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

[Timmy from Thomastown]

I dont have a problem with the rules as they stand. You get a few chances with illicit drugs (maybe two strikes is better than three though) and theres no second chance with PEDs.

If these guys have been busted with PEDs accidently cut into their illicit drugs, well thats their stinking bad luck. A good way to avoid this happening in the future is to avoid illicit drugs. Which are illegal. Pretty simple.

 

[DAWESOME!!]

I dont have a problem with the rules as they stand. You get a few chances with illicit drugs (maybe two strikes is better than three though) and theres no second chance with PEDs.

If these guys have been busted with PEDs accidently cut into their illicit drugs, well thats their stinking bad luck. A good way to avoid this happening in the future is to avoid illicit drugs. Which are illegal. Pretty simple.

Summarizes it perfectly.

 

[PepperFace]

I dont have a problem with the rules as they stand. You get a few chances with illicit drugs (maybe two strikes is better than three though) and theres no second chance with PEDs.

If these guys have been busted with PEDs accidently cut into their illicit drugs, well thats their stinking bad luck. A good way to avoid this happening in the future is to avoid illicit drugs. Which are illegal. Pretty simple.

Summarizes it perfectly.

Yes it does. I would like to remove the term recreational drugs some people use and replace it completely with illegal or illicit drugs

 

[Lefthanded]

yes I would assume they remain paid until proven guilty to which their contracts would get ripped up due to a breach of contract. if this does occur the silver lining for mine is that perhaps we can forward pay Pendles or Cloke assumed $400K say between JT and Keefe. giving us greater scope going into 2016/17 to go harder at a Dangerfield.

I'm not sure how much of their contracts would be match day vs base or when the line in the sand would be drawn for stopping payments (if found in breach of contract). Obviously for CFC the earlier the better but even a Feb 10 (date of original testing) cut off could be seen as having fulfilled 4 months of contract (I believe contracts start November each year) so very unlikely we'd have their full contract values ($400k or otherwise) available. Whilst I do see bringing forward payments to other players a valid option, we could also say, what the heck lets use it on Peter Moore as a ruck coach even if AFL says it's included in player payments because of Darcy. (I read somewhere on BF that we didn't go with this because of inclusion in TPP).

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Yes it does. I would like to remove the term recreational drugs some people use and replace it completely with illegal or illicit drugs

Its a free country. Lets not start legislating what adjectives we are permitted to use.

 

[Obese Arachnid]

Yes it does. I would like to remove the term recreational drugs some people use and replace it completely with illegal or illicit drugs

I would like to replace Essendon with Drug Cheating Shredder Users.

&

Alcohol with The Big Australian Killer (I'll drink to that!)

 

[Kirby]

My B results just came back in............

Yep, I was definitely shit-faced all Easter!

 

[MyManLynch]

I would like to replace Essendon with Drug Cheating Shredder Users.

&

Alcohol with The Big Australian Killer (I'll drink to that!)

The irony is that their drug use probably enabled them to shred faster than normal, hence the act of taking drugs actually provided the means of escaping penalties for taking drugs.

 

[Good_Old]

Good point, MML and one I thought about when the Ben Cousins saga was in full swing. How are illicit or 'recreational' drugs not considered performance enhancing when they suppress appetite and aid in weight loss?

 

[Maggie5]

The irony is that their drug use probably enabled them to shred faster than normal, hence the act of taking drugs actually provided the means of escaping penalties for taking drugs.

That is what I can't understand with pain killers and the Brisbane GF era, many were on this, how are these type of drugs not performance enhancing.
Remember seeing a number of players going down to the dressing room during a game for a jab.
In pain, can't play, pain killers can play.

 

[BOMBERS 4 LIFE!!!!]

4 years is bloody ridiculous glad it's not happening.

 

[Kappa]

4 years is bloody ridiculous glad it's not happening.

0 would be equally as ridiculous

 

[BOMBERS 4 LIFE!!!!]

0 would be equally as ridiculous

That too.

Hopefully it gets reduced a lot.

 

[Hysteria25]

Hoping the boys can pull off 12 months suspensions with possible backdating. I will be pretty disappointed if they 2 years for something as mild as Clen.

 

[Mugavin]

If they get 12 months I'd keep them on the list.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

Hoping the boys can pull off 12 months suspensions with possible backdating. I will be pretty disappointed if they 2 years for something as mild as Clen.

Clenbuterol is hardly mild in the performance enhancing sense. Sure it's not creating a nation of addicts like meth, but it's cheating if deliberately ingested, no doubt.

 

[Hysteria25]

Clenbuterol is hardly mild in the performance enhancing sense. Sure it's not creating a nation of addicts like meth, but it's cheating if deliberately ingested, no doubt.

You're right, it is certainly deliberate cheating. However, I'm not convinced that Clen would have the same caliber of perceivable benefits as a traditional anabolic steroid.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Clenbuterol is hardly mild in the performance enhancing sense. Sure it's not creating a nation of addicts like meth, but it's cheating if deliberately ingested, no doubt.

Or accidentally if it was cut into an illegal substance you shoudlnt have been taking in the first place. Thems the rules.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

You're right, it is certainly deliberate cheating. However, I'm not convinced that Clen would have the same caliber of perceivable benefits as a traditional anabolic steroid.

And as a result maybe they will get less than the maximum punishment.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

If they get 12 months I'd keep them on the list.

Agree but thats unlikely I'd say. 18 months or less and you'd consider keeping them. Beyond that well the game and the list moves on, best you could offer them is to consider redrafting them onto the rookie list on a best endeavours basis.

For a reduced penalty to occur I'd reckon theyd have to come clean about how the stuff got in their system. Maybe thats happening behind the scenes, who knows

 

[1892]

Agree but thats unlikely I'd say. 18 months or less and you'd consider keeping them. Beyond that well the game and the list moves on, best you could offer them is to consider redrafting them onto the rookie list on a best endeavours basis.

For a reduced penalty to occur I'd reckon theyd have to come clean about how the stuff got in their system. Maybe thats happening behind the scenes, who knows

I don't think list management will determine their futures at the club, but it's an interesting one, 12 months = Feb 2016 return, 18 months = August 2016 return, 2 years = Feb 2017 return. If you were just looking at it on a player vs player basis would you prefer Keeffe and Thomas on the list and not playing in 2016 or 2 recruits who also may not play? That might come down to who's available both inside or outside of our list to fill their spots. As you suggested a Saad scenario is likely the best bet if they are suspended for greater than 12 months and deemed still to have a future at the club.

 

[Jasper84]

Agree but thats unlikely I'd say. 18 months or less and you'd consider keeping them. Beyond that well the game and the list moves on, best you could offer them is to consider redrafting them onto the rookie list on a best endeavours basis.

For a reduced penalty to occur I'd reckon theyd have to come clean about how the stuff got in their system. Maybe thats happening behind the scenes, who knows

What if they show they have an addiction to PED's and were using them as coping mechanisms for whatever struggles they face in daily life. Under current rules, not only would they not be banned, they would be given whatever assistance they need to beat their addiction and probably be made ambassadors of the AFL.

 

[jmac70]

Why on earth would we want to keep drug cheats on our list?

 

[Baltimore Jack]

Why on earth would we want to keep drug cheats on our list?

Exactly....cut the cancer out

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

What if they show they have an addiction to PED's and were using them as coping mechanisms for whatever struggles they face in daily life. Under current rules, not only would they not be banned, they would be given whatever assistance they need to beat their addiction and probably be made ambassadors of the AFL.

Try and stay focussed and keep it realistic.