Most likely going to be sacked by Parra. Gotta feel for Ryles lol never a dull moment at Parra
You need to be a member of 1Eyed Eel to add comments!
This reply was deleted.
More stuff to read
"It is a mandatory 12 week ban. By the time the lab results come back, the WC is over so we can't even prompt that to be counted. Is JAC important to our club as you asked? Absolutely. He is the most experienced, fastest and arguably the best…"
"Berry signed with Melbourne."
"Lab results could take up to 10-12 weeks."
Replies
Perhaps. As a club we don't owe anyone anything. We don't have to buy into woke agendas or anything like that. We only have to do what's best for the club and fans. Is JACs value to the club worth more than the reputational damage caused by his actions? I'd say probably yes and with a 10 week suspension it probably blows over eventually after it's run its news cycle.
It is a mandatory 12 week ban. By the time the lab results come back, the WC is over so we can't even prompt that to be counted. Is JAC important to our club as you asked? Absolutely. He is the most experienced, fastest and arguably the best backline player we have. But as you say the 12 week suspension probably blows over once it has ran it's course, that is a long time for the club to hold a player waiting for him to return. Particularly for Ryles who could very well be under significant pressure to hold his job and needs wins.
You say we have to do what is best for clubs and fans. Well that could be letting JAC go. He is 32 and off-contract next year. We could be moving into a period where we are transitioning into moving on from JAC anyway after 2027.
Come to the point where he is free to play in 2027 after the ban, could our season be done? Could Ryles' fate been stamped where JAC coming in doesn't really do too much for our team? The decision is a difficult one as it cannot be taken lightly.
Could the lab results come back negative? I think i have a better chance of winning powerball but there is a chance not matter how slim. Is there value absorbing him into our squad and just wait til he is back? Again, you can, though are we in a better position using his salary to get say for example a Tyrell Sloan or run the risk that Simonsson, Kelly or both break down and we have nobody really to come in? Maybe Samrani gets the spot therefore not too bad? I do not envy the new CEO coming in to decide on this. But also, the NRL could take it out of our hands as well.
You are right in that the club owes nothing to anyone. You are also correct that we should not give into pressure to lean a certain way in the decision. If the club decide to keep JAC and wait for him to return, then i back them but it it will be hard on the club.
Only thing that works in the favour of keeping JAC despite the 12 game ban is the fact that there is nothing out there to get value for his salary. Unless a great Winger out of nowhere asks for a release or is squeezed out, we are sort in a position where we could sack him, have his cash to spend and there is nothing there. Also, if we go for a replacement, that replacement will be bought out of desperation, leading to them using us and getting a 2-3 year deal when we ideally only need them for the season perhaps.
This is the situation JAC, a proposed natural leader for this club, has put the club in. Unfortunate but just have to see it through.
We will end up with Blake Wilson now that the Eagles have let him go.
LOL - MON is our version of the Canadian Mounties. He always gets his man...
Low doses of cocaine will be detectable for up to 24 hours (higher doses for up to 48-72 hrs), so it's probably worthwhile separating out two things with regard to driving. Was JAC within the effects zone of the drug while driving? Let's call that "reckless" (and illegal). Was JAC driving while beyond the effect zone of the drug but while the drug was still detectable? Let's call that "stupid" (and illegal).
Unless it turns out a case of c) reckless driving - lab results to determine dosage and police report of degree of impairment - we only have a) second drug offense (doubly stupid), and b) stupid and illegal drug and driving behaviour.
Using PubMed, I skimmed two studies of cases of drug use and crashes. In lab work the median dose for impairment in crashes was 0.10mg/L, so we can expect that lab results will show if JAC's result suggests impaired driving. Below 0.07mg/L apparently means not impaired. Unlike alcohol, where there are prescribed limits - up to 0.05% blood alcohol concentration for fully licensed drivers - for drugs like cocaine it is zero tolerance. But that will mean cases where the driver is non-impaired but trace amounts still detectable = illegal (and I have no reason to disagree with that zero tolerance).
None of this is meant to dispute either a) the stupidity of a second drug offense, or b) the stupidity of not using Uber. But we should not equate it to, say, the Ezra Mam case - thereby adding c) reckless driving - until lab results show degree of impairment?
Only problem though is that the law is not written around impairment - it's based on the detection of the drug in a driver's system (usually through detecting its metabolites). So from that perspective, my understanding is that it's still a DUI and it's still a second offence. We can't get away from that.
I agree that the Mam example is not equivalent. Luckily there was no accident or injury caused.
Yeah his only hope really is the 2nd test comes back clean, which would be a miracle lol.
Lab results could take up to 10-12 weeks.
Save the fox
-
11
-
12
-
13
-
14
-
15
of 15 Next