Why are Essendon playing for premiership points in 2013?

Remove this Banner Ad

rfctiger74 said:
I don't know about that. The two main cases I remember (uki rower and Sam Riley) were complete contrasts for resources. Rowers earn jack.

On Cass, I think he was pretty well backed too. Going off a long memory, but pretty sure he had club and WAFL agreeing his use was incidental, and I think he was given some decent legal representation for his first appeal, and the latter ASADA one (no idea who paid, but assuming its not him given what a WAFL player earns).
Click to expand...

I'm not necessarily saying the resources of the individual athlete but the organisations backings them. When you're talking Olympic sports they have the backing of the state, that whole national pride thing. Carl Lewis failed three tests, got off each time on inadvertent use, but he wasn't the only one at the same time 116 American Olympic athletes failed tests and got off for inadvertent use or therapeutic use, individually they are nobodies, but as part of the American Olympic team the whole national pride thing kicks in.
 
fishardansin said:
I have heard from someone close to Damien Barrett that he knows far more than what he's putting in the press. The players that were given this substance were not what we'd consider "best 18", but Essendon won't give them up. They recognise if they can't justify it as ok through the compound chemist route than it was the club that stuffed up, and as the club's conscience is clear that there is no unfair advantage gained from using AOD, they wont give the actual players up.

This means that no players will get banned, but the club will cop a fair whack. Which is fair.
Click to expand...

Best possible outcome for all involved. If half your list got 2 year bans, the club would have been destroyed by lawsuits and have been unable to adequately compete for years, if at all.

The AFL will hit the club hard though. I would expect fines, loss of points and probably draft picks. If there is any reasonable evidence that last year's program would have a positive effect on this year, the AFL need to see to it that Essendon don't win a premiership this year.
 
SwampRat said:
The AFL will hit the club hard though. I would expect fines, loss of points and probably draft picks. If there is any reasonable evidence that last year's program would have a positive effect on this year, the AFL need to see to it that Essendon don't win a premiership this year.
Click to expand...

There is no reasonable evidence so nothing to see here really.

However given you feel strongly about this though, will you be petitioning the Port board to not play Monfries for the rest of the year as he could potentially be compromising Ports season?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Daytripper said:
There is no reasonable evidence so nothing to see here really.

However given you feel strongly about this though, will you be petitioning the Port board to not play Monfries for the rest of the year as he could potentially be compromising Ports season?
Click to expand...

If the AFL/ASADA go down the road of punishing the club rather than the players, then why should Monfries be punished? Port has done no wrong and will not receive sanctions as a team. If no Essendon player is sanctioned, then neither will Monfries. Any loss of points will be a team sanction (if it happens).

If Essendon players are sanctioned directly, and Monfries is part of that group, then I'd expect him to be sanctioned too.
 
SwampRat said:
If the AFL/ASADA go down the road of punishing the club rather than the players, then why should Monfries be punished? Port has done no wrong and will not receive sanctions as a team. If no Essendon player is sanctioned, then neither will Monfries. Any loss of points will be a team sanction (if it happens).

If Essendon players are sanctioned directly, and Monfries is part of that group, then I'd expect him to be sanctioned too.
Click to expand...
You questioned whether players from last year were advantaged this year. Stands to reason Monfries has to be included in that group.

Again, if you feel so strongly about this issue, then please petition Port to withdraw Monfries from the senior team for the rest of the season until you are certain that he is not being advantaged this year.
 
Daytripper said:
You questioned whether players from last year were advantaged this year. Stands to reason Monfries has to be included in that group.
Click to expand...

Only if he has actually taken something.

Again, if you feel so strongly about this issue, then please petition Port to withdraw Monfries from the senior team for the rest of the season until you are certain that he is not being advantaged this year.
Click to expand...

Why should Port punish itself for Essendon's wrongdoings? Any loss of points will be a punishment to Essendon. If Monfries is individually sanctioned along with other Essendon players, then we'll cop that. It's not our fault your club drugged players.
 
SwampRat said:
Why should Port punish itself for Essendon's wrongdoings? Any loss of points will be a punishment to Essendon. If Monfries is individually sanctioned along with other Essendon players, then we'll cop that. It's not our fault your club drugged players.
Click to expand...
You stated before that players from last year could be playing with an advantage. That means Monfries has as well and has inadvertantly helped Port Adelaide to a 5-1 position.

Shouldn't he at least stand down until this has been resolved?
 
SwampRat said:
Only if he has actually taken something.



Why should Port punish itself for Essendon's wrongdoings? Any loss of points will be a punishment to Essendon. If Monfries is individually sanctioned along with other Essendon players, then we'll cop that. It's not our fault your club drugged players.
Click to expand...

Because Essendon purposely got rid of all players that were on the juice, there for, Monfries, and no Essendon players. :p


But, no in seriousness, I think the reason they look like they will get off is there is minimal effect to what happened last year. It there were serious breaches, nt so sure ASADA would take it so lightly.
 
DonsRule said:
Because Essendon purposely got rid of all players that were on the juice, there for, Monfries, and no Essendon players. :p
Click to expand...

Thought you were serious for a moment. ;)

But, no in seriousness, I think the reason they look like they will get off is there is minimal effect to what happened last year. It there were serious breaches, nt so sure ASADA would take it so lightly.
Click to expand...

That is hopefully true for the players, but I'm not sure the AFL will take things so lightly. Melbourne were pinged for "not tanking" so what would happen here?

Public perception is everything. If Essendon are found to have acted outside of the player's best interest and administered substances against any ASADA code to players, even if players do not get suspensions, the AFL pretty much has to sanction the club. You guys are serious premiership contenders this year. Even if your players are not currently benefitting in any meaningful way from any prohibited substances, the AFL would face a PR nightmare if Essendon was guilty of a drugs scandal in 2012 and the same players win a premiership in 2013. I don't believe the AFL will let that happen.
 
Daytripper said:
You stated before that players from last year could be playing with an advantage. That means Monfries has as well and has inadvertantly helped Port Adelaide to a 5-1 position.

Shouldn't he at least stand down until this has been resolved?
Click to expand...

Shouldn't your players do the same thing then? It's not our fault you guys (possibly) had Monfries on the juice last year. If Monfries is not suspended, I see no reason to hold him back from games. To leave him out would cause more harm than any possible benefit we got from your program.

You are failing to comprehend the difference between individual and club level sanctions.
 
Sunshine Saint said:
Thanks for that. I wont list other hypotheticals if the risk taken totally fails. I think they are obvious to all.

It will be an interesting few months ahead to see whether this was in fact the correct approach and has minimised your penalties, or instead moved you to heavier sanctions. I suspect it may not be as clear cut and easy as you think, but that is speculating and all will eventually come out.

When this is over, if you are ever in Sunny Queensland, send me a message and we will catch up for a drink and to mull over the final outcomes. Thanks
Click to expand...

I agree it is a risky road we seem to be taking, however, the public is not privy to what their legal position is, what advice they've taken etc. Like this whole affair, we can't really speculate with any level of confidence and will have to wait until the final outcome is announced. In terms of club sanctions, it wouldn't surprise me if the AFL and EFC have/are negotiating on what they will be, similar to Melbourne's non-tanking fine. If ASADA can't make anything stick, the AFL can only go so far in penalizing the club for "bringing the game into disrepute" before EFC will raise the legal challenge flag and the AFL will know that. I doubt either party would want to go down that path.

I must say, this has been a really difficult period for the club members/supporters to deal with. As can been seen in BF, emotions are running at maximum on both sides of the fence, and considering the gravity of the claims it's not surprising. For me personally I want to see this resolved quickly and I must say as this has dragged on my moral compass has been spinning by the club's decision to seemingly fight the allegations, if only for this to be finally over and I can just get back to enjoying the game. On the flip-side, I can understand the level of moral outrage from non-EFC people. I guess until you find yourself in the position we're in you just don't know how you'll deal with it? An analogy might be that if a close family member was being investigated or even charged with a serious offense, you'd expect them to fight the charge and do what they can through the legal system to avoid conviction or minimise the penalty. Of course you'd most likely support them in this process. I guess most EFC supporters are taking the same line (admittedly some aren't/won't be at all with what's happened).

If I make it to Brisbane(?) in the future I'll drop you a line. No doubt by then we'll know the full outcome of this soap-opera!
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

EnolaGay said:
I agree it is a risky road we seem to be taking, however, the public is not privy to what their legal position is, what advice they've taken etc. Like this whole affair, we can't really speculate with any level of confidence and will have to wait until the final outcome is announced. In terms of club sanctions, it wouldn't surprise me if the AFL and EFC have/are negotiating on what they will be, similar to Melbourne's non-tanking fine. If ASADA can't make anything stick, the AFL can only go so far in penalizing the club for "bringing the game into disrepute" before EFC will raise the legal challenge flag and the AFL will know that. I doubt either party would want to go down that path.

I must say, this has been a really difficult period for the club members/supporters to deal with. As can been seen in BF, emotions are running at maximum on both sides of the fence, and considering the gravity of the claims it's not surprising. For me personally I want to see this resolved quickly and I must say as this has dragged on my moral compass has been spinning by the club's decision to seemingly fight the allegations, if only for this to be finally over and I can just get back to enjoying the game. On the flip-side, I can understand the level of moral outrage from non-EFC people. I guess until you find yourself in the position we're in you just don't know how you'll deal with it? An analogy might be that if a close family member was being investigated or even charged with a serious offense, you'd expect them to fight the charge and do what they can through the legal system to avoid conviction or minimise the penalty. Of course you'd most likely support them in this process. I guess most EFC supporters are taking the same line (admittedly some aren't/won't be at all with what's happened).

If I make it to Brisbane(?) in the future I'll drop you a line. No doubt by then we'll know the full outcome of this soap-opera!
Click to expand...


A man of intelligence and with strengths of values. The personal nature of our respective clubs, makes the analogy of family apt. Its important to support those with problems, but it is false support, if we provide assistance that only continues the problem. Sometimes it is tough love that is needed, when for their own sake, we have to let them suffer the consequences of their actions.

I look forward to that drink and time to talk this over in the future. Good luck to you. I had cousins involved as ex players and Admin at Fitzroy, I would never wish the extinction of another club.
 
One thing that nobody has focused on so far is how a team ban (possible under WADA rules for more than 2 players) would effect the running of the AFL schedule.
We have a comp where not all teams have equal home and away. Say EFC or any other club in the future were banned from competing in 2014 or any given year beyond, this would completely compromise the advantage of some teams in or draw. This is a structural problem for the AFL and I don't think it would be easy to work around it. You can't just say teams effectively get a bye as some clubs would be penalized by the numbers of games they would have played the banned club.
This could happen anytime in the future. It's a problem due to the growth in teams exceeding the number of rounds. Personally I favour two H&A for all teams ie a longer season with possibly deeper lists so they could schedule some blockbuster midweeks at times a bit like the EPL.
So there you have ADs dilemma. He needs EFC to keep playing 2014, despite the club governance at an all time low. What a mess.
Also just think if EFC had its main players banned in 2014, and EFC was allowed to play with a drummed up team from the 2nds. I would like to be the person making up the draw for that year! Who would they play twice? If EFC finish in the top half in 2013 before penalties are handed out their 2014 draw would be totally different to if they had 2013 zeroed out. Suns, GWS, Melb and the Dogs would prefer the latter.
Thanks EFC for potentially recking (or advantaging) the 2014 season depending on each supporters point of view.
I think this is why AD is a bit annoyed at EFC but is trying to get the club off without the WADA club ban. But it's a something that the AFL has to have a long term strategy as you never know when a club or a couple of players might go rouge in the future.
What do others think?
 
fishardansin said:
I have heard from someone close to Damien Barrett that he knows far more than what he's putting in the press. The players that were given this substance were not what we'd consider "best 18", but Essendon won't give them up. They recognise if they can't justify it as ok through the compound chemist route than it was the club that stuffed up, and as the club's conscience is clear that there is no unfair advantage gained from using AOD, they wont give the actual players up.

This means that no players will get banned, but the club will cop a fair whack. Which is fair.
Click to expand...

If you are saying they will not name the players, that can't possibly be the case. If it was found that Essendon players had taken banned substances, Essendon know who the players were but refuse to name them, the AFL would seriously consider deregister the club until they changed their minds. Not to mention the fall out that would have in terms of sponsors and members. Understand you are just passing on what you have heard but this does not ring true for me.
 
Go_Blues! said:
If you are saying they will not name the players, that can't possibly be the case. If it was found that Essendon players had taken banned substances, Essendon know who the players were but refuse to name them, the AFL would seriously consider deregister the club until they changed their minds. Not to mention the fall out that would have in terms of sponsors and members. Understand you are just passing on what you have heard but this does not ring true for me.
Click to expand...
It doesn't ring true cause it's completely absurd.
 
From 2010 ... http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...-flags-warns-afl/story-e6frf9jf-1225838886786

AFL football operations manager Adrian Anderson yesterday said: "We'd strip the Brownlow off someone who tested positive to performance-enhancing drugs, absolutely."

Anderson agreed a club could be stripped of a flag if the guilty player had taken part in the Grand Final.

"The commission, the executive and football operations of the AFL are absolutely determined to do what it takes to make sure our sport isn't compromised by the scourge of performance-enhancing drugs.
 
Ceanag said:
From 2010 ... http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...-flags-warns-afl/story-e6frf9jf-1225838886786

AFL football operations manager Adrian Anderson yesterday said: "We'd strip the Brownlow off someone who tested positive to performance-enhancing drugs, absolutely."

Anderson agreed a club could be stripped of a flag if the guilty player had taken part in the Grand Final.

"The commission, the executive and football operations of the AFL are absolutely determined to do what it takes to make sure our sport isn't compromised by the scourge of performance-enhancing drugs.
Click to expand...

And just when did Adrian get pushed out?
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Why are Essendon playing for premiership points in 2013?

Similar threads

Satan
Pharmacist involved in essendon saga sadly found dead
Replies
3
Views
863
Satan
Satan
The_Wookie
Play Nice Happy 10th Anniversary (of the Essendon/ASADA Saga)
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
blackcat
blackcat

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top