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

[biggestred 5,081]

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/focus-on-hird-but-bombers-players-the-real-victims-20131204-2yqk9.html

bang

[sue 9,102]

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/focus-on-hird-but-bombers-players-the-real-victims-20131204-2yqk9.html

bang

hits the proverbial nail on the head

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/focus-on-hird-but-bombers-players-the-real-victims-20131204-2yqk9.html

bang

More like pop.

He is right that the players health is paramount but he is only replaying past known facts.

[Whispering_Jack 30,054]

ASADA joy at Ian Robson quitting, says Essendon clubman

ASADA did not respond to questions.

I'm shocked!

[beelzebub 23,364]

Messendon still paying Hird despite the AFL's instructions he shouldnt be.

Again EFC shows little and scant regard for the authority of the game, they just do what they want.

[binman 42,920]

ASADA joy at Ian Robson quitting, says Essendon clubman

I'm shocked!

. The bombshells keep coming

[CBDees 3,167]

The AFL, Essendon, ASC and whatever mover and shaker they like to broker a deal with behind the scenes, and employ 1000 QC's and spin doctors, it will make no difference.

You see, this is no longer a domestic australian sporting issue. This has become a matter of principle for WADA. At the recent international WADA conference, they spent almost half a day on the Essendon/AFL/NRL doping issues. The reason for this is that all local WADA affiliates have challenges in enforcing the international WADA codes on local sporting bodies, particularly with local wealthy football (in whatever form it is) codes. Apparently WADA affiliates have a continuing problem because nearly all these codes try and evade their legal and moral responsibilities in the areas of drugs because they are used to doing deals to get out of their responsibilities, and often have strong local political connections.

The purpose of the WADA discussion on this was to use the Australian case in the AFL/NRL to lay down the processes for all WADA affiliates to uphold the law in the face of incredible local power, both political and financial.

The world is watching this outcome. It has long ago been taken out of the hands of the local powerbrokers, and the federal government.

For our international prestige as a transparent, law abiding, and just country we can not afford to squib this, no matter how much some might like us to.

Essendon are still stuffed, Paul Little.

You know the person who understands this best? Caroline Wilson. I know many will scoff, but CW is a first class investigative journalist, and these sort of situations are meat and drink to pros like her.

LIKE! Make Hird return all his payments! How can they still be paying him under the terms of his contract? Surely his contract involved him performing a coaching role for his side of the agreement which he is clearly not doing over the next 12 months putting him in breach! Essendon are not as silly as they would like to have everbody believe and they should be sanctioned along with Hird for being so disingenious!

Edited December 4, 2013 by CBDees

[rpfc 28,409]

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/focus-on-hird-but-bombers-players-the-real-victims-20131204-2yqk9.html

No Jon, the Victim of The Essendope Saga is the game of Aussie Rules.

The players have a responsibility to inquire what people are putting into their bodies. If you do not know - you are not taking your chosen profession seriously, and we shouldn't take your claims of victimhood seriously.

The same goes for Trengove if anything ever comes of that.

You are a grown man being told to smear, inject, digest, insert - if you don't do your due diligence you deserve the small penalty that is coming your way.

I hope for the good of the game that the players are served infraction notices before Feb and the AFL can allow Essendon to hire some temps through the state leagues for two years while a few of their players are suspended.

[old dee 23,788]

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/focus-on-hird-but-bombers-players-the-real-victims-20131204-2yqk9.html

No Jon, the Victim of The Essendope Saga is the game of Aussie Rules.

The players have a responsibility to inquire what people are putting into their bodies. If you do not know - you are not taking your chosen profession seriously, and we shouldn't take your claims of victimhood seriously.

The same goes for Trengove if anything ever comes of that.

You are a grown man being told to smear, inject, digest, insert - if you don't do your due diligence you deserve the small penalty that is coming your way.

I hope for the good of the game that the players are served infraction notices before Feb and the AFL can allow Essendon to hire some temps through the state leagues for two years while a few of their players are suspended.

Yep I agree rpfc

It is reducing my enthusiasm for the game and I am an addict!

[titan_uranus 25,016]

The thing is it points to collusion where there ought to have been transparency

No, it doesn't. It points to negotiation, which by its nature is confidential.

One of the biggest beat ups I've ever read. Afl works behind the scene to broker best outcome!!!!! Shock horror. Funny some of the hysterical reactions in this thread actually.

Correct.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/focus-on-hird-but-bombers-players-the-real-victims-20131204-2yqk9.html

No Jon, the Victim of The Essendope Saga is the game of Aussie Rules.

The players have a responsibility to inquire what people are putting into their bodies. If you do not know - you are not taking your chosen profession seriously, and we shouldn't take your claims of victimhood seriously.

The same goes for Trengove if anything ever comes of that.

You are a grown man being told to smear, inject, digest, insert - if you don't do your due diligence you deserve the small penalty that is coming your way.

I hope for the good of the game that the players are served infraction notices before Feb and the AFL can allow Essendon to hire some temps through the state leagues for two years while a few of their players are suspended.

Except when those players have gone to their doctor, coach, sports scientist, and other club officials and asked, and been told it's safe, and have asked for assurances (in the form of waivers) from the club that the WADA Code has been complied with.

[daisycutter 29,613]

No, it doesn't. It points to negotiation, which by its nature is confidential.

tell that to the arbitration commission

[beelzebub 23,364]

No, it doesn't. It points to negotiation, which by its nature is confidential.

crap...it became transparent after they were caught out. Then and only then did the AFL take the steps it ought to in the first place

[titan_uranus 25,016]

tell that to the arbitration commission

What's your point?

crap...it became transparent after they were caught out. Then and only then did the AFL take the steps it ought to in the first place

What became transparent? What have they been caught out doing?

Negotiating an outcome is business.

[daisycutter 29,613]

What's your point?

just that you made the sweeping and incorrect statement that "negotiation, which by its nature is confidential."

negotiation can be confidential or non-confidential, it depends

it's not just confidential by "its nature"

[binman 42,920]

just that you made the sweeping and incorrect statement that "negotiation, which by its nature is confidential."

negotiation can be confidential or non-confidential, it depends

it's not just confidential by "its nature"

Well i guess negotiation can be non confidential but i'm struggling to think of an example of where it would be. Certainly not in legal or business context. Can you think of a high profile example where a sensitive legal and/or business matter is negotiated in an open, non confidential way?

[titan_uranus 25,016]

just that you made the sweeping and incorrect statement that "negotiation, which by its nature is confidential."

negotiation can be confidential or non-confidential, it depends

it's not just confidential by "its nature"

Right, got it.

Still, doesn't really change the situation here. The article and the subsequent kerfuffle is a beat up and nothing more.

[beelzebub 23,364]

What's your point?

What became transparent? What have they been caught out doing?

Negotiating an outcome is business.

The machinations of the behind the scenes plays. The people who became involved. Curiously some may be asked if there wasnt a conflict of positions etc.

The AFL has never really had the stomach for any of this. It's not their bag. Vlad inc just wants the game to roll along nicey nicey. It's only when it gets called out that it really ever gets a wiggle on with anything. There has never been a desire to really go after EFC. It cant have one of its powerbrokers in strife. Dangerous and dicey ground.. It might upset the footy, doesnt matter who suffers in the process, the game must go on. In reality all of this should have gone before the AFL commission, where transparency would exist, where record of hearing etc are kept. But then it would become apparent to all maybe just how complicit the AFL itself ( or just some of its office bearers ) are in all of this murky business. So it was shuffled off to dark rooms and muffled corners , all hush hush secret squirrel shlt !! Here a conspired outcome is evolved. One that will seem to satisfy the hounds. But alas the truth outed anyway.

Its often mooted footy is just business, but whilst it is a business there are so many stakeholders that a greater observance of rules observance ought to be handed to the public, who is after all its greatest de facto stake holder.

Its suggested there was nothing more than a negotiation here. Why was there even a negotiation. There were transgressions, there ought to simply have been punishments, end of story. Bu the mighty get to play by different rules dont they.

[daisycutter 29,613]

Well i guess negotiation can be non confidential but i'm struggling to think of an example of where it would be. Certainly not in legal or business context. Can you think of a high profile example where a sensitive legal and/or business matter is negotiated in an open, non confidential way?

see post #1951

btw i'm surprised you are struggling

[binman 42,920]

see post #1951

btw i'm surprised you are struggling

I'm still struggling. Any arbitration commission is a tribunal where two parties put a case forward for an independent body to make a decision. The free dictionary notes that arbitration is 'The process by which the parties to a dispute submit their differences to the judgment of an impartial person or group appointed by mutual consent or statutory provision.'

How then is post #1951 an example of non confidential negotiation?

Leaving that aside do you have an example, in a business and/or legal context where negotiation is open to the public or non confidential?

[daisycutter 29,613]

I'm still struggling. Any arbitration commission is a tribunal where two parties put a case forward for an independent body to make a decision. The free dictionary notes that arbitration is 'The process by which the parties to a dispute submit their differences to the judgment of an impartial person or group appointed by mutual consent or statutory provision.'

How then is post #1951 an example of non confidential negotiation?

Leaving that aside do you have an example, in a business and/or legal context where negotiation is open to the public or non confidential?

only that arbitration is a form of negotiation using a third party to arrive at a conclusion

during the arbitration process it is common for both parties to adjust/change their positions

these processes are commonly public and not confidential

environmemtal groups often negotiate with a developer or government body in a very public fashion

negotiation is not limited to a business or legal context

[binman 42,920]

only that arbitration is a form of negotiation using a third party to arrive at a conclusion

during the arbitration process it is common for both parties to adjust/change their positions

these processes are commonly public and not confidential

environmemtal groups often negotiate with a developer or government body in a very public fashion

negotiation is not limited to a business or legal context

I would say that arbitration occurs after negotiation has broken down. Arbitration is not a mediation process.

Essendon had the opportunity to go before the commission i would have assumed, though neither party would have been keen on that outcome given the money and time involved - hence the confidential negotiation.

Your example of environmental groups negotiating in public (ie using the media) might be valid though even in that scenario such action is perhaps more akin to advocacy and activism than negotiation. And such an approach is likely to be pretty one sided given developer and governments are never keen on engaging in public negotiation (and a one sided negotiation is an oxymoron).

Anyway silly to argue to about semantics and each to their own

[rpfc 28,409]

Except when those players have gone to their doctor, coach, sports scientist, and other club officials and asked, and been told it's safe, and have asked for assurances (in the form of waivers) from the club that the WADA Code has been complied with.

No, not 'except when.'

I don't give plausible deniability to professionsal sportsmen and women.

This is their chosen profession that they take so seriously but if their employers are behind something they can just close their eyes and 'Sgt Schulz' the whole thing?

And individuals should trust 'their own' doctor - Bruce Reid is a Doctor that works for Essendon - he is not 'their own Doctor.'

[titan_uranus 25,016]

The machinations of the behind the scenes plays. The people who became involved. Curiously some may be asked if there wasnt a conflict of positions etc.

The AFL has never really had the stomach for any of this. It's not their bag. Vlad inc just wants the game to roll along nicey nicey. It's only when it gets called out that it really ever gets a wiggle on with anything. There has never been a desire to really go after EFC. It cant have one of its powerbrokers in strife. Dangerous and dicey ground.. It might upset the footy, doesnt matter who suffers in the process, the game must go on. In reality all of this should have gone before the AFL commission, where transparency would exist, where record of hearing etc are kept. But then it would become apparent to all maybe just how complicit the AFL itself ( or just some of its office bearers ) are in all of this murky business. So it was shuffled off to dark rooms and muffled corners , all hush hush secret squirrel shlt !! Here a conspired outcome is evolved. One that will seem to satisfy the hounds. But alas the truth outed anyway.

Its often mooted footy is just business, but whilst it is a business there are so many stakeholders that a greater observance of rules observance ought to be handed to the public, who is after all its greatest de facto stake holder.

Its suggested there was nothing more than a negotiation here. Why was there even a negotiation. There were transgressions, there ought to simply have been punishments, end of story. Bu the mighty get to play by different rules dont they.

You do realise that we negotiated the penalties we received for our tanking investigation, don't you?

only that arbitration is a form of negotiation using a third party to arrive at a conclusion

during the arbitration process it is common for both parties to adjust/change their positions

these processes are commonly public and not confidential

environmemtal groups often negotiate with a developer or government body in a very public fashion

negotiation is not limited to a business or legal context

You're wrong on this. I left it alone because it's moot in the circumstances, but arbitration is separate to negotiation and is often a contractually agreed-upon form of dispute resolution. In other words, if the parties can't come to their own conclusion themselves (i.e. through negotiation), instead of a court they agree go to arbitration.

Arbitration is also not necessarily in public, but regardless, it is not the same as negotiation and generally takes place if negotiation breaks down.

Negotiation between private parties should be, and usually is, conducted in private.

[titan_uranus 25,016]

No, not 'except when.'

I don't give plausible deniability to professionsal sportsmen and women.

This is their chosen profession that they take so seriously but if their employers are behind something they can just close their eyes and 'Sgt Schulz' the whole thing?

And individuals should trust 'their own' doctor - Bruce Reid is a Doctor that works for Essendon - he is not 'their own Doctor.'

This has nothing to do with plausible deniability, nor is this a case of the players simply hiding behind the fault of their employers.

The Code demands athletes know what is in their bodies, but there is not 100% rigidity in its application. It is one thing to talk about theoretical ideals, it is another to have those play out in the real world.

There are defences available under the Code, and I fully expect those to be argued and used by the Essendon players to their benefit if they are penalised. And I have absolutely no problems with that.

[daisycutter 29,613]

You do realise that we negotiated the penalties we received for our tanking investigation, don't you?

You're wrong on this. I left it alone because it's moot in the circumstances, but arbitration is separate to negotiation and is often a contractually agreed-upon form of dispute resolution. In other words, if the parties can't come to their own conclusion themselves (i.e. through negotiation), instead of a court they agree go to arbitration.

Arbitration is also not necessarily in public, but regardless, it is not the same as negotiation and generally takes place if negotiation breaks down.

Negotiation between private parties should be, and usually is, conducted in private.

i agree arbitration follows a failure to initially agree via negotiation

i disagree that arbitration is the end of any further negotiation (in some circumstances)

but as binman said we are getting too semantic

i originally only picked you up on the statement that negotiation by its nature is confidential

i have not come across any definition of negotiation which mentions confidentiality as a condition