Guilty verdict impact on AFL premiership

Remove this Banner Ad

Texicana said:
Essendon have been cleared by the AFL tribunal and have every right to validly play footy, and thus if make finals and win. Even if the CAS judgement came down against the 34 there I don't think anyone could show (and very unlikely think) that they are playing this year with any benefit of anything that they may or may not get found by CAS to have taken. If CAS finds against them then it is from that time that any additional suspension (they have already done some self-imposed "just in case") would occur. And they did not win any GF during the time it is suggested by ASADA/WADA they breached the rules.
Click to expand...

There are suggestions that the SUBSTANCES administered (I hate the reference to supplements...makes it sound so...innocent :rolleyes:) could give the players bodies an advantage for several years.
 
Demonic Ascent said:
This has probably been raised in other threads but its something I've been pondering for some time now so would appreciate if anyone has an answer or just generate discussion. I assume the AFL probably doesn't even know what they would do if this occurred so would probably just make it up on the fly like everything else.

If Essendon win the premiership this year and their players are subsequently found guilty, will the club be stripped of the premiership? If not, would the guilty players be stripped of their premiership medals while the rest keep theirs and the premiership goes down in the record books as an Essendon flag?

Alternatively, what if say Port Adelaide win the premiership with one or both of Ryder & Monfries in the team. Would Port be stripped of the flag? Would it only be those two players stripped of their medals?

Initially I thought Essendon would be stripped of the flag completely but that got me thinking about Port (and to a lesser extent the Dogs) and what would happen in that situation. If they have two guilty players in their premiership team would that be enough to strip the team of the premiership? If not then how many players would Essendon have to have for a premiership to be stripped from them (a la Melbourne Storm). Obviously Essendon is more culpable than Port but at the end of the day the club is not on trial the individual players are.

What are peoples thoughts?
Click to expand...
I'm beginning to think in 2015 that the dogs have the best chance of the three of provoking this challenging scenario.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Its actually a very good question - and CAS have history in this regard.

Alberto Contador tested positive at the 2010 Tour de France. He was provisionally suspended from then (August) until February 2011 (7 months) when he was cleared by the Spanish Anti Doping federation.

WADA appealed the decision - and it was listed for the CAS. He was able to ride in the interim as he had been cleared by his federation.

He then rode the Giro d'Italia in 2011 which he won, and the Tour de France where he was 5th. His CAS hearing in November 2011 found him guilty and handed down a 2 year penalty.

this is where CAS was completely ludicrous. They said that they were effectively applying his ban as if he were banned the whole time - so from August 2010 - August 2012. They stripped his results from his 2011 season, and basically pretended he was banned. Those results in 2011 were retrospectively re-assigned to the next best (so his Giro win was given to the 2nd placed rider) even though he rode it when he had been cleared by his federation and was free to ride.


It is entirely possible that CAS might retrospectively apply a ban to Essendon.
 
KM00 said:
Its actually a very good question - and CAS have history in this regard.

Alberto Contador tested positive at the 2010 Tour de France. He was provisionally suspended from then (August) until February 2011 (7 months) when he was cleared by the Spanish Anti Doping federation.

WADA appealed the decision - and it was listed for the CAS. He was able to ride in the interim as he had been cleared by his federation.

He then rode the Giro d'Italia in 2011 which he won, and the Tour de France where he was 5th. His CAS hearing in November 2011 found him guilty and handed down a 2 year penalty.

this is where CAS was completely ludicrous. They said that they were effectively applying his ban as if he were banned the whole time - so from August 2010 - August 2012. They stripped his results from his 2011 season, and basically pretended he was banned. Those results in 2011 were retrospectively re-assigned to the next best (so his Giro win was given to the 2nd placed rider) even though he rode it when he had been cleared by his federation and was free to ride.


It is entirely possible that CAS might retrospectively apply a ban to Essendon.
Click to expand...

Bit of difference though banning individuals and banning a team, especially when it's not the team being charged. Cant see how CAS can penalise a team not charged with an offence before it.

Don't get me wrong if players are banned think there should be further charges against EFC - but it have to go through due process, it won't be automatic, and it will take the AFL or ASADA to initiate the process.
 
Muggs said:
Bit of difference though banning individuals and banning a team, especially when it's not the team being charged. Cant see how CAS can penalise a team not charged with an offence before it.

Don't get me wrong if players are banned think there should be further charges against EFC - but it have to go through due process, it won't be automatic, and it will take the AFL or ASADA to initiate the process.
Click to expand...

The WADA act (as far as I know) does not mandate any penalties for the team. It is entirely up to the AFL to determine what (if any) penalty should apply.

therefore - even if CAS find the players guilty, I very much doubt that the AFL will do anything to Essendon. 'they have already been punished ... time to move on ... blah blah blah :(
 
Demonic Ascent said:
This has probably been raised in other threads but its something I've been pondering for some time now so would appreciate if anyone has an answer or just generate discussion. I assume the AFL probably doesn't even know what they would do if this occurred so would probably just make it up on the fly like everything else.

If Essendon win the premiership this year and their players are subsequently found guilty, will the club be stripped of the premiership? If not, would the guilty players be stripped of their premiership medals while the rest keep theirs and the premiership goes down in the record books as an Essendon flag?

Alternatively, what if say Port Adelaide win the premiership with one or both of Ryder & Monfries in the team. Would Port be stripped of the flag? Would it only be those two players stripped of their medals?

Initially I thought Essendon would be stripped of the flag completely but that got me thinking about Port (and to a lesser extent the Dogs) and what would happen in that situation. If they have two guilty players in their premiership team would that be enough to strip the team of the premiership? If not then how many players would Essendon have to have for a premiership to be stripped from them (a la Melbourne Storm). Obviously Essendon is more culpable than Port but at the end of the day the club is not on trial the individual players are.

What are peoples thoughts?
Click to expand...
Pretty good question. Given that the drugs were taken in the 2012 season then I would say it should have no impact on the 2015 premiership for individual players.
Even if players were to cop bans for 2016-17 then it would be unfair to say 2015 was also retrospectively subject to a ban- this would mean punishment on top of the one given out. So to me you have to ask and separate two things:

1. the discrete punishment
2. the likely effect of 2012 drugs on 2015 performance.

So I would just put a line through 2. and so no impact. Then the punishment is the punishment. If they get banned for 16-17 they are banned for 16-17. That is the punishment. That means you cant punish them for 2015.
So the punishment needs to be discrete.
 
KM00 said:
Its actually a very good question - and CAS have history in this regard.

Alberto Contador tested positive at the 2010 Tour de France. He was provisionally suspended from then (August) until February 2011 (7 months) when he was cleared by the Spanish Anti Doping federation.

WADA appealed the decision - and it was listed for the CAS. He was able to ride in the interim as he had been cleared by his federation.

He then rode the Giro d'Italia in 2011 which he won, and the Tour de France where he was 5th. His CAS hearing in November 2011 found him guilty and handed down a 2 year penalty.

this is where CAS was completely ludicrous. They said that they were effectively applying his ban as if he were banned the whole time - so from August 2010 - August 2012. They stripped his results from his 2011 season, and basically pretended he was banned. Those results in 2011 were retrospectively re-assigned to the next best (so his Giro win was given to the 2nd placed rider) even though he rode it when he had been cleared by his federation and was free to ride.


It is entirely possible that CAS might retrospectively apply a ban to Essendon.
Click to expand...
Would that be such a bad thing in this situation?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

jenny61_99 said:
Would that be such a bad thing in this situation?
Click to expand...

It was a terrible decision.

It meant that he ended up being actually suspended for about 1/2 a season. Everyone still gives him credit for the Giro he won, and he got to race all that time.

It would be like the CAS finding Essendon guilty, giving them a 2 year ban, but saying - well we are going to pretend you didnt play last year and call that your ban.

How can you retroactively ban someone when they actually competed?
 
Try running it through your brain fellas, the stuff in question happened in 2012. They're not stripping anything this year, it wouldn't even make any sense.

Melbourne Storm? They won flags in the period in question. Hence they were stripped.

Hey, maybe Storm's 2012 flag should be stripped too, the one they won fairly? Yep, that would make sense.
 
onemancyclone said:
If a bull had **** he'd be a cow, end thread.
Click to expand...
Technically a Bull does have **** - they're just not used for much. I know because I was once helping out my mum by shampooing her dog, Stanley. I thought I had found a paralysis tic and nearly pulled off one of Stan's nipples
 
Last edited:
Proper Gander said:
Technically a Bull does have **** - they're just not used for much. I know because I was one helping out my mum by shampooing her dog, Stanley. I thought I had found a paralysis tic and nearly pulled one off Stan's nipples
Click to expand...
Your mum's dog was a bull? o_O
 
I've got a feeling that the appeal will be done by then, so if found guilty, the players won't be on the field anyway and I doubt any replacement team would get up.
If they are found guilty and somehow the suspension allows them to keep playing or have a very small amount of time off, and they still managed to get up and win the flag? I would say they would keep it in that instance.
 
DynaBass said:
Keep the flags and medals. The doping offence happened a couple of years ago.
Click to expand...

Agree with this. Results and awards during the period where they were allegedly doping are more likely to be in trouble.

I don't think there is any allegation that they are doping this year or still reaping the benefits of it.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Guilty verdict impact on AFL premiership

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top