Very few of us will be satisfied if the outcome is a headline in the HUN reading: 'Players cleared to play'

and in the fine print it mentions they were found responsible but is was all the fault of some other parties. The AFL may not even dare to mention the name of the party until they try him. (I understand Hird isn't on trial here. Hopefully he will be.)

Sue it won't work this way. If the Tribunal is satisfied that they took TB4 even unwittingly then they have to be banned. The normal ban is 2yrs. But if they can show they had no knowledge of being given an illegal substance that can result in them receiving a 12mth reduction. They still face a mandatory 12mths. If they fully co operate they can have that reduced by a further 6mths. So they end up with only 6mth bans. In this case they haven't done that so they will face at least 12mths as a best case if the Tribunal are satisfied they were given TB4.

Let's hope so. EFC be able to play for time and turn over their list.

A number of us paranoids always suspected it was Essendon that got the Workcover people to investigate other clubs. At least that has been knocked oevr and EFC are still in their gunsights.

Cause we were only doing what we suspected other clubs were doing....

There maybe a very big financial work cover penalty coming there way, and almost certainly some private settlements to sort out (pretty sure the standard player contract doesn't give permission to inject players full of banned substances).

Its Time.

Logic suggests that a non defence from the players effectively accomplishes the goal of ASADAs quest to establish Guilt. No plausible alternative with corroborated paperwork effectively reverts to the default, that being cooked.

Sue it won't work this way. If the Tribunal is satisfied that they took TB4 even unwittingly then they have to be banned. The normal ban is 2yrs. But if they can show they had no knowledge of being given an illegal substance that can result in them receiving a 12mth reduction. They still face a mandatory 12mths. If they fully co operate they can have that reduced by a further 6mths. So they end up with only 6mth bans. In this case they haven't done that so they will face at least 12mths as a best case if the Tribunal are satisfied they were given TB4.

I think the problem both the AFL and hence the players will have is WADA's view on exactly "what" the players thought they were being "secretly" injected with and the nature of their cooperation (which we are yet to really see any evidence of.

Sue it won't work this way. If the Tribunal is satisfied that they took TB4 even unwittingly then they have to be banned. The normal ban is 2yrs. But if they can show they had no knowledge of being given an illegal substance that can result in them receiving a 12mth reduction. They still face a mandatory 12mths. If they fully co operate they can have that reduced by a further 6mths. So they end up with only 6mth bans. In this case they haven't done that so they will face at least 12mths as a best case if the Tribunal are satisfied they were given TB4.

and as they haven't co-operated one bit that ban can be extended...just saying

Cause we were only doing what we suspected other clubs were doing....

There maybe a very big financial work cover penalty coming there way, and almost certainly some private settlements to sort out (pretty sure the standard player contract doesn't give permission to inject players full of banned substances).

DOnt forget Directors being held liable. As would happen in a private company where a worker was put in an unsafe situation, killed or injured..

Essendon are cooked.

... which we are yet to really see any evidence of.

To be fair, so far we haven't seen any evidence full stop. We have no idea what ASADA presented, nor the players for that matter.

All the ADRVP have to decide is whether there is enough of a question to require a Tribunal hearing. This is a long way below the much higher standard of proof and much greater legal forensic examination of a Tribunal, so of itself it doesn't indicate the likely success of ASADA's case.

Has been discussed before, so not going to contribute to going round in circles by opening that particular Pandora's box more than necessary - but believe you're wrong.

For Olympic sports, it's the ADRVP who confirm guilt (or otherwise) and recommend penalties. Which can then be appealed at CAS. But if there's an appeal, there has to have been a ruling (of guilt), or as it's now phrased in the legislation, "an assertion of guilt"- which comes from the ADVRP.

This is also confirmed for me by the situation with the Register of Findings. OK, the ROF has now been abolished, but being entered onto the ROF is an assertion of guilt: once your name is there, it's only removed if you're found innocent. Once again, the ROF isn't a kind of "yeah, could be something in it". Entering names on the ROF is what the ADRVP do.

IMHO, it's not inherently different to the situation/relationship regarding the match review committee and the tribunal. The match review committee doesn't simply say "hmm, that could have been a head-high tackle". They make a finding and lay specific charges, including recommending penalties. If the player wants to contest or appeal those charges, they go to the tribunal. From my understanding, it's not really any different here.

Has been discussed before, so not going to contribute to going round in circles by opening that particular Pandora's box more than necessary - but believe you're wrong.

For Olympic sports, it's the ADRVP who confirm guilt (or otherwise) and recommend penalties. Which can then be appealed at CAS. But if there's an appeal, there has to have been a ruling (of guilt), or as it's now phrased in the legislation, "an assertion of guilt"- which comes from the ADVRP.

This is also confirmed for me by the situation with the Register of Findings. OK, the ROF has now been abolished, but being entered onto the ROF is an assertion of guilt: once your name is there, it's only removed if you're found innocent. Once again, the ROF isn't a kind of "yeah, could be something in it". Entering names on the ROF is what the ADRVP do.

IMHO, it's not inherently different to the situation/relationship regarding the match review committee and the tribunal. The match review committee doesn't simply say "hmm, that could have been a head-high tackle". They make a finding and lay specific charges, including recommending penalties. If the player wants to contest or appeal those charges, they go to the tribunal. From my understanding, it's not really any different here.

ha ha you can't open Pandora's box a little bit ! It's either open or closed!! And you have opened it !

From the Age

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/nine-afl-clubs-cleared-but-workcover-probe-into-essendon-afl-continues-20150223-13mict.html

"WorkSafe has completed an investigation into alleged health and safety breaches by nine Victorian-based AFL clubs and will take no further action," the VWA said in a statement.

"Separate investigations relating to the Essendon Football Club and the AFL are continuing, and it is inappropriate to comment further."

I agree jnrmac the rumours on a few players in the AFL are too strong and have been going to long for there not to be some fire.

Only a matter of time in my view.

A lot of people may be very surprised about the amount of Cocaine consumed by the more highly regarded members of this society.

Drugs are everywhere I'd be surprised if a majority of players haven't taken an illicit drug at least once.

ha ha you can't open Pandora's box a little bit ! It's either open or closed!! And you have opened it !

The drums are beating louder !!!

It reads that way.

Much of whats transpired to date would indicate the endgame being the current tribunal. Maybe some tactic has been to accommodate the inevitable inquiry from Worksafe ?

Oh I don't agree at all. The AFL tribunal is just the first step, possibly followed by appeals then maybe a WADA appeal to CAS. I think it is only after this is complete will the real VWC investigation get to a full steam. This still has a long way to go, and I dont expect the AFL tribunal finding to go nearly far enough for either ASADA or WADA.

Then there will be the inevitable legal actions by al the "wounded" parties....

Drugs are everywhere I'd be surprised if a majority of players haven't taken an illicit drug at least once.

Trust me, It's rife and has been for years. The drugs only stay in the system for 2 or 3 days, and when you only get tested a handful of times a year, the odds are pretty good not to get busted.

Drugs are everywhere I'd be surprised if a majority of players haven't taken an illicit drug at least once.

I'd be surprised if a majority of people haven't taken an illicit drug at least once.

(or so I'm told ... cough cough).

To be fair, so far we haven't seen any evidence full stop. We have no idea what ASADA presented, nor the players for that matter.

To be fair, THAT'S not fair

From the Age

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/nine-afl-clubs-cleared-but-workcover-probe-into-essendon-afl-continues-20150223-13mict.html

"WorkSafe has completed an investigation into alleged health and safety breaches by nine Victorian-based AFL clubs and will take no further action," the VWA said in a statement.

"Separate investigations relating to the Essendon Football Club and the AFL are continuing, and it is inappropriate to comment further."

hahahah

All that work by bitter losers like Martin Hardie to ask Workcover to investigate all clubs not just Essendon, and all clubs except Essendon given the all clear

Brilliant

Trust me, It's rife and has been for years. The drugs only stay in the system for 2 or 3 days, and when you only get tested a handful of times a year, the odds are pretty good not to get busted.

That is a bit of a generalisation. Which drugs? Some can be detected in hair samples months later.Think of Ben Cousins shaved head & body, No hair.

That is a bit of a generalisation. Which drugs? Some can be detected in hair samples months later.Think of Ben Cousins shaved head & body, No hair.

The hair testing was something Ben Cousins wen't through, most of the tests are urine. Your standard "party" drugs which players would use such as cocaine etc are 2-3 days max in a urine test.

That is a bit of a generalisation. Which drugs? Some can be detected in hair samples months later.Think of Ben Cousins shaved head & body, No hair.

It depends on the amount and frequency. Cocaine will be in your system for about 12 hours.

Ice would clear the system in 1-4 days.

Ice will show up in a hair follicle for longer than urine.

Cousins would have blown those timings for ice away.

From what i can remember Cousins was specifically targeted for hair testing and this is not the standard of drug testing in the AFL.

Drugs are everywhere I'd be surprised if a majority of players haven't taken an illicit drug at least once.

Trust me, It's rife and has been for years. The drugs only stay in the system for 2 or 3 days, and when you only get tested a handful of times a year, the odds are pretty good not to get busted.

From what i can remember Cousins was specifically targeted for hair testing and this is not the standard of drug testing in the AFL.

Agree, and it's the box the AFL don't want opened. It's rife in the community and the AFL.

The AFL don't want to seriously address the issue (governments haven't been able to sort it out so why do we think the AFL can) and maybe they are right in this but they must expect from time to time things will erupt as maybe it will this time with the Hunt investigation.

I was at a BBQ with a mate who is close to the case and he says its a 50/50 call as to the players getting off or convicted.

Apparently the Essendon lawyers aren't disputing the legality of the drug Thymosin, everyone is pretty convinced the players got the illegal stuff. What they are arguing is the pathway of the drug to Essendon and wether they are completely satisfied that even though it is pretty clear Essendon were trying to inject the players with the bad Thymosin because of the complex pathway from China and the people involved and their less than convincing reputations are we completely positive that the players were given that drug.

Further he said that Hird's reputation has taken an absolute battering and nobody regards him as acting with any moral compass at all throughout the whole saga. Text messages that haven't come out yet are damning.

He also suggested the reason Hird wasn't sacked around their B&F night was because they were going to sack him because of his appeal and legally Hird could have sued for wrongful dismissal or some legal point. If they just had of sacked him and stated it wasn't really anything to do with the court case, new start etc, they could have and should have already got rid of him.

Players can be suspended for even "attempting" to use PED's so whether or not they actually injected them is irrelevant. There was a VFL player who copped a big penalty (2years?) just for trying to import a substance that turned out to be not permitted.

As for the second point I can't understand why they wouldn't just sack the scumbag, I've never heard of a professional team in any sport needing a reason to sack a coach, the suggestion he could see for wrongful dismissal is laughable.

Yes because of the lack of "firm" evidence through blood tests or actual discovery of the drugs on the premises, regardless of what the players thought they did or didn't take can the court be 100 per cent sure it was the illegal Thymomodulin taken.

Quite a few of the players are really upset with the way they've been treated. Hird will struggle to survive whichever way it goes.

I think getting Hird out of footy is the number one priority.

So as long as you destroy all records of what was taken you can escape penalty? I don't think so.

Was told today by an essendon supporting mate he is led to believe the club has been told a guilty verdict is More likely than not hense the sense of urgency to get the full in players over the line.