Just now, ManDee said:

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

Yep, the EFC were fined for that and governance failures I believe.

The AFL have not yet punished them for the drug program itself though. I don't think they will either, as they said that if the EFC come last they'll get the #1 pick.

1 hour 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.

What i got out of that article was how Toumpas failed some of those 'character test' yet Wines fitted into them beautifully...

 

Edited January 14, 20169 yr by dazzledavey36

1 hour 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.

So in effect, you think Melksham (and all the Essendon 34) should be banned for life and that CAS got it wrong?  Because that's the natural extension of your argument.  

IMO, they have broken the rules and have received a significant punishment.  I do think it's very unbecoming that the players involved and the AFLPA continue to maintain their "innocence" and agree with you that contrition would be far better - although I haven't heard Melksham's position on this yet.  If the punishment is accepted and served in good faith by the players, then they should be free to re-commence their careers.

This is way off beam and I'm no lawyer, but I struggle with Essendon's ability to trade out players over the past few years in the knowledge that CAS could well come after them as they now have.

I'll struggle to explain this , but was there a real   'clear title' situation available in order that a trade could be facilitated? I  realise there is a buyer beware situation in these things or am I drawing a long bow? Seems to me like CAS hadn't  exactly lifted their mortgage? 

32 minutes ago, Choke said:

Yep, the EFC were fined for that and governance failures I believe.

The AFL have not yet punished them for the drug program itself though. I don't think they will either, as they said that if the EFC come last they'll get the #1 pick.

The fine for bringing the game into disrepute was for failure to keep appropriate records, not for a program where 34 players have been found guilty of drug cheating. They have not been penalised for drug cheating and are unlikely to be, this is a travesty of justice.

when you run out of strawmen bring up the tu quoque arguments. the next one will be to invoke godwin's law.

1 hour ago, Fifty-5 said:

So in effect, you think Melksham (and all the Essendon 34) should be banned for life and that CAS got it wrong?  Because that's the natural extension of your argument.  

IMO, they have broken the rules and have received a significant punishment.  I do think it's very unbecoming that the players involved and the AFLPA continue to maintain their "innocence" and agree with you that contrition would be far better - although I haven't heard Melksham's position on this yet.  If the punishment is accepted and served in good faith by the players, then they should be free to re-commence their careers.

I think CAS got it right in terms of guilt, and pretty much right in terms of what punishment they were allowed to give out. The maximum was 2 years, they got 2 years backdated.

CAS has now increased their maximum to 4 years, so even they think 2 years is too light as a maximum, but with the Essendon 34 case, they were tied to the lower amount because those were the rules at the time of the infringement.

Personally yes, I would prefer life bans. I have very little tolerance for drug cheats.

Lets remember here that this is not a ciminal case. They aren't being sent to gaol, nor are they doing community service. If they get a life ban, it's essentially telling them that they can't work in their chosen field any more. Well, too bad, go work somewhere else. You cheated at your chosen profession and now you can't do it any more. Go re-educate yourself and go work somewhere else. People do it every day.

If a doctor contravenes a medical code, or a lawyer is disbarred for unethical behaviour, they go get a different job. Why does a drug cheat get to go back to work after a year?

50 minutes ago, Dockett 32 said:

This is way off beam and I'm no lawyer, but I struggle with Essendon's ability to trade out players over the past few years in the knowledge that CAS could well come after them as they now have.

I'll struggle to explain this , but was there a real   'clear title' situation available in order that a trade could be facilitated? I  realise there is a buyer beware situation in these things or am I drawing a long bow? Seems to me like CAS hadn't  exactly lifted their mortgage? 

Caveat emptor. All trades, except Monfries, were made after the potential for suspensions if found guilty were known. While the Monfries trade was prior to the supplements program becoming public knowledge, it would be difficult to prove that Essendon allowed the trade to proceed with the knowledge that he may later be suspended. After all, they have always claimed that they thought they were doing nothing wrong. 

On ‎12‎/‎01‎/‎2016 at 0:16 PM, Bonkers said:

I really don't understand this line of thinking. If a player does his knee on day one it's an accident that is unavoidable. MFC recruited Melksham knowing he could be rubbed out for 1 or 2 years & we still followed through & paid the asking price which Essendon demanded from us. 

Your point regarding it only being a year out of his career is an odd one also. A very good to exceptional AFL player will play 10-12 years of good footy. An average player might get around 4-6 good years in his career & most will probably on average play a lot less. Having one year taken out of his career & not being able to train with the club is a blow that we could have minimised at least.

I don't see how the trade can be judged a good one at the moment or glossed over as not a big deal now that Melksham will be out for a year. All these points are without even considering whether he will be a good player for us or not if & when he does get on the field. He has been ordinary at Essendon for a couple of years & if you ask Essendon supporters they weren't fazed to lose him. When I add all these points up it doesn't look like an astute piece of trading, but like all trades we can only view it after the players career is over. I hope for the MFC's sake it does work out, but on the face of it, it is looking like a bad trade.

The footy department must have had a worst case scenario. To not factor that in would be very amateurish. I think they were too hasty and Goodwin has to take responsibility for that. If we got him for a later pick ok, but to give up a second round pick and not have him in the system for a year is very poor. Although at least we didn't give up what the Saints did.

On 12 January 2016 at 3:06 PM, stuie said:

So out of curiosity, how many of those saying this is now a disastrous trade would have expected pick 25 in a weak draft to be a regular 22 player in their first year?

We've got at least 2 experienced AFL people at our club who would have known what went on at Essendon and that Melksham would likely miss a year, so not sure why everyone is acting like we were blindsided by this. Although those people are probably the same ones who were bagging out Mahoney at the start of the trade period without realizing there was a bigger picture.

 

Not sure that is the case. If it were, and MFC officials expected him to be rubbed out, and we still drafted him, then that is appalling. 

More likely in my view was that most MFC officials had their heads in the sand like the rest of the AFL, drunk about the power of the League, and oblivious to the wider world (literally) about drugs in sport,  and the power of WADA/CAS. Let's face it, the numerous protestations about the Essendon saga where senior officials at wealthy football clubs and indeed the AFL protested that decisions about the drug soaked Essendon under Hird had "taken them by surprise" and "we are not prepared for this" just are not credible. In my corporate life, if I or any of my senior executive had have said that to the board we would have rightly been sacked on the spot.

The AFL world is clearly a powerful sporting culture, but it is staggeringly naive when it comes to the commercial world, and the risks you take in that world and how to survive them. 

Or is it simply that they are all lying like Hird, oblivious to how foolish this makes them look, and how incompetent. I suspect the latter. 

 

I think CAS got it right in terms of guilt, and pretty much right in terms of what punishment they were allowed to give out. The maximum was 2 years, they got 2 years backdated.

CAS has now increased their maximum to 4 years, so even they think 2 years is too light as a maximum, but with the Essendon 34 case, they were tied to the lower amount because those were the rules at the time of the infringement.

Personally yes, I would prefer life bans. I have very little tolerance for drug cheats.

Lets remember here that this is not a ciminal case. They aren't being sent to gaol, nor are they doing community service. If they get a life ban, it's essentially telling them that they can't work in their chosen field any more. Well, too bad, go work somewhere else. You cheated at your chosen profession and now you can't do it any more. Go re-educate yourself and go work somewhere else. People do it every day.

If a doctor contravenes a medical code, or a lawyer is disbarred for unethical behaviour, they go get a different job. Why does a drug cheat get to go back to work after a year?

You're a harder man than me.

I've followed this case reasonably closely and am satisfied that the players used TB-4 and therefore committed an ADRV and I think that the CAS penalty is appropriate because the players share fault.  I won't labour the reasons here unless anyone really needs them.

But on the other hand - Melksham was 20yo starting his 3rd year in the system.  Hird and Dank told him it was all OK - even Dank (mistakenly) thought TB-4 wasn't banned.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/danks-stunning-admission-20140613-zs7ea.html

Watson, Fletcher, Stanton, Hille etc were all going ahead with it.

Life ban - pretty harsh!  

I'm prepared to welcome him to our club and hope he can re-build his career, but like you said I'd like to hear more contrition and less "we're innocent".

 

You're a harder man than me.

I've followed this case reasonably closely and am satisfied that the players used TB-4 and therefore committed an ADRV and I think that the CAS penalty is appropriate because the players share fault.  I won't labour the reasons here unless anyone really needs them.

But on the other hand - Melksham was 20yo starting his 3rd year in the system.  Hird and Dank told him it was all OK - even Dank (mistakenly) thought TB-4 wasn't banned.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/danks-stunning-admission-20140613-zs7ea.html

Watson, Fletcher, Stanton, Hille etc were all going ahead with it.

Life ban - pretty harsh!  

I'm prepared to welcome him to our club and hope he can re-build his career, but like you said I'd like to hear more contrition and less "we're innocent".

I think your view is violently reasonable.

I don't see the need to condemn so universally and in perpetuity.

Life (and footy) is not that simple.

 

I think your view is violently reasonable.

I don't see the need to condemn so universally and in perpetuity.

Life (and footy) is not that simple.

I don't see why football shouldn't be seen like any other profession. If you violate the ethics of a lot of professions, you can't work in that profession any more. Doctors can have their medical licence revoked, lawyers can be disbarred etc. Then they go out and have to start a different career.

Life bans from football only really prohibit the player from being a footballer. Nothing to stop them going out and getting any other job.

 

I don't see why football shouldn't be seen like any other profession. If you violate the ethics of a lot of professions, you can't work in that profession any more. Doctors can have their medical licence revoked, lawyers can be disbarred etc. Then they go out and have to start a different career.

Life bans from football only really prohibit the player from being a footballer. Nothing to stop them going out and getting any other job.

That's not what the WADA code says, and that's what the players signed up to.

Well Said Fifty-5,

My take on this whole thing..

Essendon, at the end of 2011 wanted to be stronger and fitter and wanted a program that in a highly competitive competition that was cutting edge and gave them an advantage over other teams. They got it horribly wrong, and the players unwittingly or not got caught up in it. Fact of the matter is that players are responsible for what goes into their bodies and regardless of the idea of 'team mentality'/peer pressure.

I feel sorry for the players (and their families) because I don't believe any of them 'intentionally' wanted to be taking enhancing drugs and to work outside of the drugs code. But not asking questions is not an excuse either. The penalty is harsh, but fair. I just wish the AFL and Essendon had approached this whole thing in a better way than the arrogance stance that saw them try to control the situation and contrive an outcome which spun out of their control, and caused this wreck.

In terms of players coming back, they have their penalty, they serve it, and then they should be free to being able to play again, I would like a bit more humility or contrition as Fifty-5 has said, but that might come with time.

I also think some people read too much into the drug cheat label also... If these players are serious about wanting to play and move past this, you would think that they would be prime candidates for assisting with drug and education programs in sport/schools etc.. Plenty of people have stuffed up their lives in one form or another, it's how you learn from the mistakes that defines you and makes you better. These players do deserve that opportunity equally as much as they deserve the punishment that's in front of them currently.

 

I don't see why football shouldn't be seen like any other profession. If you violate the ethics of a lot of professions, you can't work in that profession any more. Doctors can have their medical licence revoked, lawyers can be disbarred etc. Then they go out and have to start a different career.

Life bans from football only really prohibit the player from being a footballer. Nothing to stop them going out and getting any other job.

I don't see why you won't let those that administer those ethics do their jobs as the CAS has?

It has taken an effing age but the players have reached their point of judgement and justice and they will pay their penance.

I think it is naïve to think you can apply such universal and holistic punishments. Jake Melksham is hardly Lance Armstrong.

And Jake will serve his punishment and the effects of that judgment and punishment will reverberate into the future and affect the rest of his life.

I see no point to stick the knife in further.

 

I don't see why you won't let those that administer those ethics do their jobs as the CAS has?

It has taken an effing age but the players have reached their point of judgement and justice and they will pay their penance.

I think it is naïve to think you can apply such universal and holistic punishments. Jake Melksham is hardly Lance Armstrong.

And Jake will serve his punishment and the effects of that judgment and punishment will reverberate into the future and affect the rest of his life.

I see no point to stick the knife in further.

I see what you're saying RPFC. I just think we have a bit of a double standard where because these guys play football, they can act unethically and keep on playing after a ban, but the same can't be said of acting unethically in other professions.

I guess in this case the unethical behaviour affects only them, and not clients/patients/the public.

I guess as Needly says, it is what it is, but I'll still find it hard to cheer Jake on knowing what he did.

 

I don't see why you won't let those that administer those ethics do their jobs as the CAS has?

It has taken an effing age but the players have reached their point of judgement and justice and they will pay their penance.

I think it is naïve to think you can apply such universal and holistic punishments. Jake Melksham is hardly Lance Armstrong.

And Jake will serve his punishment and the effects of that judgment and punishment will reverberate into the future and affect the rest of his life.

I see no point to stick the knife in further.

I said much the same thing earlier in the thread.  It's not as if Jake went out and deliberately cheated.  As Fifty-5 so eloquently put, he was 20 at the time and from all reports what he was taking wasn't illegal.

A year out of the game and what they've been through for the last 4 years is punishment enough.

 

I don't see why football shouldn't be seen like any other profession. If you violate the ethics of a lot of professions, you can't work in that profession any more. Doctors can have their medical licence revoked, lawyers can be disbarred etc. Then they go out and have to start a different career.

Life bans from football only really prohibit the player from being a footballer. Nothing to stop them going out and getting any other job.

You should be punch drunk by now.

Your position has no merit.

 

.... I don't believe any of them 'intentionally' wanted to be taking enhancing drugs and to work outside of the drugs code. But not asking questions is not an excuse either.

I agree with much of what you wrote, but not with the sentence above.  It was more than not asking questions. Why did they not mention the perfectly 'legal' injections when ASADA made its regular inquiries if they had nothing to hide?  There is no innocent answer to that as several posters have demonstrated,

Exactly what I've been talking about here in this article...

"This week, Sharks hooker Michael Ennis – who is about to play his 14th season of NRL – told the Big Sports Breakfast: "Throughout my whole career, and still to this day, when I go to training the people that the club employ … I have trust in those guys. Some people might call it naïve or whatever, but that's just what we do as professional athletes. Throughout my career, I place my trust in all of those people and I have never had any problems.""

 

The one bit about the punishment I don't understand (and this goes for everyone, not just Melksham and the other 33), is the complete separation from the club. I can accept not training with the other players and not being around the clubrooms. But I'd like to see the penalty make an exception for club-supported and funded mandatory counselling. I expect many young professional sportsmen to struggle without being able to pursue their profession. I fear that someone somewhere who is the subject of a ban of this type will take some form of horrific action against themselves or someone else. Apart from anything else, the counselling should enable players in denial to come to grips with what they've done wrong.

I realise that counselling can be externally provided. But I think it would be more effective if organised by the club as it reminds the player that he or she hasn't been truly forgotten.

Edited January 15, 20169 yr by La Dee-vina Comedia
typo

 

The one bit about the punishment I don't understand (and this goes for everyone, not just Melksham and the other 33), is the complete separation from the club. I can accept not training with the other players and not being around the clubrooms. But I'd like to see the penalty make an exception for club-supported and funded mandatory counselling. I expect many young professional sportsmen to struggle without being able to pursue their profession. I fear that someone somewhere who is the subject of a ban of this type will take some form of horrific action against themselves or someone else. Apart from anything else, the counselling should enable players in denial to come to grps with what they've done wrong.

I realise that counselling can be externally provided. But I think it would be more effective if organised by the club as it reminds the player that he or she hasn't been truly forgotten.

This is exactly why Essendon should be sued by all 34 players.

The WADA Code is not secretive...These young players have the drug code drummed into them from the day they are drafted, because of this precise outcome.

These players have been deregistered from Football

Do not take any substance you cannot source the legality of....

 

The one bit about the punishment I don't understand (and this goes for everyone, not just Melksham and the other 33), is the complete separation from the club. I can accept not training with the other players and not being around the clubrooms. But I'd like to see the penalty make an exception for club-supported and funded mandatory counselling. I expect many young professional sportsmen to struggle without being able to pursue their profession. I fear that someone somewhere who is the subject of a ban of this type will take some form of horrific action against themselves or someone else. Apart from anything else, the counselling should enable players in denial to come to grps with what they've done wrong.

I realise that counselling can be externally provided. But I think it would be more effective if organised by the club as it reminds the player that he or she hasn't been truly forgotten.

given the majority of the 34 are not at essendon it would make more sense for the counselling (if any) to be provided by the aflpa

 

given the majority of the 34 are not at essendon it would make more sense for the counselling (if any) to be provided by the aflpa

The AFLPA need counselling themselves forget the players

The PA are so compromised...