No Oppo Supporters CAS hands down guilty verdict - Players appealing - Dank shot - no opposition - (cont in pt.2)

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
cymarak said:
Other than that possibility, players are free to play and to be around the club as soon as their suspension ends - appealing wouldn't make them have to sit out for longer.
Click to expand...

Thanks, that's what I was after, I wasn't aware. I thought once they appeal then they're out until the appeal is heard.
 
cymarak said:
It's been over a week now since final submissions were made to the tribunal hasn't it ?

My guess is that the tribunal would have come to its decision by now, and the next few weeks are 'needed' to document the decision thoroughly for the inevitable appeals process.
Click to expand...

Knowing the AFL, they probably came to a decision before the tribunal started.
Sydney and Hawthorn in the first two rounds makes me think a 2 week ban.
There will have to be a small ban in place to allow the AFL to get its pound of flesh.
 
carloss said:
Knowing the AFL, they probably came to a decision before the tribunal started.
Sydney and Hawthorn in the first two rounds makes me think a 2 week ban.
There will have to be a small ban in place to allow the AFL to get its pound of flesh.
Click to expand...

There are actual judges following a process that the AFL doesn't control.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Pweter said:
Thanks, that's what I was after, I wasn't aware. I thought once they appeal then they're out until the appeal is heard.
Click to expand...
The issue I suppose is what would be the value of appealing if your suspension ends before the appeal is heard ?

Obviously there's the clear-my-name factor, but that's pretty much it - there's no practical value, and there may even be the risk that the appeals board increases the suspension (can they do that if only the player appeals ?).

I'm curious as to how the courts would react if, say, EFC / players sought an injunction against the suspension while the appeals process was playing out, on the grounds that if they won the appeal, it would be too late, as they would have already had to serve the suspension. Having said that, there's no guarantee EFC / players would even seek an injunction - they may just cop it and move on, and not want to risk having players play at the start of the season then have a suspension in the middle / end of it.
 
Last edited:
My understanding is that the Essendon players could have taken voluntary suspensions once it became obvious where this saga was heading. So I am a bit confused as to whether the players did this or not. I would have thought that they would have done this once our finals campaign came to an end. So if they are found guilty, suspensions could be back dated until early September.

McDevitt told the Senate estimates hearing that any suspensions can be back dated to November as that was when IN were handed out to the players.

Is anyone aware if the players took up this option of voluntary suspensions? Given the circumstances and the uncertainty of a positive outcome, it seems silly if they didn't.
 
Albertross said:
My understanding is that the Essendon players could have taken voluntary suspensions once it became obvious where this saga was heading. So I am a bit confused as to whether the players did this or not. I would have thought that they would have done this once our finals campaign came to an end. So if they are found guilty, suspensions could be back dated until early September.

McDevitt told the Senate estimates hearing that any suspensions can be back dated to November as that was when IN were handed out to the players.

Is anyone aware if the players took up this option of voluntary suspensions? Given the circumstances and the uncertainty of a positive outcome, it seems silly if they didn't.
Click to expand...
From memory, the option of voluntary suspensions was discussed at the time - I think it was mentioned in a newspaper article or two - but no-one's officially said anything about whether players took up the option or not.
 
Albertross said:
My understanding is that the Essendon players could have taken voluntary suspensions once it became obvious where this saga was heading. So I am a bit confused as to whether the players did this or not. I would have thought that they would have done this once our finals campaign came to an end. So if they are found guilty, suspensions could be back dated until early September.

McDevitt told the Senate estimates hearing that any suspensions can be back dated to November as that was when IN were handed out to the players.

Is anyone aware if the players took up this option of voluntary suspensions? Given the circumstances and the uncertainty of a positive outcome, it seems silly if they didn't.
Click to expand...

There is a provisional suspension automatically handed down when an Infraction Notice is given. Players would have to apply to have that lifted.
 
fishardansin said:
There is a provisional suspension automatically handed down when an Infraction Notice is given. Players would have to apply to have that lifted.
Click to expand...
My query is in regards to a voluntary provisional suspension that the players could have taken once our season ended in September. I just found an article from late August where Little and McLachlan had a meeting and supposedly discussed this option. Apparently Little rejected the idea as it would mean the players had to train separately from the main group. That doesn't make sense to me as they are training with the main group atm and are currently serving an imposed provisional suspension.

It just seems ludicrous IMO that the players wouldn't take this option at seasons end if it was available. It could be the difference of missing a couple of games, compared to 6 or 8 games (Assuming that players are found guilty and given a 6 month ban).
 
JohnnyDrama1 said:
Heard a rumour from someone who claims to have an inside source that 28 players will be handed bans. 6 will not. ASADA will appeal the 6 players who did not get bans and Essendon will appeal for the 28 players who did get bans
Click to expand...
Rumour I have heard is that ALL our boys will be let off, ASADA have insufficient evidence and their only hope is if a player comes forward with new evidence (which i doubt will be happening if it hasn't for 2 years).
 
Rumour I have is that we actually all still have NFI of what's going to happen. :)
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

WELL THERE YA GO
 
BRANXDON said:
Maybe you should just close the thread
Click to expand...
Well, that'd be a bit unnecessary. News is still coming out. Like Hird not appealing, for example.
 
With all the speculation I'm guessing the Club and Hird may have wanted to be on the front foot for a change hence the announcement to the media.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Duckworth
Delisted #38: Rhett Montgomerie - Not offered a contract for 2024 - 28/8
4 5 6 7 8
Replies
196
Views
19K
Zach Package
Zach Package
Lore
Delisted # 9: Jorja Borg - Not offered a contract for 2023 - 20/3
Replies
14
Views
2K
Lore
Lore
CrowdedHouse
Delisted #15: Olivia Barton - Not offered a contract for 2023 - 4/11
Replies
8
Views
2K
Lore
Lore
Lore
Delisted # 7: Bella Ayre - Not offered a contract for 2023 - 4/11
Replies
11
Views
1K
fairbump_playon
fairbump_playon
Lore
Coaching Staff Women's Coaches 2022 - Deadly Bentley paints boots for Dreamtime
Replies
17
Views
203
Lore
Lore

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top