If the 2 that take a deal get 2 games they would HAVE to be providing info re the rest of the players etc

Two former Essendon players are reportedly considering deal with ASADA.

Take it with a grain of salt if the penalty is two games.

RD 3 starts April 17th . . Today's date 19th Jan. = 3 months suspension!!

Good strategy to break the player's bloc?

They oughta take it, run like hell and don't look back!

Leave the other 32 in that rusty ol' barbedwire canoe!

The two being at the Doggies now?

RD 3 starts April 17th . . Today's date 19th Jan. = 3 months suspension!!

Good strategy to break the player's bloc?

They oughta take it, run like hell and don't look back!

Leave the other 32 in that rusty ol' barbedwire canoe!

With no-fault plus substantial assistance, the two years could become 6 months, backdated till when the SCN's were issued (October?), so out until March or April.

Penalties are by time, not matches.

Seems light, but they can't train with the club in that time, so no match practise, etc. etc. Would make the season hard going.

The two being at the Doggies now?

I'm inclined to think the Port duo, Monfries and Ryder. They are comfortably in grand final contention after their 2014 season. Would they really want to miss that potentially once in a lifetime opportunity if your lawyer said he could negotiate a two match ban?

Players and their lawyers would know after ASADA's presentation how likely suspensions are. Screw going down with the ship like the rest of the rats at Essendon. They could be the heroes of the AFL by coming clean and helping ASADA prosecute the rest. Yeah, the players at Essendon will hate you for life, but they'd have no foot to stand on.

With no-fault plus substantial assistance, the two years could become 6 months, backdated till when the SCN's were issued (October?), so out until March or April.

Penalties are by time, not matches.

Seems light, but they can't train with the club in that time, so no match practise, etc. etc. Would make the season hard going.

"Substantial assistance" would essentially mean giving information to assist in the successful prosecution of at least one other person. That might end up being S. Dank but it would almost certainly involve the Essendon players.

I wonder what they would get?

Still seems extremely light to me.

I'm inclined to think the Port duo, Monfries and Ryder. They are comfortably in grand final contention after their 2014 season. Would they really want to miss that potentially once in a lifetime opportunity if your lawyer said he could negotiate a two match ban?

Players and their lawyers would know after ASADA's presentation how likely suspensions are. Screw going down with the ship like the rest of the rats at Essendon. They could be the heroes of the AFL by coming clean and helping ASADA prosecute the rest. Yeah, the players at Essendon will hate you for life, but they'd have no foot to stand on.

Not to mention that the club would no doubt be exerting at least SOME pressure for them to take that option. Ryder and Monfries could be the difference for them between a flag and being also rans. Its not Ports fault that Essendon ran a drugs program, so why suffer for a rivals mistake. Tough call for the two players but tbh I think the Essendon players are going down anyway.

"Substantial assistance" would essentially mean giving information to assist in the successful prosecution of at least one other person. That might end up being S. Dank but it would almost certainly involve the Essendon players.

I wonder what they would get?

Still seems extremely light to me.

Surely if the two players accept the penalty, then the implication is that the other 32 are guilty by association... after all, they are all up on the same charges and as a result of the same evidence. And surely beyond that, it would then place the AFL in a position where they would be forced to take action against the club.

Dees2014, a query. You have made many comments about the EFC supplement saga and you seem to speak with a deal of authority on the matter. Also whilst the above quote is not an example, on many occasions you have said or implied that you have good mail on this and have made a number of clear predictions on what might be going on or what might happen in the future.

Can i ask what the basis is for your views and can you give a clue as to your sources.

Please note, I don't mean any disrespect nor am i questioning your veracity, just curious and would like to get a sense of how accurate your predictions/views might be.

For context with WJ's comments i know he is a lawyer and has good contacts in the legal world which helps me frame his comments. Similarly with GNF he has said he has contacts at the club which assists me to assess his comments and Webber clearly has some foot doctor mumbo jumbo thing going on which helps me frame his comments about injuries such as the one Trenners has suffered.

Sure BM, am happy to. My sources are legal, media, what I can broadly call regulatory, and from sporting administration. The best sources though by far are from sporting regulatory ones, particularly offshore. I hesitate to be specific, but as I have said a number of times on here, the world is watching us on this issue. It is regarded by powerful figures in the international sporting regulatory circles as a test case. Basically, they say if the sporting establishment in Australia get away with this anyone will get away with anything. A lot of us don't understand that in politics we are a middle power, but in sports we are a superpower, and have been seen up until three years ago as a beacon for common sense and integrity. The forces for good offshore hope this will remain to be the case, but regard Essendon as the test. They cannot believe Hird's behaviour has been tolerated for so long, and that Essendon has allowed itself to be consumed by this particular black hole.

I might also add if you piece together all the threads going back several years you are able to draw your own conclusions. I obviously have an interest in these sorts of things, and so far have been pretty close to the mark. It remains to be seen I suppose, but my legal sources would be amazed if either Hird or Essendon got off on the actions in which they are currently involved. By the way, all of them say Tania Hird is a serial offender on these sorts of issues - a junior lawyer put into the spotlight by marriage and seemingly unable or unwilling to get out of it.

Does that help?

Not to mention that the club would no doubt be exerting at least SOME pressure for them to take that option. Ryder and Monfries could be the difference for them between a flag and being also rans. Its not Ports fault that Essendon ran a drugs program, so why suffer for a rivals mistake. Tough call for the two players but tbh I think the Essendon players are going down anyway.

Kochy is a pragmatic guy. I could easily see Port sweet-talking Ryder by reiterating how he could be the difference between Port winning a premiership or not. Intimating that if an opportunity presented itself to save yourself the embarrassment of year-long bans, it would be worth taking. That Port have taken a huge punt on him to "save" him from the Bombers, and that he could do them a huge favour in return by negotiating with ASADA. That he'd be provided every ounce of support he needed. Blah, blah, blah, etc. etc. etc.

Bulldogs just seem too incompetent at the moment to accomplish anything similar.

I'm inclined to think the Port duo, Monfries and Ryder.

Could be right. I popped over to the Bomber's Board at BF, and the poster who made the original claims doesn't believe it's the contact he has (Crameri or Prismall).

Still, much guesswork, would imagine all will be revealed sooner rather than later. I see the Age has run a piece - wonder if that's based on a briefing from both sides, or only one?

Sure BM, am happy to. My sources are legal, media, what I can broadly call regulatory, and from sporting administration. The best sources though by far are from sporting regulatory ones, particularly offshore. I hesitate to be specific, but as I have said a number of times on here, the world is watching us on this issue. It is regarded by powerful figures in the international sporting regulatory circles as a test case. Basically, they say if the sporting establishment in Australia get away with this anyone will get away with anything. A lot of us don't understand that in politics we are a middle power, but in sports we are a superpower, and have been seen up until three years ago as a beacon for common sense and integrity. The forces for good offshore hope this will remain to be the case, but regard Essendon as the test. They cannot believe Hird's behaviour has been tolerated for so long, and that Essendon has allowed itself to be consumed by this particular black hole.

I might also add if you piece together all the threads going back several years you are able to draw your own conclusions. I obviously have an interest in these sorts of things, and so far have been pretty close to the mark. It remains to be seen I suppose, but my legal sources would be amazed if either Hird or Essendon got off on the actions in which they are currently involved. By the way, all of them say Tania Hird is a serial offender on these sorts of issues - a junior lawyer put into the spotlight and seemingly unable or unwilling to get out of it.

;

Does that help?

Yep, very much. Thanks for such a considered reply.

My main interest in this matter is the duplicity of the media and how much the gun in particular has been a participant in the drama. Sports journalism has taken a big hit.

If players are found guilty it will be fascinating to see if they appeal. It will be their call though no doubt etc will try and exert their will

Yep, very much. Thanks for such a considered reply.

My main interest in this matter is the duplicity of the media and how much the gun in particular has been a participant in the drama. Sports journalism has taken a big hit.

If players are found guilty it will be fascinating to see if they appeal. It will be their call though no doubt etc will try and exert their will

Foxtel, a Murdoch company, have an obvious stake in the AFL's prosperity. It's easy to see why all Murdoch media is aggressively pro-Essendon, pro-Hird, anti-ASADA. Rich men have rich friends, and it's an intimate circle at that. Being "in" with rich media contacts is invaluable if you're running covert, illegal drug operations (you know, in case someone finds out and you need a positive PR campaign by the media to discredit the prosecutor). Plus, one of the senior editors at the Herald Sun is a high-ranking member of the Essendon FC, I believe.

Believe me, if this whole scenario occurred at a lowly, poor club like us, Saints or Bulldogs this would've been a whitewash and finished years ago. Essendon's board are incredibly powerful with high-ranking connections in politics and media. It's why their aggressive campaign against ASADA has actually been successful convincing so many that Hird is innocent. They've successfully manipulated every corner of the AFL market, even getting Sam Newman to constantly discredit ASADA on The Footy Show. And we all know the demographic of people that still watch that [faecal matter] show.

Yep, very much. Thanks for such a considered reply.

My main interest in this matter is the duplicity of the media and how much the gun in particular has been a participant in the drama. Sports journalism has taken a big hit.

If players are found guilty it will be fascinating to see if they appeal. It will be their call though no doubt etc will try and exert their will

Yes sports journalism has certainly been under scrutiny, but there have been a few who have been truly outstanding in the best interests of excellence in sports reporting eg Caro and Patrick Smith. There have also been some truly awful examples of either highly naive (Gerard Whateley) or simply ignorant and unprincipled (Tracy Holmes) or simply biased (Mark Robinson). I think what it has shown is the sloppiness and laziness of a lot of our so called gun sports reporters. They certainly show no inclination to seek the truth, with the honourable exception of the two mentioned above, and when you have some appreciation of what is really going on, their sloppiness and bone ignorance is truly amazing. They appear more mouth-pieces of PR agencies than professional journalists.

Could be right. I popped over to the Bomber's Board at BF, and the poster who made the original claims doesn't believe it's the contact he has (Crameri or Prismall).

Still, much guesswork, would imagine all will be revealed sooner rather than later. I see the Age has run a piece - wonder if that's based on a briefing from both sides, or only one?

"Those with knowledge of the case say the possibility of a result that is heavily in favour of one party is slim, leaving all parties nervous."

The above, from the Age article says to me they have no idea. Just needed to run something to fill a bit of space and pretend they know more than they do. "Those with knowledge of the case"....pleeeeease...

edit; and the players case hasn't even been put yet.

Foxtel, a Murdoch company, have an obvious stake in the AFL's prosperity. It's easy to see why all Murdoch media is aggressively pro-Essendon, pro-Hird, anti-ASADA. Rich men have rich friends, and it's an intimate circle at that. Being "in" with rich media contacts is invaluable if you're running covert, illegal drug operations (you know, in case someone finds out and you need a positive PR campaign by the media to discredit the prosecutor). Plus, one of the senior editors at the Herald Sun is a high-ranking member of the Essendon FC, I believe.

Believe me, if this whole scenario occurred at a lowly, poor club like us, Saints or Bulldogs this would've been a whitewash and finished years ago. Essendon's board are incredibly powerful with high-ranking connections in politics and media. It's why their aggressive campaign against ASADA has actually been successful convincing so many that Hird is innocent. They've successfully manipulated every corner of the AFL market, even getting Sam Newman to constantly discredit ASADA on The Footy Show. And we all know the demographic of people that still watch that [faecal matter] show.

All of the Murdoch stable with the very honourable exception of Patrick Smith of the Australian, who has been consistently "on the money" on this issue.

This photo really does speak a thousand words about what we're dealing with here.

No doubt Little was over the moon when Abbott took power (thanks to the Murdoch hate-campaign against Labor), considering he's the most buyable politician in Australian history. Donate enough money to the Libs and they'll invent any policy you ask!

Certainly don't have to look long at his list of "achievements" so far as PM to see who actually comes up with his 'policies' (here's a clue: the billionaires who want to keep more of their money and want us to keep less of ours.)

Foxtel, a Murdoch company, have an obvious stake in the AFL's prosperity. It's easy to see why all Murdoch media is aggressively pro-Essendon, pro-Hird, anti-ASADA. Rich men have rich friends, and it's an intimate circle at that. Being "in" with rich media contacts is invaluable if you're running covert, illegal drug operations (you know, in case someone finds out and you need a positive PR campaign by the media to discredit the prosecutor). Plus, one of the senior editors at the Herald Sun is a high-ranking member of the Essendon FC, I believe.

I'm not sure who your referring to there but the Bombers' influence within the Murdoch empire is far more powerful than senior editorship at the HUN. Try CEO of Newscorp -

Rupert has got a crush on you

Thomson remains an Essendon tragic, getting to a Bombers' AFL game and into the rooms at least once a season on his trips home. He is close to Essendon coach James Hird, who also catches up with Thomson whenever he is in New York. "He's been a great friend and mentor to me," says Hird.

"Those with knowledge of the case say the possibility of a result that is heavily in favour of one party is slim, leaving all parties nervous."

The above, from the Age article says to me they have no idea. Just needed to run something to fill a bit of space and pretend they know more than they do. "Those with knowledge of the case"....pleeeeease...

edit; and the players case hasn't even been put yet.

Spot on. 'Those with knowledge of' takes the cake.

I'm not sure who your referring to there but the Bombers' influence within the Murdoch empire is far more powerful than senior editorship at the HUN. Try CEO of Newscorp -Rupert has got a crush on you

I'm not sure who your referring to there but the Bombers' influence within the Murdoch empire is far more powerful than senior editorship at the HUN. Try CEO of Newscorp -Rupert has got a crush on you

WJ, This to me explains a lot. I could never quite understand why News took such an uncompromising stand on ESSENDON because in marketing terms there is nothing in it for them. Sure they make EFC tragics happy, and I suppose it is news of sorts, albeit very biased news, but by taking such a partisan view of ESSENDON, you are just pissing off the the 17 eighteenths of the rest of the AFL supporters.

Understanding Thompson's background makes it all fall into place. Rupert wouldn't give a stuff about AFL so RP can have a free hand to be Hird's propaganda machine. He hasn't held back. Fortunately at the end of the day it won't make any difference, but it sure keeps us Demonlanders busy!!

"Those with knowledge of the case say the possibility of a result that is heavily in favour of one party is slim, leaving all parties nervous."

The above, from the Age article says to me they have no idea. Just needed to run something to fill a bit of space and pretend they know more than they do. "Those with knowledge of the case"....pleeeeease...

edit; and the players case hasn't even been put yet.

Spot on. 'Those with knowledge of' takes the cake.

"Those with knowledge of the case" is a pretty standard term when a journalist has spoken to someone who not only wants to remain anonymous but also doesn't want to be traced to any particular organisation or to one side or another in a legal dispute. On balance, when a journo claims they have information from "those with knowledge of the case" I would not only believe they have spoken to someone but that someone probably is in the know. What it doesn't tell you, though, is whether the person with the "knowledge of the case" is spinning a line.

"Those with knowledge of the case" is a pretty standard term when a journalist has spoken to someone who not only wants to remain anonymous but also doesn't want to be traced to any particular organisation or to one side or another in a legal dispute. On balance, when a journo claims they have information from "those with knowledge of the case" I would not only believe they have spoken to someone but that someone probably is in the know. What it doesn't tell you, though, is whether the person with the "knowledge of the case" is spinning a line.

It's also a pretty standard term for a generic person who doesn't really exist...

It's also a pretty standard term for a generic person who doesn't really exist...

I've been referred to more than once in the media as "a person with knowledge of the matter". I wonder if that means I don't really exist?

I've been referred to more than once in the media as "a person with knowledge of the matter". I wonder if that means I don't really exist?

That's a very deep question 'La Dee', maybe too deep for this forum.

All that has to happen in my opinion is for the "players " to be found guilty of taking drugs.

The Public will do the rest as in the Armstrong case.

The libs couldn't even save themselves....