AFL drugs charge

[Bum Crack]

Geez you blokes are harsh. When has racking a few lines ever hurt anybody??? He might get sent to the reserves for a couple of months and come back and do a Stevie J now. Could be a blessing in disguise

Charged with possessing and trafficking. Bit more to it then a few lines B C. If proven to be guilty I don't think the Stevie J punishment would be applicable. Send him to Richmond

Yeah, I was only being sarcastic anyway. Pity he didn't get busted before trade week. We may have been able to swap him for a half decent player

[redden whites]

well that might explain his 08 grand final embarrassment.

[Booney]

I think he should be in more trouble for trafficking that bloody moustache.

[CK]

Statement from CEO Brian Cook:

Geelong’s Mathew Stokes was today charged by police with one count of possession and one count of trafficking of cocaine.

“We are disappointed by the turn of events today,” Geelong CEO Brian Cook said.

“Given the gravity of the charges the club has decided that Mathew will be stood down from all club activity as we attempt to gather all the facts in this matter.

“This is not a rush to judgement but a reflection on the seriousness of the situation. It is important for Mathew that he deals with legal issues at hand as his first priority.

“As we have in the past, the club will not rush to formulate a long term determination of any penalty. Mathew is obviously very upset by what has happened and we will give him a little time to gather his thoughts and then we will sit down with him and work through the situation.

“The club has been in contact with the AFL throughout the day to ensure they have been kept informed.

“When there is any update to this situation the club will make further statement.”

Stokes was released on bail following the hearing. He is scheduled to reappear in court on 12 March

[Bum Crack]

What exactly does trafficking actually entail? If he is dealing, he deserves to get the arse, but if just possession only and they have thrown in the trafficking as he was maybe trying to hide it so he didn't get busted, that would be a bit harsh to sack him. Why is possession any different to testing positive to taking cocaine? Only difference, is if he tested positive to taking cocaine, it would have been kept confidential by the AFL until the third strike rule and nobody would know about it?? Unfortunately for Mr Stokes, it has gone public.

[Barto]

I wish Freo players were on the gear.

[Wedgie]

As I said on the "Its Linga" thread its very simple for me.
If he's found guilty then sack him, he can tell his story walking. I'd be extremely disappointed as he was one of my favourite players and my children idolised him, I'm also distantly related to him but I wouldn't want any scum guilty of that to be at any of my clubs especially as my cousins son is now at Geelong. The AFL would probably do it anyway as it would bring the game into disrepute.
If he's found not guilty of any offence then play on.
If he's found not guilty but found guilty of a lesser offence, cross that bridge if/when we get to it, I'm not sure but the AFL may or may not have rules covering that.

[Voice]

What exactly does trafficking actually entail? If he is dealing, he deserves to get the arse, but if just possession only and they have thrown in the trafficking as he was maybe trying to hide it so he didn't get busted, that would be a bit harsh to sack him. Why is possession any different to testing positive to taking cocaine? Only difference, is if he tested positive to taking cocaine, it would have been kept confidential by the AFL until the third strike rule and nobody would know about it?? Unfortunately for Mr Stokes, it has gone public.

Trafficking would be relating to the fact that they have linked cash they found as being 'proceedes' from the Cocaine. So basically saying they suspect he has been dealing it. They do this if it is a reasonably large amount that they find + cash, saying that it can't be for personal use as the quantity found is over a paticular amount.

[rod_rooster]

Interesting that some Cats supporters are seemingly brushing this aside and suggesting this isn't that bad yet when other high profile players from other clubs are not charged with any offence or have been proven to have done anything wrong they jump all over it like a dog with a bone

Wedgie i am not referring to you for what it's worth.

[Wedgie]

What exactly does trafficking actually entail? If he is dealing, he deserves to get the arse, but if just possession only and they have thrown in the trafficking as he was maybe trying to hide it so he didn't get busted, that would be a bit harsh to sack him. Why is possession any different to testing positive to taking cocaine? Only difference, is if he tested positive to taking cocaine, it would have been kept confidential by the AFL until the third strike rule and nobody would know about it?? Unfortunately for Mr Stokes, it has gone public.

Trafficking would be relating to the fact that they have linked cash they found as being 'proceedes' from the Cocaine. So basically saying they suspect he has been dealing it. They do this if it is a reasonably large amount that they find + cash, saying that it can't be for personal use as the quantity found is over a paticular amount.

I would assume if you're caught in possession with any amount that is deemed to be more than you'd have for personal use it may be classed as trafficking.
I'm not really fussed though, if he's guilty of any of the above definitions he can hit the road as far as I'm concerned.

[Voice]

What exactly does trafficking actually entail? If he is dealing, he deserves to get the arse, but if just possession only and they have thrown in the trafficking as he was maybe trying to hide it so he didn't get busted, that would be a bit harsh to sack him. Why is possession any different to testing positive to taking cocaine? Only difference, is if he tested positive to taking cocaine, it would have been kept confidential by the AFL until the third strike rule and nobody would know about it?? Unfortunately for Mr Stokes, it has gone public.

Trafficking would be relating to the fact that they have linked cash they found as being 'proceedes' from the Cocaine. So basically saying they suspect he has been dealing it. They do this if it is a reasonably large amount that they find + cash, saying that it can't be for personal use as the quantity found is over a paticular amount.

I would assume if you're caught in possession with any amount that is deemed to be more than you'd have for personal use it may be classed as trafficking.
I'm not really fussed though, if he's guilty of any of the above definitions he can hit the road as far as I'm concerned.

Not only should he hit the road but he should be looking at a jail term if any dealing can be proven. Anything less and the fact that high profile people get less then the general public will ensure that mine and many others view on the justice system will drop dramatically futher.

[Bum Crack]

Interesting that some Cats supporters are seemingly brushing this aside and suggesting this isn't that bad yet when other high profile players from other clubs are not charged with any offence or have been proven to have done anything wrong they jump all over it like a dog with a bone

Wedgie i am not referring to you for what it's worth.

I was just saying it would be harsh if he got the arse for possession. if he does get the arse, i won;t be losing sleep over it. there needs to be some consistency i reckon. make it a one strike and you're out rule for testing positive then. if they are testing positive, they are in possession. what's the difference?

[Dirko]

Interesting that some Cats supporters are seemingly brushing this aside and suggesting this isn't that bad yet when other high profile players from other clubs are not charged with any offence or have been proven to have done anything wrong they jump all over it like a dog with a bone

Wedgie i am not referring to you for what it's worth.

[Wedgie]

I've read somewhere that its been alleged he was buying it for a 3rd party. Some would classify that as drug dealing but I'm not sure how the law works if only one person is involved.

[nuggety goodness]

Statement from CEO Brian Cook:

Geelong’s Mathew Stokes was today charged by police with one count of possession and one count of trafficking of cocaine.

“We are disappointed by the turn of events today,” Geelong CEO Brian Cook said.

“Given the gravity of the charges the club has decided that Mathew will be stood down from all club activity as we attempt to gather all the facts in this matter.

“This is not a rush to judgement but a reflection on the seriousness of the situation. It is important for Mathew that he deals with legal issues at hand as his first priority.

“As we have in the past, the club will not rush to formulate a long term determination of any penalty. Mathew is obviously very upset by what has happened and we will give him a little time to gather his thoughts and then we will sit down with him and work through the situation.

“The club has been in contact with the AFL throughout the day to ensure they have been kept informed.

“When there is any update to this situation the club will make further statement.”

Stokes was released on bail following the hearing. He is scheduled to reappear in court on 12 March

the one thing that i think of in all of this is, yeah, he is upset by it. Of course he is, but he's only upset cos he got caught... if he wasn't caught out he would go on doing the same thing knwing full well what he was doing was wrong but getting away with it.

[Voice]

I've read somewhere that its been alleged he was buying it for a 3rd party. Some would classify that as drug dealing but I'm not sure how the law works if only one person is involved.

If he's moving it, no matter which way he moves it (i.e. buying for someone else) that is classified as dealing by law. He will be required to name the person from which he bought it in the first place or face stiffer penalties. Sticky situation Matty!
Btw, I'm surprised no-one has used the joke, 'STOKING up the crack pipe' yet

[Strawb]

On channel 2 news Adrian Anderson came on and said he could be suspended for 4 years or life depending on the situation. I dunno but I will wait and see what happens with this before commenting.

[Ian]

I've read somewhere that its been alleged he was buying it for a 3rd party. Some would classify that as drug dealing but I'm not sure how the law works if only one person is involved.

If you buy it for someone else it is still trafficking, even if you give it to them rather than sell it to them. Allegedly he purchased it for a mate/s from Darwin and was caught because his phone conversations were recorded while a drug ring was being investigated.

AFL penalty for trafficking: Min 4 years ban , Max Life ban

[Hondo]

Sounds like the end of his AFL career

[The Sleeping Giant]

Sounds to me like he was just being a "good mate". Highly unlikely he would go to jail if found guilty. Suspend him, fine him, but a life ban is a bit extreme.