SA Footy

Booney wrote:Site sponsor, Sportsbet, don't have Essendon in their current betting markets. Not even for their Round 1 clash.

Makes sense until there is clarity as to what their list will look like

To me this is the only decision that could have been arrived at. Sport simply cannot allow ignorance to be a valid defense. Athletes have known since Sam Riley got banned for taking that headache tablet back in the mid 90s to know the legality of what goes into their bodies and being injected with an assortment of random things was more than enough to require them to say no. The only shame is that some players have retired and effectively got away with cheating. I've got no sympathy for the club, the coaches or the players. Dr Reid seems the only one who questioned it and even that wasn't strong enough. The supporters and members are the ones who deserve sympathy. Like Carlton a decade ago, they now face a long road to being able to be proud of their club again.

As for lawsuits, the players will struggle to sue Essendon unless they can show the club deceived them somehow. Port/St Kilda/Bulldogs will also have trouble unless Essendon withheld relevant information.

And I think match payments went a long time ago. Hard to properly manage a salary cap with unknown payments throughout the year.

Feenix wrote:

Booney wrote:I don't believe this can be appealed. Is that right, Jim?

I've read that they can appeal through the Swiss Federal Tribunal as CAS is located in Switzerland

Only about the judicial process, not about the results, so from what I have read this is unlikely.

Grahaml wrote:
And I think match payments went a long time ago. Hard to properly manage a salary cap with unknown payments throughout the year.

Not true at all, scroll down to page 63.

Would think almost all players would have some sort of triggers in their contract for games played, even the top players wouldn't get paid as much if they miss a whole season.

http://www.aflplayers.com.au/wp-content ... -FINAL.pdf

-

Grahaml wrote:To me this is the only decision that could have been arrived at. Sport simply cannot allow ignorance to be a valid defense. Athletes have known since Sam Riley got banned for taking that headache tablet back in the mid 90s to know the legality of what goes into their bodies and being injected with an assortment of random things was more than enough to require them to say no. The only shame is that some players have retired and effectively got away with cheating. I've got no sympathy for the club, the coaches or the players. Dr Reid seems the only one who questioned it and even that wasn't strong enough. The supporters and members are the ones who deserve sympathy. Like Carlton a decade ago, they now face a long road to being able to be proud of their club again.

As for lawsuits, the players will struggle to sue Essendon unless they can show the club deceived them somehow. Port/St Kilda/Bulldogs will also have trouble unless Essendon withheld relevant information.

And I think match payments went a long time ago. Hard to properly manage a salary cap with unknown payments throughout the year.

They with held they were guilty, is that relevant enough.

Grahaml wrote:To me this is the only decision that could have been arrived at. Sport simply cannot allow ignorance to be a valid defense. Athletes have known since Sam Riley got banned for taking that headache tablet back in the mid 90s to know the legality of what goes into their bodies and being injected with an assortment of random things was more than enough to require them to say no. The only shame is that some players have retired and effectively got away with cheating. I've got no sympathy for the club, the coaches or the players. Dr Reid seems the only one who questioned it and even that wasn't strong enough. The supporters and members are the ones who deserve sympathy. Like Carlton a decade ago, they now face a long road to being able to be proud of their club again.

As for lawsuits, the players will struggle to sue Essendon unless they can show the club deceived them somehow. Port/St Kilda/Bulldogs will also have trouble unless Essendon withheld relevant information.

And I think match payments went a long time ago. Hard to properly manage a salary cap with unknown payments throughout the year.

Nah, not like Carlton at all. **** Carlton.

Grahaml wrote:As for lawsuits, the players will struggle to sue Essendon unless they can show the club deceived them somehow.

I think Essendon will also rely on the fact that Zaharakis opted out of the program and faces no sanction, arguing that the players voluntarily accepted the risk of participating in the program.

Grahaml wrote:To me this is the only decision that could have been arrived at. Sport simply cannot allow ignorance to be a valid defense. Athletes have known since Sam Riley got banned for taking that headache tablet back in the mid 90s to know the legality of what goes into their bodies and being injected with an assortment of random things was more than enough to require them to say no. The only shame is that some players have retired and effectively got away with cheating. I've got no sympathy for the club, the coaches or the players. Dr Reid seems the only one who questioned it and even that wasn't strong enough. The supporters and members are the ones who deserve sympathy. Like Carlton a decade ago, they now face a long road to being able to be proud of their club again.

As for lawsuits, the players will struggle to sue Essendon unless they can show the club deceived them somehow. Port/St Kilda/Bulldogs will also have trouble unless Essendon withheld relevant information.

And I think match payments went a long time ago. Hard to properly manage a salary cap with unknown payments throughout the year.

From what i understand alot of player match payments/ extra incentives are done via club performance.

Ala BOG adjudged by the club gets $1k . 2nd best $500, 3rd best $250. So the club knows each game $1750 is needed in the salary cap.

Those figures are made up but my understanding is it similar structures to that which players get incentives etc from.

Magellan wrote:

Grahaml wrote:As for lawsuits, the players will struggle to sue Essendon unless they can show the club deceived them somehow.

I think Essendon will also rely on the fact that Zaharakis opted out of the program and faces no sanction, arguing that the players voluntarily accepted the risk of participating in the program.

Elliott Kavanagh who is now at Centrals also opted out of the program.

Interesting article which highlights the differences between teh AFL tibunal case held prior to the 2015 and this one.

Players allegedly not declaring they're having injections when being drug tested during 2012 (up to 18 times) .

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/essendon-cas-verdict-players-entitled-to-be-angry-but-shouldnt-be-surprised-20160111-gm3ojr.html

whufc wrote:Elliott Kavanagh who is now at Centrals also opted out of the program.

Yep, him too!

Is that all who refused to participate? The more who said no, perhaps the better for the Bombers.

Who says any club is allowed to get extra players because some of their players are banned. Was ST Kilda allowed an extra player when SAAD was banned?

Essendon have enough players to field a side. They do not have enough left for a reserves side (perhaps).

whufc wrote:

Magellan wrote:

Grahaml wrote:As for lawsuits, the players will struggle to sue Essendon unless they can show the club deceived them somehow.

I think Essendon will also rely on the fact that Zaharakis opted out of the program and faces no sanction, arguing that the players voluntarily accepted the risk of participating in the program.

Elliott Kavanagh who is now at Centrals also opted out of the program.

So did Dustin Fletcher.

Gotta fill for worsfold but I guess he New what he was walking into..

Interesting to see Paul Marsh from AFLPA criticising the AFL for endorsing the WADA code. Everyone knew the rules. Some chose to try & get an advantage by skirting the rules & got caught out. I really don't think to say well we don't like the rules anyway & will talk to the AFL about their WADA involvement is good enough from a body supposed to look after the players interests

Spargo wrote:

whufc wrote:

Magellan wrote:

Grahaml wrote:As for lawsuits, the players will struggle to sue Essendon unless they can show the club deceived them somehow.

I think Essendon will also rely on the fact that Zaharakis opted out of the program and faces no sanction, arguing that the players voluntarily accepted the risk of participating in the program.

Elliott Kavanagh who is now at Centrals also opted out of the program.

So did Dustin Fletcher.

Fletcher is named in all the reports as being banned - he and Jobe are actually banned a week longer than the rest because he participated in the international rules

Sharksta wrote:Interesting to see Paul Marsh from AFLPA criticising the AFL for endorsing the WADA code. Everyone knew the rules. Some chose to try & get an advantage by skirting the rules & got caught out. I really don't think to say well we don't like the rules anyway & will talk to the AFL about their WADA involvement is good enough from a body supposed to look after the players interests

I've argued for many years that the AFL should cut ties with WADA similar to American sports.
WADA's sole job should be policing International sports

.

.