2014 Non-Crows AFL Discussion

[fabs33]

It'll be like most things in the AFL. Many clubs are breaking the rules, but the AFL's view is to punish one as a warning for the others. The trick is not to be the one that gets caught.

Carlton: salary cap breaches
Essendon: PEDs and supplements
Melbourne: tanking
Adelaide: payments outside the cap

Wrong on two counts; Melbourne didn't tank and we were the ones punished for them not tanking.

 

[jenny61_99]

NikkiNoo, where are you? I need someone to convince me that the offending Essendon players will be sitting in the stands for at least a season, including those who have run away to other clubs.

I cannot see how the players will get anything less than 12 months, and that is being generous, allowing for a reduction due to no significant fault (which the NRL players were given). I can't, however seeing them backdating the penalties to anything before the infraction notices were issued (November).

 

[Scrotes2000]

I cannot see how the players will get anything less than 12 months, and that is being generous, allowing for a reduction due to no significant fault (which the NRL players were given). I can't, however seeing them backdating the penalties to anything before the infraction notices were issued (November).

I think you better prepare yourself for disappointment jenny How can you believe their case is air-tight at this stage?

 

[Bacon8]

I think you better prepare yourself for disappointment jenny How can you believe their case is air-tight at this stage?

It doesn't need to be air-tight.

 

[Scrotes2000]

It doesn't need to be air-tight.

It seems like there's less than 100% chance they'll be able to make it all stick though is what I'm saying.

 

[footy4ever]

I cannot see how the players will get anything less than 12 months, and that is being generous, allowing for a reduction due to no significant fault (which the NRL players were given). I can't, however seeing them backdating the penalties to anything before the infraction notices were issued (November).

Yeah, I can't see how they could be given any less either, but this is Essendon, one of the AFL royal family. If it was the Crows, it would be a lay down misere 2 year, ban.

I notice Lovett-Murray is taking legal action against the AFL saying they knew Essendon was up to something but failed to intervene. He's not going after the Essendon football club, he's going after the AFL for being negligent.

 

[jenny61_99]

Afl have protected Essendon all they can. What happens next is anyone's guess, but there'll be no carpet big enough.

 

[NikkiNoo]

It seems like there's less than 100% chance they'll be able to make it all stick though is what I'm saying.

We have already seen from what is leaked from the first of three opening submission days that there is a lot of information ASADA has that we were not aware of. They don't need 100% proof to make the charges stick. That is what people need to understand. This is not Law and Order burden of proof required. It's a lot less than what people associate with criminal charges. Essendon have done a job of trying to confuse the general public about how ASADA have no evidence, they have no smoking gun. They don't need a smoking gun, they have three days worth of evidence to lay out in opening submissions. That tells me that they definitely have a lot of evidence to put together a fair idea of what went on at Essendon over 18 months of doping violations.

 

[moogerfooger]

people need to stop paying attention to what football writers like Rohan Connolly and Mark Robinson (ESPECIALLY these two well known Essendon supporters/water carriers) write about legal and/or drug tribunal hearings - they have less idea about it than you or I, only they write like they have authority on these matters. the media commentary on the Supreme Court hearing (remember all the cricket analogies that had Essendon 4/600 and ASADA following on?) should have been more than enough to persuade people these guys have no business writing about anything other than footy matches.

the players will serve suspensions, the only question is how severe they will be.

 

[skoobydoo]

Yeah, I can't see how they could be given any less either, but this is Essendon, one of the AFL royal family. If it was the Crows, it would be a lay down misere 2 year, ban.

I notice Lovett-Murray is taking legal action against the AFL saying they knew Essendon was up to something but failed to intervene. He's not going after the Essendon football club, he's going after the AFL for being negligent.

OK I get it now - somebody else is to blame! Of course! Anyway we here in SA are accustomed to and can readily relate to the myopicism (?) of 'it's somebody else's fault', eh?

 

[CrowsB4hoes]

How could they backdate a suspension when the players would be banned from training during that suspension period. They would all be training now and therefore in breach of the suspension.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Does the penalty they've already served (losing premiership points, draft penalties) factor in to this at all?

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Does the penalty they've already served (losing premiership points, draft penalties) factor in to this at all?

No

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

No

So why did that happen?

 

[Bacon8]

So why did that happen?

Bad governance.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

So the club is clean for this next bit? No more draft penalties, loss of points, fines etc?

Just the players set to be penalised?

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

So why did that happen?

They were the penalties before taking illegal substances is proven - was more about inappropriate work practices, lack of duty of care & poor governance.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

So the club is clean for this next bit? No more draft penalties, loss of points, fines etc?

Just the players set to be penalised?

No, I expect dons to get another whack!

 

[DD#23]

So why did that happen?

wasn't it just the AFL playing its "brought the game into disrepute" cover-all card?

same as the Demons, nobody has done anything wrong (supposedly), but they just had to be seen to be doing something to appease the media.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

wasn't it just the AFL playing its "brought the game into disrepute" cover-all card?

same as the Demons, nobody has done anything wrong (supposedly), but they just had to be seen to be doing something to appease the media.

What I'm getting at is are they going to be penalised twice for the same event(s)?

 

[Don Muraco]

This case will decide whose got the biggest balls. I'm betting WADA.

 

[GROTTO]

This case will decide whose got the biggest balls. I'm betting WADA.

 

[SpeciousArgument]

What I'm getting at is are they going to be penalised twice for the same event(s)?

No. Theyve been penalised for operating a supplement program that they failed to keep records on so the players have no idea what they were given and in what doses.

If the case is judged in ASADAs favour the AFL may then penalise Essendon for what was given, wheras the previous penalty was about how it was given.

I personally dont think the AFL will whack essendon again, but it wouldnt be a case of 'double jeopardy' if they do imo

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

And that's where it seems odd to me.

If they'd admitted all at the time they'd have got the whack they're about to get plus the players would have copped the whack they're about to get.

But by doing it this way they have added in a governance whack that doesn't minimise their other penalties at all.

 

[SpeciousArgument]

And that's where it seems odd to me.

If they'd admitted all at the time they'd have got the whack they're about to get plus the players would have copped the whack they're about to get.

But by doing it this way they have added in a governance whack that doesn't minimise their other penalties at all.

I think early on they thought they'd covered their tracks sufficiently to get away with it, so they went all-in on the 'we're innocent but even if we arent your investigation against us was illegal' position, recontracting hird for silly amounts of money etc. Im sure if they could go back to when this was first uncovered theyd handle it differently but its too late now.