Saintsational Fan Forum - A passionate community of St Kilda Football Club fans discussing news, history, players, trade rumours, results, AFL stats and more.
I agree. No shame in saying hey this is what happened. I accept it is a strict liability offence. Ill cop a 12 month whack and I've learnt my lesson.
It is all the covering up and deceit that s***s me.
From a financial perspective the club is obligated to pay him because it was their negligence that caused him to be banned.
You are going to be disappointed if you think they will get 12 months. i reckon 6 months maximum and even though hardly anyone will agree 6 months is enough. Like everyone at every AFL club they trusted the club. if our club were stupid enough to do the same you can bet our players would have done the exact same thing. i blame the club much more than the players. Im just unsure what the punishment can be for them that will really hurt without hurting the competition to much.
Its the club fault but so what.
Its 12 months.
They arent children.
Anyone who doesnt cooperate is up for 2 years. 12 months is already a let off.
You will be wrong Con. Really they arent children. who would have guessed. Richard Ings suggested earlier this year they could get 6 months in certain circumstances. i reckon these are the certain circumstances. So Con I will now have 2 bets with you. 6 months at the max penalty and Essendon will play in the AFL in 2014. The advantage i have is I can look at this logically through 2 eyes.
Munga wrote:Always been a fan of Watson, now he's gone up a few pegs in my book. No lies or hiding the bulls***. He's a better man than most.
It does mean that awards should be stripped though. The rest of the Bombers and the coach to follow.
Hird admitted to injections of melanotan and other experimental drugs. Hird injected substances that are yet to be approved by the Australian TGA, the US FDA or the European Medicines Agency. What the hell was he thinking injecting these substances at the football club??
A bloke that is willing to experiment with risky pharmaceutical substances is not a person I'd want in charge of my kids health. A person who injects risky drugs like that is highly likely imo to want to promote and encourage others to follow his lead. That's the perception that hasn't fully been dealt with by the AFL, although for a fleeting moment Demetriou did want Hird to stand down after some of those revelations
The football media have taken a softly, softly approach to the Golden Boy too. There could be a lot of egg on a lot of faces when this all finally comes to an end. Having said that, quite a few journos are starting to change their tune now that Jobe has admitted he took AOD !!
No no remember Hird is so anti drugs its not funny - I mean Shane Charter said so!
(side note: Hird is so 'anti drugs' he had no problems working with and employing a convicted drug dealer in Charter)
plugger66 wrote:
You will be wrong Con. Really they arent children. who would have guessed. Richard Ings suggested earlier this year they could get 6 months in certain circumstances. i reckon these are the certain circumstances. So Con I will now have 2 bets with you. 6 months at the max penalty and Essendon will play in the AFL in 2014. The advantage i have is I can look at this logically through 2 eyes.
So far since day 1 of this saga - I have been right on everything and you have been desperately defending Hirdy and the Bombers and believing every public utterance emanating from Windy Hill.
So Ill back from myself here thank you very much kind Sir.
If you want to rely on Mr Ings - well be my guest and view what he had to say on this today.
And also please note in Answer to the question 'How can Jobe be playing this week?" that many people are asking - Mr Ings also clarifies that there needs to be a TRIBUNAL HEARING before any bans are meted out.
"You've got admissions of use of AOD9604 and you've got the prosecutors who have a position that AOD9604 is banned.
"The combination of those two things means that these are matters that are likely to end up before a tribunal to determine whether someone committed a doping violation."
plugger66 wrote:
You will be wrong Con. Really they arent children. who would have guessed. Richard Ings suggested earlier this year they could get 6 months in certain circumstances. i reckon these are the certain circumstances. So Con I will now have 2 bets with you. 6 months at the max penalty and Essendon will play in the AFL in 2014. The advantage i have is I can look at this logically through 2 eyes.
So far since day 1 of this saga - I have been right on everything and you have been desperately defending Hirdy and the Bombers and believing every public utterance emanating from Windy Hill.
So Ill back myself here thank you very much kind Sir.
If you want to rely on Mr Ings - well be my guest and view what he had to say on this today.
And also please note in Answer to the question 'How can Jobe be playing this week?" that many people are asking - Mr Ings also clarifies that there needs to be a TRIBUNAL HEARING before any bans are meted out.
"You've got admissions of use of AOD9604 and you've got the prosecutors who have a position that AOD9604 is banned.
"The combination of those two things means that these are matters that are likely to end up before a tribunal to determine whether someone committed a doping violation."
What have you been right about? Nothing has happened. My guess is by the end of it i will be closer than you to the final result. And again you are lying about defending anyone. Not saying they are guilty isnt defending anyone. i dont know as you dont. You are guessing as you always do. Come on Con if you are so sure which you say in nearly every post lets have a bet on the 2 things you are so sure of. At the moment neither of us have anything right. Something to do with Law my arse.
Ok happy feet point taken .
P66 if you want to know what I know about the law pm me .
Although I would remind you both that this is a footy forum .
It is not a place of civil discourse.
plugger66 wrote: 6 months at the max penalty and Essendon will play in the AFL in 2014.
I think you could be about right with this...
Only question is, which 6 months??... Generally it has always been an in season ban, meaning the Essendon that runs onto the field in 2014 will be vastly different to the one that takes the field tomorrow night..
I'm interested to know your guess as to when the 6 month ban may be taken P66??..
plugger66 wrote: 6 months at the max penalty and Essendon will play in the AFL in 2014.
I think you could be about right with this...
Only question is, which 6 months??... Generally it has always been an in season ban, meaning the Essendon that runs onto the field in 2014 will be vastly different to the one that takes the field tomorrow night..
I'm interested to know your guess as to when the 6 month ban may be taken P66??..
If guilty i hope they dont just give them say 3 games this year and only the pre season next year. But then again they are likely to miss finals so that is a big penalty. Im a bit unsure to be honest.
gringo wrote:I think they will say to the AFL and ASADA that they know that both dropped the ball with the Pies winning one on borderline practices and Geelong before them and they will blackmail their way out of it.
2 Premierships added to our cabinet?
I don't think that I would want premiership/s under those circumstances. For mine, premierships are won on the day !!
So you are saying cheating is okay if you get away with it before the premiership cup is handed over?
matrix wrote:Can't miss a pre season. Bans have to be in competition. Which for afl starts at round one. Im90% sure.
IMO they won't get s***.
6 month ban
Huge fine.
And a cream donut for everyone
Bans can be anytime. May not miss a game if it fell on certain dates. Wont happen but could.
Crap
You can't be banned from not doing something
Once again if you require private tutorials pm me and I will provide you with them.
Also if the bans are soft wada will appeal and wada don't give a flying s*** about the afl or demetriou or timmy Watson or any of that folksy crap we are all discussing .
matrix wrote:Can't miss a pre season. Bans have to be in competition. Which for afl starts at round one. Im90% sure.
IMO they won't get s***.
6 month ban
Huge fine.
And a cream donut for everyone
Bans can be anytime. May not miss a game if it fell on certain dates. Wont happen but could.
Crap
You can't be banned from not doing something
Once again if you require private tutorials pm me and I will provide you with them.
Also if the bans are soft wada will appeal and wada don't give a flying s*** about the afl or demetriou or timmy Watson or any of that folksy crap we are all discussing .
So apart from getting upset show us proof that the bans cant be anytime. You love saying crap but dont show a lot of proof. Show us all here a document that says 6 month bans have to be when they actually play? Come on pretend law man. It shouldnt be to hartd to find. And if you bothered to read what I wrote which you seem to always fail to do you will see I said it wont happen and the reason it will be to soft on the club. But I stand by my prediction that if they get a ban with 3 games to go this year they wont get another 19 games next year if they get a 6 month ban. it will end in about Febuary. Happy to have my third bet on that even though you havent agreed to the others evn if it was your idea intially.
Now the 6 months minimum is only available to individuals who fully cooperate with the authority .
Essendon have not done this.
This is why I believe the 6 months will not be offered to them .
Jobes admission indicates to me he understands this and he is ignoring club advice and gunning for the 6 months.
The alternative is to be a obstructionist and cop longer.
The clubs influence and advice and the fact players had a genuinely and reasonably held false belief will be a mitigating factor .
So 6 months would be a bare minimum.
Last edited by Con Gorozidis on Wed 26 Jun 2013 10:40pm, edited 2 times in total.
The precedent is Adelaide who had their administrators banned from even attending games -only the competition wasn't going while they were banned. They seriously smacked them on the wrist though.
gringo wrote:The precedent is Adelaide who had their administrators banned from even attending games -only the competition wasn't going while they were banned. They seriously smacked them on the wrist though.
Yeah but wada would not accept that.
So it's not a precedent because this not entirely afl jurisdiction .
Con Gorozidis wrote:Ban means ban.
Look it up in the Oxford
Now the 6 months minimum is only available to individuals who fully cooperate with the authority .
Essendon have not done this.
This is why I believe the 6 months will not be offered to them .
Jobes admission indicates to me he understands this and he is ignoring club advice and gunning for the 6 months.
The alternative is to be a obstructionist and cop longer.
The clubs influence and advice and the fact players had a genuinely and reasonably held false belief will be a mitigating factor .
So 6 months would be a bare minimum.
Well thats a joke for a start. They were congratulated for cooperating. Show us proof they havent cooperated? Words might influence some but just stating as fact when you have no proof is just crap. No mention of betting again Con. Hey cold feet what else do you have for me.
