Player Watch Sam Murray - (Delisted 2019)

[sideswipe]

Different sport, different country, but here is an example of an in-competition cocaine positive having the initial 4 year suspension cut to 10 months. Murray could be back this year!

https://www.punters.com.au/news/cocaine-sanction-cut-for-aus-based-irish-jockey_179783/

 

[jackcass]

Yeah but CBD has far more medicinal value than to just epilepsy.
Chronic Pain and anxiety being the big ones.

Yep, as does THC. In Victoria though, as I understand it, the legislation allowing prescription of medical cannabis is purely as it relates to the treatment of epilepsy. Hopefully that will be broadened over time. Especially considering other states already have enacted broader interpretations.

 

[sideswipe]

That sport isn't corrupt at all is it Sidey?

I was simply providing an example of how an in-competition positive test can see a penalty much less than the 4 years. Regardless of the sport, this was a WADA-driven penalty.

I recall you have previously made your feelings known about wanting Murray to get the full 4 years - or just get him out of the club? Neither will happen. Will be in the black and white stripes again. Likely this year.

 

[Unknown Identity]

He is an imbecile and him playing again this year just proves how much of a joke WADA/ASADA are.

Absolutely he is an imbecile, but 4 years for Coke is absurd.

Fact is, if he had of self reported.. he would have had a 8-10 week hamstring/quad/calf injury and would have been playing from rd 1 this year.

Punishment doesn't fit the crime, but the process is ridiculous.. creeping up on 10 months since his positive test while other cases have been settled in less than half the time.

 

[sideswipe]

He is an imbecile and him playing again this year just proves how much of a joke WADA/ASADA are.

Not sure what the penalty is for testing positive to imbecility but extra points for using the word.

Care to explain why a reduced penalty makes WADA/ASADA a joke? To me, it shows that there is a degree of flexibility in place - think we all agree that Murray's was not an attempt to enhance performance. So 4 years was going to be super harsh.

 

[sideswipe]

Absolutely he is an imbecile, but 4 years for Coke is absurd.

Fact is, if he had of self reported.. he would have had a 8-10 week hamstring/quad/calf injury and would have been playing from rd 1 this year.

Punishment doesn't fit the crime, but the process is ridiculous.. creeping up on 10 months since his positive test while other cases have been settled in less than half the time.

No - you are thinking of the AFL Illicit Drugs Policy. He tested positive to an in-competition banned substance, breaching the WADA Code.

Agree the process has taken way too much time, but the fact that ASADA have agreed to allow him to train with his brother at the Wang Rovers is pretty telling that a substantially reduced penalty will be the end result.

 

[atomiser]

I have to ask, have you tried any natural remedies? Apart from Wed and it’s derivatives of course.
I’m a science based remedy person, but over the last decade I have had success with natural substances when I’ve had stress/claustrophobic issues.

There is a product called GABA, it is only available online but it is legal. GABA is a natural form of benzo basicly, it is a good natural alternative but you need to do some research so that you get the good stuff and not pretend stuff, hope that helps

 

[sr36]

He is an imbecile

Is this just based on the coke, or are there other factors?

 

[sideswipe]

Refer to my comment about the Saad penalty.

hmmm, not sure my powers of recall stretch to your comments on Saad?

 

[Anzacday]

hmmm, not sure my powers of recall stretch to your comments on Saad?

https://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-11-27/saad-learns-his-fate

 

[sr36]

What him being an imbecile or are we talking WADA now?

Imbecile

 

[sideswipe]

I just posted it above in response to Unknown Identity.

My point was two years for a prohibited sports drink is a joke also.

OK - got it. But I see no real connection. To me the Saad matter was very different from Murray - but he copped 18 months, not 2 years. ASADA appealed the ban as they wanted the full 2 years (initial ban would have been 4 if it happened today). AFL Appeals board upheld the 18 months.

Your opinion that another ban is a "joke" is no argument that ASADA is a "joke". So far you have two separate but both unsubstantiated opinions.

 

[sr36]

1. Hoovering lines before a super important game.

2. Instagram accounts linked to him using drug references while on his hiatus.

= Imbecile

Fair call, but...

1, My suspicion is its pretty standard afl practice and he got unlucky with it staying in the system for longer than normal.

2. Moronic - byt you don't get rid of players for being dumb*- the Abletts.

 

[Gone Critical]

1. Hoovering lines before a super important game.

2. Instagram accounts linked to him using drug references while on his hiatus.

= Imbecile

If being an imbecile led you to not wanting that player at Collingwood we would be on shaky ground. Swanny, Millane, Carmen, Dids, Heater, Banksy for a start would all pass the off ground imbecile test with ease. Is imbecile with top line talent a different catagory?

 

[Gone Critical]

10 months to "negotiate" a penalty that should be Black & White is a joke. That isn't my opinion it is fact.

If I murder someone and admit to it do I get a good behaviour bond?

Sorry to be a pain CFC but this is always a pet hate of mine. People claiming their strongly held opinion somehow becomes a fact. Above is your opinion, it's not a fact.

 

[sideswipe]

10 months to "negotiate" a penalty that should be Black & White is a joke. That isn't my opinion it is fact.

If I murder someone and admit to it do I get a good behaviour bond?

I don't disagree that this has taken a long time, but it is not a "black and white" 4 year ban. There are a number of mitigants contained in the code which can see the initial 4 year ban reduced.

Re: your murder question, the simple answer to the simplistic question is no. But here is an answer to what you might be asking - If you admit guilt to any offence pretty much anywhere, then ceteris paribus you will receive a lesser sentence than contesting the charge. And yes, that is one of the potential avenues for reduction of the 4 year penalty. Article 10.6.1 of the WADA Code.

Serious suggestion - try reading the Code? Just 10.6 if you like.

https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/defa.../wada_anti-doping_code_2018_english_final.pdf

 

[Gone Critical]

So they are not negotiating a penalty ATM?

No your opinion is the fact that they are still negotiating after 10 months is a joke. Not disagreeing with your opinion that taking 10 months to make a decision is a joke, I agree, but its still an opinion not a fact.

 

[Unknown Identity]

I will read it Sidey.

It still doesn't change my stance on this.

He didn't accidently ingest Cocaine on game day.......he signed on the dotted line when he became a professional athlete. Facts.

To be fair he didn't necessarily ingest cocaine on game day.

Cocaine remains in your system for testing purposes approximately 1 to 4 days.

He might have taken it Wednesday night, he might have taken it the night before the game, or he could have taken it gameday.
Only Murray will be able to answer that.

 

[Gone Critical]

Sorry G C but is it not FACT that they're negotiating at the moment.

I am a simple person I am confused what your point is.

I agree its a fact they are still negotiating after 10 months. That that is a joke is your opinion. So when you say negotiating the Murray decision for 10 months is a joke that's an opinion.

 

[Unknown Identity]

Does it really matter U I?

To be honest i think it does.

If he was out with the boys on a Wednesday night, and did a line as stupid as it is, that is far less concerning then him waking up game day and needing a hit to get him through the day/game or to give him an unfair advantage during the game.

 

[sideswipe]

Does it really matter U I?

Of course it matters. It might be argued that timing of ingestion goes to the very heart of how the 4 year sentence might be reduced under the No Fault/No Significant Fault provisions under Articles 10.4 and 10.5.

You may have your own opinion on the application of strict liability for a doping office - but the Code contains avenues to reduce the ban. That is what Murray signed up to. That is the fact.

 

[sr36]

I will read it Sidey.

It still doesn't change my stance on this.

He didn't accidently ingest Cocaine on game day.......he signed on the dotted line when he became a professional athlete. Facts.

My suspicion is that the reason it is dragging on for so long is that his lawyers have the AFL in flustered because it stayed in his system for longer than their advice and drug training programs said it would. Nothing to base this on other than gut feel and that one article that discussed more accurate testing and concerns about the issue, which brought up Murray.

 

[Gone Critical]

I get all that boys but the FACT is he tested positive on GAME DAY.

That isn't an OPINION by the way Gone Critical.

All you guys are arguing about is the penalty. Saad 18 months for a sports drink......WTF?

Correct. You've got it. In my opinion my work here is done.

 

[Leviathan Pie]

Still a thread?

 

[sideswipe]

I get all that boys but the FACT is he tested positive on GAME DAY.

That isn't an OPINION by the way Gone Critical.

All you guys are arguing about is the penalty. Saad 18 months for a sports drink......WTF?

You keep bringing up Saad's 18 months as some sort of justification. Why? He tested +ve to a banned substance on game day which got him the auto 2 years, but it was reduced down to 18 months, essentially because he didn't realise the sports drink contained a banned substance. This reduction was contentious enough that ASADA appealed it. And lost.

To my mind, the only similarity is the application of a penalty then reduction based on circumstances around the ingestion of the substance. The difference is that Saad knowingly took a drink on game day (and admitted to taking it other times on game day) with a view to at least assisting his performance. It was a "sports drink" - however he didn't know it contained a banned substance. Murray on the other hand will be arguing he intentionally took something well before game day in the mistaken view it would not be in his system come game day. Different.

You haven't raised one argument around Saad to justify why you think it was a joke. It was a "sports drink" is not an argument.