Bombers scandal: charged, <redacted> and <infracted>

[beelzebub 23,376]

More on this tonight bb!

Does it start tomorrow?

Monday I think

[sue 9,106]

A possible method for season 2015 may be as follows:

Irrespective of what sanctions individual players incur the team as such would play without the ability to win 4 pts. , but not the inability to win a game.

By this who ever is playing EFC still needs to win the game in order to take the 4 pts ( or 2 in case of draw ) Its NOT simply a free 4pts for the team v EFC. Thereby still promoting competition.

its arguable that you shouldn't lose to a cobbled together team but if you do you deserve to not take the lollies.

In this manner only the EFC are punished, as it should be. Some might now suggest you still have the probability of some games being an 'effective " gimme as its a stronger team v a weaker one but surely that's always occurred in the game. It's next to impossible to eradicate that as such.

Premiership points still have some relation to competition and the % still reflects some form of competition having taken place.

Only the EFC is denied the ability to take points but they can still play to deny their opponents some and it keeps the competition real, as far as it could be..imho

BB you are right that what I suggested suffers from denying the teams which play EFC twice the chance to gain 4 points, thereby benefiting those teams which have a chance to beat some other team. I can think of ways of addressing that, (eg a revised 17 team draw) but none are entirely satisfactory or would be considered by the AFL.

Good to see someone thinking about this (rather than some of the odd reactions that have been made to any suggestion on making the draw as fair as possible or absurdly, how doing so is somehow a tired excuse for poor performance by MFC).

Of course, if EFC is hit with the wet lettuce that some are predicting, all this won't be much of an issue compared to the usual unfairness of the draw.

[beelzebub 23,376]

the only really fair way as you suggest Sue is a 17 team draw. Theres no capacity for that I think in terms of lead in . 2015 is committed to . Shame

[deefrag 277]

Whilst a seemingly plausible method you would then have teams crying foul who play them twice as being unable o possibly accumulate the premiership points they might have.

You in effect punish both EFC and who ever is playing them.

edit: The nett effect of such games is a swag of dead rubbers. No one will bother to watch a game for no outcome. There would be TV issues also.

As of today EFC are at full strength and raring to go for 2015, the possibility of my (so eloquently stated) "Doomsday" post #12328 becoming a reality still stands! What should be hoped (and prayed) for is: a. the tribunal finds them guilty. b. they get penalised (hopefully to the max). c. 2015 season rolls on free of any EFC crap. d.The mighty Dee's continue to show improvement and give us some bang for our buck in 2015!

If abcd then e. e = an incredible lightness of being, free to grumble, vent and rage about anything and everything like any normal footy fan!! Until then . . . .

Who remembers Peter Marquis?

[FireOath 290]

Do they need to be penalised in 2015? Why not hold out a year a penalise in 2016/17 when a 17 team fixture can be made up?

[Dees2014 2,377]

Sorry bb but I could not help myself.

Seriously I don't think the penalties will be more than a hand full of Games in effect.

It will be a six month ban with a back date.

And as it is all in camera we will never know what truly went on at the hearing

That was Cronulla and they drugged for only a matter of weeks, cooperated to the full, and admitted guilt, and even then WADA was uncomfortable with the outcome. ESSENDON is totally different and all issues they persued would make WADA have a less favourable view of them. I'm predicting at least a 2 year ban for the players, and a life ban for Hird and some other staff. That is before Worksafe and maybe the directors' governance issues are raised. There is a long way to go in this.

[Dees2014 2,377]

A possible method for season 2015 may be as follows:

Irrespective of what sanctions individual players incur the team as such would play without the ability to win 4 pts. , but not the inability to win a game.

By this who ever is playing EFC still needs to win the game in order to take the 4 pts ( or 2 in case of draw ) Its NOT simply a free 4pts for the team v EFC. Thereby still promoting competition.

its arguable that you shouldn't lose to a cobbled together team but if you do you deserve to not take the lollies.

In this manner only the EFC are punished, as it should be. Some might now suggest you still have the probability of some games being an 'effective " gimme as its a stronger team v a weaker one but surely that's always occurred in the game. It's next to impossible to eradicate that as such.

Premiership points still have some relation to competition and the % still reflects some form of competition having taken place.

Only the EFC is denied the ability to take points but they can still play to deny their opponents some and it keeps the competition real, as far as it could be..imho

Although this is appealing, I think a ban by WADA means a ban from playing the sport at all ie not allowed to play the game at all. I think ESSENDON will have to field a reserves team if at all.

[Dees2014 2,377]

Do they need to be penalised in 2015? Why not hold out a year a penalise in 2016/17 when a 17 team fixture can be made up?

WADA/ASADA has no capacity to consider the health of a local competition. Once found guilty and sentenced they are required to take the penalty immediately, just like criminal law at least that is my view.

[FireOath 290]

That is understandable.

[beelzebub 23,376]

Although this is appealing, I think a ban by WADA means a ban from playing the sport at all ie not allowed to play the game at all. I think ESSENDON will have to field a reserves team if at all.

When have they banned a team though from an 'inclusive" competition? Not like banning a race team..

Semantics to suggest a reserves team really as in whatever guise and of whom its Essendon.

Would think they can only ban players and penalise a team?

[old dee 23,791]

When have they banned a team though from an 'inclusive" competition? Not like banning a race team..

Semantics to suggest a reserves team really as in whatever guise and of whom its Essendon.

Would think they can only ban players and penalise a team?

I thought I read if two or members of a team are banned then whole team is as well.

But I wont pretend to be an expert.

[daisycutter 29,616]

I thought I read if two or members of a team are banned then whole team is as well.

But I wont pretend to be an expert.

can be, od, can be

[MO FINE 171]

Who remembers Peter Marquis?

Full back in the 50s?

[deefrag 277]

I thought I read if two or members of a team are banned then whole team is as well.

But I wont pretend to be an expert.

WADA CODE

11.2 Consequences for Team Sports

If more than two members of a team in a Team Sport

are found to have committed an anti-doping rule

violation during an Event Period, the ruling body of the

Event shall impose an appropriate sanction on the

team (e.g., loss of points, Disqualification from a

Competition or Event, or other sanction) in addition to

any Consequences imposed upon the individual

Athletes committing the anti-doping rule violation.

[jnrmac 20,065]

WADA CODE

11.2 Consequences for Team Sports

If more than two members of a team in a Team Sport

are found to have committed an anti-doping rule

violation during an Event Period, the ruling body of the

Event shall impose an appropriate sanction on the

team (e.g., loss of points, Disqualification from a

Competition or Event, or other sanction) in addition to

any Consequences imposed upon the individual

Athletes committing the anti-doping rule violation.

Could they argue that this has already occurred?

[beelzebub 23,376]

I thought I read if two or members of a team are banned then whole team is as well.

But I wont pretend to be an expert.

The team can be sanctioned and penalised for sure, and I expect it to but as to what form that might take in an inclusive competition as opposed a team competing in an open event?? who knows.. Is unique to date.

[deefrag 277]

Could they argue that this has already occurred?

They could and on recent form they (EFC) would.

However, the sanctions imposed in 2013 were for governance issues that "exposed players to potential health risks and the potential risk of using prohibited substances".

Potential v Actual . . . substantial difference I would say!

Essendon Football Club

Essendon FC breach of AFL Player Rule 1.6

The AFL Commission and the Essendon FC acknowledge that the conduct in its totality relied upon by the AFL and EFC to constitute a breach of Rule 1.6 is as follows, namely, that Essendon FC:

- established a program relating to the administration of supplements to its players in preparation for, and during, the 2012 AFL premiership season (the Program);

- engaged in practices that exposed players to potential risks to their health and safety as well as the potential risk of using substances that were prohibited by the AFL Anti-Doping Code and the World Anti-Doping Code;

I might just add that the AFL for it's own "molly coddling" reasons could claim that EFC had already taken their whack . . but under the WADA they are obliged to impose sanctions!

Edited December 10, 2014 by deefrag

[Demonland 72,193]

Could they argue that this has already occurred?

No.

EFC were sanctioned by the AFL in August, 2013 over governance issues and not for violating anti-doping rules. This was made quite clear at the time. If two or more Bombers are found guilty then they are potentially liable to go down on the basis of 11.2.

[Dees2014 2,377]

When have they banned a team though from an 'inclusive" competition? Not like banning a race team..

Semantics to suggest a reserves team really as in whatever guise and of whom its Essendon.

Would think they can only ban players and penalise a team?

Sorry BB, I think we usually agree on this.

My point is that the players will be handed individual penalties, which may be different from player to player, but they will take effect immediately, and they will ban the individual players not the team, although I acknowledge that there is a provision in the WADA rules which says that under certain circumstance if more than I think 3 players are banned for effectively the same offence that the team will then be banned. What happens here remains to be seen but player bans seen certain. This means the EFC may be able to field a team if they can scape together enough players.

This of course opens up all sorts of complications re salary caps, draft options, list concessions. I'm sure the AFL has a contingency plan, but it will open up all sorts of legal and ethical challenges re AFL rules which we all know if they were challenged in the courts would be thrown out under trade practices laws.

It opens up a hornets nest. The AFL has a real nightmare on its hands to try and manage it.

Edited December 10, 2014 by Dees2014

[monoccular 17,429]

The penalty is going to be wet lettuce leaves at 20 paces so I don't know what you are all so worked up about

OD it cant be. WADA will simply not allow it.

But would you trust the "integrity team" at AFL not to at least try it??

[Melbman2 226]

Could they argue that this has already occurred?

I agree that they'll try it on at the least.

[deanox 9,922]

No.

EFC were sanctioned by the AFL in August, 2013 over governance issues and not for violating anti-doping rules. This was made quite clear at the time. If two or more Bombers are found guilty then they are potentially liable to go down on the basis of 11.2.

Andy my reading of the rule interprets that the punishment could be retrospective, and doesn't have to be applied to future results.

So the AFL COULD punish the team by stripping them of all points and results from the 2012 AFL season. Remember they didn't lose their points, they were excluded from the finals.

I am wondering now if that decision was a calculated move.

[deefrag 277]

Full back in the 50s?

Correct Mo! and he was a bloody gooden!!

Your prize: 3x Knuk, knuks, a whack on the head with a hammer and a double eye poke!!

[Dees2014 2,377]

Andy my reading of the rule interprets that the punishment could be retrospective, and doesn't have to be applied to future results.

So the AFL COULD punish the team by stripping them of all points and results from the 2012 AFL season. Remember they didn't lose their points, they were excluded from the finals.

I am wondering now if that decision was a calculated move.

Well they might try it but there is no way WADA would allow it. It is just this sort of rule fudging that WADA was set up to prevent. There is no way around it for ESSENDON and hird, they are cooked.

[sue 9,106]

Deluded Bomber fans in control:

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/james-hird-supporters-secure-essendon-board-positions-through-social-media-campaign-20141211-1256f5.html