Jump to content

THE BOMBERS' DOPING SAGA - THE FAT LADY SINGS

Whispering_Jack
Whispering_Jack
in General Discussion

Featured Replies

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.

 

  • Quote
    • Like 2
     
    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...

  • Quote
    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. 

  • Quote
    •  
    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. 

  • Quote
    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 

  • Quote

    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

  • Quote
    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.

  • Quote
    • Like 1

    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.

  • Quote
    •  
    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.

  • Quote
    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.

  • Quote

    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

  • Quote
    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."

  • Quote
    • Like 4

    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.

     

  • Quote

    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 by Lucifer's Hero

  • Quote
    • Like 4
    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".

  • Quote

    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 by iv'a worn smith

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    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.

  • Quote
    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. 

  • Quote
    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.

  • Quote
    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?

  • Quote

    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. 

  • Quote
    • Like 3
    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

  • Quote
    • Like 3
    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 by iv'a worn smith

  • Quote
    • Like 3
     
    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. 

  • Quote
    • Like 2
    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.

     

  • Quote

    • Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

    Guest
    Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
    Reply to this topic...
    Go to topic listing

    Featured Content

    • NON-MFC: Round 05

      Gather Round is here, kicking off with a Thursday night blockbuster as Adelaide faces Geelong. The Crows will be out for redemption after a controversial loss last week. Saturday starts with the Magpies taking on the Swans. Collingwood will be eager to cement their spot in the top eight, while Sydney is hot on their heels. In the Barossa Valley, two rising sides go head-to-head in a fascinating battle to prove they're the real deal. Later, Carlton and West Coast face off at Adelaide Oval, both desperate to notch their first win of the season. The action then shifts to Norwood, where the undefeated Lions will aim to keep their streak alive against the Bulldogs. Sunday’s games begin in the Barossa with Richmond up against Fremantle. In Norwood, the Saints will be looking to take a scalp when they come up against the Giants. The round concludes with a fiery rematch of last year's semi-final, as the Hawks seek revenge for their narrow loss to Port Adelaide. Who are you tipping this week and what are the best results for the Demons besides us winning?

      • 10 replies
      Demonland
      Demonland

    • CASEY: Geelong

      There was a time in the second quarter of the game at the Cattery on Friday afternoon when the Casey Demons threatened to take the game apart against the Cats. The Demons had been well on top early but were struggling to convert their ascendancy over the ground until Tom Fullarton’s burst of three goals in the space of eight minutes on the way to a five goal haul and his best game for the club since arriving from Brisbane at the end of 2023. He was leading, marking and otherwise giving his opponents a merry dance as Casey grabbed a three goal lead in the blink of an eye. Fullarton has now kicked ten goals in Casey’s three matches and, with Melbourne’s forward conversion woes, he is definitely in with a chance to get his first game with the club in next week’s Gather Round in Adelaide. Despite the tall forward’s efforts - he finished with 19 disposals and eight marks and had four hit outs as back up to Will Verrall in the second half - it wasn’t enough as Geelong reigned in the lead through persistent attacks and eventually clawed their way to the lead early in the last and held it till they achieved the end aim of victory.

      • 0 replies
      Demonland
      Demonland

    • REPORT: Geelong

      I was disappointed to hear Goody say at his post match presser after the team’s 39 point defeat against Geelong that "we're getting high quality entry, just poor execution" because Melbourne’s problems extend far beyond that after its 0 - 4 start to the 2025 football season. There are clearly problems with poor execution, some of which were evident well before the current season and were in play when the Demons met the Cats in early May last year and beat them in a near top-of-the-table clash that saw both sides sitting comfortably in the top four after round eight. Since that game, the Demons’ performances have been positively Third World with only five wins in 19 games with a no longer majestic midfield and a dysfunctional forward line that has become too easy for opposing coaches to counter. This is an area of their game that is currently being played out as if they were all completely panic-stricken.

      • 0 replies
      Demonland
      Demonland

    • PREGAME: Essendon

      Facing the very real and daunting prospect of starting the season with five straight losses, the Demons head to South Australia for the annual Gather Round, where they’ll take on the Bombers in search of their first win of the year. Who comes in, and who comes out?

        • Like
      • 211 replies
      Demonland
      Demonland

    • NON-MFC: Round 04

      Round 4 kicks off with a blockbuster on Thursday night as traditional rivals Collingwood and Carlton clash at the MCG, with the Magpies looking to assert themselves as early-season contenders and the Blues seeking their first win of the season. Saturday opens with Gold Coast hosting Adelaide, a key test for the Suns as they aim to back up their big win last week, while the Crows will be looking to keep their perfect record intact. Reigning wooden spooners Richmond have the daunting task of facing reigning premiers Brisbane at the ‘G and the Lions will be eager to reaffirm their premiership credentials after a patchy start. Saturday night sees North Melbourne take on Sydney at Marvel Stadium, with the Swans looking to build on their first win of the season last week against a rebuilding Roos outfit. Sunday’s action begins with GWS hosting West Coast at ENGIE Stadium, a game that could get ugly very early for the visitors. Port Adelaide vs St Kilda at Adelaide Oval looms as a interesting clash, with both clubs form being very hard to read. The round wraps up with Fremantle taking on the Western Bulldogs at Optus Stadium in what could be a fierce contest between two sides with top-eight ambitions. Who are you tipping this week and what are the best results for the Demons besides us winning?

      • 273 replies
      Demonland
      Demonland

    • PODCAST: Geelong

      The Demonland Podcast will air LIVE on Monday, 7th April @ the all new time of 8:00pm. Join Binman, George & I as we dissect another Demons loss at Kardinia Park to the Cats in the Round 04. Your questions and comments are a huge part of our podcast so please post anything you want to ask or say below and we'll give you a shout out on the show. If you would like to leave us a voicemail please call 03 9016 3666 and don't worry no body answers so you don't have to talk to a human.

      • 62 replies
      Demonland
      Demonland
    View All