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

[Tigersman]

This is a joke. Negotiating with the bombers to find a punishment that suits both parties. Why do the bombers have any say? Let it play out in court if necessary and if/when they are proven guilty, give em both barrels.

I hope Asada prove to have more spine than the AFL when their turn comes.

 

[TheProwler]

The longer the negotiating goes on the less likely EFC will cop much pain

Tipping a large fine and Hird 12mth suspension and no loss of draft picks. The AFL are frightened their case won't hold up in court and will let the lawyers negotiate an outcome. The pea hearted AFL should stand firm and say "this is our comp and this is your punishment" not negotiating some deal

 

[Ned_Flanders]

IMO we are off to court again, vibe on 360 was these guys are nowhere close

 

[Wild Westiger]

The longer the negotiating goes on the less likely EFC will cop much pain

Tipping a large fine and Hird 12mth suspension and no loss of draft picks. The AFL are frightened their case won't hold up in court and will let the lawyers negotiate an outcome. The pea hearted AFL should stand firm and say "this is our comp and this is your punishment" not negotiating some deal

To be sure to be sure, they'll forfeit draft picks. And rightly so.

 

["The Roar Is Back"]

Dalgliesh, hunter , kavanagh and Obrien are 20 and turn 21 next year .
Davis turns 21 later in the year and Steinberg turned 21 today .
If I could get a bet on I would guess Sarah is the mother of .

 

[webbie]

Dalgliesh, hunter , kavanagh and Obrien are 20 and turn 21 next year .
Davis turns 21 later in the year and Steinberg turned 21 today .
If I could get a bet on I would guess Sarah is the mother of .

I thought it was common knowledge it was steinbergs mum!

 

[Kapital city TIGER]

Sorry Essendon
If guilty, ought be destroyed. Merge with Coburg if they'll have you.
Players...let down badly, but ought be banned.
Tainted for ? How long? = ban/4
A complete disgrace to the game playing with pills they claim as a defence they didnt even know werent legal, you MUPPETS.

AFL ought have sorted this out ages ago, really piss poor, in Dons defence they did bring it to them what? April or feb or something? Have blemished the integrity of the entire season. And are now negotiating? Wtf they ought be starting with cop to everything that they've done wrong in COURT or face such penalties that they'd rather disband than go on.
Yr - life ban for tainted players.
No draft picks. NONE. Sure you'll find some gems.
But not for the AFL. Exclude for a bit. Year or two. Or six.
See if the VFL will take you in, for a year or 3. Or forever more.
Or perhaps merge with Coburg, you'll like the jumper and they're just down the road.

Crossed a line and damaged the integrity of the code and comp.
O and didn't bother with due diligence for own players welfare. Just let some dodgy drug runner sort em out.

Actually I don't give a hoot, I just want to see us smash em in r 23

 

["The Roar Is Back"]

It's not a nothing penalty, if it was, why are you insisting on it? It must mean something if you are so determined.

Also there is a reason were are doing this negotiation. Afl knows if efc want to fight their charges, we are all off to court, $10m+ in total legal fees for all parties is the estimate. Also it means efc get an injunction to prevent the afl booting them from finals before their case is heard.

Afl don't want to lose $5m in legal fees, and have efc play in finals, so they want to deal.

Problem is they are not prepared to give up anything, efc is not kowtowing, so unless something changes, we are off to court.

On your last question, I'll repeat myself again (even though you know the answer). I am a fan of due process. We are asking efc to accept a deal which is an admission of guilt without any chance to defend themselves. I would actually prefer this to be heard in an open hearing, and then let the cards fall where they may. Unlike some, I don't let tabloid journos tell me what to think or what to get indignate about

Tabloid journos aren't telling me what to think .
Facts are :
They can't win the flag this year and are going to loose zero dollars shall they not play finals , however them not playing finals provides others who have not acted incorrectly the opportunity to play finals and be within the race to win the flag , albeit they will be making up the numbers . Yet will have the opportunity to gain some experience .
Simply losing points for this year is not sufficient , long term it is irrelevant . It does however give opportunity to others .
There are clubs who have been significantly disadvantaged by Essendon's supplement program as has the brand .
THE BRAND is the most important thing to consider here , if the penalty isn't seen as suitable by the everyday supporter it will be a massive blow to the game .

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Tabloid journos aren't telling me what to think .
Facts are :
They can't win the flag this year and are going to loose zero dollars shall they not play finals , however them not playing finals provides others who have not acted incorrectly the opportunity to play finals and be within the race to win the flag , albeit they will be making up the numbers . Yet will have the opportunity to gain some experience .
Simply losing points for this year is not sufficient , long term it is irrelevant . It does however give opportunity to others .
There are clubs who have been significantly disadvantaged by Essendon's supplement program as has the brand .
THE BRAND is the most important thing to consider here , if the penalty isn't seen as suitable by the everyday supporter it will be a massive blow to the game .

You don't base a sanction on what position a club is in today, you base it upon what they are found guilty for.

If the hawks and Melbourne both cheat the salary cap by $100k, you don't fine the hawks more because they are higher on the ladder and can afford it. Likewise you don't give hawks bigger draft penalties because pick 18 isn't as high as pick 2.

You punish on the crime, not effect on perception, not damage to brand. The crime.

If you want to fight on perception, you are following the lead of the afl and their tabloid cheerleaders

 

[tigs2010]

IMO we are off to court again, vibe on 360 was these guys are nowhere close

Which means Essendon play finals?

 

[Wally Matera]

I've said it about 5 times now. This will not end unless the AFL grant a no-fault penalty. You think the legal bills are massive now, these are nothing compared to the legal bills coming Essendons and Hird and co way if Essendon are punished for injecting banned substances. Hird and co HAVE to continue to fight, because they could have 40 players filing law suits, and be open to law suits forever. If anyone claims they have impactd on health issues down the track, Essendon wont have a leg to stand on if they have accepted a penalty that even implies fault.

Lawyers on Hird, Thompson, Corcoran and Reid's side... are only cared about one thing. Not having any fault accepted or implied. It has nothing to do with protecting the club. Nothing to do with reputation other than how it will look to their players lawyers in a court of law in 1, 5, 10 or 20 years down the track.

Little is only protecting the club. I think even he is now on board with complying with the AFL, but he cant get the others on board because of what this could all mean.

 

[JR#8]

IMO we are off to court again, vibe on 360 was these guys are nowhere close

Those guys are clueless.

 

[TheProwler]

I've said it about 5 times now. This will not end unless the AFL grant a no-fault penalty. You think the legal bills are massive now, these are nothing compared to the legal bills coming Essendons and Hird and co way if Essendon are punished for injecting banned substances. Hird and co HAVE to continue to fight, because they could have 40 players filing law suits, and be open to law suits forever. If anyone claims they have impactd on health issues down the track, Essendon wont have a leg to stand on if they have accepted a penalty that even implies fault.

Lawyers on Hird, Thompson, Corcoran and Reid's side... are only cared about one thing. Not having any fault accepted or implied. It has nothing to do with protecting the club. Nothing to do with reputation other than how it will look to their players lawyers in a court of law in 1, 5, 10 or 20 years down the track.

Little is only protecting the club. I think even he is now on board with complying with the AFL, but he cant get the others on board because of what this could all mean.

Spot on, EFC still won't accept they have done anything wrong vs AFL who want to penalise them to keep the media and public perception happy.

With every day that passes and these cheats don't accept responsibility and blame for what they have done is just moving closer to them escaping with a small penalty at best.

I will accept nothing less than Hird's head, loss of draft picks and someone from the AFL at the club next year to monitor those left behind. Don't give a rats about a fine as the AFL will drip feed them money back anyway.

 

["The Roar Is Back"]

You don't base a sanction on what position a club is in today, you base it upon what they are found guilty for.

If the hawks and Melbourne both cheat the salary cap by $100k, you don't fine the hawks more because they are higher on the ladder and can afford it. Likewise you don't give hawks bigger draft penalties because pick 18 isn't as high as pick 2.

You punish on the crime, not effect on perception, not damage to brand. The crime.

If you want to fight on perception, you are following the lead of the afl and their tabloid cheerleaders

Who said I wishing to fine them based on their position , or different what others who have done the same have been fined ?
They are guilty of the most serious offense any club has ever been within AFL history .
Do you really think mum's and day's are going to encourage their kids to play football when those at the elite level are found to be involved in a severe injection program with unknown substances and suffer a mild penalty .
The ramifications of the penalty handed down are fair more serious than what happens to Essendon , their will coaches all over Australia now exploring supplement programs for their players if a clear message isn't provided .
If the AFL wants to be viewed as a clean sport that parents see as the best option for there kids to play , they need to hand down severe penalties when people act outside the best interests of the game .
IMO they should have gotten all their points stripped , forced to play for nothing next year , with all administrators forced to partake in a serious drug education program , $2 million , 2 years of no draft picks .

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Which means Essendon play finals?

If the court grants them the injunction

I'm still hoping everyone pulls their heads in and we make a deal though. Me don't need this dragging on through 2014

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Who said I wishing to fine them based on their position , or different what others who have done the same have been fined ?
They are guilty of the most serious offense any club has ever been within AFL history .
Do you really think mum's and day's are going to encourage their kids to play football when those at the elite level are found to be involved in a severe injection program with unknown substances and suffer a mild penalty .
The ramifications of the penalty handed down are fair more serious than what happens to Essendon , their will coaches all over Australia now exploring supplement programs for their players if a clear message isn't provided .
If the AFL wants to be viewed as a clean sport that parents see as the best option for there kids to play , they need to hand down severe penalties when people act outside the best interests of the game .
IMO they should have gotten all their points stripped , forced to play for nothing next year , with all administrators forced to partake in a serious drug education program , $2 million , 2 years of no draft picks .

Read your own post. You were the one who said you have to make sure they don't play finals to send a message. If this is Melbourne though would you be happy with points being deducted given they have only 8 (and taking them away effects nothing)?

This is all about retribution and you wanted to see blood spill, not about ensuring the punishment is one relevant to the charges being accepted (and remember the charges being discussed are no longer what was originally released. According to Bomber, many have been dropped and reworded).

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Those guys are clueless.

You don't think Bomber Thompson is in a position to comment on how close the parties are to a deal, given he was one of them?

 

["The Roar Is Back"]

Read your own post. You were the one who said you have to make sure they don't play finals to send a message. If this is Melbourne though would you be happy with points being deducted given they have only 8 (and taking them away effects nothing)?

This is all about retribution and you wanted to see blood spill, not about ensuring the punishment is one relevant to the charges being accepted (and remember the charges being discussed are no longer what was originally released. According to Bomber, many have been dropped and reworded).

No not about blood shed.
How do you judge that the penalty suits the crime , administrating of substances by injection on a club scale is unprecedented .
The only similar case involved Justin Charles or Ben Cousins and we know what happened there don't we .
You seem to think the AFL has an obligation to bend over to Essendon to save going to the courts ?
I would think long term the AFL would be alot better of going to courts to ensure the penalty is substantial and sends a clear message to all supporters and future players that the sports is clean and players at 18 years of age can enter the AFL knowing that substance injections will not be tolerated nor the norm .

 

[Ned_Flanders]

No not about blood shed.
How do you judge that the penalty suits the crime , administrating of substances by injection on a club scale is unprecedented .
The only similar case involved Justin Charles or Ben Cousins and we know what happened there don't we .
You seem to think the AFL has an obligation to bend over to Essendon to save going to the courts ?
I would think long term the AFL would be alot better of going to courts to ensure the penalty is substantial and sends a clear message to all supporters and future players that the sports is clean and players at 18 years of age can enter the AFL knowing that substance injections will not be tolerated nor the norm .

Well that is where you weigh up the evidence, something 90% of this forum think is not needed because Caro told them Hird is evil, so you don't need to hear anything else.

I actually have no issue with court (in principle), but it will mean efc play finals this year, efc is involved in the draft this year, this will go on for at least one more year, and there is no guarantee the asada gathered evidence will be able to be used by the afl (there is some debate about this).

Remember it's Hird and efc who want to go to court. Ask yourself why. IMO its because they believe they will be able to knock out enough of the afl case, get extra time to build their own response, and have it heard by an independent tribunal. All of this makes them think (IMO) that the worse case punishment if they get this anticipated outcome is better than the current deal the afl is offering.

If the afl want a deal, compromise from both sides is needed (afl to get the quick outcome they want, efc to give up on the legal appeal process they want)

 

[DrMike]

rfctiger74 - Remember that it's not our decision how this plays out. We can only form opinions based the information and assumptions we've received (very little) and discuss that. Nothing wrong with assumptions by posters because it's not our place to be unbiased or apply fair process.

 

[Grechy]

I don't want them to lose their points this year because I would prefer to play Port here then Carlton here or North.

 

["The Roar Is Back"]

The AFL Commisions role is to uphold the integrity of the game .
Of the major stakeholders within the AFL competition only one has questioned and not supported the AFL commissions ability to hear this matter and hand down whatever penalty they see fit .
All others have given te AFL the green light to handle this matter and have also been quite out spoken for their support of the AFL commissions past record and ability to hand down a fair sanction .

 

[Ned_Flanders]

rfctiger74 - Remember that it's not our decision how this plays out. We can only form opinions based the information and assumptions we've received (very little) and discuss that. Nothing wrong with assumptions by posters because it's not our place to be unbiased or apply fair process.

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?

 

[Ned_Flanders]

The AFL Commisions role is to uphold the integrity of the game .
Of the major stakeholders within the AFL competition only one has questioned not up ported the AFL commission ability or right to hear this matter and hand down whatever penalty they see fit .
All others have given te AFL the green to handle this matter and have also been quite out spoken for their support of the AFL past record and ability to hand down a fair sanction .

Why is questioning a bad thing?

If the AFL exec is rushing through a process that:

1) doesn't allow EFC to call rebuttal witnesses

2) doesn't give sufficient time to allow a response to the specific allegations

3) has one member of the tribunal who said Hird should be sacked several months ago

dont you think EFC at a minimum have the right to ask if the process is protecting their right to a just trial and fair verdict?

 

[TigermanM2]

Did I say it was?

Yeah sorry, not necessarily replying directly to you. Meant to make it more of a general comment. Shouldn't have hit "reply". My bad.