Bombers scandal: charged, <redacted> and <infracted>

[old dee 23,908]

Was that intended? ;-)

Not when I am angry hardtack.

Should have followed that old piece of wisdom

"never act when you are angry"

[Outside fifty 967]

I understand the frustration of people are having with this issue, but I believe this comes about because they don't understand the processes involved. ACC investigate and report and then AFP and other law enforcement agencies act upon the ACC investigation. I don't read Andrew Bolt so I can't comment on what he wrote other than to say i'm sure that it is as politically opportunistic as the original press conference. If you want balance without an agenda I suggest that people look at "Offsiders" on ch2 and listen to what Gerard Whateley and Roy Masters have to say on the issue. What I will say is that these investigations by matter of necessity take time. These days the law is heavily stacked in favour of the defendant and the prosecution has to work twice as hard to obtain a successful result, all of which takes a considerable amount of time.

Edited February 18, 2013 by Outside fifty

[hardtack 10,683]

Not when I am angry hardtack.

Should have followed that old piece of wisdom

"never act when you are angry"

Gee, if that was the case, I'd never get anything done...I'm always angry about something, be it CW and tanking, drugs in sport, talking phone menus or commuters that sit on the aisle making you climb over them to get a seat (among many other things).

[old dee 23,908]

I understand the frustration of people are having with this issue, but I believe this comes about because they don't understand the processes involved. ACC investigate and report and then AFP and other law enforcement agencies act upon the ACC investigation. I don't read Andrew Bolt so I can't comment on what he wrote other than to say i'm sure that it is as politically opportunistic as the original press conference. If you want balance without an agenda I suggest that people look at "Offsiders" on ch2 and listen to what Gerard Whateley and Roy Masters have to say on the issue. What I will say is that these investigations by matter of necessity take time. These days the law is heavily stacked in favour of the defendant and the prosecution has to work twice as hard to obtain a successful result, all of which takes a considerable amount of time.

Then why go off so early Of?

Is that not the premis of our system, innocent until proven guilty.

IMO we have some politicans who want the lime light off them and on a law enforcement issue so (1) they look to be doing something and (2) the media follows this story and not the numerous ones that show their failures.

Call me a cynic if you like but until something happens to show otherwise

it is all low risk and all talk as far as I am concerned.

Edited February 18, 2013 by old dee

[old dee 23,908]

Gee, if that was the case, I'd never get anything done...I'm always angry about something, be it CW and tanking, drugs in sport, talking phone menus or commuters that sit on the aisle making you climb over them to get a seat (among many other things).

I did not say don't get angry hardtack.

Just calm down consider the situation and then act.

Believe me it is the best method.

Also it has a habit of saving you from wounds to the feet

[Outside fifty 967]

In an ideal world you would be right. Unfortunately Agencies are in competition with each other for Gov't funding. The ACC would have seen this as a perfect opportunity to get it's brand out there and would have always gone public with the findings of its investigation. The fact that politicians would then see this as an opportunity to hitch their own wagon to the investigations is hardly surprising. The ACC cannot and should not name people in a public forum. Once the criminal investigation is concluded then and only after charges laid will the names and the organisations named. As of today no individual has been found guilty of anything but in all probability this will happen. I disagree with you strongly as to the risk. The risk of organised crime pervading our sport is very real if not a reality already as is the use of PIED's.

Edited February 18, 2013 by Outside fifty

[old dee 23,908]

In an ideal world you would be right. Unfortunately Agencies are in competition with each other for Gov't funding. The ACC would have seen this as a perfect opportunity to get it's brand out there and would have always gone public with the findings of its investigation. The fact that politicians would then see this as an opportunity to hitch their own wagon to the investigations is hardly surprising. The ACC cannot and should not name people in a public forum. Once the criminal investigation is concluded then and only after charges laid will the names and the organisations named. As of today no individual has been found guilty of anything but in all probability this will happen. I disagree with you strongly as to the risk. The risk of organised crime pervading our sport is very real if not a reality already as is the use of PIED's.

I understand your arguement Of.

And you maybe proved right.

However I still believe they have gone public way to early.

Time will prove one of us wrong.

[Outside fifty 967]

To be honest with you OD for the sake of the sport I love I would more than happy to be proven wrong.

[Fitz Fitzpatrick 886]

I did not say don't get angry hardtack.

Just calm down consider the situation and then act.

Believe me it is the best method.

Also it has a habit of saving you from wounds to the feet

old dee, just did exactly opposite to your wise words and suffering for it now. i will print this paragraph of yours out and stick it on my wall!!

[Whispering_Jack 30,877]

This is interesting - Ray of hope for Dons with special clause in WADA code

If the Essendon players can establish "no fault or negligence" on their part then if found to have taken banned substances they could have any future ban "wiped or dramatically reduced".

Of course, they would need to get over the question of whether there was some fault on their behalf by not making proper enquiries before being subjected to intravenous drips off premises and signing waiver or disclaimer forms but nevertheless the rule presents them with some hope.

And it didn't help Casey's Wade Lees who didn't even get to see the fat reducing supplement which he ordered on line and resulted in an 18 month ban.

[old dee 23,908]

This is interesting - Ray of hope for Dons with special clause in WADA code

If the Essendon players can establish "no fault or negligence" on their part then if found to have taken banned substances they could have any future ban "wiped or dramatically reduced".

Of course, they would need to get over the question of whether there was some fault on their behalf by not making proper enquiries before being subjected to intravenous drips off premises and signing waiver or disclaimer forms but nevertheless the rule presents them with some hope.

And it didn't help Casey's Wade Lees who didn't even get to see the fat reducing supplement which he ordered on line and resulted in an 18 month ban.

I hope you are not suggesting that little fish get it in the neck and big fish get special treatment WJ.

I find that hard to believe

Ha Ha

[sue 9,151]

This is interesting - Ray of hope for Dons with special clause in WADA code

If the Essendon players can establish "no fault or negligence" on their part then if found to have taken banned substances they could have any future ban "wiped or dramatically reduced".

Of course, they would need to get over the question of whether there was some fault on their behalf by not making proper enquiries before being subjected to intravenous drips off premises and signing waiver or disclaimer forms but nevertheless the rule presents them with some hope.

And it didn't help Casey's Wade Lees who didn't even get to see the fat reducing supplement which he ordered on line and resulted in an 18 month ban.

This is interesting - Ray of hope for Dons with special clause in WADA code

If the Essendon players can establish "no fault or negligence" on their part then if found to have taken banned substances they could have any future ban "wiped or dramatically reduced".

Of course, they would need to get over the question of whether there was some fault on their behalf by not making proper enquiries before being subjected to intravenous drips off premises and signing waiver or disclaimer forms but nevertheless the rule presents them with some hope.

And it didn't help Casey's Wade Lees who didn't even get to see the fat reducing supplement which he ordered on line and resulted in an 18 month ban.

Sorry to be cynical, but would any of us be surprised if the penalties applied to a second+tier player turn out to be heavier than that applied to the top level?

[Satan 2,885]

Bang

http://m.theage.com.au/afl/essendon-bombers/bombers-scientists-bypassed-rules-20130220-2eqp9.html

If melbourne got their fine for the actions of their staff despite them not knowing, what will be essendons fine be if the article is true?

[rpfc 28,832]

I don't think the AFL is worried about what sanctions they will have to impose.

It think they are more worreid about sanctions that ASADA will impose.

[Satan 2,885]

I don't think the AFL is worried about what sanctions they will have to impose.

It think they are more worreid about sanctions that ASADA will impose.

True but the afl has set a precedent of the club being guilty of the actions of it subordinates irrespective of the board not knowing( in my law unit studying days i recall the term vicarious liability, not sure if this applies here)

[rpfc 28,832]

True but the afl has set a precedent of the club being guilty of the actions of it subordinates irrespective of the board not knowing( in my law unit studying days i recall the term vicarious liability, not sure if this applies here)

If ASADA comes down as hard as they can - the AFL won't have to do anything.

[CatFishPig 462]

If ASADA comes down as hard as they can - the AFL won't have to do anything.

If ASADA penalize Essendon, would that not be a seperate external party making fines? The AFL would have to make fines and charges aswell.

ASADA aren't going to fine Essondon for "acting in a manner which was prejudicial to the interests of the AFL" which is basically what we have been fined for? And Essendon have certainly done that if we have.

Essendon, if found guilty, should face much more severe penalties than us.. from both ASADA and AFL.

[rpfc 28,832]

If ASADA penalize Essendon, would that not be a seperate external party making fines? The AFL would have to make fines and charges aswell.

ASADA aren't going to fine Essondon for "acting in a manner which was prejudicial to the interests of the AFL" which is basically what we have been fined for? And Essendon have certainly done that if we have.

Essendon, if found guilty, should face much more severe penalties than us.. from both ASADA and AFL.

What I am saying is that the AFL is going to have the best interests of the league at heart when they do a 'negotiated outcome' with Essendon that doesn't completley root the club.

If they get what some are saying they will get - the AFL will be charged with saving the club in the short term, not penalising it further.

I can only see massive fines and removal of staff if ASADA can't find enough evidence or dismiss on technicalities.

[felixdacat 459]

Just to add a lighter side to this issue.

When the ACC Report was released the other week the local paper the Townsville Bulletin had to get in on the story, unfortunately for the local Rugby League Team here in Townsville the NQ Cowboys were...well I will let the headline speak for itself.

[old dee 23,908]

What I am saying is that the AFL is going to have the best interests of the league at heart when they do a 'negotiated outcome' with Essendon that doesn't completley root the club.

If they get what some are saying they will get - the AFL will be charged with saving the club in the short term, not penalising it further.

I can only see massive fines and removal of staff if ASADA can't find enough evidence or dismiss on technicalities.

I smell they will walk away with no case to answer.

The next couple of weeks will be interesting

[Redleg 41,712]

I smell they will walk away with no case to answer.

The next couple of weeks will be interesting

Impossible. Even if the substances can't be identified, there is apparently other evidence. More importantly though, in breach of AFL rules, they had contracts with players that the AFL was not made aware of and they injected players with substances, not by the Doctor, or on prescription and they can't even tell the players what those substances were. They are very serious matters.

One journo said if the tanking was rated 1, then these are at 50. Following that logic the Bombers should look forward to a fine of $25million.

[old dee 23,908]

Impossible. Even if the substances can't be identified, there is apparently other evidence. More importantly though, in breach of AFL rules, they had contracts with players that the AFL was not made aware of and they injected players with substances, not by the Doctor, or on prescription and they can't even tell the players what those substances were. They are very serious matters.

One journo said if the tanking was rated 1, then these are at 50. Following that logic the Bombers should look forward to a fine of $25million.

You know that won't happen Redleg.

They will negotiate a fine of $10 000 / player for not watching closely enough.

The AFL need 18 teams so Essendon will not be badly wounded, any more than they badly wounded the MFC.

[sue 9,151]

Impossible. Even if the substances can't be identified, there is apparently other evidence. More importantly though, in breach of AFL rules, they had contracts with players that the AFL was not made aware of and they injected players with substances, not by the Doctor, or on prescription and they can't even tell the players what those substances were. They are very serious matters.

One journo said if the tanking was rated 1, then these are at 50. Following that logic the Bombers should look forward to a fine of $25million.

To quote you (re Parkin's confession being investigated): Ha Ha

Edited February 20, 2013 by sue

[Flying Cloud 152]

If ASADA comes down as hard as they can - the AFL won't have to do anything.

The ASADA boss on radio the other day said they don't apply penalties but pass recommendations to the relevant sporting body. So the AFL would have to apply the recommended penalties.

[rpfc 28,832]

The ASADA boss on radio the other day said they don't apply penalties but pass recommendations to the relevant sporting body. So the AFL would have to apply the recommended penalties.

With emphasis on the 'have to'...