News Thomas and Keefe - 2 year ban - Trade, De-List, Rookie

(Log in to remove this ad.)

76woodenspooners

Premium Platinum
Joined
Jun 4, 2011
Posts
15,321
Likes
21,684
Location
Sydney
AFL Club
Collingwood
Wellingham wasn't banned for 2 years, hence his position on the list was not determined by anyone other than the Club
There are clear rules about drugs in sport which relate to trying to gain an advantage that others don't have. Alcohol would have a detrimental effect on performance.

Having said that. I agree Wellingham got off lightly
Yep, agree.

This discussion point began with HFF asking ...

I ask the board here, if it is true that these players took illicit drugs that was inadvertently laced with the banned steroid and in the unlikely event they arent charged by the Anti-Doping Panel, do we still sack them knowing they are illicit drug users?
 

76woodenspooners

Premium Platinum
Joined
Jun 4, 2011
Posts
15,321
Likes
21,684
Location
Sydney
AFL Club
Collingwood
One (very unlikely but possible) scenario we haven't considered is what if the B samples test one positive and the other negative?

Is it just as straight forward as the poor sod who tests positive gets banned and sacked, and the other one goes back to playing footy as if nothing happened?

Or does it call into question the integrity of the testing regime?
 

Baltimore Jack

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jan 12, 2011
Posts
16,384
Likes
19,080
AFL Club
Collingwood
One (very unlikely but possible) scenario we haven't considered is what if the B samples test one positive and the other negative?

Is it just as straight forward as the poor sod who tests positive gets banned and sacked, and the other one goes back to playing footy as if nothing happened?

Or does it call into question the integrity of the testing regime?
Now, that would make things interesting
 

ottoman

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
May 13, 2014
Posts
6,552
Likes
14,144
Location
Istanbul
AFL Club
Collingwood
One (very unlikely but possible) scenario we haven't considered is what if the B samples test one positive and the other negative?

Is it just as straight forward as the poor sod who tests positive gets banned and sacked, and the other one goes back to playing footy as if nothing happened?

Or does it call into question the integrity of the testing regime?
Oh no. You just.......
upload_2015-4-3_2-13-20.jpeg
 

Finnishpie

Premiership Player
Joined
Mar 16, 2014
Posts
3,875
Likes
2,969
AFL Club
Collingwood
I ask the board here, if it is true that these players took illicit drugs that was inadvertently laced with the banned steroid and in the unlikely event they arent charged by the Anti-Doping Panel, do we still sack them knowing they are illicit drug users?
I'd hope not. I can't see them avoiding getting suspended, but the penalty for taking recreational drugs, at the moment, is nothing until you've been caught 3 times. So to sack them on that basis would be crap. To sack them for the clenbuterol would also be crap if they took it inadvertently in any other way - laced meat, etc. So why is an illicit drug any different - the question is, did you take it knowingly or not? Will be interesting. Caroline Wilson's article suggests that everyone believes it was from illicit drugs, and if I were them, that's the defence I'd run (it's the only one with any likelihood of them actually keeping their careers.)
 

Pedro

Premium Platinum
Joined
Mar 15, 2003
Posts
9,065
Likes
6,597
Location
Melb.
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Collingwood
I'd hope not. I can't see them avoiding getting suspended, but the penalty for taking recreational drugs, at the moment, is nothing until you've been caught 3 times. So to sack them on that basis would be crap. To sack them for the clenbuterol would also be crap if they took it inadvertently in any other way - laced meat, etc. So why is an illicit drug any different - the question is, did you take it knowingly or not? Will be interesting. Caroline Wilson's article suggests that everyone believes it was from illicit drugs, and if I were them, that's the defence I'd run (it's the only one with any likelihood of them actually keeping their careers.)
If they go down the illicit drugs route, how is that going to save their career? They'll still get two years minimum anyway won't they? I'd suggest they are buggered unless they can prove that it came from some other source and the use was entirely innocent ie contaminated meat (which is a fairytale imo)
 

Finnishpie

Premiership Player
Joined
Mar 16, 2014
Posts
3,875
Likes
2,969
AFL Club
Collingwood
If they go down the illicit drugs route, how is that going to save their career? They'll still get two years minimum anyway won't they? I'd suggest they are buggered unless they can prove that it came from some other source and the use was entirely innocent ie contaminated meat (which is a fairytale imo)
What's the difference between accidentally taking it in meat and accidentally taking it in an illicit drug? They're both accidental. From a strictly legal perspective there might be a way out there - but I'm no expert.
 

76woodenspooners

Premium Platinum
Joined
Jun 4, 2011
Posts
15,321
Likes
21,684
Location
Sydney
AFL Club
Collingwood
What's the difference between accidentally taking it in meat and accidentally taking it in an illicit drug? They're both accidental.
What's the difference between having a car accident sober versus having a car accident while drunk?

They're both accidental.

Does being drunk provide an acceptable mitigating circumstance? No, on the contrary.
 

noideaatall

Club Legend
Joined
May 14, 2011
Posts
2,061
Likes
1,577
Location
geeveston
AFL Club
Collingwood
How do they go down the illicit drugs route? Surely some evidence beyond what they claim woul be required? I assume even if accepted they'll get two years. Does that mean they stay on our list uring that time. I say we sack them and support them (assuming positive test B) either way.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Old Spice

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
May 27, 2013
Posts
9,060
Likes
11,956
Location
Thornbury
AFL Club
Collingwood
Just playing devil's advocate here ...

How do you see it's different to Wellingham's drink driving incident?

If anything, drink driving has a worse stigma associated with it because the person is putting the lives of others at risk.

We lost the lucrative TAC sponsorship over it.

JT and Keeffe both have a clean sheet as far as we know (as did Wellingham at the time)

Wellinghamm copped a shellacking over it, but he stayed on the list. Why would we treat JT and Keeffe differently?

Has the world changed? (FWIW I think it has ... I think it had back then but some have been slow on the uptake)
Legality. Part of that legality also means with alcohol there aren't any funny susprises as it is regulated,

I have no moral issue with drugs at all, but it's illegal. That means people have to behave in a deceptive and clandestine manner as was the case at West Coast.
 

Baltimore Jack

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jan 12, 2011
Posts
16,384
Likes
19,080
AFL Club
Collingwood
What's the difference between accidentally taking it in meat and accidentally taking it in an illicit drug? They're both accidental. From a strictly legal perspective there might be a way out there - but I'm no expert.
Let me get this right

You equate eating to taking illegal drugs on the basis they are both the same thing.

How do you think that defence will play out?
 

Pedro

Premium Platinum
Joined
Mar 15, 2003
Posts
9,065
Likes
6,597
Location
Melb.
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Collingwood
What's the difference between accidentally taking it in meat and accidentally taking it in an illicit drug? They're both accidental. From a strictly legal perspective there might be a way out there - but I'm no expert.
Surely you can see the difference between the two. "Sorry about the anabolic steroids. I was only snorting coke. It must have been in that." It won't wash.
 

Pedro

Premium Platinum
Joined
Mar 15, 2003
Posts
9,065
Likes
6,597
Location
Melb.
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Collingwood
I don't think it means anything.

It's just stock standard legal advice from lawyers who have the best interests of their client at heart.

There is no benefit to the players whatsoever to talk to the club - so why would they?
Exactly. I imagine that they have been told to shut their mouths unless it involves a conversation with their lawyers.
 

Finnishpie

Premiership Player
Joined
Mar 16, 2014
Posts
3,875
Likes
2,969
AFL Club
Collingwood
Surely you can see the difference between the two. "Sorry about the anabolic steroids. I was only snorting coke. It must have been in that." It won't wash.
I can see that "society" might look at it differently, because illicit drugs are seen as bad. But let's say, for example, it was in their beer. Would that be different to it being in meat?
 

Finnishpie

Premiership Player
Joined
Mar 16, 2014
Posts
3,875
Likes
2,969
AFL Club
Collingwood
Let me get this right

You equate eating to taking illegal drugs on the basis they are both the same thing.

How do you think that defence will play out?
Honestly, I don't think it will go well whatever they do. But my point is that in neither case was it intentional - the fact they took cocaine is a separate issue, with separate consequences, etc.
 

Finnishpie

Premiership Player
Joined
Mar 16, 2014
Posts
3,875
Likes
2,969
AFL Club
Collingwood
What's the difference between having a car accident sober versus having a car accident while drunk?

They're both accidental.

Does being drunk provide an acceptable mitigating circumstance? No, on the contrary.
Not convinced by you analogy because being drunk is the cause/contributor of/to the accident. Whereas what the clenbuterol was in no way a contributor to the fact they took it. What if they took it accidentally in beer? Or cigarettes? What then? Illicit drugs are illegal, but that's a separate issue which should be dealt with separately. Having said that, I suspect it won't be because of society's attitudes.
 

Pedro

Premium Platinum
Joined
Mar 15, 2003
Posts
9,065
Likes
6,597
Location
Melb.
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Collingwood
I can see that "society" might look at it differently, because illicit drugs are seen as bad. But let's say, for example, it was in their beer. Would that be different to it being in meat?
Maybe if it was in beer. Beer is not an illegal drug. They would have to be able to prove that someone else was responsible for putting it there without their knowledge though. Without proof, the 'spiked drink', 'contaminated meat', 'contaminated cocaine' defences are pretty useless IMO.
 

Finnishpie

Premiership Player
Joined
Mar 16, 2014
Posts
3,875
Likes
2,969
AFL Club
Collingwood
Maybe if it was in beer. Beer is not an illegal drug. They would have to be able to prove that someone else was responsible for putting it there without their knowledge though. Without proof, the 'spiked drink', 'contaminated meat', 'contaminated cocaine' defences are pretty useless IMO.
It will be interesting to see how it plays out, that's for sure. I think this one might turn into a litmus test for all kinds of things - especially illicit drug use.
 

Pedro

Premium Platinum
Joined
Mar 15, 2003
Posts
9,065
Likes
6,597
Location
Melb.
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Collingwood
Would we be allowed to do this given the AFL's 3-strike policy backed by the AFLPA?? We could be up for a law suit if we sacked them.
Interesting question. Using illegal drugs is still a criminal offence. Even though I know a lot of people don't see it that way. If they were sacked for admitting to committing criminal offences, I assume that would breach behavioural clauses in their playing contract.

Probably won't matter in any case. They only have to wait until the tribunal rubs them out anyway and then there will be no questions about their termination.
 

76woodenspooners

Premium Platinum
Joined
Jun 4, 2011
Posts
15,321
Likes
21,684
Location
Sydney
AFL Club
Collingwood
Not convinced by you analogy because being drunk is the cause/contributor of/to the accident. Whereas what the clenbuterol was in no way a contributor to the fact they took it.
It's all about risk.

Drinking and driving increases someone's risk of having a car accident.

An athlete consuming an unregulated substance increases the risk of them having something in their body that shouldn't be there.

What if they took it accidentally in beer? Or cigarettes? What then? Illicit drugs are illegal, but that's a separate issue which should be dealt with separately. Having said that, I suspect it won't be because of society's attitudes.
For some it might be a moral issue, but that's not the only way of looking at it.

Look at it another way - what if a player went skiing and busted their ACL. There's nothing illegal or immoral about skiing - but WTF is an AFL footballing doing on the ski field in the first place? Pretty sure that there's something in their contract that says they can't do that.
 

Baltimore Jack

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jan 12, 2011
Posts
16,384
Likes
19,080
AFL Club
Collingwood
Honestly, I don't think it will go well whatever they do. But my point is that in neither case was it intentional - the fact they took cocaine is a separate issue, with separate consequences, etc.
Your argument collapses when this question is put to them: "Did you intentionally take a substance (Coke) you knew to be illegal"?
Of course the follow up question is just as damaging: "Have you ever been told illicit drugs often contain other banned drugs?"

I'd like to be there so I could throw in my own question: "Just how f**king stupid are you two? "
 

DinoSoar

Club Legend
Joined
Sep 30, 2013
Posts
2,482
Likes
3,800
Location
Outer Fringes
AFL Club
Collingwood
It all boils down to the consequences of engaging in risky behaviour - sometimes you get away with it with no repercussions or fallout and sometimes not. That's the very nature of risk, a roll of the dice.

The question I would ask these 2 (and the whole playing list for that matter) if given the opportunity would be "was it worth it?" Lost your whole career for what, doing illicit drugs?? Seriously???? This is a massive wake up call for the lot of them, more so those that were also out & about with Keeffe and Thomas that weekend (allegedly).
 
Top Bottom