Thanks Crowls, you've got Daniel Kerr and Ben Cousins out of the headlines for a day. 
-
LIVE: Gold Coast v Geelong - 7:30PM Thu
Squiggle tips Cats at 60% chance -- What's your tip? -- Team line-ups »
-
Weekly Prize - Join Any Time - Tip Round 10
The Golden Ticket - MCG and Marvel Medallion Club tickets and Corporate Box tickets at the Gabba, MCG and Marvel.
Round 9 Winner: philreich
-
Ryan Crowley - Found guilty, banned for 12 months, backdated to September 25 2014
- Thread starter ManWithNoName
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Apr 24, 2013
- 2,678
- 6,864
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
Saad's stimulant is also legal every other day, whereas Crowley's substance is not.
The rules and penalties are arbitrary and can't really be defended.
- Apr 4, 2013
- 13,670
- 16,890
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
How many times does this have to be said? Saad took a stimulant, which is considered performance enhancing. Crowley took an opiate / narcotic, which is a specified substance and not considered in the same class as genuinely performance enhancing drugs.
WADA only cares about appearances - players getting addicted to opiates to mask pain from competing is not a good look, and that is why they're banned.
Cannabis is not performance enhancing either but categorised as a specified substance.
- Apr 4, 2013
- 13,670
- 16,890
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
Legal?
The Falcon Strike
Hall of Famer
Because he deliberately as a mature player went behind the back of his club to get treatment for an ailment.
Saad unwittingly had an energy drink that included a banned drug. Players don't get their food and beverages ritually checked by their doctors (they might subsequently) - medication on the other hand - every professional athlete knows to get it checked
- Apr 24, 2013
- 2,678
- 6,864
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
I think it would have been 6 months, and for an established player the answer is certainly yes. Taking the ban is risky for a fringe player, though.
But somewhere along the lines those poor naive bastards were convinced that Essendon's best interests were their best interests, and for Essendon any suspension would have been crippling.
Boxhead_31
The Greatest Team Of All
- Oct 12, 2007
- 36,824
- 51,302
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- South BHFL
Surely the AFL Anti Doping Tribunal are just taking the piss with ASADA now, almost daring them to appeal their findings. Will be interesting to see their reasoning for the 50% discount
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
- Apr 4, 2013
- 13,670
- 16,890
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
So?
Saad took something for the purpose of performance enhancement that has prohibited performance enhancing effects. That he didn't know the performance enhancing effects were prohibited means nothing.
Narcotics are banned for very different reasons to stimulants.
Does the code level different penalties for the 2 categories of substance?
Well, not sure what to say. I wouldn't have complained if he'd got two years.
I also don't know what this says about consistency in charges for drug offences as the Essendon, Saad and Crowley cases are all quite different.
I also don't know what this says about consistency in charges for drug offences as the Essendon, Saad and Crowley cases are all quite different.
Reality rules
Cancelled
It might explain the changes to the 3 strike s**t policy
- Banned
- #38
Of course they would.... and you would think the same about the 2 week offer that ASADA was trying to also put on the table. Except for the fact that they are innocent and have been prepared to say so the whole way though. The easy option would have been to roll over like the NRL boys, except again that would mean admitting quilt which the players clearly are not prepared to do....
yet here everyone is slamming the players and the club when in fact they are simply prepared to challenge and not roll over. The club and players continue to pay the price to prove their innocence which clearly is valued!
- Apr 24, 2013
- 2,678
- 6,864
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
The best response you could come up with?
Reality rules
Cancelled
Legal and compliant are two very different terms.
- Aug 27, 2014
- 835
- 1,922
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
When you put it like that it does sound harsh.
Really though - It's not that hard to check the medication you are taking and then follow the rules.
I imagine Crowley is on a pretty decent salary. Surely enough to justify following a simple compliance measure such as checking medication on a website? I'm sure he has a smartphone, probably could have done it while still in the doctors office.
jenny61_99
Premium Platinum
Particularly when the new penalties came into effect on January 1st which would see the base penalty be four years. When were the positive tests again? So we agree to the WADA code only until it means we have to ban players, then we just do our own thing. The AFL are an absolute joke.
Sir Hugh Percy
BigFooty Aristocrat
I think they're going the path of the 'provisional suspension', i.e. he's served his time out of the game since he last played in last year's semi. Though that would have been earlier than the 25th of September...
- Apr 4, 2013
- 13,670
- 16,890
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
What do you mean by legal?
jenny61_99
Premium Platinum
When did he test positive?
Yep. But makes sense as well, since not all information is open to the public while MRP offenses happen on field watched by millions.
Still would be really interesting to know how this would work out with an Ablett, Franklin or Fyfe...
PS But what I really don't get is this backdating and provisional suspension thing. It free to play until convicted then serve full suspension fort me. Especially in Crowley case it could gotten close costing him his career even when he would have been cleared.
Yeah, investigating too deep could result in only state league players remaining clear to play...
You mean he unwittingly took it that one day he was tested?
