Bombers must be in major damage control ( aka PANIC )

Bombers willing to end bad blood with Smith and Wilson

ahhh...just keeps getting better....grovel grovel...

Bombers want to patch things up......dont want to admit guilt....just want to rake it over.

hahaha this is hilarious

What a bunch of suck ups they are!!!

Hold on. Let's correct something. Campbell Newman didn't fall on his sword. The voters dumped him.

Sure. He fell on his sword through his hubris and arrogance, and when the time came, the voters dumped him, as they did with Rudd. The importance here is putting too much powers in the hands of sociopaths. Remember in Queensland there is no upper house. He was un-restrained. At least federally the extreme right wing of Tony Abbott's LDP are to some extent restrained by the Senate. Not so in Queensland where Newman paid the utlimate price. The Senate to some extent is saving Abbott from himself.

With the EFC there is not such restraint where there appears to be a powerless board who are supposed to do this job in corporate governance terms. Perhaps the cost of a charismatic leader unrestrained because the Board is too gutless to discipline him.

Some sweeping statements and I can't see how you back them up. Consider:

1) The entity that has most to lose is the AFL. Players will sue them (as well as EFC) for 'negligence' of their 'duty of care'. Whoever is sued by players it ill be settled quickly and quietly, out of court. EFC as we know it will survive. The players' suits are outside ASADA/WADA jurisdiction or their appeal processes.

2) With Worksafe it may well find something like: "EFC had poor governance, which has been rectified. While there is 'comfortable satisfaction' on TB4 being used there is insufficient evidence to prove it". There is every chance they will say: "Hird and the Club have already been penalised by the AFL so Worksafe won't take it any further". Such a result is totally outside ASADA/WADA jurisdiction or their appeal processes.

1) As I understand it, if the players are found guilty by the AFL Tribunal the decsion is followed by a 'penalties hearing' where penalties are 'negotiated'. After the Cronulla thing ASADA won't dare negotiate an outcome without WADA's ok. So a reduced likelihood of WADA appeal.

2) WADA rules on support staff and team suspension were pretty weak before Jan 1 2015 so they may not apply to the 2012 EFC

Hard to think that WADA are going to go for maximum penalties to players and to Hird and to EFC. So can't see your 'doomsday' scenarios for all these parties eventuating. Maybe one of but not all three.

Let's see. That is not what i am hearing from WADA, but you may be right. If you are, then both WADA and ASADA are breathlessly inconsistent. And i don't think they are. They see Essendon as a global test case, not just an Australian one. The comparison with Cronulla is quite different. It was nothing like as systematic or long term, and they admitted guilt. Essendon has done the exact opposite of that, and if you look at the WADA precedents offshore, those that they come down on hardest are those who do not cooperate and contest every inch of the way. Exactly as Essendon have done.

Let's see. That is not what i am hearing from WADA, but you may be right. If you are, then both WADA and ASADA are breathlessly inconsistent. And i don't think they are. They see Essendon as a global test case, not just an Australian one. The comparison with Cronulla is quite different. It was nothing like as systematic or long term, and they admitted guilt. Essendon has done the exact opposite of that, and if you look at the WADA precedents offshore, those that they come down on hardest are those who do not cooperate and contest every inch of the way. Exactly as Essendon have done.

I'm sure you are right about EFC players being the global test case.

1)We will find out soon enough how far ASADA/WADA negotiate on player penalties. They may well appeal if too light. And, even if they go after EFC under the 'two out/Club out' rules, WADA's Club level penalties are quite light. When these processes are complete ASADA/WADA can go no further; case closed for them!

2)The difficulty I'm having with your narrative is that it is sweeping, dramatic and constantly refers to matters that are outside ASADA/WADA jurisdiction (ie players suing EFC, Worksafe throwing the book at Hird, then at EFC, then at their directors, the subsequent lawsuits, the dramatic and ultimate demise of EFC) and then mixes it with dialogue in 1) above.

1) and 2) are totally separate and it is useful if discussion treats them accordingly.

LH... Its only a lay opinion granted but theres been quite a fog or mutterings regarding players taking umbrage, and seeking damages etc should they be found guilty.. Theres a certain irony in all of that but if they do get say 18 mnths to 2 yrs then for some thats there AFL career over. Lifes a blame game these days so of course its not their fault and someone else ought to pay , well that will be the line offered by an eagerly awaiting throng of suits.

Whilst Work Safe is independent it will parallel to some degree the investigations and would probably be interested in the outcomes of the WADA findings. Its common for the directors to be held accountable in such instances. It doesnt take to much of a stretch to see where all this will head once the first domino falls. imho

The last few pages shows how people get so attached to their opinion that even a general question is shouted down. I don't know if it's if because people would feel silly of there opinion ibeing proven wrong but it's amazing how it occurs.

Binman it has never been stated that there is no records and I was the one that posted it 100 pages ago that there are records. The myth has been picked up by the media and now is given as fact with this information starting from the statements that essendon couldn't be sure what they gave the players. This statemt was a responsible to the question regarding the Mexican drugs injected prior to the Anzac game

Essendon have never corrected the error as it works for them otherwise they could be asked to explain what was given if it was known they had records.

The AFL charges that everyone has referenced is about governance and poor auditing, incomplete records, source locations not listed etc which means that you need to have records not to have complete ones. Here is an article that references a spreadsheet that EFC submitted as evidence so it shows the no records might be a media furphy repeated multiple times which had turned it into fact.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/afl/evidence-omitted-from-asada-report-on-dons/story-fnca0u4y-1226707923613

There are records in ASADAs evidence from EFC just the quality is the issue. Although some people are asking why wouldn't this be finished if they had records essendon. EFC are arguing the thymosin listed in the records/consent forms is short for Thymodulin not thymosin beta 4, which seems to me a stretch that you would be shortening something by two letters. This is why the ASADA has been providing so much evidence regarding the supply chain for the drugs. EFC admit to taking thymosin but are claiming its not the illegal one which ASADA is demonstrating the only thymosin at EFC is TB4.

Wasn't that spreadsheet only created by Dean Wallis months after the fact and was never maintained to any sort of satisfactory extent?

Lindsay Tanner appointed to EFC Board! http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/essendon-announce-former-labor-mp-lindsay-tanner-as-one-of-two-new-board-members-20150311-141eb2.html

Are EFC stacking the deck!! Soft landing from Worksafe coming up!

Edit: Just remembered that the Premier sacked the Worksafe CEO last week. Will be interesting to see who gets appointed!

Wasn't that spreadsheet only created by Dean Wallis months after the fact and was never maintained to any sort of satisfactory extent?

came with its own photo I believe

R

I'm sure you are right about EFC players being the global test case.

1)We will find out soon enough how far ASADA/WADA negotiate on player penalties. They may well appeal if too light. And, even if they go after EFC under the 'two out/Club out' rules, WADA's Club level penalties are quite light. When these processes are complete ASADA/WADA can go no further; case closed for them!

2)The difficulty I'm having with your narrative is that it is sweeping, dramatic and constantly refers to matters that are outside ASADA/WADA jurisdiction (ie players suing EFC, Worksafe throwing the book at Hird, then at EFC, then at their directors, the subsequent lawsuits, the dramatic and ultimate demise of EFC) and then mixes it with dialogue in 1) above.

1) and 2) are totally separate and it is useful if discussion treats them accordingly.

I'm sure you are right about EFC players being the global test case.

1)We will find out soon enough how far ASADA/WADA negotiate on player penalties. They may well appeal if too light. And, even if they go after EFC under the 'two out/Club out' rules, WADA's Club level penalties are quite light. When these processes are complete ASADA/WADA can go no further; case closed for them!

2)The difficulty I'm having with your narrative is that it is sweeping, dramatic and constantly refers to matters that are outside ASADA/WADA jurisdiction (ie players suing EFC, Worksafe throwing the book at Hird, then at EFC, then at their directors, the subsequent lawsuits, the dramatic and ultimate demise of EFC) and then mixes it with dialogue in 1) above.

1) and 2) are totally separate and it is useful if discussion treats them accordingly.

I agree the WADA/ASADA issues are different from Worksafe, and subsequent litigation, but they do influence one another. After all, Essendon and Hird took ASADA to court on the basis that the joint AFL/ ASADA investigation was illegal. It has been thrown out of court twice. ASADA and WADA both take note of this and it subsequently affects their decisions. ASADA was initially prepared to negotiate with Essendon about backdating penalties but as soon as they took them to court, all talk of this ceased unless you are a delusional Essendon fan or one of Hird's media lackies.

Any subsequent legal action by players will almost certainly be caused by loss of employment as a consequence of ASADA bans. There are plenty of precedences of employees suing employers for unsafe workplaces. In fact I would say it is the usual rather than the unusual. Why would Essendon be any different particularly in such a clear cut case.

WorkSafe is charged under state legislation in keeping Victorian workplaces safe. I can't think of a stronger instance of a greater abuse of workers safety than giving them illegal and potentially life changing drugs IN THE WORKPLACE. Although they will conduct their own investigation into this, they will take notice of the ASADA investigation and where appropriate use it in evidence. So in that sense they are related. The caveat i would put on this is, with the way Essendon are lining up political heavyweights across party lines like the Premier, former Liberal minister Louise Asher and the other Spring Street Bombers, the new governor and former AFL commissioner, and now Lindsay Tanner's appointment to the EFC Board, and the sacking last week of the current CEO of WorkSafe, it looks to me as though we are lining up for some serious political interference at board level of WorkSafe Victoria. I have no doubt there is a serious case for unsafe work practices against Essendon, but it may well be nobbled by significant powerplays behind the scenes.

My scenario following these instances I admit are based on my conclusions about what is likely to happen. Unlike my conclusions to do with WADA, they are not based on any inside information, nor any tips from insider lawyers. All I have done is look at parallel cases in business and sport and draw certain conclusions. I may be way off the mark but somehow I doubt it. One thing I do know is that those who think Essendon will get away with a slap over the knuckles are deluding themselves. This has a long way to go, and many high powered people will be working very hard to reach a conclusion. Thank goodness we have an outside umpire to keep everyone honest.

Let's see. That is not what i am hearing from WADA, but you may be right. If you are, then both WADA and ASADA are breathlessly inconsistent. And i don't think they are. They see Essendon as a global test case, not just an Australian one. The comparison with Cronulla is quite different. It was nothing like as systematic or long term, and they admitted guilt. Essendon has done the exact opposite of that, and if you look at the WADA precedents offshore, those that they come down on hardest are those who do not cooperate and contest every inch of the way. Exactly as Essendon have done.

I'm really interested to see if things pan out along these lines D2014.

In legal terminology, the situation where the liabilities of a person or firm exceed its assets. In practice, however, insolvency is the situation where an entity cannot raise enough cash to meet its obligations, or to pay debts as they become due for payment. Properly called technical insolvency, it may occur even when the value of an entity's total assets exceeds its total liabilities. Mere insolvency does not afford enough groundfor lenders to petition for involuntary bankruptcy of the borrower, or force a liquidation of his or her assets.

Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/insolvency.html#ixzz3U1lYnXnB

If Little or some other benefactor offered to underwrite the club they would be fine. The main issue would be removal of franchise or ban from competition, in these cases they would fold fairly quickly, as future income would be slashed and potential liability could be massive.

The AFL own the club. The could send in administrators if they wanted.

Let's be clear about this. ASADA offered Essendon (with the cooperation of the AFL) a way out of this in 2013. It meant they took some of the blame. The result - Hird rolled his "best friend" Evans (about the only honest broker in all of this), and recruited Little to go on a binge of self justification and sociopathic self indulgence (if that is not an oxymoron!). It could have been all over in 2013, if Hird had have confessed guilt, as Essendon and Evans wanted him to, which i know for a fact was their PR and legal advice which pointed them in that direction. Instead, they went on a binge of self justification and self indulgence which has lead to this current mess. This situation is entirely in Hird's court.

All other clubs would have recognized the dangers and acted upon them.

I hesitate to raise this, but history is littered with charismatic leaders with too much power and no checks and balances (Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pott, Mao, Campbell Newman). All eventually fall on their sword though hubris and arrogance. Hird is the sporting equivalent.

There is no other AFL club with anyone approaching a leader of such power and wealth, and blind adherence from fans and the club, as Jame Hird.

Such power is a fatal combination in any organisation. Unfortunately there has been no equivalent power to keep him in check and so he has led a once great club to the point of oblivion through his self obsession, and arrogance.

They deserve everything they get.

I reckon Jonathan Brown comes close..

EFC CEo Xavier Campbell:

“I am comfortable where things are at and I look forward to the next few weeks.”

Bwah ah ah ahahahhha aahhhhaahahahahahhhhh....

I reckon Jonathan Brown comes close..

Note even close. He also happens to be a good bloke and is not married to a delusional loser!

Let's look at this from a slightly different perspective.

Set aside the fact that there are 34 players involved. To my mind, although the cases have been heard at the one time, there are actually 34 separate cases being heard.

If you take one case, say the one against Jobe Watson who did admit to being injected... what with? neither he nor anyone else is sure it would seem.

So, there is circumstantial evidence to suggest that the drug he was injected with a number of times during an unstructured, badly documented program was an illegal, performance enhancing drug. The case is put together, presented to the AFL tribunal just as other drug cases have been. Remember that in 2012, Jobe won the Brownlow, doubling his points from 2011 to 30 points to win it by 4 points.

Lets assume he is found guilty. What should his penalty be? Looking at the present sanctions list on the government website. There are 44 people on the list and of those only 5 have received bans of less that 2years.

In my opinion there has to be a realization that this is 34 separate cases and the penalties, if there is a guilty finding will need to be arrived at for each individual case.

in my opinion Watson, if found guilty should get 2 years and lose his medal.

Let's look at this from a slightly different perspective.

Set aside the fact that there are 34 players involved. To my mind, although the cases have been heard at the one time, there are actually 34 separate cases being heard.

If you take one case, say the one against Jobe Watson who did admit to being injected... what with? neither he nor anyone else is sure it would seem.

So, there is circumstantial evidence to suggest that the drug he was injected with a number of times during an unstructured, badly documented program was an illegal, performance enhancing drug. The case is put together, presented to the AFL tribunal just as other drug cases have been. Remember that in 2012, Jobe won the Brownlow, doubling his points from 2011 to 30 points to win it by 4 points.

Lets assume he is found guilty. What should his penalty be? Looking at the present sanctions list on the government website. There are 44 people on the list and of those only 5 have received bans of less that 2years.

In my opinion there has to be a realization that this is 34 separate cases and the penalties, if there is a guilty finding will need to be arrived at for each individual case.

in my opinion Watson, if found guilty should get 2 years and lose his medal.

I don't think its that complex. If the Tribunal decide each players is guilty of having at least one injection of a banned substance then the penalty is 2yrs reduced by 1yr if they are satisfied that the players had no idea that what they were taking was banned and 6mths for co operation. I dont' think you are going to find the facts outside of proof of one injection matter.

I don't think its that complex. If the Tribunal decide each players is guilty of having at least one injection of a banned substance then the penalty is 2yrs reduced by 1yr if they are satisfied that the players had no idea that what they were taking was banned and 6mths for co operation. I dont' think you are going to find the facts outside of proof of one injection matter.

Groucho it is simpler than that. Guilty of attempting to take a banned substance is all that is required.

the penalty is 2yrs reduced by 1yr if they are satisfied that the players had no idea that what they were taking was banned ...

As posted earlier by various people (perhaps even me, don't have time to check back ...) the "no fault" one-year reduction is on the basis of a requirement that's very hard to meet. You basically have to be unconscious.

Hard to see it sticking in this case, especially as the players didn't even bother to check that everything was above board.

As posted earlier by various people (perhaps even me, don't have time to check back ...) the "no fault" one-year reduction is on the basis of a requirement that's very hard to meet. You basically have to be unconscious.

Hard to see it sticking in this case, especially as the players didn't even bother to check that everything was above board.

bing, re the "unconscious" bit i think you are confusing determination of guilt with sentence discounting

the "unconscious" defense is relevant in getting a not guilty finding

as regards getting a 12 month discount after being guilty the no significant fault claim doesn't need a state of unconsciousness to succeed

bing, re the "unconscious" bit i think you are confusing determination of guilt with sentence discounting

the "unconscious" defense is relevant in getting a not guilty finding

as regards getting a 12 month discount after being guilty the no significant fault claim doesn't need a state of unconsciousness to succeed

Yep good call. It was will also be their mechanism to land on a suspension that does not trigger appeals from ASADA or the players

I have been reading and posting on this topic for some time now. What amazes me is that of the 34 adult men trained to be very aware of the substances that enter their bodies not one inquired with any governing body about the legality of the program.

Not one of the 34 spent the 5 minutes required to check about their professional future.

Less than one minute to find the relevant information on the ASADA site.

Less than one minute to ask their manager, :Is this stuff OK?

I cannot believe that all 34 players are that stupid.

I would be very surprised if the ASADA site didn't keep a record of computers that inquire about illegal substances. I would expect ASADA to have a record of players and managers computers asking about Thymosin Beta 4 and others. Circumstantial evidence but at some point the circumstantial evidence becomes overwhelming.

bing, re the "unconscious" bit i think you are confusing determination of guilt with sentence discounting

the "unconscious" defense is relevant in getting a not guilty finding

as regards getting a 12 month discount after being guilty the no significant fault claim doesn't need a state of unconsciousness to succeed

Yep good call. It was will also be their mechanism to land on a suspension that does not trigger appeals from ASADA or the players

Not one of the 34 spent the 5 minutes required to check about their professional future.

......

not only that mandee,

but no player manager inquired

no member of the FD inquired

that's a heap more people than just the 34 players

I have been reading and posting on this topic for some time now. What amazes me is that of the 34 adult men trained to be very aware of the substances that enter their bodies not one inquired with any governing body about the legality of the program.

Not one of the 34 spent the 5 minutes required to check about their professional future.

Less than one minute to find the relevant information on the ASADA site.

Less than one minute to ask their manager, :Is this stuff OK?

I cannot believe that all 34 players are that stupid.

I would be very surprised if the ASADA site didn't keep a record of computers that inquire about illegal substances. I would expect ASADA to have a record of players and managers computers asking about Thymosin Beta 4 and others. Circumstantial evidence but at some point the circumstantial evidence becomes overwhelming.

I'm not disputing the thrust of this post, but was the ability to check via the ASADA website available to the players in 2012?

I have been reading and posting on this topic for some time now. What amazes me is that of the 34 adult men trained to be very aware of the substances that enter their bodies not one inquired with any governing body about the legality of the program.

Not one of the 34 spent the 5 minutes required to check about their professional future.

Less than one minute to find the relevant information on the ASADA site.

Less than one minute to ask their manager, :Is this stuff OK?

I cannot believe that all 34 players are that stupid.

I would be very surprised if the ASADA site didn't keep a record of computers that inquire about illegal substances. I would expect ASADA to have a record of players and managers computers asking about Thymosin Beta 4 and others. Circumstantial evidence but at some point the circumstantial evidence becomes overwhelming.

I have just a sneaking feeling there may have been 'some' enquiries, but after the fact. Too late for sure but might account for some latter hesitations etc.

Still not an 'out' , theres no excuse... Does add to the 'plot' though.

Gotta be some worried boys atm....and I couldnt give a rats.