On 05/02/2016 at 00:48, Dr John Dee said:

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.

In a nutshell. Well put

  On 05/02/2016 at 00:30, Cards13 said:

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

technically, of course. but their realistic choice is pretty obvious. to not disqualify watson would be to reject what wada and sports integrity stands for

i think at the moment they have been testing the waters by sending out (leaking) messages via their acolytes in their usual mo of "situation management" instead of showing some leadership by taking a stance on principles as opposed to vested interests. if they cave in they may as well leave wada, if they don't they have still shot themselves in the foot by their usual duplicity

  On 05/02/2016 at 00:33, Chris said:

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.

My understanding of the law (and I'm not a lawyer) is that there is a big difference between choosing not to grant something (a licence, for example) and taking one away from someone after it has been granted. That's why I think there's a more complex legal issue here than just the moral argument. 

  On 05/02/2016 at 00:53, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

My understanding of the law (and I'm not a lawyer) is that there is a big difference between choosing not to grant something (a licence, for example) and taking one away from someone after it has been granted. That's why I think there's a more complex legal issue here than just the moral argument. 

Then use beyond reasonable doubt and he still looses it as it is beyond reasonable doubt that he has been suspended for his actions during that year, that renders him ineligible. 

I don't see it as terribly complex. Is said player qualified to receive award ? Simple answer : No

Action , award rescinded.

  On 05/02/2016 at 00:56, Chris said:

Then use beyond reasonable doubt and he still looses it as it is beyond reasonable doubt that he has been suspended for his actions during that year, that renders him ineligible. 

exactly. the afl signed up to wada and its "beyond reasonable doubt"

that is what they are obliged to and stuck with. they can't just jump midstream

  On 05/02/2016 at 00:48, Dr John Dee said:

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.

If he doesn't hand it back, I assume one Mr Corey McKernan might have a few things to say.

  On 05/02/2016 at 00:48, Dr John Dee said:

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.

I agree totally. Is there a criteria the AFL has in place for the Brownlow besides not being suspended by the tribunal?

  On 05/02/2016 at 00:50, Lucifer's Hero 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

He is not a lawyer he is an Accountant. Hope he can add and subtract.

  On 05/02/2016 at 00:53, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

My understanding of the law (and I'm not a lawyer) is that there is a big difference between choosing not to grant something (a licence, for example) and taking one away from someone after it has been granted. That's why I think there's a more complex legal issue here than just the moral argument. 

It's not a licence, though, it's an award. Athletes are stripped of awards, medals etc daily ... well, maybe not daily.

  On 05/02/2016 at 00:52, daisycutter said:

technically, of course. but their realistic choice is pretty obvious. to not disqualify watson would be to reject what wada and sports integrity stands for

i think at the moment they have been testing the waters by sending out (leaking) messages via their acolytes in their usual mo of "situation management" instead of showing some leadership by taking a stance on principles as opposed to vested interests. if they cave in they may as well leave wada, if they don't they have still shot themselves in the foot by their usual duplicity

Yea so the AFL makes the call, but again agree totally with you. They appear to be looking to smooth the way for him keeping it which again calls into question the ethics of the AFL and the award moving fwd.

  On 05/02/2016 at 01:01, Choke said:

If he doesn't hand it back, I assume one Mr Corey McKernan might have a few things to say.

Why exactly ???? Mc Kernan was suspended during the season, was inelligible for the Brownlow and never had it draped around his neck. Of course since these morons at the AFL award votes in each game to players who have previously been suspended (occasionally ) this stupid situation will repeat in perpetuity ( of the aggrieved ineligible player polling well in the Brownlow )

Rule 101 : thou shall never attempt to pair the words Ethics and AFL 

  On 05/02/2016 at 00:50, Lucifer's Hero 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

Maybe not so much "street smarts" as "rat cunning". I reckon he knows exactly what he's doing, which is throwing sand in everyone's eyes to get them confused and running around in circles. Someone may then let slip something which he can use to his advantage. (EG "I never said that! I said this ... oops.")

I reckon he also is not interested in going anywhere near a court, he wants "the oppo" (doesn't matter who it turns out to be) to cave in and make a settlement.

So let me get this right, If you fail to keep appropriate paperwork you are disqualified from playing in the finals and fined by the AFL.

If you have been found guilty of taking Performance Enhancing Drugs by the Court of Arbitration for Sport you can keep the Brownlow medal for the AFL Best & Fairest because Robbo thinks the standard of proof if is not acceptable! This is the international body trusted with adjudicating cases over world sport  that has handed down a guilty verdict for using PED's against Jobe Watson during the year he was awarded a Best & Fairest award. The standard of proof is that he was found guilty, that cannot be argued. If Jobe appeals the case and is found not guilty let him keep it, if not take it away from him now. Why is this so hard for the AFL?

I must be missing something.

 

Its all about bluff and settlement. .

Must be terribly distracting for a club ....shame lol

The AFL should has said at the original press conference that if there is to be no appeal then the Brownlow will be awarded to whoever was truly the best & fairest.

  On 05/02/2016 at 01:30, ManDee said:

So let me get this right, If you fail to keep appropriate paperwork you are disqualified from playing in the finals and fined by the AFL.

If you have been found guilty of taking Performance Enhancing Drugs by the Court of Arbitration for Sport you can keep the Brownlow medal for the AFL Best & Fairest because Robbo thinks the standard of proof if is not acceptable! This is the international body trusted with adjudicating cases over world sport  that has handed down a guilty verdict for using PED's against Jobe Watson during the year he was awarded a Best & Fairest award. The standard of proof is that he was found guilty, that cannot be argued. If Jobe appeals the case and is found not guilty let him keep it, if not take it away from him now. Why is this so hard for the AFL?

I must be missing something.

 

If Slobbi was serious he should interview McDevitt for some clarification. He won't as he knows he is talking chit.

IMHO this is all very easy.

- He is a convicted drug cheat.

- The AFL is a signatory to WADA

- The medal is taken back.

No idea why they would be any other option

  On 05/02/2016 at 01:05, Redleg said:

He is not a lawyer he is an Accountant. Hope he can add and subtract.

Thanks for the clarification...should have thought of that...all lawyers are 'street smart'

 

It's almost like Robbo has been given countermanding orders from the higher-ups at News to fly the flag for Essendon again.

Reminds me of science fiction movies where a robot is given contradictory instructions. "Jobe must hand it b-- must hand it b--...  CANNOT OVERRIDE PRIME OBJECTIVE ... Jobe must keep medal. Jobe must keep medal. Jobe must hand it b---  *sparks fly everywhere* *smoke* *explosion*

I thought you needed a semblance of intelligence to be a player manager, but I was clearly wrong.

Grubby, corrupt scumbags with their snouts firmly entrenched in the trough.

  On 05/02/2016 at 01:46, old dee said:

IMHO this is all very easy.

- He is a convicted drug cheat.

- The AFL is a signatory to WADA

- The medal is taken back.

No idea why they would be any other option

Because AFL Integrity, that's why.

They'll ban a player from Brownlow eligibility over a harmless incidental bump, but being a convicted drug cheat under the WADA code is AOK!

Imagine if the rest of society functioned under the AFL's governance system; there'd be anarchy in the streets.

I still cannot believe Slobbo wrote that article in the Hun yesterday ..

he should lose his job over it, but of course that won't happen..

  On 03/02/2016 at 12:32, daisycutter said:

my brain hurts

daisy - I am sure that someone the ilk of Dank could offer you a certain cure for such an ailment...and all others   And, all WADA compliant I am sure they would say

  On 04/02/2016 at 23:47, 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 ? " 

Ah   Great that some here are still old enough to to be Python fans   

"fwee Jab "

  On 04/02/2016 at 23:57, 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.

The AFL may never have considered that their pure, drug free, integrity boosted competition could ever fall foul of WADA or CAS .

Havent had time to dream up their typical "on the run" solution yet  

  On 05/02/2016 at 00:33, Chris said:

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.

Kangaroo courts don't generally depend on any consideration of evidence.  They just make up their minds regarding who is charged and who it will effect or upset.