Thomas, Keeffe reportedly test positive perf enhancing drugs

[melliot]

It's been about a week since the B samples have been tested. But no news. Should we read anything into this?

[cobood]

My thoughts exactly Melliot....

[Dave The Man]

[The Prototype]

I wouldn't read much into it, if it came back one way or another they'd have been given the news and action would have been taken one way or the other.

[David]

[Darkstranger]

Slow burning Bunsen burner? Seriously over a week now???

[David]

There could be secondary tests. Honestly, I have no idea.

[September Zeros]

Cmon guys- this is Collingwood. The usual respect will be shown and the results will be made clear to the club and the public the day before their ANZAC day clash.

It will be released so as to have a ginormous media impact and they will serve to destabilise us as much as possible. Of course there is every chance they will wait untill the eve of the scum game. I am sure our enemies would be happy with either.

[E]

Lets hope for a Friday night announcement. That's when they announce controversy that they want to go away quietly

The b sample isn't as important as what credible story they come up with. B sample will for sure be positive.

Sanction depends on their story.

[Neil Appleby]

On Footy Classified tonight Gary Lyon replayed his interview with Steele Sidebottom. He asked Sidey if he'd spoken to Keeffe and Thomas. Sidey said no but that he'd texted Keeffe. Sidey couldn't really answer Lyon when he asked him again why he hadn't spoken to the two.

I heard Pendles on 3AW saying similar things. Bucks has also said they had not had any contact after lawyers got involved.

I think it's natural that the lawyers would be warning everybody at the club to keep a distance lest they be quoted in the upcoming tribunal cases for both boys.

Lyon said it was extraordinary that the players wouldn't be standing beside and supporting their mates. He suggested it points to a lack of cohesion in the group. It's the same line that Damien Barrett took a few weeks back.

I hope Lyon is wrong on this.

[GoWoodsmen]

Neil.. sorry mate but what a load of sh** from Lyon and ambulance chaser Barrett. Lack of cohesion - yeah because it's every day you have your teammates found with performance enhancing drugs. Because every day lawyers get involved in what you can and can't say.

My goodness... Barrett is so negative it's ridiculous.

[perthmagpie]

The players and footy dept are employees and the lack of contact would be so as to not create a evidentiary conflict between the two players and their reprentatives from the AFLPA (think union) until the contractual ramifications are clearer. In other words don't say anything in case you say something.

Until it is known whether a show cause notice has then lead to an infraction notice then the parties do not know whether they have a future arms length relationship or an employer to employee relationship. I have never read a player contract but I would presume their would be some onus on the club when a contract breach involving WADA banned drugs leads to an infraction notice to stand down a player. People need to understand their lawyers want to find the source of the drug and that presumes there is a chance it came from their club (I don't believe it did, but the lawyers are acting for the two players).

If no infraction notice is going to be issued then the contractual relationship is reinstated in it's original form. If an infraction notice is issued then the club/employer may stand down the players until the tribunal hearing. During that time there would be no close contact. This is so that no communication can be included as evidence or testimony as part of tribunal submissions. It is unfortunate that this is the way it has to be. But the dynamics of this situation force these temporary roles. The players personal interests are being protected and the club's overarching interests are being protected too.

[Hiss]

[Darkstranger]

[Albert Parker]

Was having this discussion with a lawyer friend the other day.

If Michael Rogers, the Australian cyclist, was cleared of clenbuterol use because of infected meat he ate in China, what in effect is the difference if these boys have inadvertently ingested the clenbuterol as a result of taking an illicit drug? In both cases, neither have taken a performance enhancing drug deliberately/knowingly nor enhanced performance through its use.

Given the 3 strikes policy that exists in the AFL, they should fess up to use of an illicit drug and then get on with things. What are people's thoughts on this?