THE ESSENDON 34: ON TRIAL

[binman 44,533]

Won't be an issue if the correct penalty is applied

[Jesse Christ 2,884]

This talk of not counting the 4 points from Essendon matches this year is very discouraging. They seem to be one of the few teams we usually beat.

That's fine then, we'll rest our small handful of good players and someone else can be responsible for things like match payments and game day expenses. If it's all going to be for nothing that is..

[La Dee-vina Comedia 17,016]

Maybe they should still count the 4 points, but the percentage resulting from the scores should either be devalued or not counted at all.

If they didn't do it in 2012-13 for teams playing Melbourne I can't see why they would do it this year for teams playing Essendon.

[Its Time for Another 4,303]

If they didn't do it in 2012-13 for teams playing Melbourne I can't see why they would do it this year for teams playing Essendon.

And what's worse, the rabble, ring in version just beat us. So some might still argue the same applies to any games played against us this season.

I raised this issue on here some time ago. It will have a massive impact on the make up of the top four and beyond. Sydney play them once in rd1, Hawks play them twice by about round 11. Port only play them once around rd18. Hawks could get a 10% boost over Sydney and a 20% boost over Port and Sydney up to a 10% boost and both potential bonus wins over Port, who may play a full, fit and fresh version by rd 18. Same applies to Cats who only play them once in rd 10. Freo play them once in rd 6, so on a 6mth suspension would probably play the last round of a weakened team.

You can't say this won't have a massive impact on the competition between these likely contenders for the top 4. Cancelling results won't be the answer because then the teams playing them twice have a massive disadvantage. Hard to know what the answer is but it will have a big impact on the competition this year. If the AFL were smart they would have set up the fixture so that only the bottom 6 teams played them twice and the top teams only played them in the second half of the season. At least that way it wouldnt' threaten the outcome of the season. Don't know why they wouldn't have thought of that ahead of time.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 17,016]

And what's worse, the rabble, ring in version just beat us. So some might still argue the same applies to any games played against us this season.

I raised this issue on here some time ago. It will have a massive impact on the make up of the top four and beyond. Sydney play them once in rd1, Hawks play them twice by about round 11. Port only play them once around rd18. Hawks could get a 10% boost over Sydney and a 20% boost over Port and Sydney up to a 10% boost and both potential bonus wins over Port, who may play a full, fit and fresh version by rd 18. Same applies to Cats who only play them once in rd 10. Freo play them once in rd 6, so on a 6mth suspension would probably play the last round of a weakened team.

You can't say this won't have a massive impact on the competition between these likely contenders for the top 4. Cancelling results won't be the answer because then the teams playing them twice have a massive disadvantage. Hard to know what the answer is but it will have a big impact on the competition this year. If the AFL were smart they would have set up the fixture so that only the bottom 6 teams played them twice and the top teams only played them in the second half of the season. At least that way it wouldnt' threaten the outcome of the season. Don't know why they wouldn't have thought of that ahead of time.

I appreciate what you're saying, but if the AFL had moved to do so, it may have been accused of forming a view that the players both should and would be suspended for part of the 2015 season. In effect, a no-win situation for the AFL.

[Willmoy1947 4,198]

Why doesn't somebody in the AFL with some backbone ask that team what to do (The honourable Thing) if and when they are found guilty.

Just give everyone the 4 points and go away.

[hardtack 10,861]

If they didn't do it in 2012-13 for teams playing Melbourne I can't see why they would do it this year for teams playing Essendon.

I hadn't realised the sanctions against the MFC resulted in any of the actual playing list being stood down (and were the same sort of calls of unfair advantage being made at that time as are being made now?). Yes Bailey and Connolly were stood down, but the team was pretty much unscathed - the AFL could have argued that the "talent" was there. I think in this case, the AFL may have to do something which is why I suggested playing with the percentages, so that teams like Hawthorn who play them twice, don't get a percentage advantage that could come into play when it is getting down to the wire and ladder positions matter.

Edited March 25, 2015 by hardtack

[Its Time for Another 4,303]

I appreciate what you're saying, but if the AFL had moved to do so, it may have been accused of forming a view that the players both should and would be suspended for part of the 2015 season. In effect, a no-win situation for the AFL.

Also, now that I think about it, if they don't get suspended they then get a massive advantage of being fixtured out of their "division" under the new fixturing system and would get the easiest draw of any team in the competition including the bottom 6 by only playing the bottom 6 twice. So they would get a great big reward for causing all this drama and getting away with it. By the time the decision comes down I guess it is too late to revisit the fixture which would be the fairest thing to do to preserve the pointy end of the competition.

[Seraph 1,824]

“You know as well as I do that when you go and get a (flu) injection, how do you know what is in the thing. That is the problem with the whole case.”

This is one of the most ridiculous statements relating to the case that I have heard.

[Its Time for Another 4,303]

This is one of the most ridiculous statements relating to the case that I have heard.

No one in that place seems to have the remotest judgement. This problem was created by them not by anyone else. Instead of going on the attack when there is no defensible attack, how about learning how to be a small target and shut the f%&$ up. The thought of the absolute BS that will run non stop from these people if they get off is going to be completely unbearable. Please Mr Tribunal for the sanity of the entire AFL world except these muppets, find them guilty. Put all of us out of our misery rather than extending it.

[Sir Why You Little 37,309]

I laughed out loud when i read Sheedy's statement.

It is the most delusional yet.

Shall only take 1 player to father a malformed child for Essendon to be silenced forever.

[biggestred 5,241]

I laughed out loud when i read Sheedy's statement.

It is the most delusional yet.

Shall only take 1 player to father a malformed child for Essendon to be silenced forever.

not as delusional as "some of them are used in cancer treatments, so we really did them a favour"

[Sir Why You Little 37,309]

not as delusional as "some of them are used in cancer treatments, so we really did them a favour"

Hahaha. Yep pay that.

That is great spin

[Theo 276]

Question: If Essendon players are suspended and they finish low on the ladder because of it, does this give them a draft position advantage.

Would the AFL have to adjust their draft position so they don't gain an advantage.?

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

Question: If Essendon players are suspended and they finish low on the ladder because of it, does this give them a draft position advantage.

Would the AFL have to adjust their draft position so they don't gain an advantage.?

Since the AFL haven't officially punished Essendon for administering banned peptides, only a poor governance program, maybe this will form part of that second wave of punitive measures.

Assuming the AFL has the balls to do it.

We all know they don't.

[hardtack 10,861]

not as delusional as "some of them are used in cancer treatments, so we really did them a favour"

So by extension, can we assume that as radiation is also used in the treatment of certain cancers, then those living around Fukushima, Chernobyl etc can expect to lead long cancer free lives?

Edited March 25, 2015 by hardtack

[old dee 24,003]

6 days!

[rjay 25,306]

This is the ultimate red herring and based on the fact that the AFL are the ultimate employer (or at least a co-signatory to each playing contract. Therefore they are responsible for what happened at Essendon. Ridiculous. They are clinging to the fact that the AFL clubs are ultinmately owned by the AFL.

I think the AFL do need to share some responsibility here but I don't understand why the players are rumoured to be setting up a class action against the competition and only maybe against the club.

The AFL did know that Essendon were getting involved in a program that they advised against. You would think they (the AFL) might have ensured that this program didn't go ahead.

There are many responsible here, firstly the players as adults who have been given enough information to know that what goes into their body is their responsibility.

The club who proceeded with a dangerous and maybe illegal program.

The player managers who at worst had their heads in the sand but more likely up their a...ducking for cover on the Schultz clause.

The AFLPA who would have to know something was going on that needed further investigation. In a similar position to the managers.

...and the AFL.

[old dee 24,003]

I think the AFL do need to share some responsibility here but I don't understand why the players are rumoured to be setting up a class action against the competition and only maybe against the club.

The AFL did know that Essendon were getting involved in a program that they advised against. You would think they (the AFL) might have ensured that this program didn't go ahead.

There are many responsible here, firstly the players as adults who have been given enough information to know that what goes into their body is their responsibility.

The club who proceeded with a dangerous and maybe illegal program.

The player managers who at worst had their heads in the sand but more likely up their a...ducking for cover on the Schultz clause.

The AFLPA who would have to know something was going on that needed further investigation. In a similar position to the managers.

...and the AFL.

Ability to pay?

[Jesse Christ 2,884]

I laughed out loud when i read Sheedy's statement.

It is the most delusional yet.

Shall only take 1 player to father a malformed child for Essendon to be silenced forever.

That's the elephant in the room right there. What are the odds that the "lost" supplement list suddenly becomes found in this ugly scenario? This whole saga, and their little cover-up lies are going to haunt that club for generations!

[sue 9,195]

That's the elephant in the room right there. What are the odds that the "lost" supplement list suddenly becomes found in this ugly scenario? This whole saga, and their little cover-up lies are going to haunt that club for generations!

As I posted earlier, when players start to sue EFC for having injected them with unknown substances, there is a good chance the supplement list will suddenly and magically be found stuck behind a life-sized picture of J Hird.

[rjay 25,306]

Ability to pay?

Yep, I think you are right...

[daisycutter 29,892]

I think the AFL do need to share some responsibility here but I don't understand why the players are rumoured to be setting up a class action against the competition and only maybe against the club.

The AFL did know that Essendon were getting involved in a program that they advised against. You would think they (the AFL) might have ensured that this program didn't go ahead.

There are many responsible here, firstly the players as adults who have been given enough information to know that what goes into their body is their responsibility.

The club who proceeded with a dangerous and maybe illegal program.

The player managers who at worst had their heads in the sand but more likely up their a...ducking for cover on the Schultz clause.

The AFLPA who would have to know something was going on that needed further investigation. In a similar position to the managers.

...and the AFL.

Sorry rjay, but this line of thinking is just rubbish

This is just the modern thinking of diminished responsibility where it is always someone else's responsibility and despiite one's own culpability there is an opportunity to enrich ones self

I just don't buy it

If (and i mean IF) they can prove essendon deliberately misled them they may have a case against them

But the afl.....please.....this is just more victimology and blame shifting

[old dee 24,003]

It has been revealed that a Mr. Hal Hunter is the x EFC player suing all in sight.

Last played in 2013.

Don't remember him but then I don't study EFC lists.

[hardtack 10,861]

It has been revealed that a Mr. Hal Hunter is the x EFC player suing all in sight.

Last played in 2013.

Don't remember him but then I don't study EFC lists.

Henceforth to be known as Head Hunter. (or Hird Hunter if you have a accent).