How about looking at it from a more holistic approach:

A number of players signed consent forms to participate, and did participate, in a performance program where a significant amount of players were given varying banned substances where neither the players nor the administrators of the program can differentiate who where given what banned substances.

It's a players responsibility to control what enters their body (something which ASADA expresses in person to every club, and all players, before every season)

On that basis if the players who participated in this illegal program cannot verify what entered into their bodies then they have failed at their main responsibility, should be assumed to have to have taken a banned substance and held accountable.

This kind of approach would be prone to being smashed in a court of law.

If ASADA was to go down this route, it would be close to guessing who took what. Various substances formed part of this program. Some are worse than others. Some may not have been illegal at all. It is wholly improper for ASADA to say 'well, you took part, and at least one person took a banned substance, so we'll lump you with a charge and now you can go about defending it'.

If ASADA wants to charge a player, it needs to meet its burden of proof, which means they need to provide enough evidence for each particular player. Otherwise they'll have to try going after the club.

Well it looks like Essendon players might still be eligible for the medal for the Best and Fairest, the Brownlow Medal.

If Jobe won it again that would go down like a Miley Cyrus performance.

This kind of approach would be prone to being smashed in a court of law.

If ASADA was to go down this route, it would be close to guessing who took what. Various substances formed part of this program. Some are worse than others. Some may not have been illegal at all. It is wholly improper for ASADA to say 'well, you took part, and at least one person took a banned substance, so we'll lump you with a charge and now you can go about defending it'.

If ASADA wants to charge a player, it needs to meet its burden of proof, which means they need to provide enough evidence for each particular player. Otherwise they'll have to try going after the club.

agree completely.

I don't think they currently have enough proof regarding who took what.

It would surprise me if ASADA are waiting to see if those records come out through other means: through an interview with Dank or through a court subpoena of his actually takes the AFL to court.

If they don't have those records and can't prove use, it will be interesting to see if they settle for charging with attempted use.

Well it looks like Essendon players might still be eligible for the medal for the Best and Fairest, the Brownlow Medal.

If Jobe won it again that would go down like a Miley Cyrus performance.

Indeed.

Fortunately, however, I'd have thought Watson's 2013 hasn't been good enough, especially with his month out.

Ablett should have a good lead by about Round 18. From then on he's been in poor form and maybe someone like Selwood, who seems to be dominating many of Geelong's wins, might sneak over him.

agree completely.

I don't think they currently have enough proof regarding who took what.

It would surprise me if ASADA are waiting to see if those records come out through other means: through an interview with Dank or through a court subpoena of his actually takes the AFL to court.

If they don't have those records and can't prove use, it will be interesting to see if they settle for charging with attempted use.

I think the players will be charged, it's only a matter of when.

Is that right? My understanding, and I confess to not following the detail of this, is that the AFL will apply penalties to Essendon for failure of Governance and I would have thought WADA and ASADA have no jurisdiction over this.

I'm of the belief that Essendon didn't intend to provide their players with dangerous or banned drugs. If they were supplied then it was because there was a rogue element there. But the failure to care for your players in the AFL environment where the players defer and trust the club so strongly is shameful.

BTW, 55 makes some terrific points.

The AFL is a voluntary signatory to WADA.and, as such, accepts the WADA code in full including the strict liability imposed on offenders. WADA has appeal rights if its not happy with the way any investigation is carried out and in the way the AFL determines the outcome of such investigations. Our laws won't help parties who might feel aggrieved in such instances and I sense that the argy bargy going on at the moment is partly about ensuring that the negotiated outcome fits in so that WADA won't make waves. The problem will be for the players when ASADA's final report comes out because the standard of proof required under the WADA code that governs these things is somewhat looser than in our criminal system. My own view is that anyone at Essendon who might be popping champagne corks because they think their players are off the hook is delusional.

As to the second part of my proposition about the ACC (that's the Australian Crime Commission), I'm sure that's right in the sense that this body is looking for links between organised crime, the illegal importation of these substances and how sporting clubs source them. It seems to me that Dank and Essendon came to the notice of the ACC as part of this investigation. One report in the Age suggested that the facility opposite Windy Hill was under ACC surveillance while the injecting was going on. The ACC does wire taps and has the ways and means to get evidence which I suspect will bury the Bombers when they're done with this. I think therefore that the ACC might have a little bit more power than Demetriou including possibly the power (perhaps through other government agencies) to bring even Vlad down if he's been naughty.

POSTSCRIPT: With reference to the post immediately above, I think rjay's right and that the Essendon players will eventually be charged and this will obviously have repercussions with their club for some time toi come. There might be some damage to Melbourne as well depending on whether and what supplements were supplied to or used by our players as mentioned in some SMS's released between Dank and Bate of our club. Hence, my anger at the club some months ago when our involvement came out. Even if Bate was acting on a frolic of his own, he could have hurt the club badly. I hope our boys never received or used medicine prescribed at the recommendation of Dank.

The AFL is a voluntary signatory to WADA.and, as such, accepts the WADA code in full including the strict liability imposed on offenders. WADA has appeal rights if its not happy with the way any investigation is carried out and in the way the AFL determines the outcome of such investigations. Our laws won't help parties who might feel aggrieved in such instances and I sense that the argy bargy going on at the moment is partly about ensuring that the negotiated outcome fits in so that WADA won't make waves. The problem will be for the players when ASADA's final report comes out because the standard of proof required under the WADA code that governs these things is somewhat looser than in our criminal system. My own view is that anyone at Essendon who might be popping champagne corks because they think their players are off the hook is delusional.

As to the second part of my proposition about the ACC (that's the Australian Crime Commission), I'm sure that's right in the sense that this body is looking for links between organised crime, the illegal importation of these substances and how sporting clubs source them. It seems to me that Dank and Essendon came to the notice of the ACC as part of this investigation. One report in the Age suggested that the facility opposite Windy Hill was under ACC surveillance while the injecting was going on. The ACC does wire taps and has the ways and means to get evidence which I suspect will bury the Bombers when they're done with this. I think therefore that the ACC might have a little bit more power than Demetriou including possibly the power (perhaps through other government agencies) to bring even Vlad down if he's been naughty.

Your like a solicitor chasing an Ambulance.

Your like a solicitor chasing an Ambulance.

Get a life.

Hey Danny Boy....karma's a [censored] uh !!

The longer this meeting goes on the more interesting it becomes.

I have no doubt the AFL want to give Essendrug a wack, but not a knockout punch like 2002 Carlton.

But the more they delve the worse the situation looks.

If the AFL go "soft" and ASADA/WADA go hard after Dank finally talks the AFL will be damaged badly.

They simply must hit them hard.

Get a life.

Look in the mirror.

Look in the mirror.

The comeback you would expect from an intellectual gnat.

Ignore him WJ.

I think the players will be charged, it's only a matter of when.

Eventually. cant see how they cant be. Im waiting for the ol' chestnut of matching players to drugs etc, but sense this will out at some point.. This I think will occur when Danks is brought front and centre by authorities. The aftermath will be dominoes falling.

its on this basis that I reckon just about the whole Messendon list will be leppers !!

Carlton were hit with draft penalties at the end of their tenure of success. They were heading for a downer with some old champions coming to the end of their playing days. The draft pick penalties robbed them of the capacity to rebuild.

As a sage poster said, the aim of the AFL should be to punish but not cripple.

Given EFCs crime is worse than the Blues, then their penalty should be greater but the scope of EFC to withstand the brunt of the larger penalty will be greater.

If they compromise a "soft" option for Essendon that is not commensurate with the previous penalties put in the Blues, Crows and MFC then the AFL deserve to be flogged at every post.

A penalty consisting of $2-3m fine, wipe out of 2013 points and finals, loss of 2 years draft picks, the >12 month suspension/departure of Hird and co is an absolute must IMO. The ability to further penalise if ASADA/ACC finds formal guilt should also be enshrined.

A penalty consisting of $2-3m fine, wipe out of 2013 points and finals, loss of 2 years draft picks, the >12 month suspension/departure of Hird and co is an absolute must IMO. The ability to further penalise if ASADA/ACC finds formal guilt should also be enshrined.

We'll start with this though I , in all honesty , and not through bias , am amazed the length of suspension touted for Hird is only 12 months.. A player would under normal circumstances get 2. He has no remorse, indeed contests the guilt. I'd ban him for life and that's commensurate with bans in various codes for the most heinous of actions. This , given he's been prepared to toy god-like with lives can be nothing less than that.

Reid ought to be seriously looked at by his professional peers for his actions in not stopping what he knew to be going on ( even if not specifically ) calls into question his allegiance to his oath

This kind of approach would be prone to being smashed in a court of law.

If ASADA was to go down this route, it would be close to guessing who took what. Various substances formed part of this program. Some are worse than others. Some may not have been illegal at all. It is wholly improper for ASADA to say 'well, you took part, and at least one person took a banned substance, so we'll lump you with a charge and now you can go about defending it'.

If ASADA wants to charge a player, it needs to meet its burden of proof, which means they need to provide enough evidence for each particular player. Otherwise they'll have to try going after the club.

The laws for ASAD/WADA are actually different.

You don't actually need a positive test to get banned or even 100% evidence. ASADA/WADA can hand out bans if they have enough circumstantial evidence. It's how they got Armstrong.

Of course Essendon can then take it to court. But the burden of proof is actually different to say a criminal case where it has to be beyond reasonable doubt.

A 12 month Ban for Hird is an absolute joke/disgrace.

Something similar is happening here. One of the reasons the AFL want to avoid this going to court is that Demetriou's and McLaughlin's advice to Essendon prior to them self-reporting may be revealed and may be more than embarrassing. It's some dirty tactics by the Hird camp - the relationship with the AFL is permanently broken

Incredible brinkmanship by Hird - that guy has nerves of steel. Hird says in court that Demetriou is not fit to judge him because he has a pre-conceived bias, in evidence when AD warned DE by phone that Essendon was in trouble. Evans and Demetriou have denied this. He must believe Evans is going to say differently under oath. Just incredible. I can't see a happy ending here.

The AFL is a voluntary signatory to WADA.and, as such, accepts the WADA code in full including the strict liability imposed on offenders. WADA has appeal rights if its not happy with the way any investigation is carried out and in the way the AFL determines the outcome of such investigations. Our laws won't help parties who might feel aggrieved in such instances and I sense that the argy bargy going on at the moment is partly about ensuring that the negotiated outcome fits in so that WADA won't make waves. The problem will be for the players when ASADA's final report comes out because the standard of proof required under the WADA code that governs these things is somewhat looser than in our criminal system. My own view is that anyone at Essendon who might be popping champagne corks because they think their players are off the hook is delusional.

As to the second part of my proposition about the ACC (that's the Australian Crime Commission), I'm sure that's right in the sense that this body is looking for links between organised crime, the illegal importation of these substances and how sporting clubs source them. It seems to me that Dank and Essendon came to the notice of the ACC as part of this investigation. One report in the Age suggested that the facility opposite Windy Hill was under ACC surveillance while the injecting was going on. The ACC does wire taps and has the ways and means to get evidence which I suspect will bury the Bombers when they're done with this. I think therefore that the ACC might have a little bit more power than Demetriou including possibly the power (perhaps through other government agencies) to bring even Vlad down if he's been naughty.

POSTSCRIPT: With reference to the post immediately above, I think rjay's right and that the Essendon players will eventually be charged and this will obviously have repercussions with their club for some time toi come. There might be some damage to Melbourne as well depending on whether and what supplements were supplied to or used by our players as mentioned in some SMS's released between Dank and Bate of our club. Hence, my anger at the club some months ago when our involvement came out. Even if Bate was acting on a frolic of his own, he could have hurt the club badly. I hope our boys never received or used medicine prescribed at the recommendation of Dank.

Thanks.

So in summary is it right to say:

1. Any negotiated settlement between the AFL and Essendon can be overruled by WADA who can impose their own penalties including penalties on the Club and its non playing employees (which is what I read the post I initially responded to to say)
2. The ACC have powers to prosecute Essendon and its employees (and obviously Danks et al).
3. ASADA can ban the players and has little if any choice but to impose bans if they are found to have taken banned drugs.

If point three is correct, what will they do in the situation where the drugs given to players was not uniform and there are no records of which drugs were given to which people. It would be evil if Trenners got rubbed out because he was the only person to identifiably taken a banned drug and the Bomber players can't.

I'm surprised you're surprised.

I'm surprised, that you are surprised, that I am surprised. Does that surprise you?

PS. Hope you are well, we haven't spoken for a while.

BB , as I understand it the AFL can only adjudicate and penalise within its own juristiction. As I see it its not attempting to specifically charge Essendon or anyone with the actual drugs, drug administration per se its getting them on the premise that they exhibited poor governance which exposed the players to harm and the brings the leagues name into disrespute.

Any charges and penalties from the use etc of the banned substances come under WADA/ASADA and they will issue infractions in respect to these. This is , to my understanding, where the players stand to get whacked and possibly the club in terms of a team ban for breaching 11.2

or I could be wrong...lol

Incredible brinkmanship by Hird - that guy has nerves of steel. Hird says in court that Demetriou is not fit to judge him because he has a pre-conceived bias, in evidence when AD warned DE by phone that Essendon was in trouble. Evans and Demetriou have denied this. He must believe Evans is going to say differently under oath. Just incredible. I can't see a happy ending here.

Not at all. Because don't forget The FOXTEL/Ch7 deal. They paid way over what they should have. Now they will demand a product of standard for another 4 years.

They will be hoping Essendrug play finals...

Just another headache for the fat controller.

Thanks.

So in summary is it right to say:

• Any negotiated settlement between the AFL and Essendon can be overruled by WADA who can impose their own penalties including penalties on the Club and its non playing employees (which is what I read the post I initially responded to to say)
• The ACC have powers to prosecute Essendon and its employees (and obviously Danks et al).
• ASADA can ban the players and has little if any choice but to impose bans if they are found to have taken banned drugs.

If point three is correct, what will they do in the situation where the drugs given to players was not uniform and there are no records of which drugs were given to which people. It would be evil if Trenners got rubbed out because he was the only person to identifiably taken a banned drug and the Bomber players can't.

close but not quite right.

1) any negotiated settlement between the club and the afl of four bringing the game into disrepute and will not include any pronhibited drug use penalties. ASADA can charge the plays, coaches and club separately for WADA code related breaches.

2) the ACC has powers to investigate, it will then hand over a brief of evidence to the relevant prosecutors be it state or festal police or other bodies (im not sure if this includes ASADA but I'd be surprised of it didn't).

3) ASADA must enforce the WADA code, and if it believes players, coaches etc have broken the code for either use or Attempted Use, it issues an infraction notice for that player. The AFL then bans that player. If they don't ban them sufficiently ASADA and WADA can appeal. Players can also appeal.

Regarding identifiable players, read the past the pages where we discuss what the code says about use and attempted use.

Not at all. Because don't forget The FOXTEL/Ch7 deal. They paid way over what they should have. Now they will demand a product of standard for another 4 years.

They will be hoping Essendrug play finals...

Just another headache for the fat controller.

That Fat controllers paying our wages at the moment be careful what you wish for.

I think the players will be charged, it's only a matter of when.

Thanks, typo, should say wouldn't surprise me!