Paul Gallen - self confessed drug cheat: did NSW REALLY win State of Origin?

[doug3030]

Time to stir the Cauldron...

OK so the Captain of the NSW Blues, Paul Gallen, has now admitted to being a drug cheat and has accepted a retrospective ban of 12 months backdated to start from November 2013. How can you backdate a banning when a player has already played in that period? In what universe does that make any sense at all? What should happen to the results of games that a player who has been retrospectively banned has played in?

Well looking at what has happened in the NRL, historically, Melbourne Storm were retrospectively found to be cheating by breaching the Salary Cap a few years ago and were stripped of two premierships and three minor premierships as well as premiership points in the year that they were caught as well as a hefty financial penalty.

from Wikepedia:

"The discovery of these breaches in 2010 by the NRL resulted in it stripping the Storm of all honours achieved as a team since 2006 (including the 2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_NRL_season) and 2009 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_NRL_season) premierships and 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_NRL_season), 2007 and 2009 minor premierships (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_premiership)), and sentencing them to finish the 2010 NRL season (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_NRL_season) (of which 75% was still to be played) in last place. In addition to being fined $1.689 million, Melbourne also had its 2010 World Club Challenge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_World_Club_Challenge) title removed, more than one year since the initial penalties were first announced."

There have been other instances in the NRL when clubs have been stripped of points or titles for breach of the rules.

So, my question is: "What should the NRL do about this year's State of Origin series result? While I concede that the ASADA penalty is against an individual player and not against the team as a whole, there is now a shadow hanging over the Blues' series win because their most senior and influential player, the Captain, has now been retrospectively banned from competing for a period that includes the three Origin matches?

The thing that really gets me here is that retrospective bans make no sense at all. How can you ban someone meaningfully from a game that they have already played and contributed to their team's outcome?

Given that he has admitted guilt as an individual, how should this affect his team? If one of the four swimmers in an Olympic relay team was subsequently found guilty of being a drug cheat, would the whole team be stripped of their medals? If so is that right?

If its good enough to strip Lance Armstrong of 7 titles for drug cheating, how can NSW now stand up proud and claim victory in State of Origin 2014?

May the debate begin...

Cheers

Doug

[Twisted Tenon]

Doug
He wasn't using the alleged performance enhancing drugs during the 2014 State of Origin games. The NRL & ASADA have stuffed up the whole process and to my mind they have proven nothing. Gallen has admitted to use to get a shorter ban. He chose the lesser of two evils and IMHO nothing has been proved. ASADA should have left him with no where to go.

TT
i should add he admitted to unknowingly using a banned substance.

[doug3030]

Doug He wasn't using the alleged performance enhancing drugs during the 2014 State of Origin games.

Well whether he was or not, He has admitted to being a drug cheat. How do you know he was not using drugs during that period? If he was not using it then why did he admit to it? Ok, you covered it below - so that he could get a shorter ban -and one that is nearly over after he has already played in several games during the period that he is actually banned for. That makes absolutely no sense at all.


The NRL & ASADA have stuffed up the whole process and to my mind they have proven nothing.

Ok then if Paul had nothing to worry about, why has he voluntarily taken the penalty? He could contest the finding if he thinks he has a chance of proving his innocence. He accepted the penalty, so there is now nothing more to prove.


Gallen has admitted to use to get a shorter ban.

Yes, but what about the games he played in during the period that he has accepted a ban for? Does his contribution to his team still count? Should he pay back any salary he received during that period?


He chose the lesser of two evils and IMHO nothing has been proved.

Then why did he accept the penalty instead of contesting it?


ASADA should have left him with no where to go. TT

they did, but the full ramifications of his confessions are yet to be felt.

Cheers

Doug

[Sir Stinkalot]

How can you backdate a banning when a player has already played in that period? In what universe does that make any sense at all?

Essendon in the AFL is also an interesting case where a big dollar business clashes against ASADA. It wouldn't surprise me at all if any suspension of players is negotiated to be served in the convenient off season (out of "competition" but still allowing for training) so the big dollar machine can roll on again fresh in the next season. It seems that in the bigger sports the money is more important than any ASADA investigations.

[Twisted Tenon]

Well whether he was or not, He has admitted to being a drug cheat. How do you know he was not using drugs during that period? If he was not using it then why did he admit to it? Ok, you covered it below - so that he could get a shorter ban -and one that is nearly over after he has already played in several games during the period that he is actually banned for. That makes absolutely no sense at all.

we won't know if he was robbing banks either until the proof is on the table. If it is proven that management knows about it then should they pay back the sponsors or the ticket holders?


Ok then if Paul had nothing to worry about, why has he voluntarily taken the penalty? He could contest the finding if he thinks he has a chance of proving his innocence. He accepted the penalty, so there is now nothing more to prove.

except he accepted the sentence with caveats



Yes, but what about the games he played in during the period that he has accepted a ban for? Does his contribution to his team still count? Should he pay back any salary he received during that period?

AA

Then why did he accept the penalty instead of contesting it?

AA

they did, but the full ramifications of his confessions are yet to be felt.

They left him swinging room though.

Cheers

Doug

TT

[Twisted Tenon]

Essendon in the AFL is also an interesting case where a big dollar business clashes against ASADA. It wouldn't surprise me at all if any suspension of players is negotiated to be served in the convenient off season (out of "competition" but still allowing for training) so the big dollar machine can roll on again fresh in the next season. It seems that in the bigger sports the money is more important than any ASADA investigations.

big money has worked in cycling and for some of the big Olympic events.

TT

[Ironwood]

I hope WADA overrules this "joke" sentence, and they all get something more in line with what they deserve.

As for playing this season while not taking the banned drugs, how do we know there is no lag effect on the bodies of the players who took these banned drugs ?
Has the drugs helped them to bulk up their muscles and were they still benefiting from the effects after they stopped taking the drugs ?

It was probably at the time he was taking the drugs, but I can remember wondering about how puffed-up Gallen looked, almost grotesque looking.

[Bob38S]

I stopped watching football years ago when the big money moved in and the game was turned into a TV program in which the players were touted as "stars" and the advertisers simply saw it as a way to rip the supporters eg look at the jersey, hat, scarf sales and costs.

I, personally think, that you get more real sport, sportsmanship and true love of the game at the local levels where the game is played more for love of it rather than the money.

Just my opinion, not meant to inflame or insult those who follow the professionals.

[FenceFurniture]

I stopped watching football years ago when the big money moved inI'm with Bob but for slightly different reasons. Once the money moved in we had a situation where a bunch of immature meatheads with vast incomes thought they could behave off the field as they pleased.

What should have happened was that every one of them be issued a personal referee (whistle and all) to act as a chaperone at all times. It would seem that the blow of a whistle is all they can understand or comprehend.

I'm sure there must be a comedy sketch in there somewhere. :D

These people have no life experience. They come out of school, go onto a contract with relatively crazy money, and don't know how to control it or themselves.

[Handyjack]

I stopped watching football years ago when the big money moved in and the game was turned into a TV program in which the players were touted as "stars" and the advertisers simply saw it as a way to rip the supporters eg look at the jersey, hat, scarf sales and costs.

I, personally think, that you get more real sport, sportsmanship and true love of the game at the local levels where the game is played more for love of it rather than the money.

Just my opinion, not meant to inflame or insult those who follow the professionals.

While I may have an interest in AFL, I know longer know what day or time they are playing, nor what ground. Only some of the teams have a true 'Home' ground, the rest share two venues. The teams no longer wear the same jumper week in, week out; so I may not know which team is which.

It has almost got to the point where you do not know with professional sport how genuine the performance is.
The saying (as I understand) is do not bet on anything that talks: Look how the betting agencies promote all the different sports. F1 racing is perhaps one of the best examples of manufactured results.

Did NSW win the State of Origin? - that is what the records show ... for now.

[FenceFurniture]

In the ABC news tonight there's an article on the Cronulla coach which goes on to say that the players "unwittingly" took the banned substances. Now you may quietly say "BULLSHIGHT", but I find it totally feasible that it would be unwittingly done.

After all, wouldn't you have to have some kind of wits for it to be otherwise? :;

[Sir Stinkalot]

Did NSW win the State of Origin? - that is what the records show ... for now.

At the end of the day does it really matter? If we take the Melbourne Strom situation where the premierships were taken away ..... who cares now that they have been taken away after the fact? They players and fans still got to enjoy the moment that they won the premiership. I'm sure there are some die hard fans that will be upset but in reality somebody else will win the premiership the following year, and the next after that.

[doug3030]

I stopped watching football years ago when the big money moved in and the game was turned into a TV program in which the players were touted as "stars" and the advertisers simply saw it as a way to rip the supporters eg look at the jersey, hat, scarf sales and costs.

I, personally think, that you get more real sport, sportsmanship and true love of the game at the local levels where the game is played more for love of it rather than the money.

Just my opinion, not meant to inflame or insult those who follow the professionals.

Bob, I agree with you. I too lost interest in the NRL, AFL etc when it all became big money and it didnt matter any more who you played for as long as you were making big money. Gone are the days when the up and coming young sportsmen aspired to represent their local team where they grew up. Now its all about money.

Thats why I like State of Origin. Yes there is money involved but you cant buy a player by outbidding the other side. The players can only be selected to represent their state. It is the final frontier of professional sportsmen forming a team to represent a particular group and money plays no part in who can be chosen.

As a Queenslander living in Melbourne I have no interest in AFL. We hardly knew it even existed when I was growing up in Queensland. I followed Norths when I was growing up because they were my local team. With the advent of NRL I supported the Broncos but not so closely that I could even tell you who they played this weekend. Its just a passing interest. It really has no meaning any more.

But State of Origin still holds significance as a true representative competition.

Doug

[FenceFurniture]

Thats why I like State of Origin. Yep, it's the only footy I watch now too.

[Poppa]

In the interests of fairness I'm declaring my interest immediately. I'm a Qld'er and proud of it.

The things that I wonder about regarding this case are:
1. They were being injected with something. They say they were told that it was approved. Isn't it the responsibility of the sportsperson to ensure they are not given illegal substances? Is being naïve and stupid really a valid excuse?
2. If an Olympic competitor was in the same situation, what ban would they get? Could they use the excuse "someone spiked my needle"?
3. The coach says that he knew nothing about what was in the supplements. So what? It happened on his watch, and he has both the responsibility and the authority. No excuses for him. IMHO lifetime ban should be given to the coach (and James Hird).

Just my thoughts...

[crowie]

Yep, it's the only footy I watch now too.

I can't even watch it as the whole street knows I'm a Queenslander......

Back on topic....

Ban all drug cheats for life and take away whatever awards they may have won, for the sake of the kids that idolize them. ZERO TOLERANCE!!

[Twisted Tenon]

Ok, staying on topic but changing the focus. When he was done for using a masking drug all he'll broke lose. But to my mind he did nothing wrong. If he was a brick layer who needed to get back to work to earn a quid he could have legally used steroids to recover. To my mind he did not cheat but did everything he could do to get back to work....
Incoming!!!!!.....:bricks:

TT

[doug3030]

Ok, staying on topic but changing the focus. When he was done for using a masking drug all he'll broke lose. But to my mind he did nothing wrong. If he was a brick layer who needed to get back to work to earn a quid he could have legally used steroids to recover. To my mind he did not cheat but did everything he could do to get back to work....
Incoming!!!!!.....:bricks:

TT

An interesting perspective, TT. Problem is, if he can take the substance to "get back to work" it leaves the door open for anyone else to use the same substance in an effort to overcome other real or pretend injuries, so that they can "get back to work" too. You either have rules or you have open slather.

Cheers

Doug

[Twisted Tenon]

So Doug, you accept that there is a difference between recovering from an injury to return to work and the Lance Armstrong's of the world. I would have thought an injury like the one Warne suffered should have allowed him dispensation to use steroids. He didn't cheat, he just got back to work quicker. There is a difference. The rules are intractable because it's easier to ban the lot than look at each case on its merits.

Now the Cronulla boys weren't injured, but did they know they were taking banned substances? and was the coach too trusting and thereby culpable by default?

TT

[FenceFurniture]

.... but did they know they were taking banned substances?


.....which goes on to say that the players "unwittingly" took the banned substances.

and I guess that's why they got a ridiculous backdated ban. Talk about a contradiction in terms.

Still, how could you expect intelligent, articulated thoughts and actions to come out of a contact sport world, given that most of the administrators are ex-players who were not working off a great base to start with, and even that has been "contacted" rather too much?

Something like a suspended sentence would have had far more credibility (i.e. if you re-offend, you not only get the new sentence, you get the suspended one as well).

[smidsy]

As much as I go for Queensland and would like to claim we lost because half the NSW team was doped up, the fact is that Queensland played like crap in the first two games and could have been beaten had half the NSW team not shown up.

As for AFL, I was raised in WA (I'm now in Qld) and loved AFL but the game as we know it has been ruined - they tried to remove the thuggery (a good idea) but in doing so took away the physicality and ruined the essence of the game.

As for Etiad stadium. It's common now for the final 8 to be decided on percentage, Melbourne has bad weather one weekend, two teams playing at the MCG suffer the weather and have a low scoring game. Two teams who draw Ettad stadium get the roof closed, perfect conditions and the opoortunity to kick a high score - its an unfair advantage.
But as someone said, its about money - closing the roof gets more spectators in which means more money.
It's soon be as bad as the US where the game is halted to allow commercial breaks to run on tv.

[Twisted Tenon]

As much as I go for Queensland and would like to claim we lost because half the NSW team was doped up, the fact is that Queensland played like crap in the first two games and could have been beaten had half the NSW team not shown up

I have a theory about that smidsey. I think the game was rigged, see the first two games were reffed by Haynes & Cummins. They allowed slow play the balls and a short 10 meters. After we had secured the series, Haynes was dropped for the third game and every thing sped up. Our backs were no match for the QLD backs.

TT

[doug3030]

[QUOTE=Twisted Tenon;1801619]see the first two games were reffed by Haynes & Cummins. They allowed slow play the balls and a short 10 meters. After we had secured the series, Haynes was dropped for the third game and every thing sped up. Our backs were no match for the QLD backs./QUOTE]

That's a part of it TT. Game 1 particularly, and game 2 to a lesser extent were dogged by deliberate attempts by NSW players to injure QLD players, particularly Smith, Slater, Cronk and Thurston.

Now I like a good hard-hitting game of Rugby as much as anyone and Origin is as tough as it gets and rightly so. I would hate to see it turned into a sissy's game but what the referees allowed to happen in those first two games was disgusting.

There is a big difference between going in hard so that you hurt the opposition so that they are wary of you next time as opposed to going in hard to deliberately injure someone to the extent that they cannot continue the game.

It is disappointing that at such an elite level of sport that players themselves caused sportsmanship to be replaced by thuggery and even more disappointing that the referees did not put a stop to it when it became apparent what was going on. It was obvious to me where this was going 15 minutes into the first game.

Cheers

Doug

[Twisted Tenon]

There is a big difference between going in hard so that you hurt the opposition so that they are wary of you next time as opposed to going in hard to deliberately injure someone to the extent that they cannot continue the game.

You say pot I say kettle Doug. Gordon Tallis, Wally Lewis and even Darren Lockyer were guilty of some retrograde behaviour. I can't think of any New South Welshmen who would do that sort of stuff :rolleyes: But I bet there were a few. I found this (http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vEGQCtyLu-M) on You Tube, makes your hair stand on end :D

TT

[FenceFurniture]

Sorry, that's a ridiculous video with all the added explosion sounds and Ray Warren's non-stop "OOH AAH". He would have to be the worst sports commentator ever, in any sport.

"AND HE GETS OUT TO XXX, and OOH ah, nothing happened". He's another reason why I stopped watching NRL.

For a short while I was able to watch the live action on the TV and listen to Roy and HG's call (usually for just the first half, before things got tense as they inevitably did). I think Channel Nine must have woken up and put on a delay which jiggered that fun.

[Twisted Tenon]

That's interesting, I watched that without the sound. It came across differently. Ray Warren doesn't impress me either. I much prefer the ABC commentators and have in the past turned the volume down and listened to them.

TT

[doug3030]

I found this (http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vEGQCtyLu-M) on You Tube, makes your hair stand on end :D

Well it does if you put any credence in the sound effects edited over the original footage. If you view it with the sound turned off so that you cant hear the artificial crunching noises, it just looks like a good, tough, hard-hitting game of rugby for the most part.

What is interesting though is that there have been very few replies that actually address what I actually started the thread to discuss.

I started the thread hoping to get opinions on the awarding a retrospective ban to a self-confessed drug cheat and whether that is an effective punishment given that he has played several games during what is now his official banned period, including 3 Origin games and whether the NRL should strip his team of their Origin win, as they have done to other teams that have later been found to be in breach of the rules.

I made a big list of things that I don't give a rats asre about the other day and the drug problems in the AFL with Essendon and Hird were right up near the top of the list, but that seems to be all anyone wants to discuss as soon as you mention drugs in sport.

Apart from Crowie saying drug cheats should be banned for life, which I happen to totally agree with, nobody else has really given any input on the original question, but have hijacked the thread off to other places like refereeing, different sports etc. I can understand different sports when it is using an example as a precedent but none of the references to Essendon and AFL seem to fit that criterion, unlike the Warne and Armstrong examples that have been raised.

Does anyone else have an opinion on whether a retrospective ban is any penalty at all unless they nullify the results of any games played during the period of the retrospective ban? I know that it will probably never happen because the NRL is dominated by NSW, but if the boot was on the other foot, I bet they would not have any hesitation in stripping QLD of a title or two.

Now, citing Essendon as a precedent, it has just come out that Essendon was offered a deal that their players could serve a suspension in the off season instead of the sanctions that the club accepted. Why was that? Well I don't know for sure but it might have had something to do with having to admit they were guilty to be eligible, or might it have been that the club knew they were guilty and knew that accepting a bull$hit penalty would not have gone down well with the general public?

Well, now that I know that Essendon was offered a watered down deal too I have to wonder if the sporting administration bodies and ASADA really want to keep sport clean or just want to create an appearance and not rock too many boats. it seems to be an attitude of"you are guilty but we are going to find a way that we con be seen to be punishing you without really hurting you, your teams and the corporate sponsors.

Well congratulations to them if that is the case because they have just ruined the last bastion of truly representative sport.

Cheers

Doug

[Twisted Tenon]

My opinion is that these bans are the best that can be expected because ASADA have botched the process. I believe the Cronulla players have only admitted to illegal drug use because they were offered a soft punishment. From their public statements they clearly don't believe they have broken any laws. The soft punishments indicate to me that ASADA have not handled the matter properly. Some of my posts have alluded to this. Other sports cycling and the Olympics have a superior monitoring system and their bans stick. Wendal Sailor received a 12 month ban for using a recreational drug and the NRL was all over that.

TT

[Twisted Tenon]

Further to my above post this (http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/who-duped-cronulla-sharks-players-and-how-did-they-do-it-20140825-10823s.html) was in today's Herald. It raises some questions around the players culpability and sheds some light on the reasons for the light sentences. In looking at the original question, of course the result should stand. The offence occurred in 2011, Gallen had presumably not used since then.

TT

[Ironwood]

Well, looking at the upside of Paul Gallens suspension, at least the wonker will have some spare time to model for the bronze statue that NSW was going to make and put outside the stadium :D.



On a more serious note, I think ASADA should have to answer on why it took so long to deal with this issue.
I think the players in question should have been stood down from the start , and the investigation done asap. We wouldnt have this rediculous mess we have now.

[Twisted Tenon]

It looks like things are catching up to Gallen now with his omission from the Dally M (http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/nrl/paul-gallen-and-all-suspended-cronulla-sharks-players-banned-by-nrl-from-dally-m-awards/story-fni3gol8-1227039764391) award. It's within the rules but should have happened in 2012.

TT

[Ironwood]

I can't believe the audacity of the man, did he honestly think he would be allowed to box on an undercard on the Lepai fight.

[FenceFurniture]

My son lives in Cronulla, and apparently it's reasonably well known local knowledge that there is more to the story, in an off-field "behavioural" sense. Probably much of it is hearsay, but by crikey it's easy enough to believe the rumour when one looks at other "consumptions" that footballers have been done for.

It's galling, I say, and definitely not gallent. :D

[Twisted Tenon]

My son lives in Cronulla, and apparently it's reasonably well known local knowledge that there is more to the story, in an off-field "behavioural" sense. Probably much of it is hearsay, but by crikey it's easy enough to believe the rumour when one looks at other "consumptions" that footballers have been done for.

It's galling, I say, and definitely not gallent. :D

There's always more to the storey than we get told. Sounds like the stuff I hear about a couple of players from a team to the north of Gosford :rolleyes:

TT

[FenceFurniture]

Sounds like the stuff I hear about a couple of players from a team to the north of Gosford :rolleyes:Ah yes, the notorious Cape York Yobbos. Not them?

[Twisted Tenon]

Well, south of the Tweed and just north of Gosford. Yobbo's works for me though, it apparently runs in their family.

TT