News Jobe Watson hands back 2012 Brownlow Medal

Remove this Banner Ad

tugga said:
The stunning thing is that a player is ineligible to win the Brownlow for nothing more than a love tap and then they couldn't decide not to award it to a convicted drug cheat.
The comp is getting more laughable by the day.
Click to expand...

The more stunning thing is the AFL has sat back and let it get to this. The medal should have been stripped the moment the players were found guilty. Just defies logic. The thing is they have not even explained their logic because there isn't any.
 
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...

Ohhhh FFS...
Don't keep rehashing and muddying the waters about burden of Proof...its what EFC and those cheating players wont...
Keep disputing...denying...evading...and eventually the public will believe the Club and the EFC that they were innocent...
Your unhappy about calling EFC and its players DRUG CHEATS?!?!??
Write an effing letter to WADA and tell them...argue the point of proof with WADA...
 
Last edited:

Log in to remove this ad.

Lsta062 said:
That doesn't prove they administered substances banned by ASADA/WADA though. This is even moreso the case when it comes to the players.

Is that negligence? Yes. Baffling how you don't know what you have administered and my understanding is that those who were involved in that were moved on from Essendon.

Is that enough proof to say they have doped? No, and that is my point. Among what people criticise the players of doing was doping, so based on the circumstantial evidence that has been used in this case, I don't think this is the conclusion we can reach. You'd need evidence beyond reasonable doubt to say someone did something if we're talking about fairness, and that wasn't found.
Click to expand...

There is financial proof that illegal substances were purchased in the same quantities as was used to complete the injection program the players were on.

They intended to use illegal substances.
That's enough for me.

There is no positive test results but don't kid yourself, they were up to no good.

Everything else is spin.

Of course they know what was injected. It was what was purchased. The argument put forward was that they couldn't be sure if what arrived from overseas was actually the illegal drug they paid for.

Please.
 
Last edited:
Lsta062 said:
Based on circumstantial evidence, not evidence that directly states they have taken banned substances like confessions of guilt or finding a banned substance in the body.

I see it pretty much as ruling someone as a doper because their behaviour in certain matters is similar to dopers, not because they have actually proved they have doped.
Click to expand...

WADA actually proved they doped- hence 2 year bans- fing simple straight up guilty- end of story/
 
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...
IMO you really need to stop using the phrase 'beyond reasonable doubt'. It in no way applies to WADA.
Most drug cases rely on circumstantial evidence because they either can't effectively test for the drug or its half-life is too short.
I initially felt similar to you. Group think is real and many studies have shown how hard it is to stand against charismatic leadership and authority.
But he's had 4 years to consider his actions and realise his lack of leadership/questions and the impact upon others, particularly young team mates new to the system and looking to him for guidance.
Instead, it's been appeals and poor me and refusing to acknowledge what he participated in.
Everyone ****s up. The test is in how you respond to it. Pretty much everyone at Essendon has abjectly failed.
 
Lsta062 said:
But can you still guarantee that they have taken substances banned by ASADA/WADA? That is my point. Just because one thinks their behaviour is that of a doper doesn't mean that they doped. That is my issue with the circumstantial evidence used by CAS.

Bottom line, just because something looks shady doesn't mean it is.

- If they lied to ASADA testers, then the are blameworthy of lying to ASADA testers as players playing under their rules.
- If they hid the supplements regime from club doctors and this is against the rules of ASADA/WADA, then they are blameworthy of hiding their supplements regime from club doctors.
- If they took off-site injections and it is against the rules of ASADA/WADA to take off-site injections, then they are blameworthy of taking off-site injections.

As long as it isn't proven beyond reasonable doubt that they have taken substances banned under ASADA/WADA, then you can't blame them for taking substances banned by ASADA/WADA - whether this is CAS or the regular Australian.
Click to expand...

"Beyond reasonable doubt" isn't the level of proof required here. The court only had to be "comfortably satisfied" that the players took banned substances, which they were. As were the appeals courts. As should anyone who paid attention and didn't just rely on the AFL, Essendon and their mouthpieces in the media for information. They've been treating us like idiots.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Sport is its own separate society, with its own standards and laws and punishments.
Standards of criminal justice in the outside world don't necessarily apply.
(Unless you're Leigh Matthews, of course.)
 

nHhCOG9.jpg


Stats are almost the same over their careers. Take away the drug enhancements and Cotch would easily have him covered, and with still a few years left in his prime.
 

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