Roast Cheating Filthy Power Found Guilty, Fined $100k, Club Facing Financial Ruin

[cmndstab]

The logic seems to be "the doctor makes a whole heap of decisions over the course of a season, human error is a thing so getting one wrong occasionally is understandable." That is the only possible explanation for the suspended part of this expiring after 2024. Another error in 2025 would just be expected given the human element here.

But as Sanders has repeatedly pointed out, this part of the concussion protocol is specifically written to avoid the human element. There is no shade of gray, there is no judgement call. In this situation you are obligated to do the test. You could then argue that the result of that test involves some judgement calls... but the decision to actually do the test does not.

 

[moogerfooger]

The fine will pale into insignificance if either player sues Port sometime in the future. The culpability is as obvious as it gets in these circumstances. As I'm reminded every time my son watches Bluey, it's not the '80s anymore.

You can't imagine another AFL club being so incompetent.

 

[FR0GGY]

Feel like Port have a surprisingly good record at the Cattery relative to most teams (well definitely us anyway) such that it's an interesting game.

EDIT - They do not. Further more the gammy bastards have only been there once in the last 5 years.

2007 the last year they won down there and what a year that was!

 

[weekend at bernies]

This is the bit that amazes me, I'm stunned the Doctor is just sitting there taking all the blame for this happily.

and if he quietly gets sacked who is going to give him another job.

 

[GameofSloanes]

I wonder, when Port Adelaide inevitably do this again (and you know they will), what will the punishment be from the AFL next time?

As I said earlier, the punishment this time should have included a suspended 4 premiership point penalty. So then at least that is hanging over their head. Furthermore, the AFL should notify all clubs that penalties in the future may include similar punishments

 

[Faaarrk]

As I said earlier, the punishment this time should have included a suspended 4 premiership point penalty. So then at least that is hanging over their head. Furthermore, the AFL should notify all clubs that penalties in the future may include similar punishments

Suspended points can be used to advantage though.
One example is Port are 17th with one game to go in the season. They deliberately break the rules to lose 4 points plus get the monkey off their back for the future. They end up last with pick 1 in the draft.
Draft pick sanctions would be best.

 

[Crow till I die]

OK, I've worked out how the soft cap reduction is not an issue for Port.

Hinkley would be in big bucks.
Any replacement rookie coach would start on less - probably at least $50K less.

Sack Hinkley.
Appoint Carr.
Soft cap problem solved.

They will just have less of these - problem solved for them

 

[Bovo]

I reckon that this is a lesson every AFL club will learn from. I’m referring to how serious this needs to be taken. This is not Port’s fault. Club doctors sit outside the control of their club. This squarely sits with the club doctor. Anyway. I hope the two boys are okay. Concussions are bad news. Just ask Paul Seedsman

11

Paul Seedsman

Age

32

Ht

190cm

Wt

84kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

18.3

5star

K

10.7

4star

HB

7.6

5star

M

3.9

4star

T

2.9

4star

CL

1.5

4star

D

15.8

4star

K

8.2

3star

HB

7.6

4star

M

2.4

3star

T

4.4

5star

CL

1.8

4star

D

19.8

5star

K

14.0

5star

HB

5.8

4star

M

4.4

4star

T

2.6

4star

CL

1.4

4star

 

[Jibroni]

What a crap penalty, I wanted them to suffer not be hit with a lettuce leaf. The fine will pale into insignificance if either player sues Port sometime in the future.

 

[Eagleboy2011]

Another fine. The good news is that the suspended fine is only for 1 year.
Why the F@#$ would you include a suspended fine but only include it for one year? In 2025 it's ok to do it again? Ridiculous.

Honestly, a lawyer would have to be utterly incompetent not to be able to put together a case that completely destroys the AFL. Hell I could do it in 15 minutes.

Greg Griffin would be

At the moment

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Surely the doctor and Davies could have seen how hopelessly they were playing even with those guys out there

What a waste

 

[SugarShane]

If you're punishing someone though you need to do it on the basis of the wrongdoing you've found.

If they had formed the view that there was something systemic happening and we want to investigate it and get to the bottom of it and punish on that basis that's fine.

The AFL didn't form that view and hence didn't investigate or punish on that basis.

Can't find it if you don't go looking for it.

 

[Eagleboy2011]

Will anyone ever believe their doctor again if any player suffering a head knock is not put under Concussion Protocol?


I can't see how he can perform that match day task ever again. Zero creditability now.

On SM-A325F using BigFooty.com mobile app

I wonder what other mistakes he has made.

Doctors can bury their mistakes I suppose.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

So a bunch of comedians have more integrity than Stephen Rowe.

Well, yeah... but that isn't hard.

Why I don't listen to Rowe.

 

[SugarShane]

The logic seems to be "the doctor makes a whole heap of decisions over the course of a season, human error is a thing so getting one wrong occasionally is understandable." That is the only possible explanation for the suspended part of this expiring after 2024. Another error in 2025 would just be expected given the human element here.

But as Sanders has repeatedly pointed out, this part of the concussion protocol is specifically written to avoid the human element. There is no shade of gray, there is no judgement call. In this situation you are obligated to do the test. You could then argue that the result of that test involves some judgement calls... but the decision to actually do the test does not.

Exactly. "Mistake" is the line they've been running, but the mistake isn't just a "uh oh spaghettio" mistake, it's a blatant failure to follow a written guide.

Even if you go with the human element. Their 1 doctor has made 3 grave concussion errors in what, 6 years? The other 17 doctors wouldn't have that between them. All the more reason his position should be untenable.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

$100,000, $50,000 in the soft cap.

Weak

As expected, the AFL are pathetic with the penalties matching the incident.

Given no loss of draft pick points, they will do the same again in a final.

The AFL are not truly serious about head knocks... rather more concerned about litigation.

 

[Crow till I die]

There is just a lot of confusion around this..maybe Alir and Jones didn't identify with being concussed?

 

[WaynesWorld19]

OK, I've worked out how the soft cap reduction is not an issue for Port.

Hinkley would be in big bucks.
Any replacement rookie coach would start on less - probably at least $50K less.

Sack Hinkley.
Appoint Carr.
Soft cap problem solved.

OK ...as usual, the AFL Press Releases omit the fine print around the fine

I assume the $50K against the soft cap, will be in the 2024 PORT soft cap ......by all reports the soft cap will be increased next year $100K+ IIRC .....thus rendering the fine next to useless

Only saving grace for PORT was the AFL had no concrete evidence, except the optics ......therefore to "bang the drum" about how good the AFL is tackling concussion .....they trot out this crap

 

[jo172]

Can't find it if you don't go looking for it.

Quite, and if you're afraid you might get sued one day why create the paper trail that you ever had a suspicion, let alone what if you investigated the suspicion what you might find.

Straight out of the tobacco/opioid playbook.

 

[GROTTO]

Well, yeah... but that isn't hard.

Why I don't listen to Rowe.

I used to listen to KG and Cornes.

Rowe makes KG sound articulate and intelligent.

 

[Dangarman]

2007 the last year they won down there and what a year that was!

Joel Selwood's debut year. That game had 2x Abletts, 2x Burgoynes and 2x Cornes.

Was the 4th and last loss for Geelong that year. 34 days later Geelong exacted the sweetest revenge. I think that has something to do with every Crow fan's favourite number!

 

[GROTTO]

Yeah Port are done for the year.

Will still finish top 4 on the back of their winning streak. But that is it.


Kenny 2 year deal coming, Josh Carr to Richmond.





Would be nice if we can sneak into the 8 and beat them again.

On SM-A325F using BigFooty.com mobile app

Straights Sets Kenny.

I think maybe Leppa to Tigers.

 

[dplggr47]

OK ...as usual, the AFL Press Releases omit the fine print around the fine

I assume the $50K against the soft cap, will be in the 2024 PORT soft cap ......by all reports the soft cap will be increased next year $100K+ IIRC .....thus rendering the fine next to useless

Only saving grace for PORT was the AFL had no concrete evidence, except the optics ......therefore to "bang the drum" about how good the AFL is tackling concussion .....they trot out this crap

How I read it was $50k from soft cap and the other $50k outside the cap as a regular fine, but if they breach the concussion protocols again before end of 2024, then a total of $100k from soft cap next year. If they don't breach protocols again before end of next year, then they have to pay that $50k fine? Thought they were a poor club though and couldn't afford to pay fines.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

How I read it was $50k from soft cap and the other $50k outside the cap as a regular fine, but if they breach the concussion protocols again before end of 2024, then a total of $100k from soft cap next year. If they don't breach protocols again before end of next year, then they have to pay that $50k fine? Thought they were a poor club though and couldn't afford to pay fines.

A nothing suspended fine .....12 months ? ......should have been 3 years

 

[Mattrox]

The key question has yet to have been raised or answered. That question is: why?

Because the answer to the question is unpalatable to the AFL as it exposes them to scrutiny.

You can say "mistake" and it covers negligence, incompetence and a very liberal interpretation of protocols.
However, we all know the protocols were completely ignored, but it is hard to prove and therefore had to penalise Port for trying to have the players available next week (cheating).