By glocko87

Geelong star Matthew Stokes has been charged with drug trafficking, after allegedly purchasing a gram of cocaine for a friend who was visiting from out of town. So what punishment is suitable for the AFL to bring down should he be found guilty?

Stokes is an adult capable of making adult choices. Despite being aware of the serious damage that a drugs charge would do to his career and public image, he chose to buy cocaine anyway.

Whether or not he indeed indulges in the drug himself is beside the point.

It remains that drug offences are not dealt with lightly in elite sport. The AFL will want to be seen to be tough on drugs, as any public authority would wish to be seen.

For a ‘civilian,’ a drugs charge on their criminal record could result in sacking. It might also result in a tarnished reputation amongst colleagues and their local community. It might also prevent them from seeking new employment.

As it should. And Stokes is no different.

Any sensible football club would want to distance themselves from a drugs scandal. Aside from this, who would want to employ a person who has shown poor decision-making?

The AFL has the right to ban Stokes for life, just as any other employer might do with an employee in similar circumstances. My only question is what would the AFL do if a player was found guilty of sexual assault? Or domestic violence?

More than a few players have been found guilty of assault and drink driving, and while sacked from their club, have continued with their playing career elsewhere.

All of the above offences employ poor decision-making, and maybe even a lack of character on the offender’s behalf. So why the toughest stance on drugs? Why is buying coke for a friend and not using it yourself worse than sexual assault or crashing your car when you’re drunk?

How does the AFL measure each player’s case and determine its seriousness?

It’s all about perception.

Drugs are a scourge on society, use is increasing and production in Australia is rife. Whereas with sexual assault, conviction is rare, and drink driving is so common that just about everyone would know someone who has done it.

So Matthew Stokes may be dealt a lifetime ban because, currently, drugs are a huge problem, when other players with different, but equally serious issues, are allowed to continue to play.

The AFL would not be wrong in handing him a lifetime suspension, but where they will go wrong and have gone wrong is allowing other players to continue.

Where’s the justice in that?

Originally published here on The Roar.