The AFL despite their riches still get massive amounts of money from the state and federal governments for ground re-developments, junior programmes etc etc. Because of this they were 'forced' into accepting the govt's insistence that they sign up to the WADA code or lose further funding. The AFL was dragged kicking and screaming.

Face it. No sporting code wants their brand tarnished and so will go for whatever the lowest level of commitment is so as to get the lowest number of breaches possible. Unfortunately for the AFL and the clubs they are now realising what signing up actually means. Wouldn't surprise to see this get watered down considerably after the EFC debacle is finally sorted. c2018......

And the last thing the AFL would have been expecting was for a whole club to go down the path that Essendon has chosen (in fact, was anyone even remotely expecting what has happened?)

Once they signed up with WADA, the AFL were probably crossing their fingers that there would only be the odd player transgressing the rules (and even then they'd be hoping it wasn't a high profile player)

They've been in damage control right from the word go ... I'm not at all surprised though - there's a lot at stake. There's plenty of Essendon representation on the commission, the influential people at Essendon have many friends and the media have generally protected Essendon (and therefore the brand)

The general footy public have generally given the Bombers the benefit of the doubt too (as compared to how overseas drug cheats are viewed) The word 'IF' gets bandied around too often when one looks at the issue from an overall perspective.

Edit: grammar

Any hints as to what you think the decision will be?

Guilty.

Red...and I ask seriously. What are the parameters leading to "correct" ...as you read it ?

The decision that should properly be made, based on the evidence presented to the Tribunal.

The decision that should properly be made, based on the evidence presented to the Tribunal.

ever considered a career in politics by chance

The decision may read something like this. " Essendon's conduct has been found to be the most blatant systematic episode of cheating and illegal drug use in the history of sport. The AFL is detirmined to stamp out this vile practice for ever and will hand out the harshest punishment to all miscreants. Punishment is 2 years suspension for all players found guilty. Punishment reduced to 6 months for first offence. Suspension to commence retrospectively from date of infraction notices."

The decision may read something like this. " Essendon's conduct has been found to be the most blatant systematic episode of cheating and illegal drug use in the history of sport. The AFL is detirmined to stamp out this vile practice for ever and will hand out the harshest punishment to all miscreants. Punishment is 2 years suspension for all players found guilty. Punishment reduced to 6 months for first offence. Suspension to commence retrospectively from date of infraction notices."

In the words of DC

Your dreaming adc

Punishment reduced to 6 months for first offence.

There is no allowance in the code for reduction on the basis that it's a first offence.

There is no allowance in the code for reduction on the basis that it's a first offence.

so little undestanding...and/or ability to read is there

There is no allowance in the code for reduction on the basis that it's a first offence.

Ok, the discount is for good attendance at the hearing and keeping their smart phones turned off.

In the words of DC

Your dreaming adc

Not dreaming, laughing I suspect OD.

In the words of DC

Your dreaming adc

od, i probably would have said "keepa dancin, maria"

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/essendon-antidoping-call-could-take-longer-than-expected-20150309-13z8j4.html

As reported by Fairfax Media, AFL anti-doping tribunal chairman David Jones has said he is mindful that the home-and-away season opens in the first week of April but the volume of evidence means there is no guarantee that he and his panel of Wayne Henwood and John Nixon will deliver a ruling by round one.

Can we play them round 1?

ever considered a career in politics by chance

Doesn't sound like there would be much chance involved ...

Ok, the discount is for good attendance at the hearing and keeping their smart phones turned off.

Well, even that won't work, because they didn't attend the hearing.

Must be something though ...

An article from Patrick Smith http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/opinion/afl-bloodied-again-by-essendon-saga-but-not-james-hird/story-e6frg7uo-1227255770447He basically argues that no matter what happens at the tribunal to the players Hird is here to stay.

"No, Hirdy has the job until he walks away from it. He certainly wont be pushed"

While I stated as much in a post about a month ago (that it would be a lot easier for EFC to let his contract expire at end of 2016 than sack him, thereby taking the path of least resistance) I find the prospect completely abhorrent and nauseating. Players careers damaged (if found guilty) and maybe their health damaged and Hird keeps on smiling on and on.

Tragically, we are stuck with Hird for at least 2 more seasons. He has worn (bullied) the club down and no-one there has it in them to take him on. The AFL certainly won't. Even if, as Dee2014 believes, ASADA, WADA or Worksafe go after him they won't get him before end of his current contract. Meanwhile players are hung out to dry.

As much as I think the players are 'guilty by association', for Hird to coach on if players are suspended is a terrible, terrible outcome.

http://m.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/mix-of-penalties-likely-for-any-bombers-found-guilty-by-the-tribunal-20150309-13z3rk.html?&utm_source=social&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=nc&eid=socialn:twi-14omn0023-optim-nnn:nonpaid-27/06/2014-social_traffic-all-organicpost-nnn-age-o&campaign_code=nocode&promote_channel=social_twitter

http://m.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/mix-of-penalties-likely-for-any-bombers-found-guilty-by-the-tribunal-20150309-13z3rk.html?&utm_source=social&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=nc&eid=socialn:twi-14omn0023-optim-nnn:nonpaid-27/06/2014-social_traffic-all-organicpost-nnn-age-o&campaign_code=nocode&promote_channel=social_twitter

So we may see players already out of the game receive the harshest penalties with a sliding scale down to the Watson's Heppel's etc receiving a mild slap..

So we may see players already out of the game receive the harshest penalties with a sliding scale down to the Watson's Heppel's etc receiving a mild slap..

Im not sure that some players missing regular injections would have much of an impact on penalties given they would still have had some.

Btw 1000 injections divided by 34 players works out to 29.4 injections each.

Obviously you cant have .4 of an injection but missing one or two would still make it 27 or 28 injections.

Which is ridiculous.

My recollection is that the AFL point blank refused to join WADA

Thanks Jnr. Pretty damning.

Btw 1000 injections divided by 34 players works out to 29.4 injections each.

Obviously you cant have .4 of an injection but missing one or two would still make it 27 or 28 injections.

Which is ridiculous.

Ridiculous to the extreme if this is the case. A lot of effort is going into trying to engineer a "decision".

Wonder who led the pack to be the first one to set the example and take the first one....

http://m.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/mix-of-penalties-likely-for-any-bombers-found-guilty-by-the-tribunal-20150309-13z3rk.html?&utm_source=social&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=nc&eid=socialn:twi-14omn0023-optim-nnn:nonpaid-27/06/2014-social_traffic-all-organicpost-nnn-age-o&campaign_code=nocode&promote_channel=social_twitter

So , what is this actually saying, some sought to avoid jabs because "THEY KNEW THEM DODGY " ???

So , what is this actually saying, some sought to avoid jabs because "THEY KNEW THEM DODGY " ???

Don't use logic

Makes a mockery surely. If they sought to avoid because some knew them not kosher , then they cant have been duped ( not that I ever bought that one personally).

If Saad went because he took a drink....and Lees because he "tried' to get hold of something he though ok ( but apparently not ) then how on earth can players, signing waivers and then either subjecting themselves to ROUTINE jabs or as seems some avoiding them , how can they possibly get off?? ....or receive the 'wet tram ticket " !!