Re: INS and OUTS for 2019
Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 1:53 pm
Maybe Josh Glenn isn't an "out" as he has just avoided a jail term for a drunken assault.
PatowalongaPirate wrote:Maybe Josh Glenn isn't an "out" as he has just avoided a jail term for a drunken assault.
GMcG wrote:PatowalongaPirate wrote:Maybe Josh Glenn isn't an "out" as he has just avoided a jail term for a drunken assault.
would anyone with any morals take him now?
GMcG wrote:PatowalongaPirate wrote:Maybe Josh Glenn isn't an "out" as he has just avoided a jail term for a drunken assault.
would anyone with any morals take him now?
Under the relevant policy (presuming the SANFL is the same as the AFL in this field) there has to be a hearing before the relevant Tribunal if there is a positive game-day test. They can't just be taken out the back and quietly told, 'don't try to register next year'. Is there any confirmation that this test result occurred?cennals05 wrote:Is everyone forgetting about the failed game day test? Not sure he will be able to play football anywhere.
SimonH wrote:Under the relevant policy (presuming the SANFL is the same as the AFL in this field) there has to be a hearing before the relevant Tribunal if there is a positive game-day test. They can't just be taken out the back and quietly told, 'don't try to register next year'. Is there any confirmation that this test result occurred?cennals05 wrote:Is everyone forgetting about the failed game day test? Not sure he will be able to play football anywhere.
SimonH wrote:Okay, thanks. There should be a hearing in the off-season then. Worst-case scenario is 2 years (backdated), but I don't know how much discretion there is to impose a lesser penalty.
Totally different of course—like night and day in terms of sanction—if it was not a game-day test (and the illicit drug is a recreational one).
northerner wrote:SimonH wrote:Okay, thanks. There should be a hearing in the off-season then. Worst-case scenario is 2 years (backdated), but I don't know how much discretion there is to impose a lesser penalty.
Totally different of course—like night and day in terms of sanction—if it was not a game-day test (and the illicit drug is a recreational one).
Lets hypothetically suggest its a game day test and steroids is detected?
JK wrote:northerner wrote:SimonH wrote:Okay, thanks. There should be a hearing in the off-season then. Worst-case scenario is 2 years (backdated), but I don't know how much discretion there is to impose a lesser penalty.
Totally different of course—like night and day in terms of sanction—if it was not a game-day test (and the illicit drug is a recreational one).
Lets hypothetically suggest its a game day test and steroids is detected?
I’m no expert, but I think it’s a 4 year Max penalty. Other factors involved like how a player pleads, whether the B sample is required etc, I believe has a bearing on the term of penalty.
GMcG wrote:daysofourlives wrote:GMcG wrote:Groucho wrote:I take it you're at the B& F. Who won the Best & Fairest?
T. Schiller by a mile.
Nason gone too.
And pretty sure Butcher is leaving too. Might be a couple more as well
no rumours please, just facts.
GMcG wrote:you made the statement, you need to produce the facts.
Dutchy wrote:A few issues at South if you believe rumours
Dutchy wrote:A few issues at South if you believe rumours
daysofourlives wrote:GMcG wrote:you made the statement, you need to produce the facts.
Ive told you, not my problem if you dont believe me