Collingwood drug duo banned for 2 years

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/josh-thomas-and-lachlan-keeffe-accept-twoyear-drug-ban-20150810-givfh3.html

Gone.

[Roger Mellie 4,130]

You can fine them AND delist them?

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

Apparently so.

Interesting that Collingwood said they'll take them back as rookies.

[Forest Demon 4,681]

Apparently so.

Interesting that Collingwood said they'll take them back as rookies.

I also found that interesting. Collingwood don't owe these two anything, and in my opinion,neither are decent enough to take up a spot on the list while they serve their ban, even if it is only the rookie list.

[jnrmac 20,203]

No where is that ASADA rule about team sanctions if two or more players from a team are suspended for drugs.........

Media are awfully quiet. Even those ferals at EFC that seem to be intent on spraying faecal matter on the whole code in order to divert attention, blame all and sundry and dig themselves out of their own hole......

[CityDee 738]

Well handled by the pies. Bombers take note , as if.

[Sir Why You Little 37,219]

No where is that ASADA rule about team sanctions if two or more players from a team are suspended for drugs.........

Media are awfully quiet. Even those ferals at EFC that seem to be intent on spraying faecal matter on the whole code in order to divert attention, blame all and sundry and dig themselves out of their own hole......

Exactly the point i was going to ask.

2 players = a club sanction i thought???

[Bitter but optimistic 22,250]

Two minnows get caught and gutted while a number of bloated toadies still puddle about in the pond.

[DubDee 26,188]

I also found that interesting. Collingwood don't owe these two anything, and in my opinion,neither are decent enough to take up a spot on the list while they serve their ban, even if it is only the rookie list.

they were both highly rated within Collingwood and both in their first 22. Thomas had a (sort of) break our year last year and Keefe was in the 22

they are talking them down now of course but they are a decent loss for the pies

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

Exactly the point i was going to ask.

2 players = a club sanction i thought???

I think it's an option, not a requirement.

At a guess, officially it'd be the AFL tribunal handing out the sanctions, so they make the choice to apply the team sanction of the anti-doping code or not.

I can't see the AFL tribunal applying it.

[Sir Why You Little 37,219]

I think it's an option, not a requirement.

At a guess, officially it'd be the AFL tribunal handing out the sanctions, so they make the choice to apply the team sanction of the anti-doping code or not.

I can't see the AFL tribunal applying it.

The option is the players either tested positive or not.

I thought it was a standard club sanction 2 players found positive during the same period.

[daisycutter 29,783]

The option is the players either tested positive or not.

I thought it was a standard club sanction 2 players found positive during the same period.

as choke said it's not a standard or automatic

2 in a small team environment is not the same as 2 in a 44 player list

so, it is an option and the figure of 2 is a minimum not an optimum

[Sir Why You Little 37,219]

as choke said it's not a standard or automatic

2 in a small team environment is not the same as 2 in a 44 player list

so, it is an option and the figure of 2 is a minimum not an optimum

Fair enough. Pity though

I was looking forward to seeing Eddie being shoved into a divvy van!

[Gorgoroth 13,079]

Also two taking illicit drugs containing a banned performance enhancing substance opposed to two taking steroids would have made a difference.

[daisycutter 29,783]

Also two taking illicit drugs containing a banned performance enhancing substance opposed to two taking steroids would have made a difference.

we only have their word for that, though

[old dee 23,881]

Well handled by the pies. Bombers take note , as if.

The difference is there were positive test with this two.

Other wise they would probably still be having nose problems.

Edited August 10, 2015 by old dee

[rjay 25,169]

The unlucky ones that got caught and the stupid ones for putting themselves at risk.

[The Chazz 4,077]

Might be just me, but I can't see how the club should be able to delist them and re-rookie them. This will only given them more flexibility with their list, at a time where I think they should be forced to suffer some consequence for the action of their own players.

[poita 3,902]

Only six months to resolve an issue with positive tests and admissions by the players? Glad we didn't let that one fester for too long.

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

Might be just me, but I can't see how the club should be able to delist them and re-rookie them. This will only given them more flexibility with their list, at a time where I think they should be forced to suffer some consequence for the action of their own players.

How so?

Having 2 rookies who can't play for a year and a half means they have 2 less rookies to elevate in case of LTI.

To me, the big story should be "Collingwood condones drug use by promising to rookie convicted duo".

Edited August 10, 2015 by Choke

[stuie 7,374]

Gotta love it that their "defence" was basically: "Oh we didn't know there were performance enhancing substances in our cocaine....."

Edited August 11, 2015 by stuie

[thevil1 421]

I also found that interesting. Collingwood don't owe these two anything, and in my opinion,neither are decent enough to take up a spot on the list while they serve their ban, even if it is only the rookie list.

Cokingwood doing everything they can to show support for the 2 young men, it's all for PR & they only lose 2 rookie spots for 1 year, not a great scenario for them but not the worst. Highly doubt either player will make it to a senior list in 2017 but good luck to them, hope they get their lives back on track.

Illicit drug policy of 3 strikes helped this scenario happen IMO. Coke gets cut with many various other substances & these guys probably thought it was worth the risk since they get 2 strikes before anything 'serious' happens and they probably didn't think 'performance enhancers' would be used in such a way. I hope this is a lesson to all young players!

[thevil1 421]

Might be just me, but I can't see how the club should be able to delist them and re-rookie them. This will only given them more flexibility with their list, at a time where I think they should be forced to suffer some consequence for the action of their own players.

Don't agree, they've been 2 players on their list down all year, will pay these guys another year's rookie list wage & not have access to those 2 spots next year, with all that $, time & effort they've put into these guys likely a write off long term. Their brand has also suffered. And they are trying to support 2 young men who made a mistake so they don't look like they are mercenary with their players welfare. I hate the pies but they haven't done well out of this by any stretch of the imagination, but they've managed it well especially compared to essendrug!

Edited August 10, 2015 by thevil1

[Nasher 33,617]

Gotta love it that they're "defence" was basically: "Oh we didn't know there were performance enhancing substances in our cocaine....."

Heh, oh dear. At least it's a bit more honest than "we ate a steak in Mexico...".

[old dee 23,881]

Heh, oh dear. At least it's a bit more honest than "we ate a steak in Mexico...".

Seeing how they were in NZ Nasher they probably thought the would not fly.

But then they are Pies Players so probably not that bright anyway