1 minute ago, Sir Why You Little said:

With no contact and no salary there is very little incentive. He might be all good now but time can change a lot. 

What happens to all of these 34 players we cannot predict  i always believed CAS was going to come down hard once the evidence was shredded and lost. 

I still do not think the AFL Community fully understands the consequences of this ban. 

The 34 are damaged goods. How damaged we are yet to know

I think their careers are their incentive. Both Carlisle and Melksham still have a fair few years left in them after serving their ban, and both have contracts that extend past this year.

You're right about the AFL not comprehending the situation fully yet though. I reckon it's hit the players and that famous trust between player and coach is now a thing of the past, but possibly the coaches, admin and anyone in AFL leadership will only understand over time where they see that the trust has gone.

 

2 minutes ago, stuie said:

I think their careers are their incentive. Both Carlisle and Melksham still have a fair few years left in them after serving their ban, and both have contracts that extend past this year.

You're right about the AFL not comprehending the situation fully yet though. I reckon it's hit the players and that famous trust between player and coach is now a thing of the past, but possibly the coaches, admin and anyone in AFL leadership will only understand over time where they see that the trust has gone.

 

If Melksham was allowed to be around the MFC and be paid then i would be far more positive

But this ban is rock solid nothing. 

Psychology studied tells me this will not end well

but it is a wait and see. I would have much preferred we did not go down this road  

Goodwin was there. He knows what went on, 

this does not sit well with me at all. 

If Melksham becomes a good player then he has stronger mind control than most human beings on this planet. 

Clubs will need to be very careful about following WADA rules on banned players involvement with the clubs. I wonder who will be the first to stuff up and get caught? Given how inept and naive the saga continues to be, I don't have much confidence that all clubs with the '34 players' will follow to the letter. I just hope ours is not one of them.

I had to dig around to find this:

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2012-11-20/dees-clear-about-draft-targets-viney

Viney's 'fourth pillar' of recruitment is a 'character test'.

I believe Melksham, as a confirmed drug cheat, fails this test.

Even if you're being generous and say that he was deceived by the club, I still think he fails this test by not having the character to stand up and say no. He did not 'handle being in an elite environment', as Viney requires, as he failed to act in an ethical manner whilst at the EFC.

I don't want him at our club. He tarnishes us and any wins we have with him in the team.

I am struggling to come to terms of how I can support the club and NOT Melksham. It's going to require some good cognitive dissonance on my part to keep my membership knowing he's on our list. Maybe if he makes a statement saying something like "I cheated, I was wrong," or something similar. Some sort of contrition and an apology would be good.

4 minutes ago, Choke said:

I had to dig around to find this:

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2012-11-20/dees-clear-about-draft-targets-viney

Viney's 'fourth pillar' of recruitment is a 'character test'.

I believe Melksham, as a confirmed drug cheat, fails this test.

Even if you're being generous and say that he was deceived by the club, I still think he fails this test by not having the character to stand up and say no. He did not 'handle being in an elite environment', as Viney requires, as he failed to act in an ethical manner whilst at the EFC.

I don't want him at our club. He tarnishes us and any wins we have with him in the team.

I am struggling to come to terms of how I can support the club and NOT Melksham. It's going to require some good cognitive dissonance on my part to keep my membership knowing he's on our list. Maybe if he makes a statement saying something like "I cheated, I was wrong," or something similar. Some sort of contrition and an apology would be good.

The fact that we DID recruit him should tell you how he went in the character test.

So I'll stick with the judgment of Viney, Mahoney, Roos, Goodwin & Jackson over "Choke" on Demonland.

 

Just now, stuie said:

The fact that we DID recruit him should tell you how he went in the character test.

So I'll stick with the judgment of Viney, Mahoney, Roos, Goodwin & Jackson over "Choke" on Demonland.

 

It's an opinion forum Stuie, you of all people should know that.

I think if we have someone on our list who is a confirmed drug cheat, and he passed our character test, then our character test needs updating.

1 minute ago, Choke said:

It's an opinion forum Stuie, you of all people should know that.

I think if we have someone on our list who is a confirmed drug cheat, and he passed our character test, then our character test needs updating.

Correct, and my OPINION is that all those guys have had more to do with Melksham than anyone on Demonland so I'm going to trust their judgment more than any of us.

 

18 hours ago, biggestred said:

If the afl leave wada, 17 Clubs will leave the afl

No they won't. The AFL own the 18 clubs.

2 minutes ago, Choke said:

I had to dig around to find this:

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2012-11-20/dees-clear-about-draft-targets-viney

Viney's 'fourth pillar' of recruitment is a 'character test'.

I believe Melksham, as a confirmed drug cheat, fails this test.

Even if you're being generous and say that he was deceived by the club, I still think he fails this test by not having the character to stand up and say no. He did not 'handle being in an elite environment', as Viney requires, as he failed to act in an ethical manner whilst at the EFC.

I don't want him at our club. He tarnishes us and any wins we have with him in the team.

I am struggling to come to terms of how I can support the club and NOT Melksham. It's going to require some good cognitive dissonance on my part to keep my membership knowing he's on our list. Maybe if he makes a statement saying something like "I cheated, I was wrong," or something similar. Some sort of contrition and an apology would be good.

You take yourself too seriously.  He's at the club, either deal with it or support another club.  Easy.

13 minutes ago, Choke said:

I had to dig around to find this:

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2012-11-20/dees-clear-about-draft-targets-viney

Viney's 'fourth pillar' of recruitment is a 'character test'.

I believe Melksham, as a confirmed drug cheat, fails this test.

Even if you're being generous and say that he was deceived by the club, I still think he fails this test by not having the character to stand up and say no. He did not 'handle being in an elite environment', as Viney requires, as he failed to act in an ethical manner whilst at the EFC.

I don't want him at our club. He tarnishes us and any wins we have with him in the team.

I am struggling to come to terms of how I can support the club and NOT Melksham. It's going to require some good cognitive dissonance on my part to keep my membership knowing he's on our list. Maybe if he makes a statement saying something like "I cheated, I was wrong," or something similar. Some sort of contrition and an apology would be good.

I would rather support the other 43 than not support the club because of one bad apple.

what are the cliches. Cut off your nose to spite your face. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

1 minute ago, Wiseblood said:

You take yourself too seriously.  He's at the club, either deal with it or support another club.  Easy.

I take cheating seriously.

I don't want to support another club, I want to keep on supporting the club I have all my life. I just want the club I love to not have a drug cheat on its list.

Honestly I struggle to understand how some of you guys are ok with it. Melksham noew being at the MFC doesn't mitigate what he did.

3 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

You take yourself too seriously.  He's at the club, either deal with it or support another club.  Easy.

Surprised he's still around after we "tanked".....

 

Just now, Choke said:

I take cheating seriously.

I don't want to support another club, I want to keep on supporting the club I have all my life. I just want the club I love to not have a drug cheat on its list.

Honestly I struggle to understand how some of you guys are ok with it. Melksham noew being at the MFC doesn't mitigate what he did.

Well you'll just have to learn to deal with it.  That's up to you.

I'm okay with it because he didn't go and do it himself.  He's not someone like Lance Armstrong.  I agree in that he should have queried it more, asked questions, done a little research etc, but I also believe the 34 players were misled and they put their trust in who they believed were the experts.  They got burnt big time and they'll live with that stigma for the rest of their lives.  

But they didn't do it of their own volition and that makes it a different proposition... for me anyway.  I can handle it.

2 hours ago, Barney Rubble said:

The Hun reports that fitness staff cannot prepare programs or run training sessions for the players.

But Matt Finnis says Carlisle will have a program prepared for him so that he will be spot on for 2017 season.

The penalties for not adhering to the WADA code is enormous.

If found not to be adhering. They can then have the 2 year ban added on to their existing ban. (ie) Nov. 13 2016 will then become Nov. 2018.

who will be the first to slip up?

Policing this is impossible (unless a dumbass like Finnis goes public with it)

Quotes not working for some reason.

Stuie:

Because tanking was within the rules. Everyone could (and many did) do it, and the AFL incentivised it. Hell, teams still do it towards the end of the season to get better draft picks. It's part of a flawed draft system and until that is fixed, tanking is part of strategy of recruitment.

I'm not happy we tanked, but I don't think it's cheating. It's certainly not on par with taking performance enhancing drugs.

 

Wiseblood:

Fair enough I guess. I just see an athlete's personal responsibilities as an overriding factor. The conspiracy of silence against Reid and lack of disclosure on drug testing forms to me speaks volumes. If it was on the up and up, there is no reason to not tell Reid and the drug testers.

I posed a question on either this thread or the judgement one about the Melk taking a voluntary suspension.

Essentially my question was if the Melk took a voluntary suspension from the end of the last season if it would come off any penalty? It wasn't clear if they had already factored this off season in but it is clear now they didn't so i assume he could have chosen to take a voluntary suspension.

The start play then would have been the dees to advise the Melk to take a voluntary suspension from the end of last season (assuming we were planning then to take him, which i assume is the case). Before the suspension came into effect they could have devised a training program for him. He then doesn't come to the club at all during the suspension. If that had occurred he would have another 4 months shaved of his suspension meaning he would be eligible to train in May 2016 and play in July 2016.

If they ended up getting off then no harm done. Either way the dees look smart and prudent.

Obviously all the EFC players could have done the same thing. The writing was on the wall so why not? 

Edited January 14, 20169 yr by binman

1 minute ago, binman said:

I posed a question on either this thread or the judgement one about the Melk taking a voluntary suspension.

Essentially my question was if the Melk took a voluntary suspension from the end of the last season if it would come off any penalty? It wasn't clear if they had already factored this off season in but it is clear now they didn't so i assume he could have chosen to take a voluntary suspension.

The start play then would have been the dees to advise the Melk to take a voluntary suspension from the end of last season (assuming we were planning then to take him, which i assume is the case). Before the suspension came into effect they could have devised a training program for him. He then doesn't come to the club at all during the suspension. If that had occurred he would have another 4 months shaved of his suspension meaning he would be eligible to train in May 2016 and play in July 2016.

Obviously all the EFC players could have done the same thing. The writing was on the wall so why not? 

They were being told to look at the wrong wall binman and from 2012 we know they are easily guided.

9 minutes ago, Choke said:

Quotes not working for some reason.

Stuie:

Because tanking was within the rules. Everyone could (and many did) do it, and the AFL incentivised it. Hell, teams still do it towards the end of the season to get better draft picks. It's part of a flawed draft system and until that is fixed, tanking is part of strategy of recruitment.

I'm not happy we tanked, but I don't think it's cheating. It's certainly not on par with taking performance enhancing drugs.

Right, handy to know where you line of moral indignation is then when it comes to cheating.

Whole club cheats = Totes ok. One player cheats = won't follow the club anymore.

 

7 minutes ago, stuie said:

Right, handy to know where you line of moral indignation is then when it comes to cheating.

Whole club cheats = Totes ok. One player cheats = won't follow the club anymore.

 

I actually find it pretty simple.

Tanking isn't cheating.

Taking performance enhancing drugs is.

Also, I didn't say I wouldn't follow the club. I said I'd find it difficult

I also note the complete lack of a statement from Jake. A simple "I done [censored] up, I'm sorry, I should have known better" would go a long way.

4 minutes ago, Choke said:

I actually find it pretty simple.

Tanking isn't cheating.

Taking performance enhancing drugs is.

Also, I didn't say I wouldn't follow the club. I said I'd find it difficult

I also note the complete lack of a statement from Jake. A simple "I done [censored] up, I'm sorry, I should have known better" would go a long way.

I am with you Choke. This whole saga is a fkn disgrace. 

If it were my decision the 34 players would be baned for life along with all of the Essendon Officials. 

7 minutes ago, Choke said:

I actually find it pretty simple.

Tanking isn't cheating.

Taking performance enhancing drugs is.

Also, I didn't say I wouldn't follow the club. I said I'd find it difficult

I also note the complete lack of a statement from Jake. A simple "I done [censored] up, I'm sorry, I should have known better" would go a long way.

Well it is, because we got fined $500k for it.... You only get fined if do something wrong

6 minutes ago, BrisbaneDemon said:

Well it is, because we got fined $500k for it.... You only get fined if do something wrong

We got fined for bringing the game into disrepute. It was the AFL's political way of punishing us but not actually saying it was tanking. If they said it was tanking they'd have to punish everyone who did it (Hawks, Eagles, Carlton).

Also, this is the AFL we're talking about. They are hardly a bastion of consistency when applying fines or penalties, I don't think "you only get fined if you do something wrong" applies to them.

Edit: Demitriou actually said what we did was fine. The only reason we got fined was because Adrian Anderson overstepped the mark as a response to Brock McLean's interview. Had Demitriou not been overseas as the time, we would not have been fined at all. We had the tacit approval of the man in charge at the time, and a draft system set up to incentivise precisely what we were doing. Very different to contravening the WADA code.

Edited January 14, 20169 yr by Choke

45 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

Well you'll just have to learn to deal with it.  That's up to you.

I'm okay with it because he didn't go and do it himself.  He's not someone like Lance Armstrong.  I agree in that he should have queried it more, asked questions, done a little research etc, but I also believe the 34 players were misled and they put their trust in who they believed were the experts.  They got burnt big time and they'll live with that stigma for the rest of their lives.  

But they didn't do it of their own volition and that makes it a different proposition... for me anyway.  I can handle it.

yeah, they were only half pregnant.....lol

16 minutes ago, Choke said:

We got fined for bringing the game into disrepute. It was the AFL's political way of punishing us but not actually saying it was tanking. If they said it was tanking they'd have to punish everyone who did it (Hawks, Eagles, Carlton).

Also, this is the AFL we're talking about. They are hardly a bastion of consistency when applying fines or penalties, I don't think "you only get fined if you do something wrong" applies to them.

Edit: Demitriou actually said what we did was fine. The only reason we got fined was because Adrian Anderson overstepped the mark as a response to Brock McLean's interview. Had Demitriou not been overseas as the time, we would not have been fined at all. We had the tacit approval of the man in charge at the time, and a draft system set up to incentivise precisely what we were doing. Very different to contravening the WADA code.

Yes we did get fined for bringing the game into disrepute.

Have EFC been fined for that? Or was Chris Connoly's joke worse than having 34 drug cheats in a systematic PED program?

 

The AFL are a disgrace on this matter

16 minutes ago, Choke said:

We got fined for bringing the game into disrepute. It was the AFL's political way of punishing us but not actually saying it was tanking. If they said it was tanking they'd have to punish everyone who did it (Hawks, Eagles, Carlton).

Also, this is the AFL we're talking about. They are hardly a bastion of consistency when applying fines or penalties, I don't think "you only get fined if you do something wrong" applies to them.

Edit: Demitriou actually said what we did was fine. The only reason we got fined was because Adrian Anderson overstepped the mark as a response to Brock McLean's interview. Had Demitriou not been overseas as the time, we would not have been fined at all. We had the tacit approval of the man in charge at the time, and a draft system set up to incentivise precisely what we were doing. Very different to contravening the WADA code.

Yes we did get fined for bringing the game into disrepute.

Have EFC been fined for that? Or was Chris Connoly's joke worse than having 34 drug cheats in a systematic PED program?

 

The AFL are a disgrace on this matter