I can't believe i'm saying this, but Phil Gould has recently shown what i consider to be one of the best bits of journalistic thinking about alcohol that i've read in a very long time. What it all boils down to is this: cost/benefit analysis. Gould has come to the realisation that the benefits to NRL players of drinking alcohol simply don't outweigh the cost.
In the Sunday Roast's coverage of the topic, Mark Geyer summed it up like this (not exact wording): If someone told me at 18 years of age that they would put 5 million dollars in my bank account in 10 years, but they would only do it on condition that i wouldn't drink alcohol during those 10 years, knowing what i know now, i would sign it tomorrow.
No moralising (in fact Gould specifically bemoans the fact that those he calls "the do-gooders" have won this argument), just plain old common sense. It's rather refreshing to see.
