2015 Non-Crows AFL Discussion - Pt. 1

[skoobydoo]

Essendon players threatening to boycott the pre-season comp to hide the identities of team mates charged with illegal doping...talk about the tail wagging the dog.

I hope we're taking note of how to play the AFL if our turn ever comes up again. Make like a Russian and deny, deny, deny until nobody cares anymore.

Deny, deny, deny,....play the aggrieved......and threaten, threaten, threaten.

 

[Deaneus!]

Only issue with that is the teams that were hoping to play essendon in the NAB cup, although I think essendon should get the book thrown at them, not brushed like under King Slug Demitriou, it affects the other teams preparations, they should be forced to field a team regardless of the possible charges. They are taking the AFL for a ride, someone please in the AFL, GROW A SET!

This is new and I like it and I wish I'd heard of it while he was still in office

 

[crowsup]

This are the problems you get when you have "Provisional Suspension".
WTF is that? If a player is presumed innocent until proven guilty, why shouldn't they be allowed to play?
In a normal legal system, a person that is charged with a felony and the felony is not very grave, i.e: a person accused of receiving stolen goods;
is free until his case comes to court and is proven guilty. If the court deems he/she should spend time in prison, that is when the prison sentence starts.
So? Why are the players given an equivalent to home detention until they are proven guilty or innocent?
Shouldn't they be given the benefit of the doubt?
The only proviso should be that, if or when the judgement is issued, if guilty, their sentence should start from when the court case is concluded. And, if more than one player is found to be guilty, the club forfeits any points they may have gained during that period.
Anything else and it is a farce.
What should be remembered here is that all the players and the club are saying that they are not guilty of doping. They are only accused of it. At the moment.

 

[NikkiNoo]

But under the laws that they and the sporting body agreed to, they are presumed guilty until proven innocent. This is the way of doping violations all over the world.

In order to maintain a clean environment, the normal standards of a criminal court do not apply, so don't even attempt to make the same links.

The burden of proof is different as well to prove a doping violation.

 

[Godallblighty]

The rules are, I believe, that the players are banned from training and competition from the moment they receive infraction notices. I really don't understand how there are all these exceptions being negotiated.

 

[NikkiNoo]

The rules are, I believe, that the players are banned from training and competition from the moment they receive infraction notices. I really don't understand how there are all these exceptions being negotiated.

There aren't that many exceptions, it is that Essendon are trying to have their cake and eat it overall. They were given permission to train, but there was that extra exemption of Watson and Fletcher in the IR game. That's it.

They are shooting themselves in the foot with their own argument by trying the OHS claim in this instance. If the players are banned then they will have to use top up players anyway. So Essendon are essentially saying we won't be able to play in the season proper cause of top up players not being as good. Idiots.

 

[crowsup]

But under the laws that they and the sporting body agreed to, they are presumed guilty until proven innocent. This is the way of doping violations all over the world.

In order to maintain a clean environment, the normal standards of a criminal court do not apply, so don't even attempt to make the same links.

The burden of proof is different as well to prove a doping violation.

Unfortunately this law has given the AFL the cake as well as the chance to eat it. They did not have to exempt them from training or play in any AFL sanctioned game. But they did.
Now, because of it, Essendon believe they have a chance to force the AFL to backdate their ineligibility even further than when the SCs were issued.
The other thing with this is the fact that Essendon has been trying to keep the players' anonymity, blaming the AFL as well as ASADA of not keeping the players' names out of the papers but then ask the AFL to allow two of their players to play in the international game. How the hell does that request keep Jobe and insp. gadget's names off the tabloids?
So all sorts of codes have been violated, by both parties, because they have been given too much leeway.

 

[Godallblighty]

There aren't that many exceptions, it is that Essendon are trying to have their cake and eat it overall. They were given permission to train, but there was that extra exemption of Watson and Fletcher in the IR game. That's it.

Well, that's two exemptions, and now they're seeking permission to play NAB cup as well AND still have their penalties backdated to last year. Into the bargain, they seem to have the AFL and the players association going into bat for them. It's all pretty baffling.

 

[footy4ever]

Well, that's two exemptions, and now they're seeking permission to play NAB cup as well AND still have their penalties backdated to last year. Into the bargain, they seem to have the AFL and the players association going into bat for them. It's all pretty baffling.

The sooner they are hit with a sledge hammer the better. I'm thinking they'll be tapped with a tack hammer, going on recent events. Farcical.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

What is the AFL's Plan B if the Bombers lose their players for the season?

Will the VFL clubs all provide players or something?

Could Sturtwood be back on the table?

 

[NikkiNoo]

Well, that's two exemptions, and now they're seeking permission to play NAB cup as well AND still have their penalties backdated to last year. Into the bargain, they seem to have the AFL and the players association going into bat for them. It's all pretty baffling.

The problem is that the AFL doesn't set the penalty; the Tribunal does, under guidance from ASADA. The AFL loves doing deals we know, but in this case they want an assurance from ASADA about the backdating, but because Essendon pushed the court case through about ASADA not following the right process (they were found to have instead) ASADA are refusing to respond to any AFL request about penalties, which is the correct process.

The AFLPA has been nothing short of shocking to my mind and pandering to the stupidity of Essendon during this whole saga.

 

[jenny61_99]

The rules are, I believe, that the players are banned from training and competition from the moment they receive infraction notices. I really don't understand how there are all these exceptions being negotiated.

Not training. That's only once suspended.

 

[jenny61_99]

What is the AFL's Plan B if the Bombers lose their players for the season?

Will the VFL clubs all provide players or something?

Could Sturtwood be back on the table?

It's obvious by their recruiting that Essendon themselves have a contingency plan should the worse happen. As it currently stands about 17 or 18 of their current list were a part of the 2012 supplement saga (the rest have either retired or play somewhere else). That leaves a balance of around 27 players that weren't. Essendon have recruited a fair few mature age/experience from other clubs to at least give them SOME chance. The AFL will allow top up players - from where, I assume the Essendon reserves/VFL.

 

[Godallblighty]

Not training. That's only once suspended.

Okay, but this is about back-dating suspensions. So they are asking for the training to be exempted from any back-dated suspension.

 

[NikkiNoo]

Okay, but this is about back-dating suspensions. So they are asking for the training to be exempted from any back-dated suspension.

Any backdating always occurs to the point of the date of the Infraction Notice, which was November. Essendon want it backdated even further than that.

 

[FR0GGY]

Any backdating always occurs to the point of the date of the Infraction Notice, which was November. Essendon want it backdated even further than that.

Yes but if they are supposed to be banned from training once suspended and they are training now, how can they backdate it?

 

[NikkiNoo]

Yes but if they are supposed to be banned from training once suspended and they are training now, how can they backdate it?

They were given permission about the training which was run past ASADA. It relates back to the privacy provisions as part of the code. If they stopped training, people would know who they are, so they were allowed to continue training.

If you have a positive test, then you get named asap and have to stop training etc. That is a difference scenario which is where people have gotten a little confused about.

 

[PrideOf]

What is the AFL's Plan B if the Bombers lose their players for the season?

Will the VFL clubs all provide players or something?

Could Sturtwood be back on the table?

Lulz. Still got a couple of "Sturtwood for AFL" bumper stickers in the collection, waiting for the day they turn into spun gold. It could be closer than I think.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

There aren't that many exceptions, it is that Essendon are trying to have their cake and eat it overall. They were given permission to train, but there was that extra exemption of Watson and Fletcher in the IR game. That's it.

They are shooting themselves in the foot with their own argument by trying the OHS claim in this instance. If the players are banned then they will have to use top up players anyway. So Essendon are essentially saying we won't be able to play in the season proper cause of top up players not being as good. Idiots.

OHS didn't appear to be an issue with Essendon officials when the players were being injected with drugs not tested as being fit for human consumption.

 

[Bacon8]

OHS didn't appear to be an issue with Essendon officials when the players were being injected with drugs not tested as being fit for human consumption.

They've been able to turn it into a learning experience, so that's a positive for them. Better goverance, and now OHS standards improving.

Clubs could learn a lot from the Bombres.

 

[NikkiNoo]

OHS didn't appear to be an issue with Essendon officials when the players were being injected with drugs not tested as being fit for human consumption.

Also the funny part to me is if they want to go with this argument, then none of their players should play at lower levels because of OHS issues, or if they do get banned and have to have top up players, then they still won't be able to play cause of the OHS issues.

My thoughts on Essendon management to date...

 

[GROTTO]

What is the AFL's Plan B if the Bombers lose their players for the season?

Will the VFL clubs all provide players or something?

Could Sturtwood be back on the table?

What is AFL's Plan C, if another Club is caught. I have never believed that the Dons were alone in this, Im sure there were other Clubs just as guilty but maybe not to the extent of the Bombers.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

They've been able to turn it into a learning experience, so that's a positive for them. Better goverance, and now OHS standards improving.

Clubs could learn a lot from the Bombres.

If they had truly learnt from the experience, Golden Boy would have been giving marching orders along time ago!

 

[GROTTO]

If they had truly learnt from the experience, Golden Boy would have been giving marching orders along time ago!

Hird got that contract extension literally a day or two after the AFL came hard down on Hird. The Dons showed deliberate defiance to make a mockery of the AFL's decision by extending his contract.

In hindsight, they should have let the heat dissipate out of the situation before making any decision on Hird's future. Mind you at the time he had the Dons as a top 4 team.

 

[jenny61_99]

Okay, but this is about back-dating suspensions. So they are asking for the training to be exempted from any back-dated suspension.

Where is it about training? This is about the pre-season comp isn't it?