Fletcher not allowed to watch his son play

[Laphroaig]

The sport loses from Fletcher not being involved with coaching kids or amateur teams, there is absolutely no risk that he would try and convince someone to cheat nor any risk that he'd have the means to do it.

Like Fletcher, and his spokespeople, you miss the point. (Actually I suspect that they DO get the point, but don't much care.)

Player suspensions have mutliple purposes, but one thing they are not is a method of preventing athletes found guilty of doping from directly convincing kids and amateurs to get on the drug train during the period of suspension.

The disservice done to "kids and amateurs" is not the mean old authorities stopping Fletcher being involved until his suspension is finished. The disservice is the wailing and chest beating about how it ain't fair.

Because what really may help these kids and amateurs is for the message that if you get caught, you take hard consequences, to get through. Even if you're nice old Mr Fletcher.

So in my humble opinion, if Fletcher and his old man really gave one shit about the "kids and amateurs" they'd STFU and allow that message to stand, instead of actively trying to undermine it.

 

[andrewb]

Like Fletcher, and his spokespeople, you miss the point. (Actually I suspect that they DO get the point, but don't much care.)

Player suspensions have mutliple purposes, but one thing they are not is a method of preventing athletes found guilty of doping from directly convincing kids and amateurs to get on the drug train during the period of suspension.

The disservice done to "kids and amateurs" is not the mean old authorities stopping Fletcher being involved until his suspension is finished. The disservice is the wailing and chest beating about how it ain't fair.

Because what really may help these kids and amateurs is for the message that if you get caught, you take hard consequences, to get through. Even if you're nice old Mr Fletcher.

So in my humble opinion, if Fletcher and his old man really gave one shit about the "kids and amateurs" they'd STFU and allow that message to stand, instead of actively trying to undermine it.

What's the 'hard consequence' to Fletcher here? That he can't volunteer as a coach? The only people who lose are those who would have gained from his tutelage.

I understand preventing people from taking paid roles but like everything else to do with WADA's doping penalties this is just another facet of a hopelessly crude instrument. The judiciary has no ability to make the sentence appropriate for the crime and given the burden of proof required there's just so much room for false negatives.

Nowadays if someone gets caught it's going to be four years - not just for deliberately taking genuine PEDs, but for accidentally ordering a banned substance that you don't even use over the internet, for taking the wrong workout supplement, for accidentally ingesting something from food or recreational drugs, or for hiring the wrong fitness advisor.

Punishment doesn't fit the crime.

 

[Cronos]

Punishment doesn't fit the crime.

People who dope in sport have no place in sport.

IMO, almost every doping case should have a life ban. Only mitigation should be if you were genuinely deceived, and your testimony gives someone else a life ban.
Editr a genuine medical intervention in an emergency situation

Sport becomes meaningless when one side artificially tips the balance.

 

[Badesumofu]

Nowadays if someone gets caught it's going to be four years - not just for deliberately taking genuine PEDs, but for accidentally ordering a banned substance that you don't even use over the internet, for taking the wrong workout supplement, for accidentally ingesting something from food or recreational drugs, or for hiring the wrong fitness advisor.

That's actually not true. In none of those scenarios would the athlete get 4 years. Sharapova only got 2 years because they found that she didn't intentionally take a banned substance. You have to deliberately take a banned substance to get 4 years.

 

[Muggs]

Nowadays if someone gets caught it's going to be four years - not just for deliberately taking genuine PEDs, but for accidentally ordering a banned substance that you don't even use over the internet, for taking the wrong workout supplement, for accidentally ingesting something from food or recreational drugs, or for hiring the wrong fitness advisor.

No you get two years as we saw with Sharapova, and in some of those examples even less than that.

To get 4 years you need intent to take a banned substance. Using the Sharapova decision as a guide the EFC34 good chance would have got 2 years as well under the new code for the same reasons.

I understand preventing people from taking paid roles but like everything else to do with WADA's doping penalties this is just another facet of a hopelessly crude instrument. The judiciary has no ability to make the sentence appropriate for the crime and given the burden of proof required there's just so much room for false negatives.
.

WADA code applies to both professional and amateur sports a like.

In many of the smaller sports at the Olympics (boxing, judo, weightlifting etc), the coaches at best get their costs covered making them volunteers, so should we allow an athelte banned from sport to go straight into coaching at the Olympics just because the are a volunteer? The rules need to apply to all situations.

 

[Muggs]

That's actually not true. In none of those scenarios would the athlete get 4 years. Sharapova only got 2 years because they found that she didn't intentionally take a banned substance. You have to deliberately take a banned substance to get 4 years.

Lol posting why I responded to the other comment as well..

 

[matthew_s]

The sport loses from Fletcher not being involved with coaching kids or amateur teams

Oh please, they miss the benefit of his wisdom for one season. Get a grip.

 

[Laphroaig]

What's the 'hard consequence' to Fletcher here? That he can't volunteer as a coach? The only people who lose are those who would have gained from his tutelage.

I understand preventing people from taking paid roles but like everything else to do with WADA's doping penalties this is just another facet of a hopelessly crude instrument. The judiciary has no ability to make the sentence appropriate for the crime and given the burden of proof required there's just so much room for false negatives.

Nowadays if someone gets caught it's going to be four years - not just for deliberately taking genuine PEDs, but for accidentally ordering a banned substance that you don't even use over the internet, for taking the wrong workout supplement, for accidentally ingesting something from food or recreational drugs, or for hiring the wrong fitness advisor.

Punishment doesn't fit the crime.

Sorry, that's a hopelessly skewed viewpoint.

For a start, the Fletcher beef was at heart about not being able to take a PAID job as a tennis coach.

The rest of it was just fluff. FLETCHER NOT ALLOWED TO WATCH HIS SON PLAY FOOTBALL!!!! Patently untrue. Emotive rubbish.

This cheap spin campaign is about Fletcher being temporarily unable to profit from his sporting reputation in certain ways - which is what he wants to do.

And, for reasons I've covered earlier, a drug cheat under suspension is not a person "kids and amateurs" need in their corner even as a volunteer. Quite the contrary.

Your opinions today are all about the fact that you choose not to believe that Fletcher is really guilty of doping. Your prerogative to believe that, but not to the point that you can expect the world to refrain from treating him like any other drug cheat and give him special favours.

You're by no means stupid, so it astounds me that you can't get across the idea of how good a thing it is to show "kids and amateurs" that there are consequences. Instead of showing them that consequences are optional based on the somebody thinks he's a good bloke idea.

 

[sameolds33]

That's actually not true. In none of those scenarios would the athlete get 4 years. Sharapova only got 2 years because they found that she didn't intentionally take a banned substance. You have to deliberately take a banned substance to get 4 years.

That's not strictly true. Counsel such as Howard Jacobs have developed a niche specialty in getting strict liability penalties reduced. The scenario is: positive test result, athlete pleads guilty, shows remorse, gets penalty reduced, everyone wins (or so the narrative goes). Have a look at the 2015 World Championships, where half the field of the mens 100m final were back competing after getting their bans reduced after positive tests. So even if you deliberately take a banned substance you're back competing in 2 years if you play the system - as many, many athletes do (but as none of the Essendon 34 did.)

 

[Muggs]

That's not strictly true. Counsel such as Howard Jacobs have developed a niche specialty in getting strict liability penalties reduced. The scenario is: positive test result, athlete pleads guilty, shows remorse, gets penalty reduced, everyone wins (or so the narrative goes). Have a look at the 2015 World Championships, where half the field of the mens 100m final were back competing after getting their bans reduced after positive tests. So even if you deliberately take a banned substance you're back competing in 2 years if you play the system - as many, many athletes do (but as none of the Essendon 34 did.)

Still does not change the fact to get 4 years you need intent to take a prohibited substance deliberately.

If anything all you did was highlight the range of discounts available to athletes if found to have taken something banned , further showing how incorrect AndrewB's comment is.

 

[Samsquanch]

See above, I'm not going to argue semantics forever

You are a mod. Sure you can express an opinion, but be objective and don't play games - your argument was a strawman in response to a totally OTT argument for life bans. You clearly know the circumstances where fletcher was banned. Keep the thread on topic and don't lead it further into the wilderness by making things up.

 

[Doss]

You are a mod. Sure you can express an opinion, but be objective and don't play games - your argument was a strawman in response to a totally OTT argument for life bans. You clearly know the circumstances where fletcher was banned. Keep the thread on topic and don't lead it further into the wilderness by making things up.

Given what I've seen MJ argue before, I think it was very reasonable to assume she actually meant a blanket ban.

So if it was a strawman, it was only to point why such a blanket ban, if it was even reasonable, would be so impossible to enforce and therefore not practical.

Mod has nothing to do with it.

 

[LoungeLizard]

Given what I've seen MJ argue before, I think it was very reasonable to assume she actually meant a blanket ban.

So if it was a strawman, it was only to point why such a blanket ban, if it was even reasonable, would be so impossible to enforce and therefore not practical.

Mod has nothing to do with it.

Driving while banned is hard to enforce also, banning people from sports is the same, it is against the law, yes people will go, but if they are caught they will be charged.

 

[Doss]

They're not comparable.

Anyway, I think the conversation has moved on so I will too.

 

[sameolds33]

Still does not change the fact to get 4 years you need intent to take a phrobited substance deliberately.

If anything all you did was highlight the range of discounts available to atheltes if found to have taken something banned , further showing how incorrect AndrewB's comment is.

My point is that an athlete who intentionally takes a banned substance, more often than not, serves the same time out of the sport as one who returns a positive test without intention to cheat. Although the process might differ from case to case (eg a discount or plea bargain after an admission of guilt) the net effect on an athlete's career is the same and cheats tend to earn as much as those who test positive inadvertently because they spend the same time out of the sport as the non-cheats.

As a result, the current system favours intentional drug cheats. It's the opposite of the legal saying, "better that 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man is convicted" - let alone 34 innocent ones! All of us would be up in arms if our own employment conditions produced these unfair results in pursuit of the greater good of integrity in that field. The anti-doping code and process is more likely to succeed if the incentive to cheat is removed. That's not happening now.

 

[Laphroaig]

My point is that an athlete who intentionally takes a banned substance, more often than not, serves the same time out of the sport as one who returns a positive test without intention to cheat. Although the process might differ from case to case (eg a discount or plea bargain after an admission of guilt) the net effect on an athlete's career is the same and cheats tend to earn as much as those who test positive inadvertently because they spend the same time out of the sport as the non-cheats.

As a result, the current system favours intentional drug cheats. It's the opposite of the legal saying, "better that 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man is convicted" - let alone 34 innocent ones! All of us would be up in arms if our own employment conditions produced these unfair results in pursuit of the greater good of integrity in that field. The anti-doping code and process is more likely to succeed if the incentive to cheat is removed. That's not happening now.

That argument looks OK on the surface, but it doesn't stand up to much examination.

There will be very few cases where lack of intent to cheat can be nailed down any further than the guilty party saying "I didn't intend to cheat". "I didn't know there was a banned substance in the syringe / pill / powder ." "Somebody spiked my drink"

The available lines are endless, and we hear them often. And, like it or not, if it takes a leap of faith to believe lack of intent - as is certainly the case at Essendon - then lack of intent is merely a matter of emotional investment.

As for the second part about all of us being "up in arms"? I don't think so. There is a long list of deeds we can all end up committing where nobody gives one shit if you meant it or not.

Try these for size and let me know how you think they will go as defences. As always, use a reality check and put the words "Your Honor" at the end.

• I didn't intend to drive at 125 in a 100 zone. Your honor.
• I didn't know my blood alcohol level was .08 when I got behind the wheel. Your honor.
• I hired an unlicensed electrician to rewire my block of flats. But I didn't intend that his bodgy work would result in a fire that killed all thos tennants. Your honor.
• I didn't know she was 15 years old when I boffed her. Your honor.
• I didn't intend to lose the company $100 million

I could go on, and on. But the truth is that in very many parts of life "I didn't mean it" gets you nowhere. It might get you a bit of sympathy; or on the other hand it might make people think "Well if that's true, you are a moron."

 

[Muggs]

My point is that an athlete who intentionally takes a banned substance, more often than not, serves the same time out of the sport as one who returns a positive test without intention to cheat. Although the process might differ from case to case (eg a discount or plea bargain after an admission of guilt) the net effect on an athlete's career is the same and cheats tend to earn as much as those who test positive inadvertently because they spend the same time out of the sport as the non-cheats.

As a result, the current system favours intentional drug cheats. It's the opposite of the legal saying, "better that 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man is convicted" - let alone 34 innocent ones! All of us would be up in arms if our own employment conditions produced these unfair results in pursuit of the greater good of integrity in that field. The anti-doping code and process is more likely to succeed if the incentive to cheat is removed. That's not happening now.

Ok see where you coming from now.

However the administrative discounts such as early guilty plea are also applicable to cases with no intent - if you have two identical cases where the only difference is intent - the athlete with intent should always end up with a penalty twice as long as the athlete with no intent after all other discounts have been applied.

You scenario applies when an athlete has intent and pleads guilty getting a discount vs a Sharapova type case, admits guilt but fights and looses on fault. They will end up with the same penalty.

This however is really no different to the trade of any prosecutor in a criminal case makes when considering a plea deal, what is better letting a guilty person get a lower penalty (to a lessor crime), or the expense of a trial? The results of plea deals often look like the incentive to commit a crime is reduced.

As for up in arms with employment conditions ask that of some of the company directors that ASIC have gone after in civil trials - when other directors have ripped of the company and investors. It's not that unusual for the directors with intent to plead guilty to civil charges to avoid criminal charges - to end up with much the same penalty as a director who was 'asleep at the wheel'. We see no outrage in these cases as the victims are shareholders who lost money.

This leads me to the next point, the EFC34 are being made out as victims by many, but to me they not the real victims, the real victims is the sport itself and other teams who may have played against an opposition who took a PED. The greater injustice is to allow someone who may have taken a PED to continue to take part in the sport, which is why sport does not use beyond reasonable doubt, and why it's a strict liability code.

We seen with the EFC34 and now with Sharapova there is an onus on the athlete to ensure they don't take a banned substance, its about time athletes woke up to this stop blaming others and take some responsibilities themselves (as Ryder recently did).

 

[sameolds33]

That argument looks OK on the surface, but it doesn't stand up to much examination.

There will be very few cases where lack of intent to cheat can be nailed down any further than the guilty party saying "I didn't intend to cheat". "I didn't know there was a banned substance in the syringe / pill / powder ." "Somebody spiked my drink"

The available lines are endless, and we hear them often. And, like it or not, if it takes a leap of faith to believe lack of intent - as is certainly the case at Essendon - then lack of intent is merely a matter of emotional investment.

As for the second part about all of us being "up in arms"? I don't think so. There is a long list of deeds we can all end up committing where nobody gives one shit if you meant it or not.

Try these for size and let me know how you think they will go as defences. As always, use a reality check and put the words "Your Honor" at the end.

• I didn't intend to drive at 125 in a 100 zone. Your honor.
• I didn't know my blood alcohol level was .08 when I got behind the wheel. Your honor.
• I hired an unlicensed electrician to rewire my block of flats. But I didn't intend that his bodgy work would result in a fire that killed all thos tennants. Your honor.
• I didn't know she was 15 years old when I boffed her. Your honor.
• I didn't intend to lose the company $100 million

I could go on, and on. But the truth is that in very many parts of life "I didn't mean it" gets you nowhere. It might get you a bit of sympathy; or on the other hand it might make people think "Well if that's true, you are a moron."

I wasn't talking about "defences". I was observing that if intentional drug taking produces the same time out of the sport as non-intentional positive tests there is no incentive for those who cheat to change their ways. The current anti-doping system comes at a great cost to all WADA-compliant athletes who do not enjoy the same employment rights as the rest of us as these are sacrificed for the supposed integrity of sport. None of the examples of law-breaking you provide are relevant. They don't relate to an employment situation.

 

[Muggs]

The current anti-doping system comes at a great cost to all WADA-compliant athletes who do not enjoy the same employment rights as the rest of us as these are sacrificed for the supposed integrity of sport.

One could argue that the use of comfortable satisfaction and not balance of probabilities gives atheltes greater rights than many contracted employees by increasing the burden for employers.

 

[Samsquanch]

Does anybody know if old fletch got in to see his son's game in the end?

 

[Muggs]

Does anybody know if old fletch got in to see his son's game in the end?

As far as I know he only been forced to miss the one held at the EFC training ground. There been an article on him being banned from the rooms and quarter time huddles at other games, showing he was there.

 

[Laphroaig]

I wasn't talking about "defences". I was observing that if intentional drug taking produces the same time out of the sport as non-intentional positive tests there is no incentive for those who cheat to change their ways. The current anti-doping system comes at a great cost to all WADA-compliant athletes who do not enjoy the same employment rights as the rest of us as these are sacrificed for the supposed integrity of sport. None of the examples of law-breaking you provide are relevant. They don't relate to an employment situation.

Rubbish.

A military officer goes for drink driving (or any of about a dozen other character related offences) he is subject to immediate dismissal from the service. A miner turns up to work "unintentionally" with any alcohol or recreational drugs in his system he is subject to dismissal. A professional driver loses his licence on demerit points he's out of work. As officers of the court, lawyers and police are subject to dismissal or harsh sanction for offences which have lesser consequences for others. Pharmacists and doctors (although both well looked after by their regulators) suffer suspension or dismissal for detected drug abuse.

There are many, many other examples. In fact I'd go as far as to say that a very comfortable majority of jobs which draw more than average salary have their own specific restrictions and consequences which don't apply to the community as a whole.

And as Justice Middleton told James Hird while publicly spanking his arse in court "You knew of and accepted these restrictions when you took the job. You have no right to whine about them now." Or words to that effect.

 

[Samsquanch]

As far as I know he only been forced to miss the one held at the EFC training ground. There been an article on him being banned from the rooms and quarter time huddles at other games, showing he was there.

Amazing that any journo without an agenda would even bother.

But you see what we have done? We've actually discussed a topic related to the thread title on bigfooty.

 

[TheBrightSide]

Ok see where you coming from now.

However the administrative discounts such as early guilty plea are also applicable to cases with no intent - if you have two identical cases where the only difference is intent - the athlete with intent should always end up with a penalty twice as long as the athlete with no intent after all other discounts have been applied.

You scenario applies when an athlete has intent and pleads guilty getting a discount vs a Sharapova type case, admits guilt but fights and looses on fault. They will end up with the same penalty.

This however is really no different to the trade of any prosecutor in a criminal case makes when considering a plea deal, what is better letting a guilty person get a lower penalty (to a lessor crime), or the expense of a trial? The results of plea deals often look like the incentive to commit a crime is reduced.

As for up in arms with employment conditions ask that of some of the company directors that ASIC have gone after in civil trials - when other directors have ripped of the company and investors. It's not that unusual for the directors with intent to plead guilty to civil charges to avoid criminal charges - to end up with much the same penalty as a director who was 'asleep at the wheel'. We see no outrage in these cases as the victims are shareholders who lost money.

This leads me to the next point, the EFC34 are being made out as victims by many, but to me they not the real victims, the real victims is the sport itself and other teams who may have played against an opposition who took a PED. The greater injustice is to allow someone who may have taken a PED to continue to take part in the sport, which is why sport does not use beyond reasonable doubt, and why it's a strict liability code.

We seen with the EFC34 and now with Sharapova there is an onus on the athlete to ensure they don't take a banned substance, its about time athletes woke up to this stop blaming others and take some responsibilities themselves (as Ryder recently did).

Why is Ryder being put on a pedestal all of a sudden?
He didn't say I shouldn't have taken part in the supplements program, all he said was he should have asked more questions.
Do you think any of the 34 wouldn't say the same thing with the benefit of hindsight?

 

[Muggs]

Why is Ryder being put on a pedestal all of a sudden?
He didn't say I shouldn't have taken part in the supplements program, all he said was he should have asked more questions.
Do you think any of the 34 wouldn't say the same thing with the benefit of hindsight?

Why? He's the first to come out and say we should have done something different ourselves rather than always trying to pass the buck.

They all should be, nice to see one actually say so.