You would have to think that if there was ever any doubt in anyone's mind that the players were taking banned substances and that there was a systematic/organised off-site program of injections taking place (or a thought that lack of hard evidence could somehow wash), then this must put an end to that doubt.

"but the player does not have an infraction notice."

Wow. Further news. This is huge

Windy Pill Mens Room is taking a lot of traffic right now. Mobile phones to the ear

I can see Frank Underwood from "House of Cards" in there working out the numbers of Little and his Board now....

Choc Top anyone?

One has to wonder why the player in question felt the need to seek a suppression order. It may of course be a perfectly reasonable request, but it will interesting to see if the media is respectful of the players right to privacy and anominity. I suspect not.

I wonder who is feeding Slobbo his Lines

The Chief has to write something.

And Rohan "Brush it under the Carpet" Conolly well we know how compromised you are.

One has to wonder why the player in question felt the need to seek a suppression order. It may of course be a perfectly reasonable request, but it will interesting to see if the media is respectful of the players right to privacy and anominity. I suspect not.

O50, do the players have that right? I am not so sure.

I think a media outlet will get a rush of blood and let is slip, in the public interest.

One has to wonder why the player in question felt the need to seek a suppression order. It may of course be a perfectly reasonable request, but it will interesting to see if the media is respectful of the players right to privacy and anominity. I suspect not.

Probably so they & their family don't get abused by mental Essendon fans that blindly back their club no matter what.

O50, do the players have that right? I am not so sure.

I think a media outlet will get a rush of blood and let is slip, in the public interest.

If they do ManDee they will be hauled before the court.

The courts take an extremely dim view of people breaking court suppression orders.

The Media do understand the significance of breaking these orders.

Probably so they & their family don't get abused by mental Essendon fans that blindly back their club no matter what.

would have to be a current player one would think.

Let's call him 35...

If they do ManDee they will be hauled before the court.

The courts take an extremely dim view of people breaking court suppression orders.

The Media do understand the significance of breaking these orders.

OD if the suppression order is granted it will be interesting to see if any media organisation appeals the decision.

If they do ManDee they will be hauled before the court.

The courts take an extremely dim view of people breaking court suppression orders.

The Media do understand the significance of breaking these orders.

OD the first reports I read stated that they had chosen not to name the players. AFL.com & The Age. They also did not mention a request for a suppression order. I now note that the Age mentions the request for a suppression order. But surely that is a request, is that legally binding?

From The Age

The player has requested his name be suppressed during the Supreme Court trial.

Fairfax Media understands that any proceedings would be about health and safety, not football. It is understood that the case is connected to the Essendon supplements regime but the player does not have an infraction notice.

OD if the suppression order is granted it will be interesting to see if any media organisation appeals the decision.

My understanding is that you get to apply for the supression order not to be granted.

Once granted you then have to honor the order.

Probably so they & their family don't get abused by mental Essendon fans that blindly back their club no matter what.

First Ess supporter I mentioned it to: "probably that f wit Riemers"...

As an aside, Go_Blues is back posting on BF. He has been laying low since he posted what appeared to be a snippet of ASADA's evidence, supposedly passed onto him by one of the charged.

Go_Blues reckons that two coaches (one current, one former) will be issued with IN's. Goodwin's name was mentioned, but Go_Blues said that he wasn't one of the two he was thinking of.

As an aside, Go_Blues is back posting on BF. He has been laying low since he posted what appeared to be a snippet of ASADA's evidence, supposedly passed onto him by one of the charged.

Go_Blues reckons that two coaches (one current, one former) will be issued with IN's. Goodwin's name was mentioned, but Go_Blues said that he wasn't one of the two he was thinking of.

Bomber?

First Ess supporter I mentioned it to: "probably that f wit Riemers"...

About 4 names suggested on BF. NLM, SL, KR and a current SANL playing-coach.

My understanding is that you get to apply for the supression order not to be granted.

Once granted you then have to honor the order.

Thanks OD. I think you're right. Still the question stands. Will any media organisation apply to have suppression order not granted, and if so under what premise.

There is a certain fascination with blood sports. And Essendon's exsanguination is particularly appealing.

Oooooh I don't know what that is but I like the sound of it.....

Oooooh I don't know what that is but I like the sound of it.....

Look it up in the dictionary and you will be even happier.

Look it up in the dictionary and you will be even happier.

Noice....

Look it up in the dictionary and you will be even happier.

Not sure if trap...

NLM?

I would presume Prismall.

Bomber?

That would make me laugh.

But I too think Reimers is the man.

Nathan Lovett Murray

I know the player in question is not supposed to be one of the 34, but maybe ASADA didn't go for him for some reason. Wouldn't it be interesting for a player in court to say to EFC you can't tell me what I was given, I demand compensation for your negligence causing me worry etc., and EFC might think the best course is to suddenly discover the records of what was administered.