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

[unplugged]

It must be said that Eddie has so far only said they'd be sacked if it turns out they took the drug deliberately.

A positive B test by no means equals immediate sacking at this stage.

 

[76woodenspooners]

Of course the follow up question is just as damaging: "Have you ever been told illicit drugs often contain other banned drugs?"

To be fair, they were told this **after ** the alleged act (if true) took place.

 

[Anzacday]

Maybe they had some tainted coke dropped in their glass of coke.
Makes me nervous to ask for coke and ice now.

 

[Baltimore Jack]

To be fair, they were told this **after ** the alleged act (if true) took place.

Nope, its a yearly information session

 

[BlackWhiteBlood]

Personally the likely hood of contaminated meat is very small, NZ's beef industry would be very similar to ours, and clem would be all but nonexistent if all present. It is after all illegal.

They would have to be more then stupid to take clem, if they did this 4yr ban never play again.

The most likely scenario is they knowingly took ice/cocaine that was laced with clem. They deserve the 4yr ban for this as well, and not just a 1st/2nd strike for illicit drug use. If this is how they got the drug in their systems I look it a bit like running a red light. If caught you get a fine, however if you crash into another car and kill someone, you get done for the higher crime. You have to pay the price for your actions and if they took clem as a result of taking another illegal drug its just to bad, they took a risk and paid the price.

If there drink was spiked, well this is unlikely and even harder to prove.

 

[BlackWhiteBlood]

Maybe they had some tainted coke dropped in their glass of coke.
Makes me nervous to ask for coke and ice now.

just ask for Pepsi it is a lot safer.

 

[mattys123]

The only way Keeffe or Thomas ever enter the Westpac Centre again is if the B sample comes back clean.

Their lawyers telling them not to speak to Collingwood basically ends any playing/training relationship we have with the pair until April 14;

http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl...about-asada-case/story-e6frf3e3-1227289751266

If that B sample comes back positive they won't face a tribunal hearing till May or June as Crowley's case has to be heard first.

And if that B sample is positive they face a suspension anyway, even if it's the minimum (12 months).

 

[HFF]

Seems like the general consensus to my question is sacking must occur. Fair enough too.
Hopefully it is a wake up call to everyone else wanting to go out and party hard.

 

[TradeDraft]

The only way Keeffe or Thomas ever enter the Westpac Centre again is if the B sample comes back clean.

Their lawyers telling them not to speak to Collingwood basically ends any playing/training relationship we have with the pair until April 14;

http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl...about-asada-case/story-e6frf3e3-1227289751266

If that B sample comes back positive they won't face a tribunal hearing till May or June as Crowley's case has to be heard first.

And if that B sample is positive they face a suspension anyway, even if it's the minimum (12 months).

2nd that.

They don’t want any help from the Club.

So, Sample B is Postive as all expective then they can Piss Off. Even IF they get off from that, I doubt we would want them back.

 

[Apex36]

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)

It doesn't matter in the end anyway. Even if they used coke cut with clen, there's no way to prove it, unless they have some left over (unlikely).

They'll get their bans from ASADA, and regardless of any innocence, we will have to delist them. You can't have two banned players taking up spots on the list, and that's going to be the major difference between Wellingham and these boys. Drink driving doesn't get you banned from footy. Drugs do.

 

[Apex36]

Your argument collapses when this question is put to them: "Did you intentionally take a substance (Coke) you knew to be illegal"?
Of course the follow up question is just as damaging: "Have you ever been told illicit drugs often contain other banned drugs?"

I'd like to be there so I could throw in my own question: "Just how f**king stupid are you two? "

And that would be the sealer. The drug education these players get is very detailed. It would be common knowledge amongst players that illicit drugs can be cut with other unknown substances.
Comes down to the whole 'you are responsible for what goes in to your body' line. You took drugs that you knew could be cut with unknown substances, you need to face the consequences if those unknown substances turn out to be banned.

 

[noideaatall]

It doesn't matter in the end anyway. Even if they used coke cut with clen, there's no way to prove it, unless they have some left over (unlikely).

They'll get their bans from ASADA, and regardless of any innocence, we will have to delist them. You can't have two banned players taking up spots on the list, and that's going to be the major difference between Wellingham and these boys. Drink driving doesn't get you banned from footy. Drugs do.

Hey Asada, here is some stuff I have left over from the other night, maybe you could test it .. promise I didn't go out, buy some coke and mix it with the clen I had over.

 

[Black Prince]

These rumours have been circulating all week
Some journo's are saying there is now nothing to them....do you have any updated info?

Most rumours lack substance and this may also but I'm hearing a club which made the finals last year will make an announcement soon.

 

[Kappa]

And that would be the sealer. The drug education these players get is very detailed. It would be common knowledge amongst players that illicit drugs can be cut with other unknown substances.
Comes down to the whole 'you are responsible for what goes in to your body' line. You took drugs that you knew could be cut with unknown substances, you need to face the consequences if those unknown substances turn out to be banned.

Yep. Absolutely zero sympathy from me if it turns out this is what happened. Every time you are moronic enough to do illicit drugs you are rolling the dice with your life and career.

 

[Pedro]

2nd that.

They don’t want any help from the Club.

So, Sample B is Postive as all expective then they can Piss Off. Even IF they get off from that, I doubt we would want them back.

If sample B was somehow negative, all this goes away. Why would we get rid of them?

 

[76woodenspooners]

And that would be the sealer. The drug education these players get is very detailed. It would be common knowledge amongst players that illicit drugs can be cut with other unknown substances.
Comes down to the whole 'you are responsible for what goes in to your body' line. You took drugs that you knew could be cut with unknown substances, you need to face the consequences if those unknown substances turn out to be banned.

Totally agree, but I was responding to a discussion about "What if the players get off the PED claim, but it's shown they were taking illicit drugs?" (which is a moot situation)

 

[TradeDraft]

If sample B was somehow negative, all this goes away. Why would we get rid of them?

I was not talking about IF B Sample was Clear. IF That Happens then they will be back

I was talking IF the Sample B was Postive and they got off like Micheal Rogers did

 

[Pedro]

I was not talking about IF B Sample was Clear. IF That Happens then they will be back

I was talking IF the Sample B was Postive and they got off like Micheal Rogers did

Michael Rogers was able to prove his positive test was due to consuming contaminated meat. If our boys were able to prove this, that means they are innocent. Again, why would we get rid of them if that proved to be the case? They would be judged to have committed no offence. You can't just sack people for the sake of it

 

[TradeDraft]

Michael Rogers was able to prove his positive test was due to consuming contaminated meat. If our boys were able to prove this, that means they are innocent. Again, why would we get rid of them if that proved to be the case? They would be judged to have committed no offence. You can't just sack people for the sake of it

Well sacking them for a Negative Drug Tests is a Pretty goo reason and they are not talking to the Club so Club won’t know how/If they are going to appeal and how do they think they get off after Postive Test

 

[Baltimore Jack]

Most rumours lack substance and this may also but I'm hearing a club which made the finals last year will make an announcement soon.

Thanks

 

[Pedro]

Well sacking them for a Negative Drug Tests is a Pretty goo reason and they are not talking to the Club so Club won’t know how/If they are going to appeal and how do they think they get off after Postive Test

This is going around in circles a bit. If they get off (which will be a miracle imo) they won't be sacked. They are not talking with the club under legal advice. The club would understand this and accept it. It is no big deal and not a reason to sack them. As to how they get off after a positive test? They have to prove, like Michael Rogers did, that there was an innocent explanantion for the substance being present (Again, not likely. Miracle required).

 

[TradeDraft]

This is going around in circles a bit. If they get off (which will be a miracle imo) they won't be sacked. They are not talking with the club under legal advice. The club would understand this and accept it. It is no big deal and not a reason to sack them. As to how they get off after a positive test? They have to prove, like Michael Rogers did, that there was an innocent explanantion for the substance being present (Again, not likely. Miracle required).

Well, the Meat thing has all been ruled out and it starting they got by doing Cocaine

 

[Pedro]

Well, the Meat thing has all been ruled out and it starting they got by doing Cocaine

Rumours only at this stage. And nothing has been ruled out. They haven't even provided an explanation yet. Its all speculation at this stage by people who lets be honest, have NFI and are coming up with theories which may or may not be true

 

[TradeDraft]

Rumours only at this stage. And nothing has been ruled out. They haven't even provided an explanation yet. Its all speculation at this stage by people who lets be honest, have NFI and are coming up with theories which may or may not be true

I say Lawyers have told them to say nothing until after the B Sample

 

[Robroy22]

I say Lawyers have told them to say nothing until after the B Sample

Can the BF Lawyers tell posters the same thing please?