I wondered what that smell was.

I speculate, If two players take a deal and fess up. EFC becomes a sporting team with 2 or more members banned under the anti doping code. My understanding is that, that means a mandatory 2 year banning of the club from any ASADA sporting code..

Next season the AFL creates the Tassie Bombers using available EFC players plus the EFC players as they come back from 6 month suspension in March. If extra players are required each club could provide one 50 game + player to make up the numbers (remember Ted Fidge) We could offer Shannon Byrnes.

Players would be free to move from EFC as they (EFC) would have breached the conditions of their contracts.

Essendon sits out two years and is entitled to return under strict conditions ie move to Tassie , do as they are told. Remember they will be near bankrupt. No sponsors and huge payments on the hangar.

I dream.

It will soon be every man for himself at the EFC. When this is all over the Tassie Cannibals will be a suitable name to remember what once was Essendon.

Not sure on this. When USADA pursued Lance they were able to accommodate out of season bans for several riders who gave testimony and in doing so implicated themselves.

Yes - but the riders with the 6 month bans didn't just dob themselves and Lance in, they dobbed everyone in from riders, managers, doctors, staff, the whole enchilada.

Not sure of how far ASADA want to take it, but according to the WADA rule-book, in order to get a reduction you need to do a bit more than just put your hand up and say "OK, I did it".

Also, they weren't technically off-season bans, because there isn't the same clear "off-season" in cycling. Certainly, those riders were banned for some months when normally they would have taken a break - but the 6 month bans for most of them ran from September till March, and there are still some really important races in that time - the World Championships is in September, there are a series of major races, especially in Italy, etc. etc.. Then, even in January, things start cranking up again fairly rapidly, e.g. Tour Down Under. They were certainly penalised.

just had the most hilarious debate with a bombers mate.

she's adamant it's been a trial by media, and that melbourne should be investigated for the text messages.

"so where was the trial by media? who's head rolled? by was the narrative ONLY about us?"

ha!

"yet, we've received show cause notices. after 16 months of being told it was aod that we were going down for. which, by the way, is WELL evidenced that melbourne took"

haha!

"an essendon player last night said he is 100% certain the vial had a thomomodulin label on it."

now we're talking!

you know the best way of getting this evidence out there? respond to the show-cause notices! don't go to the fed court to block em!

Perhaps it is just too late, or too many beers, but I have had enough of this crap.

I think I may write to the MFC proposing they go to the AFL and ask for Essendon to be booted out.

Yeah I know it will hurt the TV rights deal, but everything is negotiable, and am sure the AFL and the 17 other clubs will sort something out.

It would have to be better than years more of this.

Not sure if it's been mentioned, but this is an interesting turn of events,

Email reveals split

The agreement stated that “to provide an immediate level of comfort ... it will be explained to players that under a no fault or negligence defence a player can receive a complete elimination of sanction”.

I thought that was the case anyway? Or is there still a sanction for no fault or negligence?

Not sure if it's been mentioned, but this is an interesting turn of events,

Email reveals split

I thought that was the case anyway? Or is there still a sanction for no fault or negligence?

Seems to me that they were spelling out what the anti doping codes provide in cases of no fault or negligence, a subject that has been discussed ad infinitum in the past here and elsewhere.

Several cyclists were given substantial reductions for giving evidence that resulted in the sanctions against Lance Armstrong while in one case, an athlete was exonerated because he was administered a prohibited substance whilst unconscious.

Ben McDevitt was criticised heavily by Paul Little for stating the offer was still on the table but Little described it as a bullying tactic. And no wonder, he wants it all to go away - Essendon and Hird are actually contesting the show-cause notices because they understand that if the players provide the levels of assistance required to avail themselves of the offer, then they will be well and truly cooked.

As an aside, judging by the way information is coming out it's not looking good for the AFL and certain officials (including a former official) either.

Seems to me that they were spelling out what the anti doping codes provide in cases of no fault or negligence, a subject that has been discussed ad infinitum in the past here and elsewhere.

Several cyclists were given substantial reductions for giving evidence that resulted in the sanctions against Lance Armstrong while in one case, an athlete was exonerated because he was administered a prohibited substance whilst unconscious.

Ben McDevitt was criticised heavily by Paul Little for stating the offer was still on the table but Little described it as a bullying tactic. And no wonder, he wants it all to go away - Essendon and Hird are actually contesting the show-cause notices because they understand that if the players provide the levels of assistance required to avail themselves of the offer, then they will be well and truly cooked.

As an aside, judging by the way information is coming out it's not looking good for the AFL and certain officials (including a former official) either.

You would think the AFL is in for a fair smack for how they handled things and what info was passed around, certainly before any announcements were made and Ess, who are self righteously spouting this now, "self reported".

That article is yet another example of the sycophantic herald sun reporting on something they was revealed in about June last year.

They seemed to have missed the distinction that the email says players CAN be eligible for no fault, no suspension exemptions, not WILL get that.

No one wins in this - not the bombers as a club, not their fans, not their players, not the afl as an organisation, not their staff, or former staff, not asada or it's former staff.

The only winners are going to be the lawyers.

Feels like we are being drip fed these anti ASADA tidbits through the media.

Will be interesting to see if Ess settle this one with "Ian" Robinson in case he tries to subpoena some

people who know too much...

http://m.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/dean-robinson-set-to-subpoena-bombers-in-fight-for-pay-20140617-zsavg.html

Feels like we are being drip fed these anti ASADA tidbits through the media.

Yes I don't know how many people picked up Essendon's chief cheer leader mark robinson's comment on AFL 360 last night when he said Essendon's problems are largely caused by some senior journalists (some award winning) in the Fairfax press having it in for them (Essendon). Presumably he means nick mckenzie and Caroline Wilson. Clearly he does not read his fellow News Limited hound Patrick Smith in "the Australian".

What distinguishes Wilson, McKenzie and Smith from Robinson is that the former deals in facts gathered by the journalistic hard work of checking and rechecking information and drawing conclusion from that. At best, Robinson seems to rely on public relations handouts from the AFL and Essendon, and at worse has a much more sinister motive - he is himself looking after the political and personal interests of many on the EFC board. I must say it certainly appears to be the latter to me.

Yes I don't know how many people picked up Essendon's chief cheer leader mark robinson's comment on AFL 360 last night when he said Essendon's problems are largely caused by some senior journalists (some award winning) in the Fairfax press having it in for them (Essendon). Presumably he means nick mckenzie and Caroline Wilson. Clearly he does not read his fellow News Limited hound Patrick Smith in "the Australian".

What distinguishes Wilson, McKenzie and Smith from Robinson is that the former deals in facts gathered by the journalistic hard work of checking and rechecking information and drawing conclusion from that. At best, Robinson seems to rely on public relations handouts from the AFL and Essendon, and at worse has a much more sinister motive - he is himself looking after the political and personal interests of many on the EFC board. I must say it certainly appears to be the latter to me.

What I am finding difficult to understand is the constant whining from the Essendon camp about ASADA leaking information to the media when independent enquiries reveal that ASADA hasn't been leaking at all. That leaves the AFL and EFC as possible leakers and judging from some of the material leaking out, you don't have to be Einstein ...

How boring.

I was hoping to watch Essendon play in the Ammo's next year.

I still hold out hope.

I think if this happens WADA will step in and take the whole matter to the Court of Arbitration in Sport. WADA is watching every move in this saga, as is the rest of the international sporting community. They (WADA) have a very clear role in this ie as the global body they oversee the fairness of penalties to do with doping in sport and can intervene (and have on a number of occasions internationally) if they believe corruption has occurred locally or penalties do not pass the "fairness" test. This is why all of Essendon's political posturing about ASADA is largely a waste of time. If ASADA are deemed to have squibbed it, the international intervention will correct it.

It is significant that the people most appalled by this whole episode in AUSTRALIA are Australia's Olympic athletes. Many believe there is a double standard here. Seemingly wealthy sports (and athletes) can get off lightly whereas if they were caught abusing their bodies in such a way they would get 4 year bans at best, and life at worst.

This is what the WADA's fairness assessment is largely about. It is also there to ensure local corruption does not pollute the process. Ironically I think it was largely brought in to avoid "third world corruption".. No-one would have suspected it would have applied to sporting super-power and governance clean-skin Australia, but this is where we appear to be heading to our national shame and huge cost to our sporting reputation.

Essendon are trying to paint ASADA as the bad guys to the public

Points to remember, essendon officials asked for the investigation

Essendon were happy with the asada /afl joint investigation ( until it went bad for them)

Essendon have so far refused to answer so cause notices which to me is an indirect admission of guilt.

I just hope the public aren't sold on all the media figures like robbo who are just denial driven essendon supporters hoping someone will listen

Will be interesting to see if Ess settle this one with "Ian" Robinson in case he tries to subpoena some

people who know too much...

http://m.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/dean-robinson-set-to-subpoena-bombers-in-fight-for-pay-20140617-zsavg.html

Interesting in that it seems essendope do in fact keep some records.........when it suits them...hmmmm

"In their defence, the Bombers provided specifics of their injury troubles in 2012 when they were plagued by soft-tissue problems, which ''significantly exceeded'' previous seasons.

''In 2012, [Essendon] players suffered 30 hamstring injuries compared to a 10-year average of 9.2, missing 88 games compared to a 10-year average of 29.1,'' the document says."

You're suggesting that Dank's plan was to order illegal performance enhancing drugs in EFC's name and then on-supply them? Maybe he also have planned to hold up a bank wearing an Essendon jumper?

And there was a perceivable pumping up of their performances, bulking up of their bodies, an unprecedented spate of soft tissue injuries, and a huge fade out after whatever is was wore off. All circumstantial I know. Maybe placebo?

I notice Justice Middleton is hearing Essendon's case. I wonder if he is related to late actor Charles Middleton AKA Ming the Merciless.

I think if this happens WADA will step in and take the whole matter to the Court of Arbitration in Sport. WADA is watching every move in this saga, as is the rest of the international sporting community. They (WADA) have a very clear role in this ie as the global body they oversee the fairness of penalties to do with doping in sport and can intervene (and have on a number of occasions internationally) if they believe corruption has occurred locally or penalties do not pass the "fairness" test. This is why all of Essendon's political posturing about ASADA is largely a waste of time. If ASADA are deemed to have squibbed it, the international intervention will correct it.

It is significant that the people most appalled by this whole episode in AUSTRALIA are Australia's Olympic athletes. Many believe there is a double standard here. Seemingly wealthy sports (and athletes) can get off lightly whereas if they were caught abusing their bodies in such a way they would get 4 year bans at best, and life at worst.

This is what the WADA's fairness assessment is largely about. It is also there to ensure local corruption does not pollute the process. Ironically I think it was largely brought in to avoid "third world corruption".. No-one would have suspected it would have applied to sporting super-power and governance clean-skin Australia, but this is where we appear to be heading to our national shame and huge cost to our sporting reputation.

Dee have you got some examples/articles quoting other athletes outside of footy raising concerns on how this has been handled compared if it was them?

Justice Middleton is an Old Camberwell Grammarian which would, thankfully, at least make it unlikely that he's an EFC Member.

With Little's string-pulling, slings, back-dooring and whispers in this matter it would not have surprised me.

Justice Middleton is an Old Camberwell Grammarian which would, thankfully, at least make it unlikely that he's not an EFC Member.

With Little's string-pulling, slings, back-dooring and whispers in this matter it would not have surprised me.

think you got the double negative wrong

Based on the email revealed in the HS, and Jon faine's interview with journalist Michael Warner:

(This is my understanding, correct me if I'm wrong)

- afl lobbied asada and made agreement, that in the event that essendon players were found to have had banned substances, that if the club and players cooperated fully in the investigation, then no sanctions would be imposed on players.

- Under WADA code, ASADA is told or realizes that it can't actually make such agreement, that athletes are responsible for what they take, no matter what the circumstances and that bans can be reduced with cooperation but not eliminated.

-ASADA attempts to alter the agreement with the afl

-AFL sends the email to ASADA, copied to Gillard's office, saying EFC, is cooperating in the investigation based on the ORIGINAL agreement.

-I now understand why the EFC is so angry at demetriou et al, and it seems ASADA stuffed up originally by making an agreement, that they had no authority to make.

- However, nothing really changes. The AFL is a participant in the WADA code, and as such ultimately answers to the rules and condition it imposes.

-to take the court action, EFC if successful will feel vindicated on the amateurish start by ASADA and

to continue...

- but the facts of what happened remain, and that is that there is sufficient evidence for show cause notices to have been issued. (By seeking to have the evidence collected by the joint investigation, eliminated, this is surely admission that asada's evidence is indeed damning, EFC are just pxssed off that they helped them get it)

- now we hear there is every chance that ASADA have collected enough evidence, since then anyway.

So after all this I guess my summation is that nothing has changed, and that fairly or unfairly the players are the ones that will get the whack, but with the court action, it will be the much more significant penalty.

Can Paul Little not see the wood for the trees?

think you got the double negative wrong

Ta, fixed

Based on the email revealed in the HS, and Jon faine's interview with journalist Michael Warner:

(This is my understanding, correct me if I'm wrong)

- afl lobbied asada and made agreement, that in the event that essendon players were found to have had banned substances, that if the club and players cooperated fully in the investigation, then no sanctions would be imposed on players.

- Under WADA code, ASADA is told or realizes that it can't actually make such agreement, that athletes are responsible for what they take, no matter what the circumstances and that bans can be reduced with cooperation but not eliminated.

-ASADA attempts to alter the agreement with the afl

-AFL sends the email to ASADA, copied to Gillard's office, saying EFC, is cooperating in the investigation based on the ORIGINAL agreement.

-I now understand why the EFC is so angry at demetriou et al, and it seems ASADA stuffed up originally by making an agreement, that they had no authority to make.

- However, nothing really changes. The AFL is a participant in the WADA code, and as such ultimately answers to the rules and condition it imposes.

-to take the court action, EFC if successful will feel vindicated on the amateurish start by ASADA and

this email is very convenient to have suddenly surfaced.

I have just read The Hun articles.

Did the AFL sign an ASADA agreement or WADA agreement?

Does it matter?

Seems very strange that ASADA would seek to make a deal with Essendrug.

I now believe this is why the ASADA CEO was replaced and a Federal Court Judge bought in.

WADA still rule

Bombers still delusional if they proceed.