No problem. Juvenile stiffy jokes do work well with the snigger snigger crowd.

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.

To say you're above finding humourous the idea of Hird trying to get around the field at training in discomfort with his old fella strapped down as a result of his "side effects", is akin to being above having a sense of humour at all.

Stiff old prudes will try to justify getting on a high horse, but there's nothing juvenile about it.

If this is the entire deal, then the AFL is pathetic.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/pointless-bombers-lose-james-hird/story-e6frg7mf-1226702664839

If this is the entire deal, then the AFL is pathetic.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/pointless-bombers-lose-james-hird/story-e6frg7mf-1226702664839

sue

every body who has access to a keyboard should be writing to the afl and your own club asap

this crime should have the maximum penalty

If this is the entire deal, then the AFL is pathetic.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/pointless-bombers-lose-james-hird/story-e6frg7mf-1226702664839

no no no....that would be the beginning...surely

cant see the other 17 standing for it

or WADA

If this is the entire deal, then the AFL is pathetic.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/pointless-bombers-lose-james-hird/story-e6frg7mf-1226702664839

There has to be some form of compromise to get a resolution. There's 4 elements to the reported penalty offered to Essendon:

• Loss of 2013 points
• Loss of 2013 and 14 picks
• Fine
• Hird, Corcoran, Thompson and Reid face charges

Altho a Fine is not mentioned in the article it is likely to still be included, so 3 of the 4 elements are intact - points, fine, charges against individuals and there's the added point that Hird immediately steps down.

The negotiating point that's removed is the draft picks.

It's quite possible that ASADA/WADA will still find that players took banned substances when their investigation is finalised - that hasn't changed either.

I can see that flying.

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.

I'd like to point out that Melbourne tanked in 2009 despite what the AFL found, everybody knows that, and we got a similar but less severe (points and finals) negotiated penalty - no loss of picks. There's a river of hypocrisy here.

School boy humour has its place and I can see you revelling in it WYL.

I just thought the line originally made had all the wit of the Footy Show. And I know you like that too.

ho·li·er-than-thou (hl-r-n-ou)

adj.

Exhibiting an attitude of superior virtue; self-righteously pious

There has to be some form of compromise to get a resolution. There's 4 elements to the reported penalty offered to Essendon:

• Loss of 2013 points
• Loss of 2013 and 14 picks
• Fine
• Hird, Corcoran, Thompson and Reid face charges

Altho a Fine is not mentioned in the article it is likely to still be included, so 3 of the 4 elements are intact - points, fine, charges against individuals and there's the added point that Hird immediately steps down.

The negotiating point that's removed is the draft picks.

It's quite possible that ASADA/WADA will still find that players took banned substances when their investigation is finalised - that hasn't changed either.

I can see that flying.

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.

I'd like to point out that Melbourne tanked in 2009 despite what the AFL found, everybody knows that, and we got a similar but less severe (points and finals) negotiated penalty - no loss of picks. There's a river of hypocrisy here.

SIMILAR???!!! If you think the tanking, even if it was totally blatant and even if no other club did it, to be on the same scale of seriousness as recklessly experimenting with young blokes bodies (look no further than Ziggy's internal report), you are on a different planet to me mate.

Sure there will be some sort of compromise, but the AFL can't bend too far or footy will be the worse for it.

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.

To say you're above finding humourous the idea of Hird trying to get around the field at training in discomfort with his old fella strapped down as a result of his "side effects", is akin to being above having a sense of humour at all.

Stiff old prudes will try to justify getting on a high horse, but there's nothing juvenile about it.

Viv Stanshall formerly of the Bonzo Dog Doo Dah Band, found it worthy of a song (despite the fact he passed on almost two decades ago).

Edited August 23, 201311 yr by hardtack

rumor has it...a pparently hird couldn't get it up for the meeting

I'd like to point out that Melbourne tanked in 2009 despite what the AFL found, everybody knows that, and we got a similar but less severe (points and finals) negotiated penalty - no loss of picks. There's a river of hypocrisy here.

I'd like to point out that both the MFC and the AFL had advice from senior counsel that a case against Melbourne on the tanking allegation could not be sustained in a Supreme Court action based on the results of the 6 month investigation. The compromise (and it came out sounding ludicrous) was a commercial one based on the cost risks of fighting a long, protracted and expensive legal suit. Even that sapped a lot of energy out of the club and left many tired and worn out. It probably had some effect on team performance as well.

So imagine what this will do to Essendon if it goes the full course through the legal system. I heard that Hird stated today that he's fighting on. I think he's already dead meat but if his team continues to perform as it has in the past month you can expect even his most adoring fans to turn on him and devour him as they all do to leaders of failed football teams.

the AFL need to make a HUGE statement here.

they cannot let systematic doping, including the use of multiple types of banned drugs, with the permission of senior officials, go lightly.

if they do, it effectively gives every other team the green light to do the same.

There is more at stake here than reputations and the Essendon FC. WADA is currently looking at excluding Jamaica from the next Olympics as their testing protocols are not up to standard.

DO we really want Australia to be excluded from the Olympics so that Essendon can go free??

School boy humour has its place and I can see you revelling in it WYL.

I just thought the line originally made had all the wit of the Footy Show. And I know you like that too.

Haven't watched the Footy Show in years actually, so how would you know?

There is good humour and bad...

But as i said Humour is not your strongest point Rhino.

If this is the entire deal, then the AFL is pathetic.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/pointless-bombers-lose-james-hird/story-e6frg7mf-1226702664839

If this is True it is an absolute F@#$%^& disgrace....

It will leave the door open to further Doping within the code...

NOT HAPPY JAN.

SIMILAR???!!! If you think the tanking, even if it was totally blatant and even if no other club did it, to be on the same scale of seriousness as recklessly experimenting with young blokes bodies (look no further than Ziggy's internal report), you are on a different planet to me mate.

Sure there will be some sort of compromise, but the AFL can't bend too far or footy will be the worse for it.

I notice you didn't offer an alternative.

Your long suit is rhetoric, your short suit is action.

Edited August 23, 201311 yr by Fifty-5

SIMILAR???!!! If you think the tanking, even if it was totally blatant and even if no other club did it, to be on the same scale of seriousness as recklessly experimenting with young blokes bodies (look no further than Ziggy's internal report), you are on a different planet to me mate.

Sure there will be some sort of compromise, but the AFL can't bend too far or footy will be the worse for it.

When we factor in the penalties ASADA are likely to hand down and the player revolt the EFC will have paid a fair price.

Nice work BB.

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.

No problem. Juvenile stiffy jokes do work well with the snigger snigger crowd.

ho·li·er-than-thou (hl-r-n-ou)

adj.

Exhibiting an attitude of superior virtue; self-righteously pious

rumor has it...a pparently hird couldn't get it up for the meeting

now we need a school teacher

Well if the AFL is going to compromise and leave out the part that would really punish Essendon, maybe they should just cave and let them off altogether.

The Bombers have money, plenty of it.

Coaches and administrators facing charges and suspensions can't be negotiated away, and if not forced by the AFL the club would likely move them on anyway.

Removal of premiership points for this year is flogging them with a feather.

Really poor if true.

I'd like to point out that both the MFC and the AFL had advice from senior counsel that a case against Melbourne on the tanking allegation could not be sustained in a Supreme Court action based on the results of the 6 month investigation. The compromise (and it came out sounding ludicrous) was a commercial one based on the cost risks of fighting a long, protracted and expensive legal suit. Even that sapped a lot of energy out of the club and left many tired and worn out. It probably had some effect on team performance as well.

So imagine what this will do to Essendon if it goes the full course through the legal system. I heard that Hird stated today that he's fighting on. I think he's already dead meat but if his team continues to perform as it has in the past month you can expect even his most adoring fans to turn on him and devour him as they all do to leaders of failed football teams.

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.

I notice you didn't offer an alternative.

Your long suit is rhetoric, your short suit is action.

Golly I didn't know action was required of me. I did say 'there will be some sort of compromise'. Like you, I'm not personally across all the facts, nor what Essendon can say by way of mitigation or threat. So I can't sensibly suggest exactly what that compromise should be. But it is clear to me that this is far more serious than the tanking issue based on Zwigg's internal report alone, without any ASADA evidence at all. By a country mile. And I believe the penalties suggested are insufficient. I don't see why you expect me to offer an alternative suite of penalties.

But I will say there should be serious non-financial penalties since Essendon can probably easily afford a fine 20 times our one for 'not tanking'.

Since you are keen on specifics, would you like to suggest what the relative naughtiness of tanking vs experimenting with players health is? half as bad, same, twice as bad, three times......

The problem I foresee is if the AFL says "they didn't dope, they were just dopes" and then their players get done as dopers by ASADA then it blows up in the face of the AFL.

I would make it suspended loss of picks and when ASADA comes back with a doping claim (probably next year at this rate) the picks get taken for those next two years.

Edited August 23, 201311 yr by rpfc

the filthy peasants..

must be the southerners dandeeman, bloody peasant humour.... snigger snigger, from the pleasant peasant.

the hide of that guy!!! its as thick as 2 bricks. like an NT Water Buffalo.. back to your swamp

Golly I didn't know action was required of me. I did say 'there will be some sort of compromise'. Like you, I'm not personally across all the facts, nor what Essendon can say by way of mitigation or threat. So I can't sensibly suggest exactly what that compromise should be. But it is clear to me that this is far more serious than the tanking issue based on Zwigg's internal report alone, without any ASADA evidence at all. By a country mile. And I believe the penalties suggested are insufficient. I don't see why you expect me to offer an alternative suite of penalties.

But I will say there should be serious non-financial penalties since Essendon can probably easily afford a fine 20 times our one for 'not tanking'.

Since you are keen on specifics, would you like to suggest what the relative naughtiness of tanking vs experimenting with players health is? half as bad, same, twice as bad, three times......

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.