Banned Bombers lose appeal, Jobe's Brownlow in doubt

In true legal terms a precedent can be overruled if you can distinguish why the situations are not the same. It is clearly not the same situation. 1) In the first instance you have a player who commits an indiscretion and is suspended spending matches on the sideline. When he returns to play and racks up votes, he is not doing so with the benefit of PEDs. 2) in the second instance you have a player racking up votes, ably assisted by his team mates who are also juiced up. He is not missing matches and continues to play. They are two clearly different scenarios and therefore there is no precedent. I believe that both Cotchin and Mitchell would be worthy winners but the fact is that the Brownlow voting for that season has been corrupted beyond repair. No Brownlow for that season seems fair.

Good question D Fitz. Why does it take 20 minutes for a pharmacist to go and pick a bottle of medicine from behind the counter? They seem to operate on their own clock. The time taken doesn't seem to have reflected the complexity of the decision.

Now youre talking process DF. If you recall there was a lot of doubt the AFL tribunal was really finding the judgement on the 'comfortably satisfied' bar or the higher bar of beyond reasonable doubt, given the judiciary had little if any experience trying on the former. CAS on the other hand has always tried on the basis of comfortably satisfied not 'guilty or 'not guilty' beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal and its process is now being tossed over by commentators but its not going any further. Ultimately the matter is finito. So the best thing to do IMO is for Watson to hand it back way before the 15 November otherwise this BS drags on longer unnecessarily (he'll lose it anyways) and we all move on. Like i said i dont think people's opinion on Jobe will change one iota. One side will always believe he did take PEDs, the other wont. It doesnt matter one jot whether he knew BTW, the law is that you are responsible for what goes into your body full stop - otherwise drug rules are completely unworkable. So Jobe get on the front foot, try make it as dignified as possible and stop the cr@p now. As a fellow tiger supporter Id prefer Cotchin not to have to win a Brownlow in these circumstances too. But 2012 was easily his best year both for the club and the AFL before the burden of the captaincy was placed upon him. i dont like to think that 2012 can just be struck off the record as a nil & void year for the Chas Brownlow Trophy. Mitchell especially has gone close so often that he will be a deserved winner.

And Jobe was one of that group. Enough said.

Hey hey, steady on you two, you are impugning the captain of my club and a competent footballer who scored the votes on his merits.

RA, I follow what you say, but CAS did not go so far as to find Jobe personally guilty. They just concluded that they were comfortably satisfied that the Essendon players as a group took PED's.

Delbeato, If the Appeal decision was so clear cut why did it take so long to issue the decision ?

DW, Love your sense of fun !!

Milo, I respect what you say. However the AFL Tribunal were not comfortably satisfied that the Essendon players took PED's. CAS did not find the Essendon players were actually GUILTY of taking PED's. CAS just said they were comfortably satisfied that the Essendon players took PED's. Their Appeal was misguided and taken and dismissed on a technicality. It did not address or even consider the question of whether or not PED's were taken. If Jobe knows he took PED's then he has done the wrong thing stringing everyone along. If he does not know that he took PED's I think he should make his representations to the Commission and await their decision. They will probably take his medal and thereby imply Jobe is a cheat and impugn his character. But they will not have established he is a cheat and guilty. That being the case I think it sad they will not give him the benefit of the doubt. As a long time Richmond supporter and resident of Hawthorn the alternative award to Cotchin and Mitchell would be appropriate and an unexpected bonus.

Maybe they're just saying they dread making the decision, so it doesn't sound like it's an easy decision that's already been made.

Hi me too, If Jobe knows that he took a PED he should hand back the medal. If Jobe knows that he did NOT take a PED he should not hand back the medal. The trouble is I don't think Jobe, the AFL Tribunal, CAS or most particularly the Commission knows for certain whether or not Jobe took a PED. CAS is the only person who says they are comfortably satisfied Jobe took a PED. In making their decision must the Commission adopt the CAS test of "comfortably satisfied", their assessment of the evidence against Jobe, their reasoning against Jobe, their exercise of discretion and their decision. Gillon McLachlan says the Commission dreads making this decision. Why ? What does "comfortably satisfied" mean ? I suppose it means on the evidence before them CAS thinks Jobe probably or more likely than not took a PED. That is a long way short of CAS saying they are satisfied Jobe took a PED. All I am saying and have said is that the Commission faces a dilemma. If not why do they dread making this decision ?

He should give the medal to Bob Murphy. That's the convention, isn't it?

The appeal was about whether the CAS's appeal was conducted properly. One of the key points of contention raised by Essendon was the CAS's approach of hearing its appeal de novo - in other words, from scratch. The Swiss Court threw this out in 5 minutes because of the fact Essendon did not object to the CAS appeal being held that way, but instead waited for the outcome before deciding whether to support it or not. It was opportunistic of Essendon and the Swiss Court, as has been reported today, was especially brutal in the way they worded their decision to throw the appeal out. Essendon were miles off in this latest appeal.

Hi PD, (1) You are correct ! I need a sub-editor. Didn/t think anyone was paying attention. (2) I am inclined to agree with you about the AFL accepting the CAS decision but AFL CEO Gillon Mclachlan says "the AFL Commission has a collective dread of making this decision".Why ? ? This suggests the AFL has a dilemma and is unsure what its decision should be ?? (3) The AFL Tribunal was not comfortably satisfied the Essendon players including Jobe took PED's. Can the AFL Commission rely on that ? What is the question the Commission must ask itself to decide whether Jobe keeps his Brownlow ? Is the "comfortably satisfied" test correct for this decision ? Is there any element of "benefit of the doubt" ? The CAS decision applied to the Essendon players as a group. The current decision relates to Jobe as an individual. Does the Commission have adequate evidence about Jobe the individual to be satisfied to actually reverse a decision and take back the medal ? The Commissioners dread making this decision.

"In season 2013, he polled in 7 matches from a possible 19, averaging .89 votes per match for the season." Makes no mathematical sense in any way you interpret it. However, the extra info was awesome reading. Good stuff.

The sport was held to ransom by Essendon's doping program and people like Dank. Nice job of shooting the messenger that are the anti-doping bodies and tribunals. They got it right. And it's good for Australian sport that they got it right. My favorite sport of cycling is a prime example of what happens if you persist with the "you can't touch us" mentality. Trust me, this was good for footy.

Fitz, your first line should read '1. The AFL was not comfortably satisfied the Essendon players committed a doping violation.' (Very different to saying they were not guilty. Plus, the terminology and intent then becomes consistent with your point #2.) It's hardly a dilemna for the AFL to determine whether they should accept the CAS decision. What's the alternative? Declare that the highest sporting court in the whole world is manifestly unfair? Ohh woops, that's what the Essendon FC posted on their website didn't they. Well I don't think the AFL will venture down that path of ignoramus.

Because its not a question of a player's ineligiblity, it's a question of whether they should have been playing to begin with. An ineligible player is allowed to accrue votes. But Watson wasn't an ineligible player in 2012. He should never have been there at all. It's a critical difference. Stripping his medal is acknowledging not his ineligibility, but actually his presence on the field in 2012. His record is to be nullified for 2012...ipso facto his individual votes in each round need to be expunged, and redistributed. He got a vote against richmond that year. Cotchin didn't. Unless you can say for certain that cotchin would/wouldn't have received that one vote in the absence of Watson...then you can't give the medal. If cotchin was the 4th best player in that game and missed out on a vote because watson was there....see where I'm heading with this?

Yeah, fair point ?

sorry, but jobe handing back the medal is no dilemma, it is simply him coming to terms with the fact he has been found guilty and suspended and hence must accept the decision and the outcomes of that.