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

[NT.Thunder]

So my question is, because I'm also interested to know if maybe my tolerance with today's society is plain out of touch, but if it is proven that these guys have used Cocaine, does this make it better, worst or opinions unchanged?

I'm a firm believer that if it is proven to be recreational or performance enhancing than both boys should be struck from the list. Yes we will have the rehabilitation argument and the duty of care, but why are we these days removing all responsibility and onus from the individuals decision making regardless is they are footballers, lawayers, bus drivers, DJ's or pilots. I believe that we are way too lenient and too one sided about providing some form of safety net or safe haven for people who chose to break the law, knowing that punishment can be in the form of touchy feel counseling sessions or someone other support structure.

My worry is that obviously education isn't working, whether this be home, school or public/media I don't know, I suspect all of the above. The continual in your face glamourising of drugs through movies, music and these high rating shows like Breaking Bad and Sons of Anarchy I'm sure doesn't help either. The consistent pressures to perform coupled with sportsman being on good money one minute with it all being taken away so quickly through injury or on field performances may also be providing stresses on players that move them to seek additional help through these products.

I'm strong on zero tolerance. No if's, no but's if it's proven you're taking gear recreational or PED than you must pay the consequences. Only if proven.

But do most people on here have some level of tolerance? Should I have more level of tolerance? I feel like I am out of touch and that I shouldn't worry too much about it but when you look at what ICE is doing around this country I for the life of me have no idea how someone gets involved in this and how it is so rife in all demographics.

I won't buy into conspiracy theories on samples being tampered with. I have confidence that the checks and balances will ensure that there is no way this could happen with both the A and B samples. I hope there is a reasonable explanation but I'm sure once all the dots are connected it will show an arrow out the door.

 

[Baltimore Jack]

To my thinking, ASADA / WADA have been focusing so much on the individual competitors, the Lance Armstrongs and Ben Johnsons of this world, and their code doesn't appear to be set up to handle systematic doping in team sports.

Every regulated industry on the planet has a record keeping obligation.

If Essendon had been running an airline and been busted not keeping maintenance records then they'd be out of business.

WADA / ASADA are clearly out of touch on that count.

Its not ASADA/WADA's responsibility to ensure records are kept.
ASADA prosecuted the case, they didn't decide the case

 

[Baltimore Jack]

Yeah, but you have to admit that a prosecutor who pursues a case for more than two years and fails to secure a guilty verdict is a bit limp?

Rubbish

Ever heard of Walsh Street?.....its still being investigated

 

[Vicky Park]

Isn't the issue this? If coke was involved - and we don't know that - our lads would be taking a lesser risk, career wise? They would factor in the three strikes policy. A reasonable number of AFL players currently have one strike against their name, and are still playing.

The boys would also know that no such policy applies to performance enhancing/banned substances.

This is not offered as an excuse or justification. But in the heat of the moment, human nature, youthful risk taking etc...

 

[Kirby]

So my question is, because I'm also interested to know if maybe my tolerance with today's society is plain out of touch, but if it is proven that these guys have used Cocaine, does this make it better, worst or opinions unchanged?

I'm a firm believer that if it is proven to be recreational or performance enhancing than both boys should be struck from the list. Yes we will have the rehabilitation argument and the duty of care, but why are we these days removing all responsibility and onus from the individuals decision making regardless is they are footballers, lawayers, bus drivers, DJ's or pilots. I believe that we are way too lenient and too one sided about providing some form of safety net or safe haven for people who chose to break the law, knowing that punishment can be in the form of touchy feel counseling sessions or someone other support structure.

My worry is that obviously education isn't working, whether this be home, school or public/media I don't know, I suspect all of the above. The continual in your face glamourising of drugs through movies, music and these high rating shows like Breaking Bad and Sons of Anarchy I'm sure doesn't help either. The consistent pressures to perform coupled with sportsman being on good money one minute with it all being taken away so quickly through injury or on field performances may also be providing stresses on players that move them to seek additional help through these products.

I'm strong on zero tolerance. No if's, no but's if it's proven you're taking gear recreational or PED than you must pay the consequences. Only if proven.

But do most people on here have some level of tolerance? Should I have more level of tolerance? I feel like I am out of touch and that I shouldn't worry too much about it but when you look at what ICE is doing around this country I for the life of me have no idea how someone gets involved in this and how it is so rife in all demographics.

I won't buy into conspiracy theories on samples being tampered with. I have confidence that the checks and balances will ensure that there is no way this could happen with both the A and B samples. I hope there is a reasonable explanation but I'm sure once all the dots are connected it will show an arrow out the door.

I think both Eddie and Bucks have made it very clear that any guilty finding for the players will see them out the door. I think they will still offer them support and help but they will no longer be on the list.

Drug education for young people has never worked properly becasue all us oldies telling kids that "drugs are bad" just makes them want to do them more. Young people in particular will always take risks and think that they have everything under control and are infallible.

I'm not sure that it's movies and tv shows, certainly not Breaking Bad as whilst that was about drugs I don't think it glamourised them in any way -- in fact, everyone was miserable. I don't watch SOA.

My view is that there ought to be some de-criminalising of drugs but i won't get into that argument here as it's not relevant (to this discussion)and will never happen.

There is no place for PED's in sport though. I don't buy into the conspiracy theories either.

Our 2 boys are in a lot of trouble and are gonski unless something literally miraculous occurs.

 

[Baltimore Jack]

Isn't the issue this? If coke was involved - and we don't know that - our lads would be taking a lesser risk, career wise? They would factor in the three strikes policy. A reasonable number of AFL players currently have one strike against their name, and are still playing.

The boys would also know that no such policy applies to performance enhancing/banned substances.

This is not offered as an excuse or justification. But in the heat of the moment, human nature, youthful risk taking etc...

I look it at it the other way, its even dumber that trying to deliberately cheat
Most people understand cocaine is 'cut' with something, sometimes its as harmless as talc other times it can be weed killer.
Unless you are paying $200 for a small hit (which is close to being pure...and rare) you have no idea what it was cut with

If they are guilty (and that is still to be determined) these 2 deserve to be rubbed out for being stupid

 

[PieNSauce]

I look it at it the other way, its even dumber that trying to deliberately cheat
Most people understand cocaine is 'cut' with something, sometimes its as harmless as talc other times it can be weed killer.
Unless you are paying $200 for a small hit (which is close to being pure...and rare) you have no idea what it was cut with

If they are guilty (and that is still to be determined) these 2 deserve to be rubbed out for being stupid

I agree. Taking illicit drugs has always had inherent risks on top of what is immediately obvious. The unfortunate fact for these guys is that if they took a substance which they have been clearly warned about on a number of fronts, then they have rolled the dice and lost. Sadly, in the absence of some miracle, it will potentially cost them their careers.

 

[Baltimore Jack]

I agree. Taking illicit drugs has always had inherent risks on top of what is immediately obvious. The unfortunate fact for these guys is that if they took a substance which they have been clearly warned about on a number of fronts, then they have rolled the dice and lost. Sadly, in the absence of some miracle, it will potentially cost them their careers.

....and for what?
One night of feeling very good about life v playing football with the biggest club in the land for years
How stupid are some people?

 

[NT.Thunder]

I also think seeing Ben Cousins on the news living his life to the fullest doesn't help in anyway.

I've heard that there certainly is a pretty big recreation drug scene within a number of sporting codes. Maybe rumours and innuendo but names I see floated around, young to old whilst disappointing are not surprising.

ASADA and the findings/dealings with Essendon has put the game back 10 years. There was an opportunity to put a real stamp on our game regarding drugs in the AFL and quiet frankly was botched by all those involved.

 

[frizzle]

Isn't the issue this? If coke was involved - and we don't know that - our lads would be taking a lesser risk, career wise? They would factor in the three strikes policy. A reasonable number of AFL players currently have one strike against their name, and are still playing.

The boys would also know that no such policy applies to performance enhancing/banned substances.

This is not offered as an excuse or justification. But in the heat of the moment, human nature, youthful risk taking etc...

I think if the club finds out that they accidently consumed Clenbuterol becasue the were taking contaminated coke, they will still sack them on the spot & rightly so. What sort of message would it send if we pleaded for leniency becasue the boys were just snorting up for a party? I don't expect either to play for the club again unless they can prove the positive test was a result of something far less serious than an illicit drug mistake.

 

[Baltimore Jack]

I think if the club finds out that they accidently consumed Clenbuterol becasue the were taking contaminated coke, they will still sack them on the spot & rightly so. What sort of message would it send if we pleaded for leniency becasue the boys were just snorting up for a party? I don't expect either to play for the club again unless they can prove the positive test was a result of something far less serious than an illicit drug mistake.

You make a lot of sense

 

[NT.Thunder]

Isn't the issue this? If coke was involved - and we don't know that - our lads would be taking a lesser risk, career wise? They would factor in the three strikes policy. A reasonable number of AFL players currently have one strike against their name, and are still playing.

The boys would also know that no such policy applies to performance enhancing/banned substances.

This is not offered as an excuse or justification. But in the heat of the moment, human nature, youthful risk taking etc...

Isn't Cocaine out of your system within something like 48 hours? If so, this 3 strikes policy is ridiculous. Chances of being tested consistently would not be super high I'd imagine so I expect the "unlucky" and the regular users would be associated with being on 2 strikes.

I don't like player privacy. Once again if you break the law of the governing rules of our game you forefoot any protection that should be afforded to you. Name and shame, and if it bring disrepute onto individual clubs than surely this is further incentive for clubs to take more onus on education and prevention.

Does anyone know if clubs test internally?

 

[soreplums]

If found guilty, do we get to upgrade two rookies or do we play out the season with two less from the list to pick from?

 

[PieNSauce]

Isn't Cocaine out of your system within something like 48 hours? If so, this 3 strikes policy is ridiculous. Chances of being tested consistently would not be super high I'd imagine so I expect the "unlucky" and the regular users would be associated with being on 2 strikes.

I don't like player privacy. Once again if you break the law of the governing rules of our game you forefoot any protection that should be afforded to you. Name and shame, and if it bring disrepute onto individual clubs than surely this is further incentive for clubs to take more onus on education and prevention.

Does anyone know if clubs test internally?

I'm pretty sure that it's not done because of the prohibitive cost. This would be backed up by Pert's comments that the club welcomes as much testing by the AFL as possible.

 

[Kirby]

I think if the club finds out that they accidently consumed Clenbuterol becasue the were taking contaminated coke, they will still sack them on the spot & rightly so. What sort of message would it send if we pleaded for leniency becasue the boys were just snorting up for a party? I don't expect either to play for the club again unless they can prove the positive test was a result of something far less serious than an illicit drug mistake.

The only reason they would cling to this defence would be to be seen as idiots who accidently took it because they "partied to hard" as opposed to being deliberate drug cheats.

I'd go for the former too.

 

[NT.Thunder]

I'm pretty sure that it's not done because of the prohibitive cost. This would be backed up by Pert's comments that the club welcomes as much testing by the AFL as possible.

Then if the ASADA, WADA and the Commonwealth were serious in tackling drugs in sport, they would subsidies or provide incentives to clubs to implement such programs. It all just seems so broken.

FFS - every time I step foot offshore or on a mine site I'm drug and alcohol tested each day. Different environment but you can certainly see a zero policy there and there's no 3 strikes in this form of employment.

 

[BluStu fromQ]

....and for what?
One night of feeling very good about life v playing football with the biggest club in the land for years
How stupid are some people?

 

[frizzle]

The only reason they would cling to this defence would be to be seen as idiots who accidently took it because they "partied to hard" as opposed to being deliberate drug cheats.

I'd go for the former too.

I think the only reason they would use that defence is if it's the truth. That's what everyone wants.

 

[BluStu fromQ]

Can someone please advise where the Cocaine link to this matter started. Is it just another uninformed rumour?
I know one of the lads involved very well and can vouch he would never take any PED intentionally, it is not in his character. He is a true professional in everything he does about football and has far too strong morals to intentionally take PED. The cocaine thing worries me though, it is an indictment on modern society.

If it is Cocaine linked then this is a good opportunity for the players to make a stand and rid it from AFL. Where did they get it from and the traffickers and follow the path all the way through. The players want more say and control in AFL matters, especially when it comes to money, so then start by doing something all footy fans want stamp drugs out of the sport.

I am a Carlton supporter and I support both players fully, although I don't know one of them at all, until they are proven guilty. I just hope these 2 young men aren't going to take the vindictive reprisal which will come from ASADA and AFL after the Essendon debacle.

Nobody is innocent if you get off on a technicality, OJ is still a murderer, don't forget that Essendon!

 

[PieNSauce]

Then if the ASADA, WADA and the Commonwealth were serious in tackling drugs in sport, they would subsidies or provide incentives to clubs to implement such programs. It all just seems so broken.

FFS - every time I step foot offshore or on a mine site I'm drug and alcohol tested each day. Different environment but you can certainly see a zero policy there and there's no 3 strikes in this form of employment.

In the end it all comes down to cash money. If all sports people across all sports were required to be tested on a daily basis or even on a weekly basis the cost would be astronomical so they are forced to work on the theory of deterrent rather than absolute prevention I guess. It's not ideal but then what is in life?

 

[NT.Thunder]

In the end it all comes down to cash money. If all sports people across all sports were required to be tested on a daily basis or even on a weekly basis the cost would be astronomical so they are forced to work on the theory of deterrent rather than absolute prevention I guess. It's not ideal but then what is in life?

Yet the money that has been spent between the AFL, Essendon and ASADA over the last 18 months could see every club introduce a testing regime for the next 10 years all costs covered.

I know you're saying it all costs money, but it sets the standard on where we want our game to be. If we are happy with our game where it is today than I say fine, leave it!

 

[PieNSauce]

Yet the money that has been spent between the AFL, Essendon and ASADA over the last 18 months could see every club introduce a testing regime for the next 10 years all costs covered.

I know you're saying it all costs money, but it sets the standard on where we want our game to be. If we are happy with our game where it is today than I say fine, leave it!

I don't disagree but unfortunately the reality is that it's unlikely to happen any time soon. Sad but true.

 

[Mungo Mulligan Stew]

I'm entering my 39th year as a Collingwood supporter, and if there's one thing I've learnt along the journey, it's that "easy" isn't the Collingwood way of doing things.

With 62 years in, m'self...I concur.

 

[BluStu fromQ]

AFL know full well they have a drug culture in the game, the reason the 3 strikes policy is there is so they turn a blind eye to the matter and buy themselves time to mitigate damage. They didn't bank on PED and Illicit crossing paths, which overrides. 3 strikes policy! Doh!

I too work in a zero tolerance workplace where anything over zero alcohol or Illicit drug detection means instant dismissal. Even prescription medication is being looked at as an excuse if it effects work performance.

So don't tell me the 3 strikes policy is fair and just when everyday people have to put up with far worse.

If AFL were serious they would go hard line and have 1 strike for a season and. 2 strikes you are out

To those who see de criminalization of drugs as a solution, we have enough zombies walking around nightclub districts as it is causing trouble and bashing innocent people for thrill without decriminalizing it!

 

[loki04]

I think the only reason they would use that defence is if it's the truth. That's what everyone wants.

Or they would rather be known as someone who took some party drugs rather then tainted as a cheat.