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

[TradeDraft]

I don't think it means anything.

It's just stock standard legal advice from lawyers who have the best interests of their client at heart.

There is no benefit to the players whatsoever to talk to the club - so why would they?

Well - I guess IF they don’t tell anyone then Rumors could start that are False. That be the only good reason I can think of

 

[CFC2010]

I don't think it means anything.

It's just stock standard legal advice from lawyers who have the best interests of their client at heart.

There is no benefit to the players whatsoever to talk to the club - so why would they?

I know if I was innocent I would take a lie detector........if I was guilty would say nothing!

Silence is deafening as they say!

 

[swiftdog]

Balance of probability? What are we talking here, you have a great respect for your own opinion, so that is balanced heavily in your favour. That is very amusing to me.

I can't see how anyone can discount it. I have heard the heads of the Beef industries reason why it can't be true, and that was you would need to eat a whole cow. So how reliable are those "expert" words? Honestly, if that were true, we have a Mexican Soccer team and a guy who rode in the Tour De France, who all eat whole cows for dinner.

Money talks, bullshit walks. Our two players are likely victims of some money hungry farmer who wanted more money for his beef, but because no one else has been caught for it in NZ, it never happens.

What did you expect the Beef industry of NZ to say? Yeah, they probably got it from our meat, cmon, your easily persuaded to society's easy answers are best theory.

Of course it's in the realms of possibility but the alternatives seem far more likely. Besides, I'm sure NZ have drug testing for their sportsman over there also. Keefe and Thomas may have just been unlucky but if a NZ athlete had been done for clen and used the "tainted meat" excuse I'm sure we would have heard about it now.

 

[76woodenspooners]

Well - I guess IF they don’t tell anyone then Rumors could start that are False. That be the only good reason I can think of

No point playing this out in the court of public opinion. They're better off keeping their gunpowder dry for an occassion when they can get a ruling.

I know if I was innocent I would take a lie detector........if I was guilty would say nothing!

Silence is deafening as they say!

If it were that easy, we would simply replace the entire legal process with lie detectors.

Being found innocent is not necessarily about being innocent. It's about proving you're innocent / not guilty to the necessary level of satisfaction by the relevant authority.

If these kids believe they're innocent, the best thing they can do for themselves right now is keep their mouths shut and let their lawyers go to work.

 

[TradeDraft]

Here is the Witch Caro take


http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...m-amid-addiction-worries-20150402-1mdrtm.html

 

[CFC2010]

No point playing this out in the court of public opinion. They're better off keeping their gunpowder dry for an occassion when they can get a ruling.



If it were that easy, we would simply replace the entire legal process with lie detectors.

Being found innocent is not necessarily about being innocent. It's about proving you're innocent / not guilty to the necessary level of satisfaction by the relevant authority.

If these kids believe they're innocent, the best thing they can do for themselves right now is keep their mouths shut and let their lawyers go to work.

I know this is not a court of law. If the B sample comes back positive (very likely) then they are done.

All I am trying to say is if they have not taken clen deliberately (cheated) vthen take the lie detector test.

Yes it doesn't achieve anything in the eyes of the law. But it means that they are pleading their case in a positive light.

Shutting their mouth is the best thing but if the B sample comes back positive it doesn't matter what they say after that fact.

 

[jmac70]

If these kids believe they're innocent, the best thing they can do for themselves right now is keep their mouths shut and let their lawyers go to work.

The same strategy would be employed if they are guilty.

 

[HFF]

I ask the board here, if it is true that these players took illicit drugs that was inadvertently laced with the banned steroid and in the unlikely event they arent charged by the Anti-Doping Panel, do we still sack them knowing they are illicit drug users?

 

[jmac70]

I ask the board here, if it is true that these players took illicit drugs that was inadvertently laced with the banned steroid and in the unlikely event they arent charged by the Anti-Doping Panel, do we still sack them knowing they are illicit drug users?

Yes, we must sack them. Cannot have this crap at our club.

 

[watt price tully]

Why not wait till all the information is available that is to come out? We should wait for at least three more things:

1. The B sample
2. What they or their legal representatives have to say (in full), &
3. What other relevant information & facts come out.

In this way we can all make informed decisions based on facts not opinions based on heresay, speculation & pre-judgement.

As a Long time Collingwood supporter, barracker/member I will be supporting "our boys" till I know all of the facts.

The lie detector test always reminds me of Seinfeld

If they did use I would be heart broken & devastated for them, for their families & for our club. I would feel a lot of sadness as one bad momentary ill-considered decision has such monumental & far reaching consequences for such young men. Foolish for sure, stupid even however, I would not like to be in their shoes now or if the have been found to have made one error of judgment (no matter how serious).

 

[Ketchup]

I ask the board here, if it is true that these players took illicit drugs that was inadvertently laced with the banned steroid and in the unlikely event they arent charged by the Anti-Doping Panel, do we still sack them knowing they are illicit drug users?

I understand what your trying to get across here. But bottom line is, whether it was deliberate or inadvertent the fact is it was. Which means 2-4 years out of the game. Which means sacked.

If we take that out of it, I wish jmac. Sack em. Obviously drugs are a huge problem in afl atm. But if you can rid of 2 people from your club, that's 2 less you have to worry about and spreading to the rest of the playing group that isn't using.

 

[Kappa]

Yes, we must sack them. Cannot have this crap at our club.

If sacking players on illicit drugs was a Collingwood policy we would NOT have won the 2010 premiership, nor even come close.

 

[jmac70]

If sacking players on illicit drugs was a Collingwood policy we would NOT have won the 2010 premiership, nor even come close.

It is not 2010. It is 2015, we are on the eve of a new season and the club has made a comcerted effort to change that culture. Those boys are history.

 

[Kappa]

It is not 2010. It is 2015, we are on the eve of a new season and the club has made a comcerted effort to change that culture. Those boys are history.

So you would potentially throw away a premiership to get party drug users out of the club?

Guess you would of also ended Swan's career when he was 20

 

[jmac70]

So you would potentially throw away a premiership to get party drug users out of the club?

I don't want Keeffe and Thomas at the club. That is my view.

 

[davywap]

It is not 2010. It is 2015, we are on the eve of a new season and the club has made a comcerted effort to change that culture. Those boys are history.

Not quite all of them are.

 

[Old Spice]

I ask the board here, if it is true that these players took illicit drugs that was inadvertently laced with the banned steroid and in the unlikely event they arent charged by the Anti-Doping Panel, do we still sack them knowing they are illicit drug users?

Has to happen.

 

[Old Spice]

You can't position yourself as a club which condone's it. It's just monstrous wrecking to say it can happen and be acceptable.

Firstly, I don't buy the high figures being floated around about repeated usage in the general community.

Secondly, I don't see how you could support it and expect to attract big sponsors.

Thirdly, you are paid six figure sums and if you can't manage to play without illicit drugs, then it's goodbye.

 

[Kappa]

You can't position yourself as a club which condone's it. It's just monstrous wrecking to say it can happen and be acceptable.

Firstly, I don't buy the high figures being floated around about repeated usage in the general community.

Secondly, I don't see how you could support it and expect to attract big sponsors.

Thirdly, you are paid six figure sums and if you can't manage to play without illicit drugs, then it's goodbye.

If the club sacks some players for illicit drugs but not others that would be disgraceful and hypocritical

 

[frizzle]

If the club sacks some players for illicit drugs but not others that would be disgraceful and hypocritical

You can't keep 2 players on your list that have been banned for 2 years. Even Saad got dumped for his sports drink scenario. Those 2 spots will be taken by others if these 2 get bans. Call it disgraceful or whatever, but it will be the only logical decision.

 

[PieNSauce]

IMO they took clen tablets to try and improve their running or aerobic capacity -90% chance

there may be a 9% chance they had it added to their coke, if that. but this is what they will try and use to try and get their sentence down. Clen gives you heart palpitations though so its a really dangerous mix (not that dealers give a ****). I'm not Walter White though so its not my area of expertise

mate I'm not saying it is impossible to get it from contaminated meat, i give it a 1% chance.

Personally I think they are cooked and will never play AFL again

I honestly hope I'm wrong though

Unfortunately, as much as we'd all like to think it's not the case it is actually the most plausible explanation. I also pray that isn't the case but when you're talking about two players on the fringe of selection and you consider the likelihood of contaminated food or party drugs I reckon I know where a betting man would have his money. That of course isn't to discount other possibilities entirely but it's hard to see an explanation that is more believable at this stage.

If it proves to be the case then it is going to be the hardest of hard lessons for these boys and regardless of whatever was in their heads, I will still feel for them despite the anger and disappointment I will also feel. Any way you look at it, this is just a crap situation for them and for the club. Anything but the way you would have wanted to start a new season.

 

[Mungo Mulligan Stew]

View attachment 120507
Seriously, is anybody else starting to picture Bucks as this guy?

[giggle]
Reposted to The Collingwood blog

 

[76woodenspooners]

You can't position yourself as a club which condone's it. It's just monstrous wrecking to say it can happen and be acceptable.

Firstly, I don't buy the high figures being floated around about repeated usage in the general community.

Secondly, I don't see how you could support it and expect to attract big sponsors.

Thirdly, you are paid six figure sums and if you can't manage to play without illicit drugs, then it's goodbye.

Just playing devil's advocate here ...

How do you see it's different to Wellingham's drink driving incident?

If anything, drink driving has a worse stigma associated with it because the person is putting the lives of others at risk.

We lost the lucrative TAC sponsorship over it.

JT and Keeffe both have a clean sheet as far as we know (as did Wellingham at the time)

Wellinghamm copped a shellacking over it, but he stayed on the list. Why would we treat JT and Keeffe differently?

Has the world changed? (FWIW I think it has ... I think it had back then but some have been slow on the uptake)

 

[Baltimore Jack]

Just playing devil's advocate here ...

How do you see it's different to Wellingham's drink driving incident?

If anything, drink driving has a worse stigma associated with it because the person is putting the lives of others at risk.

We lost the lucrative TAC sponsorship over it.

JT and Keeffe both have a clean sheet as far as we know (as did Wellingham at the time)

Wellinghamm copped a shellacking over it, but he stayed on the list. Why would we treat JT and Keeffe differently?

Has the world changed? (FWIW I think it has)

Wellingham wasn't banned for 2 years, hence his position on the list was not determined by anyone other than the Club
There are clear rules about drugs in sport which relate to trying to gain an advantage that others don't have. Alcohol would have a detrimental effect on performance.

Having said that. I agree Wellingham got off lightly

 

[DinoSoar]

If the club sacks some players for illicit drugs but not others that would be disgraceful and hypocritical

Difference is these 2 have been caught in a spectacularly public manner. As far as we all are aware, no one else has been unequivocally found to be using either illicit or performance enhancing drugs. Rumours and gossip swirling around doesn't cut it in terms of evidence - that is why it is neither hypocritical nor unfair for Keeffe & Thomas to be turfed out if the B sample also comes back positive.