Essendon ASADA update

[Ricochet]

Could Jobe and Dyson still win the Brownlow with a 2 week suspension?

I think so, I can't see it being any different to whacking a bloke in the grand final, missing the early games of the next season then winning the medal since the incident occured in a different season. However, Jobe's Brownlow comes into question. Just like Olympic athletes get stripped of gold medals. If they find him guilty of taking a banned performance enhancing drug they have to strip him of it. But they won't because this whole entire thing is a joke. How can the bans be backdated? Saad wasn't allowed to speak to a coach even in a cafe, let alone go to training every week. Saad had an energy drink that is only banned on game day and cops 18 months, these guys "allegedly" had performance enhancing drugs injected into them and miss 2 matches and I bet they'll still be allowed to train.

^ that's the next point I was going to make. Surely, either Jobe loses his 2012 or is ineligible for 2014

annnd then the next question after that... If Jobe is found guilty, does he continue to fight and appeal for the sake of keeping his Brownlow/keeping his name clean? or does he cop his ban and go quietly?

[Big Mac]

It's a hard decision to make but I think he'd need to be stripped of his Brownlow. It's an award for the best & fairest, and if Jobe was taking any kind of performance enhancing drug then that's not exactly fair. I think he'd cop it and move on - Doesn't seem the kind of guy to make a big scene

[Drak]

Conjecture lads. Lets wait for a verdict first.

[nrich102]

It's a hard decision to make but I think he'd need to be stripped of his Brownlow. It's an award for the best & fairest, and if Jobe was taking any kind of performance enhancing drug then that's not exactly fair.

This. Jobe should not be allowed to keep his Brownlow.

The way the AFL and Essendon have gone about this is a complete joke. I don't know much about the politics and all, but why the flower is Hird still coach? It is just anti common sense.

Another question is did Hird use any "Sports Science" back in his playing days?

[FactHunt]

Conjecture lads. Lets wait for a verdict first.

This.

The Dons have had their trial by media- guilty of taking banned substances, yet nothing of the sort has been proven to date.

Yes there were dodgy practices happening at the club- they've copped their whack for that, between: missing finals, large fines, loss of draft picks, and a 12 month suspension for the coach.

I have always thought a great deal of James Hird, but even I must agree it's probably a bit much that he is still at the helm.

IF and WHEN they do get found guilty of using banned substances- then it would be reasonable to impose sanctions.

[AFEV]

Another question is did Hird use any "Sports Science" back in his playing days?

What the shower kind of comment is this? Antagonistic comment, this is pretty much unsubstantiated and a fairly severe and offensive accusation. If there were any evidence of it it there would've been a circus over it long ago.

Those trying to compare it to the situation with Saad are also reaching quite a bit. I would suggest the onus is more on the club than the players in this instance - and so you'd expect the club to receive the most major penalties, and they certainly have been heavily penalised.
Saad tested positive for an illicit substance, quantifiable proof that his ban was justified, although it in itself does seem harsh, it's irrelevant to the argument.
Contrast this with an entire playing list which may or may not have unknowingly been given substances which they were told were legal by qualified doctors, who may or may not have been told that these substances were legal by the responsible governing body, but we can't really know for sure because there are no positive tests.
The evidence is mostly circumstantial here, the verdict will be decided most likely be decided be a paper trail (or more accurately, a lack thereof), and questionable eye witness accounts. Not sufficient evidence under normal circumstances, but not a court of law either.

I haven't been one to vocally defend the club as the saga has gone on, because it is exhausting and the ordeal is really rather embarrassing for a supporter, but on occasion the accusations are so severe and seemingly unfounded or unjustified and it can be rather irritating.

As for Jobe, I would hope with any guilty verdict he would not argue to keep the Brownlow. He has always seemed like a humble character, and I don't imagine that he would be comfortable with the title if he had (even unknowingly) gained any perceived advantage over other players.

[Drak]

Another question is did Hird use any "Sports Science" back in his playing days?

What the shower kind of comment is this? Antagonistic comment, this is pretty much unsubstantiated and a fairly severe and offensive accusation. If there were any evidence of it it there would've been a circus over it long ago.

Those trying to compare it to the situation with Saad are also reaching quite a bit. I would suggest the onus is more on the club than the players in this instance - and so you'd expect the club to receive the most major penalties, and they certainly have been heavily penalised.
Saad tested positive for an illicit substance, quantifiable proof that his ban was justified, although it in itself does seem harsh, it's irrelevant to the argument.
Contrast this with an entire playing list which may or may not have unknowingly been given substances which they were told were legal by qualified doctors, who may or may not have been told that these substances were legal by the responsible governing body, but we can't really know for sure because there are no positive tests.
The evidence is mostly circumstantial here, the verdict will be decided most likely be decided be a paper trail (or more accurately, a lack thereof), and questionable eye witness accounts. Not sufficient evidence under normal circumstances, but not a court of law either.

I haven't been one to vocally defend the club as the saga has gone on, because it is exhausting and the ordeal is really rather embarrassing for a supporter, but on occasion the accusations are so severe and seemingly unfounded or unjustified and it can be rather irritating.

As for Jobe, I would hope with any guilty verdict he would not argue to keep the Brownlow. He has always seemed like a humble character, and I don't imagine that he would be comfortable with the title if he had (even unknowingly) gained any perceived advantage over other players.

I was gonna go on this rant instead of putting my "conjecture" comment earlier.... but its pointless AFEV.

Peoples hatred of other teams regardless of circumstance dictates an irrational pov no matter what.

Innocent until proven guilty went out the window the moment Essendon self reported.

Take solace in the irrevocable truth that a lack of intelligence belies wild accusations, sensationalising and antagonising at the most basic human level... and Im talking real basic.. Forrest Gump basic.

[Scrads]

Conjecture lads. Lets wait for a verdict first.

This.

The Dons have had their trial by media- guilty of taking banned substances, yet nothing of the sort has been proven to date.

Yes there were dodgy practices happening at the club- they've copped their whack for that, between: missing finals, large fines, loss of draft picks, and a 12 month suspension for the coach.

I have always thought a great deal of James Hird, but even I must agree it's probably a bit much that he is still at the helm.

IF and WHEN they do get found guilty of using banned substances- then it would be reasonable to impose sanctions.

For me, that's what ASADA putting them on the register of findings does. It means their investigation has found them guilty.

[Drak]

Conjecture lads. Lets wait for a verdict first.

This.

The Dons have had their trial by media- guilty of taking banned substances, yet nothing of the sort has been proven to date.

Yes there were dodgy practices happening at the club- they've copped their whack for that, between: missing finals, large fines, loss of draft picks, and a 12 month suspension for the coach.

I have always thought a great deal of James Hird, but even I must agree it's probably a bit much that he is still at the helm.

IF and WHEN they do get found guilty of using banned substances- then it would be reasonable to impose sanctions.

For me, that's what ASADA putting them on the register of findings does. It means their investigation has found them guilty.

Then you don't understand how our legal system works. Having enough evidence to prosecute is not a guilty verdict.

[Scrads]

Conjecture lads. Lets wait for a verdict first.

This.

The Dons have had their trial by media- guilty of taking banned substances, yet nothing of the sort has been proven to date.

Yes there were dodgy practices happening at the club- they've copped their whack for that, between: missing finals, large fines, loss of draft picks, and a 12 month suspension for the coach.

I have always thought a great deal of James Hird, but even I must agree it's probably a bit much that he is still at the helm.

IF and WHEN they do get found guilty of using banned substances- then it would be reasonable to impose sanctions.

For me, that's what ASADA putting them on the register of findings does. It means their investigation has found them guilty.

Then you don't understand how our legal system works. Having enough evidence to prosecute is not a guilty verdict.

What I'm trying to say is, if ASADA have found them to be guilty then that's good enough for my own personal opinion. Whether the technicalities etc of the legal system find them guilty or not is another thing.

[Drak]

Scrads, ASADA hasn't found them guilty.

They have enough evidence to prosecute them in pursuance of a guilty charge.

[Scrads]

Scrads, ASADA hasn't found them guilty.

They have enough evidence to prosecute them in pursuance of a guilty charge.

I was under the impression that ASADA found that they made an anti-doping violation by placing them on the register of findings and issuing infraction notices.

I'm just saying that's enough for me to personally believe that the players and club did the wrong thing, regardless of whether the AFL anti-doping tribunal decides whether they will have a punishment to serve or not.

[silloc]

Scrads, ASADA hasn't found them guilty.

They have enough evidence to prosecute them in pursuance of a guilty charge.

I was under the impression that ASADA found that they made an anti-doping violation by placing them on the register of findings and issuing infraction notices.

I'm just saying that's enough for me to personally believe that the players and club did the wrong thing, regardless of whether the AFL anti-doping tribunal decides whether they will have a punishment to serve or not.

So, you believe the players were told that you're going to be taking thymosin beta-4, and just to keep it on the hush.

edit: and that ASADA know this but can only prove it circumstantially

[Drak]

Scrads, ASADA hasn't found them guilty.

They have enough evidence to prosecute them in pursuance of a guilty charge.

I was under the impression that ASADA found that they made an anti-doping violation by placing them on the register of findings and issuing infraction notices.

I'm just saying that's enough for me to personally believe that the players and club did the wrong thing, regardless of whether the AFL anti-doping tribunal decides whether they will have a punishment to serve or not.

What about the 11 other clubs that were said to be as equally "unaccountable for their supplements program" as Essendon. 11 Clubs who's documentation of their programs was as "inadequate" as Essendons.

Why aren't you putting them to the sword as well?

What happens if ASADA move on to those clubs after its done with Essendon? Will your view change? Will you be as irrevocably staunch in your condemnation?

What if its your club?

[silloc]

Scrads, ASADA hasn't found them guilty.

They have enough evidence to prosecute them in pursuance of a guilty charge.

I was under the impression that ASADA found that they made an anti-doping violation by placing them on the register of findings and issuing infraction notices.

I'm just saying that's enough for me to personally believe that the players and club did the wrong thing, regardless of whether the AFL anti-doping tribunal decides whether they will have a punishment to serve or not.

What about the 11 other clubs that were said to be as equally "unaccountable for their supplements program" as Essendon. 11 Clubs who's documentation of their programs was as "inadequate" as Essendons.

Why aren't you putting them to the sword as well?

What happens if ASADA move on to those clubs after its done with Essendon? Will your view change? Will you be as irrevocably staunch in your condemnation?

What if its your club?

They wont go after other clubs, essendon was the predetermined scape goat as they were the worst.