The Bombers ASADA/WADA Saga

[Skoob]

Yes. But there are people who don't follow the script and **** it up for everybody else. Think my clumsily made point was I wouldn't be keen to be paying fees to the AFLPA and maybe their members need to look to appointing a new 'leader'. Unions should defend their members...but if their members position is indefensible then yes, they should work towards defining and defending the issue for the greater good (everybody else) Perhaps the AFLPA require a leader from outside of sport (player delegates, get onto it)?

To be honest, I'm not sure that we think that differently...unions keep people in unionised workplaces (even scabby non-members) safe/protect their jobs/get them better T&C's etc but SOMETIMES they don't always adhere to what laws/conditions they, through the support of their membership have fought for. Why do i know this? Personal experience. Unfortunately, this particularly relates to workers who have breached negotiated/legislated OHS rules. In this case the players union are making their entire membership seem like like spoiled brats. If you were an AFLPA member would you want your fees spent on fighting an appeal in a faraway land with, in reality, no chance of success? I wouldn't.

PS On a construction site (and others) If you breach an OHS guideline/regulation the union will back you to the hilt (If you're a financial member) unless you've really screwed up.

I agree with your points on the AFLPA's approach at this stage. I also acknowledge there are many exceptions to the rule and that unions don't necessarily work to the ideal. In regards to backing rule breakers "to the hilt", generally only to the point where they are publicly proved to have failed, which is where these players are at now. Generally, union appointed WHSOs are very strict for 2 reasons; Firstly to protect safety, but also to keep nutbags from spoiling it for everyone else.

 

[Skoob]

I'm only aware of Browny's comments second hand but my understanding is that he wasn't condoning the players' action/inaction but rather simply saying that he can understand why they didn't question given the context.

I don't think there's any question that the old school has gone and that players, if they haven't already done so, need to very quickly work out what their obligations are and be personally accountable for what they are administered. But, rewind to 2012 and I doubt whether any playing group in the comp would do much different to the Essendon players. It doesn't make it right, of course. But it puts it in a context that is worth noting, I think.

Of course, this all changes if the players were fully aware of the potentially dodgy arrangements and chose not to speak up.

Yeah, I don't think he was condoning anything as such, but still a pretty casual approach (acknowledging he is from a n earlier era. Although still playing at the time, he does come out of the beginning of the millenium).
Not sure I quite buy the "rewind to 2012" thing though. I mean we're talking 2012, not 2005. This blew up in 2014 and I'm not convinced knowledge/attitudes were or should have been so different just 2 years prior.

 

[alscotoz2]

I agree with your points on the AFLPA's approach at this stage. I also acknowledge there are many exceptions to the rule and that unions don't necessarily work to the ideal. In regards to backing rule breakers "to the hilt", generally only to the point where they are publicly proved to have failed, which is where these players are at now. Generally, union appointed WHSOs are very strict for 2 reasons; Firstly to protect safety, but also to keep nutbags from spoiling it for everyone else.

 

[alscotoz2]

I agree with your points on the AFLPA's approach at this stage. I also acknowledge there are many exceptions to the rule and that unions don't necessarily work to the ideal. In regards to backing rule breakers "to the hilt", generally only to the point where they are publicly proved to have failed, which is where these players are at now. Generally, union appointed WHSOs are very strict for 2 reasons; Firstly to protect safety, but also to keep nutbags from spoiling it for everyone else.

Yep and the AFLPA should back off and stop bringing the rest of their membership down.

 

[carnthemlions]

I agree with your points on the AFLPA's approach at this stage. I also acknowledge there are many exceptions to the rule and that unions don't necessarily work to the ideal. In regards to backing rule breakers "to the hilt", generally only to the point where they are publicly proved to have failed, which is where these players are at now. Generally, union appointed WHSOs are very strict for 2 reasons; Firstly to protect safety, but also to keep nutbags from spoiling it for everyone else.

This approach strikes me as being somewhat similar to aggressive police union responses. You defend your members to the hilt no matter what.

Yeah, I don't think he was condoning anything as such, but still a pretty casual approach (acknowledging he is from a n earlier era. Although still playing at the time, he does come out of the beginning of the millenium).
Not sure I quite buy the "rewind to 2012" thing though. I mean we're talking 2012, not 2005. This blew up in 2014 and I'm not convinced knowledge/attitudes were or should have been so different just 2 years prior.

I'm always a bit sceptical when professional athletes profess ignorance when it comes to anti-doping rules or just doping in their sport in general. When it comes to the AFL, I highly doubt Essendon are trail blazers (worst attempt at a doping program ever?). While I doubt doping is ever talked about much amongst players, I'm sure anyone who's been around the league for long enough would've at least heard a few thing second hand. The one thing you can't do is speak about it publicly. Only a nutter like Aker would do that (he may well have been right, I've seen suggestions that the Eagles started using epo in the early 90s). Of course, the best we can get here is hearsay, speculation and assumption.

 

[POBT]

Yeah, I don't think he was condoning anything as such, but still a pretty casual approach (acknowledging he is from a n earlier era. Although still playing at the time, he does come out of the beginning of the millenium).
Not sure I quite buy the "rewind to 2012" thing though. I mean we're talking 2012, not 2005. This blew up in 2014 and I'm not convinced knowledge/attitudes were or should have been so different just 2 years prior.

Again though, I think there is a distinction between what players "should have done" and what players in the same position "would have done". It is not material in terms of the offence and the punishment but I think it is material in terms of how we perceive the players' actions. Leaving aside the possibility of their involvement in a deliberate cover up, I am able to have empathy for the players because of that distinction.

And you misunderstand my reference to 2012. The time difference between 2012 is not significant. The difference is the Essendon saga has occurred and 34 players have copped a massive whack. If this had not occurred, I have no doubt the "one in, all in; whatever it takes; I just take what the doc gives me" attitude would still be prevalent, just as it was in 2012.

 

[Skoob]

Again though, I think there is a distinction between what players "should have done" and what players in the same position "would have done". It is not material in terms of the offence and the punishment but I think it is material in terms of how we perceive the players' actions. Leaving aside the possibility of their involvement in a deliberate cover up, I am able to have empathy for the players because of that distinction.

And you misunderstand my reference to 2012. The time difference between 2012 is not significant. The difference is the Essendon saga has occurred and 34 players have copped a massive whack. If this had not occurred, I have no doubt the "one in, all in; whatever it takes; I just take what the doc gives me" attitude would still be prevalent, just as it was in 2012.

Fair points, and while I too can understand that many or most would have done the same, I still find it disappointing and still don't empathise. They deserve punishment equally for stupidity/naivety as the offence itself.

 

[brizrider]

While I agree, I also think that there are an awful lot of players who have a high degree if sympathy for the Essendon players. I also think there is a widely held sentiment of "there but for the grace of God go I".

In that context, it may be the wishes of the members of the AFLPA (ie the players) that their representative body be incredibly strong in support of the Essendon 34.

It doesn't necessarily follow that the AFLPA should accede to members' every wish. It is their duty to be above the emotion of the issues and represent their members' best interests, which aren't necessarily convergent with their members' wishes.

I definitely think the AFLPA took the wrong line yesterday. But I think it is an understandable misjudgment and, moreover, one that is likely to have been supported by the players.

Very much agree. AFL players and their union need to grow up and become professional.

 

[CarterS]

Pencil in a Round 18 win boys and girls!

If things go pear-shaped this season we can always think to ourselves, "It could be worse, I could be an Essendon supporter!"

 

[Viceregal]

Pencil in a Round 18 win boys and girls!

If things go pear-shaped this season we can always think to ourselves, "It could be worse, I could be an Essendon supporter!"

My Hawthorn supporting mate is married to an Essendon supporter. His version of 'comfort' over the news was to tell her she could barrack for the Hawks for the year that way she could enjoy watching a team that wins.

I am assuming he slept on the couch that night ...

 

[Haggis McHaggis]

The real heart I've taken in the last few days is the general consensus I see here, and pretty much everywhere outside the control of the footy machine. Only some self deluded Essendon supporters and the PR machine is buying the line they're trying to push.

The one that surprised me, other than that woeful effort from Paul Marsh, was Richard Di Natale. I never would have expected to see the leader of the Greens coming out peddling the "WADA isn't suited to team sports" bullshit line and whining about the time taken being the relevant authorities fault. Would love to know who's been in his ear. Good thing he's largely irrelevant.

 

[Fatcat08]

The one that surprised me, other than that woeful effort from Paul Marsh, was Richard Di Natale. I never would have expected to see the leader of the Greens coming out peddling the "WADA isn't suited to team sports" bullshit line and whining about the time taken being the relevant authorities fault. Would love to know who's been in his ear. Good thing he's largely irrelevant.

This was the greatest example of people sprouting their mouths without knowing any of the details IMO. He would literally have no idea of the implications and also the downside of something like this. He even managed to trump the AFLPA

 

[jackchaff]

The real heart I've taken in the last few days is the general consensus I see here, and pretty much everywhere outside the control of the footy machine. Only some self deluded Essendon supporters and the PR machine is buying the line they're trying to push.

The one that surprised me, other than that woeful effort from Paul Marsh, was Richard Di Natale. I never would have expected to see the leader of the Greens coming out peddling the "WADA isn't suited to team sports" bullshit line and whining about the time taken being the relevant authorities fault. Would love to know who's been in his ear. Good thing he's largely irrelevant.

Can't see whose vote he is chasing here. Why else even get involved???

 

[Hollow Knight]

What is the crux of the "WADA code is no good for team sports" argument? I don't get it.

 

[dlanod]

What is the crux of the "WADA code is no good for team sports" argument? I don't get it.

Well the problem is that it punishes drug cheats...

 

[Kevvo]

What is the crux of the "WADA code is no good for team sports" argument? I don't get it.

As far as I can tell, it's goes along the lines of "team sports require one in-all in commitment, which means that strict liability is just too hard".

I don't buy it, but that seems to be the logic.

 

[Skoob]

What is the crux of the "WADA code is no good for team sports" argument? I don't get it.

I can only guess form some comments that the criticism is that they were treated as a collective and not individuals, case by case. Problem is, it was the club who decided to "stand as one" and by getting their stories straight, they each were charged with the same thing, on the same evidence, so they rightly all received the same result. With all the fuss over taking too long and too many trips to court, imagine if they multiplied that 34 times. This was their doing, and now their defenders think it unfair they are each judged together.
It's nothing, really.

 

[Viceregal]

Does anybody think that anything along the lines of the below will actually happen ... the previous penalties on Essendon FC were for governance and PR violations and at that point no one had actually been found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation ... seems to be an automatic follow-on but there seems to be a deafening silence...

The WADA Code also imposes sanctions on teams with multiple players found guilty. Clause 11.2, Consequences for Team Sports, states:

"If more than two members of a team in a team sport are found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation during an event period, the ruling body of the event shall impose an appropriate sanction on the team (eg, loss of points, disqualification from a competition or event, or other sanction) in addition to any consequences imposed upon the individual athletes committing the anti-doping rule violation."

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...-to-see-why-20130801-2r10f.html#ixzz3xBnSyFKj

Or have I missed the discussion on this one?

 

[Hollow Knight]

Does anybody think that anything along the lines of the below will actually happen ... the previous penalties on Essendon FC were for governance and PR violations and at that point no one had actually been found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation ... seems to be an automatic follow-on but there seems to be a deafening silence...

The WADA Code also imposes sanctions on teams with multiple players found guilty. Clause 11.2, Consequences for Team Sports, states:

"If more than two members of a team in a team sport are found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation during an event period, the ruling body of the event shall impose an appropriate sanction on the team (eg, loss of points, disqualification from a competition or event, or other sanction) in addition to any consequences imposed upon the individual athletes committing the anti-doping rule violation."

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...-to-see-why-20130801-2r10f.html#ixzz3xBnSyFKj

Or have I missed the discussion on this one?

Gillon McLachlan has already specifically confirmed that their will be no additional punishment from the AFL.

They seem to have conveniently and quietly moved the goal posts from "These punishments are specifically for governance issues" to "they've copped their full whack".

If Essendon finish last, they will have pick 1. Gil made that absolutely clear on AFL360.

 

[Fatcat08]

Can't see whose vote he is chasing here. Why else even get involved???

On an unrelated note, that would have to be an all time record between posts! Welcome back!

as for your question, who the heck knows. must have some link to one of the players you would have to think

 

[Elixuh]

The WADA Code also imposes sanctions on teams with multiple players found guilty. Clause 11.2, Consequences for Team Sports, states:

"If more than two members of a team in a team sport are found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation during an event period, the ruling body of the event shall impose an appropriate sanction on the team (eg, loss of points, disqualification from a competition or event, or other sanction) in addition to any consequences imposed upon the individual athletes committing the anti-doping rule violation."

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...-to-see-why-20130801-2r10f.html#ixzz3xBnSyFKj

Or have I missed the discussion on this one?

What is an event period?

 

[KissKiss]

Does anybody think that anything along the lines of the below will actually happen ... the previous penalties on Essendon FC were for governance and PR violations and at that point no one had actually been found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation ... seems to be an automatic follow-on but there seems to be a deafening silence...

The WADA Code also imposes sanctions on teams with multiple players found guilty. Clause 11.2, Consequences for Team Sports, states:

"If more than two members of a team in a team sport are found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation during an event period, the ruling body of the event shall impose an appropriate sanction on the team (eg, loss of points, disqualification from a competition or event, or other sanction) in addition to any consequences imposed upon the individual athletes committing the anti-doping rule violation."

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...-to-see-why-20130801-2r10f.html#ixzz3xBnSyFKj

Or have I missed the discussion on this one?

On that there are some differences in the AFL code and the full WADA code on team based punishments. I think it gives the responsible league (ie the AFL) the responsibility on determining team punishments but the individual punishments are much more defined in what they can be. I think that is because leagues are just so different around the world. For example relegation fits some leagues, while draft sanctions fit others.

 

[Elixuh]

Gillon McLachlan has already specifically confirmed that their will be no additional punishment from the AFL.

They seem to have conveniently and quietly moved the goal posts from "These punishments are specifically for governance issues" to "they've copped their full whack".

If Essendon finish last, they will have pick 1. Gil made that absolutely clear on AFL360.

From a broader AFL commercial/brand point of view I'm not too upset about the no further punishments stance. Who knows how long they'll take to recover under the current punishments. The staff/officials (past or present) who were responsible for the development and administration of the injection program are the ones who should cop large individual punishments.

 

[KissKiss]

What is the crux of the "WADA code is no good for team sports" argument? I don't get it.

I think there has been a few learnings along the way that could change how the WADA code works, but the current argument is just crying because they lost

 

[alscotoz2]

Does anybody think that anything along the lines of the below will actually happen ... the previous penalties on Essendon FC were for governance and PR violations and at that point no one had actually been found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation ... seems to be an automatic follow-on but there seems to be a deafening silence...

The WADA Code also imposes sanctions on teams with multiple players found guilty. Clause 11.2, Consequences for Team Sports, states:

"If more than two members of a team in a team sport are found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation during an event period, the ruling body of the event shall impose an appropriate sanction on the team (eg, loss of points, disqualification from a competition or event, or other sanction) in addition to any consequences imposed upon the individual athletes committing the anti-doping rule violation."

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...-to-see-why-20130801-2r10f.html#ixzz3xBnSyFKj

Or have I missed the discussion on this one?

I guess the AFL would argue kicking them out of the finals/fine (which will be 'waived')/pick losses would cover this part?