Mega Thread Essendon's punishment - Opinion, theories etc

[The Falcon Strike]

For those curious as to how and why Essendon are able to negotiate their penalty... let me spell it out a little.

Why the negotiation then? That's a simple one. Because Essendon have not been proven guilty to date the AFL have only been able to accuse them of bringing the game in to disrepute. The penalty for that? Apparently draft picks, Presidents head, Chairmans head, Coaches head and this years points thus eliminating Essendon from finals. What? For what? For Essendon being dragged through the media all year? Adelaide got less for proven cheating. Carlton got less for proven cheating.

Hang on - Adelaide negotiated a penalty as well. I take it from that Essendon will be proven cheats if you negotiate a penalty.

The negotiation is a farce.

I'm happy if the AFL say

"On evidence we think you are guilty, we are prepared to penalise you X if you plead guilty for the following charge"

"If however you remain steadfast as to not plead guilty, you then proceed with a hearing and should you be found guilty the penalty is now Y"

This is what should happen. There should be no negotiation.

I'm happy with a reduced penalty for a plea of guilty, that is a fairly standard legal norm.

 

[Ari]

Kinda foolish of the Bombers to even show up to the meeting then?

Why not just let it settle in court so we can all see the "truth"? If you are innocent you do not negotiate over your punishment.

When did I say they were innocent? I am not convinced they are. BUT they need to be proven guilty. This is how the law works. Probably Essendon are red-hot guilty, but without proof there is nothing but hear-say. It's in Essendons interest to accept a sanction now while they are maybe guilty than down the track if they are proven guilty.

 

[Unknown Identity]

Why is James Heard's wife involved in the negotiations/penalty process. Apparently she has arrived with him again today.

Do you think it has something to do with this..?
Not even sure how legit this guy is, but talks like he knows stuff..
It is the Interwebz thought.

P.S - I own Google.

Cerberus ‏@tretestecane 8m
Offering an all expenses paid trip to study overseas for a year including paying for family to move as well is a desperate act.

 

[Godallblighty]

Trigg should have gotten a year from the AFL and sacked from Adelaide for what he did.

Think you'll find a large number of Adelaide supporters agree.

 

[MyManLynch]

Why is James Heard's wife involved in the negotiations/penalty process. Apparently she has arrived with him again today.

She's the bag lady.

 

[Percel]

Do you think it has something to do with this..?
Not even sure how legit this guy is, but talks like he knows stuff..
It is the Interwebz thought.

P.S - I own Google.

Cerberus ‏@tretestecane 8m
Offering an all expenses paid trip to study overseas for a year including paying for family to move as well is a desperate act.

Fogdog outed him as a fraud

 

[Ari]

Hang on - Adelaide negotiated a penalty as well. I take it from that Essendon will be proven cheats if you negotiate a penalty.

The negotiation is a farce.

I'm happy if the AFL say

"On evidence we think you are guilty, we are prepared to penalise you X if you plead guilty for the following charge"

"If however you remain steadfast as to not plead guilty, you then proceed with a hearing and should you be found guilty the penalty is now Y"

This is what should happen. There should be no negotiation.

I'm happy with a reduced penalty for a plea of guilty, that is a fairly standard legal norm.

This is actually EXACTLY what is happening for mine. The reason Essendon are negotiating is because the AFL do not have evidence at this point that they cheated. I agree however, that if they don't get a 'deal' done now and Essendon end up bring PROVEN guilty then their penalty should be somewhat worse than what one from a negotiation would be.

I rather agree with your post, all but your statement that the AFL can say 'on evidence we think you are guilty'. If they say that, then this one is in the courts. Essendon want this to be about poor governance in which they ran a supplement program which could have introduced banned substances and not one which did include banned substances. For some reason, Essendon feel that the final document charge still matters. It really doesn't, people and the history books have already condemned them to being guilty. Just read this thread.

 

[Mr Eagle]

I have seen several references to (the increasingly unlikely) stripping from Essendon of their 2012 Premiership points.

Can someone explain why the hell that would be of any consequence? Strip them of a cup or a big finals cash bonus, sure. But they didn't even make the top 8!

 

[Unknown Identity]

Fogdog outed him as a fraud

Oh cool.. that clears that up then!

 

[Ari]

I have seen several references to (the increasingly unlikely) stripping from Essendon of their 2012 Premiership points.

Can someone explain why the hell that would be of any consequence? Strip them of a cup or a big finals cash bonus, sure. But they didn't even make the top 8!

It's just official stuff. Other clubs may like being moved up a position and for the history books sake if Essendon were proven in 2012 to have taken banned substances then they could not, and should not, show any premierships points for that year. It's about dotting i's and crossing t's and nothing more.

 

[Warwick Todd]

Ari,

Well done on being a long overdue voice of common sense in this matter. Hopefully the throng chanting "hang them" will read your posts and better inform themselves on what is really taking place, not what they wished was taking place.

 

[Kamus]

When did I say they were innocent? I am not convinced they are. BUT they need to be proven guilty. This is how the law works. Probably Essendon are red-hot guilty, but without proof there is nothing but hear-say. It's in Essendons interest to accept a sanction now while they are maybe guilty than down the track if they are proven guilty.

That's not exactly how the law works. Overwhelming circumstantial evidence, including explicit admissions from Essendon's own commissioned report set a prima facie case that governance and record keeping may well have been deliberately avoided so as to obscure any evidence. Failure to keep accurate records is also a WADA infraction for that very reason. And by the way, your assertion that "We have an ASADA interim advising no players took banned substances" is entirely wrong. The absence of infraction notices at this point doesn't clear anyone of anything.

 

[swansfan51]

Lets see how deep the cult extends. Essendon supporters, which of the following penalties would you prefer if you had to choose one?

1) $5 million fine, 1st and 2nd round draft picks removed in 2013 and 2014, points removed for 2013 and ineligible for finals
2) James Hird banned for life

 

[Godallblighty]

Let me be very, very clear. It is not up to Essendon to prove they did not take banned substances, it is up to ASADA and the AFL to prove they did.

Is it though? If an athlete fails to comply with drug tests, then the assumption is that they are doping. The onus is on the athlete to prove that they are not by providing clean results. Given the circumstantial evidence that there were banned substances in the club, surely the onus is on Essendon to provide records that show the players weren't being administered these substances. The absence of documentation is, at the very least, extremely compromising.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

This is actually EXACTLY what is happening for mine. The reason Essendon are negotiating is because the AFL do not have evidence at this point that they cheated. I agree however, that if they don't get a 'deal' done now and Essendon end up bring PROVEN guilty then their penalty should be somewhat worse than what one from a negotiation would be.

I rather agree with your post, all but your statement that the AFL can say 'on evidence we think you are guilty'. If they say that, then this one is in the courts. Essendon want this to be about poor governance in which they ran a supplement program which could have introduced banned substances and not one which did include banned substances. For some reason, Essendon feel that the text line and document still matters. It really doesn't, people and the history booked have already damned them to being guilty. Just read this thread.

Of course there is evidence Essendon cheated, plenty of it. That is the reason Essendon are prepared to negotiate. It is simply a matter of whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain a charge.

The AFL's integrity office is akin to the police, they are allowed to believe Essendon is guilty as the police who collect evidence are allowed to believe a potential criminal is guilty. It is why they levy a charge. You don't charge someone you think is innocent do you?

Essendon have every right to defend themselves of course. Which is why this should go to a hearing.

If the sticking point is the wording around using banned substances than IMO what should happen is thus.

Essendon are found guilty of whatever it is that both parties agree upon (Say governance, workplace safety et) and a penalty handed down for that. The doping charge should then be brought before a hearing where both parties present the evidence. If the evidence is sufficient to the appropriate legal standard, Essendon are guilty, If not, they remain not guilty of that charge.

The horse trading about removing charges is ridiculous. It isn't good for either party.

If Essendon truly is innocent of doping, then the best outcome for them is not a negotiated settlement, rather a Commission hearing where it is found there isn't enough evidence to sustain a charge.

The whole approach "off to the courts" completely belies the trust the 18 clubs put in the AFL to run and administer the competition. Trust I should add that is still held by 17 clubs.

What many Essendon supporters don't get is the absolute hit the AFL is taking to charge Essendon. It is not in the AFLs interest for Essendon to be found guilty of doping. There is no positive outcome for the AFL. It diminishes the AFLs brand and that of one of the majore stakeholders. They wouldn't be making up trumped up charges, it just isn't in their interest.

 

[Ari]

Of course there is evidence Essendon cheated, plenty of it. That is the reason Essendon are prepared to negotiate. It is simply a matter of whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain a charge.

The AFL's integrity office is akin to the police, they are allowed to believe Essendon is guilty as the police who collect evidence are allowed to believe a potential criminal is guilty. It is why they levy a charge. You don't charge someone you think is innocent do you?

Essendon have every right to defend themselves of course. Which is why this should go to a hearing.

If the sticking point is the wording around using banned substances than IMO what should happen is thus.

Essendon are found guilty of whatever it is that both parties agree upon (Say governance, workplace safety et) and a penalty handed down for that. The doping charge should then be brought before a hearing where both parties present the evidence. If the evidence is sufficient to the appropriate legal standard, Essendon are guilty, If not, they remain not guilty of that charge.

The horse trading about removing charges is ridiculous. It isn't good for either party.

If Essendon truly is innocent of doping, then the best outcome for them is not a negotiated settlement, rather a Commission hearing where it is found there isn't enough evidence to sustain a charge.

The whole approach "off to the courts" completely belies the trust the 18 clubs put in the AFL to run and administer the competition. Trust I should add that is still held by 17 clubs.

What many Essendon supporters don't get is the absolute hit the AFL is taking to charge Essendon. It is not in the AFLs interest for Essendon to be found guilty of doping. There is no positive outcome for the AFL. It diminishes the AFLs brand and that of one of the majore stakeholders. They wouldn't be making up trumped up charges, it just isn't in their interest.

Cheers... pretty good opinion there. Probably not too far off it actually.

 

[Ari]

Is it though? If an athlete fails to comply with drug tests, then the assumption is that they are doping. The onus is on the athlete to prove that they are not by providing clean results. Given the circumstantial evidence that there were banned substances in the club, surely the onus is on Essendon to provide records that show the players weren't being administered these substances. The absence of documentation is, at the very least, extremely compromising.

I am pretty certain they have tested viles and such from Essendon at the time which came up empty (anyone??). Essendon, to my knowledge, are more than happy to comply with testing for their athletes.... but this far out they won't tell anything.

 

[MyManLynch]

Kinda foolish of the Bombers to even show up to the meeting then?

Why not just let it settle in court so we can all see the "truth"? If you are innocent you do not negotiate over your punishment.

Exactly...if the EFC are innocent & the charges would be thrown out of court, then why are they at AFL House today?
They would simply leave it in the hands of their lawyers.
The EFC board should be kicked out by their members for agreeing to penalties they do not have to accept.
BUT maybe, just maybe the AFL have a case.............& the EFC will agree & accept their punishment.
Don't look a gift horse in the mouth...........accept it & move on, otherwise the big bear will throw the book at you.

 

[Sidebottom2Beams]

Eddie called them cheats this morning that is enough proof for me ban them for life.

 

[Donners]

I have seen several references to (the increasingly unlikely) stripping from Essendon of their 2012 Premiership points.

Can someone explain why the hell that would be of any consequence? Strip them of a cup or a big finals cash bonus, sure. But they didn't even make the top 8!

It's a statement that their achievements in that season were invalid because of their actions. That's quite damning, I'd have thought. It's pretty much a finding that they cheated.

 

[Donners]

I can only imagine that "strip the points" means declaring all those games didn't happen? So no Brownlow votes, no best+fairest, no AA, does it impact what players are paid? I don't know. Whereas "keep the point but no finals" means all those games technically happened, it is just the Essendon are not fixtured to play in the finals, another team plays in their place?

There has to be some legalistic-type reason because otherwise is just pathetic semantics.

If that was the case, then logically all results involving Essendon would have to be void - including points gained by sides who defeated them.

There was some discussion on 3AW about that, but it seems ludicrous.

Surely points can be simply deducted as a penalty without nullifying all the games.

 

[HurlsMeister18]

Vlad and Gilligan must really rue the day Evans was replaced with General Little.

That change has really seemed to throw a massive spanner in the works.

 

[Mr Eagle]

It's a statement that their achievements in that season were invalid because of their actions. That's quite damning, I'd have thought. It's pretty much a finding that they cheated.

The entire thing would be a finding that they cheated. And being retroactively handed a wooden spoon would hurt a bazillion times less than the cash/draft picks/no finals income/etc. etc. It just seems like such a microscopically small element of the package to be haggling over!

 

[MyManLynch]

For posters who are using selective quotes from Buckley to argue he would do the same as Hird regarding supplements program.
Here is my selective quote: "But Buckley made it clearly he would certainly know if any of his players were receiving injections, insisting such practices in a supplements program would set off alarm bells for him."

That's where the similarities between Hird & Buckley end.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

http://www.perthnow.com.au/sport/af...r-danny-corcoran/story-e6frg1xu-1226704787871

So Corcoran & bombers think afl r bullies...oh my how the big wheel turns Danny... #karma

— Tamsyn Lewis Manou (@tamsynlewis) August 25, 2013​

@tamsynlewis @jsaville74 bravo Tamsyn, well said, tweet of the week! They say Karma is a b*tch!
— Nat (@natsaville) August 25, 2013​

@tamsynlewis absolutely, I still have an abusive phone call ringing in my ears!
— Jane Saville (@jsaville74) August 26, 2013​

“@JohnSteffensen:@jsaville74 @tamsynlewis hellyeah that guy was always gonna get his karma!!Wait till my book comes out danny!!” Cant wait x
— Tamsyn Lewis Manou (@tamsynlewis) August 26, 2013​

Interesting thoughts on Corcoran.

Whilst I would take Steffenson's comments with a grain of salt - the Saville sisters hold a lot of integrity.

Given his failures in the 90s with Essendon, the clear mistrust from his athletes in the naughties and now this drug scandal, it appears s**t follows wherever Corcoran goes.

3 month or 6 month ban, surely this guy can not remain at Essendon