High Pies fly under the radar

I agree with jax and he does bring up some good points.It is pretty odd they'd take cocaine at a training camp,in another country.

Read the following to find about 6 Collimgwood players that self-reported their drug use. Anyone that thinks these are isolated incidents should keep reading, I wonder how many didn't self-report? We have 800 players in the AFL system. In 2013 there were 1,979 tests at an average of 2.47 tests per player, per year. Firstly, we need to agree that the chances of actually getting caught are so small that it's not even worth bothering referring to the number of players caught because so few get tested. When you consider that they target some players more than others eg if you've been caught previously you are regularly targeted so simple maths tells us that some players may not be tested for 1 or 2 years or possibly longer. People that say - only 26 players tested positive last year don't understand the fine print and how numbers and statistics can be skewed to show almost anything that you want them to. http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-06-06/positive-drug-tests-down and here's another article. "No player will ever get three strikes under this system," the medico stated as fact. When asked how this would be the case, the medico said he had asked questions of people in charge of the program and he had been led to believe that certain players who had recorded strikes would be removed from the “official” program and instead be subjected to testing outside of it, which would not be officially recorded against him in the event of a subsequent “positive” test. Then the facts rolled in to back up that claim. There was a Hawthorn player who said he was unable to provide a urine test for a Dorevitch tester in the early days of this so-called drugs policy. The tester waited and waited until he could wait no longer and let the player escaped without a test. There were up to six Collingwood footballers who used another loophole, when they "self-reported" after a night out, because they knew that to do so would not allow a "strike" to be recorded against their names. And a court has heard that twice in early September last year that Hunt, while still an AFL contracted player, purchased cocaine around times when he was in the company of multiple Suns teammates; the first time being the club's Mad Monday break-up and the second being a golf tour on the Sunshine Coast. http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-04-09/drugs-policy-strikes-out

I forgot to add that one of them has a Brownlow and another is a very well known TV commentator and I'm not talking about Carey. I also know of one incident where the official story was the opposite of the one that I saw with my own eyes. I was there when the drug was taken. That's one reason why I am wary of believing the official story. I've seen players take them too many times to be so trusting. I can't prove it of course because I would never speak out in any detail that could link anyone back to the players. Each person is free to come to their own conclusions.

Stop being so naive. All teams have players on their list that have tried recreational drugs. I've seen players from four different clubs taking drugs and they include a All-Australians, B&F winners and a vice-captain. When you know people that own nightclubs and are connected to entertainment industry you get invited to all sorts of events and you see all manner of things. Anyone that thinks there club doesn't have at least one player on their list that has tried a recreational drug is kidding themselves. Dale Lewis came out many years ago and said exactly the same thing.

A little insensitive the title is... But I also think they're nowhere near the same level as the Bombers saga. This involved two players of relative importance to the Magpies team. The Essendon drama involved the entire playing list (from the period in question), and major reputations like James Hird, Jobe Watson and Dank being dragged through the mud.

You ignored the points that I corrected you on and went off on a tangent of oughtn't without considering the context of the ought eg you said that the Pies were talking with the players the whole time but I corrected you by saying that the Pies have stated on multiple occasions that they have had no direct contact with the players since they were cited. I said ought because we have a different version of events and that can be settled by conducting an independent investigation which is something they ought to do. Some people are happy for things to be swept under carpet and they often believe the official story in a heartbeat. It would be a boring world if we all had the same thoughts so that's ok.

Read my last sentence for the answer

Clenbuterol is also a powerful decongestant – perhaps it’s helpful when snorting cocaine to help alleviate some of the discomfort you get in your nasal cavity from your nose running. That’s an educated guess, nothing more. But it seems logical.

Is your viewpoint based on evidence or have you just imagined all this? If based on evidence, what is it?

Mate, spare the semantics. Painfully obvious to everyone (except you) that banned does not equal illicit. There is a distinct difference between the two hence my use of different terminology to describe them. Why is it a massive problem for Collingwood? Have you any evidence that anyone other O'Keefe and Thomas was doing drugs? How do you know it's not 2 bad eggs in an otherwise pristine carton of them?

Most of your argument is one giant ought. There ought to be more attention paid to this. Collingwood ought to be investigated. The players ought to be asked more questions. The reality is it’s not a massive story, case closed. Thomas and O’Keefe will be redrafted once their suspension is up, assuming they continue to work hard and remain keen to play AFL, and they may carve out further and probably not all that notable careers in the AFL. Might play another 50-100 odd games before being delisted/retiring, if they’re lucky. Life goes on. Take a deep breath.

"This was not a case of players deliberately ingesting banned substances." Well, it was. Just that the "banned" in this case refers to the law rather than due to their employment. I have to wonder why two players would be looking for cocaine during pre-season. That is a massive problem for them and the club.

The club handled this extremely well from a point of view of protecting the Collingwood brand. The way they downplayed the perils of taking illicit drugs as opposed to performance enhancing drugs was pretty poor. This was a great opportunity to re-inforce the dangers of ilicit drugs, yet, i felt it was almost perceived that in this case, they were just unlucky to be caught because the PED was cut in with the ilicit drugs. they had no idea that tkaing ilicit drugs could derails their career. Ilicit drugs derail the careers and lives of people every day-in ways much worse than what has happened to them. I don't get it. these kids are in such a priveliged situation and choose to be careful about every ounce of food and fluid that goes into their body, yet they are willing to ingest something that they have no idea of its contents, origin or consequences.

Why would anyone would cut cocaine with clenbuterol? Can someone explain to me why they wouldn't use the far less expensive and much easier to obtain cutting agents like milk powder or flour? Why use a steroid which costs more and is harder to obtain? An NRL player was caught with clenbuterol and used the same excuse that the Pies players did so there was a precedent that they could review when determining what their response would be. I'm not an expert on cutting agetns by any means but this isn't adding up. http://www.rxmuscle.com/rx-chem/chemical-enhancement-articles/141-clenbuterol-the-non-steroidal-muscle-builder-and-fat-burner.html

Yes it would have been a strike

"The intent was to consume illicit recreational drugs, which happened to (unknowingly to them) also contain a banned substance." If you believe what they are saying then yes, I don't. The tests happened at a pre-season training camp which would be the perfect time to take tem as it increases your training loads. Who did they buy the 'illicit drugs' from and was it in NZ? Has anyone asked them where they got them from? Why aren't more questions being asked and why aren't we being told? "The reason performance enhancing drugs was out of the spotlight would be because Collingwood knew full well from what O’Keefe and Thomas told them behind closed doors as to how the drugs got into their system. So they knew very early on how this happened." Then everyone at Collingwood has lied because he Pies state they didn't talk the players once after they were cited. If the Pies lied then there should be an investigation and if guilty they should at least be fined for bringing the game into disrepute and for lying to the Commission and the public. Read my points on this further up the page, "I really think you’re reading too much into this." Two players were caught with performance enhancing drugs in their system during a pre-season training camp. We aren't looking into this anywhere near enough IMO. "There’s absolutely no correlation between Collingwood & Essendon in this – the only common ground is banned substances." AFL leaks is another, as is the media coverage of both events. One club is getting hammered from all directions while the other is attracting very little attention. There is a big difference in player numbers however 2 v 34 I get that but there are a number of inconsistentcies in how both cases have been handled. "I’m not surprised Collingwood kept this low key, because there’s really not much of a story to it at all." Two players caught with performance enhancing drugs in their system is a massive story. If you believe the 'official story' then you will disagree with my assessment of course and that's fine. I wouldn't be so quick to believe that story however but maybe that's just me.

"Our commitment to re-draft them says much about the regard that we have for them.” It might also suggest that a back room deal was concocted. I watched Buckley on AFL 360 last night. I'm paraphrasing but it went something like this - we didn't talk to the players after they were cited. The players dealt with their lawyers and the they advised them on how to respond to the allegations. The lawyers informed us of their decision when they reached a decision. Lawyers know how to circumvent laws, that's their job, I'm not buying their reason. It's quite possible that a back room deal was reached eg say it was illicit drugs and we will redraft you and let's keep quiet about it and it will all go away. Eddie will ensure that the media goes easy on you and the club. The AFL will ensure that there aren't any leaks but will they will keep leaking info on the Bombers. I can't be certain of all of this of course but I'm not blindly believing what we are being told either.

Again – you need to look at intent. This was not a case of players deliberately ingesting banned substances. The intent was to consume illicit recreational drugs, which happened to (unknowingly to them) also contain a banned substance. The reason performance enhancing drugs was out of the spotlight would be because Collingwood knew full well from what O’Keefe and Thomas told them behind closed doors as to how the drugs got into their system. So they knew very early on how this happened. I really think you’re reading too much into this. There’s absolutely no correlation between Collingwood & Essendon in this – the only common ground is banned substances. The circumstances are chasms apart, and I’m not surprised Collingwood kept this low key, because there’s really not much of a story to it at all. Just a sad precautionary tale for other players.

Heh, "High pies". That's a good one.