2016 Non-Crows AFL Discussion - Cont. in Part 2 (link in OP)

[Geoffa32]

I can't get over how people think the code doesn't work for team sports. Sorry but cycling is a team sport. The only way they got Armstrong was because they went after the doping the WHOLE team did. The team was banned, and it's not the only one. The claim that there is a unique culture in aussie rules where you do what your coach tells you, does not take into account that this is pretty much the same in any sport at the highest level all over the world. You only have to look at the systemic cover up that has been revealed in respect to Russian Athletics. I have enough contacts in Europe to know what has occured in other sports in Russia that are incredibly shocking, but accepted as the only way a child can make it out of poverty, so the parents turn a blind eye. I have somewhere on one of my hard drives vision of a russian head coach picking a chair up and throwing it at a gymnast in full view of the public and other gymnasts and coaches. No one bats an eye. That coach is the head of the Technical Panel of the International Federation of Gymnastics. You want to compete, you don't cross her.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

The insular nature of our sport has been highlighted through this. If the players got off purely due to hiding evidence and /or not knowing what substance they had injected into them, the precedent is set.

The Russians and other nations who are far more organised would have that precedent to protect them.

Like it or not we are part of a global system. Our sport may not be truly international, but the standards and rules that govern it in terms of preparing athletes are.



Sent from my HTC_0P6B6 using Tapatalk

 

[Vader]

I can't get over how people think the code doesn't work for team sports. Sorry but cycling is a team sport. The only way they got Armstrong was because they went after the doping the WHOLE team did. The team was banned, and it's not the only one. The claim that there is a unique culture in aussie rules where you do what your coach tells you, does not take into account that this is pretty much the same in any sport at the highest level all over the world. You only have to look at the systemic cover up that has been revealed in respect to Russian Athletics. I have enough contacts in Europe to know what has occured in other sports in Russia that are incredibly shocking, but accepted as the only way a child can make it out of poverty, so the parents turn a blind eye. I have somewhere on one of my hard drives vision of a russian head coach picking a chair up and throwing it at a gymnast in full view of the public and other gymnasts and coaches. No one bats an eye. That coach is the head of the Technical Panel of the International Federation of Gymnastics. You want to compete, you don't cross her.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

OK, sorry, but this is just wrong. Armstrong's team was never banned.

Armstrong received a life ban, and all of his teammates who were implicated were also banned for shorter periods - many of them years after their retirement. The Team Director and the doctor who gave them the drugs were also banned.

The team itself never lost its license and still exists today, albeit under new sponsorship (teams sponsors - and hence team names - change frequently in professional cycling).

This is akin to the Essendon players, Dank, and Hird all being banned - but nothing happening to Essendon itself.

 

[Geoffa32]

The Brownlow should just be not awarded for 2012.

Don't think they declared the Runners Up of Tour de France to Amrstrong as winners.

Sent from my HTC_0P6B6 using Tapatalk

 

[adelaidecrows]

I can't get over how people think the code doesn't work for team sports. Sorry but cycling is a team sport. The only way they got Armstrong was because they went after the doping the WHOLE team did. The team was banned, and it's not the only one. The claim that there is a unique culture in aussie rules where you do what your coach tells you, does not take into account that this is pretty much the same in any sport at the highest level all over the world. You only have to look at the systemic cover up that has been revealed in respect to Russian Athletics. I have enough contacts in Europe to know what has occured in other sports in Russia that are incredibly shocking, but accepted as the only way a child can make it out of poverty, so the parents turn a blind eye. I have somewhere on one of my hard drives vision of a russian head coach picking a chair up and throwing it at a gymnast in full view of the public and other gymnasts and coaches. No one bats an eye. That coach is the head of the Technical Panel of the International Federation of Gymnastics. You want to compete, you don't cross her.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

Very well said.

AFL have learnt the hard way that coaches, even if club heroes in past glories, can have their own interests at heart. At the end of the day its a massive conflict of interest for a coach to have the level of say over his players that many have been able to get away with. The difference in Aussie rules culture regarding the 'doing as the coach tells you' excuse is that its viewed as acceptable.

 

[adelaidecrows]

OK, sorry, but this is just wrong. Armstrong's team was never banned.

Armstrong received a life ban, and all of his teammates who were implicated were also banned for shorter periods - many of them years after their retirement. The Team Director and the doctor who gave them the drugs were also banned.

The team itself never lost its license and still exists today, albeit under new sponsorship (teams sponsors - and hence team names - change frequently in professional cycling).

This is akin to the Essendon players, Dank, and Hird all being banned - but nothing happening to Essendon itself.

Dude, I am sure thats what was meant. Read between the lines.

 

[adelaidecrows]

Any A-grade midfielders among the non-returning lot?



[ would we? ]

I would certainly pursue it once they are allowed to be contacted by AFL personnel again.

 

[FR0GGY]

This is why, this campaigner should never be allowed to post on this board EVER again.

What's wrong with that post?

 

[CrowsB4hoes]

This is why, this campaigner should never be allowed to post on this board EVER again.

Is he referring to Carey? Does he want us to bring up Nick Stevens?

 

[Alex99]

What's wrong with that post?

Clearly nothing. Removed. You are welcome to those campaigners.

 

[dogs105]

Wowee

How did this get forgotten about!!

http://m.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/the-science-of-stephen-dank-20130823-2shhd.html

Even Dank admitted he gave them TB4 and the AFL tribunal wasn't satisfied

Well I'm comfortably satisfied

 

[FR0GGY]

Clearly nothing. Removed. You are welcome to those campaigners.

Look I didn't read the thread and I'm sure there was plenty of shit, but that post was pretty spot on.

 

[Bicks]

This is why, this campaigner should never be allowed to post on this board EVER again.

I'll second that, along with several others of his ilk that do the same.

 

[adelaidecrows]

What's wrong with that post?

Besides the facts being wrong it appears. Carey's deplorable action happened well after his time at Adelaide had finished. Not sure what they are trying to suggest. I am disappointed to hear that some AFC fans are sticking it to Port calling them druggo's though. Its really got nothing to do with Port other then they gambled and they lost. I must admit my dad is a Port fan and I did suggest to him Port will be selling Ryder and Monfries 2016 supporter gear cheap.

 

[GrommoT]

Unofficially and I hope someone is more interested in checking these results in a little bit more detail, but if you exclude all Essendon game votes from the Brownlow ie votes that players got playing against the Dons, I declare Scott Thompson the 2012 Brownlow Medalist. ...

Nice as that would be, if a leading medal contender gets irrevocably done for a report in the last round of the season, the Brownlow goes ahead regardless and the rubbed out player just becomes ineligible even if he gets the most umpire votes.

What would they have done if yesterday's outcome had happened a few days before the 2012 award ceremony? Would they have called it off?

 

[dogs105]

I'm so livid about the AFL's approach it's got me genuinely re-considering my love for the game and my wider support for it.

Yes, me too. Wouldn't have imagined it possible.

 

[Jars458]

No they are not. They are still circumstantial. You can not ban someone on one urine test result. You have to also test the B sample, which has to show the same range as the A sample, before they consider that as evidence. Two 'circumstances' there making it more like direct evidence. Athletes have come up with other circumstances as to how a substance is showing up in their test. Therefore urine tests are not direct evidence and have never been considered so under doping violations.

I said nothing about what is needed for a ban. I am making technical legal points about what is direct evidnce and what is circumstantial.

Direct vs. Circumstantial Evidence: Observation vs. Inference. There are two types of evidence at a trial: direct and circumstantial. One, if believed, directly proves a fact; the other allows a fact to be inferred. In court a trial is held to determine specific facts and the legal implications of those facts.

 

[adelaidecrows]

I said nothing about what is needed for a ban. I am making technical legal points about what is direct evidnce and what is circumstantial.

Direct vs. Circumstantial Evidence: Observation vs. Inference. There are two types of evidence at a trial: direct and circumstantial. One, if believed, directly proves a fact; the other allows a fact to be inferred. In court a trial is held to determine specific facts and the legal implications of those facts.

Guys I don't think its worth arguing about. The point was under the weight of circumstantial evidence in the true sense of the term it was impossible to not draw the conclusion TB4 was what was used. By all reports by ASADA and WADA, the sheer weight of evidence in favour of that conclusion was overwhelming. Hence why the players were smashed by CAS. They are in a sense lucky to be let off so lightly rather then it being looked at as being punished severely.

 

[Niximus]

Unofficially and I hope someone is more interested in checking these results in a little bit more detail, but if you exclude all Essendon game votes from the Brownlow ie votes that players got playing against the Dons, I declare Scott Thompson the 2012 Brownlow Medalist. Cotchin and Mitchell scored votes 3 and 2 votes respectively playing Essendon, Thommo didnt get any votes from playing the Dons hence his votes stand. I could be wrong, lol, so I hope someone looks and checks my quick review.

EDIT - RUCCI if you are reading this, I expect you to be all over this in the newspaper in the coming days.

You are correct. If you exclude all Essendon games from the 2012 Brownlow counting. Thompson wins on 25 ahead of Mitchell 24, Cotchin 23.

 

[dogs105]

Still annoyed by what happened yesterday.

No penalty from AFL, concessions galore to replace banned players, seemingly nothing to prevent Essendon gaining this year's number 1 pick, state league teams impacted.

AFL can say all they want about wanting clean sport but there's still a complete lack of integrity from AFL and others in industry regarding this issue.

Can someone get the Sack Gillon avatars ready?
#standbyintegrity

 

[Vader]

The Brownlow should just be not awarded for 2012.

Don't think they declared the Runners Up of Tour de France to Amrstrong as winners.

Sent from my HTC_0P6B6 using Tapatalk

They did when Floyd Landis won and got busted. They didn't when Armstrong was stripped of his.

 

[FR0GGY]

They did when Floyd Landis won and got busted. They didn't when Armstrong was stripped of his.

Why's that?

 

[Pdub]

It's hard to argue you were hoodwinked and wouldn't have taken the player if you knew, when you made the exact same decision to take a player from them 2 years later with more information.

 

[adelaidecrows]

Why's that?

I think in a few of Armstrong's wins 7 of the top 10 were done for drugs. So I think the Cycling Federation (or what ever they are called) decided to save face and avoid any speculation.

 

[adelaidecrows]

It's hard to argue you were hoodwinked and wouldn't have taken the player if you knew, when you made the exact same decision to take a player from them 2 years later with more information.

Not sure, its a little different in my book. Ryder is a KPP who is worth the gamble as Monfries is not. Port might have still taken him but more likely as a FA rather then a good faith trade.

 

[I_Was_There]

What I would now love to hear is the other AFL Clubs speak out publicly against the stance taken by the AFLPA and the AFL in commenting on the findings. However, I guess we never will.