24 minutes ago, binman said:

I heard Robbo on SEN and seriously he was almost incoherent. He sounded smashed. It was appalling and you could tell Allen and Harford were embarrassed. Id be sacked if i spoke in an official capacity like that. 

The article he wrote on the subject was trash, containing not a single logical reason why Watson should not lose the brownlow. Not one. His main thrust is that he is not comfortably satisfied that CAS's comfortable satisfaction the players took banned drugs is sufficient reason for stripping him of the brownlow ie it doesn't prove he is a drug cheat. The other argument is that the AFL have said all along they want to protect the players and now they have the chance. Is he for real? 

His radio spot was even more random, including the CAS doctoring evidence comment and a long ramble about how impossible the CAS judgement was to read with all of its legalese etc (a document that though long and detailed has been praised for its clarity by John Fahey and others). He clearly hasn't even read it and he is coomenting on the case. Beggars belief.

The Chief Football writer at the Herald Sun? An insult to Mike Shean and Alf Brown

 

Let me help Robbo out. I suspect the logic he's trying to impart about Jobe's Brownlow came from a lawyer and Robbo doesn't quite understand. What I think he's trying to argue is that CAS used the "comfortable satisfaction" test when determining whether Watson had taken TB-4. However, if the AFL wishes to take the Brownlow from Watson it should use the higher test of "beyond reasonable doubt". At least, without hearing him, I suspect that's what Robbo's trying to argue even if he can't articulate it properly.

And I think it would be appropriate for the AFL to consider that argument. 

 

Just now, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Let me help Robbo out. I suspect the logic he's trying to impart about Jobe's Brownlow came from a lawyer and Robbo doesn't quite understand. What I think he's trying to argue is that CAS used the "comfortable satisfaction" test when determining whether Watson had taken TB-4. However, if the AFL wishes to take the Brownlow from Watson it should use the higher test of "beyond reasonable doubt". At least, without hearing him, I suspect that's what Robbo's trying to argue even if he can't articulate it properly.

And I think it would be appropriate for the AFL to consider that argument. 

 

yes and no

A higher court of adjudication has deemed that Jobe Watson is a drug cheat.

#giveitbackjobe

NLM and his legal team  can't be too bright. 

5 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Let me help Robbo out. I suspect the logic he's trying to impart about Jobe's Brownlow came from a lawyer and Robbo doesn't quite understand. What I think he's trying to argue is that CAS used the "comfortable satisfaction" test when determining whether Watson had taken TB-4. However, if the AFL wishes to take the Brownlow from Watson it should use the higher test of "beyond reasonable doubt". At least, without hearing him, I suspect that's what Robbo's trying to argue even if he can't articulate it properly.

And I think it would be appropriate for the AFL to consider that argument. 

 

you seriously think the afl executive can set themselves judicially above an international court on the question of guilt?

the afl have no option in this matter. if they do as you suggest they may as well leave wada. you can't be within and without the laws of wada concurrently and have any credibility. oh wait .................this is the afl

One of the best statements about Jab Watson and the brownlow (hate to say it) was the purple headed warrior on FC when the news of the ban was first released.

I think Gary Lyon said maybe they are having this hearing so that Jab has a chance can give it back.

Then Barrett said that AFL was in position now where they had to take the medal, not wait for it to be given back.

Just now, Devil is in the Detail said:

One of the best statements about Jab Watson and the brownlow (hate to say it) was the purple headed warrior on FC when the news of the ban was first released.

I think Gary Lyon said maybe they are having this hearing so that Jab has a chance can give it back.

Then Barrett said that AFL was in position now where they had to take the medal, not wait for it to be given back.

When thinking about this ridiculous idea of a hearing why is the first thing that pops into my mind the ol'  "Crucifixion or freedom ? " 

5 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

When thinking about this ridiculous idea of a hearing why is the first thing that pops into my mind the ol'  "Crucifixion or freedom ? " 

Put a big wooden cross on Jab's back, make him walk down Punt Road so people can spit on him, abuse him and throw rotten food at him. Then nail him to it in front of the MCG to remind people about the drug cheats. (Too far??)

3 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

you seriously think the afl executive can set themselves judicially above an international court on the question of guilt?

the afl have no option in this matter. if they do as you suggest they may as well leave wada. you can't be within and without the laws of wada concurrently and have any credibility. oh wait .................this is the afl

That's not what I'm saying. We know the threshold for CAS had to be "comfortable satisfaction" but not "beyond reasonable doubt". The question for the AFL (and any sporting body in a similar situation) is this: once a prize is awarded to someone, on what basis can it be taken back? In essence, does taking from someone something previously granted require the body who wants to take it back to be satisfied "beyond reasonable doubt" that there is sufficient cause to take that something away. I have no idea if there's any case law on this, but I expect that would be what the AFL's lawyers will be looking at.

LVDC   the medals at Olympics are handed out by the IOC.  They can be taken away by direction of CAS. So who's word sways heavier ?  CAS outranks the AFL. Its not a judgement thing its a directional thing.

2 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

LVDC   the medals at Olympics are handed out by the IOC.  They can be taken away by direction of CAS. So who's word sways heavier ?  CAS outranks the AFL. Its not a judgement thing its a directional thing.

WADA and CAS don't care how their decisions will affect the AFL. (this is what a lot of people in the AFL have struggled to comprehend) If CAS says jump the AFL should be ask how high. The AFL, as an organization, is very, very insignificant to CAS, it is small blip on their drug radar.

3 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

LVDC   the medals at Olympics are handed out by the IOC.  They can be taken away by direction of CAS. So who's word sways heavier ?  CAS outranks the AFL. Its not a judgement thing its a directional thing.

I assume that means the IOC has made an internal decision to decide that a CAS decision is sufficient or perhaps the IOC and CAS have worked together to define an agreed process. All I'm saying is that the AFL needs to be sure it's using the right process. (Of course, I know I'm opening the door for a discussion on why all of a sudden would the AFL worry about process now? Answer: Because an individual's rights may be considered more important than a club's.)

BTW, I'm not arguing that Jobe should be able to keep his Brownlow.

 

23 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

LVDC   the medals at Olympics are handed out by the IOC.  They can be taken away by direction of CAS. So who's word sways heavier ?  CAS outranks the AFL. Its not a judgement thing its a directional thing.

I don't believe that's the case. CAS don't make those decisons, nor do WADA or in this case ASADA, as McDeviit has made clear. In your example it is up to the IOC to make the call on medals just as it is up to the AFL to make the call on the Brownlow.

24 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

LVDC   the medals at Olympics are handed out by the IOC.  They can be taken away by direction of CAS. So who's word sways heavier ?  CAS outranks the AFL. Its not a judgement thing its a directional thing.

i don't think there will be any direction on the Medal from CAS. We would have heard it already if they had any say.

I think the AFL will apply a higher standard of proof required, than CAS did. I know there is a finding, but it was a group finding.

I think the AFL will exhaust every avenue to let Jobe keep the medal. That doesn't mean they will, but they will try.

55 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

The drama saga has morphed into a comedy festival. Such talent.

 

Morning tea at the Herald Sun?

 

 

 

 

8 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I assume that means the IOC has made an internal decision to decide that a CAS decision is sufficient or perhaps the IOC and CAS have worked together to define an agreed process. All I'm saying is that the AFL needs to be sure it's using the right process. (Of course, I know I'm opening the door for a discussion on why all of a sudden would the AFL worry about process now? Answer: Because an individual's rights may be considered more important than a club's.)

BTW, I'm not arguing that Jobe should be able to keep his Brownlow.

 

CAS has ruled the players took peds, forget how they arrived at that. further more it coincided with the year watson won the brownlow.

he therefore played that year illegally and potentially assisted by peds and had an unfair advantage

procedurally it is pretty straight forward where the afl responsibilities lie. by joining wada the afl has ceded jurisdiction on peds to wada

once the appeal date is reached without an appeal being lodged it should be an automatic decision. the only real decision is whether it should be awarded retrospectively to others or made void. so far they have handled this affair with a lack of leadership and integrity, which is fast becoming their hallmark, but not so unique in professional sport these days.

2 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

CAS has ruled the players took peds, forget how they arrived at that. further more it coincided with the year watson won the brownlow.

he therefore played that year illegally and potentially assisted by peds and had an unfair advantage

procedurally it is pretty straight forward where the afl responsibilities lie. by joining wada the afl has ceded jurisdiction on peds to wada

once the appeal date is reached without an appeal being lodged it should be an automatic decision. the only real decision is whether it should be awarded retrospectively to others or made void. so far they have handled this affair with a lack of leadership and integrity, which is fast becoming their hallmark, but not so unique in professional sport these days.

This ∆∆∆

2 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

CAS has ruled the players took peds, forget how they arrived at that. further more it coincided with the year watson won the brownlow.

he therefore played that year illegally and potentially assisted by peds and had an unfair advantage

procedurally it is pretty straight forward where the afl responsibilities lie. by joining wada the afl has ceded jurisdiction on peds to wada

once the appeal date is reached without an appeal being lodged it should be an automatic decision. the only real decision is whether it should be awarded retrospectively to others or made void. so far they have handled this affair with a lack of leadership and integrity, which is fast becoming their hallmark, but not so unique in professional sport these days.

But it is the AFL's call on how they meet out any further punishments, ie taking the brownlow or not?

1 hour ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Let me help Robbo out. I suspect the logic he's trying to impart about Jobe's Brownlow came from a lawyer and Robbo doesn't quite understand. What I think he's trying to argue is that CAS used the "comfortable satisfaction" test when determining whether Watson had taken TB-4. However, if the AFL wishes to take the Brownlow from Watson it should use the higher test of "beyond reasonable doubt". At least, without hearing him, I suspect that's what Robbo's trying to argue even if he can't articulate it properly.

And I think it would be appropriate for the AFL to consider that argument. 

 

The problem with saying it should be beyond reasonable doubt is that the AFL tribunal does not work to that standard and they rule people out of eligibility every year. To say it has to be in this case is illogical at best.

42 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

That's not what I'm saying. We know the threshold for CAS had to be "comfortable satisfaction" but not "beyond reasonable doubt". The question for the AFL (and any sporting body in a similar situation) is this: once a prize is awarded to someone, on what basis can it be taken back? In essence, does taking from someone something previously granted require the body who wants to take it back to be satisfied "beyond reasonable doubt" that there is sufficient cause to take that something away. I have no idea if there's any case law on this, but I expect that would be what the AFL's lawyers will be looking at.

Even if they do use beyond reasonable doubt about taking it back they still have to take it as it is beyond reasonable doubt that he has been found guilty of using banned substances in the year he won and has been suspended for doing so. It is actually more than beyond reasonable doubt, it is fact.

The AFL should have thought about this far more than they did but as we all know they had little idea of what was coming around the bend. The best solution would have been to have come out before the findings were announced and said 'if Jobe is found guilty he will be required to hand back his medal once he has not taken up any options for appeal'. This would have done many things including taking the pressure off Jobe, taking away the speculation, and making the AFL look like they have a modicum of integrity and sense. 

53 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

When thinking about this ridiculous idea of a hearing why is the first thing that pops into my mind the ol'  "Crucifixion or freedom ? " 

Gill walking around Tullamarine dressed as a Roman centurion "Where's Jobe of Essendon? "

Just now, Delusional demon 82 said:

Gill walking around Tullamarine dressed as a Roman centurion "Where's Jobe of Essendon? "

Are there any Gwillians here? Perhap a Wobbo? Or any Wobe Whaaatsons? There is a Wobe Whaaatson? Guards welease him, welease him!

I heard a pretty straightforward argument the other day on Triple M.

You can't win the Brownlow if you are suspended for any game in the season. Jobe has been retroactively suspended for that year. He is therefore ineligible simply based on that. 

1 minute ago, binman said:

Are there any Gwillians here? Perhap a Wobbo? Or any Wobe Whaaatsons? There is a Wobe Whaaatson? Guards welease him, welease him!

I reckon the peoples front of judea could make a decision quicker than the afl 

 

17 minutes ago, Cards13 said:

But it is the AFL's call on how they meet out any further punishments, ie taking the brownlow or not?

I don't think it should be construed as punishment. By his actions, Watson made himself ineligible for the award. It's just taken some time to establish that.

Peter Jess's 'thought bubbles' are going to get him into strife: "Essendon doctor Bruce Reid has also taken umbrage with the report, and is believed to have threatened defamation action".  http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/essendon-saga-nathan-lovettmurray-reported-to-be-lodging-an-appeal-against-cas-verdict-20160204-gmm8fb.html

'Marsh also took a swipe at Jess, who earlier had said he hoped the players association would help fund an appeal against the CAS verdict. Marsh said his association had not funded any of the 34 players' legal bills so far during the supplements saga and would not change that policy.  "Peter's comments probably show how disconnected he is to actually what's happening here with the 34 players," Marsh said'.

For a lawyer Jess doesn't seem to have a lot of 'street smarts'.  He needs to heed the the old 'engage brain before mouth' principle