Jack Bobridge jailed for drug trafficking

There was a thread somewhere (which I can't find) from a few months ago when the case first hit court. There were apparently two other cyclists named in court, but the Judge suppressed their names being published.
 
Re:

proffate said:
MDMA (Ecstasy) is close to the least harmful substance out there. Let's raise a glass to Australia for keeping this madman off the streets.
I agree with the sentiment expressed. I think all drugs should be legalized, but it should be noted that unless you have a trusted dealer, you never know what's in an ecstasy pill.
Then again, people quickly catch on to who is selling bad batches, and those mofos quickly go out of business.
I do not consider Bobridge a criminal, especially when compared to the human detritus in cycling who have traditionally made it mandatory to get on the gear. Remember Manzano? Guy almost died after getting the wrong dose and everything was swept under the carpet.
 
Re: Re:

the delgados said:
proffate said:
MDMA (Ecstasy) is close to the least harmful substance out there. Let's raise a glass to Australia for keeping this madman off the streets.
I agree with the sentiment expressed. I think all drugs should be legalized, but it should be noted that unless you have a trusted dealer, you never know what's in an ecstasy pill.
Then again, people quickly catch on to who is selling bad batches, and those mofos quickly go out of business.
I do not consider Bobridge a criminal, especially when compared to the human detritus in cycling who have traditionally made it mandatory to get on the gear. Remember Manzano? Guy almost died after getting the wrong dose and everything was swept under the carpet.
The debate about the legality (wether they should be legal or not) of various drugs is an interesting and valid one, but you cannot say that Bobridge is 'not a criminal'. MDMA is defined by law as a Class A illegal substance, and the supply of it is illegal. Bobridge chose to knowingly break the law purely for financial gain. He is therefore a criminal. That much is fact.

If the law gets changed in the future then it's still irrelevant to the Bobridge case....he knew the legal consequences of what he was doing at the time he was doing it and therefore got what he deserved.

Wether he's a better or worse criminal than other breeds of criminal you may choose to cite is open to interpretation
 
Stingray34 said:
These boys certainly seem to gravitate to this lifestyle during and after their careers.
Looking into what the judge was actually thinking, he alludes to exactly what you said :
https://thewest.com.au/news/court-justice/disgraced-olympian-jack-bobridge-jailed-for-drug-trafficking-ng-b881251035z
"Judge Scott said Bobridge was like a lot of young athletes, both locally and internationally, who “are subject to a number of pressures for which you may not be equipped. That may provide some explanation as to why you were a user of drugs, but no explanation for why you’d be a prolific user and then a dealer of ecstasy”.

Pro cyclists with 'addictive personalities' seeking stimulation off the bike, itinerant lifestyle in which there is not much propriety expected in any given tour stop, cycling is already known as a 'pharmaceutical' profession... all those factors add up, and probably there is a higher incidence of addiction / recreational drugs among them. Plus in this case, Perth has a huge EDM / rave scene where there is a market for entrepreneurs such as Bobridge
rick james said:
4 and a half years....offt that’s a sore one to take
Certainly so, and that also made me wonder about sentencing guidelines in Australia, isn't that sentence relatively harsh for the extent of what he did... and the answer under Australian law is no, the judge could have given Bobridge up to a maximum of 15 years in prison, and fully half of all MDMA traffickers at his level got 4 - 7 year sentences
https://druglawyer.armstronglegal.com.au/web/page/likely-penalty-drug-supply
It's like the judge just gave Bobridge towards the lower end of the standard sentence - which is not to let him off the hook for celebrity or athletic merit or whatever. But also not to make an example of him with above-average sentence.
 
ClassicomanoLuigi said:
Stingray34 said:
These boys certainly seem to gravitate to this lifestyle during and after their careers.
Looking into what the judge was actually thinking, he alludes to exactly what you said :
https://thewest.com.au/news/court-justice/disgraced-olympian-jack-bobridge-jailed-for-drug-trafficking-ng-b881251035z
"Judge Scott said Bobridge was like a lot of young athletes, both locally and internationally, who “are subject to a number of pressures for which you may not be equipped. That may provide some explanation as to why you were a user of drugs, but no explanation for why you’d be a prolific user and then a dealer of ecstasy”.

Pro cyclists with 'addictive personalities' seeking stimulation off the bike, itinerant lifestyle in which there is not much propriety expected in any given tour stop, cycling is already known as a 'pharmaceutical' profession... all those factors add up, and probably there is a higher incidence of addiction / recreational drugs among them. Plus in this case, Perth has a huge EDM / rave scene where there is a market for entrepreneurs such as Bobridge
rick james said:
4 and a half years....offt that’s a sore one to take
Certainly so, and that also made me wonder about sentencing guidelines in Australia, isn't that sentence relatively harsh for the extent of what he did... and the answer under Australian law is no, the judge could have given Bobridge up to a maximum of 15 years in prison, and fully half of all MDMA traffickers at his level got 4 - 7 year sentences
https://druglawyer.armstronglegal.com.au/web/page/likely-penalty-drug-supply
It's like the judge just gave Bobridge towards the lower end of the standard sentence - which is not to let him off the hook for celebrity or athletic merit or whatever. But also not to make an example of him with above-average sentence.
You'll find that Western Australia has tougher sentencing laws then the other states in Australia. Though in this case Borbridge did OK.
 
Re: Re:

brownbobby said:
the delgados said:
proffate said:
MDMA (Ecstasy) is close to the least harmful substance out there. Let's raise a glass to Australia for keeping this madman off the streets.
I agree with the sentiment expressed. I think all drugs should be legalized, but it should be noted that unless you have a trusted dealer, you never know what's in an ecstasy pill.
Then again, people quickly catch on to who is selling bad batches, and those mofos quickly go out of business.
I do not consider Bobridge a criminal, especially when compared to the human detritus in cycling who have traditionally made it mandatory to get on the gear. Remember Manzano? Guy almost died after getting the wrong dose and everything was swept under the carpet.
The debate about the legality (wether they should be legal or not) of various drugs is an interesting and valid one, but you cannot say that Bobridge is 'not a criminal'. MDMA is defined by law as a Class A illegal substance, and the supply of it is illegal. Bobridge chose to knowingly break the law purely for financial gain. He is therefore a criminal. That much is fact.

If the law gets changed in the future then it's still irrelevant to the Bobridge case....he knew the legal consequences of what he was doing at the time he was doing it and therefore got what he deserved.

Wether he's a better or worse criminal than other breeds of criminal you may choose to cite is open to interpretation
Have you heard of civil disobedience? Many people believe you're under no obligation to follow laws you don't consider moral.

As far as the presence of other drugs mixed into ecstasy pills: that's a real problem, but to me it's an argument for the legalization and regulation of the substance, not harsher laws.
 
Re: Re:

proffate said:
brownbobby said:
the delgados said:
proffate said:
MDMA (Ecstasy) is close to the least harmful substance out there. Let's raise a glass to Australia for keeping this madman off the streets.
I agree with the sentiment expressed. I think all drugs should be legalized, but it should be noted that unless you have a trusted dealer, you never know what's in an ecstasy pill.
Then again, people quickly catch on to who is selling bad batches, and those mofos quickly go out of business.
I do not consider Bobridge a criminal, especially when compared to the human detritus in cycling who have traditionally made it mandatory to get on the gear. Remember Manzano? Guy almost died after getting the wrong dose and everything was swept under the carpet.
The debate about the legality (wether they should be legal or not) of various drugs is an interesting and valid one, but you cannot say that Bobridge is 'not a criminal'. MDMA is defined by law as a Class A illegal substance, and the supply of it is illegal. Bobridge chose to knowingly break the law purely for financial gain. He is therefore a criminal. That much is fact.

If the law gets changed in the future then it's still irrelevant to the Bobridge case....he knew the legal consequences of what he was doing at the time he was doing it and therefore got what he deserved.

Wether he's a better or worse criminal than other breeds of criminal you may choose to cite is open to interpretation
Have you heard of civil disobedience? Many people believe you're under no obligation to follow laws you don't consider moral.

As far as the presence of other drugs mixed into ecstasy pills: that's a real problem, but to me it's an argument for the legalization and regulation of the substance, not harsher laws.
Yeah sure i've heard of it...its just a polite term for anarchy.

Look, i firmly believe that certain recreational drugs, MDMA included, should be legalised. But i also firmly believe in a need for society to be governed by laws with consequence for those who choose to break those laws.

I mean whose moral compass do we decide to follow when choosing which laws to follow and which to flout?

Fact is, Bobridge wasn't on some kind of moral crusade, he knew the law as it stood and he chose to do what he did purely for personal financial gain. He's now paying the consequence for that. Regardless of my views on the legal status of MDMA, that's absolutely how things should be IMHO.
 
brownbobby:
We all know that human beings create laws that can and have changed over time.
There is no need to remind about laws regarding sexual orientation, segregation, etc. etc. that have been abolished in most civilized countries throughout the world over the years.
To say you agree that laws regarding drug use should be changed but follow up by saying the law is the law is a bit confusing. You either think they should be changed or you don't. If you think they should be changed it is okay to say Bobridge is not a criminal. Sure, technically he is; we all get the point. But so is someone in some jurisdictions who sell pot.
Which brings me back to the fundamental arbitrary aspect about what drug is considered legal and what isn't.
I go back to the Manzano case. My opinion about this does not matter, but I wonder why those involved in plying him with drugs and/or tainted blood bags walk away scot-free while Bobridge is considered by some as a criminal.
 
Re: Re:

brownbobby said:
I mean whose moral compass do we decide to follow when choosing which laws to follow and which to flout?

Fact is, Bobridge wasn't on some kind of moral crusade, he knew the law as it stood and he chose to do what he did purely for personal financial gain.
You follow your own moral compass... What is hard to understand about that? I guess you're of the opinion that Nazi soldiers who were just following orders were doing the Right Thing, but the judges at Nuremberg did not agree with you.

We don't know exactly why Jack was slinging drugs but if you believe that MDMA should be legal then his motives are morally the exact same as someone who sells shoes for a living. Maybe they do love money, but they're also helping people by satisfying demand for a product.

The police state that you advocate is dystopic.
 
Re: Re:

proffate said:
brownbobby said:
I mean whose moral compass do we decide to follow when choosing which laws to follow and which to flout?

Fact is, Bobridge wasn't on some kind of moral crusade, he knew the law as it stood and he chose to do what he did purely for personal financial gain.
You follow your own moral compass... What is hard to understand about that? I guess you're of the opinion that Nazi soldiers who were just following orders were doing the Right Thing, but the judges at Nuremberg did not agree with you.

We don't know exactly why Jack was slinging drugs but if you believe that MDMA should be legal then his motives are morally the exact same as someone who sells shoes for a living. Maybe they do love money, but they're also helping people by satisfying demand for a product.

The police state that you advocate is dystopic.
So everyone should follow their own moral compass?.....If we're going to use the most extreme examples in history like the Nazi's then ok....The extremists who commit mass murder in the name of a religion which they strongly believe in, they get a free pass?

I don't advocate a police state, i advocate and believe in laws put in place through a democratic process...sure democracy isn't perfect, but you have to start from something....and allowing individuals free choice over which laws they choose to obey is a gateway to huge societal issues.

If you don't agree with the law as it stands, try and and change it through legitimate process. Don't just break the law and then cry foul when you suffer the consequences.
 
the delgados said:
brownbobby:
We all know that human beings create laws that can and have changed over time.
There is no need to remind about laws regarding sexual orientation, segregation, etc. etc. that have been abolished in most civilized countries throughout the world over the years.
To say you agree that laws regarding drug use should be changed but follow up by saying the law is the law is a bit confusing. You either think they should be changed or you don't. If you think they should be changed it is okay to say Bobridge is not a criminal. Sure, technically he is; we all get the point. But so is someone in some jurisdictions who sell pot.
Which brings me back to the fundamental arbitrary aspect about what drug is considered legal and what isn't.
I go back to the Manzano case. My opinion about this does not matter, but I wonder why those involved in plying him with drugs and/or tainted blood bags walk away scot-free while Bobridge is considered by some as a criminal.
The law regarding MDMA is a bit more complex than other examples such as the ones you quote above....

Unlike pot/marijuana MDMA is a manufactured chemical, if it ever gets legalised, it will come with strict regulation and controls on purity, doseage and quantities supplied, similar to any prescription or even over the counter pharmaceuticals. Of course this can only be a good thing, most of the problems with MDMA arise from impurities and overdose and its for this reason that i think most recreational drugs should be legalised and controlled.

That's not the same thing as saying that current suppliers who are distributing products from unregulated underground labs and willing to sell unchecked to anyone willing to buy are good guys providing a much needed service.

With regards to the Manzano case, i agree with you....but two wrongs don't make a right.
 
You can believe that he "shouldn't be treated as" a criminal, or that he "shouldn't be" a criminal, but you can't change that he knowingly committed a crime, and therefore, by definition, is a criminal.

Yes, civil disobedience is a thing, and yes, you can bring up extreme examples like Nazi camp workers and East German border guards, but let's face it, there, you're into the realm where the people who refuse to comply with the law are committing acts of kindness to save other people.

I do not see taking recreational drugs as being a necessary basic human right, and therefore regardless of whether or not certain drugs should or shouldn't be illegal, don't see that this is a cross worth dying on. When we talk of the positives of civil disobedience, we're talking about people who took a stand against things like segregation laws. Laws or regimes limiting or preventing freedom of speech or movement. Laws which have either been condemned at the time (e.g. South African apartheid, which saw the nation an international pariah) or been contentious at the time. People who stood up to laws like that and were punished for it, that's defensible civil disobedience. Regardless of whether it may be less harmful than a large number of other substances, nobody is being actively oppressed, having their human rights trampled on, by not being able to take ecstasy, and therefore dealing it is not something worthy of martyrdom.
 
LS: I have already acknowledged that society deems him a criminal. I never brought up the Nazi example, nor do I think Bobridge is a martyr.
Not sure why you don't think a free agent has the right to determine which drugs to ingest. Perhaps you can elaborate on why people should be able to take one drug but not another. I never suggested that dealers are committed to saving the lives of others. Seems to me that you are narrowing the scope of what drug is good and bad to consume.
In my not so humble opinion, people can choose what they want to take in order to alter their senses. It is up to the consumer to take proper precautions. I would venture to guess that the vast majority of drug users would agree with the sentiment that they don't need to be told what to do by some rando.
As for the overriding point you are making, I could not agree more.

brownbobby:
The country in which I live have places set aside at 48 hour music festivals where every consumer can have their drugs checked for purity. The space is set up to make sure everyone is safe and there is no fear about being arrested. Basically, you buy the drugs from some rando and can have it tested on site. That's awesome and it sheds new ideas about the legality of recreational drugs. Like I said, word spreads fast when shitty drugs are being sold to unsuspecting customers, and it is awesome to have a regulated place where people can get info without fear of getting busted.
Also, yeah I agree. Introducing the Manzano example does not necessarily apply to what we are talking about. The Manzano case involves a lot more aspects than some randos and popo's on the street.
 
I'm not narrowing the scope based on drugs, but based on the examples of civil disobedience given. Civil disobedience against, say, apartheid laws, which oppress basic human rights, is one thing, and regardless of your stance on criminalization or legalization of recreational drugs, which do not, they are another. If the government were preventing the distribution of drugs for legitimate medical and pharmaceutical reasons, and Bobridge was providing people with those drugs despite the risk, then we could consider that civil disobedience that merited defending. But it isn't. Recreational drugs are by definition recreational, and Bobridge isn't motivated by anything other than profit to distribute them. He knew it was against the law going in, and he knowingly broke the law to do so, and with no claim to the moral high ground. Therefore even if one believes the law should be changed, you can't argue that Bobridge isn't a criminal - but you can argue that he shouldn't be one.

Therefore regardless of stance on particular substances, I see no reason not to treat him as a common criminal, for that is in fact what he, as things stand, is.

Saying "people are under no obligation to follow laws they do not consider moral" is just way too crass a generalization to be of any value. Some people favour the death penalty, does that mean that we shouldn't penalize lynch mobs if they genuinely believe that the death penalty should have been applied for the crimes undertaken?
 
Just to be clear, I know there is a sliding scale regarding civil disobedience.
Advocating for legalizing drug use is nothing compared to fighting for a group of people fighting for their right to exist; and I apologize if anyone interpreted my argument in terms of equating the two to be of equal importance. That was not my intention.
This thread was/is about recreational (and to some respect PED's) drug use, and the arbitrary nature in which laws are applied.
Imagine sitting in jail for life for trafficking drugs when the state or country next to you has deemed the drugs you were selling to be legal. In my opinion, that is a violation of human rights.
And at risk of becoming even more redundant, I believe everyone has a basic human right concerning what they put in their body. Part of doing so is taking personal responsibility for knowing what you're putting into your body..
Let's face it: There are a ton of manufacturers of one type of drug or another who make billiions on selling a product deemed to be legal. That point was mentioned a while back by the poster who provided statistics regarding the relative harm each drug potentially possesses.
That is why I don't consider Bobridge to be a criminal. Everyone has a right to make a living, and as long as he's not selling bad batches that contain lethal ingredients, he isn't doing anything different than government approved companies.
 
There are a lot of ways to make a living in Australia that don't involve illegal drugs. It's not like he's in some destroyed village in Afghanistan, or a rebel-held town in Colombia where opium or coke farming is the difference between food on the table and starvation. He's in an affluent, first world country, in a major city. And MDMA being a synthetic, manufactured substance takes out the other argument that can be made regarding marijuana, mushrooms etc.. He's also not sitting in jail 'for life'. He's sitting in jail for four and a half years, which basically means that if he behaves himself he'll be there for three, tops. Anyway, what countries next to Australia have legalised MDMA?

While you may feel that Bobridge shouldn't be a criminal, that's how you should frame it. Not that he isn't a criminal, because he is. It's not like he was showing civil disobedience because of a moral crusade against perceived unfair drug laws, because his motive was not to draw attention to a perceived unfair law but to make money, and the majority of Australians are against the legalization of ecstasy anyway. As you can see from that, the study shows that while half of Australians felt ecstasy should be 'decriminalized', only 6,2% thought it should be 'legalized'. Also, a key factor was that support for decriminalization of the drug was limited to possession of quantities for personal consumption only, and not support for the decriminalization of sale or supply.

Anyway, I don't really want to get bogged down in the minutiae of drug laws, because I feel a lot of your points on the subject are fair. I'm just arguing the semantics, pointing out that it's nonsense to say that Bobridge is not a criminal, because he was neither unaware that he was breaking the law, nor is there any great moral purpose to his actions. He's just a drug dealer, and nothing more, and for that he's committed the crime - and now he's, quite rightly, doing the time.

Proffate is the one that invoked Godwin's Law, suggesting that imprisoning drug dealers is equivalent to pardoning Nazi camp guards because of following the law at the time, because they don't like the current drug laws, which is how the sliding scale of civil disobedience discussion came about.
 
Some incredibly insightful posts on this thread. Kudos to all.

It's a very good point from the poster who listed the chart of dangerous drugs. Though why wasn't Ice on that list? Or is it called something else? That is what seems to be causing the most trouble and damage in Australia. And alcohol of course is always a problem, though given the number of people who drink, it's arguably not as big a problem on a "damage caused per user" type of analysis.

The Bobridge situation is a tough one. You can take the attitude of, "drug dealers are the scum of the earth" type of mentality, or that, "he was just making a little extra money on the side, supplying a generally quite harmless drug that many people seem to gain a great deal of happiness from". As stated by LS, Bobridge wasn't doing this for the benefit of others though.

At this point in time, maybe it is simply that the penalty is too harsh. It was his first offence (or first time caught), correct? If we are not talking millions of dollars, and he isn't selling ice, then four years seems like a very long time. Perhaps six months for a first time offence of this would be better? Nobody wants to go to jail full stop, so this could still be somewhat of a deterrent.
 
Re:

Libertine Seguros said:
Proffate is the one that invoked Godwin's Law, suggesting that imprisoning drug dealers is equivalent to pardoning Nazi camp guards because of following the law at the time, because they don't like the current drug laws, which is how the sliding scale of civil disobedience discussion came about.
I brought up the Nuremberg trials as a clear example of a case where modern civilization expected individuals to apply their own judgment, rather than blindly obeying regulations/laws/orders handed down from their government.

Everyone is focusing on a profit motive here, but you actually have no idea why Jack was in the business. MDMA is legal to prescribe in many countries, and is used for treating mental health conditions such as PTSD. Nearly all adults have some form of trauma, aka baggage, yet most won't jump through the hoops or shoulder the insane expense* required for legal access to MDMA. It's entirely reasonable to guess that Jack might believe recreational and medical access to MDMA is an intrinsic human right, and feel good about enabling others to use it.

I personally don't place much importance in what the majority of Australian voters think. The majority of Americans appear to think bicycles shouldn't be allowed off the sidewalk, but that's due to a lack of education and empathy. Since the 60s at least, psychedelic drugs have been associated with counter culture and thus governments have warred against them, which has included focused disinformation campaigns. I'm not surprised that they've convinced a majority of the population to be afraid.

*Drug companies usually charge something north of 10x the street price for the same substances. If we're interested in what *should* be considered criminal I think that takes the cake. Ketamine (esketamine) was recently approved for depression in the US. It costs $900/hit.
 
For what it's worth, proffate summed up what I was thinking in a more articulate and concise manner.
Also, I was not referring to Bobridge serving life in prison. We all know it is a four-year term. I was referring to people in Canada and the States who are rotting in jail for crimes that are now deemed to be legal.
 
Re: Re:

proffate said:
Everyone is focusing on a profit motive here, but you actually have no idea why Jack was in the business. MDMA is legal to prescribe in many countries, and is used for treating mental health conditions such as PTSD. Nearly all adults have some form of trauma, aka baggage, yet most won't jump through the hoops or shoulder the insane expense* required for legal access to MDMA. It's entirely reasonable to guess that Jack might believe recreational and medical access to MDMA is an intrinsic human right, and feel good about enabling others to use it.
But it isn't an intrinsic human right, and it does make him a criminal.

As pointed out before, semantics. You can argue that he shouldn't be criminalized (however, users and dealers are two different things from both a legal and a moral standpoint) but you can't argue that he isn't a criminal. Unless you can prove to me that Jack was dealing MDMA only to people who had medical need for it, and I strongly suspect he wasn't, then he is a criminal.

*Drug companies usually charge something north of 10x the street price for the same substances. If we're interested in what *should* be considered criminal I think that takes the cake. Ketamine (esketamine) was recently approved for depression in the US. It costs $900/hit.
I won't argue against you on this point. However, there is a significant difference between believing that control and regulation of the drug market is a good thing, and that this requires decriminalization of the users, and the kind of lionizing that we're seeing in this thread, where we are seeing straight-faced suggestions that Bobridge, for dealing X, is a man wronged by the system. You can argue that the system is wrong, and clearly there are some intrinsic flaws in the system (and that is on both sides of the law - yes, the 'war on drugs' in the western world has had some very negative consequences, but also let's not elevate the status of those on the other side, many of the dealers, traffickers and so forth care for their clientele only in as much as they want to retain their business); but he knew what the system was when he got into it. He's not campaigning against the trampling of basic human rights (and no, MDMA is NOT an intrinsic human right, even if your hypothetical altruistic version of Bobridge may think so, even for medical use, and the denial of the right to take MDMA is not a cross worth dying on that it's a defensible act of civil disobedience), despite the risks, otherwise he'd have been campaigning for it when he was caught. He's not a moral crusader for good. He isn't a martyr. He's a drug dealer, and nothing more.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts