Watson's Brownlow

[Dustin Credible]

As was Hird. I am personally shattered that his reputation - regardless of the outcome - lies in tatters over this debacle. I was a huge fan of Hird. I cannot understand how he could have let things get so out of control down there. Just so disappointed in him.

I hope Jobe stood by his principles and didn't participate in the "intervention".

I have similar feelings. Used to hold Hird in very high regard.

Now, I'm of the opinion he crossed the PED rubicon long before he was a coach. :-(

 

[Chameleon75]

Lots. Fairest is considered more important in the BL than best.

Character is more important than "success".

Have a look at the complete list of passed winners and then tell me what the emphasis is.

 

[Grin]

But Cotchin and Mitchell will not have fulfilled the best & fairest criteria. Merely the 2nd best but fairest.

If in some crazy world Watson loses his Brownlow, and for future cases, they shouldn't award a Brownlow to initial 2nd places.

So if the player who gets the most votes was suspended during the season, no one wins the Brownlow that year?

 

[demon_dynasty13]

he will be stripped of it and rightly so

Never deserved it

 

[The_Reaper]

So if the player who gets the most votes was suspended during the season, no one wins the Brownlow that year?

Yes.

Similar to how nobody has being given the NRL premierships that the Storm were stripped of.

 

[Hoffy95]

Brownlow is for the best mid who doesn't get suspended during the year and doesn't complain to the umps.

 

[CharacterFirst]

Have a look at the complete list of passed winners and then tell me what the emphasis is.

The award is clear. It values integrity over achievement.

 

[Grin]

Yes.

Similar to how nobody has being given the NRL premierships that the Storm were stripped of.

Well there you go,
I didn't know that.

 

[Astro Bomber]

 

[Barry_Badrinath]

Comparing it to the Melbourne Storm is pointless and irrelevant. There is no way to know whether the team that replaced the Storm would've beaten their opposition in the grand final. In the Brownlow medal there is a clear and measurable leaderboard, where 2nd place can easily be identified. Like Carl Lewis and Ben Johnson.

 

[The_Reaper]

Comparing it to the Melbourne Storm is pointless and irrelevant. There is no way to know whether the team that replaced the Storm would've beaten their opposition in the grand final. In the Brownlow medal there is a clear and measurable leaderboard, where 2nd place can easily be identified. Like Carl Lewis and Ben Johnson.

That's a very good point.

 

[Top_4_Tiger]

If I was Trent or Sam I wouldn't want it anyway.

A few posters have this opinion, but I disagree.

Losing a Brownlow due to PEDs is worse than losing a Brownlow due to an in-game suspension.

Robert Harvey deserved his Brownlow medal... even though he had the 2nd most Brownlow votes (26) in 1997 to Chris Grant (27).

Grant's suspension was for something very minor and if Robert Harvey receives a Brownlow as the runner-up then there's absolutely no shame in receiving one should a winner be proved to have used PEDs that year.

Having said that, Jobe seems to be a quality person and I feel he deserves our respect to assume he's clean... yeah maybe give consideration to the hypothetical but we shouldn't go on about it for long.

If it happened, I would happily call Trent Cotchin a Brownlow medallist for the rest of his career - and he would have truly deserved it by being the equal best clean player in the comp.

 

[GlueParkEnigma]

As someone said above ... The fixture is compromised and so, it follows, is the brownlow for that very reason. No one seems to mind this fact to much.

Add to that, the players that came second or third could have lost points to the person that won who is hypothetically using banned substances in this discussion.

In the Olympic Games if an individual medalist is found to have used a banned substance they loose the medal and the next person down gets it.

If you are clean but in a team that is found to have others that use banned substances then the whole team is disqualified.

Now obviously the afl is not an Olympic sport but that's a good reference to start from in this discussion.

 

[grizzlym]

I am seeing too many people willing to stick the boot in based on rumour and innuendo. Let's not waste energy worrying about what ifs, and look at what is the reality.
In any case, Jobe is one guy who does not deserve it.

None of the players deserve this. You fans don't deserve this either.

Sure, there's potentially massive governance issues here at the Dons, but there's a good deal at the feet of Vlad and his merry men too.

But it will play out and, if it goes south, the fans and the players will cop it the worst.

 

[Chameleon75]

The award is clear. It values integrity over achievement.

If you prefer to believe that that's fine.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Comparing it to the Melbourne Storm is pointless and irrelevant. There is no way to know whether the team that replaced the Storm would've beaten their opposition in the grand final. In the Brownlow medal there is a clear and measurable leaderboard, where 2nd place can easily be identified. Like Carl Lewis and Ben Johnson.

No, this is wrong

If Watson lost his points in the count, they would have seen some get more votes (as they go from 2 to 3 for example), and some get 1 vote who missed out entirely. Also there are the votes players missed out due to being outperformed by other banned players.

It's impossible to unscramble this egg, so you don't. If Watson is found to be one of the 6, he sadly loses his Brownlow, but it's put in a shelf. Let Cotchin and Mitchell win properly, not by default with the medal received in an express post pack rather than on Brownlow night.

Fwiw the people getting excited about this may be disappointed. Watson had a great injury run in 2012, so it's unlikely he will be one of the 6. Furthermore, early on it was rumoured 2 players declined to take supplements, and the rumour was Watson was one of them

 

[The full package]

No, this is wrong

If Watson lost his points in the count, they would have seen some get more votes (as they go from 2 to 3 for example), and some get 1 vote who missed out entirely. Also there are the votes players missed out due to being outperformed by other banned players.

It's impossible to unscramble this egg, so you don't. If Watson is found to be one of the 6, he sadly loses his Brownlow, but it's put in a shelf. Let Cotchin and Mitchell win properly, not by default with the medal received in an express post pack rather than on Brownlow night.

Fwiw the people getting excited about this may be disappointed. Watson had a great injury run in 2012, so it's unlikely he will be one of the 6. Furthermore, early on it was rumoured 2 players declined to take supplements, and the rumour was Watson was one of them

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Not sure how you think the 6 are being sacrificed to protect him. The supplement is to aid recovery, and he was one of the few players not to be injured during the season.

 

[The full package]

Not sure how you think the 6 are being sacrificed to protect him. The supplement is to aid recovery, and he was one of the few players not to be injured during the season.

More of a solution to whole ordeal, not just Jobe.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

More of a solution to whole ordeal, not just Jobe.

This thread is about Jobe specifically though, so you are basically accusing the club of putting up other players to protect a guilty Watson

 

[Baldur]

If Watson took banned drugs he MUST lose the Brownlow

 

[CharacterFirst]

If you prefer to believe that that's fine.

It isn't just a matter of my belief, its the wording of the award.

If others wish to pervert it, award on different criteria, normalise contrasting value systems to the one the award was created under; its they that have it incorrect.

 

[Darth_Tiger]

So if the player who gets the most votes was suspended during the season, no one wins the Brownlow that year?

Exactly, in 1997 when Chris Grant 'won' with the most votes but was ineligible due to suspension during that year it would have meant no winner and Robert Harvey would have actually walked home empty handed. If Jobe gets stripped (and I am not saying he should) then Cotchin and Mitchell should both win retrospectively as they were second behind an ineligible player. Its the only sensible answer - but then again when is the AFL sensible?

 

[The full package]

This thread is about Jobe specifically though, so you are basically accusing the club of putting up other players to protect a guilty Watson

Not Jobe, the whole club, but you never know what lies underneath. Yup, probably not the right thread for my post but I think it still holds relevance all based off the one topic. Everyone will want blood now they have come out and admitted to using, now your saying Jobe had a great injury run last year, so does this mean your accusing the players that did require recovery supplements are the 6 players that copped injuries last year? There was one or more high profile players that received soft tissue injuries IIRC.

I think the issue of whether he loses the brownlow or not is small and insignificant until the investigation has ran it's course. Then look at penalties and stripping of team/individual awards and points. For the sake of the AFL and Australian sport I would like to think Jobe is clean.

 

[UpTheGuts]

I doubt Cotch would accept it, actually.