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.

Of course he is. If he had have tested positive we wouldn't have heard about it, but because the cops are involved and it made the papers he gets one strike and he's out. What about injunction boy? Where was his suspension? The Stokes case gives the AFL a chance to look like they are tough on drugs while ignoring the other 20 odd cases a year under their joke system.

Take it a step further and look at Ben Cousins - he didn't test positive nor was he found guilty in court but he was still slammed by the AFL because he admitted a problem with drugs.

Yep, Stokes and Cousins are/were scapegoats to deflect from a badly thought out and unfair system that the AFL insists works. If they aren't then why are they not given the same treatment as other abusers that play the game?

Edited February 6, 201015 yr by Rojik of the Arctic

Of course he is. If he had have tested positive we wouldn't have heard about it, but because the cops are involved and it made the papers he gets one strike and he's out. What about injunction boy? Where was his suspension? The Stokes case gives the AFL a chance to look like they are tough on drugs while ignoring the other 20 odd cases a year under their joke system.

Take it a step further and look at Ben Cousins - he didn't test positive nor was he found guilty in court but he was still slammed by the AFL because he admitted a problem with drugs.

Yep, Stokes and Cousins are/were scapegoats to deflect from a badly thought out and unfair system that the AFL insists works. If they aren't then why are they not given the same treatment as other abusers that play the game?

Stokes trafficking of drugs has nothing to do with the inequities and the problems with the AFL system. The fact is Stokes did not comsume any drugs as far as we know and there has been no prior evidence (again as far we know) of his involvement in drugs. There are no strikes when you traffic drugs and nor should there be. The AFL wont step in on this matter because Stokes is in deep trouble through contravening the law. His statements without a lawyer present are damaging to him.

Footballer found ingenius ways too really screw up. Stokes has picked one of the more sinister rules to break. He is a toxic individual atm.

FWIW, Cousins was an individual who's life was going off the rails big time. The AFL is no prince but Cousins was no scapegoat. The AFL should have acted sooner on Cousins. At least when Benny ran from the booze bus if not earlier.There was plenty of circumstantial evidence in football circles that Cousins was consuming and the AFL should have hunted he and other in WCE earlier. They should be addressing other matter too on their plate, But we know they wont. But that issue is seperate to Stokes disasterous tangle with the law.

Of course he is. If he had have tested positive we wouldn't have heard about it, but because the cops are involved and it made the papers he gets one strike and he's out. What about injunction boy? Where was his suspension? The Stokes case gives the AFL a chance to look like they are tough on drugs while ignoring the other 20 odd cases a year under their joke system.

Take it a step further and look at Ben Cousins - he didn't test positive nor was he found guilty in court but he was still slammed by the AFL because he admitted a problem with drugs.

Yep, Stokes and Cousins are/were scapegoats to deflect from a badly thought out and unfair system that the AFL insists works. If they aren't then why are they not given the same treatment as other abusers that play the game?

What are you talking about, Stokes was a scape goat to his mates up North if anything.

He was arrested as part of a police operation that had been following proceedings for about 4 weeks.

Hardly an AFL scape goat....

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.

I probably didn't phrase it as well as I could have, but I think we're on the same page.... The Prima Facie case was one of trafficking, Stokes may have been able to argue his case down.... except he made an admission of fact... because he can't lie straight in bed.... how ironic.

What I find even more ironic is that a bloke that's paid somewhere around 200k a year to play football has just [censored] away his career for $500 of blow.... oh well too bad so sad, maybe when the court hands down its verdict he can go to Haiti and tell the locals how tough life is....

Edited February 6, 201015 yr by grazman

Isn't it actually the WADA code that could see him banned for 4 years? So not the actual AFL drug code as such, even though the AFL code if he was caught using would see him suffer no penalties.

They will be able to plead it down and he will get a slap on the wrist in the courts won't he? You see it every day for goodness sakes.

Isn't it actually the WADA code that could see him banned for 4 years? So not the actual AFL drug code as such, even though the AFL code if he was caught using would see him suffer no penalties.

They will be able to plead it down and he will get a slap on the wrist in the courts won't he? You see it every day for goodness sakes.

Most likely, but at the end of the day, WHO GIVES A TOSS???

So many people on this thread making out they are experts in drugs, and drug dealings in general. Seriously, unless there is a lawyer or a true drug dealer that submits posts on this site, stop trying to pretend you "know the facts".

Stokes is an average player at best, let's move on people - bigger and better things to worry/talk about.

Edited February 6, 201015 yr by billy2803

Most likely, but at the end of the day, WHO GIVES A TOSS???

So many people on this thread making out they are experts in drugs, and drug dealings in general. Seriously, unless there is a lawyer or a true drug dealer that submits posts on this site, stop trying to pretend you "know the facts".

Stokes is an average player at best, let's move on people - bigger and better things to worry/talk about.

???

You don't have to sell TVs to know how they work. I've bought a few TVs in my time and I know enough.

Your own lack of knowledge on the subject isn't reflective of everyone else's.