AFL floats possibility of small penalty if Dons guilty, but ASADA stays silent

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.

Log in to remove this ad.

mxett said:
The point is people are paying out on the AFL for recommending 6 month ban yet ASADA recommended the same earlier this year. Irrespective of deals, is 6 months a reasonable penalty or not? If not, blame ASADA too
Click to expand...
You need to understand that deals no longer apply once the tribunal has sat.
 
Good old AFL. They can throw in the thought that match bans would be better in a team/season sport than a time penalty. Just like Dank and Willcourt can say their drugs of choice shouldn't be banned. Unfortunately the tribunal, appeals board and CAS (if it got there) will be ruling based on what the codes actually say (and said in 2012), not what anyone wishes they said.

And der the AFL would rather any penalties were as short as possible. ASADA has made it clear they would be looking for any penalties to be appropriate. I could live with six months backdated, as it would effectively wreck 2015 and hopefully be enough for Hird to have to go, but what I think doesn't matter.
 
mxett said:
is that really so surprising? Danks main aim is protecting himself at all costs, and making everyone believe the players were fully aware of what he did is part of that
Click to expand...
As opposed to efc's well known aim of blaming everything on dank and claiming the players were told one thing and deceived by dank. Yet we believe the players were texting each other about thymo
 
The Prosecutor said:
And a slap on the wrist? Get off of it.

If you think being kicked out finals, a $2 million fine, two years of first round and second rounds picks gone, our coach being suspended for a year, along with other things as the AFL leaking the charge sheet and further damaging our brand is a slap on the wrist, then I don't know what to say.

You try supporting a team when you've endured this for over two years and have the AFL do that to your club and then try and say it was a slap on the wrist.
Click to expand...

So you believe that one player trying to force a club into letting him go to his club of choice for a second rounder, deserves 11 weeks suspension, but 34 players (allegedly) trying to get away with doping deserve less than 3 weeks' suspension is fair?
Or, one club allowing 34 of its players to be doped to gain an unfair advantage deserve to lose fewer picks than a club that tries to get more than a second rounder for a player who will be paid the highest salary in his new club?
Alright then!
 
yeahmate said:
Fix is in. AFL/press setting public's expectations for less than 6 months with backdating. Penalties will be minimal.
Click to expand...
No they are trying to paint big bad Asada as the bad guys while the nice AFL did their very best to get the players as small a penalty as possible.
 
Last edited:
The Prosecutor said:
When you've had all the fees we've had along with all the fees to come in the future, an additional $2 million is not meaningless.



Yes, because Adelaide stupidly offered up the punishment before the AFL even issued any sanctions. blame Trigg and the Adelaide board for that. Two years of draft sanctions is still very significant.



Hird's from an individual perspective was relatively light, I agree. But what does that have to from Essendon's perspective where they lost their coach for a year?



That is really ignorant view of it. If you honestly don't think two years worth of draft sanctions and a $2 million fine when we're already bleeding cash is significant, then **** me, I don't know what to say.
Click to expand...
Actually not true. Adelaide offered up one year of draft picks (first two rounds) in good faith. AFL doubled it. We also were unable to trade the first year. We lost our CEO (six months) and footy manager (3 months) from Jan 1. And we were fined (which we paid by the way - only Club stupid enough to pay these fines it seems). The thing that really gets my goat. Vlad said ours were worse (effectively) because we didn't co-operate but Essendon did. I mean WTF?? o_O
 
Wasn't the hearing meant to be confidential? Tsk, tsk.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Anyone have a problem with the first sentence?

"The AFL suggested to the special doping tribunal that present and former Essendon players should receive a small match-based suspension if they were found guilty of taking a banned substance"

ASADA should and so should the EFC players.

Imagine found guilty on basis of a short sentence, then ASADA/WADA appeals to AAT/CAS not on guilt but on sentence and players are smacked with a long sentence.

The AFL doesn't seem to get it that it has lost control and ultimately WADA has the final shot should it want it.

At least Sepp Blatter knows how to keep these deals out of sight, AFL are amateurs.
 
Hearts to hearts said:
Good old AFL. They can throw in the thought that match bans would be better in a team/season sport than a time penalty. Just like Dank and Willcourt can say their drugs of choice shouldn't be banned. Unfortunately the tribunal, appeals board and CAS (if it got there) will be ruling based on what the codes actually say (and said in 2012), not what anyone wishes they said.

And der the AFL would rather any penalties were as short as possible. ASADA has made it clear they would be looking for any penalties to be appropriate. I could live with six months backdated, as it would effectively wreck 2015 and hopefully be enough for Hird to have to go, but what I think doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

I really hope it is enough for the Goat to go - I thought his position was untenable if INs are issued though. Hes also going through an unshaven period, which is his battling man of the peeps look.

Oh God! He's not going! Aaaaargh!
 
Hopefully now all the "the AFL are just out to get us and Hirdy for no good reason" clowns can see the forest for the trees.

The AFL have always wanted the players to escape penalty.
 
mxett said:
Seems Far more likely they didnt know it was a banned thymosin than the likelihood an entire club including 44 players and staff all decided cheating with peds was a good idea. Then not one has owned up to ot since
Click to expand...
That's what dank is saying. Just because you don't want to believe him and want him to be the sole rogue doesn't mean he's lying.
 
Muggs said:
Article makes perfect sense if you consider the AFL likes trying to arrange things neatly to a prewritten script.

They just have not woken up to the fact they not the ones who are are deciding what happens.
Click to expand...

the afl have tried to control this situation from day 1 . I hope essendon / players / hird get the maximum penalty .
 
mxett said:
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...y-but-asada-stays-silent-20150304-13v3fu.html

The AFL suggested to the special doping tribunal that present and former Essendon players should receive a small match-based suspension if they were found guilty of taking a banned substance.

But while the AFL's representative did make a suggestion on any potential penalties, the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority has reserved its position on whether the players should be entitled to a discount for cooperation, which would cut any sentence from 12 months to six months, with backdating from last year.

Sources familiar with evidence from the recently concluded tribunal hearing said ASADA's advocate Malcolm Holmes QC, did not broach the topic of penalties - the drugs agency reserving its position until after a verdict - but that the AFL's representative suggested that a smaller match-based penalty would be appropriate in the event of a guilty verdict.

The AFL left it open for the tribunal to decide whether the players should be found guilty or acquitted of taking the banned peptide thymosin beta-4.

The AFL's legal representative in the month-long hearings, Jeff Gleeson QC, is understood to have told the hearing that a match-based penalty - rather than the blocks of months that are usually involved in doping cases - would be more appropriate, because it fitted the AFL as a team-based sport, if players were found guilty.

ASADA had previously offered the 34 players a six-month ban, plus backdating, after show-cause notices were issued for the first time in 2014 and before Essendon and coach James Hird tried, unsuccessfully, to have the investigation ruled unlawful in the Federal Court. That offer has not been repeated since the tribunal case started

A smaller penalty is also consistent with the view that players were "duped" and did not knowingly take banned substances
Click to expand...
Well lets be honest when it comes to the AFL and punishments
design.png
 
mxett said:
but 6 months is 6 months irrespective of a deal. Is that length of ban enough for cheats? ASADA seem to think so
Click to expand...
It may be enough for cheats who co'operate and confess their guilt. Does not mean it is enough for cheats who got caught and tried to beat the charge.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

The_Wookie
Play Nice Happy 10th Anniversary (of the Essendon/ASADA Saga)
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
blackcat
blackcat
CASEYS9420
Moved Thread James Hird - is it time to give him a second chance at coaching an AFL club? Gil says yes! - The PEDs Forum Version
2 3 4
Replies
88
Views
6K
Caligo
Caligo

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top