1 hour ago, Red and Bluebeard said:

More like those than Phil Read, not to mention fread and fwrite .... 

....fopen and fclose...

11 hours ago, pineapple dee said:

One thing that James has maintained through this whole business is the beautiful hair. I just want to touch it !!

Beautiful......are you serious?  Disgusting grease trap.  If I cared enough I would donate him a bottle of shampoo. He clearly can't afford one himself  

1 hour ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Gil has shown how weak he is by saying he will abstain from voting on Jobe and the medal claiming need to be seen as being independent.

Seems a cop out to me so he can maintain his self image (er, delusion) of being fair...no, no blood on his pure hands!

He has shown himself to be a total corporate <person who tosses> (inserted to avoid the auto censor) .... image without substance.  

1 minute ago, monoccular said:

Beautiful......are you serious?  Disgusting grease trap.  If I cared enough I would donate him a bottle of shampoo. He clearly can't afford one himself  

He has shown himself to be a total corporate <person who tosses> (inserted to avoid the auto censor) .... image without substance.  

gil just performing as expected........sadly

13 hours ago, biggestred said:

No, he needs to say that "until the appeal is over jobe will keep his medal. If the appeal fails the afl will have no choice other than to strip jobe of his medal as he gained it whilst being part of an unregulated and unsupervised illegal supplement regime".

While the AFL is not a court or law enforcement agency it would be wise in this instance to follow the rules of procedural fairness and natural justice (what Americans call "due process" with the "o" pronounced as in "job" not "Jobe"). That would require that the AFL not prejudice its decision-making responsibility by pre-determining the matter without all the facts and without Jobe being given an opportunity to present a case, should he wish to do so, for keeping the medal. Therefore, until the appeal process is concluded and Jobe has been given a chance to mount any argument he wishes, the AFL should not only not make any decision it should also not be perceived to have made any decision.

29 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

While the AFL is not a court or law enforcement agency it would be wise in this instance to follow the rules of procedural fairness and natural justice (what Americans call "due process" with the "o" pronounced as in "job" not "Jobe"). That would require that the AFL not prejudice its decision-making responsibility by pre-determining the matter without all the facts and without Jobe being given an opportunity to present a case, should he wish to do so, for keeping the medal. Therefore, until the appeal process is concluded and Jobe has been given a chance to mount any argument he wishes, the AFL should not only not make any decision it should also not be perceived to have made any decision.

nor should they make any comment about 'difficulty' etc.  Amateur hour.

5 minutes ago, sue said:

nor should they make any comment about 'difficulty' etc.  Amateur hour.

Add "Old Boys Club"

7 minutes ago, sue said:

nor should they make any comment about 'difficulty' etc.  Amateur hour.

correct. It should be very straight forward if  ( read WHEN ) required ) 

34 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

While the AFL is not a court or law enforcement agency it would be wise in this instance to follow the rules of procedural fairness and natural justice (what Americans call "due process" with the "o" pronounced as in "job" not "Jobe"). That would require that the AFL not prejudice its decision-making responsibility by pre-determining the matter without all the facts and without Jobe being given an opportunity to present a case, should he wish to do so, for keeping the medal. Therefore, until the appeal process is concluded and Jobe has been given a chance to mount any argument he wishes, the AFL should not only not make any decision it should also not be perceived to have made any decision.

There is no need for natural justice, him losing his medal is not subject to a hearing or him making a case either way, it is subject to the clear rules around eligibility. If any player is suspended for their actions in a given year then they are not eligible for the medal. The hearing comes into play in determining if they have actually committed an action that requires a suspension, that is were procedural fairness comes into play. 

There is nothing to stop the AFl saying that 'If Jobe is suspended for his actions in 2012 then he is no longer eligible for the medal. We (the AFL) will wait until Jobe has exhausted all avenues in determining his suspension until we act in accordance with our rules. If he is suspended then he loses the medal, if he is not then he keeps it'.

20 minutes ago, sue said:

nor should they make any comment about 'difficulty' etc.  Amateur hour.

While I agree, I suspect that saying it's a difficult decision is easier than answering "no comment".

It ought to be straight forward, it ought to require not much more effort than observing the rules.

However, for poor Gil ... it's so hard ...

 

The AFL can come down like a ton of bricks on a bootstudder who makes a $2 bet. Because of the sheer damage to the integrity of the game.

But Jobby's medal is the hardest decision they'll ever have to make.

Gil should have removed the medal immediately after the CAS announced their decision, before the 34 had time to launch their appeal. It's his own fault it's now dragging out.

19 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

While I agree, I suspect that saying it's a difficult decision is easier than answering "no comment".

Gil doesn't make decisions. He makes deals.

Of course he knows what the right decision would be. He just doesn't want to go there. Is it appropriate for the CEO to shirk his responsibilities?

Of course there is always another explanation.

AFL commission: Come on Gil. It's easy! The fecker took drugs the year he won it. Of course he can't keep it.

Gil: I know. I know.

AFL commission: so take it off him!

Gil: I know we should. It's only right. But then he'll sue us.

AFL commission: Let him. We have better lawyers.

Gil: ... and think of the kind of stuff that will come out in the court room.

AFL commission: ............. ah ...

Gil: ... the kind of embarrassing stuff we've spent 4 years burying.

AFL commission: you're right Gil. This is a hard decision.

3 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

While I agree, I suspect that saying it's a difficult decision is easier than answering "no comment".

True, but do we over-pay high level executives to take the easy option when it is the wrong one? (rhetorical question). Anyway, how hard is it to just say "I can't comment until all the proper processes are completed'. I'd take 2% of Gil's salary to answer for him in future.

Another couple of dozen suing's on the table pending this Brownlow decision one would suspect.(rubbing hands in anticipation).

Both for on the night sponsors and individual.

I know its only humour..

 

but the notion of  Jab suing the Awful  as result of losing the Brownlow... Wouldnt happen.

5 hours ago, beelzebub said:

I know its only humour..

 

but the notion of  Jab suing the Awful  as result of losing the Brownlow... Wouldnt happen.

What if he is taking advice from his former coach?

5 hours ago, beelzebub said:

I know its only humour..

 

but the notion of  Jab suing the Awful  as result of losing the Brownlow... Wouldnt happen.

Never say never, BB, especially with the quality of legal advice out Tullamarine way ... 

... and as we *** yawn *** wait for the Swiss Federal Court to *** yawn *** dispense final *** yawn *** justice, the politician who wants to grandstand over the issue gets rebuffed and here's why -

Essendon saga: why ASADA chief refused to release documents

24 minutes ago, Whispering_Jack said:

... and as we *** yawn *** wait for the Swiss Federal Court to *** yawn *** dispense final *** yawn *** justice, the politician who wants to grandstand over the issue gets rebuffed and here's why -

Essendon saga: why ASADA chief refused to release documents

The wannabe revisionists are still at work. Gil is still the Dill and Madigan is a .... ( insert word of choice )...mine's irrelevant FYI.

It's almost funny

its like the Clantons are still gunning for the Earps !!

1 hour ago, beelzebub said:

its like the Clantons are still gunning for the Earps !!

"But those nasty Earps shot back ..."

1 minute ago, Red and Bluebeard said:

"But those nasty Earps shot back ..."

worse than that...they killed them....lol

So even when Melb lose, we always get a good read with the ongoing comic serial.... The Dallas Bombers.

4 hours ago, Whispering_Jack said:

... and as we *** yawn *** wait for the Swiss Federal Court to *** yawn *** dispense final *** yawn *** justice, the politician who wants to grandstand over the issue gets rebuffed and here's why -

Essendon saga: why ASADA chief refused to release documents

Benny's a legend.

The part of that I enjoyed the most though was the reference to ongoing investigations. Perhaps this [censored] ain't over just yet.