Just now, Ethan Tremblay said:

Watson will be compensated for handing the Brownlow back, he already has a pending compensation claim, I'm guessing the claim will be boosted now. 

 

Yes, and i suspect Crameri will get a decent boost as well having missed out on a premiership.

The thing that really grates at the bummers fans is that Mitchell may receive it. 

I guess he handed it back before the AFL officially stripped it off him. 

Geez Turd really stuffed up didnt he?

Edited November 11, 20168 yr by dees189227

8 minutes ago, dees189227 said:

The thing that really grates at the bummers fans is that Mitchell may receive it. 

I guess he handed it back before the AFL officially stripped it off him. 

Geez Turd really stuffed up didnt he?

They all stuffed up mate, Hird, Dank, Weapon, AFL, everyone, the whole situation has been a disaster, not only does it show the EFC in a bad light, i believe it puts the AFL's corruption firmly out there for all to see, we've all see how they handle these sorts of things. 

the AFL tribunal found them not guilty... i mean seriously how they thought that was going to be allowed still baffles me.

Yet they are still in denial and say they did nothing wrong. Turd has suffed up in other areas as well. Yet the delusional fan balme the AFL which I do not get. 

21 minutes ago, Dr evil said:

They all stuffed up mate, Hird, Dank, Weapon, AFL, everyone, the whole situation has been a disaster, not only does it show the EFC in a bad light, i believe it puts the AFL's corruption firmly out there for all to see, we've all see how they handle these sorts of things. 

the AFL tribunal found them not guilty... i mean seriously how they thought that was going to be allowed still baffles me.

And what has made the shambles worse is that they tried, and are still trying to COVER THE  WHOLE BLOODY THING UP,

What happens, along comes another, alarm bells,cover up.......

The hypocrisy is just mind boggling.  The media, those at Awful House, the now " sanctified victims "  The more it goes on the further it gets from the original transgression/felony !!

The simplicity of the foul has now been oh o cleverly clouded in obfuscation that the many will never now understand the heinous and complicit nature of the original ruse.

Danks walks free. Hird still smells of lavender to some. The players have been punished but they can consider themselves ( for mine ) damn lucky. I hope , fervently, Goodwin was only ancillary to all of this.  "Bomber" and Weapon must be chuckling big time. And all the whiles the greatest culprit really will never be brought to answer, the AFL itself !!

 

There are those for want of serendipity or a good dose of "dilligaf" just want the music to go on, hail mary , kum bi yah and let the game commence.

Season 2017 will start and the crowds will gloss over anything that went before. As the chorus of excitement builds to a crescendo the resonance will echo at AFL house and the Gils of this world will smile knowingly.

And they will have learnt nothing ....and the grass will still be green.......

1 hour ago, Moonshadow said:

I think there should be no winner of the Brownlow for that year. In the (far) past of the VFL, there were breaks or gaps in awards such as the premierships due to extenuating circumstances. I'm not comparing world wars or death with a drug cheat, just that sometimes awards don't have to be awarded.

so i suppose robert harvey shouldn't hold the 1997 brownlow? Chris grant polled highest that year but ruled ineligible, just like watson will be.

Edited November 11, 20168 yr by daisycutter

8 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

so i suppose robert harvey shouldn't hold the 1997 brownlow? Chris grant polled highest that year but ruled ineligible, just like watson will be.

DC I dont think any year's outcome has ever been tainted as this particular one. I can fully understand...."a tent foot pole " in terms of thinking.  If the AFL had any nuance of intellect it would indeed  just void this year( the one concerned).

 

But we already probably can deduce how it will p[lay out.

1 hour ago, Moonshadow said:

I think there should be no winner of the Brownlow for that year. In the (far) past of the VFL, there were breaks or gaps in awards such as the premierships due to extenuating circumstances. I'm not comparing world wars or death with a drug cheat, just that sometimes awards don't have to be awarded.

Moonie, when a horse is disqualified from a horse race, how many times has no winner been declared?

Mitchell and Cotchin are rightful winners, and should receive all of the fanfare that goes with winning. They should definitely sue for lost earnings, but of course they wont.

I think Watson has shown a lot of class right throughout. He's done the right thing and has allowed himself to move on. I wish Turd could be stripped of his medal and be banned from the Hall of Fame.

1 minute ago, chook fowler said:

I think Watson has shown a lot of class right throughout. He's done the right thing and has allowed himself to move on. I wish Turd could be stripped of his medal and be banned from the Hall of Fame.

Watson played a very clever game, class has nothing to do with it. Street smarts maybe  Apple Tree...say no more

21 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

so i suppose robert harvey shouldn't hold the 1997 brownlow? Chris grant polled highest that year but ruled ineligible, just like watson will be.

Ineligibility by WADA due to a doping ban isn't near the same as a one match suspension dc. Sometimes it's ok to not award an award, that was my point. In this case it's a long time after the event and I believe the best option would be to leave it blank.

16 minutes ago, Moonshadow said:

Ineligibility by WADA due to a doping ban isn't near the same as a one match suspension dc. Sometimes it's ok to not award an award, that was my point. In this case it's a long time after the event and I believe the best option would be to leave it blank.

well we disagree then moonie. as does the ioc. a "long time" didn't stop the afl retrospectively awarding brownlows to those who lost on the then rules of countback either. it may well be within the afl's purvey to award no winner, but if i was cotchin or mitchell i'd feel cheated out of my rightful brownlow by a drug cheat. the passage of time doesn't diminish an injustice

but, just my opinion, moonie

Edited November 11, 20168 yr by daisycutter
sp

54 minutes ago, faultydet said:

Mitchell and Cotchin are rightful winners, and should receive all of the fanfare that goes with winning. They should definitely sue for lost earnings, but of course they wont.

And that might be the reason why the AFL doesn't award them the medal.

Can't sue for 4 years of lost "Brownlow winner" earnings if they never won it.

1 minute ago, Ted Fidge said:

And that might be the reason why the AFL doesn't award them the medal.

Can't sue for 4 years of lost "Brownlow winner" earnings if they never won it.

I think they could very strongly argue that they should be awarded one. 

1 minute ago, Dr evil said:

I think they could very strongly argue that they should be awarded one. 

And that argument might go on for years

8 minutes ago, Dr evil said:

I think they could very strongly argue that they should be awarded one. 

Who would they strongly argue that to?

The Anti Fairness League

The About Face League

The Awfully Fickle League

The Arbitrarily Functioning League

 

Gil wouldn't even break stride

3 minutes ago, Ted Fidge said:

Who would they strongly argue that to?

The Anti Fairness League

The About Face League

The Awfully Fickle League

The Arbitrarily Functioning League

 

Gil wouldn't even break stride

Under the rules of the AFL if the player with the most votes is deemed ineligible  for the award the award goes to the player or players with the next highest amount of votes, so the players involved in my opinion have a very strong case to be awarded Brownlows, it's the highest individual honor in the game and they shouldn't miss out on the award because Jobe did the wrong thing, i would think the players association would be very keen to argue this point for them.

 

It'd be so easy to give up on this code, the problem is, my team's about to explode!

First of all, on Watson's decision to hand back the Brownlow Medal, I say that it's about time. In fact, a decision delayed by three years and five months since the day he admitted this -

Jobe Watson admits to injecting banned drug AOD-9604

ESSENDON captain Jobe Watson last night made the stunning admission he took the banned substance AOD-9604, but the reigning Brownlow medallist remains adamant he did nothing wrong.

The star onballer said he took the anti-obesity drug after signing a consent form.

"I signed that consent form and my understanding, after it being given through (club doctor) Bruce Reid and the club, that I was receiving AOD," he told Fox Sports program On The Couch. Asked if he thought the substance was legal when he was taking it, Watson replied: "that it was legal at the time and that was actually what I was told I was being given."

The brazen admission by Watson that he took this now almost forgotten (in the context of this entire controversy) peptide defines the essence of his and the other 33 players' wrongdoing. They might have thought it to be legal based on what they were told but what steps did they take outside the club regime to determine it to be so and why did Watson so confidently make this statement when a very simple search would have revealed AOD-9604 was not an approved substance under the WADA Code even at the time of making the statement?

It's true that ASADA later chose not to pursue the AOD-9604 line and went after the players on the "safer" ground of TB4 but the former has never been fully explained or resolved.

Why did ASADA drop AOD-9604? WADA boss wants review

The statements made by Watson on the programme were breathtakingly arrogant and, when I look at the explanation in the CAS judgement as reported in January, 2016 about the responsibilities of the players in terms of what they allow to be ingested into their bodies, it confirms the view that the players cheated and deserved to be sanctioned.

Even in his statement handing back the medal, Watson showed no remorse and in doing so, he was being consistent with the way he regarded his situation in June 2013. I don't believe he was being honourable in any way whatsoever.

Secondly, once you expunge Watson as Brownlow Medal winner then it would be an injustice to those who cleanly polled the most votes for them not to be given what is rightfully their award. Jared Tallent deserved to be awarded the Olympic Gold once it was clear that the walker who crossed the line was a drug cheat. The AFL would be acting inconsistently if it failed to follow the same practice as the IOC. Watson might well prefer this because an asterisk against the year would forever draw attention to the drug saga in which he was involved.

Just heard that Hird was bewildered by Jobe's decision.

REALLY!

James should be excluded from any comments about drugs, football  or sport until he recognises that there are international obligations on sportspeople.

 

WARNING

unless you have a particularly strong stomach i would strongly urge you not to read today's hun. It is all that was predicted and more

3 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

WARNING

unless you have a particularly strong stomach i would strongly urge you not to read today's hun. It is all that was predicted and more

Robinson must be staying up late with his crayons .

Cheers for heads up DC

Just read the Sun, how the hell is Slobbo employed in the media, that was the most biased load of rubbish i've ever seen! how can the AFL allow so much positive talk around a bloke who with his mates made a mockery of their rules and showed the whole world just how much integrity and strength the league really has.

5 minutes ago, Abe said:

Just read the Sun, how the hell is Slobbo employed in the media, that was the most biased load of rubbish i've ever seen! how can the AFL allow so much positive talk around a bloke who with his mates made a mockery of their rules and showed the whole world just how much integrity and strength the league really has.

if you read the electronic version then be aware the printed version seems to have more of the same, add warner to slobbo too