WRONG

yep I think hiding the saga is the intended outcome, but wada states that if you are under the impression you are using a banned substance and your doctor is under that impression and you admit to taking the banned substance AOD

then you can be banned for 2 years

over to you jobe

I wonder what the St Kilda player (Saad?) thinks about all of this. He's facing a two year ban for drinking a substance sold over the counter.

And what about that Frankston player who has also been banned for two years?

Level playing field? I think not.

I wonder what the St Kilda player (Saad?) thinks about all of this. He's facing a two year ban for drinking a substance sold over the counter.

And what about that Frankston player who has also been banned for two years?

Level playing field? I think not.

no argument from me corowa, and youd know , coming from the federation capitol

btw , are you a barttlett

I wonder what the St Kilda player (Saad?) thinks about all of this. He's facing a two year ban for drinking a substance sold over the counter.

And what about that Frankston player who has also been banned for two years?

Level playing field? I think not.

You have to have proof corowa.

Both your examples above there was positive proof.

No Essendon player has tested positive to anything.

Appears there are no records that show what was adminstered.

On that basis to charge someone who denys liabilty would IMO be laughted out of court.

We are all guessing at present but that apperas to be the way it is going.

We should know in the next few days you would think.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-08-12/dons-may-be-scapegoats

Does anyone recall Mathews saying we were scapegoats in the tanking saga? It's easy for some to say "move on, it's history". Maybe remembrance of past wrongs is what binds groups into the tough unit that the same some bemoan we aren't.

A good article in today's Sydney Morning Herald from one of the better sports journos, Roy Masters: http://www.smh.com.au/sport/wada-would-appeal-soft-sanctions-as-afl-prepares-to-charge-essendon-20130811-2rq9h.html

He says WADA would appeal any soft sanctions and he expects the AFL to hand down charges today:

The AFL is expected to charge Essendon on Monday, together with the club's coaching, training and medical staff, over abuse of its doping code - signalling tough penalties against coach James Hird, who condoned a program in which multiple players received multiple injections of potentially dangerous drugs.

Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority sanctions against several Essendon players will follow but there is no determined end date, the imminence of the AFL finals being irrelevant to the anti-doping body's investigation.

A good article in today's Sydney Morning Herald from one of the better sports journos, Roy Masters: http://www.smh.com.au/sport/wada-would-appeal-soft-sanctions-as-afl-prepares-to-charge-essendon-20130811-2rq9h.html

He says WADA would appeal any soft sanctions and he expects the AFL to hand down charges today:

HardtackI usually don't disagree with you but Roy Masters!

He makes a number in the Melbourne press look like Rocket scientists.

If he said it was day time I would go out and check.

Honestly mate he is just an AFL hater on a good day.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-08-12/dons-may-be-scapegoats

Does anyone recall Mathews saying we were scapegoats in the tanking saga? It's easy for some to say "move on, it's history". Maybe remembrance of past wrongs is what binds groups into the tough unit that the same some bemoan we aren't.

sue not matter how much we winge nothing is going to change.

We Tanked

So did Carlton and others .

And at the risk of offending you.

"Get over it"

HardtackI usually don't disagree with you but Roy Masters!

He makes a number in the Melbourne press look like Rocket scientists.

If he said it was day time I would go out and check.

Honestly mate he is just an AFL hater on a good day.

Funny, but I've never thought of him as an AFL hater at all. I have found he is usually reasonably balanced in his views and has on occasion even come to the AFL's defence. Having said that, I must admit I don't read a lot of local sports news here in Sydney.

You have to have proof corowa.

Both your examples above there was positive proof.

No Essendon player has tested positive to anything.

Appears there are no records that show what was adminstered.

On that basis to charge someone who denys liabilty would IMO be laughted out of court.

We are all guessing at present but that apperas to be the way it is going.

We should know in the next few days you would think.

Proof, ask Lancie Armstrong about positive tests = proof of PED use and then getting done on circumstantial evidence.

Proof, ask Lancie Armstrong about positive tests = proof of PED use and then getting done on circumstantial evidence.

Well we all see in a few more days Card13.

Well we all see in a few more days Card13.

How do you see the players "getting off" OD. There is a WADA code that must be adhered to...

How do you see the players "getting off" OD. There is a WADA code that must be adhered to...

I am tired of the whole thing wyl.

lets wait a few days and see

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-08-12/dons-may-be-scapegoats

Does anyone recall Mathews saying we were scapegoats in the tanking saga? It's easy for some to say "move on, it's history". Maybe remembrance of past wrongs is what binds groups into the tough unit that the same some bemoan we aren't.

Leigh clearly believes that what goes on in off-site injecting rooms stays in the injecting rooms.

sue not matter how much we winge nothing is going to change.

We Tanked

So did Carlton and others .

And at the risk of offending you.

"Get over it"

Old Dee, perhaps you miss my point. I know no amount of whinging will change things. I make the point that remembrance of past injuries can help bind a group together. So no, I don't think we should get over it. We should use it (as supporters, it won't have any effect on the players, in fact better to not remind them of it). Seems to me a bit facile saying 'get over it' - easy to say, easy to do, but better to make use of it instead to build the mongrel culture so many on here bemoan we lack, including I think you.

You are only a criminal if you are convicted.

I get the feeling that there is scant evidence of what they took and then some doubt on what was legal and when.

The next week will tell.

But my feeling is that Essendon FC and some individuals will be sanctioned ( bringing the AFL into disrepute ) and the players will not be charged with any thing this side of 2014.

Big fine perhaps JH suspended for six months.

I think the afl players association will be all under this...

an attack on the players would open a hornets nest, & other players from other clubs would be known to have partaken in all sorts of consumables... an avalanche of questions and innuendo could erupt.

the afl won't want to take on the players & their association.its the club that has to go & the leaders who instigated proceedings. all who knowingly knew of the underhanded affair going on.

prey tell..why so.

Not at the cost of justice. Justice knows no haste or clouding urgency.

Let it take what it takes for the truth and its consequences to manifest.

The AFL read Vlad wants haste. ASADA may also for it seems inept. Cant have any failings illuminated can we ??

stuff them all.

Leigh clearly believes that what goes on in off-site injecting rooms stays in the injecting rooms.

Mathews is clearly at times a victim of his own mouth. He opens it and shlt comes out !!

WRONG

yep I think hiding the saga is the intended outcome, but wada states that if you are under the impression you are using a banned substance and your doctor is under that impression and you admit to taking the banned substance AOD

then you can be banned for 2 years

over to you jobe

Watson never admitted he took AOD. His 'admission' was simply that he believed he was taking AOD.

If the players didn't admit to it, then your whole argument here is...well, I refer you to your first word.

You don't seem to understand the word circumstantial.

...but my point is that if they can't work out who took what but they know that illegal substances have been used by players in the club then all players may face penalties unless it can be proved they didn't.

Rubbish rjay. Total and utter rubbish.

You are advocating here for a complete reversal of everything that constitutes natural justice. If ASADA doesn't know who took what, it is completely improper for them to just say 'well, we know someone took something, so we'll charge every player'. That is ripe to be destroyed in a court of law; that's exactly the type of situation Essendon will be able to get itself out of.

Watson never admitted he took AOD. His 'admission' was simply that he believed he was taking AOD.

If the players didn't admit to it, then your whole argument here is...well, I refer you to your first word.

Rubbish rjay. Total and utter rubbish.

You are advocating here for a complete reversal of everything that constitutes natural justice. If ASADA doesn't know who took what, it is completely improper for them to just say 'well, we know someone took something, so we'll charge every player'. That is ripe to be destroyed in a court of law; that's exactly the type of situation Essendon will be able to get itself out of.

It looks very much like a situation where we know you did it but we can't prove it individually (unless someone produces records or someone spills the beans). So how do you punish the players? You make them play for no points for the next x years.

Ever since RonEvans ran catering ( and we all paid $100 for a shite hotdog)at Etihad, they've had a cosy relationship with the AFL. Not convinced that the penalty will be near as harsh as it should be. The whole Essendon v AFL battle could be stage managed for effect.

Watson never admitted he took AOD. His 'admission' was simply that he believed he was taking AOD.

at the very least this goes to "intent"

at the very least this goes to "intent"

Intent of whom? And why would that be relevant anyway?

Intent of whom? And why would that be relevant anyway?

ask Wade Lees .

ask Wade Lees .

You're completely off topic.

The intent of the players is irrelevant. If they took it, they took it. If they intended to take it but didn't take it, then they didn't take it.

The issue is about what happened, not about intent.

Not sure if anyone has posted this but according to the WADA code 3.2 the burden of proof required for an anti doping violation is more than balance of probability and less than beyond reasonable doubt. So having a waiver signed by a player whilst not a smoking gun as such may be enough to consider an an Anti Doping Violation.

P.S pure speculation regardin whether it is enough as i am not a lawyer