Does it change their action? Of course not- but does it change one's perception of the reasons behind the actions? Maybe it does. Nobody is claiming that the consequences are unfair. Nobody is claiming that the players shouldn't have taken better care of themselves. The only thing point I raised, was that your assumption: that because the players didn't fill out an optional part of their ASADA form, therefore, they were doping and covering it up; was a flawed one.
I think you're responding to a different conclusion then the one I've stated but happy to leave it there.
I genuinely think it is half trying to sell papers and half Robbo being delusional, I mean the sun got the article itself (which got loads of comments, mentions on radio etc), and then later that day wrote another article about the reaction to that article. Now we are all human and from time to time we will contradict ourselves, however Robbo seems to be a walking contradiction. I swear I heard him contradict himself once every minute he was on SEN last night, I think Harf did very well to keep it together as I thought he would lose it at some stage. I remember when I used to read the paper because I wanted to read about what's happening with the actual football, nowadays I read to see peoples reactions to the drivel that most journalists write these days, lead by Captain Boozehag Robbo.
But they had covered it up? What else do you call not disclosing anything about what they were doing - to anti-doping, doctors, anyone outside the club? Where did they report or do anything that showed it wasn't covered up? If you can answer that, it's not me you have to convince, it's CAS, WADA etc because that's not the conclusion they came to with the evidence they managed to obtain.
But some of them did disclose it on their forms? So, the players from other clubs that don't disclose- what are they hiding? Obviously covering up. I don't need to convince you, nor CAS or WADA, I'm not talking to them and I highly doubt your mind will be changed.
Are we seeing different things or does the words "complete failure" mean the opposite to what I think it means? Those players from other clubs aren't part of a doping regime, trying to claim they were innocent and had beyond reasonable doubt gone out of their way to make sure they knew what was going into their bodies. So at a loss how that hypothetical matters or suddenly brings this all down like a house of cards. You're still ignoring the players culpability in this or any proof that's goes against what's in the CAS report to their complicity to the program. Anyway I'm going around in circle, because as you say, your mind won't be changed and to me and I'm struggling to understand how you're seeing X and claiming Y. Will just leave it as difference of opinion. My opinion is formed by what we know, which the CAS report is the key piece of evidence we have to take from. I've got no filter in place based on if Essendon is my team or not, and in the hypothetical situation it was my team I'd like to think I'd be saying the exact same thing whilst being thoroughly dispirited about it all. Like I am with my soccer club being run by a bunch of salary cap cheating pricks who've spent years dragging the club from one disaster to the next. But That's another topic.
Nope, we see complete failure as the same thing. However, a complete failure of the majority- means that some of the players did report what they used on their forms. So when you asked "Where did they report or do anything that showed it wasn't covered up?", my answer is right their- some of them did report it.
Is the misunderstanding here that you think I'm saying that the only proof that the players attempted to cover this up or were complicit is in the non-reporting because that's definitely not the case and I've given other examples from the report and there's plenty more in the report itself.
You speak to motive without anything to back it up. Any player from any club would be expected to keep club secrets a secret. I think secretiveness of club IP is a natural state isn't it? Look what happened when Talia broke* confidentiality on that front? And that was only one game. *allegedly. There was definite shadiness around cutting out Reid, but he was against all forms of supplements before then- so who knows. To say that the players were actively looking to dope- you'd need to be looking for that conclusion. Making the piece fit.
That you have brought up the similarity to Carlton's crappy marketing is most fitting actually. There are also similarities in expected ladder position for both clubs in 2016.
Weird how there's no books in that cauldron*. *May not in fact be a cauldron. But why on earth would you be making what I can only assume to be some kind of stew in a premiership cup?
Robbo seems to be a half decent bloke. I watched a recording of some show he does with Gerarad Whately that had Gil McLaughlin on it the day 34 players got banned. Robbo was hopelessly lost with his Essendon supporter heart leading his thinking and any journalistic fair minded thinking went it seems, some time ago. I could not seriously read anything he writes related to any of this Essendon saga and expect it to be impartial and well thought out regardless of what the headline is. I even remember him with hand in heart saying Watson will lose his Brownlow and that he has to. I forgive him for being unable to write decent articles in this time. He has lost the plot and may not get it back. Forget Robbo for now but on the Watson scenario I've always thought there is grounds for him to keep him Brownlow given no one within the league official standings has ever been satisfied they know whether any banned substance was injected. I'm not really fussed whether Watson keeps it or not myself. However the AFL itself did not find they could say what was injected so they themselves were happy enough to not give any player sanctions. Yes, WADA appealed and CAS ruled in their favour and the AFL will not stand in the way of those sanctions being applied to those 34 players. However that still leaves me thinking the AFL itself was not convinced they should suspend players but their hand in that is out of their control. They do have control of this own management of Brownlow and if their own tribunal found not suspension warranted that still leaves in their own eyes officially that Brownlow was won through fairest and best rulings officially as a league. If they were to allow Watson to keep Brownlow based on this I am happy enough. However if they take the view that the overall football community mood is Watson should not be allowed to keep Brownlow based on what an outside body such as CAS found then I can accept that to. Whatever they decide as long as they explain fully their reasons I will be happy with it. I for one would have thought Watson himself may come forward and just hand it in based on he just sick of the controversy and would at least rather take the decisions out of anyone else's hand.
The debate between Walesy and p_l about disclosure on the forms brought back memories for me. When I was a young fella, I worked in a warehouse where things were pretty casual. If you didn't feel up to coming in (ie. hungover) you simply called up and said you were taking an RDO. Everyone did it. Then a new manager came in. He took a disliking to me and the next time I took an unplanned RDO, he tried to have me sacked. I went to the union for help but when I explained the situation they didn't want anything to do with me. Of course you can't just call up and say your taking an RDO, that's not how it works. "But everyone does it", I said. Sorry buddy, can't help you. It would seem to me that if the vast majority of AFL players aren't filling out a certain section of the form, then there's no logical way you could possibly draw any conclusion from the fact that the vast majority of Essendon players didn't fill out that section of the form. There may be other evidence but this in itself would appear to hold absolutely no meaning whatsoever. ps. thankfully there was another manager there that I got along with who helped me keep my job
I certainly see merit in your point of view, and would only caution that it is perhaps simplistic to see the CAS process and decision as completely separate to the AFL Tribunal decision. As a comparison, when a player is suspended at the AFL tribunal for striking but has this overturned by the AFL Tribunal appeals board (or whatever they are called) you would expect that the verdict is considered to be not guilty, the initial decision is effectively null and void and the player avoids suspension and would remain eligible for the Brownlow (ignoring any prior or subsequent offences). Essentially the reverse is true in this case in terms of guilt and there is certainly no doubt from statements made by the AFL leadership that the AFL "accepts the CAS decision" without in fact accepting it all. Essentially if the AFL separates the Brownlow medal considerations from the suspensions imposed on the 34 players on the basis of lack of faith in the CAS decision it loses any consistency with the appeals board precedents and would effectively sever the link to the "fairest and best player" aspect of the Medal, which is a further reason I cannot see them doing that unless their independent legal advice in regard to the Brownlow Medal rules is extremely sound.