Join up at Sportsbet - Click here


Forum Home Forum Home > All Sports - Public Forums > Joffs All Sports Bar
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - AFL 2016
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Click here for the Thoroughbred Village Home Page - Australia's Premier Online Horse Racing Community. For village news, follow @TBVillage on Twitter. Also follow @Villagebet on Twitter for racing tips. Sign up for the village newsletter by clicking here: Newsletter Signup. To contact the Mayor by email: Click Here.

AFL 2016

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 54>
Author
Message
Ecair Issoire View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 10 Nov 2011
Location: Melbourne
Status: Offline
Points: 16584
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Ecair Issoire Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Jan 2016 at 3:36pm
about 7 weeks till the preseason nonsense + 11 weeks till the real thing starts.

obviously the hawks are the team to beat..

other chances are (in no particular order)
eagles, port, cats + swans..the rest are just making up the numbers imo.

i'm ruling out freo on the basis that any team who's reason for being is to stop
other teams scoring can't win a flag..they have to play that way as they can't kick
a good score v a decent team..i get that and they'll be up there again but can't win it imo.

bring it on..the (test) cricket has been unbelievably boring..

Back to Top
Sponsored Links
Click here to grab your bonuses when you join up with Sportsbet.


Back to Top
Baghdad Bob View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 10 Feb 2010
Location: Victoria
Status: Offline
Points: 1854
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Baghdad Bob Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Jan 2016 at 10:12am
The Essendon drug saga has resulted in the most ridiculous interpretation of the CAS ruling. Cale Hooker, a WA draftee by Essendon and one of the 34 players disqualified by CAS returned to Perth to attend the funeral of Ken Judge, a former Hawthorn premiership player and WA coach in the WAFL. As the memorial service for Judge was held in a sanctioned AFL football venue Hooker was banned from attending to pay his respects. 

If the AFL does not scrub its affiliation with CAS and the literal translation of its archaic rules it will continue to be a laughing stock, not only in the sporting community, but in the general community at large.
Back to Top
Toll Road View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 2470
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Toll Road Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Jan 2016 at 11:00am
Originally posted by Baghdad Bob Baghdad Bob wrote:

The Essendon drug saga has resulted in the most ridiculous interpretation of the CAS ruling. Cale Hooker, a WA draftee by Essendon and one of the 34 players disqualified by CAS returned to Perth to attend the funeral of Ken Judge, a former Hawthorn premiership player and WA coach in the WAFL. As the memorial service for Judge was held in a sanctioned AFL football venue Hooker was banned from attending to pay his respects. 

If the AFL does not scrub its affiliation with CAS and the literal translation of its archaic rules it will continue to be a laughing stock, not only in the sporting community, but in the general community at large.
Common sense should have come into play here. They should have let Hooker pay his respects to Ken Judge and let him go to the memorial
Back to Top
saintly96 View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 12 Jun 2008
Location: Nunya biz
Status: Offline
Points: 12350
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote saintly96 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Feb 2016 at 8:03pm
What has happened with the two Hawks and the sexual misconduct allegations?
Back to Top
Mayor View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2007
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 3074
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mayor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Feb 2016 at 8:19pm
Originally posted by Ecair Issoire Ecair Issoire wrote:


the dogs were exciting last season but have no hope of winning it imo..

I wonder why you would say that Ecair Issoire? They could easily have gone deeper into the finals last season with the youngest list in the competition.
Mayor
Back to Top
LR80 View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 06 Feb 2013
Location: Sydney
Status: Offline
Points: 9183
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote LR80 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Feb 2016 at 8:41pm
Originally posted by Ecair Issoire Ecair Issoire wrote:

about 7 weeks till the preseason nonsense + 11 weeks till the real thing starts.

obviously the hawks are the team to beat..

other chances are (in no particular order)
eagles, port, cats + swans..the rest are just making up the numbers imo.

i'm ruling out freo on the basis that any team who's reason for being is to stop
other teams scoring can't win a flag..they have to play that way as they can't kick
a good score v a decent team..i get that and they'll be up there again but can't win it imo.

bring it on..the (test) cricket has been unbelievably boring..


I've narrowed it down to these teams to win the flag:
1.WCE - a progressive list and should take alot of benefit from last season
2.Cats - the market has it right and I predict they will make a serious challenge for the flag, possesing the right mix of experience and youth this year.

Hawks - their list is a year older, pushing the envelope and their better players are underpaid and will be shopping around.

Port, Sydney and Freo have had enough chances with their list. Put the line through them.

Crows - I will write them off on emotional grounds, specifically, how are they all coping after their coach was murdered during the season?....and this is just starting to play out in the courts where the son has pleaded not guilty to murder. 

Pies are absolutely and utterly useless (sorry Jujuno).
Back to Top
Ecair Issoire View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 10 Nov 2011
Location: Melbourne
Status: Offline
Points: 16584
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Ecair Issoire Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Feb 2016 at 2:16am
Originally posted by Mayor Mayor wrote:

Originally posted by Ecair Issoire Ecair Issoire wrote:


the dogs were exciting last season but have no hope of winning it imo..

I wonder why you would say that Ecair Issoire? They could easily have gone deeper into the finals last season with the youngest list in the competition.


they lost in the 1st week of the finals..could easily have won that, but didn't...
their inexperience cost them. the team that beat them, the crows, were totally
outclassed by the benchmark - hawthorn- the following week.
 (indicates the dogs are a fair way off the best teams imo).
only 1 yr older with 1 finals game (+ a losing 1 at that) under their belt
and a tougher draw this season. a young team doesn't just come from nowhere
and win flags - need some more finals experience imo.

i do rate them but suggest they are 3 yrs away from being a winning chance, only
my opinion ofc.


Back to Top
Toll Road View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 2470
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Toll Road Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Feb 2016 at 8:36am
Originally posted by Ecair Issoire Ecair Issoire wrote:

Originally posted by Mayor Mayor wrote:

Originally posted by Ecair Issoire Ecair Issoire wrote:


the dogs were exciting last season but have no hope of winning it imo..

I wonder why you would say that Ecair Issoire? They could easily have gone deeper into the finals last season with the youngest list in the competition.


they lost in the 1st week of the finals..could easily have won that, but didn't...
their inexperience cost them. the team that beat them, the crows, were totally
outclassed by the benchmark - hawthorn- the following week.
 (indicates the dogs are a fair way off the best teams imo).
only 1 yr older with 1 finals game (+ a losing 1 at that) under their belt
and a tougher draw this season. a young team doesn't just come from nowhere
and win flags - need some more finals experience imo.

i do rate them but suggest they are 3 yrs away from being a winning chance, only
my opinion ofc.


I tend to agree with you EE. I know that McCartney set up a lot for Beveridge to take over. But in saying that a new coach can make players play above themselves. The Doggies also had a soft draw last year. I think Beverage will have his game plan worked out by the other coaches and the draw will be harder for the dogs. I can see them having a harder year this year. I think they will still be bottom half of the 8 or just miss out
Back to Top
Heavy10 View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 23 May 2015
Status: Offline
Points: 2183
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Heavy10 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Feb 2016 at 11:51am
Dogs could have a let down season like Port like last year.
Back to Top
jujuno View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 25 Jan 2010
Location: Coasting
Status: Offline
Points: 18578
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jujuno Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Feb 2016 at 4:30pm
I think the Dogs look better this year with Libba back...

 easy in the eight...

 
Desert War, Rain Lover, Latin Knight, Hay List, Mustard...my turf heroes...
Back to Top
Toll Road View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 2470
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Toll Road Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Feb 2016 at 9:50am
So here is the big question does Jobe Watson keep his Brownlow medal?
 
Here is an article from the Herald Sun in Melbourne today by Mark Robinson
 

Jobe Watson should keep his Brownlow Medal despite doping ban, Mark Robinson writes

February 3, 2016 8:00pm

Mark RobinsonHerald Sun

http://pixel.tcog.cp1.news.com.au/track/news/content/v1/origin:video_integrator.9iODFtMDE6Yq5MowkgC5UcACHvf3AyA1?t_product=video&amp;t_template=../video/player

I WAS a sheep and I was wrong.

Like many others, I thought Jobe Watson should lose his Brownlow Medal.

The Court of Arbitration for Sport finding, which suspended Watson and his teammates meant they were “drug cheats’’ and it was initially ludicrous to believe Watson could keep his medal from 2012 in the face of such a stunning and comprehensive finding.

I’ve changed my mind.

And the AFL should have the courage to be equally independent in its thinking.

They are signatories to the WADA code and hence the CAS decision, but in this case they don’t have to follow like sheep.

 

Every one of the commissioners must find the fortitude, the fearlessness, to make the right decision.

And the right decision is not necessarily the instinctive decision that because Watson is suspended for the 2016 season for what happened in 2012, then the Brownlow won in 2012 must also be surrendered.

The right decision might not be one that everyone agrees with.

I don’t think the AFL Commission and chief executive Gillon McLachlan want to take the Brownlow off Watson.

Time and again they said the players were duped and its submission to CAS, they asked that the players escape any penalty.

It’s a curious situation.

Three weeks ago the AFL wanted the players off. Now, they are considering ripping away the most prestigious award in AFL from a player they deemed innocent enough to plead for mercy.

The AFL can’t have it both ways.

They wanted mercy, but now they might want blood.

http://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/70d55e815a833d74cbed064d03a19cd4?width=650Jobe Watson with his Brownlow Medal the morning after his 2012 win.

Time and again the AFL have said this whole saga was about the players, about helping and protecting the players.

It’s time the AFL actually stood up for the players, and in this case one of the players.

Jobe Watson feels he did nothing wrong. Unlike others, he questioned medical and coaching staff at Essendon through 2012 about what he was taking. So much so, in 2013 he famously admitted to using AOD-9604.

Watson is an honest, respected member of the AFL fraternity and it was staggering to read in the CAS finding that Watson’s evidence was “wholly unconvincing”.

Watson has never shied away from what happened, from admitting AOD use, to questioning Stephen Dank about thymosin, to criticising those in charge at Essendon.

It’s only an opinion, but could never imagine Watson being wholly unconvincing about at anything, let alone in an interview with anti-doping investigators.

The CAS verdict is being shredded by sharp minds, including those of QCs and a decision on an appeal will be known within days.

This is not a defence of Essendon or Watson in particular, for Essendon landed Watson in this mess, but I find it difficult to be comfortably satisfied that CAS need only be comfortably satisfied the Essendon 34 took a banned a drug.

To strip the Brownlow Medal surely can’t be an act based on comfortable satisfaction.

http://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/931e0e1d12e017f50db35659d53acbaf?width=650AFL CEO Gillon McLachlan and Mike Fitzpatrick speak following the Essendon CAS verdict. Picture: Kylie Else

Could’ve, perhaps, probably, maybe ... are they strong enough words to justify an extreme and irreversible decision?

Is circumstantial evidence enough to rewrite and uproot history, to categorically table Watson as a dirty rotten drug cheat by swiping the Brownlow Medal?

The AFL Commission has asked Watson to appear before it on February 15.

It’s an insulting and degrading gesture towards Watson.

Is he supposed to go to the Commission and plead for his medal?

He’s not going to do that. If nothing can be organised beforehand — and it’s likely Watson will meet AFL officials before the Commission meeting — Watson will appear and simply hear the decision and walk out.

The AFL has an opportunity to finally do something it has promised to do for a long time — look after the players.

They have the power to look after Watson and its medal.

Will it have the courage to do so?

 

 
 
Back to Top
Beliskner View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 10 Apr 2015
Location: Victoria
Status: Offline
Points: 4238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Beliskner Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Feb 2016 at 10:28am
If your going to strip a person of a brownlow, then at the very least you need a positive drug test.
Back to Top
subastral View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 28 Jul 2011
Location: Melbourne
Status: Offline
Points: 34958
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote subastral Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Feb 2016 at 10:38am
Originally posted by Beliskner Beliskner wrote:

If your going to strip a person of a brownlow, then at the very least you need a positive drug test.
 
 
face palm someone please
Back to Top
Toll Road View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 2470
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Toll Road Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Feb 2016 at 11:03am
Originally posted by Beliskner Beliskner wrote:

If your going to strip a person of a brownlow, then at the very least you need a positive drug test.
I fully agree Beliskner. I think the players have also done as they were told was legal and within the laws of the game by the Essendon Football medical staff and football department. The AFL court also found these guys innocent as well.
Back to Top
Beliskner View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 10 Apr 2015
Location: Victoria
Status: Offline
Points: 4238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Beliskner Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Feb 2016 at 11:06am
Originally posted by subastral subastral wrote:

Originally posted by Beliskner Beliskner wrote:

If your going to strip a person of a brownlow, then at the very least you need a positive drug test.
 
 
face palm someone please


Want to elaborate?

Their basically saying strip him because we think he took a banned substance.
Back to Top
Znatchy View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 20 Feb 2008
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 5328
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Znatchy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Feb 2016 at 11:16am
AFL Players fall under WADA code.  WADA answers to CAS --> CAS upholds WADA verdict = Essendon players banned.  Under the rules, anything won under the period question is forfeited immediately.

The Brownlow has to go back as the verdict currently stands.
Back to Top
Znatchy View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 20 Feb 2008
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 5328
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Znatchy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Feb 2016 at 11:21am
Mark Robinson is tiresome.

The AFL's responsibility is to the game first & foremost - every other concern is secondary to that (or at least it should be).  As the games caretaker, you can't pick & choose which verdicts you follow.  If you're following WADA then accept the umpires call.  Brownlow goes.

It's a terrible set of circumstances but it's the way it is.
Back to Top
Beliskner View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 10 Apr 2015
Location: Victoria
Status: Offline
Points: 4238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Beliskner Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Feb 2016 at 11:34am
Given how things have worked out, will the AFL continue to fall under the WADA banner?

I don't even like Essendon, but i feel they have been shafted because people 'think' they took something banned, in the end there are no positive drug tests, maybe it's just me but i have a big issue with that.  If they found banned substances in the players homes or lockers or something, that would make things different, but something like that didn't happen.
Back to Top
Toll Road View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 2470
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Toll Road Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Feb 2016 at 11:37am
Originally posted by Znatchy Znatchy wrote:

AFL Players fall under WADA code.  WADA answers to CAS --> CAS upholds WADA verdict = Essendon players banned.  Under the rules, anything won under the period question is forfeited immediately.

The Brownlow has to go back as the verdict currently stands.
Yes they the players do fall under WADA and WADA answers to CAS. BUT the only thing the players were found guilty of was not self reporting all the products that went into their bodies. I believe Passing Through has put this down elsewhere in the forum. SO what they got done for was not drugs found I  think it says
 

On the sanctions, he said: “There were very little grounds for the players to claim they were at no significant fault.”
“The players had received anti-doping education through the AFL and ASADA, and were well aware that they are personally responsible for all substances that entered their body.”

“Unfortunately, despite their education, they agreed to be injected with a number of substances they had little knowledge of, made no enquiries about the substance and kept the injections from their team doctor and ASADA.”

“Of 30 ASADA testing missions during the period in question, none of the 18 players tested declared the injections, despite being asked each time whether they had taken any supplements.”

“At best, the players did not ask the questions, or the people, they should have. At worst, they were complicit in a culture of secrecy and concealment.”

https://www.asada.gov.au/news/court-arbitration-sport-decision-essendon-players

 
Back to Top
Toll Road View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 2470
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Toll Road Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Feb 2016 at 11:39am
Originally posted by Beliskner Beliskner wrote:

Given how things have worked out, will the AFL continue to fall under the WADA banner?

I don't even like Essendon, but i feel they have been shafted because people 'think' they took something banned, in the end there are no positive drug tests, maybe it's just me but i have a big issue with that.  If they found banned substances in the players homes or lockers or something, that would make things different, but something like that didn't happen.
That's rights and still don't know 100% what they took. The players got off the first court case and it was very tight in the voting in the second court case to ban them 
Back to Top
Znatchy View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 20 Feb 2008
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 5328
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Znatchy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Feb 2016 at 11:41am
Originally posted by Beliskner Beliskner wrote:

Given how things have worked out, will the AFL continue to fall under the WADA banner?

I don't even like Essendon, but i feel they have been shafted because people 'think' they took something banned, in the end there are no positive drug tests, maybe it's just me but i have a big issue with that.  If they found banned substances in the players homes or lockers or something, that would make things different, but something like that didn't happen.


Most people do have an issue with it but that's not the rules or the applicable standard.  The AFL falls under the code so if they wish to change codes then so be it but you can't sign on to the system and then turn your back if you don't like the outcome.

Lance Armstrong never delivered a positive test either.  Drug manufacturers are always ahead of the testers.
Back to Top
subastral View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 28 Jul 2011
Location: Melbourne
Status: Offline
Points: 34958
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote subastral Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Feb 2016 at 11:43am
Originally posted by Beliskner Beliskner wrote:

Originally posted by subastral subastral wrote:

Originally posted by Beliskner Beliskner wrote:

If your going to strip a person of a brownlow, then at the very least you need a positive drug test.
 
 
face palm someone please


Want to elaborate?

Their basically saying strip him because we think he took a banned substance.
 
 
Yep, found guilty, same as Lance Armstrong, who lost his TDF's without a positive. People have to move on from this positive test. It's utterly irrelevant these days. There are numerous other ways to determine whether someone took drugs.
And also, exactly what Znatchy said.
Back to Top
Toll Road View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 2470
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Toll Road Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Feb 2016 at 11:44am
Originally posted by subastral subastral wrote:

Originally posted by Beliskner Beliskner wrote:

Originally posted by subastral subastral wrote:

Originally posted by Beliskner Beliskner wrote:

If your going to strip a person of a brownlow, then at the very least you need a positive drug test.
 
 
face palm someone please


Want to elaborate?

Their basically saying strip him because we think he took a banned substance.
 
 
Yep, found guilty, same as Lance Armstrong, who lost his TDF's without a positive. People have to move on from this positive test. It's utterly irrelevant these days. There are numerous other ways to determine whether someone took drugs.
And also, exactly what Znatchy said.
Subbie I think they had a little more hard evidence on Lance than the Essendon players
Back to Top
subastral View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 28 Jul 2011
Location: Melbourne
Status: Offline
Points: 34958
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote subastral Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Feb 2016 at 11:45am
Originally posted by Toll Road Toll Road wrote:

Originally posted by Znatchy Znatchy wrote:

AFL Players fall under WADA code.  WADA answers to CAS --> CAS upholds WADA verdict = Essendon players banned.  Under the rules, anything won under the period question is forfeited immediately.

The Brownlow has to go back as the verdict currently stands.
Yes they the players do fall under WADA and WADA answers to CAS. BUT the only thing the players were found guilty of was not self reporting all the products that went into their bodies. I believe Passing Through has put this down elsewhere in the forum. SO what they got done for was not drugs found I  think it says
 

On the sanctions, he said: “There were very little grounds for the players to claim they were at no significant fault.”
“The players had received anti-doping education through the AFL and ASADA, and were well aware that they are personally responsible for all substances that entered their body.”

“Unfortunately, despite their education, they agreed to be injected with a number of substances they had little knowledge of, made no enquiries about the substance and kept the injections from their team doctor and ASADA.”

“Of 30 ASADA testing missions during the period in question, none of the 18 players tested declared the injections, despite being asked each time whether they had taken any supplements.”

“At best, the players did not ask the questions, or the people, they should have. At worst, they were complicit in a culture of secrecy and concealment.”

https://www.asada.gov.au/news/court-arbitration-sport-decision-essendon-players

 
 
 
Gee, I wonder what reasons one could have for not reporting everything???
Back to Top
Toll Road View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 2470
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Toll Road Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Feb 2016 at 11:50am
SUbbie have you ever played at a footy club at State level or AFL? There is a culture from the bottom right up to the top. As a player trying out or on the list you do as you're told or you're gone. If the club doctor or medical staff has said it is ok to take then in the players minds it ok and legal to do so.
Back to Top
Znatchy View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 20 Feb 2008
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 5328
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Znatchy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Feb 2016 at 11:51am
Originally posted by Toll Road Toll Road wrote:

Originally posted by subastral subastral wrote:

Originally posted by Beliskner Beliskner wrote:

Originally posted by subastral subastral wrote:

Originally posted by Beliskner Beliskner wrote:

If your going to strip a person of a brownlow, then at the very least you need a positive drug test.
 
 
face palm someone please


Want to elaborate?

Their basically saying strip him because we think he took a banned substance.
 
 
Yep, found guilty, same as Lance Armstrong, who lost his TDF's without a positive. People have to move on from this positive test. It's utterly irrelevant these days. There are numerous other ways to determine whether someone took drugs.
And also, exactly what Znatchy said.
Subbie I think they had a little more hard evidence on Lance than the Essendon players


So what?  It's not a matter of degrees.  In the eyes of CAS, they got a "comfortable satisfaction" or whatever the term is as a verdict.  It doesn't matter about how the evidence stacked up against Lance Armstrong or any other athlete.
Back to Top
Toll Road View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 2470
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Toll Road Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Feb 2016 at 11:55am
Well I guess you're right they got a verdict. Now it's up to the AFL commission to decided on the Brownlow. Keeping in mind that the AFL court ruling found the players innocent. What will they do is anyone's guess but I say let Jobe keep the Charlie if the AFL court ruling found them innocent.
Back to Top
Znatchy View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 20 Feb 2008
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 5328
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Znatchy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Feb 2016 at 11:55am
Originally posted by Toll Road Toll Road wrote:

SUbbie have you ever played at a footy club at State level or AFL? There is a culture from the bottom right up to the top. As a player trying out or on the list you do as you're told or you're gone. If the club doctor or medical staff has said it is ok to take then in the players minds it ok and legal to do so.


The club doctor never said it was OK.  They never told him.  In fact they were told not to tell him and nobody stopped to ask why the club doctor should be kept in the dark.

Not re-arguing this but group naivety is not an excuse at all. 

None of the above arguments hold any water.
Back to Top
Znatchy View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 20 Feb 2008
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 5328
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Znatchy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Feb 2016 at 11:58am
Originally posted by Toll Road Toll Road wrote:

Well I guess you're right they got a verdict. Now it's up to the AFL commission to decided on the Brownlow. Keeping in mind that the AFL court ruling found the players innocent. What will they do is anyone's guess but I say let Jobe keep the Charlie if the AFL court ruling found them innocent.



You cannot sign up to WADA codes and then overrule a verdict you don't like if you wish to remain credible.  It would make the AFL look pious and in the eyes of the world, like a spoilt kid who didn't like the outcome so took the bat & ball and went home.
Back to Top
Toll Road View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 2470
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Toll Road Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Feb 2016 at 12:05pm
Originally posted by Znatchy Znatchy wrote:

Originally posted by Toll Road Toll Road wrote:

SUbbie have you ever played at a footy club at State level or AFL? There is a culture from the bottom right up to the top. As a player trying out or on the list you do as you're told or you're gone. If the club doctor or medical staff has said it is ok to take then in the players minds it ok and legal to do so.


The club doctor never said it was OK.  They never told him.  In fact they were told not to tell him and nobody stopped to ask why the club doctor should be kept in the dark.

Not re-arguing this but group naivety is not an excuse at all. 

None of the above arguments hold any water.
Put it this way then. As a player you are told by the club officials this is all legal and above board, you do it. I've said that group naivety is not an excuse but what they were found guilty of. I agree with this guilty verdict.  In saying that when you are in the football world the culture is so different. You do as you're told or get the flick. Remember these are young adults with no world experience. They are taken by draft at a young age and thrown in with the big boys. These kids have very little if any life skills. They take them to elite junior squads and  are told what to do. By this I mean training, health & diet and the list goes on. They are groomed from a young age) to play AFL .
So if the coaching department or medical staff say it's legal and ok to take. Can you see them not taking it?
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 54>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.688 seconds.