Saintsational Fan Forum - A passionate community of St Kilda Football Club fans discussing news, history, players, trade rumours, results, AFL stats and more.
SUSPENDED VFL footballer Matthew Clark has called on the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA) to appeal the length of Ahmed Saad's suspension.
Saad was given an 18-month suspension by the AFL Anti-Doping Tribunal after testing positive to a banned substance found in an energy drink.
Clark is serving a two-year ban after a similar chemical was found in his system while playing for Frankston in the VFL.
His original sentence was nine months, before ASADA successfully appealed the decision, increasing the suspension to two years.
"I was just very disappointed to see that an AFL player got one sentence and a small-time VFL player got a harsher punishment," Clark told AFL.com.au.
"I thought because they set the benchmark for my case, you'd think it would be the exact same penalty. It was all the same scenario.
"They (ASADA) should definitely appeal, I think. I'd be very disappointed if they didn't, because obviously they gave me the nine months to start with and they appealed that."
So if this guy thinks what he got was unfair, why would he want someone else to suffer just as unfairly? Great attitude this guy must go through life with.
If I recall correctly Clark imported the substance personally and that's where he got picked up.
Ahmed had a defence that he didn't know what what was in the drink.
Possibly the difference in 6 months right there.
Robert Harvey's last home game. 24 Aug 2008
StKilda 13.17 def Adelaide 6.11
howlinwolf wrote:If I recall correctly Clark imported the substance personally and that's where he got picked up.
Ahmed had a defence that he didn't know what what was in the drink.
Possibly the difference in 6 months right there.
That surely cannot be correct?
Isn't the substance 'ok' anytime except match day?
If so, importing it to use on non match days would be ok, I would have thought.
He must have tested 'positive' to it on match day or had it with him on match day.
howlinwolf wrote:If I recall correctly Clark imported the substance personally and that's where he got picked up.
Ahmed had a defence that he didn't know what what was in the drink.
Possibly the difference in 6 months right there.
That surely cannot be correct?
Isn't the substance 'ok' anytime except match day?
If so, importing it to use on non match days would be ok, I would have thought.
He must have tested 'positive' to it on match day or had it with him on match day.
Most people would say "he got off lighter than me so good luck to him" but not this bloke. What a low act to come out in public to try to INCREASE the punishment of someone he doesn't even know.
70s sainter wrote:Most people would say "he got off lighter than me so good luck to him" but not this bloke. What a low act to come out in public to try to INCREASE the punishment of someone he doesn't even know.
Agree. Appeal your own sentence, not praying for another's to become longer. What a turd of a human.
Gehrig emerged from scans yesterday saying he was "as sweet as a bun"
70s sainter wrote:Most people would say "he got off lighter than me so good luck to him" but not this bloke. What a low act to come out in public to try to INCREASE the punishment of someone he doesn't even know.
Agree. Appeal your own sentence, not praying for another's to become longer. What a turd of a human.
It looks as though the length of the ban and a lot of the conditions surrounding it are very different for two people who have done essentially the same thing.
Macquarie Dictionary Word of the Year for 2023 "Kosi Lives"
kosifantutti wrote:It seems a reasonable question to ask.
It looks as though the length of the ban and a lot of the conditions surrounding it are very different for two people who have done essentially the same thing.
Agree. Hopefully there will be an appeal and Saad cops 2 years.
It's all about integrity.
i am Melbourne Skies - sometimes Blue Skies, Grey Skies, even Partly Cloudy Skies.
kosifantutti wrote:It seems a reasonable question to ask.
It looks as though the length of the ban and a lot of the conditions surrounding it are very different for two people who have done essentially the same thing.
Agree. Hopefully there will be an appeal and Saad cops 2 years.
It's all about integrity.
Why would you want that? Surely we want ASADA to be happy.
Life is not fair.
Some crooks get off lighter than others, and after their sentencing, their prior convictions are aired-
NOT permitted to mention their history before the finding of guilt/innocence
So a repeat offender may get the same or less than a first timer.
Depends on whether the judge believes the defence lawyer who says his career crim client
"shows remorse" excuse me while I cough.
Lawyer to client- "I'll sign you up for a community-based course or something, that old coot in the wig
will buy that"
Welcome to the real world, Clark.
A real Sainter will pledge allegiance to the ❤ and despise the Pies, the Blues, and the Injectors.
Remember one of the 10 Commandments : Thou shalt have no other team before thee
SUSPENDED VFL footballer Matthew Clark has called on the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA) to appeal the length of Ahmed Saad's suspension.
Saad was given an 18-month suspension by the AFL Anti-Doping Tribunal after testing positive to a banned substance found in an energy drink.
Clark is serving a two-year ban after a similar chemical was found in his system while playing for Frankston in the VFL.
His original sentence was nine months, before ASADA successfully appealed the decision, increasing the suspension to two years.
"I was just very disappointed to see that an AFL player got one sentence and a small-time VFL player got a harsher punishment," Clark told AFL.com.au.
"I thought because they set the benchmark for my case, you'd think it would be the exact same penalty. It was all the same scenario.
"They (ASADA) should definitely appeal, I think. I'd be very disappointed if they didn't, because obviously they gave me the nine months to start with and they appealed that."
So if this guy thinks what he got was unfair, why would he want someone else to suffer just as unfairly? Great attitude this guy must go through life with.
what a loser....
.everybody still loves lenny....and we always will
"Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of a free society,"
However, freedom of expression is not encouraged in certain forums.
kosifantutti wrote:It seems a reasonable question to ask.
It looks as though the length of the ban and a lot of the conditions surrounding it are very different for two people who have done essentially the same thing.
So he says anyway, we don't have all the facts of each case to be fair….
kosifantutti wrote:It seems a reasonable question to ask.
It looks as though the length of the ban and a lot of the conditions surrounding it are very different for two people who have done essentially the same thing.
So he says anyway, we don't have all the facts of each case to be fair….
We dont but I reckon there is a difference in the substances.
Clarks substance banned in and out of comp
Saads banned only in comp
So Saads crime not as bad and penalty should be less severe
The difference between between the two cases was that Saad may have had better legal representation. Unfortunately for Clark, he may just have to treat it like his mattress and sleep on it for the extra six months.
Curb your enthusiasm - you’re a St.Kilda supporter!!
He's an arsehole for trying to drag Saad down.
His sporting authority tried to do him a favour and only penalised him half of what Saad got.
This was way short of ASADA's benchmark, so they had little choice but to appeal.
I suspect that the AFL will have wisened up to this, and hit Saad with the minimum they think will keep ASADA happy.
( hopefully ASADA are too busy writing up Essendon infringements ).
In Richo we trust.
and despise the Pies, the Blues, and the Injectors.
