| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Steve86 
Joined: 29 May 2006
Location: perth
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| If they did it, or absorbed it using recreational drugs then whatever cop the suspension ( I'm assuming they are getting one regardless?? ) but if they took it knowingly then obviously piss them off. We can't all sit here and think that some of our players, and a lot in the AFL aren't getting pinged for recreational because they are and thats life AND they all get to keep playing. |
|
|
|
 |
On the March
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I must confess it does seem odd that if (if) these guys are guilty of taking illicit drugs, albeit that it coincidentally contained other substances how that compares to Bennell - a couple of weeks off and back you come.  |
|
|
|
|
David 
to wish impossible things
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: the edge of the deep green sea
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^ The difference is that, if they have physically benefited, even inadvertently, then they may have an unfair advantage.
Bennell should never have been suspended in the first place.
By the way, great posts Lazza, gurugeoff and others. Good to see some compassion and willingness to reserve judgement on here.
Personally, I'd love to see both of them back in the team ASAP, but obviously that's a decision that the football club will have to make when the time comes. The fact they haven't been training makes it harder – I'm not sure how they would have kept their fitness levels up.
_________________
"Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange |
|
|
|
|
woftam 
I used to be undecided, but now I'm not so sure.
Joined: 28 Jul 2008
Location: Carum Downs, Vic
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Regardless of right or wrong about illicit drugs etc. can the club afford to be 2 players down on the list again next year? I think not. |
|
|
|
|
David
to wish impossible things
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: the edge of the deep green sea
|
| Post subject: | |
|
As rookies, possibly. But I guess if the club is that committed to them (and they are out until 2017), we could always pick them up in the next draft.
_________________
"Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange |
|
|
|
|
qldmagpie67
Joined: 18 Dec 2008
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Didn't Eddie say a couple months ago the club would support the players regardless of the outcome. Then added that there future with the club (as players) would come down to there honesty in telling the club exactly what happened then the club would make the appropriate decision.
IMO they are no more guilty than any stupid young person who takes any illicit substance. They will pay a huge price no matter what the outcome. There reputations are shattered there careers in ruins there lives destroyed (in terms of earning top $$ as footballers)
This is a society issue and whilst we want to hold players to different standards to members of the public in the end they are just young men who made a terrible mistake.
Lazza your right everyone is entitled to there own opinion and no one is wrong when it's there opinion.
At the end of the day I hope both lads can find a place in society (whether it's inside a football club or not) where they can get there lives back on track. |
|
|
|
|
WhyPhilWhy?
WhyPhilWhy?
Joined: 09 Oct 2001
Location: Location: Location:
|
| Post subject: | |
|
http://www.collingwoodfc.com.au/news/2015-07-29/statement-infraction-notices-issued
| Quote: | | On Wednesday, AFL General Counsel Andrew Dillon issued Infraction Notices to Lachlan Keeffe and Josh Thomas of the Collingwood Football Club, after being formally notified by the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority of the recent decision of the Anti-Doping Rule Violation Panel that those Players had possibly breached the AFL Anti Doping Code... |
|
|
|
|
|
RudeBoy
Joined: 28 Nov 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Can anyone explain the sense of this statement, from the AFL - on the club's website:
The substance, clenbuterol, is not a specified substance on the AFL Anti-Doping prohibited list and as such, has required the players to be provisionally suspended.
So it's not on the prohibited list??? WTF? Why have they even been charged, let alone stood down, awaiting suspension? |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw 
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
|
|
|
|
MightyMagpie
Joined: 04 Jun 2013
Location: WA
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| RudeBoy wrote: | Can anyone explain the sense of this statement, from the AFL - on the club's website:
The substance, clenbuterol, is not a specified substance on the AFL Anti-Doping prohibited list and as such, has required the players to be provisionally suspended.
So it's not on the prohibited list??? WTF? Why have they even been charged, let alone stood down, awaiting suspension? |
There is a difference between Prohibited Substance and Specified Substance ... the footnote quoted below seems to clarify it somewhat.
Specified Substances seem to be a subset of Prohibited Substances.
From the AFL Code:
Prohibited Substance means any substance so described on the WADA Prohibited List.
Specified Substance means substances identified as specified substances in the WADA Prohibited List.
THE 2010 PROHIBITED LIST WORLD ANTI-DOPING CODE Valid 1 January 2010
All Prohibited Substances shall be considered as “Specified Substances” except Substances in classes S1, S2.1 to S2.5, S.4.4 and S6.a, and Prohibited Methods M1, M2 and M3.
14.3 Elimination or Reduction of Period of Ineligibility for Specified Substances under Specific Circumstances.
Where a Player or other Person can establish how a Specified Substance entered his body or came into his Possession and that such Specified Substance was not intended to enhance the Player’s sport performance or mask the Use of a performance-enhancing substance, the period of Ineligibility found in Clause 14.1 shall be replaced with the following:
First violation: At a minimum, a reprimand and no period of Ineligibility, and at a maximum, two (2) years of Ineligibility.
To justify any elimination or reduction, the Player or other Person must produce corroborating evidence in addition to his word which establishes to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing panel the absence of an intent to enhance sport performance or mask the Use of a performance-enhancing substance. The Player’s or other Person’s degree of fault shall be the criterion considered in assessing any reduction of the period of Ineligibility.19
Footnote 19 to clause 14.3:
Specified Substances are not necessarily less serious agents for purposes of sports doping than other Prohibited Substances (for example, a stimulant that is listed as a Specified Substance could be very effective to a Player In Competition); for that reason, a Player who does not meet the criteria under this Clause would receive a two-year period of Ineligibility and could receive up to a four-year period of Ineligibility under Clause 14.5. However, there is a greater likelihood that Specified Substances, as opposed to other Prohibited Substances, could be susceptible to a credible, non-doping explanation. This Clause applies only in those cases where the Tribunal is comfortably satisfied by the objective circumstances of the case that the Player in taking or Possessing a Prohibited Substance did not intend to enhance his sport performance. Examples of the type of objective circumstances which in combination might lead a hearing panel to be comfortably satisfied of no performance- enhancing intent would include: the fact that the nature of the Specified Substance or the timing of its ingestion would not have been beneficial to the Player; the Player’s open Use or disclosure of his Use of the Specified Substance; and a contemporaneous medical records file substantiating the non sport-related prescription for the Specified Substance. Generally, the greater the potential performance-enhancing benefit, the higher the burden on the Player to prove lack of an intent to enhance sport performance.
While the absence of intent to enhance sport performance must be established to the comfortable satisfaction of the Tribunal, the Player may establish how the Specified Substance entered the body by a balance of probability.
In assessing the Player’s or other Person’s degree of fault, the circumstances considered must be specific and relevant to explain the Player’s or other Person’s departure from the expected standard of behaviour. Thus, for example, the fact that a Player would lose the opportunity to earn large sums of money during a period of Ineligibility or the fact that the Player only has a short time left in his career or the timing of the sporting calendar would not be relevant factors to be considered in reducing the period of Ineligibility under this Clause. It is anticipated that the period of Ineligibility will be eliminated entirely in only the most exceptional cases.
_________________
All We Can Be |
|
|
|
|
RudeBoy
Joined: 28 Nov 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Thanks MM.
Clear as mud. |
|
|
|
|
MatthewBoydFanClub
Joined: 12 Feb 2007
Location: Elwood
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| So how come Keeffe and Thomas are likely to be banned for two years and Crowley only got one year. Is that because they play for Collingwood? |
|
|
|
|
Domesticated_Ape 
Joined: 01 Oct 2012
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | As rookies, possibly. But I guess if the club is that committed to them (and they are out until 2017), we could always pick them up in the next draft. |
This!
Why on earth would you want to keep them on the rookie list clogging space?
Lets face it they were never elite players anyway. Thomas probably shouldn't be picked up at all as he's too small for an inside role and too slow on the outside. Keefe has a bit more to offer, but if he never plays for the Pies again it wont be a big loss either. Let them go and see if they're the best options when they're next available to be drafted.
And no, I don't care if they snorted a bit of coke. Not convinced that's what actually happened, but would give them the benefit of the doubt if they were good enough to get drafted again.
I'd be backing them if they had the talent, basically. It's a harsh world and I want premierships. |
|
|
|
|
E
Joined: 05 May 2010
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I heard Brisbane is going to take both of them if we don't keep 'em.
_________________
Ohhh, the Premiership's a cakewalk ....... |
|
|
|
|
WarrenerraW
Joined: 18 Apr 2008
Location: Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| E wrote: | | I heard Brisbane is going to take both of them if we don't keep 'em. |
Saw an article stating that too. Not necessarily a bad thing. Could be a good and effective way to offload them and package a deal maybe for someone else or picks. |
|
|
|
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
