Should Port Adelaide, Bulldogs, MFC and Stk be allowed Top Up players

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Were the EFC respesented or needing to answer anything at the CAS apeal in Switzerland?

I know we can assume that they were guilty and I think they were but they havent been found guilty by anyone of doping players, Work safe has found them guilty of a non safe work enviroment but not doping players. Maybe once the players go after them we may get that, or do you thnk it will be settled out of court and we will never get a guilty conviction or the truth ?

ASADA and WADA don't deal with clubs, and they were the ones taking the players to CAS. The AFL deal with the clubs in accordance to the provisions of the anti-doping code they have adopted. The decision on what to do with Essendon is theirs alone.

So the AFL dealt with Essendon in 2013 and called it governance so that Essendon would go along with it. Now that the players have been found guilty, the AFL have stated that the penalties in 2013 were sufficient so they do not have to penalise Essendon for doping. They have effectively transposed those 2013 governance penalties over the top of 2016 doping penalties.

Your players can't be found guilty of doping because of a club wide supplements program without the club also being guilty. You just didn't hear the words said in a particular way to confirm that for you.

I'd love to see someone tangle themselves in knots over how the club aren't guilty but the players are however. I'm a fan of forum gymnastics and creativity.

 

[bomberclifford]

Making dumb statements like if posters don't agree with your opinion they are clearly biased.

I'm a Saints supporter and don't agree with you so how do you reconcile that?

I repeat, how is that trolling?

 

[Forward Press]

I repeat, how is that trolling?

You can argue the merits of the post without attacking the club supported by the poster.

 

[JeffDunne]

They can't play any of the suspended players this year though, can they?

All 12 could walk out on them anyway. And all the 10 top-ups could not play in 2017 for Essendon. 2016 Essendon is a short-term fix, and as others have pointed out, this isn't just to make Essendon field a competitive team. It's to ensure they can even field a team, period.

Essendon knew 3 years ago they could be facing this possibility.

They've had 3 years to minimise the exposure. Personally I couldn't care less if they had to use the last 21 players on their list. Their choice.

Their choice to dope. Their choice to fight it when caught. Their choice to not offload the drug cheats when they bought in a new administration.

The AFL should not be further comprimising their already compromised competition for drug cheats.

 

[Forward Press]

For a mod, you sure have a lot of difficulty with reading and comprehension.

Thanks.

Back on topic.

 

[Xtreme]

Each club knew the risk and that they would without the player if Essendon were found guilty.

They were foolish in getting those players.

 

[Lore]

No, you're allowed an active list of 40, your senior list still includes the suspended players.

Precisely. Which means all of the affected clubs will have their original number of "active" senior-listed players, which includes at least one or two rookie-upgrades. If any of Port/StK/WB/Melb are decimated by injury this season the AFL will probably give further concessions, as with the Freo example someone was talking about.

A more interesting issue would be whether there should be concessions to Port, StK, WB and Melb's salary caps, given rookies presumably get a pay rise when they're upgraded.

 

[Lsta062]

Have you seen our ruck depth?

How does Port not bring in ruck depth to cover for Ryder in the event that he gets banned if ruck depth is an issue without him? Great management would have prepared themselves for this situation as the bans were a serious chance of happening. It surprises me that they did not go for depth in the ruck division this off season

 

[Forward Press]

Essendon knew 3 years ago they could be facing this possibility.

They've had 3 years to minimise the exposure. Personally I couldn't care less if they had to use the last 21 players on their list. Their choice.

Their choice to dope. Their choice to fight it when caught. Their choice to not offload the drug cheats when they bought in a new administration.

The AFL should not be further comprimising their already compromised competition for drug cheats.

Yeah, as much as I suspect you want to see Essendon ground into the dust, that won't happen. The rest of your post is just rhetoric that doesn't reflect the reality that Essendon are going into the 2016 season with 10 players not deemed worthy of a place on an AFL list and 12 of its senior players gone for the year. It's not in the interests of the AFL, and the other 17 clubs and the media, for Essendon to forfeit games because of lack of players.

 

[marty36]

ASADA and WADA don't deal with clubs, and they were the ones taking the players to CAS. The AFL deal with the clubs in accordance to the provisions of the anti-doping code they have adopted. The decision on what to do with Essendon is theirs alone.

So the AFL dealt with Essendon in 2013 and called it governance so that Essendon would go along with it. Now that the players have been found guilty, the AFL have stated that the penalties in 2013 were sufficient so they do not have to penalise Essendon for doping. They have effectively transposed those 2013 governance penalties over the top of 2016 doping penalties.

Your players can't be found guilty of doping because of a club wide supplements program without the club also being guilty. You just didn't hear the words said in a particular way to confirm that for you.

I'd love to see someone tangle themselves in knots over how the club aren't guilty but the players are however. I'm a fan of forum gymnastics and creativity.

We are getting off topic, but the issue I see here is people want the same for everyone, the EFC are in unchartered territory as they need to field a team as the AFL and the 17 other clubs need them to field a team for competition.

The issue of the Bulldogs, Saints,Power and Dee's should be no diffrent from the current rules of players being banned for doping if people want it to be fair and equal for all clubs eg, Saad,Crowley,Keeffe and Thomas being suspended. How were their respective clubs treated and why should these instances be any different?

 

[HighBudget]

I don't understand this "they knew the risk" mentality that some people have, I mean Essendon knew the risks when they pumped there players with a banned drug, but for some reason people are OK with them being aloud to get top up players, while on the other hand make excuses for the other teams affected by this situation to not get any top up players. Do these people think what Bulldogs, St kilda, Demons and Port did was worst than what Essendon have done?

 

[marty36]

I don't understand this "they knew the risk" mentality that some people have, I mean Essendon knew the risks when they pumped there players with a banned drug, but for some reason people are OK with them being aloud to get top up players, while on the other hand make excuses for the other teams affected by this situation to not get any top up players. Do these people think what Bulldogs, St kilda, Demons and Port did was worst than what Essendon have done?

No, but if they dont help Essendon out the competition this year will be completely stuffed, those other teams shouldnt be treated any different from Collingwood, Freo and Stkilda were over the last few years for players convicted of drug offences. Why should they be, we have exstablished Essendon are in an unusual position.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

The issue of the Bulldogs, Saints,Power and Dee's should be no diffrent from the current rules of players being banned for doping if people want it to be fair and equal for all clubs eg, Saad,Crowley,Keeffe and Thomas being suspended. How were their respective clubs treated and why should these instances be any different?

In those cases you mention the suspensions could just as easily have been for a violent act on the field. The teams they were playing for at the time they were suspended were disadvantaged by their suspension.

In these cases the teams they are playing for today are disadvantaged by something they did while playing for another club in 2012. There is a point of difference. They are effectively sharing in Essendon's penalty, not because they ran a dodgy supplements program ... their crime was recruiting players to strengthen their list. I just don't find it analogous.

The only situations I can think of to relate it to, was Carlton recruiting Greg Williams. Williams and Sydney were pinged for some dodgy contract deal and Williams served his suspension at Carlton.

The other one was Tippett to Sydney whereby Tippett served his suspension at Sydney. Given Sydney didn't have to give up anything to get him though, I'm not too worried about that one. Adelaide had already been punished and the Swans knew what was coming.

Given the AFL tribunal cleared the players last year and given the buzz around about the players being found guilty but copping no weeks to 4 weeks, we can't now say they should have expected 12 months suspensions. It was definitely not the vibe going around.

 

[randyzany]

In those cases you mention the suspensions could just as easily have been for a violent act on the field. The teams they were playing for at the time they were suspended were disadvantaged by their suspension.

In these cases the teams they are playing for today are disadvantaged by something they did while playing for another club in 2012. There is a point of difference. They are effectively sharing in Essendon's penalty, not because they ran a dodgy supplements program ... their crime was recruiting players to strengthen their list. I just don't find it analogous.

The only situations I can think of to relate it to, was Carlton recruiting Greg Williams. Williams and Sydney were pinged for some dodgy contract deal and Williams served his suspension at Carlton.

The other one was Tippett to Sydney whereby Tippett served his suspension at Sydney. Given Sydney didn't have to give up anything to get him though, I'm not too worried about that one. Adelaide had already been punished and the Swans knew what was coming.

Given the AFL tribunal cleared the players last year and given the buzz around about the players being found guilty but copping no weeks to 4 weeks, we can't now say they should have expected 12 months suspensions. It was definitely not the vibe going around.

AFL clubs knew there was a substantial risk of suspension for any bomber player implicated in the doping scandal. That's why I was relieved Geelong never got any of the defectors to play for us.

 

[marty36]

In those cases you mention the suspensions could just as easily have been for a violent act on the field. The teams they were playing for at the time they were suspended were disadvantaged by their suspension.

In these cases the teams they are playing for today are disadvantaged by something they did while playing for another club in 2012. There is a point of difference. They are effectively sharing in Essendon's penalty, not because they ran a dodgy supplements program ... their crime was recruiting players to strengthen their list. I just don't find it analogous.

The only situations I can think of to relate it to, was Carlton recruiting Greg Williams. Williams and Sydney were pinged for some dodgy contract deal and Williams served his suspension at Carlton.

The other one was Tippett to Sydney whereby Tippett served his suspension at Sydney. Given Sydney didn't have to give up anything to get him though, I'm not too worried about that one. Adelaide had already been punished and the Swans knew what was coming.

Given the AFL tribunal cleared the players last year and given the buzz around about the players being found guilty but copping no weeks to 4 weeks, we can't now say they should have expected 12 months suspensions. It was definitely not the vibe going around.

No those cases I suggested were all drug related dont try and change it, Crowley, saad, Keeffe and Thomas were all banned for drugs were there clubs compensated in anyway shape or form.

As for sharing EFC punishment you are not listening the 12 monmth ban on the[players is purely the players ban for not adhering to the drug code regardless of what the EFC have or havent done. No different from the 16 year old romanian gymnist being given a cold and flu tablet by teh olympic doctor and losing her olympic medal, it was her responisbility not her doctors.

No different to Saad drinking the sports drink, his fault no one elses the current players have only themselves at fault not the EFC.

As for the AFL tribunal they arent ultimatly responsible for the drug code I dont care if he was traded swapped delisted, its the player that broke the rules which is why the have 12 month bans not Essendon.

 

[HighBudget]

No, but if they dont help Essendon out the competition this year will be completely stuffed, those other teams shouldnt be treated any different from Collingwood, Freo and Stkilda were over the last few years for players convicted of drug offences. Why should they be, we have exstablished Essendon are in an unusual position.

Yeah, no Essendon were just found guilty of giving their players banned substances. This club isn't run by children you know, it's run by grown men and women who have to take responsibility for their actions and they committed the worst offence possible in the sport code. So why do you believe that the AFL should help Essendon but not the other clubs?

 

[OniAu]

AFL clubs knew there was a substantial risk of suspension for any bomber player implicated in the doping scandal. That's why I was relieved Geelong never got any of the defectors to play for us.

True , however they didn't know when or when the penalty would hit. Its not like they could prepare their list to have adequate back ups for the positions they filled from trading essendon players.

It doesn't seem right to hinder their list on the back of Essendons stuff up , then essendon gets a full list.

 

[Forward Press]

Yeah, no Essendon were just found guilty of giving their players banned substances. This club isn't run by children you know, it's run by grown men and women who have to take responsibility for their actions and they committed the worst offence possible in the sport code. So why do you believe that the AFL should help Essendon but not the other clubs?

Unusual situation. Essendon's list would've been 30 at the start of the season if no top-ups were permitted. A few injuries and suddenly you can't even field 22.

Would you like forfeited games this season?

 

[Marc_Remillard]

The clubs shouldn't be able to replace the players at all.

 

[Kram]

I swear anyone that doesn't get the difference is almost deliberately being obtuse.

 

[HighBudget]

Unusual situation. Essendon's list would've been 30 at the start of the season if no top-ups were permitted. A few injuries and suddenly you can't even field 22.

Would you like forfeited games this season?

Either that or all teams affected by this situation get fairly treated , it's that simple. I'm not saying that what Port and the other clubs did was right but it's no worst than what Essendon have done (not even close) so why should Essendon get the upper hand?

 

[Scodog10]

My two cents is no to top ups for those clubs except Port for the loss of Monfries. I would then have the condition on it that the top up player can only be chosen after the rookie upgrades.

 

[Marc_Remillard]

Unusual situation. Essendon's list would've been 30 at the start of the season if no top-ups were permitted. A few injuries and suddenly you can't even field 22.

Would you like forfeited games this season?

Yes. This has been the result of a systematic doping program at Essendon, the club should also lose it's license but the AFL is too soft.

 

[Forward Press]

Yes. This has been the result of a systematic doping program at Essendon, the club should also lose it's license but the AFL is too soft.

Perhaps, but in the end TV money dictates all and with 17 clubs you're not getting 9 games a week.

 

[Forward Press]

Either that or all teams affected by this situation get fairly treated , it's that simple. I'm not saying that what Port and the other clubs did was right but it's no worst than what Essendon have done (not even close) so why should Essendon get the upper hand?

Essendon are picking up 10 players that, for one reason or another, were no longer deemed suitable to find a place on an AFL list. That is, not amongst the top 600+ players in the country. It's not like they are picking up Fyfe and Buddy here, this is about ameliorating a significant disadvantage - even after picking up 10 hacks, Essendon is not even close to being on equal footing with the other 17 clubs.