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

Joined
May 25, 2006
Posts
51,621
Likes
25,821
Location
Beach
AFL Club
Collingwood
Why on earth would we want to keep drug cheats on our list?
If it was found that it was accidental ingestion and not deliberate cheating then I'd like the club to keep the door ajar for them as long as it suited their list management. Its a total nonsense to be as black and white as you are making it out to be.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Joined
May 25, 2006
Posts
51,621
Likes
25,821
Location
Beach
AFL Club
Collingwood
I don't think list management will determine their futures at the club, but it's an interesting one, 12 months = Feb 2016 return, 18 months = August 2016 return, 2 years = Feb 2017 return. If you were just looking at it on a player vs player basis would you prefer Keeffe and Thomas on the list and not playing in 2016 or 2 recruits who also may not play? That might come down to who's available both inside or outside of our list to fill their spots. As you suggested a Saad scenario is likely the best bet if they are suspended for greater than 12 months and deemed still to have a future at the club.
I'd prefer Thomas. Keeffe having come from a non football background (hence a longer develomental lead time) and being older will be a past it by the time he resumes.
 

magpiewarrior

All Australian
Joined
Nov 6, 2007
Posts
909
Likes
250
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Swan Districts
Regardless of the penalty if found guilty, Eddy said a guilty verdict would see them immediately sacked. He said that the day after this story broke, and he was unequivocal about it. Just sayin.
 
Joined
May 25, 2006
Posts
51,621
Likes
25,821
Location
Beach
AFL Club
Collingwood
Regardless of the penalty if found guilty, Eddy said a guilty verdict would see them immediately sacked. He said that the day after this story broke, and he was unequivocal about it. Just sayin.
Thats entirely whats most likely. Is it the right call? well it depnds on the circumstances of the positive test and how long they are banned for. But the club will make the call and that will be that.
 

DAWESOME!!

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Sep 7, 2008
Posts
6,618
Likes
8,735
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Collingwood
What if they show they have an addiction to PED's and were using them as coping mechanisms for whatever struggles they face in daily life. Under current rules, not only would they not be banned, they would be given whatever assistance they need to beat their addiction and probably be made ambassadors of the AFL.
Whatever you're taking, it isn't enhancing your performance. Not sure how often it needsto be said that the PED and illicit drugs regimes are two separate beasts, and that WADA PED laws trump the AFL illicit drug scheme.
 

regpies

Club Legend
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Posts
2,284
Likes
2,839
AFL Club
Collingwood
If they are sacked from the club can we use their salary that is saved to pay off other players contracts early?

Id guess they are both 150-200k players, they are sacked halfway through season so we have paid them half their salary. So there's 200k saved, can we give that 200k to Cloke/Pendles this year so we have an extra 200k next year to spend on someone?
 
Joined
May 14, 2011
Posts
2,061
Likes
1,577
Location
geeveston
AFL Club
Collingwood
Whatever you're taking, it isn't enhancing your performance. Not sure how often it needsto be said that the PED and illicit drugs regimes are two separate beasts, and that WADA PED laws trump the AFL illicit drug scheme.
I don't see them that far apart. Both are taken to help the taker cope physically/mentally/emotionally with their life. The gap is more about how the community perceives rather than those who take them.
 

Countrypie

Club Legend
Joined
Apr 10, 2012
Posts
2,482
Likes
3,272
Location
Ararat
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Kookaburras, Grampians Hockey
So given that those who take illicit drugs are know to have a high propensity for general life breakdown, what you appear to be saying is that if we lost all of our players to this you would be happy to accept that the club should do nothing because it is not their business. Sorry but I can't agree. Clubs spend huge amounts of money developing players and I personally believe that they have a right to protect their investment and that says nothing of their responsibility to the wider community in promoting healthy lifestyle.
All well and good but the same standards of health and safety (and general life breakdown) have to be applied to alcohol. Having spent most of my youth with a lot of drug users (while sticking to the booze myself) I think on balance most of them were more well adjusted then those of us who made the legal alternative our poison. The whole prohibition argument doesn't work. The heal;th and safety angle needs to be viewed in a wider context. Very hard for society to legalize some poisons and then cynically take a holier than thou approach on others.
 

Smokeyr67

Premiership Player
Joined
Mar 8, 2002
Posts
3,866
Likes
3,310
Location
Brisbane QLD
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Pies
Regardless of the penalty if found guilty, Eddy said a guilty verdict would see them immediately sacked. He said that the day after this story broke, and he was unequivocal about it. Just sayin.
One of a very few things I dislike about Ed is his propensity to come out with grand statements that can force him into a corner.

The world (unfortunately) isn't black and white so there may be good reason not to sack these players, but now we'll look weak if they don't get the boot.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Shpeshal Ed

I see you on televishaaaaan!
Joined
Sep 17, 2007
Posts
23,293
Likes
20,564
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Man. U, Chicago Bulls, Ολυμπιακός
I'm surprised they're not just admitting to taking cocaine.

Wouldn't that technically get them off thanks to the 3 strikes rule? So they get 1 strike for the coke and get off on the Clembuterol charges because they didn't take it knowingly?

Surely it's their best chance.
 

PieNSauce

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Aug 22, 2007
Posts
8,230
Likes
5,293
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
are jealous!
All well and good but the same standards of health and safety (and general life breakdown) have to be applied to alcohol. Having spent most of my youth with a lot of drug users (while sticking to the booze myself) I think on balance most of them were more well adjusted then those of us who made the legal alternative our poison. The whole prohibition argument doesn't work. The heal;th and safety angle needs to be viewed in a wider context. Very hard for society to legalize some poisons and then cynically take a holier than thou approach on others.
In theory I agree with the bolded as I believe do the AFL and its clubs but the reality is that while alcohol is legal I think the most they will be prepared to do is to take a dim view rather than be thinking about necessarily delisting players and such unless serious abuse is involved. Of course you could look far wider and suggest that there are a lot of things in life that are detrimental to health and suggest that all of them should be dealt with the same way but somewhere along the line, people have to have some perspective in regard to infringement of civil liberties and I'm pretty comfortable that the AFL and its clubs make a reasonable attempt to do just that whilst protecting their image and investment.
 

jmac70

Premium Gold
Joined
Apr 10, 2010
Posts
33,043
Likes
34,091
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
North Footscray Devils
If it was found that it was accidental ingestion and not deliberate cheating then I'd like the club to keep the door ajar for them as long as it suited their list management. Its a total nonsense to be as black and white as you are making it out to be.
My question is how will it be found? Unless they can provide proof of what you are suggesting may have happened, it is just another story. The only fact we have is the positive test. That makes them drug cheats unfortunately.
 

Duni

Debutant
Joined
Feb 20, 2011
Posts
143
Likes
335
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Barnstoneworth United
What if they show they have an addiction to PED's and were using them as coping mechanisms for whatever struggles they face in daily life. Under current rules, not only would they not be banned, they would be given whatever assistance they need to beat their addiction and probably be made ambassadors of the AFL.
And Bucks would get a years paid holiday in the South of France!
 

Kappa

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 7, 2014
Posts
13,858
Likes
15,786
AFL Club
Collingwood
I'm surprised they're not just admitting to taking cocaine.

Wouldn't that technically get them off thanks to the 3 strikes rule? So they get 1 strike for the coke and get off on the Clembuterol charges because they didn't take it knowingly?

Surely it's their best chance.
Erm... no.

PED's have a strict liability, accident or not if it's in your body you will be suspended for it.

ASADA/WADA's code comes way before the AFL's illicit drugs policy. Their lawyers will be doing all of the talking now, they'll admit to nothing unless it's to the tribunal.

The current debate will be using the "accident" angle to try reduce the penalty from 2 years to 18 months or 1 year depending on the specific circumstances.

With ASADA losing the Essendon scalp I suspect they will be desperate to nail the maximum penalty to Thomas and Keeffe though. Saad got 18 months for something similar but far more innocent
 
Last edited:

Baltimore Jack

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jan 12, 2011
Posts
16,384
Likes
19,080
AFL Club
Collingwood
I'm surprised they're not just admitting to taking cocaine.

Wouldn't that technically get them off thanks to the 3 strikes rule? So they get 1 strike for the coke and get off on the Clembuterol charges because they didn't take it knowingly?

Surely it's their best chance.
How does the 3 strike rule apply to a PED?
 

Apex36

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Mar 26, 2014
Posts
25,393
Likes
45,388
AFL Club
Collingwood
I'm surprised they're not just admitting to taking cocaine.

Wouldn't that technically get them off thanks to the 3 strikes rule? So they get 1 strike for the coke and get off on the Clembuterol charges because they didn't take it knowingly?

Surely it's their best chance.
No. If they took coke then they took it in the knowledge that it could possibly be cut with another substance. Comes down to knowing what you're putting in your body.

The coke excuse won't get them off and they know it, that's why they were desperate enough to explore the contaminated meat explanation.
 

PieNSauce

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Aug 22, 2007
Posts
8,230
Likes
5,293
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
are jealous!
I'm surprised they're not just admitting to taking cocaine.

Wouldn't that technically get them off thanks to the 3 strikes rule? So they get 1 strike for the coke and get off on the Clembuterol charges because they didn't take it knowingly?

Surely it's their best chance.
It is an interesting question because I'm not 100% sure it's that cut and dried. If they took an illegal substance which was cut with a banned substance then the question may come down to negligent behaviour although I have no idea whether ASADA or WADA have specific rules in regard to that.

P.S. I guess if you're right they may not even record a strike under the rules as they at least used to be framed because I guess that would be akin to self-reporting.
 

Shpeshal Ed

I see you on televishaaaaan!
Joined
Sep 17, 2007
Posts
23,293
Likes
20,564
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Man. U, Chicago Bulls, Ολυμπιακός
How does the 3 strike rule apply to a PED?
No idea. Thinking out loud.

No. If they took coke then they took it in the knowledge that it could possibly be cut with another substance. Comes down to knowing what you're putting in your body.

The coke excuse won't get them off and they know it, that's why they were desperate enough to explore the contaminated meat explanation.
Fair enough.

It is an interesting question because I'm not 100% sure it's that cut and dried. If they took an illegal substance which was cut with a banned substance then the question may come down to negligent behaviour although I have no idea whether ASADA or WADA have specific rules in regard to that.
Fair enough
 

Baltimore Jack

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jan 12, 2011
Posts
16,384
Likes
19,080
AFL Club
Collingwood
It is an interesting question because I'm not 100% sure it's that cut and dried. If they took an illegal substance which was cut with a banned substance then the question may come down to negligent behaviour although I have no idea whether ASADA or WADA have specific rules in regard to that.
But they won't be charged with taking an illicit drug they will be charged for taking a PED.
Unless they were comatose and had it forced into their body (and here's the bit people need to get their head around) they took a PED.
The coke argument is just fantasising, similar to children and Santa Clause
 

PieNSauce

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Aug 22, 2007
Posts
8,230
Likes
5,293
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
are jealous!
But they won't be charged with taking an illicit drug they will be charged for taking a PED.
Unless they were comatose and had it forced into their body (and here's the bit people need to get their head around) they took a PED.
The coke argument is just fantasising, similar to children and Santa Clause
I'm not disagreeing with you but I would question whether the AFL could potentially lay a secondary charge separate to the ASADA charge although as I said in my edited postscript you'd then have to wonder whether their admission would amount to self-reporting. In the end, I agree that it's all just fantasy at this stage.
 

Baltimore Jack

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jan 12, 2011
Posts
16,384
Likes
19,080
AFL Club
Collingwood
I'm not disagreeing with you but I would question whether the AFL could potentially lay a secondary charge separate to the ASADA charge although as I said in my edited postscript you'd then have to wonder whether their admission would amount to self-reporting. In the end, I agree that it's all just fantasy at this stage.
And no doubt, as you rightly suggest, they will try all sorts of excuses in an endeavor to limit the suspension time, but I think 18 months is the best they can hope for
 

PieNSauce

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Aug 22, 2007
Posts
8,230
Likes
5,293
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
are jealous!
And no doubt, as you rightly suggest, they will try all sorts of excuses in an endeavor to limit the suspension time, but I think 18 months is the best they can hope for
Obviously without the benefit of knowing what evidence they're likely to present it's pretty hard to dispute that. It will be interesting if nothing else.
 
Top Bottom