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

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 and 2009 premierships and 2006, 2007 and 2009 minor premierships), and sentencing them to finish the 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 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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Twisted Tenon

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Twisted Tenon

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Twisted Tenon

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Twisted Tenon

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Twisted Tenon

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doug3030

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doug3030

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Stinkalot

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

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob38S

I stopped watching football years ago when the big money moved in

---

I'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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

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? :;

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Handyjack

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doug3030

Thats why I like State of Origin.

---

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

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...