Suspended past and present Essendon players may need AFL approval to play NAB Cup

[BlueWorld]

How about you name me another sport where the unrelenting hype has been like this, where the baying mob has been screaming for all and sunder to be tossed into the river with a stone around their neck.

How about you name me another sport where players, coaches and officials have been harangued, harrassed, slurred by the media etc etc over a 2 year period.

For someone who claims to not barrack for them he sure does carry on about all the suffering those poor players have had to endure.

 

[Baltimore Jack]

How about you name me another sport where the unrelenting hype has been like this, where the baying mob has been screaming for all and sunder to be tossed into the river with a stone around their neck.

How about you name me another sport where players, coaches and officials have been harangued, harrassed, slurred by the media etc etc over a 2 year period.

Chinese Swimmers
East German Swimmers
Armstrong

 

[fabulousphil]

For someone who claims to not barrack for them he sure does carry on about all the suffering those poor players have had to endure.

You prove my point once again that this entire saga is driven on club lines.

people IMO should be honest, apart from a couple of namby pamby tree huggers ASADA lovers and sticklers for the process the vast majority use this saga to sling sh1t on Eseendon.

The only real poster is McAdam who tells it like he sees it.

Respect for Mcadam.

 

[telsor]

You prove my point once again that this entire saga is driven on club lines.

people IMO should be honest, apart from a couple of namby pamby tree huggers ASADA lovers and sticklers for the process the vast majority use this saga to sling sh1t on Eseendon.

The only real poster is McAdam who tells it like he sees it.

Respect for Mcadam.

No, I sling s**t on cheats and those who help them.

For all your concern about what the players have been through...what about being subject to an experimental, poorly documented drug regime including drugs not approved for human use? (all of that NOT being subject to any speculation).

 

[Albert Ross]

Same rules for everyone, in every sport. Mick Rogers (cyclist) was suspended - and couldn't even train with the team - for nearly 6 months before his case was thrown out.

Mick Rogers was found guilty, but his sentence was set to be 0 months because his use was inadvertent.

The purpose of a Provisional sentence is not to punish the athlete, who is not guilty yet, but to protect the integrity of the competition by preventing a doped athlete from competing and then having their results excluded. The IOC doesn't want an athlete who tested positive in the quarter-final on Wednesday winning the final on Sunday ... only to have their medal taken away.

The NAB Cup is not a competitive tournament. Is there even a Cup any more? All the AFL have to do is say there is nothing to 'protect' in that it is not a real match. It is only training.

I have posted the maths before. A 6-month ban from the time of the second SC notices (Oct 17 2014) would go until April 17 2015. Players can return to training about March 1st (6 weeks is about 1/4 of the ban length).

The smart play from Essendon would be

1. accept no deal, continue to appeal and continue to serve Provisional suspensions
2. Continue to train, as they are entitled to, while Provisionally Suspended.
3. Get a ruling allowing them to play in the NAB Cup by declaring those games non-competitive training games.
4. On or about Saturday March 21 (after last NAB Cup game) drop their appeals, take a deal, start their 'Real' ban.
5. Because they are in March (last 6 weeks of the real Ban) they are allowed to train, they don't have to forfeit NAB games because they are finished.
6. They have 20 players miss the first 3 games of the season (but those players are training)
7. The first H+A game in the VFL isn't until April 19 - after the ban ends - so the 'banned 20' could play VFL practice matches if they were also not considered competitive games, but merely training.

If the above was allowed to happen, 20 EFC players will train, play NAB Cup, and then instead of rounds 1-3 in the AFL will play 3 VFL practice matches instead. They should be reasonably match-fit for round 4. If you agree that EFC were going to lose away to Sydney and at home to Hawthorn in rounds 1 and 2; then really only that round 3 match against Carlton is affected.

 

[Albert Ross]

How about you name me another sport where the unrelenting hype has been like this, where the baying mob has been screaming for all and sunder to be tossed into the river with a stone around their neck.

How about you name me another sport where players, coaches and officials have been harangued, harrassed, slurred by the media etc etc over a 2 year period.

All of them? Just because you are not familiar with the sports or cases does not mean AFL is unique. If anything we have the majority of our AFL media declaring the players did nothing wrong (even if they did) and should not be banned.

In contrast Athletics just got their way and got bans extended to 4 years.

 

[Tiger Toffee]

inadvertent.
I have posted the maths before. A 6-month ban from the time of the second SC notices (Oct 17 2014) would go until April 17 2015. Players can return to training about March 1st (6 weeks is about 1/4 of the ban length).

What makes you think it's only going to be 6 months, what substantial assistance have the players provided to qualify for this ?
I also think bans will start from November 14 when Infraction Notices were handed out.
I personally think the players are staring at 2 years, texting each other ( knowledge ), signing consents with Thymosin on them ( intent ), not checking with ASADA and not checking with the club doctor ( ignorant ), getting injected by someone who is not the club doctor ( negligent ) just my opinion of course just like others have their own but I can't see how the players can downgrade to even 1 year.

 

[ziad]

One glaring error in that article... there is no NAB Cup this year!

Oh to be a sports journalist in this country. no clue required.

 

[andrewb]

A coordinated media campaign re: lifting of provisional suspensions from both the AFL and Essendon?

How positively surprising.

 

[Gavstar]

I like your scenario AB a lot of logical reasoning behind it.

All primed for an ANZAC day return for EFC, a result which I stated was the likely outcome sometime ago.

Sydney, Hawthorn and Carlton very happy with that scenario from a points perspective (unless they lose to second string team!).

The only issue here is what happens to the coach in that scenario..........

 

[Cronos]

What makes you think it's only going to be 6 months, what substantial assistance have the players provided to qualify for this ?
I also think bans will start from November 14 when Infraction Notices were handed out.
I personally think the players are staring at 2 years, texting each other ( knowledge ), signing consents with Thymosin on them ( intent ), not checking with ASADA and not checking with the club doctor ( ignorant ), getting injected by someone who is not the club doctor ( negligent ) just my opinion of course just like others have their own but I can't see how the players can downgrade to even 1 year.

While your reasoning is solid, and the for the integrity of the competition, if found guilty I agree they should be given the full two years, I doubt it will happen.

I'm assuming somewhere between 6 and 12 months, with a generous backdate they don't deserve.

 

[jenny61_99]

Mick Rogers was found guilty, but his sentence was set to be 0 months because his use was inadvertent.

The purpose of a Provisional sentence is not to punish the athlete, who is not guilty yet, but to protect the integrity of the competition by preventing a doped athlete from competing and then having their results excluded. The IOC doesn't want an athlete who tested positive in the quarter-final on Wednesday winning the final on Sunday ... only to have their medal taken away.

The NAB Cup is not a competitive tournament. Is there even a Cup any more? All the AFL have to do is say there is nothing to 'protect' in that it is not a real match. It is only training.

I have posted the maths before. A 6-month ban from the time of the second SC notices (Oct 17 2014) would go until April 17 2015. Players can return to training about March 1st (6 weeks is about 1/4 of the ban length).

The smart play from Essendon would be

1. accept no deal, continue to appeal and continue to serve Provisional suspensions
2. Continue to train, as they are entitled to, while Provisionally Suspended.
3. Get a ruling allowing them to play in the NAB Cup by declaring those games non-competitive training games.
4. On or about Saturday March 21 (after last NAB Cup game) drop their appeals, take a deal, start their 'Real' ban.
5. Because they are in March (last 6 weeks of the real Ban) they are allowed to train, they don't have to forfeit NAB games because they are finished.
6. They have 20 players miss the first 3 games of the season (but those players are training)
7. The first H+A game in the VFL isn't until April 19 - after the ban ends - so the 'banned 20' could play VFL practice matches if they were also not considered competitive games, but merely training.

If the above was allowed to happen, 20 EFC players will train, play NAB Cup, and then instead of rounds 1-3 in the AFL will play 3 VFL practice matches instead. They should be reasonably match-fit for round 4. If you agree that EFC were going to lose away to Sydney and at home to Hawthorn in rounds 1 and 2; then really only that round 3 match against Carlton is affected.

I can't see how the suspension could only be 6 months? They would only receive a 50% reduction of the standard 2 year suspension due to no significant fault (and that is open to debate). They can't possibly claim no fault or substantial assistance to receive the further reduction. By my calculations, if the backdating occurs, it reduces their 2 year ban to 12 months from November 2014 when infraction notices were issued. How do you come up with 6 months?

The options you outline above are ridiculous and in no way penalises players that took banned substances. (please note, I fully expect that to be the outcome, but I will be very disheartened if that is the case).

 

[van peebles]

How about you name me another sport where the unrelenting hype has been like this, where the baying mob has been screaming for all and sunder to be tossed into the river with a stone around their neck.

How about you name me another sport where players, coaches and officials have been harangued, harrassed, slurred by the media etc etc over a 2 year period.

Weightlifting.

 

[Tiger Toffee]

While your reasoning is solid, and the for the integrity of the competition, if found guilty I agree they should be given the full two years, I doubt it will happen.

I'm assuming somewhere between 6 and 12 months, with a generous backdate they don't deserve.

Not going to happen, the AFL will go by the book.

 

[Albert Ross]

I can't see how the suspension could only be 6 months? They would only receive a 50% reduction of the standard 2 year suspension due to no significant fault (and that is open to debate). They can't possibly claim no fault or substantial assistance to receive the further reduction. By my calculations, if the backdating occurs, it reduces their 2 year ban to 12 months from November 2014 when infraction notices were issued. How do you come up with 6 months?

The options you outline above are ridiculous and in no way penalises players that took banned substances. (please note, I fully expect that to be the outcome, but I will be very disheartened if that is the case).

I should hasten to add I am not advocating for that outcome, nor saying it is appropriate. I am suggesting that it might be EFC's best 'play' of their cards. I am speculating on what a best-case outcome might be for Essendon in the event of a guilty verdict.

I think we can fairly confidently say that the AFL would very much like to see Dank penalised severely and the players cleared. The AFL would like to find the smallest 'plausible' penalty they can for the players.

12 month reduction for No Significant Fault (not No Fault) could be supported if the Tribunal buys the "we were duped" argument.

The 6 months for Substantial assistance is plausible if the Tribunal decides that their full and frank co-operation in their interviews lead to a guilty verdict; in this case Dank.

Dating from the date of the Show Cause notice is indeed rubbery, it surely should date from the Infraction Notice in November, but ASADA has some form of being 'flexible' with this stuff and chose a rather arbitrary date in the Cronulla case.

And declaring the NAB Challenge and AFL/VFL practice matches as non-competitive and therefore allowed under a Provisional ban would be very seedy and not at all in the spirit of the Codes ... but seedy, pragmatic, business-first decision making and the AFL?

And of course for the non-AFL players (this isn't all about Essendon) they would effectively receive no punishment at all (those seasons mostly start later than the AFL). I think the AFL would be comfortable with that in that I doubt they actually want to see Reimers suspended from his $500 a week suburban football gig, or Lovett-Murray effectively playing for nothing in the bush.

 

[Demon in Hell]

You can't find Dank guilty and severely punish him to only turn around a give a wet lettuce penalty to the players.

 

[rose jam]

What makes you think it's only going to be 6 months, what substantial assistance have the players provided to qualify for this ?
I also think bans will start from November 14 when Infraction Notices were handed out.
I personally think the players are staring at 2 years, texting each other ( knowledge ), signing consents with Thymosin on them ( intent ), not checking with ASADA and not checking with the club doctor ( ignorant ), getting injected by someone who is not the club doctor ( negligent ) just my opinion of course just like others have their own but I can't see how the players can downgrade to even 1 year.

I think it'll be 2 years from the time of sentencing because they won't have served any banned period during the IN period. They are not being withheld from training or playing so surely 2 year bans start when (not if) the guilty verdict is delivered.

 

[Albert Ross]

You can't find Dank guilty and severely punish him to only turn around a give a wet lettuce penalty to the players.

He wasn't 'duped' and he is charged with additional things such as trafficking and supplying. Dank will get a life ban, nothing is more certain. The Codes allow for harsher punishment for officials. The players? Well I am a cynic and will stick with my suggestion that it will be lettuce leaves allround.

 

[telsor]

I have posted the maths before. A 6-month ban from the time of the second SC notices (Oct 17 2014) would go until April 17 2015. Players can return to training about March 1st (6 weeks is about 1/4 of the ban length).

Wrong math.

Suspensions would start with the INs (and thus, provisional suspensions) on Nov 13, so 6 months would be May 13.

I really doubt it'll be 6 months though...It'd probably be more so the AFL can seem tough, but largely backdated so it still wont affect the competition *too* much, the final result being practically anything.

 

[BlueWorld]

A coordinated media campaign re: lifting of provisional suspensions from both the AFL and Essendon?

How positively surprising.

So you admit the afl and efc run media campaigns. They've decided no bans have they, as otherwise will work against you.

 

[andrewb]

So you admit the afl and efc run media campaigns. They've decided no bans have they, as otherwise will work against you.

My take:

1. ASADA have no interest in expediting the process. The longer it runs, the more likely they are to get the outcome they want.
2. AFL/Essendon clearly think that the lifting of provisional suspensions is a possibility and they wish to condition the public prior to making any decision
3. The decision will probably made once the procedural aspects of the case are finalised and witness statements / interview transcripts are deemed admissible or inadmissible.

So...

If the provisional suspensions are lifted before Mar 7, you can probably take that as a positive thing for the Essendon players. The AFL would need to believe, on the basis of the evidence provided, that the risk of lifting provisional suspensions is worth taking. If the provisional suspensions are not lifted you can probably take that as a negative thing for the Essendon players as the AFL will be taking the position that it is better to have them provisionally suspended during the pre-season than to serve bans in season.

My opinion only.

 

[Cylon7]

He wasn't 'duped' and he is charged with additional things such as trafficking and supplying. Dank will get a life ban, nothing is more certain. The Codes allow for harsher punishment for officials. The players? Well I am a cynic and will stick with my suggestion that it will be lettuce leaves allround.

If Dank goes down and it sounds like he should, I'd think he should be interviewed and given the opportunity to tell all about players, coaches etc
The rules and regulations should be applied to all equally.

 

[Albert Ross]

If Dank goes down and it sounds like he should, I'd think he should be interviewed and given the opportunity to tell all about players, coaches etc
The rules and regulations should be applied to all equally.

He's refused the opportunity. He is currently being tried at a Tribunal and has elected not to attend or make a defence. As much as we would all love to hear his story, he has zero incentive or reason to say anything.

 

[rose jam]

Wrong math.

Suspensions would start with the INs (and thus, provisional suspensions) on Nov 13, so 6 months would be May 13.

I really doubt it'll be 6 months though...It'd probably be more so the AFL can seem tough, but largely backdated so it still wont affect the competition *too* much, the final result being practically anything.

AFL will do everything they can do prevent player bans. That's what they've been working to do this whole time. Pity that the EFC can't see that. Players being suspended works totally against the AFL, they need the players on the park to have a healthy game. They want Dank smashed, not the players. Officials at EFC probably won't bother them too much, bad publicity, but nothing compared to player suspensions.

 

[Tiger Toffee]

AFL will do everything they can do prevent player bans. That's what they've been working to do this whole time. Pity that the EFC can't see that. Players being suspended works totally against the AFL, they need the players on the park to have a healthy game. They want Dank smashed, not the players. Officials at EFC probably won't bother them too much, bad publicity, but nothing compared to player suspensions.

I'll say it again, wont happen, the afl will go by the book, ASADA will put in their recommendations of what length ban should be applied and if it is under what they suggest then they will appeal it, if any bans are handed down they will be for what is appropriate for the relevant violation and at the moment that stands at 2 years.