This could actually be a clever end game by EFC.

• First having delayed the process through courts, allowing for
  • some turnover of the list (minimising there exposure to potential player suspensions)
  • players to continue playing out their contract (minimising there exposure to potential loss of income claims)
• Ensure that the players have not technically been party to any of this delaying process, which they haven't, allowing for the basis for an argument of cooperation
• If a guilty finding - pressure the AFL into a 6 month backdated suspension that will see them miss a couple of games (much media publicity is already doing this)
  • Accept that this will be appealed but in all likelihood not heard until after the footy season (Ideally October)
  • Lose the appeal and restart the suspension in the offseason equating to close to 18 months of a 2 year suspension being served outside of football season (Nov - April) (October - March) ) (March - September) (September - March).
  • Any players with a long term injury could be individually pursue a voluntary provisional suspension
  • Of course another year of list management will reduce the impact even further come season 2016
  • The AFL could easy be a party to this as it keeps them full strength for most of this year (TV rights), they could even make a lot of noise about the inadequate penality but claim independence from the tribunal and the need to abide by it's decision. Regardless they could wear the bad publicity which would quickly blow over (as has been pointed out many times, outside of Australia rgw AFL means very little so the publicity on the world stage would fade quickly) Still to show the world they are serious they would then heavily penalise the club (after all appeals have gone through) but this would likely be in a format of record fines which they could afford (paid over years) and a few draft penalties that free-agency would help alleviate.
• The waiver consent forms may also make it harder for players and workplace safety to build a case, as the players 'agreed' to all this. It could even be argued they 'volunteered" to the programme (particularily as some did not)

It would be highly unlikely that this whole process has not been managed from both the AFL and EFC, following a careful predetermined script, that includes them playing taking potshots at each other; while behind the scenes they have been working cohesively towards a common goal.

This could actually be a clever end game by EFC.

• First having delayed the process through courts, allowing for
  • some turnover of the list (minimising there exposure to potential player suspensions)
  • players to continue playing out their contract (minimising there exposure to potential loss of income claims)
• Ensure that the players have not technically been party to any of this delaying process, which they haven't, allowing for the basis for an argument of cooperation
• If a guilty finding - pressure the AFL into a 6 month backdated suspension that will see them miss a couple of games (much media publicity is already doing this)
  • Accept that this will be appealed but in all likelihood not heard until after the footy season (Ideally October)
  • Lose the appeal and restart the suspension in the offseason equating to close to 18 months of a 2 year suspension being served outside of football season (Nov - April) (October - March) ) (March - September) (September - March).
  • Any players with a long term injury could be individually pursue a voluntary provisional suspension
  • Of course another year of list management will reduce the impact even further come season 2016
  • The AFL could easy be a party to this as it keeps them full strength for most of this year (TV rights), they could even make a lot of noise about the inadequate penality but claim independence from the tribunal and the need to abide by it's decision. Regardless they could wear the bad publicity which would quickly blow over (as has been pointed out many times, outside of Australia rgw AFL means very little so the publicity on the world stage would fade quickly) Still to show the world they are serious they would then heavily penalise the club (after all appeals have gone through) but this would likely be in a format of record fines which they could afford (paid over years) and a few draft penalties that free-agency would help alleviate.
• The waiver consent forms may also make it harder for players and workplace safety to build a case, as the players 'agreed' to all this. It could even be argued they 'volunteered" to the programme (particularily as some did not)

It would be highly unlikely that this whole process has not been managed from both the AFL and EFC, following a careful predetermined script, that includes them playing taking potshots at each other; while behind the scenes they have been working cohesively towards a common goal.

I have been reading this thread for a long time now and have come to a similar conclusion as you UB.For the most part I suspect that you're right. It is inconceivable that the two parties have not sat down an drawn out a contingency plan and strategy that suited both parties,(AFL and EFC ). The only variable in this whole scenario is of course WADA/ASADA/CAS. Independently of WADA/ASADA/CAS reaction the above strategy goes some way to minimising the impact on the EFC and AFL. This entire saga has a very duplicitous air about it.

I have been reading this thread for a long time now and have come to a similar conclusion as you UB.For the most part I suspect that you're right. It is inconceivable that the two parties have not sat down an drawn out a contingency plan and strategy that suited both parties,(AFL and EFC ). The only variable in this whole scenario is of course WADA/ASADA/CAS. Independently of WADA/ASADA/CAS reaction the above strategy goes some way to minimising the impact on the EFC and AFL. This entire saga has a very duplicitous air about it.

If the EFC and AFL think they can lord it over WADA, I think they will be in for a rude shock. If there is an appeal against the AFLs decision, then I would be very surprised if any subsequent penalties were to be backdated. I get the feeling that ASADA and WADA have had a gut-full of EFC and the AFL and will not suffer them gladly if the AFL gives the EFC what is in essence a slap on the wrist.

If the EFC and AFL think they can lord it over WADA, I think they will be in for a rude shock. If there is an appeal against the AFLs decision, then I would be very surprised if any subsequent penalties were to be backdated. I get the feeling that ASADA and WADA have had a gut-full of EFC and the AFL and will not suffer them gladly if the AFL gives the EFC what is in essence a slap on the wrist.

But is your 'feeling' is based on anything coming from ASADA or WADA or only on your (and mine) having had a gutfull of EFC ad Hird etc.

What a fine "body" of men....

But is your 'feeling' is based on anything coming from ASADA or WADA or only on your (and mine) having had a gutfull of EFC ad Hird etc.

Mine is a gut feeling that rates up there with the "vibe" defence... but none-the-less, if we have had a gut-full as mere spectators, imagine how WADA and ASADA would be feeling having been dealing with it first hand.

Mine is a gut feeling that rates up there with the "vibe" defence... but none-the-less, if we have had a gut-full as mere spectators, imagine how WADA and ASADA would be feeling having been dealing with it first hand.

Sorry HT cannot go with the "vibe" defence. I am more a Dennis Denuto Mabo kind of guy, (as seen on TV)

Anyone enjoying the new spin being delivered by a few in the media including Tim Watson that the current WADA rules don't really fit a team environment like the AFL and will probably be revised after the Essendon issue???

Softening up the public I'm thinking...

This could actually be a clever end game by EFC.

It would be highly unlikely that this whole process has not been managed from both the AFL and EFC,

Im not dismissing the rst of your post but focusing on these two notions.

A game played by Essendon ? Without a doubt for mine. Theyve been playing for time and attempting to gain public sympathies ( through ignorance ) and minimise the impact on the actual playing list. The money doesnt seem to worry them. ( yet )

There also for mine has definitely been some 'black ops" clandestine canoodling going on and right from when Dumbo gave the buggers the heads up.

The AFL are attempting minimal impact and on we go etc. This all goes to the idea that its their little game ( AFL ) and others wont tamper with their governance ( or lack there of ) . They still think they are running this doping thing. Idlots !!

Anyone enjoying the new spin being delivered by a few in the media including Tim Watson that the current WADA rules don't really fit a team environment like the AFL and will probably be revised after the Essendon issue???

Softening up the public I'm thinking...

Someone ought to ask the fool why it doesnt ? Love to know the answer. Its about doing the right thing...and that, singularly or as a participant in a team matters not one iota to keeping to the rules.

But , then again Watson is no Einstein...then .....not much of anything these days

If the EFC and AFL think they can lord it over WADA, I think they will be in for a rude shock. If there is an appeal against the AFLs decision, then I would be very surprised if any subsequent penalties were to be backdated. I get the feeling that ASADA and WADA have had a gut-full of EFC and the AFL and will not suffer them gladly if the AFL gives the EFC what is in essence a slap on the wrist.

Don't get me wrong, I hope to hell your right. Unfortunately In the race between self interest and righteousness I have learn't to back self interest every time. Like you I'm hoping that ASADA / WADA will prevail and that justice is served for the greater good of the game.

Don't get me wrong, I hope to hell your right. Unfortunately In the race between self interest and righteousness I have learn't to back self interest every time. Like you I'm hoping that ASADA / WADA will prevail and that justice is served for the greater good of the game.

Keep in mind that ASADA's self-interest is of equal import as that of the Essendon Football Club.

Keep in mind that ASADA's self-interest is of equal import as that of the Essendon Football Club.

maybe....more ?

maybe....more ?

That's a good question. ASADA risks opprobrium from WADA if it is seen to be going too soft and from the Federal Government if it is seen to be wasteful or incompetent. I'm not sure what ASADA wants most out of this. It's own credibility to be salvaged, I suppose.

There's so much riding on this Tribunal, for a number of participants.

My thinking is it's so much a precedent in the making that ASADA ( read Wada) cant have left any stoned unturned, any I undotted, t uncrossed. It needs to get this right or all hell may loose.

Its almost upon this alone I judge the outcome will be determined. That is to say ASADA wont have gone into a losing predicament.

There's so much riding on this Tribunal, for a number of participants.

My thinking is it's so much a precedent in the making that ASADA ( read Wada) cant have left any stoned unturned, any I undotted, t uncrossed. It needs to get this right or all hell may loose.

Its almost upon this alone I judge the outcome will be determined. That is to say ASADA wont have gone into a losing predicament.

And I presume the AFL Tribunal also wants to "get it right" with a written decision they hope won't be challenged, at least on any technical failings.

What really worries me in this whole saga is EFC's manipulation and control of the press. Whilst ASADA may be immune to such pressures unfortunately their political masters are not. I know that WADA will appeal any decision to CAS but it has not been made clear as to their jurisdiction, can for instance their decision be challenged in an Australian court ? Can the AFL refuse to comply with their order. We know they risk losing federal funding if they fail to comply but they may consider this to be a cheaper or pragmatic option than adhering to any directive from CAS. A press campaign with the help of the Murdoch press has already begun to this effect and over the next two weeks will be amped up considerably.

What really worries me in this whole saga is EFC's manipulation and control of the press. Whilst ASADA may be immune to such pressures unfortunately their political masters are not. I know that WADA will appeal any decision to CAS but it has not been made clear as to their jurisdiction, can for instance their decision be challenged in an Australian court ? Can the AFL refuse to comply with their order. We know they risk losing federal funding if they fail to comply but they may consider this to be a cheaper or pragmatic option than adhering to any directive from CAS. A press campaign with the help of the Murdoch press has already begun to this effect and over the next two weeks will be amped up considerably.

Yes, even Patrick Smith has now capitulated. Leaves only Caro to tow the anti-doping, anti-Hird line. She has gone quiet, hasn't capitulated (yet) but seems to be keeping her powder dry.

There may be a guilty verdict but the press will manage the narrative to be line with AFL's wishes ie play it down, let Hird do his job ra ra ra. After all, Smith and Wilson rely heavily on the AFL feed machine for their material. Every chance some 'negotiation' has happened between the AFL and journo's. The old you-scratch-my-back-I'll-scratch-yours routine comes to mind!

Cheers. I was listening to the Bigfooty podcast the other day and they indicated that the players would remain suspended until any appeal was heard.

Well yes - but they don't remain suspended past the duration of the suspension.

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

One of them. Dank recorded all his information as he was using results to justify his existence/sell his wares to whoever

People forget that essendon thought they were on the edge but within the rules using trickery like a compound chemist with prescription allows for non tga drugs etc etc. They had no issue recording the program as they were doping they are now finding out that edge was behind them and they used banned PEDs

Someone ought to ask the fool why it doesnt ? Love to know the answer. Its about doing the right thing...and that, singularly or as a participant in a team matters not one iota to keeping to the rules.

But , then again Watson is no Einstein...then .....not much of anything these days

The argument runs along the lines of it's different for olympic athletes who only worry about every 4 years, if they get 2 years it doesn't matter so much....it's total BS but you can guarantee it's all part of the larger spin campaign being waged at the moment.

The fact is if the Essendon players were on an illegal program they had an advantage over the competition not just in that year but they got a leg up in future years. They kick started their careers and the older ones got a recharge.

How has Smith capitulated?

The argument runs along the lines of it's different for olympic athletes who only worry about every 4 years, if they get 2 years it doesn't matter so much....it's total BS but you can guarantee it's all part of the larger spin campaign being waged at the moment.

The fact is if the Essendon players were on an illegal program they had an advantage over the competition not just in that year but they got a leg up in future years. They kick started their careers and the older ones got a recharge.

the olympics are only one event...there are a continuing array of games ongoing...so as you suggest its a load of tripe

There's so much riding on this Tribunal, for a number of participants.

My thinking is it's so much a precedent in the making that ASADA ( read Wada) cant have left any stoned unturned, any I undotted, t uncrossed. It needs to get this right or all hell may loose.

Its almost upon this alone I judge the outcome will be determined. That is to say ASADA wont have gone into a losing predicament.

Interesting, upper case i's are undotted.

How has Smith capitulated?

1. On p 115 of this thread post 2866 references an article written by him arguing James Hird will coach on regardless of the Tribunal's decision. This was the first sign that he had changed his extremely strong position that Hird had to go. For 2 years he had written articles arguing vehemently for Hird to resign or be sacked.

2. On his segment on KB's SEN program he has continued with the Hird is safe narrative. He may be stating the inevitable but the Patrick Smith that had argued strenuously for what is right and good had backed off. Last year's Patrick Smith would have said something like 'EFC and AFL may want Hird to coach on but that just ain't on folks'! No way Jose!! And, this is why!

3. Bearing in mind that Smith was an Essendon supporter until about 5 years ago when he was so disgusted with the cloak and dagger way EFC sacked Knights and appointed Hird, he refused to have anything to do with them thereafter. EFC club officials (CEO, I think) have been talking with him and he has said he is open to invitations to the club.

So, in my book he has gone over to the other side. I try not to have personal opinions of journos so assess their articles on a case by case basis. Throughout the whole EFC thing he and Caro have stood out (Gerard Whately gave in at the half-way mark) IMO as the only journos who have maintained the rage against the morality of what happened.

I have lost much respect for Patrick and Gerard on their altered positions. Why have their positions altered? I don't know. Political expediency/protecting their jobs comes to mind. Caro now appears to be the only hope of getting some rational discussion of the Tribunal outcome. But she has been very quiet so I'm not holding out hope of balanced journalism. BTW I believe EFC have also met with Caro to 'discuss her position'.

I fear now that journos either write/say positive stuff or say/write nothing at all to not rock the EFC/HIrd boat. I hope my assessment is wrong because not only is freedom of the press important so is an independent press. I fear the latter is all but gone on the EFC doping saga. That may well turn out to be the 'darkest day in sport'.