Karmichael Hunt charged with cocaine supply.

[TOCC]

"Cleared"?

Pocock pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of hindering workmen.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-...iction-over-maules-creek-mine-protest/6069082

Yes cleared, the charge was dismissed without conviction

The 26-year-old flanker pleaded guilty at Gunnedah Local Court to hindering a workman in use of property but the charge was dismissed without conviction, Australian Associated Press said.

http://australia.news.net/article/2809242/ex-wallaby-captain-pocock-escapes-conviction-for-protest

But he still got a letter and presumably would have been stood down if it had occurred in season and he hadn't been out injured.

"presumably" is the key word there, presumption isn't a precedence.
ARU could have stood him down, it would have been largely symbolic but they didn't, so as of recent history there is no precedence set on such issues.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

CRIMES (SENTENCING PROCEDURE) ACT 1999 - SECT 10

Dismissal of charges and conditional discharge of offender
10 Dismissal of charges and conditional discharge of offender

(1) Without proceeding to conviction, a court that finds a person guilty of an offencemay make any one of the following orders:

(a) an order directing that the relevant charge be dismissed,​

(b) an order discharging the person on condition that the person enter into a good behaviour bond for a term not exceeding 2 years,​

(c) an order discharging the person on condition that the person enter into an agreement to participate in an intervention program and to comply with any intervention plan arising out of the program.​

​

 

[Thinker]

I know public perception is different and for all we know he did nothing and is 100% innocent, but I think we are undervaluing this for a WADA/ASADA point of view.

We know (or at least assume) this isn't on the same level as some systematic cheating operations and was just recreational use, but supplying a banned substance is supplying a banned substance.

Never a good look to have a convicted supplier of banned substances around a team, especially when despite evidence to the contrary you come out and deny it.

Like the majority of things in the last few years, the Reds have mishandled this and received a masterclass by a team in a far worse position than them yesterday.

 

[Viking]

Come on people your comparing an illegal but peaceful protest with a drug supply charge.

Sure they are both illegal but a drug charge is on another level.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Keeping good company?

Isn't Greg Bird the same fellow that glassed his girlfriend, then tried to get his mate to lie to the police about it, AND the same chap who piddled on a Police Car in Byron Bay on his honeymoon AFTER being appointed as Titans Captain?

 

[Pfitzy]

Yeah but we should expect this from a select group of leaguies apparently - I go back to EDIT Todd Carney's Greg Bird's wikipedia entry which lists his history and shake my head.

 

[TOCC]

The charge was dismissed without conviction and without a police record..

What crime is he convicted of if he wasn't cleared?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[formerflanker]

the same chap who piddled on a Police Car in Byron Bay on his honeymoon

He does have a way with words though:
"It has put a dampener on our wedding weekend"

 

[Bobby Sands]

The minimum ban from WADA is 4 years if these players are found guilty


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is misinformation.

"But it understood WADA and ASADA will likely have no involvement in the Hunt matter, given cocaine only falls into their domain if it is detected by a game day drug test, as with the Wendell Sailor case. Outside of competition, cocaine is deemed a “recreational drug” and is dealt with under individual codes illicit drugs policies."

 

[Slim 293]

I hope opposition ground announcers are clever enough to have QOTSA cued up if KHunt gets on the field...........

"C-c-c-c-c-cocaaaaaaaaaaaaine!"

 

[TOCC]

This is misinformation.

"But it understood WADA and ASADA will likely have no involvement in the Hunt matter, given cocaine only falls into their domain if it is detected by a game day drug test, as with the Wendell Sailor case. Outside of competition, cocaine is deemed a “recreational drug” and is dealt with under individual codes illicit drugs policies."

Maybe that's the case in terms of consumption... But:

Under section 2.7 of the WADA code supplying prohibited substances to a third party is considered “trafficking” and carries with it a minimum four-year ban from all sport.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Thinker]

This is misinformation.

"But it understood WADA and ASADA will likely have no involvement in the Hunt matter, given cocaine only falls into their domain if it is detected by a game day drug test, as with the Wendell Sailor case. Outside of competition, cocaine is deemed a “recreational drug” and is dealt with under individual codes illicit drugs policies."

As TOCC said, this isn't a failed drug test, this is supply and looked upon far more harshly. Already examples in Australian rugby at lower levels for guys copping 4 years for trafficking and supply despite never failing a test.

Even if you order a banned substance in the mail you can get 4 years.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

The charge was dismissed without conviction and without a police record..

What crime is he convicted of if he wasn't cleared?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You used the word "cleared". That expression implies a positive finding of "not guilty".
That's not what happened, nor is it what happens in these circumstances on a daily basis.
I did not write the legislation and merely quoted it so that there could be no doubt about the correct context.

 

[Thinker]

According to WADA, trafficking is:

Trafficking: Selling, giving, transporting, sending, delivering or distributing (or Possessing for any such purpose) a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method (either physically or by any electronic or other means) by an Athlete, Athlete Support Person or any other Person subject to the jurisdiction of an Anti-Doping Organization to any third party; provided, however, this definition shall not include the actions of “bona fide” medical personnel involving a Prohibited Substance used for genuine and legal therapeutic purposes or other acceptable justification, and shall not include actions involving Prohibited Substances which are not prohibited in Out-of-Competition Testing unless the circumstances as a whole demonstrate such Prohibited Substances are not intended for genuine and legal therapeutic purposes or are intended to enhance sport performance.

So it almost is a non-issue BUT for the last line.

Basically says things that are only banned in-season are ok to traffic provided you are out of season and

"unless the circumstances as a whole demonstrate such Prohibited Substances are not intended for genuine and legal therapeutic purposes "

Cocaine has no legal use. This in-season delineation is there as there are plenty of legal things that are banned by WADA and athletes can use them out of season.

Also, I'm assuming Hunt is out of season as despite rumours he was going to play with Brisbane City he did not, training with them isn't competition I believe.

Another important part of WADA code:
[Comment to Articles 2.6.1 and 2.6.2: Acceptable justification would not include, for example, buying or Possessing a Prohibited Substance for purposes of giving it to a friend or relative, except under justifiable medical circumstances where that Person had a physician’s prescription, e.g., buying Insulin for a diabetic child]

So if a hypothetical footballer acquired cocaine and gave it to a friend or family member, even if they aren't involved in sport, they have trafficked the drug under the WADA code.

 

[Bobby Sands]

I sincerely doubt all of the player's implicated in this situation, if found guilty will serve four year bans.

It doesn't serve anyone any good, and let's be honest, that's what is being debated being closed doors right now.

 

[Bobby Sands]

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/rug...irrational-view-of-drugs-20150221-13l8fq.html

Good article from Clyde Rathbone.

 

[BDA]

@ HJ - the next step is to await the allegations. That may give the teams some clarity as to how they handle the players. If the allegations are isolate to trivial instances of purchasing drugs for friends, I would hope the ARU would let the bloke return to the team and play until he is tried. I'd like to think my club would stand by me.

Of course if he intends to plead guilty his contract is gone I imagine.

 

[BDA]

I thought the Professional Rugby drug bans were isolated to players caught with drugs in their system whilst competing. I highly doubt that applies to Hunt

 

[Cat_A]

I thought the Professional Rugby drug bans were isolated to players caught with drugs in their system whilst competing. I highly doubt that applies to Hunt

Nope - WADA bans for supply, and the threshold for guilt is much much lower than criminal courts. If Hunt makes a deal where he admits guilt/culpability to avoid further criminal prosecution, that is enough for the WADA ban for supply to kick in. I believe that it's now 4 years but at the time the alleged offence was committed it was 2 years.

 

[Chris McCracken]

I sincerely doubt all of the player's implicated in this situation, if found guilty will serve four year bans.

It doesn't serve anyone any good, and let's be honest, that's what is being debated being closed doors right now.

Danny Wicks just finished serving a four year ban from WADA/ASADA. I think it's highly likely.