Peptides! *The * Dopers: come smell the bull****! ESSENDON FANS NOT WANTED

[Lord_Espos]

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...istant-coach-at-essendon-20160405-gnzd2p.html

A bit of revisionist theory by Tim Watson.

Not his fault though....

Wasn't he pulling the strings at Essendon when they appointed Hird?

Now he's saying he had reservations.... lol.

 

[tommyk72]

Was listening to a Freakonomics podcast a few days back where they did a show exploring the premise of resetting laws related to alcohol, marijuana, nicotine and hard drugs. After their analysis they concluded that if society was reset and we based new laws off this analysis then it is most likely that hard drugs, cigarettes/nicotine and alcohol would all be banned due to their harmful effects on both individuals and soviety. Marijuana on the other hand would be entirely legal.

Amazing what societal norms formed over hundreds of years will allow us to do now.

 

[Lord_Espos]

And more Bombres crying in the media. You're banned losers. Just suck it up and stop crying.

You can't attend games, deal with it....

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...ms-or-oval-for-sons-game-20160405-gnz529.html

They have got to be the dumbest club in the competition. You cheated, you can't work, you can't attend games in an official capacity. Learn the rules.

 

[cryptor]

It's a little different isn't it? AFL players are allowed to drink, and as far as i'm aware, are allowed to gamble, as long as it's not on AFL related markets. It's only when a player does something while drunk, or bets on AFL markets that it becomes an issue.

It should should be noted that unlike gambling on AFL markets, or acting up while drunk, testing positive to illicit drugs is not illegal (except under certain circumstances, such as while driving a car). If a player gets caught with drugs, ala Stokes a couple of years back, they get into legal trouble, however, the illicit drug testing scheme is completely voluntary by the playing group, and is not a matter of legality.

Illegal drug use is infact a crime in Australia (penalties can range from fines up to $2000 and jail terms up to 2 years).

It's likely not something that the police bother getting people for as it's probably pretty difficult to prove at the best of times. Even a positive drug test can have enough doubt cast over it. And I'm sure it's probably better for everyone to try and stop drug use by stopping it at the sources (eg. Dealers/suppliers/traffickers).

 

[Prudster]

Illegal drug use is infact a crime in Australia (penalties can range from fines up to $2000 and jail terms up to 2 years).

It's likely not something that the police bother getting people for as it's probably pretty difficult to prove at the best of times. Even a positive drug test can have enough doubt cast over it. And I'm sure it's probably better for everyone to try and stop drug use by stopping it at the sources (eg. Dealers/suppliers/traffickers).

You haven't actually disagreed with me there. Testing positive to illicit drugs is not illegal, unlike a player being caught betting on an AFL game or being drunk and disorderly.

 

[cryptor]

You haven't actually disagreed with me there. Testing positive to illicit drugs is not illegal, unlike a player being caught betting on an AFL game or being drunk and disorderly.

The act of testing positive isn't illegal but testing positive is evidence of the act of illict drug use which as I said is actually illegal.

The same way having a betting account registered in your name with AFL market bets in the bet history logs isn't illegal but is evidence of the act of having bet on AFL markets (which as an AFL player would be illegal).

 

[play2win]

not sure if an afl player having a bet in an afl market is illegal, or whether it is a breach of their code of conduct/ethics policy

 

[cryptor]

not sure if an afl player having a bet in an afl market is illegal, or whether it is a breach of their code of conduct/ethics policy

I think the federal police get involved as it can be related to match fixing and organized crime groups. It might not be illegal but you'd certainly be getting in trouble by someone.

 

[arupist]

So when do we hear the result of the appeal?

I'm guessing that it hasn't been released yet, cos Jab still has his Charlie. Or, at least, Sam doesn't have his.

 

[Brishawk]

So when do we hear the result of the appeal?

I'm guessing that it hasn't been released yet, cos Jab still has his Charlie. Or, at least, Sam doesn't have his.

August I think.

 

[OzJohnnie]

The frickin' suspension is effectively over by then as the players can return to club managed training in the last three months of their penalty period.

If that doesn't make this whole appeal the most cynical damages limitation exercise ever then I'm a monkey's uncle.

 

[Brishawk]

The frickin' suspension is effectively over by then as the players can return to club managed training in the last three months of their penalty period.

If that doesn't make this whole appeal the most cynical damages limitation exercise ever then I'm a monkey's uncle.

It is purely for PR. I don't believe for a second the 'Insurance Company' is paying for the appeal. From everything I have read they haven't got a hope in hell of succeeding. Take for example the claim that the appeal to CAS should not have allowed a complete re-trial of the case with new evidence etc. on the basis the rules in force at the time did not allow it. This is simply not true. The rules at the time of the doping were open ended which is why they were clarified in the changes in 2014 but they do not restrict appeals to CAS at all. Its complete fantasyland stuff.

 

[OzJohnnie]

It is purely for PR. I don't believe for a second the 'Insurance Company' is paying for the appeal. From everything I have read they haven't got a hope in hell of succeeding. Take for example the claim that the appeal to CAS should not have allowed a complete re-trial of the case with new evidence etc. on the basis the rules in force at the time did not allow it. This is simply not true. The rules at the time of the doping were open ended which is why they were clarified in the changes in 2014 but they do not restrict appeals to CAS at all. Its complete fantasyland stuff.

I've also thought that the 'Insurance Company' line was unbelievable, particularly as it is the same insurance company (and would have to be an even less claimable 'general liabilities' policy than the directors and executive liability policy) that told Jimmy to shut the front door in his claim for his appeal.

Although I must smile because with that timing the AFL will have the opportunity to make the Brownlow awards a two-fer this year. Maybe they can recount each round together from both this year and '12 on the night.

 

[Off The Couch]

matters not to us, there were some interesting comments from Mitch for example though. He said kids are coming to clubs now already exposed to drugs and as a father he'd want to know that the club had the players health as a primary focus for any drugs policy

Thing is though, clubs don't get told.
They end up blamed if it all goes south but until it does they have no control over anything and I really have little faith in the afl doing the right thing by anyone as evidenced in this whole Essendon fiasco - those poor players and that nasty WADA

 

[Blaze Storm]

It is purely for PR. I don't believe for a second the 'Insurance Company' is paying for the appeal. From everything I have read they haven't got a hope in hell of succeeding. Take for example the claim that the appeal to CAS should not have allowed a complete re-trial of the case with new evidence etc. on the basis the rules in force at the time did not allow it. This is simply not true. The rules at the time of the doping were open ended which is why they were clarified in the changes in 2014 but they do not restrict appeals to CAS at all. Its complete fantasyland stuff.

I don't know:

1. Insurance policy states that club is liable for damages if at fault
2. Can't prove at fault unless all avenues of appeal pursued
3. Insurance company bankrolls appeal under club guarantee of success (innocence)

4a. Appeal fails
5a. Insurance company doesn't pay out, sues club for court costs (broken guarantee)

4b. Appeal succeeds
5b. Insurance company pays out, barely any damages.
6b. Insurance company ramps up premiums and adds exclusions.

Compare with

3.i. Insurance company doesn't bankroll appeal
4.i. Can't prove club at fault
5.i. Insurance pays out on whole debacle (many billions of dollars)

 

[Brishawk]

I don't know:

1. Insurance policy states that club is liable for damages if at fault
2. Can't prove at fault unless all avenues of appeal pursued
3. Insurance company bankrolls appeal under club guarantee of success (innocence)

4a. Appeal fails
5a. Insurance company doesn't pay out, sues club for court costs (broken guarantee)

4b. Appeal succeeds
5b. Insurance company pays out, barely any damages.
6b. Insurance company ramps up premiums and adds exclusions.

Compare with

3.i. Insurance company doesn't bankroll appeal
4.i. Can't prove club at fault
5.i. Insurance pays out on whole debacle (many billions of dollars)

Do you have a copy of the insurance policy? I have a background in insurance (not commercial) and insurance companies offer cover for specific risks only and limit liability so there is very little chance that any company would insure an AFL club for billions. Medical malpractice insurance policies I googled were limited to about 30 million as an example.

Secondly, were this to go to court, civil courts operate on a lower burden of proof. CAS operates on comfortable satisfaction while civil courts operate on balance or probabilities. The CAS decision would obviously assist the players in any claim against the club but it is not the highest authority on the matter so the result is not critical. The legislation under which a player might make a claim against the club is many and varied and I'm not an expert in that field but suffice to say they don't hinge on the outcome of CAS.

The only way an insurance company pays for this appeal is if they are compelled to under terms of the insurance. Appealing an unwinnable case isn't going to advantage the insurer and if it is their decision to appeal then they would decline the opportunity on a cost/benefit basis.

 

[kimbopen]

If they're that keen to throw money away, I'll happily give them my bank account details!

 

[Blaze Storm]

Do you have a copy of the insurance policy? I have a background in insurance (not commercial) and insurance companies offer cover for specific risks only and limit liability so there is very little chance that any company would insure an AFL club for billions. Medical malpractice insurance policies I googled were limited to about 30 million as an example.

Secondly, were this to go to court, civil courts operate on a lower burden of proof. CAS operates on comfortable satisfaction while civil courts operate on balance or probabilities. The CAS decision would obviously assist the players in any claim against the club but it is not the highest authority on the matter so the result is not critical. The legislation under which a player might make a claim against the club is many and varied and I'm not an expert in that field but suffice to say they don't hinge on the outcome of CAS.

The only way an insurance company pays for this appeal is if they are compelled to under terms of the insurance. Appealing an unwinnable case isn't going to advantage the insurer and if it is their decision to appeal then they would decline the opportunity on a cost/benefit basis.

Yeah, I'm just spit-balling

 

[Xtreme]

The headline "banned bombers struggling" gets a big "DIDDUMS" response from me .

Should not have cheated the system!

 

[bigton08]

The headline "banned bombers struggling" gets a big "DIDDUMS" response from me .

Should not have cheated the system!

Oh they are struggling.... Well thems the breaks.. It's a tiresome saga isn't it.

 

[zenmasterfu]

So when do we hear the result of the appeal?

I cited an age article that predicted August but thats only an approximation, could be later. The essendon lawyers had three weeks to put in their submission, and it had to be in Swiss German, so they got an extension. Obvious really since this is just a delaying exercise anyway.

Now what's swiss german for "it's the vibe"?

 

[realhawk]

What I don't understand in this whole Essendon disgrace is that their sponsors haven't dropped off. Who would want to have their brand associated with banned drug cheats, I certainly will not be using any products or services by companies supporting Essendon. Look at Sharapova her sponsors dropped her straight away. The only thing I can think of is that the Gestapo ( AFL ) has come in over the top and threatened their sponsors with never getting exposure in the game again if they walk away from the druggies .

 

[Blaze Storm]

What I don't understand in this whole Essendon disgrace is that their sponsors haven't dropped off. Who would want to have their brand associated with banned drug cheats, I certainly will not be using any products or services by companies supporting Essendon. Look at Sharapova her sponsors dropped her straight away. The only thing I can think of is that the Gestapo ( AFL ) has come in over the top and threatened their sponsors with never getting exposure in the game again if they walk away from the druggies .

because the ****heads think that it is a giant conspiracy

 

[Crankyhawk]

What I don't understand in this whole Essendon disgrace is that their sponsors haven't dropped off. Who would want to have their brand associated with banned drug cheats, I certainly will not be using any products or services by companies supporting Essendon. Look at Sharapova her sponsors dropped her straight away. The only thing I can think of is that the Gestapo ( AFL ) has come in over the top and threatened their sponsors with never getting exposure in the game again if they walk away from the druggies .

I think for sponsors it's worked ok. Reasoning is that they see the Essendon fanbase behave as led sheep so easy to make sales.

 

[Collins-Langford-Ayres]

Any chance the noise out of the Essendon camp that Jobe might walk away from the game is to stop the AFL ruling that he loses the Brownlow he doesn't deserve?