30 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

the afl actually asked mitchell and cotchin to make a submission re 2012 brownlow. wtf. thankfully both players declined immediately. they are simply incapable of making a clear cut decision and are more intent on finding a way to make a "deal". integrity must be a foreign word to these clowns

It beggars belief that the AFL requested submissions. Did Chris Grant or Corey McKernan get to make a submission? Did James Hird, Michael Voss or Robert Harvey have to make one?

This smacks of an inability to make a decision by the AFL, the very body created to make decisions on the game for the game. Jobe Watson found guilty of using performance enhancing drugs in the very year that he won the Brownlow & having exhausted all appeals is now officially labelled  a drug cheat and currently a Brownlow medalist. What is the difficulty here? Jobe joins the ranks of Lance Armstrong. The AFL must make a decision, we do not need another month, that is rubbish, surely they realised that a possible outcome of the CAS appeall was that the players would lose.

I'm sure that someone at AFL house understands contingency planning, it would appear they don't understand integrity, probity and honour.   

2 minutes ago, ManDee said:

It beggars belief that the AFL requested submissions. Did Chris Grant or Corey McKernan get to make a submission? Did James Hird, Michael Voss or Robert Harvey have to make one?

This smacks of an inability to make a decision by the AFL, the very body created to make decisions on the game for the game. Jobe Watson found guilty of using performance enhancing drugs in the very year that he won the Brownlow & having exhausted all appeals is now officially labelled  a drug cheat and currently a Brownlow medalist. What is the difficulty here? Jobe joins the ranks of Lance Armstrong. The AFL must make a decision, we do not need another month, that is rubbish, surely they realised that a possible outcome of the CAS appeall was that the players would lose.

I'm sure that someone at AFL house understands contingency planning, it would appear they don't understand integrity, probity and honour.   

I have absolute empathy with this position, but to put Watson in the same boat as Armstrong, who knowingly, systematically and was entirely complicit in the engineering of his own doping program, is drawing an extremely long bow.

I'll say it again, it is my belief that the Essendon Football Club has got off extremely lightly in this saga, but the salivating and frothing at the mouth over Watson and the rest of the players involved is just not edifying at all.

Many of these young men may never be the same again.  To keep them in the stocks so that more offal can be thrown at them, serves no purpose whatsoever.

1 minute ago, iv'a worn smith said:

I have absolute empathy with this position, but to put Watson in the same boat as Armstrong, who knowingly, systematically and was entirely complicit in the engineering of his own doping program, is drawing an extremely long bow.

I'll say it again, it is my belief that the Essendon Football Club has got off extremely lightly in this saga, but the salivating and frothing at the mouth over Watson and the rest of the players involved is just not edifying at all.

Many of these young men may never be the same again.  To keep them in the stocks so that more offal can be thrown at them, serves no purpose whatsoever.

Tuff tiity Iva. These guys were complicit that's the issue and they should sue the club to make them pay commercially 

14 hours ago, SaberFang said:

Ah, yes, The Exorcist! A classic!

Thanks so much Saber...
 

The only favourable interpretation that I can put on the AFL's delay in making a decision is that they want that time for people to work on Jobe to convince him to give back the medal voluntarily.  That being a positive view of the AFL's position shows just how hopeless they are.

41 minutes ago, sue said:

The only favourable interpretation that I can put on the AFL's delay in making a decision is that they want that time for people to work on Jobe to convince him to give back the medal voluntarily.  That being a positive view of the AFL's position shows just how hopeless they are.

I am not as generous as you sue.

IMO it is Gil trying to get out of taking the medal back.

It is a little like the banning decision it appears they had made no plan for that eventuality when it happened.

They went into panic mode and had to call a board meeting to formulate a plan.

They have had ten months since the banning decision and the majority report on the players appeal was there was little to no chance the players would get a reversal.

Then we arrive at the decision on Tuesday and they have to hold a board meeting to work out what to do?

Two things scream out at me.

- For the size of the AFL their pre planning is atrocious.

- They have no stomach for supporting the drive to get drugs out of sport. They give it lip service and marginal support.

 

 

Edited October 12, 20168 yr by old dee

7 minutes ago, iv'a worn smith said:

I have absolute empathy with this position, but to put Watson in the same boat as Armstrong, who knowingly, systematically and was entirely complicit in the engineering of his own doping program, is drawing an extremely long bow.

I'll say it again, it is my belief that the Essendon Football Club has got off extremely lightly in this saga, but the salivating and frothing at the mouth over Watson and the rest of the players involved is just not edifying at all.

Many of these young men may never be the same again.  To keep them in the stocks so that more offal can be thrown at them, serves no purpose whatsoever.

Iva, Jobe was the club captain, I have no doubt that younger players came to him and asked his opinion on what was going on. As a leader he has great responsibility and throughout he maintained the club line. Did he ask questions? Before he gave leadership did he make personal inquiries about the program, did he check with ASADA (it takes about 2 minutes online) Did he check with specialist medical practitioners? Both Watson and Armstrong are listed as drug cheats.

I agree the club got off lightly, I too feel for the younger players in particular. But Jobe was their leader, and at best he has failed in that role, or has been complicit in our countries biggest sporting scandal. During that time he won the counties highest AFL sporting honour. He lied on multiple occasions to ASADA testers. If he had any sense of morality he would apologise and return his ill gotten gain.    

5 minutes ago, ManDee said:

Iva, Jobe was the club captain, I have no doubt that younger players came to him and asked his opinion on what was going on. As a leader he has great responsibility and throughout he maintained the club line. Did he ask questions? Before he gave leadership did he make personal inquiries about the program, did he check with ASADA (it takes about 2 minutes online) Did he check with specialist medical practitioners? Both Watson and Armstrong are listed as drug cheats.

It was Jobe who initiated the drive for "consent forms" for the players. Not the action of a man who thought it was all completely above board and comprising harmless supplements. It shows he realised there was potentially something wrong, that the players needed to be protected against.

 

And before the drug years of 11/12 and his Brownlow, the thing Jobe was best known for was his aborted sit-down protest against umpires. I know he was a lot younger then but it showed appalling judgement.

51 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

>>>>>>>>> It's also strategically a good idea as the process may "encourage" Watson to hand the medal back thereby allowing the Commissioners to avoid having to make a decision at all.

why have a commission if their favoured option is to avoid making a decision. surely they are made commissioners to make decisions on the game whether easy or hard, popular or unpopular. or would you rather an organisation run by lobby groups, focus groups and public polls with commissioners replaced by accountants and clerks

1 minute ago, daisycutter said:

why have a commission if their favoured option is to avoid making a decision. surely they are made commissioners to make decisions on the game whether easy or hard, popular or unpopular. or would you rather an organisation run by lobby groups, focus groups and public polls with commissioners replaced by accountants and clerks

And why wait ten months without a plan.

2 minutes ago, old dee said:

And why wait ten months without a plan.

The AFL Commission:

23 hours ago, picket fence said:

How the hell Doc Reid kept his job must be one of the worlds wonders!

Just as an interesting aside, I see Barack Obama saying that he plans for a manned Mars landing sooner than later.

Maybe Jimmy Innocent can go set up a tribunal so that he can clear his name. He can then claim that intergalactic Law, Transcends anything Planet Earth decides!!

At least then he can say that there is no way in the world the players are guilty.

By any Logic Watson gives back his Brownlow!

Mars Becons!!

Let's send Umpire Wallace up there too. Hirdy will need someone to chat to and Wallace can put a little thought into his umpiring efforts.

23 minutes ago, old dee said:

I am not as generous as you sue.

....

 

I agree 100% with all you said.  Recall I did say 'the only favourable interpretation I could put on it'  and even if that were true, the AFL is $%$%@

40 minutes ago, iv'a worn smith said:

I have absolute empathy with this position, but to put Watson in the same boat as Armstrong, who knowingly, systematically and was entirely complicit in the engineering of his own doping program, is drawing an extremely long bow.

I'll say it again, it is my belief that the Essendon Football Club has got off extremely lightly in this saga, but the salivating and frothing at the mouth over Watson and the rest of the players involved is just not edifying at all.

Many of these young men may never be the same again.  To keep them in the stocks so that more offal can be thrown at them, serves no purpose whatsoever.

iva, it is the unwillingness of the afl to make decisions and their failure to tackle the issues of drugs in sport (performance or illicit) with any real conviction that drags this issue needlessly on and on, that is prolonging the players' time in the "stocks" (that, plus the bad legal advice that they have accepted over the last 3 years) 

16 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

why have a commission if their favoured option is to avoid making a decision. surely they are made commissioners to make decisions on the game whether easy or hard, popular or unpopular. or would you rather an organisation run by lobby groups, focus groups and public polls with commissioners replaced by accountants and clerks

I had thought in my innocence that a CEO of an organisation is the one empowered to make decisions, on a daily basis.

If his decisions go against the philosophy of the business then the board can step in.

Or if he thinks a pending decision conflicts with said philosophy then he can kick it upstairs to the board.

But when a CEO makes public statements that his business is committed to clean sport and wishes to protect clean players, then this particular decision is easy.

If a CEO refuses to make decisions then one presumes the board is duty bound to step in and replace him.

Edited October 12, 20168 yr by Ted Fidge

This decision should be easy and should have been made months ago.

What hold has Jobby got on Gil? Why is Gil dithering? What private commitment has Gil made to Jobby that requires time for Gil to work his deal making magic and thereby extract himself from embarrassment?

It seems that Gil is trying to avoid a situation where Jobby runs to Robbo saying "Gil promised me I could keep it."

35 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

iva, it is the unwillingness of the afl to make decisions and their failure to tackle the issues of drugs in sport (performance or illicit) with any real conviction that drags this issue needlessly on and on, that is prolonging the players' time in the "stocks" (that, plus the bad legal advice that they have accepted over the last 3 years) 

I have no argument with this point of view.  The AFL is moribund on a lot of issues.  But no-one on here is across all the facts.

 

40 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

why have a commission if their favoured option is to avoid making a decision. surely they are made commissioners to make decisions on the game whether easy or hard, popular or unpopular. or would you rather an organisation run by lobby groups, focus groups and public polls with commissioners replaced by accountants and clerks

I agree that the role of the Commission is go make the tough decisions. But that doesn't mean that they have to make every decision. If Watson returns the medal, that's one less matter for the AFL to be criticised for, irrespective of what decision they make.

In my view there are really two decisions which need to be made, and one of them is easy. The easy one is that Watson cannot retain his medal. The more difficult one is whether to award it to someone else, and if so, to those who came second on the night (Cotchin and Mitchell) or whether to exclude all games involving Essendon from the voting altogether. 

1 hour ago, jackaub said:

Tuff tiity Iva. These guys were complicit that's the issue and they should sue the club to make them pay commercially 

Yep, makes sense .............. I think.  There is quite a bit of 'legal' negotiation going on as we speak.  I very much suspect that the rider on any settlement, as is most often the case, will be a confidentiality clause.  In other words, you will never know what went on at mediation.

Edited October 13, 20168 yr by iv'a worn smith

1 hour ago, iv'a worn smith said:

I have no argument with this point of view.  The AFL is moribund on a lot of issues.  But no-one on here is across all the facts.

 

Excuse me for being simplistic iva but Jobe has been found guilty of drug taking by WADA and all appeals are now over. Jobe was found guilty of taking drugs in his winning year.

He is therefore not qualified to hold the award.

What more is there involved?

5 minutes ago, old dee said:

Excuse me for being simplistic iva but Jobe has been found guilty of drug taking by WADA and all appeals are now over. Jobe was found guilty of taking drugs in his winning year.

He is therefore not qualified to hold the award.

What more is there involved?

I am not talking about that OD.  It is pretty simple really.  He's has been found guilty by the relevant jurisdiction, had an appeal which was not only not heard, but summarily dismissed.  There is no choice but for him to lose the medal. It is the AFL that has botched that side if things.  I have no issue with that.  But to use epithets like "Jab" in place of Jobe, pillory the rest of players involved which includes Jake Melksham and pretend to know everything about what occurred regarding the injection regime is just juvenile.

 

5 minutes ago, old dee said:

Excuse me for being simplistic iva but Jobe has been found guilty of drug taking by WADA and all appeals are now over. Jobe was found guilty of taking drugs in his winning year.

He is therefore not qualified to hold the award.

What more is there involved?

I agree completely with the sentiment OD but the AFL rules re the Brownlow (wikipedia not the real rules- they are missing?) and it appears the eligibility is referenced to AFL tribunal bans during the home & away season exclusively. 

Legally the AFL may have a problem, I would think a shame campaign against Jobe may be required.

 

wikipedia - The fairest component of the medal is achieved by making ineligible any player who is suspended by the AFL Tribunal during the home-and-away season. An ineligible player cannot win, place or be classified in the final Brownlow Medal rankings, regardless of the number of votes he has received.

3 hours ago, old dee said:

I am not as generous as you sue.

IMO it is Gil trying to get out of taking the medal back.

It is a little like the banning decision it appears they had made no plan for that eventuality when it happened.

They went into panic mode and had to call a board meeting to formulate a plan.

They have had ten months since the banning decision and the majority report on the players appeal was there was little to no chance the players would get a reversal.

Then we arrive at the decision on Tuesday and they have to hold a board meeting to work out what to do?

Two things scream out at me.

- For the size of the AFL their pre planning is atrocious.

- They have no stomach for supporting the drive to get drugs out of sport. They give it lip service and marginal support.

 

 

No wonder Mitchell wants out of AFL neighbourhood and by the Gods he could make a Statement couldn't he, if he is smart enough 

2 hours ago, Ted Fidge said:

This decision should be easy and should have been made months ago.

What hold has Jobby got on Gil? Why is Gil dithering? What private commitment has Gil made to Jobby that requires time for Gil to work his deal making magic and thereby extract himself from embarrassment?

It seems that Gil is trying to avoid a situation where Jobby runs to Robbo saying "Gil promised me I could keep it."

The dill backed the truck up to the warehouse with all the TWSNBN records in them.

11 minutes ago, ManDee said:

I agree completely with the sentiment OD but the AFL rules re the Brownlow (wikipedia not the real rules- they are missing?) and it appears the eligibility is referenced to AFL tribunal bans during the home & away season exclusively. 

Legally the AFL may have a problem, I would think a shame campaign against Jobe may be required.

 

wikipedia - The fairest component of the medal is achieved by making ineligible any player who is suspended by the AFL Tribunal during the home-and-away season. An ineligible player cannot win, place or be classified in the final Brownlow Medal rankings, regardless of the number of votes he has received.

there are other over-riding rules that can come into play, such as those that come with signing on to the wada code which call for the stripping of awards and prizes pertaining to the period of transgression. of course wada leave that up to the ruling body but for the afl to ignore that would bring into question the afl's hypocrisy and right to claim wada compliancy. it's is only "hard" if you refuse to stand on principle and continuously look for excuses to prevaricate and do nothing.

Edited October 13, 20168 yr by daisycutter