Essendon's Penalty

[Son of Skeletor]

In fact, if the tribunal delivers a 12 month ban to the 34 players, then loss of all 2015 premiership points and draft punishments are the logical result of such a ban to maintain the integrity of the competition.

In the eventuality that the players are done for the season, I'm not sure stripping the Dons of their 2015 points would amount to much more than an empty symbolic gesture.

Which on form would make it the quintessential AFL Commission 'punishment' in many ways.

 

[FootyGeek]

In the eventuality that the players are done for the season, I'm not sure stripping the Dons of their 2015 points would amount to much more than an empty symbolic gesture.

Which on form would make it the quintessential AFL Commission 'punishment' in many ways.

You are correct to a point.

But at the same time, if the 12 month penalty is enforced by the tribunal, the most logical course of action is stripping of 2015 points and 2016 draft picks.

Might seem symbolic, but I would argue it is necessary for the competition, despite what would happen without further action.

 

[Argy]

I think Essendon fans need to come to terms with the gravity of the charges that have been laid here. If the players are found guilty, the crime amounts to nothing less than the systematic doping of nearly an entire football squad. This makes it comfortably the most serious charge ever leveled against a sporting club in this country, and perhaps even the world. The penalties should, and will, reflect this.

Many Essendon fans seem to be labouring under the delusion that the AFL will not come down hard on Essendon because the club represents an important revenue stream for the league, and that they therefore wouldn't want to unduly threaten that revenue stream by alienating the fans and consigning the club to an extended period without success. This is a little naive for two reasons. Firstly, as important a revenue stream as Essendon might be, it is vastly less important than the cumulative revenue derived from league sponsors and from the fans of the other 17 clubs. The AFL could be profitable even if every Essendon supporter were to permanently turn away from the game (which won't happen). The AFL, however, could not be profitable if they were seen as being in any way soft on the issue of systematic doping. That would alienate far more people (and sponsors) and would taint the AFL brand itself. If the AFL believes that it is in its best interests to do so, it will hang Essendon out to dry.

Secondly, I'm not sure why Essendon struggling for an extended period at the bottom of the table would necessarily be so unattractive a prospect for the AFL. Every year there is some team that must finish bottom, and which in turn will attract (marginally) smaller crowds. There is no reason why the AFL would have any vested interest in engineering the long-term success of an established Victorian club: the fans will still be there even after extended periods of lack of success. Richmond have experienced this, St Kilda have experienced this and Melbourne are experiencing this now - all these teams are still (more or less) profitable and do not threaten the AFL's bottom line. Given that there will always be some club struggling to be competitive in any given year, it might as well be the team that committed systematic doping as opposed to one of the teams that didn't. The EFC is not so important that it cannot finish 18th.

As for the penalties, at the very least the club would have to be barred from the first round and second rounds of the draft for any year the players are banned. They should not be rewarded for failing to field a team as a consequence of their own malfeasance. All those who knew about the program (or who should have known about the system) should be expelled from the club to give it a chance to make a fresh start. There should also be further fines and the option for the suspended players to leave the club as free agents. I would also hit them as quickly as possible - this can't drag out over many seasons. They can start from a fresh slate in 2016, albeit having to start from further back as a consequence of whatever lost draft picks and potential player defections there may have been. If the AFL wants to demonstrate it is serious about preventing systematic doping within the sport, then this is what must happen. If it fails to do so, it will suffer damage to the brand that goes far beyond a few disaffected (and delusional) Essendon supporters.

Well put.

 

[Son of Skeletor]

You are correct to a point.

But at the same time, if the 12 month penalty is enforced by the tribunal, the most logical course of action is stripping of 2015 points and 2016 draft picks.

Might seem symbolic, but I would argue it is necessary for the competition, despite what would happen without further action.

Retroactively awarding Essendon the 2012 wooden spoon seems like an apt gesture.

That, combined with their demotion from the 2013 finals and the suspension of half their list probably suffices in terms of the on-field element.

The draft picks are another story.

 

[Clems Knee]

The governance penalties levied against Essendon were actually based on their drug program, however president Little would not sign off the agreement whilst the word drug was used, hence governance.
Due to taking this stance further sanctions for drug use would be applicable, monetary, draft selections, personal departures.
However the AFL commission via the chairman Mike Fitzpatrick stated earlier that there would be no further penalties against Essendon.
In my view the AFL administer and promote the game and should not cover up for the mistakes of clubs, the word integrity and AFL do not go hand in hand.
Until such time that the AFL truly apply integrity to all their dealings the competition will not flourish as it should.

I have seen this written often, and remember that this reflects the journalist's interpretation of what Fitzpatrick said. But did Mike Fitzpatrick actually say there would be no further penalties against Essendon?
I don't think so.

“This process has gone on for too long. And I am extremely disappointed that the players are in this position,” Fitzpatrick said.

“The AFL last year took strong and timely action against the club and three individuals at the club — and those individuals and the club accepted the penalties.

“The interim report delivered to the AFL Commission last year about the Essendon supplement program in 2012 outlined very serious breaches of our rules and it was clear that the program subjected our players to unacceptable risks — and ONE of those risks is playing out now.”

In my opinion there is every chance that further sanctions will apply if Essendon players get a significant penalty, and unless the Essendon board do everything the AFL commission demands of them, they would be facing suspension from the league. Not that Essendon are that stupid.
Fines, points deducted, return of Brownlow medal, removal of architects of PED program and an interim board of directors could all be involved.

 

[DrEvil_]

The proper penalty would be removal from the comp a la Juventus. Have Port Melbourne take their place this year.

 

[yaco55]

EFC is here to stay if they look like going bust we will all be bailing them out.

I would imagine tickets sales would drop and sponsors may not renew. The financial impact as Mxett eludes to will already be enormous should a serious number of players be suspended for any length of time.

Punishments should be aimed at facilitators not at fans, get rid of all board members, coaches and medical staff under whose watch this happened for the same or double the length of time of the longest player suspension.

This is what I have been arguing - One official Dank punished by ASADA - This is an indictment on the WADA Code - And this is ASADA's responsibility, not the AFL or EFC.

 

[yaco55]

So you believe that it would be perfectly fine for their efc to lose players for 2015, resulting in the club finishing 18th, obtain their #1 selection in this year's Draft and add the best players in this year's Draft to a side that you (well many efc supporters) believe should be pushing for a top 4 spot? There backlash would be massive !!!

I have no problems with this scenario - What happens if like WC in 2007 have an injury wrecked season and put their cue in the rack and got pick 3.

One player doesn't make a team - It's not the NBA.

 

[Rioli magic]

I have no problems with this scenario - What happens if like WC in 2007 have an injury wrecked season and put their cue in the rack and got pick 3.

One player doesn't make a team - It's not the NBA.

But you are not having an injury wrecked season, you are getting punished for systemic cheating.

 

[DapperJong]

People calling for Essendon to be dissolved… Really?

Honestly, if EFC are found guilty and the bans/punishments result in the club being a bottom 4 or 8 side for a fair while well then hey s**t happens.

But come on. If Carlton, Collingwood or ******* Hawthorn were in this position, I wouldn't want them to go away. I like having these scum infested teams around. Matches against them is what makes me excited to go to the footy. I'm sure you guys like beating the dons when you play them, right?
Think about the AFL with no Essendon. That pleasure will be taken away from you.

*s.

 

[juss]

Do not want Essendon to be dissolved, thats just stupid and way over the top. Punish them but the club should still exist.

 

[PetterdHoisted]

The proper penalty would be removal from the comp a la Juventus. Have Port Melbourne take their place this year.

Agree but an independent Zebras to step in, home games played at Sandy, after game drinks at the members bar down at the Yacht Club.

 

[mxett]

There is a difference between a result that is fair and a result that emotionally upsets you.

Well done on bringing Hawthorn into it though to prove my point.

Ridding the competition of those with no regard for it, the contracts they sign or any of the other stakeholders invested in it wouldn't make it worse.

ASADA dont ban athletes for life for a single offence. Yet punishing the club 3 times could effectively do this (if the club is unsustainable) for one offence. How can that be seen as fair?

 

[Iskender Time]

People calling for Essendon to be dissolved… Really?

Honestly, if EFC are found guilty and the bans/punishments result in the club being a bottom 4 or 8 side for a fair while well then hey s**t happens.

But come on. If Carlton, Collingwood or ******* Hawthorn were in this position, I wouldn't want them to go away. I like having these scum infested teams around. Matches against them is what makes me excited to go to the footy. I'm sure you guys like beating the dons when you play them, right?
Think about the AFL with no Essendon. That pleasure will be taken away from you.

******s.

Scum infested there is just part of the footy rivalry banter. Essendon on the other hand have been infested with some proper scumbags, some of whom still hold positions of power. I don't want to see the Dons rubbed out but those people must get a firm boot up the arse.

 

[DapperJong]

Scum infested there is just part of the footy rivalry banter. Essendon on the other hand have been infested with some proper scumbags, some of whom still hold positions of power. I don't want to see the Dons rubbed out but those people must get a firm boot up the arse.

At least you understand it's banter! Yes, proper scum can diaf.

 

[Perry Pie]

My suggestion - points deduction of 2 points per game (44) in 2015 and a deduction of 1 point per game (22) in 2016. Backed up with a lowest league position of 9th for draft purposes (got that from someone earlier - a good idea). No fines as that just sends money around the system.

All involved removed - if the board will not do the board get replaced.

All over by the end of 2016, even a finals chance next season if they are good enough.

 

[rdhopkins2]

Giving Essendon the death penalty (ie forcing them to fold) is a little over the top but certainly they need a massive penalty as punishment and also to discourage any other team from stepping over the line. Hird and Little should be banned from holding positions in Australian sport, as with Dank.

Players should get 12mths but if they were fully in the know, 2 years.

The club needs to be given last position in the draft picks for each round for the next 2 years plus pay a couple of million in penalties.

Bombers were more than happy to see the Blue baggers cop their right salary cap whack, so aren't in a position to complain of tough penalties.

 

[Laphroaig]

ASADA dont ban athletes for life for a single offence. Yet punishing the club 3 times could effectively do this (if the club is unsustainable) for one offence. How can that be seen as fair?

Logical nonsense.

In this thread your argument seems to be that an appropriate penalty for the magnitude of the offence is too painful, therefore an appropriate penalty should not be applied.

Incidental consequences such as potential civil legal action by the players is not at all relevant.

Answer me this. If it turns out that the players really were duped, and perhaps receive some discount on the penalty as a result, how is it "fair" that the organisation which duped them does not receive something nasty for duping them?

My guess is that the AFL will indeed move against the Club if we get multiple player suspensions. The penalty will be somewhat greater than the "governance" consequences.

However. The Club will receive a discount equivalent to the governance penalty and ongoing support from the AFL to stay afloat. Hird's head on a plate (if ASADA have not delivered it) will be an unspoken condition.

I note with interest that preliminary noises to condition the membership to the idea of Sheedy returning are being heard.

 

[VL3OJ]

If the AFL can have the 10,000 member GWS in the comp then the AFL can afford a slimmed down Essendon. I don't see fining the hell out of them a significant impost as Membership loss, Sponsorship loss, Lawyer funding for Flower Drum nosh ups / etc, will take it's toll.

I am happy with the two years for the 34 and to place the EFC on a loan drip-feed to avoid cash flow difficulties. I would also see that Essendon need to remove all EFC Board members/Football Department and to ban these individuals from any contact at any level. If EFC don't want to try to get rid of the cancer then I am happy for the patient to die, preferably elsewhere.

 

[LoungeLizard]

Logical nonsense.

In this thread your argument seems to be that an appropriate penalty for the magnitude of the offence is too painful, therefore an appropriate penalty should not be applied.

Incidental consequences such as potential civil legal action by the players is not at all relevant.

Answer me this. If it turns out that the players really were duped, and perhaps receive some discount on the penalty as a result, how is it "fair" that the organisation which duped them does not receive something nasty for duping them?

My guess is that the AFL will indeed move against the Club if we get multiple player suspensions. The penalty will be somewhat greater than the "governance" consequences.

However. The Club will receive a discount equivalent to the governance penalty and ongoing support from the AFL to stay afloat. Hird's head on a plate (if ASADA have not delivered it) will be an unspoken condition.

I note with interest that preliminary noises to condition the membership to the idea of Sheedy returning are being heard.

I think it all depends on what is revealed.
If Dank did actually go rogue, then i think the penalties are fair, but if it's found that people at the club knew what type of tymosin was on those consents then i think there could be more to come.
not many people are going to happy if it's found that they did know and have clamped up all this time, dragging this saga on when it could of been finished years ago

 

[The 747]

Assuming guilty and a ray of intelligent light strikes Tullamarine......

Everyone associated with that period of time walks or gets fired. EFC and the AFL kiss and make up and everyone moves on.

 

[loki04]

So what happens with Jobes Brownlow? Serious question no troll.

Surely he can't keep it after winning it the same time as being done for illegal PED's?

 

[DapperJong]

So what happens with Jobes Brownlow? Serious question no troll.

Surely he can't keep it after winning it the same time as being done for illegal PED's?

There's a different thread.

 

[mxett]

Logical nonsense.

In this thread your argument seems to be that an appropriate penalty for the magnitude of the offence is too painful, therefore an appropriate penalty should not be applied.

No, my argument is the penalties from the AFL, plus the massive fallout from ASADA's bans for players may be enough to put the club right on the edge and make them suffere for decades. Why hit them a third time and cause their demise, unless that's what people really want

 

[Frank Grimes]

I have no problems with this scenario - What happens if like WC in 2007 have an injury wrecked season and put their cue in the rack and got pick 3.

Just lol how you can't see the difference between a team having an injury wrecked season and being punished for systematic doping.

One is a result of very bad luck and outside the clubs control. The other is a punishment to a club for violating the doping code. While injuries are unfortunate they are ultimately an unavoidable part of the game. Systematic doping is totally under the clubs control and should have no part in the game.