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

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Joined
Sep 6, 2014
Posts
494
Likes
452
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
49er, SFGiants, Mapel Leafs
If the B-sample comes back positive (ok when), I understand we can not replace then on our squad of players however two questions:
1; do we continue to pay them (I am presuming not, but you never know these days)
2; if NO and this brings our TPP under the minimum allowed are we then open to sanctions from the AFL for breaching the salary cap
3; thought of another one, can we promote two of our rookies only till the end of the season to still have a full list. Much like if we had a player go on to the long term injury list. Then at seasons end they go back to being rookies unless we up grade them full time
 

TradeDraft

Premium Gold
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Posts
117,318
Likes
47,485
Location
Mornington Peninsula
AFL Club
Collingwood
If the B-sample comes back positive (ok when), I understand we can not replace then on our squad of players however two questions:
1; do we continue to pay them (I am presuming not, but you never know these days)
2; if NO and this brings our TPP under the minimum allowed are we then open to sanctions from the AFL for breaching the salary cap
3; thought of another one, can we promote two of our rookies only till the end of the season to still have a full list. Much like if we had a player go on to the long term injury list. Then at seasons end they go back to being rookies unless we up grade them full time
They Be De-Listed and we can not replace them on the List
 

Chameleon75

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Mar 13, 2013
Posts
5,174
Likes
8,071
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Collingwood
If the B-sample comes back positive (ok when), I understand we can not replace then on our squad of players however two questions:
1; do we continue to pay them (I am presuming not, but you never know these days)
2; if NO and this brings our TPP under the minimum allowed are we then open to sanctions from the AFL for breaching the salary cap
3; thought of another one, can we promote two of our rookies only till the end of the season to still have a full list. Much like if we had a player go on to the long term injury list. Then at seasons end they go back to being rookies unless we up grade them full time
I would expect there to be a standard clause in their contracts re peds, wouldn't expect them to be paid rather dismissed on breach on contract
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Posts
2,577
Likes
1,066
Location
queensland
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Crystal Palace
I don,t think the club will or should give them anything,they have done so much damage and we did a fantastic job at the Gabba just by turning up in the right frame of mind and having a go.
I do not think there is any chance there b samples will be negative and they will be out the door asap,as it stands we will be 2 players short this year and we probably could have done with them sooner or later.

I think they have to go for being such idiots anyway and nobody is saying how this has happened it has all gone quiet until tomorrow and then the shit hits the fan,the club spends years developing and sticking by these players and this is the way they repay it.

I hated the way these 2 have lawyered up and gone to ground even if not guilty it it just appears they have something to hide and probably they have.
 

Pie eyed

Premium Platinum
Joined
Jun 26, 2007
Posts
37,966
Likes
15,370
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Magpies
I hated the way these 2 have lawyered up and gone to ground even if not guilty it it just appears they have something to hide and probably they have.
Surely you jest?
After the debacle which just occurred?
Who would be stupid enough to trust their fate to "goodwill'?
No matter how you view Essendon, guilty or not, one thing is absolutely , irrefutably clear from the saga and that is that ASADA are incompetent.
Less clear is whether the AFL are in the same league, but many would argue they are.
I wouldn't put my faith in either party where my career was concerned without some legal protection.
 

Chameleon75

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Mar 13, 2013
Posts
5,174
Likes
8,071
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Collingwood
Surely you jest?
After the debacle which just occurred?
Who would be stupid enough to trust their fate to "goodwill'?
No matter how you view Essendon, guilty or not, one thing is absolutely , irrefutably clear from the saga and that is that ASADA are incompetent.
Less clear is whether the AFL are in the same league, but many would argue they are.
I wouldn't put my faith in either party where my career was concerned without some legal protection.
might be my name but those are not my words, appears the quote function has misfired
 

1892

Club Legend
Joined
Nov 25, 2006
Posts
2,389
Likes
2,956
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Collingwood
Whether Freo have sort a replacement player for Crowley or not I don't know, however they haven't brought anyone else in. I think Essendon was different as they couldn't field a side.

I'd be surprised if a positive B sample result changed their position at the club, it will just be another step. Surely any delistings etc couldn't occur until after the tribunal or any other asada hearings are finished.
 

DWil6

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Feb 13, 2007
Posts
6,510
Likes
3,208
Location
Rowville
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Newcastle Premier League
Surely you jest?
After the debacle which just occurred?
Who would be stupid enough to trust their fate to "goodwill'?
No matter how you view Essendon, guilty or not, one thing is absolutely , irrefutably clear from the saga and that is that ASADA are incompetent.
Less clear is whether the AFL are in the same league, but many would argue they are.
I wouldn't put my faith in either party where my career was concerned without some legal protection.
I think ASADA were basically f'ed once word got out to the Peps that they under the gun and started the shredding machine whirring. Basically the lack of paperwork saved their skins.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Apex36

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Mar 26, 2014
Posts
25,406
Likes
45,398
AFL Club
Collingwood
When the B sample comes back positive, they will be given infraction notices. There will be a hearing scheduled, and if they are found guilty, only then will they be in breach of contract, and subsequently de-listed.

They will not be paid out, and we will not be eligible to have top up players.
The end result of this may be a given, but no major decision on Keeffe and Thomas' futures will be made for a while yet.
 

Soaring Magpie

Premiership Player
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Posts
3,698
Likes
4,105
AFL Club
Collingwood
If the B-sample comes back positive (ok when), I understand we can not replace then on our squad of players however two questions:
1; do we continue to pay them (I am presuming not, but you never know these days)
2; if NO and this brings our TPP under the minimum allowed are we then open to sanctions from the AFL for breaching the salary cap
3; thought of another one, can we promote two of our rookies only till the end of the season to still have a full list. Much like if we had a player go on to the long term injury list. Then at seasons end they go back to being rookies unless we up grade them full time
Surely we can replace them, essendon got top up players while their case was being heard and would of had them for the year if they had of been found guilty
 

Apex36

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Mar 26, 2014
Posts
25,406
Likes
45,398
AFL Club
Collingwood
Surely we can replace them, essendon got top up players while their case was being heard and would of had them for the year if they had of been found guilty
Been said many times now, Essendon got special permission for top up players because they were unable to field a full squad otherwise.

We will have no such issue, and therefore, not have permission to get top ups.
 

jasonwilde

Club Legend
Joined
Sep 4, 2007
Posts
2,401
Likes
1,781
Location
Lurking and liking
AFL Club
Collingwood
This has nothing to do with Coke.

They are alleged to have taken a PED. If true, they have no defence of 'but we thought it was coke', so don't even bother going down that path.
???? What a bizzare thing to write.

"This has nothing to do with coke."
Ummmmmmm it's looking most likely that the PED was in some cocaine they took. I would dare suggest that this has A LOT to do with coke.

They will be asked how the PED were in their system. If this came to be through the use of cocaine why shouldn't they say it?

For goodness' sake mate, they are about to be thrown out of the game for taking PED when, in most likelyhood this is not what they intended to do. They are going to be punished as 'Performance Enhancing Drug Cheats' when, in reality, they probably had a minimal amount of Clen that wouldn't have enhanced their performance (you know, the purpose for the testing in the first place) and nor was it taken intentionally.

If you are too blind to see how that cannot generate discussion than you need a rethink. I doubt many think they'll get off or should go without punishment, but many can see a major flaw in the fact that these two are going to lose careers for being PED cheats.
 
Top Bottom