A short, sharp ban - Article by Mick Ellis

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

stanley86

All Australian
Veteran
Aug 10, 2007
733
157
North East Melbourne
AFL Club
Collingwood
"If you think certain conservative politicians are experiencing tough times, spare a thought for AFL Anti-Doping Tribunal chairman David Jones.

He’s got the hardest job in the land right now, deliberating on the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority’s cases against 34 Essendon players and former sports scientist Stephen Dank."

http://www.sen.com.au/news/a-short-sharp-ban-is-the-most-appealing-outcome

What are your thoughts on this?

He is looking to save this season and potentially next season, but I reckon there will be a revolt if players only get 3 weeks and are back in time for Anzac Day.

In saying that, I don't know what is a fair or reasonable punishment IF they are found guilty. A small ban, backdated, may help teams that play Essendon early in the season with % at the pointy end. A large ban will potentially ruin any games that Essendon are involved in and may affect crowds and general enjoyment
 
stanley86 said:
"If you think certain conservative politicians are experiencing tough times, spare a thought for AFL Anti-Doping Tribunal chairman David Jones.

He’s got the hardest job in the land right now, deliberating on the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority’s cases against 34 Essendon players and former sports scientist Stephen Dank."

http://www.sen.com.au/news/a-short-sharp-ban-is-the-most-appealing-outcome

What are your thoughts on this?

He is looking to save this season and potentially next season, but I reckon there will be a revolt if players only get 3 weeks and are back in time for Anzac Day.

In saying that, I don't know what is a fair or reasonable punishment IF they are found guilty. A small ban, backdated, may help teams that play Essendon early in the season with % at the pointy end. A large ban will potentially ruin any games that Essendon are involved in and may affect crowds and general enjoyment
Click to expand...

They can't get less than 12 months by the rules. Their backdate is only going back to November. They will miss the season if guilty. Why don't these commentators ever get that.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Short article from the Senate Hearing for ASADA

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/asada-warns-it-could-appeal-essendon-case-20150225-13p06n.html

Main points:
- "The offence of possession or use which is what we are talking about here normally would carry a two-year ban," McDevitt said.

- Australian anti-doping chief Ben McDevitt has suggested Essendon and coach James Hird are to blame for the delays in securing a resolution for the supplements saga and has warned he is likely to appeal any finding that is not a "reasonable decision".

- McDevitt said any suspension could be backdated until November when the players were handed infraction notices. When questioned whether that time between November and the matches beginning could count as part of a backdated suspension, he said: "That can still count as a credit."

- "My understanding, in the first instance, an appeal by ASADA would actually go to the AFL anti-doping appeals tribunal, so still within the purview of the AFL anti-doping arrangements, where as an appeal by WADA could go, as I understand it, directly to the Court of Arbitration for Sport."

- "In my view, this isn't about decisions made by ASADA in 2014 or 2013, it is about decisions made by athletes in 2012. Athletes and their support personnel and their clubs and so on," he said. (LOL, snap)

- "There have been delays. I am a big believer in justice delayed is justice denied. At the same time, a lot of delays are due to the mechanics, the frame work, the appeal mechanisms. People had those opportunities to take those up but, of course, those of themselves actually serve to create quite significant delays in the processes.
 
Jimthegreat said:
They can't get less than 12 months by the rules. Their backdate is only going back to November. They will miss the season if guilty. Why don't these commentators ever get that.
Click to expand...

Explain cronullas penalties? (PS. I completely agree with your assertion, just playing devil's advocate).
 
I get the feeling that Essendon really are in a whole world of trouble

McDevitts language, sounds to me like that Essendon really did go above and beyond,and really messed up and wants the public to know. Sounds like the players know more than what we are told too, and I think his itching to tell us all about what happened as we will be extremely disappointed in Essendon.

When he says players may be eligible for no fault etc, he has a smirk as in they have no chance
 
jenny61_99 said:
Explain cronullas penalties? (PS. I completely agree with your assertion, just playing devil's advocate).
Click to expand...

Cronulla got 12 months as well. Just had a huge backdate due to delays not of their making (resources needed for the more complicated Essendon case) hence their time was backdated to the point the investigation finished
 
Article may as well just be a bigfooty post. We can all guess what might happen, but for once in this saga we don't actually have to wait that long.

Whatever the tribunal decides, there will be an appeal. It is just a question of which side launches it.
 
You guys realise that McDevitt is pushing his agenda, just like Hird, just like anyone invloved, right?
 
Dapperd0n said:
You guys realise that McDevitt is pushing his agenda, just like Hird, just like anyone invloved, right?
Click to expand...
Of course he is. No different to Mick Ellis and his 3 match ban article. This is the business end of the whole shebang. It's going to be very, very interesting.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

jenny61_99 said:
Of course he is. No different to Mick Ellis and his 3 match ban article. This is the business end of the whole shebang. It's going to be very, very interesting.
Click to expand...

Oh the SEN article was just weird.
 
Linda Lovelace said:
Article may as well just be a bigfooty post. We can all guess what might happen, but for once in this saga we don't actually have to wait that long.

Whatever the tribunal decides, there will be an appeal. It is just a question of which side launches it.
Click to expand...
The appeal will have no immediate effect. Guilty players subject to appeal from either side will still be banned.
 
McDevitt seems awfully committed to pushing further IF there is no 'reasonable ban' given to the players.. Could it be that they are expecting to fight the outcome as they have not enough 'substantial evidence' and haven't proven 'beyond reasonable doubt' that tb4 was administered to the players?
 
Cashmoney13 said:
McDevitt seems awfully committed to pushing further IF there is no 'reasonable ban' given to the players.. Could it be that they are expecting to fight the outcome as they have not enough 'substantial evidence' and haven't proven 'beyond reasonable doubt' that tb4 was administered to the players?
Click to expand...
He's sitting before a senate inquiry answering questions put to him.
 
Cashmoney13 said:
McDevitt seems awfully committed to pushing further IF there is no 'reasonable ban' given to the players.. Could it be that they are expecting to fight the outcome as they have not enough 'substantial evidence' and haven't proven 'beyond reasonable doubt' that tb4 was administered to the players?
Click to expand...
Or could it be that he fears the AFL tribunal will be pressured by the AFL for a "friendly" outcome?
 
Cashmoney13 said:
McDevitt seems awfully committed to pushing further IF there is no 'reasonable ban' given to the players.. Could it be that they are expecting to fight the outcome as they have not enough 'substantial evidence' and haven't proven 'beyond reasonable doubt' that tb4 was administered to the players?
Click to expand...

Give it up.

EFC are cooked.

Beyond reasonable doubt does not even apply to these cases.
 
I listened to the senate testimony - McDevitt was very neutral and non committal. Both articles are pretty much pointless. In fact they both missed what was actually the only big hint: Dank is going to get done for trafficking ( amongst other things).
 
onemancyclone said:
He's sitting before a senate inquiry answering questions put to him.
Click to expand...

And when asked why has this matter taken so long, what are the answers available to him?

1. It actually hasn't been that long compared to other cases in the world
2. You are right senator this has taken ages and it is our fault
3. It has taken a long time but it isn't our fault, it is theirs.

I know which answer I'd go with when I was being asked to justify myself.
 
Short, sharp ban for the players = reduced level of accountability by the players, so the club MUST be held responsible. 3 game bans for players and no premiership points in 2015 (and draft picks moved to the end of the round) and I would accept that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

The_Wookie
The Andrew Wilkie Allegations
Replies
17
Views
678
pattymalone00
pattymalone00
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