Organised crime and ElephantJuice in sport investigation part IV

[DJShaksta]

You don't have to have knowingly taken unapproved substances to still get suspended. "I didn't know" isn't an acceptable excuse because anybody can say that. Ultimately everybody is responsible for what they put into their body. "I trusted X" is not good enough.

You've proven time and time again in this very thread you know absolutely sweet f**k all on this topic.
Go back to your corner gimp.

 

[Card Shark]

You've proven time and time again in this very thread you know absolutely sweet f**k all on this topic.
Go back to your corner gimp.

Harsh but fair!

 

[carcharias]

You don't have to have knowingly taken unapproved substances to still get suspended. "I didn't know" isn't an acceptable excuse because anybody can say that. Ultimately everybody is responsible for what they put into their body. "I trusted X" is not good enough.

No shit you dopey f**ker.

My post was just a comment on how ludicrous the whole thing is.
My club can't even organise a sponsor
How the f**k can they dabble in a spot of group doping ?

 

[whall15]

Another problem which hasn't been discussed about backdated suspensions is that you could mount a case that the clubs playing the suspended players should be docked points for winning matches whilst playing ineligible players. (That would be ridiculous, especially for third-party clubs (ie. other than Cronulla) but that's the nature of this farcical situation.

This would be the table if that occurred according to the players listed by News Corp.

1. Manly 34
2. South Sydney 32
3. Penrith 32
4. Sydney 30
5. Melbourne 28
6. Canterbury 28
7. NZ 26
8. Parramatta 26
9. Brisbane 24
10. St. George 24
11. Wests 22
12. Canberra 14
13. NQ 6
14. Gold Coast 4
15. Newcastle 4
16. Cronulla 4

 

[SharkShocked]

whall15...

I'm sorry but i fail to see how a few weeks in 2011 where a possible doping infraction may have occured has any bearing on players competing in the 2014 competition and the relevance to points being stripped.

The back dating of a ban doesn't state that the player has been suspended from that date, because obviously they played.

Purely academic reasoning to deal with the 'delay' from the investigation / process pushing forward.

 

[Card Shark]

Ricky says yes please.

 

[SharkShocked]

Haha

 

[whall15]

whall15...

I'm sorry but i fail to see how a few weeks in 2011 where a possible doping infraction may have occured has any bearing on players competing in the 2014 competition and the relevance to points being stripped.

The back dating of a ban doesn't state that the player has been suspended from that date, because obviously they played.

Purely academic reasoning to deal with the 'delay' from the investigation / process pushing forward.

If the suspension is backdated then surely it must apply from that date?

 

[SharkShocked]

How is that even remotely possible?

Do we rewind in time and stop players from playing?

Absolute lunacy to even consider something like that.

 

[El Diablo]

If the suspension is backdated then surely it must apply from that date?

i wouldn't even worry about it seeing nothing has happened yet

 

[madunit]

Another problem which hasn't been discussed about backdated suspensions is that you could mount a case that the clubs playing the suspended players should be docked points for winning matches whilst playing ineligible players. (That would be ridiculous, especially for third-party clubs (ie. other than Cronulla) but that's the nature of this farcical situation.

This would be the table if that occurred according to the players listed by News Corp.

1. Manly 34
2. South Sydney 32
3. Penrith 32
4. Sydney 30
5. Melbourne 28
6. Canterbury 28
7. NZ 26
8. Parramatta 26
9. Brisbane 24
10. St. George 24
11. Wests 22
12. Canberra 14
13. NQ 6
14. Gold Coast 4
15. Newcastle 4
16. Cronulla 4

If anything, the breaches allegedly occurred in 2011, so that should be the only ladder to change.

And the changes would see Dragons, Penrith, Roosters, Bulldogs, Titans, Souths and Canberra all pick up 2 extra points.

This would have pushed the Dragons from 5th to 4th (and the Tigers from 4th to 5th)
The Bulldogs from 9th to 8th (and the Warriors from 8th to 9th)
Canberra from 15th to 13th
Titans from 16th to 14th
Parramatta from 14th to 15th
Cronulla from 13th to 16th

 

[whall15]

How is that even remotely possible?

Do we rewind in time and stop players from playing?

Absolute lunacy to even consider something like that.

That's my point about a backdated suspension being ridiculous.

 

[SharkShocked]

No one is doubting that.

As madunit said, why would you change this years ladder though.

 

[no name]

If anything, the breaches allegedly occurred in 2011, so that should be the only ladder to change.

And the changes would see Dragons, Penrith, Roosters, Bulldogs, Titans, Souths and Canberra all pick up 2 extra points.

This would have pushed the Dragons from 5th to 4th (and the Tigers from 4th to 5th)
The Bulldogs from 9th to 8th (and the Warriors from 8th to 9th)
Canberra from 15th to 13th
Titans from 16th to 14th
Parramatta from 14th to 15th
Cronulla from 13th to 16th

No way, the Titans would have got on a roll had they beaten the doped up Sharks.
Either give them the premiership now, or re assemble each squad and make them replay the 2011 season again over the next off season.

 

[whall15]

No one is doubting that.

As madunit said, why would you change this years ladder though.

Because a backdated suspension means that the suspensions were in effect for this season (even if they really weren't), therefore clubs fielded suspended players this year.

 

[El Diablo]

so what

teams had to play illegally assembled sides when the Dogs and Storm were over the cap

 

[The Elephant In The room]

If nothing else, the fact that the Sharks (in particular) have performed so poorly has given ASADA an easy way out in terms of offering these claytons suspensions. If we were talking about one of the sides leading the table, I doubt they would have just allowed the players in question to have their suspensions back dated and miss just a couple of games, whilst allowing the club to carry playing.

 

[SharkShocked]

Well you have to give it to the AFL, they rubbed Essendon out of finals contention last year.

NRL didn't follow suit.

 

[Starkers]

and look where that got them...interference in the investigation and they're all in court. the NRL allowed due process and have come off looking way better.

 

[El Diablo]

Josh Massoud ‏@josh_massoudhttps://twitter.com/josh_massoud/status/502353302692970496
ASADA is adamant @Cronulla_Sharks deals will only be back-dated to 21 Nov 2013 - not 1 Nov - meaning players cannot compete in Four Nations