Essendon players could boycott NAB Challenge games if AFL doesn't backdate anti-doping bans

[Muggs]

I guess the issue is, is it genuinely a two year ban? Or backdated to some arbitrary date? The inexplicable penalties handed out to the NRL were a joke, and I suspect would be howled down if handed to Essendon players if found guilty. For me a two year ban that receives a 50% reduction (for whatever reason) and backdated to date of issue of infraction notice, would see them miss 12 months from November 2014, which is essentially one whole season. If it wasn't backdated, they'd miss two whole seasons so that would be 2 years.

I don't see much difference between a September or November backdated ban anyway. Unless EFC flukes it into finals with 18 suspended players (who unlikely to play anyway as not match fit) this time is the traditional end of season trip, wind down time, preseason training has not even started.

 

[Gough]

I never want to here Australians whinging about other countries and doping again the whole thing has been a farce from woe to go.

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

are they? How do you define "in-competition" in a sport like AFL?

What is your take on the question posed, since that poster has decided to run scared on that question? Should a 2 year ban actually last 4 years to the off-season isn't counted?

No, should be the two years, two years of competition, not the four as the offseason really can be counted as part of the year and is used to train for afl competition for the next season. Backdating is another issue and I'm curious on the length and conditions.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Its a strike if they don't play just because they don't want to. Simple. As to if the dons approve the non playing( of the non suspended players), which means they don't field a team, then the club has effectively taken strike action against the AFL and I hope the they throw the book at them.

no it's not. Then you have to classify a player who is not playing due to pregnancy as striking, which is nonsense.

The players are saying "I choose not to play because I don't want to jeapordise my potential provisional suspension". The club and AFL will go, "no problems, fair enough".

There is no suggestion whatsoever that the whole team won't play - I am not sure why you think that's even a thing

 

[theflea]

I brought up the CBA because people seem to think the AFL can just demand something and the players have to comply, when in fact they have rights. They can in fact decide not to play. It happens all the time, as I pointed out with the pregnancy example

Yes they have rights, and I don't think I said they don't, hence I quoted legal issues. I have said they don't have to play, but I also said if they have no 'legal' right to not play ie provisions within the CBA, then ramifications will occur.

 

[theflea]

But we might be reading too much into the article. There is no indication in Robbo's article that Essendon will withdraw. Everything is about the 18 'suspended' players, and provisional suspensions. I read it as the 18 players will not play.

(Incidently the "about 18 players" is sort of new info, we have always guessed it must be about 20 based on delistments etc ... wonder if Robbo has given us the real number)

I agree, I was just replying on 'if' this was true and how it would work. I understand that this may all be fluff.

 

[imperial_oz]

see my post above

Yeah I got that and didn't agree that bans start from the first game.

Bans (if any, of course) start from when the tribunal makes a finding that the code was breached (much like a criminal sentence). Bans can be backdated to a point in time consistent with the WADA code and in this case I would think thats the point where the INs were issued because thats when the provisional suspensions commenced.

Personally, I would find it harder to justify a different date but the tribunal may have their own views on that.

 

[theflea]

the idea that the AFL or the EFC would try to force a player to play, who merely wants to ensure that any potential provisional suspension isn't endangered by him playing, is absolutely off it's head, and anyone who thinks it will happen should feel bad

I am not debating whether the suspended players should play, just the non suspended players should.

 

[Chameleon75]

I don't see the two as having any linkage.

A two year ban (WADA code) is from a point in time to and end point in time and makes no reference to in or out of competition.

FWIW, my opinion on 'in-competition' for AFL would include preseason training. ie while you train as a team you are part of the competition and therefore 'in competition'. The AFL defines 'in-competition' as match days and I've never agreed with that. I pretty much expect most folks not to share my opinion though.

the afl fought to define in competition as match day only over there concern with players breaching the wada code over illicit drugs.

 

[Laphroaig]

Essendon clearly has no pride left.

You used one more word than was necessary.

 

[theflea]

To not have any match practice leading into round 1 would be the dumbest move of all if that's is what is being proposed happens.

The fact it's being complicated is head scratching at it's best the way I see it.

Just bloody well play footy.

I also cant believe this, just in case the worse happens.

 

[LoungeLizard]

Yeah I got that and didn't agree that bans start from the first game.

Bans (if any, of course) start from when the tribunal makes a finding that the code was breached (much like a criminal sentence). Bans can be backdated to a point in time consistent with the WADA code and in this case I would think thats the point where the INs were issued because thats when the provisional suspensions commenced.

Personally, I would find it harder to justify a different date but the tribunal may have their own views on that.

This is the bit i don't understand, the players are training for a competition(in competition)why are they allowed to train if they are under provisional suspension?

 

[Lance Uppercut]

This is the bit i don't understand, the players are training for a competition(in competition)why are they allowed to train if they are under provisional suspension?

because there's nothing in the rules that says they can't...

 

[imperial_oz]

the afl fought to define in competition as match day only over there concern with players breaching the wada code over illicit drugs.

Yes I know and that was pretty dishonest of them to apply such an arbitrary standard. As far as I know, the AFL is the only sport that would allow a player to 'train' all week using 'enhancements' and only seek to apply an 'out of competition' ruling on that. Other sports consider 'in competition' to include all of the season

 

[Red Bull]

It'd really stick it to the man, if Essendon kitted up, walked towards the middle of the morwell football ground. Made an elegant circle and performed a sit down protest.

That would show those big wig bastard at WADA what's what.

Tim Watson the wannabe powerbroker/mastermind
Jobe Watson the inspirational/oh so brave captain

History will duly record the roles these two geese played in the downfall of the efc ...

 

[Jimthegreat]

Its a strike if they don't play just because they don't want to. Simple. As to if the dons approve the non playing( of the non suspended players), which means they don't field a team, then the club has effectively taken strike action against the AFL and I hope the they throw the book at them.

WADA rules are clear. If you violates the terms of your suspension by competing, even a provisional one, the ban re-starts from the day the suspension was violated. Right now they've been provisionally suspended since they played their last game. If they played in their game on March 7 then their suspension would re-start again from that date. Hence they want a guarantee otherwise they don't want to take the risk by playing.

Hope that clears it up.

 

[mxett]

You may dismiss it but in reality, it is the issue at heart... is it not?

Its history and cannot be changed. Current decisions shouldnt be judged on something that cannot be changed

 

[LoungeLizard]

because there's nothing in the rules that says they can't...

But you would think "in competition" would also mean training for the competition.
But then i suppose, they could also train together away from the club

 

[imperial_oz]

This is the bit i don't understand, the players are training for a competition(in competition)why are they allowed to train if they are under provisional suspension?

My understanding of the rationale behind that (and I'm open to correction) is the player has not been found guilty of doping. The provisional suspension is in place to prevent them from competing with 'clean' athletes and placing the majority at a disadvantage. As they haven't been shown to have 'definitely' breached the WADA code, they don't suffer the full range of penalties.

It seem to be a compromise between the player's rights and the other player's rights. Its not perfect but probably the best balance that can be found.

 

[theflea]

no it's not. Then you have to classify a player who is not playing due to pregnancy as striking, which is nonsense.

The players are saying "I choose not to play because I don't want to jeapordise my potential provisional suspension". The club and AFL will go, "no problems, fair enough".

There is no suggestion whatsoever that the whole team won't play - I am not sure why you think that's even a thing

As I said, I am not talking about the suspended players, just talking about the others and making sure the dons field a team. I agree the players wouldn't want to effect their time frames if they played. I am not sure how you can think that pregnancy isn't part of normal leave entitlements and has nothing to do with striking. What do normal dads do in this situations? They take legal leave.

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

WADA rules are clear. If you violates the terms of your suspension by competing, even a provisional one, the ban re-starts from the day the suspension was violated. Right now they've been provisionally suspended since they played their last game. If they played in their game on March 7 then their suspension would re-start again from that date. Hence they want a guarantee otherwise they don't want to take the risk by playing.

Hope that clears it up.

Thanks for that, clears up my and l'm sure many others concerns about the issue of backdating and provisional suspensions etc. Do you know whereabouts in the WADA codes/rules that it talks about the subject of provisional suspensions.

 

[Laphroaig]

blackmailing?

****en lol. Give it a spell. If it was to affect any backdating of penalties then they are well within their rights to decide not to compete.

Funny old thing about rights. Sometimes they are exercised for morally supportable or even noble reasons; sometimes the are exercised for tawdry, cynical and self serving reasons. Sometimes a little from column A and a little for column B.

The act of saying "the person is within their rights" or is "exercising his rights" does NOTHING to change the motivations behind that action, nor does it require anyone to blithely forgive such motivation.

It certainly seems that there is a cluster of fascination with rights down Windy Hill way of late.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

But you would think "in competition" would also mean training for the competition.
But then i suppose, they could also train together away from the club

the thing is though, it's a provisional suspension. It's not a full suspension. They haven't been found guilty yet, so it is silly to say they shouldn't be able even to train

 

[CountryRace]

Tim Watson the wannabe powerbroker/mastermind
Jobe Watson the inspirational/oh so brave captain

History will duly record the roles these two geese played in the downfall of the efc ...

When do Sam Mitchell and Trent cotchin get the medals ??

 

[theflea]

WADA rules are clear. If you violates the terms of your suspension by competing, even a provisional one, the ban re-starts from the day the suspension was violated. Right now they've been provisionally suspended since they played their last game. If they played in their game on March 7 then their suspension would re-start again from that date. Hence they want a guarantee otherwise they don't want to take the risk by playing.

Hope that clears it up.

Ah I always understood this and im not saying anything about this.