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

Remove this Banner Ad

The question is what will you be calling for - I know the technicalities of it. Will you be calling for the maximum penalty if guilty or not.

Having followed the case closely I would think the players will be cleared. However if the players went off protocol (not duped) then they deserve max penalty (I don't believe this to be the case though).

Need to hear more about pies players but doesn't look good at this stage.
 
actually it doesn't refer to being "club organised" or "systematic" or anything like that. Just two or more players getting an ADRV.

Not that I think they should get a team-based penalty mind you
That being the case with Ryder and Monfries being at Port does that count as them having two ADRV's if both are found guilty tomorrow?
ANd doesn't EFC have 17 current ADRV's currently pending so are open to more punishment from AFL?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Depends on the circumstances. If EFC players were duped then their blame is significantly reduced. Same applies for Pies players. As EFC players offended and were charged prior to 2015 max penalty is 2 years. Pies players face a max penalty of 4 years under 2015 code.

Each case should be treated on its merits.

:thumbsu: Kudos.

Sadly many of our regular Essendon posters have displayed a stunning level of hypocrisy in the last few hours; blended with a particularly unsavoury blend of misplaced petty vengeance. And more than a frisson of wilfull distortion aimed at trying to paint the picture of a universe where two is a higher number than 34..

In other news, we'll be hearing the words "contaminated meat" quite a lot in the near future, methinks.
 
:thumbsu: Kudos.

Sadly many of our regular Essendon posters have displayed a stunning level of hypocrisy in the last few hours; blended with a particularly unsavoury blend of misplaced petty vengeance. And more than a frisson of wilfull distortion aimed at trying to paint the picture of a universe where two is a higher number than 34..

In other news, we'll be hearing the words "contaminated meat" quite a lot in the near future, methinks.
So now you're willing to offer benefit of the doubt?
a stunning level of hypocrisy
 
If EFC players were duped then their blame is significantly reduced.

Not quite that straightforward. They have to show that they did everything they could have and should have to make sure they didn't use anything prohibited. "No significant fault" has specific criteria that are not easy to meet, it's not an automatic Get Out Of Jail Free card.
 
That underlines how the "governance" excuse trotted out by your club was rubbish. So other clubs can lack accountability and still not do to their players the horrific things EFC did to theirs. Let's call EFC for what it is: a failure of the character and decency.
At the moment, there is nothing to suggest ours was any worse than Collingwood's. There is only 19.5 hours to go mate, surely you can wait that long before making a judgement?

Someone please put me under anaesthetic!
 
I think you mean found guilty of taking a banned drug via positive tests = 2 years.

Found guilty of of taking a banned drug via other means = 2 years.

In both cases the athlete took drugs that were banned. No difference.

Actually, the new rules are in now. It's 4 years maximum. There is alot more flexibility for "circumstances" now though than there was for 2014 rules. So depending on the reason, and it want to be a good one, they could get 4 years or not alot.
 
Maybe its the way I am explaining it, or you are just looking for a fight.
Either way its your problem

No, I'm not looking for a fight.

I'm just stunned by the continued use of the stupidity excuse by footballers instead of just simply saying they cheated. Other sports don't use this excuse.

How about asking the footballers if they understood the drug education they received? Perhaps they need to be tested on the drug education program and to sign off on it. If very young teenage gymnasts can understand why can't footballers?

The impression I get is that people using this excuse aren't really incensed about cheating but rather that they stuffed up by getting caught.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

:thumbsu: Kudos.

Sadly many of our regular Essendon posters have displayed a stunning level of hypocrisy in the last few hours; blended with a particularly unsavoury blend of misplaced petty vengeance. And more than a frisson of wilfull distortion aimed at trying to paint the picture of a universe where two is a higher number than 34..

In other news, we'll be hearing the words "contaminated meat" quite a lot in the near future, methinks.

EFC fans have endured a lot - its easy to see why some want some retaliation against other fans.

I'd say the public in general have tended to apply the guilty until proven innocent scenario throughout most of this.

It's not only EFC fans who have been hypocrites. All clubs fans have been guilty of this throughout the past 2-3 years.

The Michael Rogers contaminated meat defence is on the cards for sure. It seems unlikely though given the extremely low concentrations administered to cattle in NZ and the short half life of 48hrs
 
So now you're willing to offer benefit of the doubt?

My alleged unwillingness is not relevant.

Hypocrisy is the claim or pretense of holding beliefs, feelings, standards, qualities, opinions, behaviors, virtues, motivations, or other characteristics that one does not actually hold.

Or to put it another way reacting differently to what your stated beliefs mandate you will react. Or one standard for me, another standard for others.

A practice we have seen in spades this afternoon.

My standards have not changed over the journey, and I'm just as ready to see the Collingwood 2 and the Essendon 34 fry. And if we start to hear the words "contaminated meat" then I'll be calling bullshit.

Geddit? It's not difficult.
 
No, I'm not looking for a fight.

I'm just stunned by the continued use of the stupidity excuse by footballers instead of just simply saying they cheated. Other sports don't use this excuse.

How about asking the footballers if they understood the drug education they received? Perhaps they need to be tested on the drug education program and to sign off on it. If very young teenage gymnasts can understand why can't footballers?

The impression I get is that people using this excuse aren't really incensed about cheating but rather that they stuffed up by getting caught.

I think you need to re-read his initial quote mate.

He said the players should receive two years for the drugs, plus another two years on top of it for stupidity.

It was a joke...
 
Not quite that straightforward. They have to show that they did everything they could have and should have to make sure they didn't use anything prohibited. "No significant fault" has specific criteria that are not easy to meet, it's not an automatic Get Out Of Jail Free card.

I'll use the Jobe Watson interview

1. Signed form that he was taking legal thymosin (thymomodulin)
2. Observed vial labelled thymomodulin
3. Received injection of vial labelled thymomodulin

Thus Watson believed he was receiving thymomodulin. If he was duped by individuals falsely labelling vials then I don't think it is reasonable to punish player under that circumstance.

The players initiated consent forms as they wanted to ensure they were compliant. They actually went above and beyond the requirements at the time.
 
I think you need to re-read his initial quote mate.

He said the players should receive two years for the drugs, plus another two years on top of it for stupidity.

It was a joke...
He may have meant it as a joke, but stupidity as an excuse is pervasive in football all the way to the top whether it is betting, PEDs or assaulting people.
 
Regardless of what comes of these 2 young men, Collingwood have brought the game into disrepute and for this reason they should be banned from the finals, banned from the first 2 rounds of the draft for the first two seasons and a hefty fine.

;)
 
I'll use the Jobe Watson interview

1. Signed form that he was taking legal thymosin (thymomodulin)
2. Observed vial labelled thymomodulin
3. Received injection of vial labelled thymomodulin

Thus Watson believed he was receiving thymomodulin. If he was duped by individuals falsely labelling vials then I don't think it is reasonable to punish player under that circumstance.

The players initiated consent forms as they wanted to ensure they were compliant. They actually went above and beyond the requirements at the time.

If only what you stated wasn't complete BS

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...watsons-evidence/story-fnca0u4y-1226790856749
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top