2012 Brownlow Medal to go to Sam Mitchell and Trent Cotchin

[LostDoggy]

Different scenarios, none of which involved PEDs.

Whether Watson took PEDs or whacked someone, either way Cotchin and Mitchell aren't responsible. Either way they would be the eligible players who polled the most votes and therefore valid medallists.

[bornadog]

Whether Watson took PEDs or whacked someone, either way Cotchin and Mitchell aren't responsible. Either way they would be the eligible players who polled the most votes and therefore valid medallists.

Over 22 rounds the Esendon players should not have been playing, so the voting is stuffed up. Based on your scenario the votes are wrong and there should be a recount.

[LostDoggy]

Over 22 rounds the Esendon players should not have been playing, so the voting is stuffed up. Based on your scenario the votes are wrong and there should be a recount.

The votes aren't wrong, ineligible players can't win but they can still get votes (just like players who receive suspensions for other reasons). It doesn't need to be any more complicated than that.

[hujsh]

The votes aren't wrong, ineligible players can't win but they can still get votes (just like players who receive suspensions for other reasons). It doesn't need to be any more complicated than that.

Inelegible players don't have their performance enhanced after whacking someone. That's the difference and that's where it screwed up all their games over the course of the year

[Twodogs]

We should replay the season over summer while everyone is young enough.

[LostDoggy]

Inelegible players don't have their performance enhanced after whacking someone. That's the difference and that's where it screwed up all their games over the course of the year

Pretty much the entire EFC team were under the Dank regime in 2012. They finished 11-11 with a 100.05%. The previous year they had a 11-1-10 record. Their progress was nil.

The enhancement programme provided no real improvement and was a failure on any measure.

For sure all these players deserve to be ineligible and all the penalties they cop, but the idea that their 'enhanced' performance ultimately impacted on players of other teams just doesn't add up for mine, given the lack of results.

It may as well be argued that without the PEDs Essendon may have lost 1 or 2 more games, which may have affected the final 8, so the 2012 Sydney Premiership is therefore invalid.

[hujsh]

Pretty much the entire EFC team were under the Dank regime in 2012. They finished 11-11 with a 100.05%. The previous year they had a 11-1-10 record. Their progress was nil.

The enhancement programme provided no real improvement and was a failure on any measure.

For sure all these players deserve to be ineligible and all the penalties they cop, but the idea that their 'enhanced' performance ultimately impacted on players of other teams just doesn't add up for mine, given the lack of results.

It may as well be argued that without the PEDs Essendon may have lost 1 or 2 more games, which may have affected the final 8, so the 2012 Sydney Premiership is therefore invalid.

They were the best team in the comp for the first half of the year. IIRC that was when the doping regime occurred.

[bornadog]

The votes aren't wrong, ineligible players can't win but they can still get votes (just like players who receive suspensions for other reasons). It doesn't need to be any more complicated than that.

The fact is in sport around the world, anyone found guilty of doping is suspended and their records wiped. That should have happened game by game and therefore changes the voting.

[Sedat]

There is far too much over-complication of the situation. Games were played throughout 2012 and players polled Brownlow votes, as happens every year. Some players were then subsequently found guilty of doping, so any votes these players polled simply have an asterisk next to them. That makes Cotchin and Mitchell worthy 2012 Brownlow Medalists. For once the AFEL has made a good and balanced decision throughout this sorry saga.

[Twodogs]

Pretty much the entire EFC team were under the Dank regime in 2012. They finished 11-11 with a 100.05%. The previous year they had a 11-1-10 record. Their progress was nil.

The enhancement programme provided no real improvement and was a failure on any measure.

For sure all these players deserve to be ineligible and all the penalties they cop, but the idea that their 'enhanced' performance ultimately impacted on players of other teams just doesn't add up for mine, given the lack of results.

It may as well be argued that without the PEDs Essendon may have lost 1 or 2 more games, which may have affected the final 8, so the 2012 Sydney Premiership is therefore invalid.

I'd pay good money to a crowdfund a pay for a study to see if the PED regime had a negative impact on Essendon over that year or 2012 or 2013.

[hujsh]

There is far too much over-complication of the situation. Games were played throughout 2012 and players polled Brownlow votes, as happens every year. Some players were then subsequently found guilty of doping, so any votes these players polled simply have an asterisk next to them. That makes Cotchin and Mitchell worthy 2012 Brownlow Medalists. For once the AFEL has made a good and balanced decision throughout this sorry saga.

Giving out a Brownlow and changing the name in the record book is an over-simplification of the situation. As bornadogs said it's totally different to how other sportd handle drug cheats and even goes against what happened to the Storm when they breached the salary cap.

The AFL based their decision on what will look best in years to come. Looking at 2012 and seeing 'Mitchell, Cotchin' does more to hide the history of the situation than 'Watson*' or 'No Recipient'

[hujsh]

There is far too much over-complication of the situation. Games were played throughout 2012 and players polled Brownlow votes, as happens every year. Some players were then subsequently found guilty of doping, so any votes these players polled simply have an asterisk next to them. That makes Cotchin and Mitchell worthy 2012 Brownlow Medalists. For once the AFEL has made a good and balanced decision throughout this sorry saga.

Giving out a Brownlow and changing the name in the record book is an over-simplification of the situation. As bornadog said it's totally different to how other sportd handle drug cheats and even goes against what happened to the Storm when they breached the salary cap.

The AFL based their decision on what will look best in years to come. Looking at 2012 and seeing 'Mitchell, Cotchin' does more to hide the history of the situation than 'Watson*' or 'No Recipient'

[1eyedog]

There is far too much over-complication of the situation. Games were played throughout 2012 and players polled Brownlow votes, as happens every year. Some players were then subsequently found guilty of doping, so any votes these players polled simply have an asterisk next to them. That makes Cotchin and Mitchell worthy 2012 Brownlow Medalists. For once the AFEL has made a good and balanced decision throughout this sorry saga.

Yeah trying to sort out the finer details becomes cyclical and really nothing more than philosophical discussion, which is better left to nuclear physicists rather than the honchos at the AFEL. There's valid arguments for and against Mitchell / Cotchin and there is no right or wrong answer, just a decision and that was made.

Some players may have received their peds on Wednesday, some Friday, someone runs for longer on Saturday against a player who was in Brownlow contention thereby nullifying their impact on the game etc. etc. it would cave the head in of any statistical analyst.

[boydogs]

Pretty much the entire EFC team were under the Dank regime in 2012. They finished 11-11 with a 100.05%. The previous year they had a 11-1-10 record. Their progress was nil.

They were the best team in the comp for the first half of the year. IIRC that was when the doping regime occurred.

Which was followed by a glut of soft tissue injuries because they bulked up too quickly, so they started losing games

[Twodogs]

There is far too much over-complication of the situation. Games were played throughout 2012 and players polled Brownlow votes, as happens every year. Some players were then subsequently found guilty of doping, so any votes these players polled simply have an asterisk next to them. That makes Cotchin and Mitchell worthy 2012 Brownlow Medalists. For once the AFEL has made a good and balanced decision throughout this sorry saga.

I've heard thus argument a lot on the radio but I don't think I quite understand it. Is it, if Jobe gives up his Brownlow that means all of his Brownlow votes are void. And by logical extension all 34 of his drug crazed teammates' votes are void in 2012 as well? This manipulates the voting so much that the winner could well be someone other than Mitchell or Cothchin? We don't know, we just don't know, so we shouldn't re-award the medal to anyone and just have an asterisk in place of anyone in the 'winner' colomn of the 2012 Brownlow medal.

Does tgat sound about right?