No Opposition Supporters The ASADA Thread... from a Tiger perspective

Status
Not open for further replies.

rfctiger74

Premium Platinum
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Posts
43,891
Likes
81,530
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
76'ers
The big issue to me is not really what the AFL do. It is what ASADA and the players do.

I can't see the players avoiding bans. If they are banned they have a strong case to sue for loss of earnings - say $8-$9 million per year. Standard two year ban = $17 mil. Add in punitive damages and we are looking at tens of millions of dollars potentially.

Add in the EFC having to rely on a state league squad for 2 years, they lose current players due to contracts being breached and running out over the next 2 years, and poor performance hampering income --> massive cash injections required to keep the EFC alive.

Given that there appears to be overwhelming evidence of banned drugs being given in a poorly controlled manner, with some drugs injected being unkown, how the club can get off I don't know. The current penalties are about the EFC here and now. They will weaken but not do any long term damage to the club. That is, the EFC will overcome the financial and player penalties in 10 years. But if 38 guys get suspensions (some retired or left club - but still could sue) then it could be about 10 times bigger, or more. I don't know but maybe the EFC lawyers are trying to avoid this by not getting a formal guilty verdict.

However, if it is the worst case then will the AFL prop the EFC up? Or let them go to save the $?

Who knows. Your scenarios are exactly why the AFL case should have been heard after the ASADA one. We could be revisiting this cluster %$^# again in Jan/Feb even if a plea is agreed to.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

"The Roar Is Back"

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Mar 13, 2007
Posts
22,439
Likes
26,968
Location
THE TAN
AFL Club
Richmond
Why have they not asked for it to be altered?

Because they are the guy making the sausage, they really don't care how its made, they just want a sausage on the table before finals.

Worth remembering the AFL commission rules for this sort of stuff was made probably never forceeing these kind of issues. It failed on Melbourne. The just charge was ignored because the just charge would cost the Dees their licence. Did people ask for the process to be amended though? Of course not. They just plodded along, agreed the Dees were innocent, and pretended all was good. Problem is this is too big and too ugly to ignore.

Also these changes are not significant. The commission still hears the case, and determines guilt on its own criteria. All that would be done is the roadblocks the AFL exec (not the commission) put in place re: time, lack of discovery, and lack of rebuttal witnesses are removed. The commission can allow all of these now. AFL exec however IMO is restricting these in order to increase the pressure on EFC to agree to a plea.

This is kabuki, its not justice
So you believe the interpretation is flawed ?
Sorry I interpreted you weren't satisfied that the rules for this process were satisfactory ?
If the AFL club presidents weren't satisfied the AFL exec were handling this matter as per guidelines I fail to see why they would have shown the support they did ?
 

rfctiger74

Premium Platinum
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Posts
43,891
Likes
81,530
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
76'ers
So you believe the interpretation is flawed ?
Sorry I interpreted you weren't satisfied that the rules for this process were satisfactory ?
If the AFL club presidents weren't satisfied the AFL exec were handling this matter as per guidelines I fail to see why they would have shown the support they did ?

Correct. The AFL could be allowing all of these requests, but they are choosing not to for a reason. Unfortunately there is nothing to force the AFL to provide these to a defendant.

The AFL SHOULD want the process to allow natural justice however, because every roadblock they provide to EFC having a fair hearing, is a justification for the Supreme Court to intervene. IMO its just stupid, but I think they are hoping if they keep increasing the pressure, the EFC will crack. To be fair though, EFC tried the same thing (threatening to go to court), and the AFL didn't crack.

Neither side is blinking, and we either need to grow up and compromise, or stop wasting our time and go straight to court.

On the 17, I don't want or expect them to intervene. We don't want this mess to overthrow the commission, and the 17 would have to do that directly or indirectly (by massively undermining it).

I think the media have overplayed "the full support" they have given the AFL. Eddie on 360 was very much in the "sort it out the two of you" camp, and stated several of the clubs are against penalties they will be excessive and risk the viability of the club (my words, forget his exact expression).

We don't want the 17 involved, and TBH I'm impressed with their restraint to date.
 

ScallyWag1

Club Legend
Joined
Oct 15, 2008
Posts
1,492
Likes
3,030
Location
Richmond
AFL Club
Richmond
The AFL commission have every right to govern the AFL as set out by the AFL rules . They are also entitled to hand down any penalty which affects the membership of those within the league .
I believe they have every to disqualify Hird, Essendon etc or any other member and request certain criteria is met before membership is re-considered , provided they follow the process required by them within the AFL rules .
You can argue natural justice all you like , the bottom line is the commission must follow the process outlined within the AFL rules , they do that and they have the support of the overwhelming majority of the stakeholders who appear extremely comfortable to support them .
If Essendon believe the rules within the AFL are not correct and do not provide natural justice then that is a completely different matter and something they will have to fight the whole of the AFL stakeholders .
This :thumbsu:

17/18 club presidents seem to agree
 

"The Roar Is Back"

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Mar 13, 2007
Posts
22,439
Likes
26,968
Location
THE TAN
AFL Club
Richmond
Correct. The AFL could be allowing all of these requests, but they are choosing not to for a reason. Unfortunately there is nothing to force the AFL to provide these to a defendant.

The AFL SHOULD want the process to allow natural justice however, because every roadblock they provide to EFC having a fair hearing, is a justification for the Supreme Court to intervene. IMO its just stupid, but I think they are hoping if they keep increasing the pressure, the EFC will crack. To be fair though, EFC tried the same thing (threatening to go to court), and the AFL didn't crack.

Neither side is blinking, and we either need to grow up and compromise, or stop wasting our time and go straight to court.

On the 17, I don't want or expect them to intervene. We don't want this mess to overthrow the commission, and the 17 would have to do that directly or indirectly (by massively undermining it).

I think the media have overplayed "the full support" they have given the AFL. Eddie on 360 was very much in the "sort it out the two of you" camp, and stated several of the clubs are against penalties they will be excessive and risk the viability of the club (my words, forget his exact expression).

We don't want the 17 involved, and TBH I'm impressed with their restraint to date.
Without going around and around in circles . The AFL commission first and foremost must follow the rules bestowed upon them by the AFL rules , if that doesn't permit and restrict, to provide natural justice that is a issue the presidents of all clubs need to vote on and have changed . Is also something Essendon have know for a long time and should have requested to be changed . It appears that all but 1 president is more than happy with the THE PROCESS .
If EFC along with Hird and Co are not happy with interpretation they need to prove this and request those responsible step aside . Something no other clubs has suggested actually they have thrown their full support behind those making the decisions .
I hope you understand why some cant follow your thoughts and why most people can't understand what Hird and co are on about .
They claim that they have not been provided natural justice and have seemingly attacked Vlad and co , yet Vlad and co are only interpreting rules the EFC have been involved in the implementation of and have had the right to request be changed , yet haven't .
It just appears they are whinging because they are about to cop it no lube and are fighting to save face , which I can understand but they are providing a very flimsy arguement about everything and one they are receiving no support from other clubs .
It appears very clear all other clubs want this process to be in place and they want it interpreted the way it has been .
 

rfctiger74

Premium Platinum
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Posts
43,891
Likes
81,530
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
76'ers
Without going around and around in circles . The AFL commission first and foremost must follow the rules bestowed upon them by the AFL rules , if that doesn't permit and restrict, to provide natural justice that is a issue the presidents of all clubs need to vote on and have changed . Is also something Essendon have know for a long time and should have requested to be changed . It appears that all but 1 president is more than happy with the THE PROCESS .
If EFC along with Hird and Co are not happy with interpretation they need to prove this and request those responsible step aside . Something no other clubs has suggested actually they have thrown their full support behind those making the decisions .
I hope you understand why some cant follow your thoughts and why most people can't understand what Hird and co are on about .
They claim that they have not been provided natural justice and have seemingly attacked Vlad and co , yet Vlad and co are only interpreting rules the EFC have been involved in the implementation of and have had the right to request be changed , yet haven't .
It just appears they are whinging because they are about to cop it no lube and are fighting to save face , which I can understand but they are providing a very flimsy arguement about everything and one they are receiving no support from other clubs .
It appears very clear all other clubs want this process to be in place and they want it interpreted the way it has been .

Firstly I'll stop posting here after this post. Its clear your view is in the majority, and with one mod already threatening me (and several posters also complaining), its pointless me discussing this further here (I'll just piss off everyone). I've never been posting to convince people to change their mind, just to put up a perspective on this issue which I sincerely believe. Its not meant to be trolling, or playing devils advocate, its actually what I believe, but I know its been taken that way by many.

Secondly, people are focused on outcome, not process. I get it. No one cares about procedure, just that justice and a punishment occur.

My problem is the process is vital to ensuring a just outcome. You don't get to say "if no one else complains about natural justice its not an issue", because that is completely irrelevant. The only person who disagrees with a kangaroo court is the guy in the dock. A proper and just process needs to be followed to ensure any outcome is most likely the correct and fair one.

Ive asked you repeatably if denying discovery, denying rebuttal witnesses, confirming final charges before a hearing is fair, and your response is always back on is it against their rules, do the clubs disagree. This is irrelevant because if a defendant needs these things to be ensured natural justice, we should be bending over backwards to ensure they are provided.

Denying natural justice at this hearing just opens up unnecessary avenues for appeal. We want this over this week, but deny natural justice, the SC writs will fly, and the injunctions will follow. This will go on for months.

Anyway, I'm off now. See you all in the finals :)
 

"The Roar Is Back"

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Mar 13, 2007
Posts
22,439
Likes
26,968
Location
THE TAN
AFL Club
Richmond
Firstly I'll stop posting here after this post. Its clear your view is in the majority, and with one mod already threatening me (and several posters also complaining), its pointless me discussing this further here (I'll just piss off everyone). I've never been posting to convince people to change their mind, just to put up a perspective on this issue which I sincerely believe. Its not meant to be trolling, or playing devils advocate, its actually what I believe, but I know its been taken that way by many.

Secondly, people are focused on outcome, not process. I get it. No one cares about procedure, just that justice and a punishment occur.

My problem is the process is vital to ensuring a just outcome. You don't get to say "if no one else complains about natural justice its not an issue", because that is completely irrelevant. The only person who disagrees with a kangaroo court is the guy in the dock. A proper and just process needs to be followed to ensure any outcome is most likely the correct and fair one.

Ive asked you repeatably if denying discovery, denying rebuttal witnesses, confirming final charges before a hearing is fair, and your response is always back on is it against their rules, do the clubs disagree. This is irrelevant because if a defendant needs these things to be ensured natural justice, we should be bending over backwards to ensure they are provided.

Denying natural justice at this hearing just opens up unnecessary avenues for appeal. We want this over this week, but deny natural justice, the SC writs will fly, and the injunctions will follow. This will go on for months.

Anyway, I'm off now. See you all in the finals :)
Your problem IMO is you consistantly work within one set of rule which you strongly believe in and for probably good cause . However it clouds your ability in this case to understand the rules the commissioners and afl exec are working under , which is what AFL clubs want .
In a normally legal sense discovery and all the other criteria you have stated is required but within this AFL it is not and once again is what all those involved want .
You are not pissing me off , I actually enjoy and accept your view . Hower you need to accept and understand that although there are generally law criteria the AFL exec and commissioners must meet, however there first and foremost concern is to upheld the laws and rules of the game which the stakeholders outline .
The commissioners and exec appear to have done no wrong , hence the afl presidents support .
Likewise the presidents don't want this process changed , despite the fact it may not provide natural justice , but that is the way they obviously want it and is why they have thrown their support behind it .
Different scenario which no doubt you don't agree on but is the in my mind clearly the case .
The support since the presidents meeting sold Essendon's fate to me .
 

Sterge

Moderator
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Posts
33,541
Likes
53,036
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Avs/Pats/Chelsea
Moderator #1,635
AFL.com have taken to reporting the hard hitting news

You heard it here first

1.50pm: Take this for what it's worth: a Docklands barista, who has allegedly been making coffee for all the key players in this affair, has been telling anyone who will listen that he has it on good authority that:
- The AFL will give its final offer to Essendon at 3pm;
- The Bombers will have two hours to either accept or decline the penalties;
- If they decline, the offer will be off the table.
Let's call it 'The Barista Rumour'. Will it prove to be true? Time will tell.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

DrMike

Premium Platinum
Joined
May 13, 2012
Posts
24,945
Likes
55,685
AFL Club
Richmond
Curious why you single me out for this. Everyone is prejudging, everyone is making assumptions.

It wouldnt be because I dont agree with everyone's assumption though, and god forbid, i have my own thoughts?
I don't mean to offend if any was taken. I singled you out because you are the one not prejudging or making assumptions to explain why it doesn't matter if people do. Seems like you're putting in a lot of time trying to get people to change their opinion on the subject, when just because people have an opposite opinion to yours, doesn't mean either side should be trying to make everyone else have the same opinion. The same goes for everyone else in the opposite way but it seems like conversation was circling around the same thing.
 

3rdManUp

Premium Gold
Joined
Sep 6, 2012
Posts
2,693
Likes
6,291
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Whoa, whoa, whoa guize. Let's calm down and stop the fighting, that's just what Hirdy wants :cool:

The good news is that Essendon are cooked. The bad news is that Carlton will probably play finals. The better news is that we will absolutely belt them if that's the case.

Let's go back to being fellow supporters whose team is playing in September
Let's go back to the way it ought to be ;)
 

LOZWILDA

Team Captain
Joined
Feb 24, 2008
Posts
551
Likes
189
Location
SUNBURY
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Diggersrest fc.Tongala fc, Sunbury
James Hird and EFC claim: "when all the facts come out they will be mostly in the clear", but it is they who are refusing to let out all the facts and tell the AFL, ASADA, and the general public who was given what? Claiming you do not know who had what or where the drugs they paid for went to, is remarkable and unaccountable. And that is their defence!
Cop your whack and move on for the better of our game and the EFC and their supporters.
 

Bazzar

Hall of Famer
Joined
May 8, 2007
Posts
35,545
Likes
42,217
AFL Club
Richmond
Whoa, whoa, whoa guize. Let's calm down and stop the fighting, that's just what Hirdy wants :cool:

The good news is that Essendon are cooked. The bad news is that Carlton will probably play finals. The better news is that we will absolutely belt them if that's the case.

Let's go back to being fellow supporters whose team is playing in September
Let's go back to the way it ought to be ;)
And as fate would have it the Blues VFL side will take the Bombers VFL sides place in their finals. :(
 

Grockadoc

Premium Platinum
Joined
Jul 25, 2008
Posts
17,233
Likes
27,900
Location
Geelong
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Fighting Furies, Man Utd, Cavaliers
The AFL have been willing to compromise with James Hird, who has not even budged on his stance once. Time for the AFL to say "Stuff you, James." and charge him with everything they can. When someone's ego gets in the way of them doing what is right, and the best thing for all parties involved, they need to come down hard.
 

Groupie_

Born Naked
Joined
Jul 19, 2010
Posts
57,781
Likes
101,970
Location
Safeway Carpark
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Richmond VFL
Big Caro:

5:52pm: From Caroline Wilson:
Essendon has been banned from the 2013 finals series and the opening two rounds of the national draft and slapped with a $2 million fine for the derelict failures of its football program over the 2012 season.

The club will also miss the opening round of the 2014 draft but its role in next year's second round of draft picks remained unclear as the club completed a plea bargain with the AFL late this afternoon and avoided a contested hearing of the league commission.

Coach James Hird, who has impeded a settlement between the AFL and Essendon for the past five days, was still fighting to reduce his one year ban from the game and could still be headed for court.

Hird's legal representative Julian Burnside QC appeared close to a deal with the AFL late on Tuesday although the coach's position had not yet been resolved as Essendon chairman Paul Little agreed to the sanctions being presented as the AFL's final offer.

Danny Corcoran has accepted a four month suspension from the game with club doctor Bruce Reid and senior assistant Mark Thompson still resisting the charges levelled against them.

Essendon's VFL team is also expected to be banned from the finals.
Upvotes:1 Downvotes:4 Copy Link


Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...ive-updates-20130827-2smup.html#ixzz2d9dEM2fy
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom