Hope not.....

[Meg]

oh please - the strongest thing those people would have is a Pimms with their cucumber sandwiches.

As its said - the Club at this point is Essendon - and one other player from another club - hardly across the board is it?

I was being flippant in my reference to the Hunters Hill Croquet Club, as I thought you were too. But (if you haven't already done so) I think you should read the Australian Crime Commission report and do some research on the role, responsibilities and investigative powers of the Commission before you continue to be dismissive of its findings.

[ShockOfHair]

Off topic, but I relatively recently was handed a Pimms with lemon, lime and bitters and it was actually quite nice!

Did it come with a waiver?

[Nico]

Time to buy into this issue a little. (Not that I think our team have crossed the thin white line)

If the AFL or the Crime commission finds a player, or a team has used an illegal product. (Drugs or the what ever) Will the AFL 3 strikes policy still be used? My understanding this is for recreational drug abuse and the "steroid or ?? is to enhance performance. Will this drug be handled the same way with 3 strikes...? Will we ever find out who and what extent...

Just asking and all.

Because I am not up with all the do's and don'ts...

Teams and players usually play by the rules. I would expect most clubs would get as close to breaking these rule as possible. Within 0.01% of breaking them.

I can just see the rules of the future will be a few thousand of pages long with interpretations and explanations...

Rod_

PS Bring on the footy!

Rod, as I understand it is one strike and you are out with PED's. Once proved you are gone for I think a minimum 2 years. Justin Charles was in a different era before the 3 strikes rule.

[ShockOfHair]

Not often I say this but I have to agree with Jeff: let's have a zero-tolerance policy on recreational and performance-enhancing drugs. That'd be a start.

But you can't inoculate against stupidity. If James Hird was in the room when his players signed waivers then he really should find another job. Staggering.

I'm actually more worried about the organised crime aspect than the drugs side of this. Given the volume of gambling on AFL and the league's easy accommodation with it, you'd think it represents a juicy target.

[Reggi]

Going by our statement on AFL site, we are all clear

[Meg]

I'm actually more worried about the organised crime aspect than the drugs side of this. Given the volume of gambling on AFL and the league's easy accommodation with it, you'd think it represents a juicy target.

Totally agree with you.

[stellation]

Did it come with a waiver?

it was administered off site, too!

[sharp9]

Actually regarding penalties ...the ex head of ASADA was on KB's programme......very, very interesting.

Two years is the standard maximum for a first offence. This can be mitigated "by up to 75%" and no more. Thus Armstrong's accusers all received 6 months....they didn't get off. PLUS they lost any titles from when they were doping.

The other way you can get mitigation is if you didn't know you were taking it, or if you were mis-lead. Even in this circumstance he was 100% adamant that 6 months is the absolute minimum possible ban. This is for 2 reasons 1) They still played on the field aided by substances and to the detriment of the opposition and 2)Even though it is clearly bad luck for some they refuse to create a circumstance where athletes can pre-meditate or plan a "he lied to me defence" knowing they would get off in the end.

What no-one asked was "if a footballer gets a 6 month ban - can he start it in October?"

[aardvark]

I was never happy with one of our sponsors. It might be time to ditch them.

[dimelb]

I was never happy with one of our sponsors. It might be time to ditch them.

Time to flush tomwatercloset.com?

[giant]

Had someone else close to the club suggest there's nothing to worry about. But seriously, who'd know? This is one of the most goddamn confusing scandals I can remember.

[Rod_]

Zero tolerance is my preference. Just thinking about the life sentence for any player found to have crossed the line. Many players have to much money and time on their hands... Pleased that the Swans have an excellent structure to fill in time..

You bet on sport and if there was a chance to improve the odds by over playing or under playing to make big $ who would you pay, how much to tank.... Hard to keep these types of things quite for ever...

Rod_

[R-1]

Unrelated to the Swans, but my Raiders have just been confirmed as one of the NRL clubs in the ACC report.

Not a good feeling.

[DLBIA14]

I was pretty sure the team I support in the NRL wouldn't be one of those under investigation - Lazy, fat and lacking in all manner of brain cells. PED's? No @@@@ing chance.

Anyway let's just wait for the investigations to conclude to see what the real fallout may be. It does look like our club is all clear though.

[liz]

Time to buy into this issue a little. (Not that I think our team have crossed the thin white line)

If the AFL or the Crime commission finds a player, or a team has used an illegal product. (Drugs or the what ever) Will the AFL 3 strikes policy still be used? My understanding this is for recreational drug abuse and the "steroid or ?? is to enhance performance. Will this drug be handled the same way with 3 strikes...? Will we ever find out who and what extent...

Just asking and all.

Because I am not up with all the do's and don'ts...

Teams and players usually play by the rules. I would expect most clubs would get as close to breaking these rule as possible. Within 0.01% of breaking them.

I can just see the rules of the future will be a few thousand of pages long with interpretations and explanations...

Rod_

PS Bring on the footy!

The 3 strike process applies only to 'recreational drugs'. Anyone found guilty of taking a PED is subject to an automatic ban, and that is determined under WADA/ASADA rules, not the AFL.

But bear in mind that some (most? all? ) so-called recreational drugs are considered to be performance enhancing if taken on game day (or within a certain period of game day). They are deemed to potentially have a short term performance enhancing effect, no doubt in the same way that some students might use stimulents to help them cram for an intensive period just before an exam. However, the effect of drugs thus classified is short term, so taking them sufficiently before game day (or during the off season) is not considered to be performance enhancing.

The types of drug that are completely banned for sportspersons are those that deliver long term benefits - ie those that help an athlete train harder, recover more quickly, build muscle etc.