It will be interesting in the washup from all of this, whether:

1. The gravity if what took plave at windy hill in 2012 and ramifications for the club are so severe that it explains the EFC's behavior to obstruct the investigation using any means necessary. E.g. Will there be criminal charges against board members, the length of bans and player legal action against the club crippling the club for the next 10 years.

2.the program was less serious then the public were led to believe and had the club took its medicine, admitted fault, the coach served his suspension , players accepted a deal, this would all be behind the club and it would be preparing for 2015 campaign with expevtations to play deep into September.

Little doesn't strike me as a fool so it will be interesting to see how this plays out.

I'll put $50 on #1

It will be interesting in the washup from all of this, whether:

1. The gravity if what took plave at windy hill in 2012 and ramifications for the club are so severe that it explains the EFC's behavior to obstruct the investigation using any means necessary. E.g. Will there be criminal charges against board members, the length of bans and player legal action against the club crippling the club for the next 10 years.

2.the program was less serious then the public were led to believe and had the club took its medicine, admitted fault, the coach served his suspension , players accepted a deal, this would all be behind the club and it would be preparing for 2015 campaign with expevtations to play deep into September.

Little doesn't strike me as a fool so it will be interesting to see how this plays out.

I suspect Directors at the EFC have dirt on their hands. I can't see how else to explain their behaviour and in particular their support of Hird over this period.

Probably hear more Briginshaw as we get to the pointy end of the Edoper saga. Needless to say B v B was also about someone "messin where they shoudna bin messin!" From http://www.wiseworkplace.com.au/knowledge-hub/investigation-practice/tips-balance-of-probabilities Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336

Where workplace investigations concern matters which could amount to crime or other moral wrong doing, with potentially serious consequences for the alleged perpetrator, the investigation report will often refer to the case of Briginshaw v Briginshaw. This case is usually mentioned in the context of whether the standard of the evidence is sufficient, on the balance of probabilities, to substantiate the allegations.

The facts of Briginshaw

Briginshaw was a divorce case in the days before no-fault divorce. The applicant husband sought a divorce and was required to prove that there were 'grounds'– in this case, the husband claimed that his wife had committed adultery. De Plevitz (2003) conveniently summarises the key facts of this case. The only evidence the husband could produce was Mrs Briginshaw's admission that she had kissed the co-respondent and hearsay evidence that a friend of Mr Briginshaw's sister had been told in confidence by the co-respondent that he and Mrs Briginshaw had engaged in sexual intercourse. The judge refused to grant a divorce he was not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the wife had committed adultery. The husband appealed on the basis, amongst other things, that the judge was wrong in holding that the husband had to prove his wife's adultery beyond reasonable doubt. On appeal the High Court of Australia had to determine the issue of the required standard of proof in civil cases of this nature.

The High Court decision

The High Court held that although the criminal standard of proof did not apply, a finding of adultery would have grave consequences for the wife. According to McTiernan J these consequences included the wife being subject to 'a loss of status' (remembering of course that this case was heard in 1938!). Hence the evidence against her had to be closely scrutinized to ensure if was clear and compelling. On that test, the High Court held that the evidence lacked cogency and the husband's application was rejected.

This new desire to expedite things wouldn't have anything to do with .......

approval of 4 year bans ??

Hird must be a Little nervous...

"Also added to the revised code were stronger powers for anti-doping authorities to punish coaches and trainers who help athletes dope, and more emphasis on investigations away from drug tests to catch cheats."

Bombers leap from frying pan, beware fire

I 'm reminded by the following as to one very good reason the EFC would be petrified of any players actually be found "guilty" as opposed a no-fault deal...

"The fact that the reissued "show cause" notices have been painstakingly tailored to the circumstances of each player suggests that the charges also would have to be heard one-by-one.

This matters more than might be supposed. Under the WADA code, if two more more players from one team are found guilty of a doping violation, the ruling body "shall" impose sanctions on the team.

It would not be enough for the AFL to say that it already had punished the Bombers by expelling them from last year's finals. That was not because of proven doping violations, but for sloppy governance."

It's a point that seems to have been conveniently left alone by the fanboy circus element of the media. Little and Co will have been very aware of this part and probably explains their 'win at all costs" attitude. They haven't , and won't , win. All eyes are cast towards the players but the Club will be smacked big time is my thinking.

The AFL may well have contingency plans regards players and Essendon being able to put a team on the paddock, but the AFL will be stymied if WADA turns around and places a ban on the TEAM also.

There are elements to all of this also that only serve to highlight how amateurish and contradictory is the stance that the AFL itself holds within the framework it signed on with WADA.

I would love to know what if any evidence exists to establish offences for Hird, the Doc and others during the 2012 regime. It will be a travesty if the players cop a ban and Hird etc walk away. I am encouraged by McDevits comments about the lack of concern for player welfare in 2012. Hopefully sufficient evidence exists for sanctions against the club, the coaches and medical staff. This may be the reason the AFL's sanctions were relatively light last year, they are keeping the powder dry. This may also be a very good explanation for the Federal Court case being initiated by Hird and the Club rather than the players in that they are well aware of what is likely to follow sanctions of the players.

I have always doubted that the players were not ASADA's end game here. Dank is gone and will never work in sport again and I suspect that they may be a few others following the handing down of bans to the players.

Would this explain the reason why no player (and one would have thought at the interviews that at least one would have known and had the backbone to state that he took a banned substance) at Essendon, has declared anything of relevance throughout the process...

Dumbfounded by the AFLPA's short-term perspective, its tantamount to:

"My dear mother thought I looked like all the 007 actors", "The names Hird, James Hird."

From the AGE - Players lawyer Tony Hargreaves

"Hargreaves refused to be drawn on that jibe and said he had not attempted to contact McDevitt. "I don't speak to McDevitt," he said. "I just read what he has to say in the newspapers ... (But) it is disingenuous for McDevitt to tell us to read the 12,000 pages of evidence. We've seen this before and it's not the evidence, it's a summary of what ASADA says is the evidence."

​If 12,000 pages is the summary of the evidence how much evidence is there?

Why is this being played out in the media? Is this a case of trying to win the the battle of public opinion?

ASADA have a job to do and from what I have read they appear to be doing it diligently. They would appear to attract criticism if they are too slow or too fast. I for one would like to hear the AFLPA critisise the EFC, it was their program, they failed to keep records and they have used delaying tactics all the way. The EFC are the villians not ASADA.

Does anyone actually know, were WADA to appeal the leniency of any sentence, whether players would be eligible pending that appeal, and how long the Court of Arbitration in Sport tends to take to hear such appeals? If it were years then many players could in effect get off Scot free, other than carrying a black reputation. I guess that could be part of EssUndone's whole obfuscation plan.

Presumably there have been precedents.

This happened in the doping case against Alberto Contador a couple of years ago. WADA appealed and eventually won getting a 2yr ban from the Court of Arbitration in Sport. Contador was allowed to continue to race for the 18mths after the notice and until the end of the appeal process. When he was found guilty he only had to serve the remaining six months of the two year ban remaining after the appeal but all his results during that 18mths were stripped from him including the 2010 Tour de France win and several other high profile wins. The stripping of results would not be relevant to Essendon.

I suspect this mess has a long way to run. Because the stakes are so high for both parties I am very confident that whichever party loses in the hearing will appeal to the Court of Arbitration in Sport. That process can take a long time. In Contador's case as an example it was something like 6-12mths before the appeal was heard. They would be allowed to play during this period so would probably get through most of next year. By the end of next season another bunch of players will leave the Club so the damage will be less and less. It is already down to 18 from 34.

From memory the players get a 6mth reduction if they prove they didn't intentionally or knowingly take the illegal substance which is likely to be the case here and a further 12mths if they co operate. As I understand it by insisting on going to the Tribunal hearing they are foregoing the 12 mth co operation discount and so on that basis they would end up with minimum 18 mth bans. I'm not sure if they will run from the time of these current notices, after the Tribunal hearing or possibly after an Appeal which could be middle or late next year.

The AFL will also have to sanction Essendon for drug cheating and I would think those sanctions will have to be far more significant than the sanctions given out last year just for failures of governance. I would think at least a $1mill to $2mill fine possibly with some suspended, loss of draft picks, if the decisions are finalised before the end of next season then forced to play for no points (a la the Melbourne Storm sanctions for salary cap rorting).

If they had co operated and taken the deal in July they would have been free to play by Christmas this year after serving 6mth bans and missing maybe 4-6 games. They are playing a lethal game gambling on the Tribunal and possibly the Court of Arbitration in Sport letting them off. Their legal team must be very very confident. Their head legal Counsel David Grace has had many wins against the AFL Tribunal in the past. Talk about conflicted, he is also the current President of Athletics Australia and a staunch anti doping campaigner.

Thanks Its Time.

Illuminating.

This happened in the doping case against Alberto Contador a couple of years ago. WADA appealed and eventually won getting a 2yr ban from the Court of Arbitration in Sport. Contador was allowed to continue to race for the 18mths after the notice and until the end of the appeal process. When he was found guilty he only had to serve the remaining six months of the two year ban remaining after the appeal but all his results during that 18mths were stripped from him including the 2010 Tour de France win and several other high profile wins. The stripping of results would not be relevant to Essendon.

I suspect this mess has a long way to run. Because the stakes are so high for both parties I am very confident that whichever party loses in the hearing will appeal to the Court of Arbitration in Sport. That process can take a long time. In Contador's case as an example it was something like 6-12mths before the appeal was heard. They would be allowed to play during this period so would probably get through most of next year. By the end of next season another bunch of players will leave the Club so the damage will be less and less. It is already down to 18 from 34.

From memory the players get a 6mth reduction if they prove they didn't intentionally or knowingly take the illegal substance which is likely to be the case here and a further 12mths if they co operate. As I understand it by insisting on going to the Tribunal hearing they are foregoing the 12 mth co operation discount and so on that basis they would end up with minimum 18 mth bans. I'm not sure if they will run from the time of these current notices, after the Tribunal hearing or possibly after an Appeal which could be middle or late next year.

The AFL will also have to sanction Essendon for drug cheating and I would think those sanctions will have to be far more significant than the sanctions given out last year just for failures of governance. I would think at least a $1mill to $2mill fine possibly with some suspended, loss of draft picks, if the decisions are finalised before the end of next season then forced to play for no points (a la the Melbourne Storm sanctions for salary cap rorting).

If they had co operated and taken the deal in July they would have been free to play by Christmas this year after serving 6mth bans and missing maybe 4-6 games. They are playing a lethal game gambling on the Tribunal and possibly the Court of Arbitration in Sport letting them off. Their legal team must be very very confident. Their head legal Counsel David Grace has had many wins against the AFL Tribunal in the past. Talk about conflicted, he is also the current President of Athletics Australia and a staunch anti doping campaigner.

I would rephrase that, Their legal team must want a new Portsea beach house.

At the risk of upsetting our many Demonland beaks, all of who I am sure would not entertain drawn out legal battles costing many thousands of dollars, nor would they ever consider embarking on long legal stoushes where the only winners can be the lawyers, oh no not our Demonland beaks.

Are you serious?

I remember the outrage when it was suggested (by me and a few others at the time) that Jimmy step aside - or be forced to - because the club was foundering under his leadership.

There is some quote about glass houses...need wikipedia...

"Players lawyer Tony Hargreaves has accused ASADA boss Ben McDevitt of being "disingenuous" and slammed the ongoing delays in the case of the 34 past and present Essendon players as "inexcusable". "

I find it absolutely incredible, that the players' representatives are now calling on ASADA to speed things up, when it is they and their clients and their clients' employers and their clients' coach, who have delayed the proceedings, using every trick in the book.

Talk about disingenuous.

If left to Evans, the matter would have been over last year.

From the AGE - Players lawyer Tony Hargreaves

"We are not talking about 12,000 pages. We are talking about roughly 105 pages for each individual player, which are virtually identical. The AFL Players' Association and (players' QC) David Grace sat in on those player interviews and we are aware of their evidence and have been since last year.

Hargreaves refused to be drawn on that jibe and said he had not attempted to contact McDevitt. "I don't speak to McDevitt," he said. "I just read what he has to say in the newspapers ... (But) it is disingenuous for McDevitt to tell us to read the 12,000 pages of evidence. We've seen this before and it's not the evidence, it's a summary of what ASADA says is the evidence.

Now let me see, 105 pages times 34 players equals 3570.

Hang on, can anyone else see a slight discrepancy?

Edit: If any controlling body said it had one page of evidence against me I would be mortified. The AFLPA must have different standards to me.

The AFLPA have failed their members miserably. They have failed all the players not accused of cheating by not tearing the EFC a new one and they have failed the EFC players by not attacking the EFC for failure of duty of care to its own players. All the AFLPA appears able to do is blame a governing body for what? Trying to maintain standards in sport where the players are being used in pharmacological experiments using unspecified, untested and unapproved drugs and supplements. Shame AFLPA. By your actions/inactions you are condoning the appalling experiment that took place at the EFC on young men. Shame EFC Shame AFLPA. My fear is that one day we will wake up and find that an EFC player has a serious illness, and the likely cause is that EFC program, what will the AFLPA have to say that day, ASADA were too slow!

Place the blame where it belongs the EFC are the villains and must be punished. Don't blame ASADA.

Edited October 24, 201410 yr by ManDee

So how is the AFLPA supposed to defend the players when they wont even read the evidence against them.... this is nuts. Hurry and and slow down quickly.

I reckon the AFLPA needs some better union officials. Not just because they are spouting gibberish but also because they seem to ignore the interests of the majority of their members.

I reckon the AFLPA needs some better union officials. Not just because they are spouting gibberish but also because they seem to ignore the interests of the majority of their members.

You are ignoring the "AFL" part of the "AFLPA".

Interesting article in particular the provisional suspensions

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/key-steps-in-asadas-investigation-into-the-essendon-supplements-scandal-20141023-11akoy.html

Quote:

Provisional suspension

Once the infraction notice is issued, the players are provisionally suspended and the "ban clock" begins. This is less relevant in the off-season.

The AFL code mentions Provisional Suspension in it's Anti-Doping Policy Section 12.5a but I am unclear when it begins and when it can cease.

Can any of the more learned D'Landers provide some clarity?

I reckon the AFLPA needs some better union officials. Not just because they are spouting gibberish but also because they seem to ignore the interests of the majority of their members.

Couldn't agree more. There seems to be some very bad judgments being made today. Ultimately the players might well have to fall on ASADA's goodwill for the severity of the punishment they face. I believe they will be working hand in hand with the Tribunal in relation to what they and WADA view as acceptable penalties. So to decide to attack ASADA on behalf of the players while they are facing charges of drug cheating is a shocker of a judgement call as far as I'm concerned. To use the press to do it is even more of a shocker of a judgement call.

I would want to be represented by someone else at this point. All the AFLPA and their lawyers seem to be doing is following a policy of throwing petrol on the fire.

Couldn't agree more. There seems to be some very bad judgments being made today. Ultimately the players might well have to fall on ASADA's goodwill for the severity of the punishment they face. I believe they will be working hand in hand with the Tribunal in relation to what they and WADA view as acceptable penalties. So to decide to attack ASADA on behalf of the players while they are facing charges of drug cheating is a shocker of a judgement call as far as I'm concerned. To use the press to do it is even more of a shocker of a judgement call.

I would want to be represented by someone else at this point. All the AFLPA and their lawyers seem to be doing is following a policy of throwing petrol on the fire.

Theoretically that could work, but you'd need an awful lot of petrol to put out the fire, far more likely they are just poking the bear.

Interesting article in particular the provisional suspensions

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/key-steps-in-asadas-investigation-into-the-essendon-supplements-scandal-20141023-11akoy.html

Quote:

Provisional suspension

Once the infraction notice is issued, the players are provisionally suspended and the "ban clock" begins. This is less relevant in the off-season.

The AFL code mentions Provisional Suspension in it's Anti-Doping Policy Section 12.5a but I am unclear when it begins and when it can cease.

Can any of the more learned D'Landers provide some clarity?

So according to this article this could go on for years. These are the potential steps that could go on. How many of the 18 players left at Essendon now will be around by the end of all of this. Any?

1.Anti-Doping Rule Violation Panel (This is the step that will occur probably before the end of the year)

2. Either party can appeal this decision to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal

3. Either party can appeal the AAT decision to the Federal Court. (If the Federal Court finds in favour of the players that is the end of the matter. If it finds in favour of ASADA it goes to step 4.

4. Anti Doping Tribunal hearing if the players don't accept the maximum penalty or the penalty offered by AFL/ASADA

5. Either party can appeal the Anti Doping Tribunal decision to AFL anti-doping appeals panel

6. Either party can appeal this decision to the Court of Arbitration in Sport