Does Jobe keep the Brownlow? 

Absolutely not! 

the brownlow is awarded to the fairest and best player of each season, why should Sam Mitchell and Trent Cotchin who both played fairly in the 2012 miss out on the opportunity to be awarded one of the most prestigious individual honours in the game when the current holder of the 2012 medal is now a convicted drug cheat in the very same year he won it?

I've heard Essendon supporters argue that the AFL tribunal found them not guilty so why should he lose an AFL award, i say to the same people, had they been found guilty they would have appealed the decision and if it were then overturned they wouldn't be complaining about the system, this attitude is that of a sooky child who has thrown his toys out of the cot because he didn't get his own way. 

the other argument i've heard is that if Jobe has to give his medal back so do Ben Cousins and Dane Swan, this is even more laughable, clearly not understanding the difference between recreational drugs and performance enhancing drugs, and not understanding there is totally different set of rules for each. three strikes policy is in place for a reason. 

there is absolutely no good reason i have ever heard to allow Jobe to keep his brownlow, he cheated and is yet to take responsibility for it in any real way, and neither are any of the players, lets remember that in 30 odd approaches from ASADA not one of these players ever declared any of these injections. 

I have very little sympathy for the players in this situation as i believe they're the real cause for this situation, people can argue that dank bought the injections into the club, and the club culture is to trust your doctors ect, but ultimately it's the players decision if they accept the injections and it's the players decision to keep correct records incase ASADA come knocking.

i've said it a few times on here, every single AFL player is 100% responsible for every substance that enters their body, they're responsible for keeping records to prove they haven't cheated, i know players who write down the serial numbers on bottles for their records, there is absolutely no excuse for 34 professional athletes to fail to do this really simple part of being a professional athlete. 

so there is no way Jobe can keep his brownlow, if he does it would be the darkest day in AFL history as it would signal the end of all integrity in the game, you can't be the best and FAIREST player in the league and a drug cheat in the very same year. 

2 minutes ago, Choke said:

He'll probably be given some sort of bonus.

Will likely take it in stubbies.

I hope Slobbo is sent to Jabs House to collect the said Medal...

both could then step down 

Nice to see the usual Demonland puerile childish name calling responses to anybody (Robbo) who has the temerity to disagree with the group think

If anybody thought a Swiss court was going to find against an organisation based in Switzerland, that brings money into the country, are surely the ones that may be 'deluded'

It was the reason the whole process was set up this way, Google how many times it has overturned CAS decisions

This whole thing has been a politically driven [censored] up from start to finish

Hopefully once Watson hands back his Brownlow, which I think he will, just to put everything away, we can all forget this whole schamozzle

Pity Watson is not a long limbed blonde tennis player, might have had his ban reduced, consistency   bat [censored]

 

 

1 minute ago, Satyriconhome said:

Nice to see the usual Demonland puerile childish name calling responses to anybody (Robbo) who has the temerity to disagree with the group think

If anybody thought a Swiss court was going to find against an organisation based in Switzerland, that brings money into the country, are surely the ones that may be 'deluded'

It was the reason the whole process was set up this way, Google how many times it has overturned CAS decisions

This whole thing has been a politically driven [censored] up from start to finish

Hopefully once Watson hands back his Brownlow, which I think he will, just to put everything away, we can all forget this whole schamozzle

Pity Watson is not a long limbed blonde tennis player, might have had his ban reduced, consistency   bat [censored]

 

 

His ban would have been reduced to zero if he could produce records of what he took as is his requirement as an AFL player under the ASADA/WADA code, it's as simple as if one of the 34 produced records this wouldn't be an issue.

10 minutes ago, Abe said:

Does Jobe keep the Brownlow? 

Absolutely not! 

the brownlow is awarded to the fairest and best player of each season, why should Sam Mitchell and Trent Cotchin who both played fairly in the 2012 miss out on the opportunity to be awarded one of the most prestigious individual honours in the game when the current holder of the 2012 medal is now a convicted drug cheat in the very same year he won it?

I've heard Essendon supporters argue that the AFL tribunal found them not guilty so why should he lose an AFL award, i say to the same people, had they been found guilty they would have appealed the decision and if it were then overturned they wouldn't be complaining about the system, this attitude is that of a sooky child who has thrown his toys out of the cot because he didn't get his own way. 

the other argument i've heard is that if Jobe has to give his medal back so do Ben Cousins and Dane Swan, this is even more laughable, clearly not understanding the difference between recreational drugs and performance enhancing drugs, and not understanding there is totally different set of rules for each. three strikes policy is in place for a reason. 

there is absolutely no good reason i have ever heard to allow Jobe to keep his brownlow, he cheated and is yet to take responsibility for it in any real way, and neither are any of the players, lets remember that in 30 odd approaches from ASADA not one of these players ever declared any of these injections. 

I have very little sympathy for the players in this situation as i believe they're the real cause for this situation, people can argue that dank bought the injections into the club, and the club culture is to trust your doctors ect, but ultimately it's the players decision if they accept the injections and it's the players decision to keep correct records incase ASADA come knocking.

i've said it a few times on here, every single AFL player is 100% responsible for every substance that enters their body, they're responsible for keeping records to prove they haven't cheated, i know players who write down the serial numbers on bottles for their records, there is absolutely no excuse for 34 professional athletes to fail to do this really simple part of being a professional athlete. 

so there is no way Jobe can keep his brownlow, if he does it would be the darkest day in AFL history as it would signal the end of all integrity in the game, you can't be the best and FAIREST player in the league and a drug cheat in the very same year. 

Agree with this except for the difference between rec drugs and PEDS. Under the current AFL rules you are right but the AFL rules are a joke. Most of the rec drugs are in fact banned by WADA, if not all. The AFL do not share their test results with ASADA as they know full well that the players would be banned under the WADA code, instead they give them a strike, or let them avoid it by self reporting, and then they keep playing. The AFL rules are a diabolical mess and should be scrapped. 

3 minutes ago, Satyriconhome said:

Nice to see the usual Demonland puerile childish name calling responses to anybody (Robbo) who has the temerity to disagree with the group think

If anybody thought a Swiss court was going to find against an organisation based in Switzerland, that brings money into the country, are surely the ones that may be 'deluded'

It was the reason the whole process was set up this way, Google how many times it has overturned CAS decisions

This whole thing has been a politically driven [censored] up from start to finish

Hopefully once Watson hands back his Brownlow, which I think he will, just to put everything away, we can all forget this whole schamozzle

Pity Watson is not a long limbed blonde tennis player, might have had his ban reduced, consistency   bat [censored]

 

 

Just like the 2 year ban to the Essendon 34

10 minutes ago, Satyriconhome said:

If anybody thought a Swiss court was going to find against an organisation based in Switzerland, that brings money into the country, are surely the ones that may be 'deluded'

You mean, exactly like the AFL setting up an "AFL Tribunal" to rig the outcome of their own kangaroo court and ensure all the players got off, purely because they were looking out for their own commercial interests?

As for Slobbo? The half-drunk, compromised, biased Essendon mouthpiece, fed his "exclusives" by Essendon's media unit and instructed by the upper echelon of Limited News (whose senior partners are Essendon ticket holders) to defend the club no matter the stupidity of his arguments? Well, who can defend the indefensible?

There's only one person being 'deluded' here.

Edited October 12, 20168 yr by SaberFang

7 minutes ago, Satyriconhome said:

Nice to see the usual Demonland puerile childish name calling responses to anybody (Robbo) who has the temerity to disagree with the group think

If anybody thought a Swiss court was going to find against an organisation based in Switzerland, that brings money into the country, are surely the ones that may be 'deluded'

It was the reason the whole process was set up this way, Google how many times it has overturned CAS decisions

This whole thing has been a politically driven [censored] up from start to finish

Hopefully once Watson hands back his Brownlow, which I think he will, just to put everything away, we can all forget this whole schamozzle

Pity Watson is not a long limbed blonde tennis player, might have had his ban reduced, consistency   bat [censored]

 

 

Generally curious; what's the politics involved here?

This case has spanned 2 state governments, 2 federal governments, 4 Prime Ministers, 2 AFL CEOs, an Australian court appeal, a National anti-doping body, an international anti-doping body and an international court of appeal.  

It does see like everyone outside of the AFL that has come into contact with this case has found Essendon to be at fault.  To my understanding, the only body in the world that has sided with Essendon has been the AFL tribunal.

http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/former-manager-peter-jess-says-jobe-watson-will-lose-2012-brownlow-medal-after-losing-doping-ban-appeal/news-story/13297f20a4be9bf7d79279f6ff600ffa

1 minute ago, SaberFang said:

You mean like the AFL setting up an "AFL Tribunal" to rig the outcome of their own kangaroo court, to ensure all players are found not guilty, due to fears over the commercial disaster of Essendon players being banned?

Spare me. There's only one person being naive or "deluded" here.

Nice to see you agree with one of my points, if you weren't in such a hurry to point score, you would have seen I wrote from start to finish,  I am no fan of how the AFL have handled this whole situation

My stance on this whole situation is that the players were naive and stupid and should have asked more questions, whether their perormance on the field was enhanced is a matter of conjecture, I don't remember them winning the flag that year, and the comic book scenario for juiced up athletes is for them to blitz all comers

My guilty people are Hird, Dank, Reid Robinson and senior management at the club and AFL

 

 

 

3 minutes ago, TeamPlayedFine39 said:

Generally curious; what's the politics involved here?

This case has spanned 2 state governments, 2 federal governments, 4 Prime Ministers, 2 AFL CEOs, an Australian court appeal, a National anti-doping body, an international anti-doping body and an international court of appeal.  

It does see like everyone outside of the AFL that has come into contact with this case has found Essendon to be at fault.  To my understanding, the only body in the world that has sided with Essendon has been the AFL tribunal.

That is correct. The panel the AFL handpicked, the panel ASADA were warned by insiders was designed to get the players off and protect the AFL's commercial interests, hence the appeal.

And lo and behold, every hearing since has thrown out Essendon's case with great haste.

Has the drug cheat handed in his Brownlow yet?

2 hours ago, jnrmac said:

I wonder why players haven't sued Dank?

Maybe they know that he knows what thet took. Maybe has does have records that would incriminate them....

Haven't seen anyone in the media throw this up.......

Why hasn't Hird sued him? He has tried to sue everyone else.

The answer is pretty obvious.

 

Exactly

They would hate to have him testify under oath

Can any sane person offer an alternative explanation?

7 minutes ago, Satyriconhome said:

Nice to see you agree with one of my points, if you weren't in such a hurry to point score, you would have seen I wrote from start to finish,  I am no fan of how the AFL have handled this whole situation

My stance on this whole situation is that the players were naive and stupid and should have asked more questions, whether their perormance on the field was enhanced is a matter of conjecture, I don't remember them winning the flag that year, and the comic book scenario for juiced up athletes is for them to blitz all comers

My guilty people are Hird, Dank, Reid Robinson and senior management at the club and AFL

 

 

 

It would appear that WADA disagree with you.

The lying cheats (the 34) got a light penalty, a paid holiday. No doubt others are guilty but not proven.

Essendon/the players won't touch Dank because they all know they were all complicit. Every shred of evidence points towards the players being either:

a) willfully complicit

b) willfully ignorant

Neither are a defence for taking performance enhancing drugs.

They've lied and obfuscated to ASADA and the AFL. They lied about their off-site injections. Every single one of them lied to testers when questioned by ASADA about having injections, so they were clearly instructed by the club what to tell them. The narrative that they were innocent players is false; this was all a highly clinical, and the lawyer strategy for all parties when they got caught was: act surprised, act ignorant, act confused and use the Essendon mouthpieces in the media to run an endless smear campaign against ASADA. All despite the fact that every shred of evidence points to the players being complicit in the program.

I wouldn't be surprised if Dank has surveillance, audio or video evidence of conversations had with the players at his clinic while giving these injections. There are reasons the players have attacked every other party they possibly can, from the AFL to ASADA to WADA, but never against their own club, Hird or Dank. They all knew what was going on, and they know they can't go after those parties, because they were all in it together.

16 minutes ago, ManDee said:

It would appear that WADA disagree with you.

The lying cheats (the 34) got a light penalty, a paid holiday. No doubt others are guilty but not proven.

That's your opinion and you are entitled to it, same as I am mine, obviously you are not across my opinion of WADA

14 minutes ago, Satyriconhome said:

That's your opinion and you are entitled to it, same as I am mine, obviously you are not across my opinion of WADA

Just out of curiosity Saty, you seem to feel the players were duped by senior people at the club doing the wrong thing, and then made to be scapegoats by a corrupt process that was essentially a witch hunt?

2 minutes ago, Abe said:

Just out of curiosity Saty, you seem to feel the players were duped by senior people at the club doing the wrong thing, and then made to be scapegoats by a corrupt process that was essentially a witch hunt?

The players lied to WADA during interviews

They were well aware what was going on

Just now, Sir Why You Little said:

The players lied to WADA during interviews

They were well aware what was going on

Oh i agree, they were either horrifically negligent or actively cheating SWYL, i just want to understand Saty's point of view. 

13 minutes ago, Satyriconhome said:

That's your opinion and you are entitled to it, same as I am mine, obviously you are not across my opinion of WADA

You state who you think are the guilty parties and you do not mention the 34, WADA do. WADA disagree with you is fact not opinion.

Your opinion of WADA is of no particular interest to me. Many governing bodies are less than perfect but we must abide but their decisions.

6 minutes ago, Abe said:

Oh i agree, they were either horrifically negligent or actively cheating SWYL, i just want to understand Saty's point of view. 

I don't think that will ever be understood Abe

Satyr just likes to brush things under the carpet and walk away...

Edited October 12, 20168 yr by Sir Why You Little

7 minutes ago, Abe said:

Oh i agree, they were either horrifically negligent or actively cheating SWYL, i just want to understand Saty's point of view. 

I don't think it possible to be that negligent, I think your other alternative is the truth. Actively cheating.

3 minutes ago, ManDee said:

I don't think it possible to be that negligent, I think your other alternative is the truth. Actively cheating.

I'm yet to see a compelling arguement that these players were duped, they had so many opportunities to ask questions that would have bought the truth out, they've chosen not to every single time. 

 

13 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

The players lied to WADA during interviews

They were well aware what was going on

Just to clarify, are you referring to the claim that the players were meant to advise the testers at the time of any drug test that they had been given an injection? I presume the testers are with ASADA rather than WADA. Or are you referring to something else?

Dank has been banned for life from participation within any sporting organisation.  From day one, this miscreant refused to co-operate with any investigation.  Writs were issued, with the objecitve to compel him to give evidence and the Supreme Court dismissed the application.  No doubt, the players failed to give account, on the required form, that they were being injected.  That is their major source of guilt.  However, the relevant sporting jurisdictions only needed to be reasonably satisfied of the breach, due to the circumstances which gave rise to this whole mess, but unlike a judicial court of law, there was no requirement for a burden proof which sustained a case beyond a reasonable doubt that performing enhancing drugs were being ingested..

Those frothing at the mouth and rabidly attacking the 34 players concerned, I'm sure will boycott any games in which Jake Melksham plays for the MFC.  After all, a drug cheat is a drug cheat, n'est pas?