Hawthorn’s Sam Mitchell is in the news at present. He will be back in the headlines again next month.
His footballing life is about to go through a massive change with a proposed move to West Coast and likely being awarded a Brownlow Medal.
Along with Richmond skipper Trent Cotchin, the pair are likely to be the dual recipients of the 2012 Brownlow Medal won by former Essendon captain, Jobe Watson.
The duo polled 26 votes, four shy of Watson’s winning tally.
The Swiss Federal Court’s decision not to uphold an appeal by the ‘Essendon 34′ means the legal avenues to have their back-dated, 24-month suspensions overturned have expired.
There are no other options available to them. It is the end of the road.
The AFL Commission will sit on 15 November to consider whether Watson keeps the most coveted individual honour in the sport.
Surely it is a fait accompli.
Watson has to be stripped of his Brownlow. The only thing to be decided is whether runners-up Mitchell and Cotchin are elevated or an asterisk is added to the history books.
Some will argue that the fact Watson did not return a positive test casts doubt over whether he used performance enhancing drugs.
That is irrelevant as it was the Russian athletes who were banned from competing at the Rio Olympics. Some may never have used PEDs yet they were denied the chance to compete at an Olympic Games.
In the end, despite appeals through the Federal Courts in both Australia and Switzerland, the fact remains the ‘Essendon 34′ were handed suspensions.
Those suspensions related to the 2012 season, the season in which Watson won the Brownlow.
No rational argument can be mounted for Watson retaining the medal. (Click to Tweet)
Mitchell and Cotchin deserve to have the medal awarded retrospectively.
Yes, Watson and his 2012 teammates all polled votes that season and it could be argued that had they not been on the field other players would have benefited and received votes.
In essence, however, Essendon would not realistically have been able to field a team with 34 players on the sidelines.
The Brownlow Medal is the only individual award in the league for overall brilliance that goes to the “fairest and best” player.
Only players who have not been suspended during the home-and-away season can win the it.
Yet, even if a player receives a suspension after the first round he can continue to poll votes even though he cannot be declared the winner.
He continues to poll votes even though he has forfeited the right to win by virtue of ‘unfair’ behaviour on the field.
If that distortion is allowed to colour the overall voting for a season I see no reason why the runners-up should not be the beneficiaries of the transgressions that Watson was found guilty of.
He does have the right to plead his case before the AFL Commission. The thought of a player beseeching the sports governors to retain its most coveted award does not sit well.
Now that the legal avenues have been exhausted and exoneration is no longer possible, Watson may decide to relinquish the medal himself.
He would likely win respect in many quarters for doing so.
That act would not be an admission of guilt but merely an admission that the facts as they are show he is not eligible to retain it.
And that is the bottom line.
One thing remains undeniable – the ‘Essendon 34′ were found to be in breach of the WADA Code, to which the AFL is a signatory, by the Court of Arbitration of Sport.
All legal arguments and avenues to have that decision overturned were moot.
As such, the medal must be removed should Watson not relinquish it of his own volition.
Failure to do so would fly in the face of AFL CEO Gillon McLachlan’s comments when announcing the date of the Commission’s hearing on the matter.
“The AFL is fully committed to clean sport, for the sake of the players from all clubs in the competition.”
Essendon were found to be in breach of that ethos.
As a result, Jobe Watson does not deserve to remain a Brownlow medallist.
Daz
Roar Pro
It's not that complicated. They were charged, and found guilty, of an intention charge. This is a different charge than a positive result. It doesn't matter about a positive result. The mere intention is what got them. The AFL, Essendon and Jobe Watson agreed that the CAS has the right to determine outcomes for Australian Football. Therefore the ruling stands and will be accepted by all parties. The intention occurred during the 2012 season. This means the suspension also occurred in the 2012 season. If a player is suspended in round 23 and doesn't play finals, he serves his suspension in round 1 next year. He is still ineligible this year because the indiscretion leading to the suspension occurred in the year. That rule is simple. If a player is found guilty of an offence that occurred in a year, then they are ineligible. It may have taken 4 years for a result, but he was found guilty of an offence that occurred in 2012. He is ineligible.
Daz
Roar Pro
The answer is yes. The "Essendon 34" chose - maybe on bad legal advice - to be represented as a single group. They had multiple opportunities to change this arrangement. The CAS ruling was pretty clear in that because they chose to be represented and fight the charges as a single group, they would suffer the penalty as a single group. Every single player in the group was given the same penalty, because they made the decision to be treated as one single entity.
Daz
Roar Pro
Jobe Watson has been found to be Guilty of an intention to use performance enhancing drugs. This decision has been made by a tribunal to which the player, the club, and the organising body all agree is has a right to determine the outcome of these matters for this sport. Neither Cousins nor Swan have been charged or found guilty of anything. That is the difference.
D Fitz
Roar Rookie
Yes, I'm confused too. Jobe has done something in 2012 sufficiently bad to be suspended for an entire season. Surely this must mean the AFL strip him of his Brownlow Medal.
JR
Guest
I guess this uis where I am getting confused with the whole saga. Essendon players never tested positive on any game day yet the powers that be decided that there was enough circumstantial evidence to say that they probably did take it. Now Cousins and Swan have both admitted to taking "Illicit" drugs during their careers which as discussed can also be considered performance enhancing and worthy of ASADA sanctions. Now that they have admitted to taking drugs, it can be considered probable that they were taking them during their brownlow years. Why does their admission of guilt allow them to keep their medals?
D Fitz
Roar Rookie
It is NOT in Jobe's best interests to surrender the medal. If the AFL takes the medal Jobe can claim more compensation. Thus Jobe should retain the medal on the basis that he did not take any PED that impacted on his play during season 2012. Then the AFL will probably take his medal and then he can claim substantially more compensation.
Mister Football
Roar Guru
northerner The normal rule is that a Brownlow medallist cannot win the medal if he was suspended during the year. That rule doesn't apply to Jobe, he was not suspended during the year in question, he was suspended in 2016. So we immediately enter new territory - no precedent, and most probably, no clear cut rule. Many people, in their own minds, will think that there is a clear cut rule, afterall, if you're caught doing drugs at the time of winning a medal, you lose that medal. But that has not happened in this instance. We are talking about a medal which is won over the course of 22 rounds - it''s not won from one single event. Quite rightly, and at a minimum, the AFL should at least be able to get clarification from either ASADA or CAS whether Jobe was guilty of taking TB4 in either 2011 or 2012. Can either of ASADA or the CAS provide any evidence of Jobe taking TB4 in either 2011 or 2012? No they can't, because they actually have zero evidence of any player taking TB4. That is precisely why the AFL has a lot to contemplate, and why it's not as easy a decision as people make out. Most probably, they will take the medal off Jobe, but only because of public opinion, not because it's the correct thing to do.
Glenn Mitchell
Expert
JR, neither Swan nor Cousins tested positive on game day which is the only time the illicit drug they were using comes under the PED area. Had they tested positive on a match day - as Wendell Sailor did to cocaine many years back - they would have been slapped with bans &'had it occurred in the year they won the Brownlow they would have been stripped of it.
Asd
Guest
Let him keep it .Essendon have been punished enough
Brian
Guest
Biased rubbish All you're saying is that you prefer the disproportionate hard line approach which shows you have no grey matter to speak of and as a result just salivating in apelike fashion at the prospect of even more unjustified aggression at EFC.
Jano
Guest
Quite. With every new development I wonder how much more information is going to emerge in the years to come. It's clear we know but a fraction of all that went on. Best regards, Jano
Happy Hooker
Guest
Jobe will hand it in before then
D Fitz
Roar Rookie
Jano, Thanks for your further input. Many hands over a long four years have contributed to a horrible mess. Just resolution is difficult to distil. Jobe has painted himself into a corner. Now await developments. Fitz
me too
Guest
if watson is 'legally nullified' as you say, then all suspended essendon players will be. which means all their games records will also be struck, and fletcher will lose his 400 game record. it won't happen. the right thing, the smart thing, the easiest thing, and the most commonsense thing, is to simply hand the mmedal to the deserving winners. when ben johnson lost his gold to testing the commttee didn't turn around and say sorry carl, but we aren't awarding you the medal because johnson beat so and so in the heats and so and so in the semis - both were denied the opportunity to make the final, and who is to say they wouldn't have won it? it's a salty argument.
JR
Guest
Hi Glenn, I am curious to know what your thoughts on the whole Ben Cousins and Dane Swan issue. Do you believe they should be stripped of their Brownlows too? I personally believe so but I am a bit biased in this discussion being a Bomber and Jobe Watson fan. And yes, I agree that Jobe has to be stripped of his medal but don't believe that Mitchell and Cotchin should be awarded medals. Manly wasn't awarded premeirships when the Storm had theirs stripped. It would just feel wrong. Leave 2012 as no winner.
Jano
Guest
I'll add, the other option is no cognitive dissonance at all. He might not have handed back the medal yet because he's been lying the whole time and doesn't want to be exposed. He's known to be such a 'good bloke' it would be devastating for him to come out now and admit he was lying this whole time.
Jano
Guest
Jobe believes/is attempting to cling to the belief that he is innocent. The series of legal decisions concerning him state that he is guilty. Returning the medal means surrendering the belief that he is innocent, exchanging it for the belief that he is guilty. Ergo: cognitive dissonance/mental trauma. Given he's held the belief/has attempted to cling to the belief for four years, the trauma is substantial.
D Fitz
Roar Rookie
Dilemma ?
Jano
Guest
Cognitive dissonance.
D Fitz
Roar Rookie
Jano or Northerner, Could you answer my question, why has Jobe not surrendered his medal now or long ago ?