2014 Non-Crows AFL Discussion

[Kane McGoodwin]

Was Jenkins also involved with the Essendon breach or did the club think it was a waste of good drugs?

No, started after he came to us... Otherwise there would be around 45 scn's.

Bet jj is relieved he left the Dons!

 

[GROTTO]

Would also send a message to the world Australia is not serious about illegal drugs.

For this reason, Asada will be keen to ensure an appropriate penalty is handed down.

They will demand a minimum of 1 year imo - anything less & they will appeal. The Afl will be looking to avoid any appeals.

Also, the penalty will be much more than Cronulla's given significantly longer period for Dons & they have taken it to court.

Dons are in for a world of pain - far worse than when blues were hit by the Afl. Will little bail them out financially or the Afl let them go bankrupt. They will be near the bottom of the ladder for years once all sanctions hit.

In Hird we trust...

Interesting doomsday scenario that you propose, given sanctions, suspensions and the general stigma it could lead to sponsors, players, staff and maybe fans severing ties.

Could we be witnessing the death of the EFC? Probably not, but a 2 year ban, Hird out and no coach/personal may want to go there, coupled with players not wanting that to be a destination and it spells trouble.

Probably a bit melodramatic but if this was the Bulldogs or Saints this would be a killer fatal blow in all seriousness.

 

[Schulzenfest]

Seriously though, its interesting when you think about how the Power will go next season.

Phase 1 - Remove Walsh.

And replace him with a triple premiership captain with 5 years of senior coaching experience.

Phase 2 - Monfries and Ryder banned for 2 years.

A) Monfries' PF was the first good game he had played in about 4 months, and Ryder hasn't played for us at all yet. We finished 3rd last year without Ryder and with very little from Monfries.
B) If they had acted as individuals maybe, but there's no way that more than half of Essendon's list is going to get rubbed out for 2 years, and it would be ridiculous to give Monfries, Ryder and Crameri harsher punishments than the rest of the group. I'm expecting 3 months backdated best case, 1 year backdated worst case, 6 months backdated probable.

Phase 3 - Robbie Gray leaves Port next year.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-04-10/lock-me-in-says-robbie

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport...-player-for-life/story-fnia6ojc-1227020584957

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport...televel-contract/story-fnia6ojc-1227060828437

And even if Robbie Gray did leave Port at the end of the year despite all available evidence saying otherwise, I'm interested to know how that would affect us next season?

Are you kidding? Rucci wouldn't even contemplate putting any star Port player under pressure.

Did you know Travis Boak came out of contract in 2012? Neither did I. I'm surprised nobody in the Adelaide media ever mentioned it.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Interesting doomsday scenario that you propose, given sanctions, suspensions and the general stigma it could lead to sponsors, players, staff and maybe fans severing ties.

Could we be witnessing the death of the EFC? Probably not, but a 2 year ban, Hird out and no coach/personal may want to go there, coupled with players not wanting that to be a destination and it spells trouble.

Probably a bit melodramatic but if this was the Bulldogs or Saints this would be a killer fatal blow in all seriousness.

I expect the aflpa will have a class action against the Dons for loss of earnings, including some career ending prematurely.

Dons already in too much debt as heavily geared at the time this all started building New training facilities. Add legal costs, fines, unfair dismissal payouts & loss of sponsors, loss of members, etc - players suing would bankrupt them unless little puts his hands in his pockets.

 

[GROTTO]

Did you know Travis Boak came out of contract in 2012? Neither did I. I'm surprised nobody in the Adelaide media ever mentioned it.

Thats because Rucci doesnt publish these stories.

It was well known at the time he was coming out of contract, if I am not mistaken I think the Cats made a play for him.

 

[GROTTO]

I expect the aflpa will have a class action against the Dons for loss of earnings, including some career ending prematurely.

Dons already in too much debt as heavily geared at the time this all started building New training facilities. Add legal costs, fines, unfair dismissal payouts & loss of sponsors, loss of members, etc - players suing would bankrupt them unless little puts his hands in his pockets.

How rich is Little for him to bail them out???

I will stand by what I said earlier, if this was a Bulldogs or Saints it would have been a lethal fatal hit.

I dont know what you would do, if your Club that you loved and supported suddenly died over night! It would be a very painful experience for any supporter, cant remember how Fitzroy supporters coped but it must have hurt a lot.

I couldnt go for the Power thats for sure.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

If you don't think that Boak was 'put under pressure' when he came out of contract in 2012 or that Rucci published stories about it, then you must have been living in a cave with your fingers stuck in your ears.

Sure but no where near the same media frenzy for boak or Gray than there has been for Dangerfield!!!

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

How rich is Little for him to bail them out???

I will stand by what I said earlier, if this was a Bulldogs or Saints it would have been a lethal fatal hit.

I dont know what you would do, if your Club that you loved and supported suddenly died over night! It would be a very painful experience for any supporter, cant remember how Fitzroy supporters coped but it must have hurt a lot.

I couldnt go for the Power thats for sure.

Little is worth gazillions through toll.

Given the damage he is doing, would supporters want him to remain though...

 

[GROTTO]

Sure but no where near the same media frenzy for boak or Gray than there has been for Dangerfield!!!

Nice comeback.

Thanks.

 

[GROTTO]

Little is worth gazillions through toll.

Given the damage he is doing, would supporters want him to remain though...

Supporters would be foolish, but I can see them supporting him while they need his money. The first chance they can get to sever ties with him, they will.

Wasnt there a rumour that we have a very wealthy supporter supporting us?

 

[I Lost My Keays]

God I hate the victory since United and Victory are man rivals and I hate Melbourne City because of Manchester City since I am a Manchester United fan.

I cannot win lel

 

[Golumless]

Get back to me when he declares Dangerfield 'all but certain' to leave.

That'll be the point i will be confident Danger will stay

 

[Bicks]

How rich is Little for him to bail them out???

Don't think he's on struggle street exactly...ranked 37th in Australia's richest list by Forbes this year..

Personal wealth estimated at $715 Million as at January 2014....give or take a cuppla Mill...$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

http://www.forbes.com/profile/paul-little/

 

[GROTTO]

Don't think he's on struggle street exactly...ranked 37th in Australia's richest list by Forbes this year..

Personal wealth estimated at $715 Million as at January 2014....give or take a cuppla Mill...$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

http://www.forbes.com/profile/paul-little/

Thanks for that. As I said earlier, the fans will take his money and when the time is ripe get rid of him.

I think the Club will want and need a fresh start.

 

[mattymac]

From the AFLPA last Thursday:

The players affirmed their commitment to seek an expeditious process to give them the opportunity to remove the cloud that has hung over them for almost two years.

The players do not intend to respond to the show cause notices.

It is important to note that the onus of proving the allegations against the players that they were administered the prohibited substance Thymosin Beta 4, rests with the AFL. While ASADA is only required to demonstrate to the Anti-Doping Rule Violation Panel a ‘possibility’ of a violation, the much higher standard proof of ‘comfortable satisfaction’ is required to be proved by the AFL at the AFL Anti-Doping tribunal.

Could one of our esteemed colleagues more learned in this convoluted process please explain to me what this all means?

What is the consequence of them not responding to the SCNs?

And how does the second part work? ASADA just has to show the 'possibility' of a violation...pretty straight forward I would think...but then the AFL has to prove a violation beyond 'comfortable satisfaction'?

Or what? What even is comfortable satisfaction and who do they have to prove it to? What happens if they can't? Nothing?

The thought that the AFL has to prove something and be competent for 5 mins has me thinking nothing will happen to these cheating charlatans

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

From the AFLPA last Thursday:



Could one of our esteemed colleagues more learned in this convoluted process please explain to me what this all means?

What is the consequence of them not responding to the SCNs?

And how does the second part work? ASADA just has to show the 'possibility' of a violation...pretty straight forward I would think...but then the AFL has to prove a violation beyond 'comfortable satisfaction'?

Or what? What even is comfortable satisfaction and who do they have to prove it to? What happens if they can't? Nothing?

The thought that the AFL has to prove something and be competent for 5 mins has me thinking nothing will happen to these cheating charlatans

I gather not responding to the SCN's means it will go straight to the AFL tribunal, without any further unnecessary delays.

ASADA allegedly have proof of illegal drugs (TB-4) being ordered/provided to Dank for use on Dons players & they signed consent forms to take illegal substances. Looks like Dank mixed up which drugs he thought was legal as he admitted/then retracted injecting the players with TB-4... Given the onus of proof is now on the players to prove they didn't take the illegal drugs & neither Dank/Essendon are clarifying what they took - they are in massive strife!

 

[Elite Crow]

And replace him with a triple premiership captain with 5 years of senior coaching experience.

A) Monfries' PF was the first good game he had played in about 4 months, and Ryder hasn't played for us at all yet. We finished 3rd last year without Ryder and with very little from Monfries.
B) If they had acted as individuals maybe, but there's no way that more than half of Essendon's list is going to get rubbed out for 2 years, and it would be ridiculous to give Monfries, Ryder and Crameri harsher punishments than the rest of the group. I'm expecting 3 months backdated best case, 1 year backdated worst case, 6 months backdated probable.



http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-04-10/lock-me-in-says-robbie

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport...-player-for-life/story-fnia6ojc-1227020584957

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport...televel-contract/story-fnia6ojc-1227060828437

And even if Robbie Gray did leave Port at the end of the year despite all available evidence saying otherwise, I'm interested to know how that would affect us next season?



Did you know Travis Boak came out of contract in 2012? Neither did I. I'm surprised nobody in the Adelaide media ever mentioned it.

Was Voss a good coach?

 

[Mattrox]

Not responding is like saying F.U. we didn't do anything wrong.

Responding means..... "something happened and this is why we shouldn't get punished"

Comforable satisfaction means that there isn't definitive proof that you did this on this date at this time. There is enough to show that doping or an intent to dope occurred.

This is where Essendon fans get it all wrong. A lack of record keeping about the injections would be enough to show an intent to dope. Because if there was no intent they would keep proper records like with all other medical treatment. Jamestownians insist that ASADA needs proof of how many needles and to whom and exactly what and at exact times.

They also misunderstand the the 350 pages is only a summary of the proof. A summary. Do they know summary means that details are omitted to save space but will be presented later.

An SCN means .... "We have enough proof to show you doped" .....
"Do you want to add anything to mitigate the penalties you ARE going to get?"

Jamestownians also fail to realise this is not a criminal trial where "reasonable doubt" is not applicable. ASADA is there to keep sport clean. If you don't follow the processes exactly you could be banned even without doping.

Accidentally missing a drug test even if you are clean.... penalty.

 

[mattymac]

I gather not responding to the SCN's means it will go straight to the AFL tribunal, without any further unnecessary delays.

ASADA allegedly have proof of illegal drugs (TB-4) being ordered/provided to Dank for use on Dons players & they signed consent forms to take illegal substances. Looks like Dank mixed up which drugs he thought was legal as he admitted/then retracted injecting the players with TB-4... Given the onus of proof is now on the players to prove they didn't take the illegal drugs & neither Dank/Essendon are clarifying what they took - they are in massive strife!

Cheers mate. So who does the AFL have to prove beyond comfortable satisfaction that they took TB-4 to? To the AFL Tribunal??

 

[GROTTO]

Was Voss a good coach?

He is now at Port, by definition he is good.

 

[mattymac]

Not responding is like saying F.U. we didn't do anything wrong.

Responding means..... "something happened and this is why we shouldn't get punished"

Comforable satisfaction means that there isn't definitive proof that you did this on this date at this time. There is enough to show that doping or an intent to dope occurred.

This is where Essendon fans get it all wrong. A lack of record keeping about the injections would be enough to show an intent to dope. Because if there was no intent they would keep proper records like with all other medical treatment. Jamestownians insist that ASADA needs proof of how many needles and to whom and exactly what and at exact times.

They also misunderstand the the 350 pages is only a summary of the proof. A summary. Do they know summary means that details are omitted to save space but will be presented later.

An SCN means .... "We have enough proof to show you doped" .....
"Do you want to add anything to mitigate the penalties you ARE going to get?"

Jamestownians also fail to realise this is not a criminal trial where "reasonable doubt" is not applicable. ASADA is there to keep sport clean. If you don't follow the processes exactly you could be banned even without doping.

Accidentally missing a drug test even if you are clean.... penalty.

So who hears all this? Which court/power?

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Cheers mate. So who does the AFL have to prove beyond comfortable satisfaction that they took TB-4 to? To the AFL Tribunal??

The AFL tribunal will hand down their findings based on the ASADA evidence.

ASADA no doubt would have recommendations to the AFL, including the minimum accepted penalty, they wouldn't appeal.

 

[Mattrox]

So who hears all this? Which court/power?

The AFL hears the charges. It's not the regular tribunal, but a special tribunal. If a penalty is too weak ASADA/WADA will appeal the penalty to the Court of Arbitration of Sport.

A SCN is not like a charge that you get to fight, like a regular court process. It means "we've caught you out, now you get a whack". Initially the AFL system determines the size of whack. It's important to look at the case of VFL footballer who was given a 9 month penalty which ASADA appealed and he got 2 years.

 

[mattymac]

Awesome thanks guys.

(still expecting a lettuce leaf)

 

[GROTTO]

Awesome thanks guys.

(still expecting a lettuce leaf)

Will be very very disappointing.