La Dee-vina Comedia

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

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?

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

I'm not convinced that Essendon is any different from approximately 17 other clubs in this regard.

If I were a PR type advising Watson, I'd suggest the best time to make the announcement is when there is the least likelihood of extensive media coverage. So I would tell him to do it on a Friday afternoon in a week likely to be a big news week. We've known that the week of the US elections was going to be a big news week, irrespective of that outcome, so it may well have been planned since the finality of the legal process that today would be the day.

Disagree. Watson losing the medal was the easy decision although in the the AFL Commission didn't have to make it. The hard decisions are whether to award it to Cotchin and Mitchell and whether to develop a robust policy so a situation like this never happens again (ie, clear and transparent rules as to what trangressions which come to light after the award is made will result in a player losing the award).

I know Dane Swan has talked about some of his exploits involving undesirable activities during his playing years. If he admitted to taking banned substances, even if recreational, during the year he won his Brownlow, would he be putting that award at risk? I suspect this is going to be the sort of concern the AFL Commission will have when deciding on Jobe's award. In other words, it's not just the decision (which I still think is clear) but the language they use when they announce the decision to ensure they have a clear path for future problems which might arise involving past misdemeanours.

I think this is a really good point. He may still give it back but with a carefully crafted public statement which says that he still believes he did nothing wrong but for the "good of the game" he wants to put this affair behind him which will allow everyone and in particular, the others of the Essendon 34, to get on with the rest of their lives.

I'm not sure whether I should apologise for being an apologist or make no apologies for it. I've only been discussing the process, not the outcome. For what it's worth I'll state again that I can't see how Watson can hold on to his Brownlow. That's not a difficult decision for me to make on what I know. But the AFL has to make a decision that is (a) fair [oh, the irony], (b) future-proof [as it sets a precedent] and (c) immune to any possible legal challenge [although I'm hard pressed to work out what that might be, other than on anything that looks like a failure of procedural fairness...hence the possible reason for the AFL's apparently cautious approach]. The hard decision is whether to now award it to Mitchell and Cotchin.

I suspect it's a "legal thing". The AFL Commission would likely have advice that making a decision prior to all the facts being known (including anything that might have been uncovered throughout all the legal actions) may prejudice their final decision. Hence, better to wait until everything needed to make a decision is available.

That's reasonably easy to answer. The Commission has to meet. It's only part-time, so it has to wait for a meeting.

There's a difference between the AFL making a decision and the timing of that decision. I can't see how the AFL could have acted until all legal avenues were exhausted.

I've found a loophole for the AFL. He wasn't found guilty of taking any illegal substances in the same year as he won the Brownlow. Therefore he wasn't ineligible for breaching the 'fairest' provision in that year. Therefore he can keep his Brownlow. (Just in case anyone is taking me seriously, don't.)

Puffery defined. Doesn't matter who's mouth it comes from.

I think you're right to ask the question. I doubt 2-and-a-half weeks of anything would change someone's body shape. I'll treat that story as puffery.

Thanks, but on this evidence, I remain unconvinced. (Right now, though, I suspect the club is pleased they've moved on from Samsung as jumper sponsor.)

He had big thighs when he started his career. But if his thighs were demonstrably bigger between one season and the next, I agree that there would be questions asked (and which may be answerable by responses such as changed diet, additional (legal) supplements and a different training regimen).

I'd like to see some photos that prove this assertion. Otherwise I can't help thinking it's oft-repeated groupthink.

I can understand this in theory. But handing it back before all legal avenues have been finalised could be perceived as an admission of guilt, irrespective of what words he uses as part of any such process.

The "memory of Chas Brownlow"? Who knows anything about him?

Thanks Diamond_Jim. This form is exactly what I've been looking for. If I were an Essendon player I would have argued that I didn't think I had to disclose the injections because I didn't believe they met the definition of "non-prescription medication or supplements" on the basis that I (the player) thought they were vitamins or peptides...which, surely, aren't supplements. But it seems they didn't argue that, so, I have no idea why (a) they didn't complete the form properly and (b) they didn't choose better lawyers who would have thought of this as a cogent argument.

Come on dc, that's not Donald Duck. Surely you can do better than that.

It's a peripheral point, but what exactly was the relevance of failing to disclose "the presence of Stephen Dank at away matches"?

I agree that the role of the Commission is go make the tough decisions. But that doesn't mean that they have to make every decision. If Watson returns the medal, that's one less matter for the AFL to be criticised for, irrespective of what decision they make. In my view there are really two decisions which need to be made, and one of them is easy. The easy one is that Watson cannot retain his medal. The more difficult one is whether to award it to someone else, and if so, to those who came second on the night (Cotchin and Mitchell) or whether to exclude all games involving Essendon from the voting altogether.

I thought Demetriou argued that he shouldn't be discussing the matter because as a Commissioner he may have to make a determination and could be accused of bias if he had discussed the matter publicly prior to that decision being made. You can take Linda Dessau out. She's now Governor of Victoria (and as a passionate Essendon supporter I suspect she's probably glad she's no longer responsible for having to make this decision.) In a legal sense, taking something away from someone is much harder than not awarding it in the first place. I would think the AFL's lawyers have advised that procedural fairness obliges the AFL to give Watson an opportunity to comment. It's also strategically a good idea as the process may "encourage" Watson to hand the medal back thereby allowing the Commissioners to avoid having to make a decision at all.