THE BOMBERS' DOPING SAGA - THE FAT LADY SINGS

[Sir Why You Little 37,046]

23 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. 

Totally agree

[daisycutter 29,616]

1 hour 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 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.  

i'va the umpires only gave 3 players votes per game. it is therefore impossible to remove watson's votes and promote other player's votes completely. no-one knows who the 4th or 5th or even sometimes the 6th umpire's fairest and best player would have been

occam's razor would suggest just use the next final positions i.e. cotchin/mitchell

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

Just now, daisycutter said:

i'va the umpires only gave 3 players votes per game. it is therefore impossible to remove watson's votes and promote other player's votes completely. no-one knows who the 4th or 5th or even sometimes the 6th umpire's fairest and best player would have been

occam's razor would suggest just use the next final positions i.e. cotchin/mitchell

I get that DC, which is why I lean to the * option in this case.

[beelzebub 23,377]

1 hour 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 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.  

The most sage of all comments to date about this IWS

What you suppose is ENTIRELY possible and more likely PROBABLE

Hence the most logical of outocmes is to vacate the wiinner for this year, and leave as such.

[beelzebub 23,377]

23 minutes 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. 

now you're getting to the heart of the matter    mess !! 

[beelzebub 23,377]

5 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

i'va the umpires only gave 3 players votes per game. it is therefore impossible to remove watson's votes and promote other player's votes completely. no-one knows who the 4th or 5th or even sometimes the 6th umpire's fairest and best player would have been

occam's razor would suggest just use the next final positions i.e. cotchin/mitchell

that assumes his eligibility.  

[FireInTheBennelly 4,072]

19 hours 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.

I had a bet on Cotchin at the odds of $110, but that's the only detail of the bet I can remember. Betfairs online history doesn't allow you to go back very far.

I sent them an email early in the piece to ask for the bet details and what would happen but received an email undeliverable response. I didn't bother following up at that stage as there was still a lot to play out. If the Brownlow is given to them though I will definitely be following up and will report the outcomes. 

[daisycutter 29,616]

25 minutes ago, iv'a worn smith said:

I get that DC, which is why I lean to the * option in this case.

ok, understand (and i suspect this will be the result today, even if i disagree)

btw your footrace analogy is not always so simple. generally to get to a final you must qualify through heats, semis, prelims etc before the final. in all these races someone has been eliminated and denied the chance to progress to the finals thus complicating the theoretical result just as in the afl example. In the case of the ioc they just ignore this anomoly and simply remove the miscreant from the final result. ..............just saying

[daisycutter 29,616]

i wonder how d'landers would feel if cotchin was nate jones?

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

8 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

ok, understand (and i suspect this will be the result today, even if i disagree)

btw your footrace analogy is not always so simple. generally to get to a final you must qualify through heats, semis, prelims etc before the final. in all these races someone has been eliminated and denied the chance to progress to the finals thus complicating the theoretical result just as in the afl example. In the case of the ioc they just ignore this anomoly and simply remove the miscreant from the final result. ..............just saying

Understand, but in the case of Jared Tallent, he also went through heats and semi's, but come the final, he was 'beaten' by a Russian drug cheat.  In contrast, Lance Armstrong's Tour de France trophies were not passed down the line, as it was discovered that the majority of the peloton were also affected by performance enhancing drugs.

 

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

Titus O'Reily is my spirit animal:

http://titusoreily.com/afl-releases-draft-good-bloke-policy/

[beelzebub 23,377]

29 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

i wonder how d'landers would feel if cotchin was nate jones?

actually  I would be the same

[beelzebub 23,377]

30 minutes ago, Choke said:

Titus O'Reily is my spirit animal:

http://titusoreily.com/afl-releases-draft-good-bloke-policy/

Nails it doesnt he ..lol

[beelzebub 23,377]

Titus must read DLand...for sure

[daisycutter 29,616]

42 minutes ago, iv'a worn smith said:

Understand, but in the case of Jared Tallent, he also went through heats and semi's, but come the final, he was 'beaten' by a Russian drug cheat.  In contrast, Lance Armstrong's Tour de France trophies were not passed down the line, as it was discovered that the majority of the peloton were also affected by performance enhancing drugs.

 

true. but the tour de france and other cycling events you would have to agree were quite exceptional given the rampant use of peds in that industry. it would not be fair to use  their treatment of retrospective race results as a yardstick for other sports, especially without proof of similar excesses. retrospectivity always has its problems i know.

i do accept there is a reasonable case for no result, even though in this case it's not my preferred option 

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,786]

41 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

true. but the tour de france and other cycling events you would have to agree were quite exceptional given the rampant use of peds in that industry. it would not be fair to use  their treatment of retrospective race results as a yardstick for other sports, especially without proof of similar excesses. retrospectivity always has its problems i know.

i do accept there is a reasonable case for no result, even though in this case it's not my preferred option 

I previously thought the preferred option should be to award it to Cotchin and Mitchell, but I've changed my mind for the following reasons:

• the decision has to set a precedent for the future. It becomes messy if future testing of past winners shows other players who should be ineligible
• what happens if Watson is subsequently cleared because of new evidence? I know it's most unlikely, but if it happened would the AFL then have to strip the medals from Cotchin and Mitchell and re-award it to Watson? 
• combining the above two points, what happens if in a completely new set of circumstances a player is deemed ineligible only later to be cleared?

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

17 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I previously thought the preferred option should be to award it to Cotchin and Mitchell, but I've changed my mind for the following reasons:

• the decision has to set a precedent for the future. It becomes messy if future testing of past winners shows other players who should be ineligible
• what happens if Watson is subsequently cleared because of new evidence? I know it's most unlikely, but if it happened would the AFL then have to strip the medals from Cotchin and Mitchell and re-award it to Watson? 
• combining the above two points, what happens if in a completely new set of circumstances a player is deemed ineligible only later to be cleared?

Excellent points

[old dee 23,792]

13 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I previously thought the preferred option should be to award it to Cotchin and Mitchell, but I've changed my mind for the following reasons:

• the decision has to set a precedent for the future. It becomes messy if future testing of past winners shows other players who should be ineligible
• what happens if Watson is subsequently cleared because of new evidence? I know it's most unlikely, but if it happened would the AFL then have to strip the medals from Cotchin and Mitchell and re-award it to Watson? 
• combining the above two points, what happens if in a completely new set of circumstances a player is deemed ineligible only later to be cleared?

You are over thinking this LDC.

If a player is suspended in the last match of the year when the votes are counted the winner is then the next highest vote scorer.

That is what should happen here.

What may or may not  happen in the future is irrelevant IMO.

[beelzebub 23,377]

40 minutes ago, old dee said:

You are over thinking this LDC.

If a player is suspended in the last match of the year when the votes are counted the winner is then the next highest vote scorer.

That is what should happen here.

What may or may not  happen in the future is irrelevant IMO.

Certainly a validity to this thinking I concede.

[hemingway 7,627]

On 11/11/2016 at 4:20 PM, Satyriconhome said:

Maybe Watson, like others including myself, just wants this to go away, this whole thing from start to finish has been a mess, let's put it to bed and get on with the new season, the one amusing thing in all this for me, was a news story a couple of days ago that Essendon were amongst the clubs who were fined for administrative breaches in regards to player whereabouts and it just seemed to fade away, as non news with past history and Whitfield implications ignored....my point about the whole anti drugs program is a circus run by clowns

Agree, wish it would go away and we hear no more about Watson and his lost Brownlow. Opinions on this are always going to be divided due to ignorance, biases or beliefs. 

I disagree with your last sentence. For effective enforcement, WADA and ASADA need the cooperation of sporting bodies. Unfortunately, this does not happen because the sporting bodies don't like any interference from those outside the sport. Its about power and the sporting bodies protecting the business and the brand. 

For WADA and ASADA to do their job effectively they need to be working in a cooperative environment. 

There needs to be agreement on the  principles surrounding the use of performance enhancing drugs and the methods used to enforce those principles.  The enforcement authorities are not clowns, they are folk trying to do a job in a difficult environment without obstacles being placed in their way.They need adequate funding and total support from Government and the sporting bodies. Blame the latter two for messy processes and outcomes.

 

[Dr evil 1,185]

Mitchell and Cotchin are now the joint 2012 brownlow medal winners.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,786]

Oops...

SEN 1116 ‏@SENNews  1m1 minute ago

Re-confirming: Jobe Watson and Trent Cotchin are the 2012 Brownlow Medallists

0 replies0 retweets0 likes

Reply

 

 

 

Retweet

 

 

 

 

Like

 

 

 

More

[Lucifers Hero 39,819]

3 minutes ago, Dr evil said:

Mitchell and Cotchin are now the joint 2012 brownlow medal winners.

A great decision!  No way could Watson stay as the notional winner, with or without an asterisk!!

The integrity of the Brownlow 'Best and Fairest' has been restored.

Edited November 15, 2016 by Lucifer's Hero

[daisycutter 29,616]

seems the afl preferred my opinion to that of slobbo.......for a change

now......about the clash jumper rule...........

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,786]

Cotchin is Richmond's first Brownlow medallist since 1971 and as luck would have it Richmond supporters didn't have the pleasure of watching him win it on the night.