News Thomas and Keefe - 2 year ban - Trade, De-List, Rookie

[Finnishpie]

I think you missed my point: it is irrelevant how much he might have improved if he kept playing because he didn't and now that makes him is surplus, so we will get no benefit from rookie drafting him (just my view).

Yeah, well I guess the Marty Clarke example would suggest you're right. Still, I'm happy to wait and see how things turn out.

 

[Apex36]

Hope they are not getting paid an income during this time.

It's against WADA rules to be paid a salary for any professional sport during a ban.

 

[MyManLynch]

It's against WADA rules to be paid a salary for any professional sport during a ban.

What about AFL rules, re minimum salary for rookie list players.

 

[partypie]

What about AFL rules, re minimum salary for rookie list players.

I'd guess the sanction overrides any competition rules - afaik they can't be at or participate in any activities with the club (be they paid for or otherwise), so the rookie listing would just be something of a guarantee that they'll have a spot when the ban does eventually get lifted in 2017.

Not sure if we can advise them on training programs, etc but they'd definitely have to be done away from the club until the sanctions are lifted.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

Lets seehow the trade period then rookie draft plays out, then we will know where the two biys are at.
And who knows season 2017 they may want to leave footy behind anyway?

Funny thing, carlisle two games, keefe thomas two years
So why do silly players like carlisle risk so much potentially after keefe thomas taking stuff

Some lessons, alas, are never learnt

 

[Bring_Back_Brad]

Why didn't we just rookie them end of next year?

 

[Apex36]

What about AFL rules, re minimum salary for rookie list players.

Sanctions from WADA/ASADA override any AFL policy.

 

[MyManLynch]

Sanctions from WADA/ASADA override any AFL policy.

So the tail is wagging the dog.
Time to withdraw AFL from WADA & renegotiate Government grants to Football.
The AFL only originally signed up because the Government held a gun to their head (was probably loaded with blanks anyway).
Our game should not be subject to the whims of Canadian Lawyers...(Dick Pound) or sports Administrators living in Switzerland. We have lost control of our game.
Time for the AFL to take back the power.
What do we want...
Full control!
When do we want it...
Now!

 

[rdangelo]

So the tail is wagging the dog.
Time to withdraw AFL from WADA & renegotiate Government grants to Football.
The AFL only originally signed up because the Government held a gun to their head (was probably loaded with blanks anyway).
Our game should not be subject to the whims of Canadian Lawyers...(Dick Pound) or sports Administrators living in Switzerland. We have lost control of our game.
Time for the AFL to take back the power.
What do we want...
Full control!
When do we want it...
Now!

Awesome post. Well said.

 

[Kappa]

Why didn't we just rookie them end of next year?

"moral reasons"

 

[Smokeyr67]

Why didn't we just rookie them end of next year?

I'm with you BBB, I think we can afford to pass on them this year, I doubt that they'll get picked up by another club, and if they do c'est la guerre, I'll wish them luck with their new employer.

 

[Apex36]

So the tail is wagging the dog.
Time to withdraw AFL from WADA & renegotiate Government grants to Football.
The AFL only originally signed up because the Government held a gun to their head (was probably loaded with blanks anyway).
Our game should not be subject to the whims of Canadian Lawyers...(Dick Pound) or sports Administrators living in Switzerland. We have lost control of our game.
Time for the AFL to take back the power.
What do we want...
Full control!
When do we want it...
Now!

Wait, so you're saying a player who has been banned for taking PED's should still get paid?

Sorry, but WADA guidelines are perfectly acceptable in this circumstance.

 

[ThePhantom777]

The club is trying to send a message to the playing group, that we'd rather you be honest with us and we have your best interest at heart. It's called side by side. And has been done much better than most other instances of this kind of thing.

 

[Bring_Back_Brad]

"moral reasons"

Only moral reason would be if we were giving them the clem and it was the clubs fault they got busted.
Otherwise wtf have two players on the list who are banned? Stupid.
Someone needs to get piledriven.

 

[MyManLynch]

Wait, so you're saying a player who has been banned for taking PED's should still get paid?

Sorry, but WADA guidelines are perfectly acceptable in this circumstance.

My point is why do we have WADA/ASADA determining these issues?
If this was totally under the AFL, they would be punished for taking a recreational drug (like Carlisle), with an additional charge of ingesting a PED (accidentally, if the explanation is acceptable to the AFL tribunal).
The ban may not be 2 years, maybe 6-12 months? I don't know?
I never said they should be paid...can you quote me on that?
On the point of being paid whilst banned? Is Carlise? Was Heath Shaw? Or anybody else who is banned?
Something for the AFL/Clubs to decide, not outsiders.
You can take your WADA...I've had enough of them.

 

[motr]

Only moral reason would be if we were giving them the clem and it was the clubs fault they got busted.
Otherwise wtf have two players on the list who are banned? Stupid.
Someone needs to get piledriven.

Moral or morale?

I wonder how many players on the list are thinking, that could have been me.

 

[Apex36]

My point is why do we have WADA/ASADA determining these issues?
If this was totally under the AFL, they would be punished for taking a recreational drug (like Carlisle), with an additional charge of ingesting a PED (accidentally, if the explanation is acceptable to the AFL tribunal).
The ban may not be 2 years, maybe 6-12 months? I don't know?

Because the AFL signed up to it.

I never said they should be paid...can you quote me on that?

You enquired about whether they would receive a minimum rookie wage as per AFL policy, then went on a rant when told that any athlete banned under WADA code cannot be paid as a professional athlete. I could only assume from that rant that you somehow disagreed with that policy.

On the point of being paid whilst banned? Is Carlise? Was Heath Shaw? Or anybody else who is banned?
Something for the AFL/Clubs to decide, not outsiders.
You can take your WADA...I've had enough of them.

You know there's a difference between a ban and a suspension, right? Carlisle, Shaw and anyone else who was suspended are irrelevant. Crowley is the only player who was banned and remained on a club list, and I guarantee you he wasn't paid during that period.

The AFL signed up to the WADA drug code, and as such, adopted their policy for dealing with players who take PEDs. I'm not sure why that irks you so much, but I'll have to disagree with your point of view. If the AFL were left to dish out their own punishment it would end up being a slap on the wrist and tirn the league in to a bigger joke than it has already become regarding drug policy.

 

[Bring_Back_Brad]

Because the AFL signed up to it.

You enquired about whether they would receive a minimum rookie wage as per AFL policy, then went on a rant when told that any athlete banned under WADA code cannot be paid as a professional athlete. I could only assume from that rant that you somehow disagreed with that policy.

You know there's a difference between a ban and a suspension, right? Carlisle, Shaw and anyone else who was suspended are irrelevant. Crowley is the only player who was banned and remained on a club list, and I guarantee you he wasn't paid during that period.

The AFL signed up to the WADA drug code, and as such, adopted their policy for dealing with players who take PEDs. I'm not sure why that irks you so much, but I'll have to disagree with your point of view. If the AFL were left to dish out their own punishment it would end up being a slap on the wrist and tirn the league in to a bigger joke than it has already become regarding drug policy.

Let me guess you were the captain of your high school debating team right?

 

[MyManLynch]

Because the AFL signed up to it.

You enquired about whether they would receive a minimum rookie wage as per AFL policy, then went on a rant when told that any athlete banned under WADA code cannot be paid as a professional athlete. I could only assume from that rant that you somehow disagreed with that policy.

You know there's a difference between a ban and a suspension, right? Carlisle, Shaw and anyone else who was suspended are irrelevant. Crowley is the only player who was banned and remained on a club list, and I guarantee you he wasn't paid during that period.

The AFL signed up to the WADA drug code, and as such, adopted their policy for dealing with players who take PEDs. I'm not sure why that irks you so much, but I'll have to disagree with your point of view. If the AFL were left to dish out their own punishment it would end up being a slap on the wrist and tirn the league in to a bigger joke than it has already become regarding drug policy.

I apoligise for having an opinion.
Won't bother again.

 

[Baltimore Jack]

So the tail is wagging the dog.
Time to withdraw AFL from WADA & renegotiate Government grants to Football.
The AFL only originally signed up because the Government held a gun to their head (was probably loaded with blanks anyway).
Our game should not be subject to the whims of Canadian Lawyers...(Dick Pound) or sports Administrators living in Switzerland. We have lost control of our game.
Time for the AFL to take back the power.
What do we want...
Full control!
When do we want it...
Now!

Without a Drug Agency wouldn't it just come down to who ever has the best drugs wins?

 

[Ketchup]

Moral or morale?

I wonder how many players on the list are thinking, that could have been me.

Even better. Should make an example of these two. Let our better players know it's career over.

 

[motr]

Even better. Should make an example of these two. Let our better players know it's career over.

What, the 2 year suspension wasn't enough?

 

[Apex36]

I apoligise for having an opinion.
Won't bother again.

You're welcome to your opinion, as I am mine. Isn't this what a discussion forum is for?

 

[Apex36]

Let me guess you were the captain of your high school debating team right?

I wasn't even aware debating teams existed in Australian public schools

 

[Bard]

I wasn't even aware debating teams existed in Australian public schools

They definitely do exist in a few of them