THE ESSENDON 34: ON TRIAL

[sue 9,107]

JBurger, the players are responsible no doubt. But there are provisions to allow for things like an unconscious player being administered a PED in an emergency situation. This would be very rare and would not apply to the organised pharmacological experiment that was Essendon, but it is possible.

The Essendon players have no such argument. Conscious injection or ingestion would negate most arguments regarding being duped in an ongoing manner such as Essendon.

Another possibility I presume would be to argue that a complex program of misinformation involving doctors, managers and trusted confidants all conspired to mislead the players. This is very unlikely but possible in that it may proved wiggle room for the players, if taken it would be a fatal blow to the EFC.

Perhaps you were just being dramatic, but there is no way there will be any fatal blow to EFC. Let's say the 17 remaining players all get booted out for 2 years and Hird and co are banned from sport for life and even him and a a couple of Directors thrown in the clink by Worksafe. The AFL will simply find a way to reconstruct the club and make it no less competitive than we have been in recent years. That has hardly been fatal even for a small club like ours.

No way will the AFL throw away tens of thousands of supporters.

[old dee 23,801]

Perhaps you were just being dramatic, but there is no way there will be any fatal blow to EFC. Let's say the 17 remaining players all get booted out for 2 years and Hird and co are banned from sport for life and even him and a a couple of Directors thrown in the clink by Worksafe. The AFL will simply find a way to reconstruct the club and make it no less competitive than we have been in recent years. That has hardly been fatal even for a small club like ours.

No way will the AFL throw away tens of thousands of supporters.

Try hundreds of thousands sue.

But otherwise I agree.

[beelzebub 23,380]

What never changes is that PLAYERS ARE RESPONSIBLE. Thats in concrete. Only mitigation may or may not be applied . Responsibility actually never changes.

The scenarios mentioned whereby athletes were unwitting in their takings or was a medical emergency just dont apply here.

"here ...sign this..... "

all those little words should have set alarm bells ringing

So , again, how many players even contacted their sloth of a medico ?? How many contacted ASADA ??

They werent so much unwitting and they were halfwitting !!

[Wolfmother 182]

I fully expect this to all go totally ape shlt/pear shaped...once the tribunal announces the penalties. I come from the standpoint that at no real moment has the club ( for mine ) actually understood the climate and world it was now in. It to me still harbours notions of 'deals' and stuff. I think EFC and indeed the numbskull players think some negotiated settlement will manufacture. Some rude shocks awake. The Windy Hill fan club etc all think some rap on the knuckles and a bad boy fine might manifest itself where as the proper reality suggests a ban of at least a year ( probably ) more

Happy to be redirected in my thinking but I understand that once any ban is invoked, its in force. Neither an appeal nor court action are able to set this aside ?( i.e its on , til its not ...sts ) Actions can modify it but they are still banned until otherwise advised. I think this is part of the outcomes that most parties will be ill prepared for.

If there is justice then the all in bun fight that will erupt will keep the idiot players off the paddock whilst sucking every last cent that the Windy Hill idiots have in their delusional quest to reverse their situation.

I dont thoink the AFL will need to suspend or abolish the club. It will disappear into itself..

Totally agreed I don't think they release the position they are in as everything else in the AFL has always been swept under the carpet and they expect the same thing. They have an outside agency involved and the rules are quite clear although I must admit I was amazed with the NRL penalties.

The only thing that has amazed me and has me a little worried about the outcome is the AFL actions and not attempting to put anything in place for essendon when 17 where issues IN. The players are suspended until the matter is heard so wouldn't you start contacting replacement players issue salary cap ruling etx so if they are found guilty or the season starts they have things already in place. It's like the AFL knows they will be found not guilty and will have the decision released just prior to the season opening (this is the tribunals schedule) and use the opening round to minimise the commentary. Using that method and hoping that most people are over it they will have the media bury it pretty quickly .

That's what the AFLs inaction and the tribunal timeframe look to me. It I just can't understand how with the evidence that is public (besides the other stuff ASADA has) they could possibly get off

[jnrmac 20,109]

Essendon are guilty of breaching rule 8 from ASADA

8. Administration or attempted administration to any athlete in-competition of any prohibited method or prohibited substance, or administration or attempted administration to any athlete out-of-competition of any prohibited method or any prohibited substance that is prohibited out-of-competition, or assisting, encouraging, aiding, abetting, covering up or any other type of complicity involving an Anti-Doping Rule Violation or any attempted Anti-Doping Rule Violation.

I think there is little doubt that Essendon are guilty of breaching the code, rule 8. That does not automatically imply guilt on the players. Yes they are responsible for everything that enters their bodies but in a scenario where players were advised by medical professionals and all levels of their club that everything was ok, then it may be possible. Don't get me wrong I think the players are guilty, I am merely stating a possibilty.

My hypothesis was based on the players potentially arguing successfully that they were duped.

Edit : added successfully to last sentence.

No one is saying that they had medical approval. Dank certainly isn't a qualified medical practitioner.

Given the lax (non-existent?) record keeping how will they be able to say TB4 was approved or otherwise. For the duped theory to work (and I personally think it is highly unlikely) the doctor would have had to:

prove he agreed to use of a different substance

that he checked the different substance was Ok with ASADAs list

that he instructed Dank what was legally permissable

that he oversaw the ordering and administration of the substances (difficult given it was carried out off-site)

AND

that Dank switched the substances without his knowledge or consent.

Even then the players have to show they made genuine enquiries about the legality or otherwise ofthe substance

The fact they signed waivers for TB4 severely damages their case because anyone could look it up to see that it was banned.

Conclusion: there is no way they can claim to have bene duped.

[ManDee 7,162]

What never changes is that PLAYERS ARE RESPONSIBLE. Thats in concrete. Only mitigation may or may not be applied . Responsibility actually never changes.

The scenarios mentioned whereby athletes were unwitting in their takings or was a medical emergency just dont apply here.

"here ...sign this..... "

all those little words should have set alarm bells ringing

So , again, how many players even contacted their sloth of a medico ?? How many contacted ASADA ??

They werent so much unwitting and they were halfwitting !!

All along I have said I think the players are guilty. I have tried to look for any way they they could get off. Playing the devils advocate I have suggested a possibility. I do not think for a minute that the players are innocent. The point of my hypothesis was that the only realistic way that I can imagine the players get off is to put the total blame at the feet of Essendon et al. For Essendon to get the players off they would have to admit full fault through deception. An Essendon mea culpa is not going to happen.

[Its Time for Another 4,225]

I just cannot see how that could happen as it is each and every player's responsibility to understand what is going into their body in terms of medication etc. If they did miraculously get off, I think the outcry would be deafening and appeals almost instantaneous.

We all have very strong opinions about the outcome. But as I have said before opinions count for nothing in a legal Tribunal. Evidence is what counts. If ASADA's circumstantial evidence isn't good enough to satisfy the legal requirements they will get off. None of us have seen the evidence in the Tribunal so we can all have opinions but as we've read from posters who claim to have contacts to people inside the hearing they've said the feeling is its a 50/50 whether they will go down.

As I've said before the systems flawed. The onus should be on the players to prove what they took not on ASADA to try to prove what they took when they had nothing to do with it. There wouldn't have even been a Tribunal hearing they would just have been banned long ago if that was how it operated.

As unpalatable as it is to most of us there is a very real chance they will get off. I have no idea what it is, whether it's 50/50 or 30/70 or whatever but it's there. Personally I really hope in mid March BB can quote this post and say how I shouldn't have worried but we will see.

Edited February 27, 2015 by It's Time

[hardtack 10,556]

We all have very strong opinions about the outcome. But as I have said before opinions count for nothing in a legal Tribunal. Evidence is what counts. If ASADA's circumstantial evidence isn't good enough to satisfy the legal requirements they will get off. None of us have seen the evidence in the Tribunal so we can all have opinions but as we've read from posters who claim to have contacts to people inside the hearing they've said the feeling is its a 50/50 whether they will go down.

As I've said before the systems flawed. The onus should be on the players to prove what they took not on ASADA to try to prove what they took when they had nothing to do with it. There wouldn't have even been a Tribunal hearing they would just have been banned long ago if that was how it operated.

As unpalatable as it is to most of us there is a very real chance they will get off. I have no idea what it is, whether it's 50/50 or 30/70 or whatever but it's there. Personally I really hope in mid March BB can quote this post and say how I shouldn't have worried but we will see.

What I was responding to was the "what if" scenario of the players getting off because they were "duped" and didn't know what they were being given.

[beelzebub 23,380]

Perhaps you were just being dramatic, but there is no way there will be any fatal blow to EFC. Let's say the 17 remaining players all get booted out for 2 years and Hird and co are banned from sport for life and even him and a a couple of Directors thrown in the clink by Worksafe. The AFL will simply find a way to reconstruct the club and make it no less competitive than we have been in recent years. That has hardly been fatal even for a small club like ours.

No way will the AFL throw away tens of thousands of supporters.

There are some things , inded we now see the nature of them , that the AFL can not effect even through want and effort. A major one is the judicial system of this fair land. Dumbo and Dill have been at pains to keep things away from courts where they could. Do you suppose once 17 players have their feet kicked out from under them and their seats upon the reality bus are given that a Legal Stoush , whose force we have not seen in sport before here won't unleash ??

if Essendon thinks it is plain sailing after this dust has settled then they are beyond help. Essengeddon is around the corner, make no mistake

[deefrag 277]

James Hird's leave to appeal is good business . . .

Hirds current situation: Head Coach, Sal $1mil.

Tenure: secure whilst he has ASADA before the court (regardless of the outcome of doping tribunal).

Good business: leave to appeal cost say $100.000est. delay before application heard (and rejected) say 6 months, salary for 6 months as head Coach: $500.000.

If appeal application is (eventually) unsuccessful and in the mean time his players have been found guilty Hird will be sacked and will walk with six month salary: $500.000 less application cost: $100.000est = net gain $400.000

If Hird does not appeal and his players are found guilty he will be sacked immediately! Salary for 6 months: $0

Of course there is a chance that his appeal would go ahead in which case he will be collecting salary till 2016 (or forever if he actually gets the judgement overturned).

Also, there is the possibility that the players will be found not guilty by the tribunal and all this silly business about Essendon doping goes away . . James will then sue the whole world incl poor old Demonlanders.

In conclusion: There is no downside for Hird!!

[sue 9,107]

There are some things , inded we now see the nature of them , that the AFL can not effect even through want and effort. A major one is the judicial system of this fair land. Dumbo and Dill have been at pains to keep things away from courts where they could. Do you suppose once 17 players have their feet kicked out from under them and their seats upon the reality bus are given that a Legal Stoush , whose force we have not seen in sport before here won't unleash ??

if Essendon thinks it is plain sailing after this dust has settled then they are beyond help. Essengeddon is around the corner, make no mistake

Disagree BB. So what if the players start suing EFC? Either the AFL will bankroll them because EFC is worth so much to the AFL, or the AFL will find some legal trick to reinvent an entity that appeals to Essendon supporters while bankrupting and obliterating the current EFC so there is nothing to sue. The latter may be impossible, in which case the former will be done even if it causes a loss in the short term.

[beelzebub 23,380]

Disagree BB. So what if the players start suing EFC? Either the AFL will bankroll them because EFC is worth so much to the AFL, or the AFL will find some legal trick to reinvent an entity that appeals to Essendon supporters while bankrupting and obliterating the current EFC so there is nothing to sue. The latter may be impossible, in which case the former will be done even if it causes a loss in the short term.

The AFL wont have enough money Sue

and do you think 17 other clubs will standby and watch the Competitions War Chest squandered on these bastards ??

Edited February 27, 2015 by beelzebub

[Wolfmother 182]

JBurger, the players are responsible no doubt. But there are provisions to allow for things like an unconscious player being administered a PED in an emergency situation. This would be very rare and would not apply to the organised pharmacological experiment that was Essendon, but it is possible.

The Essendon players have no such argument. Conscious injection or ingestion would negate most arguments regarding being duped in an ongoing manner such as Essendon.

Another possibility I presume would be to argue that a complex program of misinformation involving doctors, managers and trusted confidants all conspired to mislead the players. This is very unlikely but possible in that it may proved wiggle room for the players, if taken it would be a fatal blow to the EFC.

What You are describing is exactly what EFC are trying to do. They are claiming the players were duped and no significant fault should apply and they will place that on dank a shoulders. They will have a reasonable case especially as the AFL own annual drug training to players states if you have any doubts or issue raise them with your club doctor will they did and nothing more which they can state they complied with.

I believe the AFL and essendon think this will entitle the players to either no penalty or a heavily discounted one if they are found guilty. They don't realise the WADA code is stronger than that and as the players had a list of the drugs (ie I wasn't a bottle labeled vitamins and contained steriods so they couldn't know) and made no reasonable enquires themselves to places like ASADA then they will cope the full brunt of the code

[hardtack 10,556]

What You are describing is exactly what EFC are trying to do. They are claiming the players were duped and no significant fault should apply and they will place that on dank a shoulders. They will have a reasonable case especially as the AFL own annual drug training to players states if you have any doubts or issue raise them with your club doctor will they did and nothing more which they can state they complied with.

I believe the AFL and essendon think this will entitle the players to either no penalty or a heavily discounted one if they are found guilty. They don't realise the WADA code is stronger than that and as the players had a list of the drugs (ie I wasn't a bottle labeled vitamins and contained steriods so they couldn't know) and made no reasonable enquires themselves to places like ASADA then they will cope the full brunt of the code

I think you will find that the AFL's own code makes it clear that the players are responsible for what goes into their own bodies (isn't imparting such information a part of the player orientation?)... so unless the AFL plans to rewrite their own code, I doubt that they can really go against it.

Edited February 27, 2015 by hardtack

[ManDee 7,162]

Perhaps you were just being dramatic, but there is no way there will be any fatal blow to EFC. Let's say the 17 remaining players all get booted out for 2 years and Hird and co are banned from sport for life and even him and a a couple of Directors thrown in the clink by Worksafe. The AFL will simply find a way to reconstruct the club and make it no less competitive than we have been in recent years. That has hardly been fatal even for a small club like ours.

No way will the AFL throw away tens of thousands of supporters.

Yes I was being dramatic. But if the players successfully argued that they were duped it could only be by Essendon and their agents. If that is the case rule 8 still applies and the club must be penalised, plus litigation opens up from the players against the club. Either way rule 8 will kill Essendon in my opinion.

I can see Essendon being dissolved and a new legal entity being created in its place, The Bombers Football Club for instance.

[deanox 9,945]

I doubt think missing plays for 1-2 years will kill Essendon.

But it wouldn't surprise me if 34 law suits for loss of earnings, reputation, health etc. combined with sponsor jump off does.

The legal battles will drain them dry if the paves come after them.

I don't know much about corporate structure but I hope the AFL isn't ultimately responsible for this. If they aren't I just cannot see the AFL being allowed to give them any financial or on field support by the other 17 clubs.

I'd also love to know the "out of contract" status of non - suspended Essendon players for this year. If I want one of the 34 and players do get suspended I'd be thinking about jumping ship at the end of this season.

[sue 9,107]

The AFL wont have enough money Sue

and do you think 17 other clubs will standby and watch the Competitions War Chest squandered on these bastards ??

Why not - they have happily stood by while the AFL funds GWS. That was justified as a possible future growth area. Preserving an existing massive growth is worth as much surely.

[ManDee 7,162]

James Hird's leave to appeal is good business . . .

Hirds current situation: Head Coach, Sal $1mil.

Tenure: secure whilst he has ASADA before the court (regardless of the outcome of doping tribunal).

Good business: leave to appeal cost say $100.000est. delay before application heard (and rejected) say 6 months, salary for 6 months as head Coach: $500.000.

If appeal application is (eventually) unsuccessful and in the mean time his players have been found guilty Hird will be sacked and will walk with six month salary: $500.000 less application cost: $100.000est = net gain $400.000

If Hird does not appeal and his players are found guilty he will be sacked immediately! Salary for 6 months: $0

Of course there is a chance that his appeal would go ahead in which case he will be collecting salary till 2016 (or forever if he actually gets the judgement overturned).

Also, there is the possibility that the players will be found not guilty by the tribunal and all this silly business about Essendon doping goes away . . James will then sue the whole world incl poor old Demonlanders.

In conclusion: There is no downside for Hird!!

Brilliant, unfortunately you may be correct. Pragmatic crooks, you can hate them but sometimes you have to admire them.

[jnrmac 20,109]

What You are describing is exactly what EFC are trying to do. They are claiming the players were duped and no significant fault should apply and they will place that on dank a shoulders. They will have a reasonable case especially as the AFL own annual drug training to players states if you have any doubts or issue raise them with your club doctor will they did and nothing more which they can state they complied with.

I believe the AFL and essendon think this will entitle the players to either no penalty or a heavily discounted one if they are found guilty. They don't realise the WADA code is stronger than that and as the players had a list of the drugs (ie I wasn't a bottle labeled vitamins and contained steriods so they couldn't know) and made no reasonable enquires themselves to places like ASADA then they will cope the full brunt of the code

They will be stuffed then because Dank was an employee. And if they don't have a paper trail they are stuffed. And if they signed off on payments for the drugs (which they did) then they are stuffed.

In short they cannot get away with the duped argument. The laws are not drafted like that because every athlete caught would claim the same. "Wasn't me it was my coach /trainer/doctor etc etc". It has to put the onus on the players.

[Wolfmother 182]

I think you will find that the AFL's own code makes it clear that the players are responsible for what goes into their own bodies (isn't imparting such information a part of the player orientation?)... so unless the AFL plans to rewrite their own code, I doubt that they can really go against it.

The players orientation does state they are responsible for everything put their body but it goes on to say if you have concerns go to your club doctor. It mentions nothing about enquiring with ASADA so the players position is the club doctor was in the room when the drugs were discuss and approved them all. We have done what you want AFL as per your guidelines

[Wolfmother 182]

They will be stuffed then because Dank was an employee. And if they don't have a paper trail they are stuffed. And if they signed off on payments for the drugs (which they did) then they are stuffed.

In short they cannot get away with the duped argument. The laws are not drafted like that because every athlete caught would claim the same. "Wasn't me it was my coach /trainer/doctor etc etc". It has to put the onus on the players.

Agreed I was just providing essendon and maybe what the AFLs think as they are pushing this duped thing in the media

[ManDee 7,162]

The players orientation does state they are responsible for everything put their body but it goes on to say if you have concerns go to your club doctor. It mentions nothing about enquiring with ASADA so the players position is the club doctor was in the room when the drugs were discuss and approved them all. We have done what you want AFL as per your guidelines

Reality check. They kept no records!

If this does not scream out, we are breaking the rules and trying to hide it. Then nothing does.

The club is guilty, only feats of magic and illusion can spare the players.

I do not think it possible to gather a group of 42 men, tell them we are embarking on a program of improvement that is close to the edge of legality. Have 8 pull out of the program, why? And no one check for themselves if it really was OK

I want to know why 8 players pulled out. Did they check the legality? If so did they discuss this with teammates?

Too many questions, no innocent answers. All I see is a recreation of the Titanic disaster set in a football team.

I think all the players were informed about what they were taking. I think they were told it was leading edge stuff on the border of legality. I think 8 chose to inquire further and opted out. The remaining 34 put their trust in their club. I think the club has breached it duty of care. I think the club and the players are guilty. NB: Attempting to cheat is cheating.

[daisycutter 29,626]

They will be stuffed then because Dank was an employee. And if they don't have a paper trail they are stuffed. And if they signed off on payments for the drugs (which they did) then they are stuffed.

In short they cannot get away with the duped argument. The laws are not drafted like that because every athlete caught would claim the same. "Wasn't me it was my coach /trainer/doctor etc etc". It has to put the onus on the players.

not disagreeing but was dank really an employee? or was he a subcontractor or external consultant?

does this even make a difference?

[Ungarie boy 233]

No one is saying that they had medical approval. Dank certainly isn't a qualified medical practitioner.

Given the lax (non-existent?) record keeping how will they be able to say TB4 was approved or otherwise. For the duped theory to work (and I personally think it is highly unlikely) the doctor would have had to:

prove he agreed to use of a different substance

that he checked the different substance was Ok with ASADAs list

that he instructed Dank what was legally permissable

that he oversaw the ordering and administration of the substances (difficult given it was carried out off-site)

AND

that Dank switched the substances without his knowledge or consent.

Even then the players have to show they made genuine enquiries about the legality or otherwise ofthe substance

The fact they signed waivers for TB4 severely damages their case because anyone could look it up to see that it was banned.

Conclusion: there is no way they can claim to have bene duped.

I don't believe the players signed waivers for TB4, rather they signed it for Thymosin. This could then be argued that they looked into this and discovered that there was a legal version, which they were informed was what they were receiving, and can then lead to the conclusion ‘that they were duped’. The doctor could argue that he was only asked to verify the legality of Thymosin, not TB4, which allows him to keep his integrity. Players and doctor could all therefore reasonably state they had no idea that TB4 was even in play because it was being referred to as Thymosin (medically) and "the good stuff" (slang). Guilty would still have to be the verdict, as clubs, coaches, organisations, teams, anyone would use this example of ‘innocence by misinformation’ as the blueprint for future systematic drug programs. Still the players may get some respite due to the "duping" argument, but the consequence of this would then have to flow on to Essendon - penalties for the drugs will have to be enforced on someone (note Dank was an employee, therefore representative of Essendon).

I would love to see Essendon booted out for this:

1) for just attempting drugs in sport which goes so far against the Australian ethics of fair play, that it is sickening (mention Chinese or East German swimmers to see the residual animosity that still radiates in most Aussie sporting fans - even Lance Armstrong is viewed in distain)

2) for how they have treated the whole process, in such a contemptuous way that it actually belittles the sporting public. Their position - You know we are guilty, we know we are guilty; but we are going to serve up a fairy story that is so unbelievable that you couldn't sugar-coat it to Kindergarten kids; and then throw enough money at it until it all becomes forgotten news; and what are you the sporting public going to do about it, Nothing.

For all those saying it's bad for AFL to lose so many bomber supporters, this is simply not true. Most are AFL supporters who will end up supporting another team (even if they persist in a token protest for a couple of years), some may just support VFL sides (but this is still good) and the remaining that are lost to the game were not worth keeping in the first place.

P.S. As a member of the general public, I may not be able to influence this much, but I will also not do "Nothing". I will never attend another game involving Essendon (may buy tickets for Melbourne home games, just not attend) and encourage all my friends to do the same; will even organise events to compete against potential compelling Bomber games.

Edited February 27, 2015 by Ungarie boy

[ManDee 7,162]

I don't believe the players signed waivers for TB4, rather they signed it for Thymosin. This could then be argued that they looked into this and discovered that there was a legal version, which they were informed was what they were receiving, and can then lead to the conclusion ‘that they were duped’. The doctor could argue that he was only asked to verify the legality of Thymosin, not TB4, which allows him to keep his integrity. Players and doctor could all therefore reasonably state they had no idea that TB4 was even in play because it was being referred to as Thymosin (medically) and "the good stuff" (slang). Guilty would still have to be the verdict, as clubs, coaches, organisations, teams, anyone would use this example of ‘innocence by misinformation’ as the blueprint for future systematic drug programs. Still the players may get some respite due to the "duping" argument, but the consequence of this would then have to flow on to Essendon - penalties for the drugs will have to be enforced on someone (note Dank was an employee, therefore representative of Essendon).

I would love to see Essendon booted out for this:

1) for just attempting drugs in sport which goes so far against the Australian ethics of fair play, that it is sickening (mention Chinese or East German swimmers to see the residual animosity that still radiates in most Aussie sporting fans - even Lance Armstrong is viewed in distain)

2) for how they have treated the whole process, in such a contemptuous way that it actually belittles the sporting public. Their position - You know we are guilty, we know we are guilty; but we are going to serve up a fairy story that is so unbelievable that you couldn't sugar-coat it to Kindergarten kids; and then throw enough money at it until it all becomes forgotten news; and what are you the sporting public going to do about it, Nothing.

For all those saying it's bad for AFL to lose so many bomber supporters, this is simply not true. Most are AFL supporters who will end up supporting another team (even if they persist in a token protest for a couple of years), some may just support VFL sides (but this is still good) and the remaining that are lost to the game were not worth keeping in the first place.

P.S. As a member of the general public, I may not be able to influence this much, but I will also not do "Nothing". I will never attend another game involving Essendon (may buy tickets for Melbourne home games, just not attend) and encourage all my friends to do the same; will even organise events to compete against potential compelling Bomber games.

Nice work UB.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

Edmund Burke

Boycotts can work, I boycott EFC sponsors and have told them (the sponsors). I like the idea of boycotting their games.