2015 Non-Crows AFL Discussion - Pt. 1

[FR0GGY]

I'm confused was k hunt essendons supplier?

 

[SpeciousArgument]

I'm confused was k hunt essendons supplier?

Hird had to find something to do with that 4 hour hard on

 

[Doctor B]

Basically the AFL have made a special rule bending over backwards to facilitate essendons 'innocent until proven' rights.

All of the players who were on the list when they had the drugs... i mean allegedly had the drugs... are refusing to play to protect the identities of those who have recieved infration notices. In normal doping cases there is a positive test and the athlete stops all training and competing from the date of the infraction notice and the presumption of innocence isnt granted because of the positive test. In the dopers... i mean bombers case since they want their penalties to be back dated to the date of the infraction notice in november they cant play or it resets the clock on their backdating.

If 12 (i forget the exact number who are still at essendrugs) players are inelligible for the nab cup then we all know exactly who they are (ryder and monfries anyone?)

The AFL has contractual obligations to meet so they cant have essendon not play, they made a special rule allowing them to raid rape and pillage...no wait i mean raid rape and pillage the lower leagues for their best players.

utter farce.

Thanks for that. I can't help but wonder what the penalty would of been if the Crows did this & Trigg was still in charge. I've got to admit I switch off to it now when it's in the media, it's turned into a massive saga, surely it should have been dealt with by now.

 

[SpeciousArgument]

I need to start watching more baseball

http://i.imgur.com/piCxvtp.webm

(cant embed .webm sorry)

 

[footy4ever]

Caveat Emptor

Which makes me certain that drugs penalties will be over by the start of round one. My view is Port have done their homework and the AFL has given them a subtle 'she'll be right'.

 

[CrowsB4hoes]

Which makes me certain that drugs penalties will be over by the start of round one. My view is Port have done their homework and the AFL has given them a subtle 'she'll be right'.

It's not entirely up to the AFL though, is it?

 

[footy4ever]

It's not entirely up to the AFL though, is it?

Correct, I believe, but the AFL will be in there batting for a 'convenient' penalty.

 

[crowsup]

Correct, I believe, but the AFL will be in there batting for a 'convenient' penalty.

The cynic in me believes that the AFL's last statement to the tribunal would have been a plea to the tribunal to go easy on Essendon's players.
I will be very much surprised if the players get the 12 months they should get. I think the max penalty will be 6 months, which will eliminate the players for no more than 3 games of the season proper.
If that is so, it will be an utter disgrace. It will set a precedent that will allow any club to experiment with "supplements", and if found out, get away with very little discomfort.

 

[CrowsB4hoes]

I still don't understand how you can have s genuine 6 month suspension when most of that time there is no competition. Just makes a mockery of the whole thing.

 

[1990crow]

I still don't understand how you can have s genuine 6 month suspension when most of that time there is no competition. Just makes a mockery of the whole thing.

Won't happen. There will be appeals if that's what gets handed down. I think 12 months is most likely at this stage.

 

[Elite Crow]

I still don't understand how you can have s genuine 6 month suspension when most of that time there is no competition. Just makes a mockery of the whole thing.

and you can keep training at the club

 

[NikkiNoo]

and you can keep training at the club

They are allowed to continue training while under the presumption of innocence. If found guilty then they will not be allowed to train at the club or have any access.

 

[skoobydoo]

The cynic in me believes that the AFL's last statement to the tribunal would have been a plea to the tribunal to go easy on Essendon's players.
I will be very much surprised if the players get the 12 months they should get. I think the max penalty will be 6 months, which will eliminate the players for no more than 3 games of the season proper.
If that is so, it will be an utter disgrace. It will set a precedent that will allow any club to experiment with "supplements", and if found out, get away with very little discomfort.

Because of the extended 'duty of care' linkage the AFL do not want the players to cop too much out of all this, because to a significant extent the players are 'victims' of football clubs' power culture. The AFL I'm guessing, prefer for the sting in all of this to land fairly and squarely with the EssendonFC itself and thus the office bearer perpetrators, who incidentally can be replaced instantly and life goes on. But the AFL have been shown as caught with their pants down in the reality of the tangled web of all things drugs. They were totally unprepared. And one of the major problems is the staff at EFC have the AFL, and also each other, by the short and curlies from deep in this whole business. People like Hird will not go down without dragging everybody and everything else with them. The players have no such stick to wield and will wear the penalties. The club and its office holders have already pretty much emerged from the sorry saga. The EFC need to be whacked (effectively) much, much harder than the players.

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

So when does the 6 months suspension kick in?

What would be the start date?

If they are allowed to train with their club based on the presumption of innocence and then are found guilty, why does (should) the suspension get basck dated?

If they get anything less than 12 games, its a bloody disgrace.

 

[mattymac]

The cynic in me believes that the AFL's last statement to the tribunal would have been a plea to the tribunal to go easy on Essendon's players.
I will be very much surprised if the players get the 12 months they should get. I think the max penalty will be 6 months, which will eliminate the players for no more than 3 games of the season proper.
If that is so, it will be an utter disgrace. It will set a precedent that will allow any club to experiment with "supplements", and if found out, get away with very little discomfort.

Yep. 3 game suspension, if that; excluded from a finals series they had no hope in any way as the drugs had worn off and they were crashing like a malaysian airliner and first round draft pick moved back 8 spots.

"We would like to reiterate that the AFL takes a firm stance against doping in sport" lol.

 

[Doctor B]

So when does the 6 months suspension kick in?

What would be the start date?

If they are allowed to train with their club based on the presumption of innocence and then are found guilty, why does (should) the suspension get basck dated?

If they get anything less than 12 games, its a bloody disgrace.

Agreed that it will be a bloody disgrace. It also shows kids & teenagers aspiring to be AFL players that performance enhancing drugs are ok to try because if you get caught using them you will only get a slap on the wrist.

Then again Ahmed Saad copped an 18 month ban for drinking a pre-game protein powder drink called before battle because it had 1 banned ingredient, no injections at all.

The AFL need to be consistent with penalties.

 

[Godallblighty]

They are allowed to continue training while under the presumption of innocence. If found guilty then they will not be allowed to train at the club or have any access.

We've been here before, but I've got to ask again...If the suspension is backdated to include the period that the players were allowed to train, what actual penalty have they received?

 

[Geoffa32]

Agreed that it will be a bloody disgrace. It also shows kids & teenagers aspiring to be AFL players that performance enhancing drugs are ok to try because if you get caught using them you will only get a slap on the wrist.

Then again Ahmed Saad copped an 18 month ban for drinking a pre-game protein powder drink called before battle because it had 1 banned ingredient, no injections at all.

The AFL need to be consistent with penalties.

I find it amusing seeing/hearing people have sympathy for these Essendon players as they were merely following the orders of the club. And yet we as Aussies shake our fingers at those "nasty" East German and Chinese athletes who took drugs under a similar regime.

The only differences are that the Essendon players had a choice (some declined to take part) and those guys get paid as profesional athletes where the Chinese and East Germans got barely any financial reward.

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

We've been here before, but I've got to ask again...If the suspension is backdated to include the period that the players were allowed to train, what actual penalty have they received?

Exactly

 

[NikkiNoo]

We've been here before, but I've got to ask again...If the suspension is backdated to include the period that the players were allowed to train, what actual penalty have they received?

The main thing is that they have not competed during that time. That is the primary concern of WADA. That is what everyone here is forgetting, that any penalty is okayed by WADA. The AFL can try and do a short penalty that is almost nothing. WADA has to sign off on any penalty. They can protest to CAS about the penalty given.

 

[1990crow]

Yep. 3 game suspension, if that; excluded from a finals series they had no hope in any way as the drugs had worn off and they were crashing like a malaysian airliner and first round draft pick moved back 8 spots.

"We would like to reiterate that the AFL takes a firm stance against doping in sport" lol.

It won't be up to the AFL this time. Not since Essendon took ASADA to court.

 

[1990crow]

I find it amusing seeing/hearing people have sympathy for these Essendon players as they were merely following the orders of the club. And yet we as Aussies shake our fingers at those "nasty" East German and Chinese athletes who took drugs under a similar regime.

The only differences are that the Essendon players had a choice (some declined to take part) and those guys get paid as profesional athletes where the Chinese and East Germans got barely any financial reward.

Yep no sympathy here for drug cheats. I think some people on this site have been conditioned by the AFL media to sympathise with them.

 

[DD#23]

It won't be up to the AFL this time. Not since Essendon took ASADA to court.

geeze I hope you're right.

**** the bloody AFL, no respect for any and all followers of the game and not a single shred of integrity. I hope Essendon cops exactly what they deserve and I don't care if it takes the AFL down with it.

this comp needs a good cleansing.

 

[NikkiNoo]

It won't be up to the AFL this time. Not since Essendon took ASADA to court.

It was never up to the AFL. The independent tribunal (and this really is an independent tribunal) sets the penalty after a guilty finding. Then ASADA can protest it (which they did against the year penalty given to Saad - they wanted 2 years but that was knocked back by CAS). And as a final option WADA also has a say in the penalty as they 'sign off' on it, or request the protest to CAS. The players themselves have a right as well to go to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal after a penalty is given. So sorry, but anyone thinking a guilty finding is the end of it, is very deluded. There are other support people at Essendon (or used to be) that could be in serious trouble too. Don't make me point out again that it took SEVEN years to get Lance Armstrong.

Note that ASADA had the last head of the AAT look over their evidence before they went ahead with SCNs. It seems he advised ASADA that there was a definite case for them to proceed ahead with. All we know is McDeviit (CEO of ASADA) said that they had three eminent people look over the case before they proceeded. These were the former head of the AAT, the man who wrote the WADA code and the guy that got Lance Armstrong from USADA.

If the AFL try to do anything against WADA that is the kiss of death for Federal funding. All sports in Australia have to be a signatory to WADA to receive any Federal Funding etc. The AFL would never do anything to jeopardise that funding.

 

[1990crow]

It was never up to the AFL. The independent tribunal (and this really is an independent tribunal) sets the penalty after a guilty finding. Then ASADA can protest it (which they did against the year penalty given to Saad - they wanted 2 years but that was knocked back by CAS). And as a final option WADA also has a say in the penalty as they 'sign off' on it, or request the protest to CAS. The players themselves have a right as well to go to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal after a penalty is given. So sorry, but anyone thinking a guilty finding is the end of it, is very deluded. There are other support people at Essendon (or used to be) that could be in serious trouble too. Don't make me point out again that it took SEVEN years to get Lance Armstrong.

Note that ASADA had the last head of the AAT look over their evidence before they went ahead with SCNs. It seems he advised ASADA that there was a definite case for them to proceed ahead with. All we know is McDeviit (CEO of ASADA) said that they had three eminent people look over the case before they proceeded. These were the former head of the AAT, the man who wrote the WADA code and the guy that got Lance Armstrong from USADA.

If the AFL try to do anything against WADA that is the kiss of death for Federal funding. All sports in Australia have to be a signatory to WADA to receive any Federal Funding etc. The AFL would never do anything to jeopardise that funding.

Yeh agree 100%, meant compared to other penalties they had handed out in recent history.