| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
roar
Joined: 01 Sep 2004
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| think positive wrote: |
From what I'm hearing lately, not much of a stigma left, almost a badge of honour. Which really is a shame. |
Don't think it's seen as a badge of honour. It's simply the way it is, nowadays.
Doubt it will stop the regulars but it may make the young kids think twice before trying, which isn't a bad thing, at all.
_________________
kill for collingwood! |
|
|
|
 |
RudeBoy
Joined: 28 Nov 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Looks like we'll rookie them both for next year, and just use one selection in the draft - hopefully on Sam Weideman.  |
|
|
|
|
John Wren 
"Look after the game. It means so much to so many."
Joined: 15 Jul 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Jezza wrote: | | 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. |
in this instance is tannin guilty of conflating?
_________________
Purveyor of sanctimonious twaddle. |
|
|
|
|
Jezza 
2023 PREMIERS!
Joined: 06 Sep 2010
Location: Ponsford End
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| John Wren wrote: | | Jezza wrote: | | 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. |
in this instance is tannin guilty of conflating? |
Very much so  
_________________
| 1902 | 1903 | 1910 | 1917 | 1919 | 1927 | 1928 | 1929 | 1930 | 1935 | 1936 | 1953 | 1958 | 1990 | 2010 | 2023 | |
|
|
|
|
Tannin 
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Put up or shut up, Jezza. You want to cite the act, cite the act. It's no use just saying it exists, what is in it that seems to you relevant, if anything?
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
Jezza
2023 PREMIERS!
Joined: 06 Sep 2010
Location: Ponsford End
|
| Post subject: | |
|
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/ea200880/s84.html
The link above is s 84 of the Evidence Act and this is in regards to giving evidence of admissions influenced by violence or the threat of violence by a investigative authority such as the police.
If such an event was to occur this evidence would be inadmissible in a trial even though you quote saying a "constitutional right which protects us - among other things - against people being tortured into giving evidence against themselves does not provide this fundamental protection".
I agree that you are right that a constitutional right on this basis does not exist but it's not as if these provisions are non-existent at all in Victoria at the very least in a legislative sense as the above section of the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) demonstrates but I can't comment on other states however and what their own evidential provisions entail.
More broadly I mentioned these Acts mainly for the purpose of possible further reading down the track especially if this case with Thomas and Keeffe escalates in the future but I hope for their sake it doesn't become any bigger than what it is currently.
However getting back onto the main point of the topic I think the issue of Thomas and Keeffe will be dealt with by the AFL and ASADA if no illicit drugs were involved in the case. As far as I know Thomas and Keeffe haven't said anything to suggest that they used illicit drugs which would then possibly explains why an banned substance under the WADA and ASADA codes was found in their system.
_________________
| 1902 | 1903 | 1910 | 1917 | 1919 | 1927 | 1928 | 1929 | 1930 | 1935 | 1936 | 1953 | 1958 | 1990 | 2010 | 2023 | |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 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. |
I'd take the "stigma" of ingesting a modest mind-altering substance over farting in an elevator. I mean, should the latter happen on the 23rd floor, you'd be both high and embarrassed.
Of course, historically, the greatest stigma of all was owning a Mitsubishi Stigma, something which few if any have recovered from socially.
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
|
jackcass 
Joined: 01 Mar 2005
Location: Bendigo
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| ^^^ I had one... loved it... |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^Crikey, Jackass, you must have knackers the size of the Devil's Marbles proudly whipping that unsolicited tidbit out for all to see!
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
|
Dave The Man 
Joined: 01 Apr 2005
Location: Someville, Victoria, Australia
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Heard that Nathan Brown has said the Players want both the boys back
_________________
I am Da Man |
|
|
|
|
roar
Joined: 01 Sep 2004
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^^ Of course they do. Though, I'm pretty sure the players won't be the ones to decide.
_________________
kill for collingwood! |
|
|
|
|
Darkstranger
Joined: 06 Jun 2012
|
| Post subject: | |
|
So remind me again how we get them off our list to be rookies without other teams picking them up?
_________________
There is Collingwood and then the rest. |
|
|
|
|
Dangles
Balmey Army
Joined: 14 May 2015
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| So when is the penalty expected to be handed down? And what's the holdup? |
|
|
|
|
Jezza
2023 PREMIERS!
Joined: 06 Sep 2010
Location: Ponsford End
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Dangles wrote: | | So when is the penalty expected to be handed down? And what's the holdup? |
I'm pretty sure Gary Pert said recently that they would receive two year bans but this might be backdated possibly.
No one really knows for sure until the investigation and findings into this case are complete.
_________________
| 1902 | 1903 | 1910 | 1917 | 1919 | 1927 | 1928 | 1929 | 1930 | 1935 | 1936 | 1953 | 1958 | 1990 | 2010 | 2023 | |
|
|
|
|
Piethagoras' Theorem
the hypotenuse, is always a cakewalk
Joined: 29 May 2006
|
| Post subject: | |
|
My very 1st car was a '77 Chrysler Sigma 
_________________
Formally frankiboy and FrankieGoesToCollingwood. |
|
|
|
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
