- Banned
- #151
Lawyers providing a paid opinion for PR purposes.So lawyers are only lauded on BF when they'r sinking the boot into Essendon.
But when they take a bomber perspective - they are like the devil incarnate.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
AFLW 2024 - Round 8 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Lawyers providing a paid opinion for PR purposes.So lawyers are only lauded on BF when they'r sinking the boot into Essendon.
But when they take a bomber perspective - they are like the devil incarnate.
They can't just stand down Jobe.
ASADA can't get a tape of OTC and work from there. As Jobe said all the players have spoken to ASADA. And they most likely have admitted what Jobe admitted. If Jobe gets suspended, everyone in the team get suspended. The club can't field a team next week.
Lawyers providing a paid opinion for PR purposes.
And the AFL sat in on the interviews, they know which players. The AFL will do nothing what will impact on the money they bring in.
No, he is actually getting paid for his opinion.So any lawyer who argues the case in favour of a modicum of due process is getting paide for his opinion?
Any lawyer who immediately demands the death penalty is ok?
What do you reckon the AFL should be doing?
Is it up to the AFL to issue infraction notices?
Peter Bell said it? Valid!
What are Clive Waterhouse's thoughts?
Andrew Wills?
**** the media are lazy, so many more opinions they should be publishing. I want to know what these guys think!
What if It turns out Jobe was among the players not to have been administered the drug i.e. in the 'control' group as part of Dank's maverick science operation? The players all signed up to recieving whatever was on offer and were given a range of 'drugs' OR not- so from Jobe's point of view he thinks he could well have been taking AOD but this whole 'experiment' leaves open the door to say, or indeed prove via documentation of the said 'trials', that some players were not administered specific banned substances. Maybe this is why Dank can 'gaurantee' Jobe has done nothing wrong?At present pretty much what they are doing. We will see once the ASADA report comes down if they are capable of doing their job correctly.
Has Capper and Jacko been quoted yet?
What if It turns out Jobe was among the players not to have been administered the drug i.e. in the 'control' group as part of Dank's maverick science operation? The players all signed up to recieving whatever was on offer and were given a range of 'drugs' OR not- so from Jobe's point of view he thinks he could well have been taking AOD but this whole 'experiment' leaves open the door to say, or indeed prove via documentation of the said 'trials', that some players were not administered specific banned substances. Maybe this is why Dank can 'gaurantee' Jobe has done nothing wrong?
Or not...
Me too Baldur- but this is the kinda stuff they may be clinging to though? Wasn't really in response to your post sorry- just thinking aloudIf that is the case then so be it. I am not the one saying he should be stood down now. By the way I doubt that there is a control group.
Why post this, because neither have a well regarded reputation? Compare Bell and they may all be tarnished by the same brush?Has Capper and Jacko been quoted yet?
Fair enough and maybe there is a very minute chance they will not lose points, but if they do, what happens to the teams they have beaten and % etc.
Why post this, because neither have a well regarded reputation? Compare Bell and they may all be tarnished by the same brush?
Bell is very well respected and considered of the utmost integrity. A fantastic football career, Bell's legal background, work as a media commentator and history as a player advocate/representative with the AFLPA, should mean that his opinions are at least given a mediocum of respect and consideration.
Instead you are trying to shoot the messenger by lumping him together with Capper FFS.
This. I'm not sure how they will manage it. Teams that played the cheats twice and lost both games would be disadvantaged against teams that only played them and lost once.
What if It turns out Jobe was among the players not to have been administered the drug i.e. in the 'control' group as part of Dank's maverick science operation? The players all signed up to recieving whatever was on offer and were given a range of 'drugs' OR not- so from Jobe's point of view he thinks he could well have been taking AOD but this whole 'experiment' leaves open the door to say, or indeed prove via documentation of the said 'trials', that some players were not administered specific banned substances. Maybe this is why Dank can 'gaurantee' Jobe has done nothing wrong?
Or not...
Why post this, because neither have a well regarded reputation? Compare Bell and they may all be tarnished by the same brush?
Bell is very well respected and considered of the utmost integrity. A fantastic football career, Bell's legal background, work as a media commentator and history as a player advocate/representative with the AFLPA, should mean that his opinions are at least given a mediocum of respect and consideration.
Instead you are trying to shoot the messenger by lumping him together with Capper FFS.
EDIT: further to this, I am not necessarily for standing Watson down, because that is not the kind of person I am. Nor do I assume guilt. My rather emotional stance, like that for Cousins, is usually one that sues for patience, mercy and understanding (not saying I am a good bloke).
However, that was a pretty underhanded attack on Bell's credibility and therefore position.
Irrelevant how?It's not that their views are similarly informed. It's that their views are similarly irrelevant.
We've only heard from Bell because he said something to the media that they thought they could get some mileage out of. As usual, they were right.
Irrelevant how?
Certainly not to the public discourse and how events are viewed. The intention was to undermine the credibility of Bell's opinion, that was clear.
However, whilst it is correct that he is not directly involved in the investigation, these events have a wider football impact and they do not exist in vacuum.
Sanctions may be handed down by both ASADA and the AFL. The AFL are very malleable to perceived negative publicity and their actions can be both negatively and positively influenced by this fact.Irrelevant in the those digging for the truth will take as much notice of Bell as they will of Capper.
The only wider impact his comments have are as media fodder. If people choose to base their thoughts on that, it's their business.
This. I'm not sure how they will manage it. Teams that played the cheats twice and lost both games would be disadvantaged against teams that only played them and lost once.
Sam Riley's case was never about systematic team doping, and in the time since it occurred the anti doping rules including the strict liability provisions have been tightened up so in fact there are very few similarities at all.
Nevertheless, Sam Riley gave a positive test for a substance which was specifically listed as banned.
What do we have here so far?
Whichever way you look at it - the Sam Riley case was far, far more serious.
Got off, no case to answer.
The teams that lost to the dons should have done better, rather than relying on some misguided notion that they suffered some sort of disadvantage.
Win the footy - kick goals - win games of footy.