News Jobe Watson hands back 2012 Brownlow Medal

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

TheSmokingGun said:
http://www.triplem.com.au/melbourne...ownlow-if-essendons-2012-games-arent-counted/

Triple M's system removes all games featuring Essendon, leaving Adelaide's midfielder Scott Thompson as the winner. I wouldn't agree with that system. I'd suspended all Essendon players from that year from polling votes. Simple.
Click to expand...
Rance2Mewtwo said:
So dumb.

Cotchin earned votes against Essendon and played them twice, he was better than his opposition even though they were on PEDS, so they subtract votes from him as punishment to them :drunk:

Seriously, how dumb can you be? How do these adults have jobs?
Click to expand...
Agree that is a stupid way to do it.
It could also penalize teams that played them twice compared to those that played them once.

I actually think this goes to an argument that there should be no Brownlow awarded (as much as I want to see a Richmond player get one).
As the whole Essendon team were involved in this, not just Jobe, it calls every match they were involved into question.
Would they have won or been as competitive? If they had lost some of the games etc how would this have changed the votes?
Etc Etc.
It brings the whole season of votes into question.

I don't think it brings the premiership into the same question as there is a finals system, but could still have effected which teams finished where and double chances etc.

In the end, I think if it had just been Jobe and he was outright guilty then there would be no doubt over Cotch and Mitch getting the medal.
As it is there will always be some doubt and uneasiness associated with it.
 
Rance2Mewtwo said:
So dumb.

Cotchin earned votes against Essendon and played them twice, he was better than his opposition even though they were on PEDS, so they subtract votes from him as punishment to them :drunk:

Seriously, how dumb can you be? How do these adults have jobs?
Click to expand...
Makes you wonder how people get through life with no issues.
 
Groupie_ said:
its been melted down and theyre giving out 2 fresh ones
Click to expand...

The AFL are making Cotchin and Mitchell melt it themselves.

JaKwPjN.jpg
 
Lsta062 said:
That would be a guilty unless proven innocent mindset. I am not sure about the judicial system or how WADA etc. work, but I think innocent until proven guilty is a much fairer system.

Look at it this way. If someone today told me to prove that I haven't trespassed a certain place (that I actually haven't trespassed) or they'll lock me up, I might end up locked up because I'll have a hard time proving that I am not guilty if that place doesn't have something like a CCTV camera or if I don't have definitive proof that I wasn't there.
Hence, innocent until proven guilty is a fairer system as with that system I am innocent of having trespassed unless they find evidence beyond reasonable doubt that I tresspassed.

If Essendon don't know what they have administered to the players, then they are proven to be negligent in this. I understand that they have been punished for that by getting kicked out of finals in 2013 and receiving draft sanctions.

The poor housekeeping means though that the amount of evidence available for Essendon to prove they did not administer substances banned by ASADA/WADA to their players is lowered. Adopting the "guilty before proven innocent" mindset here puts Essendon in a problematic situation as they may not be able to prove that they didn't put up a doping regime even if they did not do it.

I understand that WADA and ASADA did not actually find evidence beyond reasonable doubt that the Essendon players doped. CAS also did not ban the players based on evidence beyond reasonable doubt. I understand that the AFL tribunal ruled them as not guilty because they didn't see evidence beyond reasonable doubt that proved they systematically put in place a doping regime.

In the "innocent before proven guilty" mindset, it would follow that we consider Jobe and the 33 players as not having doped, and this is what I will go by. Why? Because I understand that innocence may be hard to prove if you don't have enough evidence to satisfy your accusor even if you actually didn't do it. Hence, I will give the benefit of the doubt to them just as I would like others to give me the benefit of the doubt if I am ever accused of trespassing somewhere that I didn't trespass.
Click to expand...


I've been reading this thread and seriously, you are in danger of dissapearing right up your own hole given the diminishing circles you are arguing. Lying to testers, avoiding testing, dodgy paperwork, excuses, grey areas, forgetfulness, not knowing what you were administered etc etc were all thrown out as excuses years ago. As was the case in the Essendon doping scenario, the weight of evidence was so substantial that the CAS judges, who deal with these kinds of excuses on a daily basis upheld the suspensions. End of story. The onus is on the individual player as a professional to ensure that they KNOW what is being put into their body. Clearly the secrecy, lack of records, players being injected off site and then lying about it and all the other evidence admitted was enough for the players to be found guilty of using performance enhancing drugs. In the old days it was called cheating. I notice that all of the coaches, admin and "scientists" are no longer at the club and are spoken about in hushed tones. Why IS that ?? It is the most shameful episode in Australian football history. Sure, lots of people are tired of it, you poor darlings, but that doesn't change the facts. It was systematic cheating, trying to gain a competitive edge by using substances either banned or not approved for use. Short cut. Cheating.

Innocent until proven guilty is a maxim that drug cheats in sport can't be afforded due to the use of masking agents, secrecy and the inherent difficulty in testing and catching these turds. In a murder case yes. Nobody doubts it's use in common law. Poor housekeeping is simply unacceptable in regard to players medical records. There are cases of people being suspended for not keeping adequate records because that has the capacity to end up being anyone's excuse. There rules were all tightened up years ago and anyone operating in a professional sporting environment knows it !

All afl players are given multiple and regular information from day 1 about how important it is to know what's in your food and drink and supplements. There are no excuses that there are no excuses ! All the excuses have been used up. Lance Armstrong never tested positive but the weight of evidence against him was unequivocal. Based on your agenda Lance would be still on the juice and would have won 12 in a row by now with everyone standing around scratching their heads thinking he is a legend but suspecting the worst ! To ensure the integrity of professional sports the testers and administrators of drug testing are deliberately tough, scary, unapologetically intrusive and random. It's a classic scenario where having to prove your innocence is both desirable and necessary because it's so easy to cheat if you want to. The game has to be protected for the players working hardest to be the best clean athletes they can be. The fans have to respect this ! You comparing it to you being falsely accused of trespassing when you didn't or whatever is just infantile. Talk about comparing oranges and lemons. Despite that, you would be entitled to the presumption of innocence under common law. So your point is moot. My point is that you've missed the point...

As to whether Jobe is a good bloke or not, it's irrelevant. He cheated. Either inadvertently or knowingly, only he can say now. Having been found guilty of cheating he cannot accept the Brownlow under the rules. Giving it back is his moral obligation, not him being a great guy unless you argue that applying good morals is one of the carachteristics of being a great bloke, rather than one of the charachteristics of being just a bloke.

Having said that, logic dictates that Mitchell and Cotchin, who have done nothing wrong and have been unarguably robbed of what is rightfully theirs, according to the rules of the competition that they are contracted to. Best - perhaps. Fairest - clearly not. Fact. Those advocating an * for 2012 have very soft *****, no **** at all or no idea what they are talking about. It is possible that there may be a combination of two out of those three.

you are entitled to your opinion. I'm entitled to think it's a load of crap.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

YeOldTiger said:
I've been reading this thread and seriously, you are in danger of dissapearing right up your own hole given the diminishing circles you are arguing. Lying to testers, avoiding testing, dodgy paperwork, excuses, grey areas, forgetfulness, not knowing what you were administered etc etc were all thrown out as excuses years ago. As was the case in the Essendon doping scenario, the weight of evidence was so substantial that the CAS judges, who deal with these kinds of excuses on a daily basis upheld the suspensions. End of story. The onus is on the individual player as a professional to ensure that they KNOW what is being put into their body. Clearly the secrecy, lack of records, players being injected off site and then lying about it and all the other evidence admitted was enough for the players to be found guilty of using performance enhancing drugs. In the old days it was called cheating. I notice that all of the coaches, admin and "scientists" are no longer at the club and are spoken about in hushed tones. Why IS that ?? It is the most shameful episode in Australian football history. Sure, lots of people are tired of it, you poor darlings, but that doesn't change the facts. It was systematic cheating, trying to gain a competitive edge by using substances either banned or not approved for use. Short cut. Cheating.

Innocent until proven guilty is a maxim that drug cheats in sport can't be afforded due to the use of masking agents, secrecy and the inherent difficulty in testing and catching these turds. In a murder case yes. Nobody doubts it's use in common law. Poor housekeeping is simply unacceptable in regard to players medical records. There are cases of people being suspended for not keeping adequate records because that has the capacity to end up being anyone's excuse. There rules were all tightened up years ago and anyone operating in a professional sporting environment knows it !

All afl players are given multiple and regular information from day 1 about how important it is to know what's in your food and drink and supplements. There are no excuses that there are no excuses ! All the excuses have been used up. Lance Armstrong never tested positive but the weight of evidence against him was unequivocal. Based on your agenda Lance would be still on the juice and would have won 12 in a row by now with everyone standing around scratching their heads thinking he is a legend but suspecting the worst ! To ensure the integrity of professional sports the testers and administrators of drug testing are deliberately tough, scary, unapologetically intrusive and random. It's a classic scenario where having to prove your innocence is both desirable and necessary because it's so easy to cheat if you want to. The game has to be protected for the players working hardest to be the best clean athletes they can be. The fans have to respect this ! You comparing it to you being falsely accused of trespassing when you didn't or whatever is just infantile. Talk about comparing oranges and lemons. Despite that, you would be entitled to the presumption of innocence under common law. So your point is moot. My point is that you've missed the point...

As to whether Jobe is a good bloke or not, it's irrelevant. He cheated. Either inadvertently or knowingly, only he can say now. Having been found guilty of cheating he cannot accept the Brownlow under the rules. Giving it back is his moral obligation, not him being a great guy unless you argue that applying good morals is one of the carachteristics of being a great bloke, rather than one of the charachteristics of being just a bloke.

Having said that, logic dictates that Mitchell and Cotchin, who have done nothing wrong and have been unarguably robbed of what is rightfully theirs, according to the rules of the competition that they are contracted to. Best - perhaps. Fairest - clearly not. Fact. Those advocating an * for 2012 have very soft *****, no **** at all or no idea what they are talking about. It is possible that there may be a combination of two out of those three.

you are entitled to your opinion. I'm entitled to think it's a load of crap.
Click to expand...

Yeah...
 
shaky said:
Agree that is a stupid way to do it.
It could also penalize teams that played them twice compared to those that played them once.

I actually think this goes to an argument that there should be no Brownlow awarded (as much as I want to see a Richmond player get one).
As the whole Essendon team were involved in this, not just Jobe, it calls every match they were involved into question.
Would they have won or been as competitive? If they had lost some of the games etc how would this have changed the votes?
Etc Etc.
It brings the whole season of votes into question.

I don't think it brings the premiership into the same question as there is a finals system, but could still have effected which teams finished where and double chances etc.

In the end, I think if it had just been Jobe and he was outright guilty then there would be no doubt over Cotch and Mitch getting the medal.
As it is there will always be some doubt and uneasiness associated with it.
Click to expand...

Outright guilty ? There are different levels of being guilty of injecting performance enhancing drugs ?

Perhaps what you mean is that there were mitigating circumstances. That the club captain was taken off site and given bulk injections without knowing, even though he clearly should have known as required by all professional athletes under AFL, ASADA and WADA rules , what was being injected into him.

There is no doubt as to his or any of the Essendon players' guilt as evidenced by the suspensions, massive fines, sackings, verdicts, appeal rebuttals and now the ineligibility of Jobe to win the Browlow.

Implying that somehow Jobe was only kinda, sorta, slightly guilty is as silly as it sounds. Almost as silly as implying that those whom competed fairly and polled the most votes, as per the rules of the competition, that is Mitchell and Cochin, should somehow be denied what is rightfully theirs is.

If you have any doubt as to the fact that these two men competed fairly, whilst others either strived to gain an unfair advantage or gained an unfair advantage and that that therefore clouds their right to the medal and all the accolades that go with it (let alone the financial penalty they have suffered because they were cheated out of the medal) then I hope you are never on my jury should I need one.

Wow.
 
YeOldTiger said:
Outright guilty ? There are different levels of being guilty of injecting performance enhancing drugs ?

Perhaps what you mean is that there were mitigating circumstances. That the club captain was taken off site and given bulk injections without knowing, even though he clearly should have known as required by all professional athletes under AFL, ASADA and WADA rules , what was being injected into him.

There is no doubt as to his or any of the Essendon players' guilt as evidenced by the suspensions, massive fines, sackings, verdicts, appeal rebuttals and now the ineligibility of Jobe to win the Browlow.

Implying that somehow Jobe was only kinda, sorta, slightly guilty is as silly as it sounds. Almost as silly as implying that those whom competed fairly and polled the most votes, as per the rules of the competition, that is Mitchell and Cochin, should somehow be denied what is rightfully theirs is.

If you have any doubt as to the fact that these two men competed fairly, whilst others either strived to gain an unfair advantage or gained an unfair advantage and that that therefore clouds their right to the medal and all the accolades that go with it (let alone the financial penalty they have suffered because they were cheated out of the medal) then I hope you are never on my jury should I need one.

Wow.
Click to expand...
This guy. I like this guy.
 
YeOldTiger said:
Outright guilty ? There are different levels of being guilty of injecting performance enhancing drugs ?

Perhaps what you mean is that there were mitigating circumstances. That the club captain was taken off site and given bulk injections without knowing, even though he clearly should have known as required by all professional athletes under AFL, ASADA and WADA rules , what was being injected into him.

There is no doubt as to his or any of the Essendon players' guilt as evidenced by the suspensions, massive fines, sackings, verdicts, appeal rebuttals and now the ineligibility of Jobe to win the Browlow.

Implying that somehow Jobe was only kinda, sorta, slightly guilty is as silly as it sounds. Almost as silly as implying that those whom competed fairly and polled the most votes, as per the rules of the competition, that is Mitchell and Cochin, should somehow be denied what is rightfully theirs is.

If you have any doubt as to the fact that these two men competed fairly, whilst others either strived to gain an unfair advantage or gained an unfair advantage and that that therefore clouds their right to the medal and all the accolades that go with it (let alone the financial penalty they have suffered because they were cheated out of the medal) then I hope you are never on my jury should I need one.

Wow.
Click to expand...

Yeah...
 
YeOldTiger said:
Outright guilty ? There are different levels of being guilty of injecting performance enhancing drugs ?

Perhaps what you mean is that there were mitigating circumstances. That the club captain was taken off site and given bulk injections without knowing, even though he clearly should have known as required by all professional athletes under AFL, ASADA and WADA rules , what was being injected into him.

There is no doubt as to his or any of the Essendon players' guilt as evidenced by the suspensions, massive fines, sackings, verdicts, appeal rebuttals and now the ineligibility of Jobe to win the Browlow.

Implying that somehow Jobe was only kinda, sorta, slightly guilty is as silly as it sounds. Almost as silly as implying that those whom competed fairly and polled the most votes, as per the rules of the competition, that is Mitchell and Cochin, should somehow be denied what is rightfully theirs is.

If you have any doubt as to the fact that these two men competed fairly, whilst others either strived to gain an unfair advantage or gained an unfair advantage and that that therefore clouds their right to the medal and all the accolades that go with it (let alone the financial penalty they have suffered because they were cheated out of the medal) then I hope you are never on my jury should I need one.

Wow.
Click to expand...
Wow to you buddy.
Did you read my whole post or just pull out those two words?
I wasn't defending Jobe or Essendon for that matter. I have no sympathy for Essendon as a club or any of the administration, they shouldn't have let it happen.
I have some sympathy for the younger players following what they were told.
HOWEVER, my main point was that as the whole team was involved it brings every game they played into question which brings the whole season of Brownlow votes into question.
It's not an Olympic race where you are all competing against each other in one race.
If the drugs program made them a better team so they won games they may not have, this means players have missed out on votes they may have got (including Cotch and Mitch).

The Brownlow is an imperfect system it the first place and this situation makes it worst.
What is the right result, I'm not sure, but I personally feel it should be made a no result due to the doubt Essendon has cast over the whole season.

Next time you want to shoot down what I have to say, please understand my argument properly.

Oh I forgot, we are on BF where we don't discuss topics with logic, just rant and try to get as may likes as we can.

My Rant now complete.
 
Cotch deserves it & I hope he gets it. But it's a bit like when the Storm got their premierships taken off them, the runners up weren't awarded the premiership for that year.

Hopefully this case is different
 
They wont give it to Cotch and Mitch, the afl cant have poor brave jobe feeling upset
 
Lsta062 said:
That would be a guilty unless proven innocent mindset. I am not sure about the judicial system or how WADA etc. work, but I think innocent until proven guilty is a much fairer system.

Look at it this way. If someone today told me to prove that I haven't trespassed a certain place (that I actually haven't trespassed) or they'll lock me up, I might end up locked up because I'll have a hard time proving that I am not guilty if that place doesn't have something like a CCTV camera or if I don't have definitive proof that I wasn't there.
Hence, innocent until proven guilty is a fairer system as with that system I am innocent of having trespassed unless they find evidence beyond reasonable doubt that I tresspassed.

If Essendon don't know what they have administered to the players, then they are proven to be negligent in this. I understand that they have been punished for that by getting kicked out of finals in 2013 and receiving draft sanctions.

The poor housekeeping means though that the amount of evidence available for Essendon to prove they did not administer substances banned by ASADA/WADA to their players is lowered. Adopting the "guilty before proven innocent" mindset here puts Essendon in a problematic situation as they may not be able to prove that they didn't put up a doping regime even if they did not do it.

I understand that WADA and ASADA did not actually find evidence beyond reasonable doubt that the Essendon players doped. CAS also did not ban the players based on evidence beyond reasonable doubt. I understand that the AFL tribunal ruled them as not guilty because they didn't see evidence beyond reasonable doubt that proved they systematically put in place a doping regime.

In the "innocent before proven guilty" mindset, it would follow that we consider Jobe and the 33 players as not having doped, and this is what I will go by. Why? Because I understand that innocence may be hard to prove if you don't have enough evidence to satisfy your accusor even if you actually didn't do it. Hence, I will give the benefit of the doubt to them just as I would like others to give me the benefit of the doubt if I am ever accused of trespassing somewhere that I didn't trespass.
Click to expand...
I will give you a example of our law with the onus on you to prove you are innocent. The police can pick up a power tool or spanner in your shed and say we presume this to be stolen. The onus is on you to prove that it is not. The tool could be 10 years old and the receipt long gone. Nice one hey.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

News Jobe Watson hands back 2012 Brownlow Medal

Similar threads

Truetiger
Game Day 2024 brownlow medal
20 21 22 23 24
Replies
581
Views
9K
Dunger
Dunger
Groupie_
  • Locked
Game Day Brownlow medal 2023 7:30pm
23 24 25 26 27
Replies
656
Views
13K
Drunken Wookie
Drunken Wookie
Daka
Toast Jack Dyer Medal 2024 - Positive vibes only
26 27 28 29 30
Replies
727
Views
17K
Drunken Wookie
Drunken Wookie
RFCGloryJC
Analysis Jack Dyer Medal Gala Night
2 3 4
Replies
76
Views
3K
Cactus_
Cactus_
Tigerbob
  • Locked
Do we need Peggy back?
Replies
2
Views
262
fargothegreat
fargothegreat
rfctigerarmy
Campaign to bring back 'claw' guernsey
2
Replies
34
Views
1K
Chunky09
Chunky09
JAKLAUGHING
Unofficial Preview Brendon Gale injures back in fall...
Replies
9
Views
628
Wrenny
Wrenny

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top