-
Re: One year ban for Crameri
Originally Posted by
The Underdog
Essendon had 12 players suspended, will replace with 10 is my understanding.
We're pretty thin for numbers with Smith and Smith out of action and Lynch and Goetz exceptionally green. Although it would take a pretty disastrous injury run to get there.
OK. That's fairer at least. Jeez what kind of a rabble are they going to be?
-
Re: One year ban for Crameri
Originally Posted by
PeanutsPeanuts
OK. That's fairer at least. Jeez what kind of a rabble are they going to be?
But spare a thought for the state league teams whose premiership attempt could be less likely with a very good player or two poached for a drug cheating afl club. We can say that now without being sued, drug cheating afl club.
Rocket Science: the epitaph for the Beveridge era - whenever it ends - reading 'Here lies a team that could beat anyone on its day, but seldom did when it mattered most'. 15/7/2023
-
Post Thanks / Like - 0 Thanks, 3 Likes
-
Re: One year ban for Crameri
Originally Posted by
bornadog
Saints have paid dearly for Carlisle
Haven't they ever. We dodged a massive bullet there.
-
Post Thanks / Like - 0 Thanks, 1 Likes
N/A liked this post
-
Re: One year ban for Crameri
Originally Posted by
PeanutsPeanuts
I agree. Port must be livid, they've lost 2 from their list. They did take the chance (with Ryder at least) but still would've expected to at least replace with a rookie. How is it that the club who are responsible will have a full list numerically next year, but others won't?
If Essendon can sign up 10 players - doesn't that mean they will be 2 short (seeing as they have 12 suspended players) ?
Essendon & Port will be 2 short.
Dogs, Saints, Dees will be one short.
Pretty logical really. They have kept Essendon 2 short so that they are at least equal in list numbers to the next most affected club.
Collingwood, St.Kilda and Freo haven't been able to sign new players when they had players banned. I don't see why we should be able to. Its understandable that Essendon will have to top up their list in order to compete (however poorly) in the AFL.
-
Re: One year ban for Crameri
Originally Posted by
Ozza
If Essendon can sign up 10 players - doesn't that mean they will be 2 short (seeing as they have 12 suspended players) ?
Essendon & Port will be 2 short.
Dogs, Saints, Dees will be one short.
Pretty logical really. They have kept Essendon 2 short so that they are at least equal in list numbers to the next most affected club.
Collingwood, St.Kilda and Freo haven't been able to sign new players when they had players banned. I don't see why we should be able to. Its understandable that Essendon will have to top up their list in order to compete (however poorly) in the AFL.
They also get to upgrade all 5 rookies instantly.
Rocket Science: the epitaph for the Beveridge era - whenever it ends - reading 'Here lies a team that could beat anyone on its day, but seldom did when it mattered most'. 15/7/2023
-
Re: One year ban for Crameri
Thank God that justice is done and Essendon will now go down in history as drug cheats. What a despicable crime against the sport and the competition they committed. Greedy a_holes. The players can take a year off and travel the world, develop other skills for post retirement and rest their professional bodies to prolong their careers. Congratulations to Stewie for parachuting out of that toxic environment and coming to its antithesis.
Footscray Football Republic.
-
Post Thanks / Like - 0 Thanks, 1 Likes
-
Re: One year ban for Crameri
From the Herald Sun:
Lawyers for former Bombers Stewart Crameri and Brent Prismall are exploring options for an appeal to the Swiss Federal Tribunal or the Victorian or NSW Supreme Court.
It could be launched within days.
EX-BOMBERS PREPARE TO LAUNCH APPEAL
Crameri and Prismall are now at the Western Bulldogs, represented by a separate legal team to their former teammates.
Grounds for an appeal must demonstrate an error of law or breach of the rules of procedural fairness.
It is believed revelations in the CAS judgement that the panel was split 2-1 could be used as a basis for an appeal.
The Dogs said this afternoon: “The Western Bulldogs have received a copy of the Arbitral Award delivered by the Court of Arbitration for Sport this morning. The club is intently studying the reasons for judgement insofar as they apply to Stewart Crameri and Brent Prismall.”
The Swiss Federal Tribunal is the highest court in Switzerland, where the CAS is based, but because the case was heard in Australia the Supreme Court is another option for players keen to continue fighting.
An appeal could involve attempts to freeze the suspensions imposed by the CAS this morning.
-
Post Thanks / Like - 0 Thanks, 1 Likes
-
Re: One year ban for Crameri
Somebody please send a message to the club to immediately cease any idea to appeal.
-
Post Thanks / Like - 0 Thanks, 5 Likes
-
Re: One year ban for Crameri
It's misrepresenting the findings to declare it a 2-1 verdict. All three judges unanimously agreed they were comfortably satisfied players were injected with TB4. One judge didn't agree that every one of the 34 were guilty, rather only a selection of them, that was the only discrepancy.
Western Bulldogs: We exist to win premierships
-
Post Thanks / Like - 0 Thanks, 2 Likes
-
Re: One year ban for Crameri
Originally Posted by
Ringer
Somebody please send a message to the club to immediately cease any idea to appeal.
I don't want our club creating a circus like the drug cheating afl team did. It pains me to say it, but he was offered a slap on the wrist and risked copping a big ban. He bet big and lost.
Rocket Science: the epitaph for the Beveridge era - whenever it ends - reading 'Here lies a team that could beat anyone on its day, but seldom did when it mattered most'. 15/7/2023
-
Re: One year ban for Crameri
Originally Posted by
Greystache
It's misrepresenting the findings to declare it a 2-1 verdict. All three judges unanimously agreed they were comfortably satisfied players were injected with TB4. One judge didn't agree that every one of the 34 were guilty, rather only a selection of them, that was the only discrepancy.
This has been going on since Feb 2013.
-
Post Thanks / Like - 0 Thanks, 1 Likes
-
Re: One year ban for Crameri
Originally Posted by
Sedat
This has been going on since Feb 2013.
I'm shocked to hear you say this. I just didn't see it coming
Western Bulldogs: We exist to win premierships
-
Post Thanks / Like - 0 Thanks, 1 Likes
-
Re: One year ban for Crameri
Will just have to cop it sweet. Stweart is an important part of our forward line so its a big blow for us. In then end ultimately the right result for the game came out today.
Bloody Hird and Dank!
Last edited by Eastdog; 12-01-2016 at 09:38 PM.
"Footscray people are incredible people; so humble. I'm just so happy - ecstatic"
-
Re: One year ban for Crameri
Originally Posted by
Greystache
It's misrepresenting the findings to declare it a 2-1 verdict. All three judges unanimously agreed they were comfortably satisfied players were injected with TB4. One judge didn't agree that every one of the 34 were guilty, rather only a selection of them, that was the only discrepancy.
Anyone know more details on the above?
I'd think Gordon will have close look at possible legal grounds by Crameri and Prismall's lawyers and whether they appeal to WADA against finding or not. I recall that they were lawyers with close connections to our esteemed president too.
-
Re: One year ban for Crameri
Originally Posted by
josie
Anyone know more details on the above?
I'd think Gordon will have close look at possible legal grounds by Crameri and Prismall's lawyers and whether they appeal to WADA against finding or not. I recall that they were lawyers with close connections to our esteemed president too.
You are correct - it was Rob Stary that Crameri & Prismall engaged. I assume it is still him or his firm that are acting for them.