One senses a little bit of opportunistic revision to history. I suspect hes probably nearly telling the truth.

I find it somewhat incredulous that he can claim to not know exactly what was in the viles.

Alavi would be concerned about his licence to practice as a compunding chemist. Reading between the lines it seems Dank was trying to cover up a few tracks and Alavi is not having any of it because his livlihood could be at stake.

Thats how I read it.

Its starting to unravel piece by piece and every man for himself. Still can't believe the players are holding fast to Jacques Turd and the Ess footy club. Once they get 2y bans it will be interesting.

Jacques "I take full responsibility" is intent on destroying Demetriou and everyone else around him. He is toxic.

There is a perverse pleasure in watching it. And for those that think we should have fought City Hall over tanking, watch with interest to see if there are any winners out of this debacle.

My reading is that's it's even worse Franky. The players are being told to come and talk and accept a 6 month ban without seeing any evidence.

BB you clearly dont understand how WADA operates. It has always been like that.

My reading is that's it's even worse Franky. The players are being told to come and talk and accept a 6 month ban without seeing any evidence.

Why do you refuse to see it as it really is Bob ?

There's a set of Rules. With these rules are protocols. These protocols outline responsibilities , pathways and requirements of all parties. They also are set by and agreed to by all participants in these sports.

What in effect happens here is WADA/ASADA get wind of a transgression. They investigate. If they find that is most likely happened , and theres sufficient proof to instruct for a 'show cause' to be issued, it is. Its then incumbent upon the accused to proved their innocence. If they cant then an infraction is issued.

its simple.. Some is told....You have done X, prove otherwise. Its actually the accused that ought to be putting forward the evidence of their innocence.

its not really that hard

The Bumbers appear to isolated themselves from the AFL administration and most other clubs and have renderd it impossible for the AFL, ASADA or any other agency to work with them in any way.

Most agencies apply the law with a degree of discretion through the prosecutors office and that is always in favour of the accused. What Little and Hird have done is ensure that the law will be applied to the letter and that realy is not in the interest of the club or the players.

There is no chance of the AFL or politicians attempting to apply any influence on the outcome of this now. The AFL is now in defence mode regarding the conduct of the initial investgation and cannot support the Bumbers even if they wanted to. If Essendon win the Federal court matter they are likely to lodge writs against the AFL and seek compensation for punishment already received. The AFL's interests now firmly lie with the success of the ASADA case as do the interests of the other clubs that rely on the finances of the AFL and that cannot be good for Essendon.

There is a reason Bomber Thompson stated in a presser that the club felt isolated and alone, its because they are.

The realy stupid thing is that even a complete win in the Federal Court in favour of the Bumbers it will see them condemed for ever more as drug cheats because it only reinforces their guilt.

pretty much

Good interpretation of the current lay of the land

My reading is that's it's even worse Franky. The players are being told to come and talk and accept a 6 month ban without seeing any evidence.

Unfortunately the process being followed by ASADA is to one required by code signed up to by the AFL and the clubs. The time to argue this was then not know once you have f%$kd up.

I am not sure of the mechanics of the review panel but it is independant and will review all the evidence. If the players dont agree with the result and penalty apllied by the AFL then the can appeal it to the Court of arbitration. I am sure ASADA have provided evertything they are required to up to this point. You can argue that natural justice has not been served by the players not being given the brief to prepare a defence but this is not a court its a voluntary code that Essendon have signed up to.

we're on the same page mate

Mine was a brief precis.

Currently they EFC ( as a whole or its players and constituents) face penalties from ASADA, in some form the AFL and WorkSafe ( this will be like a Mack truck when it eventuates ). Once the dam breaks and players are given the choice of which sword they wish to fall on I concur with your thoughts that one almighty bun fight will eventually break out and the club will be unable to hold back the wave after wave of litigation.

If a class action was brought against the club ( I see this as inevitably probable ) then the club would need to be wound up to service the winfalls to the players.

There a dead club walking

I really like your thinking on this - I hope for such an outcome, not just because I hate Essendon above all others (by a long way [pi]), but also because of their dishonesty in the whole saga. I hate political-style disregard of substance in the hope of aggressive reiteration overpowering facts (think Abbott). I can't stand cheats and I can't stand people treating us like we are stupid and available to be shouted into compliance with their agendas. So, may it turn out as you say. Clean up our now-tarnished image as a sporting nation, too. How dare they!

But I am fascinated by, and stalled on trying to think through, your expression "inevitably probable"...

Ok I get it.

The court is in Egypt.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Unfortunately the process being followed by ASADA is to one required by code signed up to by the AFL and the clubs. The time to argue this was then not know once you have f%$kd up.

I am not sure of the mechanics of the review panel but it is independant and will review all the evidence. If the players dont agree with the result and penalty apllied by the AFL then the can appeal it to the Court of arbitration. I am sure ASADA have provided evertything they are required to up to this point. You can argue that natural justice has not been served by the players not being given the brief to prepare a defence but this is not a court its a voluntary code that Essendon have signed up to.

This

...... the bit many either don't (or won't ) comprehend.

We're dealing effectively with a proprietary version of governance not the free for all outside world legal version.

I think the onus of proof within the WADA code is designed to stop unscrupulous teams/organisations pumping god-knows-what into young athletes. Thereby protecting their health and the integrity of their sport. Therefore the code's onus is guilty until proven innocent. If the code were innocent until proven guilty then doping could become more prevalent because drug-cheats would know that they could tie any cases up in court for years, with the likelihood being that the athletes career could be over by the time any judgement was handed down.

You either sign-up to this code, or you don't, but once you have - that's the way it is. Or as John Wayne put it "you buy the land you get the indians".

(P.S. This post has been authorised for distribution by the Ministry for the Bleeding Obvious).

Unfortunately the process being followed by ASADA is to one required by code signed up to by the AFL and the clubs. The time to argue this was then not know once you have f%$kd up.

I am not sure of the mechanics of the review panel but it is independant and will review all the evidence. If the players dont agree with the result and penalty apllied by the AFL then the can appeal it to the Court of arbitration. I am sure ASADA have provided evertything they are required to up to this point. You can argue that natural justice has not been served by the players not being given the brief to prepare a defence but this is not a court its a voluntary code that Essendon have signed up to.

Thanks BD that makes sense.

So that means no actual law is broken which means Dank cant be made to show his records.

I do understand that EFC and its players can be rubbed out of competition but Rules of Court dont apply.

My reading is that's it's even worse Franky. The players are being told to come and talk and accept a 6 month ban without seeing any evidence.

BB, did you read my last reply to you or just not respond?

Based on this post you don't quite grasp the show cause notice.

They aren't being asked to take a ban at this stage. They are being asked if there are any mitigating factors as to why they shouldn't be banned.

They can respond protesting their innocence, that is entirely within the spirit of the show cause notice.

This is their opportunity to provide their side of the story.

After both sides are received, the evidence will be reviewed by the panel and if the panel believes an offence has occurred then they will be placed on the register of findings.

Only THEN can a penalty be made by the AFL.

BB, did you read my last reply to you or just not respond?

Based on this post you don't quite grasp the show cause notice.

They aren't being asked to take a ban at this stage. They are being asked if there are any mitigating factors as to why they shouldn't be banned.

They can respond protesting their innocence, that is entirely within the spirit of the show cause notice.

This is their opportunity to provide their side of the story.

After both sides are received, the evidence will be reviewed by the panel and if the panel believes an offence has occurred then they will be placed on the register of findings.

Only THEN can a penalty be made by the AFL.

Correct, but the bans are handed down by asada, for every certain amount of players found guilty the AFL is required to issue a punishment to the club, i'm not sure of what the punishment is but it's substantial, a certain amount i believe can required de-registration for 12 months which is why the Bombers are trying to find any technicality that might get them off.

Thanks BD that makes sense.

So that means no actual law is broken which means Dank cant be made to show his records.

I do understand that EFC and its players can be rubbed out of competition but Rules of Court dont apply.

There is statute law that enacts the WADA code and ASADA but to be subject to that law you have to sign up to the code. There are plenty of sports in Australia that dont and are not subject to these laws. The rules of evidence will apply as will principles of natural justice and common law but I think these are overridden by statute law. I haven't read the Act and probably need to to comment further but statute law regularly snuffs out peoples human rights.

It is simlar to many UN conventions and the like that Australia is signatory to, These conventions are enacted in Australia through statute law that gives force to the convention or code in Australia.

if I may

an interpretation:

My explanation of this would be to draw a distinction between a transgression in the normal world such as speeding, robbery etc whereby you're subject to the law as it is.

Here what we really have ( imho ) is an in-house violation.

Imagine a group of lads are working for a Burger franchise. When they signed on they agreed to a set of fair working conditions and these have been viewed and considered reasonable ( but strict )

They are allowed to say eat a happy burger , the chicken nuggets and the fries but they can NEVER consume the Wopper or add from the condiments bar. Doing so will result in instant dismissal. They are the rules. Simple

Here we have a bunch who have been hoodwinked into helping themselves to the Woppers and saucing up from the condiment bar. Theyre in trouble.

Irrespective of what the ringleader suggested all things revolve around the condition they signed on to. If they didnt read or understand then its their own bloody fault.

Ok Dumb question 1) Is ASADA's case against Essendon ruled by Federal or States Laws?

Im thinking its a Fed case but if it was a Victorian case there would be a "Mention" where evidence is shown to the defendant. That is fair.

Dumb question 2) If Danks has got evidence (one way or the other) and he stated he isnt showing until a court orders him, why isnt he subpenaed? Is it still not a "Court of Law"?

If any of the lawyers present has a simple answer to these I would be grateful.

I dont feel comfortable thinking a court can charge you and not have to show evidence of why youre charged.

Thanks

Franky - ASADA and the AFL (and consequently its clubs, staff and players) have an agreement in place which essentially states that matters relating to anti-doping violations will be investigated by ASADA and a separate panel will then determine whether there is a case against them. If that happens, it's up to an AFL Tribunal to consider the evidence and apply sanctions if applicable. The world body WADA has the right to appeal any decision which it is not satisfied with - the appeal goes to the Court of Arbitration in Sport (CAS). The parties have contracted that the procedure is outside our sovereign law and the WADA Code (and not our common law) is paramount.

However, there is a limited right based on sovereign administrative law for parties to take issues to our local courts - in this case the Federal Court where Essendon is claiming that ASADA has acted ultra vires or outside the scope of its remit and therefore, to allow ASADA to apply the results of its investigation process to further the case against the players amounts to a denial of natural justice.

There is a directions hearing set for tomorrow in the Federal Court which will deal with matters of how the court's process in dealing with the case is to proceed all the way to a hearing. Issues to be discussed are likely to be the outline of each side's arguments. whether mediation is to take place, what documents need to be produced, what witnesses will be involved, whether the players should be joined in the proceedings, final written statements and submissions and the setting of dates for the hearing. At one stage there was talk that the matter would take several months to reach the final hearing stage but latest reports suggest it will be set down for a date in August. The Court might not make its final decision known on the day of the hearing.

As to what happens with Dank. Who knows where he's going to be by August? I don't think it's going to be in as good a place as Paris.

I feel Im being cornered into supporting the players but I dont really want to.

If I got sacked from Hungry Macs for what was Hearsay I would appeal to a court. Its not simple.

Correct, but the bans are handed down by asada, for every certain amount of players found guilty the AFL is required to issue a punishment to the club, i'm not sure of what the punishment is but it's substantial, a certain amount i believe can required de-registration for 12 months which is why the Bombers are trying to find any technicality that might get them off.

No, ASADA issue infraction notices to players. The AFL then bans the players.

ASADA does NOT hand down penalties.

Also, Under Article 11 of the WADA code, if more than two players from any team are found to have committed an anti-doping offence, the ruling body of their competition is required to impose an "appropriate sanction" against the whole team, which could include loss of points or disqualification from the competition.

Yes there is scope to ban the club for future years, but there would also be scope to void all results 2012-2014 and leave it at that. Your suggestion that 12 months deregistration is required is fabricated.

Go have a read of the code, it is interesting, easy to read and it isn't hard to find.

But I am fascinated by, and stalled on trying to think through, your expression "inevitably probable"...

My apologies. In my fervour to possible bolster my description I may have stumbled into tautology. It happens

WADA

The Code

ready away fellow Demons

WADA

The Code

ready away fellow Demons

OK Thanks BB I will read it later.

I feel Im being cornered into supporting the players but I dont really want to.

If I got sacked from Hungry Macs for what was Hearsay I would appeal to a court. Its not simple.

How did you feel about the East German athletes when they were burning down the tracks fuelled by their state run chemistry labs or the 15 year old Chinese swimmers and their baritone voices.

As a sideline to this issue, I'd like to get some idea of how fellow DL'ers would react if it was our club in the gun eg if Robbie Flower or Garry Loinchop was 'our James'.

Of the six or so Dons supporters I know well, including one who tips many $1000's into their coffers each year, all are fervent in their belief that the EFC is totally innocent.

If it was the MFC instead of the EFC I would want everyone involved removed from the club and hope that the players could cop no more than a six month ban.

It's interesting to read the comments that follow the items about the EFC saga on the HUN website.

Here's one example that followed yesterday's story re Sarah the distraught mother of an EFC player:

Chris 13 hours ago

@Mike Yep, and do a quick google search on Melbourne and Dank, you will find they were using more than AOD, as well as having a detailed injection program. But that's the power of the media, Essendon are a bigger club so they didn't really bother with Melbourne.

My reading is that's it's even worse Franky. The players are being told to come and talk and accept a 6 month ban without seeing any evidence.

To be honest BB, i'm not sure you've got a handle on all of this. This is not a court of law and the process is relatively clear. ASADA do not need to provide the players with any evidence and in fact it is not even ASADA who will/might hand out penalties. At this point the players have the opportunity to "show cause" why their names should not be placed on the Register of Findings after which infraction notices can be issued.

If the players have compelling proof of not having used prohibited drugs ie they can show cause then there is where it ends. If they don't and Infraction Notices are issued then the AFL's drug tribunal takes over and that is where they have the chance of pleading their case. This is where they would require ASDA's evidence in order to effectively mount their case.

If the players can't show cause, they can't show cause it has nothing to do with ASADA's evidence. If they can't show cause then it appears ASADA are offering them a chance to have ASADA recommend reduced sentences based on their cooperation to i am assuming nail Hird, Dank (who interestingly has received a show cause notice some time ago but nothing has subsequently happened) and perhaps others. Similar scenario to how they nailed Armstrong. Why would they show their hand at this stage? ASADA are trying to penalize a club and players they believed cheated. Sad but too bad for the players (who i really feel for).

And in nay case the process is one all clubs have signed up to by signing up to the WADA code.

How did you feel about the East German athletes when they were burning down the tracks fuelled by their state run chemistry labs or the 15 year old Chinese swimmers and their baritone voices.

It seems there are three options in this case:

• the Essendon players knowingly took banned substances
• the Essendon players unwittingly took banned substances
• the Essendon players did not take any banned substances

All the discussion appears to suggest the Essendon players should take a penalty because (a) there's enough evidence to suggest some wrongdoing or (b) the issue annoys the AFL-supporting public and this is the best way for the problem to go away.

But if I was a player (of any team, but in this case Essendon) and I was convinced I had not taken any banned substances, I'd be fighting for the right to have my name cleared. It's not good enough for us to say these players should be penalised because of poor management or governance by their employer. It certainly shouldn't be good enough for them to be penalised if there isn't sufficient evidence to confirm they took a banned substance (knowingly or unwittingly). And it definitely isn't appropriate that they should be penalised just because the football supporting community is sick of the whole saga.

If it can be proven that the players took banned substances, then they should be penalised. I'm yet to be convinced there is proof or even sufficient evidence to mount a case - but I don't know what ASADA does and presumably ASADA thinks otherwise.

As a sideline to this issue, I'd like to get some idea of how fellow DL'ers would react if it was our club in the gun eg if Robbie Flower or Garry Loinchop was 'our James'.

Of the six or so Dons supporters I know well, including one who tips many $1000's into their coffers each year, all are fervent in their belief that the EFC is totally innocent.

If it was the MFC instead of the EFC I would want everyone involved removed from the club and hope that the players could cop no more than a six month ban.

It's interesting to read the comments that follow the items about the EFC saga on the HUN website.

Here's one example that followed yesterday's story re Sarah the distraught mother of an EFC player:

Chris 13 hours ago

@Mike Yep, and do a quick google search on Melbourne and Dank, you will find they were using more than AOD, as well as having a detailed injection program. But that's the power of the media, Essendon are a bigger club so they didn't really bother with Melbourne.

Melbourne NEVER employed Dank

Melbourne has been investigated and cleared of any wrongdoing

All supplements were prescribed by the club doctor

I understand the Doctor involved has left the club which is more than can be said for the Bombers.

No one seems to care about AOD