12 month penalty - backdated to when he started his provisional suspension on Sep 25 2014
Yeah…
One year for someone who tested for a PED…
All the while, the saga continues.
Surely…
WADA will appeal.
He could play prelim/grand final if ross wanted him.
Yeah... One year for someone who tested for a PED... All the while, the saga continues.Surely…
WADA will appeal.
L O L.
He could play prelim/grand final if ross wanted him.
Just like last year.
Only one year? Didn’t Saad get two?
Yeah... One year for someone who tested for a PED... All the while, the saga continues.Surely…
WADA will appeal.L O L.
You know, I know, Dank knows, that they won’t appeal.
Only one year? Didn't Saad get two?
Saad was screwed royally.
Crowley has technically served 8 months on his ban when backdated. Potentially could be back playing for Freo before our saga is over.
12 month penalty - backdated to when he started his provisional suspension on Sep 25 2014
I hate being right in this instance
ASADA not appealing according to Sam Lane QC.
Happy for Crowley but it’s a joke compared to the Saad case
Crowley decision goes to show that this whole Essendon thing could be done and dusted if they'd just tested positive.
— AFL Integrity Unit (@IntegrityUnit) June 11, 2015
I think a year is quite a harsh penalty, but only because I don’t understand what benefit Crowley actually gained from the substance he tested positive to.
If, as a pain killer, it allowed him to play, then it’s in the performance enabling grey area.
If, as a masking agent, it masked something else, then what did it mask, and how did that help him?
I assume we’ll never find out because it doesn’t suit the narrative
I think a year is quite a harsh penalty, but only because I don't understand what benefit Crowley actually gained from the substance he tested positive to.If, as a pain killer, it allowed him to play, then it’s in the performance enabling grey area.
If, as a masking agent, it masked something else, then what did it mask, and how did that help him?
I assume we’ll never find out because it doesn’t suit the narrative
he’s lucky he tested positive to a banned substance. this could have dragged on for years.
zero farks given
I think a year is quite a harsh penalty, but only because I don't understand what benefit Crowley actually gained from the substance he tested positive to.If, as a pain killer, it allowed him to play, then it’s in the performance enabling grey area.
If, as a masking agent, it masked something else, then what did it mask, and how did that help him?
I assume we’ll never find out because it doesn’t suit the narrative
What he gained was the extra masking of high level pain by taking the banned pain killer. The rule is that if the injury was serious enough to require such a strong pain killer to mask the pain, then the injury was severe enough to prevent him playing.
This is under the protection of the well being of a player rule. You’re allowed to play under some low level pain as it’s deemed not injurious to health, but obviously more pain means greater injury.
And yes, it does fall in the performance enabling area.
Do you think that's harsh then?I think a year is quite a harsh penalty, but only because I don't understand what benefit Crowley actually gained from the substance he tested positive to.If, as a pain killer, it allowed him to play, then it’s in the performance enabling grey area.
If, as a masking agent, it masked something else, then what did it mask, and how did that help him?
I assume we’ll never find out because it doesn’t suit the narrative
What he gained was the extra masking of high level pain by taking the banned pain killer. The rule is that if the injury was serious enough to require such a strong pain killer to mask the pain, then the injury was severe enough to prevent him playing.This is under the protection of the well being of a player rule. You’re allowed to play under some low level pain as it’s deemed not injurious to health, but obviously more pain means greater injury.
And yes, it does fall in the performance enabling area.
One year for a performance enabling substance. If you do something wrong from a health and safety perspective in a normal job you might get a warning, kicked off site, or fired, but you wouldn’t be prevented from working in your profession for a whole year.
In other news the whole 2001 Brisbane premiership team have been given back dated suspensions for 13 years for using performance enabling substances during game day.
Yes I do think it's harsh. 12 months for pretty much failing to look after his own safety (is what it boils down to), is way, way over the top.Do you think that's harsh then?I think a year is quite a harsh penalty, but only because I don't understand what benefit Crowley actually gained from the substance he tested positive to.If, as a pain killer, it allowed him to play, then it’s in the performance enabling grey area.
If, as a masking agent, it masked something else, then what did it mask, and how did that help him?
I assume we’ll never find out because it doesn’t suit the narrative
What he gained was the extra masking of high level pain by taking the banned pain killer. The rule is that if the injury was serious enough to require such a strong pain killer to mask the pain, then the injury was severe enough to prevent him playing.This is under the protection of the well being of a player rule. You’re allowed to play under some low level pain as it’s deemed not injurious to health, but obviously more pain means greater injury.
And yes, it does fall in the performance enabling area.
One year for a performance enabling substance. If you do something wrong from a health and safety perspective in a normal job you might get a warning, kicked off site, or fired, but you wouldn’t be prevented from working in your profession for a whole year.
I know asada and the league don’t want to encourage this behaviour, so maybe 8 weeks would have been tons.
Yes I do think it's harsh. 12 months for pretty much failing to look after his own safety (is what it boils down to), is way, way over the top.Do you think that's harsh then?I think a year is quite a harsh penalty, but only because I don't understand what benefit Crowley actually gained from the substance he tested positive to.If, as a pain killer, it allowed him to play, then it’s in the performance enabling grey area.
If, as a masking agent, it masked something else, then what did it mask, and how did that help him?
I assume we’ll never find out because it doesn’t suit the narrative
What he gained was the extra masking of high level pain by taking the banned pain killer. The rule is that if the injury was serious enough to require such a strong pain killer to mask the pain, then the injury was severe enough to prevent him playing.This is under the protection of the well being of a player rule. You’re allowed to play under some low level pain as it’s deemed not injurious to health, but obviously more pain means greater injury.
And yes, it does fall in the performance enabling area.
One year for a performance enabling substance. If you do something wrong from a health and safety perspective in a normal job you might get a warning, kicked off site, or fired, but you wouldn’t be prevented from working in your profession for a whole year.
I know asada and the league don’t want to encourage this behaviour, so maybe 8 weeks would have been tons.
I think no suspension and they let him off but trash him constantly in the media for 3 years. Make him keep going through hearings and investigations for other ■■■■ he didn’t take.
I think a year is quite a harsh penalty, but only because I don't understand what benefit Crowley actually gained from the substance he tested positive to.If, as a pain killer, it allowed him to play, then it’s in the performance enabling grey area.
If, as a masking agent, it masked something else, then what did it mask, and how did that help him?
I assume we’ll never find out because it doesn’t suit the narrative
What he gained was the extra masking of high level pain by taking the banned pain killer. The rule is that if the injury was serious enough to require such a strong pain killer to mask the pain, then the injury was severe enough to prevent him playing.This is under the protection of the well being of a player rule. You’re allowed to play under some low level pain as it’s deemed not injurious to health, but obviously more pain means greater injury.
And yes, it does fall in the performance enabling area.
SO why is the substance only banned on match day.
Saad was exactly the same situation.