Collingwood’s Josh Thomas, Lachie Keeffe accept two-year bans for taking banned drug clenbuterol

Remove this Banner Ad

PoppedCorn said:
wtf
i give up
you are now non quoting my quote and linking the thread back to the thread
enjoy youre evening going around in circles

i now see why you kind of get pointed at a bit on here
Click to expand...

:D sorry mate, just quoted it wrong, i thought it was a good post explaining what i wanted to say.

i get pointed at because i like hird and his 34 henchman
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Banker said:
Pretty sure it would, which is why they're not using the cocaine defence?

Cocaine is on the WADA banned list, and given how easy its to detect no chance it wouldn't have come up?
Click to expand...
No no, forget the cocaine, transfer them to the dons, they will fit in perfectly
 
Admiral Byng said:
Well, it's not rocket science.

A player can eat contaminated meat in good faith. Eating meat is a perfectly normal and legal thing to do. You don't expect that the meat you buy from your local butcher or supermarket is contaminated with Clenbuterol. You don't lab-test your groceries just to be sure before you eat them

But there's no such thing as taking cocaine in good faith. It is banned under the AFL's recreational drugs policy for starters... and besides that it is forbidden by law to be in possession of it. There's no excuse, players are expected to be good law-abiding citizens generally speaking, players can get sanctioned for bringing the game into disrepute for all sorts of legal misdemeanors.
Click to expand...
Yes but there's an issue of separation of church and state here.

WADA and ASADA are not the New Zealand police. Cocaine out of competition is not a performance enhancing drug. Therefore I don't see how they can have any legal say on the matter.

Where do you draw the line between legal/illegal activity if you have consumed something in a different country anyway?

The AFL can charge the players with a drug strike and even bringing the game in to disrepute, but that shouldn't influence the ASADA process.

The good faith and risk taking nature of drugs v a steak is a valid point, and I don't think it's a good enough excuse to get completely exonerated as Michael Rogers was but nor do I think it's worth a 4 year ban.
 
fabulousphil said:
but isnt clen a ped so therefore its announced
where as coke is a rec drug and isnt?

so theyve tested positive for both
but by the code rules the ped is announced and the rec drug isnt? (unless it was a third strike?)
is this right?

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/collingwood-pair-test-positive.1091485/page-54#post-37657315
Click to expand...
Not sure if anyone replied to you but WADA/ASADA make the rules. They have tested positive to a banned substance and cant use coke excuse.
 
master bate said:
Yes but there's an issue of separation of church and state here.

WADA and ASADA are not the New Zealand police. Cocaine out of competition is not a performance enhancing drug. Therefore I don't see how they can have any legal say on the matter.

Where do you draw the line between legal/illegal activity if you have consumed something in a different country anyway?

The AFL can charge the players with a drug strike and even bringing the game in to disrepute, but that shouldn't influence the ASADA process.

The good faith and risk taking nature of drugs v a steak is a valid point, and I don't think it's a good enough excuse to get completely exonerated as Michael Rogers was but nor do I think it's worth a 4 year ban.
Click to expand...
They tested in Australia, i believe.
 
master bate said:
Yes but there's an issue of separation of church and state here.

WADA and ASADA are not the New Zealand police. Cocaine out of competition is not a performance enhancing drug. Therefore I don't see how they can have any legal say on the matter.

Where do you draw the line between legal/illegal activity if you have consumed something in a different country anyway?

The AFL can charge the players with a drug strike and even bringing the game in to disrepute, but that shouldn't influence the ASADA process.

The good faith and risk taking nature of drugs v a steak is a valid point, and I don't think it's a good enough excuse to get completely exonerated as Michael Rogers was but nor do I think it's worth a 4 year ban.
Click to expand...

I don't quite follow... you saying that they ate contaminated meat in New Zealand?
 
I don't get why drugs are prohibited, when I take drugs I can't get off my eternal quick sand couch and these guys take drugs and play footy!?

To be serious for 1 second, I found it extremely weird how Thomas had become so lean so quickly during this pre-season.
I have thought it a few times while watching them at training, kinda makes sense now. Didn't wanna run the extra 20km a week so took shortcuts.
Keefe is weird coz I would have thought he needed to put on bulk.
The pressures of being early twenties and having to be a professional could have tricked these two fringe players, and they both know they are fringe, into looking at alternative options to get ahead of everyone.
So many angles you could look at. But for me, it all now makes sense, heartbreaking, but makes sense. I seriously remember thinking "wow, Thomas looks lean and ripped compared to 8 weeks ago"....... This was at training early this year.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

I'd hate to imagine Carowhine's reaction if the players used the tainted cocaine excuse! I cannot believe anyone could consider this would actually have any hope of reducing a suspension. Purchasing from an unknown manufacturer, random dealer and not knowing what you're taking - that's as bad as actually cheating.
 
Tbone McGraw said:
I think that is what he is saying but they did test positive in Aus
Click to expand...

The sample was taken on the Monday. They flew home from NZ on the Saturday I believe. Drug stays in system for about 4 days. They'd had to have consumed something tainted no earlier than Friday to be plausible. I'd think the concentrations used in cattle in NZ are very low and the likelihood of that showing up 3-4 days later is a massive longshot.
 
players are expected to take reasonable precautions not to take PED's.

The precautions needed - and risks of contamination - for eating meat are less. Meat is food that you eat for health and life, and the precautions/risks associated are less than those expected for say the taking of supplements which have a history of being contaminated, and are taken for the purposes of performance enhancement

ie the precautions and risks associated with eating weetbix for breakfast are less than the precautions that you should take before taking those caffeine pills before a game.

The precautions include ensuring that you are eating/taking products that you know where reliably manufactured, processed, are uncontaminated etc. The chances of contamination of the panadol you buy from the chemist that was manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline are substantially less than the chances of contamination of something produced by your mate in his backyard meth lab.

The risks - and level of caution - associated with purchasing and consuming cocaine are exceptionally high.

You will not get a 'no fault' or 'no significant fault' reduction (as is what Micheal Rogers argued to get off) for taking cocaine
 
Admiral Byng said:
I don't quite follow... you saying that they ate contaminated meat in New Zealand?
Click to expand...
Didn't they? I thought the whole time line was based upon post the NZ preseason trip. Either way ASADA are not the police, I don't think they get to judge you on using illicit substances. I do agree there's a difference in innocently eating steak and negligent or recklessly taking illicit drugs, but it's not the legality of the situation that bothers me. I guess the question to ask would be 'can you reasonably assume your cocaine will have clen in it' or maybe even better 'can you be confident your cocaine is clen free'. I certainly won't begrudge them trying that defense though. It would be brave but I'd support their right to a lesser penalty if they were upfront about it and they could at least get their blood samples tested and in some way have 'proof'.
 
efcboy said:
The sample was taken on the Monday. They flew home from NZ on the Saturday I believe. Drug stays in system for about 4 days. They'd had to have consumed something tainted no earlier than Friday to be plausible. I'd think the concentrations used in cattle in NZ are very low and the likelihood of that showing up 3-4 days later is a massive longshot.
Click to expand...
I agree.

They look gone.
 
fabulousphil said:
that's the theory, or one of them, clen is used in livestock in Aus and NZ, a mistake by a farmer to send one off to be prodded earlier than it should be
Click to expand...

Ok, contaminated meat I can accept.

I did originally leap in to contest your challenge of why there should be a distinction between contaminated meat and suspect cocaine.

I just haven't got my head around all of the various lose ends yet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
This is the way to treat drug cheats
2
Replies
25
Views
1K
PoppedCorn
PoppedCorn
CASEYS9420
Moved Thread James Hird - is it time to give him a second chance at coaching an AFL club? Gil says yes! - The PEDs Forum Version
2 3 4
Replies
88
Views
6K
Caligo
Caligo

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top