I am not sure what your tetchy about in respect of the Cronulla decision. A deal was cut whichever we you want to nit pick it.

And I don't know why you are on your soapbox about the differences between EFC & Cronulla. That's a given. The seriousness of the EFC situation will result in more serious penalties than Cronulla. You have already acknowledge where in the same ballpark on that issue re the penalties. And that's going to require a deal to be forged.

As for ambulance chasing, it's a case of a number of poster chasing this disaster with rather ridiculous and hyperbolic assertions that reflect a sense of revelling in the drama for personal benefit. And it's ironic you accuse my ambulance chasing comment as over the top when you then go and accuse me of it. Well done sir. And as a lawyer you would be well versed in this art form so I guess I should defer to you on the practice

I am not sure what your tetchy about in respect of the Cronulla decision. A deal was cut whichever we you want to nit pick it.

And I don't know why you are on your soapbox about the differences between EFC & Cronulla. That's a given. The seriousness of the EFC situation will result in more serious penalties than Cronulla. You have already acknowledge where in the same ballpark on that issue re the penalties. And that's going to require a deal to be forged.

As for ambulance chasing, it's a case of a number of poster chasing this disaster with rather ridiculous and hyperbolic assertions that reflect a sense of revelling in the drama for personal benefit. And it's ironic you accuse my ambulance chasing comment as over the top when you then go and accuse me of it. Well done sir. And as a lawyer you would be well versed in this art form so I guess I should defer to you on the practice

He said 'by your apparent definition', which is in any case sweeping and offensive to many of the posters here (or clearly intended to be). But, like Jack's original question about the 'Cronulla decision', the point clearly goes right over your head. That's not surprising. You intervened in this thread admitting that you hadn't read most of it but dismissing some/much (we don't know, that's how generalisations work) of it with your snide 'ambulance chasing' remark. Since then pretty much any comment on here that you disagree with has been met with borderline (sometimes not so borderline) antagonism.

Just say what you have to say and forget about the strange ratio that you seem to have in your head that anything you say has merit only if it 'defeats' someone else. Whether you're an ambulance chaser or not and by your definition or not, you're certainly becoming a thread clogger with nothing to say that hasn't been said pages and pages ago. But you wouldn't know that because you haven't bothered reading them.

QWERTY, it would be simpler if you just admitted your use of the term 'ambulance chaser' was incorrect. It means people following disasters for personal financial profit, not personal satisfaction. Try schadenfreude or something similar. And WJ was only accusing you of it to highlight your wrong use of it, so irony was there, but not the irony you refer to.

QWERTY, it would be simpler if you just admitted your use of the term 'ambulance chaser' was incorrect. It means people following disasters for personal financial profit, not personal satisfaction. Try schadenfreude or something similar. And WJ was only accusing you of it to highlight your wrong use of it, so irony was there, but not the irony you refer to.

The irony he refers to is presumably of the Alanis Morissette kind, not the actual kind.

I am not sure what your tetchy about in respect of the Cronulla decision. A deal was cut whichever we you want to nit pick it.

And I don't know why you are on your soapbox about the differences between EFC & Cronulla. That's a given. The seriousness of the EFC situation will result in more serious penalties than Cronulla. You have already acknowledge where in the same ballpark on that issue re the penalties. And that's going to require a deal to be forged.

As for ambulance chasing, it's a case of a number of poster chasing this disaster with rather ridiculous and hyperbolic assertions that reflect a sense of revelling in the drama for personal benefit. And it's ironic you accuse my ambulance chasing comment as over the top when you then go and accuse me of it. Well done sir. And as a lawyer you would be well versed in this art form so I guess I should defer to you on the practice

So how long have you actually been an Essendon supporter?

According to THe Age, Essendon have paid the bulk of Thompson's fine. Perhaps positioning themselves to open the door for Thopmson to come back into the senior coaching role when Hird is finally sacked?

He said 'by your apparent definition', which is in any case sweeping and offensive to many of the posters here (or clearly intended to be). But, like Jack's original question about the 'Cronulla decision', the point clearly goes right over your head. That's not surprising. You intervened in this thread admitting that you hadn't read most of it but dismissing some/much (we don't know, that's how generalisations work) of it with your snide 'ambulance chasing' remark. Since then pretty much any comment on here that you disagree with has been met with borderline (sometimes not so borderline) antagonism.

Just say what you have to say and forget about the strange ratio that you seem to have in your head that anything you say has merit only if it 'defeats' someone else. Whether you're an ambulance chaser or not and by your definition or not, you're certainly becoming a thread clogger with nothing to say that hasn't been said pages and pages ago. But you wouldn't know that because you haven't bothered reading them.

Here here. Well said Sir John Dee. I don't know where Qwerty gets his information from, certainly not from any credible indusrtry source. He appears to pluck it from thin air, laced with a considerable amount of personal abuse. Still it takes all types on the Internet I guess.

They let Cronulla off with a slap on the wrist.

The Cronulla/EFC sagas have highlighted to WADA/ASADA the need to broaden the culpability to club officials. They don't have the protocols or legislation at this point to back up the necessary sanctions.

At the moment the players will be subject to potential sanctions but culpable officials are not going to be hit by ASADA/WADA

I dont think this is quite right

as per

2.8 Administration or Attempted administration to any

Athlete In-Competition of any Prohibited Method or

Prohibited Substance, or administration or Attempted

administration to any Athlete Out-of-Competition of

any Prohibited Method or any Prohibited Substance

that is prohibited Out-of-Competition, or assisting,

encouraging, aiding, abetting, covering up or any

other type of complicity involving an anti-doping rule

violation or any Attempted anti-doping rule violation

They have the protocols

Patrick Smith - "The Cronulla players received 12-month suspensions backdated to November last year, which meant they missed the last three games of the home-and-away season. It was a deal cut by the NRL executive and ASADA and, begrudgingly it seems, ticked off by WADA, the world anti-doping body."

'

It seems that if a sophisticated team doping regime is instituted, which takes time for authorities to investigate and cross check, then by the time penalties are imposed there is scope for significant back dating. Do they rub out past team performances/points for individual breaches during the backdating period?

A simple breach such as energy drink consumption or substance importation can be dealt with swiftly and penalties are future bans.

Summary; the more you cheat, lie and obfuscate, the lesser the penalty in a team sport. (possible exaggerations involved here but still.....)

They let Cronulla off with a slap on the wrist.

The Cronulla/EFC sagas have highlighted to WADA/ASADA the need to broaden the culpability to club officials. They don't have the protocols or legislation at this point to back up the necessary sanctions.

At the moment the players will be subject to potential sanctions but culpable officials are not going to be hit by ASADA/WADA

Interesting that neither Crolluna nor it's officials have been sanctioned by ASADA despite having 12 players (to date) banned for PEDS. NRL imposed 1 mil fine and suspended coach and conditioning coach but nothing(?) from the watchdog.

Also what becomes of the five ex Cronulla players who did not take the deal, they may get the full 2 years compared to 3 matches (effective) handed to the 12 current players. Such a difference in penalty for the same "crime" suggests ASADA may not like the hard yards: If you dope and we catch you then as long as you make it easy for us, own up, say sorry then you can cop a few matches and carry on and enjoy the benefits of your dope enhanced body!

Interesting that neither Crolluna nor it's officials have been sanctioned by ASADA despite having 12 players (to date) banned for PEDS. NRL imposed 1 mil fine and suspended coach and conditioning coach but nothing(?) from the watchdog.

Also what becomes of the five ex Cronulla players who did not take the deal, they may get the full 2 years compared to 3 matches (effective) handed to the 12 current players. Such a difference in penalty for the same "crime" suggests ASADA may not like the hard yards: If you dope and we catch you then as long as you make it easy for us, own up, say sorry then you can cop a few matches and carry on and enjoy the benefits of your dope enhanced body!

Except at that stage it became WADA's call. None of us knows nearly enough about how the settlement was reached in the Cronulla case but the fact that the players coughed up (no matter how reluctantly) was probably the ... or at least a circuit-breaker. What also came out of it was the eminently satisfactory ruling by the NRL to ban Dank. Given Dank's apparent capacity to mislead all and sundry about what is or isn't in brown or clear or any other bottles, his involvement at Essendon may well end up being seen as a mitigating factor in determining penalties. Whatever else happens he ought to be warned off permanently ... and sued by as many people as possible (maybe he can get his mate Hardie to sign up for 10 years worth of pro bono work).

I am not sure what your tetchy about in respect of the Cronulla decision. A deal was cut whichever we you want to nit pick it.

And I don't know why you are on your soapbox about the differences between EFC & Cronulla. That's a given. The seriousness of the EFC situation will result in more serious penalties than Cronulla. You have already acknowledge where in the same ballpark on that issue re the penalties. And that's going to require a deal to be forged.

As for ambulance chasing, it's a case of a number of poster chasing this disaster with rather ridiculous and hyperbolic assertions that reflect a sense of revelling in the drama for personal benefit. And it's ironic you accuse my ambulance chasing comment as over the top when you then go and accuse me of it. Well done sir. And as a lawyer you would be well versed in this art form so I guess I should defer to you on the practice

Don't you understand the difference between a court or tribunal decision and a bargain between parties to avoid having to go to a court or tribunal?

The difference explains why it isn't nit picking.

I reckon the AFL will hold its nerve over this and provide significant bans to players. My reasons for it are partly based in the fact that is this is the logical result if they remain true to their process.

Alternatively a lot of my reasoning also is based on hope and gut feel. Whilst I don't really hold a lot of confidence in my hope I hold a lot of confidence I my gut feel on this matter.

If I am wrong I am going to have to punish my guts with a bottle of scotch.

So either I win yay

I reckon the AFL will hold its nerve over this and provide significant bans to players. My reasons for it are partly based in the fact that is this is the logical result if they remain true to their process.

Alternatively a lot of my reasoning also is based on hope and gut feel. Whilst I don't really hold a lot of confidence in my hope I hold a lot of confidence I my gut feel on this matter.

If I am wrong I am going to have to punish my guts with a bottle of scotch.

So either I win yay

Glenfiddich will work well for either result!

Interesting that neither Crolluna nor it's officials have been sanctioned by ASADA despite having 12 players (to date) banned for PEDS. NRL imposed 1 mil fine and suspended coach and conditioning coach but nothing(?) from the watchdog.

Also what becomes of the five ex Cronulla players who did not take the deal, they may get the full 2 years compared to 3 matches (effective) handed to the 12 current players. Such a difference in penalty for the same "crime" suggests ASADA may not like the hard yards: If you dope and we catch you then as long as you make it easy for us, own up, say sorry then you can cop a few matches and carry on and enjoy the benefits of your dope enhanced body!

I may be wrong, but essentially ASADA deals with athletes, not a club, so I don't know that they would sanction 'Cronulla' per se, unless the 'team suspension rule' was invoked.

Richard Ings tweeted 8 days ago "why haven't the NRL issued SD with an infraction notice?"

It appears he wasn't actually paid by Cronulla and that may be a factor?

Cronulla officials may have received infraction notices, but you'd only hear about it if those officials made it known.

As far as I'm aware, there were 12 players in total who were offered, and took, a deal. A number were playing with other clubs. Those players were named by at least one paper.

I'm sure I read that 5 players were not offered a deal, and were issued with infraction notices. As I said elsewhere, they may have retired, so a deal makes little sense.

Then again, they may have been offered a deal and refused it. I don't think those players have been named.

The latter has ramifications as far as Essendon goes. It's believed that about 21 are still playing AFL. What happens with the other 13 if 'the 21' are offered a deal?

According to THe Age, Essendon have paid the bulk of Thompson's fine. Perhaps positioning themselves to open the door for Thopmson to come back into the senior coaching role when Hird is finally sacked?

This is an interesting one.

They pay Hird $1mill and give him a year holiday and he's the architect of this mess and the one who kept it going when others, particularly Thompson, tried to stop it. But Thompson who apparently made about 5 attempts to stop it and evidently was overruled by Hird is left out to hang by the Club and it isn't until he threatens legal action for wrongful dismissal that they cough up $25,000 but leave him to pay $5000. No wonder there is bad blood between him and the Club now. According to that article they've reached a six figure settlement with him for wrongful dismissal. Doesn't sound like a warm and fuzzy invitation to go back there to coach.

This is an interesting one.

They pay Hird $1mill and give him a year holiday and he's the architect of this mess and the one who kept it going when others, particularly Thompson, tried to stop it. But Thompson who apparently made about 5 attempts to stop it and evidently was overruled by Hird is left out to hang by the Club and it isn't until he threatens legal action for wrongful dismissal that they cough up $25,000 but leave him to pay $5000. No wonder there is bad blood between him and the Club now. According to that article they've reached a six figure settlement with him for wrongful dismissal. Doesn't sound like a warm and fuzzy invitation to go back there to coach.

It is a murky situation and but now Thompson won't be excommunicated from AFL life. It appears he does have support from some factions at the club as well as enemies. There is now a possibilty for some sort of reconciliation in an uncertain future.

According to THe Age, Essendon have paid the bulk of Thompson's fine. Perhaps positioning themselves to open the door for Thopmson to come back into the senior coaching role when Hird is finally sacked?

. . . 25 grand plus a rumoured "six figure" settlement! The Bombers don't have a problem reaching for the chequebook, they must have a nice "Little" contingency account somewhere's! . . probably in the Seychelles!

Didnt Little release a statement today denying they had paid his fine?

Didnt Little release a statement today denying they had paid his fine?

Maybe he paid it so it was not technically Essendon

Didnt Little release a statement today denying they had paid his fine?

Correct Cards13

Glenfiddich will work well for either result!

Glenfiddich is a fav, so is Lark, a Tassie whiskey that is amazing.

Didnt Little release a statement today denying they had paid his fine?

Mr Little seems to be in a constant state of deny(ing)? . . . also didn't we once have a wealthy benefactor? How did that work out?

You will never get me out of the AFL as I am untouchable

This makes...........wait for it......