2014 Non-Crows AFL Discussion

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Allefgib said:
We signed Stat Decs with lies in them.
Essendon seem to have deliberately kept themselves ignorant to potential breaches of rules.

I'm not saying I disagree with your sentiment that what they did was 'worse'.
But I think it can be argued we KNEW we were breaching rules - and did it anyway. Has Essendon actually breached rules as yet?
Bad governance is not the same as deliberately breaking rules.
Click to expand...

Its much worse. Neglienge/recklesness in their area (drugs, player welfare) vs a deliberate breach (if it was that) where there was no real harm done, as we were were below the cap.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Allefgib said:
We signed Stat Decs with lies in them.
Essendon seem to have deliberately kept themselves ignorant to potential breaches of rules.

I'm not saying I disagree with your sentiment that what they did was 'worse'.
But I think it can be argued we KNEW we were breaching rules - and did it anyway. Has Essendon actually breached rules as yet?
Bad governance is not the same as deliberately breaking rules.
Click to expand...

Not being able to account for what has been injected in the bodies of the young men who are under their care, compared to subverting the draft, is as much worse as it can get. And that's the best case scenario. Worst case is that they actively knew what they were putting in them.

One is a club attempting to break the rules to gain an unfair advantage - the other is deliberately and willfully putting the health of your playing list at risk.

One of them is the kind of thing that might cast doubt over the fairness of your competition - the other is the kind of thing that might see your competition sued out of existence.

There is no comparison between the crime we committed, and that of Essendon. It's jaywalking vs murder. Yes, we deserved to be punished in the manner we were, but Essendon have thus far barely received a slap on the wrist from the AFL by comparison.
 
Allefgib said:
I agree it's morally worse.
But legally we had no leg to stand on... wheras is not so clear cut with the Bombers.
Click to expand...

That's a separate issue. Whether Essendon are capable of fighting the charges remains to be seen (although it appears probably not). That's not the issue though. The issue is that the AFL's excuse for not penalising Essendon as hard as us is that they cooperated and we didn't. That is plainly untrue.
 
cmndstab said:
That's a separate issue. Whether Essendon are capable of fighting the charges remains to be seen (although it appears probably not). That's not the issue though. The issue is that the AFL's excuse for not penalising Essendon as hard as us is that they cooperated and we didn't. That is plainly untrue.
Click to expand...
Untrue NOW.
At the time...? Hird agreed to take his money and run to France didn't he?

I'm not defending anyone here. It's very clear now that the AFL were defending themselves as much as the bombers. The EFC and the AFL were definitely working together to try and minimise the damage and fallout - at the sametime as the AFL handing down some pretty stiff penalties to the footy club given the ASADA stuff was always going to follow.

Maybe 'collaborating' woudl be a better word than 'cooperating' ;)
 
I don't think there is any question that what Essendon have done is worse, both in the behaviour that led to the penalties and their behaviour as an 'AFL citizen' since. Clearly we co-operated once we knew we were gone, whereas Essendon, besides the sham they put on for that first press conference and I suppose the Switkowski report, have fought tooth and nail.

However I think it's valid to point out that their penalties are not limited to just the draft stuff. The loss of premiership points was significant - they had a finals appearance taken away from them in a year when they were showing plenty and had a backs-to-the-wall-us-against-them thing going on. Who knows what they might have achieved? Moreover, the draft penalties were only for the governance issues (which also cost them senior administration personnel, fines, and their coach for a year). The doping infractions will incur further penalties.

Demetriou's comment about co-operation was ludicrous. But Essendon have likely only delayed the full consequences. By the time it's all played out, I'd be surprised if anyone thinks they've got off lightly.
 
jenny61_99 said:
AFL will argue they've already punished Essendon. I can't see them hitting them again.
Click to expand...
On governance or doping?

The AFL will have to hit Essendon further for doping if found guilty.
 
jenny61_99 said:
AFL will argue they've already punished Essendon. I can't see them hitting them again.
Click to expand...

I think that if Essendon players are guilty of doping offences, and there is not a clean out of certain people etc then the AFL might find itself under a lot of public pressure to step in again. It will all come down to how the AFL want to be seen in the greater public view. That's what all their decisions relate to in the bigger scheme.
 
Kane McGoodwin said:
On governance or doping?

The AFL will have to hit Essendon further for doping if found guilty.
Click to expand...
Disagree. IMO, They will argue that they have already penalised the club extremely harshly and that there's no need for double dipping. However, the people that have so far escaped any penalties may not be so lucky. Individually, I expect to see Hird, Robinson, Thompson, Corcoran, Reid and Goodwin all receive Show Cause notices from ASADA (and subsequent penalties) if even just one player is banned for any games.
 
NikkiNoo said:
I think that if Essendon players are guilty of doping offences, and there is not a clean out of certain people etc then the AFL might find itself under a lot of public pressure to step in again. It will all come down to how the AFL want to be seen in the greater public view. That's what all their decisions relate to in the bigger scheme.
Click to expand...
Which is what I said above. :D
 
jenny61_99 said:
Disagree. IMO, They will argue that they have already penalised the club extremely harshly and that there's no need for double dipping. However, the people that have so far escaped any penalties may not be so lucky. Individually, I expect to see Hird, Robinson, Thompson, Corcoran, Reid and Goodwin all receive Show Cause notices from ASADA (and subsequent penalties) if even just one player is banned for any games.
Click to expand...
I gather you are talking Essendon the organisation - rather than the staff or players?

If this all goes pear-shaped for the Dons as expected, the AFL would have to fine them further, but may be irrelevant if they are bankrupt. It's not double-dipping as their penalties were soft, as they were not for doping last year - which is obviously a far more serious charge.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Kane McGoodwin said:
I gather you are talking Essendon the organisation - rather than the staff or players?

If this all goes pear-shaped for the Dons as expected, the AFL would have to fine them further, but may be irrelevant if they are bankrupt. It's not double-dipping as their penalties were soft, as they were not for doping last year - which is obviously a far more serious charge.
Click to expand...

If they go bankrupt it could be like the Melbourne financial penalties, whereby the AFL 'loaned' them money to pay off their fine. :rolleyes:
 
Kane McGoodwin said:
I gather you are talking Essendon the organisation - rather than the staff or players?

If this all goes pear-shaped for the Dons as expected, the AFL would have to fine them further, but may be irrelevant if they are bankrupt. It's not double-dipping as their penalties were soft, as they were not for doping last year - which is obviously a far more serious charge.
Click to expand...
Look you might be right, but I am very confident that Vlad set it up so that when the time came for ASADA to lean on them to punish the Club, the AFL would say they had already done so and wouldn't be looking to hit them a second time. Don't forget AFL changed the focus from Club penalties to individual penalties after they used our case as a precedent. AFL can't afford to destroy the Club - one of the most popular drawing crowds in the league. They would rather sacrifice James Hird and both of his testicles before they'd damage their money spinner in Essendon.
 
jenny61_99 said:
Look you might be right, but I am very confident that Vlad set it up so that when the time came for ASADA to lean on them to punish the Club, the AFL would say they had already done so and wouldn't be looking to hit them a second time. Don't forget AFL changed the focus from Club penalties to individual penalties after they used our case as a precedent. AFL can't afford to destroy the Club - one of the most popular drawing crowds in the league. They would rather sacrifice James Hird and both of his testicles before they'd damage their money spinner in Essendon.
Click to expand...

The problem is that Hird won't be a party to that, so it means the AFL may have to go after Essendon again. The other issue is that Essendon were really strong about it only being for Governance Issues instead of Governance and possible doping violations in the penalties. That leaves the door open for the AFL to go at Essendon on doping, which was a bit of stupidity on Essendon's part. They thought they were 'protecting' their brand, but instead I can see the door left open there for the AFL to punish them again.
 
NikkiNoo said:
The problem is that Hird won't be a party to that, so it means the AFL may have to go after Essendon again. The other issue is that Essendon were really strong about it only being for Governance Issues instead of Governance and possible doping violations in the penalties. That leaves the door open for the AFL to go at Essendon on doping, which was a bit of stupidity on Essendon's part. They thought they were 'protecting' their brand, but instead I can see the door left open there for the AFL to punish them again.
Click to expand...
Agreed. AFL had included doping in the original charges but agreed to withdraw those. Still can't see them want to punish them more... but if there's one thing we've learned from this ridiculous situation, you can never say never.
 
radiojake said:
Carlton delisted Robinson, Mclean and Lucas...

Carlton grabbed Kane Lucus with #12 right before Talia, despite them need KPPs for how long?

Lucas played 42 games over the time, while Talia is B&F winner and likely 200+ gamer

Thanks Carlton!
Click to expand...

I will be forever grateful.

In Swann and Icke they trust(ed) :p

#Jacobs #Talia #Eddie #Trigg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Samcro24
Opinion Non-Crows AFL 10
65 66 67 68 69
Replies
2K
Views
36K
Samcro24
Samcro24
Mr_Moogle
  • Locked
  • Poll
Opinion Non-Crows AFL 9
399 400 401 402 403
Replies
10K
Views
355K
Drugs Are Bad Mackay?
Drugs Are Bad Mackay?
Scorpus
  • Locked
Opinion Non-Crows AFL 7
399 400 401 402 403
Replies
10K
Views
336K
ams4crows
ams4crows
footy4ever
  • Locked
Opinion Non-Crows AFL 8 - Daddy Donuts Delivers Dream Drubbing
505 506 507 508 509
Replies
13K
Views
244K
Scorpus
Scorpus
DroppingTheBall
Universal Love Primary nicknames of current Crows AFL list players
2 3
Replies
54
Views
3K
Eagleboy2011
Eagleboy2011
George Kramer
  • Poll
Roast Crows Villians
2 3
Replies
56
Views
2K
marty36
marty36
dogs105
Resource 2024 AFL Draft discussion thread
6 7 8 9 10
Replies
248
Views
22K
jackster83
jackster83

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top