We seem to be in a different league to Essendon where Dank was front and centre in their drug programme while in our case it seems he was giving some advice to one one of the club's doctors without the club's knowledge. Notwithstanding, a small number of our players, possibly as low as one, might be at risk.

The number of people involved or potentially at risk may be different but the nexus with Danks and possibility of player(s) taking banned substance is the same.

The number of people involved or potentially at risk may be different but the nexus with Danks and possibility of player(s) taking banned substance is the same.

Are you suggesting Dank was on our payroll and ran a supplements programme for the club with the full knowledge and co-operation of the Melbourne Football Club?

James Hird is 'still being paid' by Essendon

On the pay stoush, Demetriou told 3AW on Wednesday: "He's not allowed to be paid - I want to make that very clear.

"The sanction to James Hird is 12 months' suspension ... suspension without pay. If there is one thing I will go to my grave on, I know 100 per cent the AFL is not paying and I know that Essendon is not paying.''

If the AFL fails to investigate the allegation now, there will be a lot of people with good reason to believe a massive cover up to save a lot of big backsides took place over the issue.

Are you suggesting Dank was on our payroll and ran a supplements programme for the club with the full knowledge and co-operation of the Melbourne Football Club?

I was suggesting that both situations may involve player(s) being administered banned substances where Dank has had some involvement.

I was suggesting that both situations may involve player(s) being administered banned substances where Dank has had some involvement.

I think we all knew that but there's a gulf sized disconnect between the two situations.

I think we all knew that but there's a gulf sized disconnect between the two situations.

Not in respect of the ASADA investigation regardless of how you want to moralise it.

Just heard on SEN that ASADA has appealed the AFL / Saad, St Kilda player decision!

Edited December 4, 201311 yr by old dee

Just heard on SEN that ASADA has appealed the AFL / Saad, St Kilda player decision!

Well it was a bit harsh, given what they seem to be planning to give Essendon... They probably want it watered down.

By the way, what's the jurisdiction here? That is, to whom do they appeal a Tribunal decision and what rights do they have to do so?

Apologies if old ground from the Essendon thread.

Well it was a bit harsh, given what they seem to be planning to give Essendon... They probably want it watered down.

By the way, what's the jurisdiction here? That is, to whom do they appeal a Tribunal decision and what rights do they have to do so?

Apologies if old ground from the Essendon thread.

From what was said on SEN,

The AFL have to hold an appeal by there appeals tribunal.

Interesting that ASADA have appeal rights. Thanks od

I wish I had your optimism Whisper. It is a long time after the event. Why the confidence?

This is perfectly normal in these sorts of enquIries by local affiliates of WADA world-wide. Local sporting Organisations are always impatient for judgements as they are anxious to get on with playing and progress their sporting commerce.

The local affiliates, however, are nearly always under-resourced particularly for enquiries as complex as being conducted into AFL/NRL clubs, and it is made all the more complex when you get the wealthy perpetrators such as Essendon obstructing the process all the way.

Hird has an awful lot to answer for, and so does Little for allowing him to get away with it.

Never fear, their time is coming, and it is going to be very ugly.

this is probably why they are appealing.

2 years for a VFL player, 18 months for Saad.

VFL player not allowed to train. Saad training.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-11-29/banned-vfl-player-queries-saad-punishment

the AFL might want to wake the hell up on this, and so might essendon.

this is probably why they are appealing.

2 years for a VFL player, 18 months for Saad.

VFL player not allowed to train. Saad training.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-11-29/banned-vfl-player-queries-saad-punishment

the AFL might want to wake the hell up on this, and so might essendon.

It is just brutal on those people like Lees and Saad who have done the wrong thing but have everything taken away and yet Dons and Hird and co are at this point getting a feather duster.

The suggestion is that they are appealing the leniency of the the penalty not the severity. The implication is they want Saad to get the full penalty not a reduced one!

I would suggest ASADA will want Saad to get the full 2 years and to have them from when he stopped training with the saints, as he shouldn't have been training with them while suspended.

Essendon have had the feather duster from the AFL in regards to governance.... the multiple 2 year suspensions are still to come.

Well it was a bit harsh, given what they seem to be planning to give Essendon... They probably want it watered down.

By the way, what's the jurisdiction here? That is, to whom do they appeal a Tribunal decision and what rights do they have to do so?

Apologies if old ground from the Essendon thread.

lol

If they appeal anything, it isn't because of the severity.

Not in respect of the ASADA investigation regardless of how you want to moralise it.

I'm not moralising - just making an observation.

why are we running two threads on EFC ? just asking

why are we running two threads on EFC ? just asking

This thread is about the behaviour of Officials within the AFL, not about Essendon having a drug programme.

I still maintain that the whole Hun palaver is a complete and utter beat up. Pathetic really the headers etc in today's paper - Bombshell, AFL in crisis yada yada.

And the editorial in today's paper call for an inquiry (perhaps a senate inquiry it helpfully suggests) - what a joke.

That said i have to say that if the article linked below is correct and they didn't ensure the Terms of Deed explicitly stated that EFC couldn't pay Hird it is pretty sloppy by the AFL and its legal team. Not hanging stuff - and certainly not cause for an inquiry or even the AFL to be too severely criticized, i mean in the end what does it matter if they pay him or not, it's just more money being drained from their coffers - but sloppy none the less.

http://www.smh.com.au/afl/afl-news/afl-no-pay-for-hird-was-a-verbal-guarantee-20131205-2ysyl.html

James Hird is 'still being paid' by Essendon

If the AFL fails to investigate the allegation now, there will be a lot of people with good reason to believe a massive cover up to save a lot of big backsides took place over the issue.

Thanks for the link PF.

Agree 100%, something stinks here. I don't care about the negotiations or who was involved but I do care about the result. If Hird has been allowed to take a year off with pay and at all helped to go and study for a year it's an absolute travesty. That is barely a punishment at all.

If the AFL have allowed this Demetriou and Fitzpatrick must resign, especially after Demetriou's comments yesterday. If Essendon are doing this behind the leagues back and without permission they must be punished.

I'm not sure who to believe, Hird's lawyer claims the arrangement they reached with the AFL doesn't cover whether he can be paid or not. I think I agree with Kennett on this, an independent investigation is needed but I can't see Demetriou allowing it to to happen.

I still maintain that the whole Hun palaver is a complete and utter beat up. Pathetic really the headers etc in today's paper - Bombshell, AFL in crisis yada yada.

And the editorial in today's paper call for an inquiry (perhaps a senate inquiry it helpfully suggests) - what a joke.

That said i have to say that if the article linked below is correct and they didn't ensure the Terms of Deed explicitly stated that EFC couldn't pay Hird it is pretty sloppy by the AFL and its legal team. Not hanging stuff - and certainly not cause for an inquiry or even the AFL to be too severely criticized, i mean in the end what does it matter if they pay him or not, it's just more money being drained from their coffers - but sloppy none the less.

http://www.smh.com.au/afl/afl-news/afl-no-pay-for-hird-was-a-verbal-guarantee-20131205-2ysyl.html

You are joking aren't you. You don't see any problem with Hird being paid while suspended making the whole penalty meaningless. Maybe ask CC what he thought about not getting paid for a year when he put no one's health at risk.

OP looking a lot more interesting now.

That said i have to say that if the article linked below is correct and they didn't ensure the Terms of Deed explicitly stated that EFC couldn't pay Hird it is pretty sloppy by the AFL and its legal team. Not hanging stuff -

To most of us, "can't be employed by" is equivalent to "can't be paid by". He's not allowed to work, would seem fairly obvious that it follows that he's not allowed to be paid.

Only in the AFL would any of this happen, both at the AFL itself and the clubs, they're all so used to being a rule unto themselves.

Interesting Essendon in the short term may get away with paying Hird as there is nothing to say he could not be.

However Essendon are digging themselves a big hole with the AFL and the other clubs.

People have long memories and they will cop it in the next event.

They are pulling the tail of a very big tiger.