Apologies if this has already been pinned somewhere. Essendon's war chest is gunna be empty pretty soon . Diddums

Essendon still owe $1.6m of AFL fine

Then of course Gill the Dill might just let it slide......... Some form of 'Special Assistance" for them !!

Given ASADA's unchallenged power to issue show-cause notices, nobody in sport can do what Essendon and its players did and expect to get away with it. They knew that ASADA could demand answers about substances taken, and the only answer to a show-cause demand would be evidence of what was administered. Essendon knew that, and the players knew that. To not have records is as nose-thumbingly defiant of the rules as taking banned substances is. That's how the rules are.

So - no sympathy for any of them. They all chose to disregard the rules, one way or the other or both ways. All are guilty, and guilty not just until they produce the evidence - they are guilty of not complying with good rules agreed to by all as the unchallenged way to keep sport clean. And even if they were now to belatedly produce some evidence about what substances were injected, we'd be wanting to hear an explanation of their long drawn out disrespect for and defiance of the rules.

There is no escaping their fate. Attacked the whole concept of keeping sport clean, and wasted everyone's time and money trying to find a technicality through which to wriggle out of accountability. Arshholes the lot of them. Goodbye, Essendon.

Edited September 23, 201410 yr by robbiefrom13

Then of course Gill the Dill might just let it slide......... Some form of 'Special Assistance" for them !!

In the afl,you dont get "special assistance" until you go cap in hand,broke and begging for help.

The afl loves a beggar.

Leading lawyer Justin Quill tells us what the Bombers judgment means

quite a good run down of it all

Agreed BB, and puts the likelihood of an appeal in perspective. But since I don't read the rag in question (there are some shortcomings to living in out of the way places) can someone enlighten me about the following claim in a comment on the article? Presumably it's just disinformation from the EFC or one of its myrmidons since if there were any such 'evidence' I assume (i) since it concerns MFC the AFL would be all over it like a rash; and (ii) it wouldn't just be the AFL that felt a need to investigate but ASADA as well:

I agree with your statement, however given that Melbourne F C had more evidence against it than Essendon, would you still feel the same way if it were Melbourne F C?

The evidence was released in the HS in a page 10-16 story a while back saying the AFL wasn't pursuing the matter but no reason why not.

Agreed BB, and puts the likelihood of an appeal in perspective. But since I don't read the rag in question (there are some shortcomings to living in out of the way places) can someone enlighten me about the following claim in a comment on the article? Presumably it's just disinformation from the EFC or one of its myrmidons since if there were any such 'evidence' I assume (i) since it concerns MFC the AFL would be all over it like a rash; and (ii) it wouldn't just be the AFL that felt a need to investigate but ASADA as well:

I agree with your statement, however given that Melbourne F C had more evidence against it than Essendon, would you still feel the same way if it were Melbourne F C?

The evidence was released in the HS in a page 10-16 story a while back saying the AFL wasn't pursuing the matter but no reason why not.

I think whoever the nong is he's somewhat confused or misinformed.

And here we go ...

Power does not fear ASADA ban on Paddy Ryder as Bombers star hears Port Adelaide’s sales pitch

Port already has been well briefed by lawyers on the ASADA saga out of concern for specialist forward Angus Monfries who left Essendon at the end of 2012, the contentious season at Windy Hill. Monfries is expected in the next week to seek a deal with ASADA and the AFL to take a three- to six-month ban dated from the end of the Power’s 2014 campaign with Saturday’s preliminary final.

What a convenient penalty for one to be seeking. It starts as of last Saturday and ends in time for the start of next season so the penalty incurred involves the loss of not a single competition day. That's what I call a punishing sanction.

And here we go ...

Power does not fear ASADA ban on Paddy Ryder as Bombers star hears Port Adelaide’s sales pitch

What a convenient penalty for one to be seeking. It starts as of last Saturday and ends in time for the start of next season so the penalty incurred involves the loss of not a single competition day. That's what I call a punishing sanction.

seeking....and getting !!!

And here we go ...

Power does not fear ASADA ban on Paddy Ryder as Bombers star hears Port Adelaide’s sales pitch

What a convenient penalty for one to be seeking. It starts as of last Saturday and ends in time for the start of next season so the penalty incurred involves the loss of not a single competition day. That's what I call a punishing sanction.

I could see that being agreed to by ASADA, as long as it then extended to say the first 4-6 games next year. They want the dominos to start falling. Saves time and money for ASADA and gets the result they want, admissions of drug taking.

Caro is suggesting the Bombers will get to $8m lost by the time this is resolved, with no reference to any Player Litigation that might eventuate in the future.

I haven't been reading this thread for a while but wish to make two points:

I can understand the players' reticence at "plea bargaining" with ASADA if they don't know what evidence ASADA has, particularly if the players don't actually know what the were injected with. Why would anyone plead guilty when they possibly are not? It's similar to the standard US cop and court shows where people plead guilty to a lesser offence than take their chances with a trial - even if they claim to be innocent. Once the plea is accepted, players will be tainted for life.

With respect to Hird not being in the country this week, it makes perfect sense. As the designated Essendon coach and a Brownlow medalist he would have an invitation and normally be expected to attend the Brownlow Medal presentation. If he had done so, it would have been a media circus distracting from the main event. While Channel 7 would presumably have loved it, one can imagine that the AFL, the Essendon FC and the players themselves (all of them, not just Essendon) would not. Being out of the country avoids the criticism he would have received for turning up...or failing to turn up. It's the smarter option.

Caro is suggesting the Bombers will get to $8m lost by the time this is resolved, with no reference to any Player Litigation that might eventuate in the future.

Red...if/when players sue the club is that out of their ( clubs ) coffers or covered by some nefarious insurance set up ?

Red...if/when players sue the club is that out of their ( clubs ) coffers or covered by some nefarious insurance set up ?

It would have to be their Insurance. They might have to pay an excess on claims though.

It would have to be their Insurance. They might have to pay an excess on claims though.

sounds silly possibly but would it be similar to say the TAC when they find youve been naughty ( drinking dui ) that insurance is voided ?

sounds silly possibly but would it be similar to say the TAC when they find youve been naughty ( drinking dui ) that insurance is voided ?

Depends on the terms and conditions.

I haven't been reading this thread for a while but wish to make two points:

I can understand the players' reticence at "plea bargaining" with ASADA if they don't know what evidence ASADA has, particularly if the players don't actually know what the were injected with. Why would anyone plead guilty when they possibly are not?

As I understand it is not a matter of pleading guilty. The players are asked to respond to the notice by detailing what they have taken and when and stating they took nothing else. If they don't know what they took they should say so (and point the finger at whoever got them to do it). As we know, for a perfectly sensible practical reasons that will not get them 'off', but by being truthful and doing some finger pointing at you know who, it may mitigate any penalties.

As I understand it is not a matter of pleading guilty.

It is actually. If you accept the bans, even reduced ones, you accept the charges. This re the Cronulla players:

"Cronulla captain Paul Gallen and 11 of his current and former Sharks team-mates on Friday accepted the bans backdated to November 21, 2013.

They reluctantly agreed to admit doping rather than face the prospect of an even lengthier suspension over the club’s 2011 supplements programme."

It is actually. If you accept the bans, even reduced ones, you accept the charges. This re the Cronulla players:

"Cronulla captain Paul Gallen and 11 of his current and former Sharks team-mates on Friday accepted the bans backdated to November 21, 2013.

They reluctantly agreed to admit doping rather than face the prospect of an even lengthier suspension over the club’s 2011 supplements programme."

I don't understand your point. They haven't been offered bans yet, just ask to 'please explain'. They can respond by saying how they were not guilty (eg. here is a list of what I was injected with and it is all kosher) or how they were guilty and if so, try to explain why mercy should be shown.

I don't understand your point. They haven't been offered bans yet, just ask to 'please explain'. They can respond by saying how they were not guilty (eg. here is a list of what I was injected with and it is all kosher) or how they were guilty and if so, try to explain why mercy should be shown.

I believe the discussion was about plea-bargaining, not about responding to the SC notices:

"I can understand the players' reticence at "plea bargaining" with ASADA ... Why would anyone plead guilty when they possibly are not?"

You replied that "it is not a matter of pleading guilty".

But in this case, if the players accept bans, they accept the charges that those bans are based on. i.e., that they doped.

I believe the discussion was about plea-bargaining, not about responding to the SC notices:

"I can understand the players' reticence at "plea bargaining" with ASADA ... Why would anyone plead guilty when they possibly are not?"

You replied that "it is not a matter of pleading guilty".

But in this case, if the players accept bans, they accept the charges that those bans are based on. i.e., that they doped.

OK - it is about plea bargaining if they respond to the show cause notices in the relevant way. People who plead guilty when they are innocent typically don't have lawyers of the calibre that Essendon has been employing. (Though after their performance in the recent case, their calibre may be smaller than their fees).

The answer to the question in bold is - when they are poorly advised by slack lawyers (often on legal aid) or the evidence against them is overwhelming despite their innocence so a plea bargain is the only (partial) escape. There are probably a few innocent people serving longer sentences because they stood on their innocence. Sad and understandable. It seems you can't even get parole until you admit you were guilty.

For those who would like a better understanding of the Middleton judgement, here's the Social Litigator's take ~ More than a ball game: Understanding Essendon & Hird v ASADA Judgment

Watson is seriously compromised and a total hypocrite. He's failed as a father also in my book and he probably knows it.

He chose the club over Jobe.

A bit harsh, but 'somewhat true'.

And here we go ...

Power does not fear ASADA ban on Paddy Ryder as Bombers star hears Port Adelaide’s sales pitch

What a convenient penalty for one to be seeking. It starts as of last Saturday and ends in time for the start of next season so the penalty incurred involves the loss of not a single competition day. That's what I call a punishing sanction.

What a bloody farce that would be - I wonder whether WADA would step in and launch a full force assault? A "penalty without a penalty" (in terms of being allowed to play at least).

.......

With respect to Hird not being in the country this week, it makes perfect sense. As the designated Essendon coach and a Brownlow medalist he would have an invitation and normally be expected to attend the Brownlow Medal presentation. If he had done so, it would have been a media circus distracting from the main event. While Channel 7 would presumably have loved it, one can imagine that the AFL, the Essendon FC and the players themselves (all of them, not just Essendon) would not. Being out of the country avoids the criticism he would have received for turning up...or failing to turn up. It's the smarter option.

More a matter of not wanting to face the music I would think. Heaven forbid the thought, but imagine IF the cheats had managed to find enough "good stuff" to make the GF - do you think Jacques' pressing studies would have dragged him off to California then?

Red...if/when players sue the club is that out of their ( clubs ) coffers or covered by some nefarious insurance set up ?

It would have to be their Insurance. They might have to pay an excess on claims though.

I can't imagine any insurance policy covering such gross grotesque negligence, with records hidden / destroyed / otherwise compromised.

http://m.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl-premiership/asada-flags-new-show-cause-october-deadline-for-34-former-and-current-essendon-players/story-e6frf3e3-1227069503270

Lawyers have advised the club that they have strong grounds to convince the Full Federal Court that ASADA's joint investigation with the AFL was unlawful.

Hahaha geeez

http://m.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl-premiership/asada-flags-new-show-cause-october-deadline-for-34-former-and-current-essendon-players/story-e6frf3e3-1227069503270

Lawyers have advised the club that they have strong grounds to convince the Full Federal Court that ASADA's joint investigation with the AFL was unlawful.

Hahaha geeez

The same lawyers that ran the case?

I remember posting when the case started, that they would lose and even if the Judge found the ASADA investigation unlawful, he could use his discretion and let it stand.

Interesting to read in the Judgment, that the Judge said exactly that.

The same lawyers that ran the case?

Probably the same ones that are trying to buy beach properties at portsea for summer