59 minutes ago, Whispering_Jack said:

Apparently ASADA has delivered its legal findings and they have been discussed by the league executive. Let's see what action they're prepared to take or whether this will be another whitewash.

Let's see if my AFL Predictor can assist you in placing your bets.

1. If it's not known to the public, bury it. [example: Whitfield situation last year; EFC peptides in early stages]

2. If it is known to the public, make a statement that it's no big deal. Nothing to see here. [example: Libba senior claiming CFC tanked; Cheney/Talia game plan leak]

3. If there's a public outcry, announce an investigation. [Whitfield, EFC peptides. One exception: the MFC tanking investigation had no outcry. It was instituted by Anderson when Vlad was out of the country. No way Vlad would have permitted it if he'd been on the scene.]

4. Somehow the investigation takes an inordinate amount of time. [everything]

5. Time passes ...

6. The result of the investigation is that nothing really bad happened. The event didn't occur. But some related punishments may need to be imposed (reluctantly). The punishments are not necessarily on the offending parties. They are usually on anyone who embarrassed the AFL. [MFC tanking, EFC peptides]

7. If punishments are imposed, the AFL then mitigate the effects of the punishment. [MFC tanking, EFC peptides]

 

 

According to my calculations, nothing happened in the Whitfield situation. No one meant any harm, and the girlfriend will be banned from AFL clubs and venues for 4 years.

"Collingwood’s head of football Graeme Allan, Brisbane’s player welfare boss Craig Lambert and Whitfield face the serious disciplinary charges which carry penalties of up to four-year bans after the AFL and ASADA considered a report from the league’s integrity team."

ASADA were no doubt incapicitated by their laughter after reading an AFL integrity team report, thus the delay until after finals. 

The reports speak of a "negotiated penalty"

Perhaps a counselling or education program is my bet on the afl repsonse. Maybe a fine on top but anymore from the AFL would surprise me given their track record.

Of course if he were only a bit player at a lesser club they might thorw the book at them all. (O such cynicism)

 

Hearing talks on SEN he good be banned for a year or more. GWS looking to dump Rhys Palmer to free up cap room, I wonder if Lachie would be on the table with an ban looming? GWS dump Lachies salary and lose risk of him sitting out.

Would you trade for him, and if so what would you give up given he could be in strife?

Interesting situation heating up right at the peak of trade week.

 

1 hour ago, Adzman said:

Would you trade for him, and if so what would you give up given he could be in strife?

How many strikes is he on?

11 minutes ago, Ted Fidge said:

How many strikes is he on?

Asada ban for obstruction. Maximum penalty of fours years. No strikes, but the AFL will need to come up with a suitable punishment as i believe Asada are overseeing this case.

1 hour ago, Adzman said:

Asada ban for obstruction. Maximum penalty of fours years. No strikes, but the AFL will need to come up with a suitable punishment as i believe Asada are overseeing this case.

I think there was an article today or yesterday saying ASADA have sought outside council, basically in the event that the AFL squib the penalty.

Probably a good idea.

I would like to see a 4 year ban, if the evidence is as damning as is being reported.

Would not trade for him under any circumstances.

23 minutes ago, faultydet said:

I would like to see a 4 year ban, if the evidence is as damning as is being reported.

Would not trade for him under any circumstances.

4 years is what i have heard....ASADA were damming on all parties..

5 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

4 years is what i have heard....ASADA were damming on all parties..

4 years for stupidity .... and the magnificent 34 got off with one season for participating in an uncontrolled drug festival..... where's the balance

28 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

4 years is what i have heard....ASADA were damming on all parties..

Sounds like another off season 6 month penalty coming up then.

6 hours ago, Diamond_Jim said:

The reports speak of a "negotiated penalty"

Perhaps a counselling or education program is my bet on the afl repsonse. Maybe a fine on top but anymore from the AFL would surprise me given their track record.

Of course if he were only a bit player at a lesser club they might thorw the book at them all. (O such cynicism)

 

OMG Gil and his mates are absolute weaklings.  Have they learned nothing at all from what was in effect a negotiated (non) penalty with EssUndone, before WADA stepped in?? And of course Jab still has his bloody medal  

Negotiated settlement!!!

Gil: now Lachie, you may have been a bit of a bad boy.

LW: I had a headache

GM: we know that but ASADA, the bastards, are wanting something.  How about a few weeks?

LW: would that be a suspended sentence....so if they don't catch me next time there will be no real penalty?

GM: sounds fair to me...I will have to run a poll though.  But I will do it midnight to 0030 on Christmas Eve so nobody will respond.  Then I can report 'without dissent'  

end negotiation

Fair dinkum, is there any provision for a coup?  They just cannot make a decision be it Downlow medal or this. What a pathetic bunch. 

6 hours ago, Diamond_Jim said:

The reports speak of a "negotiated penalty"

Gil: Jeez Lachie. You've put the cat amongst the pigeons here son. ASADA are breathing down our necks but we've got the okay to do a "negotiated" penalty.

Lachie: What?

Gil: Never mind. What would you say if I told you you could be banned for four years?

Lachie: Four years. Is that a long time?

Gil: Yes son.

Lachie: What if ... there was NO penalty?

Gil: We have to give you something.

Lachie: How about some E?

Gil: Try to concentrate Lachie. What if it was two years?

Lachie: I don't want anything!

Gil: You drive a hard bargain son. Alright, no years, not even any weeks. But you have to show up to every sponsors function!

Lachie: I don't like you!

Gil: Thanks son. Now get out of here.

Lachie: Do i have to see the AFL about a new girlfriend too?

AFL - Absolute Farce League

There is talk going around that GWS might lose draft picks over this. 

He who giveth, taketh away!!  AFL works in strange ways - it helps that they up the top of the ladder, so any penalties won't sting so much.

If so, there is a bit of poetic justice in it all.

19 hours ago, Diamond_Jim said:

4 years for stupidity .... and the magnificent 34 got off with one season for participating in an uncontrolled drug festival..... where's the balance

The rules changed. The EFC players could only ever get a max of 2 years, which they got and due to the ineptitude of the AFL it was backdated to the date of the original case being heard. 

The rules are now max of 4 years, had the EFC boys been under this rule they would have received 4 years with one backdated so 3 in reality. 

1 hour ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

There is talk going around that GWS might lose draft picks over this. 

He who giveth, taketh away!!  AFL works in strange ways - it helps that they up the top of the ladder, so any penalties won't sting so much.

If so, there is a bit of poetic justice in it all.

The conspiracy theorist in me wonders whether the AFL have now realised GWS' dominance over a long period of time may well impact negatively on the traditional footballing states. With this in mind, they'd be happy to bow to some sort of pressure from the southern state clubs (mainly the Collingwood's etc who I'm sure are whinging) to strip GWS of some future draft picks. GWS already have the nucleus of a premiership side. They just need a season or two and they'll be constantly winning them IMO. The loss of draft picks shouldn't hinder them too much, given the outrageous access they've had to the draft since their inception.

7 minutes ago, A F said:

The conspiracy theorist in me wonders whether the AFL have now realised GWS' dominance over a long period of time may well impact negatively on the traditional footballing states. With this in mind, they'd be happy to bow to some sort of pressure from the southern state clubs (mainly the Collingwood's etc who I'm sure are whinging) to strip GWS of some future draft picks. GWS already have the nucleus of a premiership side. They just need a season or two and they'll be constantly winning them IMO. The loss of draft picks shouldn't hinder them too much, given the outrageous access they've had to the draft since their inception.

They will probably lose one or more and then trade more back in anyway....

57 minutes ago, rjay said:

They will probably lose one or more and then trade more back in anyway....

Yeah, exactly.

4 hours ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

There is talk going around that GWS might lose draft picks over this. 

He who giveth, taketh away!!  AFL works in strange ways - it helps that they up the top of the ladder, so any penalties won't sting so much.

If so, there is a bit of poetic justice in it all.

WADA must be totally pi55'd off at the hypocritical AFL.  

Draft penalties against a club doesn't go anywhere near fulfilling the requirement to suspend a player who evades a drug test for up to 4 years .  It is clearly there in black and white, in the rules that the AFL agreed to.  

Maybe they thought that WADA would allow them to do what they themselves do so often, make up new rules on the run to suit their own agenda of the day.

When will we hear from WADA / ASADA?

34 minutes ago, monoccular said:

WADA must be totally pi55'd off at the hypocritical AFL.  

Draft penalties against a club doesn't go anywhere near fulfilling the requirement to suspend a player who evades a drug test for up to 4 years .  It is clearly there in black and white, in the rules that the AFL agreed to.  

Maybe they thought that WADA would allow them to do what they themselves do so often, make up new rules on the run to suit their own agenda of the day.

When will we hear from WADA / ASADA?

I think these penalties are on top to the suspensions 'mono'.

It will be interesting to see what the suspensions are though.

I'm particularly interested in how Gubby comes up, Ed might just have outsmarted himself again...

If the allegations are proven i.e that club officials were complicit in an attempt by a player to deliberately avoid a drug test then there should be a sanction against the Giants for bringing the game into disrepute. Take away their capacity to take part in the first two rounds of the draft and make it harder for them to recruit academy kids for a year or two. 

That's what I would expect from a competition with integrity foremost in its mind.

This one has the juicy ironical potential to make the Wobbles on the front foot and the back foot at the same time.

Perfect storm recipe.....

ASADA and WADA do not have to do anything at the moment apart from make sure the ACA are well informed along with the Government, God bless them.

This one could rock the AFL foundations if not handled properly because these organisations are [censored] off enough from the last debacle.

 

If the allegations are proven i.e that club officials were complicit in an attempt by a player to deliberately avoid a drug test then there should be a sanction against the Giants for bringing the game into disrepute. Take away their capacity to take part in the first two rounds of the draft and make it harder for them to recruit academy kids for a year or two. 

That's what I would expect from a competition with integrity foremost in its mind.

Maybe that's why the loaded up with 11 draft picks.

If they're kicked out of the first 2 rounds, they still have picks/points to bid on their academy players.

It's not like the AFL can fine them. They're a franchise club. It'd be like moving the money from your left to your right pocket.

So what does that realistically leave in terms of penalties?