Jobe Watson's 2012 AA selection

What should be done with the 2012 AA side?

  • Jobe removed and replaced

    Votes: 66 39.5%

  • Jobe removed and left blank

    Votes: 38 22.8%

  • Left in with asterisk

    Votes: 21 12.6%

  • Left as is

    Votes: 42 25.1%
  • Total voters
    167

Remove this Banner Ad

LoungeLizard said:
Spin it anyway you want Jade, find as many posts you want, but you specifically said: "No doping there"
You know how you like to pull people up when they make a statement that's just wrong?
You are wrong.
Click to expand...

Sunshine, you're a featherweight ******* with a heavyweight.

I strongly suggest you consider what 'doping' means - before you make a mess of yourself.
 
Jade said:
Which doesn't contradict what I said at all.

Or do I need to reword it to help you out?
Click to expand...
It is doping, how is it not?
Substance was illegal when taken, still is illegal now
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Boxhead_31 said:
It is doping, how is it not?
Substance was illegal when taken, still is illegal now
Click to expand...

It's not doping when the body responsible for anti-doping in this country tells you it's not doping.

I'm not sure how much simpler it gets.
 
LoungeLizard said:
You may want to look it up yourself Jade.
"Heavyweight"? LMAO
Hope it's cushioned for you when you fall off that horse.
Click to expand...

Do you? Nawwwww that's nice of you.
 
Toump Ass said:
Fantastic, we're accepting drug cheats into the All Australian team now. Disgraceful.
Click to expand...

Psst.... Melbourne fan, no need to concern yourself with AAs......
 
Jade said:
Has nothing to do with the AFL.

Learn the rules.
Click to expand...
Well it does actually.

“The AFL Commission says it was a no-brainer to take the Brownlow Medal from Watson. If you are cold-blooded, you would have to take away all the other awards and honours too.

“In this case, the AFL has adhered to the rules in one instance (the Brownlow Medal) and not the other (the All-Australian team).

But Bartlett notes a breach of the ASADA and WADA codes for using performance-enhancing drugs is to be met with “all awards, prizes and honours being stripped”.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport...r/news-story/730f27d6e5b30c89801f5c2d8e741a43

So as you can see ASADA/WADA set out a preferred punishment and it's up to the AFL commission to implement said punishment. Like I said it's the AFL :oops:
 
Comb Over said:
Well it does actually.

“The AFL Commission says it was a no-brainer to take the Brownlow Medal from Watson. If you are cold-blooded, you would have to take away all the other awards and honours too.

“In this case, the AFL has adhered to the rules in one instance (the Brownlow Medal) and not the other (the All-Australian team).

But Bartlett notes a breach of the ASADA and WADA codes for using performance-enhancing drugs is to be met with “all awards, prizes and honours being stripped”.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport...r/news-story/730f27d6e5b30c89801f5c2d8e741a43

So as you can see ASADA/WADA set out a preferred punishment and it's up to the AFL commission to implement said punishment. Like I said it's the AFL :oops:
Click to expand...

******* LOL.

Please..... PLEASE tell me you're joking.

Did you seriously just quote a News Corp paper, which in term quoted Kevin (and please excuse me whilst I grab my sides) Bartlett?

Consider your answer friend. :D
 
Jade said:
******* LOL.

Please..... PLEASE tell me you're joking.

Did you seriously just quote a News Corp paper, which in term quoted Kevin (and please excuse me whilst I grab my sides) Bartlett?

Consider your answer friend. :D
Click to expand...
Well let us see shall we.

This is what ASADA say:
Australian Sports Commission anti-doping documents are unequivocal. Rule 19.1 reads in part: “An anti-doping rule violation occurring during or in connection with an event may, upon the decision of the ruling body of the event, lead to disqualification of all of the athlete’s individual results obtained in that event with all consequences, including forfeiture of all medals, points and prizes.”
So ASADA say to the AFL, this what our rule sates but you can make the punishment.

Like I said it's the AFL :$
 
Comb Over said:
Well let us see shall we.

This is what ASADA say:
Australian Sports Commission anti-doping documents are unequivocal. Rule 19.1 reads in part: “An anti-doping rule violation occurring during or in connection with an event may, upon the decision of the ruling body of the event, lead to disqualification of all of the athlete’s individual results obtained in that event with all consequences, including forfeiture of all medals, points and prizes.”
So ASADA say to the AFL, this what our rule sates but you can make the punishment.

Like I said it's the AFL :$
Click to expand...

Here's the comment that started this laugh:

Frank Gallagher said:
But drug cheating disqualifies you from any award, as I said earlier it's not a big deal though, time to move on.
Click to expand...

To which I rightfully replied, no it doesn't.

Do you dispute my claim?
 
Jade said:
It's not doping when the body responsible for anti-doping in this country tells you it's not doping.

I'm not sure how much simpler it gets.
Click to expand...
It is when the overarching body tells you it is.
Pretty simple really
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Boxhead_31 said:
It is when the overarching body tells you it is.
Pretty simple really
Click to expand...

No it isn't.

WADA will refer all inquiries to the national body. Would you like proof? Or can you find that yourself?

They delegate their authority in the provision of information.

Only the special on BigFooty struggle with this.
 
Jade said:
Here's the comment that started this laugh:



To which I rightfully replied, no it doesn't.

Do you dispute my claim?
Click to expand...
So you admit you're wrong, that it is in fact up to the AFL to rule a convicted drug cheat out of the AA side.

Nice deflection though :$
 
Jade said:
Once again:





So I repeat the question, do you refute my claim?
Click to expand...
not interested in your claim, you reckon I need to read the rules, however the rules clearly state you're wrong. How embarrassing.

ASADA have their stance and as the AFL has signed on they can either follow said stance or sweep it under the rug, as I said, they'll get the broom out again which really isn't a shock now is it.
 
Comb Over said:
not interested in your claim
Click to expand...

Of course you aren't - because my claim is 100% correct; a doping violation does NOT automatically disqualify awards.

Don't argue with your betters.
 
Jade said:
Of course you aren't - because my claim is 100% correct; a doping violation does NOT automatically disqualify awards.

Don't argue with your betters.
Click to expand...
No silly, stop deflecting.

It's the AFL who makes the call on banning a convicted drug cheat from the AA team, ASADA just suggest they should in Rule 19.1, the rule that you said I should read. I already knew the rule that's why I said it's the AFL's call (it's the AFL) to which you replied "read the rules".

If you had half a clue you'd already understand my position on your little claim, however to claim it's not the AFL's call to ban him from AA side... "read the rules"... you were wrong, got owned and now are deflecting :oops:
 
Jade said:
No it isn't.

WADA will refer all inquiries to the national body. Would you like proof? Or can you find that yourself?

They delegate their authority in the provision of information.

Only the special on BigFooty struggle with this.
Click to expand...
And when WADA clarifies a mistaken adjudication by the National body, what do you say then?
 
Guardian Hawk said:
I have to be honest I am not too fussed but if a replacement is organised I feel there is at least one obvious choice I would like to see honoured:

  • The player who easily won the B&F of the dominant home and away side (AA based on H&A)
  • The player who was (joint) winner of the Brownlow
  • The player who selectors said missed out (much to the shock of media and public) because they they felt the player was not versatile enough to play anywhere but centre (where Jobe was named) despite playing and winning AA on the half back flank the very next season.
The player I'm obviously talking about is Sam Mitchell.
Click to expand...

Honestly, as it says you're a Hawthorn fan, I would have expected you to nominate a Hawthorn player, so I must say that it's pretty honorable of you to nominate a non-Hawthorn player for this award.

Go you. :innocent:
 
Meh ... much ado about nothing.

"All Australian Team." was a VFL machination anyway. never payed any attention to it. Same for the "Hall of fame", an American blow-in.:football:

What matters to me -
The Flag.
The Club Honour Board.:)

Everything else is marketing.:moneybag:

Even the "International series" and representing your country.
Against only one other country, ever.
And even then it bastardises 2 very good games to make it happen.:soccerball:

And sadly, I finally found all those new emoji-thingies .... sorry!:oops:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top