Football clubs like everyone have to work within the law. They have to abide by common laws as well as those set down by any BODY that has a juristiction in their realm, i,e sport.

They have a duty of care as they are contracted to perform a task for remunerations. That contract will have stipulations and its incumbant upon the signees to be dilligent and maintain their optimum abilities ( both sides of coin )

maybe all footballers arent cluey but many are. I have one AFL player in my Building class and hes surprised me with his understandings and abilites. Whod have think from a bloke who turns up in Ripcurl trackies and Haviannas !! lol

These guys talk amongst themselves. Much of it is about what they do. You cant tel me there were NO convos relating to the good or bad of these injections. The fact they had to sign something !!

Surely alarm bells rang in someones mind !!!

How did this all not permeate its way to the powers that be ? Of course it did. Some chose to just leave it as "unoffical" and lay claim to plausible deniability.

Theyve rolled the dice...and its come up crapps !!

they can wear it .

What urks me is that by nature Im a disbeliving sod. Someone comes to me with such and such or lays claim to something that has a direct impact on me or exposes me to risk then Ill tell them, yep, I'll get back to you on that.

I'll go and ask someone or look it up and find out. I believe hardly anyone about most things. Invariably much is just as is reckoned and all is fine. We all know however sometimes things are not quite as represented. Golly, some people tell fibs ffs . Its terrible

I lay claim to no Rocket Scientist intellect ( and many of you will kindly concur !! ) So if I can be dubious , I would think any number of those players would also be, especially as noted that they are constantly being told to be vigilant about what they take as it WILL come back to THEM !!

They cheated, simple as.

everybody concurs your no rocket scientist

everybody concurs your no rocket scientist

thankyou, can I interest you in some brain surgery perhaps !

they certainly aren't rocket scientists and are still kids and maybe even naive but when getting injected must have been given a story by someone who they had been told had credibility. the trail may be difficult and lead to some awkward places ala Jobes admission but must be done

and yes it may mean EFC has to endure the same treatment that MFC has but like us it can be used to "make us stronger"

AFL needs to acknowledge that position in all its actions

thankyou, can I interest you in some brain surgery perhaps !

I did like the phrase hes no rocket surgeon used by Micallef I think

i will probably bet you that on any list there any number of lawyers/law students. Business majors, engineering students, and many doing advanced sports courses.

maybe no rocket scientists or Sheldons but....

Now go on...tell me that NO ONE knew this stuff was verbotten !!

can anybody tweet , whateley or robbo and ask the question , maybe print answer

if boss asks them to take 50 nails in gutz to be better reporters would they believe it?

This is a huge dilemma for the AFL when you consider all the conciliatory noises Andrew D and the AFLPA have been making.

Jobe's comments must have been orchestrated for media management purposes. I cannot see it any other way.

Take a decent bloke and terrific player that no one really hates (unlike Fletcher or any other half dozen Bombres), current Brownlow holder and club captain and have him confess and, wide eyed and all, say he is sure he did nothing wrong so that when it comes out that these blokes have been on the monkey glands or whatever they have been up to, we all say yeah tell us something new. The AFL fines the club $500,000 and the players roll on.

Obviously ASADA will have something to say about penalties but it's all being set up to be glossed over with AD's compliance.

Happily the public reaction has been more heated than, I think, they were expecting.

can anybody tweet , whateley or robbo and ask the question , maybe print answer

if boss asks them to take 50 nails in gutz to be better reporters would they believe it?

Jazza I am not disagreeing with your basic premise just making the comment that I can easily imagine how this happened.

However your comparsion above is silly it does not work.

Jazza I am not disagreeing with your basic premise just making the comment that I can easily imagine how this happened.

However your comparsion above is silly it does not work.

why

why

no one would believe sticking nails in your guts would achieve anything beyond a very sore Gut

why

Because doing their job has nothing to do with their bodies. If it was poor Robbo would've been retired long ago. If you want to performance enhance him he doesn't need peptides just to give up drinking and smoking.

It's been a perfect storm that led to this. No AFL club has every systematically doped before so the players were unsuspecting. Dank came from various sporting clubs so he had a degree of trust. Bruce Reid the players trust with their lives. There was at some stage a presentation to the players that all was above board and the consent form sounds like the proof they wanted. All in all the players were duped mightily.

It's easily to say how dumb they were in hindsight but now players will be on guard. Before players never had any suspicion that their own clubs would put them at risk.

The AFL/Essendon have lined up a few good arguements.

1. AOD isn't actually banned

2. AOD isn't actually illegal it's just a substance not performance enhancing drug therefore like soap or honey it doesn't need to be approved for human use

and if they fail

3. The players were duped fine the club and punish individuals but let the playing group off.

The sadist in me wants Asada and the AFL to fine the club, force some staff out of positions and the playing group to be ok.

Then WADA bring the people's elbow off the top rope, pick them up, DIAMOND CUTTER!!! BAM!!!!!!

2 years for all!!!

Because doing their job has nothing to do with their bodies. If it was poor Robbo would've been retired long ago. If you want to performance enhance him he doesn't need peptides just to give up drinking and smoking.

It's been a perfect storm that led to this. No AFL club has every systematically doped before so the players were unsuspecting. Dank came from various sporting clubs so he had a degree of trust. Bruce Reid the players trust with their lives. There was at some stage a presentation to the players that all was above board and the consent form sounds like the proof they wanted. All in all the players were duped mightily.

It's easily to say how dumb they were in hindsight but now players will be on guard. Before players never had any suspicion that their own clubs would put them at risk.

The AFL/Essendon have lined up a few good arguements.

1. AOD isn't actually banned

2. AOD isn't actually illegal it's just a substance not performance enhancing drug therefore like soap or honey it doesn't need to be approved for human use

and if they fail

3. The players were duped fine the club and punish individuals but let the playing group off.

poppycock,

if your asked to put a syringe in your stomach 50 times a year and don't tell anybody its a secret

if its nothing harmful or dangerous , then what use will it be

don't complicate a simple thing. its all over and the afl is trying to soften the imflammation

as mfc supporters and I would suggest all club supporters, should be asking for ACTION not this rule that rule and they didn't know.

don't be fooled its just about honesty

the coach gets the choice of what to do and what procedures to follow

he takes every responsebility for all training programs

Because doing their job has nothing to do with their bodies. If it was poor Robbo would've been retired long ago. If you want to performance enhance him he doesn't need peptides just to give up drinking and smoking.

It's been a perfect storm that led to this. No AFL club has every systematically doped before so the players were unsuspecting. Dank came from various sporting clubs so he had a degree of trust. Bruce Reid the players trust with their lives. There was at some stage a presentation to the players that all was above board and the consent form sounds like the proof they wanted. All in all the players were duped mightily.

It's easily to say how dumb they were in hindsight but now players will be on guard. Before players never had any suspicion that their own clubs would put them at risk.

The AFL/Essendon have lined up a few good arguements.

1. AOD isn't actually banned

2. AOD isn't actually illegal it's just a substance not performance enhancing drug therefore like soap or honey it doesn't need to be approved for human use

and if they fail

3. The players were duped fine the club and punish individuals but let the playing group off.

I had a discussion a couple of days ago with a lawyer who has an interest in this particular part of the law and he was of the view that seemed in accord with 2 above but only in certain cases where a medical practitioner prescribes a formulation to deal with a medical complaint and AOD9064 is used as part of that formula and prepared by a compounding chemist. If that's what was applied as part of a cream prescribed by the club doctor for Jack Trengrove, this was not illegal. It's a different thing in his view, if the substance was directly injected as it was apparently done by Essendon.

However, the Bombers argument might well be along these lines - AFL code gives Watson a way out

1. AOD isn't actually banned

Wrong. It is banned under wada code S0. That part is black and white.

History shows it doesn't bode well

Article on Wade Lees by Samantha Lane in the Age. Wade copped 18 months and never even possessed the product, let alone used it.

can anybody tweet , whateley or robbo and ask the question , maybe print answer

if boss asks them to take 50 nails in gutz to be better reporters would they believe it?

As an aside, an astounding lack of outrage from Robbo on this !

Usually operates on a hair-trigger for anything half controversial, but, this time, soft story, no accountability, nothing ..

Pretty pathetic bias

Unfortunately for the players involved, these are international rules of compliance. It is a big story that can't be played down or swept away.

AFL's usual controlled media spin is in trouble - quote Marke Evans yesterday "Watson's comments were not helpful" .. speaks volumes

Wrong. It is banned under wada code S0. That part is black and white.

When was it banned dc?

my understanding is that this did not occur till after the Essendon players had used it.

Sorry JW used it the rest are still claiming "don't know"

The JW admission still leaves me in wonderment.

I can see no reason how it benefits him or the EFC.

When was it banned dc?

my understanding is that this did not occur till after the Essendon players had used it.

Sorry JW used it the rest are still claiming "don't know"

wada claim it preceded essendon's usage.....iirc it was 2011 (maybe late 2010 but certainly pre 2012)

the claim you refer to has been denied publicly many times. I don't believe the timing is any doubt now

even jobe said as much

Reading todays papers i get the impression that Jobe said way too much on the telly the other night.

Nowhere to hide now Essendrug

Because doing their job has nothing to do with their bodies. If it was poor Robbo would've been retired long ago. If you want to performance enhance him he doesn't need peptides just to give up drinking and smoking.

It's been a perfect storm that led to this. No AFL club has every systematically doped before so the players were unsuspecting. Dank came from various sporting clubs so he had a degree of trust. Bruce Reid the players trust with their lives. There was at some stage a presentation to the players that all was above board and the consent form sounds like the proof they wanted. All in all the players were duped mightily.

It's easily to say how dumb they were in hindsight but now players will be on guard. Before players never had any suspicion that their own clubs would put them at risk.

The AFL/Essendon have lined up a few good arguements.

1. AOD isn't actually banned

2. AOD isn't actually illegal it's just a substance not performance enhancing drug therefore like soap or honey it doesn't need to be approved for human use

and if they fail

3. The players were duped fine the club and punish individuals but let the playing group off.

The players only hope is that AOD was not banned at the time they took it. If so they'll get off but Essendon the club will still be whacked by the AFL for having such a program running. I'd be thinking similar penalties to MFC's non-tanking penalties. $500K and Bomber Thompson and/or Danny Corcoran get the Chris Connolly.

If Essendon cannot establish that AOD was not banned at the time then player suspension is mandatory for all the reasons explained - otherwise everyone will be saying "i didn't know" - and the suggestion that it can be served in the off-season is laughable. As the master points out the players were definitely duped and some way of mitigating the penalty down to the minimum 6 months is desirable and warranted. But Jobe's Brownlow is toast. God help Essendon the club in this scenario - for starters without the majority of their player personnel for 2014, if it's decided before the end of the H&A 2013 I'd say stripped of match points this year and excluded from R1 of the 2014 draft (because they'll finish last or near it). Corcoran, Hird, Thompson, Reid all gone. Massive fine - maybe $2M and probably civil suits from the players.

I think WADA has stated that AOD9064 has been on their 'not approved' list which essentially means the same thing as banned since Jan 2011.

Ask yourself this... if this was not performance enhancing why the heck would these players be injecting it, AND requiring a waiver form. AFLPA said very early on in the piece that no player should be required to sign anything from their club outside of their player contract.

Did anyone catch the footy show last night, I was just told by someone that apparently the Bombers confidence is based upon they believe that they are fine due to a 'legal technicality'? Any truth to that?

If that is what their case rests on, and given that they have not even been charged with anything, wouldn't confidence based upon a 'technicality' be a little wobbly as surely ASADA could lay charges against them that could nullify the technicality? Would have thought a technicality normally hinges on wording... which could be countered by other wording.(Thats just my 'non-legal' opinion btw)