Stokes’s stupidity is no worse than others
Roar Rookie
By glocko87, 5 Feb 2010 glocko87 is a Roar Rookie
- Tagged:
- AFL, Geelong Cats, Matthew Stokes
Geelong star Matthew Stokes has been charged with drug trafficking, after allegedly purchasing a gram of cocaine for a friend who was visiting from out of town. So what punishment is suitable for the AFL to bring down should he be found guilty?
Stokes is an adult capable of making adult choices. Despite being aware of the serious damage that a drugs charge would do to his career and public image, he chose to buy cocaine anyway.
Whether or not he indeed indulges in the drug himself is beside the point.
It remains that drug offences are not dealt with lightly in elite sport. The AFL will want to be seen to be tough on drugs, as any public authority would wish to be seen.
For a ‘civilian,’ a drugs charge on their criminal record could result in sacking. It might also result in a tarnished reputation amongst colleagues and their local community. It might also prevent them from seeking new employment.
As it should. And Stokes is no different.
Any sensible football club would want to distance themselves from a drugs scandal. Aside from this, who would want to employ a person who has shown poor decision-making?
The AFL has the right to ban Stokes for life, just as any other employer might do with an employee in similar circumstances. My only question is what would the AFL do if a player was found guilty of sexual assault? Or domestic violence?
More than a few players have been found guilty of assault and drink driving, and while sacked from their club, have continued with their playing career elsewhere.
All of the above offences employ poor decision-making, and maybe even a lack of character on the offender’s behalf. So why the toughest stance on drugs? Why is buying coke for a friend and not using it yourself worse than sexual assault or crashing your car when you’re drunk?
How does the AFL measure each player’s case and determine its seriousness?
It’s all about perception.
Drugs are a scourge on society, use is increasing and production in Australia is rife. Whereas with sexual assault, conviction is rare, and drink driving is so common that just about everyone would know someone who has done it.
So Matthew Stokes may be dealt a lifetime ban because, currently, drugs are a huge problem, when other players with different, but equally serious issues, are allowed to continue to play.
The AFL would not be wrong in handing him a lifetime suspension, but where they will go wrong and have gone wrong is allowing other players to continue.
Where’s the justice in that?
Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
AFL articles
- More rugby league players to defect to the AFL? (159)
- Mobile madness: Optus decision bad news for codes (153)
- Foxtel’s AFL coverage is nirvana for footy fans (88)
- AFL divisions are the way of the future (84)
- Israel Folau now ready for AFL (75)
- AFL’s most hated club turns 120 years old (75)
- Optus ruling actually a good thing for AFL fans (52)
- Giants inspired to prove doubters wrong
- Malthouse not fazed by assistant issue
- Richo says look out for the Tigers in AFL
- AFL clubs’ leadership groups getting out of hand (5)
- Who’s to blame for the Majak Daw beat-up? (31)
- AFL Tigers need to step up, says Cotchin
- Riewoldt wants new Saints captain in 2013
- AFL clubs’ leadership groups getting out of hand (5)
- AFL divisions are the way of the future (90)
- Crows changing, but will this AFL preview change your life? (1)
- Is Heath Shaw the right leader for Collingwood? (11)
- Could a female coach succeed in the AFL? (35)
- Demons’ two captain Jacks the right leadership choice (5)
- Mobile madness: Optus decision bad news for codes (153)
- Explore:
- AFL, Geelong Cats, Matthew Stokes
James said | February 5th 2010 @ 10:25am | Report comment
Will be fascinating to see what the AFL do themselves.
Rabbbitz said | February 5th 2010 @ 10:30am | Report comment
If the news reports are correct, and he has been charged with trafficking then the AFL will have no descision to make.
If he is guilty of trafficking, and I emphasise IF, the judicial system should remove him from society for a period long enough that any thought of playing again will be a pipe dream.
So any ban by the AFL would just be window dressing.
craigv said | February 5th 2010 @ 11:34am | Report comment
Another pont is that the International doping council (or whatever they call themselves) has an automatic ban of a minimum 4 years if you are fond guilty of traficking, i’m pretty sure they would have to abide by these rules
craigv said | February 5th 2010 @ 11:35am | Report comment
Another pont is that the International doping council (or whatever they call themselves) has an automatic ban of a minimum 4 years if you are fond guilty of traficking, i’m pretty sure they would have to abide by these rules.
As far as i can see it if he goes to court with what he has said about it here is or should be no way he could not be found guilty.
Mattay said | February 5th 2010 @ 1:40pm | Report comment
An interesting point made by the writer. Lets say hypothetically a star AFL player sexually assaulted a female in a toilet at an AFL function. Do you think he would be banned for 4 years?
But Stokes (allegedly) “traffics” drugs, and it’s virtually certain he will receive this punishment.
Is everybody comfortable with this? I sure aren’t.
“Drug trafficking” sounds bad. “Buying some coke for my mate” sounds much better. But we concentrate on the trafficking. When I heard about the (alleged – in fact just add “alleged” at random intervals of this rant) trafficking, here I thought he had been found with massive amounts of drugs and that he supplied this to all and sundry.
But just holding on to some for his mates? Please …
Yes, yes, drugs are bad mmm..kay, but not as bad as terrorising females, assaulting people or drink driving.
Unfortunately it’s all about spin and precedent. Drugs in sports are a relatively new problem, whereas alcohol and sexual misdemeanours have been around since Don Bradman was found swimming in his own vomit with 3 hookers at the Cathedral Hotel (allegedly or just plain false – you decide).
Moonface said | February 5th 2010 @ 3:16pm | Report comment
If Stokes is as innocent as everyone makes out and just buying for a friend then how did he know where to find someone willing to sell him some cocaine?
The police have taped many conversations and texts between Stokes and the Drug dealers.
If he really was so innocent he would have told his mate “I dunno, ask someone else”.
And why would someone from out of town know to ask Stokes to get some drugs or who told him to go and see Stokes.
Its not alright for professional footballers to make adult decisions about taking drugs – it says in their contracts and code of conduct that if they are caught with illegal drugs they will be sacked.
Come on, lets all quit the pretences and really do something about cleaning up drugs in sport.
Annabelle said | February 7th 2010 @ 10:51am | Report comment
“Moonface” it is a commonly known fact that many elite sportspeople are approached on the social scene in regard to drug purchase (or even freebies).
I guess they are an easy target as they have the income available to purchase drugs.
This supplier was a night club bouncer with access to a large number of people out for a good time – easy pickings!!
Matthew has met this person at the night club and possibly had the offer pushed under his nose.
If you or I wished to purchase drugs a couple of phone calls would do the trick.
Mattay said | February 8th 2010 @ 8:29am | Report comment
There may be some truth to what you are saying, but there’s a few facts that need to be dealt with.
One – most people would know how to get some cocaine if they needed it. Some people wouldn’t but they’d be in the minority. I’ve never touched the stuff, but if I wanted to, I’d know where to go.
Two – I agree that the story looks suss, but you only get sentenced on the crime you are charged with. It’s why Al Capone got done for tax evasion. Even if common sense says he was (allegedly) more involved than just buying some for his mates, that’s all they’ve got him on, and you can’t impose a sentence because, yeah he was probably a bit more into it than that.
And in my opinion, drink driving, assaults and sexual vilification of women are a far more damaging and urgent issue for the AFL and any sport than recreational drug use. Those 3 have the potential to cause damage to others, recreational drug use is more or less just damage to the user.
Michael C said | February 8th 2010 @ 8:41am | Report comment
Moonface – “And why would someone from out of town know to ask Stokes to get some drugs or who told him to go and see Stokes.”
the people from out of town happened to be some of his mates from the Northern Territory who were visiting……so, whom else would they ask.
btw – Annabelle’s answer is pretty true – - footballers would probably have a pretty fair idea of where to get drugs if they wanted.
glocko87 said | February 5th 2010 @ 6:07pm | Report comment
Thanks for the feedback guys. Definitely an error on Stokes’ behalf, but so many others escape punishment it’s ridiculous. Double standards galore!!
bever fever said | February 5th 2010 @ 9:14pm | Report comment
Stokes is pretty stupid, if he was really a dealer he would have said that the gram was for him, he is a very naughty boy.
Moonface said | February 5th 2010 @ 10:37pm | Report comment
You’ve got it the wrong way around bever.
Procuring drugs for someone else is dealing.
Consuming it yourself is personal use.
glocko,
the rules for players is always different than the general public and stokes signed a contract which includes guidelines about taking drugs.
bever fever said | February 6th 2010 @ 12:26am | Report comment
“Procuring drugs for someone else is dealing.
Consuming it yourself is personal use”.
Correct MF, what i am saying is that if he really was a dealer he would have known to say it was for personal use (to lighten the sentence/punishment), the kid is really dumb, tried to look like the big man on campus and get his mates some good stuff.
Wrong place, wrong time…. big life lesson time….hope he bounces back, everyone makes mistakes.
elbusto said | February 6th 2010 @ 9:46am | Report comment
I disagree totally. Crims are pretty dumb you know. In my experience most do not have the common sense to say anything clever when caught in the act. Could it be your view is tainted by the fact that this involves an AFL player and therefore he could not possibly be a drug dealer?
bever fever said | February 6th 2010 @ 3:26pm | Report comment
I disagree totally back, … happy now.
Mattay said | February 8th 2010 @ 8:41am | Report comment
You’ve never watched The Wire, have you? Yes I know it’s fiction but I think there’s some truth in that crims, especially those involved with drugs, know how to play the game and what to say and what not to say when they get caught.
But we are getting a bit off track here …
Rabbitz said | February 6th 2010 @ 6:46am | Report comment
Some of these replies are the basis for a big part of the problem that these players are having. Throughout the media we see all sorts of excuses for criminal behaviour by sports players, from “it was just a brain snap” or “others get away with it” etc.
Is it any surprise when these over-indulged, pampered specimens believe they are above the law? Last year a league player asked the courts to allow his club to punish him – exactly how did he get so confused to think that the club could do the job of the courts? Because excuses are always being made for these “heroes”.
I have personally copped the “don’t you know who I am?” line. This was inside the apartment building I live in, when the hero in question was trying the break into an apartment (it turns out it was another players unit and was above board). I asked him what he was doing and who he was. The angry reply was “don’t you know who I am?” to which I said “actually no I don’t, should I?”. Which seemed to be upset about. (Turns out he was a second string NRL player, for a team that I really don’t follow so what were the chances?)
The perception privilege and power that some sports players have is as a direct result of the closed world in which they live. The clubs and associations try to educate them about the real world (at least they tell us they do). Maybe they should take greater steps like making the players who make these stupid decisions experience the real world. Make them work or volunteer in the real world – remove the pampering and privilege.
Gibbo said | February 8th 2010 @ 1:14pm | Report comment
well i reckon if it was just some joe rather than a footy player who’d been busted “trafficking” a single gram he’d probably be up for community service at the most, so you might get your wish.