ASADA relied on 'vague' accounts - The Australian 27/12/13

[DonsRule]

40 players complicit in a doping ring, and (supposedly) not one of them decided to throw themselves at the mercy of ASADA by turning rat?

No, I think what they've ACTUALLY said is far more likely, that this has been blown monumentally out of proportion. Actions speak louder than words, and that appears to be a calm and happy playing group.

That is it for me on a few levels, the doping level. And on a welfare level, that is difficult to control all 40 odd players.


And yes, jenny61_99 if some players get infraction notices and they stick, Things will change, for one, Hird is gone as well as a few others.

 

[Jade]

What do you think will happen if infraction notices are issued for some but not all players?

Good question. I suspect those players infracted would become rather pissed off and begin legal action against the club.

Moreover, if the substances they are infracted for are untested or not approved for human use, the club itself would be in a world of hurt from a workplace safety perspective.

Both of which would bring the strongest possible defence from the club (I would suspect); they simply couldn't afford to be tarred with that brush.

 

[Jade]

I am happy to know that all the supplements we have taken are all legal and won't affect the players long term health.

Appreciate your optimism, but stating FACT without basis or source, or trying to claim you have the 'inside scoop' is the same junk we shoot down foamers for.

Try not to do it eh?

 

[Whatsonswhat]

Right, and if people were really concerned with the welfare of players, they would move on from pointing the finger at Essendon (who have now done everything they can, by opening their doors to an extensive independent investigation, to put a stop to any dodgy practices); and start being more concerned with the welfare of their own players (who's clubs have not).

 

[tigerwill]

Is it a concern, of course. That's why I'm happy to accept the penalties given to Essendon, Hird etc, I don't particularly like the processes that got them there, though. Essendon screwed up, Hird screwed up, hard to say they didn't. I just don't think (personal judgement of course) they stuffed up as much as some are claiming. Martin Hardie, who as I have mentioned before, has suggested Essendon had records of what players took. Something just doesn't add up to the picture we're being given.

No, it seems a very convoluted process. I understand that it needs to be thorough, but it also seems too many hands were in the pie for their own reasons protect the brand, protect personal reputations, hide some facts, display others etc etc.

There seems to be a lot of information that hasn't been forthcoming (or forthright?). I'm not sure we'll ever get all the facts, just versions to suit one particular party that contradict other stories. It's a bloody big mess.

Aside from all that, as long as it can be proven without any doubt that the players health & wellbeing hasn't been compromised, all the rest is secondary to a degree.

 

[blackcat]

Under the above scenario, negotiations with Essendon began when Essendon realised they were railroaded, and they reacted to self-protect by revealing a fair hearing was never on the cards; it was all a facade. To hold it all together they needed to convince Essendon (and Hird) to take their punishment as planned. Optics. The promise of no punishment to players, and retention of Hird's pay, sealed this deal. Hypothetically.

i have been on record, as an element of the EFC sanction, was to sate the public (optics like you say), but they were paying a price on behalf of the league as on the spectrum, were no different. scapegoated element if you wish.

 

[DonsRule]

No, it seems a very convoluted process. I understand that it needs to be thorough, but it also seems too many hands were in the pie for their own reasons protect the brand, protect personal reputations, hide some facts, display others etc etc.

There seems to be a lot of information that hasn't been forthcoming (or forthright?). I'm not sure we'll ever get all the facts, just versions to suit one particular party that contradict other stories. It's a bloody big mess.

Aside from all that, as long as it can be proven without any doubt that the players health & wellbeing hasn't been compromised, all the rest is secondary to a degree.

I guess what I mean is, in the eyes of the public, Hird and Essendon were guilty before the final verdict was ever released. And , I accept that they have some blame there, they aren't completely innocent of everything. I just think too much from both sides was played out in the media during the investigation, thats all.

 

[jenny61_99]

Good question. I suspect those players infracted would become rather pissed off and begin legal action against the club.

Moreover, if the substances they are infracted for are untested or not approved for human use, the club itself would be in a world of hurt from a workplace safety perspective.

Both of which would bring the strongest possible defence from the club (I would suspect); they simply couldn't afford to be tarred with that brush.

If IN's are issued, I'm not sure how they could possibly defend themselves?

I've waxed and wained on whether this is a deliberate route Essendon chose, or something that just got abysmally out of hand. Either way, though, they have to at some stage accept that it was their responsibility.

 

[Barkly St End]

The AFL's two card trick.

 

[Barkly St End]

On the question of work place safety - there is a school of thought which suggests that it falls fairly and squarely within the AFL's area of responsibility.

Hmmmm...

 

[tigerwill]

On the question of work place safety - there is a school of thought which suggests that it falls fairly and squarely within the AFL's area of responsibility.

Hmmmm...

Hmmm, you think
Or is the AFL players competition, considered to be a "workplace". Don't they work under an CBA?

 

[kelvin_sheedy]

Appreciate your optimism, but stating FACT without basis or source, or trying to claim you have the 'inside scoop' is the same junk we shoot down foamers for.

Try not to do it eh?

Based on the evidence at hand I am comfortable stating my opinion. I have never claimed to have any information that is not in the public domain.

I rely on the good work done by GG, BSE, Lance and all the other great posters.

So far I'm shooting at %100. I'll stick with my winning formula. Day 3, 2014. No infractions.

 

[blackcat]

Right, and if people were really concerned with the welfare of players, they would move on from pointing the finger at Essendon (who have now done everything they can, by opening their doors to an extensive independent investigation, to put a stop to any dodgy practices); and start being more concerned with the welfare of their own players (who's clubs have not).

but all will be just media management and PR. Limited hangout. The clubs wont change. Cycling is the best example to look to when you appreciate the realpolitik and expedience within teams and performance.

You really think Collingwood would issue a crown inquiry into buttifant and the medical program, and neil craig's time at del monte at the cycling AIS. No one wants to know how the sausage is made brah.

And Ziggy Switkowski's inquiry was another limited hangout. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_hangout

And most team board's in the AFL know how to read a balance sheet and p&l but they dont know jack shit about pro sport psychology and the changing room and peds.

 

[Jade]

If IN's are issued, I'm not sure how they could possibly defend themselves?

I've waxed and wained on whether this is a deliberate route Essendon chose, or something that just got abysmally out of hand. Either way, though, they have to at some stage accept that it was their responsibility.

Paul Little's statement after sanctions:

http://www.essendonfc.com.au/news/2013-08-27/statement-chairman-paul-little

"We recognise that failings occurred at our Club during this period. We must – and do – accept accountability and apologise for them.

We have learnt from our mistakes and made substantial reforms to our governance and people management practices to ensure the Club will never be in this position again."

Is that not what you are asking for?

Let's not forget (whilst people are still frothing at the mouth for infractions), that the club itself has copped the single biggest whack in the game's history.

And as of today, that whack has still been the result of a doping investigation that is yet to uncover any doping.

 

[Barkly St End]

Hmmm, you think
Or is the AFL players competition, considered to be a "workplace". Don't they work under an CBA?

I know there are experts in this field on this board, and I don't declare myself to be one of those, but I have read an opinion that the AFL bears the same legal responsibility as Essendon as far as workplace safety goes.

If true, it's worth comtemplating how this affects likely outcomes.

 

[Oscarman]

40 players complicit in a doping ring, and (supposedly) not one of them decided to throw themselves at the mercy of ASADA by turning rat?

No, I think what they've ACTUALLY said is far more likely, that this has been blown monumentally out of proportion. Actions speak louder than words, and that appears to be a calm and happy playing group.

If a player spilt their guts to ASADA their career would be over. No club would go near them. Footy clubs are extremely insular organisations as we all know, plus the average AFL career is somewhere around 4 years (I think) so it would be a massive risk to do it. The player might get a few paid interviews, but what after that? Even if they have a degree or trade to fall back on, they would still be known as a whistleblower and it normally doesn't turn out well for them.

 

[jenny61_99]

Paul Little's statement after sanctions:

http://www.essendonfc.com.au/news/2013-08-27/statement-chairman-paul-little

"We recognise that failings occurred at our Club during this period. We must – and do – accept accountability and apologise for them.

We have learnt from our mistakes and made substantial reforms to our governance and people management practices to ensure the Club will never be in this position again."

Is that not what you are asking for?

Let's not forget (whilst people are still frothing at the mouth for infractions), that the club itself has copped the single biggest whack in the game's history.

And as of today, that whack has still been the result of a doping investigation that is yet to uncover any doping.

Said all the right words, have done none of the right actions. Extending Hird's contract for 2 years, then paying him whilst banned? No, they've thumbed their nose at everyone including the AFL, and what one can conclude from these actions, the only thing they are sorry for is that they got caught.

 

[blackcat]

If a player spilt their guts to ASADA their career would be over. No club would go near them. Footy clubs are extremely insular organisations as we all know, plus the average AFL career is somewhere around 4 years (I think) so it would be a massive risk to do it. The player might get a few paid interviews, but what after that? Even if they have a degree or trade to fall back on, they would still be known as a whistleblower and it normally doesn't turn out well for them.

see: Werner Rieterer
RussellEbertHandball b0ydman

 

[nineteen eighty]

Could you please list for me successful prosecutions under S0?
Or better yet, list for me prosecutions under S0 which have survived the appeal process?

You surely cannot be serious in that you're now looking to argue that there have been very few S0 prosecutions and hence it's ok to use.

What is wrong with you?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[DonsRule]

If a player spilt their guts to ASADA their career would be over. No club would go near them. Footy clubs are extremely insular organisations as we all know, plus the average AFL career is somewhere around 4 years (I think) so it would be a massive risk to do it. The player might get a few paid interviews, but what after that? Even if they have a degree or trade to fall back on, they would still be known as a whistleblower and it normally doesn't turn out well for them.

A low ranked player with nothing to lose. Know they are going to be cut, and have the chance to make a dollar?

These days with social media, things don't stay secret forever, rifts between players though out of public eye are often known from 'insiders' I recall a few WCE fans saying with the Ben Cousins thing, that it was known well within some circles that there were some rifts within the players. Right now thats just not particularly showing. Of course, all that can easily change.

 

[Art Corvelay]

I rely on the good work done by GG, BSE, Lance and all the other great posters.

Confirmation bias then.

 

[Ultimatt]

Right, and if people were really concerned with the welfare of players, they would move on from pointing the finger at Essendon (who have now done everything they can, by opening their doors to an extensive independent investigation, to put a stop to any dodgy practices); and start being more concerned with the welfare of their own players (who's clubs have not).

You mean the one that didn't even bother interviewing Robinson & Dank, the two men at the heart of all this? I would use a different word than Extensive...

 

[Jade]

Said all the right words, have done none of the right actions. Extending Hird's contract for 2 years, then paying him whilst banned?

No, they've thumbed their nose at everyone including the AFL, and what one can conclude from these actions, the only thing they are sorry for is that they got caught.

Complete crap. The board were absolutely powerless in that regard.

Rightly or wrongly, the Essendon supporter base believes that James Hird was absolutely thrown under the bus in order to satisfy a collective public that is just so bloody clueless. The board, in accepting penalties and effectively prodding Hird to do the same (when it could be clearly seen that Hird WANTED to fight) were complicit in that.

Railroading Hird was one of the very few things that would have turned what has been a remarkably stable supporter base into a rioting lynch mob.

As for paying him, he was contracted! I know if my employer prodded me into accepting a penalty I felt I was not guilty of they'd damn well be paying me for it whilst I was on the sidelines. What was he going to do? "Oh no, that's cool - don't think I've done anything wrong, but no worries, you can abandon my contract and stop paying me because that's what the AFL wants...."

As I said, none of the above are a comment on whether you believe Hird was innocent, guilty, whatever. But they are the prevailing circumstances, and to imply the boards actions in relation to Hird and his contract are effectively an act of resistance or thumbing the nose is just plain wrong.

 

[jenny61_99]

Complete crap. The board were absolutely powerless in that regard.

Rightly or wrongly, the Essendon supporter base believes that James Hird was absolutely thrown under the bus in order to satisfy a collective public that is just so bloody clueless. The board, in accepting penalties and effectively prodding Hird to do the same (when it could be clearly seen that Hird WANTED to fight) were complicit in that.

Railroading Hird was one of the very few things that would have turned what has been a remarkably stable supporter base into a rioting lynch mob.

As for paying him, he was contracted! I know if my employer prodded me into accepting a penalty I felt I was not guilty of they'd damn well be paying me for it whilst I was on the sidelines. What was he going to do? "Oh no, that's cool - don't think I've done anything wrong, but no worries, you can abandon my contract and stop paying me because that's what the AFL wants...."

As I said, none of the above are a comment on whether you believe Hird was innocent, guilty, whatever. But they are the prevailing circumstances, and to imply the boards actions in relation to Hird and his contract are effectively an act of resistance or thumbing the nose is just plain wrong.

They EXTENDED his contract. They didn't have to do that and they did so immediately following the Announcement of the penalties. Belligerence at its best. They didn't HAVE to pay him at all. Steven Trigg and Phil Harper were suspended and neither of them could be paid by the club.

Railroading Hird. Now I've heard everything.

 

[Jade]

They EXTENDED his contract. They didn't have to do that and they did so immediately following the Announcement of the penalties. Belligerence at its best. They didn't HAVE to pay him at all. Steven Trigg and Phil Harper were suspended and neither of them could be paid by the club.

Railroading Hird. Now I've heard everything.

YES they did. I should have included that in my first post, the extension of contract was very much a message to the supporter base 'we are not abandoning him'.