2014 Non-Crows AFL Discussion

[RePete]

How is it any different to GWS and GC from a couple of years ago? heck in 2012, if you played Port, GC, and GWS twice you were halfway to the 8 before the season had started.

We were next to those teams in terms of mediocrity in 2011 so we deserved to play them twice in 2012. We did smash the raging Carlton, then went on to smash Geelong, out arm-wrestle Sydney, out gun Freo-twice, anniliate West Coast. We deserved to be top-4 in 2012, absolutely no mistake about it. Playing 'easy' teams does not in anyway compare to the basket case Essendon will be when they lose 20+ players for 12-24months.

 

[adelaidecrows]

So you reckon 2 innocent blokes should serve someone else's sentence?

That's just dumb

Yep, Port are fully aware of the consequences when they traded for Ryder. I still bet Kochie will rant and rave that Port gets punished and its unfair if he gets 6 months. lol.

 

[Scrotes2000]

I don't think they have any knock-out evidence, I'm very sceptical the players will get anything close to two years (and I kind of hope they don't - I feel for the players)

Needs to be way better systems put in place so it doesn't happen again. Everything needs to be logged and administered with supervision IMO. The fact that Essendon are saying they're missing a lot of the information on what the players took should be grounds enough to tear them a new one.

 

[ZingerB]

Yep, Port are fully aware of the consequences when they traded for Ryder. I still bet Kochie will rant and rave that Port gets punished and its unfair if he gets 6 months. lol.

Would seem like a case of buyer beware with Ryder. I would expect some dispensation for Monfries though, especially if Essendon get some to field a team.

 

[adelaidecrows]

Would seem like a case of buyer beware with Ryder. I would expect some dispensation for Monfries though, especially if Essendon get some to field a team.

Reports are mixed with Monfries. Is he actually one of the ones to be suspended? The bulldogs are in the same boat with Crameri. Whats fair compensation though. I don't think any club should get draft compensation as its entirely unfair for every other club. My gut feel is its just buyer beware and its bad luck. Port should ask for financial compensation but no club should benefit from extra players.

 

[aneale]

Port sue Essendon. Simple.

ASADA also dont have to win or lose. They just hand out a penalty. It's not like they have to prove guilt. Players have to prove that they did nothing wrong, those who spoke to the media about injections are pretty much without a defense. Jobe Watson for one.

This will never see the inside of a court again now ASADA have no question to answer about the reasonableness of instigating an investigation into the Bombers.

Lance Armstrong never tested positive once, didnt save him. They only have to prove that you 'likely' took a substance based on circumstantial evidence. It isn't even 'balance of probabilities'. 350 pages of it by the sounds of it.

 

[tinman]

They don't need rock solid evidence. They just need probability of a doping offence. This is not law and order, huge difference in the burden of proof for a doping offence when there is no positive test available.

Most of the media are guessing as the only place they are getting information from is leaks from Essendon or the AFL. ASADA's reputation is not on the line. The ACC cleared them when they were accused of leaking. Then off to court we go and Justice Middleton comes down hard on Essendon. They didn't offer a deal pre the federal court appeal. The AFL asked them if there would be an option of a deal for the players. It was an AFL suggested deal. McDevitt has stated there was no deal offered from ASADA.

Exactly. The burden of proof is the balance of probabilities. It isn't a criminal case requiring beyond reasonable doubt, where the burden of proof is far higher.

And if you want a deal you don't 1. Play the victim 2. Slag off ASADA in the press 3. Refuse to acknowledge any wrongdoing 4. Take court action against ASADA.

The court case was about the legality of the investigation, and if Hird and Essendon had won, then all of the evidence gathered would have been inadmissable. That's what they were hoping for.

Now, having won the court case, I wouldn't be too confident that ASADA would be looking to "make a deal".

If Essendon wanted to make a deal they have gone down the wrong path...

 

[NikkiNoo]

Wasn't aware of the absence of the deal. I still maintain ASADA's credibility is on the line here. If they lose, Essendon will have a field day, and people who wanted the sport cleaned up will regard ASADA as incompetent. 2 years on there has to be a conclusive result in ASADA's favour. I'm not referring to 'rock solid evidence' in a standard of proof sense, referring to the fact that unless they are about 95% sure of winning, they are likely to offer a deal to make it 100%. The fact that Essendon have pretty much given a big **** you to everyone around them makes that harder, but if ASADA lose, everyone in senior management may as well resign and never enter public life again, and that makes me think there will be a deal. I don't know precisely what that deal will be. Clearly it won't be as generous as the one Cronulla got, but it would have to be juicy enough to induce Essendon players to take it. So again unless there is a lot we don't know and the evidence is pretty damning, I doubt 2 years is on the cards.

I'll repeat it - ASADA can't offer deals as they are not the ones to issue a penalty. They can advise what a penalty should be to the sporing body who is the one who issues the penalty once an infraction notice is given. In the case of the NRL, ASADA stated that the penalties should be backdated due to circumstances beyond the players control. WADA looked over that with a fine tooth comb and the wording they used in accepting the backdated penalties was very strong that they weren't happy with ASADA's delay. The penalty in the case of the NRL players, who only received 30 pages of evidence with their SCNs btw, was one year. They only have a couple of months of Dank's involvement at their club. Essendon had a systematic supplements program in place involving Dank for over a year. If you consider that then 1 year for NRL with only 30 pages of evidence as opposed to 350 pages per athlete in the case of Essendon, tells you it's a completely different story with Essendon on a much larger scale.

McDevitt has stated that there might only be a case for a reduced penalty for the Essendon players if they provide new 'substantial evidence'. Considering that the majority of the players have no idea what went on, and happily participated in the program and Essendon still say they have no records, it's highly unlikely that there is any option of a deal for the Essendon players.

It took ten years to get Lance Armstrong and that was a case of circumstantial evidence and no positive tests. He was eventually hung out to dry because his teammates and other support staff did dob the program in to provide further evidence to the investigation. Two years is nothing in a case as complex as this. ASADA would be close to 100% that there was a doping offence that occured. That is what a SCN is. If they didn't have enough proof to satisfy themselves, they would not create and serve a SCN. ASADA had one of Australia's top administrative law judges who has recently retired look over the evidence and they also had two other people as well who are involved in investigating and prosecuting drug offences look over the evidence. All three reported back to ASADA that there was enough there to satisfy them. They did all this as a double check before issuing the first lot of SCNs which then made Essendon throw the hail mary pass that failed miserably.

What is very clear to me is that Essendon did use substances that were on the prohibited list, the players initially didn't question this at all, against all the training they receive from the AFL and the AFLPA, and as such there will be some strong penalties issued because of it and even stronger repercussions for support staff.

 

[NikkiNoo]

Reports are mixed with Monfries. Is he actually one of the ones to be suspended? The bulldogs are in the same boat with Crameri. Whats fair compensation though. I don't think any club should get draft compensation as its entirely unfair for every other club. My gut feel is its just buyer beware and its bad luck. Port should ask for financial compensation but no club should benefit from extra players.

Yup, Monfries has been named in the press and Port confirmed to media that he had received a SCN in the first round. Seeing as how they reissued 34 notices again, it's fair to say he's one of those with the second SCN and the 350 pages worth of evidence.

 

[tinman]

Port sue Essendon. Simple.

I'm not sure it is that simple. Couldn't Port have reasonably foreseen this occurring? Wouldn't other clubs have made a decision not to recruit Essendon players because of the potential sanctions? Did port get Paddy cheap as a result of the potential sanctions?

Depending on when the issue first came to light, they may have a case with Monfries if Monfries cops a ban.

They may also have some case with Ryder, but I think that would be much tougher.

 

[aneale]

Port don't need to reasonably foresee anything occurring. They suffered damages. That's enough to instigate proceedings.

Watch what happens to the EFC when 34 players turns around and sues the Club. EFC have even offered to pay the players legal fees. $200K per player conservatively. Let the fun begin.

 

[Don Muraco]

We should have sued Melbourne after Bailey was suspended

 

[marty36]

How is it any different to GWS and GC from a couple of years ago? heck in 2012, if you played Port, GC, and GWS twice you were halfway to the 8 before the season had started.

????????????? if you played EFC with 17 players missing in rounds 1- 5 then then in round 6 these 17 were available what do you think the chances of winning or losing is. Those first 5 games are absolute wins for any of the five teams being gifted to play the EFC in those rounds in the draw, which effectively stuffs up the entire competition not even mentioning percentages!!!!!

GWS and GC were crap all year. The ability of the team didn't change throughout the year which it will in this instance.

This wont be the sole factor for the suspensions but the AFL will have to take what this will do to the draw into account and if it is touch and go on how many games they get I am sure they will look at the consequences

 

[ZingerB]

Reports are mixed with Monfries. Is he actually one of the ones to be suspended? The bulldogs are in the same boat with Crameri. Whats fair compensation though. I don't think any club should get draft compensation as its entirely unfair for every other club. My gut feel is its just buyer beware and its bad luck. Port should ask for financial compensation but no club should benefit from extra players.

I would like to think his salary would be taken out of the cap. Something will have to be done to even get rookies into Essendon and keep them under the cap. We won't use it, so it goes into the following year under the new 95/105 rule.

 

[ZingerB]

????????????? if you played EFC with 17 players missing in rounds 1- 5 then then in round 6 these 17 were available what do you think the chances of winning or losing is. Those first 5 games are absolute wins for any of the five teams being gifted to play the EFC in those rounds in the draw, which effectively stuffs up the entire competition not even mentioning percentages!!!!!

GWS and GC were crap all year. The ability of the team didn't change throughout the year which it will in this instance.

This wont be the sole factor for the suspensions but the AFL will have to take what this will do to the draw into account and if it is touch and go on how many games they get I am sure they will look at the consequences

Yes, but you are talking about equality. Some teams got to play GWS twice, where as some got to play them once. Thus the point is essentially the same that some teams got a few extra free games than others.

 

[adelaidecrows]

I would like to think his salary would be taken out of the cap. Something will have to be done to even get rookies into Essendon and keep them under the cap. We won't use it, so it goes into the following year under the new 95/105 rule.

Monfries and Ryders contracts are null and void and they aren't allowed to set foot or be contacted by Port for the duration of the suspension, most importantly they will not be allowed to earn any income from anywhere associated with the AFL. Hence they will need to sue Essendon for loss of income. Might see Monfries working the drive through at Maccas and Ryder selling the footy record outside AO.

 

[ZingerB]

Monfries and Ryders contracts are null and void and they aren't allowed to set foot or be contacted by Port for the duration of the suspension, most importantly they will not be allowed to earn any income from anywhere associated with the AFL. Hence they will need to sue Essendon for loss of income. Might see Monfries working the drive through at Maccas and Ryder selling the footy record outside AO.

Either way some sort of fiddling would have to be done. Port wouldn't even meet min payments if you took their combined 1 mil salary out of port's cap and I can't envisage Port being totally okay with the situation, especially in the case of Monfries where they had no forewarning.

 

[baldandbroke]

I don't think they have any knock-out evidence, I'm very sceptical the players will get anything close to two years (and I kind of hope they don't - I feel for the players)

Needs to be way better systems put in place so it doesn't happen again. Everything needs to be logged and administered with supervision IMO. The fact that Essendon are saying they're missing a lot of the information on what the players took should be grounds enough to tear them a new one.

The current system is that the players are ultimately responsible (as professional athletes competing a WADA sanctioned competition) for what they put into their bodies - no one else. Sure, if they can show that they took reasonable steps to avoid taking the prohibited substances and were duped into taking them - they can get a reduced sentence ... but look up what WADA think that level of "duping" is - it's not of the type "I thought the injections they were giving me were fine" level of responsibility, it's more of the "I was under anaesthetic during an operation and it was administered to me while I was unconscious" type.

Every person that "feels" for the players, if these athletes were competing at the olympics for another country these same persons would be screaming "ban the cheats".

Better systems in place - for whom? The players to understand their responsibilities? I think you'll find that they have had it drilled into them since the moment they enter the system. What the system really needs is a real life example to drive home exactly how seriously WADA / ASADA take this sh!t !!

 

[adelaidecrows]

Either way some sort of fiddling would have to be done. Port wouldn't even meet min payments if you took their combined 1 mil salary out of port's cap and I can't envisage Port being totally okay with the situation, especially in the case of Monfries where they had no forewarning.

That's the same with a player who could have an underlying medical problem like Clark. I think the AFL will give Port a waver on the minimum payments rule due to the circumstances however it is buyer beware and its not 17 other clubs fault Port chased Ryder and hence Port new the risks. I would presume they are prepared for any suspension and are accepting to absorb the pain.

 

[ZingerB]

That's the same with a player who could have an underlying medical problem like Clark. I think the AFL will give Port a waver on the minimum payments rule due to the circumstances however it is buyer beware and its not 17 other clubs fault Port chased Ryder and hence Port new the risks. I would presume they are prepared for any suspension and are accepting to absorb the pain.

Like I said, I agree on Ryder, disagree on Monfries. I guess if it is as you say it is with them not being able to draw a salary (even if Port wanted to pay them), then they would get a 500k bump in salary cap in 2016 anyway under the current rules.

 

[WhySoSerious]

Port don't need to reasonably foresee anything occurring. They suffered damages. That's enough to instigate proceedings.

Watch what happens to the EFC when 34 players turns around and sues the Club. EFC have even offered to pay the players legal fees. $200K per player conservatively. Let the fun begin.

I don't think it'll be that simple unfortunately.

Totally agree with what your saying. But it is also Monfries and Ryder that have a contractual obligation towards the PAFC now. Under the ASADA rulings, they too have become the guilty parties in this. Any inability to execute their contractual agreements with the PAFC also becomes their problem unfortunately.
I imagine the clubs have discussed this extensively with the affected parties and the AFLPA - they know the inherent risks. It might seem unfair, but I don't see how the club can effectively claim damages without scrutinising the players involvement in this (something I don't think they will want to do).

Don't get me wrong I really feel for the players in this. But I think it has now become their responsibility to challenge the EFC on this. Clubs challenging the EFC and AFL for compensation could become a nightmare.

 

[aneale]

I think they'd have legal advice telling them it's open slather. The players will sue the EFC, Clubs like the WB and PAFC will have advice to do the same. I posted when all of this started that it has the potential to be the death of the EFC.

Make no mistake, the loss of players, sponsors, gate and legal threats from all and sundry has the potential to end them forever.

There is more to the EFC's lawsuits than thinking Hird is right, there is the survival instinct.

 

[Tex200]

Port don't need to reasonably foresee anything occurring. They suffered damages. That's enough to instigate proceedings.

Watch what happens to the EFC when 34 players turns around and sues the Club. EFC have even offered to pay the players legal fees. $200K per player conservatively. Let the fun begin.

Damages are not, of themselves, a cause of action

 

[Scrotes2000]

Every person that "feels" for the players, if these athletes were competing at the olympics for another country these same persons would be screaming "ban the cheats".

Better systems in place - for whom? The players to understand their responsibilities? I think you'll find that they have had it drilled into them since the moment they enter the system. What the system really needs is a real life example to drive home exactly how seriously WADA / ASADA take this sh!t !!

The level of loyalty when you're part of a team who spend all their time together is massive. Not saying the players should get off, but when you're in a team like that you'd do almost anything your coaches tell you, especially if you're some kid and your heroes Jobe Watson and James Hird who you trust completely are saying it's OK, the club Doc has signed off on it and all the other clubs are doing the same thing.

It was dumb and in the end they are responsible for what they put in their bodies. Can't help feeling sorry for some of the players though, especially the younger ones.

Wouldn't be hard to trick players by giving them treatments disguised as something else. Maybe improving the systems around how clubs apply sports medicine/supplements would be a good thing. Maybe a heavy real life example to stop it from happening again is needed. Not sure...I do know clubs will keep pushing to get an edge.

I just can't believe how reckless the club was with giving stuff that hadn't been approved for human use. This is what makes me mad, extreme breach of duty of care from a position of power.

 

[Deaneus!]

I think they'd have legal advice telling them it's open slather. The players will sue the EFC, Clubs like the WB and PAFC will have advice to do the same.

You'd reckon the AFL would step in and mediate, other wise it'll drag through the courts for a few more years and lawyer's costs would smash the clubs.