Is anybody else bothered by the AFL now cashing in on and glorifying the returning Dons?

[Garlic muncher]

I doubt any HTB regulars will be booing, you have to actually go to the football to do that- and whatsmore after the farcical revealing that HTB regulars don't even recognise number one draftees you would have to conclude they won't know who to boo anyway.

 

[LoungeLizard]

I suppose all of you will be booing Melksham, Hibberd, Ryder, Monfries and Crameri as well? No? Not at Essendon anymore?

Who said that the players wilfully doped? Don't give me crap like "oh they took it and they were banned, which means that they knew what it was and wilfully doped". Isn't the whole controversy of the saga that the club couldn't say what was given to them? Big distinction between actually wilfully doping while fully well knowing that it is not WADA compliant and taking some substances thinking that it is WADA complaint (after putting your trust in those who supposed to know about this) while falling short in doing your own research. Did they know that it isn't WADA compliant? It is pretty naive to think that no one in the AFL except the 34 banned Essendon players would have followed the supplement regime. There were no previous examples that would lead players to be wary of what they were given in the history of AFL/VFL. Each player would have expected the club to do their due diligence in proving WADA compliant substances as part of any supplement program. That is something basic that those in charge at the time completely failed in.

Very hard to see 34 professional AFL players doping purposely while knowing that what they have taken is not WADA compliant. Even harder to see that when players from another Australian code with the same man around the club also being charged with taking banned substances provided by the same man around a similar time frame.

Why were they banned? Because the rules state that any player that was found to be guilty of taking banned substances will receive bans. They may have the penalty for it, but they didn't wilfully dope as they didn't know it was banned. This is simple logic here. Banned due to circumstatial evidence that suggests that they were given banned substances, not because they wilfully doped. Again, they were not banned for wilfully doping. They were banned for circumstantial evidence that they had a banned substance in their system.
So the comparison to Lance Amstrong is complete crap. Absolute crap. And even calling them cheats suggests that they wilfully doped, while there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that they wilfully doped while know that it is banned.

Really need to move on now. They will play. Essendon are a big club. We will be pumped up. We will be used as a cash cow. Get used to it.

You say there is no evidence that they "wilfully doped".
I call BS.
They hid it from the Doc for **** sake.
Did they only have a asprin?
You can believe what you want, and that's fine, but from where i stand, most cheats lie, not saying the Essendon players did, but no evidence?

 

[Jade]

Should everybody be angry and hate them forever? Is that the moral thing to do because of the drugs saga?

Go and get stuffed. They've taken their punishment and I welcome them back and am glad the media do too.

They've been on their knees ffs...

You don't seem to understand though, we have to STAY on our knees. The HTB demands it.

The outrage is real.

The salt is delicious.

 

[Jade]

That's quite naive.

If no one cared, why would the AFL be making such extreme efforts to keep telling us that there's nothing to see here and to distract everyone from the fact that 12 convicted drug cheats are about to return to the game?

16.

I would have thought someone that obsessed over this so much would know that....

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

You don't seem to understand though, we have to STAY on our knees. The HTB demands it.

The outrage is real.

The salt is delicious.

Forever is just being silly.

But I'd have thought it logical that the punishment not be watered down, and that the club is required to rebuild itself without the AFL doing it for them?

 

[Jade]

Forever is just being silly.

But I'd have thought it logical that the punishment not be watered down, and that the club is required to rebuild itself without the AFL doing it for them?

Punished in 2013, lost SIGNIFICANT draft position - the AFLs choice.

In 2016 they finished last. Therefore they get pick 1.

And we should somehow be exempted from that because?

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Punished in 2013, lost SIGNIFICANT draft position - the AFLs choice.

In 2016 they finished last. Therefore they get pick 1.

And we should somehow be exempted from that because?

Now someone who follows the draft much more closely than I do may be able to correct me here......

But didn't Hawthorn just give up pick 23 and 36 for pick 10?

And didn't Essendon effectively get 'penalised' pick 11 and around pick 30 and in return get pick 1??


No. This can't be right. Can it?

 

[Jade]

Now someone who follows the draft much more closely than I do may be able to correct me here......

But didn't Hawthorn just give up pick 23 and 36 for pick 10?

And didn't Essendon effectively get 'penalised' pick 11 and around pick 30 and in return get pick 1??


No. This can't be right. Can it?

Errrr. No.

 

[JayJ20]

You say there is no evidence that they "wilfully doped".
I call BS.
They hid it from the Doc for **** sake.
Did they only have a asprin?
You can believe what you want, and that's fine, but from where i stand, most cheats lie, not saying the Essendon players did, but no evidence?

How do you know? Why do you expect them to lie?
Something I don't understand is accusation without proof. Where is the benefit in that? What you have told me doesn't suggest that the players knew it was banned.

We have people that are going to go out of their way to heckle a player (who they don't know), boo them, call them cheats when they see them walking around without actually knowing whether or not they intended to cheat?

They go to games and boo these players, possibly having other mental health ramifications for what? This year probably was very difficult for them. Some probably took the whole year to come to terms with what happened.

The club and the AFL wants to give them a platform to integrate them back into the game after an awful period of time for them. What's the big deal? It doesn't affect other clubs. Collingwood got a Friday night game for spudding it up the last 3 years.

Had they have been suspended for individually going out to dope, then that is different. But they didn't. They were duped by club officials who were later sacked. Those responsible people are no longer at the club. The players have absolutely no advantage right now since it happened 4 years ago. They did their time for possibly having banned substance in their system. Move on.

They have, the club has, and you people should too.

 

[JayJ20]

Every single club puts in fixture requests. Why can't Essendon?

Collingwood and Bulldogs are playing Friday Night at MCG because they requested it. Collingwood have been crap the last 3 years and they host it.

Essendon requested a Friday night round 1 home game vs Melbourne.

Didn't get that, but got it against Hawthorn on Saturday Night. Also happens to be their 3rd home game in round 1 since 2000. About time.

What's the big deal?

Essendon then market the game about the players returning. That's expected.

 

[LoungeLizard]

How do you know? Why do you expect them to lie?
Something I don't understand is accusation without proof. Where is the benefit in that? What you have told me doesn't suggest that the players knew it was banned.

We have people that are going to go out of their way to heckle a player (who they don't know), boo them, call them cheats when they see them walking around without actually knowing whether or not they intended to cheat?

They go to games and boo these players, possibly having other mental health ramifications for what? This year probably was very difficult for them. Some probably took the whole year to come to terms with what happened.

The club and the AFL wants to give them a platform to integrate them back into the game after an awful period of time for them. What's the big deal? It doesn't affect other clubs. Collingwood got a Friday night game for spudding it up the last 3 years.

Had they have been suspended for individually going out to dope, then that is different. But they didn't. They were duped by club officials who were later sacked. Those responsible people are no longer at the club. The players have absolutely no advantage right now since it happened 4 years ago. They did their time for possibly having banned substance in their system. Move on.

They have, the club has, and you people should too.

"and you people should too".
Who?

Now with your rant above:
you said there was no evidence, now that's is just a lie.

And i didn't say they lied, i said cheats usually lie.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Now someone who follows the draft much more closely than I do may be able to correct me here......

But didn't Hawthorn just give up pick 23 and 36 for pick 10?

And didn't Essendon effectively get 'penalised' pick 11 and around pick 30 and in return get pick 1??


No. This can't be right. Can it?

lol

 

[JayJ20]

"and you people should too".
Who?

Now with your rant above:
you said there was no evidence, now that's is just a lie.

And i didn't say they lied, i said cheats usually lie.

HTB people.

There is no evidence that players wilfully doped with the intention of going against the WADA code.

Did Cronulla players also wilfully dope with the intention of going against the WADA code?

Why is it that only the 34 Essendon players and the Cronulla players are the only AFL/NRL players in the AFL/NRL to want to wilfully dope using a club run supplement regime?

Moreover, why would Essendon and Cronulla be the only clubs to want to set up a supplement regime that does not comply with the WADA code in the same time frame?

I can completely see why they were suspended, because that is the rules. But to say that they wilfully did it while knowing that it goes against the WADA code is complete crap. No evidence whatsoever.

Those who were responsible in that period have been removed for being very negligent

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Errrr. No.

What was it then?

Wasn't it their first and second round picks?

 

[LoungeLizard]

HTB people.

There is no evidence that players wilfully doped with the intention of going against the WADA code.

Did Cronulla players also wilfully dope with the intention of going against the WADA code?

Why is it that only the 34 Essendon players and the Cronulla players are the only AFL/NRL players in the AFL/NRL to want to wilfully dope using a club run supplement regime?

Moreover, why would Essendon and Cronulla be the only clubs to want to set up a supplement regime that does not comply with the WADA code in the same time frame?

I can completely see why they were suspended, because that is the rules. But to say that they wilfully did it while knowing that it goes against the WADA code is complete crap. No evidence whatsoever.

Those who were responsible in that period have been removed for being very negligent

You said it again, "No evidence whatsoever".

I think you have your head up your arse, if you think this.

It's ok that you think they were duped, but no evidence, ffs.

 

[Jade]

What was it then?

Wasn't it their first and second round picks?

Just to be clear here.

The person that is adamant Essendon has not been punished enough DOESN'T KNOW what their punishments actually were....

 

[Garlic muncher]

Let's be clear here and it has been that way for a number of years, football is secondary on this board- as another poster put it, this board sees football through a prism of ASADA, WADA, the AFL and Essendon.

These guys have actually no idea about football in any way shape or form, they are just not interested in it.

I mean who would know the name of the number 1 draft pick, you need to follow the football for that !!!

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Just to be clear here.

The person that is adamant Essendon has not been punished enough DOESN'T KNOW what their punishments actually were....

I'm not adamant they haven't been punished enough at all.

What we're talking about here, is the AFL driven and sponsored 'return to being a powerhouse as quickly as possible'.


So they effectively gave up 1st and 2nd round draft picks and another 2nd rounder the following season - for pick 1?

Which (again, someone can correct me here) would have meant they lost pick 11 pick 30ish in 2013, and pick 13/14 ish and 35ish in 2014 - and in return received pick 20 in 2014 and pick 1 in 2016?


Whereas Hawthorn on their own accord, gave up pick 11ish (could be top 10 even), pick 23 and pick 36 for pick 10?

 

[Doss]

Lavender, they lost the 1st and 2nd round picks in 2013 and the second round pick in 2014 as a direct punishment from the AFL.

Trying to paint that as somehow being as a swap for pick 1 in 2016, a whole three years later, is disingenuous. Pick 1 was for finishing last in 2016, no more and no less.

 

[JayJ20]

You said it again, "No evidence whatsoever".

I think you have your head up your arse, if you think this.

It's ok that you think they were duped, but no evidence, ffs.

I mean it is very very easy to understand.

Where is the evidence? I haven't seen the evidence.

I've seen the evidence that players were following a club run supplement regime. The consent forms state that they were wilfully participated in the supplement regime. No evidence however that they followed it to dope.

No player would expect a club to run a supplement regime that is not WADA compliant.

At the start, people sided with players to see maximum penalties handed to Essendon "because they didn't provide them a safe environment, put their health at risk and can't tell the players what they gave them".

Since it is now apparent that Essendon won't receive more punishment, it is "oh the players knew all along".

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Lavender, they lost the 1st and 2nd round picks in 2013 and the second round pick in 2014 as a direct punishment from the AFL.

Trying to paint that as somehow being as a swap for pick 1 in 2016, a whole three years later, is disingenuous. Pick 1 was for finishing last in 2016, no more and no less.

But didn't Hawthorn just swap picks 23 and 36, plus next year's first rounder (could be a top 10 pick) for pick 10?


I think that puts into perspective how the AFL, by stealth, softened the blow dramatically. And also why Essendon should never have been allowed to get pick 1.

The AFL has gifted the wooden spoon team the No. 1 pick - cause you know, they're the bottom team so they deserve it and all. But have also gifted them a top 6 team's fixture! Figure that one out?

Get treated like a bottom team when it suits, but get treated like a top team when it doesn't.



And before the emotional Essendon tragics all start getting upset, this is a dig at the AFL. Not Essendon. I doubt any AFL club would look a gift horse in the mouth.

But people cannot seriously be defending the AFL on this one?

 

[Doss]

But didn't Hawthorn just swap picks 23 and 36, plus next year's first rounder (could be a top 10 pick) for pick 10?


I think that puts into perspective how the AFL, by stealth, softened the blow dramatically. And also why Essendon should never have been allowed to get pick 1.

The AFL has gifted the wooden spoon team the No. 1 pick - cause you know, they're the bottom team so they deserve it and all. But have also gifted them a top 6 team's fixture! Figure that one out?

Get treated like a bottom team when it suits, but get treated like a top team when it doesn't.



And before the emotional Essendon tragics all start getting upset, this is a dig at the AFL. Not Essendon. I doubt any AFL club would look a gift horse in the mouth.

But people cannot seriously be defending the AFL on this one?

Softened the blow?

Just slow down for a minute. We were penalised draft picks in 2013-14. We then were given what every other side (bar Carlton in 2002, because of their salary cap penalties; for which they were penalised once, I might add) that finishes last is generally entitled to; the first pick in the draft.

And what do you mean 'gifted Essendon a top 6 fixture'? They have got an easier fixture befitting a side that finishes last (and who finished 15th in 2015, too), yes, just like every side that finishes last does.

It's not a matter of gifting them; they are just not going above and beyond to penalise them further.

 

[Collingwoodity]

Overall they've had the harshest penalty a VFL or AFL club has ever received, it's set them back years and has had a major impact on their reputation.

But they still have a massive following with a lot of loyal fans, so why the hell shouldn't the AFL cash in on it?

Because the AFL charged Essendon for bringing AFL into disrepute. To then use the disreputed conduct as a vehicle by which to increase reputation is self-serving, unethical and hypocritical.

 

[Randomizor]

Let's be clear here and it has been that way for a number of years, football is secondary on this board- as another poster put it, this board sees football through a prism of ASADA, WADA, the AFL and Essendon.

These guys have actually no idea about football in any way shape or form, they are just not interested in it.

I mean who would know the name of the number 1 draft pick, you need to follow the football for that !!!

So everyone who posts here is an anti doping code expert and doesn't follow the footy? So what if that were the case? Is it better to be like you and just blindly believe every piece of propaganda the AFL puts out? Seems like you're on the wrong board then really.

 

[Collingwoodity]

Should everybody be angry and hate them forever? Is that the moral thing to do because of the drugs saga?

Go and get stuffed. They've taken their punishment and I welcome them back and am glad the media do too.

They've been on their knees ffs...

You could not have missed the point more. Most have no issue with Essendon "coming back" etc but rather the AFL "spin".