News Jobe Watson hands back 2012 Brownlow Medal

[THE THIN MAN]

You don't read much then do you? Sorry for not towing the party line on the Jobe Watson's a drug cheat rants the rest of you are carrying on with. Getting you all plenty of likes so carry on.

Why should you decry other peoples opinions; you are entitled to yours and they are entitled to theirs.

 

[tugga]

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.


Because Essendon already got whacked for this, and so did the players and officials a part of this saga. Isn't that what people wanted? For the players to get banned, Jobe to give back his medal and Hird to be sacked as coach? Well, now all this happened so I don't know why some people don't want to move on.

The club itself cannot (or won't) tell the players what they put into their bodies. That alone is worthy of every criticism and scorn that a person can throw at them.

 

[Lsta062]

The club itself cannot (or won't) tell the players what they put into their bodies. That alone is worthy of every criticism and scorn that a person can throw at them.

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.

 

[tugga]

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.

I will stand corrected, but doesn't the burden of proof fall onto Essendon to prove they weren't administered POD?
Even if it isn't, in my opinion, not being to prove what went into the players' bodies, is an admission of guilt and should be seen as such (my opinion only).

 

[duzzy]

chai latte watson- bean grinder- doper/

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.

It was proved beyond comfortable satisfaction that they were administered tb4- a banned ped- and upheld upon appeal--- it is the conclusion that was reached by the world doping body and the Swiss court--- fairs fair- convicted drug cheats/

 

[Lsta062]

I will stand corrected, but doesn't the burden of proof fall onto Essendon to prove they weren't administered POD?
Even if it isn't, in my opinion, not being to prove what went into the players' bodies, is an admission of guilt and should be seen as such (my opinion only).

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.

 

[Tiger_Of_Old]

How about the nuffy who called sen this arvo saying cotch and Mitchell should now give both their medals to Jobe cos he's such a good bloke.
Fmd

#MakeJabGreatAgain#

 

[tugga]

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.

So if I murder someone and claim that I was on drugs and therefore am innocent am I presumed innocent even if a court of law finds me guilty?

 

[Lsta062]

chai latte watson- bean grinder- doper/


It was proved beyond comfortable satisfaction that they were administered tb4- a banned ped- and upheld upon appeal--- it is the conclusion that was reached by the world doping body and the Swiss court--- fairs fair- convicted drug cheats/

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.

 

[Tiger_Of_Old]

This needs to go to th UN court of human rights. It's not right I tell ya. Vitamin C!

UN just got sacked By Trump.

 

[Lsta062]

So if I murder someone and claim that I was on drugs and therefore am innocent am I presumed innocent even if a court of law finds me guilty?

In the case that there is evidence found that directly states beyond reasonable doubt that you have murdered someone, then yes, to me you have murdered someone. If not, then on what basis do I consider you a murderer?

There were people who were put in jail that were found to have been innocent of the crime that they have committed, so this is why evidence beyond reasonable doubt is important to have.

 

[_Wang_]

Cant wait for Jobe to head over to Subiaco

Boooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

 

[Rance2Mewtwo]

Look, that is your opinion on this, but I would like to give people the benefit of the doubt.

That's an admirable quality in life.

But in the cut-throat multi-million dollar world of professional sport, if you extend the benefit of the doubt to these athletes they'll abuse your trust and enough of them will take dangerous drugs to get an advantage that it'll force everyone else to take dangerous drugs just to compete. In the end, everyone loses.

You have to separate your outlook on normal people and your outlook on professional athletes - you can't afford them the same standards.

You're looking at Jobe, the person, the one that's been humanised by the media, and you're not looking at these guys with the cold logic required to prevent rampant drug abuse and millions of dollars passing hands to undeserving professional athletes.

 

[GoTigers2015]

The week would be complete with Grubby getting banned for a year. Should get 4 IMO but the AFL will go soft on hm.

No place in the AFL for drugs cheats

 

[shaky]

In the case that there is evidence found that directly states beyond reasonable doubt that you have murdered someone, then yes, to me you have murdered someone. If not, then on what basis do I consider you a murderer?

There were people who were put in jail that were found to have been innocent of the crime that they have committed, so this is why evidence beyond reasonable doubt is important to have.

I know what you are saying about proof of guilt, this is fine in a criminal case as you need to avoid innocent people being convicted.
It is flipped for sport though, we can't afford to have any doubt whether teams or players have cheated or not.
If you follow the rules, there is no doubt.
If you want to push the boundaries as Essendon did, you need to be able to prove beyond doubt that you aren't cheating.

 

[Groupie_]

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.

delicious and truthful post

put it in writing and deliver it by telegram to afl house

 

[Foley#41]

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.

Whether you personally feel that the evidence used to convict the Essendon 34 was solid is quite irrelevant. The evidence was examined in the highest court available and the players were unanimously found to have taken TB4. They are guilty. They have now been handed and served their punishment - the removal of Watson's award is an inevitable part of that process.
My reading of the evidence is that CAS got it right. I would prefer Watson to accept the decision but, like you, he is within his rights to question the outcome. It lessens my opinion of him, but I'm guessing he has plenty of support and he'll learn to deal with my criticism.

 

[Nostradumbass]

Did he hold a press conference? Could have worn his feminist hat again.

 

[CoggaRules]

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.

At the end of the day let me simplify it for you.
1. If nothing untoward went down I will ask again why was it messecary to self report. Self report what? The club had vehemently denied it administered banned substances so the whole self reporting thing is counter intuitive and rather comical in its school boy done wrong putting his hand up nature.
2. To then come out and state we haven't kept any records is basically as near to pleading guilty as you can get when it comes to WADA and any normal thinking human being with half a brain. Why? Because if they were to get away with this because they didn't keep records that would make a mockery of the whole system and set a precedent
3. They have gotten away with blue murder purely due to the fragile nature of the comp in that it either crunched a club basically out of existence if they took full toll with what should have been the penalties or bull shitted their way through the last few years standing firm on their supposed innocence to the point where now the perceived reaction is one of support for the good blokes and all that lame shit

At the end of the day there is no doubt in the minds of the world body that oversees this kind of shit that untoward shit went down. The only doubts come from the AFL and the media that is made up of fan boys who feed off the big fat cow called the AFL so you can understand they are not wanting to damage it too.

 

[SplintWhisky]

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.


Because Essendon already got whacked for this, and so did the players and officials a part of this saga. Isn't that what people wanted? For the players to get banned, Jobe to give back his medal and Hird to be sacked as coach? Well, now all this happened so I don't know why some people don't want to move on.

The standard of proof isnt the same for a criminal preceeding nor is it the same for a civil one. It uses "comfortable satisfaction" which lies between "beyond a reasonable doubt" and "on the balance of probabilities".

The simple fact that they cant tell the players or anyone what was injected would "comfortably satisfy" the accusation they cheated

 

[CholEstrol]

What should happen imo is an official televised presentation of the brownlows to Sam and Trent with the customary highlights and Bruce Mcavaney love fest to celebrate the winners. Any reference to Jobe/supps off limits. I know it wont happen just saying it should.

 

[tugga]

delicious and truthful post

put it in writing and deliver it by telegram to afl house

I will hand deliver it in the nude.

 

[Groupie_]

I will hand deliver it in the nude.

only way it doesn't go unnoticed.

 

[Nostradumbass]

No place in the AFL for drugs cheats

Apparently, there is.

 

[JAKLAUGHING]

Why give the medal back now Jabe if your so sure your not guilty of taking DRUGS...