Report endorses AFL-ASADA joint Essendon investigation

[Muggs]

They had the chance to win in court. They contested everything else relentlessly for years. Instead they agreed the terms and punishment.

Yes possibly but the court case would not have been decided before the finals that year.

So they either had to accept their fate and accept being kicked out of the finals or put an injunction on the final series being held. This would have wrecked not only the final series, but if they lost the case they be countered sued out of existence for all the commercial losses suffered by the game and all the sponsors.

They couldn't fight, but does not mean that what the AFL did was right in the process that was used.

 

[Satan]

They had the chance to win in court. They contested everything else relentlessly for years. Instead they agreed the terms and punishment.

Maybe the Ziggy report paid for by themselves was enough proof that the club was a shambles and Hird was out of control and there was no defending the indefensible.

Plus any additional punishment for stalling and wrecking a finals series would have been far worse.

Besides, Cartlon beat Richmond in a final - from 9th. That is solid gold.

Thats why i linked the ziggy report , it was enough evidence to show what a mess essendon was in 2012, got hoisted on their own petard (not ricky)

 

[jenny61_99]

I think the early punishment using the "bringing the game into disrepute" label was used by the AFL deliberately (so that they could later argue to ASADA that they had already punished the Club and no further punishment was necessary).

No real surprise that the AFL give themselves a gold star.

 

[HairyO]

I think the early punishment using the "bringing the game into disrepute" label was used by the AFL deliberately (so that they could later argue to ASADA that they had already punished the Club and no further punishment was necessary).

No real surprise that the AFL give themselves a gold star.

Essendon also demanded that there be no reference to drugs in their penalty. That was the one sticking point they said they would go to court over.

Its also why the AFL should subsequently have punished Essendon - given they have never been sanctioned for having the most players banned in any team sport anywhere in the world ever.

 

[jenny61_99]

Essendon also demanded that there be no reference to drugs in their penalty. That was the one sticking point they said they would go to court over.

Its also why the AFL should subsequently have punished Essendon - given they have never been sanctioned for having the most players banned in any team sport anywhere in the world ever.

Oh I think we all agree on that. But I think Lance Uppercut called very early on, there was no way Essendon were going to be punished twice. This was AFL's way of manipulating and minimising the damage. As it turns out, they were punished twice - once they lost their players for a year.

 

[Satan]

Oh I think we all agree on that. But I think Lance Uppercut called very early on, there was no way Essendon were going to be punished twice. This was AFL's way of manipulating and minimising the damage. As it turns out, they were punished twice - once they lost their players for a year.

And got no 1 draft pick

 

[Lance Uppercut]

I reckon it was both.



I see what you are saying and I fully agree that it would have been best to hit them at the end of the ASADA court phase. The only problem for the league was the contamination of up to two finals series while this went to court, and that would have made things messier than the league would want.

the only "contamination" of a finals series that occurred was the ludicrous outcome of having a team contest the finals despite not winning enough games to qualify

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Oh I think we all agree on that. But I think Lance Uppercut called very early on, there was no way Essendon were going to be punished twice. This was AFL's way of manipulating and minimising the damage. As it turns out, they were punished twice - once they lost their players for a year.

but in this scenario the players and the club are distinct entities. Clearly the players penalties couldn't be linked to the AFL club penalties. But yes, the AFL were never, ever going to penalise the club again based on the sanctions handed down in 2013.

And I would have thought everyone can see how wrong that was. It was a blatant denial of natural justice, it was a stitch up, it was an attempt to influence the outcome of an independent bodies investigation - all based on an erroneous premise that was actually fundamentally about ticket sales and not losing money.

How on earth the AFL thought they could appropriately penalise the club before their own investgation had concluded I'll never know. EFC at once were stitched up, and probably saved somewhat by it; as the penalties would almost certainly have been worse if it was based on the actual fact of a guilty verdict in a doping investigation rather than a generic BTGID charge

 

[The_Wookie]

the only "contamination" of a finals series that occurred was the ludicrous outcome of having a team contest the finals despite not winning enough games to qualify

maybe from your perspective. Mine is a little different

 

[Lance Uppercut]

maybe from your perspective. Mine is a little different

I'm sure it is, given your team were the big winner out of it. But fair enough all the same

 

[The_Wookie]

I'm sure it is, given your team were the big winner out of it. But fair enough all the same

it was a little tongue in cheek as it were.

 

[imperial_oz]

but in this scenario the players and the club are distinct entities. Clearly the players penalties couldn't be linked to the AFL club penalties. But yes, the AFL were never, ever going to penalise the club again based on the sanctions handed down in 2013.

And I would have thought everyone can see how wrong that was. It was a blatant denial of natural justice, it was a stitch up, it was an attempt to influence the outcome of an independent bodies investigation - all based on an erroneous premise that was actually fundamentally about ticket sales and not losing money.

How on earth the AFL thought they could appropriately penalise the club before their own investgation had concluded I'll never know. EFC at once were stitched up, and probably saved somewhat by it; as the penalties would almost certainly have been worse if it was based on the actual fact of a guilty verdict in a doping investigation rather than a generic BTGID charge

Absolutely spot on.

But its all ok, its passed the review, right?

 

[Percel]

Has James Hird appealed the internal report?

 

[gavaniacono]

maybe from your perspective. Mine is a little different

I was hoping the Tiges would have "won" that elimination final by virtue of having noone to play!

 

[Satan]

Has James Hird appealed the internal report?

Waiting for Bruce

 

[NoAFLinmycomp]

Waiting for Bruce

It won't be pretty. He will probably expand his "to" and "cc" lists this time as well.

 

[Muggs]

Waiting for Bruce

Well stop waiting and go look for it, was posted hours before you said you were waiting..not that difficult to find.

http://twitdoc.com/view.asp?id=3622...ld-be-thrown-in-the-bin.pdf&usr=TheGovernorSM

 

[Muggs]

How on earth the AFL thought they could appropriately penalise the club before their own investgation had concluded I'll never know

Lance since when has the AFL cared about appropriate penalties?

It's all about the optics you know that.

 

[Satan]

Well stop waiting and go look for it, was posted hours before you said you were waiting..not that difficult to find.

http://twitdoc.com/view.asp?id=3622...ld-be-thrown-in-the-bin.pdf&usr=TheGovernorSM

Was expecting to be cc'd
satan@hell.com

 

[VL3OJ]

Its all tickety boo at hq although Essendon have never been charged with any drug related issues, the game has been blighted for far too many years and the AFL tried to keep the punishment to a light lettuce leaf and only increased the fines and escalated when it couldn't be contained.

The AFL commission members are there to protect the finances and there is a clear conflict in correctly adjudicating an appropriate response and what impacts that might have to the bottom line, especially TV rights.

If Dank hadn't been a poor and inept version of cycling's Dr Michael Ferrari then this may have well continued to a dubious flag. When you are paying to have drop kicks like the Weapon, the Pharmacist and Dr Ageless to be part of the club then and the warning signs are not observed then the AFL have failed utterly.

Isn't the first rule of report writing is to write the summary you want first and work backwards?

 

[Satan]

Its all tickety boo at hq although Essendon have never been charged with any drug related issues, the game has been blighted for far too many years and the AFL tried to keep the punishment to a light lettuce leaf and only increased the fines and escalated when it couldn't be contained.

The AFL commission members are there to protect the finances and there is a clear conflict in correctly adjudicating an appropriate response and what impacts that might have to the bottom line, especially TV rights.

If Dank hadn't been a poor and inept version of cycling's Dr Michael Ferrari then this may have well continued to a dubious flag. When you are paying to have drop kicks like the Weapon, the Pharmacist and Dr Ageless to be part of the club then and the warning signs are not observed then the AFL have failed utterly.

Isn't the first rule of report writing is to write the summary you want first and work backwards?

sir Humphrey likes this

 

[Slartibartfast]

sir Humphrey likes this

Yes Priminister Satan

 

[Obese Arachnid]

I've read nothing but to summarise, the AFL is corrupt, which I agree totally.

This does not mitigate in anyway shape or form ESS's conduct.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

but in this scenario the players and the club are distinct entities. Clearly the players penalties couldn't be linked to the AFL club penalties. But yes, the AFL were never, ever going to penalise the club again based on the sanctions handed down in 2013.

And I would have thought everyone can see how wrong that was. It was a blatant denial of natural justice, it was a stitch up, it was an attempt to influence the outcome of an independent bodies investigation - all based on an erroneous premise that was actually fundamentally about ticket sales and not losing money.

How on earth the AFL thought they could appropriately penalise the club before their own investgation had concluded I'll never know. EFC at once were stitched up, and probably saved somewhat by it; as the penalties would almost certainly have been worse if it was based on the actual fact of a guilty verdict in a doping investigation rather than a generic BTGID charge

I agree, and disagree.

I agree that the AFL's motives were to protect themselves and as a result they cut corners and fudged it in order to get it done quickly.

People should refuse to do business with the AFL over this sort of white collar corruption. Stop going to games, stop buying memberships etc. But no, the #backourboys fools are out in force emptying their pockets into the AFL coffers and effectively endorsing their actions.



But Anyway....

They charged them with Bringing the Game Into Disrepute.

Not for an anti-doping breach.

They should have punished them at the time for governance failings (which is officially what they did) as they had a case and clearly the justification to do so.

Their only issue would have been what the punishment was going to be.

I actually believe the AFL would have had every right to remove Essendon from the finals as a punishment for Bringing the Game Into Disrepute.


Then, once the drug issue was dealt with, they should have punished them for that. Loss of draft picks, fines, etc.



So they stuffed up twice, and as a result Essendon got off lightly.

But we all know, the AFL stuffed up like a fox.