Opinion What unpopular AFL opinions do you have? - Part 2

[peetoo]

There is plenty of hypocrisy in your position.

Salary cap breaches are cheating. Especially intentional premeditated breaches as many were. That sort of cheating seems ok by you though, not even comparable, and can therefore go unpunished even if it helps that club achieve the ultimate goal of winning the whole competition.

Exceptions can apparently also be made for Lynch who admittedly breached rules and clearly gained performance benefits from taking genuine PEDs. Here was a person who had chronic fatigue syndrome, struggled to get out of bed, yet was able to maintain an Adonis like physique through chemical assistance not provided to him by his club, never had to pay any penalty, serve any suspension and went on to play a key role in a triple premiership. No punishment required here either apparently.

Yet for a bloke who was duped by his employer club’s dodgy medical and performance staff to take some low level supplements following repeated assurances that they were legal, and which provided no clearly discernible benefits as the club was not successful during this period, apparently for him a 2 year total suspension from playing and even training within club facilities isn’t enough punishment for you. No, you think that this guy definitely had to be punished further and have his umpire adjudicated on field playing conduct medal revoked too. Couldn’t possibly let that symbolic pat on the back, for the laudable manner in which he conducted himself and interacted with team mates, opponents and officials during game time, stand.

I don’t think WADA or similar has any appreciation of salary cap whatsoever. They have enough on

 

[Proffessor]

I am not making an exception for lynch. Any awards he won in 1998 should be stripped. Just like they were for Watson. But that isn't what you asked for. You wanted Brisbane to be penalised in years where nobody took a PED. That is just stupid.

Thinking all forms of cheating are the same is stupid too. You can believe in retrospective historical bans for doping but only current bans for salary cap cheating. For all the reasons obvious to everyone but you.

This is a particularly close subject for me. I missed out on opportunities in my chosen sport because others were doping. If I had my way they would be in prison.

Surprised that you are so lenient on Lynch then. The benefits of his doping certainly wouldn’t have been contained within a single season. Had he not doped he would have almost certainly been forced into early retirement so his doping arguably still cost other athletes their careers.

I would also contend many careers were diminished by the salary cap cheaters that cost them their opportunities to be premiership players.

I wonder if your perspective is perhaps a little too skewed by your personal experience with doping offenders.

I also wonder how might you react if at some stage someone had come up and informed you that something you had ingested or were treated with while you were competing was somehow tainted without your knowledge.

 

[almuz]

Kane Cornes is the benchmark when it comes to afl pundits

Faurk no - he’s bringing that smooth brained American Skip Bayliss/Steven A style of sensationalist media here.

 

[lizard man]

Faurk no - he’s bringing that smooth brained American Skip Bayliss/Steven A style of sensationalist media here.

I think he’s just a real straight shooter who isn’t afraid to step on anyone’s toes ….. it’s a style you either love or hate I guess

 

[Caligo]

Surprised that you are so lenient on Lynch then. The benefits of his doping certainly wouldn’t have been contained within a single season. Had he not doped he would have almost certainly been forced into early retirement so his doping arguably still cost other athletes their careers.

I would also contend many careers were diminished by the salary cap cheaters that cost them their opportunities to be premiership players.

I wonder if your perspective is perhaps a little too skewed by your personal experience with doping offenders.

I also wonder how might you react if at some stage someone had come up and informed you that something you had ingested or were treated with while you were competing was somehow tainted without your knowledge.

I have a lot of sympathy for athletes who fail a drug test due to tainted meat. I know someone who claims it happened to them and I believe them. But I still supported the ban because of the integrity of the sport.

I don't agree with the argument that if you don't fail a drug test but instead voluntarily come forward to say that a medically prescribed drug you are using has recently been added to the WADA code and you weren't aware of the change that you shouldn't be penalised years after the fact like you appear to be advocating. There is a monumental difference between what Lynch did and what Essendon did. I am boggled you can't see it.

I just feel like you are trolling at this point.

 

[Soggy2112]

I also wonder how might you react if at some stage someone had come up and informed you that something you had ingested or were treated with while you were competing was somehow tainted without your knowledge.

The idea that any Essendon player was completely oblivious to the potential illegality of those injections is laughable.

Why were there players who said no? Don’t give me the “afraid of needles” line because that’s also a joke.

 

[Caligo]

The idea that any Essendon player was completely oblivious to the potential illegality of those injections is laughable.

Why were there players who said no? Don’t give me the “afraid of needles” line because that’s also a joke.

The interesting thing to me was how few said no. Essendon culture.

 

[Engimal v3]

In terms of protection is there such thing as a kidney guard? Might be worth having them as afl is the kind of sport that could have a nasty incident with a kidney

I don't know if anyone answered you already, but Tom Longergan wore some specialised padding after he lost his kidney to protect his other one.

 

[Engimal v3]

The idea that any Essendon player was completely oblivious to the potential illegality of those injections is laughable.

Why were there players who said no? Don’t give me the “afraid of needles” line because that’s also a joke.

I dunno, I've heard non-Essendin players talk about how you just sort of accept the club docs know what's best and you just nod your head and pass your arm over.

 

[Proffessor]

I have a lot of sympathy for athletes who fail a drug test due to tainted meat. I know someone who claims it happened to them and I believe them. But I still supported the ban because of the integrity of the sport.

I don't agree with the argument that if you don't fail a drug test but instead voluntarily come forward to say that a medically prescribed drug you are using has recently been added to the WADA code and you weren't aware of the change that you shouldn't be penalised years after the fact like you appear to be advocating. There is a monumental difference between what Lynch did and what Essendon did. I am boggled you can't see it.

I just feel like you are trolling at this point.

I think it is you who appears to be trolling me rather than the other way around.

It is interesting that you keep comparing what Lynch did to Essendon, rather than Jobe. Who is defending Essendon's conduct and suggesting the club deserved leniency? Certainly not me.

BTW I also think you are way too forgiving of Lynch, he was taking a known anabolic steroid (DHEA) for ~4 years, which was banned all along under the general classification for such drugs just not specifically identified by ASDA until Jan, 1997. Notably Lynch continued to take it for over a year after it was specifically named as banned, and he had been advised as such. Did Lynch and Brisbane get dodgy advice that led them to believe it was ok for him to take this known steroid as they claimed at the tribunal, as long as his testosterone levels stayed within prescribed limits? Possibly, but it also raises the question why you think the dodgy advice excuse is OK for Lynch but not for Essendon players including Watson, who have definitive evidence that they were given bogus advice as well as being administered far less potent peptide\precursor style substances.

I'm not even arguing that Jobe shouldn't have been given a suspension, as I have pointed out many times. The fact that you keep trying to contest such points rather than my central argument suggests that you are doing so intentionally. (Trolling?)

Once again, my point unpopular as in may be, is that taking the Brownlow away from Jobe, in addition to his 2 year suspension, was both unnecessary and inappropriate. His suspension was already an extreme level of punishment for the crime of trusting the advice of the Essendon Medical Staff.

As I have pointed out many times the Brownlow is a medal for player conduct during game time. They could have and should have let him keep it.

 

[jwint43]

international rules but with full tackling is the best version of football

 

[jwint43]

That the 2023 Grand Final wasn't one of the all time great games, as so many commentators and Collingwood supporters keep annoyingly saying.

Sure, it was a very good and very entertaining game. It was close on the score board right until the end, had some great pieces of play, some very good individual performances, etc. Plus, I also think any premiership is a great achievement, and I did think Collingwood was the best team and deserved to win it, so congrats to the Pies and their fans.

However, I just don't think either side really played at or very close to their absolute best on the day, hence my contention it wasn't quite as great a game as many people have made out.

If I was aligned with Brisbane I might even be looking back and thinking, gee we missed a great opportunity because we got so close even though we performed a bit below our best on the big day.

For me, it was kind of like an Olympic 100m sprint final won by the world's best and in a photo finish, but in a time that didn't quite threaten world record pace, or the medalists PBs. So, a great GF? Yes. But a contender for the all-time greatest GF? no.

Yeah, I think its helped by the fact that everyone was half expecting Collingwood to just blow them away which has happened to every interstate side in recent times besides West Coast.

Brisbane couldn't miss though, their accuracy kept them in it and then they probably should have pinched it.

 

[Cuzz09]

Yeah felt like Pies were a 5 goal better side all day and just kicking inaccuracy kept Bris close.

Despite the close game I never thought they were gonna lose

On SM-S908E using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[VinnieB]

You and a few others seem to have missed half the debate and at least partially misunderstood my position.

I agree that Essendon did the wrong thing and needed to be punished.

Even though the players were given dodgy advice by medical staff, I also recognise that they couldn’t be completely absolved of personal responsibility lest that open the door for future exploitation of such a ruling.

My position is simply that the suspension was more than enough punishment for the players including Jobe, and that there was no need to go further and strip the poor bloke of his Brownlow. He’d been punished enough.

How much punishment is too much for the crime of allowing yourself to be misled by your club’s medical staff?

The AFL didn’t have to take it away, there was no rule requiring them to do so. It is simply an umpire voted playing conduct award and they could have, and should have, just let it stand.

My unpopular opinion is that I agree with you.

 

[Soggy2112]

My position is simply that the suspension was more than enough punishment for the players including Jobe, and that there was no need to go further and strip the poor bloke of his Brownlow. He’d been punished enough.

How much punishment is too much for the crime of allowing yourself to be misled by your club’s medical staff?

If the suspension was fair then that means he took a banned substance in that time period. If a substance is on the banned list then that means taking it gives a player an unfair advantage while they are taking it.

Therefore, if you believe the suspension was fair and the substance was taken, then he had an unfair advantage when he took it (2012).

As a result, you can’t let him keep a league award he won in that period. It would actually be unfair to the players below him in the medal count. Now I do think that Cotchin and Mitchell would be fairly indifferent to this award given how it played out and their other success, but nevertheless for the integrity of the Brownlow you can’t let him keep it, unless you prove that he didn’t take a banned substance.

I don’t know enough about the Lynch issue, but that is where being a team sport makes it messy. It’s more cut and dry when you are talking about an individual award or a 100m or something like that. That being said if the substance was taken years before 2001 then I don’t see it fair to retrospectively take back premierships.

 

[Blackhawk42]

I dunno, I've heard non-Essendin players talk about how you just sort of accept the club docs know what's best and you just nod your head and pass your arm over.

I've played bush footy under a former AFL player who wanted the best results possibly.
In hindsight some questionable things were presented to us (not necessarily injections, but certainly some consumable supplements).
These came to us alongside a dietician and a sports psychologist throughout the pre-season. Considering those professionals didn't have a problem with it neither did we.

However, we also didn't need to consider the ramifications of drug testing.
Regardless, if the professionals say it's fine then it's understandable to me why a lot of the players at Essendon accepted that stance. They would have expected the club would make decisions in their best interests.

 

[Bjo187]

The games are too long. The AFL missed an opportunity post covid (probably due to the tv networks) to strike the happy balance between 16 mins which is too short and 20 mins which is too long. 18 minutes is the perfect amount of time per quarter, especially when watching neutral games.

 

[Caligo]

The games are too long. The AFL missed an opportunity post covid (probably due to the tv networks) to strike the happy balance between 16 mins which is too short and 20 mins which is too long. 18 minutes is the perfect amount of time per quarter, especially when watching neutral games.

I would imagine that is a very unpopular opinion.

 

[peetoo]

The games are too long. The AFL missed an opportunity post covid (probably due to the tv networks) to strike the happy balance between 16 mins which is too short and 20 mins which is too long. 18 minutes is the perfect amount of time per quarter, especially when watching neutral games.

Maybe it was covid and no crowds, but there were next to no momentum swings. Needs to be trialled more

 

[Proffessor]

If the suspension was fair then that means he took a banned substance in that time period. If a substance is on the banned list then that means taking it gives a player an unfair advantage while they are taking it.

Therefore, if you believe the suspension was fair and the substance was taken, then he had an unfair advantage when he took it (2012).

As a result, you can’t let him keep a league award he won in that period. It would actually be unfair to the players below him in the medal count. Now I do think that Cotchin and Mitchell would be fairly indifferent to this award given how it played out and their other success, but nevertheless for the integrity of the Brownlow you can’t let him keep it, unless you prove that he didn’t take a banned substance.

I don’t know enough about the Lynch issue, but that is where being a team sport makes it messy. It’s more cut and dry when you are talking about an individual award or a 100m or something like that. That being said if the substance was taken years before 2001 then I don’t see it fair to retrospectively take back premierships.

I think you have misinterpreted my position in a few ways.

Firstly, I don’t think the Essendon player suspensions were particularly 'fair', I think two years suspension for trusting professional medical staff was an overly severe punishment. I did however believe that there had to be a significant suspension for the players, for reasons previously stated, but 2 years was definitely overkill.

I also don't believe that it was a given that the players definitely gained an advantage. BTW not all banned substances deliver advantages and there are multiple reasons a substance might be banned. Essendon were running an experimental program using their players as test subjects, and looking for something they hoped might provide some small advantage, using what they thought were non-banned substances that might aid them. Essentially acting like low grade chemical cowboys trying to find something above protein powders, vitamin supplements, etc. but stopping short of clearly banned anabolic steroids. Turned out that WADA had done a better job of writing their anti-drug codes than they thought.

However, there is a strong chance that many, some or even all of the Essendon players didn't gain any significant advantage. Some might have even been physically disadvantaged by what they were given.

I don't think you could prove that Jobe gained an unfair advantage, particularly in terms of his playing conduct. Did the supplements make him more respectful of other players and officials, more likely to follow the rules during play?

As I keep saying, the Brownlow is a glorified playing conduct award, it is not the overall aim of the AFL team competition, which is to win games and premierships. It's funny that you use the team versus individual angle to absolve the lack of retribution associated with a successful team involving a long-term serious PED user but are somehow happy to also use it to make a scapegoat out of a bloke who is generally agreed to have been little more than a victim of a dodgy club program. The reality is the individual award in a team competition supports the argument that he should keep the medal.

Besides all the above, his punishment was the severe suspension, and that should have been the end of it. Punishment singular, not punishments plural.

 

[GhostofJimJess]

If a player on top of an opponent drags the ball under the opponent who is trying to get the ball out should get holding the ball against himself.

And any third-man-in teammate of the bloke being tackled should not be allowed to tackle the tackler, just to create ball up. Happens way too often.

 

[Underarm]

I think you have misinterpreted my position in a few ways.

Firstly, I don’t think the Essendon player suspensions were particularly 'fair', I think two years suspension for trusting professional medical staff was an overly severe punishment. I did however believe that there had to be a significant suspension for the players, for reasons previously stated, but 2 years was definitely overkill.

I also don't believe that it was a given that the players definitely gained an advantage. BTW not all banned substances deliver advantages and there are multiple reasons a substance might be banned. Essendon were running an experimental program using their players as test subjects, and looking for something they hoped might provide some small advantage, using what they thought were non-banned substances that might aid them. Essentially acting like low grade chemical cowboys trying to find something above protein powders, vitamin supplements, etc. but stopping short of clearly banned anabolic steroids. Turned out that WADA had done a better job of writing their anti-drug codes than they thought.

However, there is a strong chance that many, some or even all of the Essendon players didn't gain any significant advantage. Some might have even been physically disadvantaged by what they were given.

I don't think you could prove that Jobe gained an unfair advantage, particularly in terms of his playing conduct. Did the supplements make him more respectful of other players and officials, more likely to follow the rules during play?

As I keep saying, the Brownlow is a glorified playing conduct award, it is not the overall aim of the AFL team competition, which is to win games and premierships. It's funny that you use the team versus individual angle to absolve the lack of retribution associated with a successful team involving a long-term serious PED user but are somehow happy to also use it to make a scapegoat out of a bloke who is generally agreed to have been little more than a victim of a dodgy club program. The reality is the individual award in a team competition supports the argument that he should keep the medal.

Besides all the above, his punishment was the severe suspension, and that should have been the end of it. Punishment singular, not punishments plural.

They got the extra year of suspension because none of the players reported the injections to WADA when they were drug tested during that period.

Players can never use "My Dr said it was okay" as an excuse, it's up to the athlete to make sure what they are being reccomended to take is safe and legal.

If the players/club weren't trying to gain an advantage in performance or recovery, why allow themselves to be Injected?

If a Bank robber steals millions of dollars, gets caught and goes to jail for a year - should he still keep the money? After all he's been punished for stealing -why should he get multiple punishments?

 

[Soggy2112]

As I keep saying, the Brownlow is a glorified playing conduct award, it is not the overall aim of the AFL team competition, which is to win games and premierships. It's funny that you use the team versus individual angle to absolve the lack of retribution associated with a successful team involving a long-term serious PED user but are somehow happy to also use it to make a scapegoat out of a bloke who is generally agreed to have been little more than a victim of a dodgy club program. The reality is the individual award in a team competition supports the argument that he should keep the medal.

I strongly disagree with the bolded part. There were Essendon players who chose not to participate so clearly there were some warning signs. I can forgive a first or second year player who would have felt pressured to participate to show commitment, earn their place, etc. but not the captain of the team. On the contrary I think he let his teammates down massively, he should have been a leader in making sure everything was above board, instead he set an example of let’s just go with what the club says, and as a result many players careers suffered.

In regards to Lynch, If you take a premiership away there are 21 innocent players who did not take a banned substance who suffer. When said player was permitted to play by the league and had not used the banned substance for some time before those premierships then I don’t think that would be fair. Can you take a premiership medal off one specific player? I don’t think so. It’s all or none IMO.

Taking the Brownlow away from Jobe only affects Jobe. The reality is he was using a banned substance at the time he won that award. Is it rough to take it away? maybe. Is it fair to the rest of the competition to let him keep it? Absolutely not.

Put this as plain and simple as possible. If you get suspended for an action in a season you are ineligible to win the Brownlow. Jobe was suspended for an action in the 2012 season, therefore he is ineligible for the 2012 Brownlow Medal.

As for the no advantage claim, we will never know if he gained any advantage at all, but it would certainly be a big coincidence if he had his career best year in a season where he was using a banned substance designed to enhance performance.

 

[Proffessor]

They got the extra year of suspension because none of the players reported the injections to WADA when they were drug tested during that period.

Players can never use "My Dr said it was okay" as an excuse, it's up to the athlete to make sure what they are being reccomended to take is safe and legal.

If the players/club weren't trying to gain an advantage in performance or recovery, why allow themselves to be Injected?

If a Bank robber steals millions of dollars, gets caught and goes to jail for a year - should he still keep the money? After all he's been punished for stealing -why should he get multiple punishments?

Why report something you have been repeatedly assured was kosher?

About the only reliable evidence against Watson was his own self-testimony in media interviews, so his words could be held against him, but apparently, he should still get an extra penalty for not self-incriminating enough. You can't have it both ways.

Taking your bank robbery analogy, it's more like a taxi driver taking some client to and from the shops only to discover later they robbed a bank whilst he was waiting for them, then getting jailed for the same time as the robber, and four years later having his taxi driver of the year award revoked just to add a bit more salt into his wounds.

 

[Proffessor]

I strongly disagree with the bolded part. There were Essendon players who chose not to participate so clearly there were some warning signs. I can forgive a first or second year player who would have felt pressured to participate to show commitment, earn their place, etc. but not the captain of the team. On the contrary I think he let his teammates down massively, he should have been a leader in making sure everything was above board, instead he set an example of let’s just go with what the club says, and as a result many players careers suffered.

In regards to Lynch, If you take a premiership away there are 21 innocent players who did not take a banned substance who suffer. When said player was permitted to play by the league and had not used the banned substance for some time before those premierships then I don’t think that would be fair. Can you take a premiership medal off one specific player? I don’t think so. It’s all or none IMO.

Taking the Brownlow away from Jobe only affects Jobe. The reality is he was using a banned substance at the time he won that award. Is it rough to take it away? maybe. Is it fair to the rest of the competition to let him keep it? Absolutely not.

Put this as plain and simple as possible. If you get suspended for an action in a season you are ineligible to win the Brownlow. Jobe was suspended for an action in the 2012 season, therefore he is ineligible for the 2012 Brownlow Medal.

As for the no advantage claim, we will never know if he gained any advantage at all, but it would certainly be a big coincidence if he had his career best year in a season where he was using a banned substance designed to enhance performance.

I think it was one solitary Essendon player, not players, David 'I'm scared of needles' Zaharakis. He may have been smarter that the rest or just genuinely hated needles.

So, players are more deserving of punishment if they are older? He was still a young man of 27, and a bit of a late bloomer because they didn't work out his best position until late in his career. He possibly felt even more pressure than most to toe the line and do what was being asked of him as captain. Not to mention trust some key people he'd known most of his young life.

Always easier to scape goat individuals, doesn't make it the right thing to do.

No big co-incidence, he just so happened to be in the prime of his career, which was unfortunately then derailed after the drug scandal.

Any way you're welcome to your opinion and I'm welcome to mine.