On 07/11/2016 at 03:51, sue said:

Perhaps if Jobe had a Russian or Chinese name the AFL may have done the right thing.

As long as he played for Essendon the result would be the same.

  On 07/11/2016 at 03:13, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

There's a difference between the AFL making a decision and the timing of that decision. I can't see how the AFL could have acted until all legal avenues were exhausted.  

oh come on ldvc. they have had at least 12 months to consider that. no need to act the apologist, their response has been glacial

  On 07/11/2016 at 03:21, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

That's reasonably easy to answer. The Commission has to meet. It's only part-time, so it has to wait for a meeting.

There have been a few other meetings since the guilty verdict was handed down, surely a bit of forward planning wouldn't go astray. 

  On 07/11/2016 at 04:14, daisycutter said:

oh come on ldvc. they have had at least 12 months to consider that. no need to act the apologist, their response has been glacial

I'm not sure whether I should apologise for being an apologist or make no apologies for it. I've only been discussing the process, not the outcome. For what it's worth I'll state again that I can't see how Watson can hold on to his Brownlow. That's not a difficult decision for me to make on what I know. But the AFL has to make a decision that is (a) fair [oh, the irony], (b) future-proof [as it sets a precedent] and (c) immune to any possible legal challenge [although I'm hard pressed to work out what that might be, other than on anything that looks like a failure of procedural fairness...hence the possible reason for the AFL's apparently cautious approach].

The hard decision is whether to now award it to Mitchell and Cotchin. 

  On 07/11/2016 at 04:35, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I'm not sure whether I should apologise for being an apologist or make no apologies for it. I've only been discussing the process, not the outcome. For what it's worth I'll state again that I can't see how Watson can hold on to his Brownlow. That's not a difficult decision for me to make on what I know. But the AFL has to make a decision that is (a) fair [oh, the irony], (b) future-proof [as it sets a precedent] and (c) immune to any possible legal challenge [although I'm hard pressed to work out what that might be, other than on anything that looks like a failure of procedural fairness...hence the possible reason for the AFL's apparently cautious approach].

The hard decision is whether to now award it to Mitchell and Cotchin. 

They will never make that one LDC.

 

  On 07/11/2016 at 04:14, daisycutter said:

oh come on ldvc. they have had at least 12 months to consider that. no need to act the apologist, their response has been glacial

I think you credit them with too much speed dc.

  On 07/11/2016 at 04:35, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I'm not sure whether I should apologise for being an apologist or make no apologies for it. I've only been discussing the process, not the outcome. For what it's worth I'll state again that I can't see how Watson can hold on to his Brownlow. That's not a difficult decision for me to make on what I know. But the AFL has to make a decision that is (a) fair [oh, the irony], (b) future-proof [as it sets a precedent] and (c) immune to any possible legal challenge [although I'm hard pressed to work out what that might be, other than on anything that looks like a failure of procedural fairness...hence the possible reason for the AFL's apparently cautious approach].

The hard decision is whether to now award it to Mitchell and Cotchin. 

all that is fine, but you must realise that they have had more than enough time to investigate those aspects. additionally gil and other executives have made too many sympathetic public statements  that just indicate that their prevarication is more about finding an excuse to not take it off watson. they have never really accepted the cas verdict and instead of keeping their mouths shut, accept the verdict and move on like you would expect of a professional body they just dither in their weakness and make it all the more a circus.

[to me at least, the cotchin/mitchell decision is also easy. they should get it and there is plenty of precedent to support that.]  

Look, Gil's under enormous pressure. You know his brother was trampled by a horse? That horse is owned by an Essendon coterie group. It was a warning. Gil knows he could be next, unless ...

  On 07/11/2016 at 05:56, Ted Fidge said:

Look, Gil's under enormous pressure. You know his brother was trampled by a horse? That horse is owned by an Essendon coterie group. It was a warning. Gil knows he could be next, unless ...

A new take on the Horse's head in the bed TF?

Wonder if its something to do with a meeting of all the players first?

  On 07/11/2016 at 06:05, old dee said:

A new take on the Horse's head in the bed TF?

They tried that at first. A beautiful Han dynasty porcelain horse's head. Gil was delighted.

After that they realised they may have erred. So they've stepped it up a notch.

Next will be threatening to drop Gil from the Town & Country polo team.

  On 07/11/2016 at 03:15, old dee said:

So why now four weeks later is there still no decision?

 

  On 07/11/2016 at 03:21, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

That's reasonably easy to answer. The Commission has to meet. It's only part-time, so it has to wait for a meeting.

 

  On 07/11/2016 at 03:24, Abe said:

But surely they do, he's been found guilty and lost on appeal, i'm not sure what information they could possibly need at this point. 

Obfuscating, like small children who have wronged, they just hope it will go away if they ignore it.

Absolutely pathetic to get Jab to present a case, pathetic.  Trying to shift the decision making.....FCS that is what they are paid, handsomely, to do.  Make decisions in the interest of the game.

Gil makes TurnBull look decisive, and that is damning with very feint praise.

They'll squib it and let him keep it - something about him being a  great bloke, been unfairly treated yada yada

  On 07/11/2016 at 10:43, biggestred said:

They'll squib it and let him keep it - something about him being a  great bloke, been unfairly treated yada yada

I am waiting for, we felt that all the players had different circumstances within this SAGA and different levels of guilt and we couldn't strip the award without being able to establish just how much guilt jobe had blah blah blah

then the first person with any common sense says, sorry Gil, it's not your job to decide guilt now.

  On 07/11/2016 at 04:14, daisycutter said:

oh come on ldvc. they have had at least 12 months to consider that. no need to act the apologist, their response has been glacial

Glacial in comparison to the way it came out immediately on the day the CAS judgement was made in January and announced its contingency plan to top up the Essendon list with players and confirm that in the event that their weakened team finished last, it would still have first pick in the draft notwithstanding the CAS findings.

Edited November 7, 20168 yr by Chelly

My bet is that Jobe will hand the Brownlow back before next week.

That way

1. the AFL commission doesn't have to make a decision

2. Jobe becomes a martyr to the Essendon fans

3. Since the commission didn't make a decision to take it away, then Cotchin and Mitchell can't get the medal.

( will there be phone calls to Essendon from headquarters in the coming days?)

  On 07/11/2016 at 21:38, george_on_the_outer said:

My bet is that Jobe will hand the Brownlow back before next week.

That way

1. the AFL commission doesn't have to make a decision

2. Jobe becomes a martyr to the Essendon fans

3. Since the commission didn't make a decision to take it away, then Cotchin and Mitchell can't get the medal.

( will there be phone calls to Essendon from headquarters in the coming days?)

Yes George thats exactly how it will play out I agree!

As said before if Jobe had any shred of decency or integrity he would have already made the sacrifice

Tells me all I need to know about the man quite pathetic really.

  On 07/11/2016 at 21:38, george_on_the_outer said:

My bet is that Jobe will hand the Brownlow back before next week.

That way

1. the AFL commission doesn't have to make a decision

2. Jobe becomes a martyr to the Essendon fans

3. Since the commission didn't make a decision to take it away, then Cotchin and Mitchell can't get the medal.

( will there be phone calls to Essendon from headquarters in the coming days?)

you may well be right, but i can't see Jobe willingly admitting any sort of guilt, and i think he'd view handing it back as admitting guilt, i think the AFL will have to take it.

  On 07/11/2016 at 21:38, george_on_the_outer said:

My bet is that Jobe will hand the Brownlow back before next week.

That way

1. the AFL commission doesn't have to make a decision

2. Jobe becomes a martyr to the Essendon fans

3. Since the commission didn't make a decision to take it away, then Cotchin and Mitchell can't get the medal.

( will there be phone calls to Essendon from headquarters in the coming days?)

george, i can't see how that resolves all issues such that the afl don't have to make a decision. all it does it make this decision somewhat easier.

they would still have to decide if the official records will show watson as the winner or whatever. if they then decide he is not the official winner of record then they have to make the decision as to whether there is no winner or the next placed players become the official winners of record.

just returning a medal in itself means nothing. only the afl can decide the official status of record.

  On 07/11/2016 at 22:21, Abe said:

you may well be right, but i can't see Jobe willingly admitting any sort of guilt, and i think he'd view handing it back as admitting guilt, i think the AFL will have to take it.

I think this is a really good point. He may still give it back but with a carefully crafted public statement which says that he still believes he did nothing wrong but for the "good of the game" he wants to put this affair behind him which will allow everyone and in particular, the others of the Essendon 34, to get on with the rest of their lives.

  On 07/11/2016 at 22:27, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I think this is a really good point. He may still give it back but with a carefully crafted public statement which says that he still believes he did nothing wrong but for the "good of the game" he wants to put this affair behind him which will allow everyone and in particular, the others of the Essendon 34, to get on with the rest of their lives.

exactly, it will require some sort of deal being struck between the AFL and Jobe which is awful, the league answering to a player who has done the wrong thing is a really blunt reminder of the quality of leadership in the AFL 

Are the Watsons seen as some sort of football royalty? I bet Swan would have been stripped of his medal by now if he was convicted of taking PEDs during the season he won the Brownlow. 

Edited November 7, 20168 yr by Ethan Tremblay

  On 07/11/2016 at 22:37, Ethan Tremblay said:

Are the Watsons seen as some sort of football royalty? I couldn't see it taking this long to strip Swan of the Brownlow if he was convicted of PED cheating during the season he won the medal. 

By the AFL / Media YES and Correct.

  On 07/11/2016 at 22:37, Ethan Tremblay said:

Are the Watsons seen as some sort of football royalty? I bet Swan would have been stripped of his medal by now if he was convicted of taking PEDs during the season he won the Brownlow. 

I know Dane Swan has talked about some of his exploits involving undesirable activities during his playing years. If he admitted to taking banned substances, even if recreational, during the year he won his Brownlow, would he be putting that award at risk? I suspect this is going to be the sort of concern the AFL Commission will have when deciding on Jobe's award. In other words, it's not just the decision (which I still think is clear) but the language they use when they announce the decision to ensure they have a clear path for future problems which might arise involving past misdemeanours.