What should Stew Crameri do?

[Tommycash]

Well if those 2 get a 3 month ban from today, surely everyone will follow suit.

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

No news today.

Edit: according to news.com.au the players' defence has commenced. Crameri and Prismall have different lawyers to the other 32. Both teams were there.

 

[hoianbulldog]

No, 3 months it is.
I said he was loooooooong odds to be available for round 1. He's gawrn.

They can't get a 3 month ban. It's minimum 6 with a discount for substantial assistance. They players are currently provisionally suspended dating back to when the infraction notices were served. A 6 month ban will start from that date which was October 17 or there abouts. It would make them available for round 3.

I forget the formula but players would be able to train with the club about 6 weeks from the end of the suspension or something like that.

 

[Mattdougie]

No AFL players have been offered any deal at all

They are all looking at 2 years unless a deal is made

 

[Mutt]

No AFL players have been offered any deal at all

They are all looking at 2 years unless a deal is made

How can you possibly know that? You are just guessing and passing it off as fact.

 

[doggies ftw]

How can you possibly know that? You are just guessing and passing it off as fact.

What's that old saying? If you throw enough s**t at the walls, some of it is bound to stick.

 

[Snake Livermore]

Peter Gordon on 774 this morning mentioned he was representing our players (or at least overseeing it or whatever). Anyway, key points were:
- deal very unlikely
- two sides coming from very extreme positions (I take that to mean if players found guilty they'll get a hefty ban)
- on a knife edge
- possible outcome is that there isnt sufficient evidence to fund any individual player guilty, but there is sufficient cumulative evidence to find Dank / Essendon guilty (which would be a very convenient out for the AFL...)

 

[gangsta deluxe]

It would be a convenient outcome for the AFL. They wouldn't have to decide what this would do to the comp in 2014 with the dons basically playing Bendigo.

I like it too. They will get draft sanctions so far up the behind that they will make Carlton of the 00's look like a powerhouse.

 

[Mofra]

- possible outcome is that there isnt sufficient evidence to fund any individual player guilty, but there is sufficient cumulative evidence to find Dank / Essendon guilty (which would be a very convenient out for the AFL...)

I'd be more than satisfied with this.

Punish Essendon again, and hard.

 

[TedDougChris]

While I have no desire to see the players punished, if they are let off without sanction, WADA will surely come in over the top. You cannot have a situation where players either take or are unwittingly take PED's - then can conveniently blame someone else and walk away without punishment. Would open a floodgate for other such situations and WADA will not accept it.

I can accept the outcome from a personnel level (I'd even help with finding a massive bloody stick to whack James '*******' Hird with), I just don't believe that it would end up being an acceptable result and would remain that way.

 

[cammo78]

Peter Gordon on 774 this morning mentioned he was representing our players (or at least overseeing it or whatever). Anyway, key points were:
- deal very unlikely
- two sides coming from very extreme positions (I take that to mean if players found guilty they'll get a hefty ban)
- on a knife edge
- possible outcome is that there isnt sufficient evidence to fund any individual player guilty, but there is sufficient cumulative evidence to find Dank / Essendon guilty (which would be a very convenient out for the AFL...)

Perfect outcome.

Throw the book at the scum and let the players get back to doing their thing.

Carlisle might have an easy decision if the scum can't draft for years.

Might also make Dodoro a bit more willing to trade.

 

[Snake Livermore]

While I have no desire to see the players punished, if they are let off without sanction, WADA will surely come in over the top. You cannot have a situation where players either take or are unwittingly take PED's - then can conveniently blame someone else and walk away without punishment. Would open a floodgate for other such situations and WADA will not accept it.

I can accept the outcome from a personnel level (I'd even help with finding a massive bloody stick to whack James '*******' Hird with), I just don't believe that it would end up being an acceptable result and would remain that way.

From what Gordon was saying, they can prove that Thymosin whatever was at Essendon, and got used, but they can't prove which players took it. So do they say it's probable beyond reasonable doubt that all players took it, or can each player argue that injection regimes were tailored individually, so there is reasonable doubt from individual to individual as to who took it.

In that case, WADA couldn't really come over the top because players haven't been let off, they've just been found not guilty.

I'm kind of of the opinion that it's hard to punish the club without punishing the players. Essendon have lost 2 years to this already, but if you consider that the average premiership cycle in the AFL is 18 years, copping two years of missed finals isn't much of a punishment for cheating to circumvent an 18 year cycle. Only suspending the players and the following legal ramifications (players suing the club for lost earnings and damages) will ensure no clubs try to surreptitiously inject their players with drugs in future.

That said, I'd prefer if Crameri is available all season, so if they find players not guilty but go after Essendon with massive additional draft sanctions I'd be ok with that.

 

[TedDougChris]

From what Gordon was saying, they can prove that Thymosin whatever was at Essendon, and got used, but they can't prove which players took it. So do they say it's probable beyond reasonable doubt that all players took it, or can each player argue that injection regimes were tailored individually, so there is reasonable doubt from individual to individual as to who took it.

In that case, WADA couldn't really come over the top because players haven't been let off, they've just been found not guilty.

I'm kind of of the opinion that it's hard to punish the club without punishing the players. Essendon have lost 2 years to this already, but if you consider that the average premiership cycle in the AFL is 18 years, copping two years of missed finals isn't much of a punishment for cheating to circumvent an 18 year cycle. Only suspending the players and the following legal ramifications (players suing the club for lost earnings and damages) will ensure no clubs try to surreptitiously inject their players with drugs in future.

That said, I'd prefer if Crameri is available all season, so if they find players not guilty but go after Essendon with massive additional draft sanctions I'd be ok with that.

Fair points mate, good summary. I think the burden of proof for this isn't as high as 'beyond reasonable doubt', but I get where you are coming from. And I agree with your closer - if ultimately all the players are ok and everyone bloody learns from this, and Essendon and Hird are punished massively - I can probably live with it too.

 

[TedDougChris]

Might also make Dodoro a bit more willing to trade.

A flaming poker up his arse won't make this clown any easier to deal with sadly...

 

[yebiga]

Wada counts as much or as little as the afl and fed government want them to count
They count for not much in the big usa team sports
So the afl and fed government can comfortably say there was a independent judicial hearing, wada may challenge it but not likely

Moreover the general public would be supportive of further efc punishment but punishment of the players would Polarize the public

My cynical 2 cents

 

[DognBones]

What should Crameri do? Take the rap, whatever that is and what all of the players involved should do!

 

[dogwatch]

As I understand it, no trace of the prohibited substance has been found in any player's system. This makes it quite different to say Alberto Contador who tested positive to a prohibited substance. Or Michael Rogers who tested positive but who was let off lightly because it was in food he ate while competing in China.

What ASADA seems to have done is build a strong case based on circumstantial evidence that Thymosin Beta 4 was used on footballers at EFC, but it seems they have no hard evidence which players received the banned stuff. This seems to be an oddity as far as enforcement of sports drug laws goes (although I'm pretty sure somebody who is/was at Windy Hill in 2012 knows EXACTLY who was given what, but is keeping quiet).

It would provide an opportunity for players to get off without penalty.

However there would be a mighty stink if the club got off lightly ... or completely. And the triumphalism from Hird and the rest of them at Windy Hill would be unbearable.

I'd love a whistleblower to come forward at the last minute but I don't think these guys think that way. So much for the "full co-operation" that was promised.

 

[TempleKelvington]

While I have no desire to see the players punished, if they are let off without sanction, WADA will surely come in over the top. You cannot have a situation where players either take or are unwittingly take PED's - then can conveniently blame someone else and walk away without punishment. Would open a floodgate for other such situations and WADA will not accept it.

I can accept the outcome from a personnel level (I'd even help with finding a massive bloody stick to whack James '*******' Hird with), I just don't believe that it would end up being an acceptable result and would remain that way.

I agree here, but unless ASADA has proof that players took the banned substance then surely they can't punish the players or indeed the club further just based on that they might of. Be like saying we know you robbed the bank, we can't actually prove it but we'll throw you in jail anyway and all your scanky mates. Just how I see it.

If they it can be proved then like you say I always thought that at the end of the day if you take the banned drugs then there is no defense for circumstances on how you took them. As we see all the time, no one ever admits that they took a banned drug. They blame drinks being spiked, or they didn't know it was in an energy drink or whatever. In the end it doesn't matter and it can't.

I'm affraid fair or not, if it can be proved then the players have to cop whatever it is they have to cop. But if that is the case then Hird also has to go.....surely? The Essendon president also.

 

[Butane]

Circumstantial evidence can be enough to convict somebody. Fingerprints and ballistic evidence are considered circumstantial evidence and they are often used to convict people.

Not sure if ASADA needs to prove 100% that they took it or not though. Would seem silly for ASADA to take it this far if they don't have the required evidence.

 

[Toastman]

I wonder whether they can take the tip off (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-20/james-hirds-wife-reveals-details-of-tip-off-phone-call/5335200) from Demetriou into account in the hearing? Even if they do get off the outcome will always be in doubt when a company with otherwise professional procedures can't find the exact piece of information which could damn or exonerate themselves after a tip-off that they are being investigated.

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

I find it offensive that the players' welfare and futures have been lost in the hell-bent pursuit of technicalities to get Hird off the hook. Do Tania's notes include James asserting that the buck stopped with him? How does she explain away all the damning texts and emails that went between him and the other culprits? How can the Essendon club hope to be exonerated after what they did? You can bet if it was our club we would have been hung, drawn and quartered by now.

 

[fargy]

Don't care what happens just want it to end.
Oh and for Hird to be found out as the fraud he is and sent packing from footy for five lifetimes.

 

[Bont2Bruce]

I am continually appalled that Essendon are attempting to dictate terms about their attendance at NAB matches - as if they have any right to call the shots at this point in proceedings! The AFL should throw them out of the entire competition for having the temerity to even consider making such demands.

The whole concept of backdated penalties stinks to high heaven if you ask me.

 

[paulveed]

I am continually appalled that Essendon are attempting to dictate terms about their attendance at NAB matches - as if they have any right to call the shots at this point in proceedings! The AFL should throw them out of the entire competition for having the temerity to even consider making such demands.

The whole concept of backdated penalties stinks to high heaven if you ask me.

 

[paulveed]

Surely if there is no evidence forthcoming on individuals [positive tests etc], then how can individuals be punished ? If none of Dank, or those who performed the injecting, or anyone else who could substantiate which players were injected with what, come forward, or records emerge, the only evidence would be self incrimination by the players.

As an entire crock of drugs appear to have been used, not all banned, but most legal, how can WADA or ASADA prove that an individual was given the banned drugs ?
The circumstantial evidence that players were injected with some thing, and that Essendon purchased a banned substance, might be sufficient circumstantial evidence to punish the club, but surely not sufficient to specifically implicate individual players personally. They [club] could easily plead some may have, but others may not have, and as I see things no way to prove which did, and which didn't.

In this case I would have thought there might be grounds to punish the club, and its management, but too much doubt about punishing individual players, without some personal incriminating evidence.

I wouldn't be surprised if the sh1t hits the fan, the club will argue [ I seem to recall early in the piece Ess. suggested it was conducted as a "scientific experiment", or some similar wording], therefore the usual way to do such trials would be to have multiple different drug combinations used, and a control or dummy group. If there is no substantiation, as to who might have been who, no individual can be identified. So surely all must be found innocent, rather than knowingly punishing the innocent.
Unless ASADA etc can identify which individuals, or if every player took the drugs, they cannot knowingly punish innocent individuals, by a blanket sentence.
Or surely they themselves will be subjected to a barrage of law suits.