The man behind this circus, and whose honest co-operation with the doping investigators could have avoided much of the pain it has brought to the football world, was in court yesterday. Stephen Dank sat with Deakin University law lecturer and Bomber apologist Martin Hardie behind the Essendon camp. It was reported by one observer that he was "talking with him through the verdict".

Dank's view of the outcome:-

"This is an extremely disappointing result for the players. They haven't taken banned or illegal substances. The players' rights have been simply thrown to the side of the road in an inept display of legal jurisdiction by the AFL and ASADA, and this ineptitude has been fully supported by the decision handed down today. However, the fight rolls on and Essendon should have little trouble winning the appeal."

Roy Masters view is biased. We know that. But he raises some valid points.

My thoughts are that the players refrained from joining Ess in the fight against ASADA so that they could be deemed to have 'co-operated' with ASADA. That would have been very difficult had they joined the action against ASADA.

So Hardie is a Dank, Dons and Cronulla fan boy of the highest order. If the Dons/Slobbo are using him as their legal eagle I fear for their futures.

Yep, Roy is a rugby person through and through but he has connections.

My understanding is that in order to qualify for a reduction in penalty, the requirement for co-operation is that the athlete's evidence needs to result in sanctions against others. The players gave evidence in April/May 2013 and there were no sanctions flowing from their co-operation at the time. They stayed out of the Federal Court case in that they refrained from being parties to the action but they were represented by Grace QC. Now, David Grace was very measured in his submissions but I'm not convinced that they would particularly be described as "co-operation". However, when framing a compromise between parties in any action, its possible for language to be used to give the impression that everybody co-operated with everybody else and even the most bitterly fought court battle was really a "love in".

The club needs to do what it should have done weeks ago: stop dodging and answer the notices theyve been issued. But looking at Essendons track record, Little will probably appeal to the International Criminal Court, Hird will have his contracted extended to 2034 while being crowned Prince of Moonee Ponds, and the playing group will chant in wide-eyed unison, No one can give more than one hundred percent. By definition that is the most anyone can give.

Aaahahahahahahahahahahah

Anyone for a 17 team comp in 2015?

Anyone for a 17 team comp in 2015?

Absolutely, means we can't fall further.

Breaking News: The AFL has allocated all unsuccessful participants from the TV series The Recruit as special Category C players to be drafted by Essendon in the event of the club requiring replacements on its list for sanctioned players. At the request of Essendon chairman Paul Little, the allocation has been further extended to evictees of Big Brother and The Bachelorette.

Melbourne Storm played a whole season for no premiership points. Something would have to be worked out for players who have left the club/AFL, and those who choose to walk, but that seems a reasonable penalty. The final they missed last year could be written off to their own bloody-mindedness. And Golden Boy could be traded to France for a reasonable quantity of Bordeaux.

Edit: and Cotchin gets Watson's Brownlow.

Edited September 20, 201411 yr by Elusive Tunbridge

and Cotchin gets his rightful Brownlow.

Fixed that up for you. ;-)

Edit: and Cotchin gets Watson's Brownlow.

Sam Mitchell I believe?

edit: actually both Mitchell and Cotchin, they tied for 2nd

Edited September 20, 201411 yr by jabberwocky

Absolutely, means we can't fall further.

One less win though

Sam Mitchell I believe?

My bile duct works better than my memory these days.

Anyone for a 17 team comp in 2015?

..ah, but a regular bye is such a pain :-(. Still, worth it.

Mitchell and Cotchin will share it (if Wikipedia is to be believed).

Titus O'Reilly takes a serious look at Middleton J's decision:-

The people of Melbourne respond to Justice Middleton’s ruling

They should be made to field whatever team they can, for no points. Everyone will enjoy giving them a belting and giving their supporters lip

There has never been a suggestion that the playing contracts signed by AFL players are not binding. The anti-competitive argument raised in regards to the salary cap (and the draft) is completely unrelated to whether there are binding contracts signed by players.

Correct. Same applies to Clubs but some Clubs have suggested they would challenge them.

They should be made to field whatever team they can, for no points. Everyone will enjoy giving them a belting and giving their supporters lip

We could donate a few spuds.

According to Robbo, via a text message he received on air this morning Essendon are going to appeal the decision. Not official but from reliable sources, probably Hird's team.

Love burning money this crew, not sure it would go down to well with the players if they did appeal.

According to Robbo, via a text message he received on air this morning Essendon are going to appeal the decision. Not official but from reliable sources, probably Hird's team.

Love burning money this crew, not sure it would go down to well with the players if they did appeal.

Can't for the life of me imagine on what grounds they would appeal.

Reading the Aged today it is hard not to smile.

The Legal Eagles have made a fortune out of these cheating bastards.

Let it continue until the war chest is Red Hot in debt.

Pail Little. What a destructive old man you are..

According to Robbo, via a text message he received on air this morning Essendon are going to appeal the decision. Not official but from reliable sources, probably Hird's team.

Love burning money this crew, not sure it would go down to well with the players if they did appeal.

If they appeal it's an appeal in hope and to buy time more than anything else and it would be because they believe ASADA has the evidence to prove their case for infractions.

If they appeal it's an appeal in hope and to buy time more than anything else and it would be because they believe ASADA has the evidence to prove their case for infractions.

If they appeal, how long before that is heard and determined?

They have no hope. They've gone kamikaze.

Can't for the life of me imagine on what grounds they would appeal.

Me neither.