Ryan Crowley - banned substance

[Deestroy All 14,261]

Of course there's no excuse. There's also no excuse for speeding. No excuse for running a stop sign. No excuse for shoplifting a CD. But none of those crimes result in massive penalties.

100% serious. Why do you get satisfaction for ruling a guy out for so long for stupidity? Will it cripple Freo? Will it lead to Melbourne winning games? Was the slight edge that Crowley maybe (or maybe not) obtained for one game against the Giants so monumental that he should be banned for 2 years. Come on.

Too many grey areas, too many liars, cheats, too much pressure to succeed.

You start letting one or two off lightly then everyone will plead they are simpletons.

There's a list. Don't take what's on it, or pay the price.

[old dee 22,852]

Too many grey areas, too many liars, cheats, too much pressure to succeed.

You start letting one or two off lightly then everyone will plead they are simpletons.

There's a list. Don't take what's on it, or pay the price.

Pretty simple really isn't Deestroy All?

[Deestroy All 14,261]

Pretty simple really isn't Deestroy All?

I reckon it is, Old Dee.

[bing181 8,165]

Why are athletes subjected to a draconian law with absolutely no room for discretion based on the facts of each case?

Because the WADA code has evolved over time and in response to athlete's actions. If there is a loop-hole, athletes will find it and exploit it.

But Crowley knew all that.

[Lucifers Hero 37,009]

Too many grey areas, too many liars, cheats, too much pressure to succeed.

You start letting one or two off lightly then everyone will plead they are simpletons.

There's a list. Don't take what's on it, or pay the price.

All that is true DA. However, we have a whole team who indulged that grey area and may not pay the price.

EFC players are pleading being duped (simpletons?) and if they are found guilty and don't get 2 years then it becomes a farce.

Edited March 16, 2015 by Lucifer's Hero

[Ethan Tremblay 28,388]

Painkillers, sure whatever. Pure spin.

It's an easy out, cocaine and codeine test positive to opiates.

[CityDee 738]

Didnt check the asada app before biting the head off a bat .

[Moonshadow 16,173]

Didnt check the asada app before biting the head off a bat .

Ozzie would be in a world of trouble!

[Bombay Airconditioning 5,880]

It's an easy out, cocaine and codeine test positive to opiates.

In a initial urine test yes but once it goes to the lab all is revealed. If a player had a cocaine binge then took a pain killer with codeine in it, the lab would pick up both. Sorry are you suggesting he tried to mask it? Edited March 16, 2015 by Al's Demons

[deanox 8,590]

Ridiculous. We already know he's taken something on the 'specified substance' list which means it's probably not a proven performance enhancing drug like a steroid but more likely something with some qualities that may or may not even provide the smallest of assistances. There's every chance a 4 week suspension would probably be fair enough and a fine to cover the costs of testing him for anything and everything in to the future.

Why are athletes subjected to a draconian law with absolutely no room for discretion based on the facts of each case?

Because the rules need to act as both a deterrent as well as a "benefit reduction" period.

If I rob back with a gun and take 50k should I only get 12 months in jail because 50k is one year worth of cash?

[DemonFrog 1,347]

I suggest it was the opposite Nasher.

Cynical? yes with a capital C.

Same as Saad, should get one year minimum.

Just think if he got the whole team to take a pill with him, he would have only been suspended for the NAB Cup.

Poor planning by Mr Crowley.

[Dwight Schrute 16,751]

i must say i have a little more respect for Crowley, he's clearly done the wrong thing but he is at least taking it on the chin and not trying to get out of it.

[monoccular 16,066]

This says it was a substance in a pain killer:

Fremantle's Ryan Crowley tests positive to banned substance

I can't believe an AFL player would be stupid enough not to check everything with the club doctor after the events of the past few years.

He doesn't appear to be the sharpest tool in the shed but it does sound like an "inadvertent mistake" like Saad, not systematic attempts at cheating or human experimentation like EFC. The players have it drummed into them time and time again to only take ANY medication through the club doctor, most of whom do their duties diligently.

Honestly, if this truly was an honest mistake, he must be a complete dimwit. The clubs all have doctors on the payroll for a reason. If you have pain, see him and he'll prescribe something you are allowed to take, and you won't even have to pay for the consultation unlike we mere mortals. Just taking something without clearing it first is asking for trouble.

Unfortunately one club (that we know of) had / have a doctor whose professionalism at least could be questioned: the duty of care by any doctor is to their patient and not to whoever pays their bills. If they are unhappy with what they hear and are told to administer, they must resign, and warn their patients of their doubts. "I was only obeying orders" was dismissed as a defence at Nürenberg.

[DeeSpencer 23,129]

So everyone can play the stupid card and get off with a light or next to no sentence?

I think it is more than stupid with what has been going on in sport of recent times, he has only tested positive once which is a lot different to only taking something once.

By the way...it has nothing to do with crippling Freo, I couldn't care less if it does or doesn't and as I've stated in other posts I want us to be tested against the best opposition and not hope that Ablett etc are out in round one.

It has a lot to do with the integrity of sport and if we are serious about it.

Review what he has tested positive for. If it's clearly from a prescription medicine then you can trace his medicare and script history and find out. If there's any doubt at all about if he's done it for longer then extend the ban. If you've done a bunch of research in to the situation and it's a once off then treat it that way.

Your name getting dragged through the mud as a drug cheat, combined with a hefty fine and a suspension of something like 6 matches is more than enough deterrent for the wider competition when all signs point towards not getting any advantage from this.

[DeeSpencer 23,129]

Because the rules need to act as both a deterrent as well as a "benefit reduction" period.

If I rob back with a gun and take 50k should I only get 12 months in jail because 50k is one year worth of cash?

And you don't think that even with a light penalty that AFL Players wont be deterred by the Crowley story?

He's out there running laps at training whilst his team mates gear up for round 1. Doesn't look fun to me. He's going to miss out on a bunch of match payments, miss out on playing the sport he loves and he should get a really big fine and a suspension (presuming he's guilty) that reflects the error he made. But the 2 years is a number that is relevant to Olympic sports suspending athletes for world championships and half the Olympic cycle. If it was a once off then then a 2 year suspension is completely unjust.

I have no idea how your analogy is relevant. Armed robbery is armed robbery no matter how much you steal.

A better option might be white collar crime stealing 50k compared to armed robbery for the same amount. Without getting side tracked I do believe white collar criminals get let off very easily, but even still I think most would agree that the arm robbery is a much worse crime as a it has violent intent and puts people at risk of physical and psychological injury. I'd certainly expect that the malicious and violent crime be punished much more than the other.

[Bombay Airconditioning 5,880]

i must say i have a little more respect for Crowley, he's clearly done the wrong thing but he is at least taking it on the chin and not trying to get out of it.

Yeah I'll give him that but curious to more detail.

[CBDees 3,162]

Just think if he got the whole team to take a pill with him, he would have only been suspended for the NAB Cup.

Poor planning by Mr Crowley.

Freo should forfeit their NAB Challenge victory for playing a player(s?) against us who was on drugs!

[DemonFrog 1,347]

Freo should forfeit their NAB Challenge victory for playing a player(s?) against us who was on drugs!

Totally Agree

I did enjoy telling my father this fact, he was a passionate Freo member.

[Whispering_Jack 27,971]

Freo should forfeit their NAB Challenge victory for playing a player(s?) against us who was on drugs!

I don't think Crowley played in our NAB Challenge game, did he?

[Ron Burgundy 8,584]

Titus O'Reily ‏@TitusOReily 10m10 minutes ago

Fremantle announce Colin Sylvia as a top up player for Ryan Crowley

Probably the supplier ...

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

I don't think Crowley played in our NAB Challenge game, did he?

No, he did not play.

[The Song Formerly Known As 6,479]

Ross Lyon to leave and coach GWS

[Demon Head 250]

Time for some Black Sabbath -

[s-t-i-n-g-a 439]

Crowley thought it's was just a vitamin C tablet he had...

[Red and Bluebeard 2,032]

Scenario A is he's just plain stupid.

Scenario B is the following: club doctors just aren't independent. They give him pain relief then they also report to the coaches that Crowley has pain, all of a sudden he's out of the team with an injury.

Very silly, but now there's so much at stake for players in terms of finances etc these issues come up.

Management of complex injuries, personal illness and decisions on when to have surgery will see this issue come up more and more for professional athletes who work for a team.

Scenario C: he is doing something he shouldn't (like be out drinking), gets hurt, and needs pain relief. However, asking the club doctor will cause the story to come out, so he hushes it up by getting something privately. All speculation of course, but in a world where footballers are measured and analysed right, left and centre, it seem likely to me that not using official channels means he was doing something the club wouldn't like.