Stokes' open letter (Geelong website)

[Happy_Neale]

Link



What are your thoughts? Personally I think he sounds genuine, but will have to live with the stigma for the remainder of his career.

The last three months have been tough, and the toughest thing about it is that I am responsible for what has happened. I have no one else to blame but myself. I’m ashamed of the disgrace I have caused to the club, the players and most of all my family. I have hurt so many people with my actions and let people down that believe in me

 

[JeffDunne]

It is an absolute joke he is allowed to return to football this year.

Frankly I couldn't give two hoots about any PR driven apology.

Like all such apologies, he's sorry only because he got caught.

 

[Damon_3388]

I wonder how Ben Cousins feels about the comparitively light treatment (by the media, his club and the league) that Stokes has received for his indiscretions.

 

[Shane Hird]

Link



What are your thoughts? Personally I think he sounds genuine,
but will have to live with the stigma for the remainder of his career.

I don't think it will be that bad for him. Other's have done much worse.


Good to see him mention 'the kids'. Not just Geelong kids, but all kids who follow AFL. I know my 10 year old son- Essendon fan- will be happy to see him back. Stokes is one of his favourite players.

Good luck to him. Just get on with it, keep your head down and just play footy.

 

[Greg Brady]

It is an absolute joke he is allowed to return to football this year.

Frankly I couldn't give two hoots about any PR driven apology.

Like all such apologies, he's sorry only because he got caught.

Umm...it was his 1st strike...how the **** can you rationalise him being kicked out from football when there are countless players sitting on one or even two strikes, but just haven't had the misfortune of it coming out in public...

 

[Byron_Clanger]

If Stokes was an Eagle he would have been getting non stop drilled since the start of the year

 

[JeffDunne]

Umm...it was his 1st strike...how the **** can you rationalise him being kicked out from football when there are countless players sitting on one or even two strikes, but just haven't had the misfortune of it coming out in public...

It wasn't a first strike, it was a fly-ball cleanly caught.

No need for a 2nd or a 3rd pitch.

He didn't test positive for a banned drug - he was caught participating in dealing.

The quantity may have been small, it may have very much have been what he says it was, but there's people being kicked out of the game for placing a $2 bet!

Zero tolerance means ZERO tolerance.

As usual for the AFL it means 'when it suits our agenda' and a subjective application of the rules.

 

[Greg Brady]

It wasn't a first strike, it was a fly-ball cleanly caught.

No need for a 2nd or a 3rd pitch.

He didn't test positive for a banned drug - he was caught participating in dealing.

The quantity may have been small, it may have very much have been what he says it was, but there's people being kicked out of the game for placing a $2 bet!

Zero tolerance means ZERO tolerance.

As usual for the AFL it means 'when it suits our agenda' and a subjective application of the rules.

Yes. It was a 1st strike. It doesn't matter how public that strike is!!

He was found guilty of possession, he was not even charged with trafficking. How can the AFL turn around and say: well our legal systems found you innocent, but we say you're guilty!! I'm oddly reminded of a certain pair of individuals who found themselves in legal hotwater, but ended up not being charged.

Forgive me if I'm wrong - I haven't paid the story a whole lot of attention tbh - but noone has been banned for a whole year for a $2 bet have they? If they have it is a ridciculous reaction, and one that should not be carried over to any other punishments, i.e. Stokes.

If Stokes had been found guilty of trafficking I'm sure the AFL would - rightly - look into imposing their own sanctions on him. As it stands, he was not even charged. He goes down under possession, cops a club suspension, and a strike against his name. Move on.

Methinks someone is a liiiiittle bit bitter about last year...

 

[Satan]

Umm...it was his 1st strike...how the **** can you rationalise him being kicked out from football when there are countless players sitting on one or even two strikes, but just haven't had the misfortune of it coming out in public...

the latest on drug testing results


http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...ive-tests-increases-by-two-20100513-v0ro.html

"Twelve footballers failed drug tests, two of them were caught twice.

Thirteen of the positive test were for stimulants and just one for cannabis.

s The number of players on their second strike remained steady at two.'

Does that mean two players who retired last year had 2 strikes against them?

this link has been updated and my original paste does not appear

 

[Satan]

Yes. It was a 1st strike. It doesn't matter how public that strike is!!

He was found guilty of possession, he was not even charged with trafficking. How can the AFL turn around and say: well our legal systems found you innocent, but we say you're guilty!! I'm oddly reminded of a certain pair of individuals who found themselves in legal hotwater, but ended up not being charged.

Forgive me if I'm wrong - I haven't paid the story a whole lot of attention tbh - but noone has been banned for a whole year for a $2 bet have they? If they have it is a ridciculous reaction, and one that should not be carried over to any other punishments, i.e. Stokes.

If Stokes had been found guilty of trafficking I'm sure the AFL would - rightly - look into imposing their own sanctions on him. As it stands, he was not even charged. He goes down under possession, cops a club suspension, and a strike against his name. Move on.

Methinks someone is a liiiiittle bit bitter about last year...

was not the charge dropped or not proceed with if he pleaded guilty of possession?

 

[Bobby Giovanni]

It is an absolute joke he is allowed to return to football this year.

Frankly I couldn't give two hoots about any PR driven apology.

Like all such apologies, he's sorry only because he got caught.

You truly are an idiot. Have an opinion on everything, yet seemingly never actually go to games. Just prefer to hang out until issues such as this arise, so you can feign indignation, then act hysterically when things don't go your way.

Just what exactly do you propose? Life ban? And does this also apply to blokes who bash cab drivers, hit their missus, public urination, rape women, drink drive etc etc. I assume you're best placed to be judge, jury and executioner?

What Stokes did was wrong/illegal and has let himself, his family and the club down. A court accepted his guilty plea and he has been punished accordingly. It has cost him his reputation, a substantial amount of money (both now and in the future), his trust, the longest intimate relationship in his life and almost cost him his dream job. That's plenty of punishment, and throw in Internet heroes and opposition supporters inevitably booing him, and this is something that will stay with him forever.

By precedent alone, that punishment is far greater than any Victorian court would hand a Joe Blow off the street. Read the papers and you would see that.

 

[IBleedBrownNGold]

was not the charge dropped if he pleaded guilty of possession?

The charge of trafficking was. He was still charged with possession... and subsequently given the penalty of good behaviour bond. So he still has a criminal conviction on his record.

 

[TeamHurley]

If Stokes was an Eagle he would have been getting non stop drilled since the start of the year

let it go man.

 

[Greg Brady]

was not the charge dropped if he pleaded guilty of possession?

Yep. But so what?
If it was such a clear case why didn't they nab him for both?

The evidence was always very flimsy on him trafficking, he was just a ****ing moron and coughed up to the coppers.

If you check my post history you will see I called from the 1st week: he will get into court and be able to weasel it down to just a possession charge, no worries.

And that's what happened. Now whether he did or didn't traffic is irrelevant, the AFL is useless to do anything unless he is found guilty of trafficking.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Like any letter written or read by an AFL player or official it is not from their heart. It is a politically correct feel good letter to include the word (kids, Family and sorry)

It is written for them by a professional employed to write it for them.

Water off a ducks back,

I got no issue with Stokes, in fact I hope he gets back playing asap.

but anyone who believes a word any AFL player or official says these days as being truly from them is caught up in lala land.

 

[Public Enemy No1]

Great spin!!

Obviously he is happy he plays for a Victorian club.
Though he and Geelong must be disappointed an injunction was not lodged to protect them

 

[BONG RIPS MKII]

geez west coast supporters have a massive chip on their shoulders

get over it, just let it go

 

[Greg Brady]

the latest on drug testing results


http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...ive-tests-increases-by-two-20100513-v0ro.html

"Twelve footballers failed drug tests, two of them were caught twice.

Thirteen of the positive test were for stimulants and just one for cannabis.

s The number of players on their second strike remained steady at two.'

Does that mean two players who retired last year had 2 strikes against them?

I'm not sure if you're using them to defend me or attack me...

Well anyway those stats show that there are 10 footballers JD thinks should be missing a year of football. Not sure what he thinks the punishment for the two who have two strikes should be though...

 

[Satan]

I'm not sure if you're using them to defend me or attack me...

Well anyway those stats show that there are 10 footballers JD thinks should be missing a year of football. Not sure what he thinks the punishment for the two who have two strikes should be though...

just thought the subject was pertinent
my quote did not relate to stokes but to analysing the stats quoted in the article

 

[brucetiki]

The charge of trafficking was. He was still charged with possession... and subsequently given the penalty of good behaviour bond. So he still has a criminal conviction on his record.

Was a conviction actually recorded?

The letter sounds genuine and he's appeared to be genuinely remorseful since his arrest. Geelong, and Stokes, have represented themselves well since the incident, and Stokes has responded to the appropriate punshiment given to him. He appears to have returned a better person, which is the most important thing.

One thing he still needs to apologise for is that moustache he had when he got nicked

 

[Jonno_]

It is an absolute joke he is allowed to return to football this year.

Frankly I couldn't give two hoots about any PR driven apology.

Like all such apologies, he's sorry only because he got caught.

He wasn't convicted of anything; it is the same as Milne and Montagna. Should they have been allowed back to football? If you 'allegedly' do something, according to you, it only matters whether or not your a St Kilda player.

You have the stupidest opinions of anyone on this whole board. You are so dumb.

 

[Greg Brady]

just thought the subject was pertinent
my quote did not relate to stokes but to analysing the stats quoted in the article

Yeah fair enough. Wasn't having a go or anything, if it sounded like that. I just genuinely didn't know. Thanks for finding that article and the stats btw, helped prove a point.

He wasn't convicted of anything; it is the same as Milne and Montagna. Should they have been allowed back to football? If you 'allegedly' do something, according to you, it only matters whether or not your a St Kilda player.

You have the stupidest opinions of anyone on this whole board. You are so dumb.

Pretty much 100% accurate.

 

[JeffDunne]

He wasn't convicted of anything; it is the same as Milne and Montagna.

Jesus Christ you lot are bitter & twisted.

He may not have been convicted but he ADMITTED to what was alledged. In one case the facts were in dispute, in the other there is no dispute.

Are you too stupid to see that?

You have the stupidest opinions of anyone on this whole board. You are so dumb.

LOL.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Over the top to have to apologise so publicly when other first strike offenders get the benefit of anonimity. But it seems genuine.

Good on him though. He has served a hefty penalty. Time to move on.

 

[golazo]

I'd rather have a culture of drug using (like west coast) than a culture of mass rape (st kilda)