THE BOMBERS' SWISS ADVENTURE

[Sir Why You Little 37,033]

24 minutes ago, Macca said:

Nah ... the brownlows should go to Cotchin & Mitchell.

A win for clean sport.

As for those who say they wouldn't want it ... lets keep it real.  There would be barely a person here who has even been on an AFL list.  If you were in that position you'd take it in a nanosecond. 

No i wouldn't. It's been worn by Jab

[Macca 16,961]

Just now, Sir Why You Little said:

No i wouldn't. It's been worn by Jab

Nonsense.

[Sir Why You Little 37,033]

4 minutes ago, Macca said:

Nonsense.

Macca you know how strong i feel on this issue. 

I wouldn't want it around my neck

[Macca 16,961]

4 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Macca you know how strong i feel on this issue. 

I wouldn't want it around my neck

Well I would - winning a Brownlow would boot my non-stellar footy career to the crapper

Edited September 8, 2016 by Macca

[Sir Why You Little 37,033]

4 minutes ago, Macca said:

Well I would - winning a Brownlow would boot my non-stellar footy career to the crapper

Then wear it with pride....

[Macca 16,961]

Just now, Sir Why You Little said:

Then wear it with pride....

What are you talking about?

Cotchin & Mitchell are clean athletes yeah?  So if a player like Watson is found to be ineligible, they deserve to win the medal.  It's quite simple and I'm quoting what the actual rules are.

You can run with your 'tainted' bs all you like - as I said, it's utter nonsense.

[Sir Why You Little 37,033]

4 minutes ago, Macca said:

What are you talking about?

Cotchin & Mitchell are clean athletes yeah?  So if a player like Watson is found to be ineligible, they deserve to win the medal.  It's quite simple and I'm quoting what the actual rules are.

You can run with your 'tainted' bs all you like - as I said, it's utter nonsense.

That's fine. But if it was me i would't want it. Jab has had it for too long. It's stained. 

[beelzebub 23,348]

The Jab/Jobe Brownlow is tainted.

I honestly don't think any other player wants to touch it.

Just record , no winner

[Macca 16,961]

12 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

That's fine. But if it was me i would't want it. Jab has had it for too long. It's stained. 

Cotchin & Mitchell will happily accept the medals if it turns out that way - with no hesitation.  Publicly they'd possibly both be a bit circumspect but privately, they'd both feel like they are deserved winners. 

Let's just say instead of Cotchin it was Jack Viney ... would you still feel the same way Wyl?

The large majority of footballers never get a chance to win a Brownlow and only a certain amount of players ever have a realistic chance. 

Anyway, above all else, it would be a win for clean sport. 

Edited September 8, 2016 by Macca

[Sir Why You Little 37,033]

Just now, Macca said:

Cotchin & Mitchell will happily accept the medals if it turns out that way - with no hesitation.  Publicly they'd possibly both be a bit circumspect but privately, they'd both feel like they are deserved winners. 

Let's just say instead of Cotchin it was Jack Viney ... would you still feel the same way Wyl?

The large majority of footballers never get a chance to win a Brownlow and only a certain amount of players ever have a realistic chance. 

Anyway, above all else, it would be a win for clean sport.

Mate after Dipper and Greg Williams won the Brownlow in '86 i have never held it in high regard. But that is just me. 

2012 is stained and should be left void. 

SWYL's opinion

[beelzebub 23,348]

Macca. I really don't think anyone wants to win that Charlie now. It's rusted !!!

[Macca 16,961]

16 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Mate after Dipper and Greg Williams won the Brownlow in '86 i have never held it in high regard.

Well if you don't care then why keep banging on about it?  Perhaps it's best to post about subject matter that you do care about. 

By the way, I do care about the Brownlow and the integrity of the award ... that's why I'm here posting about it.

[Macca 16,961]

Clean sport wins if the Brownlow's are reallocated to worthy recipients.

However, my gut feeling is the same as Hemingway's ... Watson will probably get to keep it.  The AFL are too spineless to make a tough decision.

But if they do take the medal off Watson, a decision to not reallocate the medals to 2 clean athletes would fly in the face of clean sport. 

 

Edited September 8, 2016 by Macca

[Sir Why You Little 37,033]

15 minutes ago, Macca said:

If you want clean sport, you're going to have to fight for it and be loud about it.

Get your heads away from Essendon for 5 minutes and look at the bigger picture.  Clean sport wins if the Brownlow's are reallocated to worthy recipients.

However, my gut feeling is the same as Hemingway's ... Watson will probably get to keep it.  The AFL are too spineless to make a tough decision.

But if they do take the medal off Watson, a decision to not reallocate the medals to 2 clean athletes would fly in the face of clean sport. 

 

If Watson keeps that Medal The Brownlow is dead. 

 

[Macca 16,961]

Just now, Sir Why You Little said:

If Watson keeps that Medal The Brownlow is dead. 

 

Maybe in your eyes Wyl but a large proportion of footy fans may not care one way or the other. 

It's not as clear-cut as you make it out to be ... there are any number of opinions on the whole matter and one of those opinions is that the players were innocent victims (that opinion would make Watson an innocent victim by default)

Whether you or I agree with that opinion is in many ways irrelevant.  Most people have made up their minds by now and those many differing opinions are very real.

Take this discussion we're having as an example - you reckon the 2012 medal is tainted regardless of how it might be awarded and I only believe it's tainted if Watson keeps it.  And neither of us is likely to change our mind on the matter. 

New information with regards to the PED use at Essendon might change my mind though ... but it would need to be compelling evidence.

[Sir Why You Little 37,033]

5 minutes ago, Macca said:

Maybe in your eyes Wyl but a large proportion of footy fans may not care one way or the other. 

It's not as clear-cut as you make it out to be ... there are any number of opinions on the whole matter and one of those opinions is that the players were innocent victims (that opinion would make Watson an innocent victim by default)

Whether you or I agree with that opinion is in many ways irrelevant.  Most people have made up their minds by now and those many differing opinions are very real.

Take this discussion we're having as an example - you reckon the 2012 medal is tainted regardless of how it might be awarded and I only believe it's tainted if Watson keeps it.  And neither of us is likely to change our mind on the matter. 

New information with regards to the PED use at Essendon might change my mind though ... but it would need to be compelling evidence.

The Brownlow is for The Best and Fairest Player for each year. 

If Jab keeps it then that no longer has been upheld. 

I don't think it was upheld in 1986 either. 

[Macca 16,961]

The Brownlow is awarded to the fairest and best player (or players) ... that's the worded order.

Another thing to ponder is that if the AFL do take the medal off Watson and don't give medals to Mitchell & Cotchin, that year (2012) may act as a constant reminder that we had a winner who lost the medal because of PED use.  The asterisk would have a footnote attached.

And the AFL may not want that ... they might feel compelled to reallocate the medals for expediency reasons.

[Sir Why You Little 37,033]

22 minutes ago, Macca said:

The Brownlow is awarded to the fairest and best player (or players) ... that's the worded order.

Another thing to ponder is that if the AFL do take the medal off Watson and don't give medals to Mitchell & Cotchin, that year (2012) may act as a constant reminder that we had a winner who lost the medal because of PED use.  The asterisk would have a footnote attached.

And the AFL may not want that ... they might feel compelled to reallocate the medals for expediency reasons.

Yes there may be Legal reasons, all i am saying is that if it was awarded to me i wouldn't wear it. 

It has Watsons sweat on it, he should have handed it back. 

[Willmoy1947 4,085]

I think that there is a long way to go with this issue, and the whole saga now is a giant shambles. i also think the participants like the administration and the Media have no idea of the ultimate direction this could take, as do i.

God save the queen,  for nothing shall save the AFL....

[Macca 16,961]

5 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Yes there may be Legal reasons, all i am saying is that if it was awarded to me i wouldn't wear it. 

It has Watsons sweat on it, he should have handed it back. 

You're therefore punishing 2 clean footballers who would have ordinarily won the award if another (Watson) hadn't transgressed the rules.  Regardless of what people might think of Mitchell & Cotchin, both players were fully eligible to win the award.

Using your logic Robert Harvey shouldn't have been awarded the 1997 medal - was that year tainted as well because Chris Grant transgressed the rules?  Grant did receive the most votes that year (27 votes to Harvey's 26)

The Brownlow is awarded to the fairest and best player (or players) ... to be eligible to win the award a player can't be suspended by the tribunal or (as far as I'm aware) to be found to have used PED's during that season. 

I'd rather stick to what the rules of engagement tell us.

 

 

[Sir Why You Little 37,033]

42 minutes ago, Macca said:

You're therefore punishing 2 clean footballers who would have ordinarily won the award if another (Watson) hadn't transgressed the rules.  Regardless of what people might think of Mitchell & Cotchin, both players were fully eligible to win the award.

Using your logic Robert Harvey shouldn't have been awarded the 1997 medal - was that year tainted as well because Chris Grant transgressed the rules?  Grant did receive the most votes that year (27 votes to Harvey's 26)

The Brownlow is awarded to the fairest and best player (or players) ... to be eligible to win the award a player can't be suspended by the tribunal or (as far as I'm aware) to be found to have used PED's during that season. 

I'd rather stick to what the rules of engagement tell us.

 

 

If Cotchin and Mitchell want the medal they can have it. 

I am merely saying that i wouldn't want to wear it. 

Robert Harvey wasn't a drug cheat so that point is moot. 

Edited September 8, 2016 by Sir Why You Little

[Macca 16,961]

6 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Robert Harvey wasn't a drug cheat so that point is moot. 

Yeah we know that but Grant transgressed the rules but received the most votes.  27 votes to Harvey's 26 votes ... Grant was ruled ineligible much like Watson might be.

Harvey therefore won the medal that year by default because he had the next highest tally of votes.

In 2012 Watson received the most votes but has transgressed the rules ... therefore Cotchin & Mitchell should receive the medal by default because they both had the next highest tally of votes. 

You're effectively 'blaming' Cotchin & Mitchell because of the indiscretions of a drug cheat ... he may still be found not guilty with the appeal though - and that will change things if that happens. 

But if there is no change to the verdict and if the AFL then don't award the medals to the worthy recipients, the AFL will be 'tainting' the award ... and that would be shameful.  I hope the AFL do the right thing but I'm not holding my breath on that.

Jared Tallent received a gold medal from the London games because the winner was found to be a drug cheat - fully deserved winner too was Jared. 

Raelene Boyle should be retrospectively given 3 gold medals too ... again, beaten by drug cheats out of a systemic state sponsored PED program ... it could be argued that Watson & Essendon have done much the same thing. 

#cleansport

 

Edited September 8, 2016 by Macca

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,750]

If the CAS decision is re-affirmed, I don't see how Watson can keep his medal.

What would be particularly galling if I were Watson or an Essendon supporter is that I suspect the supplements did nothing to help him or the team. So, a 12 month suspension, widespread opprobrium and three or four wasted years may well have been for nothing.

While I don't condone violence, should an Essendon supporter one day decide to take out his frustration against Dank in a physical form, I really hope the media ignore protocol and run with the headline "Finally, the fan has hit the sh!t" 

[Whispering_Jack 30,022]

I agree that Watson must lose his Brownlow if the CAS decision is upheld.

I also believe that in that event the AFL would be duty bound as a matter of integrity to reconsider its decision to allow Essendon to reap the benefit of the suspension of 12 of its players by still being eligible for the #1 draft pick. 

Of course, if the appeal decision is handed down in November, the AFL will no doubt say that it's too late to do anything and the Bombers can keep the benefit from its indiscretions.

That's how integrity works with this crowd.

[Sir Why You Little 37,033]

7 hours ago, Macca said:

Yeah we know that but Grant transgressed the rules but received the most votes.  27 votes to Harvey's 26 votes ... Grant was ruled ineligible much like Watson might be.

Harvey therefore won the medal that year by default because he had the next highest tally of votes.

In 2012 Watson received the most votes but has transgressed the rules ... therefore Cotchin & Mitchell should receive the medal by default because they both had the next highest tally of votes. 

You're effectively 'blaming' Cotchin & Mitchell because of the indiscretions of a drug cheat ... he may still be found not guilty with the appeal though - and that will change things if that happens. 

But if there is no change to the verdict and if the AFL then don't award the medals to the worthy recipients, the AFL will be 'tainting' the award ... and that would be shameful.  I hope the AFL do the right thing but I'm not holding my breath on that.

Jared Tallent received a gold medal from the London games because the winner was found to be a drug cheat - fully deserved winner too was Jared. 

Raelene Boyle should be retrospectively given 3 gold medals too ... again, beaten by drug cheats out of a systemic state sponsored PED program ... it could be argued that Watson & Essendon have done much the same thing. 

#cleansport

 

I am not blaming Cotchin or Mitchell for anything. 

Watson has worn that Brownlow for 4 years now and i consider it Toxic. 

2012 should be marked with an *** to remind players what happened.