Hird himself said his position would be untenable if INs were issued......

And look how that's ended up so far. Hird's coaching tonight, the rump of the 34 under him continue to train out of the main season but are missing out on meaningless (in terms of results) NAB Challenge games under a "provisional suspension" in the hope of missing only two or three games if found guilty.

Farce.

They surely have to be if INs are implemented.

The AFL sanctioned EFC for governance issues, not illegal drugs, The club, its management and its directors must all be in the firing line let alone being sued by players whose careers have been severely stuffed up and in some cases finished. Then there is worksafe Victoria...

Hird himself said his position would be untenable if INs were issued......

don't understand this response jnr

are you saying that (if players found guilty) then there will be another round of IN's issued by asada against those who were responsible for sourcing/supplying/administering the drugs

i'm just asking this from a procedural point of view

don't understand this response jnr

are you saying that (if players found guilty) then there will be another round of IN's issued by asada against those who were responsible for sourcing/supplying/administering the drugs

i'm just asking this from a procedural point of view

yep...bank on it

DC, that is my understanding too.

If the case against the players holds up, I expect infraction notices against the key coaches and support staff.

DC, that is my understanding too.

If the case against the players holds up, I expect infraction notices against the key coaches and support staff.

another 12 months of popcorn

another 12 months of popcorn

at least

dont forget the ensuing litigations also

Will keep us amused for a while I think

And what type of penalties could be imposed if Infraction Notices are issued to non-playing staff? That is, could the individuals be banned from doing whatever they are doing now, assuming they are still involved in the AFL, wherever they may be plying their trade (ie, just like the players)?

And what type of penalties could be imposed if Infraction Notices are issued to non-playing staff? That is, could the individuals be banned from doing whatever they are doing now, assuming they are still involved in the AFL, wherever they may be plying their trade (ie, just like the players)?

Bans can often be that they cant work for any organisation thats party to Sport involved or any as signaturees to the Code.

Their field of work cant shrink dramatically

March 31st for the verdict

March 31st for the verdict

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/afl-antidoping-verdict-due-to-be-handed-down-on-march-31-20150313-14318x.html

That's awfully close to the season.

If the AFL are puppeteering this tribunal that sounds to me like a good time to release a "not guilty" verdict and have the excitement of round one drown it out.

Alternatively a guilty verdict a week before round one will wreak havoc on a lot of things.

Essendon will just have to go ahead with their top-up-team

March 31st for the verdict

Which means it will be reported in the newspapers on April 1st. How will we know what's legit and what's been written as an April Fool's day prank?

don't understand this response jnr

are you saying that (if players found guilty) then there will be another round of IN's issued by asada against those who were responsible for sourcing/supplying/administering the drugs

i'm just asking this from a procedural point of view

yep...bank on it

DC, that is my understanding too.

If the case against the players holds up, I expect infraction notices against the key coaches and support staff.

I assume that will happen. They would have to banned from the game. In effect this will be 'new' evidence/proof of wrongdoing. The previous sanctions were for poor governance Once it is 'prooved' the players were administered illegal substances there must be a clear out and bans.

On what basis does the Herald Sun's report today of the 31st March outcome state that the maximum penalty of two years cannot be applied due to the unique nature of the 2 year investigation? What are they basing that on? I don't see why being "unique" rules out potential 2 year maximum bans.

On what basis does the Herald Sun's report today of the 31st March outcome state that the maximum penalty of two years cannot be applied due to the unique nature of the 2 year investigation? What are they basing that on? I don't see why being "unique" rules out potential 2 year maximum bans.

Well that is bizarre. Are there Statutes of Limitations? Consideration for ongoing suffering of the players? If what is said is true, an excuse has been dreamed up to reduce penalties. That I will not be surprised.

On what basis does the Herald Sun's report today of the 31st March outcome state that the maximum penalty of two years cannot be applied due to the unique nature of the 2 year investigation? What are they basing that on? I don't see why being "unique" rules out potential 2 year maximum bans.

None......its the Herald !!

On what basis does the Herald Sun's report today of the 31st March outcome state that the maximum penalty of two years cannot be applied due to the unique nature of the 2 year investigation? What are they basing that on? I don't see why being "unique" rules out potential 2 year maximum bans.

I have NFI.

Gotta agree with BB, it's the Hun.

Yes I guess that explains it, and Michael Warner no less...

"The maximum two-year ban will not be imposed because of the unique circumstances surrounding the two year investigation"

If the AFL are puppeteering this tribunal that sounds to me like a good time to release a "not guilty" verdict and have the excitement of round one drown it out.

There is absolutely nothing in the world that would drown out a not guilty verdict The backlash would be off the charts.

Just read it. Incredible. Warner has shredded what was left of his reputation. Even if true - no particularly if true - surely you have to back up a statement like 'The maximum two-year ban will not be imposed because of the unique circumstances surrounding the two-year investigation.' But no he adds nothing to that sentence, not a single explanatory justification or note.

He also says that 'The players have been provisionally suspended since infraction notices were issued on November 13. Any bans would be backdated to that date.'My understanding is that whilst that is likely is not a certainty, its up to the tribunal

He goes on to say 'A six-month ban would sideline players to May 13, missing the first six rounds of the season.

But ASADA could push for a one-year ban.'

Could push for a one year ban? Apart from the fact that the tense is wrong in that sentence (the AFL and ASADA have made their cases as to penalties i think) on what grounds would they be pushing for 12 months. By the rules 12 months is a minimum sentence - and then only if the tribunal accepts the duped defense and halves the automatic 2 year ban. The only way it could be less under the rules is a discount for a guilty plea and/or significant cooperation and those horses have well and truly bolted.

The article ends with a list of the bombers first six matches, implying missing six matches is the most they'll cop. Pathetic. Do the Hun editors really think such rubbish will influence an independent tribunal? Or is the game to set up the faux angst the Hun will almost certainly foment with 1-2 year penalty? Wind up the poor delusional bombers fans and play into the conspiracy EFC as victims narrative.

Pathetic. The Hun should be called out. Or at least not be able to call themselves a news paper.

A heavy sentence will compromise our national game. The issue is bigger than one undeserving club. Everyone involved knows this. ASADA and WADA may bleat but a deal with the devil will be done. The script writers are already at work to fabricate the illusion of justice being served.

A heavy sentence will compromise our national game. The issue is bigger than one undeserving club. Everyone involved knows this. ASADA and WADA may bleat but a deal with the devil will be done. The script writers are already at work to fabricate the illusion of justice being served.

Haha, they've been at work for the past two years.

On what basis does the Herald Sun's report today of the 31st March outcome state that the maximum penalty of two years cannot be applied due to the unique nature of the 2 year investigation? What are they basing that on? I don't see why being "unique" rules out potential 2 year maximum bans.

Hird's dilustional PR brigade at it again. They still think they can influence the outcome - or is it they just want the last breath of their very lucrative PR dollar from this exercise.

It is truly a farce, and the stampede of horses are about to descend on the Hirds at last.

On what basis does the Herald Sun's report today of the 31st March outcome state that the maximum penalty of two years cannot be applied due to the unique nature of the 2 year investigation? What are they basing that on? I don't see why being "unique" rules out potential 2 year maximum bans.

He should look at the USADA investigation into Armstrong - that was 4 years, and he got life......