THE SAGA CONTINUES - WADA APPEALS

[stuie 7,374]

1 minute ago, ManDee said:

 

And here you are making post after post on a thread dedicated to talking about the  EFC and WADA 

 

 

Errrrrr have you read this thread pal? You may see the names Melksham and Goodwin mentioned more than a few times, and last I saw they were part of the MFC...

[binman 42,896]

13 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

I cant agree with this. Taking Melksham is actually a high risk.. Why.  He was drafted not when he only faced the AFL tribunal. He was drafted when on a list before CAS  as part of the appeal by WADA.  Whilst there is a possibility he may not be found guilty, as that iIS a legitimate outcome , in all probability he will. They all will. Otherwise WADA wont have gone the distance.. If/when found guilty the idea  of but a handful of games as penalty is fanboy speak. There's NO precedent for a light smack given the offence and shenanigans leading up to it..

There , to me are two separate aspects which in the main have been lobbed together incorrectly.  There is the risk  of his selection coming to little. That comes about should he be rubbed out. Gain from Melksham, zero   Then there's the caliber of contribution  he may or may not present by playing.  He might be ok, he might be a relative dud. This only becomes apparent should he be cleared.  The risk is about him playing. The probability is not good for him.

• Of course he was drafted post the AFL tribunal decision. That doesn't change my contention one jot.
• NO precedent for a light smack? Yes the crounlla players pleaded guilty but none the less their light penalty is clearly some sort of precedent  
• Fanboy speak? That's a silly comment. There is no way you can be so definitve that a light sentence is not possible. No way. And as such it remains a possibility (note i never said it was anything but a possibility) and therefore has to be part of the risk analysis equation
• If Melksham is rubbed out our gain from Melksham is zero? Again that is simply silly. He will remain a MFC player and potentially may go on and have a long and successful career at the dees. He's only 23 for pete's sake.  Plenty of players have year long injuries and go on to have successful careers. Lets hope Petracca and Hogan are two such examples

Edited December 7, 2015 by binman

[Devil is in the Detail 883]

29 minutes ago, binman said:

My take (ie my opinion, not based on any fact):

• Goodwin is very unlikely to face any sanction so the risk in appointing him very low.  
• Why? Even if they do go after EFC staff surely it will only be those in an authorizing roles (board, Hird, CEO, FD manager etc) as proving guilt of any one else would be nearly impossible (eg 'i was told this is what we were doing and as an assistant coach i was contractually obliged to do as directed and in any case i was repeatedly assured by my superiors that all was above board' - an argument players can't run but an assistant coach could)
• Also i reckon that both WADA and ASADA will figure this case has absorbed more than enough time and resources and will happily let it end with the players sanction
• Taking Melksham was also low risk. Why? Well firstly there is a chance he won't be found guilty. If he is found guilty there is a chance he will miss only a handful of games. If the sanction is longer it is unlikely to be more than 12 months in which case worst case scenario he is right to go XMAS time 2016 and ready to go round 1 2017. Big deal. We have in Michie a player who can come straight of the rookie list into the team and a 24 year old with 100 games under his belt and no major injury problems ready to go the following year
• Also the AFL might allow us to rookie another player and as someone else said this might result in another rookie gem
• To say hiring Melksham and Goodwin is a high risk strategy that reflects poor decision making at the top is complete bollocks - in my humble opinion. 

We may have something written in the contract to help protect us. i.e. if found guilty maybe suspended pay.

[ManDee 7,134]

1 minute ago, stuie said:

Errrrrr have you read this thread pal? You may see the names Melksham and Goodwin mentioned more than a few times, and last I saw they were part of the MFC...

 

As expected you dance around the facts again.  Why do you do this?

 

This thread is titled "The Saga continues WADA appeals" It is about the EFC and WADA, and Melksham and Goodwin were at the EFC when this happened and that may have an impact on our club. Maybe you should read all of this thread and those that preceded it then come back with your sarcasm.

[stuie 7,374]

Just now, ManDee said:

 

As expected you dance around the facts again.  Why do you do this?

 

This thread is titled "The Saga continues WADA appeals" It is about the EFC and WADA, and Melksham and Goodwin were at the EFC when this happened and that may have an impact on our club. Maybe you should read all of this thread and those that preceded it then come back with your sarcasm.

Ummmm what facts am I dancing around exactly? The last few pages are almost exclusively about people involved at the MFC. Get a grip.

[Chris 2,892]

15 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

I cant agree with this. Taking Melksham is actually a high risk.. Why.  He was drafted not when he only faced the AFL tribunal. He was drafted when on a list before CAS  as part of the appeal by WADA.  Whilst there is a possibility he may not be found guilty, as that iIS a legitimate outcome , in all probability he will. They all will. Otherwise WADA wont have gone the distance.. If/when found guilty the idea  of but a handful of games as penalty is fanboy speak. There's NO precedent for a light smack given the offence and shenanigans leading up to it..

There , to me are two separate aspects which in the main have been lobbed together incorrectly.  There is the risk  of his selection coming to little. That comes about should he be rubbed out. Gain from Melksham, zero   Then there's the caliber of contribution  he may or may not present by playing.  He might be ok, he might be a relative dud. This only becomes apparent should he be cleared.  The risk is about him playing. The probability is not good for him.

You forgot to include consequence in your assessment of the risk level. As he is not a superstar and is just an honest role player and therefore replaceable the consequence to the team of his suspensions is very low, hence the overall risk is low as well.

It is actually the opposite of Goodwin where the risk of him being suspended is low but the consequence of him being suspended is massive. 

[Chris 2,892]

18 minutes ago, stuie said:

So we're now calling the people who have turned around our club incompetent based on a wild guess that Goodwin (who has not been charged with anything or even included in rumours of being so) may possibly one day be banned if everything happens to go really badly.... Right. See, that's why I'm calling it hysteria and panic.

It's all extremes with you isn't it? No nuance at all. It is either incompetent of marvellous, reverence or hysteria, no questioning possible, no way someone could think they were good but may have made a bad call.

[ManDee 7,134]

4 minutes ago, stuie said:

Ummmm what facts am I dancing around exactly? The last few pages are almost exclusively about people involved at the MFC. Get a grip.

 

Maybe you don't know that you are even doing it. I even try to be civil.

[stuie 7,374]

Just now, Chris said:

It's all extremes with you isn't it? No nuance at all. It is either incompetent of marvellous, reverence or hysteria, no questioning possible, no way someone could think they were good but may have made a bad call.

Have a look through the last few pages, there's a select few (usual) posters already bagging the admin of our club for things that have not even come close to happening yet. I'm not the one dealing in extremes.

[Chris 2,892]

1 minute ago, stuie said:

Have a look through the last few pages, there's a select few (usual) posters already bagging the admin of our club for things that have not even come close to happening yet. I'm not the one dealing in extremes.

And I am not one of them yet you still respond in such a way. Maybe treat people as individuals and reply as such. As I said, it is all black and white with you. 

[stuie 7,374]

Just now, Chris said:

And I am not one of them yet you still respond in such a way. Maybe treat people as individuals and reply as such. As I said, it is all black and white with you. 

Ugh... Feel free to point out where I said you were one of those posters.

[beelzebub 23,347]

10 minutes ago, Chris said:

You forgot to include consequence in your assessment of the risk level. As he is not a superstar and is just an honest role player and therefore replaceable the consequence to the team of his suspensions is very low, hence the overall risk is low as well.

It is actually the opposite of Goodwin where the risk of him being suspended is low but the consequence of him being suspended is massive. 

Chris   I did acknowledge the nature of Mleksham.. My point was  the two elements seem to get bundled as though one

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,750]

22 minutes ago, Devil is in the Detail said:

We may have something written in the contract to help protect us. i.e. if found guilty maybe suspended pay.

I'd find it hard to believe that Melksham or his manager would have agreed to a contract with a suspension from pay clause in it.

[Chris 2,892]

9 minutes ago, stuie said:

Ugh... Feel free to point out where I said you were one of those posters.

This was in response to a comment of mine in response to my explanation of the risks the management have taken.

" So we're now calling the people who have turned around our club incompetent based on a wild guess that Goodwin (who has not been charged with anything or even included in rumours of being so) may possibly one day be banned if everything happens to go really badly.... Right. See, that's why I'm calling it hysteria and panic."

Don't know about you but that looks just like you saying I am calling the club incompetent and therefore lumping me with other who have nearly done so.

[Chris 2,892]

10 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Chris   I did acknowledge the nature of Mleksham.. My point was  the two elements seem to get bundled as though one

And my point is that to determine the level of risk involved (which you have at high), then you need to bundle them and look at the whole picture.

High risk of suspensions but low consequence of major ramifications of suspension = low risk overall.

[Lucifers Hero 39,737]

In my study days we applied 'deductive reasoning' (a legitimate tool of logic when facts are not available) to draw a conclusion.  In those days when discussing risk we also talked 'probability'.  Therefore my logic on Goodwin's position is:

- Bomber (Senior Ass Coach) and Dr Reid did not know of the 'good stuff' and injection regime until long after the program started.  Given that Goodwin was junior to them there is a high probability he did not know.

- that he took a substance that was legal does not implicate him in any legal or illegal substance regime.

- he was interviewed by ASADA and they did not find cause to issue sanction notices (nor did the AFL fine him)

- the WADA rules at the time were not broad enough to implicate (some) support staff. 

Therefore, my reasoned conclusion on risk: As a relative 'junior' at EFC there is a very low probability that Goodwin will receive any suspension.    

 

To the MFC decision:  To state the obvious: Everything has a risk!  But, smart operators make rational decisions.  ie 1) identify a risk 2) evaluate whether the risk has a low or high probability of occurrence and  3) take out 'insurance' via contingency plans and/or contract clauses to mitigate the risk. ie exactly what we do in our everyday lives!! 

MFC is run by smart people.  Yes, it is true!!  I have absolutely no doubt the club did those 3 things. They made a rational decision in hiring Goodwin.  We have smart operators running our club and to pot them is just plain silly...

 

[stuie 7,374]

2 minutes ago, Chris said:

This was in response to a comment of mine in response to my explanation of the risks the management have taken.

" So we're now calling the people who have turned around our club incompetent based on a wild guess that Goodwin (who has not been charged with anything or even included in rumours of being so) may possibly one day be banned if everything happens to go really badly.... Right. See, that's why I'm calling it hysteria and panic."

Don't know about you but that looks just like you saying I am calling the club incompetent and therefore lumping me with other who have nearly done so.

Yep, so maybe have a look back at the context of that discussion and that post Chris. I explained numerous times that I had no problem with your posts and my posts were directed at those who were slagging off MFC's admin.

[stuie 7,374]

1 minute ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

In my study days we applied 'deductive reasoning' (a legitimate tool of logic when facts are not available) to draw a conclusion.  In those days when discussing risk we also talked 'probability'.  Therefore my logic on Goodwin's position is:

- Bomber (Senior Ass Coach) and Dr Reid did not know of the 'good stuff' and injection regime until long after the program started.  Given that Goodwin was junior to them there is a high probability he did not know.

- that he took a substance that was legal does not implicate him in any legal or illegal substance regime.

- he was interviewed by ASADA and they did not find cause to issue sanction notices (nor did the AFL fine him)

- the WADA rules at the time were not broad enough to implicate (some) support staff. 

Therefore, my reasoned conclusion on risk: As a relative 'junior' at EFC there is a very low probability that Goodwin will receive any suspension.    

 

To the MFC decision:  To state the obvious: Everything has a risk!  But, smart operators make rational decisions.  ie 1) identify a risk 2) evaluate whether the risk has a low or high probability of occurrence and  3) take out 'insurance' via contingency plans and/or contract clauses to mitigate the risk. ie exactly what we do in our everyday lives!! 

MFC is run by smart people.  Yes, it is true!!  I have absolutely no doubt the club did those 3 things. They made a rational decision in hiring Goodwin.  We have smart operators running our club and to pot them is just plain silly...

 

Facts, logic & reason. Fantastic post.

[beelzebub 23,347]

Interesting how the various perceive things and as such assign a value.

A dam has been shown to have some measurable defects.  These defects may or may not be of a type to cause critical failure ( read  dam bursting )

A critical risk analysis is taken to evaluate the danger. In such an event there will be crews looking at the very faults to see what are the likely outcomes and what steps can be taken ( if any ) to remedy. Other personnel will be poring over the original designs to establish whether or not  in hindsight  ( and greater knowledge ) there existed any error of design or a failure to cater to potential instances with sufficient accuracy

Then there will come the Spin Doctors  who will want to spread calm and reassure all that all steps are being taken and they are in no immediate danger.

Differing views will come about from this. Those of the operators of the Dam, as they are liable. Those of the Engineers?designers as they too are liable.  There are those at/on the dam who might be rightly a little concerned all of a sudden. There are those down stream from any likely breach whose concern levels will be higher than all.

It's the same event and there are any number of perspectives and resulting concerns and opinions.

Interesting...Demonland...Interesting

[stuie 7,374]

1 minute ago, beelzebub said:

Interesting how the various perceive things and as such assign a value.

A dam has been shown to have some measurable defects.  These defects may or may not be of a type to cause critical failure ( read  dam bursting )

A critical risk analysis is taken to evaluate the danger. In such an event there will be crews looking at the very faults to see what are the likely outcomes and what steps can be taken ( if any ) to remedy. Other personnel will be poring over the original designs to establish whether or not  in hindsight  ( and greater knowledge ) there existed any error of design or a failure to cater to potential instances with sufficient accuracy

Then there will come the Spin Doctors  who will want to spread calm and reassure all that all steps are being taken and they are in no immediate danger.

Differing views will come about from this. Those of the operators of the Dam, as they are liable. Those of the Engineers?designers as they too are liable.  There are those at/on the dam who might be rightly a little concerned all of a sudden. There are those down stream from any likely breach whose concern levels will be higher than all.

It's the same event and there are any number of perspectives and resulting concerns and opinions.

Interesting...Demonland...Interesting

And there are those that will hear a rumour that there might possibly be a chance there's a defect in the dam and will then run naked through the streets screaming "WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE! WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!"....

[Chris 2,892]

6 minutes ago, stuie said:

Yep, so maybe have a look back at the context of that discussion and that post Chris. I explained numerous times that I had no problem with your posts and my posts were directed at those who were slagging off MFC's admin.

It may well be in the brash nature of your writing but it definitely comes across differently that what you explain above. 

[stuie 7,374]

1 minute ago, beelzebub said:

Interesting how the various perceive things and as such assign a value.

A dam has been shown to have some measurable defects.  These defects may or may not be of a type to cause critical failure ( read  dam bursting )

A critical risk analysis is taken to evaluate the danger. In such an event there will be crews looking at the very faults to see what are the likely outcomes and what steps can be taken ( if any ) to remedy. Other personnel will be poring over the original designs to establish whether or not  in hindsight  ( and greater knowledge ) there existed any error of design or a failure to cater to potential instances with sufficient accuracy

Then there will come the Spin Doctors  who will want to spread calm and reassure all that all steps are being taken and they are in no immediate danger.

Differing views will come about from this. Those of the operators of the Dam, as they are liable. Those of the Engineers?designers as they too are liable.  There are those at/on the dam who might be rightly a little concerned all of a sudden. There are those down stream from any likely breach whose concern levels will be higher than all.

It's the same event and there are any number of perspectives and resulting concerns and opinions.

Interesting...Demonland...Interesting

And there are those that will hear a rumour that there might possibly be a chance there's a defect in the dam and will then run naked through the streets screaming "WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE! WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!"....

[Chris 2,892]

6 minutes ago, stuie said:

Yep, so maybe have a look back at the context of that discussion and that post Chris. I explained numerous times that I had no problem with your posts and my posts were directed at those who were slagging off MFC's admin.

It may well be in the brash nature of your writing but it definitely comes across differently that what you explain above. 

[stuie 7,374]

3 minutes ago, Chris said:

It may well be in the brash nature of your writing but it definitely comes across differently that what you explain above. 

 

Yes, how "brash" of me to compliment your posts and explain it wasn't you I was having a go at....

 

2 hours ago, stuie said:

Good post mate, even if I don't necessarily agree. Well reasoned and thought out.

I guess where I'm coming from is we don't truly know if it even is a risk. Jackson, Mahoney and Roos are pretty savvy operators, and I have complete trust in their abilities to make decisions that will better the club and not put it in danger. Their combined track record is impeccable as far as what they've done for our club so far, so I'm not going to start slagging them off like some others have based on my own fears and panic.

I'm calling for facts re:Goodwin. Clearly there's some factual information out there about the 34, Hird etc, but I am yet to hear Goodwin even mentioned, which is why I want to know why the sudden hysteria?

 

2 hours ago, stuie said:

All fair enough, appreciate your reasoned input. I see it differently, but it's a pleasant change to read some posts on the issue which contain clear thought. Cheers!

 

28 minutes ago, stuie said:

Have a look through the last few pages, there's a select few (usual) posters already bagging the admin of our club for things that have not even come close to happening yet. I'm not the one dealing in extremes.

 

10 minutes ago, stuie said:

Yep, so maybe have a look back at the context of that discussion and that post Chris. I explained numerous times that I had no problem with your posts and my posts were directed at those who were slagging off MFC's admin.

 

[beelzebub 23,347]

12 hours ago, MrReims said:

The crux of the argument seems to be whether or not we as supporters would worry whether 2 individuals involved in the club at the time are now with us or not. If found guilty of any wrong doing any Melbourne player or staff need to be held accountable (1)

 

. It would be the same if they were found drunk behind the wheel or shallow graves were found in their backyard. Do the crime, do the time. But if the absolute worst happens and both jake and simon are banned for 2 years, I'm not going to be angry at the club! That's life, (2)

 

situations change and not hiring/recruiting who they believe to be the right person purely because speculation says there might be an issue further down the track would leave me far more disillusioned. How many on here bemoaned us missing out on Jack Darling? He was involved in a nightclub fight just before the draft. What if the next year he got into another fight and seriously hurt  someone and ended up in jail? Would we all say WC were crazy to take him given his history and the apparent risk? 

In other words right or wrong, guilty or innocent, banned or cleared I think the Mfc Footy department are smart enough to carry on just fine.

The first item...if found guilty is the club accountable ? Not accountable of their guilt but given they were both taken with prior knowledge of the events surrounding the EFC you would have to ask how prudent such hirings were.

the second.. what nonsense. This supposes that the club was oblivious , that such findings only came to the fore AFTER they coming aboard the club. That timeline is clearly erroneous.   That's life ? really ? It strikes many here that some things are actually avoidable.

 

The Darling analogy is indeed Darling. We first offer up what had happened and known outcomes then sugar it with speculation about what hasn't ?

 

With Melksham  we are certainly aware of much. He IS of the 34, His future does indeed lay in the hands of CAS.  This is nothing about what might occur. This is about what has and how it's to be adjudged and subsequently penalised.