Sly's story seems backward to me. He is talking infraction notices before Dank has been interviewed. He may be on the money but logic would say all the evidence is not in.

Given the high profile nature of this issue in the major football code in Australia and the fact that it cam to light via an Australian Crime Commission investigation, I would think WADA and ASADA would be working closely on this in both a formal and informal sense. Fahey has not being making statements in the press because he likes the media. The timing, tenor and content of his statements have been clear.

I can't see any logic of Hirds legal team supplying Sly with a story. Firstly, Hird is not subject to any pending litigation so there could little motive for their actions. Secondly, it's in Hirds interest that he lies low on this hoping to pass him by. Thirdly there is no benefit for Hird promoting the fact that EFC players will get notices. And finally and most importantly Sly is not that dumb to be someone's parrot.

Something's happening soon ...

ASADA set to charge Bombers: Sly

If Sly's right then it would seem that those who get infraction notices will get off reasonably lightly - perhaps 6 - 12 months while some may even get off with lighter sentences than that depending on what they took or were given and/or because of the level of assistance given to the enquiry. It wouldn't sit entirely well with me if footballers who signed waiver forms citing banned substances were given consideration but of course, it would make me feel more comfortable about our blokes who have yet to be fully investigated.

Importantly, let's hope they get the blokes who push these substances at football clubs and to athletes and who have been making a living at it.

And as for pretty boy ...

Quite frankly this is just more bs. Who is this Sly fellow..another Messendon apologist ?? The players are blameless...clearly?? Really...like f they are. WADA maintains and always has done its the individuals responsibility to ask, to know, and to take responsibility. So , this is now NOT the case ?? rubbish.

Someone is playing fast and loose with interpretations. There is no concern via WADA as to knock ons. What I see as a flaw in all these scenarios is that only half a dozen might be given notices. Whats special about them or rather whats more special about those NOT receiving notices ?? My understanding is the greater part of the list underwent this 'program' How do some get off ??

Quite frankly this is just more bs. Who is this Sly fellow..another Messendon apologist ?? The players are blameless...clearly?? Really...like f they are. WADA maintains and always has done its the individuals responsibility to ask, to know, and to take responsibility. So , this is now NOT the case ?? rubbish.

Someone is playing fast and loose with interpretations. There is no concern via WADA as to knock ons. What I see as a flaw in all these scenarios is that only half a dozen might be given notices. Whats special about them or rather whats more special about those NOT receiving notices ?? My understanding is the greater part of the list underwent this 'program' How do some get off ??

BB has someone upset you?

MessyDrugs are all innocent, as the golden boy told us so.

It just means supplement are in all AFL clubs except MFC

As the MFC will be fined again after another investigation as its what the AFL Commission does.

BB has someone upset you?

MessyDrugs are all innocent, as the golden boy told us so.

It just means supplement are in all AFL clubs except MFC

As the MFC will be fined again after another investigation as its what the AFL Commission does.

Nupp lol

Its just plainly annoying that so much is hyperbole ( yes I know i run the risk of self recrimination ) . This is spin doctoring and a blatant attempt to redirect. These media hacks are incredulous.

Nupp lol

Its just plainly annoying that so much is hyperbole ( yes I know i run the risk of self recrimination ) . This is spin doctoring and a blatant attempt to redirect. These media hacks are incredulous.

yep and i noticed matt cram (the journo) made no effort to contact wada to verify story.

i'm sure if he did there would be no story. a bit like plausible denial if you don't ask

btw if the story was true and wada made an exception for essendrug this would just create a precedent where players could claim immunity by just signing a waiver drawn up by the club doctor.

this is the reason they can't let the players off based on signing a club authorized waiver

Given the high profile nature of this issue in the major football code in Australia and the fact that it cam to light via an Australian Crime Commission investigation, I would think WADA and ASADA would be working closely on this in both a formal and informal sense. Fahey has not being making statements in the press because he likes the media. The timing, tenor and content of his statements have been clear.

I can't see any logic of Hirds legal team supplying Sly with a story. Firstly, Hird is not subject to any pending litigation so there could little motive for their actions. Secondly, it's in Hirds interest that he lies low on this hoping to pass him by. Thirdly there is no benefit for Hird promoting the fact that EFC players will get notices. And finally and most importantly Sly is not that dumb to be someone's parrot.

Whether it is Hird's legal team or Essendon's, it matters little. My legal friends acquainted to the Hird legal team (yes, as i understand it, they are still engaged) say he still expects to be re-appointed, and given Essendon's intransigence so far on this, it would not surprise me in the least.

I would expect them to get up to all sorts of mischief this year to de-stabilise the AFL (I see the latest Robinson spat as the initial shot across the bows). It would not surprise me at all if they were behind this, with Robinson being their chief acolyte.

Hird and Co can do all they like with respect to the AFL . its WADA who carry the big stick. Good luck* with that James !!

edit

* actually I wish him absolutely no luck at all !!

Hird and Co can do all they like with respect to the AFL . its WADA who carry the big stick. Good luck with that James !!

I agree. It is one of the reasons I doubt the Sylvester scenario. WADA have always run their own race. They are famous for not being penetrated by outside influences.The suggestion that it is otherwise (as in the Sylvester item) to me is ludicrous, but it is just the sort of delusional, money driven tricks the Essendon/Hird legal teams will get up to.

Stand by for more 3AW rumor file nonsense on this issue folks.

Whether it is Hird's legal team or Essendon's, it matters little. My legal friends acquainted to the Hird legal team (yes, as i understand it, they are still engaged) say he still expects to be re-appointed, and given Essendon's intransigence so far on this, it would not surprise me in the least.

I would expect them to get up to all sorts of mischief this year to de-stabilise the AFL (I see the latest Robinson spat as the initial shot across the bows). It would not surprise me at all if they were behind this, with Robinson being their chief acolyte.

It still does not make sense why Hird or Essendon legal teams would brief Sly particularly in regard to comments about notices to players. Its in neither parties interest to do so. And if there is a issue on Hirds contract then surely its a matter bw Hird and EFC. And its all meaningless until ASADA determines if notices are to be issued.

btw if the story was true and wada made an exception for essendrug this would just create a precedent where players could claim immunity by just signing a waiver drawn up by the club doctor.

this is the reason they can't let the players off based on signing a club authorized waiver

Given WADAs public statements and the implications of such a precedent across all sporting codes globally then its gotta be rubbish.

Hird and Co can do all they like with respect to the AFL . its WADA who carry the big stick. Good luck* with that James !!

edit

* actually I wish him absolutely no luck at all !!

Judgement Day is coming

Hird and Co can do all they like with respect to the AFL . its WADA who carry the big stick. Good luck* with that James !!

edit

* actually I wish him absolutely no luck at all !!

Judgement Day is coming

They, at very best reading, attempted "to gain advantage" by pharmacological means with drugs not approved by WADA ASADA

WADA have never given any user "benefit of the doubt" due to ignorance, so it would be very surprising to see them letting this one slip through unsanctioned.

If they did it would be the end of them, and the end of any "drug free sport", should such exist, anywhere in the world. In other words, open slather.

They, at very best reading, attempted "to gain advantage" by pharmacological means with drugs not approved by WADA ASADA

WADA have never given any user "benefit of the doubt" due to ignorance, so it would be very surprising to see them letting this one slip through unsanctioned.

If they did it would be the end of them, and the end of any "drug free sport", should such exist, anywhere in the world. In other words, open slather.

As ridiculous as it is i think they ( Hird et Co ) are just delusional and ignorant of what is really about to hit them. They are so bloody used to their own gold fish bowl they think thats how it is, that they can rule the roost etc.

Smack'em hard WADA !!

Whether it is Hird's legal team or Essendon's, it matters little. My legal friends acquainted to the Hird legal team (yes, as i understand it, they are still engaged) say he still expects to be re-appointed, and given Essendon's intransigence so far on this, it would not surprise me in the least.

I would expect them to get up to all sorts of mischief this year to de-stabilise the AFL (I see the latest Robinson spat as the initial shot across the bows). It would not surprise me at all if they were behind this, with Robinson being their chief acolyte.

The legal team in conjunction with the team of spin doctors Hird has on his books as well I'd suspect.

What's important to remember here is that Armstrong never tested positive to a banned drug and to cop a lengthy ban, no athlete necessarily needs to test positive to a banned drug .

Not entirely correct, he tested positive for steroids in 1999, and his doctors issued a back-dated authorisation for use of a cream that contained cortisone.

But yes, you don't need to test positive to be banned. In fact, none of the riders who were banned as part of the Armstrong case ever tested positive, though that's not the first time: none of the riders banned through being part of the Puerto blood doping affair (Basso, Valverde etc.) tested positive, same story for those involved in the Festina affair (Virenque etc.) and even well-known banned dopers such as David Millar and Michael Rasmussen never tested positive.

Sorry, a digression. Essendon/Dank. Their time will come.

Brief grab on ABC news with John Fahey as he left for O.S. Stated that the only punishment imposed on Essendon was by AFL for governance issues. He declares he is patient and that the case is still open. The meeting he is attending is to consider extending bans from 2 years to 4 years and I suspect Essendon is yet to feel the sting of the drug testing agencies.

As ridiculous as it is i think they ( Hird et Co ) are just delusional and ignorant of what is really about to hit them. They are so bloody used to their own gold fish bowl they think thats how it is, that they can rule the roost etc.

Smack'em hard WADA !!

Oh What a Feeling

As ridiculous as it is i think they ( Hird et Co ) are just delusional and ignorant of what is really about to hit them. They are so bloody used to their own gold fish bowl they think thats how it is, that they can rule the roost etc.

Smack'em hard WADA !!

Well ASADA will, and if they squib it, WADA will intervene to make sure the penalties are appropriate. This will happen no matter what self serving so called rumours are spread on 3AW. It won't make a blind bit of difference to the outcome. The train has left the station for Hird & Co. The competition will not look the same next year, and prepare for a year of ongoing litigation.

The laughable aspect will be when it DOES happen they will cry foul. They will ask where did this heavy handed governance suddenly come from !!

This counter ploy by the Messendon troll brigade is comical. They seem to think they'll ultimately be judged in some court of public opinion. its like theyve turned up to play on court 1 when the real game is on Centre Court.

They seem to be missing the point, or at least trying to obsfucate it.

Brief grab on ABC news with John Fahey as he left for O.S. Stated that the only punishment imposed on Essendon was by AFL for governance issues. He declares he is patient and that the case is still open. The meeting he is attending is to consider extending bans from 2 years to 4 years and I suspect Essendon is yet to feel the sting of the drug testing agencies.

Yes, I heard a grab where he said there were a few chapters still to run in this story.

For those interested.

Fahey on the aunty

Asada hits dead-end with Gazelle.

It's been three months since ASADA was supposed to have been given some teeth in terms of interviewing people to help collect evidence in its investigations. It seems to me that the process is either flawed or inadequate or ASADA itself is incompetent. Whilst ASADA doesn't appear to have any time limits to complete its work, this is starting to look like a bit of a farce when they can't even get close to Dank's underling, let alone Dank himself.

Meanwhile, ASADA Chief John Fahey continues to advocate for patience.

James Hird might still be targeted by ASADA