Page 3 of 15 FirstFirst 123456713 ... LastLast
Results 25 to 36 of 174

Thread: Essendon Football Club Drama

  1. #25
    On the Rookie List Jewels's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Copacabana
    Posts
    3,258
    That's my take on it also, and if correct then he must be sanctioned. Jobe would therefore be as guilty of taking a banned substance as Tippett was of draft tampering.
    Interesting times ahead me thinks.

    - - - Updated - - -

    That's my take on it also, and if correct then he must be sanctioned. Jobe would therefore be as guilty of taking a banned substance as Tippett was of draft tampering.
    Interesting times ahead me thinks.

  2. #26
    if found guilty does Jobe need to hand back his Brownlow ??
    "be tough, only when it gets tough"


  3. #27
    Apart from the Brownlow what about the implications for the current standing of the team. What penalties will they incur? Loss of points? Players banned? If we are to understand the guidelines then the players can not plead ignorance, even though I believe that they unwittingly and innocently took the substances under the direction of sports medicos, doctors, trainers, coaches etc. Interesting times ahead, which must be brought to a conclusion one way or another by the AFL head office before the finals. They can't sit on their hands and procrastinate.

  4. #28
    Carpe Noctem CureTheSane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Knoxfield, Victoria
    Posts
    5,032
    Interesting when you compare to Tippett.
    He did the wrong thing for financial gain.
    Compare that to the potential from the Essendon game.
    I wonder if the AFL have set some kind of a comparison point with the length of that penalty.

    Brownlow is a hard one.
    To be honest, I doubt he really got any benefit at all from the drug. Same with the other players, so I have a hard time going for retrospective penalties.
    Same with the Melbourne Storm. I think that harmed the game. Not that I'm complaining, just not sure about handing back flags.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Interesting when you compare to Tippett.
    He did the wrong thing for financial gain.
    Compare that to the potential from the Essendon game.
    I wonder if the AFL have set some kind of a comparison point with the length of that penalty.

    Brownlow is a hard one.
    To be honest, I doubt he really got any benefit at all from the drug. Same with the other players, so I have a hard time going for retrospective penalties.
    Same with the Melbourne Storm. I think that harmed the game. Not that I'm complaining, just not sure about handing back flags.
    The difference between insanity and genius is measured only in success.

  5. #29
    Veteran Site Admin
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    16,393
    My understanding of Jobe's position is that the banned weight loss item was not banned when he took it, although it has been banned since. If so, there's no case to answer, at least on that score. They can't ban it retrospectively
    The statements coming from WADA have been consistent - the substance in question was banned from early 2011 under the S0 provisions of the drug code. The only "get out" for the club might be if they did, indeed, approach ASADA and received different advice from them.

    I am struggling a bit to buy the idea that the players are just innocent pawns in this whole saga. There were a few comments early in the piece, and Watson admitted the same thing on Monday night, that the players were told that the programme was "on the edge". Watson agreed that the number of injections he was receiving was unprecedented compared to his previous experience in the sport. What exactly did the players believe was the purpose of the programme? Why did Watson think the club was giving him all these injections? Did he ask what the impact / effects / benefits were of the substances he was being injected with? If he didn't ask questions along these lines, particularly having been told that the programme was "on the edge", he is at least guilty of being pretty na?ve. Possibly worse. I have a little sympathy with younger players who might have thought they just had to do what they were being told with no questions asked, but I struggle to accept that the club captain, with enough experience to know that the programme was unusual, did not, or did not feel able to, ask questions to ensure he understand exactly what the programme was trying to achieve.

    Comments at various times from Essendon and Dank state that AOD is not performance enhancing. So why were they investing all this time and money injecting players with it? What was the whole point of the supplement programme if not to enhance players' performance?

  6. #30
    pr. dim-melb; m not f
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Central Coast NSW, Costa Lantana
    Posts
    6,889
    Jobe did say the process got the tick from the club doctor; it would be unusual, given the doctor's prestige, longstanding affiliation with the club, and established trust, to feel that a second opinion was necessary.
    I think there are obvious possible benefits in taking an AOD: reduced skinfolds. Whether you'd prefer to go down that road rather than hard work and watching your food and liquid intake is another matter.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Jobe did say the process got the tick from the club doctor; it would be unusual, given the doctor's prestige, longstanding affiliation with the club, and established trust, to feel that a second opinion was necessary.
    I think there are obvious possible benefits in taking an AOD: reduced skinfolds. Whether you'd prefer to go down that road rather than hard work and watching your food and liquid intake is another matter.
    On the other hand, if WADA had declared the drug banned, it is hard to believe that ASADA would advise otherwise, though stranger things have happened.
    He reminds him of the guys, close-set, slow, and never rattled, who were play-makers on the team. (John Updike, seeing Josh Kennedy in a crystal ball)

  7. #31
    Veteran Site Admin
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    16,393
    Quote Originally Posted by dimelb View Post

    Jobe did say the process got the tick from the club doctor; it would be unusual, given the doctor's prestige, longstanding affiliation with the club, and established trust, to feel that a second opinion was necessary.
    I think there are obvious possible benefits in taking an AOD: reduced skinfolds. Whether you'd prefer to go down that road rather than hard work and watching your food and liquid intake is another matter.
    On the other hand, if WADA had declared the drug banned, it is hard to believe that ASADA would advise otherwise, though stranger things have happened.
    And yet, earlier in the piece, Essendon were trying to paint the situation as arising from a rogue operator, with references to Dr Reid's reservations about the club's supplement programme and the mythical letter that was written but never sent to the board. If Jobe is claiming he relied on an "OK" from the club doctor, it is going to be hard for that club doctor to distance himself from the programme if it is proven to be in breach of rules. (And regardless of whether substances taken were in violation of WADA rules, and regardless of how much blame is / should be laid at the feet of the players, it is hard to see, even from the limited information that is undisputed in the public arena - including the internal governance of the programme and the level of documentation of what was going on - how Essendon aren't guilty of procedural breaches of the AFL's doping code.)

    WADA rules don't allow a player to completely escape sanction if he has relied on bad advice from his own doctor (or the club doctor, in this case). The code states that the athlete is responsible for determining those on whose advice he relies, and remains liable for the consequences of that advice. So if it is deemed that Essendon players have breached the code (ie taken prohibited substances), they won't escape sanction if they relied on Reid but Reid made a mistake. Their own hope would surely be if Reid could demonstrate he had been misled by ASADA or WADA.

  8. #32
    Leadership Group goswannie14's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Belmont, Victoria, Australia, Australia
    Posts
    11,166
    Quote Originally Posted by RogueSwan View Post
    Pretty incriminating stuff:I took a banned drug: Watson

    Surely the AFL would have to take steps sooner rather than later, August is too far away.
    When Cousins owned up to taking a banned/illegal drug, he was suspended.....why not Watson?
    Does God believe in Atheists?

  9. #33
    Great advertisement for performance enhancing drugs tonight! ... they are clearly superior to recreational drugs ... only one team was still running at the end, and gee, didn't Watson look good!!!

    What is the AFL doing FFS!???

  10. #34
    Senior Player ernie koala's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    northern beaches
    Posts
    3,251
    It's all seems pretty simple on the surface.

    AOD**** was banned in January 2011.

    Watson, and most likely many other Essendon players, were injected with supplement AOD**** in the preseason of 2011/12.

    WADA rules are very clear..."Any athlete who is proved, by test or other evidence, to have taken a banned substance, are liable and will be sanctioned"

    The circumstances (ie In this case , ignorance) are inconsequential.

    It's hard to see how any players involved will avoid sanction.
    Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect... MT

  11. #35
    Pushing for Selection
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    95
    Quote Originally Posted by ernie koala View Post
    It's all seems pretty simple on the surface.

    AOD**** was banned in January 2011.

    Watson, and most likely many other Essendon players, were injected with supplement AOD**** in the preseason of 2011/12.

    WADA rules are very clear..."Any athlete who is proved, by test or other evidence, to have taken a banned substance, are liable and will be sanctioned"

    The circumstances (ie In this case , ignorance) are inconsequential.

    It's hard to see how any players involved will avoid sanction.
    And now Jobe has admitted to the world that he did in fact use AOD****, so we are not dealing with guess work anymore.

    Not sure what reception the AFL expected, but no matter how nice the guy is, this circus of booing Watson at the games will continue because at least half the fans believe someone who takes a WADA banned drug should not be on the field untill punishment has been served. The AFL may be forced to step in now that he has admitted to the use himself and stand him down for his own sake plus the image of the game untill the case is wrapped up. This type of spotlight is not a good look.

  12. #36
    Senior Player
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,681
    Quote Originally Posted by CureTheSane View Post
    Interesting when you compare to Tippett.

    Brownlow is a hard one.
    To be honest, I doubt he really got any benefit at all from the drug. Same with the other players, so I have a hard time going for retrospective penalties.
    I don't think you can say that at all CTS. You only need to look at their season last year, 1st half season, on the juice, winning plenty of games, 2nd half of the season, off the juice and they start losing plenty. And maybe what they were on has a more long term effect leading to stronger more consistent performances this year.
    I'm spectulating of course without any hard evidence, but thats the point, what they were doing tarnishes the game by being seen to be having an impact.

Page 3 of 15 FirstFirst 123456713 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO