Just now, Curry & Beer said:

Yeah I tend to be anti-cheat. You can go ahead and cram it with your petty insult you peasant

Yeah, no worries.  No one in life deserves to be given a second chance, eh?  The bloke was told by the club what he was taking was fine - maybe he should have taken a closer look, asked more questions, done a little research etc. but to lay the blame solely at their feet is wrong.

I look forward to see Jake come back in November and become an integral part of our team when all of this is well and truly behind him. 

Nothing is ever black and white.

I don't see the players as drug cheats - I see them as idiots who should be more sceptical and less trusting of sports administrators with needles and no explanations.

Call Essendon what you like.

But Watson will lose his Brownlow and that is a huge shame - you think I am going to see him as a 'drug cheat' and all the connotations of that label when his career is done?

No effing way.

4 hours ago, Diamond said:

MFC should condemn his actions and delist him now.

So you applaud the WADA decision, except for the penalty they handed out and you want to add more?

When every player has served their penalty, they are entitled to resume their trade, as far as I'm concerned. Melksham has been through a lot (and is culpable for it), and now misses a season of football with a new club. But that's punishment enough, and WADA says so..

2 minutes ago, rpfc said:

Nothing is ever black and white.

I don't see the players as drug cheats - I see them as idiots who should be more sceptical and less trusting of sports administrators with needles and no explanations.

Call Essendon what you like.

But Watson will lose his Brownlow and that is a huge shame - you think I am going to see him as a 'drug cheat' and all the connotations of that label when his career is done?

No effing way.

 

Is it? I don't wish for him to be forever known as a drugcheat (although it'll happen regardless) but I think it's highly likely he wouldn't have won that brownlow without the drugs.

22 minutes ago, stuie said:

Right, so you want your cake and to eat it too?

You want to call the trade itself a horrible trade because he'll miss a year, but then you want to delist him and get absolutely nothing now for the trade.

Baffling logic.

 

ah no, baffling comprehension, how is that having it and eating it...it's neither having nor eating it.  it was a horrible trade because we clearly didn't do our homework going after a tainted player and it's backfired hard. There was 16 other clubs to trade with. i want to delist him because I don't want a convicted cheat on the list, simple as that. I don't care if he wins the BnF in 2017, it isn't worth tarnishing our club with a dirty Essendon brush. How could we have been so bloody stupid. Cut our losses, it won't be the first time we've completely torched a second round pick with our ineptitude.

23 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

Yeah, no worries.  No one in life deserves to be given a second chance, eh?  The bloke was told by the club what he was taking was fine - maybe he should have taken a closer look, asked more questions, done a little research etc. but to lay the blame solely at their feet is wrong.

I look forward to see Jake come back in November and become an integral part of our team when all of this is well and truly behind him. 

You just wouldn't say this if he was on any other club's list which demonstrates that bias is affecting your judgement. What's right is right.

Just now, Curry & Beer said:

You just wouldn't say this if he was on any other club's list which demonstrates that bias is affecting your judgement. What's right is right.

Wouldn't I?  I'm impressed you know me so well that you can make such grandiose assumptions Curry.  

No bias from me, mate.  Just common sense.

2 minutes ago, Curry & Beer said:

ah no, baffling comprehension, how is that having it and eating it...it's neither having nor eating it.  it was a horrible trade because we clearly didn't do our homework going after a tainted player and it's backfired hard. There was 16 other clubs to trade with. i want to delist him because I don't want a convicted cheat on the list, simple as that. I don't care if he wins the BnF in 2017, it isn't worth tarnishing our club with a dirty Essendon brush. How could we have been so bloody stupid. Cut our losses, it won't be the first time we've completely torched a second round pick with our ineptitude.

"Cut our losses"? Get rid of a 24 year old who will miss one season? Guess we better get rid of Trengove, Hogan, Petracca, Gawn and Frost as well then if we're going to "cut our losses" with young players who miss a lot of footy.

"Didn't do our homework"?! Really? McCartney and Goodwin were both at Essendon and Roos, Mahoney & Jackson aren't exactly rank amateurs. That combined with the fact that we signed him for 4 years and Roos has already said we got him for the long haul should tell you something. Not that I expect you to listen to obviously less savvy footy operators than you, which AFL club do you run again?

 

1 minute ago, Wiseblood said:

Wouldn't I?  I'm impressed you know me so well that you can make such grandiose assumptions Curry.  

No bias from me, mate.  Just common sense.

Fair call, I can't make that assumption. BUT you and I know both know that your average footy fan would forgive a mass murderer if he happens to be wearing their colours - it's basic partisanship.. or blatant hypocrisy depending on your outlook. I was prepared to overlook it originally, but now that's officially in the book that he's guilty I am not happy with his name on our list.

13 minutes ago, stuie said:

"Cut our losses"? Get rid of a 24 year old who will miss one season? Guess we better get rid of Trengove, Hogan, Petracca, Gawn and Frost as well then if we're going to "cut our losses" with young players who miss a lot of footy.

"Didn't do our homework"?! Really? McCartney and Goodwin were both at Essendon and Roos, Mahoney & Jackson aren't exactly rank amateurs. That combined with the fact that we signed him for 4 years and Roos has already said we got him for the long haul should tell you something. Not that I expect you to listen to obviously less savvy footy operators than you, which AFL club do you run again?

 

'stuie', as you probably know this is a typical Roos snow job. I guess we wouldn't expect him to say anything different but according to a poster (couldn't find the post) after the draft & trade night the club ran when asked about the Melksham trade he was told that the club believe & AFL advice is if found guilty the players will only get a short suspension.

No matter which way you paint it the club was caught with it's pants down on this one, it was a punt taken based on a false belief.

Now we can only help that Melksham repays the faith in the final 3 years of his contract but will he be mentally shot. Who knows...

1 minute ago, rjay said:

'stuie', as you probably know this is a typical Roos snow job. I guess we wouldn't expect him to say anything different but according to a poster (couldn't find the post) after the draft & trade night the club ran when asked about the Melksham trade he was told that the club believe & AFL advice is if found guilty the players will only get a short suspension.

No matter which way you paint it the club was caught with it's pants down on this one, it was a punt taken based on a false belief.

Now we can only help that Melksham repays the faith in the final 3 years of his contract but will he be mentally shot. Who knows...

Yeah, look the way I see it, Roos, Mahoney, Jackson, Goodwin & McCartney aren't blind naive amateurs (like some are trying to make out), and signing him for 4 years is a clear indication that we were in for the long haul and considered at his age we would still get value out of him even if he missed a year.

Mahoney and Viney have made it clear our list strategy is building a young list that comes through together, so I don't think they will be pulling their hair out that a 24 year old missing for 2016 will cost us a flag.

Long term view people.

 

1 hour ago, rpfc said:

Nothing is ever black and white.

I don't see the players as drug cheats - I see them as idiots who should be more sceptical and less trusting of sports administrators with needles and no explanations.

Call Essendon what you like.

But Watson will lose his Brownlow and that is a huge shame - you think I am going to see him as a 'drug cheat' and all the connotations of that label when his career is done?

No effing way.

What is a huge shame is that Mitchell and Cotchin were denied their Brownlow.

And the glory and financial rewards that would have come with that..

You simply can't let the cheats prosper.

Edited January 13, 20169 yr by jnrmac

We gave up a second round pick and a big chunk of salary cap space for a 24-year old player who has shown to be nothing more than a C Grader and is now rubbed out for a year. I think it looks to be a terrible trade, but acknowledge there is a slight chance it could come good in the end.

7 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

What is a huge shame is that Mitchell and Cotchin were denied their Brownlow.

And the glory and financial rewards that would have come with that..

You simply can't let the cheats prosper.

Will Cotchin and Mitchell both get the award in retrospect or will it be declared void for that year?

2 minutes ago, Moonshadow said:

Will Cotchin and Mitchell both get the award in retrospect or will it be declared void for that year?

 

tbh I think the fair thing would be to declare it void. Have history still show that Watson won it but then had it taken off and no official winner for that year.

Edited January 13, 20169 yr by praha

Just now, Moonshadow said:

Will Cotchin and Mitchell both get the award in retrospect or will it be declared void for that year?

they should get it of course, regardless of whether they may claim to be "embarrassed" or "don't want it"

fact is they deserved it. watson was found guilty of using peds that year regardless of whether he intended to or not he still got the unfair advantage

should be a lay-down misere. i can't understand the delay

3 minutes ago, praha said:

 

tbh I think the fair thing would be to declare it void. Have history still show that Watson won it but then had it taken off and no official winner for that year.

Think you are right, but there is history of highest vote getters not winning it and the next place getter receiving the award, albeit in differing circumstances 

Edited January 13, 20169 yr by Moonshadow

1 minute ago, Fat Tony said:

We gave up a second round pick and a big chunk of salary cap space for a 24-year old player who has shown to be nothing more than a C Grader and is now rubbed out for a year. I think it looks to be a terrible trade, but acknowledge there is a slight chance it could come good in the end.

Big chunk?  Turn it up.  The contract the Dogs gave Boyd is what people would describe as a 'big chunk' out of the salary cap.  Melksham's hardly compares to that.

If he doesn't miss a year of footy then nobody would be in here calling this a terrible trade.  He will only be 25 next year and moving in to the prime years of his career.  He'll be right.

Any chance Melksham in the box this year, or is that a no no. Would be extremely valuable against "those who should not be named" etc

1 minute ago, willmoy said:

Any chance Melksham in the box this year, or is that a no no. Would be extremely valuable against "those who should not be named" etc

total no-no

It's bad, but I'm more concerned that the only player we could trade for had a decent shot of this happening to him. There wasn't another half back flanker/wingman in the right age/game played category who wasn't being investigated for doping?

The silver lining is opportunity for Mitch White or Josh Wagner.

1 hour ago, stuie said:

"Cut our losses"? Get rid of a 24 year old who will miss one season? Guess we better get rid of Trengove, Hogan, Petracca, Gawn and Frost as well then if we're going to "cut our losses" with young players who miss a lot of footy.

"Didn't do our homework"?! Really? McCartney and Goodwin were both at Essendon and Roos, Mahoney & Jackson aren't exactly rank amateurs. That combined with the fact that we signed him for 4 years and Roos has already said we got him for the long haul should tell you something. Not that I expect you to listen to obviously less savvy footy operators than you, which AFL club do you run again?

 

oh boy. every argument is the exact same with you. you just say things that aren't connected to what the other person has said. i just don't know if it's a deliberate ploy or if you are literally insane.

im not even going to address the difference between melksham and those other players. I mean, are you paying attention at all? I am talking about CHEATING. Why would you bring those other players into the mix who have been INJURED. Don't you see that makes no sense, and is not how people argue things?

bolded bit...i mean really.. have you never experienced a person making a statement after the fact to save face.. pretty bloody basic human behaviour right there.. i know you are not quite that stupid so you are obviously just pretending to take his word for it, as pretending allows you to keep arguing

do not embarass yourself trying to pretend they saw a 1yr ban coming, I don't know how it could be any more obvious that they didnt

 

How come Essendrug get to scour the country for replacements but we ( and Others ) get to up grade a rookie?

Why cannot we replace that rookie?

1 minute ago, Curry & Beer said:

oh boy. every argument is the exact same with you. you just say things that aren't connected to what the other person has said. i just don't know if it's a deliberate ploy or if you are literally insane.

im not even going to address the difference between melksham and those other players. I mean, are you paying attention at all? I am talking about CHEATING. Why would you bring those other players into the mix who have been INJURED. Don't you see that makes no sense, and is not how people argue things?

bolded bit...i mean really.. have you never experienced a person making a statement after the fact to save face.. pretty bloody basic human behaviour right there.. i know you are not quite that stupid so you are obviously just pretending to take his word for it, as pretending allows you to keep arguing

do not embarass yourself trying to pretend they saw a 1yr ban coming, I don't know how it could be any more obvious that they didnt

 

Yeah you're right smart/tough guy on the internet, only you saw it coming and none of Roos, Jackson, Mahoney, Goodwin, Viney or McCartney had even heard of CAS before they heard Melksham was going to miss games....

Not sure you actually read anyone else's posts or just re-read your own over and over again nodding your head in ever growing aggreance with yourself, but a lot of posters have suggested the trade for Melksham is now a bust because he will miss a year. Just to bring it down to basics for you, I've compared that to the fact we've had (and still have) plenty of young players who have missed a year or more through injury and have still provided value. Ironic that you will miss the point while tripping over yourself to argue that I've missed the point.

As for the "bolded bit"... Did you think we brought in a 24 year old on a 4 year contract without it being with a view to the long haul? Yeah you're right, that was probably all part of Roos' great cover up and hoodwinking of the supporters...

 

8 minutes ago, old dee said:

How come Essendrug get to scour the country for replacements but we ( and Others ) get to up grade a rookie?

Why cannot we replace that rookie?

Well, in theory, we should have already 'scoured the country' for the best players to put on our list.

I have no problems with the filling of spots through use of the Rookie List for PA, StK, Melb, and WB.