Chris Houston cleared of drug charges

[Johns Magic]

How about you read the rest of the thread before commenting champ.

They are now threatening the sponsorship again after Houston was charged for something - at this stage in any case - which for all we know could be similar to Stokes.

I don't know if it is any different a scenario. You don't. I doubt NIB do either.

Wait, so without resorting to assuming what I've read or calling me "champ", can you tell me how it's double-standards when NIB already stood by the Knights through something far worse?

Did Stokes get his drugs off a drug-lord Geelong teammate as well?

 

[jc155776]

We'll be in the 8.

More likely your team will be inside for 8.





(Thats a joke by the way)

 

[Alex28]

Wait, so without resorting to assuming what I've read or calling me "champ", can you tell me how it's double-standards when NIB already stood by the Knights through something far worse?

Did Stokes get his drugs off a drug-lord Geelong teammate as well?

OK...NIB have already said they'd stick by us after Wicks. So that's where that bit ends.

Stokes gets arrested for supply and trafficking. Geelong suspends for 7 weeks. Nothing in the media from NIB threatening sponsorship.

Houston gets arrested for supply and trafficking. Clubs stands player down indefinitely. NIB threatens sponsorship.

It is a double standard.

Tell me how you know that Houston got the drugs from Wicks? All I know is that he's been arrested for supply and trafficking, and that the police found out he was supplying and trafficking whilst they had Wicks under surveillance. Other than that nothing else has been published in the media.

So...tell me how JM?

Seriously...I've had infractions and warnings on this forum for less than the speculation that has been flying around here.

 

[Johns Magic]

OK...NIB have already said they'd stick by us after Wicks. So that's where that bit ends.

Gee, you don't really get this do you...have a think.

 

[perverse]

i don't really think it's a double standard...

the cumulative bad image from both (potential) convinctions should be taken into account. Just because they were going to stick by us when it was just wicks, doesn't mean they want anything to do with us when there's a potential syndicate being unearthed amongst our ranks. not sure why this would have to be clarified, really.

 

[Alex28]

Gee, you don't really get this do you...have a think.

Yeah...I kinda do get this...they backed us after Wicks not knowing what else would come out of the investigations and knowing there was a cloud over another player. That player was interviewed by the club, said he was clean and NIB was happy with that.

So because the player lied to the club why is NIB punishing the club? What more is the club supposed to do?

Or we could have taken the line of Geelong and virtually not punished the player at all.

 

[Johns Magic]

Yeah...I kinda do get this...they backed us after Wicks not knowing what else would come out of the investigations and knowing there was a cloud over another player. That player was interviewed by the club, said he was clean and NIB was happy with that.

So because the player lied to the club why is NIB punishing the club? What more is the club supposed to do?

Because Houston IS the club. When you're a player, you're a direct representative of the club as a whole.

Your argument could be used for any sponsor that has ever pulled out over any player indiscretion.

 

[Alex28]

But Stokes isn't Geelong? If NIB are worried about being involved in incidents involving drugs why aren't they sticking it to Geelong in the media as well?

(I think we are slowly getting closer to the double standard...)

You haven't let me know yet how you know Houston got the drugs from Wicks yet...

 

[skeepe]

But Stokes isn't Geelong? If NIB are worried about being involved in incidents involving drugs why aren't they sticking it to Geelong in the media as well?

(I think we are slowly getting closer to the double standard...)

You haven't let me know yet how you know Houston got the drugs from Wicks yet...

What double standard are you dribbling about?

NIB have stood by both clubs for the first player to be charged with drug offences.

For the second player it appears they are taking a dimmer view. Can you let me know who the second Geelong player that has been charged with a drug offence is? If there isn't one, then no double standard exists.

I really didn't think it was that hard a concept to grasp.

 

[Johns Magic]

For once I'm glad skeepe made a post...

 

[Johns Magic]

You haven't let me know yet how you know Houston got the drugs from Wicks yet...

Regardless of whatever bullsh*t you're trying to spin, where Houston got them from is irrelevant.

 

[Alex28]

Regardless of whatever bullsh*t you're trying to spin, where Houston got them from is irrelevant.

Yet it appeared relevant here:

Did Stokes get his drugs off a drug-lord Geelong teammate as well?

Come on...don't back away from your enormously big mouth.

 

[Johns Magic]

Yet it appeared relevant here:



Come on...don't back away from your enormously big mouth.

Oh wow, you're onto something here :lol:

Continue in your naivety, and for the sake of you being a big pussy I will rephrase what I said:

"Did Stokes have a drug-lord Geelong teammate as well?"

There you go, the point still stands as strong as it ever did.

Back to the drawing board.

 

[Alex28]

What double standard are you dribbling about?

NIB have stood by both clubs for the first player to be charged with drug offences.

For the second player it appears they are taking a dimmer view. Can you let me know who the second Geelong player that has been charged with a drug offence is? If there isn't one, then no double standard exists.

I really didn't think it was that hard a concept to grasp.

The concept is that NIB has come out and stated they are concerned at their brand being associated with illegal drugs. This seems to be an issue when it comes to the Knights sponsorship, yet not an issue when it comes to Geelong's sponsorship.

It doesn't really matter how many are involved, or what quantities - illegal drugs are what NIB is concerned about. Both clubs have guilty players here. There is a double standard.

 

[Johns Magic]

The concept is that NIB has come out and stated they are concerned at their brand being associated with illegal drugs. This seems to be an issue when it comes to the Knights sponsorship, yet not an issue when it comes to Geelong's sponsorship.

It doesn't really matter how many are involved, or what quantities - illegal drugs are what NIB is concerned about. Both clubs have guilty players here. There is a double standard.

No, they stood by the Knights during Wicks's drug revelations. So clearly the amount and quantity do matter.

 

[Alex28]

Oh wow, you're onto something here :lol:

Continue in your naivety, and for the sake of you being a big pussy I will rephrase what I said:

"Did Stokes have a drug-lord Geelong teammate as well?"

There you go, the point still stands as strong as it ever did.

Back to the drawing board.

Your re-phrasing changes it from an accusation to a coincidence. Completely changes the context of the comment.

As I said...big mouth with no substance. Sums you up to a tee really.

 

[sneaky_is_here]

Say hello to my little friend!

I never come on this forum. But i did today and even laughed at some of the jokes.

Good to see your intelligent enough to use a picture of us NOT choking as the basis of a very lame joke.

P.S i will help you next time if you want mate

 

[myanonymoususername]

The concept is that NIB has come out and stated they are concerned at their brand being associated with illegal drugs. This seems to be an issue when it comes to the Knights sponsorship, yet not an issue when it comes to Geelong's sponsorship.

It doesn't really matter how many are involved, or what quantities - illegal drugs are what NIB is concerned about. Both clubs have guilty players here. There is a double standard.

Not really. Maybe NIB views Geelong as a stronger/better brand than the Knights, and figures it takes more to tarnish to the level they would be concerned about continuing to associate with?

 

[Knightmare]

Geelong ARE the reigning Champions, so I can understand NIB being perhaps a little keener to associate their name with the Cats and continue doing so.

But the idea put forward that Knights= favorites for spoon (?) so therefore Knights= sponsorless is a little extreme IMO. Easts and Cronulla have both landed major sponsors again, despite coming off seasons that were so bad they were almost comical.

 

[Johns Magic]

Your re-phrasing changes it from an accusation to a coincidence. Completely changes the context of the comment.

It's been speculated in the media since the moment the story broke that they were operating in the same drug-ring. Sorry, next time I'll make sure to throw the word "alleged" in so you don't get upset Alex.

As I said...big mouth with no substance. Sums you up to a tee really.

And as everyone else keeps saying, you're wrong. And now you're grasping onto technicalities to try and save face.

Try and argue the point here and not play the politically-correct little nerd.

So, after again avoiding the point of my question, I will once again ask you the question:

"Did Stokes have a drug-lord Geelong teammate as well?"

Try and answer this time. Will be hard to do so without looking like an idiot, but then again, that's why you haven't so far.