 |
|
|
| 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: |  |
|
^
No, but if a conviction is recorded it could limit their capacity to gain employment in the future or a via to places like the USA.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
 |
VicParkTragic
Joined: 17 Oct 2010
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| RudeBoy wrote: |
I agree JW. After all, last time I checked, they hadn't assaulted anyone, run over someone or even hurt anyone. They did a dumb thing, which is a pretty common occurrence for young men of their age. It's probably a long shot they'll play again, but I'd be happy to give their careers a life-line. |
Good point. Keep it in perspective. The main people they hurt was themselves. A lot of people commit crimes we'd all agree are very serious yet get off completely for various reasons. If they are good enough to play in 18 mints then I hope they do.
_________________
Living in Geelong, barracking for the 'pies! |
|
|
|
|
Dangles
Balmey Army
Joined: 14 May 2015
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Why do these scenarios drag on for so long?
Last edited by Dangles on Mon Jun 29, 2015 8:33 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
E
Joined: 05 May 2010
|
| Post subject: | |
|
this is a peculiar case where the inadvertent usage also happens to be an illegal activity. Inadvertent usage typically gets sympathy on sentencing but not conviction. the issue for them to decide is whether illegal activity inadvertent usage should be treated the same way.
Look we know they are getting a minimum of a year so there is no hurry (other than to satisfy curious minds like ours).
_________________
Ohhh, the Premiership's a cakewalk ....... |
|
|
|
|
think positive 
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Dangles wrote: | | 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. |
From what I'm hearing lately, not much of a stigma left, almost a badge of honour. Which really is a shame.
So is it the lesser of two evils? Probably.
When you say there's no hurry, is it back dated to when they stopped playing?
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | ^
No, but if a conviction is recorded it could limit their capacity to gain employment in the future or a via to places like the USA. |
Good thing we don't play there. 
I honestly can't see a conviction being recorded. Apart from all the associated shenanigans he got up to, did Cousins ever get done for possession?
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
dalyc 
Joined: 02 Mar 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Dangles wrote: | | 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. |
Recent precedent - from The Australian
QUEENSLAND Reds vice-captain Karmichael Hunt has escaped with a $2500 fine and no recorded conviction after pleading guilty to possessing the dangerous drug, cocaine.
Four more serious charges of supplying cocaine were dropped in the Southport Magistrates Court this afternoon.
Magistrate Catherine Pirie took into consideration Hunt’s speedy guilty plea, genuine remorse and effusive written references from his family and high-profile football identities including Broncos coach Wayne Bennett.
_________________
Four legged animals good, two legged animals better |
|
|
|
|
Tannin 
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
bahh, there are no, repeat no legal grounds for a conviction. The only available witness for the prosecution would be the player himself - nothing he says outside a court room is evidence, eye-witness evidence has to be sworn or it counts for nothing - and he can't be compelled to give evidence against himself.
(In properly run countries, this is a constitutional right which protects us - among other things - against people being tortured into giving evidence against themselves. For some inexplicable reason, Australia's second-rate constitution does not provide this fundamental protection, but in nearly all circumstances various state laws operate to the same effect.)
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
jackcass 
Joined: 01 Mar 2005
Location: Bendigo
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| dalyc wrote: | | Dangles wrote: | | 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. |
Recent precedent - from The Australian
QUEENSLAND Reds vice-captain Karmichael Hunt has escaped with a $2500 fine and no recorded conviction after pleading guilty to possessing the dangerous drug, cocaine.
Four more serious charges of supplying cocaine were dropped in the Southport Magistrates Court this afternoon.
Magistrate Catherine Pirie took into consideration Hunt’s speedy guilty plea, genuine remorse and effusive written references from his family and high-profile football identities including Broncos coach Wayne Bennett. |
The KH case was slightly different as he was alledgedly buying for others which constitutes trafficing (and subsequently the other 4 charges) and by default meant that there was larger quanitities than a 1 off personal use quantity. |
|
|
|
|
dalyc
Joined: 02 Mar 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| jackcass wrote: | | dalyc wrote: | | Dangles wrote: | | 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. |
Recent precedent - from The Australian
QUEENSLAND Reds vice-captain Karmichael Hunt has escaped with a $2500 fine and no recorded conviction after pleading guilty to possessing the dangerous drug, cocaine.
Four more serious charges of supplying cocaine were dropped in the Southport Magistrates Court this afternoon.
Magistrate Catherine Pirie took into consideration Hunt’s speedy guilty plea, genuine remorse and effusive written references from his family and high-profile football identities including Broncos coach Wayne Bennett. |
The KH case was slightly different as he was alledgedly buying for others which constitutes trafficing (and subsequently the other 4 charges) and by default meant that there was larger quanitities than a 1 off personal use quantity. |
Correct - bigger quantities and still no conviction. If their defence is the clem was in some coke they took it's unlikely they'll be charged for the coke, and if they do then I'd expect a fine only.
_________________
Four legged animals good, two legged animals better |
|
|
|
|
WhyPhilWhy?
WhyPhilWhy?
Joined: 09 Oct 2001
Location: Location: Location:
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Regardless of how they ingested the clembuturol, I wonder if this case has put the fear of god into other "recreational" drug users in the AFL.
Every cloud a silver lining in that case. |
|
|
|
|
rand corp
Joined: 06 Feb 2003
Location: south east asia
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Both will get the flick at the appropriate time by the club |
|
|
|
|
Member 7167 
"What Good Fortune For Governments That The People Do Not Think" - Adolf Hitler.
Joined: 18 Dec 2008
Location: The Collibran Hideout
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Talk of a criminal conviction is ludicrous. Were the drugs consumed in Australia or New Zealand. If they occurred in Australia, which in which state did it occur. Also if the evidence is based on an AFL blood test do the various police departments have access to the results, can blood taken in the manner be used for criminal proceedings and are the AFL / Asada processes for taking blood compliant with the legislation. Also if the AFL do not pass on the blood test results can the Police legally impose disclosure on the AFL. All this for a couple of snorts of coke that would not result in a conviction for a first time offender in most instances.
This all adds up to the "Too Hard" basket.
_________________
Now Retired - Every Day Is A Saturday |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| I will guess New Zealand . |
|
|
|
|
Jezza 
2023 PREMIERS!
Joined: 06 Sep 2010
Location: Ponsford End
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Tannin wrote: | bahh, there are no, repeat no legal grounds for a conviction. The only available witness for the prosecution would be the player himself - nothing he says outside a court room is evidence, eye-witness evidence has to be sworn or it counts for nothing - and he can't be compelled to give evidence against himself.
(In properly run countries, this is a constitutional right which protects us - among other things - against people being tortured into giving evidence against themselves. For some inexplicable reason, Australia's second-rate constitution does not provide this fundamental protection, but in nearly all circumstances various state laws operate to the same effect.) |
The Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) and Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic) have extensive provisions of when evidence is admissible or not.
_________________
| 1902 | 1903 | 1910 | 1917 | 1919 | 1927 | 1928 | 1929 | 1930 | 1935 | 1936 | 1953 | 1958 | 1990 | 2010 | 2023 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
