2 minutes ago, Ted Fidge said:

Every time he seems to be edging towards the truth, and therefore the realisation that his heroes have feet of clay, he retreats to his standard duped/rogue scientist/good blokes defence.

The guy must be on the edge of sanity.

It would be enough to drive a lesser man to drink.

I think it did.

 

1 minute ago, Ted Fidge said:

Every time he seems to be edging towards the truth, and therefore the realisation that his heroes have feet of clay, he retreats to his standard duped/rogue scientist/good blokes defence.

The guy must be on the edge of sanity.

It would be enough to drive a lesser man to drink.

At least the SMS machine at SEN went feral. I wasn't alone

But Slobbo just rolled on. Meek little Andy Maher just agreed with anything...

24 minutes ago, Dr evil said:

Asked whether 2012 runners-up Mitchell and Cotchin should be recognised as winners, Watson added: “No I don’t.”

i Can't understand why the two fairest and best players of 2012 don't deserve medals, Watson cheated and they shouldn't miss out on the best individual award in the game and any extras it provides because he's only just started doing the right thing.

Your first sentence doesn't make sense and unfairly tarninshes Watson.

He was asked whether he had an opinion about whether the runners up should get the medal and he said "no I don't". Nothing untoward at all in that. He clearly doesn't want to enter the argument. And fair enough. 

5 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

Your first sentence doesn't make sense and unfairly tarninshes Watson.

He was asked whether he had an opinion about whether the runners up should get the medal and he said "no I don't". Nothing untoward at all in that. He clearly doesn't want to enter the argument. And fair enough. 

It was misquoted in the Hun. The video clip and the written quote didn't match. 

1 minute ago, Chris said:

It was misquoted in the Hun. The video clip and the written quote didn't match. 

so, which one was correct?.......i haven't seen either 

2 minutes ago, Chris said:

It was misquoted in the Hun. The video clip and the written quote didn't match. 

That would be right..such a reputable rag

Just now, daisycutter said:

so, which one was correct?.......i haven't seen either 

He was asked if he had an opinion on it. He Said, 'no I don't'

Of course, off camera he may also have been asked if he thought they should get it.

What do the betting agencies do in situations like this?

They're part and parcel of the AFL experience now, according to the ever increasing levels of advertising.

11 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

Your first sentence doesn't make sense and unfairly tarninshes Watson.

He was asked whether he had an opinion about whether the runners up should get the medal and he said "no I don't". Nothing untoward at all in that. He clearly doesn't want to enter the argument. And fair enough. 

If that is what (and all) he said, then I withdraw my earlier remark - to some extent at least.  Trouble is there is no contrition shown by the AFL, EFC or by many media hacks.  They'd never get parole.

1 minute ago, Choke said:

What do the betting agencies do in situations like this?

They're part and parcel of the AFL experience now, according to the ever increasing levels of advertising.

Join the EFC faithful with their heads buried firmly in the sand. 

I dare say not many people would still have any record of placing a bet 4 years ago, although with online betting I may be wrong, maybe we will see all bet records mysteriously wiped from 2012.

57 minutes ago, Choke said:

What do the betting agencies do in situations like this?

They're part and parcel of the AFL experience now, according to the ever increasing levels of advertising.

caveat emptor

1 hour ago, Choke said:

What do the betting agencies do in situations like this?

"It's Brownlow madness at Charlie Shark's Easy Money Emporium! If your selected player leads the vote count but loses the medal as a drug cheat four years later ... CASH BACK! Up to fifty bucks! Conditionsapplyandgambleresponsibly."

Jobe giving the brownlow back, rather than it being taken does provide the AFL with an opportunity to simply write off the award for 2012. 

It really seems to be a question of, is the award void for that year because of all the muddy water and the time that has passed, or will he be treated as a player who didn't qualify for the award and so it should go to the next most worthy players

i believe Mitchell and Cotchin should get one, because to not give them one really would be a penalty on two clean players when Jobe is the one who has done the wrong thing here. 

Mitchell and Cotchin shouldn't miss out on the games highest individual honor because it might hurt Jobe to see them with it, or because it's a complicated situation or because x amount of time has passed, they didn't appeal the decision multiple times, or run a dodgey tribunal. 

does giving Cotchin and Mitchell the award open up a can of worms with betting agencies, for example those who placed large bets on those players being annoyed and those who won big on Jobe being nervous or anything like that? i've got no idea. 

very interesting day ahead of us.

 

In an article last week Chip Le Grand wrote that in the evidence Jobe gave CAS he said his injections ceased in May (later changed to maybe early July).  It is interesting that Jobe received 26 of his 30 votes in the first 13 rounds of the 2012 season.  Of the last 9 rounds (ie after the injections stopped) he polled only 4 votes in just 2 games!!

Now, I have no idea what Dank gave him or whether Jobe knew what he was getting but it sure looks odd that once the injections stopped his form fell off the cliff. 

So yes, the 2012 voting looks tarnished and removing Jobe's votes (as they would any other suspended, ineligible player in any other year) does not and should not deny Cotchin and Mitchell their right to the medal. 

The AFL fear giving them the medal as to do so it effectively accepts Jobe's suspension was as a drug cheat; that he won it unfairly.  It enables them to maintain some pretense about legal necessities and window dressing ie some anonymous, international body 'forced' him to give it back, we didn't strip him of it, we did not suspend him etc. 

Until they award it to Mitchell and Crotchin - Watson will remain the notional winner.  That cannot stand in the record books.

Edited November 14, 20168 yr by Lucifer's Hero

17 hours ago, Ted Fidge said:

Every time he seems to be edging towards the truth, and therefore the realisation that his heroes have feet of clay, he retreats to his standard duped/rogue scientist/good blokes defence.

The guy must be on the edge of sanity.

It would be enough to drive a lesser man to drink.

The "good blokes defence" is just as powerful a legal argument as "the vibe of the thing".

It may have been said on here previously and if so, I apologise.  However, while I am not a mathematician, who can examine various computations, is it not feasible that had Watson not receive the votes he did, they could have gone to other players and therefore an entirely new scenario may have arisen, which may have seen an entirely different outright winner.

Unlike a foot race, where the place getters are clear, the vagaries of a prize obtained through a voting system is not a clear. While I would not begrudge Mitchell or Cotchin being granted a medal, I just don't think it can be as cut and dry as that.  

Edited November 14, 20168 yr by iv'a worn smith

9 minutes ago, iv'a worn smith said:

It may have been said on here previously and if so, I apologise.  However, while I am not a mathematician, who can examined various computations, is it not feasible that had Watson not receive the votes he did, they could have gone to other players and therefore an entirely new scenario may have arisen, which may have seen an entirely different outright winner.

Unlike a foot race, where the place getters are clear, the vagaries of a prize obtained through a voting system is not a clear. While I would not begrudge Mitchell or Cotchin being granted a medal, I just don't think it can be as cut and dry as that.  

true, but perhaps not much different than the effect of the player having the most votes being suspended near the end of the year.

10 minutes ago, iv'a worn smith said:

It may have been said on here previously and if so, I apologise.  However, while I am not a mathematician, who can examined various computations, is it not feasible that had Watson not receive the votes he did, they could have gone to other players and therefore an entirely new scenario may have arisen, which may have seen an entirely different outright winner.

Unlike a foot race, where the place getters are clear, the vagaries of a prize obtained through a voting system is not a clear. While I would not begrudge Mitchell or Cotchin being granted a medal, I just don't think it can be as cut and dry as that.  

you raise a good point but i don't think it should come into this, Watson and his votes should be struck from the 2012 record and they should just move on to the next best in my opinion. 

3 minutes ago, sue said:

true, but perhaps not much different than the effect of the player having the most votes being suspended near the end of the year.

Yep, I understand that, but as has been pointed out here, his entire season was affected, in terms of his form.  In this case, this is not a scenario of an indiscretion which saw a player suspended after an incident which occurred in one game only.

39 minutes ago, iv'a worn smith said:

Yep, I understand that, but as has been pointed out here, his entire season was affected, in terms of his form.  In this case, this is not a scenario of an indiscretion which saw a player suspended after an incident which occurred in one game only.

You could then say that about the entire Essendon List. 

Should all votes for the club be scrubbed for 2012?

4 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

You could then say that about the entire Essendon List. 

Should all votes for the club be scrubbed for 2012?

I have always said, as a club, the EFC got off very lightly on this, so in my view yes.  I still can't believe that as a club, they get the first draft pick in 2016, in less than a year of serving their sanction.  I don't buy, the they have served their time, get out clause.  Regardless of the rights or wrongs on Watson's individual case, the outcome for him personally, will affect him for life. While slightly off topic, I think GWS should also get slammed, over the Whitfield affair. 

2 minutes ago, iv'a worn smith said:

I have always said, as a club, the EFC got off very lightly on this, so in my view yes.  I still can't believe that as a club, they get the first draft pick in 2016, in less than a year of serving their sanction.  I don't buy, the they have served their time, get out clause.  Regardless of the rights or wrongs on Watson's individual case, the outcome for him personally, will affect him for life. While slightly off topic, I think GWS should also get slammed, over the Whitfield affair. 

It's a disgrace, but it shows the AFL are in Essendons corner rather than neutral and their priority is revenue rather than integrity or respect in the sporting world, in my opinion a sign of poor leadership

2 minutes ago, Dr evil said:

It's a disgrace, but it shows the AFL are in Essendons corner rather than neutral and their priority is revenue rather than integrity or respect in the sporting world, in my opinion a sign of poor leadership

No argument on that from me.  The AFL obviously believe, they can't have a significantly diminished EFC in the competition, for the reasons you point out, but they can say bugger the likes of us .............. well, until PJ came on the scene.

Edited November 15, 20168 yr by iv'a worn smith

Just now, iv'a worn smith said:

No argument on that from me.  The AFL obviously believe, they can't do without a significantly diminished EFC, for the reasons you point out, but they can say bugger the likes of us .............. well, until PJ came on the scene.

I think a strongly lead AFL would have seen Essendons actions as an attack on their rules and their integrity rather than a mess they have to clean up, i think at the very least the Bombers should have lost out on their first round pick, the Lions were awarded a priority selection to help them but missed out on pick 1 because Essendon did the wrong thing, it's a long way from fair.

perhaps the AFL might be keep for Essendon to keep quiet about some of the details of the SAGA as well. 

1 minute ago, Dr evil said:

I think a strongly lead AFL would have seen Essendons actions as an attack on their rules and their integrity rather than a mess they have to clean up, i think at the very least the Bombers should have lost out on their first round pick, the Lions were awarded a priority selection to help them but missed out on pick 1 because Essendon did the wrong thing, it's a long way from fair.

perhaps the AFL might be keep for Essendon to keep quiet about some of the details of the SAGA as well. 

I don't like to be a conspiracy theorist, but I reckon you just may be pretty close to the mark.