TOPIC:

jardine wrote: So is it just accepted he took a painkiller because that is what he said he did? Or is it concrete 100% proof he took this painkiller. Is the painkiller in question just a convenient answer under the circumstances, like an international cricketer who uses his own mother as the alleged source of an illegal dhioretic, or a footballer caught with cocaine only to say he was holding it for a freind. It seems a common theme that when sport stars are pinged, there is an immediate answer to the allegation ready and waiting in their back pockets.

In this day and age, and with the countless knowledge AFL players have about not taking a substance of any kind under any circumstance without checking first, how is it possible even a player with the most limited intellect, could possibly overlook this most basic of basic rules. Either way now, he has a real battle ahead and I feel we may not see him play AFL again. Just another bloody waste.

Even a sharp as a bowling ball Victorian from the Vic League playing for Fremantle could come up with a half decent excuse when you have had well over 6 months to come up with one!!

he needed to engage some lawyers as well I see, not club ones.
think that tells a tale.

What we are going to see here is the hypocrisy of the AFL and ASADA at work. Crowley, because he stands alone will be shown no mercy and cop the mandatory sentence of two years for taking a pain killer while the whole Essendon football club driven by their senior coach implemented a supplements program designed to allow their players to bulk up and train harder and ASADA looks likely to offer a slap with a feather and back date it even though the Essendon players have not missed a game.

These sport governing bodies are a complete joke. Bottom line is, one player being banned does not impact the competition and won't impact Fremantle greatly, but banning the bulk of a whole football team will have a massive effect on the competitions bottom line so a back room deal is cut.

[quote="DD"
These sport governing bodies are a complete joke. Bottom line is, one player being banned does not impact the competition and won't impact Fremantle greatly, but banning the bulk of a whole football team will have a massive effect on the competitions bottom line so a back room deal is cut.[/quote]
ASADA doesn't cut deals. Maybe the AFL does.

mikeh wrote:

jardine wrote: I feel for the bloke. Regardless of people's opinions or suspicions, having an AFL career is something most of us have only ever dreamed about. To potentially lose it like this, is just gut wrenching for him. But it is what it is. There isn't much negotiation if samples are confirmed. I still can't understand why he was allowed to play finals last year. Given he got done in round 17. Can anyone enlighten me ??

This is from the AFL website

Crowley's positive sample was taken after Fremantle's round 17 clash against Greater Western Sydney on July 13.

According to a timeline released by the AFL, that sample wasn't tested until August 11. Crowley was notified of a positive 'A' sample result for a 'specified' substance on August 18.

His 'B' sample was tested on September 11 and he received a show-cause notice on September 18 - five days after Fremantle's last game of the 2014 season.

Under the AFL Anti-Doping Code, a player who tests positive to a specified substance may, if they choose, continue to play and train as normal until the result of an Anti-Doping Tribunal.

Crowley kept playing until the end of the season and accepted a provisional suspension, which started on September 25 last year.

The testing of Crowley's 'B' sample was the reason for the delay in issuing the infraction. Crowley himself wasn't formally notified he had tested positive until September, after the Dockers' season had ended at the hands of Port Adelaide.

It's a bloody joke it took so long and surprise surprise, the timing just happens to allow him to play the season out and serve 6 month sof his suspension in the off season, complete joke.

anyway at 31, unlikely he will play on again after this year.

MarkOlsen wrote: he needed to engage some lawyers as well I see, not club ones.
think that tells a tale.

Yep the purple haze dropped him like a hot spud, not us, Not us!

DD wrote: What we are going to see here is the hypocrisy of the AFL and ASADA at work. Crowley, because he stands alone will be shown no mercy and cop the mandatory sentence of two years for taking a pain killer while the whole Essendon football club driven by their senior coach implemented a supplements program designed to allow their players to bulk up and train harder and ASADA looks likely to offer a slap with a feather and back date it even though the Essendon players have not missed a game.

These sport governing bodies are a complete joke. Bottom line is, one player being banned does not impact the competition and won't impact Fremantle greatly, but banning the bulk of a whole football team will have a massive effect on the competitions bottom line so a back room deal is cut.

Massive difference is he tested positive DD.

MarkOlsen wrote:
he needed to engage some lawyers as well I see, not club ones.
think that tells a tale.

Bazza wrote Yep the purple haze dropped him like a hot spud, not us, Not us!

Well obviously it wasn't Freo, Crowley took it on himself to go outside the club.

JB wrote: MarkOlsen wrote:
he needed to engage some lawyers as well I see, not club ones.
think that tells a tale.

Bazza wrote Yep the purple haze dropped him like a hot spud, not us, Not us!

Well obviously it wasn't Freo, Crowley took it on himself to go outside the club.

Yep they are making sure its all clean for the purple now, somewhat strange seeings they have known for months, told porkies to try and cover and now only because he wasn't able to play in preseason games decided the game was up!

Rosich banged on about confidentiality etc, well it wasnt to confidential during the press conference was it, joke.

I wonder if Crowley took advice from the golden boy, seeing as though Freo got him from esserden