrassment.......

What cold hard statistical evidence do you have that the article on Ladham's or any other similar article will have a causal effect on reducing fatalities. I could argue that it will increase fatalities because youngster's will see it a cool thing to do (not that I necessarily would). You draw a long bow there sydney-dog!

[sydney-dog]

my point is, we are talking about it and if that raises awareness then that can only be good

I can't believe we are arguing about this and saying boo hoo poor chris, his actions endagered lives,

SUS, Have you lost a family member who has been a victim of a drunk driver, have you had to turn up at an accident site and deal with the horrifying scene

I do not have stone cold facts on what benefit these article serve and I do not have statistical data that tells me if shock advertising works, but if these articles stops Chris from jumping behind the wheel whilst under the influence, then it's a good thing for Chris and his family

Lets put it in perspective, in the world of news, it is small, it will blow over in a day or two, tomorrow their will be anpother story, in Chris's life he has had his 15 min of fame and now it is time for him to deal with 15 min of bad publicity and if he is worth his salt he will take it on the chin and learn from it and some good might come from it, but in the mean time, lets toughen up and stop the Boo Hoo poor Chris line

[SnappyTom]

If the timing of the ofence is correct this falls outside of his North Adelaide representation. His actions were his own, and unless he and other NAFC members were present in the vehicle and/or going to an official function, it is purely a legal matter for Chris, SAPOL and a Magistrate.

In my eyes this should never have made the paper - he does not live off a public reputation professionally (unlike AFL footballers), and is a great bloke.

He made ONE MISTAKE that we shouldn't even know about - the legal process will sort that out.

[sus]

my point is, we are talking about it and if that raises awareness then that can only be good

I can't believe we are arguing about this and saying boo hoo poor chris, his actions endagered lives,

SUS, Have you lost a family member who has been a victim of a drunk driver, have you had to turn up at an accident site and deal with the horrifying scene

I do not have stone cold facts on what benefit these article serve and I do not have statistical data that tells me if shock advertising works, but if these articles stops Chris from jumping behind the wheel whilst under the influence, then it's a good thing for Chris and his family

Lets put it in perspective, in the world of news, it is small, it will blow over in a day or two, tomorrow their will be anpother story, in Chris's life he has had his 15 min of fame and now it is time for him to deal with 15 min of bad publicity and if he is worth his salt he will take it on the chin and learn from it and some good might come from it, but in the mean time, lets toughen up and stop the Boo Hoo poor Chris line

Your confused s-d! I dont feel sorry for Ladhams - where have I said that? And I dont condone drink driving. (Actually I dont even drink myself.) I just dont think the bad publicity serves any purpose other than to bias attitudes towards high profile sports people. And I dont think Ladhams or any other person is any more or less likely to offend just because of any such article. Maybe what could help is an article on the dozens of SANFL footballers who abstain from drinking alcohol altogether in the pursuit of athletic performance - highlight these blokes and their clean lifestyles in the papers with a message from them that binge drinking or drinking and driving is for morons. I think this would have a more positive effect. The problem is these articles wouldnt sell any papers.

[drebin]

the most dissapointing thing about this is that he got caught at the early hours of saturday morning, the morning after playing the game from the previous night. you would think most players go home after the game, relax, then get up the next morning and meet as a team for there recovery session.

Get out of fantasy land!!! Next you will tell me that they put their slippers and cardies on when they relax!!! Our presentations didn't even start until midnight last Friday night!!!

[JK]

I do not have stone cold facts on what benefit these article serve and I do not have statistical data that tells me if shock advertising works, but if these articles stops Chris from jumping behind the wheel whilst under the influence, then it's a good thing for Chris and his family

Surely though, this should come as a result of punishment via the legal system or councelling, and not as a result of exposure in the press? (Certainly hasn't stopped Warney)

There is no argument here on the damage that drink-driving can cause, and that it should not be tolerated, the issue is more of whether this incident was worthy of making the paper ...

[sydney-dog]

you can't have it both ways,

sportsmen and celeb's get some wonderful opportunities because they are in the public eye, some enjoy the fame that comes with that, so if you accept that you also need to accept that if you f#@k up that will also bring extra attention........

at the end of the day, tomorrow it will be old news and even though difficult, Chris will managed his way through it and hopefully learnt a lesson or two

[Wedgie]

Thing that shits me is that the Advertiser Chiefs tell the journos (who ask for more SANFL coverage ie what it deserves) & readers that noone's interested in the SANFL so they're lucky to have any coverage at all.
Yet when something negative happens its on Page 2.

[Dog_ger]

Hands up those who have never had a drink and got behind the wheel.... Anyone...?

[JK]

Hands up those who have never had a drink and got behind the wheel.... Anyone...?

With respect, I think that's beside the point mate and not the essence of debate on this one

[Gilly]

Just wondering how this became public knowledge anyway? If the offence occurred on Saturday how was it that it came to be printed in the paper on Monday? It wouldn't have been listed for the magistrate's court so does this mean the police officers who recorded the infringement/offence were the ones who made it public knowledge? It disturbs me that they could breach someone's privacy in that way. Are there no privacy provisions with regard to police matters that haven't been through the courts?