2012 Brownlow Medal to go to Sam Mitchell and Trent Cotchin

[bornadog]

The 2012 Brownlow Medal given up by Essendon captain Jobe Watson will go to Sam Mitchell and Trent Cotchin, the AFL Commission has announced.

full story here (http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/2012-brownlow-medal-to-go-to-sam-mitchell-and-trent-cotchin-20161115-gspw97.html)

[bulldogtragic]

At least Jobe doesn't have it. I hope the players knock it back and just leave it as an asterisk.

[chef]

Why would the players knock it back?

[hujsh]

Wrong decision. Easy way out for the AFL as usual

[AndrewP6]

Terrible decision.

[G-Mo77]

When you look up the Brownlow Medal winners all you should see beside 2012 is a big *

[Greystache]

Easy decision, wrong decision, AFEL decision. All one and the same.

[GVGjr]

Easy decision, wrong decision, AFEL decision. All one and the same.

Agreed, the easy option has been taken

[1eyedog]

Well they were the two best and fairest players in the comp for that year... Aren't Olympic gold medals awarded to the runner up if the winner tests positive to a banned substance?

[GVGjr]

Well they were the two best and fairest players in the comp for that year... Aren't Olympic gold medals awarded to the runner up if the winner tests positive to a banned substance?

I get what you are saying but Olympic medals are an acknowledgement for winning or placing your in your event on that day not a combination of points acquired over an extended period so I'm not sure it quite stacks up. Do we take Watsons votes out and move every player that got 2 or 1 votes in those games he polled in and reallocate those votes?

I think it's more like those bike rides where the years Armstrong won but got disqualified are somewhat erased. Just my opinion though. I don't mind Mitchell or Cotchin but did they really win it?

[LostDoggy]

Mitchell and Cotchin are no less deserving than anyone who finished 2nd to a tribunal supended player and were therefore declared the winner.

[Sedat]

Mitchell and Cotchin are no less deserving than anyone who finished 2nd to a tribunal supended player and were therefore declared the winner.
This. Cotchin and Mitchell fully deserve their Brownlows, and have actually been cheated out of their moment 4 years ago by someone who played that season with the benefit of performance enhancing drugs.

[soupman]

I'm fine with them receiving the Brownlow medal. From memory they each polled 26 votes that year so it isn't like they are unworthy winners either.

[1eyedog]

I get what you are saying but Olympic medals are an acknowledgement for winning or placing your in your event on that day not a combination of points acquired over an extended period so I'm not sure it quite stacks up. Do we take Watsons votes out and move every player that got 2 or 1 votes in those games he polled in and reallocate those votes?

I think it's more like those bike rides where the years Armstrong won but got disqualified are somewhat erased. Just my opinion though. I don't mind Mitchell or Cotchin but did they really win it?

Understand your point, there are problems with it but I think a common sense approach needs to prevail.

Most Olympic sports are subject to heats, finals and then the final over many days, sometimes over a week. What about the swimmers who swam fourth in the semis and missed out on a crack at the final? Regardless of the above gold medals are awarded to the runner up in the event of a positive test.

I'm not saying it's ideal, but an asterix all over the record books in world sports would be depressing as a sports fan and extremely frustrating for all those sports people who worked so hard and ran second to a drug cheat. It's fine to punish the winner and strip them of their medal, but second place would need to live with that for the rest of their lives too.

[hujsh]

Mitchell and Cotchin are no less deserving than anyone who finished 2nd to a tribunal supended player and were therefore declared the winner.

Different scenarios, none of which involved PEDs.

[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?

[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?

[Sedat]

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?

Why are they void? The AFEL made the ruling on Jobe not being eligible for the Brownlow - the whole 'Jobe handed back the Brownlow' was nothing more than PR. His votes in 2012 count as votes but he is treated like any other suspended player. Therefore the next best vote getters win the Brownlow.

[AndrewP6]

Why are they void? The AFEL made the ruling on Jobe not being eligible for the Brownlow - the whole 'Jobe handed back the Brownlow' was nothing more than PR. His votes in 2012 count as votes but he is treated like any other suspended player. Therefore the next best vote getters win the Brownlow.

They should be void, because those players have committed doping violations.

[Doc26]

Do we take Watsons votes out and move every player that got 2 or 1 votes in those games he polled in and reallocate those votes?

......I don't mind Mitchell or Cotchin but did they really win it?

If the AFL are adamant in reassigning the Brownlow, your suggestion is the more accurate measure.

The problem with this approach is we won't know who was next in line for a 1 vote in the games where Jobe polled.

[Twodogs]

Why are they void? The AFEL made the ruling on Jobe not being eligible for the Brownlow - the whole 'Jobe handed back the Brownlow' was nothing more than PR. His votes in 2012 count as votes but he is treated like any other suspended player. Therefore the next best vote getters win the Brownlow.

I think I misunderstood the argument. What GVR says about reallocating 3 votes makes more sense.

[Topdog]

If the AFL are adamant in reassigning the Brownlow, your suggestion is the more accurate measure.

The problem with this approach is we won't know who was next in line for a 1 vote in the games where Jobe polled.

The other problem is pretty much every player from Essendon that polled in the Brownlow that year was found guilty. Its a lot more than Jobe's votes.

[Doc26]

The other problem is pretty much every player from Essendon that polled in the Brownlow that year was found guilty. Its a lot more than Jobe's votes.

Yes you're absolutely correct TD. AFL would need to reallocate votes to the top 3 non Essendon players, which the umpires would not record anyway. And a reasonable argument could be raised that they don't reassign votes after a vote scoring player has been suspended at the tribunal for a game day incident.

Slightly off topic but I have a similar issue to their games still recorded as Won for the 2012 season. They should be reassigned to the losing team for historical purposes.

The AFL are really asleep at the wheel here in addressing the anomalies that have resulted in Essendon's conviction for 2012.

[Twodogs]

Yes you're absolutely correct TD. AFL would need to reallocate votes to the top 3 non Essendon players, which the umpires would not record anyway. And a reasonable argument could be raised that they don't reassign votes after a vote scoring player has been suspended at the tribunal for a game day incident.

Slightly off topic but I have a similar issue to their games still recorded as Won for the 2012 season. They should be reassigned to the losing team for historical purposes.

The AFL are really asleep at the wheel here in addressing the anomalies that have resulted in Essendon's conviction for 2012

The AFEL have shown many times that they have little interest in official records with a "whatever" attitude to the allocation and recording of games played and goals kicked.

Look at when Malthouse went past McHale's coaching record. For 65 years McHale coached 714 games but as Malthouse approached the mark someone decided that McHale had only coached 713 games. How can a figure be right for 65 years and then it's wrong all of a sudden two days before someone else breaks it. Or levels it.

[GVGjr]

I guess the only to fairly do this would be to rule out all votes in games against Essendon that year.

[Doc26]

I guess the only to fairly do this would be to rule out all votes in games against Essendon that year.

Given this scenario Mitchell should be the outright winner given that with the 3 games played between Ess / Haw & Richmond in that season Cotchin's tally was 3 votes and Mitchell 2.


Round 8:
Essendon 19.14 (128) Richmond 15.19 (109) at MCG
3. B Deledio (Rich)
2. B Stanton (Ess)
1. J Watson (Ess)

Round 18:
Essendon 12.14 (86) Hawthorn 27.18 (180) at ES
3. C Rioli (Haw)
2. S Mitchell (Haw)
1. M Suckling (Haw)

Round 22:
Richmond 13.24 (102) Essendon 8.9 (57) at MCG
3. T Cotchin (Rich)
2. S Tuck (Rich)
1. B Deledio (Rich)

[Sedat]

Sam Mitchell currently being interviewed at his 2012 Brownlow Medal presentation - he recalled a story when he was at Eastern Rangers U18's in 1999 and the assistant coach of the team would, off his own bat, take Mitchell to AFL games to watch the likes of Brett Ratten and how they operate in stoppages and clearances. That was the era of athletes over footballers but this coach lit the fuse for Mitchell to become the best AFL player he could be. The assistant coach - Simon Dalrymple.

[always right]

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/afl/hawthorn-hawks/simon-dalrymple-the-man-who-moulded-sam-mitchell-20161213-gtalqf.html

Fairfax have an article on this today. Apparently Dalrymple is our "List manager".......hope Jason McCartney is not too upset at being punted. Fairfax have really lost their way over recent times.