I find it unbelievable that Port, Freo and Footscray find themselves in this situation. Even all the idiots (me included) on BF talked about and could see the massive risk in trading for Essendon players, yet they still went ahead and did it. I feel for all the players, and have no malice towards the clubs (other than Essendon)involved but they only have themselves to blame
-
Please read this post on the rules on BigFooty regarding posting copyright material, including fair dealing rules. Repeat infringements could see your account limited or closed.
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
How long will the players go along with the Essendon hierachy
- Thread starter Kwality
- Start date
- Tagged users None
I find it unbelievable that Port, Freo and Footscray find themselves in this situation. Even all the idiots (me included) on BF talked about and could see the massive risk in trading for Essendon players, yet they still went ahead and did it. I feel for all the players, and have no malice towards the clubs (other than Essendon)involved but they only have themselves to blame
scottjr
Norm Smith Medallist
- Sep 8, 2012
- 5,717
- 4,352
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
The Monfries deal with Port Adelaide was before the ASADA investigation began. They had no knowledge of any issues that could affect Monfries at the time.
Fair enough, I didnt realise that was the case. My mistake
Monfries and Port did the trade in 2012. When Monfires was sick of Essendon and wanted a move (interesting in itself)
This whole shitstorm was found out in 2013, after Port and Essendon had done the deal. Daresay they might be able to make a case out of it. Footscray and Freo though, they knew the risks and knew what might happen. Port didn't.
If you were a Dons player and faced the following choices, which would you choose:?
1) The club promises to pay all your legals throughout a long, complicated, expensive process, and to look after your wages even if you do cop a ban, and the club says there is very good chance they can blow the whole thing out of the water without it proceeding to infractions
OR
2) Break ranks and go to ASADA and cop a certain ban and an uncertain future regarding Essendon, who will fight litigation with all their might if you try to sue and how much would suing cost you anyway
IN the words of the late great Richard Pryor: "I know which line I'd be in: the loooong mother f***er."
1) The club promises to pay all your legals throughout a long, complicated, expensive process, and to look after your wages even if you do cop a ban, and the club says there is very good chance they can blow the whole thing out of the water without it proceeding to infractions
OR
2) Break ranks and go to ASADA and cop a certain ban and an uncertain future regarding Essendon, who will fight litigation with all their might if you try to sue and how much would suing cost you anyway
IN the words of the late great Richard Pryor: "I know which line I'd be in: the loooong mother f***er."
"]If you were a Dons player and faced the following choices, which would you choose:?
1) Stick fat with the clubs agenda and try to ensure the club is never found guilty of doping, guaranteeing you as a player can never sue us in the future even though you risk getting 2 year bans and or suffering future illnesses.
OR
2) Negotiate a six month ban and guarantee your ability to extract compensation from the club for any loss now or in the future.
Just a little tweaking...
1. Risk getting potentially career-ending 2 year bans...
2. ...And potentially salvage your football career with a six month ban, effective immediately and be back for round 1, 2015.
DudleyB
Club Legend
- Apr 29, 2013
- 1,164
- 1,641
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
- Banned
- #83
IM a bit confused about this bit?
Seems Little is doing as expected - deny deny deny/ lie lie - blame ASADA.Take it to Crt on any possible thing lawyers can think of. Hasn't he be doing this the whole way along? Not sure how it is a change or unexpected?
Yeah. no argument from me there, but they are trapped within the bubble and thus have a very distorted view.
I think that it will be 6 months no matter what they do right now. McD is telling them to cooperate to get a resolution rather than a reduced penalty.
DudleyB
Club Legend
- Apr 29, 2013
- 1,164
- 1,641
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
- Banned
- #85
Different situation.
1. Essendon have reductions available because Officials were involved in the program. Saad acted alone.
2. No rules are being 'made up' as they go along. It is all there in the ASADA Act 2006.
I agree with your last sentence - the players were in on this and continue to be in on it with their non-sensical denials and the non-sequitir club statements.
The fact is they thought they had a loophole (use S0 substances and get them from compound chemist) and they got busted.
They need to cop it sweet.
Their continual lies and denials and 'we will be in a good position' and 'hand on heart we didnt take peds' is all spins lies and deceptions. They should fess up and cop 6 months.
If they continue to lie - well they will deserve every minute of the two years.
He says in one breath that they don't know and may never know what the players were given, and in the next breath that it was definitely not illegal. He says that there is no evidence in the SCs and that they could fight the charges and win, but then says they will fight it on a legal technicality instead.
White man speak with forked tongue. Ugh!
Well he is expected to be somewhat smart and accept the club stuffed up and understand that under the WADA code players have to be suspended. As such the best thing to do is cooperate and get the best deal possible.
DudleyB
Club Legend
- Apr 29, 2013
- 1,164
- 1,641
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
- Banned
- #89
If they dont have a case why are EFC so terrified of a hearing?
Lets have an open transparent hearing.
Put the evidence on the table. Test it. Examine it.
If as you say - the evidence is weak, flimsy, unconvincing, not credible or trumped up well the whole world will know and EFC will be clear and ASADA will look like fools.
So what are we waiting for?
How can the players accept bans when they don't know what they were injected with?
The are absolutely 100% personally responsible to know,
and the 'I am innocent I don't know' line wears pretty thin. It is the standard defence.
Not knowing is not a defence.
When will this sink in?
If ASADA can prove that they were given a banned substance it is irrelevant if they knew or not. Simple really.
See that's ****n bullshit the players told everything they could possibly know to Asada when they had their interviews,you then have Mcnuggets come on radio offering players to come forward so so their bans can get reduced imo that would of pissed of the players he's basicly calling them liars and they didn't tell the whole truth during their interviews.
You may need to look up the difference between the Interview period and the Show Cause period before you continue on with another wrong and misinformed rant of yours.
Their is no bloody difference what are the players going to say? they would probably tell them the same things they told them during their interviews.
Is that you Paul?
- May 16, 2014
- 12,163
- 15,984
- AFL Club
- Carlton
You've missed the point of the post though, whether it was right or wrong. The whole point was not about "strict liability" or the players responsibility to know - it was about the players not knowing, and so it's impossible for them to go to ASADA and tell them "yes I was injected with banned drugs, I'll have the 6 months". They don't know whether they were or not. If ASADA finds evidence they have taken banned drugs, yes, you are right, it's not an excuse. But how can each 34 individual player step forward and say "100% I knew what was going in" when they didn't?
- May 16, 2014
- 12,163
- 15,984
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Yes that's right, but the players can't step forward and "tell the truth" and "take the 6 months" because they don't know whether they were or not. That's the point. No one is talking about the strict liability rule AFAIK
The ASADA CEO has not only stated a possible outcome he has affectively made a public offer. If that's not clear enough to the players then they deserve the results of their own stupidity. He couldn't make a more public offer of reduction without being see as attempting to pre-empt any outcome. It will never be made any clearer. There is an offer on the table. Meaning ASADA believe the players have some further information they could give. What that is, I don't know. The offer however is there. Get in contact with us. Be open and transparent to any further questions we have and get 6 months.
ASADA couldn't be any clearer. Wake up.
