The AFL might wish to act sooner rather than later as for the very reason you suggest it has media savvy.. It would show its lethargy in such things is a notion of the past..

It wont undermine the court system as that relies on evidence and the processes of law

The AFL might wish to act sooner rather than later as for the very reason you suggest it has media savvy.. It would show its lethargy in such things is a notion of the past..

No it wouldn't.The AFL wont want to inflame the issue and will leave to the conduct of the Police and the Courts. The guy has no previous history of misdemeanours and gets caught seemingly doing a stupid act. The AFL would look heavy handed to a guy a serious charge but it all honesty its a small one off amount. Stokes is hardly public enemy no 1. He's a fool. The AFL wont involve itself where it does not have to. In addition the AFLPA are already slagging the AFL(St Kilda) over its punitive action on Lovett. The AFL will want this out of the papers as much as possible and will seek to divorce itself of the matter saying its a matter for the police and Courts to

It wont undermine the court system as that relies on evidence and the processes of law

The defence will claim the treatment of the defendant in the hands of the jury was unduly compromised by the punitive action of the AFL and the media hype surrounding the case which has prevented a fair trial. Its one of the processes of the law.

The AFL will not act before the court case, unless absolute proof emerges.

The WADA situation if found guilty is 4 year to life ban regardless of any AFL or club systems

There is no need for the league to do anything until a verdict is handed down.

Defense can claim all it likes.. The onus is on the prosecution to prove and with an admission its all but slam dunk.

Stokes will have fufilled any requirements as to disrepute. The AFL if it wishes can him properly.

As before, the AFL doesnt require a legal verdict upon which to act. what does the AFL gain by mothballing any action ? just looks wimpish

keep in mind there are separate issues here.. Drug Taking, drug trafficking..and calling the game into disprepute.

So if we assume his story is true, not a user, purchased for friends and all that, where does this sit in relation to Hurley?

I'm probably pre-empting this somewhat, but IMHO Hurley's actions are far worse (if true), and the likely punishment for both players (beyond that of the law) at this early stage seems to be poles apart. Stokes' career ended. Hurley? No conviction and at this stage no reprimand from EFC.

So if we assume his story is true, not a user, purchased for friends and all that, where does this sit in relation to Hurley?

I'm probably pre-empting this somewhat, but IMHO Hurley's actions are far worse (if true), and the likely punishment for both players (beyond that of the law) at this early stage seems to be poles apart. Stokes' career ended. Hurley? No conviction and at this stage no reprimand from EFC.

Simply Drugs is a dirty word in sport, Perception within society is a far worse crime

I agree Hurley has got away with scott free, but what can you do when "Ned Flanders" PC standards are all around us.

i am not sure about all this suspending players until the court case.

surely this assumes that they are guilty. what happened to innocent until proven guilty?

imagine being accused of something, suspended from your job, and were then found innocent? esp in AFL where missing training makes a significant difference to how your career could play out that year.

if guilty, by all means, sack away.

Defense can claim all it likes.. The onus is on the prosecution to prove and with an admission its all but slam dunk.

Stokes will have fufilled any requirements as to disrepute. The AFL if it wishes can him properly.

As before, the AFL doesnt require a legal verdict upon which to act. what does the AFL gain by mothballing any action ? just looks wimpish

No it doesn't.

It lets the Court find him guilty and the Club to determine under his contract that he has breached it because of a criminal conviction and he is gone.

No need for the AFL to make a media circus out of a dirty allegation that smears all involved. No need to harp on it.

Simply Drugs is a dirty word in sport, Perception within society is a far worse crime

Agree the perception of drug trafficking is worse than assault. Notwithstanding both Stokes and Hurley have done stupid things and both crimes are repugnant. But on a scale drug trafficking is dirtier than assault.

i am not sure about all this suspending players until the court case.

surely this assumes that they are guilty. what happened to innocent until proven guilty?

imagine being accused of something, suspended from your job, and were then found innocent? esp in AFL where missing training makes a significant difference to how your career could play out that year.

if guilty, by all means, sack away.

In some cases, the criminal charge or matter may be such that an employee cannot continue to function effectively in their role without detrimental impact to the company's other employees, stakeholders or clients.

Would you let someone continue in a day care centre if they are charged with offences against children?

Would you let a person continue in a position of trust if the charge represented breaking that trust (eg fraud)?

Can someone tell me what happens if a player tests positive to cocaine use during an AFL sanctioned test.(First offence)

Agree the perception of drug trafficking is worse than assault. Notwithstanding both Stokes and Hurley have done stupid things and both crimes are repugnant. But on a scale drug trafficking is dirtier than assault.

Hmmm Hard one, Which is worse Being Belted up or a drug dealer???

I suppose a drug dealer effects more people but i still say its a line ball.

an unprovoked assault is a cowards act and i believe a jail term is in order, but of course our legal system is way too soft these days.

Its all weighted towards the perpetrator rather than the victim.

Hmmm Hard one, Which is worse Being Belted up or a drug dealer???

I suppose a drug dealer effects more people but i still say its a line ball.

an unprovoked assault is a cowards act and i believe a jail term is in order, but of course our legal system is way too soft these days.

Its all weighted towards the perpetrator rather than the victim.

There are varying levels of assault. And aggravated assault and unprovoked assault are repugnant. Bt there are lighter forms of assault. But I did a general comparison between drug (cocaine)trafficking and assault. And you said it yourself drugs have no place in sport and we have someone who traffics it. Ouch thats bad. Perception is very important here and in general convicted drug traffickers compete in society against a number of other low lifers none of which represent anything positive in the minds of Joe Public.

In some cases, the criminal charge or matter may be such that an employee cannot continue to function effectively in their role without detrimental impact to the company's other employees, stakeholders or clients.

Would you let someone continue in a day care centre if they are charged with offences against children?

Would you let a person continue in a position of trust if the charge represented breaking that trust (eg fraud)?

no of course not, but at the end of the day if they are found innocent they havent lost anything, just had a rather stressful break.

stokes could lose a significant part of the season (inc match payments and actually just trying to break back into the team at all), even though he hasnt done anything.

im not saying he is guilty or not, its just interesting.

Wouldn't it have been better for Stokes to admit to using the gram himself?

I was under the assumption that trafficking was a far worse crime.

Wouldn't it have been better for Stokes to admit to using the gram himself?

I was under the assumption that trafficking was a far worse crime.

Correct, if he had said it was for his own use he would be in trouble. but nowhere near what he is in now.

Trafficking is in another category completely as it involves many.

I can't see him getting less than the 4 year ban from WADA and whatever the judge brings down.

The Text Messages tell it all.Stokes new the Guy & new what he was getting into, even if it was for mates.

Its sad really, i do feel sorry for him. he would have been doing it as a favour-but it's illegal & he got done.

No sympathy for him, he knew the risks. Sack him and send him packing for good.

Hope the courts throw the book at him.

If he was getting this "stuff" for your own brother, sister, parent or someone close; would you all feel sorry for the little pr1ck?

One gram or one kg, its still illegal and immoral to most people.This stuff destroys lives............period!!!!

Perhaps a few on here don't know or have never seen the effect drugs like this have on families.

If I found someone, who say got stuff for my son or daughter, they would have to look over their shoulders for the rest of their days.

Good riddance to idiots like this.

This is not just a little mistake, it's a calculated, planned, brain meltdown!

End of rant!

One gram or one kg, its still illegal and immoral to most people.This stuff destroys lives............period!!!!

Perhaps a few on here don't know or have never seen the effect drugs like this have on families.

If I found someone, who say got stuff for my son or daughter, they would have to look over their shoulders for the rest of their days.

Good riddance to idiots like this.

People destroy their own lives.

That person getting the drugs for your son or daughter will probably be some curious friend of similar age with a good family background like yourself.

Get a grip.

No sympathy for him, he knew the risks. Sack him and send him packing for good.

Hope the courts throw the book at him.

If he was getting this "stuff" for your own brother, sister, parent or someone close; would you all feel sorry for the little pr1ck?

One gram or one kg, its still illegal and immoral to most people.This stuff destroys lives............period!!!!

Perhaps a few on here don't know or have never seen the effect drugs like this have on families.

If I found someone, who say got stuff for my son or daughter, they would have to look over their shoulders for the rest of their days.

Good riddance to idiots like this.

This is not just a little mistake, it's a calculated, planned, brain meltdown!

End of rant!

Yeah, I would.

It's only cocaine.

Alcohol is just as destructive, but it happens to be legal.

Morally I have no problem with it.

Intelligence-wise he should be roundly condemned.

No sympathy for him, he knew the risks. Sack him and send him packing for good.

Hope the courts throw the book at him.

If he was getting this "stuff" for your own brother, sister, parent or someone close; would you all feel sorry for the little pr1ck?

One gram or one kg, its still illegal and immoral to most people.This stuff destroys lives............period!!!!

Perhaps a few on here don't know or have never seen the effect drugs like this have on families.

If I found someone, who say got stuff for my son or daughter, they would have to look over their shoulders for the rest of their days.

Good riddance to idiots like this.

This is not just a little mistake, it's a calculated, planned, brain meltdown!

End of rant!

So had the AFL tested him and he was found to have had cocaine the test would be swept under the carpet(first offence) but because he was caught with the drug on him he should be sacked. You sir, live on too high a moral ground for mine.

Wouldn't it have been better for Stokes to admit to using the gram himself?

I was under the assumption that trafficking was a far worse crime.

Under the legislation the charge is based on the quantity of drugs. If it's over a certain amount it counts as trafficking - plus he stated that he naively bought it for his mates - which I'm sure his lawyer has now told him is actually an admission in relation to trafficking.

He knew where to get the drugs from, but his drug taking mates did not, and of course his conversation with the dealer about the cocaine being "good [censored]" was about a completely unrelated matter.

So had the AFL tested him and he was found to have had cocaine the test would be swept under the carpet(first offence) but because he was caught with the drug on him he should be sacked. You sir, live on too high a moral ground for mine.

Well Said...This AFL system set up the way it is, almost tells players its ok to use drugs..almost.

The Law does not & i know which one has more clout. Whoever set up the 3 strike system should be ashamed...it sends the wrong message, while the AFL looks squeaky clean.

So had the AFL tested him and he was found to have had cocaine the test would be swept under the carpet(first offence) but because he was caught with the drug on him he should be sacked. You sir, live on too high a moral ground for mine.

The AFL drug code is a farce.

plus he stated that he naively bought it for his mates - which I'm sure his lawyer has now told him is actually an admission in relation to trafficking.

His lawyer did say that he would have been better off (for the legal side of things, but not necessarily the AFL take on it) that he would have been better off saying it was for personal use. It's a bit of a joke as we all probably know, or know of, footballers that enjoy a toke, pill or line but it never made the papers. Stokes big mistake was to get caught and now the AFL has to act rather than pretend that it never happens. Nothing like a scapegoat to deflect from the real issues, eh?

The AFL drug code is a farce.

Right you are.

Nothing like a scapegoat to deflect from the real issues, eh?

Stokes.....a scapegoat???

He is in the position he is of his own actions...no elses.

If he is found guilty and convicted, the AFL will act through the guise of the Club and he will be suspended/sacked and deregistered.

Under the legislation the charge is based on the quantity of drugs. If it's over a certain amount it counts as trafficking - plus he stated that he naively bought it for his mates - which I'm sure his lawyer has now told him is actually an admission in relation to trafficking.

He knew where to get the drugs from, but his drug taking mates did not, and of course his conversation with the dealer about the cocaine being "good [censored]" was about a completely unrelated matter.

Grazman that's not the case. There is specified amounts of drugs and it varies depending on the drug that is regarded as prima facie evidence of trafficking ie. it's considered that the drugs were for the purpose of trafficking unless there is evidence to the contrary. This however is no the only way to be charged with trafficking.

Stokes was charged with trafficking because of his admissions.

You can make your own mind up about the legal advice he received.