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

[Canberra Demon 159]

Just a little buzz i have heard and mostly coming from a EFC supporter and his mates but they seem to believe a deal is done and they loose points, fine etc i tended to drift off as it was mostly rubbish but the thing that made me listen is they think they will lose there points from the 2012 season.

I dont understand how that would be a punishment even if there was any chance of it being true?

[dee-luded 2,959]

Any points must be next years, they must be made to understand. Yes I understand what that means but what they have done warrants it. The team is shot this year, 2013 points mean nothing.

Hirds holding the AFL to proverbial ransom...

protect the Bombers & him & his mates, or he will force the issue to court. wrecking the finals series, & the potential damage the the competitions flimsy rules structures.

I hope he's paying his own legal fees, & not the game coughing Up.

Edited August 23, 2013 by dee-luded

[sue 9,101]

Yep more rhetoric.

I asked you: "What's your alternative? Go to the Supreme Court and have the AFL end up de-registering Essendon? Be specific with your alternative plan of action."

How bad? 2 Pi r times as bad.

Yes, and my answer was I didn't have enough information to suggest an alternative. That would cover not answering any of your questions. Is that so hard to understand?

Your answer "2 Pi r times as bad" shows that you too, quite rightly, refuse to 'be specific'. As long as r>1, I agree with you.

[DemonWA 3,932]

Just a little buzz i have heard and mostly coming from a EFC supporter and his mates but they seem to believe a deal is done and they loose points, fine etc i tended to drift off as it was mostly rubbish but the thing that made me listen is they think they will lose there points from the 2012 season.

I dont understand how that would be a punishment even if there was any chance of it being true?

No way that could be true

[Whispering_Jack 29,971]

I'd like to point out that even if the AFL have advice from senior counsel that a case against Essendon could be sustained in a Supreme Court action they won't want to go there.

AFAIK it is Hird bringing the Supreme Court action, not Essendon Football Club. I imagine that EFC and the AFL are keen to ink a compromise deal but the problem is that deal involves non-negotiable pain for Hird - and EFC is having trouble getting their head around that - trouble I expect they will overcome sooner rather than later. Then it will be Hird v AFL - he'll need a valuation on that Toorak house.

I'm guessing the EFC position is Fine + Points and the AFL position is Fine + Points + Picks + Hird and it's Picks that may give - personally I prefer that to Hird getting off.

That's a fairly reasonable summation but the Plaintiff in the court action is Hird and I don't know if he's prepared to blink.

if the loss of points in 2013 is a bargaining chip, the Bombers and Hird won't want this to drag on too long because in 15 or 16 days' time, that chip could well be worthless.

In the event that this happens then the picks or loss of 2014 points are in jeopardy. Do you think that scenario appeals to anyone involved at Essendon?

[sue 9,101]

I'm guessing the EFC position is Fine + Points and the AFL position is Fine + Points + Picks + Hird and it's Picks that may give - personally I prefer that to Hird getting off.

Somewhat tongue in cheek, I'd prefer Hird to stay on, but have to coach a team for no points with no draft picks and maybe a few players suing him. But then I'm not a nice person.

Edited August 23, 2013 by sue

[old55 23,536]

That's a fairly reasonable summation but the Plaintiff in the court action is Hird and I don't know if he's prepared to blink.

if the loss of points in 2013 is a bargaining chip, the Bombers and Hird won't want this to drag on too long because in 15 or 16 days' time, that chip could well be worthless.

In the event that this happens then the picks or loss of 2014 points are in jeopardy. Do you think that scenario appeals to anyone involved at Essendon?

Yes I agree. EFC will want to grab "lose 2013 points" while it still exists, because as you say soon only "lose picks" will remain or maybe even "lose 2014 points and picks". I reckon the sticking point is that Hird going down is non-negotiable from the AFL's pov and that's the thing EFC have to accept.

[beelzebub 23,336]

The whole tussle is proving fascinating and compulsive viewing. Hird , about 3 k past the point of no return has thrown away his reverse gear and got the pedal to the metal. The EFC has now totally stuffed up its 'get out of jail " , well at least minimal sentencing, having all but sided with its coach. Im not sure they are overly keen on the direction he's taking them though. Interestingly though as timings go you have a man of reason ( Evans ) jettisoning the club and allowing another hot head , no backward steps type in Little to take the reigns, or should I say joy stick ( but dont mention that around Hird )

Little in his fervour and to demonstrate they arent to be trifled with has shot off most of his weapons ( aka mouth!! ) and now has little ( sorry ) in reserve. The only way out is a conciliatory about turn and baring of posterior to anything the league wishes to dish out. Historically this hasnt ever been Little's large suit !!

Vlad, despite any other shortcomings, has shown the league eager and capable of mediated resolution. its in everyone's interest to put it to bed but then theres that Hirdle to overcome

if it cant be sorted before the finals actually start then logic would suggest anypoints penalties couldnt really be invoked for 2013 as it would come too late to affect the change in position ( ladderwise ) to afford a feasible rejuggle and onward itenary of games.

fascinating stuff

[old55 23,536]

Yes, and my answer was I didn't have enough information to suggest an alternative. That would cover not answering any of your questions. Is that so hard to understand?

Your answer "2 Pi r times as bad" shows that you too, quite rightly, refuse to 'be specific'. As long as r>1, I agree with you.

I've got the information from the AFL charge sheet - that's sufficient for me to form an opinion. I think that EFC have done some terrible things and should be severely punished, but I also see that there's no winners and it's in everyone's interest to come up with a negotiated settlement. I think the origina 4 factor penalty (fine + picks + points + individuals) reported by Jake Niall is on the lenient side and therefore the 3 point penalty (fine + points + individuals) reported in the Oz is even lighter. But I recognise that a deal needs to be done and I can live with it - i HAVE been specific. You apparently can't - but you're unable to say what would be sufficient. It's typical of your fence-sitting posting.

Edited August 23, 2013 by Fifty-5

[beelzebub 23,336]

I must confess my beef would really be if the points are deducted this year, almost a slap on the wrist all things consider It really isnt much of a penalty ( as far as points go ) . Next year though !! now thats a kick up the rear and holds real meaning.

Im sure the money and drafting will be of suitable regret , in the end.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

They might do.

But that's irrelevant.

This isn't a "juvenile stiffy joke" - its the side effect detailed in the charges and then blacked out.

Based on rumour.

If its true, so what?

There is good humour and bad...

But as i said Humour is not your strongest point Rhino

Snigger snigger

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Yes I agree. EFC will want to grab "lose 2013 points" while it still exists, because as you say soon only "lose picks" will remain or maybe even "lose 2014 points and picks". I reckon the sticking point is that Hird going down is non-negotiable from the AFL's pov and that's the thing EFC have to accept.

Fair assessment of the stalemate.

The last thing Essendon would want is to lose draft picks.

I would have thought the Dons would want to corral this issue to 2013 to move forward with as clean a slate as possible for 2014.

Hirds legal action puts that in jeopardy.

[Whispering_Jack 29,971]

The other aspect to this is the confusion about the actual drugs that were part of Essendon's programme. This article is a help - What drugs are they on about?

(d) AOD-9604 creams and (e) AOD-9604 injections: AOD-9604 is a synthetic peptide developed as an anti-obesity drug at Monash University in the 1990s. Professor Gary Wittert, at the University of Adelaide, has led five out of the six studies on AOD-9604 carried out in humans, including a six-month study funded by Metabolic Pharmaceuticals, the company that developed it. He recently said on ABC radio that the drug had no effect in weight loss and the trials were abandoned. Despite some anecdotal reports that it can build muscle, Wittert says he has been unable to find any data to support this. Indeed, he says the drug was specifically designed not to have anabolic effects.

In a statement released earlier this year, Metabolic's parent company Calzada said the obesity program was abandoned in 2007 as trials did not show ''a clinically meaningful weight loss outcome''. Regarding anabolic effects, it said previous pre-clinical trials ''provide clear scientific and medical evidence that AOD-9604 does not increase insulin-like Growth Factor 1. Furthermore, there is no evidence that AOD-9604 dosing increases the number of muscle or cartilage cells.''

AOD-9604's status with WADA has been a matter of controversy from the start. The Australian Crime Commission report initially stated that AOD-9604 was not banned and it is alleged that Essendon may have been told that, which may have led club doctor Bruce Reid to approve its use as part of the supplement program.

However, WADA has stated that AOD-9604 is a banned substance under Section S0 of its code, which states that any pharmacological substance not addressed by any sections of the prohibited list and with no current approval by any governmental regulatory health authority for human therapeutic use is prohibited. The ACC subsequently published a statement that while AOD-9604 was not banned under S2 as it was advised, it is banned under S0.

That is also WADA's position and that of ASADA although there have been attempts by some to muddy the waters but the explanations on AFL360 by Gerard Whately and Essendon's consultant Dr. Garnham sound like spin to me.

See also: ASADA'unclear on drug status'

IMO whether ASADA lacks clarity on the status of AOD-9604 is totally irrelevant. The AFL Anti-Doping Code is what matters:

Section 20.2

In performing its functions under this Code or otherwise, ASADA is not and must not be deemed to be the agent of the AFL. For the avoidance of doubt, it is expressly stated that ASADA has no authority or capacity on behalf of the AFL to:

(a) authorise or approve the use of any substance or method prohibited under this Code;

(b) give advice as to the application or interpretation of this Code; and

© bind or commit the AFL in any manner.

Essendon cannot therefore claim this defence even if could prove that someone at ASADA told Dank or anyone else before the programme was initiated (and I doubt such proof exists) for that matter that AOD-9604 wasn't a prohibited substance.

Section 26.3

The WADA Code shall be interpreted as an independent and autonomous text and not by reference to the existing law or statutes of the Signatories or governments.

Referral to a court won't help them unless we're talking about the Court of Arbitration for Sport (and I don't think CAS will show much sympathy for the bogus argument that the Bomber lackeys are attempting to foist on the public in this misguided PR campaign.

Of even more concern to the Bombers is this one:-

(n) Thymosin Beta 4: (TB-4) is a naturally occurring protein found in blood platelets, which play a role in the repair and regeneration of injured tissues. It has also been used to treat horses and been implicated in horse doping. There are theoretical reasons why this drug may be helpful to athletes, but there is no published evidence that TB-4 produces any benefit. It was added to the WADA banned list in 2011.

If you go to the AFL's charge sheet, you will find this point:-

27. In late May 2012 Dank discovered that the Thymosin he had been providing the players (Thymosin Beta-4) was in fact prohibited.

It might take time to put the case together, particularly if Dank refuses to co-operate) but if this single point is proved and evidence is produced as to which players had this stuff injected into them, then they might as well turn the lights out at Essendon (especially if the number of players is significant).

More reason for the Bombers to pursue a negotiated settlement if they can before its too late.

[beelzebub 23,336]

Fair assessment of the stalemate.

The last thing Essendon would want is to lose draft picks.

I would have thought the Dons would want to corral this issue to 2013 to move forward with as clean a slate as possible for 2014.

Hirds legal action puts that in jeopardy.

Logic would suggest it needs to be sorted now. James is without question the hirdle and one that just doesnt seem in any way inclined to move or budge either. His court action has all but cemented that direction.

So much of this, to this observer, just seems so amazingly pigheaded. So many doors are not just being shut, theyre slammed !!

Something has to give, and give very soon. Not all Essendon fans are so blinded by the rhetoric.I know some very angry and disheartened ones. They just shake their heads in disbelief, but more to the post handling now than the actual transgressions.

[Redleg 40,892]

If all they cop is a fine and points this year, when they are going to lose all games from now anyway, with no loss of draft picks, that would be an unmitigated disgrace.

This is the biggest scandal in AFL history, how could they not be sanctioned with something meaningful.

Their season is already shot, so what is loss of points, nothing. That would be a joke. AFL rolling over to the big club again.

[sue 9,101]

I've got the information from the AFL charge sheet - that's sufficient for me to form an opinion. I think that EFC have done some terrible things and should be severely punished, but I also see that there's no winners and it's in everyone's interest to come up with a negotiated settlement. I think the origina 4 factor penalty (fine + picks + points + individuals) reported by Jake Niall is on the lenient side and therefore the 3 point penalty (fine + points + individuals) reported in the Oz is even lighter. But I recognise that a deal needs to be done and I can live with it - i HAVE been specific. You apparently can't - but you're unable to say what would be sufficient. It's typical of your fence-sitting posting.

Saying I have no clear suggestion of the penalties, but that I thought the ones originally mentioned were too soft is not fence sitting. It is simply saying I personally have not sufficient information to suggest what compromise solution will be appropriate or work.

I'm happy to be viewed by you as an inveterate fence-sitter. I'd rather be known for that than for making ex cathedra pronouncements when I don't know sufficient facts (though I'm probably guilty of that from time to time). Since, like most of us, I am not close to the AFL world, I rarely will have detailed inside knowledge.

Anyway I AGREE with everything else you said above. This all started because I posted that the penalties being mentioned were too light. I then agreed with you that a compromise is required. So I'm not sure what we are arguing about.

I'm glad you haven't been specific enough to suggest the number of lost draft picks, size of fine, period of point loss and severity of suspensions of individuals. Fence sitting?

Edited August 23, 2013 by sue

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Yes I agree. EFC will want to grab "lose 2013 points" while it still exists, because as you say soon only "lose picks" will remain or maybe even "lose 2014 points and picks". I reckon the sticking point is that Hird going down is non-negotiable from the AFL's pov and that's the thing EFC have to accept.

The Age is reporting that the wheels are turning that the Dons will accept wiping their 2013 points. There must be a heavy fine nod Hird gone IMO for starters.

I would hope there will be draft picks penalties as well for this appalling debacle.

Behind the scenes the AFL should seek the other 3 aminos to go and for Little to go as well.

[jumbo returns 6,741]

now we need a school teacher

I know an ex - AFL coach who might help you there........

[whatwhat say what 22,732]

Essendon looks certain to not play finals as negotiations between the AFL and the club moved swiftly towards a resolution of the crisis that has engulfed the game.

http://m.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/bombers-set-to-miss-finals-20130823-2sh01.html

[beelzebub 23,336]

Essendon looks certain to not play finals as negotiations between the AFL and the club moved swiftly towards a resolution of the crisis that has engulfed the game.

http://m.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/bombers-set-to-miss-finals-20130823-2sh01.html

bugga !!

doesnt penalise Essendon that much but actually aids Carlton....where the f'n justice in that I ask you ??

[chookrat 4,247]

I'd like to point out that even if the AFL have advice from senior counsel that a case against Essendon could be sustained in a Supreme Court action they won't want to go there.

AFAIK it is Hird bringing the Supreme Court action, not Essendon Football Club. I imagine that EFC and the AFL are keen to ink a compromise deal but the problem is that deal involves non-negotiable pain for Hird - and EFC is having trouble getting their head around that - trouble I expect they will overcome sooner rather than later. Then it will be Hird v AFL - he'll need a valuation on that Toorak house.

I'm guessing the EFC position is Fine + Points and the AFL position is Fine + Points + Picks + Hird and it's Picks that may give - personally I prefer that to Hird getting off.

They will probably need picks when ASADAs final report comes out

[Sir Why You Little 37,021]

AS long as they get draft penalties for 2013-14...They must get a long penalty....This season is done.

[Demon_spurs 1,846]

I don't know if any body else has suggested this, but I don't see why other teams should benefit from this whole sorry mess. If EFC don't play finals, then NO team should replace them, let the team that was to play them in the finals get a bye. It burns me that Carlton or who ever finishes 9th should get a final place, they haven't deserved therefore shouldn't get it.

[whatwhat say what 22,732]

Not sure how the broadcast rights holders would feel about that, let alone the teams that finished above the team due to play the Bombers who don't get a bye.

I think 9th coming in is perfectly fine. Hoping its the Kangaroos as they're better to watch than the Blues.

[Demon_spurs 1,846]

Not sure how the broadcast rights holders would feel about that, let alone the teams that finished above the team due to play the Bombers who don't get a bye.

I think 9th coming in is perfectly fine. Hoping its the Kangaroos as they're better to watch than the Blues.

$%#*& everything these days is about $$$$ It just gets me annoyed that teams that don't deserve to play in finals will get there on the back of a team that cheated last year, not fair I say !!!