 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
There is a 3 strike policy on illicit drug use. if these two have admitted using illicit drugs which were contaminated, resulting in the positive test then the principle should from our perspective stay the same.
They weren't trying to cheat by using performance enhancing drugs they made a dumb decision which plenty of others have done.
So I have no moral or ethical issues with keeping them, only practical ones.
Keeffe I'd keep, Thomas not so sure. That will be alist management decision.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
 |
Woods 
Joined: 21 Aug 2013
Location: Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Anybody thinking that the turnaround in the club's position on Keefe and Thomas (from McGuire's earlier 'you're finished' comment to the current position of retaining them) has something to do with the long term outlook for Grundy.
If Grundy has a serious long term injury the club needs Keefe to fill a hole. Thomas, lucky bugger, gets retained too because you can't chuck him out and retain Keefe if they are both guilty of the same offence in the same circumstances. |
|
|
|
|
swoop42 
Whatcha gonna do when he comes for you?
Joined: 02 Aug 2008
Location: The 18
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I'd say Thomas will be surplus to our needs come 2017 so if it's a pure football list decision then I don't see a need to retain him.
Keeffe on the other hand might well be of use in a variety of roles.
However I'll be surprised if they keep one and not the other because I feel if we look to retain them then it probably has as much to do with player welfare and harmony within the entire group than a purely list decision.
If they are popular players then standing by them would send a positive and powerful message of "side by side" to the rest of the list from the coach and club.
If they admit to taking illicit drugs and the club is satisfied this is how the clen got into there system then I'm happy for them to treat it as a strike and give them a second chance.
Two years out of the game seems adequate punishment to me.
_________________
He's mad. He's bad. He's MaynHARD! |
|
|
|
|
AnthonyC 
Joined: 09 Aug 2002
Location: Melbourne, Victoria
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Eddie McGuire* wrote: | "I'm pretty straight forward on these things; if people have taken performance-enhancing drugs you get your whack – it's as simple as that.
"If you haven't, if there's mitigating circumstances, then let's work through that situation." |
Doesn't read like a back-flip to me.
Good on the Club for acting like a Club that cares, I say.
And if it was deliberate, there's the door.
* http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-03-31/guilty-youre-out
_________________
Go Pies! |
|
|
|
|
derkd
Joined: 29 May 2013
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| dalyc wrote: | | Golden Gordon wrote: | | They have embarrassed the club. We don't want them! |
Sort of like Swan, Didak, Shaw, and Williams. Second chances have paid dividends for the club in the past and I see no reason not to give them a break if we think they can contribute.
If we do keep them then I'd expect total commitment from them as they will have had a massive kick up the arse.
Edit: I didn't see yin hangs post before writing mine. |
The difference is that Swan, Shaw nad Williams could atone on the field (be it AFL or VFL) within a few weeks, these two could be waiting over another year.
While i support the club "looking out"for these two. The issue in my mind is two fold:
1. In this day and age you see club player turn over becoming more and more critical to success. By that i mean "what are our needs" vs "what excess type of player do we have to trade/open space on list" - can the club afford two have two rookie spots taken up by two players who can not play and develop in that next year(s).
2. As i recall many on here (and i think i am one) who argued that these two may have been on the brink of possible de-listing due to the rate of development, that is to say neither were week in, week out regulars at senior level. With the way the side is developing could you say that either would be in our best 22 at the moment? and who would make way/keep out of the senior team?
I mean nothing against either of these two guys, i am sure they are lovely people. And i do genuinely feel for the position they are in, but sport is a business, do you deny a 18 year old next Maxwell or Wellingham a spot on this list is my question.
_________________
"To know nothing of events before your birth, is to forever remain a child" - Cicero (Roman Lawyer/Senator) 46 BCE. |
|
|
|
|
Tannin
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| derkd wrote: | | 2. As i recall many on here (and i think i am one) who argued that these two may have been on the brink of possible de-listing due to the rate of development, that is to say neither were week in, week out regulars at senior level. |
Neither were Witts, Broomhead, Ramsay, Williams, Oxley, Fasolo, or Adams.
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
derkd
Joined: 29 May 2013
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Tannin wrote: | | derkd wrote: | | 2. As i recall many on here (and i think i am one) who argued that these two may have been on the brink of possible de-listing due to the rate of development, that is to say neither were week in, week out regulars at senior level. |
Neither were Witts, Broomhead, Ramsay, Williams, Oxley, Fasolo, or Adams. |
Oh i agree, but like i say, Witts, Broomhead, Ramsay et.al could get out on the park and push their case for selection, grab opportunities and learn. you can't do that if your suspended for two years.
_________________
"To know nothing of events before your birth, is to forever remain a child" - Cicero (Roman Lawyer/Senator) 46 BCE. |
|
|
|
|
Tannin
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Oh, sure. I wasn't really disputing your point (though I'm not entirely sure I agree with it), I just can't resist any opportunity for a one-liner.
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
mackasmatt
Joined: 19 Dec 2007
Location: Perth, WA
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I think from a list management point of view the club will be very reluctant to get rid of either player. The 2009 draft will be a near complete bust if we are to delist Thomas. In terms of Keeffe, he is the only athletic +200cm KPP we have on the list.
Thomas: 23yrs (25.5 at start of 2017 season)
2009 National Draft, 32 games, averaged 19 poss per game in debut year after 3 seasons injured.
Keeffe: 25yrs (27 at start of 2017 season)
2008 Rookie Draft, 40 games, took 2 seasons to debut, 18 games last year and was quite serviceable.
An example can be set without taking drastic measures with these two.
_________________
------------
----------
MAGPIES '18
----------
------------ |
|
|
|
|
Tannin
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| mackasmatt wrote: | | I think from a list management point of view the club will be very reluctant to get rid of either player. The 2009 draft will be a near complete bust if we are to delist Thomas. |
Yep. Agree. Those two senior players who won us a premiership in the very next year - you know, the ones we spent out first three draft picks on in 2009 - were complete duds, and it was only one premiership after all. What a waste of a year!
PS: Ben Sinclair says hello.
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
David 
to wish impossible things
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: the edge of the deep green sea
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Really glad that the club is considering this. Obviously, at the end of the day, it has to be a pragmatic decision, but the important thing for me is that it is a decision based on ability and on-field needs, not the desire to punish and/or be "good corporate citizens".
And if they have taken this drug unintentionally, I would hope that the sentence will at least be reduced from the two-year maximum.
_________________
"Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange |
|
|
|
|
RudeBoy
Joined: 28 Nov 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | Really glad that the club is considering this. Obviously, at the end of the day, it has to be a pragmatic decision, but the important thing for me is that it is a decision based on ability and on-field needs, not the desire to punish and/or be "good corporate citizens".
And if they have taken this drug unintentionally, I would hope that the sentence will at least be reduced from the two-year maximum. |
Press reports seem to suggest that, in order to avoid a police investigation into possible use of cocaine/ecstacy, the players will not even offer an explanation as to how they consumed the stuff. They will effectively just plead guilty and cop the maximum 2 year ban. |
|
|
|
|
jackcass 
Joined: 01 Mar 2005
Location: Bendigo
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| RudeBoy wrote: | | David wrote: | Really glad that the club is considering this. Obviously, at the end of the day, it has to be a pragmatic decision, but the important thing for me is that it is a decision based on ability and on-field needs, not the desire to punish and/or be "good corporate citizens".
And if they have taken this drug unintentionally, I would hope that the sentence will at least be reduced from the two-year maximum. |
Press reports seem to suggest that, in order to avoid a police investigation into possible use of cocaine/ecstacy, the players will not even offer an explanation as to how they consumed the stuff. They will effectively just plead guilty and cop the maximum 2 year ban. |
The 1 off use of recreational drugs would at worst attract a diversion program if it even got to court. Unlikely any conviction would be registered. The use of these drugs is not the over-riding concern of law enforcement, it's the manufacture and distribution.
If they've inadvertantly taken a banned substance through the use of recreational drugs then they can do themselves and the AFL an enourmous favour by fessing up and volunteering to work for the league in drug education programs. |
|
|
|
|
David
to wish impossible things
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: the edge of the deep green sea
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| RudeBoy wrote: | | David wrote: | Really glad that the club is considering this. Obviously, at the end of the day, it has to be a pragmatic decision, but the important thing for me is that it is a decision based on ability and on-field needs, not the desire to punish and/or be "good corporate citizens".
And if they have taken this drug unintentionally, I would hope that the sentence will at least be reduced from the two-year maximum. |
Press reports seem to suggest that, in order to avoid a police investigation into possible use of cocaine/ecstacy, the players will not even offer an explanation as to how they consumed the stuff. They will effectively just plead guilty and cop the maximum 2 year ban. |
I really hope that's not true. Obviously drug use carries stigma, but is it worse than deliberate cheating?
I also doubt that a one-off instance of drug use would result in a conviction.
_________________
"Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange |
|
|
|
|
Dangles
Balmey Army
Joined: 14 May 2015
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | RudeBoy wrote: | | David wrote: | Really glad that the club is considering this. Obviously, at the end of the day, it has to be a pragmatic decision, but the important thing for me is that it is a decision based on ability and on-field needs, not the desire to punish and/or be "good corporate citizens".
And if they have taken this drug unintentionally, I would hope that the sentence will at least be reduced from the two-year maximum. |
Press reports seem to suggest that, in order to avoid a police investigation into possible use of cocaine/ecstacy, the players will not even offer an explanation as to how they consumed the stuff. They will effectively just plead guilty and cop the maximum 2 year ban. |
I really hope that's not true. Obviously drug use carries stigma, but is it worse than deliberate cheating?
I also doubt that a one-off instance of drug use would result in a conviction. |
I'd take the stigma of taking coke/ecstasy if it meant reduced time out of the game. They wouldn't get gaol time from a possession and use conviction. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
