Chris

There is a much simpler explonation.

Buttering up the players so they sue for less

It would be great if the AFL only had two standards!

I agree with the reasoning that the process needs to be fair and if it wasn't then go for the appeal. They aren't really arguing that though, they seem to be grasping at straws. The WADA stance on why they appealed wasn't about team sports, it was about the burden of proof and how trials were heard. They were basically saying that the burden the AFL placed on the case was massively too high and if that remains as the precedent then they may as shut up shop. They said if that burden had been used for Lance he would have walked free and he had heaps of witnesses lining up to tell CAS all about how he cheated.

For anyone interested here is a link to the 2010 AFL anti doping code. http://www.sportingpulse.com/get_file.cgi?id=3156395 No mention that I can find of any limitations on the way CAS heard the appeal. Point 3.3 is interesting around a club or club staff breaking the code and the club should be punished. The AFL seem to be ignoring that one.

Here is a pearly of a comment from the delusionals on the Hun site. "I cannot believe they can be convicted fairly when the standard of proof is 'reasonably satisfied'. This is a complete nonsense. So without any positive drug tests the body adjudicating the case can 'feel' that the vibe is that they are guilty. Until the standard of proof is at the very least on the 'balance of probability' (civil jurisdiction) then the AFL must walk away from WADA and the Court of arbitration for sport."

The Australian and Hun reporting the appeal is on with most of the 34 joining in and it is all being funded by the EFC. I would love to what grounds they are appealing on? Hopefully Melksham sees sense and just takes the 12 months off and doesn't risk the extra year, especially if an injunction isn't granted and he has to sit out this year anyway. I have a sneaky suspicion that if they do get an injunction and play this year then the booing of Goodes last year will seem like a welcome home celebration in comparison to what these boys will get.

Then use beyond reasonable doubt and he still looses it as it is beyond reasonable doubt that he has been suspended for his actions during that year, that renders him ineligible.

Even if they do use beyond reasonable doubt about taking it back they still have to take it as it is beyond reasonable doubt that he has been found guilty of using banned substances in the year he won and has been suspended for doing so. It is actually more than beyond reasonable doubt, it is fact. The AFL should have thought about this far more than they did but as we all know they had little idea of what was coming around the bend. The best solution would have been to have come out before the findings were announced and said 'if Jobe is found guilty he will be required to hand back his medal once he has not taken up any options for appeal'. This would have done many things including taking the pressure off Jobe, taking away the speculation, and making the AFL look like they have a modicum of integrity and sense.

The problem with saying it should be beyond reasonable doubt is that the AFL tribunal does not work to that standard and they rule people out of eligibility every year. To say it has to be in this case is illogical at best.

Fair point but I give him the benefit as this may just be a coincidence that it is the first time he has commented on it. If he fails to do in the future I may well take that benefit away.

A mix of both, i think Michelle comes with the credentials to add to the football department, especially once we have a womens team where i would think she will continue to be the head coach. With Daisy i see it as more a display of affermative action to continue the worthwhile endevour of promoting womens football. Her role sounds very much like a traineeship in all things footy and comes with the increase of profile from and for Daisy and should be a win for all involved. I am not sure Daisy will make us a better football team but it does make us a better football club.

Is railing against the peer group not what i would be doing, and is the easiest way to teach a child not to lead be example?

Sorry for wanting the world in which my daughter grows up to be a more equal and safer world than the one my wife, sisters, and mother grew up in. If that makes me sanctimoneous then so be it. To qualify i only call people out on racism and sexist behavior. Generally being offensive isnt worth it.

Nice clarification fence. What you have stated here has a very different flavour than your first post. I will give you the benefit that it was a break down in language and interpretation and not your clear intention. I find i am very cautious when commenting on women gaining positions and ensure it is in line with the standard i set for the men. From your clarification you do the same but this was the first time you had expressed it publically, which is where the issue arose. I do disagree on the quals and think relevant experience can give you far more than the piece of paper can, although the piece of paper is desirable i dont see it as essential. One thing i will continue to do is call out people for sexist and offensive behavior without prejudice or hesitation. It is what we should all do to drive our society to one that is more equal and safer for the women that live with it. To finish i would like to say thanks for the get stuffed, and same back straight at you.

Let us all go back to your first post Picket. "I would hope both have professional qualifications comensurate to the job!? In this day and age qualifications are an essential part of gaining "Gravitas" for any role in a professional sporting organization! I never liked the "Old Boys" network that existed in some clubs which saw ex players promoted above their level of competency! I expect to be howled down now by some as result being called Chauvenistic and Prejudiced but so be it. If these ladies have the qualifications then I HAVE NO PROBLEM! if not I would think we can draw whatever conclusions behind this move. As player welfare coach you would want to have a least a Graduate Diploma or Masters degree in theoretical and clinical Practice! IMV FIRE AWAY ALL!" You claim to have not been disrespectful yet your first sentence questions their qualifications, have you done this with any male gaining a position at the club in the past? Your second para suggests your automatic assumption is they have been promoted above their level of competency yet you have no idea of their qualifications. Have you ever suggested this for a male entering the club? In your third para you go on to imply their employment is a token gesture if they do not have a piece of paper. All in all I would suggest that is fairly disrespectful of the pair of them. On the question of my comments above, I do not imply in any way that you are abusive towards women and to draw the link from the PM's comment is to misunderstand the PM's comment. For clarity the PM's comment was never about saying that everyone disrespectful towards women was also abusive, he was simply saying that by accepting the disrespect a small minority will use that as justification for their abuse. What he was asking was that we remove all disrespect and then that small minority lose that justification in their head. Here is the quote "Let me say this to you: disrespecting women does not always result in violence against women. But all violence against women begins with disrespecting women," Mr Turnbull said. This was a call to all men to call out the disrespect, that is what we are doing. Like it or not your questioning of these women for no other possible reason than because they are women is disrespectful (note I did not say abusive, violent, or any other words to that effect, and I do not suggest you are such).

Yes, it appears we can't call out people for inappropriate views on this site, no matter how calm and considered the responses are. That would seem to fly in the face of the national campaign for men to stand up to other men who are disrespecting women, what was it the prime minister said about disrespecting women again? For the sake of clarity for those of you who do not understand the comments of the PM, I am in no way suggesting or implying that Picket is abusive or violent towards women. I am suggesting that accepting disrespect of women, no matter how small, is not acceptable on any level.

Sounds like Bracks when he announced the de-sal was being built on this site in Wonthaggi and it will be this big, and cost this much, and this is who is building it, and now we will start the consultation with the community! Not the way to run the process or come across as a reputable operator at all.

Picket, you are way out of line on this one. Firstly, you never complained or asked questions when a bloke with less qualifications got the role, yet you do now. Says it all right there. Secondly, you do not have to have a qualification to be good at a job, only snobby hoity toity academics think that way. For instance within my family my wife is the general manager of a finance company employing in excess of 80 people across 2 countries. She has reached this stage by her early to mid 30's, she has zero tertiary qualifications and has managed to have a child in the middle of that. She got the job, and is excelling at the job due to her intellect, determination, and the skills learnt coming up from being admin staff at another business 12 years ago. Again, no formal qualifications and has done so in one of the most male dominated industries there is!. My brother in law is in his late 30's, he has been at the highest level of management in some of the countries largest recruitment companies for the last 10 years. Again zero qualifications, he is just very smart and very driven. I actually have a tertiary qualification, ironically also from Rusden but not a dip ed and it was Deakin at that point, and I realise from having the bit of paper that the value of them is limited, they are not the panacea that they are portrayed to be (unless it is something like medicine). I could not give a stuff if Michelle, or Shannon has the right paper work, I care far more about do they have the right experience and attributes to do the job well. In Michelle's case I would say she does straight off the bat, with Shannon it is more a learning environment which is also great.

It holds up if people reportes as fact that he injected the players with banned drugs and they forgot the allegedly part. Many jounos also attacked his credibility and qblamed him for all sorts of things. If they remebered the allegedly part they should be fine, if they forgot it then they may have issues.

It may well come down to his thought that he didnt inject banned substances. If he can prove he didnt then he could go after all who said he did as it was a lie and defamed his character. I would like to see him try as he has to prove they lied, not them prove they didn't.

My interest was fine right up until I saw the reactions from AFL land about the penalties, especially from Paul Marsh. Add to that that the players are being paid, and now allowed to go to 'personal sponsor' events, which they wouldn't have if it wasn't for footy, and then the seeming limp wristed response of ASADA on the matter and all interest is quickly evaporating. Still havent paid my membership this year and am starting to really think it may not get paid again, may well walk from the game completely.

It comes down to the responsibilties o c the players, they can claim they have been assaulted by Dank as he injected them with things that werent not banned as he said, but they didnt check with ASADA so in the eyes of WADA they agreed to by injected with Thymosin, which they did, and just because Dank said it was not banned doesnt matter. The other unknown drugs would also count towards any potential charge, things like the horse drug

Many of those 'party drugs' are counted as performance enhancing but the issue with tested for them is that it only lasts in your system for a day or two so the window to catch people is slim. Given the little amount of testing that is done in the AFL it is no wonder people get away with it.

That was the maximum per offence, from memory there were two offences so the max was just over 600k. I agree with your logic but if the max is 600 then they got 30% of that, not really much more than a slap.