Essendon players could boycott NAB Challenge games if AFL doesn't backdate anti-doping bans

[Boxhead_31]

What the players are doing makes perfect sense. Why risk having the suspension bought forward 5 months just so you can get a practice match in. Is there anyone on here who would seriously do otherwise?

But to do so they would need to apply to be able to play.
If you don't make the application to play you don't need to worry about affecting possible backdating

Really is a chicken and the egg situation.

 

[Cronos]

well, that would then be making it inconsistent with the greater WADA code though, which is against the whole spirit of WADA. As you know, I've argued consistently that the code is not designed and cannot effectively manage team sports. It's designed with the Olympics in mind.

I find it a bit amusing that you're "annoyed" by the players trying to get the best outcome under the code tbh. They didn't write it, why the **** wouldn't they? Especially when the whole point of the article here is that they may opt to miss the NAB challenge.

Part of their condition of employment in the AFL is that they play football, and abide by the AFL's Anti Doping Code.

If you breach the AFL's Anti Doping Code, you're suspended.

They've taken a provisional suspension so that their penalty (if found guilty) can be backdated to the start of their Provisional Suspension.

Their arrogance leads them to believe they should be able to play games during their provisional suspension, while retaining the advantages of their provisional suspension.

Morons are cheering them on, while everyone else sees the contempt they're showing the competition that has given them opportunities not afforded to the average Joe, just because they can kick a ball well.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

I don't need to dignify you by bothering to respond.

hahaha ok then.

Classing internet debating technique when you got nothing.

 

[jj1978]

how is players trying to ensure they get the minimum penalty sticking it up the AFL?

Yeah sure the 18 players can boycott don't give a toss in theory whilst of provisional suspension best they don't play... my argument is not playing your other 26 non affected players.

 

[Mofra]

How many teams actually field a full strength side for NAB Cup games?

The only full strength side fielded is the last practice game prior to round 1 - and even then some senior players are given less %TOG.
Essendon could basically rest most of the provisionally suspended players each game and it wouldn't make much of a difference.

 

[Higgins2Waite]

oh good response.

Can't handle your logic error being exposed.

How is it a logic error? A backdated ban...a ban from what? Fair enough if they were banned from training at the club or speaking to coaches etc.

Ban starts when penalties begin. So far there hasn't been any. Seems pretty logical to me.

How's it look from up there?

 

[Muggs]

How do you not see the absolute failure of logic in this.

They're supposed to be suspended, yet they think they should be able to play games without losing the "provisional suspension" they've served where they've been suspended from absolutely nothing.

Actually I think it might be the EFC or Hird asking the AFL for the override, and the players asking what would happen if it gets granted and not wanting to be put in to jeopardy by their club again.

It's not like EFC and Hird have never put their own interests before the players before...

 

[Patronus]

I would not think playing in any game prior to the 'backdated' ban will have any impact on a punishment if they reach a deal with the players. The NRL backdated their bans to include 12 months of games the players played in and resulted in them missing three whole games after they were given a 12 month suspension from the league. They were already at the bottom of the ladder and missing finals so got to start their holidays early very harsh on them.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Part of their condition of employment in the AFL is that they play football, and abide by the AFL's Anti Doping Code.

If you breach the AFL's Anti Doping Code, you're suspended.

They've taken a provisional suspension so that their penalty (if found guilty) can be backdated to the start of their Provisional Suspension.

Their arrogance leads them to believe they should be able to play games during their provisional suspension, while retaining the advantages of their provisional suspension.

Morons are cheering them on, while everyone else sees the contempt they're showing the competition that has given them opportunities not afforded to the average Joe, just because they can kick a ball well.

ah no, you can't force someone to play football. That's just stupid.

Secondly, you keep shrieking from your high horse about their arrogance in not wanting to miss anything, in a thread about an article where they are saying they may opt to miss something to maintain their provisional suspension.

Like, hello?

 

[Boxhead_31]

compel them to play for practice matches?

Um, no?

Even any match. How can they do that? There is a CBA after all.

So they just forfeit the match similar to the Wangaratta game?

 

[BlueWorld]

What would you like them banned from in November?

They have been banned from nothing so far.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

How is it a logic error? A backdated ban...a ban from what? Fair enough if they were banned from training at the club or speaking to coaches etc.

Ban starts when penalties begin. So far there hasn't been any. Seems pretty logical to me.

How's it look from up there?

well clearly someone just doesn't get how the code works.

Here's a helping hand. Have a look at the recent NRL penalty that included back-dating. Enjoy.

 

[hoianbulldog]

But to do so they would need to apply to be able to play.
If you don't make the application to play you don't need to worry about affecting possible backdating

Really is a chicken and the egg situation.

So if they apply to the AFL to play and the AFL give the go ahead then the back dating isn't impacted? Is that how it works?

 

[Lance Uppercut]

So they just forfeit the match similar to the Wangaratta game?

absolutely. That's what would happen.

 

[Cronos]

ah no, you can't force someone to play football. That's just stupid.

Secondly, you keep shrieking from your high horse about their arrogance in not wanting to miss anything, in a thread about an article where they are saying they may opt to miss something to maintain their provisional suspension.

Like, hello?

It's a question that shouldn't even need to be asked.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

They have been banned from nothing so far.

take it up with WADA, not EFC players

 

[Sprout]

How is it a logic error? A backdated ban...a ban from what? Fair enough if they were banned from training at the club or speaking to coaches etc.

Ban starts when penalties begin. So far there hasn't been any. Seems pretty logical to me.

How's it look from up there?

Pretty simple I would've thought. Not so when you have an agenda of no actual penalty being served.

 

[Lockyer24]

In what world do drug cheats call the shots?

Simply staggering how poorly run this club is.

 

[mxett]

They have been banned from nothing so far.

Thats purely a timing issue. If this was during the season they would be provisionally banned from games

 

[mxett]

In what world do drug cheats call the shots?

Simply staggering how poorly run this club is.

in the world where you believe Slobbo to his word

 

[Higgins2Waite]

Thats purely a timing issue. If this was during the season they would be provisionally banned from games

ASADA's fault and not EFC's right?

 

[Muggs]

ah no, you can't force someone to play football. That's just stupid.

Secondly, you keep shrieking from your high horse about their arrogance in not wanting to miss anything, in a thread about an article where they are saying they may opt to miss something to maintain their provisional suspension.

Like, hello?

Might not be able to force someone to play, but you can certainly name them in your official team if given the override by the AFL...

 

[basashi]

The concept of bans applying in non playing weeks is too ridiculous for words.

 

[Cronos]

Thats purely a timing issue. If this was during the season they would be provisionally banned from games

Lucky everyone fought like hell to get SC notices delayed to the end of the season eh? Nothing dodgy going on at all.

 

[theflea]

compel them to play for practice matches?

Um, no?

Even any match. How can they do that? There is a CBA after all.

Can you show me where in the CBA they would have leave for protected strike action available(via fair work aus) in a situation with a provisional drug ban?