Kurtley in Trouble Again

[Ignoto]

If anyone has quit smoking they will know then even a successful quitter will have the occasional slip up along the way, but it doesn't mean the whole process is a lost cause.

I think people can accept there will be the occasional slip ups and it's up to the Alcoholic to handle how he/she will react to the slip up.

While Kurtley clearly has a problem, all parties involved (that's Kurtley, the ARU and Rebels) are not taking this seriously enough. The fact that within a month of a major indiscretion (along with no reprimands in the first incident with the bouncer) Kurtley is back playing. I simply don't understand how within a month a guy can go from "hitting rock bottom" recover from a serious mental illness to playing professional football.

I'm sorry, but Kurtley needs serious time away from his commitments to the game. Let him get his head right first train with the guys and worry about returning to rugby several months down the track.

What irks me the most with this current situation is, Kurtley knew exactly what was expected of him, stuffed up by drinking and only fessed up because he was caught by someone else. If he wasn't told on, who knows if after this weekends game he would have been on the sauce again.

 

[Braveheart81]

Ignoto - surely part of dealing with his problems is still living as normal a life as possible and for him that means playing rugby.

I don't think keeping him away from rugby for longer is necessarily going to help things at all. If anything it is going to hinder him.

Routine is important and for him a routine is training hard and then playing on the weekend. The bit of the routine that needs to disappear is drinking after the game on the weekend.

There is no recovering from being an alcoholic. There's just the amount of time you've stayed sober. It's not like the urge to drink is going to disappear.

 

[Iluvmyfooty]

There is most definitely a lot of people frothing at the mouth here.

Try this scenario - After the match the players go for a drink and Kurtley goes with them. He knows he is on an alcohol ban but has one drink (I don't see anywhere on here where the amount of drinking has been established) thinking that one drink won't bring him any trouble. Rebels management find out and to stress the seriousness of the matter stand him down for a week (without payments?)rather than sack him. Thus Kurtley knows that the ban does mean nil alcohol. Avaluable lesson learnt hopefully.

If however, it was more than one drink and kurtley shows that he hasn't learnt anything, than the rebels have failed him in standing him down for one week. they need to say that the problem is still there and leave him out until all parties are confident that he can act professionally and perform to his best on and off the field.

I would like to think that the first scenario is the most accurate

 

[ACT Crusader]

I think people can accept there will be the occasional slip ups and it's up to the Alcoholic to handle how he/she will react to the slip up.

While Kurtley clearly has a problem, all parties involved (that's Kurtley, the ARU and Rebels) are not taking this seriously enough. The fact that within a month of a major indiscretion (along with no reprimands in the first incident with the bouncer) Kurtley is back playing. I simply don't understand how within a month a guy can go from "hitting rock bottom" recover from a serious mental illness to playing professional football.

I'm sorry, but Kurtley needs serious time away from his commitments to the game. Let him get his head right first train with the guys and worry about returning to rugby several months down the track.

What irks me the most with this current situation is, Kurtley knew exactly what was expected of him, stuffed up by drinking and only fessed up because he was caught by someone else. If he wasn't told on, who knows if after this weekends game he would have been on the sauce again.

Who has said he's recovered? I don't recall anyone singing that tune.

Again his role off the bench and playing a short amount could be part of his recovery/rehab/process. Again that's not unusual form what I've seen in the road to recovery about getting back into some form of employment role.

His job just happens to be a high profile one. But that is his employment, what he used to have as a routine, find enjoyment from etc

 

[Ignoto]

Ignoto - surely part of dealing with his problems is still living as normal a life as possible and for him that means playing rugby.

I don't think keeping him away from rugby for longer is necessarily going to help things at all. If anything it is going to hinder him.

Routine is important and for him a routine is training hard and then playing on the weekend. The bit of the routine that needs to disappear is drinking after the game on the weekend.

Oh I agree with you which is why I think he should be training and not playing. Playing is a privilege not a right. How can he, in a month really get in the right mind space with his disease and also be expected to be up to playing a highly intense sport?

Who has said he's recovered? I don't recall anyone singing that tune.

Well, he's gone from not being in a position of being fit to play, to playing. If you're not 100% right mentally or physically you're in a way recovering aren't you?

Again his role off the bench and playing a short amount could be part of his recovery/rehab/process. Again that's not unusual form what I've seen in the road to recovery about getting back into some form of employment role.

Returning to work for a Footballer doesn't have to mean playing rugby straight away. Obviously he's not mentally ready with the relapse. His support network wasn't around him and it went pear shaped as he relapsed. Training will be a great distraction from him, he can get all the benefits of fitness and being around his team mates and just focus on his mental health. Thrusting him back into playing makes him focus on playing well, puts added pressure on him that he simply doesn't need.

 

[Ghibli]

There is most definitely a lot of people frothing at the mouth here.

Try this scenario - After the match the players go for a drink and Kurtley goes with them. He knows he is on an alcohol ban but has one drink (I don't see anywhere on here where the amount of drinking has been established) thinking that one drink won't bring him any trouble. Rebels management find out and to stress the seriousness of the matter stand him down for a week (without payments?)rather than sack him. Thus Kurtley knows that the ban does mean nil alcohol. Avaluable lesson learnt hopefully.

If however, it was more than one drink and kurtley shows that he hasn't learnt anything, than the rebels have failed him in standing him down for one week. they need to say that the problem is still there and leave him out until all parties are confident that he can act professionally and perform to his best on and off the field.

I would like to think that the first scenario is the most accurate

Most of the posts here seems to be supportive of KB (Kurtley Beale).
Nobody likes to see a young man continously in trouble.
He has been helped, and should be helped again.
Kurtley is 24. Recovery starts with him. That does not mean that he should be written off.

 

[gel]

It is up to the rugby fraternity (the ARU and the Rebels) to extend the olive branch and offer to help him though. How much KB (Kurtley Beale) engages in that is then up to him.

Do you believe that the ARU and Rebels have not been extending an olive ranch or offering to help the guy up to this point?

 

[Braveheart81]

Oh I agree with you which is why I think he should be training and not playing. Playing is a privilege not a right. How can he, in a month really get in the right mind space with his disease and also be expected to be up to playing a highly intense sport?

Surely everything that happened on the field indicated that he was in entirely the right physical and mental shape to be playing professional rugby.

I don't know that you can say what happened afterwards was a result of him playing. If he'd been at the game but not playing would things have turned out any different?

If he'd still been in Sydney or at home in Melbourne would he definitely not have had a drink or perhaps he might have and no one would have found out. That wouldn't really make it any better.

Do you believe that the ARU and Rebels have not been extending an olive ranch or offering to help the guy up to this point?

I absolutely think they have. I just don't think it is time to give it up now.

 

[ACT Crusader]

Oh I agree with you which is why I think he should be training and not playing. Playing is a privilege not a right. How can he, in a month really get in the right mind space with his disease and also be expected to be up to playing a highly intense sport?

Well, he's gone from not being in a position of being fit to play, to playing. If you're not 100% right mentally or physically you're in a way recovering aren't you?

Returning to work for a Footballer doesn't have to mean playing rugby straight away. Obviously he's not mentally ready with the relapse. His support network wasn't around him and it went pear shaped as he relapsed. Training will be a great distraction from him, he can get all the benefits of fitness and being around his team mates and just focus on his mental health. Thrusting him back into playing makes him focus on playing well, puts added pressure on him that he simply doesn't need.

He has been training in some capacity. He hasn't been sitting in the corner for 4 weeks.

Not being 100% doesn't mean you can't be involved in such a capacity - how many players play under injury clouds, with niggles, with personal stuff going on in their lives, I'd suggest a large number.

Beale has played at the highest level and been in higher pressure situations than the one he was in against the Chiefs (eg Wallabies final kick to win a test in the Republic) so he has an understanding about the degrees of pressure. This was not going to a pressure cooker situation that was foreign to him. I think this would have been done with plenty of consultation between counselling and coach akin to a return to work program.

And in regards to the bold, I'm not sure how you can say that. Each person's path is different and will have highs and lows along the way. Perhaps he needed this to know where he stands, what sort of judgement he has developed having been away from the game going through this process, etc.

 

[Bullrush]

My sympathies are very much with the young bloke. Somewhat at odds with those who are salivating at the chance to put the slipper in.
.

Man there's a fair amount of vitriol on this thread.

He needs more counselling. Sure moving from Melbourne may help, but it won't solve the problems he appears to be facing. This is not a rugby problem, it's a young person who needs help problem. If what I'm hearing is right, then he needs to regain some self esteem. Playing rugby appears to be the least of worries right now. Good luck to him.

Speaking for myself, I'm not salivating at an opportunity to put the boot in - for a long time I have said here that he could be the best 10 on the planet but a lot of it is in his head.

I don't know about feeling sorry for him though. This is a young man who has more opportunities than dare I say 95% of men his age and probably has more access to support and help than most other people with addictions.

I was at a work meeting once with senior managers and I heard someone say 'Well, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink' to which the big boss replied, 'No but I can hold it's head under water till it starts to blow bubbles.'

Without obviously knowing all the facts etc - this is how I'd start feeling about KB (Kurtley Beale) if I were in the Rebels.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Aren't you leaping to conclusion there?
My take was that he considers himself too valuable and was above being disciplined for breaching team standards.
If you are right,and he does have this problem, and is seeking help.I would have thought the Rebels should not have rushed him back so soon.
If you are right and he is not seeking help, then the Rebels should not have re instated him at all.

My opinion is partly based on information that is not in the public domain.
Keeping him away from the game may do more harm than good.

 

[MajorlyRagerly]

Reads to me that he had a beer, was perhaps underestimating the situation he's in and the Rebels staff have made the call that in order for him to really understand it, they've stood him down for a game. Not reading anywhere that he's gone an made a shithead of himself this time, a la Zach, so I think things have been handled pretty well here.

I always wonder how bad some of these blokes really are when it comes to alcohol - I was a farking menace when I was in my early 20's, got myself in some shocking situations in NZ, London & Europe. And I was never alone, and I was far from the worst one that I knew. Are these guys with alcohol problems really that bad, or is it just they are in the public eye & thus get held to a higher standard?

Either that, or every single Australasian that I seemed to come across aged between 20-26 ish in 2000-2004 in London had a huge alcohol problem - which shoudln't be ruled out.

 

[Bowside]

Reads to me that he had a beer, was perhaps underestimating the situation he's in and the Rebels staff have made the call that in order for him to really understand it, they've stood him down for a game. Not reading anywhere that he's gone an made a shithead of himself this time, a la Zach, so I think things have been handled pretty well here.

I always wonder how bad some of these blokes really are when it comes to alcohol - I was a farking menace when I was in my early 20's, got myself in some shocking situations in NZ, London & Europe. And I was never alone, and I was far from the worst one that I knew. Are these guys with alcohol problems really that bad, or is it just they are in the public eye & thus get held to a higher standard?

Either that, or every single Australasian that I seemed to come across aged between 20-26 ish in 2000-2004 in London had a huge alcohol problem - which shoudln't be ruled out.

It may only be a beer, but thats not the point.

Not drinking alcohol is effectively part of his job. Having a temporary drinking ban means that he is being paid to not drink. The drinking ban is a test of his discipline, and his readiness to be in a professional environment again.

Most young people would drink far more than beale does, and probably cause just as much if not more trouble, but they are not being paid not to.

 

[sammy3191]

It's sad, he's a young guy in his early twenties who has to live in the public & media spotlight, any mistake no matter how minor is going to be replayed over & over.

He has a problem that he needs to deal with not only for his rugby career but for the sake of his life. I hope the ARU etc don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Maybe a big decrease (50%) in his salary & a ban from playing at representative level until he gets himself sorted would give him the motivation to grasp the enormoty of the situation.

His advisors should help him get the counselling he needs and hopefully his employers stand by him to assist where & how they can.

 

[Richo]

Some have made the comparison to Andrew Walker, hopefully because he was a talent whose career was cut short by drink (and not because he was an indigenous talent whose career was cut short by drink). Clearly if anything can be said of Walker it's that the support system around him, if there was one, failed spectacularly. Surely if anything is to be drawn from Walker's downfall and related to Kurtley's situation, it's how important support, community, and counseling are for a troubled person. And how important patience and understanding are too. As others have said, this is about a young man's entire future and not just his rugby career. Playing rugby might be a part of getting him to a better place and it might be a part of his future. I certainly hope the rugby community is part of ensuring he has a safe and healthy future.

 

[No4918]

Something needs to be made official by the ARU and Super Rugby franchises so that players know exactly what the consequences will be for breaking protocol. For example they could implement a three strikes policy. Third strike and say goodbye to rugby for the rest of the season. Kurtley would be on strike 2 and in my opinion should face at least another 4 weeks out and donate his next match payment to AA. The 1 week ban does little to help him get over his obvious issues with booze and deter him further.

 

[Hell West & Crooked]

There's just no excuse. I'm a bit of a Beale fan but I can't stand this BS.

No respect for your team, your management, your club or yourself. These are the actions of a kid, not a man.

If my Bosses will up my Salary to HIs, I will sign on to an alcohol ban...

If they put me up in 5-star Hotels and let me Travel Round the World at the same time, I will sign on to a Meat Pie Ban!

How hard can it be?

 

[Braveheart81]

If my Bosses will up my Salary to HIs, I will sign on to an alcohol ban.

If they put me up in 5-star Hotels and let me Travel Round the World at the same time, I will sign on to a Meat Pie Ban!

How hard can it be?

Hard for an alcoholic.

I don't think the amount he's being paid makes a scrap of difference.

If the rumours about what he was drinking are true, his salary just meant he was able to drink Baileys instead of Father O'Leary's Velvet Cream.

 

[cyclopath]

Is it only me that finds this talk of addiction somewhat puzzling? As far as we have seen, and as far as I know, he has had problems after having a few drinks and getting aggressive / punching on. That just makes him an angry drunk (at times), not an alcoholic. Breaking his ban here could as easily be described as poor impulse control / will power / common-sense or what you will.
Does anyone have any evidence that he is an alcoholic?
I hope he gets his shit together, but I'm not convinced this is a medical problem (which alcoholism is) as much as it is a problem with his general state of mind.
I agree the Rebels and ARU should do as much as possible to help him, but he needs to be the prime mover. Of course, if anyone can present evidence that he has been diagnosed with alcohol addiction, I will stand corrected.

 

[Hell West & Crooked]

Something needs to be made official by the ARU and Super Rugby franchises so that players know exactly what the consequences will be for breaking protocol. For example they could implement a three strikes policy. Third strike and say goodbye to rugby for the rest of the season. Kurtley would be on strike 2 and in my opinion should face at least another 4 weeks out and donate his next match payment to AA. The 1 week ban does little to help him get over his obvious issues with booze and deter him further.

Do you seriously think this is not already spelled-out to them in their ARU and S15 Contracts? What do you think these agreements actually state - 'Leave Allowances' and a list of Bus Routes to the Training Park????

The players know what is expected of them. This fellow has some issues that are causing him to disregard employment conditions of which he is already aware... At this point it is a willful act - and I feel sure he is just asking for help.

On Civvy-street you just get sacked... No explanations, No suspensions. Centrelink.