The Afl have been doing a lot of creative journalism of late. They're trying to reposition the goalposts, again.

2 hours ago, beelzebub said:

The Afl have been doing a lot of creative journalism of late. They're trying to reposition the goalposts, again.

they have lots of acolytes to help them too, bub. that photo collection must be fascinating

Edited November 18, 20168 yr by daisycutter
spellink

Five years from now we might be sitting back saying ......and the AFL thought 2012 to 2016 was bad, what about 2017 to 2020, where they replaced the Commission, ACC became heavily involved and state's evidence came to light. These trivial things of course wouldn't be on anyone's bucket list, however.....

On 16/11/2016 at 10:17 PM, daisycutter said:

they would sue themselves? priceless

The threats worked. All has gone quiet. The AFL has issued its final draft order and GWS will in all likelihood, not lose any draft picks. The AFL has swung another wet lettuce in the direction of the Giants who will draft and pay the Ferryman Perryman.

 

Ben has released a statement saying ASADA will not take any further action as (and I am paraphrasing) there was no evidence he took, or intended to take PED'S and as such the ban would do. 

Poor form to me as he either broke an anti doping rule, in which case he should be banned and ASADA should lead that through the right channels, or he didn't break the rules and he should face no ban. 

Once again the AFL is trying to be half pregnant. 

2 minutes ago, Chris said:

Ben has released a statement saying ASADA will not take any further action as (and I am paraphrasing) there was no evidence he took, or intended to take PED'S and as such the ban would do. 

Poor form to me as he either broke an anti doping rule, in which case he should be banned and ASADA should lead that through the right channels, or he didn't break the rules and he should face no ban. 

Once again the AFL is trying to be half pregnant. 

Bet Ben's next unreleased paragraph says "and we will cut em off if you take so long to get onto this stuff next time"

On 21/11/2016 at 6:19 PM, Chris said:

Ben has released a statement saying ASADA will not take any further action as (and I am paraphrasing) there was no evidence he took, or intended to take PED'S and as such the ban would do. 

Poor form to me as he either broke an anti doping rule, in which case he should be banned and ASADA should lead that through the right channels, or he didn't break the rules and he should face no ban. 

Once again the AFL is trying to be half pregnant. 

So are they redefining their rules re avoiding drug tests?

Open season awaits for all who can find somewhere to hide.

FAIL, ASADA, FAIL!

On 21/11/2016 at 6:19 PM, Chris said:

Ben has released a statement saying ASADA will not take any further action as (and I am paraphrasing) there was no evidence he took, or intended to take PED'S and as such the ban would do. 

Poor form to me as he either broke an anti doping rule, in which case he should be banned and ASADA should lead that through the right channels, or he didn't break the rules and he should face no ban. 

Once again the AFL is trying to be half pregnant. 

 

35 minutes ago, monoccular said:

So are they redefining their rules re avoiding drug tests?

Open season awaits for all who can find somewhere to hide.

FAIL, ASADA, FAIL!

I'm intrigued to know what sort of case you think ASADA might have been able to present to CAS if Whitfield appealed on any ban they tried to impose.

Look up the Lizzie Armistead case. Better still, here's a brief version:

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/olympics/rio-2016-lizzie-armitstead-drug-test-british-cycling-questions-olympics-zac-purchase-geoff-kabush-a7168111.html

Of course there was a lot of dissatisfaction from other athletes about it all. But Armistead missed specific visits from inspectors, not hypothetical ones. Is there any evidence that PEDs testing was planned or attempted when Whitfield was hiding under the bed? I haven't seen anything to suggest there was although I haven't read everything about what went on. The problem is that if Armistead is taken as any precedent ASADA would have had all sorts of difficulties even if they drugs inspectors had been knocking on Whitfield's door. 

 

 

This was a huge surprise to me...

No 2016 draft penalties for Giants over Whitfield case

...no draft penalties this year. Not enough time for the Giants to have their case heard.

Makes you wonder what has been going on at AFL house over the last 18 months.

If a journo hadn't picked up on the story everything would have been "business as normal" and gubby still the prince of the pies...

1 hour ago, rjay said:

This was a huge surprise to me...

No 2016 draft penalties for Giants over Whitfield case

... no draft penalties this year. Not enough time for the Giants to have their case heard.

Makes you wonder what has been going on at AFL house over the last 18 months.

If a journo hadn't picked up on the story everything would have been "business as normal" and gubby still the prince of the pies...

i'm shocked.......so unbelievable 

On 9 November 2016 at 6:56 AM, Whispering_Jack said:

It's all so very convenient for the AFL to not have to make a decision on the Whitfield case at this particular time. 

With so much of the GWS Giants draft strategy based on academy selections, for the AFL to ban them from a round or two of this year's draft (as it has done in the past with clubs that offended against its rules) would play absolute havoc with the system. 

This year's draft is already tainted as a consequence of the decision made earlier this year on Essendon's draft position after 12 of its players were banned as drug cheats.

Now, with the Giants holding second pick and with the delays giving them immunity from possible draft sanctions the draft is further compromised.

This is the way the AFL operates.

No 2016 draft penalties for Giants over Whitfield case

How very convenient for the AFL and its love child GWS that the decision on draft sanctions will be delayed to a time when the penalty  would not be as severe as it would have been had they been imposed for Friday's draft. 

This is beyond a disgrace.

Wow. All 17 clubs should be furious over this

this leaves the Door open for more cheating to be thought about. The penalties are not so bad

This is OD's wet tram ticket being used. 

You guys up for a laugh?

GWS Giants charged over Lachie Whitfield affair after refusing to accept a deal with the AFL

Your own staff and player broke the rules and did not adhere to club protocols and this was "in no way a governance failure."

Hilarious!

seems gil is developing a napoleonic complex. the charge against gws is..........wait for it........"conduct unbecoming"........wtf

2 hours ago, DubDee said:

You guys up for a laugh?

GWS Giants charged over Lachie Whitfield affair after refusing to accept a deal with the AFL

Your own staff and player broke the rules and did not adhere to club protocols and this was "in no way a governance failure."

Hilarious!

And yet none of them were sacked or reprimanded by the club for breaking said protocol!

We have another entrant in the most deluded or dysfunctional club race. We used to be leading by the straight but now we are miles behind. EFC are about a lap ahead of Richmond with GWS coming fast!

The Giants refused to do a deal with the AFL, which included losing 2016 picks and have elected to fight the charge.

I think you will see the AFL's annoyance reflected in a heavier penalty, stripping 2017 picks.

Unfortunately it will not affect the Giants, with their warehouse of talent, including an excess available to be traded again, to get more good picks.

28 minutes ago, Redleg said:

The Giants refused to do a deal with the AFL, which included losing 2016 picks and have elected to fight the charge.

I think you will see the AFL's annoyance reflected in a heavier penalty, stripping 2017 picks.

Unfortunately it will not affect the Giants, with their warehouse of talent, including an excess available to be traded again, to get more good picks.

Redleg, I'm cynical enough to suggest the AFL tells the club what the penalty will be 'but we then want you to appeal it'. Too cynical?

Edited November 24, 20168 yr by Return to Glory

This is getting to be the biggest "Comic" release of the year, It's up there with TRUMP and Brexit (purposely kept the Senate out of  it). Trying to figure a good reason EVEN NOW for GWS not being able to lose 2016  picks.

The other doozie is WTF system works to decide whose up for a test and no one knows about it except the bloke himself?

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/teams/gws/gws-giants-charged-over-lachie-whitfield-affair-after-refusing-to-accept-a-deal-with-the-afl/news-story/46316ed326529f280dd6760d43ccb9a7

GW$ obviously feel they have one hand on next years cup already. 

The AFL Commission agree

this draft count tomorrow is a hollow Farce

the Drug Cheats Essendrug & GW$ get all the early picks...

integrity at work

1 minute ago, Sir Why You Little said:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/teams/gws/gws-giants-charged-over-lachie-whitfield-affair-after-refusing-to-accept-a-deal-with-the-afl/news-story/46316ed326529f280dd6760d43ccb9a7

GW$ obviously feel they have one hand on next years cup already. 

The AFL Commission agree

this draft count tomorrow is a hollow Farce

the Drug Cheats Essendrug & GW$ get all the early picks...

integrity at work

If anything SWYL, GWS should be compensated for the inconvenience of an investigation....say, two additional picks inside the top 10. It's not fair that they are held to the same rules as other clubs.

4 minutes ago, Return to Glory said:

If anything SWYL, GWS should be compensated for the inconvenience of an investigation....say, two additional picks inside the top 10. It's not fair that they are held to the same rules as other clubs.

Yes RTG you are so right, the evening Banquet was interrupted whilst AFL employees looked for some clues...

the meal went cold. It was outrageous....

3 hours ago, Return to Glory said:

Redleg, I'm cynical enough to suggest the AFL tells the club what the penalty will be 'but we then want you to appeal it'. Too cynical?

Yes!

I think the AFL are not pleased with the Giants. They wanted to impose a penalty to show the other clubs that they are not their darlings. The Giants refused to play ball.

The AFL will do now what they do best , exact revenge.

That said, the Giants are in such a strong talent position, that no penalty of a few lost picks will hurt them.

They will merely trade a couple of excess players for picks, to replace those lost.

The Giants ARE the AFL.

The AFL are the Giants

All certifiably incestuous.

Afl heads up to Bombers..

Afl go wuss on dodgy player evading Asada

Anyone surprised ?? Really !!!

22 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Yes!

I think the AFL are not pleased with the Giants. They wanted to impose a penalty to show the other clubs that they are not their darlings. The Giants refused to play ball.

The AFL will do now what they do best , exact revenge.

That said, the Giants are in such a strong talent position, that no penalty of a few lost picks will hurt them.

They will merely trade a couple of excess players for picks, to replace those lost.

Ah, no...

They will continue the charade.

I don't for a minute believe any of this Giants v AFL shenanigans.

They are one in the same...the sooner someone calls them on it the better.

4 minutes ago, rjay said:

Ah, no...

They will continue the charade.

I don't for a minute believe any of this Giants v AFL shenanigans.

They are one in the same...the sooner someone calls them on it the better.

We will see.