Talking Footy

AFLcrap1 wrote:

AFL
Morally bankrupt & in my view rightly perceived as a corrupt organisation .

The more dirt that seeps out from under the huge rug at Aflol house ...the better it is

yes the AFL tried to control the proceedings, however one has to question why Cronulla players who openly admitted to doping were given a 3 game ban. Does that seriously sit right with RL fans? At least theres a reasonable chance the Essendon players will be appropriately punished

That's already been explained .
They put their hand up .
There case was pushed aside due to the much larger Essingbong case & the continious efforts to stop ASADA .

AFLcrap1 wrote:

That's already been explained .
They put their hand up .
There case was pushed aside due to the much larger Essingbong case & the continious efforts to stop ASADA .

so you think 3 games was a just punishment for doping?

LOL and you accuse AFL fans of toeing the party line. If Essendon players get less than 12 months BF will go into meltdown

Don't care, they took the punishment dished out, move on.

Xman does it ever cross your mind that if Essingbong had put their hand up they might have got the same result ad Cronulla .
3 games is light .
But the Sharks didn't poke the bear .
Didn't have the mouthpiece Essingbong media ,trying to discredit ASADA continuously .
Didn't try to drag it out .
Didn't do its best to get evidence suppressed .
Didn't drag ASADA to court
Didn't try to muddy the waters .
Maybe if they had taken the Sharks route ,this would all be ancient history .

They have no one to blame but themselves .

ParraEelsNRL wrote:

Don't care, they took the punishment dished out, move on.

haha, and you guys claim AFL fans follow along blindy. 3 weeks for admitting to doping wont exactly put other potential dopers off

AFLcrap1 wrote:

Xman does it ever cross your mind that if Essingbong had put their hand up they might have got the same result ad Cronulla .
3 games is light .
But the Sharks didn't poke the bear .
Didn't have the mouthpiece Essingbong media ,trying to discredit ASADA continuously .
Didn't try to drag it out .
Didn't do its best to get evidence suppressed .
Didn't drag ASADA to court
Didn't try to muddy the waters .
Maybe if they had taken the Sharks route ,this would all be ancient history .

They have no one to blame but themselves .

I have no issue with the fact their actions have lead to this current status, none at all. However, that's not what your claim is about. Most of what you have claimed above was Essendon following their own legal advice. It certainly wasnt the AFL. In fact it was totally against what the AFL wanted. Furthermore, even McDevitt has claimed the Essendon players were the {innocent} victims. How were the players ever going to accept a deal when they were unaware that they had potentially been doped? They were advised against making a deal by their own legal counsel, presumably because ASADA's case didnt present enough evidence they were in fact doped. Lastly, I seem to remember Essendon players lining up to be interviewed, where as Cronulla players refused to answer questions.

Xman wrote:

AFLcrap1 wrote:

That's already been explained .
They put their hand up .
There case was pushed aside due to the much larger Essingbong case & the continious efforts to stop ASADA .

so you think 3 games was a just punishment for doping?

LOL and you accuse AFL fans of toeing the party line. If Essendon players get less than 12 months BF will go into meltdown

The length of time was nothing to do with NRL. It was because of the weak case ASADA had. The players had no idea whether the substance they had been given was legal or not. They elected to take Asada's offer rather than risk a 2/3year ban .

pussycat wrote:

Xman wrote:

AFLcrap1 wrote:

That's already been explained .
They put their hand up .
There case was pushed aside due to the much larger Essingbong case & the continious efforts to stop ASADA .

so you think 3 games was a just punishment for doping?

LOL and you accuse AFL fans of toeing the party line. If Essendon players get less than 12 months BF will go into meltdown

The length of time was nothing to do with NRL. It was because of the weak case ASADA had. The players had no idea whether the substance they had been given was legal or not. They elected to take Asada's offer rather than risk a 2/3year ban .

How is it a weak case when a Cronulla staff emmber came out and admitted the players were given 'horse drugs'??

How is it a weak case when players confessed??



Taking a 3 week ban over a 2 year ban is ridiculous for any athlete who has confessed to doping. Take off your rose coloured glasses and admit it.

Xman why do you struggle comprehending our opinions as validated by links/folk with reputations in the business so often? Please provide links. You like links right? I could quote you calling for links umpteen times.

It's poor trolling form bro.

Please, pickup ur game or I'll sic that grumpy ol hound wookie onto yA.

Xman wrote:

pussycat wrote:

Xman wrote:

AFLcrap1 wrote:

That's already been explained .
They put their hand up .
There case was pushed aside due to the much larger Essingbong case & the continious efforts to stop ASADA .

so you think 3 games was a just punishment for doping?

LOL and you accuse AFL fans of toeing the party line. If Essendon players get less than 12 months BF will go into meltdown

The length of time was nothing to do with NRL. It was because of the weak case ASADA had. The players had no idea whether the substance they had been given was legal or not. They elected to take Asada's offer rather than risk a 2/3year ban .

How is it a weak case when a Cronulla staff emmber came out and admitted the players were given 'horse drugs'??

How is it a weak case when players confessed??



Taking a 3 week ban over a 2 year ban is ridiculous for any athlete who has confessed to doping. Take off your rose coloured glasses and admit it.

It was a senior Cronulla Official who made that statement ( and later apologised for the remark), like you, he only reads headlines. But he, like everyone else had NFI . And neither did ASADA. Thats Why they offered the deal. A face saving excercise after there 'Blackest day in Australian sport' fuck up.

And it wasn't just 3 weeks it was also the previous 2 years they'd had to go through.

King-Eliagh wrote:

Xman why do you struggle comprehending our opinions as validated by links/folk with reputations in the business so often? Please provide links. You like links right? I could quote you calling for links umpteen times.

It's poor trolling form bro.

Please, pickup ur game or I'll sic that grumpy ol hound wookie onto yA.

links for what you dickhead?

pussycat wrote:

Xman wrote:

pussycat wrote:

Xman wrote:

AFLcrap1 wrote:

That's already been explained .
They put their hand up .
There case was pushed aside due to the much larger Essingbong case & the continious efforts to stop ASADA .

so you think 3 games was a just punishment for doping?

LOL and you accuse AFL fans of toeing the party line. If Essendon players get less than 12 months BF will go into meltdown

The length of time was nothing to do with NRL. It was because of the weak case ASADA had. The players had no idea whether the substance they had been given was legal or not. They elected to take Asada's offer rather than risk a 2/3year ban .

How is it a weak case when a Cronulla staff emmber came out and admitted the players were given 'horse drugs'??

How is it a weak case when players confessed??



Taking a 3 week ban over a 2 year ban is ridiculous for any athlete who has confessed to doping. Take off your rose coloured glasses and admit it.

It was a senior Cronulla Official who made that statement ( and later apologised for the remark), like you, he only reads headlines. But he, like everyone else had NFI . And neither did ASADA. Thats Why they offered the deal. A face saving excercise after there 'Blackest day in Australian sport' fuck up.

And it wasn't just 3 weeks it was also the previous 2 years they'd had to go through.

2 years? They only started their investigation at the end of the 2013 season because the Cronulla players refused to answer questions during the season. Their ban was 12 months backdated for the delays caused by the concurrent Essendon case. Using the same logic the Essendon players case was also delayed by the Cronulla case so the same reductions should apply if they are found guilty. As for a weak case, my understanding is the Cruonulla case was actually fairly strong, which is why they pleaded guilty, but because of the delays and no significant fault claim the penalty was reduced.

I dont blame the Essendon players for taking the case to the tribunal. Why should they plead guilty when they havent been given convincing evidence they took banned substances? Sure, they may receive a decent penalty by CAS, but it's their careers to lose.

Every one seems to forget AT THIS STAGE and unless more evidence is obtained Essendon have been found guilty of nothing - I find it really crap that ASADA who completely fucked up the Essendon investigation (bear in mind they are meant to be the professionals - not the AFL!) they didn't want to appeal and now they are paying for WADA to appeal! More fucking wasted tax payer money! I for one think enough money has been spent on this!

Why appeal.The AFL tribunal showed that Comfortable satisfaction = a level way above what other people call comfortable satisfaction .

.
Will be the same result if they did.

So they did the right thing skipping an appeal ythat would have wasted time. & are now where they would have ended up anyway .

Me thinks some of you fumblers are a bit scared of the truth coming out .

AFLcrap1 wrote:

Why appeal.The AFL tribunal showed that Comfortable satisfaction = a level way above what other people call comfortable satisfaction .

.
Will be the same result if they did.

So they did the right thing skipping an appeal ythat would have wasted time. & are now where they would have ended up anyway .

Me thinks some of you fumblers are a bit scared of the truth coming out .

dont think so. Most AFL fans want Essendon players to be banned, and some even want the club to be disbanded.

IMO the AFL antidoping tribunal took into account the potential repercussions of a guilty verdict when determining what comfortable satisfaction meant in this particular case. ie if it was only one charged player the repercussions would have been for one player only. But because it was 34 players the repercussions of an incorrect guilty verdict would have been devastating to many players, a club, and a sporting code, so they were very careful when considering evidence.