News Crouch & Stengle Caught with Illicit Substance

[ad victoriam]

It is bizarre that if a drug test picked up an ‘illicit’ substance for Crouch and Stengle there’d be a strike but no suspensions or fines whatsoever.

Strike 1 = $5000 fine for a first strike while also undergoing counseling and target testing
Strike 2 = Fine and 4 Games
Strike 3 = Fine and 12 Games

 

[ad victoriam]

Considering DeGoey was arrested and charged with indecent assault in July, and neither the club (pies) nor the AFL undertook any suspension, the charge of conduct unbecoming is AFL hypocrisy of the highest degree.

Of course the AFL know it couldn‘t suspend the Crows under the drugs policy. In fact if the drug use was picked up in testing only the club doctors would know, and a penalty couldn’t be considered until the 3rd strike.

when you look at it in this context you know its a stitch up

Not the First time the AFL has issued plenties,
Look up Jake Carlisle.

 

[hey shorty]

Considering DeGoey was arrested and charged with indecent assault in July, and neither the club (pies) nor the AFL undertook any suspension, the charge of conduct unbecoming is AFL hypocrisy of the highest degree.

Of course the AFL know it couldn‘t suspend the Crows under the drugs policy. In fact if the drug use was picked up in testing only the club doctors would know, and a penalty couldn’t be considered until the 3rd strike.

when you look at it in this context you know its a stitch up

The AFL will no doubt use the "burden of proof" defence. They can't prove JDG did anything wrong, whereas our boys were bellends and got caught.

Not the right way to go about things but that's the way they'll go. Twist the narrative however they like

 

[Flip Side]

Haha . When you put it like this I 100% disagree with this or any punishment (even though they are both dickheads and we are better off without them).

But I mean they are not getting suspended for taking drugs (or attempting). They are getting suspended for embarrassing the AFL. That’s bullshit. fu** the AFL, they are an embarrassment in every way. Full stop. Basically, their culture is do what ever you want, but don’t get caught. Yeah, that kind of thinking never ended badly .

correct - once no charges were laid, under the AFL drug policy it should have been a confidential matter. Regardless of community opinions on penalties the policy is clear regarding “no more to see” - no penalties.

in Melbourne Eddie or Peggy would have received a direct call and no one would be the wiser.

 

[Cap]

They handed it to AFL, which is not the norm. Wanted Brad's penalty to stick. Until a day ago we were working on the penalty, someone writes an article how Brad's penalty won't follow him, so we allow the AFL to step in to make sure that happened. These are club penalties handled via AFL. How else does Stengle get 4. The gymnastics in trying to qualify that is hilarious.

Stengle got a DUI under 12 months ago. That alone is worth the extra 2

 

[Flip Side]

The AFL will no doubt use the "burden of proof" defence. They can't prove JDG did anything wrong, whereas our boys were bellends and got caught.

Not the right way to go about things but that's the way they'll go. Twist the narrative however they like

Burden of proof for players caught in testing is more conclusive, I haven’t seen any report suggesting the players had used the substance in question, just that they had possession, with no charges laid.

Noting the wiki on afl drug policy is out of date, “Upon a second strike, a player will be named publicly, fined and suspended for four matches.”

- does this mean players named should get an additional 2 weeks for bringing the game into disrepute?

 

[hey shorty]

Burden of proof for players caught in testing is more conclusive, I haven’t seen any report suggesting the players had used the substance in question, just that they had possession, with no charges laid.

Noting the wiki on afl drug policy is out of date, “Upon a second strike, a player will be named publicly, fined and suspended for four matches.”

- does this mean players named should get an additional 2 weeks for bringing the game into disrepute?

Good question.

That's why I ask in Brad's instance, why bother having strikes if it only matters if you don't get caught.

It's ridiculous.

 

[Samcro24]

Some very lenient penalties IMO

I’ve read lots of comments to this effect. Graham Cornes for example thinks they’re lucky. Just wondering what you think is appropriate?

 

[slingy55]

It always makes me laugh when these things happen from the AFL.. They pick and choose who they protect that's for sure.

I wonder how Mr Nose Beers Franklin is doing with his "hamstring issues".. bloke has had more strikes than any other player yet.. here we are.

Anyway I hope Brad's new team enjoys not having him for 2 games.

Surely Franklin won't play again. Seen him lately?

 

[Red mist]

Surely Franklin won't play again. Seen him lately?

Yep, He sideswiped his Range Rover putting out the bins.

 

[Murray2503]

Should have been the same penalty for both players imo. Separate incidents were dealt with previously. While I don't feel they should receive any games it could have been worse. Hopefully this is a lesson to Stengle that he has an opportunity to have a good career. Don't waste it.

 

[1990crow]

drugs are bad.

McKay

 

[hey shorty]

Should have been the same penalty for both players imo. Separate incidents were dealt with previously. While I don't feel they should receive any games it could have been worse. Hopefully this is a lesson to Stengle that he has an opportunity to have a good career. Don't waste it.

Stengle I don't mind so much. Needed to keep his head down and then was inexplicably caught on a Monday morning. Those who know him well outside of footy say it was only a matter of time.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

"The Club has worked closely with the League and AFL Players Association during this process but it does not have grounds to determine, nor enforce, its own penalty."

I bet we're seething about this

 

[Cap]

I bet we're seething about this

Depends on the FA compo

 

[brucetiki]

I’ve read lots of comments to this effect. Graham Cornes for example thinks they’re lucky. Just wondering what you think is appropriate?

I’d have gone double for both

 

[Samcro24]

I’d have gone double for both

Nah

 

[Sanders]

I’d have gone double for both

which says more about you

 

[1970crow]

The AFL will no doubt use the "burden of proof" defence. They can't prove JDG did anything wrong, whereas our boys were bellends and got caught.

Not the right way to go about things but that's the way they'll go. Twist the narrative however they like

If our boys lawyered up, they'd probably have the search thrown out. But why bother, so they get matches on top of a first strike purely for doing what every other player who's tested positive has done. Oh, except they got caught. Take drugs, get caught by AFL, ssssshhhhh, no games. Take drugs, get caught, no sssshhhh, games. Getting caught with coke and diverted doesn't bring the AFL into disrepute, wouldn't last 2 seconds if challenged.

 

[1970crow]

I’ve read lots of comments to this effect. Graham Cornes for example thinks they’re lucky. Just wondering what you think is appropriate?

Carlisle, Mumford and Bennell all got 2 weeks.

 

[dogs105]

Carlisle, Mumford and Bennell all got 2 weeks.

So it's about right then?

 

[hey shorty]

If our boys lawyered up, they'd probably have the search thrown out. But why bother, so they get matches on top of a first strike purely for doing what every other player who's tested positive has done. Oh, except they got caught. Take drugs, get caught by AFL, ssssshhhhh, no games. Take drugs, get caught, no sssshhhh, games. Getting caught with coke and diverted doesn't bring the AFL into disrepute, wouldn't last 2 seconds if challenged.

That's my point.

The AFL choose a narrative and that's it. It's why Mummy got games for appearing on the front page of the paper years after the event. They've totally failed on the JDG stuff but thankfully banished Curtis Taylor.

I would be filthy if I were Brad

 

[John Who]

I get the AFL is applying their golden rule of “don’t bring the game into disrepute, or there will be penalties”. What bothers me is that illicit drug use is seemingly all lumped into just the one category. For instance, there is a great deal of difference between the use of a steroid-enhancing drug during the main season, as opposed to recreational use in the off-season. The players here are being treated as drug cheats during the on-season.

The other issue is that as a society, we need to ask a serious question:
Socially which is worse, recreational use of party drugs, or a cocktail of alcohol and cigarettes?

 

[1970crow]

So it's about right then?

Not if you disagree with those punishments. But in terms precedent, probably. I'd say there's a slight difference between Bennell and our 2 compared to Mummy and Carlisle. But the latter had much more significant financial penalties attached as well. Bennell had missed 2 after being stood down and a further 3 were suspended.

 

[1970crow]

I get the AFL is applying their golden rule of “don’t bring the game into disrepute, or there will be penalties”. What bothers me is that illicit drug use is seemingly all lumped into just the one category. For instance, there is a great deal of difference between the use of a steroid-enhancing drug during the main season, as opposed to recreational use in the off-season. The players here are being treated as drug cheats during the on-season.

The other issue is that as a society, we need to ask a serious question:
Socially which is worse, recreational use of party drugs, or a cocktail of alcohol and cigarettes?

It comes down to legality for most people. If all they'd known was cocaine being legal, they'd have no issue. No need to look any deeper than that. Any addictive substance, legal or otherwise, carries with it risk. Addiction to prescription drugs is evidence to that. Addictive personalities will find a way. If I illegitimately got hold of therapeutic quality MDMA and the missus and I dabbled every now and again, what would the argument against our use be? Addiction, well, the last gram we purchased lasted months and in fact we forgot about the last part of it altogether. We haven't touched it or tried to buy it for over 2 years. Addiction is not an issue for us and even if it was, why not the same concern with other life destroying addictive substances? So the issue can only be legality, which is stupid, because what happens when the law changes? Your view changes with it?