Scandal Joel Smith (Melbourne): Cocaine trafficking accusation

[Chief]

Trafficking Accusation:

Scandal - Joel Smith (Melbourne): Cocaine trafficking accusation

Trafficking Accusation: https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/joel-smith-melbourne-cocaine-trafficking-accusation.1373812/post-82421629 MFC and AFL Statements: Melbourne Football Club Media Statement – Joel Smith The Melbourne Football Club has been advised by the AFL that further...

www.bigfooty.com

MFC and AFL Statements:

Melbourne Football Club Media Statement – Joel Smith

The Melbourne Football Club has been advised by the AFL that further Anti-Doping Rule Violations have been asserted against Joel Smith by Sport Integrity Australia.

The Melbourne Football Club is not authorised to make public comment while this is an ongoing matter that is being investigated by Sport Integrity Australia.

It should be noted since the article has been published on the Herald Sun website, Joel’s management has contacted the Club on his behalf to advise that the comments made by the source within the article are not reflective of Joel’s views and the source is not speaking on any authority from Joel.

Joel has made it very clear that he has no issues or concerns with anyone at the Melbourne Football Club.

As the Club has previously stated, we will wait for the investigation to be completed before we update our supporters further.

AFL STATEMENT – JOEL SMITH

The AFL confirms that further Anti-Doping Rule Violations (ADRVs) have been asserted against Joel Smith of the Melbourne Football Club under the Australian Football Anti-Doping Code.

Sport Integrity Australia (SIA) has notified Smith that three ADRVs for “Trafficking or Attempted Trafficking” of Cocaine to third parties are asserted against him.

Under the Code, Trafficking in an anti-doping context is relevantly defined to be “Selling, giving, transporting, sending, delivering or distributing a Prohibited Substance, by an Athlete … to any third party [but] shall not include actions involving Prohibited Substances which are not prohibited in Out-of-Competition Testing unless the circumstances as a whole demonstrate such Prohibited Substances are not intended for genuine and legal therapeutic purposes or are intended to enhance sport performance” (Article 1 of the Code).

Further, SIA has notified Smith that an ADRV for Possession of a Prohibited Substance (Cocaine) on 9 September 2022 is asserted against him.

These ADRVs are in addition to that previously asserted against him (in connection with a sample provided by him after the match between Melbourne and Hawthorn on 20 August 2023 which tested positive to Cocaine and its metabolite, Benzoylecgonine).

Smith will continue to be provisionally suspended pending the finalisation of all of these matters, meaning he is not permitted to be part of Melbourne’s football program, including Melbourne’s pre-season training that is currently underway.

Under the Code, the new asserted ADRVs will be further investigated by SIA and these matters may ultimately be heard by an AFL Anti-Doping Tribunal in the coming months.

Due to the ongoing nature of the anti-doping process, the AFL and SIA are unable to make any further comment at this time.

 

[BringFevBack2021]

Relatively long would be 2 weeks like it is for THC. Cocaine is 24-48 hours.

He must have had a bigger than average Friday night going into a Sunday game.

I'm sure his legal people will argue that, but a game day hit is still bad and I reckon the modest 3 month ban claims are very optimistic.

If you use cocaine pretty frequently the detection window can be extended significantly. Up to two weeks in urine for heavy users. Three days is pretty typical.

Of course a game day hit is bad, however I would assert a solid alibi proving his whereabouts in the night before/nights before that show he was out at a club or somewhere where illicit substances are commonly consumed will be sufficient in demonstrating that he consumed it prior to 0001 on the day of the game.

 

[BringFevBack2021]

Yeah that was Keefe and Thomas, but Sam Murray got 18mths in 2019 for Cocaine game day test. I wonder what the difference was genuinely curious now to see what happens.

Rule was changed in 2021.

https://www.sportintegrity.gov.au/news/integrity-blog/2020-12/changes-2021-prohibited-list

 

[Gough]

Both have clearly brought the game into disrepute so 12 month ban should be on that basis based on precedent.

But it’s the AFL

It's weird that we hold sports players to a higher standard than we do the people who run the country. If we asked the same of government and public service as we do our footy players when it comes to drug use this country would grind to a screeching halt.

 

[Big_Birdy]

It's weird that we hold sports players to a higher standard than we do the people who run the country. If we asked the same of government and public service as we do our footy players when it comes to drug use this country would grind to a screeching halt.

Completely agree regarding out of competition testing for AFL players.

It isn’t unheard of for other industries to require personal standards outside of work to remain in that profession (legal practitioners being the obvious one). Should that apply to AFL players? I would say no.

I’m not in favour of a 12 month ban for Hollands. I was more talking about what happened to Ben Cousins in comparison.

Smith is another matter. Match day is a completely different kettle of fish. A positive drug test at work will result in significant disciplinary action in almost any industry. And it’s a horrible look for the game.

 

[FIGJAM]

Of course a game day hit is bad, however I would assert a solid alibi proving his whereabouts in the night before/nights before that show he was out at a club or somewhere where illicit substances are commonly consumed will be sufficient in demonstrating that he consumed it prior to 0001 on the day of the game.

Still seems weird to me that he can test positive game day for a stimulant and then barely miss even pre-season training.

At least if you test positive in competition, you should be banned in competition (ie. 3 months from Round 1). Otherwise those in seasonal sports will barely even get a slap on the wrist more often than not, as it takes time to process tests.

 

[LanceRomance]

If you use cocaine pretty frequently the detection window can be extended significantly. Up to two weeks in urine for heavy users. Three days is pretty typical.

Of course a game day hit is bad, however I would assert a solid alibi proving his whereabouts in the night before/nights before that show he was out at a club or somewhere where illicit substances are commonly consumed will be sufficient in demonstrating that he consumed it prior to 0001 on the day of the game.

solid alibi won't count for asada.

He'll likely need to surrender his phone etc

And I highly doubt he'll roll out the ol "I'm a heavy user"

 

[BringFevBack2021]

Still seems weird to me that he can test positive game day for a stimulant and then barely miss even pre-season training.

At least if you test positive in competition, you should be banned in competition (ie. 3 months from Round 1). Otherwise those in seasonal sports will barely even get a slap on the wrist more often than not, as it takes time to process tests.

I agree with you on being banned in competition, I just don't know what the rule is though. That would make most sense to me.

solid alibi won't count for asada.

He'll likely need to surrender his phone etc

And I highly doubt he'll roll out the ol "I'm a heavy user"

It'll be 3 months. Just wait and see.

 

[jakson68]

Accusations from one person. No evidence. Need a little bit more than that.

In a perfect world I would agree with this Toump.
Sadly though in the opinionated social media world that we are in, anyone can make an assumption and if the right people want to run with it, then this assumption can become "truth" real quick.

After this the innocent until proven guilty is gone and it is more guilty with no chance of proving innocence.

Obviously though there is a culture problem at Melbourne, in some way but the drugs issue isn't the main issue.

Game day test is a different issue and that is a problem, when a player cannot be clean at the pointy end of the season.

Drugs in general.
Every team would have an element of this in their club, so a couple of Melbourne players being on drugs isn't anything out of the ordinary. Getting busted is the problem because of the "look"

Best people throwing stones be careful though, as someone from another club, is only a snapchat away.

 

[LanceRomance]

I agree with you on being banned in competition, I just don't know what the rule is though. That would make most sense to me.


It'll be 3 months. Just wait and see.

I think ASADA will recommend much longer.

 

[FuManchu]

You've been posting since the EF34 days and you still do not understand the WADA rules.

The same EF34 that got a year ban for not declaring substances they believed to be legal but didn’t declare them anyway?

I think I understand it, I think you just don’t want to believe it! Essendon players were drug cheats.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

The AFL must take a firm stance on both Smith and Hollands and suspend them for a year. These blokes are on six-figure salaries and have to be "ON" all the time not just some of the time...There is no such thing as recreational drugs. Cocaine is a powerful central nervous system stimulant, it shouldn't matter if it was taken out of competition or not. Both should not be playing in 2024.

so... you're saying the AFL should just completely disregard it's own policy. Interesting take

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Yep. That looks like a really solid precedent. If Smith doesn't get 18 months there needs to be an explanation as to precisely why it is different

the explanation would be that the rules changed between examples.

Pretty simple one would think

 

[FuManchu]

The AFL must take a firm stance on both Smith and Hollands and suspend them for a year. These blokes are on six-figure salaries and have to be "ON" all the time not just some of the time...There is no such thing as recreational drugs. Cocaine is a powerful central nervous system stimulant, it shouldn't matter if it was taken out of competition or not. Both should not be playing in 2024.

The AFL will most likely give them a strike and let the WADA/SIA ban be the overriding penalty be it 3 months or longer.

 

[zeggie]

The AFL must take a firm stance on both Smith and Hollands and suspend them for a year. These blokes are on six-figure salaries and have to be "ON" all the time not just some of the time...There is no such thing as recreational drugs. Cocaine is a powerful central nervous system stimulant, it shouldn't matter if it was taken out of competition or not. Both should not be playing in 2024.

Steady on. Hollands was just holding onto it for a mate. Never tested positive.

 

[LanceRomance]

Steady on. Hollands was just holding onto it for a mate. Never tested positive.

Will be interesting to find out when he had it.

Given the court date of the end of the month I'd think no later than late September.

Guessing he'll be on a stricter testing regime now. Hair samples etc.

 

[Satan]

Steady on. Hollands was just holding onto it for a mate. Never tested positive.

Like bailey

Bulldogs star Bailey Smith accepts ban but avoids further sanctions over illicit drug use

Bulldogs star Smith accepts ban but avoids further sanctions over illicit drug use

www.foxsports.com.au

 

[BG32]

Given he kicked straight on the day the AFL should just put it on the allowed list. Imagine how straight McKay would kick if Elijah Hollands shared his stuff.

 

[marcmurphy3]

What will be interesting is if he gets 3 months that would normally start from the moment he is provisionally suspended, meaning he would be free to return to training late January and free to play from round 1. That's how WADA works all around the world, so he misses no games.

If the AFL want him to miss games, they have to change their own rules to make the ban start in round 1 or tack on an additional ban of however many matches, both which start to get a bit messy. To complicate things further you've had Smith, Ginnivan and Crouch in the last 2 years serve 2 match suspensions for being caught with illicit substances (though not via testing and not on gameday). Going on precedent Hollands should get a 2-match suspension for conduct unbecoming like those guys. But how will it look having one guy caught with drugs post season suspended for round 1 while the guy who tested positive on gameday is free to play?

The whole conduct unbecoming suspension thing is interesting too as guys who get 1st drug strikes via positive tests don't miss any matches. Yet the guys listed above get suspended despite not testing positive. I guess you could argue that the public way in which they have been caught brings embarrassment to the AFL and that's actually what they have been suspended for. But Joel Smith has brought embarrassment to the AFL too, however, only because the AFL themself have named him. You can't really suspend him for the crime itself and then tack on an additional suspension for the optics of it.

 

[yaco55]

The same EF34 that got a year ban for not declaring substances they believed to be legal but didn’t declare them anyway?

I think I understand it, I think you just don’t want to believe it! Essendon players were drug cheats.

You are even sillier than I thought - We are discussing the Joel Smith case. Are you stuck in atime warp?

 

[zeggie]

Like bailey

Bulldogs star Bailey Smith accepts ban but avoids further sanctions over illicit drug use

Bulldogs star Smith accepts ban but avoids further sanctions over illicit drug use

www.foxsports.com.au

Bailey was videoed.

Dutchy V2 was charged, and will likely have the charge dropped on first offence with diversion.

Quite a difference in circumstances.

Anyways this thread is about Smith.

 

[FuManchu]

You are even sillier than I thought - We are discussing the Joel Smith case. Are you stuck in atime warp?

You brought up EF34. You might want to stop looking in the mirror because all you’re doing is projecting.

 

[Mofra]

It's weird that we hold sports players to a higher standard than we do the people who run the country. If we asked the same of government and public service as we do our footy players when it comes to drug use this country would grind to a screeching halt.

I did get tested regularly in the military.
Urine tests only so I'm not sure they'd pick up as much as a hair test

 

[LanceRomance]

I did get tested regularly in the military.
Urine tests only so I'm not sure they'd pick up as much as a hair test

There are different 'panels'.

Most standard ones, including hair, only test for cocaine, opioids, meth and mdma, and thc.


The hair test I had to do a while back also included pcp. I haven't heard of anyone taking pcp in years.

You can test for other substances but the cost goes up.

 

[Satan]

Bailey was videoed.

Dutchy V2 was charged, and will likely have the charge dropped on first offence with diversion.

Quite a difference in circumstances.

Anyways this thread is about Smith.

Bailey ..

 

[Jimthegreat]

The AFL must take a firm stance on both Smith and Hollands and suspend them for a year. These blokes are on six-figure salaries and have to be "ON" all the time not just some of the time...There is no such thing as recreational drugs. Cocaine is a powerful central nervous system stimulant, it shouldn't matter if it was taken out of competition or not. Both should not be playing in 2024.

Smith is a WADA issue being match day. Sports Integrity Australia will sort that one.

Hollands is a court issue and a likely AFL strike as it is out of competition, different to match day and not a WADA offence. Think they should change the rules especially for Hollands? A year for a little bit of an illicit substance? Serious?