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

[Melbman2 226]

Evening comrades.

Quick question: is there any real evidence that Workcover has any intention at all of becoming involved? (I hope there is - like everybody else, I'd love to see the cheaters get hammered, but I've got a mate who works for Workcover - he said the buzz around the office is that they don't plan to become involved - too "political", whatever the hell that means)

I worked in manufacturing from the late 80's through all of the 90's to the very early 2000's and the gov body for accident investigations during that time from my experience was a bit of a marketing exercise. Way more bark than bite.

[Willmoy1947 4,199]

Wouldn't the AFL be justified in orchestrating a penalty to the detriment of ALL clubs equally, or not at all?

This would be not including of course Essendon if as is perceived their players are suspended.

Somebody wise once said that the game is always bigger than the individual (Essendon)

They would be wise to think hard.

[hoopla 418]

I seem to be in the minority that think the Essendon players and coach will not be found guilty by the AFL/ASADA investigations for taking banned substances. I just don't think the link or evidence is strong enough despite believing personally that the doping took place.

Essendon will, however, have the book thrown at them by Workcover Victoria who will give a more crippling penalty than ASADA/AFL could ever give. Essendon will get what they deserve it just wont be the way the general public expect.

I don't understand why the media aren't aren't all over Workcover's relevance to all this. Failure to maintain a safe workplace is a criminal offence.Subjecting your employees to an experimental drug regime is unsafe even if your employees aren't professional athletes - with an obligation to steer clear of a list of particular performance-enhancing drugs.

IF essendon get smashed come afl tribunal and ASADA's evidence is released, making it clear to one and all that its clearly negligent governing (in addition to other things), then workcover would be a disgrace if they didnt get involved.

The Little person should be saving his ammo for the Workcover Warriors - they could obliterate the whole place!!

[jnrmac 20,276]

Evening comrades.

Quick question: is there any real evidence that Workcover has any intention at all of becoming involved? (I hope there is - like everybody else, I'd love to see the cheaters get hammered, but I've got a mate who works for Workcover - he said the buzz around the office is that they don't plan to become involved - too "political", whatever the hell that means)

They are on record saying they are investigating following a complaint in mid-2013!!!!!!!!!!!!

Beggars belief.

[Cards13 9,117]

I don't get the arguments of the whole season will be compromised, 2 seasons going into 3 have been already.

If they are found to have breached the anti-doping rules then the penalties must be delivered without favour. The team and the competition needs deal with the outcomes.

[Cards13 9,117]

They are on record saying they are investigating following a complaint in mid-2013!!!!!!!!!!!!

Beggars belief.

Where are the news stories slagging off WC for a delayed process?

[Dees2014 2,377]

Essendon supplements saga: Hearings to be held behind closed doors

This is shonky on so many levels that it's not funny.

If only the AFL would open up the Tribunal to dare this creep and his "confidant" to have their day in court!

I am surprised at this assessment from you WJ. Even if it is a closed hearing, it will leak, it always does on this sort of public interest hearing. Truth will out eventually, even if it ends up in Europe. In some ways I hope it gets there, at least it will silence the relentless Hird propaganda machine.

They will be left with no where to go.

When this is all over, I hope someone will write the expose on the Australian Press, and the totally unprincipled behaviour of very senior Australian journalists. It has been an utter disgrace. Hopefully we will know eventually what favours were given to whom. It could make the Murdoch scandal in London look like child's play.

Edited December 9, 2014 by Dees2014

[Biffen 12,949]

Well bb Biffen has many weaknesses! He is a drug abuser. He is a drug dealer. He lives of the earnings of immoral woman. I won't go on. Decanting gins is the least of his sins!!

You make me sound like a saint!

I do have a dark side as well.

[Whispering_Jack 31,144]

I am surprised at this assessment from you WJ. Even if it is a closed hearing, it will leak, it always does on this sort of public interest hearing. Truth will out eventually, even if it ends up in Europe. In some ways I hope it gets there, at least it will silence the relentless Hird propaganda machine.

They will be left with no where to go.

When this is all over, I hope someone will write the expose on the Australian Press, and the totally unprincipled behaviour of very senior Australian journalists. It has been an utter disgrace. Hopefully we will know eventually what money was paid to whom. It will make the Murdoch scandal in London look like child's play.

There's no doubt that news from the hearing will be leaked out and the way it's presented will depend on who the messenger might happen to be; that's the way the media works these days.

I was hoping it would be open only because Dank said he would only voluntarily do so if was an open court. I would like to see the arrogant [censored] squirm under cross examination.

[rjay 25,307]

There's no doubt that news from the hearing will be leaked out and the way it's presented will depend on who the messenger might happen to be; that's the way the media works these days.

I was hoping it would be open only because Dank said he would only voluntarily do so if was an open court. I would like to see the arrogant [censored] squirm under cross examination.

He would have made an excuse 'Jack' as you know. He has never intended to put himself before any type of tribunal or court and will only do so kicking and screaming.

[bing181 9,425]

Players not to attend it seems.

Presumably ASADA have all the evidence they need from them.

[Bring-Back-Powell 15,257]

As I said earlier, season 2015 will forever have an asterix next to its name if Essendon players are suspended for part of the season.

The AFL needs to do better than simply allowing 6-8 clubs getting a 'free 4 points'.

[Lucifers Hero 40,524]

Players not to attend it seems.

Presumably ASADA have all the evidence they need from them.

Apparently, players can '...watch the proceedings via access to a live video stream of the courtroom...' Assuming that this is off-site from the Tribunal room nothing to stop them from having their fave journalist there! Pretty hard to control if its being beamed around the country to the home/work of 34 players. So much for a closed hearing!! In all likelihood it will be only 'Joe Public' that doesn't get a front row seat!

I can see some journos literally drooling at the video stream, contriving their next sensational headline. For some reason the rather unpleasant image of Les Patterson comes to mind!

Edited December 9, 2014 by Lucifer's Hero

[Cards13 9,117]

As I said earlier, season 2015 will forever have an asterix next to its name if Essendon players are suspended for part of the season.

The AFL needs to do better than simply allowing 6-8 clubs getting a 'free 4 points'.

The seasons they doped need an asterix, the season they were rubbed out of finals needs one, as I said I don't get that logic. The game needs to be bigger than that, if they are found guilty they need to have the appropriate punishment dishes out without fear of the consequences.

[jnrmac 20,276]

The seasons they doped need an asterix, the season they were rubbed out of finals needs one, as I said I don't get that logic. The game needs to be bigger than that, if they are found guilty they need to have the appropriate punishment dishes out without fear of the consequences.

What about the flag in 1993 when they were 'convicted' and fined for salary cap breaches from 1992-1996.

Should have been taken off them.

And as for drug affected seasons it should be asterisked for every year that one of their 34 players plays a game.

Edited December 9, 2014 by jnrmac

[sue 9,195]

For those complaining about hurting the fixture further, do you see an alternative to punishing a team heavily without compromise to the fixture?

I thought I already had. Simply make games against EFC's 'seconds' practice matches, ie no points, no effect on percentage. Then it doesn't matter much how many times one team play them compared to another.

There is still the relatively minor (compared to easy points) problem that it may give a particular team a rest at a critical time of the year. On the other hand, it is always a risk having such a rest.

Edited December 9, 2014 by sue

[jnrmac 20,276]

As I said earlier, season 2015 will forever have an asterix next to its name if Essendon players are suspended for part of the season.

The AFL needs to do better than simply allowing 6-8 clubs getting a 'free 4 points'.

Why? Refer Melbourne Storm.

[beelzebub 23,390]

I thought I already had. Simply make games against EFC's 'seconds' practice matches, ie no points, no effect on percentage. Then it doesn't matter much how many times one team play them compared to another.

There is still the relatively minor (compared to easy points) problem that it may give a particular team a rest at a critical time of the year. On the other hand, it is always a risk having such a rest.

Whilst a seemingly plausible method you would then have teams crying foul who play them twice as being unable o possibly accumulate the premiership points they might have.

You in effect punish both EFC and who ever is playing them.

edit: The nett effect of such games is a swag of dead rubbers. No one will bother to watch a game for no outcome. There would be TV issues also.

Edited December 9, 2014 by beelzebub

[old dee 24,003]

The penalty is going to be wet lettuce leaves at 20 paces so I don't know what you are all so worked up about

[beelzebub 23,390]

The penalty is going to be wet lettuce leaves at 20 paces so I don't know what you are all so worked up about

OD it cant be. WADA will simply not allow it.

[old dee 24,003]

OD it cant be. WADA will simply not allow it.

Sorry bb but I could not help myself.

Seriously I don't think the penalties will be more than a hand full of Games in effect.

It will be a six month ban with a back date.

And as it is all in camera we will never know what truly went on at the hearing

[dee-luded 2,959]

Well bb Biffen has many weaknesses! He is a drug abuser. He is a drug dealer. He lives of the earnings of immoral woman. I won't go on. Decanting gins is the least of his sins!!

what sorta Gin does he decant, Bbo?

[beelzebub 23,390]

A possible method for season 2015 may be as follows:

Irrespective of what sanctions individual players incur the team as such would play without the ability to win 4 pts. , but not the inability to win a game.

By this who ever is playing EFC still needs to win the game in order to take the 4 pts ( or 2 in case of draw ) Its NOT simply a free 4pts for the team v EFC. Thereby still promoting competition.

its arguable that you shouldn't lose to a cobbled together team but if you do you deserve to not take the lollies.

In this manner only the EFC are punished, as it should be. Some might now suggest you still have the probability of some games being an 'effective " gimme as its a stronger team v a weaker one but surely that's always occurred in the game. It's next to impossible to eradicate that as such.

Premiership points still have some relation to competition and the % still reflects some form of competition having taken place.

Only the EFC is denied the ability to take points but they can still play to deny their opponents some and it keeps the competition real, as far as it could be..imho

[beelzebub 23,390]

Sorry bb but I could not help myself.

Seriously I don't think the penalties will be more than a hand full of Games in effect.

It will be a six month ban with a back date.

And as it is all in camera we will never know what truly went on at the hearing

it wont be 6 months OD as thats only allowed for under mitigation of 1) supposedly NO knowledge of what was going on... an thats not the case...re waivers .etc

and 2 that the individuals applied no impediment to the investigations indeed co -operated to the full. This too is not the case.

Imho the best they could get will be 2 years, and from the tribunal date. The AFL might try to slide 1 year through , agreed.

[old dee 24,003]

it wont be 6 months OD as thats only allowed for under mitigation of 1) supposedly NO knowledge of what was going on... an thats not the case...re waivers .etc

and 2 that the individuals applied no impediment to the investigations indeed co -operated to the full. This too is not the case.

Imho the best they could get will be 2 years, and from the tribunal date. The AFL might try to slide 1 year through , agreed.

More on this tonight bb!

Does it start tomorrow?