On 15/11/2013 at 09:17, Dees2014 said:

If you read my entry carefully at no stage did I say they did not ban teams. All I said was it is easier to make penalties stick on individuals than on teams.

i agree, but if asada have trouble pinning it to a specific player and they think they are being stonewalled, i was hypothesizing they might try and stick it to the team instead. just a thought

  On 15/11/2013 at 07:48, Dees2014 said:

More typically, the international anti-doping bodies through their local arms (in our case ASADA), issue infraction notices to individuals rather than teams, as will happen in the case of Essendon. I don't know of one case either here or overseas where they have deducted points from a local football competition, whatever the code may be. That tends to be under the local competition rules of the various codes, which we all know mostly if tested would not stand up in a court of law. Also it is usually easier to make these penalties stick on individuals than teams.

What you can rely on though is if the local anti doping Organisation squibs it, then WADA will come over the top of it and ensure appropriate penalties are evoked. Essendon has nowhere to hide, no matter how much their chairman is in denial.

There is zero relationship between what the local football Organisation imposes in terms of penalties, and what ASADA will impose. There is definitely no netting out. ASADA decides its own penalties under its own rules. What the AFL does makes no difference at all to the penalties which they will impose, and believe me, they will.

A lot of this is not correct.

ASADA doesn't issue infraction notices. They instruct the sporting bodies to issue notices. The sporting bodies are also the ones who determine penalties, not ASADA.

The ability to strip points from a team is what is provided for in the Code. If the AFL was instructed by ASADA to issue an infraction notice against Essendon, that would be one of the available penalties. They've simply decided to already issue it.

As for the 'squibbing it' thing, WADA doesn't just step in and set new penalties. The decision is the AFL's; if WADA doesn't like it, they can appeal it to CAS, but to succeed they have to make their case that the AFL's hasn't done its job properly in penalising Essendon. That's going to be a tough case to make given that, for this saga, Essendon's copped a $1 million fine as well as a total loss of points in a season, including the ability to play finals.

ASADA imposes nothing, so you're right about there being no relationship between ASADA penalties and AFL penalties. ASADA doesn't set any penalties.

  On 15/11/2013 at 10:30, titan_uranus said:

A lot of this is not correct.

ASADA doesn't issue infraction notices. They instruct the sporting bodies to issue notices. The sporting bodies are also the ones who determine penalties, not ASADA.

The ability to strip points from a team is what is provided for in the Code. If the AFL was instructed by ASADA to issue an infraction notice against Essendon, that would be one of the available penalties. They've simply decided to already issue it.

As for the 'squibbing it' thing, WADA doesn't just step in and set new penalties. The decision is the AFL's; if WADA doesn't like it, they can appeal it to CAS, but to succeed they have to make their case that the AFL's hasn't done its job properly in penalising Essendon. That's going to be a tough case to make given that, for this saga, Essendon's copped a $1 million fine as well as a total loss of points in a season, including the ability to play finals.

ASADA imposes nothing, so you're right about there being no relationship between ASADA penalties and AFL penalties. ASADA doesn't set any penalties.

you are obfuscating a little here

asada originate the infraction. quibbling over who publicly issues it is just that

asada(wada) have a recommended penalty protocol. If they think the sporting body has not met that protocol they appeal it (and have done successfully)

  On 15/11/2013 at 11:17, daisycutter said:

you are obfuscating a little here

asada originate the infraction. quibbling over who publicly issues it is just that

asada(wada) have a recommended penalty protocol. If they think the sporting body has not met that protocol they appeal it (and have done successfully)

No, I'm not. The fact that the AFL sets the penalty is significant when it comes to the penalties that have discretion - the decision isn't mandated in the Code. It's not like a player getting a ban for doping, which has a minimum period and the AFL just sets it. Penalising the team is a decision that gets made by the AFL, and they will take into account the fact that they have already used their internal procedures to penalise Essendon for this whole saga.

  On 15/11/2013 at 11:17, daisycutter said:

you are obfuscating a little hereasada originate the infraction. quibbling over who publicly issues it is just thatasada(wada) have a recommended penalty protocol. If they think the sporting body has not met that protocol they appeal it (and have done successfully)

A very clear explanation - thanks Daiseycutter.

There seem to be a number of people on here who seem to think because ASADA take their time and do their investigations thoroughly, that this means they will go away. There also seems to be a total confusion (aided and abetted by Hird and his cronies) that if the AFL have issued penalties, then this will affect those resulting from the ASADA investigations. They won't - they are totally unrelated as John Fahey has made clear now on more than half a dozen occasions. And if the penalties resulting from these investigations are deemed to be inadequate by WADA, then they will appeal them and have them over turned and strengthened which they have done on numerous occasions both here and offshore. the penalties themselves will be harsher than they would have been had not Hird and his ilk fought them all the way. The stupidity of this is hard to overstate.

I say it again. No matter how much clutching at straws goes on in those associated with the AFL and their clubs, this wont save Essendon. Infraction notices will be issued to up to a dozen players this year or next, and then watch the writs fly - mostly at Essendon by the players who will be banned for at least 2 years, and many of them will lose their livelihood as a result. It will be a mess.

Surely if wade lees who got done for 2 years and he didn't even use the products and Ahmed Saad who Is under investigation now and likely to cop a ban. Then sure the bombers have to get served something soon. What a train wreck if they get off

The Fahey interview is fascinating and can give Essendrug or Hird no solace. He points out that everything that has happened to them so far is AFL code if conduct related, and that ASADA /WADA infractions / penalties / sanctions are yet to come : investigations are still proceeding.

The ASADA / WADA sanctions, if a case is proven, will be hard and heavy and all Essendrug's mates in AFL HQ will have little to offer them by way of help.

I suspect that the fan is warming up and the laxatives have been given - when the twain meet, I wouldn't like to be in the line of fire.

IF it doesn't happen and it seems like its gonna take forever,dont panic

wada have a goal and wont lie down for anybody

they will take 5 years but in the end the bombers are stuffed

wada don't tread lightly when the evidence is presented about cheats

btw dees2014 I was just making the team option available to other readers,not nitpicking you personally

I've lifted this from our HATCH MATCH & DESPATCH 2013 thread and I think it demonstrates Essendon's dilemma:-

ESSENDON

In: Kurt Aylett (GWS Giants) Paul Chapman (Geelong) Lauchlan Dalgleish (promoted rookie) Shaun Edwards (GWS Giants)

Out: Stewart Crameri (Western Bulldogs) Alwyn Davey (delisted) Luke Davis (delisted) Scott Gumbleton (Fremantle) David Hille (retired) Hal Hunter (delisted) Nathan Lovett-Murray (retired)

Draft selections: 26, 55, 66, 102

They managed to recruit Paul Chapman who was virtually a free agent using a lowly pick. The lure was the money (far more than he would have gotten from Geelong and apparently from his other suitors) and his previous association with Bomber Thompson. Aylett and Edwards came from GWS at the cost of another low pick. The team had very little to offer by way of leverage in the trade period and considering they believe they're in a premiership window (they were in the top 4 until the strain of the peptide scandal took hold in the latter third of the season) they were unable to top up their list to make it formidable enough to mount a challenge.

They lost Crameri who they thought a valuable player and who they wanted to keep and Gumbleton who was a disappointment having been a high draft pick many years ago. It was inevitable from the start of the season that he would leave if he couldn't establish his place in the best 22 - and he didn't. The surprising thing was that these two found other clubs that would take them and one suspects the process of due diligence involved determining that these blokes weren't injected with anything supplied by Dank and co because otherwise you wouldn't touch them with a 10 foot pole. Other swaps were talked about in the media but didn't eventuate and so far, none of the delisted players have been picked up. The suggestions have been that clubs are loathe to look at players coming from the Bombers' system and the snail's pace of the ASADA investigation isn't helping things.

I understand that the anti-doping authorities have no obligation to speed up their investigations and will do their thing in their own time and at their own pace but it seems a little tough on those individuals who are innocent in this scenario. This also extends to our own players who will come under investigation at some stage because of the connection between Dank and one of our club doctors.

Little is deluding himself if he thinks the worst is behind his club. I suspect the weight of the investigation process will be brought to bear on his team as 2014 unfolds and it won't be pretty.

We been starved of any real juicy stories for so long from MessyDrugs that the debate is about what ASADA/WADA can and can not do.

If MessyDrugs had a club sanctions illegal Drugs program then IMO nothing less then the potential disbandment of the Club would be appropriate.

You rather accept drugs in sport or you don't.

Players will always try to get an advantage in their sport, some will try the easy path (Drugs).

But when coaching staff get involved etc. that just a whole new level of deceit and cheating few would want in their sport.

I, like everyone here does not really know what went on in MessyDrug but if its found that coaches had a illegal drugs programs, then how would the AFL remove them from the AFL. Which Club would be able to take their place in the AFL?

IMO there no half measures here, it would be the survival of the Club on the line or the replacement of the AFL commission for incompetence.

Once a little penalty is imposed its likely to encourage others to try their luck.

Who cares what the MessyDrugs Fans think about a penalty, if they really love the sport and what a better Club they could always join the MFC.

LOL

Their fans are the fans I hate the most, I dont want them!!! Rather hang out with the pies cheersquad

  On 15/11/2013 at 22:00, biggestred said:

Their fans are the fans I hate the most, I dont want them!!! Rather hang out with the pies cheersquad

One of them is my nephew LOL

You can pick your friends but you can't kidnap your nephew for a few months and brain wash him to become a Melbourne supporter. Even if it is for his own good (Keeping him away from illegal drugs)!

What is this world coming to?

PS I hate everything Collingwood so Please say NO to sitting next to their cheersquad! It will only end badly.

  On 15/11/2013 at 19:37, Dees2014 said:

A very clear explanation - thanks Daiseycutter.

There seem to be a number of people on here who seem to think because ASADA take their time and do their investigations thoroughly, that this means they will go away. There also seems to be a total confusion (aided and abetted by Hird and his cronies) that if the AFL have issued penalties, then this will affect those resulting from the ASADA investigations. They won't - they are totally unrelated as John Fahey has made clear now on more than half a dozen occasions. And if the penalties resulting from these investigations are deemed to be inadequate by WADA, then they will appeal them and have them over turned and strengthened which they have done on numerous occasions both here and offshore. the penalties themselves will be harsher than they would have been had not Hird and his ilk fought them all the way. The stupidity of this is hard to overstate.

I say it again. No matter how much clutching at straws goes on in those associated with the AFL and their clubs, this wont save Essendon. Infraction notices will be issued to up to a dozen players this year or next, and then watch the writs fly - mostly at Essendon by the players who will be banned for at least 2 years, and many of them will lose their livelihood as a result. It will be a mess.

Still wrong.

Essendon players who receive infraction notices have legitimate defences available under 10.4 and 10.5.2. If they are banned, they will have the 2 year minimum reduced. Also, with the incredible tardiness of ASADA's investigation, under 10.9.1 the players have an argument to have the ineligibility period backdated to the date of their violations, which will reduce a lot of the time they are left to serve, if any is left after their bans are reduced under 10.4 and/or 10.5.2.

As for the club, they do not get penalised by ASADA. Let's say that again - they do not get penalised by ASADA. If ASADA recommends penalties should be given to Essendon, that is the decision of the AFL. The AFL's power to penalise Essendon comes under 11.2, which gives them discretion to choose their penalty. Options include stripping Essendon of points (already done) and a fine (already done). Now, they could decide to repeat this, but why would they strip Essendon of a second year's points? That's not only extremely severe (and likely to be successfully appealed by Essendon), but detrimental to the AFL. So they won't do that. As for a fine, they could raise the fine, but $1 million is already quite a lot. So that is a possibility, but again, whatever they do will have to be considered in the light of what they have already done. Why? Because the AFL sets the penalties. Not ASADA.

If, then, WADA does not like what the AFL has chosen to do, they do indeed have the right to appeal. They do not, as you seem to suggest, have an automatic right to increase the penalties. To do this they have to win their case with CAS (which, by the way, does not operate under a model of binding precedent, meaning they are not bound to follow any previous cases). To do this they'll have to show that the AFL didn't penalise Essendon properly. WADA may well win their case, but they may also lose. In any regard, to win they have to show that Essendon's gotten off lightly. If you think that having their 2013 points stripped (a year in which, to date, there is no suggestion of any doping offences occurring) and losing the ability to play the finals, along with a $1 million fine is insufficient, then good luck to you. I'll hazard a guess that WADA's going to have a tough time arguing that's insufficient.

I don't WANT to sit next to them - but if I had to pick between Essendon supporters and the pies cheersquad.....

I don't know how Essendon could backdate their suspensions (if they were given any) given they haven't served any time out!

  On 16/11/2013 at 01:20, biggestred said:

I don't know how Essendon could backdate their suspensions (if they were given any) given they haven't served any time out!

Usually the period of ineligibility starts from the day you accept the penalty, or from your hearing. But under 10.9.1, where there is substantial delay that isn't the fault of the player, then the ineligibility period can be backdated to start as early as the date of the offence.

It's discretionary, so it's not a requirement, but the fact that ASADA is seeming to take a long time even interviewing people (e.g. Dank) might give the players an argument to get the ineligibility period to be backdated to help them get through it quicker. The longer it takes for ASADA to get the investigation finished, the more likely this is to work in their favour.

  On 15/11/2013 at 20:39, jazza said:

IF it doesn't happen and it seems like its gonna take forever,dont panicwada have a goal and wont lie down for anybodythey will take 5 years but in the end the bombers are stuffedwada don't tread lightly when the evidence is presented about cheatsbtw dees2014 I was just making the team option available to other readers,not nitpicking you personally

Jazza, I realize that. i didn't in any way take offence. Your comment was constructive and effectively added to the debate.

This is a complex area, and there are shades of grey. What frustrates me (not about what you wrote I hasten to add) is that there are consistent posts on here who are swallowing the Essendon/AFL line, and they espouse that point of view very dogmatically.

WADA/ASADA have a very clear role to play ie policing the use of drugs in sport. All major sporting organisations around the world are signatories to their charter (they would be international pariahs if they did not ). They are therefore honor bound to uphold that charter. Although the local rules under which an Organisation like the AFL operates to some extent reflect that charter, the penalties the AFL may impose on their own behalf ( in the recent Essendon case "for bring the game into disrepute) have no effect on the results on an ASADA Investigation. It is all about the use or otherwise of drugs.

Most of Essendon pain is in front of it, not behind it.

  On 16/11/2013 at 00:40, titan_uranus said:

Still wrong.

Essendon players who receive infraction notices have legitimate defences available under 10.4 and 10.5.2. If they are banned, they will have the 2 year minimum reduced. Also, with the incredible tardiness of ASADA's investigation, under 10.9.1 the players have an argument to have the ineligibility period backdated to the date of their violations, which will reduce a lot of the time they are left to serve, if any is left after their bans are reduced under 10.4 and/or 10.5.2.

As for the club, they do not get penalised by ASADA. Let's say that again - they do not get penalised by ASADA. If ASADA recommends penalties should be given to Essendon, that is the decision of the AFL. The AFL's power to penalise Essendon comes under 11.2, which gives them discretion to choose their penalty. Options include stripping Essendon of points (already done) and a fine (already done). Now, they could decide to repeat this, but why would they strip Essendon of a second year's points? That's not only extremely severe (and likely to be successfully appealed by Essendon), but detrimental to the AFL. So they won't do that. As for a fine, they could raise the fine, but $1 million is already quite a lot. So that is a possibility, but again, whatever they do will have to be considered in the light of what they have already done. Why? Because the AFL sets the penalties. Not ASADA.

If, then, WADA does not like what the AFL has chosen to do, they do indeed have the right to appeal. They do not, as you seem to suggest, have an automatic right to increase the penalties. To do this they have to win their case with CAS (which, by the way, does not operate under a model of binding precedent, meaning they are not bound to follow any previous cases). To do this they'll have to show that the AFL didn't penalise Essendon properly. WADA may well win their case, but they may also lose. In any regard, to win they have to show that Essendon's gotten off lightly. If you think that having their 2013 points stripped (a year in which, to date, there is no suggestion of any doping offences occurring) and losing the ability to play the finals, along with a $1 million fine is insufficient, then good luck to you. I'll hazard a guess that WADA's going to have a tough time arguing that's insufficient.

No the penalties will be handed out to people who have a case to be made that they are innocent parties ie the players who will get infraction notices. Essendon formally are unlikely to be penalized, but if they lose a significant portion of their playing list for 2 or more years, then they will be indirectly penalized. This will result in most of their players who receive that penalty suing them and they will mostly get multi million dollar damages settlements. Even a wealthy club like Essendon will have trouble with that, maybe even the AFL itself.Talking about fines and loss of premiership points is not the main game out of the ASADA investigation. What hurts most is infraction notices which result in long term suspensions. It is the single thing that could result in legal action against the club by players, and possibly render the EFC unviable in the AFL. It hurts the EFC, the AFL, and the game itself.

I hope Essendon continue to exhibit your complacency here. The Express is steaming towards them furiously....

  On 16/11/2013 at 01:40, titan_uranus said:

Usually the period of ineligibility starts from the day you accept the penalty, or from your hearing. But under 10.9.1, where there is substantial delay that isn't the fault of the player, then the ineligibility period can be backdated to start as early as the date of the offence.

It's discretionary, so it's not a requirement, but the fact that ASADA is seeming to take a long time even interviewing people (e.g. Dank) might give the players an argument to get the ineligibility period to be backdated to help them get through it quicker. The longer it takes for ASADA to get the investigation finished, the more likely this is to work in their favour.

How could the players ask for suspension penalties to be back dated when they are not suspended during that backdated period? There are no precedents in the annals of WADA history, either here or offshore. If you can quote any I would be interested in them. John Fahey could not have been clearer on this point.

Listening to you, I now have a clearer understanding of why Paul Little seems to be so relaxed on this. He and Essendin are delusional.

I also understand why the advisory team to the EFC under Evans resigned so abruptly once Little organized the coup. I know these guys ie the previous advisors. They know this stuff backwards. They also have a very sophisticated understanding of how PR and crisis management works and the rules associated with WADA/ASADA, and I can tell you they will be still shaking their heads about how silly Essendon have been on this.

The interesting thing is that the AFL understand these issues very well. Whatever they might say publicly, they know what is coming -maybe not specifically, but they know they will take a hit. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if they see this as an opportunity to push through draconian rules to clean up the acts of the AFL clubs. The Clubs have been resisting, particularly the very powerful ones ( you know who I mean). In typical AD fashion, my guess is he sees this as an opportunity to turn what looks like a huge disaster into an opportunity for reform.

Let's hope so. He is nothing if not a very skilled Politican.

  On 16/11/2013 at 02:23, Dees2014 said:

Jazza, I realize that. i didn't in any way take offence. Your comment was constructive and effectively added to the debate.

This is a complex area, and there are shades of grey. What frustrates me (not about what you wrote I hasten to add) is that there are consistent posts on here who are swallowing the Essendon/AFL line, and they espouse that point of view very dogmatically.

WADA/ASADA have a very clear role to play ie policing the use of drugs in sport. All major sporting organisations around the world are signatories to their charter (they would be international pariahs if they did not ). They are therefore honor bound to uphold that charter. Although the local rules under which an Organisation like the AFL operates to some extent reflect that charter, the penalties the AFL may impose on their own behalf ( in the recent Essendon case "for bring the game into disrepute) have no effect on the results on an ASADA Investigation. It is all about the use or otherwise of drugs.

Most of Essendon pain is I front of it, not behind it.

If you're referring to me as 'swallowing the Essendon/AFL line', you're again wrong. I couldn't care less what happens to Essendon. If they broke rules they deserved to be punished. I'm merely referring to my knowledge of the Code and how these things work to establish what the real framework here is. As such, statements like 'WADA will just come over the top and ban them' encourage me to correct them.

Again, your point about the conduct unbecoming penalties being different to the doping penalties is correct. However, as I have said, when the AFL decides what to do about penalising Essendon, if it chooses to, it will note the fact that it has already handed out the penalties that the Code permits, and there is simply no way to ignore the fact that they've already stripped Essendon of points, which is the primary punishment for a team.

  On 16/11/2013 at 02:32, Dees2014 said:

No the penalties will be handed out to people who have a case to be made that they are innocent parties ie the players who will get infraction notices. Essendon formally are unlikely to be penalized, but if they lose a significant portion of their playing list for 2 or more years, then they will be indirectly penalized. This will result in most of their players who receive that penalty suing them and they will mostly get multi million dollar damages settlements. Even a wealthy club like Essendon will have trouble with that, maybe even the AFL itself.Talking about fines and loss of premiership points is not the main game out of the ASADA investigation. What hurts most is infraction notices which result in long term suspensions. It is the single thing that could result in legal action against the club by players, and possibly render the EFC unviable in the AFL. It hurts the EFC, the AFL, and the game itself.

I hope Essendon continue to exhibit your complacency here. The Express is steaming towards them furiously....

The first paragraph I agree with. That's essentially the point I've been making. Daisycutter referred to article 11.2 which allows the AFL to punish a team if more than two of its players are found guilty of doping offences, and I have since been discussing the scope for Essendon to be punished.

At no stage have I said that has any bearing on the potential infraction notices to be handed to Essendon players. That is a completely different issue. However, as I said earlier, I believe there are legitimate cases to be made under the mitigation provisions of the Code (specifically, 10.4 and 10.5.2) that will assist the players in their attempts to reduce their bans (if they get them) from the 2 year standard.

  On 16/11/2013 at 02:58, Dees2014 said:

How could the players ask for suspension penalties to be back dated when they are not suspended during that backdated period? There are no precedents in the annals of WADA history, either here or offshore. If you can quote any I would be interested in them. John Fahey could not have been clearer on this point.

Listening to you, I now have a clearer understanding of why Paul Little seems to be so relaxed on this. He and Essendin are delusional.

I also understand why the advisory team to the EFC under Evans resigned so abruptly once Little organized the coup. I know these guys ie the previous advisors. They know this stuff backwards. They also have a very sophisticated understanding of how PR and crisis management works and the rules associated with WADA/ASADA, and I can tell you they are still shaking their heads about how silly Essendon have been on this.

The interesting thing is that the AFL understand these issues very well. Whatever they might say publicly, they know what is coming -maybe not specifically, but they know they will take a hit. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if they see this as an opportunity to push through draconian rules to clean up the acts of the AFL clubs. The Clubs have been resisting, particularly the very powerful ones ( you know who I mean). In typical AD fashion, my guess is he sees this as an opportunity to turn what looks like a huge disaster into an opportunity for reform.

Let's hope so. He is nothing if not a very skilled Politican.

The point of the backdating provision is to prevent unfairness to athletes who break a rule but have to wait for a finding to be handed down against them. The idea being that if the doping body is competent, it gets it all done as soon as possible and the ban starts as soon as possible. Where the doping body takes an unfairly long time to get the investigation done, that can have unfair consequences on players who have to wait to start their ban (especially relevant when you're considering bans starting at the start of the off-season, vs bans which start at the start of the season proper). In this case, ASADA's had new powers since August but are yet to use them. The longer it takes them to finish this investigation in light of the new powers they've been conferred, the longer the unnecessary delay for the players. Thus, they may be able to get their ban backdated to start, say, from around now, or even earlier, if it's viewed as reasonable that ASADA should have wrapped things up by now. That's what I was getting at.

I'm not delusional, I'm merely applying the Code as it exists. If you don't like it because you don't like Essendon and you want to see them go down, there's not a lot I can do about that. The Code is what the Code is. I maintain that 10.4 and 10.5.2 are open to Essendon players on the current state of the Code (10.4 is harder to make out, but 10.5.2 is very likely to apply, which gets the period down to one year). There are also the major issue of ASADA needing to find enough evidence to satisfy the standard of proof, which is being glossed over in the debate. Dank may help solve that, but that remains to be seen.

actually essendon wasn't stripped of points

they were given a fixed finishing position of ninth regardless of points

or if you like denied participation in the finals

2013 ladder/points

  On 16/11/2013 at 04:47, daisycutter said:

actually essendon wasn't stripped of points

they were given a fixed finishing position of ninth regardless of points

or if you like denied participation in the finals

2013 ladder/points

Apologies, you're right.

Nonetheless, they were disqualified from the finals, which is still one of the penalties considered in the Code.

  On 16/11/2013 at 02:32, Dees2014 said:

?...............

I hope Essendon continue to exhibit your complacency here. The Express is steaming towards them furiously....

To use an old clichė, Little sees the light at the end of the tunnel not realizing it is the WADA Express ??

I just recall the text message Hird sent to Dank in the early weeks of season 2012.

"Make sure you get the good stuff this week...We are playing Carlton"

As far as i am concerned if Essendrug get off lightly for this (which so far i think they have) then it leaves the door wide open for drugs to stay in AFL football.

I do not want that

I just recall the text message Hird sent to Dank in the early weeks of season 2012.

"Make sure you get the good stuff this week...We are playing Carlton"

As far as i am concerned if Essendrug get off lightly for this (which so far i think they have) then it leaves the door wide open for drugs to stay in AFL football.

I do not want that & i certainly do not wany to financially support it.