I just keep thinking of Reimers and what else we might hear from him. In fact I want to hear more from him, even though [censored] Dons fans will say he is a disgruntled ex employee

Indeed, he is the only Bomber to descibe that what was being taken was "on the edge".

I'm sure that it was not something that he'd worked out all by himself.

Clearly it was something which had been quietly advised and to be kept dank, er, dark.

He might have been encouraged to assume a low profile.

Correct me but I thought Jobe Watson believed he had taken it. It still needs to be established that he did actually use the drug despite his stated beliefs.

If there is collaborating evidence that supports that belief that he did in fact use the drug then my understanding is he and others caught by that evidence would be issued infraction notices.

I'm not sure about that the WADA code out laws the "intent" to take an illegal substance. If the player signed a consent form, was injected and believes still that is what he was given, to me that is pretty clear proof of intent to take the substance, even if it can't be process he took it (through positive tests).

The question then is "is intent to take a banned substance mitigated if the player believed the substance was legal?" (Ie was shown a phoney letter). I would have thought not given Wade Lees never took a drug and got banned (although I am not sure if his ban was based on intent to take or importing).

Re the unknown Mexican substance and all the other unknown substances that have been injected.

I think someone else mentioned on here worksafe investigations and I'd be very surprised if objecting employees with unknown substances is acceptable under work place laws.

Also re Dr Bruce Reid, if he has overseen a program that has included unproven and unknown substances, no records or data or monitoring I would imagine he would be looked at closely by the board that relates and registers doctors as well.

I'm not sure about that the WADA code out laws the "intent" to take an illegal substance. If the player signed a consent form, was injected and believes still that is what he was given, to me that is pretty clear proof of intent to take the substance, even if it can't be process he took it (through positive tests).

The question then is "is intent to take a banned substance mitigated if the player believed the substance was legal?" (Ie was shown a phoney letter). I would have thought not given Wade Lees never took a drug and got banned (although I am not sure if his ban was based on intent to take or importing).

Paragraph A - I think the 3 components to prove intent would prove actual consumption. The second component is the issue to prove. The consent form may not specifically reference the consumption of illegal substances. And I not sure any footballer would in a valid position to determine what he had taken unless he could validate component.

Paragraph B - I doubt whether there can be intent if the player truly believed he was taking legal substances and was under the impression or otherwise from the FD that they were legal . Wade Lees just did not check full stop on the illegality full stop.

But the bottom line is if there is sufficient evidence that they took banned substances there is no existing precedent to avoid WADA penalties on the basis that you relied on the Club FD medicos.

Re the unknown Mexican substance and all the other unknown substances that have been injected.

I think someone else mentioned on here worksafe investigations and I'd be very surprised if objecting employees with unknown substances is acceptable under work place laws.

Also re Dr Bruce Reid, if he has overseen a program that has included unproven and unknown substances, no records or data or monitoring I would imagine he would be looked at closely by the board that relates and registers doctors as well.

Fair points.

You would think that the AMA and Worksafe would have a vested interest in what has gone on but would be waiting for the final ASADA report and the outcome of the AFL stoush.

Allegedly Danks had claimed a sups program could be set up as a tax effective........ Surely the ATOs ears would have pricked on that.

Has anyone considered that the reason Essendon are fighting this so hard; is that if all the varying governace and legislative obligations which may yet come in to play (Worksafe, AMA, ATO, etc), followed on by likely potential law suits by affected parties; that they would cease to exist! Therefore they don't have anything to lose by taking on the AFL, ASADA, ETC

Has anyone considered that the reason Essendon are fighting this so hard; is that if all the varying governace and legislative obligations which may yet come in to play (Worksafe, AMA, ATO, etc), followed on by likely potential law suits by affected parties; that they would cease to exist! Therefore they don't have anything to lose by taking on the AFL, ASADA, ETC

Yes i have. After speaking to a few lawyers over the period of the case so far they were all in agreement that if the players are found guilty and therefore banned for 6-24 months, they would all have ground to sue the EFC. That could be 30+ players....

Has anyone considered that the reason Essendon are fighting this so hard; is that if all the varying governace and legislative obligations which may yet come in to play (Worksafe, AMA, ATO, etc), followed on by likely potential law suits by affected parties; that they would cease to exist! Therefore they don't have anything to lose by taking on the AFL, ASADA, ETC

Could well be a major part of their motivation. Could drag on for years. We know that whenever there is a cancer cluster, whether real or a random statistical fluctuation, people blame something in their environment. And start a media frenzy and legal action. If more than 1 Essendon player comes down with the same serious disease in their 30's, 40's, ....., there will be a potential for a stoush with Essendon and maybe even the AFL if the AFL folds under Bomber's pressure.

Has anyone else noticed that the Essendon tone has changed dramactically since Evans stood down and Little took over.

Evans was very conciliatory towards the AFL.

Now Little is in control it is we will fight them on the beaches, we will fight them in the streets we will never surrender .

This guy is used to getting his way I cannot see an early end to this saga.

Edited August 15, 201312 yr by old dee

Has anyone else noticed that the Essendon tone has changed dramactically since Evans stood down and Little took over.

Evans was very conciliatory towards the AFL.

Now Little is in control it is we will fight them on the beaches, we will fight them in the streets we will never surrender .

This guy is used to getting his way I cannot see an early end to this saga.

Neither can I... Thing is...Demetriou and indeed the league , on behalf of most sports cant afford to back down let alone lose.

Drugs aside its a Mexican standoff lol.. AFL's coffers are deeper than Messendons

Little may be in for a very rude shock. Albeit much currently might just be postering. Wars have been fought over sillier things and invariably it comes down to who has the last bullet etc. That will always be the AFL...they make their own !!

Has anyone else noticed that the Essendon tone has changed dramactically since Evans stood down and Little took over.

Evans was very conciliatory towards the AFL.

Now Little is in control it is we will fight them on the beaches, we will fight them in the streets we will never surrender .

This guy is used to getting his way I cannot see an early end to this saga.

I can only assume Methendon is trying to stare them down. The last thing the AFL wants is for this matter to drag through the courts for months/years.

Neither can I... Thing is...Demetriou and indeed the league , on behalf of most sports cant afford to back down let alone lose.

Drugs aside its a Mexican standoff lol.. AFL's coffers are deeper than Messendons

Little may be in for a very rude shock. Albeit much currently might just be postering. Wars have been fought over sillier things and invariably it comes down to who has the last bullet etc. That will always be the AFL...they make their own !!

And much of Essendons!

Did anyone hear Jeff Kennet on SEN today.

I was cheering from the drivers seat.

Made some sense to me

Of course they will now fall out of the sky on me.

As my dad used to say lead with your chin and someone will punch it!

And much of Essendons!

Did anyone hear Jeff Kennet on SEN today.

I was cheering from the drivers seat.

Made some sense to me

Of course they will now fall out of the sky on me.

As my dad used to say lead with your chin and someone will punch it!

Yep...thought so too.. it might be what happens but I really wanted them to play a year for nothing..

This has only really started. Powder still relatively dry in both camps and we await the Guerilla attack of ASADA on the players. I dont think the armory at windy Hill will be able to hold out.

If you want to talk politics go to the general board. Don't start it here.

Wasn't me that raised the topic. Just sayin

And BTW who says its a political comment? You've been reading too much spin doctor stuff....

Edited August 15, 201312 yr by jnrmac

Has anyone considered that the reason Essendon are fighting this so hard; is that if all the varying governace and legislative obligations which may yet come in to play (Worksafe, AMA, ATO, etc), followed on by likely potential law suits by affected parties; that they would cease to exist! Therefore they don't have anything to lose by taking on the AFL, ASADA, ETC

I am sure I have read that two or more doping infractions on individuals result in ASADA/WADA automatic suspension of the team.

Also where does all this fit with the pokies licences that Essendon hold?

And much of Essendons!

Did anyone hear Jeff Kennet on SEN today.

I was cheering from the drivers seat.

Made some sense to me

Of course they will now fall out of the sky on me.

As my dad used to say lead with your chin and someone will punch it!

Any chance of the other 17 clubs fighting any injunction brought by Essendon on the basis that players risk injury, and therefore their income, every time they go out on the field. They could argue that playing Essendon while under a injunction could creates a risk that would not otherwise exist. Put another way, if a player broke their leg which ended their career playing Essendon, and then later Essendon is found to have been found guilty and therefore the game should not have been played, then the players career has been ended as a result of the injunction.

Interested in legal eagles views.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-15/afl-should-give-essendon-ultimatum-kennett/4890298

Go Bombers!

Go all the way to the Supreme Court.

Take on the AFL...do it...do it...do it.

This could soak up all your millions.

Please let James Hird have his way. QCs at 50 paces and $10,000 a day plus prep time plus junior counsel. It's gonna be great and it will go on for months.

Burnside's bills will make Dank's pseudo-medico stuff look like a bargain basement.

Go James, Go Paul Little...wreck the dynasty.

Sorry I could not read any further then the Go Bombers comment.

Been saying the same thing at work, just tell them they will de register the club from the AFL and put a team from Tassie in.

Richard Ings tweet asks this question (presumably of someone associated with Essendon past or present)

Are you aware of any players receiving injections of

(A) AOD9604

(B) CJC1295

© Thyomosin beta 4

(D) Hexarelin

If yes, which players?

You really have to laugh at the Hird legal team. They said Hird should get off because the whole affair was not done publicly and therefore it didn't bring the game into disrepute.

Perhaps they should be told, that the single thing found against the MFC in the tanking investigation, was a comment, made in a private meeting of MFC recruiting staff, that never saw the light of day until an informer told the AFL investigators and it was then leaked to the media.

The MFC was found guilty and fined $500k for being the employer of the the person who made the comment, CC, who was also suspended for a year. Don't recall him going on National TV and shouting his comment to the world.

Now lets contrast that with Essendon's situation and charges and disgraceful conduct.

Oh yes, Hird's lawyers, they should all get off because they drugged players secretly not in public. Very funny.

Essendon's attitude never ceases to amaze. Not public? Who called a press conference to self-report? Who ran an internal investigation and made public the 'experimenting' with players conclusion?

Richard Ings tweet asks this question (presumably of someone associated with Essendon past or present)

Rumpole: Mr Hird. Could you tell the court whether any of your players were ever injected with performance enhancing or banned substances?

James Hird: Most certainly not!

Rumpole: Thank you Mr Hird. Could you then tell the court what were the substances that were injected into the players at the injecting rooms opposite Windy Hill?

James Hird: I wouldn't have a clue.

august stocktake coming very soon=hand me that box of matches jimmy

Essendon's attitude never ceases to amaze. Not public? Who called a press conference to self-report? Who ran an internal investigation and made public the 'experimenting' with players conclusion?

It's hilarious isn't it? By that logic, no sportsman or official should be done for drugs unless they're caught red handed injecting themselves on a park bench.