Mega Thread Hot Topic - Drugs and AFL

[scottjr]

No problem with Paddy or Gus we know that this was in the post. Now hopefully we can give the Bombers a lesson how best to approach it and get it resolved. We should at least get the Readers Digest version leaked in the next few hours. That I will read.

 

[I Dont Care]

I have but I heard that you don't care.

What gave it away?

 

[Steve Dore]

What gave it away?

Just a conclusion based on inductive reasoning using your posts on this forum as evidence. But what do you care.

 

[SwampRat]

A

Why?? This was always repeat always going to happen. To me getting Paddy waw about 2016 onwards - with 2015 being a big risk - but he might be a bonus for us in 2015.

As I wrote early today - this is one of the reasons why I have been banging on about having lots of ruckmen.

Because 17 and 37 is seriously overs in the event of losing out on Paddy for maybe 20% of his remaining career.

I ask this. If a sentence was handed down before the trade, would we spend 17 and 37 to get him for 2016? What about 2017?

 

[I Dont Care]

Just a conclusion based on inductive reasoning using your posts on this forum as evidence. But what do you care.

This, I can't deny. Just remember though, yes knowledge is Power, but too much knowledge is...dangerous

 

[SwampRat]

We got him for 17 and 37 largely because of that risk.

I would argue that the price we paid is assuming he gets a moderate ban (say 6 months).

If he gets a 2 year ban, his trade currency is zero.

 

[BornPort]

How long before we'll know about suspensions?

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

How long before we'll know about suspensions?

Probably 10 days.

 

[SwampRat]

Probably 10 days.

I hope so. So sick of this dragging out.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

Caro expects the players to accelerate the response to the doping case.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Caro's guessing. Its to early to tell what will happen.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Because 17 and 37 is seriously overs in the event of losing out on Paddy for maybe 20% of his remaining career.

I ask this. If a sentence was handed down before the trade, would we spend 17 and 37 to get him for 2016? What about 2017?

We might not have got him at all if the SCN was released 2 weeks ago. But we went in knowing the risk. We would have done all the what if scenarios. It sounds like you completely ignored them. I didn't. If he wasnt a chance of getting a 6 to 24 month ban he wouldnt have been available.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Story about Monfries and Paddy getting legal advice re their SCN's.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/an...ow-cause-notices/story-e6frf7jo-1227094297673

PORT Adelaide pair Angus Monfries and Paddy Ryder this weekend will get independent legal advice on how to deal with the new ASADA show cause notices that have followed them from Essendon.

The Power duo next week are expected to join Western Bulldogs forward Stewart Crameri and Footscray VFL midfielder Brent Prismall, who are breaking from the Essendon legal team representing the Bombers.

Port Adelaide’s legal support for Monfries and Ryder — who is to be married to his fiance Jess at Port Douglas on Saturday — will include leading Melbourne-based lawyer Paul Ehrlich. He also represented the Power during its complicated negotiations with Essendon to secure Ryder during the AFL trade period.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/an...ow-cause-notices/story-e6frf7jo-1227094297673

 

[SwampRat]

We might not have got him at all if the SCN was released 2 weeks ago. But we went in knowing the risk. We would have done all the what if scenarios. It sounds like you completely ignored them. I didn't. If he wasnt a chance of getting a 6 to 24 month ban he wouldnt have been available.

I'm not ignoring the risk. It's the exact opposite. I have a lot of faith in the club and I just hope they've ticked all the boxes here and spoken to people in the know.

 

[bomberclifford]

(also posted in Ryder/Monfries thread)

Some interesting comments from one of the lawyers representing the players, Tony Hargreaves.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...-hits-back-at-asada-boss-20141024-11b6lt.html

"It is disingenuous for McDevitt to tell us to read the 12,000 pages of evidence. We've seen this before and it's not the evidence, it's a summary of what ASADA says is the evidence. We are not talking about 12,000 pages. We are talking about roughly 105 pages for each individual player, which are virtually identical."

"The delays, in our view, are inexcusable. Even allowing for the appeals by Essendon and (James) Hird, we would respectfully say that ASADA completed their interviews with the players in May 2013. The first show-cause letters arrived in June 2014. ASADA has been dealing with this for the past 18 months."

"The AFL cannot decide whether or not to deliver infraction notices against the players until they have been delivered the evidence against those players."

Why would ASADA be dragging its feet if it has compelling evidence that they players took banned substances?
Surely it would be in their best interests to get this over with quickly.

 

[Portology]

(also posted in Ryder/Monfries thread)

Some interesting comments from one of the lawyers representing the players, Tony Hargreaves.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...-hits-back-at-asada-boss-20141024-11b6lt.html



Why would ASADA be dragging its feet if it has compelling evidence that they players took banned substances?
Surely it would be in their best interests to get this over with quickly.

Surely it would be in ASADA's best interests to get bans on players and perma-bans on coaches and admins no matter how long it takes.

It is in the players' best interests that this matter is over with quickly, and that's why the lawyer is squawking. Bit naff of him to refer to this as a "game" with the AFL and wanting to "bounce the ball".

 

[bomberclifford]

Surely it would be in ASADA's best interests to get bans on players and perma-bans on coaches and admins no matter how long it takes.

It is in the players' best interests that this matter is over with quickly, and that's why the lawyer is squawking. Bit naff of him to refer to this as a "game" with the AFL and wanting to "bounce the ball".

The issue ASADA has is that the longer they take to present their case, the more likely it is that any penalty handed down will be backdated and eroding the length of the ban, as per the Cronulla case.
(Assuming it's not a life ban for the 34 players)

 

[Portology]

The issue ASADA has is that the longer they take to present their case, the more likely it is that any penalty handed down will be backdated and eroding the length of the ban, as per the Cronulla case.
(Assuming it's not a life ban for the 34 players)

Backdated or not is an implementation detail.

The purpose of any ban is to ensure the players miss some games and (ideally) to satisfy WADA - avoid them appealing any perceived undue leniency.

If it's issued on April 1, lets say 9 months backdated and the players miss half a season.

If it's issued on June 15, call it 12 months backdated and the players miss half a season (and finals, because of the timing of the issue of the second version of the SCNs).

I think we'll get to/through the next stages in this well before June 15... how many twists and turns it takes at the AFL tribunals and after I don't think anyone could guess, though REH has outlined a possible process of up to two years if players exercise and exhaust all appeal avenues up to CAS. In which case at some point you simply stop backdating the penalty and pick a ban length at the time that causes the players to miss the target number of games.

 

[Forzaport]

The issue ASADA has is that the longer they take to present their case, the more likely it is that any penalty handed down will be backdated and eroding the length of the ban, as per the Cronulla case.
(Assuming it's not a life ban for the 34 players)

ASADA appears to be following due process - why should they be rushed? Why wasn't the AFLPA jumping up and down about expediting the process when Essendon took ASADA to court???

 

[scottjr]

Backdated or not is an implementation detail.

The purpose of any ban is to ensure the players miss some games and (ideally) to satisfy WADA - avoid them appealing any perceived undue leniency.

If it's issued on April 1, lets say 9 months backdated and the players miss half a season.

If it's issued on June 15, call it 12 months backdated and the players miss half a season (and finals, because of the timing of the issue of the second version of the SCNs).

I think we'll get to/through the next stages in this well before June 15... how many twists and turns it takes at the AFL tribunals and after I don't think anyone could guess, though REH has outlined a possible process of up to two years if players exercise and exhaust all appeal avenues up to CAS. In which case at some point you simply stop backdating the penalty and pick a ban length at the time that causes the players to miss the target number of games.

Can the AFL issue a penalty of a 20,000 dollars fine and 4 game suspension and leave it at that? Allowing players to continue to train with the club?

 

[Portology]

Can the AFL issue a penalty of a 20,000 dollars fine and 4 game suspension and leave it at that? Allowing players to continue to train with the club?

$20,000 is a lot of money to a rookie. Chump change to Jobe Watson, or Hird.
$-based fines are probably only "fair" if targeted and 'calibrated' to single individuals, like say $1,000,000 for James Hird.
Would look 'odd' if different $ penalties were handed out to different players for the same offence.
Not sure if the AFL tribunal allows for penalties that large, let alone trading off games for $$!

 

[Port01]

ASADA appears to be following due process - why should they be rushed? Why wasn't the AFLPA jumping up and down about expediting the process when Essendon took ASADA to court???

Yeah thats a problem, the PA wants them to deviate from process and as soon as they do someone will look to shut it down in court. Unfortunately Essendon have dug the hole now where everything will be by the book and letter of the law.

 

[proman_x]

We might not have got him at all if the SCN was released 2 weeks ago. But we went in knowing the risk. We would have done all the what if scenarios. It sounds like you completely ignored them. I didn't. If he wasnt a chance of getting a 6 to 24 month ban he wouldnt have been available.

I'm not ignoring the risk. It's the exact opposite. I have a lot of faith in the club and I just hope they've ticked all the boxes here and spoken to people in the know.

As REH said, the club would have carried out its due diligence processes. Lets wait and see how it pans out.

 

[SwampRat]

As REH said, the club would have carried out its due diligence processes. Lets wait and see how it pans out.

I've no doubt the club would have done so. I'm still a little nervous though.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Can the AFL issue a penalty of a 20,000 dollars fine and 4 game suspension and leave it at that? Allowing players to continue to train with the club?

No they have to follow their own anti doping code which is basically the WADA code. Its like a judge saying I don't like the rules which I have to sentence you by, so bugger them, you have 12 months hard labour in the sewerage works at Bolivar - you are a piece of s**t, so you can go and work in the middle of society's s**t. I'd love a judge to give a sentence like that but its not within the existing rules.