I want "justice" from this issue simply because i do not want performance enhancing drugs in the AFL.

To date i still believe Essendrug have got off lightly.

So i don't think we are ready to just move on.

There is still more to unfold.

can someone merge this into the actual Messendon thread?

cheers

Lets not forget there are 3 separate issues here.

1) players with performance enhancing drugs in their systems. (under investigation by ASADA)

2) extremely poor governance by the EFC (which is what the AFL have punished them for)

3) Occupational Health and Safety (it cant be long before Worksafe becomes involved, surely)

and possibly

4) links to criminal activity (under investigation by the ACC)

5) extremely poor governance by the AFL

This is not a transgression against the AFL as was ours, supposedly ( though unproven etc ) Messendon has run foul of a much bigger set of rules

In which case the AFL will be bound by what ASADA and WADA find. The AFL sanctions against Essendon were for breach of AFL rules. The drug situation is yet to be dealt with.

I dont understand why the media would be asking an employer if some-one "on leave" is being paid by some other entity.

If I took a year off without pay, and 3AW wanted to know from my boss if I was being paid from another party, its not either of their business to know WTF Im up to.

You are correct except, that the AFL said that Essendon was not to pay him during the suspension. If the club is paying him, via a third party, that would be a breach of obligations. I am not saying that this is happening, but the media have raised the possibility.

I don't know about poor governance by the AFL. I would be expecting them to negotiate essendons penalties over their own governance. as per their letter to clubs today, it pretty much knocks whatever allegations of impropriety that the Hun made against them out of the water. im not vlads biggest fan or anything and while I agree that its been handled less than perfectly I wouldn't say that the afl's governance has been extremely poor.

I often wonder what would have been the case if you substituted Melbourne for Essendon?

In which case the AFL will be bound by what ASADA and WADA find. The AFL sanctions against Essendon were for breach of AFL rules. The drug situation is yet to be dealt with.

I have this fundamental problem with the AFL/Essendon penalty, I just think it is a joke.

For putting players health at risk, injecting players off campus and away from the club doctor, destroying and/or not keeping records of what was used and how often, which actually hinders the players in determining their risk factors, attacking the AFL disgracefully in the media, as well as litigating and denying wrongdoing, Essendon received only 4 times the monetary fine we got for tanking, 3 lost draft picks, elimination from a finals series which could later have been tainted by drug use and effect and the same supension period for one official Hird as for CC despite the complete difference in their crimes, ( tanking, as against the matters mentioned ).

i would have thought the gravity of the offence deserved a minimum, for a wealthy club like the Bombers, of a $5m fine, finals elimination for 2013, no draft picks in rounds 1-4 for 3 years and a suspension of at least a couple of years for Hird.

PS. I don't hate Essendon, that is reserved for the Visy Park mob.

Maybe it is just my revulsion of people introducing other people to drugs coming to the fore.

I often wonder what would have been the case if you substituted Melbourne for Essendon?

1 less member for starters.

I have this fundamental problem with the AFL/Essendon penalty, I just think it is a joke.

For putting players health at risk, injecting players off campus and away from the club doctor, destroying and/or not keeping records of what was used and how often, which actually hinders the players in determining their risk factors, attacking the AFL disgracefully in the media, as well as litigating and denying wrongdoing, Essendon received only 4 times the monetary fine we got for tanking, 3 lost draft picks, elimination from a finals series which could later have been tainted by drug use and effect and the same supension period for one official Hird as for CC despite the complete difference in their crimes, ( tanking, as against the matters mentioned ).

i would have thought the gravity of the offence deserved a minimum, for a wealthy club like the Bombers, of a $5m fine, finals elimination for 2013, no draft picks in rounds 1-4 for 3 years and a suspension of at least a couple of years for Hird.

Maybe it is just my revulsion of people introducing other people to drugs coming to the fore.

Couldn't agree more. It was a negotiated settlement and not one set to reflect the crime. Ours was the same. We tanked (a word I know you dispute), got draft picks as a result and our penalty didn't involve the removal of draft picks. Go figure.

The answer is "What is in the best interest of the AFL". That is the outcome the AFL want and frankly so do I. If you want justice don't look to the legal system.

I have this fundamental problem with the AFL/Essendon penalty, I just think it is a joke.

For putting players health at risk, injecting players off campus and away from the club doctor, destroying and/or not keeping records of what was used and how often, which actually hinders the players in determining their risk factors, attacking the AFL disgracefully in the media, as well as litigating and denying wrongdoing, Essendon received only 4 times the monetary fine we got for tanking, 3 lost draft picks, elimination from a finals series which could later have been tainted by drug use and effect and the same supension period for one official Hird as for CC despite the complete difference in their crimes, ( tanking, as against the matters mentioned ).

i would have thought the gravity of the offence deserved a minimum, for a wealthy club like the Bombers, of a $5m fine, finals elimination for 2013, no draft picks in rounds 1-4 for 3 years and a suspension of at least a couple of years for Hird.

PS. I don't hate Essendon, that is reserved for the Visy Park mob.

Maybe it is just my revulsion of people introducing other people to drugs coming to the fore.

Pretty much agree Redleg.

except the draft penalty. I would have banned them from the 2013 Nat draft rounds )1, 2, & 3)... & the National draft 1st Rnds of 2014 & 2015.

As a result of today's revelations the future of many key people in the AFL must be in serious doubt.

this has been leaked, by someone.

today after letting it sink in, the thing to me is the timing of this coming out. hot on the heels of the end of the draft & trade periods. I think this has something to do with the timing of it all.

& before any mentions from ASADA ? & prior to the xmas break.

is there more to this yet to come? or could this be a get back at someone within the AFL footy world.

whats ADADA doing; their shoelaces?

Edited December 4, 201311 yr by dee-luded

I often wonder what would have been the case if you substituted Melbourne for Essendon?

i would not have paid for a new membership for a start.

Drugs in Sport are just not on. How can any competition be legit whilst they exist?

Couldn't agree more. It was a negotiated settlement and not one set to reflect the crime. Ours was the same. We tanked (a word I know you dispute), got draft picks as a result and our penalty didn't involve the removal of draft picks. Go figure.

The answer is "What is in the best interest of the AFL". That is the outcome the AFL want and frankly so do I. If you want justice don't look to the legal system.

What concerns me most is the ongoing effect the supplement program has on the players , in two ways.

Firstly the effects on the health of the players, which is at this stage unknown and second the residual benefit they derive from the use of the supplements, which is also unknown.

I and a lot of others, will always look at Jobe Watson's Bownlow as tainted and you have to ask the question, how did he go from being an ordinary player on the verge of being delisted, to one of the stars of the competition.

What concerns me most is the ongoing effect the supplement program has on the players , in two ways.

Firstly the effects on the health of the players, which is at this stage unknown and second the residual benefit they derive from the use of the supplements, which is also unknown.

I and a lot of others, will always look at Jobe Watson's Bownlow as tainted and you have to ask the question, how did he go from being an ordinary player on the verge of being delisted, to one of the stars of the competition.

I agree about the welfare of the players. It's just astounding that Essendon can't even tell you what players received what and when. It's why the penalties for the Club and those involved are so inadequate.

I still believe the players were the victims. Hence we've just got to wear any result of the program. I don't wonder about Watson's Brownlow, he was a very good player and from 2009 onward had more than 500 disposals a season.bar 2011 where he only played 17 games. These players have had their health put at risk. If they get a benefit from it they probably deserve it, who knows what medical problems they'll face in later life as a result.

lets not forget that the feb 7 press conference was an ACC presser, not an ASADA one.

ASADA to date have said NOTHING. the same nothing their brothers USADA said before they went BANG to lance.

Couldn't agree more. It was a negotiated settlement and not one set to reflect the crime. Ours was the same. We tanked (a word I know you dispute), got draft picks as a result and our penalty didn't involve the removal of draft picks. Go figure.

The answer is "What is in the best interest of the AFL". That is the outcome the AFL want and frankly so do I. If you want justice don't look to the legal system.

Go figure? It is quite easy to figure unless you believe in the eye for an eye style of justice. Penalties don't have to be a mirror image of the offence. It has to be appropriate and in the interests of society, in this case the AFL's comp. Taking draft picks from us would not make sense with regard to the latter. It could be argued that us not getting a PP when we clearly had performed badly enough to justify one, was in fact a removal of a draft pick anyway.

I think we are mostly agreed that the drug programme is far far more serious from so many angles than the tanking, no matter what one's views of our 'tanking' or tanking.

Go figure? It is quite easy to figure unless you believe in the eye for an eye style of justice. Penalties don't have to be a mirror image of the offence. It has to be appropriate and in the interests of society, in this case the AFL's comp. Taking draft picks from us would not make sense with regard to the latter. It could be argued that us not getting a PP when we clearly had performed badly enough to justify one, was in fact a removal of a draft pick anyway.

I think we are mostly agreed that the drug programme is far far more serious from so many angles than the tanking, no matter what one's views of our 'tanking' or tanking.

I agree that taking picks from us would not have been in the AFL's or our best interest but I think most independent people would think it would have been the most appropriate penalty. A bit like taking the profits of crime from those that benefit from crimes.

Adelaide's crime was in my view much less severe than ours but their penalty much more. Any sanctions have to have some consistency and in these three examples we are the odd man out.

Im just annoyed its put essendon back in the news again. Mr perfect still thinks he is innocent and mr little still thinks the sunshine out of his backside.

I agree that taking picks from us would not have been in the AFL's or our best interest but I think most independent people would think it would have been the most appropriate penalty. A bit like taking the profits of crime from those that benefit from crimes.

Adelaide's crime was in my view much less severe than ours but their penalty much more. Any sanctions have to have some consistency and in these three examples we are the odd man out.

How are we the odd man out? Unless my ageing brain has seized up, given you think Adelaide was hit too hard compared with us, logically you must be saying Essendon have been hit too hard too to make us the odd man out. Unless I'm confused we'll have to agree to disagree on that. Essendon 's sins are far worse than either ours or the Crow but the penalties so far have been modest.

In the MFC situation the AFL negotiated a settlement over months, got rid of the appropriate people, found a charge that protected the game and moved on. Most recognize the expediency of the outcome and supported it.

I can't see why Essendon should expect anything other than the same process. Those wanting "justice" should be careful not to look in the mirror.

Indeed.

The media always assume there are rules just for them.

They don't seem to understand the idea that in a democracy we don't have to answer them.

Democracy has something called umm...a free press.

Im just annoyed its put essendon back in the news again. Mr perfect still thinks he is innocent and mr little still thinks the sunshine out of his backside.

I have a different take. I want them in the news 24/7. I want this saga to linger into 2016 with WADA coming over the top for the coup de gras. I want Hird to be suspended into the next decade. My hate towards these fockers has no bounds and has not let up since 2000.

And yet I doubt anything will happen at all.

Indeed.

Democracy has something called umm...a free press.

A bit glib and simplistic Rhino. The press push this notion of freedom to make sales - honesty in reporting seems to me to run a distant second.

A bit glib and simplistic Rhino. The press push this notion of freedom to make sales - honesty in reporting seems to me to run a distant second.

So true BBO. News Ltd runs a plethora of agendas at any one time plus the odd wire tap.