Do we the wider footy public support Essendon as per Little's comment today?

[DudleyB]

So will Monfries lose his premiership medal should Port win the premiership? Will the grand final be compromised because he was playing? Or does this only apply when the player plays for Essendon? I'm not talking about the club. i'm talking about the player's reputation

I have explained this in the last post re James Hardie.

Port ARE NOT under investigation for a club-wide systematic doping regime.

And yes - there is a hypothetical possibility Monfries may lose his medal should he get one. That cant be ruled out.

But you also seem to be forgetting also that Jobe won his Brownlow in the same year that drug taking took place.

 

[BownAndGold75]

My comments are leaving Essendon out of this and I'm not defending Essendon. Wouldn't ever change teams. I started liking AFL because of Essendon and therefore right now, I only care about Essendon. Don't care about any other club or the AFL for that matter.

According to the general public, these peds used by the players last for a few years. So why is it that the public pressure wasn't on Monfries to step down last year? Don't tell me that the players have the public's sympathy now when Jobe was referred to as a drug cheat. So why do these players receive different treatment based on who they play for?

You said it yourself. You only care for Essendon, but not the players. Any player, be it Monfires or Watson, who accept their suspension, will not have their reputation tarnished. The public is fully aware that they were duped by EFC, yet were brave enough to own up, play by the rules and cop their whack. Reputations are tarnished by telling lies, bending rules, seeking injunction on evidence, and weaseling through legal loopholes.

 

[Jam123]

I dont think most of the general public really blame the players - they do have some responsibility and as others have said are held accountable under strict liability rules. Jobe should not have been booed.
Sadly I think the club is busy defending the people really responsible and hanging the players out to dry (because of the strict liability rules).
Very sad to see a great club mislead its fans and abuse its players.

In terms of the club, let's just say that if those people responsible for this were in front of me, I would have a few things to say. I am not going to discuss it here.

What I see is a massive backflip on people's perception of the players because of who they play for. Last year, Essendon players were the cheats. Now after copping all of what they got, they are the victims? There is a big difference between the treatment of Monfries compared to the other players currently at Essendon. What is the difference between them and him?

What are the chances that Bulldogs supporters were calling Crameri a cheat last year and cheering for him this year? I get if people don't like Essendon, but what do the players have to do with this?

And why are Bulldogs, Port and Fremantle not criticised when playing players that are accused of doping? Weren't they all calling for Essendon players to step down last year? If they think that the player's health is affected by what happened at the club in 2012, try the constant pressure from the last two years.

 

[BownAndGold75]

In terms of the club, let's just say that if those people responsible for this were in front of me, I would have a few things to say. I am not going to discuss it here.

What I see is a massive backflip on people's perception of the players because of who they play for. Last year, Essendon players were the cheats. Now after copping all of what they got, they are the victims? There is a big difference between the treatment of Monfries compared to the other players currently at Essendon. What is the difference between them and him?

What are the chances that Bulldogs supporters were calling Crameri a cheat last year and cheering for him this year? I get if people don't like Essendon, but what do the players have to do with this?

And why are Bulldogs, Port and Fremantle not criticised when playing players that are accused of doping? Weren't they all calling for Essendon players to step down last year? If they think that the player's health is affected by what happened at the club in 2012, try the constant pressure from the last two years.

Funny every single Port or Bulldogs fan I knew fully supports Monfries and Crameri taking their suspension. I guess that would be one reason they are treated differently.

 

[Jam123]

You said it yourself. You only care for Essendon, but not the players. Any player, be it Monfires or Watson, who accept their suspension, will not have their reputation tarnished. The public is fully aware that they were duped by EFC, yet were brave enough to own up, play by the rules and cop their whack. Reputations are tarnished by telling lies, bending rules, seeking injunction on evidence, and weaseling through legal loopholes.

I only care about watching Essendon play. Did I really need to elaborate on that? Not saying anything about the club itself and their actions. As I have stated before, I have my opinion and I am not discussing it here.

 

[Jam123]

Funny every single Port or Bulldogs fan I knew fully support Monfries and Crameri taking their suspension. I guess that would be one reason they are treated differently.

I'm not talking about Bulldogs or Port fans, nor am I talking about the current events. I'm talking about the general public and the media in the last 17 months of this investigation.

 

[BownAndGold75]

I'm not talking about Bulldogs or Port fans, nor am I talking about the current events. I'm talking about the general public and the media in the last 17 months of this investigation.

Bulldogs, Port and Freo are not criticized because they will comply with ASADA findings. It's not that hard to understand, play by the rules and you won't get critisized.

 

[Jam123]

Bulldogs, Port and Freo are not criticized because they will comply with ASADA findings. It's not that hard to understand, play by the rules and you won't get critisized.

You don't seem to understand do you. If people were of the opinion that players are responsible for doping and if it was such a big deal for those players to play out the year, why didn't Monfries receive the same treatment? Why were Essendon viewed as cheating based on playing those players alone (and were pressured to have those players stand down) while Port weren't pressured to stand Monfires down pending the findings?

 

[Perry Pie]

You don't seem to understand do you. If people were of the opinion that players are responsible for doping and if it was such a big deal for those players to play out the year, why didn't Monfries receive the same treatment? Why were Essendon viewed as cheating based on playing those players alone (and were pressured to have those players stand down) while Port weren't pressured to stand Monfires down pending the findings?

Essendon were viewed as cheating because the club organised the drug taking. Port did not organise drug taking did they - can you maybe see the difference?

 

[Jam123]

I have explained this in the last post re James Hardie.

Port ARE NOT under investigation for a club-wide systematic doping regime.

And yes - there is a hypothetical possibility Monfries may lose his medal should he get one. That cant be ruled out.

But you also seem to be forgetting also that Jobe won his Brownlow in the same year that drug taking took place.

Well that doesn't matter. According to most, unless the player serves their suspension, they are still cheats. So it doesn't matter whether it was during that year or 5 years after.

But don't Port know that they have a player that may have potentially doped? Aren't they playing him? Where were the calls to have him step down like our players had last year?

 

[BownAndGold75]

You don't seem to understand do you. If people were of the opinion that players are responsible for doping and if it was such a big deal for those players to play out the year, why didn't Monfries receive the same treatment? Why were Essendon viewed as cheating based on playing those players alone (and were pressured to have those players stand down) while Port weren't pressured to stand Monfires down pending the findings?

You need to get your head straight mate, Essendon were viewed as cheating because they duped their players, not because they played them during the investigation. I don't see many pressuring the players to stand down, especially when people don't even know who they are. Port are not pressured to stand Monfires down pending the findings because Port showed no intention of not standing him down if found guilty.

 

[Jam123]

Essendon were viewed as cheating because the club organised the drug taking. Port did not organise drug taking did they - can you maybe see the difference?

Of course I can. I'm only posing some of these questions based on what I have heard from the media and general public last year. Based on that criteria, I am asking why Port haven't been criticised for playing a player under investigation. Or should the investigation for him be finalised before we can have an opinion? If so, why didn't that apply to our players last year? Like Jobe for example

I am not saying that Port should be criticised. I'm saying why they haven't based on their own criteria that they provided.

 

[Jam123]

You need to get your head straight mate, Essendon were viewed as cheating because they duped their players, not because they played them during the investigation. I don't see many pressuring the players to stand down, especially when people don't even know who they are. Port are not pressured to stand Monfires down pending the findings because Port showed no intention of not standing him down if found guilty.

Oh so players at Essendon were not pressured to stand down? They weren't called cheats? Jobe wasn't booed? Flick a couple of pages back and you might be able to see what I mean. Or in fact, go to the thread "listing" the Essendon players earlier in the year. I am wondering why Essendon players last year weren't given the same treatment. All of a sudden, people care about how the players feel when some of our players had their names published without the investigation being completed.

 

[BownAndGold75]

Oh so players at Essendon were not pressured to stand down? They weren't called cheats? Jobe wasn't booed? Flick a couple of pages back and you might be able to see what I mean. Or in fact, go to the thread "listing" the Essendon players earlier in the year. I am wondering why Essendon players last year weren't given the same treatment. All of a sudden, people care about how the players feel when some of our players had their names published without the investigation being completed.

Jobe is a slightly different case in that he chose to go on national tv and admit to using AOD, you've got to be prepared for the consequence of your own actions there. As far as I am concerned, there was no difference between the treatment of other Essendon players and Monfreis or Crameri.

 

[Dont be a lemon]

What about me

 

[Jam123]

Jobe is a slightly different case in that he chose to go on national tv and admit to using AOD, you've got to be prepared for the consequence of your own actions there. As far as I am concerned, there was no difference between the treatment of other Essendon players and Monfreis or Crameri.

No difference at all? Hmmm
You can make a case for Crameri as he was there last year when all of this played out, but there is no denying that Monfries was definitely treated in a different manner.

He didn't get all the abuse on social network, football forums that the Essendon players did. Port fans certainly didn't, but many were ruthless to our players. I haven't really commented on this and usually like to avoid it, but I find the current sympathy for the players view ridiculous when it could have been done a long time ago. Treated like shit for 17 months and now they will have the full support if they take the ban?

 

[The Scales]

Jobe is a slightly different case in that he chose to go on national tv and admit to using AOD, you've got to be prepared for the consequence of your own actions there. As far as I am concerned, there was no difference between the treatment of other Essendon players and Monfreis or Crameri.

With the current information you have at your disposal, re: AOD, you choose this path to argue a point? You have the knowledge that ASADA have withheld the fact they did not provide accurate advice in relation to AOD, yet elect to goad posters with redundant points?

C'mon BOWN. Pretend you are better than that. Your other posts deny you the right to hide behind this BS angle.

 

[kiwicrow]

In terms of the club, let's just say that if those people responsible for this were in front of me, I would have a few things to say. I am not going to discuss it here.

What I see is a massive backflip on people's perception of the players because of who they play for. Last year, Essendon players were the cheats. Now after copping all of what they got, they are the victims? There is a big difference between the treatment of Monfries compared to the other players currently at Essendon. What is the difference between them and him?

What are the chances that Bulldogs supporters were calling Crameri a cheat last year and cheering for him this year? I get if people don't like Essendon, but what do the players have to do with this?

And why are Bulldogs, Port and Fremantle not criticised when playing players that are accused of doping? Weren't they all calling for Essendon players to step down last year? If they think that the player's health is affected by what happened at the club in 2012, try the constant pressure from the last two years.

In my opinion, they're all cheats, happy now?

 

[Graffy4242]

So you want the players banned for damaging the reputation of the AFL?

No, just for taking banned Performance Enhancing Drugs over a prolonged period.

The club can be given further sanctions in my opinion for disrepute in relation to the drugs. Possibly add some additional sanctions for their bloody arrogance.

 

[blackshadow]

You don't seem to understand do you. If people were of the opinion that players are responsible for doping and if it was such a big deal for those players to play out the year, why didn't Monfries receive the same treatment? Why were Essendon viewed as cheating based on playing those players alone (and were pressured to have those players stand down) while Port weren't pressured to stand Monfires down pending the findings?

You just don't seem to understand do you that under anti doping rules players/athletes are responsible for whatever substances enter their bodies.

There's a good reason for that - otherwise every drug cheat in sport would be able to lay off blame on doctors etc

The anti doping code also does take into account mitigating circumstances and assistance players gives to nail those responsible by giving significant discounts to suspensions for doping.

It's harsh on the players but ultimately fair in a sporting environment.

 

[Magruder]

Chris Connoly is a minnow and not sure what he's done wrong, but Eddie McGuire has been as good for the game as he's been for Collingwood. I think you're trolling though so shouldn't be taken seriously.

Yeah Edwardo has been a net positive for the game in general. Occassional foot in mouth and one-eyedness aside. Wouldn't mind a prezzo like him.

 

[morgoth]

Virtually no external support for the Bombers and I think the actions and comments of Little and co over the weekend have made a bad situation worse.

Little is either misleading his membership base or he has no understanding of the intent and purpose of the WADA code and how it is enforced. His carry on about, players being innocent, been put through the ringer and that they co-operted etc counts for nothing. The code is written with strict liability, ie that if you take banned substances regardless of intent, etc you have to be penalised.

There is virtually no getting off free. ASADA has not abbility to waive penalties, it is obligated to enforce the WADA code and all the stomping of feet and crossing of arms will achieve SFA.

 

[captain blood 17]

Well the wider football community are certainly in agreement…

Really the amount of vitriol in this thread is ridiculous. You want the whole club gone based on the actions of a few individuals? You seem to be thinking that all of the Essendon supporters think the same.

Talking about generalisation, what do you think about Monfries, Crameri or Gumbleton? Should Monfries be among the 34 players and they win the premiership, would Port have an * next to their premiership? If Gumbleton plays in Fremantle's premiership, would they have an * next to their premiership? Are Port cheating by letting a player like Monfries play with this cloud hanging on top of his head? Did Fremantle and Western Bulldogs cheat by knowingly getting a questionable player to boost their chances of a premiership? Or is it innocent until proven guilty for these players?

Did Port step him down last year and do the 'honourable thing'? Were the finals compromised because he played? According to most here, each player is responsible. If there were infractions heading their way, would their club's reputation be tarnished for drafting and playing such players? I mean they actively traded for players who were accused of doping and played them without serving their suspensions. Or is that the way of Australian Sport these days?

If Essendon have an * to you, then so do Port, Bulldogs and Fremantle to me. Not that I hate Port, Bulldogs or Fremantle. Quite the opposite. While everyone is tearing the players at Essendon apart, those other players are sitting quietly at their own respective clubs. In fact, Bulldogs, Port and Fremantle supporters are willing to see their own club play these questionable players and cheering them on, while the same supporters are having a go at our supporters for cheering the players and backing our boys. If you were true to your words, you would have pressured your respective clubs to stand those players down pending on further investigation. But because it affects your club, it is fine to turn a blind eye. Well because it affects my club, is it fine for me to turn a blind eye too? And you don't understand the mentality of a lot of Essendon supporters while you are unknowingly doing it too? Well here is a perspective of what it is like. The way Essendon supporters are now is an insight to how your respective supporter base would be should they be in Essendon's situation. Don't have to look far with the defensive mindset that Sydney supporters have over COLA.

If everyone else were to be in agreement that the players were responsible and shouldn't be playing now, then it doen't matter what colour jumper they are wearing. There is no ifs or buts about that. Don't see anyone nullifying any of Crameri's goals because he is a 'drug cheat', certainly not Bulldogs supporters.

FWIW, I am not stating my opinion on what has happened at the club and who stays and who goes. Not going to discuss that here.

Okay, firstly, cola was signed off by all the league. Your club included, your "supplements program" wasn't.
Quite simply, without ripping your whole argument apart, it's like this, Monfries may very well miss on finals and a possible GF because of the actions of your club. Crameri, Lonegan and Gumbleton may all lose income through suspensions due to the actions of your club.
Should it occur, you are going to have your arse sued off.
There will be no * next to any other clubs names.

 

[ziad]

Okay, firstly, cola was signed off by all the league. Your club included, your "supplements program" wasn't.
Quite simply, without ripping your whole argument apart, it's like this, Monfries may very well miss on finals and a possible GF because of the actions of your club. Crameri, Lonegan and Gumbleton may all lose income through suspensions due to the actions of your club.
Should it occur, you are going to have your arse sued off.
There will be no * next to any other clubs names.

Little Jobe may lose a bit as well.

 

[captain blood 17]

My comments are leaving Essendon out of this and I'm not defending Essendon. Wouldn't ever change teams. I started liking AFL because of Essendon and therefore right now, I only care about Essendon. Don't care about any other club or the AFL for that matter.

According to the general public, these peds used by the players last for a few years. So why is it that the public pressure wasn't on Monfries to step down last year? Don't tell me that the players have the public's sympathy now when Jobe was referred to as a drug cheat. So why do these players receive different treatment based on who they play for?

I think you'll find Port have an ability to keep their mouths shut alot better, and also, as it's one player, they will be able to shield and protect him better. And the fact that it was Essendon who oversaw this program. Rightly the focus is on them and the evil men who let this happen to a group of kids.