Main Menu

Crowley Media Statement

Started by Ricochet, March 13, 2015, 11:16:41 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

valkorum

Quote from: Mat0369 on March 16, 2015, 03:49:59 PM
The only thing that might help Crowley is the talk of the AFL no longer wanting to be associated with WADA/ASADA after the Essendon case.

ASADA can only advise the AFL on a suitable suspension and then it is up to the AFL tribunal to make a decision. The AFL can make a decision on the length and dating the suspension back to September that is already 6 months before the season starts.

Considering everything else going on you just have to shake your head at the stupidity

Are you sure about that?  I thought ASADA had the authority to suspend players who have been found guilty of taking a banned substance (negligent or not).

The Essendon one is slightly different as it was administered by the club - even though its still the players responsibility.

nrich102

I guess he's part of the Hird. :P

Seriously disappointing I must say though. He's 31, any chance we'll see him again ?

Capper

Quote from: Mat0369 on March 16, 2015, 03:49:59 PM
Quote from: Nige on March 16, 2015, 03:08:47 PM
Considering Saad got done, Crowley must be in strife?

The only thing that might help Crowley is the talk of the AFL no longer wanting to be associated with WADA/ASADA after the Essendon case.

ASADA can only advise the AFL on a suitable suspension and then it is up to the AFL tribunal to make a decision. The AFL can make a decision on the length and dating the suspension back to September that is already 6 months before the season starts.

Considering everything else going on you just have to shake your head at the stupidity
So he tested positive on July 13th and played out the year.

It doesn't matter if they can back date the suspension as he still misses 2 years of AFL

Ringo

Careful here guys you are getting into an area where your comments could be considerer libellous and leave you open to a defamation charge.

maybe Siloc and nrich edit your posts so as to not cause concern.

JBs-Hawks

He actually went out and got the pill that day  :o

Capper

Quote from: Mat0369 on March 13, 2015, 01:20:39 PM
So reading this I can think of multiple possibilities

1. Disciplined for off the field stuff
2. Family issues, maybe an illness of some sort
3. He has a physical illness, maybe something similar to Jayden Pitt but not of the same extent that the club don't want to disclose
4. Depression
5. Drugs and if he plays he would be eligible for a strike

Hopefully it has to do with number 1 because you would hope it isn't any of the others for his sake.
Just found this thread. The fact that RTB said he wasnt allowed to train means that it was only going to be Discipline or drugs

Mat0369

#66
Quote from: valkorum on March 16, 2015, 04:09:43 PM
Are you sure about that?  I thought ASADA had the authority to suspend players who have been found guilty of taking a banned substance (negligent or not).

The Essendon one is slightly different as it was administered by the club - even though its still the players responsibility.

Certain

Ahmed Saad didn't get the full suspension and ASADA wanted to appeal it but at the end of the day the AFL tribunal and appeals board has the final say. There is nothing they can do

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-12-05/asada-to-appeal-ahmed-saad-afl-suspension/5136224

Nige


Vinny


Ricochet

Timeline
• Sample collection 13/7
• A Test 11/8
• Player told A Test 18/8
• B Test 11/9
• Show Cause Notice 18/9
• Provisional Ban 25/9

Ricochet

also Sam Edmund said this...

AFL says Crowley allowed to keep playing-& could play now-because he took "specified substance" as per rules in the anti-doping code

Nige


Ziplock

Quote from: Ricochet on March 16, 2015, 05:35:12 PM
also Sam Edmund said this...

AFL says Crowley allowed to keep playing-& could play now-because he took "specified substance" as per rules in the anti-doping code

what's 'specified substance'?

Mat0369

Quote from: Ziplock on March 16, 2015, 05:40:01 PM
what's 'specified substance'?

No idea, but if the pain killer was an opiate could they push to have it fall under the 3 strike policy?

Ziplock

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-03-16/so-what-did-crowley-take

larkins thinks it probably contained some narcotics, and the WADA/ ASADA ruling is basically if you need painkillers that powerful you shouldn't be playing. A 2 year ban because of that is so harsh though.