11 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Mark Fine Teeing off hardcore to AFL/ASADA and this pathetic penalty...

If it is indeed true, I wonder if ASADA has run it by big brother yet?

26 minutes ago, faultydet said:

Yeah, it's money much better spent on the big ticket issues like gay marriage.

 

The AFL signed up to the WADA code under threat from the Feds, but at every single turn, do "whatever it takes" to sweep breaches of the code under a rug. This is no different from the essedon scandal.

 

Hit 'em hard WADA.

Not to derail the thread, but as much I agree with your sentiment on drug cheats, that flippant throwaway comment about gay marriage being a waste of money is really unnecessary.

They'll lead you to think otherwise, but governments can focus on more than one issue at a time, regardless of where it ranks on your priority list.

One is an issue which could be resolved overnight if they so desired, the other deserves far more government funding to ensure clean sport, if we want to have any integrity on the world stage. I'd certainly hope almost everyone agrees on the latter, at least (unless you work in the AFL Integrity department, of course).

Edited November 14, 20168 yr by SaberFang

3 minutes ago, faultydet said:

If it is indeed true, I wonder if ASADA has run it by big brother yet?

Tomorrow will tell more...

Just now, SaberFang said:

Not to derail the thread, but as much I agree with your sentiment on drug cheats, that flippant throwaway comment about gay marriage being a waste of money is really unnecessary.

Governments are able to focus on more than one issue at a time, regardless of where it ranks on your priority list.

Agree, lets not derail with a circle argument that nobody will ever give ground on. Btw, I didn't consider it flippant.

 

As for the AFL and it's highly predictable spineless carpet sweep, lets hope WADA doesn't look the other way and think they can spend their money on better things.

15 minutes ago, faultydet said:

If it is indeed true, I wonder if ASADA has run it by big brother yet?

The real question is has the AFL run it past ASADA yet?

2 minutes ago, Chris said:

The real question is has the AFL run it past ASADA yet?

Which is why I said "if true"

I can't believe ASADA would agree to it, although obviously we don't have all of the facts. I will spew if it turns out the AFL went off on their own in an attempt to play it their way, although I need a solid slap up the side of the head for being the least bit surprised.

18 minutes ago, faultydet said:

Agree, lets not derail with a circle argument that nobody will ever give ground on. Btw, I didn't consider it flippant.

 

As for the AFL and it's highly predictable spineless carpet sweep, lets hope WADA doesn't look the other way and think they can spend their money on better things.

You mean like this?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-18/holmes-when-wada-goes-rogue/7334952

9 minutes ago, Chris said:

The real question is has the AFL run it past ASADA yet?

Arent Asada still saying that the AFL hasn't forwarded a complete brief ?

3 minutes ago, Satyriconhome said:

You mean like this?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-18/holmes-when-wada-goes-rogue/7334952

Why doesn't it surprise me you are a Holmes fan. That article is  massive over reaction. While not a great look for WADA it is hardly damning.

Back on topic though, just read an age article on Whitfield which stated that McDevitt had indicated mid last week that he would want happy with an AFL ban. No quotes or context, just that. Seems to fly in the face of his other comment mid last week that he could not have a position until the AFL provided the paper work he had requested. 

The Age is reporting that Allen will likely lose his job at the Pies and not return after the suspension.  Apparently he signed a 'stat declaration over his role in the Whitfield matter' (the Age didn't say what it said).

I recall Eddie went ballistic when the Shaw brothers and Didak lied to him to him over some off-field matter.  Eddie doesn't take being lied to very well which is quite admirable.

It was rather smart of the Pies getting that stat dec and really, really dumb of Allen to sign it.

1 hour ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

The Age is reporting that Allen will likely lose his job at the Pies and not return after the suspension.  Apparently he signed a 'stat declaration over his role in the Whitfield matter' (the Age didn't say what it said).

I recall Eddie went ballistic when the Shaw brothers and Didak lied to him to him over some off-field matter.  Eddie doesn't take being lied to very well which is quite admirable.

It was rather smart of the Pies getting that stat dec and really, really dumb of Allen to sign it.

It was particularly stupid of the Pies to lose Balme.

A stat dec is not going to make for a very good football manager.

Is the insinuation that he lied in his stat dec? Isn't that an indictable criminal offence?

Whitfield should cop 12 months or at least suspended from playing in 2017.

To avoid the ban should be equal of a low grade 1st offence and min.12 mths

This is A F L smokescreen. An attempt at penaltive distraction. Asada hasn't begun . AFL still thinks it rules..  slow learner it seems.

9 hours ago, beelzebub said:

This is A F L smokescreen. An attempt at penaltive distraction. Asada hasn't begun . AFL still thinks it rules..  slow learner it seems.

Very!

10 hours ago, beelzebub said:

This is A F L smokescreen. An attempt at penaltive distraction. Asada hasn't begun . AFL still thinks it rules..  slow learner it seems.

If you read the hun today Robbo is saying ASADA ticked the deal (not that they agreed to it or had ticked off the deal, just that they ticked the deal.

If you read the other article it essentially says ASADA have not made a statement or made clear there intention as one of the sticking points on finally signing the deal for the penalties is a guarantee that ASADA and WADA won't come in over the top. That doesn't sound much like ASADA have 'ticked the deal'.

My guess is Robbo is making stuff up again or being told furphy's so he discredits ASADA without it coming straight from the AFL.  

15 hours ago, DeeSpencer said:

ASADA are also a Government agency. So whilst sporting integrity is important I have no issue with them accepting 1 year bans for officials and 6 month bans for a young athlete in a team sport and moving on.

The Essendon saga would've cost us all millions as tax payers. 

I would rather they not run up another huge legal bill lining the pockets of lawyers in this situation. Too many other more important things for the Government to spend the cash on. Things that will actually affect our day to day lives!

Agree.

Whilst in a general sense i agree that the AFL's propensity for making deals rather than open hearing etc can be problematical i reckon in this case it is a prudent and sensible approach.

A good outcome i reckon and i think that it should not be forgotten that it has ensured Allan and Lambert have been penalised - and more severely than the player which is entirely appropriate. As we saw in the EFC case with no officials being penalised there is no guarantee this would have been the case if it had gone to an AFL tribunal (who may well have exonerated Whitfield) or to ASADA. 

The alternative to a deal would be another long protracted expensive, palaver that benefits no one - well almost no one; the lawyers loved it. It is worth reflecting that if the EFC had taken the deals offered to them early doors by ASADA a whole lot of bull dust would have been avoided. 

It is also worth reflecting that again as the EFC case demonstrates there is no guarantee a Whitfield would have been found guilty if it went to tribunlas or even if he did the penalty would have been any greater. 

1 hour ago, binman said:

Agree.

Whilst in a general sense i agree that the AFL's propensity for making deals rather than open hearing etc can be problematical i reckon in this case it is a prudent and sensible approach.

A good outcome i reckon and i think that it should not be forgotten that it has ensured Allan and Lambert have been penalised - and more severely than the player which is entirely appropriate. As we saw in the EFC case with no officials being penalised there is no guarantee this would have been the case if it had gone to an AFL tribunal (who may well have exonerated Whitfield) or to ASADA. 

The alternative to a deal would be another long protracted expensive, palaver that benefits no one - well almost no one; the lawyers loved it. It is worth reflecting that if the EFC had taken the deals offered to them early doors by ASADA a whole lot of bull dust would have been avoided. 

It is also worth reflecting that again as the EFC case demonstrates there is no guarantee a Whitfield would have been found guilty if it went to tribunlas or even if he did the penalty would have been any greater. 

tend to agree binman

think the penalies in the right ballpark even if the process doesn't completely pass the sniff test

bigger fish to fry and no point getting bogged down for years with this one..... points have been well made, only a fool would try that on again.

 

Edited November 15, 20168 yr by daisycutter

6 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

tend to agree binman

think the penalies in the right ballpark even if the process doesn't completely pass the sniff test

bigger fish to fry and no point getting bogged down for years with this one..... points have been well made, only a fool would try that on again.

 

Not sure that is correct DC. There seems to be an unending supply of fools within AFL ranks.

There will be another in 2017. It is as sure as God made little apples.

OK, so it's been reported that the Giants may lose drafts picks in this year's draft.

They have picks 2, 15, 37, 39, 45, 52, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60, 77, 109

So, let's say they lose 15 and 37, which I think has been mooted by some papers.

My questions is this - given the new requirement that you can only go to the draft with the number of list spots available, would this take into account the lost picks?

So if they have 6 open list slots (I don't know, just guessing), they would be able to use 2, 15, 37, 39, 45, 52 with no sanctions. If sanctioned as above, does this become 2, 39, 45, 52?

Or 2, 39, 45, 52, 57, 58?

One results in GWS retaining more currency for academy picks than the other.

My head hurts.

I'm sure, whatever the outcome, the AFL will negotiate a punishment that still allows them to get all their Academy players regardless.

23 minutes ago, Choke said:

OK, so it's been reported that the Giants may lose drafts picks in this year's draft.

They have picks 2, 15, 37, 39, 45, 52, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60, 77, 109

So, let's say they lose 15 and 37, which I think has been mooted by some papers.

My questions is this - given the new requirement that you can only go to the draft with the number of list spots available, would this take into account the lost picks?

So if they have 6 open list slots (I don't know, just guessing), they would be able to use 2, 15, 37, 39, 45, 52 with no sanctions. If sanctioned as above, does this become 2, 39, 45, 52?

Or 2, 39, 45, 52, 57, 58?

One results in GWS retaining more currency for academy picks than the other.

My head hurts.

I think, because the penalty happens before the draft, they go in with the second batch of picks.

GWS lose picks...Essendon dont....ahhhhhhhhhh  I get it !!!

2 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

GWS lose picks...Essendon dont....ahhhhhhhhhh  I get it !!!

GW$ have so many picks and Academy Players they won't notice 2 picks disappearing!!

11 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

GW$ have so many picks and Academy Players they won't notice 2 picks disappearing!!

spot on. like my gk's after halloween. they had so many sweets in their bags that if you had removed half they wouldn't have noticed