Bombers scandal: charged, <redacted> and <infracted>

[beelzebub 23,390]

  On 24/11/2014 at 07:16, Qwerty30 said:

They didn't have players suspended as well. And the penalty Storm were done for was salary cap rorting. The penalties were at the Club and not the player level.

I acknowledge that but irrespective of how they got there they had the backbone to go on wards and play with spirit and for the jumper.

Whatever is left of the despicable Essendon they too should seek to emulate at least a feigning of character and resolve.

It would be the first step in regainng some respect, not only for themselves but by others of them.

[Qwerty30 196]

  On 24/11/2014 at 07:41, beelzebub said:

I acknowledge that but irrespective of how they got there they had the backbone to go on wards and play with spirit and for the jumper.

Whatever is left of the despicable Essendon they too should seek to emulate at least a feigning of character and resolve.

It would be the first step in regainng some respect, not only for themselves but by others of them.

I think the situation of Essendon and Melbourne Storm are completely different.

And the players will have very little chance for showing character and resolve if theyre suspended for up to 12 months.

With all due respect for the situation the players have been in, I think they have shown significant resolve and character given the sword of fate over their heads.

FWIW, i think both during the supplements program and in the manner in which the club has responded to this, the players have been treated appallingly by Club officials.

Essendon will only regain respect in the eyes of the football if those in senior positions in charge of the club involved with this terrible saga are exited from sport all together. Starting with Hird and closely followed by Bomber, the evil doctor, President Didlittle and coterie of nodding directors who have all failed their roles.

[beelzebub 23,390]

the players have indeed been treated appallingly

the players are also their own worst enemy

[Qwerty30 196]

  On 24/11/2014 at 09:31, beelzebub said:

the players have indeed been treated appallingly

the players are also their own worst enemy

And thats why the Melbourne Storm situation does not apply to EFC at all.

The Storm were hung out to dry by Brian Waldron and had all their past glories taken from them. The issue did not directly involve them but they were punished.

In EFCs case they're going to have their futures not their past taken from them.

And while the ASADA holds them and not the key officials involved accountable, there is no doubt they have been royally duped and I believe this will be a mitigate their punishment to less than 12 months.

This whole saga will result in WADA developing tougher protocols and penalties for club officials at club that breach the WADA rules.

[DemonFrog 1,359]

  On 24/11/2014 at 09:31, beelzebub said:

the players have indeed been treated appallingly

the players are also their own worst enemy

A 2 year ban is what they deserve

[darkhorse72 1,938]

In terms of penalty. I just think of that VFL player that decided to import steroids of some type. He never received or took them so he got no benefit as they were intercepted. But was suspended for 2 years if i remember correctly.

So if the Essendon players are found guilty, how can they not be given a minimum of 2 years. They actively injected the illegal substances into their body and gained benefit form that against the rules.

It is irrelevant that they were duped etc, they accepted the drugs and like many people pointed out with other sports, its does not matter how you got it, voluntary or tricked, if you use illegal drugs you get banned.

The VFL has set the standard 2yrs. How could they give even less for a far more deliberate attempt to gain an unfair advantage.

[Cards13 9,117]

Because the AFL will do whatever they can to protect the brand. They are the NFL v 2. Full of sh it about integrity, protecting the image of the sport and yet will protect Ess for the money.

[monoccular 17,703]

  On 24/11/2014 at 11:51, Cards13 said:

Because the AFL will do whatever they can to protect the brand. They are the NFL v 2. Full of sh it about integrity, protecting the image of the sport and yet will protect Ess for the money.

Protecting the image and integrity etc etc and allowing any of the EFC officials, support staff, administrators to ever have any involvement are totally mutually exclusive The already severely tainted brand will be totally trashed forever

And, yes the players may have been duped, maybe, but they did consent to and accept mystery injections and surely must have been told that they would improve / enhance performance otherwise why take them? "Here, have this shot - it isn't performance enhancing by the way but take it any way". "Yes sir". What total BS.

[Its Time for Another 4,306]

  On 24/11/2014 at 05:57, sue said:

Is that assuming no players are rubbed out? If they are rubbed out, then the team which plays their 'reserves' twice (or before the ban expires) has an extra 4 points over other teams which don't and a boosted percentage (assuming the likely outcome is a hiding). Am I missing something?

That's exactly the point and why just having them play for no points is irrelevant to what this does to the rest of the competition. Any way you look at it other than them getting off completely the damage to next year's season is going to be considerable. Imagine the damage to the AFL brand and Australian sport in general if they get off completely because ASADA couldn't prove what they took because they didn't keep records. What a great precedent for drug cheating on a massive sporting team level. Just don't keep records and you won't have a problem. You can see why strict liability would be appropriate and the onus on the drug accused. In this case they all admitted having injections, so show us the proof of what they were or you are automatically banned. Getting ASADA to have to chase around and find out what they took is ridiculous.

[Willmoy1947 4,238]

I agree. The penalty for deception should be equal to if not greater than the act itself. And that is mutually inclusive.

And then look at the ramifications.....

[robbiefrom13 894]

the AFL doesn't like 'the ramifications" - and that would be a bigger issue for the AFL than their not liking systematic drug cheating in the league, or Essendon's pursuit of loopholes when caught?

If "the ramifications" (spell it out: = loss of money) is a bigger issue than drugs in sport, then the AFL thinks like Little and the turd (and like them, assumes the football public will endorse such values). Ramification of this? The AFL makes the scale of Essendon's corruption of the game seem so much smaller by comparison. But their clear message to us - "Get with the programme, naives - this is the Twenty-first Century! On with the show!..."

[monoccular 17,703]

  On 24/11/2014 at 13:28, willmoy said:

I agree. The penalty for deception should be equal to if not greater than the act itself. And that is mutually inclusive.

And then look at the ramifications.....

A bit like refusing a breath test - isn't the penalty somewhat equivalent in terms of licence suspension as a high level positive?

They just cannot be allowed to get away with it by destroying / hiding / losing their records.

[Qwerty30 196]

  On 24/11/2014 at 11:46, Darkhorse72 said:

In terms of penalty. I just think of that VFL player that decided to import steroids of some type. He never received or took them so he got no benefit as they were intercepted. But was suspended for 2 years if i remember correctly.

So if the Essendon players are found guilty, how can they not be given a minimum of 2 years. They actively injected the illegal substances into their body and gained benefit form that against the rules.

It is irrelevant that they were duped etc, they accepted the drugs and like many people pointed out with other sports, its does not matter how you got it, voluntary or tricked, if you use illegal drugs you get banned.

The VFL has set the standard 2yrs. How could they give even less for a far more deliberate attempt to gain an unfair advantage.

Wade Lees got 2 years because he imported a banned substance. Under ASADA rules if you import a banned substance then it is prima facie proof that you have taken illegal substances. The Essendon players did not import.

I would have thought the Cronulla example would indicate that the Essendon players wont get 2 years. They will get more than the Cronulla players but they wont get 2 years. I think ASADA have realised that notwithstanding the ultimate culpabiility of the players that there are extenuating circumstances.that existed at EFC. It wont get them off but it will mitigate the extent of penalties.

[Qwerty30 196]

  On 24/11/2014 at 12:51, monoccular said:

And, yes the players may have been duped, maybe, but they did consent to and accept mystery injections and surely must have been told that they would improve / enhance performance otherwise why take them? "Here, have this shot - it isn't performance enhancing by the way but take it any way". "Yes sir". What total BS.

The issue is not the performance enhancement. The issue is the substances taken were banned by ASADA.

  On 24/11/2014 at 17:55, monoccular said:

A bit like refusing a breath test - isn't the penalty somewhat equivalent in terms of licence suspension as a high level positive?

They just cannot be allowed to get away with it by destroying / hiding / losing their records.

I think you are confusing the players with the officials.

I dont think the analogy is right.

And its the Club officials (especially Dr Reid) who should be held accountable on that one.

How he could just go silent when he had initial serious concerns and then turned a blind eye to the lack of record keeping is atrocious.

[Wells 11 5,476]

  On 24/11/2014 at 18:57, Qwerty30 said:

The issue is not the performance enhancement. The issue is the substances taken were banned by ASADA.

I think you are confusing the players with the officials.

I dont think the analogy is right.

And its the Club officials (especially Dr Reid) who should be held accountable on that one.

How he could just go silent when he had initial serious concerns and then turned a blind eye to the lack of record keeping is atrocious.

I dont there WAS a lack of record keeping. Of all the crap floating around in this story that has to be the biggest turd floating in the pond. There is just no way that players being injected, on that scale at that frequency, were not being carefully monitored.

[Whispering_Jack 31,323]

  On 24/11/2014 at 19:33, Wells 11 said:

I dont there WAS a lack of record keeping. Of all the crap floating around in this story that has to be the biggest turd floating in the pond. There is just no way that players being injected, on that scale at that frequency, were not being carefully monitored.

Quite.

There is no doubt that records were kept and were either destroyed or removed from Essendon's possession.

And while the coaching, medical and fitness staff must all be brought to account for this, the players are not without blame either for their part in this scandal. They have been the recipients of substantial amounts of information about the AFL's anti doping code and are aware of their responsibilities about what goes into their bodies. The evidence in the forthcoming tribunal will determine whether they are guilty of any breaches of that code and determine any sanctions.

If found guilty, the interesting question will be whether they should benefit from the time elapsed between the beginning of the programme and the imposition of any penalty. I believe they should not because the delays have been brought about through the conduct of the club and officials including the issue of not being able to produce the records and then the subsequent Federal Court litigation.

Incredibly, some of the major players in all this remain in control of the board, the senior coach and the medical officer. That's what really boggles the mind.

[Gorgoroth 13,190]

Their time should begin once all court proceedings by any one at Essendon has started, if they get banned for 12 months, the first day should start ones Hirds court cases are thrown out.

[Qwerty30 196]

  On 24/11/2014 at 19:48, Whispering_Jack said:

Quite.

There is no doubt that records were kept and were either destroyed or removed from Essendon's possession.

And while the coaching, medical and fitness staff must all be brought to account for this, the players are not without blame either for their part in this scandal.

Incredibly, some of the major players in all this remain in control of the board, the senior coach and the medical officer. That's what really boggles the mind.

How are the coaching, medical and fitness staff going to be brought to account in all of this?

Aside from a 12 month paid suspension/ holiday to the coach, not one penalty has been made to stick on the perpetrators.

[beelzebub 23,390]

WORKSAFE !! ^^^^

[DemonFrog 1,359]

  On 24/11/2014 at 20:27, beelzebub said:

WORKSAFE !! ^^^^

I think they are all Essendon supporter BB

[Bedraggled Dee 336]

  On 24/11/2014 at 12:51, monoccular said:

Protecting the image and integrity etc etc and allowing any of the EFC officials, support staff, administrators to ever have any involvement are totally mutually exclusive The already severely tainted brand will be totally trashed forever

And, yes the players may have been duped, maybe, but they did consent to and accept mystery injections and surely must have been told that they would improve / enhance performance otherwise why take them? "Here, have this shot - it isn't performance enhancing by the way but take it any way". "Yes sir". What total BS.

What do you think the role of the AFL should be. The AFL strategy on this issue starddles the fence as it should. On one hand they are responsible for the Brand and competition and need to ensure that it is cklean and seen to be clean, and on the other hand they have to ensure that Essendon survive and remain a viable force in the AFL for the finanicial well being of the competition. The AFL is there to protect and grow the clubs including Essendon

The AFL is also hamstrung in needing to get the Bombers cooperation with any sanctions. The demons who are financially reliant on the AFL do not want the AFL in costly legal battles with one of its clubs and noether do any other clubs in the comp.

100% of the blame for this matter lies with the Bombers. They instigated the supplements program after being warned against it by the AFL, they employed Dank and Robinsdon, they had poor or non-existent governance, they injected the young men employed by them and they have shown no acceptance of there reponsibility for this or shown any remorse for the wrongs committed. They paid Hird when the AFL clearly thought that he was suspended without pay and they have launched legal action to bury the evidence against themselves. Essesndon and Hirds approach has always been to attack the process and entties rather than answer the allegations.

The AFLhave made mistakes but strategically they have always been in a no win position and were going to come out of this covered in muck. All the froath and bother over the joint investigation is likely to come to nothing. A federal court has already ruled that ASADA and teh AFL did nothing wrong. The biggest mistake the AFL made was not to ensure that the governance penalties handed out were not watertight and did not allow Hird and the Bombers to wriggle free.

[Melbman2 226]

A minor point but when/if Jobe and Fletcher are found guilty, does the result of the international game get reversed because drug cheats were playing?

If not then AFL can't really back date their penalties.

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

  On 24/11/2014 at 22:31, Melbman2 said:

A minor point but when/if Jobe and Fletcher are found guilty, does the result of the international game get reversed because drug cheats were playing?

If not then AFL can't really back date their penalties.

I think they were granted an exemption for that game.

[Willmoy1947 4,238]

Were the Essendon Players paid in some way, either remuneration or perk, to agree to participate in this experiment?

This could go in some way to explain silence, non compliance and social situation....

[daisycutter 29,944]

  On 24/11/2014 at 22:48, Choke said:

I think they were granted an exemption for that game.

it's probably amounts to the same thing but strangely they were given the choice......weird