11 minutes ago, Trisul said:

There isn't a checklist of questions with regards to substance declarations.  Any and all substances administered in the last 7 days are required to be declared.

" Athletes must declare any substance used in the last seven days including any substances for which they have a current and valid Therapeutic Use Exemption. Not declaring use may affect results management and have adverse consequences for the athlete. " 

Black and white.  

Oh, whoops, all 34 of us forgot to mention that stuff 30 times. What a coincidence! But we were duped, no seriously.

55 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

And if the questions were specific (which they should be...the drug testing officers should be working from a script to avoid failure on a technicality) surely we should know what the specific questions were before we claim that the players breached a rule. I see it as quite conceivable that the players may have breached the spirit of what was intended while not being dishonest in their answers.

(Of course, I'm only speaking about breaching the specific point about answering questions, not the more important issue of breaching the rule about taking illicit substances.)  

So much money is involved in Sport now that i knew this would all be tainted. The AFL "need" Essendrug. 

The Broadcast Rights stipulate 18 teams

This is the core issue as to why the Drug Cheats got off lightly. 

What amazes me more than anything is why families have not legally taken Essendrug apart

1 hour ago, TRIGON said:

I'm pretty sure the WADA rules are that all awards have to be handed back.

Another one for the legal eagles out there...can the AFL be fined for bringing the AFL into disrepute?

To bring a person (or institution) into disrepute, surely they must possess good repute to start with.  So I don't think they have a case.  

A body with an extremely tainted reputation regarding both illegal and "recreational" drugs, lead by a person with no moral compass or idea of impartially defending the whole game,  has absolutely nothing to defend.

3 minutes ago, monoccular said:

To bring a person (or institution) into disrepute, surely they must possess good repute to start with.  So I don't think they have a case.  

A body with an extremely tainted reputation regarding both illegal and "recreational" drugs, lead by a person with no moral compass or idea of impartially defending the whole game,  has absolutely nothing to defend.

Nice argument bioptic. I will keep you in mind next time I need representation.

COMMISSION TO MEET ON JOBE'S BROWNLOW 4.52pm 12th Oct 2016

"The AFL accepts and acknowledges this Tribunal ruling and the AFL Commission repeats the statement it made when the CAS finding was handed down in January earlier this year - the AFL is fully committed to clean sport, for the sake of all players from all clubs in our competition".

That's a statement that doesn't leave a lot of wriggle-room.

The fact that the AFL is asking Mitchell and Cotchin to put their views on the awarding of the Brownlow shows us the extent to which the AFL has lost the plot.

They have conducted themselves appallingly from start to finish. 

8 hours ago, Bitter but optimistic said:

It's not possible Jack ............................................................................ surely.

Then again ... I thought it was not possible for the AFL to give Brisbane a priority pick after the way it treated two consecutive applications by Melbourne in 2013 & 2014.

5 minutes ago, Whispering_Jack said:

The fact that the AFL is asking Mitchell and Cotchin to put their views on the awarding of the Brownlow shows us the extent to which the AFL has lost the plot.

They have conducted themselves appallingly from start to finish. 

Agreed, but why should we be surprised as to how they handle anything.  At the risk of raising the old chestnut once again.  When the MFC were in the gun, Demetriou trotted out Gil, because Demetriou was on public record that he did not believe we had done anything wrong.  So to safe face, he gets his then 2ic to fire the bullets.  Not guilty, but fined.  The Star Chamber is alive and well in the AFL

Edited October 12, 20168 yr by iv'a worn smith

afl to have a meeting on nov 15 to decide fate of jobe brownlow medal - weak, gutless [censored]s

Edited October 12, 20168 yr by daisycutter

2 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

afl to have a meeting on nov 15 to decide fate of jobr brownlow medal - weak, gutless [censored]s

Yep and not much I can add DC.

2 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Thanks, that's helpful. However, unless the question which is specifically asked at the time of the drug test accurately reflects that obligation it's still possible that the players did not deliberately avoid providing necessary information. (Yes, I'm being technical, but that's what working in law enforcement does to you. No-one's ever been found guilty of breaching the "spirit" of a law if it couldn't be proved that they did actually break a law.) 

The question is in writing and on a form with a blank space to provide your answer, with your name and details etc. it's part one of the form

 

Its not a verbal question. 

The player hands back the form and the tester fills out part two of the form. Time of test, vial number, temperature of urine etc. 

 

some of the bombers players listed panadol in their answer to part one. So if you are prepared to disclose panadol yhen why you didn't disclose other injections is a real surprise. 

 

I believe they have stated that they didn't write it down as the testers might tell other clubs and they loss their ip and competitive advantage (same same for manager etc outside the club) 

 

41 minutes ago, Whispering_Jack said:

The fact that the AFL is asking Mitchell and Cotchin to put their views on the awarding of the Brownlow shows us the extent to which the AFL has lost the plot.

They have conducted themselves appallingly from start to finish. 

Mitchell could send a replay of the, i think of the famous half time huddle sign to show his view, nothing else needs to be said

10 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

afl to have a meeting on nov 15 to decide fate of jobe brownlow medal - weak, gutless [censored]s

If the AFL don't strip Watson of the 2012 Brownlow then they may as well just throw out all the WADA drug code, recreational drug policies and any other performance enhancement regulations they 'adpot'. 

Whats the point of it being there if your just going to pick and choose what parts you enforce.

5 hours 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

 

 

 

Don't you remember they came out of the blocks strong and fast before succumbing to soft tissue injuries   -  all consistent with poorly managed PED usage 

3 hours ago, SaberFang said:

Agreed, it is beyond insulting that Mitchell should have to present some kind of ludicrous PowerPoint presentation to justify why he deserves the medal over a drug cheat.

Who the [censored] are the morons running the game??!

Here they are:

 Commissioners. Gabrielle Trainor (2016-) Andrew Newbold (2016-) Simone Wilkie (2015–) Jason Ball (2015–) Kim Williams (2014–) Paul Bassat (2011–) Richard Goyder (2011–) Linda Dessau (2009–2015)

Chairman‎: ‎Mike Fitzpatrick

‎

Chief Exec‎: ‎Gillon McLachlan

‎

56 minutes ago, Whispering_Jack said:

The fact that the AFL is asking Mitchell and Cotchin to put their views on the awarding of the Brownlow shows us the extent to which the AFL has lost the plot.

They have conducted themselves appallingly from start to finish. 

Absolute abdication of all responsibilities by Gil and his henchmen, trying to put the onus on two innocent players to make a decision he is far too gutless to make himself. 

Farcical, a whole month until a meeting to DECIDE if he should keep it. [censored] laughable.

10 minutes ago, SaberFang said:

Farcical, a whole month until a meeting to DECIDE if he should keep it. [censored] laughable.

That's how long it will take to try and come up with excuses to not take it away.

1 minute ago, old dee said:

That's how long it will take to try and come up with excuses to not take it away.

Don't think they can possibly let him keep it and what's more they know it. Be like letting Lance Armstong keeping his Tour de France awards. They are cooked IMO.

 

23 minutes ago, Dockett 32 said:

Don't think they can possibly let him keep it and what's more they know it. Be like letting Lance Armstong keeping his Tour de France awards. They are cooked IMO.

 

Why even allow a convicted drug cheat to make a presentation to defend themselves? Does Rory Sloane or any other suspended player get that opportunity? Why ask the other two relevant players why they deserve it instead? Why do they need an entire month to make a decision that, to me, is as black & white as Citizen Kane?

Because, as with everything the AFL does, they manufacture outcomes to have the best effect on their bottom line.

Edited October 12, 20168 yr by SaberFang

17 minutes ago, Dockett 32 said:

Don't think they can possibly let him keep it and what's more they know it. Be like letting Lance Armstong keeping his Tour de France awards. They are cooked IMO.

 

I would agree but we are not the AFL when the chief says he feels sorry for the players and does not think they should have been found guilty then a keep the medal verdict would not surprise me.

ASADA and WADA pressure now being applied at Government Level or else my unflappable mate will spill the rest of the evidence that the public didn't know about. Then we will buy, not popcorn, but Crownies and Prawns....

1 hour ago, Hellfish said:

If the AFL don't strip Watson of the 2012 Brownlow then they may as well just throw out all the WADA drug code, recreational drug policies and any other performance enhancement regulations they 'adpot'. 

Whats the point of it being there if your just going to pick and choose what parts you enforce.

they'll have to decide on his inclusion in the all australian side too - hehehe   or maybe they'll decide that in a later meeting......maybe a focus group? 

too many decisions for poor old gill. he did say back in august that the brownlow medal decision might be the hardest decision anyone had to make in their whole life......nearly had me in tears

6 minutes ago, SaberFang said:

Because, as with everything the AFL does, they manufacture outcomes with the best effect on their bottom line

And there it is. That's the golden rule in the AFL. Not rule of law, not precedent, not even common sense... but what is good for us in the next 24 hours.

Drug cheats, FA, PP's, fixtures, MRP etc etc etc ad vomit.

Thank god for the MFC, coz otherwise I'd walk away.

 

5 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

they'll have to decide on his inclusion in the all australian side too - hehehe   or maybe they'll decide that in a later meeting......maybe a focus group? 

too many decisions for poor old gill. he did say back in august that the brownlow medal decision might be the hardest decision anyone had to make in their whole life......nearly had me in tears

Just as well Gil's on $2.5 million a year to make such "heartbreaking," "difficult" decisions.

2 minutes ago, SaberFang said:

Just as well Gil's on $2.5 million a year to make such "heartbreaking," "difficult" decisions.

Solid but i feel more like this one sums  up  my true feelings.