Jobe Watson/Essendon

No, because

- if there was drug cheating then the players would (and should) be charged. Whether their actions were intentional or not, there's a case to answer (and certainly an understandable justification which may have seen it thrown out)

- even if the AFL cut a deal to remove the reference that won't effect ASADA who will (and have the authority to) still charge Essendon/players with drug cheating.

It's just impractical to make a deal of that nature.

 

The biggest bullshit about all of this is the whole disrepute thing. Words cannot express the internal rage at it. It is beyond ridiculous.

I mean as I said a few posts ago disrepute is all about damaging the image of the game. There's no implication a rule has been broken when charged with it, and as a result, there's no burden of proof (on the AFL's behalf) to prove Essendon had broken any rules. In short, Essendon had no possible way to defend that charge as the AFL didn't need any proof to convict them.

There's no way disrepute should even be allowed in, let alone be punishable. If there's no actual charge on breaking an actual rule with an actual burden of proof to prove an actual rule was broken, there shouldn't even be a situation like this. It's, well, unfair. Judge, jury executioner etc. The necessary evidence to convict on disrepute is perception that they brought the game into it. Perception. In short, Essendon are punished based on someone's opinion. No facts.

I mean even though Essendon are clearly cunts and I think there certainly should have been some actual charges laid, the only way I can describe this process is completely unfair and undemocratic - as slippery slope as that sounds.

/rant.

 

Yep. And it was just as abysmal then. 500,000 dollar fine 'but they didn't tank'

Well why the fuck are they being fined then.

Then fucking let them. The biggest deterrent to doing this shit would be going down in history as a cheat. If they cheated, their brand deserves to be tarnished and they deserve to go down. If they didn't, they don't deserve a punishment to avoid the 'chance' that due justice isn't delivered (similar but a much larger scale to early guilty please in the tribunal. Even if they're innocent there's a risk of injustice and copping more as a result which isn't fair. Everyone should have their day to defend themselves and these kind of deals essentially incentivise people to cut their losses even if they're innocent)

All it does is allow cunts like me to yabber on about this when really, if due democratic process was followed they'd either be guilty or innocent, not 'ambiguous. There'd be no real discussion, people would be aware of the facts. Right now, there aren't even any to be aware of.

What's the point in the AFL dishing out penalties but protecting a brand. Likewise what's the point of accepting a penalty to protect a brand as accepting the penalty implies guilt anyway.

 

tl;dr this whole process and it's resolution hasn't left the grey area when really, it's a black and white thing. That's what I'm arguing; it can't just be 'grey' which it has been.

 

I don't believe so - I've looked into it (though I could be wrong - it wouldn't be the first time) and I think it's just

'actions which damage the public perception, image and esteem of the game'

Of course nearly every single 'wrong' is an issue of disrepute but those wrongs are referred to with a more specific 'charge' - this one is more of a blanket with no 'subclassification'

Ben Cousins was suspended for a season in 2007 for bringing the game into disrepute for being found with drugs on him. It wasn't like he broke any rules but the AFL decided he'd damaged the image of the game.

To my knowledge it's just a colloquial term (for AFL) for 'no rule broken hurr durr but you're still in the wrong'

 

Big difference between a banned drug and a PED.

Seriously doubt it was performance enhancing.

 

Hird extended for two years, too.

Not sure his performance warranted it but I do hope the fans allow him the second chance the system is designed to give him.

 

It's easiest to just say that their first rounder in 2014 was relegated to the end of the round.