Saintsational Fan Forum - A passionate community of St Kilda Football Club fans discussing news, history, players, trade rumours, results, AFL stats and more.
SaintPav wrote:I reckon our recruiting of Carslile, the recruiting of the 4 players from the list of 34 and comments coming from the AFL and the AFLPA shows that wilfull ignorance not limited to E.F.C.
I don't know.
It's unfathomable to me that the club wouldn't have seen this as a very realistic possibility and made a calculated decision.
Especially given that Jake himself seems to have firmly believed that he was in the "We're totally stuffed" camp. I reckon said risk is why we front loaded the contract so much
It is interesting also that Koch is saying that Port Adelaide encouraged the players they have recruited from Essendon to "fess up" and take the (discounted) penalty but that those players chose to stand in solidarity with their former team mates.
Well, we will now se what comes in the way of legal action, firstly against the AFL then against Essendon and against those who gave advice which was seriously errant.
I note there is reference to Essendon having Insurance, which means all of our premiums will rise on the pay outs and the costs!
As for the AFLPA, useless.
In fact, as useless as the AFL whose competition it is.
Essendon should suffer further significant sanctions because the decisions of the AFL in this matter are now conclusively confirmed as attempts to sweep the matter under the rug and move on.
And they have been caught out.
As have the players who were exposed when 7 of them were called before the Tribunal and they then responded to that Tribunal as they did.
Little was not by their side pulling the strings with his windy rhetoric bluff and bluster.
Someone has mentioned to me that Wilson again attacked St Kilda in the media - then reverted to a defence of her Richmond player saying the allegations against him were false.
CURLY wrote:Very harsh penalty given they've basically had three seasons taken from them already. Those that say the players were gutless clearly have no idea of the trust a playing group develops in each other and the club.
The 3 years ruined are the players and clubs fault for dragging this thing out with denial and perpetual legal wrangling.
I think they are lucky not to get the full 2 years....
Carlisle is done for 2016. Nothing we can do about it.
Now we should be concentrating on our five rookies, to decide who to promote. No doubt they will all play in the intra club match, and we should play all five in the early NAB Cup matches. The five of them should be told that the spot light is on them, and it is up to them to convince the club who to promote.
borderbarry wrote: The five of them should be told that the spot light is on them, and it is up to them to convince the club who to promote.
Pretty sure that all of our rookies already know this, and even before the Carlisle decision they would have known that if they perform that one or more of them will get a shot at playing senior football.
We have had a good record with rookies in recent years.
Flying the World in comfort thanks to FF Points....
I was in the camp of getting Jake even though this trade has had red flags all over it from day 1 .... I'm kind of regretting being blinded by the thought of a ready made 'key position player' now. Lets hope Parish doesn't become an out and out superstar of the game.
prwilkinson wrote:I was in the camp of getting Jake even though this trade has had red flags all over it from day 1 .... I'm kind of regretting being blinded by the thought of a ready made 'key position player' now. Lets hope Parish doesn't become an out and out superstar of the game.
Could we have gotten parish?
Essendon still had pick 4 - so he wouldn't have been there.
Should have that Francis doesn't become a star and Greasham does.
prwilkinson wrote:I was in the camp of getting Jake even though this trade has had red flags all over it from day 1 .... I'm kind of regretting being blinded by the thought of a ready made 'key position player' now. Lets hope Parish doesn't become an out and out superstar of the game.
Could we have gotten parish?
Essendon still had pick 4 - so he wouldn't have been there.
Should have that Francis doesn't become a star and Greasham does.
prwilkinson wrote:Looks like Port Adelaide will be moving towards legal action against the EFC. Should the Saints do the same?
YES
The rest of Australia can wander mask-free, socialise, eat out, no curfews, no zoning, no police rings of steel, no illogical inconsistent rules.
They can even WATCH LIVE FOOTY!
I think that to say the players were gutless to take supplements as told by medicos & coaches is unfair.
Sure at the end of the day you are responsible for yourself but this isn't the same as Shane Warne taking a tablet from his mum.
Should every player now when given a supplement from the club go and have it laboratory tested first?
I seem to remember a few years back some teams re-injecting players own blood and I.V. drips at half time,during the game
from memory they were stopped only because the AFL said they didn't like it.
wally wrote:I think that to say the players were gutless to take supplements as told by medicos & coaches is unfair.
Sure at the end of the day you are responsible for yourself but this isn't the same as Shane Warne taking a tablet from his mum.
Should every player now when given a supplement from the club go and have it laboratory tested first?
I seem to remember a few years back some teams re-injecting players own blood and I.V. drips at half time,during the game
from memory they were stopped only because the AFL said they didn't like it.
The players told the ASADA drug testers that they did not receive any injections.
Why would anyone do that if they believed everything they were taking was above board?
I was reading an article on the HS website that was written by a sports lawyer ( http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/e ... beab299e8f. The article analyses the CAS decision in depth. I found the following very interesting:
"The suspensions start on March 31, 2015. Periods of approximately four months at the start of 2015 when the players accepted provisional suspensions were also taken into account.
The decision also refers to when the Essendon players can return to training with the club. Usually, a player can start training with his club two months before the ban is due to expire, as occurred with St Kilda’s Ahmed Saad.
However, the decision sets out the rule under the AFL and WADA codes that allows a player to return to training when they have only a quarter of their suspension left to run. This would allow players to return to training with the club and at club premises in May. However, that is a decision for the AFL."
So according to this statement the banned players could return to training with the club as early as May if granted permission from the AFL, which surely the AFL would allow in a heartbeat.
This would be great news for Carlisle and for all out there who think he would be a risk left to his own devices.
To the top wrote:It appears the players failing to mention to drug testers that they were being injected has been significant.
This has led to the presumption the players were complicit - and what other conclusion could you come to?
Why the hell didn't they say "We are receiving injections when we go to training".
I note also that the costs of the CAS proceedings are 75% for the players and 25% for the AFL.
Interesting - so there will be repercussions.
Who provided the advice to St Kilda FC (and other Clubs) in regards the anticipated outcome of this matter?
And what Indemnity Cover do they hold?
Or what indemnities were attached to the Memorandum of Advice they provided?
And who did they obtain opinion from?
The chase in these matters can be very, very interesting.
And sitting on top of it all is the AFL.
The buck stops there.
How can they stop a club if they go rogue. Be different if it had happened at other clubs but it hasn't. Its Essendon fault. I have no idea why you want to blame anyone else.
To the top wrote:It appears the players failing to mention to drug testers that they were being injected has been significant.
This has led to the presumption the players were complicit - and what other conclusion could you come to?
Why the hell didn't they say "We are receiving injections when we go to training".
I note also that the costs of the CAS proceedings are 75% for the players and 25% for the AFL.
Interesting - so there will be repercussions.
Who provided the advice to St Kilda FC (and other Clubs) in regards the anticipated outcome of this matter?
And what Indemnity Cover do they hold?
Or what indemnities were attached to the Memorandum of Advice they provided?
And who did they obtain opinion from?
The chase in these matters can be very, very interesting.
And sitting on top of it all is the AFL.
The buck stops there.
How can they stop a club if they go rogue. Be different if it had happened at other clubs but it hasn't. Its Essendon fault. I have no idea why you want to blame anyone else.
Isn't the idea that the AFL got wind of what was happening and responded very poorly?
skeptic wrote:
Isn't the idea that the AFL got wind of what was happening and responded very poorly?
Rumour but not what was said on TV last night. We need to blame who did this and it was done by only one club and that was Essendon. Players may sue the AFL because they have the most money and they will sue Essendon as well. I doubt anyone will sue the real culprit in this and that's Dank because you don't sue people with no money when others are available. Suing the AFL doesn't make them responsible.
Exactly. Morals seems to apply when it suits. The argument of trusting the club is because for many many years the clubs have done the right things by the players. There was no history of PEDS so why would anyone think it would start in 2012 and unlike an individual who pick their own coach footballers cant even pick their own club. The whole game is built on trust. Just about every former player has said we just always trusted the club when taking things. Like I said because there was no history why wouldn't you. Who expected anyone to go rogue. To me its a hindsight comment to say you shouldn't trust what you are given. Of course players now wont justrust the club because no there is a history of PEDS. You either think 34 players are stupid or 34 cheated. If you think they cheated then your morals would suggest we must pay Carlisle out and have nothing to do with the club. If they are dumb its surprising that there are that many dumb people in one club. I know Jobe isn't popular for some reason on here but he doesn't strike me as dumb but he does come from a family where his dad would have taken anything the club gave him without question. It would have ingrained. Ive seen it far to many times to know it doesn't happen. I saw it for 15 years where players had no idea what they were taking. Do you think a player when he hurts himself in a game asks what they are about to be given to feel better. They may now but I would suggest never previously. It was about trust.
I can see that they may have trusted the club in good faith at the start of the regime. Especially if it was presented to them by their club as legal, cutting edge and giving them an advantage over their opponents. I can accept their good faith up to that point. But why then did all of them - all of them to a man - fail to disclose the supplements they were receiving when they were drug tested? Even though they'd all received anti-doping training. Not one of them happened to mention their injection program.
I think they were stupid and deliberately deceptive. Both.
Exactly. Morals seems to apply when it suits. The argument of trusting the club is because for many many years the clubs have done the right things by the players. There was no history of PEDS so why would anyone think it would start in 2012 and unlike an individual who pick their own coach footballers cant even pick their own club. The whole game is built on trust. Just about every former player has said we just always trusted the club when taking things. Like I said because there was no history why wouldn't you. Who expected anyone to go rogue. To me its a hindsight comment to say you shouldn't trust what you are given. Of course players now wont justrust the club because no there is a history of PEDS. You either think 34 players are stupid or 34 cheated. If you think they cheated then your morals would suggest we must pay Carlisle out and have nothing to do with the club. If they are dumb its surprising that there are that many dumb people in one club. I know Jobe isn't popular for some reason on here but he doesn't strike me as dumb but he does come from a family where his dad would have taken anything the club gave him without question. It would have ingrained. Ive seen it far to many times to know it doesn't happen. I saw it for 15 years where players had no idea what they were taking. Do you think a player when he hurts himself in a game asks what they are about to be given to feel better. They may now but I would suggest never previously. It was about trust.
I can see that they may have trusted the club in good faith at the start of the regime. Especially if it was presented to them by their club as legal, cutting edge and giving them an advantage over their opponents. I can accept their good faith up to that point. But why then did all of them - all of them to a man - fail to disclose the supplements they were receiving when they were drug tested? Even though they'd all received anti-doping training. Not one of them happened to mention their injection program.
I think they were stupid and deliberately deceptive. Both.
So you must be hoping we pay out Carlisle who was deliberately deceptive? If these players knowingly cheated and then ASADA came on and there was a real chance they could have taken a 4 to 6 week penalty then why wouldn't you if you did it deliberately? They may be stupid but not that stupid. Common sense suggests you would take especially when a president of a footy club who is a lawyer says you should take. My guess is they didn't take because they thought they were innocent so why should they admit guilt.
I'm not saying they shouldn't have received a penalty but I'm going with just trusting the club. It makes more sense than cheating and taking a bugger all penalty when you knew you cheated.
Last edited by ripplug66 on Wed 13 Jan 2016 6:24pm, edited 1 time in total.
