Geelong Cat to front court on drug charges

[Patronus]

from the link
"These sanctions do not speak to Mathew Stokes guilt or innocence on the charges issued by the Victoria Police on Wednesday, and will stand regardless of the outcome of those charges."

What rubbish, they did not sanction him if they thought he was not guilty of the police charges. Basically a PR move to keep the AFL and media off their backs. If the sanctions are there because he brought Geelongs name into disrepute , well say that. If he is found not guilty , how can the sanctions stand...where is the players union screaming about natural justice.

Because they reacted differently when Johnson was picked up for he cops for being drunk?

 

[jimmy35]

I think the Cats have handled it very well. Hope Stokes can get it together and play some good footy again.


Lot of people wanting a young blokes career ruined just because he doesn't play for your side. It's a mistake, we all make them, hopefully he will learn his lesson.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

If found guilty of possession, I'd suggest this young fellow may find himself out of the AFL permanently.

I think there are two issues at play here: Precedent and Finance.

.

I think if he is guilty of trafficking - he's gone

However - for Cousins - he didn't need to be found guilty - he admitted drug use - and hence at some stage possession would be implied.

No way has Stokes been as bad as Cousins - he hasn't made a fool out of himself by doing stupid things repetitively. I reckon the penalty may be 12 weeks by the AFL - however the reality is - i don't see him back before rd 12 anyway.

Anyway - i still love Cuzz - his arrest in northbridge was nothing short of spectacular!!

 

[the_interloper]

Well you'd assume he'll get the minimum 4 years if done for trafficking cause it's at the lowest end of the trafficking scale, getting a gram for a mate is pretty petty. But that would make him 29 (?) by then and you'd reckon he wouldn't be back.

And would that ban him from playing in local leagues? They don't have to adhere to the WADA code i'm assuming?

 

[MAXIMUM GRUNDAGE]

Suspended until round 8.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/89311/default.aspx

 

[Off The Couch]

So I presume this club suspension is for having the conversation with the drug dealer in the first place

 

[Public Enemy No1]

Laughable all the 'pats on the back' for Geelong......because no-one at the club knew he was dealing drugs

Waited till he got busted until they acted...The irony is staggering considering the abuse WC got over Cousins who was suspended from the club before he was caught.

 

[vinum coupe]

Proud of the club.
Didn't over react early, and yet they have hit him hard (assuming he is innocent) If he is guilty then another power will take care of that.

You'd hope he was just an idiot and used a contact to help a mate. If he was a greater idiot then he serves himself right.

I like the slant towards making him understand how annoyed the club is and giving him a chance to make up for it. (again, assuming he is innocent of being 'into' coke)

 

[tek87]

Geelong condone drug trafficking - 8 weeks. weak as. should have been indefinite and wait for the case to be resolved. then come down hard any how. shame geelong shame

 

[Satan]

I hear there is a job going as a bouncer at a geelong hotel

 

[On the Boyle]

No way has Stokes been as bad as Cousins

Agreed, but my point is that the AFL have to appear tough on drugs, so they'll have to hand him a hefty penalty AND he's not anywhere near the player Cousins is/was.

Stokes isn't a bad player, but he's not good enough to overlook past indiscretions and possible supporter backlash by bringing him back to Geelong or trading him to another team.

He'll be tarred with the 'Druggie' brush, and he's not a good enough player for people to overlook that when he tries to return to footy.

 

[JUBJUB]

Geelong condone drug trafficking - 8 weeks. weak as. should have been indefinite and wait for the case to be resolved. then come down hard any how. shame geelong shame

Yes precious we get it you're pissed off because Geelong is successful and Freo and flops.You can give it a rest now.

 

[absfab]

Laughable all the 'pats on the back' for Geelong......because no-one at the club knew he was dealing drugs

Waited till he got busted until they acted...The irony is staggering considering the abuse WC got over Cousins who was suspended from the club before he was caught.

The laughable thing is that you could expect anybody to swallow that line as an accurate representation of what happened.

 

[Julie_L]

In most 'professional organisations', which the AFL/Geelong pretend to be, anyone charged with drug trafficking would be sacked on the spot.

 

[azyboy]

Agreed, but my point is that the AFL have to appear tough on drugs, so they'll have to hand him a hefty penalty AND he's not anywhere near the player Cousins is/was.

Stokes isn't a bad player, but he's not good enough to overlook past indiscretions and possible supporter backlash by bringing him back to Geelong or trading him to another team.

He'll be tarred with the 'Druggie' brush, and he's not a good enough player for people to overlook that when he tries to return to footy.

If the trafficking charge is quashed, and he is convicted of possession, I get the impression from AAs comments in the press that the AFL will not be looking to impose an additional ban on Stokes outside that of which the club imposed.

Let's remember that the AFL 3 strikes policy allows for players to be caught in possession of a banned substance and yet only face counselling measures (no suspension - at least on the first occassion). I'd find it slightly hypocritical if they were to impose an additional ban, if Stokes only faces one charge of possession.

 

[azyboy]

In most 'professional organisations', which the AFL/Geelong pretend to be, anyone charged with drug trafficking would be sacked on the spot.

Actually, contrary to popular opinion, the law states that you are entitled to a presumption of innocence until guilt is proven. As such, someone within the workforce facing a similar charge would likely be stood down indefinitely pending the results of the criminal proceedings.

 

[FuManchu]

Laughable all the 'pats on the back' for Geelong......because no-one at the club knew he was dealing drugs

Waited till he got busted until they acted...The irony is staggering considering the abuse WC got over Cousins who was suspended from the club before he was caught.

What a lot of crap, Geelong acted almost immediately, West Coast knew Cousins was using for years and allowed him to keep playing, turning a blind eye, endangering Cousins' health, all for the sake of a flag.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

If the trafficking charge is quashed, and he is convicted of possession, I get the impression from AAs comments in the press that the AFL will not be looking to impose an additional ban on Stokes outside that of which the club imposed.

Let's remember that the AFL 3 strikes policy allows for players to be caught in possession of a banned substance and yet only face counselling measures (no suspension - at least on the first occassion). I'd find it slightly hypocritical if they were to impose an additional ban, if Stokes only faces one charge of possession.

Well said.

Hopefully for Stokes and Geelongs case, the 12 weeks or so between now and when the suspension is lifted is enough time for the Police to realise they have gone way to far with this trafficking charge and that it will never stick.

 

[FuManchu]

Well said.

Hopefully for Stokes and Geelongs case, the 12 weeks or so between now and when the suspension is lifted is enough time for the Police to realise they have gone way to far with this trafficking charge and that it will never stick.

In general, the police dont lay charges unless they feel they have a case that will stand up in court. What happens after the charges are laid in terms of bargaining is a different matter. The prosecutor likes the cases to proceed with a minimum of fuss and will downgrade to save time and money. A lot of it depends on how hardball the defence lawyers will play and in this case, I am assuming they will play hardball, Stokes will be well represented. I'd say Stokes wasnt their primary target but collateral damage.

But lets face it, if he has already admitted to saying he was just a conduit for the transaction to occur, then in reality, thats trafficking.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

We'll have to wait and see what happens.

But charges do get dropped all the time.

While saying he was buying for a mate was a pretty stupid thing to say, it doesnt make him a trafficker. Its less than the prescribed amount that is usually defined as "traffickable amount", and from what I have read, there was no profit made on the "transaction". Trafficking usually implies the generation of illicit profits of a material nature, not spotting a mate for a few hundred bucks.

It would be extremely unfair/unlucky for Stokes to lose his career over this as the facts have been reported. Of course we wont know the full story or if there is any further evidence yet to be presented that may be more damning.

Stokes career hinges on a legal technicality. There doesnt seem to be any middle ground.

 

[FuManchu]

We'll have to wait and see what happens.

But charges do get dropped all the time.

While saying he was buying for a mate was a pretty stupid thing to say, it doesnt make him a trafficker. Its less than the prescribed amount that is usually defined as "traffickable amount", and from what I have read, there was no profit made on the "transaction". Trafficking usually implies the generation of illicit profits of a material nature, not spotting a mate for a few hundred bucks.

It would be extremely unfair/unlucky for Stokes to lose his career over this as the facts have been reported. Of course we wont know the full story or if there is any further evidence yet to be presented that may be more damning.

Stokes career hinges on a legal technicality. There doesnt seem to be any middle ground.

I do agree, it would be a harsh penalty.

 

[footyfreak]

I'm happy with the club's response. It's a tough sanction on many levels, but also should help Stokes rehabilitate.

what has he got to rehabilitate from??

He bought a gram of Charlie for a mate, or himself?

How do you rehabilitate someone for such a minor thing that whilst is illegal is so common place these days?

He is the unluckiest bastard going around. Was unfortunate that his dealer was under the pump and the cops were pure f'ing pricks using his name and fame for their own benefit.

 

[tek87]

Only the gullible believe he is not a user or a pusher for all his mates. A total embarrassment and bringing humanity into disrepute.

 

[Public Enemy No1]

What a lot of crap, Geelong acted almost immediately, West Coast knew Cousins was using for years and allowed him to keep playing, turning a blind eye, endangering Cousins' health, all for the sake of a flag.

OMG embarressing.....How the hell would you know what Geelong knew ??And for how long
Yet another spoon fed muppet...yes he was buying it for a friend...once off apparently...does not use it himself just breaks the law and buys it for mates

 

[FuManchu]

OMG embarressing.....How the hell would you know what Geelong knew ??And for how long
Yet another spoon fed muppet...yes he was buying it for a friend...once off apparently...does not use it himself just breaks the law and buys it for mates

The offence occured on the 19th of January, he was charged a week or so later, Geelong suspended him the same day ( or next day) he was charged.

West Coast were warned by the cops years before the Cousins things reached its peak.