Bringing the Game in to Disrepute?

[Con Gorozidis]

Can you only be done for this, if the media find out?


I mean, if the AFL found out about all Essendon's shenanigans, but the public didn't, are they still bringing the game into disrepute?

And at what point, does 'disrepute' occur?


Apparently Essendon are responsible for the biggest scandal ever to hit the game. But aside from the media circus, they haven't done anything wrong yet. And if it turns out that they haven't done anything illegal, why is it there fault that media jumped the gun, went beserk and got it wrong?

And if they get done for disrepute for something legal - why isn't it illegal? If it's worthy of bringing the game into disrepute - then why isn't it (whatever it is) illegal?

Yours Sincerely,

Once Again Confused by the AFL World

1. You are confusing a breach of a drug sporting code with the criminal law when you talk about 'illegality'.
2. They have done something wrong and you seem to be too readily consuming the EFC side of events.

But Ill spell it out again in simple terms:

1. It is 99% sure they took aod in 2012. Aod was banned under the code as at 1 January 2011.
2. It is 90% sure they took TB4. Also banned.
3. It is 90% sure Hird took hexeralin. He is subject to the code.

What people are most confused about is that there are no +ve tests in this case.

Ill remind you that circumstantial evidence is enough to convict people in a criminal matter of murder - a much higher burden of proof than required in drugs in sports cases. Some people have copped life imprisonment when there is not even a body (google Keli Lane case).

None of this is actually that complex or confusing - but Essendon spin merchants are trying to make it sound complex and grey.

For instance

1. Lance Armstrong never had a +ve test in thousands but is still banned from competing in sports (including triathlon)
2. Lance has never and will most likely never be charged with anything 'illegal'.

[rodgerfox]

But that's fine - if they have actually done something illegal (ie. taken a banned drug). It's simple if that's the case.

But if they don't have a case against anyone taking something banned - then where is the disrepute part coming from?

[rodgerfox]

What I mean by that, if its confirmed beyond doubt that nothing illegal has occurred, where does the disrepute come from?

[Con Gorozidis]

Its confirmed they took banned substances

Jobe watsons admission for starters

[The Fireman]

Collingwood fans have been bringing the game into disrepute since they entered the competition so I'm not really fussed by too much .

[plugger66]

What I mean by that, if its confirmed beyond doubt that nothing illegal has occurred, where does the disrepute come from?

Not knowing what they gave the players is a pretty bad start.

[Scollop]

It's a convenient lie that they didn't know what they gave the players. They've been playing the media and joe public for naive fools and they've done a pretty good job so far. That's been their spin since day dot when they self reported. The consent forms would have had to have been sanctioned by the doc, the senior coaches and the club and the CEO.

Dank and Robinson were not acting alone. Hird and Reid and Robson and Corcoran all knew. AOD is not illegal but it has not been approved by any major western medicines regulator (the main ones being EMA, TGA or FDA). Game over

[Mr Magic]

It's a convenient lie that they didn't know what they gave the players. They've been playing the media and joe public for naive fools and they've done a pretty good job so far. That's been their spin since day dot when they self reported. The consent forms would have had to have been sanctioned by the doc, the senior coaches and the club and the CEO.

Dank and Robinson were not acting alone. Hird and Reid and Robson and Corcoran all knew. AOD is not illegal but it has not been approved by any major western medicines regulator (the main ones being EMA, TGA or FDA). Game over

Actually, under Customs law, AOD9604 is an illegal import for use (as per use by EFC) and therefore a Customs law has been broken.
We don't know if EFC imported the susatnces themselves or if they purchased them locally.
Either way they are 'guilty' of purchasing a substance that is an illegal import (maybe akin to knowingly purchasing stolen property?0

Their defence of 'not knowing it was a prohibited import' may work with Customs.
Their defence of not knowing it was a banned substance has never worked before with WADA.

[bergholt]

What I mean by that, if its confirmed beyond doubt that nothing illegal has occurred, where does the disrepute come from?

Putting themselves in a situation where they're investigated by ASADA?

I see your point but keep in mind that disrepute is just a legal catch-all which allows the comp to fine its constituent clubs for whatever they feel like - tanking, drugs, being Collingwood, etc. No point getting too het up about it.

[Kickit]

Is it legal to inject pharmaceutical products into your employee's without making a record of it or even knowing what it is?
Is it ethical to inject pharmaceutical products into your employee's without making a record of it or even knowing what it is?

What if one of these players develops a medical condition?

( FWIW I think they know full well what was injected and the records have conveniently gone missing. )

[On the Bench]

Is it legal to inject pharmaceutical products into your employee's without making a record of it or even knowing what it is?
Is it ethical to inject pharmaceutical products into your employee's without making a record of it or even knowing what it is?

What if one of these players develops a medical condition?

( FWIW I think they know full well what was injected and the records have conveniently gone missing. )

This is the main concern I have (apart from straight out cheating). Some of the products they have allegedly used have very little human testing but their intended mode of action must infer they are cell altering. If this acts on a rogue cell in the body there is a very good chance of cancer of some type forming.

This may take 10 to 20 years.

The Essendon guinea pigs need to make sure they are in a position to look after themselves in the future to do this they need to know what they have been given.

The shorter term problem is the teratogenecity (effect on sperm and fetus). There is very little data available on the effects of the products potentially used on the players. Anecdotal gym evidence is not a clinical trial.

The desire to win at all costs ("Whatever it Takes") has reached a very dangerous level. My fears are only further confirmed by Dank not talking to ASADA, if he had nothing to hide I can't see why he wouldn't put it all on the table: Essendon claiming they don't have any records for what was given ( even though Dank has said he passed all the notes on) and Essendon's threat to sue anyone and everyone who stands in their way. This is the Lance Armstrong methodolgy.

[Con Gorozidis]

Lets put it another way Roger.
Seeing you want more proof and anything less than a positive test won't satisfy your own burden of proof.
How about if we send a saints legend to your house . Lets say banger Harvey comes over three times a week for a few months and gives you injections. We don't tell you what's in it just that's it's all kosher and it's good for you.

Do you just hang out the arm and say let it rip banger !

[plugger66]

Lets put it another way Roger.
Seeing you want more proof and anything less than a positive test won't satisfy your own burden of proof.
How about if we send a saints legend to your house . Lets say banger Harvey comes over three times a week for a few months and gives you injections. We don't tell you what's in it just that's it's all kosher and it's good for you.

Do you just hang out the arm and say let it rip banger !

No you wouldnt. Hardly the same though. matter of fact nothing the same. And I think Essendon have brought the game into disrepute but that is a bad example. Players have done what the club ask of them for many years. And that is fact.

[Con Gorozidis]

Lets put it another way Roger.
Seeing you want more proof and anything less than a positive test won't satisfy your own burden of proof.
How about if we send a saints legend to your house . Lets say banger Harvey comes over three times a week for a few months and gives you injections. We don't tell you what's in it just that's it's all kosher and it's good for you.

Do you just hang out the arm and say let it rip banger !

No you wouldnt. Hardly the same though. matter of fact nothing the same. And I think Essendon have brought the game into disrepute but that is a bad example. Players have done what the club ask of them for many years. And that is fact.

The point is rodge is one of those 'show me the proof' guys - which is a totally reasonable point of view and many of my mates fall into the same category.
But once again - you see an opportunity to blow your own trumpet about 'being an insider' and 'being mates with players' and you go off!

Sure there is a difference between being a player and being a regular joe - but should there be? The 'just taking orders' defence was no good in nuremberg so I dont know why it counts now. The players now have so much education and so much access to professional services that it is different now.
In any case- i cant imagine old school players going along with it - most of them would have said eff off.
I reckon Hirdys status certainly played a role in this.
And once again in your haste to show how good a mates you are with players you have missed the point . The point is this program was just extreme - it was way off the charts of what was the industry norm . Players from other clubs have suggested that the Bombers just went too far. All teams have supplement programs but the injection regime was something way off the charts.
So im trying to make the point that even without the 100% certainty of what the substances were (which is what some fair minded people want to see) I think the injection program in itself is enough to 'bring the game into disrepute'

On top of that - I also thought it would be quite funny if banger harvey went over to someones house and started doing 'mystery' injections!

[rodgerfox]

Lets put it another way Roger.
Seeing you want more proof and anything less than a positive test won't satisfy your own burden of proof.
How about if we send a saints legend to your house . Lets say banger Harvey comes over three times a week for a few months and gives you injections. We don't tell you what's in it just that's it's all kosher and it's good for you.

Do you just hang out the arm and say let it rip banger !

No, my point has been missed.


I'm not suggesting that they must or should get off just because there is not categoric evidence that they did break doping rules - even though it seems obvious that they did. I'm saying why and how are they bringing the game into 'disrepute' if it's found that they categorically didn't break any doping rules.


If it's found that nothing illegal in a sporting sense has been done - how can they be severely punished?


To me 'bringing the game into disrepute' seems to mean 'you've made the public and the media jump up and down without any facts and even though you haven't broken of society's or the AFL's laws and/or rules we're going to punish you cause we need to appease the mob'!

[plugger66]

Lets put it another way Roger.
Seeing you want more proof and anything less than a positive test won't satisfy your own burden of proof.
How about if we send a saints legend to your house . Lets say banger Harvey comes over three times a week for a few months and gives you injections. We don't tell you what's in it just that's it's all kosher and it's good for you.

Do you just hang out the arm and say let it rip banger !

No, my point has been missed.


I'm not suggesting that they must or should get off just because there is not categoric evidence that they did break doping rules - even though it seems obvious that they did. I'm saying why and how are they bringing the game into 'disrepute' if it's found that they categorically didn't break any doping rules.


If it's found that nothing illegal in a sporting sense has been done - how can they be severely punished?


To me 'bringing the game into disrepute' seems to mean 'you've made the public and the media jump up and down without any facts and even though you haven't broken of society's or the AFL's laws and/or rules we're going to punish you cause we need to appease the mob'!

You must read papers, listen to the radio or watch TV if you even have the slightest doubt that they havent brought the game into disrepute. may be the most open and shut case the AFL have ever had to deal with. The hard part is the punishment.

[Con Gorozidis]

To me 'bringing the game into disrepute' seems to mean 'you've made the public and the media jump up and down without any facts and even though you haven't broken of society's or the AFL's laws and/or rules we're going to punish you cause we need to appease the mob'!

Yep agree with that.
If they did nothing wrong and broke no rules - then they shouldnt be charged with disrepute based on media frenzy

I guess im just saying the reason for the media frenzy is because they actually did break the rules.

"the media' didnt just wake up one morning and say hey lets make stuff about Hird and the Bombers!

[plugger66]

To me 'bringing the game into disrepute' seems to mean 'you've made the public and the media jump up and down without any facts and even though you haven't broken of society's or the AFL's laws and/or rules we're going to punish you cause we need to appease the mob'!

Yep agree with that.
If they did nothing wrong and broke no rules - then they shouldnt be charged with disrepute based on media frenzy

I guess im just saying the reason for the media frenzy is because they actually did break the rules.

"the media' didnt just wake up one morning and say hey lets make stuff about Hird and the Bombers!

Even if they didnt break the rules they have brought the game into disrepute because they ran a program that they say they had no knowledge of what the players were being given. No club can do that and claim they arent bringing the game into disrepute. The media jumped on this because of what Essendon did. The media didnt do it. If they find 100% they didnt give the players banned substances they as a club have still causede all this crap.

[The OtherThommo]

To me 'bringing the game into disrepute' seems to mean 'you've made the public and the media jump up and down without any facts and even though you haven't broken of society's or the AFL's laws and/or rules we're going to punish you cause we need to appease the mob'!

Yep agree with that.
If they did nothing wrong and broke no rules - then they shouldnt be charged with disrepute based on media frenzy

I guess im just saying the reason for the media frenzy is because they actually did break the rules.

"the media' didnt just wake up one morning and say hey lets make stuff about Hird and the Bombers!

Whether it can be shown conclusively they broke WADA Code rules is not particularly relevant to a charge of "bringing the game into disrepute" brought by the AFL Commission. The AFL charge will be measured against the AFL standards. The drug code violations or, rather, how conclusive the evidence is, may support the AFL case but they are not make or break to a charge brought by the AFL under their own constitution. How sustainable such a charge is - that's another question.

Just 1 man's opinion.

[Con Gorozidis]

To me 'bringing the game into disrepute' seems to mean 'you've made the public and the media jump up and down without any facts and even though you haven't broken of society's or the AFL's laws and/or rules we're going to punish you cause we need to appease the mob'!

Yep agree with that.
If they did nothing wrong and broke no rules - then they shouldnt be charged with disrepute based on media frenzy

I guess im just saying the reason for the media frenzy is because they actually did break the rules.

"the media' didnt just wake up one morning and say hey lets make stuff about Hird and the Bombers!

Even if they didnt break the rules they have brought the game into disrepute because they ran a program that they say they had no knowledge of what the players were being given. No club can do that and claim they arent bringing the game into disrepute. The media jumped on this because of what Essendon did. The media didnt do it. If they find 100% they didnt give the players banned substances they as a club have still causede all this crap.

yep. + 1

injection programs for non-injured players and non-ill players shouldnt be part of footy.

[rodgerfox]

But then you make it illegal.

You can't make it legal as a comp, then decide that it's so bad that it warrants punishment!

[Con Gorozidis]

But then you make it illegal.

You can't make it legal as a comp, then decide that it's so bad that it warrants punishment!

Yep I think there was an issue with the afl trusting asada too much and keeping its eyes off the ball.

Anyway - you keep go back to saying they have done nothing wrong (or ilegal as you like to put it).

If they only injected vitamins - then they shouldnt be punished.

But that didnt happen - we know for sure they took banned substances (or illegal ones in your words) so Im not sure why you keep taking us in circles.

[plugger66]

But then you make it illegal.

You can't make it legal as a comp, then decide that it's so bad that it warrants punishment!

I dont think you get it at all. Whether its legal or not it has generated all this publicity and its all bad publicity. The media have jumped in because of what Essendon did not what the media did.

[Kickit]

Lets put it another way Roger.
Seeing you want more proof and anything less than a positive test won't satisfy your own burden of proof.
How about if we send a saints legend to your house . Lets say banger Harvey comes over three times a week for a few months and gives you injections. We don't tell you what's in it just that's it's all kosher and it's good for you.

Do you just hang out the arm and say let it rip banger !

No, my point has been missed.


I'm not suggesting that they must or should get off just because there is not categoric evidence that they did break doping rules - even though it seems obvious that they did. I'm saying why and how are they bringing the game into 'disrepute' if it's found that they categorically didn't break any doping rules.


If it's found that nothing illegal in a sporting sense has been done - how can they be severely punished?


To me 'bringing the game into disrepute' seems to mean 'you've made the public and the media jump up and down without any facts and even though you haven't broken of society's or the AFL's laws and/or rules we're going to punish you cause we need to appease the mob'!

Injecting unknown ( allegedly ) chemicals into players without any records. Soliciting shonky doctors to prescribe stuff that will not cure any medical conditions in players that are healthy in any event.

Doesn't sound "reputable" to me.

I cant believe it doesn't break any laws or workplace guidelines either.

[rodgerfox]

Either can I!

So the AFL allow you to do it - but then punish you and get all high and mighty when people find out?